Is Non-Endorsement the same as Demanding Lawful Money?

[American_National]

Not withstanding any other provision of law or contractual obligations; NO contract, nor shall...

Agreed.

That is why this unique dual-clause semicolon link structure was employed within this part of the Notice and Demand document. Semicolons are used to link two independent clauses to connect closely related ideas. The ?not withstanding? clause in this regard must play second fiddle to the clear and unambiguous prohibition clause that follows it. The "NO contract, nor shall any provision thereof, act or operate in any way or manner, to eliminate, diminish, or conflict with any provision contained within this Notice and Demand" part would remain in effect if the first clause was somehow shown to be inapplicable or invalid. The resultant effect would be like that of a severability clause that does not change the fundamental nature of the Notice and Demand.

Think about how many account agreements and/or signature cards the banks have required us to sign without allowing us to read or modify/annotate what is written on the contract. Present day, they require us to sign an electronic signature capture pad - and offer the account holder NOTHING showing what documents or contracts the financial institution has placed the electronic signature on. The above Notice and Demand provisions were specifically included in this document to offset and nullify such abusive financial institution practices.

How would others here on this forum suggest rewording the paragraph below to be more concise in this regard and possibly work in the fraud by omission language David was referring to in his previous post?

This Notice and Demand is now on, and for, the lawful record and is within the cognizance of the

United States. Notwithstanding any other contractual obligation or any provision of law; NO contract, nor

shall any provision thereof, act or operate in any way or manner, to eliminate, diminish, or conflict with

any provision contained within this Notice and demand. Any and all parties claiming to preside, act or

operate from within that realm are duly advised.

[David Merrill]

Thanks! We are hashing it over in the brain trust too.

I was talking with a suitor the other day. I suggested that he publish at the county clerk and recorder after getting a $5 Commission Certificate from the SoS on the Notary. Then he will publish that original in his federal evidence repository. He can get certified copies from the federal clerk of court and serve one on the nearest Federal Reserve Bank (one of the twelve). So he will have a proof of service to attach to his certified copy to serve on his banker, the IRS, employer etc.

I was not aware it would go over so well with suitors. I am going to go through it with my revisions tomorrow. We will bounce it around the brain trust and I will show you what we come up with here soon.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[American_National]

Thank you for your reply, and Understood. . .

Don't forget that due to the interlocutory nature of the federal reserve system, it may be best to serve the Notice and Demand via a 3rd party notary certified mailing, PS form 3811 domestic return receipt requested, to the federal reserve district branch office serving your local area. Notice to agent is notice to principal, and vice-versa . . . This would cover the entire federal reserve district, as well as their service area financial institutions who handle their private credit debt transaction instruments (FRN's) locally.

When you have your notice and demand in record at 3 or more levels, it would be really hard for any entity (including a court) to find that you have any failure to make your demand known.

1. The federal "United States" is cognizant of the Notice and Demand due to it being placed in the public record.
2. The "County government" is cognizant of the Notice and Demand and acts as a trustee for your memorialized public record document.
3. The "State government" is cognizant of the Notice and Demand through this same public records system maintained by one of their subordinate counties who remain the trustee of your public record notice and demand.
4. The "Federal Reserve district, cities, and service area financial institutions" are cognizant of your notice and demand via their interlocutory operational nature due to The federal reserve service area branch office being served with our Notice and Demand. (notice to agent is notice to principal, etc.)
5. The financial institutions are sent a simple one page letter informing them of your updated notice and demand that has been placed in the county public record (give them the URL to look it up themselves), and that the FED. reserve branch office servicing their institution has a copy of it as well, and that they need to make whatever annotations to your account as may be required to indicate the "Lawful Money ONLY" character of all your transactions as may be required by regulations or internal policies applicable in this regard.
6. The financial institutions are reminded during every transaction conducted at their location of your notice and demand via the GREEN laminated CARD you posted earlier in this thread. It is their obligation to comply with applicable regulations, policies, and financial institution procedures to segment these lawful money amounts apart from such funds used to facilitate their fractional reserve banking practices.

Notice to Teller Back.
Notice to Teller Front.

12 USC 411 says that all we have to do is just make our demand known . . . nothing more, nothing less!

We do not need to be adding additional burdens upon ourselves and others that are outside the scope of the regulations in this regard. :-)

With the above, You and I have more than fulfilled our obligation under 12 USC 411 to make our demand for Lawful Public Money of Exchange in all transactions known at the Federal "United States", F.R. District, State, County, and local level as well as giving such GREEN CARD reminders concurrently with each transaction at the teller level. There aren't many other levels left to serve our Notice and Demand upon . . . Maybe serve notice on the IMF/IBRD, but that can be accomplished via serving Notice and Demand to IRS, as they act in agency capacity for the Secretary of the Treasury, who is the corporate governor of the IMF/IBRD.

I would challenge any federal "United States" entity (IRS included) to prove via an enacted Public Law, Statute at Large, or any Regulation . . . that any action beyond simply "making our demand known" is required to successfully opt us out of the private credit federal reserve (FRN) debt transaction instruments system, and keep us safely and soundly on the Lawful Public Money of Exchange [the emergency currency of the United States of America] side of this equation!


The King of Kings Bible:

Leviticus (within the Torah - the 3^rd book of the LAW)

19:35Ye shall do no unrighteousness in Judgment, in measures of length, in weight, or in quantity.
19:36 Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin, shall ye have: I [am] the "I AM" your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt.
19:37 Therefore shall ye observe all My Statutes, and all My Judgments, and do them: I [am] the "I AM".

Deuteronomy (within the Torah - the 5^th book of the LAW)

25:13Thou shalt not have in thy bag diverse weights, a great and a small.
25:14 Thou shalt not have in thine house diverse measures, a great and a small.
25:15 [But] thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure shalt thou have: that thy days may be lengthened in the land which the "I AM" thy God giveth thee.
25:16 For all that do such things, [and] all that do unrighteously, [are] an abomination unto the "I AM" thy God.

[David Merrill]

We do not need to be adding additional burdens upon ourselves and others that are outside the scope of the regulations in this regard. :-)

As best I have seen though, that is still theory. I like your take but have heard about somebody who is still having troubles being recognized in these forms (forums). You suggest an Postal Service form too where when the Demand is made on the instrument instead of endorsement that is blatant and express trust outside the scope of the federal reserve and national debt.

You have some great streamlining here though. The Science of Mind - Page 74. Thank you.

[Chex]

I would also add to the instrument

1. Neither party shall be liable in damages or have the right to terminate this Agreement for any delay or default in performing hereunder if such delay or default is caused by conditions beyond its control including, but not limited to Acts of God, Government restrictions (including the denial or cancellation of any export or other necessary license), wars, insurrections and/or any other cause beyond the reasonable control of the party whose performance is affected.

2. Neither party shall be liable for any failure or delay in performance under this Agreement (other than for delay in the payment of money due and payable hereunder) to the extent said failures or delays are proximately caused (I) by causes beyond that party's reasonable control and occurring without its fault or negligence, including, without limitation, failure of suppliers, subcontractors, and carriers, or party to substantially meet its performance obligations under this Agreement, provided that, as a condition to the claim of nonliability, the party experiencing the difficulty shall give the other prompt written notice, with full details following the occurrence of the cause relied upon. Dates by which performance obligations are scheduled to be met will be extended for a period of time equal to the time lost due to any delay so caused.

It baffles me that internal revenue service is not an agency of our united states government or that it can?t be found in the codes of a trained "citizen" who are supposed to abide by titles and codes.

Digging A little deeper helps you clarify not in Title 31 , Title 5 , located it's here:

Find revenue agent and you see that a notice and demand should also be sent to the Department of the Treasury if you want to cover additional trust bases.

What desirable nature is a title if it does not apply meaningful words to a trust?

[American_National]

You suggest an Postal Service form too where when the Demand is made on the instrument instead of endorsement that is blatant and express trust outside the scope of the federal reserve and national debt.

You lost me on the above comment???

. . . If you do a notary witnessed contents/certificate of service included in the correspondence package, and have the notary act as a disinterested 3rd party witness to your composing the mailing package and sealing it in their presence; Then mail the Notice and Demand package via a United States Postal Service certified mailing to a federal reserve branch office, with return receipt requested (the return reciept is the green form PS form 3811) showing the name and signature of the human+being signing for/receiving the Notice and Demand at the Federal Reserve branch. . . you have perfected the chain of custody regarding the contents of your notice and demand being successfully delivered, and perfected the process of service regarding your notice and demand being served upon the federal reserve district via it's branch office.

1. The notary is a state/court witness certifying exactly what the contents of the Notice and Demand Package were when it was mailed, as well as being the witness who identified who actually mailed those contents. (they prove that we did not mail an empty envelope to the fed. reserve.)
2. The sealed Notice/Demand package was placed in the custody of the postal service, who is the the custodian responsible for delivering the intact sealed Notice and Demand package to the intended physical address, as well as responsible for obtaining the signature on their return receipt form.
3. The return receipt form bearing the name and signature of the recipient is mailed back to you and is placed with your local copy of the notary certified notice and demand package . . .and functions as proof of your successfully completed process of service of your intact notice/demand package to the federal reserve.

The chain of custody from preparing the notice and demand package - to the contents of that package being successfully delivered to the Federal Reserve Branch office is thereby confirmed and proven to have remained intact. The service of process is also perfected in this regard as well. That is what I had meant in writing along these lines earlier . . .

Did I miss something else you were trying to point out in your reply above regarding the significance of using this notary witnessed certified mail/return receipt approach, please?

If so, could you please provide us with a further explanation regarding what I had missed in your earlier comment above in this regard?

Thanks

American_National

[David Merrill]

I blinked on an interesting post again!

Looking over that post though, I believe that it is aggrandizing the notary function. Notaries are allowed to give oaths and it would seem that every notary act is acceptance of an oath about identity at least. But seldom does a notary do anything more than that; verify that a person is known to them as.

One interesting supplement to a notary is the Commission Certificate generally available for $5 from the Secretary of State. This, I am told completes proof.

[EZrhythm]

Yes, obtaining a notary's certificate provides full proof; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eX28dslTu38

[David Merrill]

Yes, obtaining a notary's certificate provides full proof; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eX28dslTu38

Thank you EZ! I wish though, that somebody would be proud enough of the resulting ownership to post the documentation before and after including the search where the old deed is dissappeared.

[Freed Gerdes]

Notwithstanding.

That is a tricky word in that Notice and Demand.



I am just mentioning it because it might be clearer that only contracts outside the scope of the fraud by omission are spoken of here. Otherwise it might seem contradictory that all contracts are void nunc pro tunc, but those by provision of law or contract are still good.

Might I suggest this wording instead:

"Not withstanding any other provision of law or contractual obligations; NO{delete this, and substitute]
As the above demand is my explicit choice under the option provided in 12 USCode 411, the highest law of the land, to eschew any and all use of
Federal Reserve credit, no provision of any contract for private credit with any lesser entity shall be construed to act or operate in any way or manner to eliminate, diminish, supersede, or otherwise modify any provision contained within this Notice and demand. This Notice and Demand is
now on and for the lawful record and is within the cognizance of the United States. Any and all parties
claiming to preside, act or operate from within that realm are duly advised."

Please advise whether this suggested form is preferable, especially whether "law of the land" invites difficulties with regard to admiralty law.

Freed

[Edited several weeks later:] After giving this some more thought, I perceive that the 'notwithstanding' issue can be resolved by emphasizing the explicit, which always takes precedence over the implicit. Since the Fed Reserve and its bankster minions want to create a record which proves that you are a taxpayer, but do not want to mention lawful money, their contracts always use inference and assumpsit to achieve their purpose, but this is implied agreement, which can be trumped by explicit demand. So the Notice should say:
This Notice and Demand is now on, and for, the lawful record and is within the cognizance of the United States. This Demand is Explicit for the Redemption of Lawful Money. No term of any other contract, which term seeks to establish, through inference, assumpsit, or words of art, that an implicit request has been made to use Federal Reserve credit, shall supercede this explicit Demand, or impair such Demand in any way. Any and all parties claiming to preside, act or operate from within that realm are duly advised.

It would seem that with this Notice and Demand on record, you would be free to contract for a bank credit card, using lawful money... the contract specifies a debtor/creditor relationship, but it does not specify the notes in which the credit balances would be kept. Seems to me that the bank would now be in the position of having to rebut your presumption.

Freed