What I have learned so far.

[DTBA]

SUCCESS!! I have processed two checks with the verbiage of non endorsement and am using the title 12 ss 411 certified copies as my defense if things go south or questions get asked. It seems to work. Also my bank is a registered federal reserve commercial bank as well!!! Plus one of the checks was from the Ky state treasury. I am interested in how this will turn out when they get processed. The treasury check however was first declined due to my bank usually following the 6 month rule I found out which is actually UCC 4-404. I had them accept it due to the fact of the KRS 41.370 statute and the fact I got the Ky treasury involved.

quick link

https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/4/4-404

[DTBA]

Mr Merrill,

Thank you for your inquiry and by all means dissect my posts, agree or disagree. Prove me right or wrong etc. I welcome it. It is how we learn and teach. From my understanding, when you sign a document, you have bonded your self to the words and agree with everything that is on that document. Such as in your video when you were talking about "bonding your substance" to a check signed with a blank endorsement to operate into default private credit script. A naked contract without full disclosure. As the signature, I was referring to the act of notary when you can notarize your own documents with stamp, signature, and thumbprint. (I believe that is the correct three... will verify and correct if not) I assume it functions the same way... signature is authorization, thumbprint is verification, and a stamp puts it into the federal realm of things via the post office. The post office is a very large entity I found out and they do more then just mail. They are responsible for all communications for the military and government. Isn't this the same thing the court clerk does to documents when she signs the stamp? But isn't the judge suppose to do that and not the clerk? Anyway off point. My bank agreement I have read and it did have the restrictive endorsement section in it but for the life of me can no longer find it. I have found every other piece of "research documents" except that. But when I find it or just get another one I will most definitely post it. I do like to be informed though. That way when I talk to someone about this stuff, I am able to enforce it with documentation. I'm still new to this anyways. You and the others hear are way more experienced and are more knowledgeable then me.

a site I use sometimes to look up stuff quickly. May need a better more informed page.

https://definitions.uslegal.com/r/restrictive-endorsement/

[David Merrill]

Thank you. I am just getting started. It has been really exciting my latest technologies and explorations.

Albeit the breach of trust is simply changing the oath of office, there would seem to be a lot more behind the simple fraud. Not only involving Mark as scribe to Peter and who later interviewed Matthew, Luke and John - but as a Venetian (Rome). This, with Paul writing the Epistles from Roman protective custody as a Roman citizen means that the entire New Covenant is a Roman parable.

But thank you for posting and I will give your writings a reading...

[David Merrill]

SUCCESS!! I have processed two checks with the verbiage of non endorsement and am using the title 12 ss 411 certified copies as my defense if things go south or questions get asked. It seems to work. Also my bank is a registered federal reserve commercial bank as well!!! Plus one of the checks was from the Ky state treasury. I am interested in how this will turn out when they get processed. The treasury check however was first declined due to my bank usually following the 6 month rule I found out which is actually UCC 4-404. I had them accept it due to the fact of the KRS 41.370 statute and the fact I got the Ky treasury involved.

quick link
https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/4/4-404

Source links are always welcome and a great education online.

Mr Merrill,

Thank you for your inquiry and by all means dissect my posts, agree or disagree. Prove me right or wrong etc. I welcome it. It is how we learn and teach. From my understanding, when you sign a document, you have bonded your self to the words and agree with everything that is on that document. Such as in your video when you were talking about "bonding your substance" to a check signed with a blank endorsement to operate into default private credit script. A naked contract without full disclosure. As the signature, I was referring to the act of notary when you can notarize your own documents with stamp, signature, and thumbprint. (I believe that is the correct three... will verify and correct if not) I assume it functions the same way... signature is authorization, thumbprint is verification, and a stamp puts it into the federal realm of things via the post office. The post office is a very large entity I found out and they do more then just mail. They are responsible for all communications for the military and government. Isn't this the same thing the court clerk does to documents when she signs the stamp? But isn't the judge suppose to do that and not the clerk? Anyway off point. My bank agreement I have read and it did have the restrictive endorsement section in it but for the life of me can no longer find it. I have found every other piece of "research documents" except that. But when I find it or just get another one I will most definitely post it. I do like to be informed though. That way when I talk to someone about this stuff, I am able to enforce it with documentation. I'm still new to this anyways. You and the others hear are way more experienced and are more knowledgeable then me.

a site I use sometimes to look up stuff quickly. May need a better more informed page.
https://definitions.uslegal.com/r/re...e-endorsement/

Isn't this the same thing the court clerk does to documents when she signs the stamp? But isn't the judge suppose to do that and not the clerk?

The clerk stamps the top of filed Docs. I should spend some more time going into the clerk's rules and oath.



The clerk of court is obviously in more authority than any judge. But then I suppose I will need to spend some effort to find out if certain clerks have signed deviant oaths of office.

But isn't the judge suppose to do that and not the clerk?

The judge is more an arbitrator of the rules and the clerk specializes in the rules of court. Everything is supposed to happen according to the rules. But as one suitor pointed out today:

Aristotle if equity's role is to prevent the law from adhering too rigidly to its own rules and principles when those rules and principles produce injustice. Hence equity permits judges to depart from legal principle in order to promote justice. How do i preference redemption as equity?

Possibly a little poetic for execution but I like the writing style.

My bank agreement I have read and it did have the restrictive endorsement section in it but for the life of me can no longer find it. I have found every other piece of "research documents" except that.

If you already have an account, go get another copy of it. Just say you have misplaced yours.

While you are at it, ask to read the Tariff. It is the agreement between your bank and the OCC in order to operate. They will pretend that they do not know what you are asking about. Then the manager should finally let you read it in front of a security camera, not photos.

[DTBA]

Indeed I will work on getting another copy. May be Friday cause I work before and after bank hours except on Fridays. The bank tariff is interesting to know about. Makes perfect sense as too the comptroller of the currency regulates all banking. Comparable to a state wanting to participate in the "National Driver Registrar" federal program to issue driver's license per title 49 Transportation.

I was reading a scan on another topic "LAW states registration not required" which I found out comes from the 73rd congress 1st session document no. 43. However I seem to only find the text in non validated sites but they all read the same. It's titled "Contracts Payable in Gold".

Links provided:

http://pacinlaw.us/pdf/sup/Senate_Resolution_62.php

https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-htyAjTTj1y7WqU6I/Senate%20Doc%2043%20Money%20Banking%20History%20Senate%2043_djvu.txt

http://www.freedom-school.com/reading-material/senate-resolution-62-contracts-payable-in-gold.pdf

They reference the document from GPO.gov but here is the link for the congress records. They reference it to be printed as a senate document but can't find the reading.

link:

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?na=_publishdatehier&se=_1933false&sm=&flr=&ercode=&dateBrowse=&govAuthBrowse=yes&collection=&historical=false&st=Edwin+A.+Halsey&psh=&sbh=&tfh=&originalSearch=Edwin+A.+Halsey&fromState=&sb=re&sb=re&ps=10&ps=10&granuleId=GPO-CRECB-1933-pt2-v77-11-1&packageId=GPO-CRECB-1933-pt2-v77

Anyway, this congress session seems to show that ultimate ownership is vested in the State and only provides individual's user ship of there said property. Which is why a license is required to do anything now that is normally lawful. We do not own anything. However, being United States (Currency) Notes can function as minted coin, Isn't paying for property with lawful money make true ownership vested in the buyer? My mortgage promissory note states this on the very first line "for all payments to be in lawful money of the united states". Well, that is another argument I used with the bank as it's in there contracts and title 12 ss 411 says FRN's can't be lawful money. I stated am just trying to fulfill my debt/note.

Thoughts?

[DTBA]

Expanding on my other statement "But isn't the judge suppose to do that and not the clerk?"

I thought the documents that are in court and stamped must be signed by the parties that are trying the case as they are on the same plane or field. So the judge is suppose to have a true oath of office signed and under seal that matches the jurisdiction on the document that needs to be tried. Therefore, the judge has standing to try the case. If the oath does not match, then he cannot try the case. If the clerk signs, that makes the clerk the judge but as you stated, need to learn more about the clerk and there obligations. This would put meaning to someone demanding to see the judges oath to verify they have jurisdiction or "challenge jurisdiction" as they call it.

p.s. I'm not sure if these responses are being put in order. I am clicking reply on the posts at the bottom.

[David Merrill]

Government is an irrevocable trust.

When you go through it yourself, like I have, to be attacked personally in the news and social media while the trust and trustee(s) are untouched then you might better understand how it is so much more efficient to educate yourself about trust law than to fight to mitigate the obligations of contract with Government.

[David Merrill]

Expanding on my other statement "But isn't the judge suppose to do that and not the clerk?"

I thought the documents that are in court and stamped must be signed by the parties that are trying the case as they are on the same plane or field. So the judge is suppose to have a true oath of office signed and under seal that matches the jurisdiction on the document that needs to be tried. Therefore, the judge has standing to try the case. If the oath does not match, then he cannot try the case. If the clerk signs, that makes the clerk the judge but as you stated, need to learn more about the clerk and there obligations. This would put meaning to someone demanding to see the judges oath to verify they have jurisdiction or "challenge jurisdiction" as they call it.

p.s. I'm not sure if these responses are being put in order. I am clicking reply on the posts at the bottom.

Looks good to me.

All the "judges" are bond-dodging and therefore the clerk is always acting as the judge. But I have not put the suitors to pursuing the oaths of the clerks yet. The clerks are publishing evidence on PACER and so I do not want them recused. The publications might stop too.


P.S. Consider the arrogance and hubris:

It is like the attorney was doinking with the Pitney Bowes machinery! And the DoJ is saying they will get to it when they can? This is a FOIA appeal for viewing the oath of John Glover ROBERTS for crying out loud!!

The DoJ defaulted on 6/4 and so Judgment will come July 4.

[DTBA]

WOW! They flat out refused to release an oath and the DOJ drug there feet! The question must be asked, why even have a Constitution if no one will adhere to it? Attorney's/Lawyers, police, judges, sheriff's, etc are getting away with illegal and unlawful process and are not being held accountable by the ones who are suppose to hold them as such. But if we miss a date or forget to pay a fee, then LOOKOUT!

I'm sorry to hear about your bad experiences. But, you are now in a much better position and more knowledgeable. Trials and tribulations mold people and change the way they think and act. Worrying about small things like government contracting isn't where the energy and effort needs to be put. Trust law and how it operates is where the meat is. Got it.

[David Merrill]

WOW! They flat out refused to release an oath and the DOJ drug there feet! The question must be asked, why even have a Constitution if no one will adhere to it? Attorney's/Lawyers, police, judges, sheriff's, etc are getting away with illegal and unlawful process and are not being held accountable by the ones who are suppose to hold them as such. But if we miss a date or forget to pay a fee, then LOOKOUT!

I'm sorry to hear about your bad experiences. But, you are now in a much better position and more knowledgeable. Trials and tribulations mold people and change the way they think and act. Worrying about small things like government contracting isn't where the energy and effort needs to be put. Trust law and how it operates is where the meat is. Got it.

I did not mean to say these experiences are bad. It is a wonderful exploration into the New World Order - but pre-1492. Who discovered America?

ANSWER: Good money is on the people who were already here.

BETTER ANSWER: The pre-Babylonian Hebrews. Akkadian/Sumarian peoples.



This Bat Creek Stone was discovered under a Cherokee garbage dump.

[xparte]

All the "judges" are bond-dodging and therefore the clerk is always acting as the judge. But I have not put the suitors to pursuing the oaths of the clerks yet. The clerks are publishing evidence That is whats called railroading the "judge" the CLERK being safe in the controlled publications environment merely throwing the doctoral pacer appellant bone and your application is now in the PACERS hall of fame Enjoying the Nonadministrative Death posthumously preserved, Highway 61 never hooks up with Route 66 my irrevocable trust has published my tombstone blues. but who owns that Pacer irrevocable Trust publishing house. High Water "judges" and "dry dock clerks" give me a flag pole a courtroom and a paper office thats where all the killings are done . revisiting the record Gringo

[lorne]

HOFFMAN says Route 66 was laid out by Freemasons.

[marcel]

Did freemasons lay out the IRS Penalty Reference Numbers?

[David Merrill]

Did freemasons lay out the IRS Penalty Reference Numbers?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]5126[/ATTACH]

I gather you mean the "666" section.

Your guess is as good as mine. I think that the 6+6+6=18=9 is base. Base 9 is non-productive. 9x7=63. 6=3=9

When the product always equals the input it is non-productive. This is the base lifestyle, in the ego. So I think if there is any design to the number of the Section for the FrivPen, it is to scare Christians into paying up. But while I am guessing, the FrivPen went up from $500 to $5000 when we began redeeming lawful money. So it may have been based on scaring me, thinking that I must be a religious leader.

However, I think that cause and effect are different than what most people do, or what I used to think it was. So it simply makes more sense that statute should be aligned to the Base Chakra - thinking with the gonads.

[lorne]

Ah, the infamous 666 friv pen (Pena de muerto).
Yes, the penalty jumped to $5000 in 2007. The IRS objective does seem to be FEAR.




The current list can be found here: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-irbs/irb10-17.pdf starting on page 609.

This presents a little problem for the IRS: lawful money tax returns aren't even remotely "based on a position" on the Secretary's list. The IRS is without authority to assess a FrivPen to a lawful money filer, it would be a misapplication of law.

Now if you are husbanding human animals ... using the apparatus of government, and some of the animals learned the methodology of the theft (by way of a private currency) and stopped using FRNs, wouldn't you try a catch-all 666 PENALTY to scare them back into the tax pen? Before everyone starts doing it?