Direct depost coming my way in January...2 credit unions decline to open accounts

[gdude]

Good for you Gdude!

I always love to see good record forming.

Thanks Sensei, I mean David!

Next on the list is tackling the Demand for lawful money 12USC ? 411 for direct deposits in my local bank. I was going to first go to several different banks ( there are at least 15 in my area) and try to open a new account. BUT, i think before I do this I think I need to start using my True Name, and I am still trying to wrap my head around this.... it would seem I would need to change my DL BEFORE I attempt to open new accounts (since they use this whenever you open accounts) ....and wouldn't I have to change EVERY account that is in my LEGAL NAME?? IRS, Credit cards, banks, etc......

I also thought about filing a declaration to redeem lawful money (ab initio, from the beginning) in my county records, send one to local fed and the bank.

I also thought about just calling my employer's accountant and tell them to start sending me checks again...... they send a blank one every 2 weeks anyway, it has all the info on it except the amount on the check says -0-. So why would it be so difficult to revert back to a formal check??

Suggestions welcome!

Thanks, G

[David Merrill]

Thanks Sensei, I mean David!

Next on the list is tackling the Demand for lawful money 12USC ? 411 for direct deposits in my local bank. I was going to first go to several different banks ( there are at least 15 in my area) and try to open a new account. BUT, i think before I do this I think I need to start using my True Name, and I am still trying to wrap my head around this.... it would seem I would need to change my DL BEFORE I attempt to open new accounts (since they use this whenever you open accounts) ....and wouldn't I have to change EVERY account that is in my LEGAL NAME?? IRS, Credit cards, banks, etc......

I also thought about filing a declaration to redeem lawful money (ab initio, from the beginning) in my county records, send one to local fed and the bank.

I also thought about just calling my employer's accountant and tell them to start sending me checks again...... they send a blank one every 2 weeks anyway, it has all the info on it except the amount on the check says -0-. So why would it be so difficult to revert back to a formal check??

Suggestions welcome!

Thanks, G

Sounds like a good place to start - Driver License. You can get the bank notary to notarize your signature in True Name and then put that on a signature card with your stamp. Have you got a stamp yet?

There are various degrees of notice for making your demand.

[gdude]

Sounds like a good place to start - Driver License. You can get the bank notary to notarize your signature in True Name and then put that on a signature card with your stamp. Have you got a stamp yet?

There are various degrees of notice for making your demand.

Yes, I have a stamp that I bought a year ago and have been using to cash checks.

I could also make a record of True Name DBA/ LEGAL NAME in the County record book. BUT.... What about my current mortgage, IRS correspondence, passport, credit cards, etc?? Will they associate the LEGAL NAME with True Name by referring to the SS#?
OR does the SS# just apply to the LEGAL NAME?

Thanks, G

[Gracefultrader]

Correct, anytime they are asking you to sign under penalty of perjury that you are a U.S. citizen or U.S. person or U.S. Individual, you are providing prima facie evidence that:

1.) you are domiciled within a United States federal zone (even though your domicile is in one of the states of the union)
2.) you are a U.S. business (meaning you are a federal connected corp., like a bank)
3.) your SS# also lends to the presumption that you are a federal employee

How convenient of the banks to attach the W-9 to the signature card!

I personally cross out U.S. citizen or person and write "American citizen", but that is difficult if they don't present a paper copy. Or you could just sign it under T/D/C....threat/ duress/ coercion

When signing, add this "28 U.S.C. 1746(1)", which indicates that you are signing as a State Citizen, not a federal citizen, and outside the federal zone. This statute is the ONLY place in the United States Code where the distinction between declarations made outside the "United States" (i.e. the "Federal Zone") and those made within it is shown. It's actually the only place where the contradistinction between the two zones of jurisdiction is indicated.

Notice the form of words used in ? 1746(2) - "If executed within the United States, ITS territories..." (not THEIR territories). This second form of jurat is the one found on almost every document you will be asked to sign by any governmental agency (or bank) and it clearly indicates that you're signing as a party within the federal jurisdictional zone.

The term "United States" was ruled to have 3 distinctly different legal meanings by the Supreme Court - see Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt - 324 U.S. 652 (1945): http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/324/652/. For a discussion of the significance of this, see http://deoxy.org/lib/3us.htm or the extensive material on it found at supremelaw.org

As an aside, the Secretary of State's office in New Hampshire agrees that where the term "United States" appears on State forms, it refers to the third definition given in Hooven, but the State's A.G. office believes it refers to the second (federal zone)...

[gdude]

When signing, add this "28 U.S.C. 1746(1)", which indicates that you are signing as a State Citizen, not a federal citizen, and outside the federal zone. This statute is the ONLY place in the United States Code where the distinction between declarations made outside the "United States" (i.e. the "Federal Zone") and those made within it is shown. It's actually the only place where the contradistinction between the two zones of jurisdiction is indicated.

Notice the form of words used in ? 1746(2) - "If executed within the United States, ITS territories..." (not THEIR territories). This second form of jurat is the one found on almost every document you will be asked to sign by any governmental agency (or bank) and it clearly indicates that you're signing as a party within the federal jurisdictional zone.

The term "United States" was ruled to have 3 distinctly different legal meanings by the Supreme Court - see Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt - 324 U.S. 652 (1945): http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/324/652/. For a discussion of the significance of this, see http://deoxy.org/lib/3us.htm or the extensive material on it found at supremelaw.org

As an aside, the Secretary of State's office in New Hampshire agrees that where the term "United States" appears on State forms, it refers to the third definition given in Hooven, but the State's A.G. office believes it refers to the second (federal zone)...

I have used 28 U.S.C. 1746(1) before , but my question is..... couldn't you STILL be considered a U.S. person/citizen/individual even though you signed the form "outside the U.S." Remember, our arm forces, Congress critters , ambassadors are all those things , but may be "without the U.S.".

[Treefarmer]

I have used 28 U.S.C. 1746(1) before , but my question is..... couldn't you STILL be considered a U.S. person/citizen/individual even though you signed the form "outside the U.S." Remember, our arm forces, Congress critters , ambassadors are all those things , but may be "without the U.S.".

It's been my experience that if a man/woman was born on land somewhere between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, north of the Mexican border but south of Canada, and continually lives thereabouts, then s/he is considered to be a US citizen by nearly everyone, especially government employees and revenue officers.
That US-citizen may be a political instead of a geographical phenomenon is a closely guarded secret that has never been publicly disclosed to my knowledge.

The same goes for "person". I believe that there is an important legal distinction between the terms man/woman and person, but 99.9% of the population doesn't know or care, and acts as if these were the same word/term.

Since most of our daily interactions have to do with people and their perceptions, that makes this a very tricky topic. There are no easy answers, IMO, because these legal terms, being the mechanism of our enslavement, are closely guarded secrets.

I have learned through experience that the truth about government and all its functions is shrouded in deep mystery.
I've never been able to get a straight and truthful answer to any of my questions concerning government and its rules and regulations from any government employee, and not for the lack of trying.

[shikamaru]

It's been my experience that if a man/woman was born on land somewhere between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, north of the Mexican border but south of Canada, and continually lives thereabouts, then s/he is considered to be a US citizen by nearly everyone, especially government employees and revenue officers.
That US-citizen may be a political instead of a geographical phenomenon is a closely guarded secret that has never been publicly disclosed to my knowledge.

The same goes for "person". I believe that there is an important legal distinction between the terms man/woman and person, but 99.9% of the population doesn't know or care, and acts as if these were the same word/term.

Since most of our daily interactions have to do with people and their perceptions, that makes this a very tricky topic. There are no easy answers, IMO, because these legal terms, being the mechanism of our enslavement, are closely guarded secrets.

I have learned through experience that the truth about government and all its functions is shrouded in deep mystery.
I've never been able to get a straight and truthful answer to any of my questions concerning government and its rules and regulations from any government employee, and not for the lack of trying.

To assert with allowance for rebuttal may do the trick here .

At some point the assertions or inquiry will be too much to bear.

Better to let one minnow go than to allow the catch to be revealed.

[Gracefultrader]

I have used 28 U.S.C. 1746(1) before , but my question is..... couldn't you STILL be considered a U.S. person/citizen/individual even though you signed the form "outside the U.S." Remember, our arm forces, Congress critters , ambassadors are all those things , but may be "without the U.S.".

The folks you mention are all employed by the United States and thus receiving a benefit/privilege from a government agency of one kind or another. As such they are operating "within" the jurisdiction of the United States, by consent and by contract. Positions held within the government are provided as discretionary benefits created by the government (they would not otherwise even exist as employment opportunities) and therefore entry into them is prima facie evidence of one's consent to federal jurisdiction.

For example, members of the armed forces sign a contract upon entry that limits the full expression of some of their Constitutionally-protected rights and subjects them to the Code of Military Justice as their new legal forum. They cannot, for example, practice the unrestrained limits of their 1st Amendment-guaranteed right to free speech, or of assembly (at will). For obvious and appropriate reasons, they cannot communicate on any subject at any time to anyone they choose as doing so could easily compromise U.S. military security. Congresspersons and ambassadors hold their respective positions at the pleasure of the government and/or the people. As such their work is a privilege, not a fundamental or essential right to work. It is these contracts and privileged activities that automatically bring them, by their own consent, within the jurisdiction of the United States. So, yes, you would, in the cases cited, still be subject to federal jurisdiction as found "within" the United States were you holding any of the consensual forms of employment mentioned - regardless of how you signed anything else. In such circumstances, you have established your political status by contract in a fashion that supersedes subsequent affirmations to the contrary until the binding contract is completed/broken/remedied, or otherwise made inoperable (e.g. as for fraud or some other defect).

I hope this answers your question.

[Gracefultrader]

It's been my experience that if a man/woman was born on land somewhere between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, north of the Mexican border but south of Canada, and continually lives thereabouts, then s/he is considered to be a US citizen by nearly everyone, especially government employees and revenue officers.
That US-citizen may be a political instead of a geographical phenomenon is a closely guarded secret that has never been publicly disclosed to my knowledge.

The same goes for "person". I believe that there is an important legal distinction between the terms man/woman and person, but 99.9% of the population doesn't know or care, and acts as if these were the same word/term.

Since most of our daily interactions have to do with people and their perceptions, that makes this a very tricky topic. There are no easy answers, IMO, because these legal terms, being the mechanism of our enslavement, are closely guarded secrets.

I have learned through experience that the truth about government and all its functions is shrouded in deep mystery.
I've never been able to get a straight and truthful answer to any of my questions concerning government and its rules and regulations from any government employee, and not for the lack of trying.

Government employees are a breed unto themselves, for reasons clarified in my previous post. You are quite correct that these important distinctions are rarely made and probably intentionally obscured by political insiders more interested in developing the dependent classes they rely upon for re-election, at the inevitable expense of the independent, self-governing, and responsibly productive people in our society. Still, the law remains clear, if obscured, and you should use it to your advantage, both legally and pedagogically when you may do so to advantage. 28 U.S.C. sec 1746 makes it obvious that there's a distinction between those within and those without the United States, but you have to dig deeper to find out just what the term "United States" defines in federal statutes. For that, I suggest starting with a reading of the 1945 SCOTUS case, Hooven & Alison Co. v. Evatt, discussed briefly at: http://deoxy.org/lib/3us.htm. The most exhaustive research into this subject was done by Paul Mitchell in his book "The Federal Zone", which is available in pdf format for download at: http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/index.htm. Everyone on this forum would benefit from reading it. Understanding what Paul thoroughly explains will help you understand what the consequences may be when you sign a license, job application, bank form, voting registration, or other form that uses the section 1746(2) jurat (within the United States) and thus forms an adhesion contract and admission to the already presumptive federal jurisdiction. To help avoid this, read the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) and put them to use. Filing a clear statement of your political status with your county registry provides self-authenticating evidence of a fact per FRE Rule 902 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_902). Then, STOP availing yourself of any federal benefits or privileges, which will be de facto proof that you've compromised at least some degree of your affidavit of political status through contractual compromise.

The only way to effectively combat ignorance is to teach, but before you presuming to teach, gain a truthful and comprehensive grasp of the subject - and that, my friends, though it may be time-consuming, is FAR easier through proper use of the resources available via the internet than it ever was in the past. Imagine your parents or grandparents trying to find out what the original 1880-vintage Act of Congress said, the wording of which has since been altered in a U.S. Code revision! The irony is that while we now live in an era that enjoys unparalleled access to fundamental legal information, too few people are willing to spend the time necessary to research for it, read the original documents (such as the Acts of Congress in their original form), constellate what they've learned, and parse it into more digestible chunks for others. "Texting" is NOT a form of meaningful communication when it comes to unraveling the mysteries of history. or government. Forums like this one are invaluable assets, but too often cluttered with "patriot" mythology and dangerous, if well-intentioned, representations.

[Treefarmer]

Government employees are a breed unto themselves, for reasons clarified in my previous post. You are quite correct that these important distinctions are rarely made and probably intentionally obscured by political insiders more interested in developing the dependent classes they rely upon for re-election, at the inevitable expense of the independent, self-governing, and responsibly productive people in our society. Still, the law remains clear, if obscured, and you should use it to your advantage, both legally and pedagogically when you may do so to advantage. 28 U.S.C. sec 1746 makes it obvious that there's a distinction between those within and those without the United States, but you have to dig deeper to find out just what the term "United States" defines in federal statutes. For that, I suggest starting with a reading of the 1945 SCOTUS case, Hooven & Alison Co. v. Evatt, discussed briefly at: http://deoxy.org/lib/3us.htm. The most exhaustive research into this subject was done by Paul Mitchell in his book "The Federal Zone", which is available in pdf format for download at: http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/index.htm. Everyone on this forum would benefit from reading it. Understanding what Paul thoroughly explains will help you understand what the consequences may be when you sign a license, job application, bank form, voting registration, or other form that uses the section 1746(2) jurat (within the United States) and thus forms an adhesion contract and admission to the already presumptive federal jurisdiction. To help avoid this, read the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) and put them to use. Filing a clear statement of your political status with your county registry provides self-authenticating evidence of a fact per FRE Rule 902 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_902). Then, STOP availing yourself of any federal benefits or privileges, which will be de facto proof that you've compromised at least some degree of your affidavit of political status through contractual compromise.

The only way to effectively combat ignorance is to teach, but before you presuming to teach, gain a truthful and comprehensive grasp of the subject - and that, my friends, though it may be time-consuming, is FAR easier through proper use of the resources available via the internet than it ever was in the past. Imagine your parents or grandparents trying to find out what the original 1880-vintage Act of Congress said, the wording of which has since been altered in a U.S. Code revision! The irony is that while we now live in an era that enjoys unparalleled access to fundamental legal information, too few people are willing to spend the time necessary to research for it, read the original documents (such as the Acts of Congress in their original form), constellate what they've learned, and parse it into more digestible chunks for others. "Texting" is NOT a form of meaningful communication when it comes to unraveling the mysteries of history. or government. Forums like this one are invaluable assets, but too often cluttered with "patriot" mythology and dangerous, if well-intentioned, representations.

Thank you for the Federal Zone link, Gracefultrader.
It's a valuable resource, which has been linked once or twice already in other threads here on StSC, and you really cannot have too many of these links.
I'm guessing most members here are probably familiar with it's content.

Even though documents like the Federal Zone make for interesting reading for those of us who are speed readers, have long attention spans, high pain thresholds, no children vying for our attention, and an insatiable appetite for the whole truth, it would be grotesque to think that everyone should have to read this kind of stuff just to be able to keep their heads above water.

Recently it occurred to me that due to the internet, which has made information access so much easier as you stated above, the cat has really got out of the proverbial bag on these previously hidden legal terminology shenanigans and court decisions, which have greatly contributed to transforming this late republic into a crumbling prison-house democracy.
What this tells me is that this crumbling democracy is not useful to its creators anymore as a plantation-controlling ship of state and they will have to get rid of it as fast as possible, in order to replace it with a new and more efficient enslavement mechanism.

Because once the notion of remedy enters the consciousness of only a few internet users, the spread of that consciousness with its accompaniment of ready-to-use legal ammunition is exponential and uncontrollably fast.

I predict that toward this end, of getting rid of the now unmasked US democracy corp. and its publicly exposed Achilles' heel, the public opinion makers and professional false-flag-agitators will do their utmost to make the US of A to stink in the nostrils of all the other nations, as well as its own US citizens, in every way at their disposal.
Of course there's no intention of going back to a free republic on the part of the handlers.

Instead, discontent and chaos will be stirred up to a fever pitch, public-official fall guys will be set up and made to look loathsome and reprehensible, to be taken down with all blame pinned on them publicly, and then the prepackaged one-world-government solution will be revealed.
It will be presented by the opinion makers as if it were a spontaneous, collaborative grassroots effort of the common people, and cast in the most rosy-golden and favorable light imaginable, with helpings of apple-pie and promises of peace, safety, and prosperity for all.

I believe there will be a strong religious component to go along with the new ruler-ship model, consisting of a new-age pantheistic belief system with an all-purpose messiah (anti-christos) who promises to fulfill everyone's needs.

The old US with its well-documented history of fraud and deceit will appear so utterly corrupt and beyond repair at that point that it will be a no-brainer for most people to leave it behind in favor of the new replacement.
Just sign here, here and here, get your RFID chip injection, and your debts will be forgiven so you can have a good clean start in the ALL NEW BETTER TRUST US.

Lawful money and remedy will have no place under that new system, without which no one will be able to have bank accounts and buy or sell anymore, because its currency will be digital.
This new system (mark of the beast) will appear indispensable to the vast majority of people who have survived the man-made horrors and trauma of the days which are already upon us now, because without that you'll be left behind as the whole world moves forward into the future beyond, won't you?

Of course I cannot prove that this will happen, so we will have to wait and see
Shabbat Shalom and I pray that your fall greens are thriving.