Once you have the court established properly - that is to say that the oaths are in order, then the actors are bonded by the comptroller of the Treasury.Originally Posted by mikecz
Once you have the court established properly - that is to say that the oaths are in order, then the actors are bonded by the comptroller of the Treasury.
The federal reserve note is a dual purpose note. By endorsing you claim in to be one thing, by not, you claim it to be another.
All you need is documentation of you claim, and you have tax free money. David, this is about taxes...right?
Separating the two currencies, and their value, is a whole other battle, this is about waging a personal war with the IRS. I think I get it...You have setup a default judgement, a LoR (for all past personal conduct), a evidence repository (for future proof of non endorsement), a refusal for cause as a first line of defense, and a signature card with the bank. Well done.
Last edited by mikecz; 01-27-13 at 05:13 AM.
Redemption is claim upon the original estate as heir apparent - at least to me. It follows a redemption model like found in the Bible.
If I had 30% of my year's wages tied up on account then it would be about taxes - at least for me.
Remedy is between your ears.
I am rethinking the Signature Card from the bank. It seems to me that the OCC has sent out a memorandum, but not publicly. If so publicly I might have missed it. But the banks are starting to refuse the novation to the Signature contract. No problem. That is easy to get around if the banks are refusing across the board. Serve the nearest Fed bank. Then serve that Proof of Service on your bank and forget about the Signature Card. Keep non-endorsing your paychecks when you can but your demand is already properly done.
You have summarized some points but I disagree about waging a personal war with the IRS or anybody. There is a battlefield and you want to extract yourself by execution of law. This thing about oaths is getting your day in court - but only after assuring that the court is competent and the actors are bound to abide in the (state and federal) bills of rights.
David,
I agree on the waging a war part, that might have been the knob creek talking.
I was wandering if you could clear something up. Can I legally refuse legal tender (in this case FRNs)? I run a real estate business, rent/sell homes, and get paid in cash and check. I know tender laws are there for a reason, the main example I've seen is if someone is at a restaurant, and finishes the meal, then the owner demands to be paid in yen. The client doesn't have it, so whatever, he goes to jail. A debt is established, legal tender must be accepted.
But for something like a service, like a bus station, or convenience store, since no debt is present prior to the transaction, the owner can refuse payment. I'm just wandering if it's even worth trying to get a few of my tenants paying me in lawful money? I guess it's not really important, the biggest part of it being documentation at the bank, but, it would be something to be paid in lawful money. Probably for the land contracts I have, a debt is established, so we can just chalk that up as no. But for the rentals, that is a little different, I could put that in the lease to be paid in such a way...
My opinion: No.
Legal tender laws are obligations on creditors. Creditors must accept the tender of FRNs by debtors.
There is also the problem of your profession. I'm sure real estate is a "covered employment" as well as a public interest attaching thereto.
If you are incorporated, there is another latch as well.
I'm sure you are insured as well......
HJR-192 is the non-law (resolution) that made it illegal to stipulate a gold clause but that has been rescinded with the Emergency. So you can make payment whatever you like in the contract. Going to a Chinese restaurant in America I doubt they could do anything if you offered FRNs even if they preferred yen; even if they put up a notice you pay in yen. Speaking of that I got paid in some barter points on a private currency system and there were a bunch of local professionals and merchants participating. The Chinese restaurant was sold and I did not see the sign that they were not honoring the barter system, the new owners. So it came time to pay and the animated new owners were very annoyed that I did not notice the sign. So I paid them in cash. I argued that they had bought into the barter system when they bought the restaurant. They did not see it that way at all.
As I live this vicariously through suitors I believe the big part is not the doumentation at the bank, it is keeping a record of your demand. It would seem with electronic deposit anymore that a Notice and Demand is best made directly to the nearest Fed Bank and that proof of service published in the USDC (hopefully you can get a $46 Miscellaneous Case opened; we are working on that) and then you simply serve that on your bank and forget about the Signature Card if you like one of the banks that does not like non-endorsement. They are served and your demand is clear. You have done your part.
So the Lesson Plan is still:
1) learn your identity
2) record forming
3) redeeming lawful money
It would seem this is no silver bullet but it consistently improves your ability to Refuse for Cause unwanted presentments, including innovations to current contracts. Like you point out, the Constitution and natural law both protect the obligations of contract.
Imposing certain payment, like in gold or silver coin etc. on tenants sounds like a bad idea. If you maintain rental properties you already have your hands full keeping tenants happy.
Last edited by David Merrill; 01-27-13 at 03:14 PM.
HJR-192 was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Perry v. U.S. (1935).
The real substance of the confiscation of gold was was the power of condemnation/eminent domain.
By documentation, I meant the record or paper trail is kept of your demand.
I still need to understand this refusal for cause a little better. What thread would you recommend?
in what form of payment can the united states pay its interest on debt?
Last edited by mikecz; 01-28-13 at 03:31 AM.
Originally posted by Franco:
Dave, I have been reading here and there on your site. Lots of good information. I still don’t understand it all very well, especially the Trust section. Presently, I am receiving retirement benefits from Social security. I receive the benefits by law through direct deposit in a bank here in Texas. I know that :
1. The Social Security Trust Funds are the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and the Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Funds.
2. They are managed by Department of Treasury.
3. A Board of Trustees oversees the financial operations of the trust funds. The Board reports annually to the Congress on the financial status of the trust funds.
4. By law trust funds must be invested in securities that guarantee both principal and interest.
5. Would that prevent me from demanding lawful money. I don’t get my check in the mail anymore. Because of new federal law I had to put my check in a bank through direct deposit. This prevents me from signing for non-indorsement on the check. Can I sign for non-indorsement on the withdrawal slip ?
Thank you Franco
p.s. if i posted in wrong place or some other error . i have lots to learn.
Merrill” You seem to have answered your own question.
1. I guess you are right I did answer my own question. “In the United States, the Social Security Trust Fund is a fund operated by the Social Security Administration into which are paid payroll tax contributions from workers and employers. Out of this funds the benefit payments are made to retirees, survivors, and the disabled, and for general administrative expenses. The fund also earns interest…”
2. So as I understand it it’s supported by taxes.(payroll taxes).
3. This taxes are invested in securities. (I.O.U. s)
4. The monies to cover benefits payments from trust fund come from redemption or sale of securities. (I.O.U.s)
5. So to make a demand for lawful monies on my social security benefits would be like asking to prevent paying taxes on a tax.
6. The social security act also states that I have no accrued property right on the benefits I receive.
“I went over this with a new suitor yesterday and it is the same conditioning that affects a limited displacement hysteria about Signature Cards.
I will try to clarify: People around here feel the bank is being unresponsive to your demand for lawful money? – To the contrary! Especially folks who have letters from the bank... You have proof of service
that you made your demand right there in your hand! Can you stop your whirring mind long enough to let that sink in?”
a. I have yet to approach the bank to make a demand for lawful monies.
b. I was also provided information that making a demand for lawful monies at the bank for social security benefits is not advised, especially if I am already receiving direct deposit.
c. IRS is already getting ready to garnish $49,000.00 I don’t have; so I want to understand what I am doing here before I make a mistake and it results in me owing more. I already went through CTC that’s how i ended up with a big liability. The only way I slowed them down to this point in time was by showing the U.S. Tax court some constant procedure violations made by the “service”.
[If I posted that on the wrong place or some other error...] Get it?
That is conditioning too; but I plan to try clawing my way through this disguise (Re: The Wall) around here with some forceful posts in appropriate threads soon.
Do you USE your SSN for insurance policy identification/claim only? no
If I ask you, Do you have a Social Security Number? – Would you answer, Yes? My answer would be “No” unless you are making a request under a lawfully applied to you.
Why would you say that to me? Well every Tom, Dick and Harry request it now days, but
According to law only specific agencies can ask for it.
Are you making a claim on an insurance policy with me?
Answer: No. I do not have a Social Security Number (for you, David Merrill).
Thank you for listening and providing information. Franco
Originally posted by Franco:
Dave, I have been reading here and there on your site. Lots of good information. I still don’t understand it all very well, especially the Trust section. Presently, I am receiving retirement benefits from Social security. I receive the benefits by law through direct deposit in a bank here in Texas. I know that :
1. The Social Security Trust Funds are the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and the Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Funds.
2. They are managed by Department of Treasury.
3. A Board of Trustees oversees the financial operations of the trust funds. The Board reports annually to the Congress on the financial status of the trust funds.
4. By law trust funds must be invested in securities that guarantee both principal and interest.
5. Would that prevent me from demanding lawful money. I don’t get my check in the mail anymore. Because of new federal law I had to put my check in a bank through direct deposit. This prevents me from signing for non-indorsement on the check. Can I sign for non-indorsement on the withdrawal slip ?
Thank you Franco
p.s. if i posted in wrong place or some other error . i have lots to learn.
Merrill” You seem to have answered your own question.
1. I guess you are right I did answer my own question. “In the United States, the Social Security Trust Fund is a fund operated by the Social Security Administration into which are paid payroll tax contributions from workers and employers. Out of this funds the benefit payments are made to retirees, survivors, and the disabled, and for general administrative expenses. The fund also earns interest…”
2. So as I understand it it’s supported by taxes.(payroll taxes).
3. This taxes are invested in securities. (I.O.U. s)
4. The monies to cover benefits payments from trust fund come from redemption or sale of securities. (I.O.U.s)
5. So to make a demand for lawful monies on my social security benefits would be like asking to prevent paying taxes on a tax.
6. The social security act also states that I have no accrued property right on the benefits I receive.
“I went over this with a new suitor yesterday and it is the same conditioning that affects a limited displacement hysteria about Signature Cards.
I will try to clarify: People around here feel the bank is being unresponsive to your demand for lawful money? – To the contrary! Especially folks who have letters from the bank... You have proof of service
that you made your demand right there in your hand! Can you stop your whirring mind long enough to let that sink in?”
a. I have yet to approach the bank to make a demand for lawful monies.
b. I was also provided information that making a demand for lawful monies at the bank for social security benefits is not advised, especially if I am already receiving direct deposit.
c. IRS is already getting ready to garnish $49,000.00 I don’t have; so I want to understand what I am doing here before I make a mistake and it results in me owing more. I already went through CTC that’s how i ended up with a big liability. The only way I slowed them down to this point in time was by showing the U.S. Tax court some constant procedure violations made by the “service”.
[If I posted that on the wrong place or some other error...] Get it?
That is conditioning too; but I plan to try clawing my way through this disguise (Re: The Wall) around here with some forceful posts in appropriate threads soon.
Do you USE your SSN for insurance policy identification/claim only? no
If I ask you, Do you have a Social Security Number? – Would you answer, Yes? My answer would be “No” unless you are making a request under a lawfully applied to you.
Why would you say that to me? Well every Tom, Dick and Harry request it now days, but
According to law only specific agencies can ask for it.
Are you making a claim on an insurance policy with me?
Answer: No. I do not have a Social Security Number (for you, David Merrill).
Thank you for listening and providing information. Franco
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote