ATM card DEBIT vs CREDIT option

[Chex]

And my mom to. I wonder about her trust and the rest of my families state created trust. What exactly happened to it and who's got it.

The NAME, everyone fears the name when used/written when we don't like it, why does it matter how it's capitalized or not?

It's just a part of identification along with other things associated with it.

People who create trusts don't they use their last name?

Declaration of Trust

Is it Tammy Trustmaker, called the grantor or is it called Tammy, called the grantor?

As long as Trustmaker is spelled correctly I am good with it, its identifiable to establish the identity of, to ascertain the origin, nature etc.

What I am still looking for is the proof of the relationship of the trust. I want to see it in Constitutions, Statutes, and Legislative Information - By State in writing.

State Statutes by Topic. http://www.law.cornell.edu/statutes.html#state

[Robert Henry]

Simply elegant and concisely to the point Freed. Thank you. The more I hear explanations like this the more it all solidifies in my mind.

[Freed Gerdes]

The IRS uses YOUR NAME as a Treasury account, to keep track of your use of FRN's, and the taxes you pay on those. They also use it to hold legal title to your estate (in trust) as a surety on the debt money you have endorsed, and to thus establish a lien on your estate, which simplifies seizures. But the trust itself, which is in and holds YOUR NAME, is a cestui que vie trust; the Trustee is holding your assets for you, because you have not appeared to take responsibility for yourself (you are incompetent or suffer civil death). When you make your demand for lawful money, you are rebutting the presumptions that you are dead, and that you choose voluntary debt servitude, loaning your credit and pledging your assets as surety (collateral) for the US govt debt. By refusing to be in contract with the Federal Reserve (a private corporation), you remove these liens on your assets, and take your estate out of the usufructuary trust. This also refutes the implied contract established by SS-5 that you choose to be a 'US citizen,' viz a debt slave employee of the US govt, subject to their jurisdiction, and thus have surrendered all your Constitutional rights. [the words of art used in SS-5 are sophistry or fraud, intended to misdirect you about the purposes of the contract, and thus count as the opposite of full disclosure, as well as being unconscionable, and thus void ab initio]. Your demand, if made ab initio, unwinds the entire relationship which was presumed for you at birth; this is what MJ was referring to when he says the man has an absolute right to change his mind and go back and change his original choice. Had he been fully informed of the consequences of his choice, he would have chosen differently. The Treasury created the trust for you using your NAME. This is because the US govt is a corporation, and can only contract with other corporations, not with real, live people. By creating this trust, they hope to prevent you the natural person from owning anything, thus escaping their jurisdiction. But when you make an appearance (a demand formally served is an appearance), you rebut the presumption that you are dead, and that you want to be a debt slave, and the trustee now has an obligation to return management of the trust to you, the rightful owner of the estate. At this juncture, you take possession of your estate, including the corporate PERSON (YOUR NAME) who owns (holds legal title to) the estate. It is your corporate identity, and you own it. Now a trust has no relevance if there are no assets in it, so this collapses the trust. You can cheerfully say, 'I have no trust in the federal government.' With no contract to make you a US citizen, you are no longer under the jurisdiction of the federal government, with all their rules, codes, and regulations; you now live under common law. The Treasury keeps your treasury account in YOUR NAME (and with your ss#) 'for tax purposes,' but if you do not use FRN's you will not have any taxable income, so the account goes dormant.
The entire 'New Deal/Great Society' move towards socialism is based on these two rocks: private debt money which creates a lien (debt cannot be paid off with debt), and your implied/presumed agreement to use this debt money and accept liability for the interest on it. When you break the rock of presumed agreement, the entire fraud scheme falls apart, and you see the US government for what it is: a bankrupt corporate front for bankers to use to rob the American public of their substance. End the Fed.

Freed

[Keith Alan]

I could not agree with you more

I could not agree with you more

This is my question to you Keith How do you know you are the beneficiary of the trust ? What made you the beneficiary of the trust ? You have a contract for that trust?

What proof do you have stating that there is an account for the trust and you are the beneficiary?

That's a great question. My first inclination is to say it was the settlor's intention, in my case, my mother. But I will ponder a bit more, since it is self evident that THE NAME as it appears on the instrument is different from my given name.

[Chex]

My point was I don't think the trust becomes collapsed upon demanding lawful money. At least not the trust organization of THE NAME. It is after all, a legal fiction created by the State, and my feeling is the State will continue using it, even if the beneficiary stops using it.

I could not agree with you more

I don't think the trust becomes collapsed upon demanding lawful money.

I could not agree with you more

It is after all, a legal fiction created by the State and the State will continue using it

This is my question to you Keith

even if the beneficiary stops using the trust

How do you know you are the beneficiary of the trust ? What made you the beneficiary of the trust ? You have a contract for that trust?

What proof do you have stating that there is an account for the trust and you are the beneficiary?

[amosfella]

Does anybody see Michael Joseph's claim to walking in Melchizedek rather than Levi relevant. Melchizedek is a foreshadowing of Yehoshuah (Jesus) the Messiah. Melchizedek accepted tithes from Abraham and as Son was not expected to tithe himself.

I'm not sure I understand Malchizedek over Levi, but I do think that he's on the right track for an exit to the system.

[Keith Alan]

If you don't have the name what else do you go by? A number?

I'm convinced that working for barter or lawful money is the only way to avoid using THE NAME, but I also understand that for many that just isn't practical.

My point was I don't think the trust becomes collapsed upon demanding lawful money. At least not the trust organization of THE NAME. It is after all, a legal fiction created by the State, and my feeling is the State will continue using it, even if the beneficiary stops using it.

[David Merrill]

I should have attached this, in the form of a Massachusetts Trust.

There is nothing magical about a name. Being truthful though allows access to all trusts. [Or at least to keep your trust structure private.] If you know your name (True Name = First and Middle names) then you obtain the right of refusal (to be assumed the trustee responsible for settling charges for example). This is the structure of the Libel of Review. The objective is to acquire an evidence repository for your Refusals for Cause.

[Chex]

Isn't THE NAME part of the res of the trust? That in fact it is an organization in which the State has an interest?

If you don't have the name what else do you go by? A number?

[Keith Alan]

... Served on the regional Federal Reserve Bank for your region, it also serves to take the liens off your property held in YOUR NAME at the Treasury Trust account, ie, it takes your property out of the federal bankruptcy usufructuary trust, returning legal title to YOUR NAME. In effect, this fires the Trustee and collapses the trust, thus ending your status as a 'federal employee.'

Freed

Isn't THE NAME part of the res of the trust? That in fact it is an organization in which the State has an interest?

[David Merrill]

A-yup....I agree Chex & robert henry.....I now see the fine print on the bottom --> "Public domain form".

Excellent Catch!! [Very bottom.]

Public domain form is outside the Box!

OOOPS!

I am glad somebody flagged Famguardian on that form. It is not an IRS Form! That smells like trouble, selling altered forms?


Crosstalk -

I came across this on StSC. Turns out this W-4T (W-4 Withholdings Termination) is a bogus Form fabricated by Famguardian. It is designed to fool employers into stopping withholdings. I bet when the IRS calls the Payroll Department though, the employee is terminated.


Look at the very bottom

[David Merrill]

...If they do not deny it (and they can't actually deny it, as they are chartered under 12 USC), and do not cancel your account, then it supercedes your signature on their account card. One document one time covers all your financial transactions for all time. Keep it simple. This demand will also work for the bank account related to your stock trading account, for which you never see any paper. Served on the regional Federal Reserve Bank for your region, it also serves to take the liens off your property held in YOUR NAME at the Treasury Trust account, ie, it takes your property out of the federal bankruptcy usufructuary trust, returning legal title to YOUR NAME. In effect, this fires the Trustee and collapses the trust, thus ending your status as a 'federal employee.'

Freed

For time's sake I collect several posts. Freed - I am sure glad I read yours!

Why not just terminate witholding with a W-4T?

This W-4T Form does not involve the employer? - Meaning it is the IRS that informs your employer to stop withholding? The employee fills it out and sends it directly to the IRS?

As I understand it, employers tend to get prickly about it unless you can show that IRS agrees you are exempt. They don't like IRS asking if they're doing their job correctly. Better to play it safe, in my book!

Thanks.

My sentiment exactly. It would be cool if the IRS informed the employer to stop withholdings. That is the only way I would like the W-4T. Then again get the full refund through the 1040 Form. It has a flaw though that it requires you alter the Form at Line 21 by placing the stamp or writing the demand. Altered Forms attract Frivpens.

...Where this will become relevant, I believe, is when there is another financial crisis, and the banks decide to seize 10% of all deposits, which they can do, since these are merely unsecured loans to the bank, the way their account agreements are written.

Freed

Does anybody see Michael Joseph's claim to walking in Melchizedek rather than Levi relevant. Melchizedek is a foreshadowing of Yehoshuah (Jesus) the Messiah. Melchizedek accepted tithes from Abraham and as Son was not expected to tithe himself.

Those who fear will not enter the Kingdom. I wrote the IRS years ago and maintained that I am Redeemed in Christ of the Tribes of Israel a member of the Commonwealth of Israel and a priest walking in the Order of Melchizedok. I never heard back from them ever again. I am redeemed.

Isa 52:3 For thus saith the LORD, Ye have sold yourselves for nought; and ye shall be redeemed without money.


My TRUST is in my God and I rely upon His Word - it is my Life - it is my being - and I am a willing vessel for the glory of God - Here am I, send me - Yehovah use me to promote your Glory and to Glorify your Word in the Earth - which is to say Yehoshuah. I am redeemed in Yehoshuah to Yehovah within El Elyon.

Rev 21:7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Shalom,
Michael Joseph

Those endorsing are expected to tithe into the priestcraft of Mammon (false balances) to save the sacrificial system! Thanks for that journey this fine morning.

[Freed Gerdes]

Please note that the letter I sent to B of A included a certified copy of my demand, filed with the Register of Deeds for the county, so it was not hearsay. There were no other demands already in the bank's possession. Their attempted denial of the demand is puzzling, but as someone already observed, they are not going to give us the ammo to sink their ship, so they attempt plausible deniability. Where this will become relevant, I believe, is when there is another financial crisis, and the banks decide to seize 10% of all deposits, which they can do, since these are merely unsecured loans to the bank, the way their account agreements are written. But my demand takes my account out of their loan reserve, because lawful money cannot be used for fractional reserve lending (I refuse to let them lend against my credit). Further, the lawful money in the account makes it a special deposit account, such that they must return my money in kind (money is fungible, so they don't have to return the same exact notes, just other lawful money, which, under the legal tender laws, could just be more FRN's). But, because it is a special account, it is not an unsecured loan, so should not be subject to seizure. That is, I did not loan them the money, acting as a federal reserve private bank, dealing in FR debt securities. I actually deposited some lawful money for safekeeping, so the bank is acting as bailee, and I would be a first priority creditor in a bankruptcy action. I imagine this status will have to be clarified in a lawsuit after the general seizure...

Freed

[ag maniac]

A-yup....I agree Chex & robert henry.....I now see the fine print on the bottom --> "Public domain form".

[Robert Henry]

Why not just terminate witholding with a W-4T?

As I understand it, employers tend to get prickly about it unless you can show that IRS agrees you are exempt. They don't like IRS asking if they're doing their job correctly. Better to play it safe, in my book!

Thanks.