Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 49

Thread: ATM card DEBIT vs CREDIT option

  1. #11
    What would happen were the $600 million lotto winner to redeem his/her winnings in lawful money? In fact, could not the suitors sum up our collective redemptions and permanently FORECLOSE on the entire FED SYSTEM, once the $300 million hard ceiling of US Notes is found to be breached?
    There is one suitor with a claim similar to this. I will have to look again. The judge ignored his claim that he had been injured by purchasing a $10 US note at a coin shop as its value is pegged to the diminishing value of his FRN's he used to pay for it. But that is a start. I can develop that with knowledge. That is what the brain trust is about.

    Quote Originally Posted by doug555 View Post
    Great news! Thanks!!

    After reading AGs and your comments again, perhaps the NaD had no legal effect because it was NOT acceptable per the Federal Rules of Evidence Exception to Hearsay Rule (FRE 803(6)(B))since it was just a letter outside the normal course of business, or possibly the NaD was already trumped by some non-endorsements on instruments already on record that did fit the exception to hearsay rule... and so then truly it had no legal effect because the demand was already on record!

    Hmmmm... these attorneys are so clever and yet technically truthful at times...
    Of course!! Since the bank was already on notice the subsequent NaD had no legal effect. That is very clever!

  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph View Post
    The fourth branch of government, the grand jury, is in place for good reason; to check the actions of the other branches and determine whether or not claims brought against people have merit - at law. Legalese, of any kind, should be barred from a true grand jury hearing.

    The "courts" gain jurisdiction over the "jurors" in the selection process who then become puppets for the status quo.

    Everything you do, when you step out of your own domestic authority (the four walls you call home), is illegal. So, any notice stating that there is "no legal authority" or "legal basis" in response to your lawful notice or process is absolutely true. We do not seek "legal" basis or authority - we are concerned only with what is lawful.

    There must be a wrong or harm committed, injury to one's property or a breach of a true contract for there to be an unlawful act. Everything else is "legalities" and those are too numerous to know and are ever changing; therefore, I do not understand and I am not a part of the legal society that claims "legalities".

    Someone must come forward and verify the claim against i; a man, for there to be a case with merit. Make an immediate good faith effort to settle the matter with whoever is prosecuting the case and form the record around said efforts. Fair warning that you will require the accuser to appear, verify the claim/debt/etc. and to cross-examine the accuser must be given to show you are acting in honor.

    Any venue, or "court" can become our realm of common law; we just need to learn how to flip it, move it, hold it and keep it there.

    Therefore Robert Henry's Demand was prophylactic? It prevented the traditional presumption that he was an endorser of private credit from the Fed. Making the demand for lawful clear stopped a crime before it happened.

  3. #13
    Member froze25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    The Land that some call New York
    Posts
    71
    Doug555, just to let you know your Private message capacity has been reached and No one can reply to your private messages. Basically your inbox is full.

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by froze25 View Post
    Doug555, just to let you know your Private message capacity has been reached and No one can reply to your private messages. Basically your inbox is full.

    Thanks, it is empty now...

  5. #15
    Doug, a check is a bill of exchange, and the demand for lawful money is not part of the bill. In fact, the bill will be purchased by the bank (second party), or executed by the bank (third party), in their preferred currency, FRN's, based on the legal tender laws (it is understood that FRN's are tendered as payment) unless you demand otherwise. Putting your demand on the front of the bill would not seem to damage it, so there appears to be nothing wrong with that approach. B or A for instance, states in their standard account agreement that they will ignore restrictive endorsements written on the back, so this may be a good approach. But for many of us, the problem is in wire and interbank transfers, for which we never see any paper to non-endorse. So the general solution is to publish your demand in an official venue (court record misc case file, County Clerk, Secretary of State?, newspaper, etc) and then serve that now in the public record notice on the bank. This covers the account, rebutting their presumption that you want to deal in FR debt securities, and thus it covers all transactions. It is a unilateral change demanded of the bank on your account agreement. If they do not deny it (and they can't actually deny it, as they are chartered under 12 USC), and do not cancel your account, then it supercedes your signature on their account card. One document one time covers all your financial transactions for all time. Keep it simple. This demand will also work for the bank account related to your stock trading account, for which you never see any paper. Served on the regional Federal Reserve Bank for your region, it also serves to take the liens off your property held in YOUR NAME at the Treasury Trust account, ie, it takes your property out of the federal bankruptcy usufructuary trust, returning legal title to YOUR NAME. In effect, this fires the Trustee and collapses the trust, thus ending your status as a 'federal employee.'

    Freed

  6. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Henry View Post
    While filling up at the gas station today I realized my habitual use of the CREDIT option, as opposed to the DEBIT option, when using my ATM card. Robert Henry
    I look at it this way, when my checks are stamped 12USC411 and deposited it doesn't matter whether if its debit or credit its all being used by the law the way I deposited it.

    The only way I know how to get a refund is through the 1040 form because I don’t have yet an option to use a 1041 form.


    This is a real eye-opener. When you go in to change your Signature Card specify that you want the Trust Department of your bank.

    Set it up like any standard trust form.
    Last edited by David Merrill; 01-10-14 at 02:19 PM.

  7. #17
    Member Robert Henry's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Where ever I may roam...
    Posts
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by Chex View Post
    I look at it this way, when my checks are stamped 12USC411 and deposited it doesn't matter whether if its debit or credit its all being used by the law the way I deposited it.

    The only way I know how to get a refund is through the 1040 form because I don’t have yet an option to use a 1041 form.
    My thoughts exactly, Chex. My NaD, signature card demand and non-endorsement on all deposited instruments seem to make my demand clear enough for any presumptive refutation.

    That 1041 form is interesting, I've not seen one before, thanks. The "Trust thing" is still well outside my understanding at this time. My current plan is to file for a return of my withholding from June of 2013, when I started redeeming, then continue to redeem all of this year's checks and then present my 2014 return to the payroll department, assuming all goes well with my returns, of course, and show that IRS agreed I have no tax liability, therefore I am now exempt from withholding.

    Thanks for your thoughts.

  8. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Henry View Post
    My thoughts exactly, Chex. My NaD, signature card demand and non-endorsement on all deposited instruments seem to make my demand clear enough for any presumptive refutation.

    That 1041 form is interesting, I've not seen one before, thanks. The "Trust thing" is still well outside my understanding at this time. My current plan is to file for a return of my withholding from June of 2013, when I started redeeming, then continue to redeem all of this year's checks and then present my 2014 return to the payroll department, assuming all goes well with my returns, of course, and show that IRS agreed I have no tax liability, therefore I am now exempt from withholding.

    Thanks for your thoughts.

    Why not just terminate witholding with a W-4T?

  9. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by ag maniac View Post
    Why not just terminate witholding with a W-4T?
    I think that is a famguardian.org form, would not hurt to place it or something similar like it into a NoD for the day court will come around.

    In regards to the payroll department the w4 form was filled out exempt with the verbiage 12USC411on line 7 http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fw4.pdf .

    The payroll department accepted it but they did not want to get involved with the IRS. Someone at the IRS intercepted and changed it back to the deduction it wanted.

    It would have created an epidemic of w4’s being turned into payroll, but the stamp raised eyebrows of the law and the payroll department employees, this was five years ago.

    One bank teller I was told said “you have to ask for this” and a bank teller told me “why are you adding the verbiage on this check; the bank needs to make money.”

    I thought to myself with the interest on mortgage loans, credit cards and fees the bank is charging their customers and the FRB charging for the use of fiat currency all these years are they not happy yet?

    Personally I don’t mess with the banks signature card, my stamp is proof enough. Too many people are having a problem with it.

    Although I had sent the bank I deal with inquiries about things in my account and when they replied at the bottom of the replies is written “this account is owned by the name of my bank” that threw me for a spin.

    My NoD has been on file for five years now, and it’s about time it’s updated just as a reminder.

    Permanently terminate withholding on non taxable income, good topic ag maniac. http://store.irszoom.com/ceofexfrwiof.html

    That 1041 is of great interest to me too.
    Last edited by Chex; 01-09-14 at 08:10 PM.

  10. #20
    Member Robert Henry's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Where ever I may roam...
    Posts
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by ag maniac View Post
    Why not just terminate witholding with a W-4T?
    As I understand it, employers tend to get prickly about it unless you can show that IRS agrees you are exempt. They don't like IRS asking if they're doing their job correctly. Better to play it safe, in my book!

    Thanks.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •