Redemption of Lawful Money at US Bank

[David Merrill]

Thank you again, Ares.

I get the general idea.

Based upon what I have looked at so far, it seems to me that, as I've written before, this remedy would, if valid and broadly applied, eliminate the current destructive practices of the Fed, the IRS, etc.

It also appears that there is no simple and easy way to understand it enough to establish a certainty as to whether or not it is valid.

Am I correct in that?

I am not sure that you are correct so much as that you are logical. If logic is correct then you are correct, by logic... See?

It is not that way though. Ronald Ernest PAUL is a terrific example. He wants to abolish the Fed, sure enough but does not see the logic in letting his constituency do it for him. Instead his constituency thwarts him at every turn by signing endorsement for private credit and makes PAUL look like a fringe lunatic or at best, a flake.

Here is what I suggest. There is no harm in redeeming lawful money - or at least in making your demand known; whether it applies in law or not. Just so long as you don't involve your employer that is, or start preaching it to others around the water cooler. You can make your demand for lawful money risk free and you decide whether you want to try it out come April 15th. If you don't want to risk being thought of as a tax protested wait until next year to decide. My point is that by exercising your right to demand lawful money now, you will very likely answer a lot of questions you seem to be having difficulty with now.

Try something like, next time you take something back to Lowe's for a cash refund when they want you to sign for the cash sign "Lawful Money". You are very likely to think about that and digest it, what you did and evaluate the national debt etc. and these things will cogitate more clearly in your mind.

[freedave]

I am not sure that you are correct so much as that you are logical. If logic is correct then you are correct, by logic... See?

It is not that way though. Ronald Ernest PAUL is a terrific example. He wants to abolish the Fed, sure enough but does not see the logic in letting his constituency do it for him. Instead his constituency thwarts him at every turn by signing endorsement for private credit and makes PAUL look like a fringe lunatic or at best, a flake.

Here is what I suggest. There is no harm in redeeming lawful money - or at least in making your demand known; whether it applies in law or not. Just so long as you don't involve your employer that is, or start preaching it to others around the water cooler. You can make your demand for lawful money risk free and you decide whether you want to try it out come April 15th. If you don't want to risk being thought of as a tax protested wait until next year to decide. My point is that by exercising your right to demand lawful money now, you will very likely answer a lot of questions you seem to be having difficulty with now.

Try something like, next time you take something back to Lowe's for a cash refund when they want you to sign for the cash sign "Lawful Money". You are very likely to think about that and digest it, what you did and evaluate the national debt etc. and these things will cogitate more clearly in your mind.

Thank you for the somewhat enigmatic first line of your response -- there are certainly truths higher than logic, but logic is pretty reliable when it comes to questions of law, finance and practicality.

When I ask my question regarding understanding, I'm not only being logical, I'm referring to reality.

I am definitely a great admirer of Ron Paul and have a fairly good understanding of the Fed, the monetary system, who is behind it, etc.

My main concern regarding redeeming lawful money is that it might cause difficulty with a financial institution and/or single me out in some way -- I try to keep a low profile.

Regarding taking something for a cash refund, are you suggesting that I put only the words "Lawful Money" rather than any kind of usual name? And, if I do that, and it is not accepted, what do I do then?

[David Merrill]

Thank you for the somewhat enigmatic first line of your response -- there are certainly truths higher than logic, but logic is pretty reliable when it comes to questions of law, finance and practicality.

When I ask my question regarding understanding, I'm not only being logical, I'm referring to reality.

I am definitely a great admirer of Ron Paul and have a fairly good understanding of the Fed, the monetary system, who is behind it, etc.

My main concern regarding redeeming lawful money is that it might cause difficulty with a financial institution and/or single me out in some way -- I try to keep a low profile.

Regarding taking something for a cash refund, are you suggesting that I put only the words "Lawful Money" rather than any kind of usual name? And, if I do that, and it is not accepted, what do I do then?

They will accept it. If not I suppose you could write a name next to your demand and then you will have demanded lawful money.

[freedave]

I am not sure that you are correct so much as that you are logical. If logic is correct then you are correct, by logic... See?

It is not that way though. Ronald Ernest PAUL is a terrific example. He wants to abolish the Fed, sure enough but does not see the logic in letting his constituency do it for him. Instead his constituency thwarts him at every turn by signing endorsement for private credit and makes PAUL look like a fringe lunatic or at best, a flake.

Here is what I suggest. There is no harm in redeeming lawful money - or at least in making your demand known; whether it applies in law or not. Just so long as you don't involve your employer that is, or start preaching it to others around the water cooler. You can make your demand for lawful money risk free and you decide whether you want to try it out come April 15th. If you don't want to risk being thought of as a tax protested wait until next year to decide. My point is that by exercising your right to demand lawful money now, you will very likely answer a lot of questions you seem to be having difficulty with now.

Try something like, next time you take something back to Lowe's for a cash refund when they want you to sign for the cash sign "Lawful Money". You are very likely to think about that and digest it, what you did and evaluate the national debt etc. and these things will cogitate more clearly in your mind.

Thank you for the somewhat enigmatic first line of your response -- there are certainly truths higher than logic, but logic is pretty reliable when it comes to questions of law, finance and practicality.

When I ask my question regarding understanding, I'm not only being logical, I'm referring to reality.

I am definitely a great admirer of Ron Paul and have a fairly good understanding of the Fed, the monetary system, who is behind it, etc.

My main concern regarding redeeming lawful money is that it might cause difficulty with a financial institution and/or single me out in some way -- I try to keep a low profile.

Regarding taking something for a cash refund, are you suggesting that I put only the words "Lawful Money" rather than any kind of usual name? And, if I do that, and it is not accepted, what do I do then?

[freedave]

Thank you for the somewhat enigmatic first line of your response -- there are certainly truths higher than logic, but logic is pretty reliable when it comes to questions of law, finance and practicality.

When I ask my question regarding understanding, I'm not only being logical, I'm referring to reality.

I am definitely a great admirer of Ron Paul and have a fairly good understanding of the Fed, the monetary system, who is behind it, etc.

My main concern regarding redeeming lawful money is that it might cause difficulty with a financial institution and/or single me out in some way -- I try to keep a low profile.

Regarding taking something for a cash refund, are you suggesting that I put only the words "Lawful Money" rather than any kind of usual name? And, if I do that, and it is not accepted, what do I do then?

I am now in communication with someone who had been part of the SuiJuris Forum and is applying the redeeming lawful money remedy using the phrase "deposited for credit on account." He told me of some interesting experiences he has had.

It seems to me that if there were 100,000 people doing this, assuming the remedy is valid, it would mean the end of the Fed and the IRS.

Again, my main concern regarding redeeming lawful money is that it might cause difficulty with a financial institution and/or single me out in some way -- I try to keep a low profile.

And again, regarding taking something for a cash refund, are you suggesting that I put only the words "Lawful Money" rather than any kind of usual name? And, if I do that, and it is not accepted, what do I do then?

I am about to send a check for deposit into a brokerage account in the name of an LLC -- is there something I could write on it which would not raise any "red flags"?

[David Merrill]

Don't write anything at all on it then. It is when you withdraw the cash that you would redeem the lawful money. Since you are sending it to a brokerage firm (as I understand it) it will remain credit on account and non-taxable until you withdraw it. Put your demand on the withdrawal slip.

You could strikethrough the Pay to the Order of: but that would not be conspicuous. It could be determined that the teller at the brokerage firm sees so many checks in a day that one with such a subtle claim might not be noticed.

[freedave]

Don't write anything at all on it then. It is when you withdraw the cash that you would redeem the lawful money. Since you are sending it to a brokerage firm (as I understand it) it will remain credit on account and non-taxable until you withdraw it. Put your demand on the withdrawal slip.

You could strikethrough the Pay to the Order of: but that would not be conspicuous. It could be determined that the teller at the brokerage firm sees so many checks in a day that one with such a subtle claim might not be noticed.

OK, what I normally do is sign my conventional (first and last) name on the back of the check plus put my brokerage firm account number and the name of my LLC all on the back of the check.

Then I mail it to the brokerage firm (out of state) along with a deposit slip.

Then, after it is OK'd at the brokerage firm, I use a debit card from the brokerage firm at a local ATM machine to get cash and deposit it into a local bank account.

Since the brokerage firm is out of state, I don't deal with any tellers there. Would it still be advisable to strike through the "Pay to the Order of" on the front of the check?

Considering this additional data, what would you suggest?

[freedave]

OK, what I normally do is sign my conventional (first and last) name on the back of the check plus put my brokerage firm account number and the name of my LLC all on the back of the check.

Then I mail it to the brokerage firm (out of state) along with a deposit slip.

Then, after it is OK'd at the brokerage firm, I use a debit card from the brokerage firm at a local ATM machine to get cash and deposit it into a local bank account.

Since the brokerage firm is out of state, I don't deal with any tellers there. Would it still be advisable to strike through the "Pay to the Order of" on the front of the check?

Considering this additional data, what would you suggest?

Before I send my check to the out-of-state brokerage firm, I would like to receive a response...

[David Merrill]

Never strike through the Order of: on somebody else's check. Look at the hypothetical example. The account-holder writing the check might choose whether it would be lawful money or not. The party with the authorizing signature on the check has the sole authority about the instrument.

Be careful!

Do not strike through the Pay to the Order of:

Here is an example.

[freedave]

Never strike through the Order of: on somebody else's check. Look at the hypothetical example. The account-holder writing the check might choose whether it would be lawful money or not. The party with the authorizing signature on the check has the sole authority about the instrument.

Be careful!

Do not strike through the Pay to the Order of:

Here is an example.

Thank you very much for clarifying that, David.

So I will not do anything to the front of the check.

Again, what I normally do is sign my conventional (first and last) name on the back of the check plus put my brokerage firm account number and the name of my LLC all on the back of the check.

Then I mail it to the brokerage firm (out of state) along with a deposit slip.

Then, after it is OK'd at the brokerage firm, I use a debit card from the brokerage firm at a local ATM machine to get cash and deposit it into a local bank account.

Considering this data, would you suggest anything that would be unlikely to cause a problem or raise any "red flags"?