Direct depost coming my way in January...2 credit unions decline to open accounts

[David Merrill]

I was thinking - profound! Then I remembered how this was processed before as if you are carrying government-issued ID then you are government issue. Ergo the easy substitution as government employee/intentured servant even soldier etc.

Thank you for the fresh light on that Gracefultrader. Thank you too Treefarmer.

I was looking up Motla68 as he thought in this same deep abstract and discovered something quite profound - his Signature!

Journey for liberty started 2002. Has it come down to just forgiveness?

I was in class studying forgiveness and this came to me.

Gifts;

Gratitude
Intention
Forgiveness
Tithes
Surrender

So how best not be like a soldier?

Forgive.

What I felt I was learning was that when we feel the forgiveness it can be mirrored back in IRS forgiveness.

Hi David,

FYI...

For the last quarter of 2011, I had been putting "lawful money is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411" on all my personal checks on the front under my address, and likewise on all my deposit slips for all Expense Report reimbursement checks sent to me. So the bank and all check recipients, including IRS installment payment checks, received NOTICE of my lawful money demand. I also successfully added it to a new checking account agreement, and a broker agreement.

My 2011 US 1040 so far has been honored. Line 21 "Other Income" was notated "Demand for Lawful Money R (__,____)", and the amount was a (reduction). The refund was applied to back taxes. The amount was well over 20,000.

The State return "Other Income" line had no notation, just the same amount of (reduction). So far, my State refund has not been sent to me.

Thanks for making this possible. I would not have made it this year without this reduction.

True Name

[Treefarmer]

As an aside, the Secretary of State's office in New Hampshire agrees that where the term "United States" appears on State forms, it refers to the third definition given in Hooven, but the State's A.G. office believes it refers to the second (federal zone)...

Gracefultrader,
I've been pondering this statement a bit, and am wondering if it means that the SOS's office and the A.G.'s office of New Hampshire are in disagreement over the definition of the term "United States" on New Hampshire government forms?

If they are, then that would constitute a disagreement of consequential proportions.
What are the repercussions of this disagreement in your experience, if indeed such disagreement exists?

[Gracefultrader]

Gracefultrader,
I've been pondering this statement a bit, and am wondering if it means that the SOS's office and the A.G.'s office of New Hampshire are in disagreement over the definition of the term "United States" on New Hampshire government forms?

If they are, then that would constitute a disagreement of consequential proportions.
What are the repercussions of this disagreement in your experience, if indeed such disagreement exists?

The last time I asked (about two years ago) they were at odds on this issue. I've had no personal experience of any consequences, but I wrote a bill to clarify significant legal definitions under State law. Unfortunately, the first-term representative who submitted the bill got caught up in his work for Ron Paul and neglected to follow through on some aspect of the registration process so it will have to be re-submitted this coming session. The potential issue that could arise is another of the esoteric type wherein someone may have signed a document affirming themselves to be a "United States citizen" (e.g. they changed the voter registration form in our state so that one must now attest to this - though the State Constitution does NOT require it...) without knowing WHICH form of "United States citizen" they are affirming. Generally the form of the jurat will provide the necessary clue as to which definition of "United States" is intended (see 28 U.S.C. ?1746 for the two variations) and virtually every form I've ever seen uses the ? 1746(2) (Federal citizen) form.

Consequently, if you sign your license, voter registration card, U.S. Passport or other such documents without specifying which type of "U.S." citizen/Citizen you are - you'll most probably give evidence by consent of having (voluntarily) joined the federal political class and made yourself subject to its jurisdiction. In effect, such an unqualified signature will provide prima facia evidence that can be used against you in a federal court. The government loves to prosecute on the basis of prima facia evidence... and most people who find themselves trying defend themselves against such "evidence" won't have a clue what hit them when they're convicted by their own ignorance.

site: http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html
Under Article 11, the New Hampshire Constitution requires that one be an "inhabitant" of (read: domiciled in) New Hampshire, 18 years or older, and not convicted of treason, bribery or a violation of N.H./U.S. election laws (unless the right is later restored by the Supreme Court). It says nothing about being a citizen of either New Hampshire or the United States. So why then does the New Hampshire registration form require one to sign a jurat that says you are? The form (http://www.gonashua.com/filestorage/...r_reg_form.pdf) also conflates "domicile" with "residence" and they are NOT legally the same thing. Without citing any statute or other authority, the form states, "In declaring New Hampshire as my domicile, I am subject to the laws of the State of New Hampshire which apply to all residents..." I doubt it, but haven't made the inquiry. This form is relatively new and does NOT conform to the State law cited on its face (RSA 654:7 - see this: http://nhrsa.org/law/654-7-voter-registration-form/) The form under law, last revised in 1979, also exceeds the specifications for voter qualification defined by the State Constitution but doesn't include the notice about getting one's vehicle registered within 60 days OR the bit of conflation regarding domicile/residency).

They recently passed a new voter I.D. act, which has lots of people up in arms, writing letters to the newspapers claiming it's designed to keep the poorer classes from the polls and such non-sense, but no one I've read has ever referred to the Constitutional requirements... so, do you thing we have a potential conflict forming here?

[Gracefultrader]

Thank you for the Federal Zone link, Gracefultrader.
[1]...it would be grotesque to think that everyone should have to read this kind of stuff [referring to: The Federal Zone] just to be able to keep their heads above water.

[2] Recently it occurred to me that due to the internet, which has made information access so much easier as you stated above, the cat has really got out of the proverbial bag on these previously hidden legal terminology shenanigans and court decisions, which have greatly contributed to transforming this late republic into a crumbling prison-house democracy.

[3] What this tells me is that this crumbling democracy is not useful to its creators anymore as a plantation-controlling ship of state and they will have to get rid of it as fast as possible, in order to replace it with a new and more efficient enslavement mechanism.

[4] Because once the notion of remedy enters the consciousness of only a few internet users, the spread of that consciousness with its accompaniment of ready-to-use legal ammunition is exponential and uncontrollably fast.

[5] I predict that toward this end, of getting rid of the now unmasked US democracy corp. and its publicly exposed Achilles' heel, the public opinion makers and professional false-flag-agitators will do their utmost to make the US of A to stink in the nostrils of all the other nations, as well as its own US citizens, in every way at their disposal.

[6] Of course there's no intention of going back to a free republic on the part of the handlers.

[7] Instead, discontent and chaos will be stirred up to a fever pitch, public-official fall guys will be set up and made to look loathsome and reprehensible, to be taken down with all blame pinned on them publicly, and then the prepackaged one-world-government solution will be revealed.
It will be presented by the opinion makers as if it were a spontaneous, collaborative grassroots effort of the common people, and cast in the most rosy-golden and favorable light imaginable, with helpings of apple-pie and promises of peace, safety, and prosperity for all.

I believe there will be a strong religious component to go along with the new ruler-ship model, consisting of a new-age pantheistic belief system with an all-purpose messiah (anti-christos) who promises to fulfill everyone's needs.

[8] The old US with its well-documented history of fraud and deceit will appear so utterly corrupt and beyond repair at that point that it will be a no-brainer for most people to leave it behind in favor of the new replacement.
Just sign here, here and here, get your RFID chip injection, and your debts will be forgiven so you can have a good clean start in the ALL NEW BETTER TRUST US.

[9] Lawful money and remedy will have no place under that new system, without which no one will be able to have bank accounts and buy or sell anymore, because its currency will be digital.
This new system (mark of the beast) will appear indispensable to the vast majority of people who have survived the man-made horrors and trauma of the days which are already upon us now, because without that you'll be left behind as the whole world moves forward into the future beyond, won't you?

[10] Of course I cannot prove that this will happen, so we will have to wait and see
Shabbat Shalom and I pray that your fall greens are thriving.

1) Unfortunately, as the balance of your post clearly intimates, we ARE arrived at a such a grotesque place that we DO have to read this kind of stuff if we are to have any hope of untangling the mess our 'representatives' have created.
2) The cat may be crawling out of the bag (slowly), but it's certainly not out very far yet and to the extent it's stuck its head out of the sack that's about to be thrown into the fast-moving river of history, it's due to the courageous work of people like those here on this forum, research authors like Paul Mitchell (The Federal Zone); G. Edward Griffin (The Creature from Jekyll Island); Edwin Vieira, Jr. PhD, J.D. (Pieces of Eight, etc); Kenneth Royce (aka Boston T. Party) (Goodbye April 15th, etc.), Phil Hart (Constitutional Income: Do You Have Any?); Dave Champion (Income Tax: Shattering the Myth); Melvin Stamper J.D. (Fruit from a Poisonous Tree); Ted Nace (Gangs of America: The Rise of Corporate Power and the Disabling of Democracy); Thom Hartmann (Unequal Protection, etc); Thomas E. Woods, Jr. (The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, Nullification, etc); and websites hosted by folks like Jim Puplava (financialsense.com); Lew Rockwell (mises.org). Going back to your first point, IF we are to save our Republic (not the Article I, ?8, Cl 17 democracy in Washington), we MUST read, and read, and read - dig deep into our own and the rest of the world's history and then teach others, especially the children, the truths we discover through our efforts. The tools are now at hand. We need to pick them up and use them to rebuild, restore, and regenerate.
3) The plantation-controlling Democracy you describe arises primarily out of the plenary power given to the government via Art 1, Sec 8, Cl 17/18 as well as those found in provisions for admiralty law jurisdiction. Because those instruments were long ago turned to serve advantage to those wielding the, more often adversely to the people who entrusted their use, they have turned destructive of the founding republican/federal principles and will, perforce, ultimately fail in their usefulness and application within the context of a Constitutionally-limited form of government and within any society of moral beings. WHO replaces them is the question. Will it be the people who insist upon the restoration of reason, morality and limitation in the exercises of their government, as intended, or will those in power be successful in morphing our country into the atheistic, neo-feudalistic form they prefer? You seem inclined to believe the latter. The future may not be ours to predict, but it is ours to shape and we do so by virtue of the beliefs we hold true.
4) The paradigm shift you're describing will statistically require an initial 3-5% of the reading population to initiate the change you describe. That's the "explorer" class, which doesn't always survive the change in landscape they discover. But when they're successful, a second wave (pioneers) follow their lead. They add another 10-12% to the body of informed people seeking change and improvement and it's usually this group that ESTABLISHES the change. They clear the land, so to speak, establish the metes and bounds, plow the earth and enjoy the fruits of its fertility. Finally, when all that work is done, only then do the 80-85% of the settler class move out of the old paradigm and into the new and the paradigm is fully shifted. This process is definable in ALL areas of human endeavor. (see Joel Arthur Barker on the subject of paradigm shifts)
5) The "United States of America", per se, eo nomine, is NOT the same thing as the "United States" when the latter signifies the government OF the United States of America. So long as the rest of the the world continues to distinguish between the two (which they do better than we do), it will remain difficult to achieve the all-pervasive stink you suggest.
6) There may be no intention on the handlers' part, but there certainly is within the heart of the people.
7) Well under way as described.
8) Again, only if the distinction between U.S. and U.S.A. cannot any longer be made.
9) Behind? Rather, outside, or beyond. Have faith and believe whole-heartedly for a better future than that which you imagine. Recall to yourself your spiritual heritage as a child of God - creative by nature, resourceful at will.
10) If waiting is what you choose to do, do so in peace.

[shikamaru]

For the alternative view that the Constitutions are not yours nor were you ever a party thereto (not that you would want to be), check out:

1) "The Informer"
2) James Montgomery
3) Greg Hallet

[shikamaru]

The Legacy - The Constitution is a Trust by Burness Speakman (partner of our beloved TrustGuy)

http://thelastoutpost.com/video-5/la...he-legacy.html

[Michael Joseph]

The Legacy - The Constitution is a Trust by Burness Speakman (partner of our beloved TrustGuy)

http://thelastoutpost.com/video-5/la...he-legacy.html

Yes I really appreciate her work. I have not seen Greg's work. Is it available to the general public?

[Gracefultrader]

I'm not familiar with any of these... a search of "The Informer" turns up a 1935 film about the Irish War for Independence. There are several returns for James Montgomery, and Hallet apparently wrote a book claiming that Hitler was a British agent/Illuminati. Please be more specific as to why you feel these are important references worth our time to look into. Thanks.

[Gracefultrader]

I have her set of videos and have watched them - very interesting, but I've not had the time to investigate her conclusions yet, which are derived from research into more of our hidden history. Worth looking into.

[Treefarmer]

They recently passed a new voter I.D. act, which has lots of people up in arms, writing letters to the newspapers claiming it's designed to keep the poorer classes from the polls and such non-sense, but no one I've read has ever referred to the Constitutional requirements... so, do you thing we have a potential conflict forming here?

Based on what you are reporting about New Hampshire, it looks to me like the conflict was formed a while back, and the factions who are seeking to obliterate the distinction between state and federal citizens in the minds of the people are winning over those who may want to keep the knowledge of the distinction alive.
I believe that popular perception is 9/10th of the law.