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.