Printable View
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/fo...age1304915/pg1
Stumbled on it the other day when I was looking for where everyone might have gone from the other forum.
So this is the third forum, Ecclesia, SuiJuris, and SuiJurisClub... makes you wonder if running these forums paints a target on your back.
I was going to put up a new forum myself this week if I hadn't found this one. Already had the domain name. Hopefully this one will last a while though.
Yes. That thread is about my first of two videos.
Welcome Axe! I am glad you found your way here. The Freemen forum opened up quickly and was popular immediately. A lot of folks enjoy this subject material - and everybody needs remedy.
The objective of utilizing the remedy that is written in the law is that a target not be painted on your back. The endorsement on the back of a paycheck is your agreement to do business with the Federal Reserve. If there is no agreement in place, then it is unlikely that there will be any sensical prosecution that arises.
People are finding that any Withholdings are fully Refunded based on the remedy being properly applied. If, They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand... is being incorrectly applied or interpreted here nobody is explaining why. On the SJC website the best sounding board was Shoonra the Useful.
Shoonra, Bernard J. SUSSMAN is a retired law librarian with a Bar Card (DC) since 1978. His attempts to explain that remedy from elastic currency does not actually exist really taught me a lot. Nobody of consequence agrees with him though.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Hi David,Quote:
Originally Posted by David Merrill
I was more talking about starting one of these forums painting a target on your back.
Informational forums like these can be considered "media" and we all know what the first thing the communists do when they get control is.
I hear what you are saying about "doing nothing but following the legal process"... I get it, I really do, but when you have the white house coming out and openly proclaiming what laws they are going to enforce and what laws they will not, it gives me pause. A quote from Voltaire comes to mind.
"It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong. "
This is why the pioneers take the arrows.
Hi David,
I started redeeming in lawful money, my payroll checks, with a new job I started the middle of January. I went to the driveup window at my bank,but the teller told me that I would have to come inside to cash it.The next teller I got was the commercial teller,she cashed it and wanted to know what I wanted back as far as notes. I told her 100s would do. The bank manager was standing behind her as she counted out the bills.
She flipped the check over and looked at it puzzled and asked me why I had endorsed it like that. I started to tell her about Title 12 sec 411 but didn't get the chance to say anything when the manager picked up the check and said "It is a restricted endorsement and it would be OK."
I was thrilled.
So it does work and I will continue demanding lawful money. My next challenge is to get a letter written to change my signature cards.
I am very interested in learning more about refusal for cause and libel of review.
Thanks Dave
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axe
I think that is great when the next post on the thread addresses the post prior to it!Quote:
Originally Posted by catskinner
The bank manager said almost the exact same thing when I did it the first time! And that was almost 2 years ago, they must be getting some training.Quote:
Originally Posted by catskinner
What is the verbiage? And what does one need to do if using auto bank deposit...(company policy)...
They shall be redeemed in lawful money by demand...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sovereignty
That is the verbiage from Title 12 U.S.C. §411.
What I like to see is that people express the demand clearly. There is a fellow in Colorado Springs who is cranking out these stamps.
Look around, use the search engine too - there are a couple people revising and renewing Signature Cards on the forums describing their experiences in detail.
What I would like an answer on is why use the terminology non-negotiable? Why that instead of non-redeemable? Federal reserve notes are negotiable, according to the Bouvier's Law definition of NEGOTIABLE: NEGOTIABLE. That which is capable of being transferred by assignment; a thing, the title to which may be transferred by a sale and indorsement or delivery.
Negotiable means to trade-up. It is illegal fiduciary responsibility to trade-down. We always trade up in our negotiations - the essence of win-win.
Therefore Fed notes are negotiable because there is a higher form of currency allegedly available to trade-up to - US notes. In form, since US notes cannot be used as a reserve currency and there is a set amount of them in circulation (non-elastic) they are a higher form of currency. US notes are non-negotiable. The only thing you can trade-up for is energy - material goods and services.
Since January 21, 1971 FRNs function for US notes. Therefore due to Treasury policy, FRNs are actually performing as US notes too. So if you have endorsed private credit the FRNs in your pocket are FRNs but if you have not, then the FRNs in your pocket are US notes. By renaming them US currency notes Congress has adjusted the face value to be the same.
Quote:
In the section, the words “United States currency notes” are substituted for “United States notes” for clarity and consistency in the revised title.
In my opinion Congress has defrauded itself, if that is possible.
My suggestion, at least for clerk of court transactions - which means every bill in your wallet if you are a court of competent jurisdiction is to buy one of these stamps.
David,
In some other broadcast you stated that while at one time you once believed it was superfluous to stamp the backside of FRN with the "redeemed" verbiage, you no longer hold that belief - rather there is some sigificance to doing so.
May you please share with us why the change your position in this matter? I'm curious, and also I like the idea of stamping the backside of FRNs.
By the time that it reaches your hand cash - it functions as (if) lawful money. Either you signed for it, signed a demand for it (non-endorsement) or somebody handed it to you and we can presume that they did. When I spouted that it is superfluous that was because I was only doing it to share the word about remedy. I like that people often get curious enough to Google Cornell Law and plug in the Title and Section! Right there, when somebody does that for the first time they probably owe me big time for that lesson alone. I enjoy that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rock Anthony
I made a highlight in red of my recent point. In the above described transaction, you probably do not want to use your evidence repository for every time (we all hope it is often) that somebody hands you pay - in cash. - Whether by paycheck or not - when you receive the cash.Quote:
Originally Posted by David Merrill
The UPS Store owner wanted me to sign for a letter when I had specified No Signature Required. I told her I was not signing anything while I tore it open and pulled out cash to give her $5 as agreed. She was a bit perplexed and I suppose it came off rude. I was hoping that the lesson - that signatures are of value would override the rudeness. But this led me to be concerned the other day, that I might get into a confrontation. She insisted but I looked it over and decided she deserved a receipt.
There was however the possibility that the letter would have ended up In Evidence if I was to press charges for Grand Larceny - here in Colorado the threshold between petty and grand is $400. That is to say, if I would have been pressed into calling the police because she was keeping my property from me. Therefore I instructed the party sending me to include the demand for lawful money at the originating transaction:
My point really, in response to your inquiry is that I am the clerk unless I am using a clerk - aka the evidence repository. So I function as the clerk for my transaction. I had the evidence there is no tax liability on the money included with the evidence package - should it have gone that way. As it went, things are good because I have no problem with the owner having a signed receipt for delivery. However I still don't know about all the UPS terms on the back. That is why I hardly ever sign for things like that - Who is going to stop and read a bunch of legaleze under those conditions?
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. In hindsight - next time I will strike through any agreement to terms on the back. Down there at the bottom:
If the owner objects I should request an oral reading, nice and slow so I can understand them clearly... I will have a lot of questions.
I take it that being your own clerk does not suffice in explaining the impact in operations of law, of putting the Redeemed Lawful Money stamp on the actual bills?
I will work on a different approach. I am currently awaiting a default from China. Maybe after a day or two more...
Then I will have something quite graphic for you to consider.
Just curious, are you using a foreign alphabet for signature?
Yes. That is paleo-Hebrew from the time of David. Sumarian Ostraca.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sovereignty
"Therefore Fed notes are negotiable because there is a higher form of currency allegedly available to trade-up to" ...then why the stamp using the term non-negotiable federal reserve notes as a stamp for the back of a check? Why not non-redeemable in it's place. That would be a more correct statement.
Yes. That works too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldi
There are several variations proving out the definitions for FRNs and US notes by Congress, supported by the courts. We even find variations Down Under effective:
They shall be redeemed in lawful money by demand...
That you express your demand to redeem the cash transaction in lawful money, that is the execution of the operation in law. It seems a saddening distraction to pick apart the Demand so. It tells me that people are trying to appease attorneys about the definitions of the form around Federal Reserve Notes, rather than to understand the verbiage from Congress.
Just make your Demand clear. Then sign your Demand instead of signing Endorsement.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. Protectionism drives a fierce venom on Quatloos - http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/view...118293#p118293
I have been looking into stamping the FRN to make it a US note. In another thread Martin Earl brought the concept of the president side of the note being split into 2 sides the FRN side and the US note side. I am looking at a 10 dollar note from 2006. In the US note side there is a very interesting thing going on, inside the box it says THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and We The People. It also has a serial number (minus the black 3 digit extension on the FRN side) and the number 10 is in green and is the only number not encumbered by the box. lets not forget it is signed by the Secretary of the Treasury (does he not EXPATRIATE to take that position? I will keep looking). I would think the signers are setting it up so one is WITHIN and one WITHOUT the UNITED STATES.
I would like to add my view that the FRN actual represents 3 trusts on 2 sides. The back of the note (who says its the back anyway I think it is really the front!) appears to be our trust with GOD. The whole side of the note says THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and IN GOD WE TRUST. Please note the font of the THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA on this side it is light green with a dark shadow around it. On the other side it is opposite (Black type with clear shadow). The back side is the only side that allows the 10 out of the box.
SO I have to agree with DM to stamp the backside which to me makes it OUR frontside and shows who we have trust in (GOD).
I will say this is all very confusing as I am sure it is meant to be.
Be Well
MC
Thank you for parsing that out carefully.
It brings to my mind how when I published my Lien the chief judge filed a new oath of office without the scope of God. Then I requested the transcript where I charged him and the prosecutor $10M each, and he prescribed the correct trust on account for settlement. I will need to read your post and examine my FRN and US Note carefully but we have some interesting things to post about here.
Regards,
David Merrill.