Indorsed Bill Remedy

[Meredith Anne]

New with a couple questions...

Hi all! Please bear with me new and researching to do our first IBR's and 1040's. I am wondering if this can be accomplished without recording any UCC docs and encompass all needed in the endorsement alone. Here is what I am thinking so far...

Approved (date)
(proper name) and (proper name)
For full assignment and transfer of reversionary interest in equitable
title to property to and for the accounting of the United States
on behalf of (NAME) (SS #) and (NAME) (SS #)
Lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions per 12 USC 411, 12 USC 95a(2), The Lieber
Code of 1863 article 31 and 38, and the 1907 Hague Convention article 43 and 55.

Or, am I way off base here?
I am also wondering if each year filing the 1040 in lawful money rebuts the presumption of using FRN's throughout that year or must it be demanded prior to with the banks and such?

Thank you,
Meredith

[Moxie]

The intent is to merge this with Karl's Lentz's "court of record" technology for its enforcement. Anthony Joseph is studying this approach intensely, and so will "i". Anyone else interested?

I've been studying Karl Lentz' common law approach. "It's so simple it's scary," as he says. lol

His stance is not to dapple at all in their codes, statutes, etc. as it's not man's language; instead, if someone says a man owes a debt, to write to that someone using his/her first name and ask him/her to tender the bill and sign it. This makes me wonder if using "USC" references is dappling?

Also, what is the difference between Accepted For Value and Indorsed Bill Remedy? A4V doesn't have the demand on it, but doesn't it accomplish the same thing? (Anyone?)

More Karl Lentz on YouTube, Trust In All Law. Talkshoe: My Private Audio (Angela Stark's call) and Unkommon Law (Karl's call); website

[doug555]

Hi all! Please bear with me new and researching to do our first IBR's and 1040's. I am wondering if this can be accomplished without recording any UCC docs and encompass all needed in the endorsement alone. Here is what I am thinking so far...

Approved (date)
(proper name) and (proper name)
For full assignment and transfer of reversionary interest in equitable
title to property to and for the accounting of the United States
on behalf of (NAME) (SS #) and (NAME) (SS #)
Lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions per 12 USC 411, 12 USC 95a(2), The Lieber
Code of 1863 article 31 and 38, and the 1907 Hague Convention article 43 and 55.

Or, am I way off base here?
I am also wondering if each year filing the 1040 in lawful money rebuts the presumption of using FRN's throughout that year or must it be demanded prior to with the banks and such?

Thank you,
Meredith

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs4CYdnZAqw&list=PLziUK8S8VKdpsKB5wBmSwZtpgzpEJny0v

Here is his related UCC-1. Click Document Number link at bottom of page.

Perhaps we should start another thread for Boris's approach. It would be good to discuss his ideas.

However, the 1040 has had successes as posted on this blog, and is independent of the IBR approach and does not need UCC filings.

[ag maniac]

Doug....I believe you meant to reference THIS UCC-1

[doug555]

Doug....I believe you meant to reference THIS UCC-1

Thanks! I corrected link in my post now...

[george]

I will have to research your reply and get back to you... Thanks for your input.

hi Doug555, did you research what Freed Gerdes presented? this is sotra what I am seeing at the moment and was wondering if you had looked into and what your thoughts were about it.


thanks

[allodial]

What some have come across and this might get at the heart of what the 'problem' is or has been: there were some in the UK who went to banks and one managed to allegedly interview a bank executive who admitted that they are supposed to take promissory notes by law but they don't by policy--meaning the banks are perpetrating the problem and promoting the monopolistic hold on money-issue by obstructing the function of societies. My experience has been along the lines of say an attorney works for a financial institution and his opinion is {THIS} which is 100% contrary to the Attorney of the Regulating Authority--the attorney at the financial institution of course would give non-answers and misdirection. Another FI VP told me that they make things up as they go along or if they don't feel 'comfortable' with something they might not do it. In other words, the law and custom are usually crystal clear--but its the banks.

Someone I had lots of trouble with she said that the banks are there to prevent... I was waiting for her to finish her sentence but she just hung on 'prevent'. So I went on: "Ah I see you are admitting that you are there to prevent anyone from doing anything anywhere just for the sake of doing it--so the purpose of banks is to obstruct anyone from doing anything under the guise of 'safety' or 'stability'." She said no more and went silent.

If someone demands payment of money it is a draft subject to acceptance or dishonor. If someone demands a check they are demanding that the payment be made to their order (i.e. negotiable). All bills sent in the mail are ABANDONED to the recipient and if incomplete are subject to being COMPLETED--this is old, well-settled case law. The acceptor of a bill should be bonded. How can you do this unless you are an expert on bills of exchange, promissory notes, etc. (Hint: read/study!)

BTW, there are laws against peonage, involuntary servitude and conspiracy against rights--when bankers obstruct they are committing felonies. If a banker's intentionally obstruction or conspiracy against your rights leads to you a condition of peonage or involuntary servitude its a crime.

P.S. Foreign bills aren't subject to Regulation CC.