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

[David Merrill]

Also, my bank and many others now have ATMs that will take deposits without an envelope. These deposits don't require any signature/endorsement on the back, so why can't a demand for lawful money be made on the front? That way when your receipt, which includes a picture of the checks, is issued you have an instant record of that deposit with lawful money demand.

The deposit slip is your domain in my opinion. It is like a withdrawal slip. Make your demand whenever you are required to sign for cash but it is also good to do so wherever possible. When you get a paycheck though, the front side is the domain of your employer or client.

[EZrhythm]

Then there is issuing NOTICE to the bank, CC: IRS and not even being concerned on a per deposit basis.

[Freed Gerdes]

Franko, you are trying too hard. See how easy EZ makes it look? It is that easy. The bank signature card is your agreement to a contract. The bank, being a corporation, can only contract with another corporation, in this case, your cestui que vie trust, that is your three names in all caps. The bank agreement contains a lot of legal text intended to trap you into an adhesion contract with the IRS (another corporation). But all of that is predicated on your use of FRN's, because the bank's lending against your credit is what triggers the duty to pay income tax. When you redeem lawful money, which is an inelastic currency, actually backed by silver, the bank cannot lend against it, cannot use your deposit as reserves for fractional reserve lending. So now you are outside the purview of Title 26; the transaction in lawful money is not affected by Title 26. So whether you are a US citizen, which makes you a 'taxpayer,' ie, one who must pay income tax, is unimportant, as you have no taxable income. The US citizen has also given up his common law rights and agreed to be bound by Roman law (jurisdiction in Article I courts), but those municipal laws only apply to corporations, such as your CQV trust, not to you as a human person. So the most you need to put on a bank account agreement is "all transactions redeemed in lawful money per 12 USC §411," and "All rights reserved per UCC 1-207" Or as EZ puts it: just notice your bank with your demand, and leave the signature page alone.

Finally, Bentley, you say only the employer has a duty (and I agree, where you file a W-4, asking him to withhold), but what about other things than wages being taxed? Such as capital gains? What is that tax on, being there is no employer? So the demand for lawful money covers anything the IRS wants to include, all based on the use of Federal Reserve credit. Don't use the credit, don't be liable for the tax. This is tax avoidance, not evasion.

Freed

[Moxie]

Then there is issuing NOTICE to the bank, CC: IRS and not even being concerned on a per deposit basis.

So you're saying it's a simple as making any other NOTICE, for example:

NOTICE: USC Title 12 Section 411, Demand For Lawful Money

Any other vitals I missed?

[David Merrill]

There are suitors serving Notice and Demand on their local Federal Reserve Bank and then serving that on their bank. We start by getting a commission certificate from the Secretary of State on the notary. Then we file for an evidence repository in the US District Court - either a $46 Miscellaneous Case File or a $350 Libel of Review (civil counterclaim). Then the Notice and Demand is served on the Fed bank so to get a proof of service. That marked up Notice and Demand with the proof of service is finally served on the bank.

Whenever signing for cash it is wise to make the Demand though.



P.S. The more effective approach is to be the court of record.

[Franco]

Franko, you are trying too hard. See how easy EZ makes it look? It is that easy. The bank signature card is your agreement to a contract. The bank, being a corporation, can only contract with another corporation, in this case, your cestui que vie trust, that is your three names in all caps. The bank agreement contains a lot of legal text intended to trap you into an adhesion contract with the IRS (another corporation). But all of that is predicated on your use of FRN's, because the bank's lending against your credit is what triggers the duty to pay income tax. When you redeem lawful money, which is an inelastic currency, actually backed by silver, the bank cannot lend against it, cannot use your deposit as reserves for fractional reserve lending. So now you are outside the purview of Title 26; the transaction in lawful money is not affected by Title 26. So whether you are a US citizen, which makes you a 'taxpayer,' ie, one who must pay income tax, is unimportant, as you have no taxable income. The US citizen has also given up his common law rights and agreed to be bound by Roman law (jurisdiction in Article I courts), but those municipal laws only apply to corporations, such as your CQV trust, not to you as a human person. So the most you need to put on a bank account agreement is "all transactions redeemed in lawful money per 12 USC §411," and "All rights reserved per UCC 1-207" Or as EZ puts it: just notice your bank with your demand, and leave the signature page alone.

Finally, Bentley, you say only the employer has a duty (and I agree, where you file a W-4, asking him to withhold), but what about other things than wages being taxed? Such as capital gains? What is that tax on, being there is no employer? So the demand for lawful money covers anything the IRS wants to include, all based on the use of Federal Reserve credit. Don't use the credit, don't be liable for the tax. This is tax avoidance, not evasion.

Freed

Mr. Gerdes , thank you for answering my questions . I appreciate it.
I did read you statement. I found you statement , “The bank, being a corporation, can only contract with another corporation, in this case, your cestui que vie trust, that is your three names in all caps.” Interesting. I wonder I you can help with following:
Question: (1). I have already opened 3 accounts. Each account has a signature card with my true name; First and Middle name; and dba FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL and LAST NAME. all three signature card are stamped all transaction and deposits demanding lawful money pursuant to title 12 section 411. On or about the 3 day after I had signed the signature card I went back to the bank to request that I be allowed to cross out words “under penalty of perjury” and add the words “signed for” with an arrow pointing to “U.S. Citizen and “U.S. person” . she told me she could not allow me to do that , because it would make the signature card void.
(2). About 3 weeks ago I wrote a certified mail document to chase bank who I now do business with. I stated: that the IRS cannot inspect any of my bank records unless I have specifically authorized such inspection by executing IRS Form 6014. I will not sign a W-9. If I did sign W-9 form it was through coercion.I also said, I AM also NOT a U.S.Citizen or other U.S. PERSON (as defined in the Form W-9 instructions.) However, I am signing for the U.S. Citizen or other person.
(3) About a week later after I mailed the certified letter I walked into the Bank to make a deposit. The Bank manger Mr. Rodriguez said he needed to talke to me. His question was concerning the citizenship question. He asked if I was a U.S. citizen? I told him I was born in Texas . he said but you are a U.S. Citizen? I said I was born in the U.S. but…” he didn’t let me finish .
(4). So I would say it’s my statement in my certified mailing versus He verbal statement to me at the bank. So I have the edge. I have written evidence, he doesn’t.
(5). In your reply to me, you said “The bank signature card is your agreement to a contract.
(6). The bank, being a corporation, can only contract with another corporation, in this case, your cestui que vie trust, that is your three names in all caps.”
(a) So if the bank is contracting with my cestui que vie trust(another corporation)then its signing the contract with the “U.S. Citizen or other U.S. person” not me?
(b) I have been over this cite and the familyguardian cite concerning the U.S. Citizen definition AND this cite and familyguardian cite are confusing.
(c) I just want to know that if I am not a U.S. Citizen , what am I? a Constitutional citizen.
(d) The “signing for” the U.S. citizen was a recommendation by Mr. Merrill.
I would appreciate any answers you can help me with . Franco

[Franco]

Franko, you are trying too hard. See how easy EZ makes it look? It is that easy. The bank signature card is your agreement to a contract. The bank, being a corporation, can only contract with another corporation, in this case, your cestui que vie trust, that is your three names in all caps. The bank agreement contains a lot of legal text intended to trap you into an adhesion contract with the IRS (another corporation). But all of that is predicated on your use of FRN's, because the bank's lending against your credit is what triggers the duty to pay income tax. When you redeem lawful money, which is an inelastic currency, actually backed by silver, the bank cannot lend against it, cannot use your deposit as reserves for fractional reserve lending. So now you are outside the purview of Title 26; the transaction in lawful money is not affected by Title 26. So whether you are a US citizen, which makes you a 'taxpayer,' ie, one who must pay income tax, is unimportant, as you have no taxable income. The US citizen has also given up his common law rights and agreed to be bound by Roman law (jurisdiction in Article I courts), but those municipal laws only apply to corporations, such as your CQV trust, not to you as a human person. So the most you need to put on a bank account agreement is "all transactions redeemed in lawful money per 12 USC §411," and "All rights reserved per UCC 1-207" Or as EZ puts it: just notice your bank with your demand, and leave the signature page alone.

Finally, Bentley, you say only the employer has a duty (and I agree, where you file a W-4, asking him to withhold), but what about other things than wages being taxed? Such as capital gains? What is that tax on, being there is no employer? So the demand for lawful money covers anything the IRS wants to include, all based on the use of Federal Reserve credit. Don't use the credit, don't be liable for the tax. This is tax avoidance, not evasion.

Freed

Mr. Gerdes , I apologize, you already gave me the answers . you said
“So whether you are a US citizen, which makes you a 'taxpayer,' ie,
one who must pay income tax, is unimportant, as you have no taxable income.
The US citizen has also given up his common law rights and agreed to be bound by Roman law
(jurisdiction in Article I courts), but those municipal laws only apply to corporations,
such as your CQV trust, not to you as a human person.”
I thank you , it 3 in the moring. Making mistakes.”
Franco

[David Merrill]

Franko;


I feel that once you have the remedy understood - demanding lawful money - which you accomplished on the signature cards the citizenship issue becomes moot. If you understand the cestui que vie trust law then the legal entity becomes a tool for your use.

From what I read the bank manager was Refusing for Cause your novation to the signature card. He just did it verbally in front of the bank's security cameras. - Not in writing.

[Bentley]

There are suitors serving Notice and Demand on their local Federal Reserve Bank and then serving that on their bank. We start by getting a commission certificate from the Secretary of State on the notary. Then we file for an evidence repository in the US District Court - either a $46 Miscellaneous Case File or a $350 Libel of Review (civil counterclaim). Then the Notice and Demand is served on the Fed bank so to get a proof of service. That marked up Notice and Demand with the proof of service is finally served on the bank.

Whenever signing for cash it is wise to make the Demand though.



P.S. The more effective approach is to be the court of record.

Hi David,

As this is new to me and I am still learning, is the civil counterclaim filed when an IRS levy is filed against a soon to be suitor?

Thanks,
Bentley

[David Merrill]

Hi David,

As this is new to me and I am still learning, is the civil counterclaim filed when an IRS levy is filed against a soon to be suitor?

Thanks,
Bentley

For years we (suitors) have been enjoying success with the Libel of Review. It evolves and this rendition is from May of 2012. For over five years we have integrated Lawful Money Demand into the LoR and that has greatly augmented successful results in the brain trust.

The LoR itself is always dismissed but review the 'saving to suitors' clause itself. The Judiciary Act (1789) guarantees a suitor the "exclusive original cognizance" of the US government regarding any seizures on land. I developed the LoR from direct experience of (one of) the authors from Are You Lost at C? - c. 1995.

As the time went on I found myself repeating answers to questions so I collected the early suitors together in an Open-Faced Email Broadcast. This launched an era of echo chambers for me. I began utilizing chat rooms on the Internet to form ideas and theories and refining them in conversations on this "brain trust" of suitors. Soon it became necessary to define and describe what a suitor is.

In order to groom the quality of ideas exchanged on the brain trust we set up a rule early on. One would need to have a default judgment published before they could broadcast. This still works well for a general rule but the actual rule has since been discarded because there have never been any problems with new suitors broadcasting before they have the default judgment in place. All those conversations are quite intelligent and civil with an inherent understanding of how one will develop remedy by projection/reflection as they complete the Lesson Plan impelled by the LoR process.

This website is the next evolution into a more public access than the brain trust. StSC here has been a guidestone that there is access to the law and remedy can be successfully applied. The outward sign of the remedy is a full refund of withholdings but you may notice that I do not tout that much. A 35% pay raise though, that is the edge needed to logically ward off the effects of a diminished value stock certificate system (of the central bank) known as Federal Reserve notes. This seems to be what captures the imagination. When one is getting back these funds loaned to the IRS in withholdings then one starts to encounter an evolution of mental models. Think about what I just wrote - instead of being the debtor, one becomes the creditor. Somebody discovered that in those terms here on StSC just a couple days ago! Ergo you might get a glimpse of echo chambers. Ideas bounce around and either die off or are developed based in filters we apply naturally to protect our beliefs.

That is probably enough for you to develop an understanding. Thanks for asking.



Regards,

David Merrill.