Quote Originally Posted by doug555 View Post
See: http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showt...ll=1#post12164
As doug555 stated. Make it CLEAR by a PREPONDERENCE of substantive evidence under their FRE Exception to Hearsay Rule 803(6)(B) that from that date onward "lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411, 95a(2)" applies to ALL transactions even if it is missing thereafter on transactions like direct deposits, debit/credit cards, EFTs, etc, where it is hard to make a record of one's demand. Remember, by making one's demand TRANSACTION-BASED, it does not matter what the signature card has on it or not. The account does not matter - BECAUSE YOU MADE YOUR DEMAND TRANSACTION-BASED -
I know you want the signature card your way, but why do you want dwell on it createvalue9?

Let someone challenge you on "lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411 and 95a(2)" and they will loose, if not the press would be happy to entertain the idea the laws of congress is frivolous.

Like AJ stated in #72
your claim is without merit until Mr. or Mrs. "state" comes forward and verifies a claim of property by speaking it on the record; are you authorized to speak, and make claims, for "state"?
- harm to a man
- injury to a man's property
- breach of a valid and lawful contract
Good link doug555.