It is difficult to make sense of my post above this morning without considering another BPN carefully.
Bonded Promissory Note.
The reason I say difficult is that the SSN is the basis of a tax too. I consider it an insurance policy - but the Supreme Court ruled early in the New Deal that it is a valid income tax. Ergo note that the basis of the BPN is that the Defendant's SSN is spoken as an account number upon which to establish Setoff. Also, that you cannot open a bank account without a Social Security Number.
To catch on to my point I should share a couple experiences from the brain trust. One suitor mastered R4C with the LoR evidence repository and kept the advances of the IRS seizure on his $1M home for eight years, at bay. It took its toll on his marriage and health - he took to drinking and often would call me up rambling and ranting about having to R4C constant presentments, I am not going to play their game anymore! When he had been drinking he got emotional and alluded to suicide by cop and taking a brave last stand when they came for his home but then he would sober up and continue R4C and using the LoR for his evidence repository.
As the years went by though, he went on SSI. He was a millionaire but that wealth was tied up in his lifestyle and he wanted to cash his $1K Social Security Checks. He marked his Demand for Lawful Money on the first one and took it to his bank. They refused to cash it for him with the restricted endorsement. It seemed to me that was illegal and he tried and tried. Finally the bank apparently had arranged for him to pay a percentage with the Checks Cashed Here store down the road. He went there, and upon paying the 2% or whatever the clerk took a Sharpie to his Demand - right in front of him and behind the bulletproof Plexiglas. The fellow was heartbroken, quit R4C and lost his home - it was seized and he had to sell it off for $200K and pay that all to the IRS...
In the 1984 Article in my first video we find citation:
Demanding lawful money on a Social Security check puts the bank in a dichotomy. Is the check for a settlement on an SSI insurance claim? Or is it a valid income tax that has formed a socialist system of rewards for the elderly?So, what changed? Two years after H.J.R. 192, Congress passed the Social Security Act, which the Supreme Court upheld as a valid act imposing a valid income tax: 'Charles C. Steward Mach. Co. v, Davis' 301 U.S. 548 (1937).
This did not sink in though until a suitor was told to close down his Signature Card Demand account (not the bank closing it, mind you) and he mentioned that this happened as he arranged for his SS checks to be deposited there!
It helped to snap into place - from Jaro's website - on the topic of A4V I walk in without reading some 60 Pages and start asking for graphic examples of a successful A4V - especially of the current vocal pundit Neal Lesley who was claiming to keep the electric company paid off by secret Treasury checks. He is quite irked instead of putting his A4V process to a scanner and showing us...
The manager of the bank has informed me that her legal dept has advised her not to continue the account I opened, even though I told her I would sign another signature card without stipulation for receipt of lawful money (to allow me time to change banks if necessary, after I had further researched the bank's refusal --- for what Cause in other words). That is the bank from which Suitor's Spouse obtained the redeemed $350 for our LoR filing in 2008, so there is even more reason for me to be concerned about the Cause of refusal.
I responded:
One way that is usually effective - refuse to close out the account.
It will come to them creating the illusion they are closing your
account but then it all depends on you signing the paper. Refuse to if
you want the bank to continue the account.
They may close it down anyway but I doubt it.
But what he was saying - whether he has been keeping copies or not - was that the government has taken all the gold and is therefore responsible to pay our bills. Simple. On Page 62 you might get his gist:
This fellow has full confidence that some of the A4V process functions and extended the theory to an ongoing service. That was a bit too much for me to swallow because the Electric Company will shut you off. There is no funded account with the Treasury.Dude A4V is a promise to pay the debt when they devise a way to pay it with a lawful money like gold and silver everything was paid back then when they developed all of this and the A4V was the remedy, this is basically how it works, Pretend the Treasury is your bank and they issue you credit well when you get you light bill you see it's $250 but you have no money but you have a credit account (a charge account) so you charge it,
Yes they give a coupon on the end of the electric bill , it's not a Money Order, however your going to use it as so to notify the Treasury you need $250 in credit, as you accept the bill for value...
There is no funded account with the Treasury.
Therefore it is difficult to follow my recent revelations because I just tied the SSN into this and I am old enough to have evidence that the SSN trust constructs the STRAWMAN when you initiate the contract. I was twelve - you have to look at the date on the bottom:
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...tification.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ification2.jpg
That was when I got my first real job. Anymore, pregnant Mom gets a SSN assigned to THE FETUS for the STRAWMAN (Constructive Trust).
But I am assuring you at the same time that there is no funded bank account to draw from, from either one of these sources - the SSN or the Birth Certificate. It would appear that it took three months to sink in to a federal judge:
And a year of research for RUSSELL to get cold feet, when he discovered the above for himself:
The money is out there circulating already!
Click Here.
Call it a circulating account if you want. Both RUSSELL and McDOWELL have been generating private credit as Fed banks all their careers. It is out there on their approval as private bankers' fractional lending practices ready to be called in as lawful money on demand. Ergo, under the right conditions; Setoff.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. Be certain you demand setoff for the exact amount of the charges. If you round up even a penny that "change" might be considered fraud - like with Drew Allen RAYNER. - Now the article is unavailable unless you register? Drew Allen wrote his BPN for $175 on $171.50 and is apparently suffering for the $4.50 he presumed "keep the change".
Reply With Quote