Resistance and Refusal by Banks

[David Merrill]

I enjoy how you think.

The difficulty I have in correcting you, which is only trying to pursuade you to see it my way is that you might not need any correcting. Furthermore if I correct you then I might not learn as much from your posts as I could. I think that I can work from these two sentences:

As I see it, there are always two 'redeeming transactions' in this practical scenario. The deposit and the withdrawal.

The Demand works immediately on the backside of a paycheck if you are cashing it; which is a simultaneous deposit and withdrawal if you will. Deposits are not taxable as they are credit on account. So if you deposit your paycheck then you only sign your Demand to be consistent with doctrine. That means that you will be withdrawing funds later on a different paycheck, written by you to yourself often called a withdrawal slip. Or you can just write a check to CASH. The custom of changing the Signature Card is for electronic deposit from your employer and when you pull paperless withdrawals like with an ATM, or maybe even when you are in a hurry, forgot your stamp etc.

Equivalently you are telling your bank by Notice and/or Demand that all deposits are special. Not general or regular deposits.

[itsmymoney]

I enjoy how you think.

Well, the above is certainly humbling, David. As a 'newbie' I am simply asking questions and posing theories and scenarios that may or may not have been contemplated. I appreciate that you consider my thinking on this subject to be beneficial to the conversation.

As to your reply regarding 'redeeming transactions', I have learned previously from you (quite awhile ago) and others that the signature card novation is sort of a 'catch all' of your intent and demand to redeem all transactions on that account as lawful money. I am in the process of converting my monetary transactions to a 'financial hygiene' approach as that term has been coined (ironic...i.e coined/coinage...lawful money?) by TDL as you may know from CB's, and is probably already being executed by the many suitors on this site. This would entail (IMO), no credit cards, no loans (at least if possible, not bearing any FRB private credit), no personal checks to merchants, and the like.

Speaking of personal checks issued by a suitor to parties OTHER than yourself, it was telling (assumed) from your response the omission of personal checks to a merchant/entity as an example. I'm getting that this could perhaps create a 'liability' associated with further extending the FRB private credit. This would be the 'withdrawal' portion of the 'redeeming transaction' that I was referring to. I'm thinking that redeeming lawful money in cash and the subsequent purchase of a postal money order to pay a merchant/other entity will eliminate any doubt of extending private credit.

[David Merrill]

I think the breakthrough then is that if you make your demand, on your Signature Card and you get a copy into the Record (evidence repository) even if the bank subsequently gives you difficulty and maybe rejects it and you have to change the non-endorsement - you have accomplished all you need to accomplish. Additionally you might indict the bank by filing the current "corrected" Signature Card into your evidence repository. Or more accurately publish (PACER) the bank's indictment.

Take certified copies from the USDC clerk of court and serve them on the Fed by Registered Mail or Certificate of Service by professional process server and then publish that proof of service in your evidence repository.

All you are required to do by Title 12 USC §411 is make your demand. Prove every way till next Thursday that you have made your demand. If the bank refuses to accept your demand make that the bank's problem, not yours.

[itsmymoney]

I think the breakthrough then is that if you make your demand, on your Signature Card and you get a copy into the Record (evidence repository) even if the bank subsequently gives you difficulty and maybe rejects it and you have to change the non-endorsement - you have accomplished all you need to accomplish. Additionally you might indict the bank by filing the current "corrected" Signature Card into your evidence repository. Or more accurately publish (PACER) the bank's indictment.

Regarding 'even if the bank subsequently gives you difficulty and maybe rejects it and you have to change the non-endorsement...', are you referring to being rejected after the 3-day binding agreement? (another suitor mentioned this 3-day window as learned here at STSC). I believe they can outright refuse your novation prior to this window, correct?

I need to read and research creating an 'evidence repository'. I take this to be filing public record documents, such as one suitor filed his demand at the County Clerks office so it was 'on the record'.

[gdude]

I filed at the County Clerks office....It is a public record. I was studying the Libel of review, but it is beyond my knowledge, so far.

I think I gained some more insight, as what I learned is there are four different actions you can take against the gov...Administrative, Civil, Criminal, Admiralty.

The way I understand it, Admiralty is what taxes are collected under.... I think the Libel of Review is filed under the admiralty side of court?....

Shikamaru posted:

Taxes have been under admiralty since before the Revolution.
This all has its roots in smuggling and avoiding the King's dues.

See it here: http://www.founding.com/the_declarat...50/default.asp

The King could not sustain any convictions in Common Law courts of the colonists, so he moved the cases and jurisdictions to Admiralty/Vice-Admiralty/Maritime courts.

This makes sense to me as I believe most early IRS districts were located in Ports.

[shikamaru]

I filed at the County Clerks office....It is a public record. I was studying the Libel of review, but it is beyond my knowledge, so far.

I think I gained some more insight, as what I learned is there are four different actions you can take against the gov...Administrative, Civil, Criminal, Admiralty.

The way I understand it, Admiralty is what taxes are collected under.... I think the Libel of Review is filed under the admiralty side of court?....

Let's clean up this taxonomy a bit....

There are (were) 4 types of courts in the US:

a) common law or courts at law
b) equity
c) admiralty/maritime
d) administrative.

Courts at law and courts in equity have been merged into one as to its proceedings. However, their respective bodies of laws and remedies have not been merged. Don't expect any attorner to inform you of the latter.

Proceedings of courts in equity, in admiralty/maritime, and administrative courts all have their roots in Roman Civil Law.

Equity has no criminal form of action. I'd dare say that neither does administrative courts.

Equity was merely a remedial branch of law (Law of Remedies) historically before becoming a substantive branch of law over time.

A historical substantive branch of law (in England) that has no jurisdiction here in the States is Ecclesiastical Law. Ecclesiastical Law has its roots in Roman Civil Law as well.

There are two principal divisions of forms of action:
a) Civil
b) Criminal

In courts at law, there were multiple causes of actions, but since the merger of courts at law and in equity, there is only a single cause of action (civilly) which is called a pleading. Government still maintains common law on the criminal form of action side (for itself).

[David Merrill]

Regarding 'even if the bank subsequently gives you difficulty and maybe rejects it and you have to change the non-endorsement...', are you referring to being rejected after the 3-day binding agreement? (another suitor mentioned this 3-day window as learned here at STSC). I believe they can outright refuse your novation prior to this window, correct?

I need to read and research creating an 'evidence repository'. I take this to be filing public record documents, such as one suitor filed his demand at the County Clerks office so it was 'on the record'.

Actually I do not think so. I believe that the shareholders and board of directors would be very upset to discover that the manager is turning down opening accounts without a good reason legally.

[David Merrill]

Let's clean up this taxonomy a bit....

There are (were) 4 types of courts in the US:

a) common law or courts at law
b) equity
c) admiralty/maritime
d) administrative.

Courts at law and courts in equity have been merged into one as to its proceedings. However, their respective bodies of laws and remedies have not been merged. Don't expect any attorner to inform you of the latter.

Proceedings of courts in equity, in admiralty/maritime, and administrative courts all have their roots in Roman Civil Law.

Equity has no criminal form of action. I'd dare say that neither does administrative courts.

Equity was merely a remedial branch of law (Law of Remedies) historically before becoming a substantive branch of law over time.

A historical substantive branch of law (in England) that has no jurisdiction here in the States is Ecclesiastical Law. Ecclesiastical Law has its roots in Roman Civil Law as well.

There are two principal divisions of forms of action:
a) Civil
b) Criminal

In courts at law, there were multiple causes of actions, but since the merger of courts at law and in equity, there is only a single cause of action (civilly) which is called a pleading. Government still maintains common law on the criminal form of action side (for itself).

Thank you!

I don't think I have ever read such a succinct explanation. Here is a paper about it.

[shikamaru]

The way I understand it, Admiralty is what taxes are collected under.... I think the Libel of Review is filed under the admiralty side of court?....

The collection is administrative. How many people do this of their own volition?

The court proceedings and how they are conducted, that's where the admiralty is.

Taxes may be tied in, anciently, with gifting and Roman Civil Law.

Remember in England, the king had a court dedicated exclusively to his royal revenues: the Court of the Exchequer.

[EZrhythm]

Excellent explanations Shika! I agree very succinct.