Order of Operations / Big Newbie Thread

[Sabo]

Hello all!

I've spent an unspeakable number of hours reading this forum the past few weeks - especially over this weekend - and I'm looking to start applying what I've learned. I've stopped and started writing this, always going back through the archives and see if I could find the answer to a lot of things... However, there are still some key (and not-so-key) questions that I either haven't spotted, or haven't comprehended, so I'm hoping I can get a big list of answers from you fine folks.

I warn in advance that many of these will probably be very mundane or nit-picky. Many of you may end up saying that I "haven't spent as much time as I claim", just because some of these questions have been asked, and maybe some will ask for slight hand-holding (call it 'guided direction'). I apologize and only attribute it to being a part of the unwashed masses; and also to hopefully get some of the more buried answers in other multi-page threads out into something cohesive. Besides, some ideas seem to have changed (even if only slightly) over the months that these topics have been discussed.

In addition, there are a few different topics here (being that we're in the main forum), and thus long. If you'd like me to split these up into different topics/sub-forums, please let me know, otherwise hopefully between everyone who might respond, all questions can be answered.

A Drivers License as a 'Proof of Competency'
This one is .... odd to me. A few users report that if they ever get pulled over, they say that the license is "proof of competency, not used for identification".
What does this phrase actually do/mean? Is this something that officers are trained to handle in some fashion? Further, what if the officer then asks for "identification"?

Refusal For Cause
The R4C is another odd one. If this really grants so much power as to 'throw out' parking tickets and such, why is this not just 'a thing' people do within our society? What actually makes R4C that powerful? Or is it only when the facts (such as name, street name) aren't exactly correct, leading to a sort of loophole? I'd be interested in a candid response.

B.S. 'Notice' of Levies
As far as I can tell, isn't fully within the scope of StS' "braintrust", but being that a number of users (including myself) are refugees of Camp Hendrickson, I figured I had nothing to lose by asking. In any case, long story short, a Notice of Levy was served and of course the payroll company that handles my job's.. well, payroll.. simply rolled over and is sending my pay to the IRS. A good 85% of it... which they've already taken from one pay period, and the next one is coming up shortly. Meaning I can't pay all the other 'private credit' mentioned above.

Given the wording of 26 IRC 6331(a) (conveniently omitted from the Notice) as well as the legal (case-law-borne) conclusion that Notices are not Levies, I don't believe this is legit. Does anyone have any bit of advice to at least A) Suspend/Halt collection at 85%, if not B) Fully terminate the Levy? The LH website has one example of a letter that seemed to work, though research on the that person revealed an actual court ordered levy recently. Further, I couldn't determine how the person in question got knowledge on where to send her complaints, and I feel just blindly following along could be perceived as disingenuous.

I also don't want to be a 'taxpayer' (especially at their nutball rates), and thought that the CtC 0-Return was the way to declare that. While a few here have claimed to have sloughed off that status, I haven't seen a lot of the same thorough explanation that other topics have benefited from. I don't think 'Exempt' is the way to go (especially not having a year's worth of LM redemption to prove), so does anyone have any personal thoughts or first-hand knowledge?

"Federal Privilege" in terms of public benefit
This question sort of encompasses everything. By declaring (and positively affirming) your status as a non-taxpayer - redeeming Lawful Money and not having tax liability - what sorts of benefits does one give up?
For instance, would I run into trouble having/maintaining a mortgage? Credit card? Car loan? (Private) Health/Auto insurance?
If I have credit on account at a bank in Lawful Money, do I give up the FDIC protection (if that's even useful in this situation) or more importantly, bank benefits in regards to protection against fraud/theft (including identity theft)?
My current account has overdraft protection in the form of an additional private credit line. Would that be a conflict of freedom from federal privilege?

I guess really the bottom-line question is that you guys and girls don't seem to be living shacks out in the woods (as some people would say is the only way to be income-tax-free), so what kind of downsides (perceived or actual) does this entail?


---

Anyway, I know more questions have crossed my mind over the past few days, but I think I've asked enough of the folks here for one post. Any and all positive responses very welcome. Thank you for taking the time to both learn and educate!

[Sabo]

Sorry to post on my own thread so soon, but I'm hoping that anyone has a response to anything listed above.
I know there are a lot of things up there, but even if there's just or two questions you could respond to in some form, I'd be very grateful.

Thank you again

[Treefarmer]

Hello all!
.....
In addition, there are a few different topics here (being that we're in the main forum), and thus long. If you'd like me to split these up into different topics/sub-forums, please let me know, otherwise hopefully between everyone who might respond, all questions can be answered.

A)
I do believe credit cards are private credit of the Fed, and you had to state your income on the card application. If your "income" has changed, because you are dealing in LM now for example, you have to notify your credit card company of that change.

B)It's all an experiment as far as I can tell and there is no control group. It's a sign of insanity to do the same thing over and expect different results; so if the results have been displeasing, why not try something different? I've personally tried several different ways of signing my name.

C)D)
- At what point can I begin to apply this to any federal tax documents (i.e. 1040 and the like)? If I start redeeming in Lawful Money starting with my next paycheck (which I've already requested that direct deposit stop, until I can figure out if I can correct my Signature Card), would I be able to claim 'fraud by omission' for my previous years (of which I had been (and still general) believer in Hendrickson's findings)? The IRS is already on me about those (more below).
You may want to file a Libel of Review in a United States District Court near you.


E)
- Somewhat silly, but what about everyday exchange of LM? So I have just obtained a few $20 bills in Lawful Money from a paycheck, or maybe I was able to correct my signature card to demand all incoming and outgoing transactions in Lawful Money. If I use that money to buy something, whether a product or service, is the change I receive is also Lawful Money? Granted I don't think it'd be reasonable to report even if it wasn't, but it's one of those brain-teaser type questions I had been curious about. What if the recipient is a business that has to record a sale? Does it benefit them to know that the bill(s) are Lawful Money?

F)
A Drivers License as a 'Proof of Competency'
This one is .... odd to me. A few users report that if they ever get pulled over, they say that the license is "proof of competency, not used for identification".
What does this phrase actually do/mean? Is this something that officers are trained to handle in some fashion? Further, what if the officer then asks for "identification"?
Officers are not trained to handle any such thing as near as I can tell. Nor are most people. IMHO, the way a situation or encounter between people and government agents transpires is no proof of anything, except that everything that can happen will at some point happen.

G)
Refusal For Cause
The R4C is another odd one. If this really grants so much power as to 'throw out' parking tickets and such, why is this not just 'a thing' people do within our society? What actually makes R4C that powerful? Or is it only when the facts (such as name, street name) aren't exactly correct, leading to a sort of loophole? I'd be interested in a candid response.
Almost no one has ever heard of R4C, at least in my neck of the woods.


H)
B.S. 'Notice' of Levies
As far as I can tell, isn't fully within the scope of StS' "braintrust", but being that a number of users (including myself) are refugees of Camp Hendrickson, I figured I had nothing to lose by asking. In any case, long story short, a Notice of Levy was served and of course the payroll company that handles my job's.. well, payroll.. simply rolled over and is sending my pay to the IRS. A good 85% of it... which they've already taken from one pay period, and the next one is coming up shortly. Meaning I can't pay all the other 'private credit' mentioned above.
Libel of Review. Ask David Merrill.

I)
Given the wording of 26 IRC 6331(a) (conveniently omitted from the Notice) as well as the legal (case-law-borne) conclusion that Notices are not Levies, I don't believe this is legit. Does anyone have any bit of advice to at least A) Suspend/Halt collection at 85%, if not B) Fully terminate the Levy? The LH website has one example of a letter that seemed to work, though research on the that person revealed an actual court ordered levy recently. Further, I couldn't determine how the person in question got knowledge on where to send her complaints, and I feel just blindly following along could be perceived as disingenuous.
Same answer as H).

J)
I also don't want to be a 'taxpayer' (especially at their nutball rates), and thought that the CtC 0-Return was the way to declare that. While a few here have claimed to have sloughed off that status, I haven't seen a lot of the same thorough explanation that other topics have benefited from. I don't think 'Exempt' is the way to go (especially not having a year's worth of LM redemption to prove), so does anyone have any personal thoughts or first-hand knowledge?
This document appears to lay out the formula for not being considered a taxpayer.

K)
"Federal Privilege" in terms of public benefit
This question sort of encompasses everything. By declaring (and positively affirming) your status as a non-taxpayer - redeeming Lawful Money and not having tax liability - what sorts of benefits does one give up?
For instance, would I run into trouble having/maintaining a mortgage? Credit card? Car loan? (Private) Health/Auto insurance?
If I have credit on account at a bank in Lawful Money, do I give up the FDIC protection (if that's even useful in this situation) or more importantly, bank benefits in regards to protection against fraud/theft (including identity theft)?
My current account has overdraft protection in the form of an additional private credit line. Would that be a conflict of freedom from federal privilege?

L)
I guess really the bottom-line question is that you guys and girls don't seem to be living shacks out in the woods (as some people would say is the only way to be income-tax-free), so what kind of downsides (perceived or actual) does this entail?
The chiggers are a definite downside, but I like to think of my shack in the woods as my castle

Welcome to the forum Sabo

I think the reason that no one wants to take a stab at your thread is that your OP is so unwieldy.
I spent some time inserting red capital letters into it, which may make it easier for somebody to address your different questions.
Generally speaking, you would probably stand a better chance at getting replies if you asked one question per post, and did so directly into the thread where you read about the topic that caused you to think of the question.

I've tried to answer some of your questions, but most of them are outside of my field of experience.
I really do live way out in the woods, and my life is relatively simple compared to city life, but even the simple life is becoming more difficult these days.
That's why I study remedy.

Blessings

[Brian]

J)
I also don't want to be a 'taxpayer' (especially at their nutball rates), and thought that the CtC 0-Return was the way to declare that. While a few here have claimed to have sloughed off that status, I haven't seen a lot of the same thorough explanation that other topics have benefited from. I don't think 'Exempt' is the way to go (especially not having a year's worth of LM redemption to prove), so does anyone have any personal thoughts or first-hand knowledge?
This document appears to lay out the formula for not being considered a taxpayer.

Has anyone re-filed an SS-5 using "legal alien allowed to work" instead of "US Citizen" in block 5?
http://www.ssa.gov/online/ss-5.pdf

[Treefarmer]

Has anyone re-filed an SS-5 using "legal alien allowed to work" instead of "US Citizen" in block 5?
http://www.ssa.gov/online/ss-5.pdf

I'm glad you asked Brian.
I've been meaning to ask that question too, but never found my way back to the thread where this SEDM doc was last posted here on the forum.

Are there any SEDM members on the forum with us who would like to report their findings to us?

[Chex]

Form #04.202

A Link Link

Better link (18)

[David Merrill]

Suitors, named for the 'saving to suitors' clause of 1789. I bring this up because I learned something very edifying just the other day.

We have some suitors opening bank accounts with the Demand on the Authorized Signature Card. It is surprising how many years it has taken for me to suggest publishing your dba at the county clerk and recorder. I thought it was just a form that gets published but the clerk gave him a Certificate of Publication for him to put in the legal notices section of the local newspaper if he wants!

Duh!!

Funny that I did not even see that coming. I should have.

I suppose that what I am saying is that we, Treefarmer and others here including myself are here mostly because we enjoy learning. We hope you do too and we appreciate your time and attention.


Thanks and welcome,

David Merrill.

[David Merrill]

P.S. Here is an example of some sanitized Crosstalk:

While responding to the success story at the bottom I decided this is quite edifying, enough to share by broadcast!Return to Sender; Not Residing HereDoing Business As that fiction thingy so I do not see any problem with opening it. Examining Rule E(8) in the Admiralty Rules can help shed light. I assume your concerns arise from suspecting that if you accept mail to the JOHN H. DOE coming from your bank where you are in contract, doing business that anybody else (with an attorney mindset) can impose upon you to collect mail from them in that same legal name. Untrue. If some sleezeball attorney sends you mail to that name, you choose to do business as with him or not. Maybe Return to Sender, Not Residing Here but retain a copy (both sides) and get it rounddated at the post office? If the problem persists then open it and R4C with your evidence repository.



We have had problems long ago with the postal carriers placing judgment on what name you are. I doubt that will happen but one fellow had a process server (carrier) bringing the letter to his door and insisting he accept it!! He had taped over the window except the legal name and the PO carrier kept peeling off the tape and redelivering it. If you take it to the post office to return it do not pay any postage, but do not get worried if the clerk marks it Refused. Without collecting any fee, that is meaningless. If you Refused you would pay the postage to send it back. It is a ruse to make you feel like you are the owner of that material by being owner of the (legal) Name on it.



This journey requires discernment and the brain trust is a great place to be sharing in the learning process.



Just because you are contracting with your bank attorneys does not mean that you have to contract with anybody offering to.



Please let us know (or me to apprise the others) how those checks arrive; what form they put the account name in?

Rule E(8) Restricted Appearance. An appearance to defend against an admiralty and maritime claim with respect to which there has issued process in rem, or process of attachment and garnishment, may be expressly restricted to the defense of such claim, and in that event is not an appearance for the purposes of any other claim with respect to which such process is not available or has not been served.

-----Original Message-----
From:
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 9:18 AM
To: 'David Merrill'
Subject: RE: at your convenience



David,



ok, a new zero interest checking account was opened, a deposit was been made and no issues so far. The signature card was signed John Henry dba JOHN H. DOE and stamped demanding lawful money. Printed checks will be required since the signature card reflects John Henry dba JOHN H. DOE why not the checks? If by chance any bank statements/correspondence arrive to JOHN H. DOE and not John Henry (scribble) dba JOHN H. DOE, I'll need to correct their error?



Thanks John.

[Treefarmer]

Form #04.202

A Link Link

Better link (18)

Thank you Chex.
That looks like interesting reading material.

[Sabo]

Thank you all for your input and responses! I greatly appreciate not having to go at this fully alone.
I'm sorry that my original post was so unwieldy; I knew it would be, but there are so many questions to be asked, especially as it relates to trying to communicate these things to others; people always want to poke holes. And I just want to make sure I'm understanding as much as I can

I applied the common 12 USC 411 verbiage to the backs of my first two checks today, copied and filed the front/back, and deposited them at my bank.
Luckily I got the one teller that would recognize me, as I've been banking with them for many years, so she didn't even look at the back. I guess that's a good thing (at least as far as potential hassle is concerned). Has anyone ever been contacted after-the-fact by their bank when there was no previous concern/conflict?

I want to amend my signature card eventually, but I don't have an interest-bearing checking account anyway (although I do have a credit line used for overdraft protection; I can see how that could be conflicting evidence, but it's currently saving me while I try to get out from under this damn unlawful Levy)

Treefarmer, thanks so much for your personal feedback! I did have one followup question:

Which would of course, cause them to deny/cancel any credit if you claim you don't make anything. A couple of things about this - How does this company's private credit equal the USA's Private Credit? Certainly I could have an agreement with a private entity for credit, right? Also, this wouldn't be 'income' anyway, so how does that relate to income tax? Just because I have a 'credit card', even from a bank that may have FED ties, how does that subject my normal common-law earnings from being taxable? It's not income - even under status-quo 'in bondage' filings, you don't report your credit lines. Just curious how everything fits together.

[David Merrill]

They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand... at any federal reserve bank.

He and his wife made their demand to the closest Fed bank - the Big 12. He published this through whatever method, county court I believe and keeps a copy handy for the bank on the corner. He has never had to show that though. He and his wife wrote up a rather succinct demand and put it on both sides of a laminated card. For years whenever they bank for cash they show the laminated card and joke about how they Want the Good Stuff. There is always some banter with the tellers about go get the "lawful money" - no legal tender, counterfeit notes etc. - The Good Stuff!

Recently he discovered this site and called me all excited. I was listening in amazement while he went on about all these same things as I write about and sure enough, he wanted to know if I was on Overload yet, while I was thinking, This guy sounds more like me than I do!

I found it a very exciting that somebody came to the interpretation same as I but eight years earlier, and independently.

[Treefarmer]

.....

Treefarmer, thanks so much for your personal feedback! I did have one followup question:



Which would of course, cause them to deny/cancel any credit if you claim you don't make anything. A couple of things about this - How does this company's private credit equal the USA's Private Credit? Certainly I could have an agreement with a private entity for credit, right? Also, this wouldn't be 'income' anyway, so how does that relate to income tax? Just because I have a 'credit card', even from a bank that may have FED ties, how does that subject my normal common-law earnings from being taxable? It's not income - even under status-quo 'in bondage' filings, you don't report your credit lines. Just curious how everything fits together.

All I have to offer as an answer is my personal experience:

I used to have credit cards, and for many years I used them for internet buying and at gas station pumps. I always paid off the balance within the 30 day grace period, so I never paid any interest. (I've read somewhere that customers like me are considered "deadbeats" by the credit card companies.)

When I began redeeming lawful money and after I filed my Libel of Review, I called my credit card company on the phone.
I should add that their phone reps were available 24/7, they were extremely polite and helpful native American-English speakers, and I always received the most excellent service from them.
That time was no different. I requested that my accounts be closed. No problem the rep assured me, since all of them had a zero balance. Then she asked if I would mind telling her the reason why I wanted to close out my accounts; if I was not satisfied with their service?

I assured her that I had always received excellent service and that I had been very satisfied doing business with her company (VISA). I explained that I had to close my accounts because I was no longer able to abide by the cardholder agreement. I told her that since I had begun redeeming lawful money I no longer had any "income" as defined by the IRC.

She said, Oh OK, I see, then you do have to close your accounts.
She added that she hoped that I would consider doing business again in the future, if anything changed about my "income", and I assured her that I certainly would if that were to happen.

My situation was different from yours, in that I never owed an interest bearing balance, so I don't know how that works.

I would recommend you not use your credit cards for new purchases anymore, because if you have no taxable "income" then you are in breach of the contract. As far as paying off your existing balance goes though, I don't think that would be a problem.
As long as you are paying off your credit card debt on the agreed upon terms of the cardholder agreement, then your current income amount, or lack thereof, should not matter.

I do not know if the credit card company's definition of "income" is ultimately the same as the IRS's definition, or the SS Administration's or the Supreme Court's definition, but I just assume that it is, in case I ever have to explain my actions before a jury of my "peers".
If I tried to explain to a so-called jury, in a so-called court of law, that there are different definitions of income going around, whether or not I was right wouldn't make a difference. I'd be labeled a "conspiracy theorist", a threat to social and financial stability, and my so-called peers would be delighted to have me locked up in some slave-prison with all my worldly possessions taken away from me.

For safety's sake, I won't touch "credit" with a proverbial ten-foot pole, while I'm experimenting with lawful money, and claiming no taxable "income".

I hope this info helps in some way.
Bright blessings