Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: What I have learned so far.

  1. #1

    Talking What I have learned so far.

    Starting with checks.

    These are "NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS" per the Uniform Commercial Code.

    These instruments can be endorsed. From my understanding signing a check is not endorsing it as we all have been lead to believe.

    Signature is authorization, for something to happen or take place from that party who signs. It's permission to proceed as all terms are agreed upon.

    Endorsement of a check is creating a detail on how the check needs to be processed or known as a "Restrictive Endorsement". It is indeed explained in your bank

    agreement about restrictive endorsement or at least it is in mine. I collected the agreement from my bank and read it. In my account agreement,

    in order for a restrictive endorsement to be used, it must be agreed upon with the bank prior before it can be used. However, using lawful money demand is

    indeed in there title 12 banks and banking code that governs them. So isn't this already pre-accepted as a restrictive endorsement through there own code?

    Using lawful money restrictive endorsement limits there ability to use fractional banking on the instrument when deposited with the bank or cashed.

    Question: Banks are in the business of purchasing securities, is a check a security such as a promissory note? Seems to me all the features are there?

    Please inform me if any information here is incorrect so corrections can be made. There is enough misleading in the world today.

  2. #2
    Direct Deposit

    Direct Deposit is a scheme used to not only hinder you as a human being to inter-vein and choose how you want your money to function, it is used to reduce paperwork.

    This is what most companies have gone to in order to pay there employee's. This instantly transfers funds to the bank of your choice which defaults to private credit from the FED.

    Which is an automatic loan to the bank from you each pay period for the bank to use those funds as they see fit.

    Now using the process of modifying the signature card for the bank account changes this as all transactions are demanded to be in lawful money regardless what type of transaction it is.

    This is attached to the account directly at that point and then can be acted upon. Which is a really nice work around.


    W-4 withholding agreement

    The W-4 from my understanding is indeed the original contract agreement to be paid in private credit script. This agreement is not mandatory as most believe. These are links to the eCFR Voluntary withholding agreements for title 26 Internal Revenue stating this fact:

    https://ecfr.io/Title-26/se26.17.31_13402_2p_3_61

    https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-20...31-3402p-1.pdf

    That said, if you still use private credit script or private credit in general, the fee's/liabilities generated are still owed.

    They were generated from a different manner and must be paid at the end of the year.

    Question: If the W-4 agreement was never entered into, yet lawful money demand was never put on record, is the fee still owed?

    The truth is in the details.

    Please inform me of any mistakes. This is my understanding of this subject.
    Last edited by DTBA; 04-14-18 at 01:38 PM.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    104
    you're using a private site

    Name:  ecfrio.jpg
Views: 96
Size:  50.9 KB

    Not the dot gov site:
    https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-id..._3_61&rgn=div8

    classic beginner mistake.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by DTBA View Post
    Starting with checks.

    These are "NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS" per the Uniform Commercial Code.

    These instruments can be endorsed. From my understanding signing a check is not endorsing it as we all have been lead to believe.

    Signature is authorization...

    Could you please use the forum's formatting so not to break up your sentences?

    From my understanding signing a check is not endorsing it as we all have been lead to believe.
    When you sign the backside of the check above the line specifying to endorse above the line, that is endorsement. There might be some kind of attorney fine print in the security agreement that most people never read, like you imply. Ever since the misuse of the NESARA Bill, that never made it to the Floor BTW, I have always considered secret and private law as of no effect and unenforceable. If you know no different though, your confusion will be construed as consent.

    After all; you signed it.

    Be careful what you sign.

    My first instinct when somebody hands me something to sign is to fold it up and tuck it in my shirt pocket. Sometimes they object and tell me that I have to sign it and then the questions come out of my mouth... Sometimes they want the proposal back and I just say, "I will look it over later when I am not in such a hurry."

    In the last couple days I have been dealing with three good faith FOIA attempts to acquire the oath of office of a Mr. John Glover ROBERTS. Supposing that his oath does not exist, or that it says "SO HELP ME GOD." rather than the prescribed, "So help me God." then he is unbound and a fraud.

    Name:  FOIA online ROBERTS no records released by DoJ.jpg
Views: 99
Size:  151.5 KB

    Now consider that the President never signs an oath of office at all. His oath is such a public event that there is no need for an affirmation; the American people as witness negates any need for a signed written oath. But look here:

    Name:  Cancellation of Inauguration sanitized.jpg
Views: 100
Size:  480.9 KB

    It would take a lot of catching up to explain fully so it is redacted for now. The oath is a bond, and that is a financial instrument. You are on a great journey but mine has been explained in the first sentences of my career autobiography http://tinyurl.com/DMVPATROON. Very simple - explain remedy in a few sentences. So with that in mind you might get it that I have cancelled the inauguration and bond for fraud because the "minister" ROBERTS is a fraud. I cancelled it from the church - ecclesiastic - and a global condition of redemption.

    I feel like I relate to your journey though. And you are still trying to press some illusions; legend, myth, parable, hallucination and fable into nice round holes. When you see how elegantly I have proven out that there was never any inauguration of lawful effect that day, then you might better understand some of the extra baggage you try to pack into a simple understanding of natural right and divine heritage.

    Often somebody will put out a premise I disagree with and then build upon it. So here we have the proposal that when you endorse a check, it is not endorsing the check because there is some fine print in the agreement. Therefore if you want to scan that for us to read, then we can move forward if it is my commentary that you are looking for. I suggest that you take an hour to read the bank's Tariff. They will pretend there is no such thing for half an hour then bring it out and insist that you sit there in the lobby, or in a closed conference room reading it. That will open your eyes I should think.

    If you like being informed though, you might care to read the Tariff before you even open up an account. As I recall the tariff is the licensing agreement with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency before your bank can do business.
    Last edited by David Merrill; 04-14-18 at 10:13 PM.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by lorne View Post
    you're using a private site

    Name:  ecfrio.jpg
Views: 96
Size:  50.9 KB

    Not the dot gov site:
    https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-id..._3_61&rgn=div8

    classic beginner mistake.

    WAY COOL!

    That could be so useful!

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    104
    Captain's log, stardate 41153.7. Our destination is planet Merrill, at the edge of the great unexplored mass of the galaxy. My orders are to examine STSC, a starbase built there by the inhabitants called 'suitors' and find out what happened to prior missions. Oh, and apparently none of them pay Federation taxes.



    Name:  SSA_Screen_2018.jpg
Views: 83
Size:  64.7 KB

  7. #7

  8. #8
    What's next. The Wrath of KAHN when he discovers his oath of office is invalid?
    Last edited by marcel; 04-20-18 at 05:11 PM.

  9. #9
    Yes. That movie was on the tip of my mind too! LoL!!

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    104
    Captain's log, stardate 41156.2
    Upon arrival we had some trouble getting the cube sum number locks to open but with help from engineering we eventually docked and were warmly received. Good meeting with the liason, Mister X. It's Federation policy to spy on all bases but this one seems more infiltrated than most. Some are easy to spot but some so good I'm not always sure I'm dealing with the agent or the suitor.

    I have learned so far there are several transplants here from the LostHorizons colony founded by P. Hendrickson. He taught the income tax as an excise on the gainful exercise of privileges and concluded that private sector earnings were nontaxable. Of course the judge didn't agree and incarcerated him (and his wife) yet he retains quite a following; the so-called CTC warriors.

    CAPT: Why are they bouncing balls in their left hands?
    SPOCK: It is said to improve right-brain function, Captain.
    CAPT: They do seem quite intelligent. But why no resistance? I mean they're not the least bit hostile.
    SPOCK: Why should they be? They're doing nothing wrong.
    CAPT: So this thing they're doing - redeeming lawful money - it's legal?
    SPOCK: Yes Captain.
    CAPT: OK Spock, explain the conundrum to me again, briefly.
    SPOCK: Banknotes were once redeemable in latinum or silver, on demand. When they took away the option to redeem FRNs in metal, the option to redeem the notes in lawful money remained, U.S. notes. See Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act codified at 12 USC 411.
    CAPT: But U.S. notes are no longer printed.
    SPOCK: Correct, they serve no function not also served by FRNs which is legal tender.
    CAPT: So the FRN is legal tender but not lawful money. Does the FRN redeem itself into itself?
    SPOCK: Not quite. The FRN is dual capacity - two seals - two functions. If you make demand for lawful money by restrictive endorsement then you have lawful money (U.S. notes) in the form of FRNs in your hand.
    CAPT: (scratches head) Bones, what do you make of it?
    McCOY: dammit Jim, I'm a doctor, not a metaphysician.
    Last edited by lorne; 04-25-18 at 07:49 PM.

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
  •