My first steps to redeeming Lawful Money are underway, but I need guidance.

[Franco]

Once again thank you Gerdes, for the breakdown on the subject and clarifying it for me.
David thank you for your added helping hand. After taking a look at what I wrote down in my reply to Gerdes, I can understand what you are telling me I need more under standing concerning lawful monies. That is why I apologized to Gerdes. He had wrote the answer very plainly. And in my reply I was still going on about the “U.S. citizen”.(but that letter had already been mailed)
I hadn’t look at the cite because no one had responded. That night I saw his reply . I read half of what he said; I was in such a hurry to respond, I didn’t read through the whole reply. Anyway this is what I understand.
(1). I already signed an agreement(signature card) with the bank where I stated, “all transaction and deposits demanded in lawful monies pursuant to title 12 section 411.” I signed with my true name First Middle dba FIRST, LAST, which is the Cestui Que (Vie) Trust .Because of this signed agreement , I can only receive lawful monies in all my transactions with Chase Bank. The lawful money is not fractionalized because it’s not taxable. On the other hand, FRN’s are an elastic currency which does create an interest(taxes) through fractionalization and are therefore taxed.
(2).The property in the cestui que trust(corporation) is granted to myself(true name)to use for the cestui que.
(3). In fact , I have been cashing my benefit checks with Title 12 section 411 verbiage stamped on the back of every check, and signing true name;First Middle; dba FIRST MIDDLE LAST.
(4). And like Gerdes advised me, even if I am declared a U.S. citizen it doesn’t matter because I only receive lawful monies, which is not fractionalized and not taxable. U.S. Treasury Notes are lawful monies, not legal tender(FRN’s ). That makes me not a taxpayer. A non-taxpayer is not a U.S. Citizen.
(5). The trust of the banks are based on fraud, just like the IRS (corporation);
(6). The bank and myself have already signed an agreement that “all transaction and deposits are demanded in lawful monies pursuant to title 12 section 411.”
(7). Additionally, if the Bank Manager was verbally refusing for cause my novation in direct view of a viedo camara, to the signature card, he is not on solid ground.
1. I already have a signed agreement with the bank that I will be redeeming only lawful monies.
2. Under the four corners rule – intention of parties, "Absent ambiguity, the parties’ intentions must be discerned from the four corners of the document, and extrinsic evidence may not be considered." KY Supreme Court 2007-CA-000498
3. He will also have the additional problem of banks dealing based on fraud.
Thanks for the education. FRANCO or FRANKO
p.s. I have another question but I will put in the proper cite

[David Merrill]

Another way to view it is that remedy is designed for state banks. FRNs are issued solely for state banks. If you order them - Pay to the Order of - typically on your paycheck, then you are acting like a state bank. So you have your remedy as defined here.

Being a US citizen (or not) just brings up side issues and trouble. I am surprised that your bank has not come back on you for your non-endorsement (restricted endorsement).

[Freed Gerdes]

You have accomplished the basics, Franco. You have signed bank account agreements with the redemption demanded. Ignore the banker's verbal abuse, and don't try to change your existing bank contracts; they are sufficient. That should be all you need. Now when it is time to file income taxes, since you are a US citizen and a taxpayer, you will not need to file, since you will have no taxable income (unless you have income taxes withheld by your 'employer') . Note that taxpayer is a category that you choose when you sign up for Social Security, and also an adhesion contract that the bank tries to trick you into on their 'standard' account agreement. This is entirely for the benefit of the Federal Reserve (who issues the private money) and their bulldog, the IRS (who collects the 'interest' on their private credit notes - FRN's). But you can be a US citizen and a taxpayer, and still pay no tax, if you have no taxable income. And transactions conducted in public money are outside the purview of Title 26, which is private law, dealing with private money, so are not taxable income.

There is a lot of information on this forum, and it takes a while for people to realize how screwed up our country is, what with foreign agents seizing the assets of Americans who do not understand how they were tricked into owing taxes which were never levied by Congress, and all without due process. But once you understand that you, as a living person, have access to the district courts, all that is easily stopped, and you can bravely start asserting your rights. Keep at it.

[David Merrill]

I got about twenty seconds in and realized Tami is obviously describing an illusion.

So I shut it off and got back about truth and reality.

I have instructed people trying to avoid getting a birth certificate and SSN for their newborn children. I instruct them to educate the child thoroughly by age 13-14 about their true name and contract/trust law. After all, that is when the illusion Tami is describing would become effective isn't it? So let the child, upon coming into maturity dispel the illusion for him or herself.

[Bentley]

Thanks Freed for your reply.

I'm still trying wrap my brain around this whole concept of lawful money and it's beginning to make sense. What I was trying to point out about only the (federal) employer being liable for withholding is that the whole damn enslavement system is based on the 16th amend. So, the other income taxes, i.e.e social security, fica, self-employment, are all based on the poison fruit of chapter A income tax. Without that, I do not believe 20th century Americans of early last century would have accepted any other 'piggy back' income taxes such as mentioned above.

Bentley

[shikamaru]

What I was trying to point out about only the (federal) employer being liable for withholding is that the whole damn enslavement system is based on the 16th amend.

There was taxation prior to the 16th Amendment.
Income has always been an object of taxation since the Revenue Act of 1861.
Check out Springer v. U.S. (1881) for more details.

One of the primary purposes of the Constitution was to tax.

[Bentley]

There was taxation prior to the 16th Amendment.
Income has always been an object of taxation since the Revenue Act of 1861.
Check out Springer v. U.S. (1881) for more details.

One of the primary purposes of the Constitution was to tax.

I'm assuming you mean 'income' taxation prior to the 16th amendment. Income tax hasn't always been part of our history since the Civil War however. It was the Tax of 1862 which gave a wartime income tax through the creation of the Office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue within the Treasury dept, and then it was eliminated in 1872. It saw a revival in the 1880's but declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court until passage of the 16th amendment in 1913. Thus we have our present day scourge.

Bentley

[shikamaru]

I'm assuming you mean 'income' taxation prior to the 16th amendment. Income tax hasn't always been part of our history since the Civil War however.

Income tax was first done in Britain. It was implemented in the US via the Revenue Act of 1861.

It was the Tax of 1862 which gave a wartime income tax through the creation of the Office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue within the Treasury dept, and then it was eliminated in 1872.

Would happen to have any literature on this? My reference above conflicts with the beginning of your statement.

It saw a revival in the 1880's but declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court until passage of the 16th amendment in 1913. Thus we have our present day scourge.

Would you happen to have the Supreme Court case that says that income tax was unconstitutional?

[Bentley]

Another way to view it is that remedy is designed for state banks. FRNs are issued solely for state banks. If you order them - Pay to the Order of - typically on your paycheck, then you are acting like a state bank. So you have your remedy as defined here.

Being a US citizen (or not) just brings up side issues and trouble. I am surprised that your bank has not come back on you for your non-endorsement (restricted endorsement).

Hello David,

My credit union did not accept my deposit precisely because it stated they could decline any deposit they chose in the agreement pamphlet, and they claimed that the 'redeem' wording was a restrictive deposit. What's my next step then, a generic notice and demand to them?

Thanks,
Bentley

[Bentley]

Chrysler v. Brown 1979
[Footnote 23]
There was virtually no Washington bureaucracy created by the Act of July 1, 1862, ch. 119, 12 Stat. 432, the statute to which the present Internal Revenue Service can be traced. Researchers report that, during the Civil War, 85% of the operations of the Bureau of Internal Revenue were carried out in the field, "including the assessing and collection of taxes, the handling of appeals, and punishment for frauds" -- and this balance of responsibility was not generally upset until the 20th century. L. Schmeckebier & F. Eble, The Bureau of Internal Revenue 8, 40-43 (1923). Agents had the power to enter any home or business establishment to look for taxable property and examine books of accounts. Information was collected and processed in the field. It is, therefore, not surprising to find that congressional comments during this period focused on potential abuses by agents in the field, and not on breaches of confidentiality by a Washington-based bureaucracy.

Also, try googling "Pollock v Farmers loan-1895"










Chrysler v. Brown 1979

[Footnote 23]
There was virtually no Washington bureaucracy created by the Act of July 1, 1862, ch. 119, 12 Stat. 432, the statute to which the present Internal Revenue Service can be traced. Researchers report that, during the Civil War, 85% of the operations of the Bureau of Internal Revenue were carried out in the field, "including the assessing and collection of taxes, the handling of appeals, and punishment for frauds" -- and this balance of responsibility was not generally upset until the 20th century. L. Schmeckebier & F. Eble, The Bureau of Internal Revenue 8, 40-43 (1923). Agents had the power to enter any home or business establishment to look for taxable property and examine books of accounts. Information was collected and processed in the field. It is, therefore, not surprising to find that congressional comments during this period focused on potential abuses by agents in the field, and not on breaches of confidentiality by a Washington-based bureaucracy.

Also, try googling "Pollock v Farmers loan-1895"