Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 53

Thread: Generic Notice and Demand - $350 civil suit

  1. #1

    Generic Notice and Demand - $350 civil suit

    It may be the Libel of Review is becoming a dinosaur? Without proper instruction it can become quite gaudy!

    I enjoy this rendition, just saved as a rough draft because I might not be adding anything more. I will finish it up today with the Civil Cover Sheet, Commission Certificate (notary), the $350 of course is redeemed by demand too.

    But I want you to see it in its bare essence first!
    Attached Files Attached Files
    Last edited by David Merrill; 03-07-13 at 04:36 PM.

  2. #2
    P.S. I refined it up a bit. Mostly I added mandatory exception as in the form found at Title 26 USC §508(c)(1).
    Attached Files Attached Files

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    P.S. I refined it up a bit. Mostly I added mandatory exception as in the form found at Title 26 USC §508(c)(1).
    The mandatory exception issue presumes that you want your CQVT to be treated as a 501(c)(3) charitable corporation, which, under 26 USC §508(c)(1), expects to have less than $5,000 per year of income. If you redeem all income in LM, then meeting the 508(c)(1) condition is easy, but then you may run afoul of this statement in 501(c)(3): "no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual,". I do not believe that the IRS wants individual persons to be exempt charitable organizations. Can you clarify your thinking on this?

    Freed G

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Freed Gerdes View Post
    The mandatory exception issue presumes that you want your CQVT to be treated as a 501(c)(3) charitable corporation, which, under 26 USC §508(c)(1), expects to have less than $5,000 per year of income. If you redeem all income in LM, then meeting the 508(c)(1) condition is easy, but then you may run afoul of this statement in 501(c)(3): "no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual,". I do not believe that the IRS wants individual persons to be exempt charitable organizations. Can you clarify your thinking on this?

    Freed G
    Redeeming lawful money excludes one from the Title altogether. That exclusion is recognized for churches too, not religious organizations.

    To understand this you have to skip over to §170 where you are directed from §501 - Disqualified Organizations. Among these disqualified organization you find churches. In §508 you find these churches as Mandatory Exceptions.

    This is in alignment with the pronoun "They" in Title 12 USC §411. They are not necessarily Federal Reserve notes from the two sentences prior. They could well be people making the demand. The church is expected to provide for its own through tithing and so therefore is a Disqualified Organization §501 and a Mandatory Exception §508(c)(1).

    Either way the church equates with the redeemed.



    P.S. Here is a perspective you might take note of:

    I made a statement in writing to the effect that I wanted all my transactions at my bank to be done in lawful money. Had the teller date stamp and initial it and she sent a copy to the legal dept of the bank. My job was done. I made my demand. What they do from that point on is none of my business.
    Last edited by David Merrill; 03-12-13 at 03:17 AM.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    Redeeming lawful money excludes one from the Title altogether. That exclusion is recognized for churches too, not religious organizations.

    To understand this you have to skip over to §170 where you are directed from §501 - Disqualified Organizations. Among these disqualified organization you find churches. In §508 you find these churches as Mandatory Exceptions.

    This is in alignment with the pronoun "They" in Title 12 USC §411. They are not necessarily Federal Reserve notes from the two sentences prior. They could well be people making the demand. The church is expected to provide for its own through tithing and so therefore is a Disqualified Organization §501 and a Mandatory Exception §508(c)(1).

    Either way the church equates with the redeemed.



    P.S. Here is a perspective you might take note of:



    Do you know anyone who has filed with this technique in court yet?

    -Bentley-

  6. #6
    There would be no filing in court or even with the IRS under Title 26. One would be acting on the understanding they are mandatory exception to the IRS code.

    If you were to require filing on yourself you had best study the statutes for corporation sole found in Arizona or so I hear. I cannot think why you would require yourself to file though.

    I am showing you the distinction between a religious organization and the church.

  7. #7
    I'm a little (or alot) confused then, David. I downloaded your generic notice and demand for lawful money and it appears to be an example of a filing in district court replete with a summons aimed at the Federal Reserve Board, is it not?

    Thank you for your reply,
    Bentley

  8. #8
    Bentley, David prepared the generic suit (which exceeds the requirements for a simple generic demand for lawful money) as an example for me, as I was contemplating suing the Federal Reserve to make them enforce the demand on Bank of America, which has been offering to stonewall my demand. The key here is that the demand, based in Federal law at 12 USC §411, is self-executing: the law says explicitly 'they shall be redeemed on demand...' Thus all you have to do is make the demand ('Just say the word and I shall be healed'). Whether the bank responds correctly to your demand is not your problem; specifically, it is the Federal Reserve's problem, as they are designated as supervisors of the banks. Presumably you are at the adjunct where you are contemplating making the demand, in which case you can skip suing the Fed; just use the text specific to your demand, and serve it on your bank (a Certified Letter with return receipt requested is sufficient). Your copy of the letter/demand, plus your return receipt, proves that you made the demand, and that the bank received notice of your demand. At that point, you have redeemed lawful money, and transactions at that bank are now outside the jurisdiction of Title 26, ie, they are not taxable income. Does this clear up your confusion?

    Freed

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Freed Gerdes View Post
    Bentley, David prepared the generic suit (which exceeds the requirements for a simple generic demand for lawful money) as an example for me, as I was contemplating suing the Federal Reserve to make them enforce the demand on Bank of America, which has been offering to stonewall my demand. The key here is that the demand, based in Federal law at 12 USC §411, is self-executing: the law says explicitly 'they shall be redeemed on demand...' Thus all you have to do is make the demand ('Just say the word and I shall be healed'). Whether the bank responds correctly to your demand is not your problem; specifically, it is the Federal Reserve's problem, as they are designated as supervisors of the banks. Presumably you are at the adjunct where you are contemplating making the demand, in which case you can skip suing the Fed; just use the text specific to your demand, and serve it on your bank (a Certified Letter with return receipt requested is sufficient). Your copy of the letter/demand, plus your return receipt, proves that you made the demand, and that the bank received notice of your demand. At that point, you have redeemed lawful money, and transactions at that bank are now outside the jurisdiction of Title 26, ie, they are not taxable income. Does this clear up your confusion?

    Freed
    Freed,

    Thanks for the explanation. I like the thought of suing the federal government for fraud and all it's transgressions. I think everyone should spend the $350 to do it. Maybe then we'll see some positive, freedom achieving results. I've recently opened up a case with my congressman based on illegal activities of the 'entity.' (See treasury order 150-06) The whole system's fraudulent. I am cogitating on sending the notice and demand to my congressman for presentment to the National Taxpayer Advocate stating that I will file when they agree to refund in lawful money. What's your thoughts on that? Can you explain why bank transactions, after this notice, are outside of Title 26?

    B.

  10. #10
    Hi Bentley;


    That is a fascinating post. I cannot help but wonder though if the basis of fraud is incorrect considering the remedy espoused on this website?

Posting Permissions

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