Page 10 of 17 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 168

Thread: Resistance and Refusal by Banks

  1. #91
    If I might (continue to) impose my understanding of American remedy on yours the Memorandum attached to the 843 Form might read something like:


    Dear IRS Agent;


    I feel that all my career life I have been a victim of Fraud by Omission because nobody ever taught me the remedy was there in §16 of the Federal Reserve Act and codified at Title 12 USC §411. I estimate because of your collusion in this fraud that you owe me about $400K in back taxes. Notice on the 834 Form that I am claiming that amount to be $0 instead and hope that you can appreciate this act of forgiveness.

    In return I am expecting that you will honor my demand to redeem lawful money as expressed on the attached 1040 Form and evidenced by my properly redeemed (copies) paychecks.


    Thank you,

  2. #92
    Thanks for your thoughtful insights, David. I have a few residual questions concerning the process, and the presumed (or feared) response of the IRS.

    1. Redeeming lawful money, whether by stamp on a check, or by service of the recorded demand on the bank, creates the same result: demand has been made to refuse to deal in private credit/money substitutes, and this switch to public money puts the resulting transaction out of the reach of the IRS. I only use this method because I never see any checks; SSA has just forced everyone to use direct deposit. The same with my stock accounts; when I sell a stock they just credit my account; no check appears that I could non-endorse. I suspect this is to keep suitors from non-endorsing the checks (but maybe I am giving the IMF lawyers too much credit here). Thus the only way to make the demand is by changing the signature card, and the banks are being trained to refuse this request. Now they can't refuse the demand, as it exists in the federal law that created the Federal Reserve system. But most people will not know this, and will be intimidated by the banks' refusal. Because the account agreement is a private contract, can BofA say that 12USC411 attempts to interfere with a private contract, and thus is void? Alternately, their only option would be to close the account, which they could do, but they haven't. They are apparently claiming that the account was not changed to an irregular deposit account. I will go in tomorrow and try to open an irregular deposit account.

    2. I get 1099's which show purported money movements, so I need to file a return. I am debating whether to not show the income received after July at all, and defer to the statement that after July it was all redeemed, or to show it all and then back it out on Line 21 and provide an addendum which lists all transactions after July.

    3. Making the demand for lawful money converts the bank account from a Federal Reserve Account (insured by FDIC for $250k) to an irregular deposit account, which changes the relationship from one of debtor (bank) and unsecured creditor (me) to one of bailor (me) and bailee (bank). In the one case I make a loan to the bank (I pay an excise tax on the privilege of being a state bank), and in the other I keep title to the money and only use the bank for secure storage and bookkeeping functions. The Supreme Court ruled in 1894 that an income tax was repugnant to the Constitution, so when using Constitutional money (ie, any money issued by the Treasury), it can't be taxed. In fact, all these myriad taxes we now face are based on this private money scheme, as they are all* un-Constitutional otherwise. As you noted, Social Security is a benefit, and Congress can levy a tax to pay for a benefit, so SS* is a valid tax, but still an excise tax. As long as you are listed as a US Citizen (thus eligible for SS), you cannot get out of paying the SS tax, and it is extracted before you ever see it. Redeeming lawful money will not get you a refund of the SS tax; only opting out of SS will stop that tax. For young people, I would heartily recommend opting out. As Johnny Cash shows us, you can quit SS any time you want, and you will still get benefits when you retire, although less because it is based on how much you paid in...
    But, if income tax is a valid tax, what is the benefit? Apparently, we all benefit from the Fed printing more worthless paper money. I wonder why the Articles expressly forbid this? To get around the Constitutional prohibition, the Fed banksters put the tax on private money. Ergo, don't use private money, and the whole problem goes away.

    4. You suggested that I forgive the IRS for 40 years of fraud. Since money damages for fraud would be an equity claim, there is no statute of limitations: I could ask for a refund of all income taxes I ever paid. Is your concern that the IRS will recognize this in the Notice of Demand (now, ab initio, and nunc pro tunc), realize that they may have a $400,000 claim on their hands, and feel that they have to fight back? Your suggestion that I send a Form 834 would surely make them aware of this issue, in case they somehow missed it before, and since one has to file a separate Form 834 for every tax year, one might not put them at ease. Presuming that I state forgiveness of the entire amount and sign it, they would have some protection against later filings, so maybe that would set them at ease.

    5. I have tried to learn a little about the Clerk of the Superior District Court here in Mecklenburg County, but there is damned little info available. The insider club of practicing attorneys no doubt know all these little tricks, but I haven't a clue how to proceed. Can I just go to the Clerk's office and ask to open a Miscellaneous Case file? What would they file it under, with no pending case or existing case number? And should I put my other records in it? Presumably this is to get evidence into the record in advance, and to let the IRS know that it is in the record (of the court that they would have to go through to get to me). Can you clarify this a little?

    Finally, please note that I do not have any properly redeemed paychecks, as I am retired; all important money transfers occur by direct deposit; that is why I am using the blanket bank account route.

    Thanks again for all your thoughtful comments. I appreciate your concern about not using the remedy until I need it even better now. But I have had the stamp for a year now and haven't used it yet...

  3. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by Freed Gerdes View Post
    Thanks for your thoughtful insights, David. I have a few residual questions concerning the process, and the presumed (or feared) response of the IRS.

    1. Redeeming lawful money, whether by stamp on a check, or by service of the recorded demand on the bank, creates the same result: demand has been made to refuse to deal in private credit/money substitutes, and this switch to public money puts the resulting transaction out of the reach of the IRS. I only use this method because I never see any checks; SSA has just...

    2. I get 1099's which show purported money movements, so I need to file a return. I am debating whether to not show the income received after July at all, and defer to the statement that after July it was all redeemed, or to show it all and then back it out on Line 21 and provide an addendum which lists all transactions after July.

    3. Making the demand for lawful money converts the bank account from a Federal Reserve Account (insured by FDIC for $250k) to an irregular deposit account, which changes the relationship from one of debtor (bank) and unsecured creditor (me) to one of bailor (me) and bailee (bank). In the one case I make a loan to the bank (I pay an excise tax on the privilege of being a state bank), and in the other...

    4. You suggested that I forgive the IRS for 40 years of fraud. Since money damages for fraud would be an equity claim, there is no statute of limitations: I could ask for a refund of all income taxes I ever paid. Is your concern that the IRS will recognize this in the Notice of Demand (now, ab initio, and nunc pro tunc), realize that they may have a $400,000 claim on their hands, and feel that they have to fight back? Your suggestion that I send a Form 834 would surely make them aware of this issue, in case they somehow missed it before, and since one has to file a separate Form 834 for every tax year, one might not put them at ease. Presuming that I state forgiveness of the entire amount and sign it, they would have some protection against later filings, so maybe that would set them at ease.

    5. I have tried to learn a little about the Clerk of the Superior District Court here in Mecklenburg County, but there is damned little info available. The insider club of practicing attorneys no doubt know all these little tricks, but I haven't a clue how to proceed. Can I just go to the Clerk's office and ask to open a Miscellaneous Case file? What would they file it under, with no pending case or existing case number? And should I put my other records in it? Presumably this is to get evidence into the record in advance, and to let the IRS know that it is in the record (of the court that they would have to go through to get to me). Can you clarify this a little?

    Finally, please note that I do not have any properly redeemed paychecks, as I am retired; all important money transfers occur by direct deposit; that is why I am using the blanket bank account route.

    Thanks again for all your thoughtful comments. I appreciate your concern about not using the remedy until I need it even better now. But I have had the stamp for a year now and haven't used it yet...
    an irregular deposit account
    I suggest you start calling it a special deposit account here, and not referring to it as anything irregular when dealing with Customer Service at your bank. It is a great deal of hardship to close down an account and has only happened to two suitors. One, as I showed somewhere here sets up accounts for others and that hardship hit the bank as several employees being fired. So there was a reason to exercise the "Close the Account for Any Reason" clause. But that happened again recently, I believe with a different bank.

    Just recently we have an instance where a single suitor - much like you and the average reader here reported:

    An update in regard to the bank which I refused to re-sign a signature card without the Demand for lawful money verbiage.

    On Friday I received a letter from FSB along with a money order with the proceeds of the account which they closed. The letter reads:

    "Dear N,

    This letter is to inform you that we are exercising our right to close your accounts as stated in your Deposit Account Agreement. I have enclosed a copy of the Deposit Account Agreement along with a money order for the funds in your account.

    Sincerely,
    Nickname
    Branch Manager"

    This is a significant validation because if the Demand was trivial, the bankers would just ignore it as a peculiarity of the customer's personality.


    Item 1. You asked:

    Because the account agreement is a private contract, can BofA say that 12USC411 attempts to interfere with a private contract, and thus is void?
    That may be well the case but the Signature Card Agreement has a clause that the Bank need not explain why they shut down the account. Deduction says you are correct in my opinion.

    They are apparently claiming that the account was not changed to an irregular deposit account.
    Again deductions and presumptions. But intuition says you are correct again too. This is why it is helpful to defer perspective to you as the Patron (bailee as below) who just tracks whether proper Notice and Demand has been made or not.

    Item 2. I am too removed from filing to be very good advice exactly how to fill out the forms. I have seen others do it both ways and get the appropriate refund. There has been only one suitor charged with the $5K FrivPen and that was shortly after he started adding pages of Ed RIVERA's lecture material to his R4C clerk instructions. So I consider that an inadvertant soft sting. The FrivPen is a bill of indictment (confession) against the IRS.

    Item 3. You said:

    Making the demand for lawful money converts the bank account from a Federal Reserve Account (insured by FDIC for $250k) to an irregular deposit account, which changes the relationship from one of debtor (bank) and unsecured creditor (me) to one of bailor (me) and bailee (bank).
    It is delightful to come across a resource like you among the members here at StSC! Thank you for that insight.

    This also discloses that you will be utilizing the bank for their vault for free. Mostly up until now (in the redemption timeline) we (you) have been accepting that the bank might well convert your account to non-interest bearing. Well that leaves the bank storing your money and cashing your checks for no consideration paid by you to the bank.

    It is no wonder that the bank attorneys are figuring it best for the stockholders to just close down the accounts. They have no fee schedule for special deposit only accounts!

    Item 4. That sort of thing. I do not like people getting hurt because they listen to my postings on the Internet. But more the truth in Ignorance of the Law is no excuse. The central banks, mainly the Fed have been banking on your endorsement signature and undoing that will cause... well, the damage we are doing. I have phrased it as carefully regulated release valves for a highly compressed information infrastructure (falsity that debt is money). You can blow the lid off the whole deal but don't be surprised what comes along with what you wish for. I for one like cell phones and flush toilets...


    Item 5.

    We are finding that the USDC clerks are tightening up about MC filing rules. We have found success though, by Applying for an Order and putting the Notice and Demand right there on the front page. So the Notice and Demand gets a FILED stamping in wet ink. The Application is fluff but the clerk of court files the Application and therefore the Notice and Demand gets published.
    Last edited by David Merrill; 02-25-13 at 05:12 PM.

  4. #94
    Bank of America continues to be the local distributor of propaganda against lawful money. Here is link to their latest letter: http://imageshack.us/content_round.p...285/001mdc.jpg In it they repeat their corporate position that my demand "has no legal relevance," then go on to cite the propaganda found at the Federal Reserve website: http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_15197.htm which cites the Milam case and then BofA uses this flimsy misdirection to state that they are under no obligation to provide gold or silver for my demand. The bank manager is feeling the squeeze, as he had not mailed the letter, dated Feb 26, but gave it to me personally when I went to see him today Mar 6. The letter also asks me to stop bothering their staff with this frivolous demand, as they do not want to discuss it further. I am reminded of the Air Force saying, "when you start getting heavy flack, you are definitely over the target." They have discovered that i am not easily misdirected.

    My situation is a little different from most suitors because I am retired, have no wages, and am receiving SS benefits. I have investigated the link between SS and income tax, and conclude that SS is 'just another income tax', but cannot be the basis of the income tax, as it was passed 22 years after the income tax law. The key to both is the contract by which you agree to become a US citizen, and thus a taxpayer. But nowhere does either of these contracts (the SS-5 or the Form 1040) state that you have voluntarily surrendered your right to the remedy found at 12 USC §411. The SS contract specifies two conditions under which benefits can be withheld: 42USC§402 (t), which deals with aliens out of the country and (u), which deals with conviction for treason/espionage. I also read somewhere (but lost the link) that benefits could be withheld if the claimant changed status so as to become a non-taxpayer (presumably a non-resident alien class would do it, since such a person does not need or get a SS#). I do not see any obvious way to connect the two programs, although there is a claim in the Code which says that anyone who receives a govt benefit is a taxpayer. I could go the freeman route, but that would break the contract with SSA, which would likely cause the IRS to at least try to cut off my SS benefits. So I need to go the UCC route, or do I just ignore BofA? Anyone else reporting this issue?

    I made a trip to the Clerk of Superior District Court today, but they provided as little help as possible. I could see a possible Claim against BofA based on their refusal to allow redemption under 12 USC §411, and while this seems like it would be pretty easy, based on a statement of my rights under the statute, and challenging them to rebut the statute, and provide a copy of any contract in which I had knowingly and voluntarily surrendered my right to access the statute, but I am not sure this would be valuable. The Clerk indicated that I would have to file a Claim to open a case file, cost $200. This would at least get some un-rebutted statements into the court record, as BofA cannot rebut the statute, and whenever UCC and statute conflict, the statute prevails, so they are unlikely to respond. There is also the claim that since many transactions now occur by direct deposit (SWIFT system, unless you are Iran), refusing to allow redemptions of the entire account deprives me of the right, granted in the statute, not to contract with the Federal Reserve (which is itself a crime defined in 18 USC ?). Suppose I get all this into an affidavit, and 30 days passes without rebuttal; a judge is unlikely to order the bank to provide the account, but at least I have established that use of redemption takes the transaction out of private law and thus out of IRS jurisdiction. It is my understanding that UCC affidavits are the only successful way to proceed in District Court, as they are not judges but administrators of the corporate bylaws (all contract law, no rights). So I am inclined at this point to ignore the BofA account this year, as it has no taxable income in it anyway, and just go with the two stock accounts, both of which took my demand gracefully. And I will begin inquiries at other banks to see if the Fed has gotten the word out everywhere to resist redemptions under 12 USC §411.

    Can anyone comment on this apparently new push by the Fed to seal up the 'lawful money' issue with more mis-information? And can anyone provide me with some guidance on the approach and value of a UCC filing? I am studying the UCC, The Supreme Law Firm (Paul Andrew Mitchell's work), and the Freedom School (Nord Davis, Jr), and I find all of it fascinating, and it is beginning to become a coherent matrix in my mind, but there is a lot of material, and only rarely anything that is relevant to my situation.

    PS and OT, but I filed my Demand with the Clerk of Deeds, which is a public record, but not in the District Court. Do I need to refile? If I apply for an Order, what would that look like? I understand contract law, and have a decent handle on how the UCC is organized, but am clueless on how to operate the machine...
    Last edited by Freed Gerdes; 03-11-13 at 04:49 PM.

  5. #95
    Can anyone comment on this apparently new push by the Fed to seal up the 'lawful money' issue with more mis-information?

    I really don't know how that can be done. Congress might repeal Title 12 USC §411? I do not think that is possible while the Fed exists because §16 is so integral to the Fed Act itself.

  6. #96
    Sorry to have misled you - I never intended to suggest that Congress could repeal 12 USC §411. Obviously they could not, as absent the remedy to redeem, the Federal Reserve Act itself would be a law which forced persons into contract, and such laws are not allowed. No, what I meant is that I suspect a blitz of new, stronger propaganda and mis-direction by the Fed's controlled media, including their web site, probably some new IRS 'guidance,' etc. It means that the IRS is seeing a lot of redemption, and they are pushing back.

  7. #97
    There is some difficulty opening a Miscellaneous Case file or two. One suitor who has been trying will finally file Notice and Demand as a civil suit for $350. But it is worth it to him. Instead of $46 it costs $350 but here is a rough draft attached. I should add that a Commission Certificate ($5 typically from the SoS) should be added prior to filing at the USDC. One should also be familiar with filling out the Summons and Civil Cover Sheet.

    You bring something to light in your quest.

    This is me, but I do not believe there can be a formal or even covert information campaign against remedy. Well, covert implies that officials will be in trouble if they get caught at it so...

    Plug "redeeming lawful money" into a search engine and give it a spin. That is probably the way to find information and of course any misinformation campaigns - look on the Internet. If you have other ways, I want to hear them - but newspapers and TV seem much less effective for shaping the global mindset to me. You will find one fellow has killed a once popular website with his slurs against American remedy from the Fed. You got me curious last night and he is still at it and there are still less than 10 guests when I looked. I don't mention it by name because I am tickled pink that he is destroying that chat board; and especially that he is just too stubborn to admit it is him and his hatred toward me that is the demise of a once popular haunt for attorney-types.

    My theory is basically that almost everybody uses monakers so that others will not show up on their doorstep. It would not be wise since Wesley SERRA is a New York tort attorney but I could hurt StSC here by posting his private email address. Even if you dislike Wesley it just feels yuckey. I think what it is, is that you, being kind and sympathetic would put yourself in his shoes and imagine what that must feel like if you were him - me exposing him like that.

    You might even feel a twinge of fear if you, like me have come into a huge case of cyber-terets and blurt everything about yourself. Or that anybody can track your monaker to your front door with only a few bucks and clicks.

    Otherwise if you explore the thread and elsewhere you find infantile backpatting in a small cliche of diehards who just love to hate. They heavily moderated me throughout the thread and finally banished me for redacting examples! Well there is my point - they banished me for protecting peoples' privacy and Wesley is destroying the website by posting links to cases that reveal home addresses and SSNs. That feels like crap and the website is paying for it. A few children remain to carry on the task of making each other feel smart by reiterating over and over just how stupid people enjoying ourselves over here are.

    My point being that obviously a lot of good people are guided by their gut while jockeying their mice in cyberspace. I am sure you are here because you enjoy it, or maybe even need this kind of information. This leads me to suggest that you (and any readers too) develop the discussion yourselves. Run the search engines and look for any campaigns against redeeming lawful money and post the links. I have been doing that for quite some time. I do that to find and encourage others out there (echo chambers) whenever I get blue.



    Regards,

    David Merrill.



    P.S. Do me a favor please. When you see the link to "Q" - please do not post any links there here! For that matter, please do not even go there. It will make you sick to your stomach.

    P.P.S. Obviously you are expected to distinguish between slurs against remedy and slurs against my character. In America a man is innocent until proven guilty and I support that.
    Attached Files Attached Files
    Last edited by David Merrill; 03-07-13 at 03:16 PM.

  8. #98
    Senior Member Brian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Earth, Alpha Quadrant.
    Posts
    142
    Let them repeal USCA12 section 411. Fine, have at it (if they even can). Below my signature on my checks will be the following "Redeem for U.S. Current Coin and deposit in account XXXX" Signed: Me

    Pay to the order of: Me

    My order is take this paper check and get current coin then deposit it in my account.

    Current coin = Lawful Money of the U.S.

    Bank: but but but its so heavy, cumbersome and a nuisance logistically to handle.

    Me: Then quit devaluing the damn money, otherwise it's not my problem carry out my order good day.

  9. #99
    @ Brian: I do not forsee any effort to actually repeal the remedy at 12 USC §411, only to darken its name. Notice how effectively the cartel has damaged the reputation of gold, the only true money. Their propaganda machine is truly amazing, because people are mentally lazy and do not want to do the mental work of understanding. I blame TV, which is a hypnotic device that encourages the viewer to just mindlessly accept whatever is presented. Whatever. check this article by JS Kim about the propaganda program against gold: http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed...ion-today-yo-0

    @ David: I noticed a long string of ad hominem attacks against you by one particular fellow, who pretty clearly outed himself as either a raging egotist or a shill for the banksters. Most of the folks on this site are here because they want to be (freedom to associate), and because they want to learn. You are clearly an honest teacher, and the world needs more of those. As to the search for sites bashing remedy, I will admit that I never considered looking for them; there are lots of sites, and zillions of Utube videos about evading income taxes, and surely they are universally worthless or have definite negative value. This is the only site I have found that understands the value of tax avoidance. As to sharing on the net, I don't post anything I wouldn't want to see reported on the 6 o'clock news. Big Brother is watching, and there is no privacy on the net, but so what? Obama and his thugs can't drone the entire population, and there are lots and lots of much more visible targets than me. I put up quite a bit of personal info because my situation is different (I suspect, based on other's posted questions/issues), and I am trolling for insight from the rest of your brain trust. I like Treefarmer's approach the best: be exempt because you say you are exempt. After finally realizing that municipal laws, such as those promulgated by the US Federal government (a corporation) do not apply to live humans, I can appreciate his view a lot better. And this analysis of Roman Law as practiced by Article I courts by Mary Croft shows the clear path to avoiding municipal laws: http://musicians4freedom.com/wp-cont...HAT-TO-SAY.pdf. Beautiful information. and I have no interest in looking for the Q site, as the riff-raff from it is obnoxious...

    ps many thanks for the form/substance of the generic demand filed as a civil suit; since the Fed has responsibility for supervising the banks, might as well go to the top. And a District Court summons will get a response. thanks
    Last edited by Freed Gerdes; 03-08-13 at 08:28 AM.

  10. #100
    IMHO – this is what I would do. Edit as you see fit.

    It is to be sent by registered mail ONLY


    NOTICE OF BOA’S REFUSAL TO OPEN ACCOUNT WHEN DEMAND IS MADE FOR LAWFUL MONEY

    Dear Mr. Bank President, CEO, or board of director [as appropriate]

    On June 1, 1960, I began the process of …………… [tell your story and provide copies of letters from the PERSONS that corresponded to you]

    I do not understand bank personnel’s refusal to follow the law? This is a simple, reasonable lawful request. 12 USC 411 is not my personal law; it is a law of the United States. Is it not anyone’s right to demand lawful money and bank personnel MUST comply? It appears it not optional for the bank to deny this demand. Please correct me, if I am mistaken on this matter.

    The latest correspondence from BOA employee [name] dated [date] refers to the Milam Case. I do not know if [Name] is not too bright or if [Name] believes I am not too bright. The case is clear if you read it in its entirety: We no longer can demand gold or silver; this is clear; however, the words “Demand is made for Lawful Money. Redeemed in Lawful Money pursuant to 12 USC 411” acts in the equivalent as gold or silver. This phrasing is sufficient to meet my requirement as well as help society reduce the public debt. It is not necessary to have physical gold or silver.

    Being a peaceful man, I do not wish to war against my brothers and sisters but I also know I must pursue this matter.

    If you as bank president agree with bank personnel that [list all the statements like FRN are lawful money – whatever they wrote you], I am more than willing to accept the bank’s position on the matter IF you will provide me a sworn affidavit, under penalty of perjury with full commercial and personal liability so stating that I or any other person do/does not have the legal right to open an account with BOA and placing a legal notation: demand is made for lawful money …… on the BOA signature card.

    I am sure you can appreciate the fact as to why I am a bit surprised at bank personnel’s responses. This is why I would like to give you, as president [whatever title] an opportunity to clear up the matter just in case there was a mistake.

    I must insist that I receive a response within 30 days of receipt. Please do not provide me any bank polices or other internal rules some attorney wrote as I will consider this as an insufficient response. As stated previously, I must insist in your response and/or position against this demand for lawful money being placed physically on a BOA signature card to include a sworn affidavit, under penalties of perjury, with both commercial and personal liability attached stating BOA position of legal fact for its refusal of this demand for Lawful Money under 12 USC 411 as mandated by law and in conjunction with the bank’s fiduciary duty to the public to follow that law

    Should I not receive a response under penalties of perjury, with full commercial and personal liability, signed by you as an officer of BOA that I am unable to legally and lawfully open an account as I have outlined here, I then will presume that BOA has willfully violated my rights to demand lawful money and will pursue the matter with the powers that be for relief.

    If at anytime during the 30 days after receipt of this registered demand, BOA has a change of hear with regard to my demand to open the account, please call me at

    Yours truly,

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •