ATM card DEBIT vs CREDIT option

[Chex]

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

I think that is a famguardian.org form, would not hurt to place it or something similar like it into a NoD for the day court will come around.

In regards to the payroll department the w4 form was filled out exempt with the verbiage 12USC411on line 7 http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fw4.pdfhttp://store.irszoom.com/ceofexfrwiof.html

That 1041 is of great interest to me too.

[ag maniac]

My thoughts exactly, Chex. My NaD, signature card demand and non-endorsement on all deposited instruments seem to make my demand clear enough for any presumptive refutation.

That 1041 form is interesting, I've not seen one before, thanks. The "Trust thing" is still well outside my understanding at this time. My current plan is to file for a return of my withholding from June of 2013, when I started redeeming, then continue to redeem all of this year's checks and then present my 2014 return to the payroll department, assuming all goes well with my returns, of course, and show that IRS agreed I have no tax liability, therefore I am now exempt from withholding.

Thanks for your thoughts.

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

[Robert Henry]

1041 form.

My thoughts exactly, Chex. My NaD, signature card demand and non-endorsement on all deposited instruments seem to make my demand clear enough for any presumptive refutation.

That 1041 form is interesting, I've not seen one before, thanks. The "Trust thing" is still well outside my understanding at this time. My current plan is to file for a return of my withholding from June of 2013, when I started redeeming, then continue to redeem all of this year's checks and then present my 2014 return to the payroll department, assuming all goes well with my returns, of course, and show that IRS agreed I have no tax liability, therefore I am now exempt from withholding.

Thanks for your thoughts.

[Chex]

While filling up at the gas station today I realized my habitual use of the CREDIT option, as opposed to the DEBIT option, when using my ATM card. Robert Henry

1041 form.


This is a real eye-opener. When you go in to change your Signature Card specify that you want the Trust Department of your bank.

Set it up like any standard trust form.

[Freed Gerdes]

Doug, a check is a bill of exchange, and the demand for lawful money is not part of the bill. In fact, the bill will be purchased by the bank (second party), or executed by the bank (third party), in their preferred currency, FRN's, based on the legal tender laws (it is understood that FRN's are tendered as payment) unless you demand otherwise. Putting your demand on the front of the bill would not seem to damage it, so there appears to be nothing wrong with that approach. B or A for instance, states in their standard account agreement that they will ignore restrictive endorsements written on the back, so this may be a good approach. But for many of us, the problem is in wire and interbank transfers, for which we never see any paper to non-endorse. So the general solution is to publish your demand in an official venue (court record misc case file, County Clerk, Secretary of State?, newspaper, etc) and then serve that now in the public record notice on the bank. This covers the account, rebutting their presumption that you want to deal in FR debt securities, and thus it covers all transactions. It is a unilateral change demanded of the bank on your account agreement. 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

[doug555]

Doug555, just to let you know your Private message capacity has been reached and No one can reply to your private messages. Basically your inbox is full.

Thanks, it is empty now...

[froze25]

Doug555, just to let you know your Private message capacity has been reached and No one can reply to your private messages. Basically your inbox is full.

[David Merrill]

The fourth branch of government, the grand jury, is in place for good reason; to check the actions of the other branches and determine whether or not claims brought against people have merit - at law. Legalese, of any kind, should be barred from a true grand jury hearing.

The "courts" gain jurisdiction over the "jurors" in the selection process who then become puppets for the status quo.

Everything you do, when you step out of your own domestic authority (the four walls you call home), is illegal. So, any notice stating that there is "no legal authority" or "legal basis" in response to your lawful notice or process is absolutely true. We do not seek "legal" basis or authority - we are concerned only with what is lawful.

There must be a wrong or harm committed, injury to one's property or a breach of a true contract for there to be an unlawful act. Everything else is "legalities" and those are too numerous to know and are ever changing; therefore, I do not understand and I am not a part of the legal society that claims "legalities".

Someone must come forward and verify the claim against i; a man, for there to be a case with merit. Make an immediate good faith effort to settle the matter with whoever is prosecuting the case and form the record around said efforts. Fair warning that you will require the accuser to appear, verify the claim/debt/etc. and to cross-examine the accuser must be given to show you are acting in honor.

Any venue, or "court" can become our realm of common law; we just need to learn how to flip it, move it, hold it and keep it there.

Therefore Robert Henry's Demand was prophylactic? It prevented the traditional presumption that he was an endorser of private credit from the Fed. Making the demand for lawful clear stopped a crime before it happened.

[David Merrill]

What would happen were the $600 million lotto winner to redeem his/her winnings in lawful money? In fact, could not the suitors sum up our collective redemptions and permanently FORECLOSE on the entire FED SYSTEM, once the $300 million hard ceiling of US Notes is found to be breached?

There is one suitor with a claim similar to this. I will have to look again. The judge ignored his claim that he had been injured by purchasing a $10 US note at a coin shop as its value is pegged to the diminishing value of his FRN's he used to pay for it. But that is a start. I can develop that with knowledge. That is what the brain trust is about.

Great news! Thanks!!

After reading AGs and your comments again, perhaps the NaD had no legal effect because it was NOT acceptable per the Federal Rules of Evidence Exception to Hearsay Rule (FRE 803(6)(B))since it was just a letter outside the normal course of business, or possibly the NaD was already trumped by some non-endorsements on instruments already on record that did fit the exception to hearsay rule... and so then truly it had no legal effect because the demand was already on record!

Hmmmm... these attorneys are so clever and yet technically truthful at times...

Of course!! Since the bank was already on notice the subsequent NaD had no legal effect. That is very clever!

The fourth branch of government, the grand jury, is in place for good reason; to check the actions of the other branches and determine whether or not claims brought against people have merit - at law. Legalese, of any kind, should be barred from a true grand jury hearing.

The "courts" gain jurisdiction over the "jurors" in the selection process who then become puppets for the status quo.

Everything you do, when you step out of your own domestic authority (the four walls you call home), is illegal. So, any notice stating that there is "no legal authority" or "legal basis" in response to your lawful notice or process is absolutely true. We do not seek "legal" basis or authority - we are concerned only with what is lawful.

There must be a wrong or harm committed, injury to one's property or a breach of a true contract for there to be an unlawful act. Everything else is "legalities" and those are too numerous to know and are ever changing; therefore, I do not understand and I am not a part of the legal society that claims "legalities".

Someone must come forward and verify the claim against i; a man, for there to be a case with merit. Make an immediate good faith effort to settle the matter with whoever is prosecuting the case and form the record around said efforts. Fair warning that you will require the accuser to appear, verify the claim/debt/etc. and to cross-examine the accuser must be given to show you are acting in honor.

Any venue, or "court" can become our realm of common law; we just need to learn how to flip it, move it, hold it and keep it there.

[doug555]

Yes Ag;

Notice how the bank stressed how the demand had no legal effect? If that were true why bother writing a long letter?

Doug;

You have cleaned up process quite a bit. Thank you.

I believe that we are experiencing a dynamic and I try to be agile and flexible. There is a thread here - Exactly what does the IRS agent think? I have not been updating the Memos and Notices that the IRS agents receive. My point is that they change, like Ag pointed out - with the IRS attorney - interactions change them as well as process.

The law says we make our demand and maybe the LoR and NaD are becoming outdated? I always go for a more thorough Notice though. The NaD was developed by the LoR becoming so expensive to file. Now with this distinctive diversity of citizenship I am thinking to reevaluate the original Libel in Review. That remand to state court is the common law grand jury we are discussing.

Great news! Thanks!!

After reading AGs and your comments again, perhaps the NaD had no legal effect because it was NOT acceptable per the Federal Rules of Evidence Exception to Hearsay Rule (FRE 803(6)(B))since it was just a letter outside the normal course of business, or possibly the NaD was already trumped by some non-endorsements on instruments already on record that did fit the exception to hearsay rule... and so then truly it had no legal effect because the demand was already on record!

Hmmmm... these attorneys are so clever and yet technically truthful at times...

[Robert Henry]

Thank you Robert Henry;

It is your mind that is great!

Thank you, you are too kind. I am merely here to "stand on the shoulders of giants", as Michael Joseph would say (MJ, oh MJ, wherefore art thou, oh MJ? And why hast thou deserted us? Your words and wisdom are sorely missed in this venue!), and learn as and what I can from those who have gone before and are willing to share their experiences.

If you think about that you might gather that making a demand for lawful money does not actually result in the tender of lawful money. The US note is not a reserve currency yet Congress has finagled things so that the value of the US note is pegged to the diminishing value of the Federal Reserve note, which is not lawful money.

From there it may seem even more incredible.

Even more incredible, indeed! What would happen were the $600 million lotto winner to redeem his/her winnings in lawful money? In fact, could not the suitors sum up our collective redemptions and permanently FORECLOSE on the entire FED SYSTEM, once the $300 million hard ceiling of US Notes is found to be breached?

...but you might let me know about any intrusion by the Federal Reserve System presuming you are still in contract.

You will be the second to know!

It is your comprehension of truth and your pure trust that will establish the remedy. When it strikes you that you have been making a mistake, like today with the Credit Option simply seek to understand better.

That is the very reason for this post!

Doug, thank you for your thoughts! Is not the appropriate non-endorsement on the back of ALL cashed or deposited checks in addition to NaD, and other formal notices, enough of a PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE to show intent of use of lawful money? Why would notice on the face, a space apparently for reserved for the use of the issuer of said instrument (and could that not, in fact, be seen as TAMPERING with said instrument?), be anything other than a redundancy?

AG, thank you for you thoughts! I whole-heartedly agree that the banks CAN NOT and WILL NOT, by tacit admission or acknowledgement, verify the veracity of redemption.

I very much look forward to hearing from others!

Thank you for your time and care,

Robert Henry

[David Merrill]

Yes Ag;

Notice how the bank stressed how the demand had no legal effect? If that were true why bother writing a long letter?

Doug;

You have cleaned up process quite a bit. Thank you.

I believe that we are experiencing a dynamic and I try to be agile and flexible. There is a thread here - Exactly what does the IRS agent think? I have not been updating the Memos and Notices that the IRS agents receive. My point is that they change, like Ag pointed out - with the IRS attorney - interactions change them as well as process.

The law says we make our demand and maybe the LoR and NaD are becoming outdated? I always go for a more thorough Notice though. The NaD was developed by the LoR becoming so expensive to file. Now with this distinctive diversity of citizenship I am thinking to reevaluate the original Libel in Review. That remand to state court is the common law grand jury we are discussing.

[ag maniac]

....And despite claims that it has no legal effect, if the IRS and States honor it who cares what the bankers and their attorneys say?

Perhaps it only has LAWFUL effect... which only a Common Law Grand Jury can decide as judges of the both the law and facts.

Those two bolded above just threw some new light (to me) on the BoA response to the NaD....kinda got to read between the lines.

=======================

(Assumption --> BoA is in knee deep with the FED/gov-co)

BoA did the right thing in "agreeing with thy adversary quickly". Both responses were within 10 business days of suitors notices -- acknowledging receipt of the NaD. They certainly didn't say it was refused.

Next, the statements "...no legal relevance, no bank action..." & "return documents" on its face may seem like a refusal....but suppose that it's a denial, typical of FED/gov-co....so as not to let the cat out of the bag.....re: David Merril's account about the IRS lady saying somebody in Colorado is doing it right & then clamming up.

They know they've got to adjust their accounting now.....they're just not going to admit it....especially on paper....to be spread far & wide by a printed sheet. That admission will never see the light of day.....they're not going to give you the ammunition that sinks their ship.

Without a doubt, that's a really big cat in that bag.

So in that instance, the suitor was good to go from June 15, the day the demand was executed & witnessed by the notary.

That's my take .....I could be wrong....

==================================

But doug555 is right here in that a NaD is not really necessary in "legalworld" (but good to go in lawfulworld) with the transaction based demands standing as the record....and as a "rock" it stands....straight & true.

[doug555]

Please also try to get my point.

For example, did you make Notice and Demand before you understood your point above?

The remedy is between your ears. Making the demand is meaningless to many bankers. One bank made the point of saying "no legal effect" several times. So I get your point.

The Lesson Plan guides people through a journey to get where you are now. Even so, the Notice and Demand in some form or another has been proven effective to stave off assumptions of endorsement. And another point is that if you make your notice and demand to the Fed Bank, through the federal court, even publish it at the county recorder and serve it on your bank it is not very likely to get to your boss or cause any grief whatsoever.

In the exploration of grand jury formation for example, we need to raise the consciousness of people in general. The Notice and Demand and Libel of Review processes are great for doing that.


Regards,

David Merrill.

No, I did not make a Notice and Demand before I understood the TRANSACTION-BASED REDEMPTION point above. In fact, the above point did not "congeal" in my mind until AFTER I did my 1040 the way I did it, and when it was honored, it came by way of reverse-engineering to realize that point.

But you are right, we should know WHY it works BEFORE doing it. And give NOTICE to others "to raise the consciousness of people in general", but not as a requirement because 12 USC 411 has no CFR regulation requiring that.

And despite claims that it has no legal effect, if the IRS and States honor it who cares what the bankers and their attorneys say?

Perhaps it only has LAWFUL effect... which only a Common Law Grand Jury can decide as judges of the both the law and facts.

But the record-forming that I have in this folder may be sufficient for a Common Law Grand Jury "court of record" to establish the date on which I truly began my lawful money demands for all transactions, as Blackstone's Commentaries, Book 3, Chapter 22, pages 4-5, refers to a record, in a "trial by record", as "a monument of so high a nature, and imports in itself such absolute verity, that if be pleaded that there is no such a record, it shall not receive any trial by witness, jury or otherwise, but only by itself".

If this position is not true today, in common law, then please correct me so I can revise my tactics and save up the money needed to pursue the LOR process.