Libel of Review and $39 Miscellaneous Evidence Files

[Axe]

David,

So are you saying that if we have been redeeming lawful money and making copies of every check with the restrictive endorsement, we still need to file these in a $350 case jacket with our local district court in order to be valid?

[David Merrill]

David,

So are you saying that if we have been redeeming lawful money and making copies of every check with the restrictive endorsement, we still need to file these in a $350 case jacket with our local district court in order to be valid?

No. Not at all. Some posters brought up concerns about getting in trouble. Redeeming lawful money is valid upon your demand. If you have been keeping copies then you have a record of your redemption and thus you have a record that you have not been contracting with the Fed. It is a lot more convincing to an IRS agent, especially the IRS attorneys to have a competent witness too - an evidence repository. The best scenario is best imagined that the IRS agent finds you have included all your Withholdings in the Refund - what they are likely trained to call a Zero-Income Return. You would have at least three non-endorsed paychecks with it - one from the beginning, middle and end of the tax year filed. You want the IRS agent to either Refund your Withholdings or drop your Return into a chute to an IRS attorney for closer legal examination.

Therefore when you file for a Refund of all your withholdings it might be wise to have at least a $39 Miscellaneous File functioning as your evidence repository. The IRS agent would see you have a copy of your Return and redeemed paychecks filed in the federal courthouse and be that much more pressured to pass the Return off on an attorney.

Filing a Libel of Review without very careful study first is no better a repository than the $39.* It works great for bill collectors and if you are in a line of work where you get sued regularly. It terminates subsequent debt scavengers too because if the current one sells it without disclosing the federal case that is fraud. One suitor sets up business systems. He gets paid a lot for a week's worth of work and some technical support. If the business folds though, he gets named because attorneys are looking for money and he gets paid a lot. He has successfully R4C'd plenty of new suits successfully. He began with a LoR. Some of the clerks of court say that you can only use the $39 deal for one R4C and related papers. If you have R4C'd a bill collector and then try to R4C a speeding ticket, the clerk may send it back for an additional $39 case jacket.

The same suitor decided to quit paying his Homeowners' Association fees (without asking me about it) and tried R4C on the bills. The attorneys began to move on his home! He might have lost it for $800 in breach of contract. If somebody makes a change in a current contract, then you can R4C the change only. If you are in a contract you cannot expect to successfully R4C the billing cycle you agreed to. That is what is going on with redeeming lawful money. Your demand is your way to terminate the contracting with the Federal Reserve and be dealing exclusively with the obligations of the United States.



Regards,

David Merrill.


* The nature of common law has always been case law; stare decisis. Authority in common law is comprised of case opinions that are formed in the appellate courts. No informed suitor is going to appeal his LoR when it gets dismissed and they all get dismissed. You might be able to Google up a few case opinions that slur the LoR because I share the template over the Internet. These people appealed when their LoR was dismissed and that generated precedent. The objective of the LoR is the evidence repository.

The product of improved comprehension of trusts and contracts is highest title in your property. - Self-governance.