Got a letter back from the FED today...

[ag maniac]

I and others have been having great success when receiving an account statement indicating an amount due. With this verbiage placed on the statement and mailed back, I haven't heard another peep;
This name and account number are property of the UNITED STATES
Please forward to the owner in care of the Treasury of the United States

(Sign) Authorized Representative (Date)

The success hasn't just been with one or two instances but many.

EZ....are you mailing that back using the [company supplied] bill-pay address.....or are you doing some type of private communication w/ the company CFO?

[EZrhythm]

EZ....are you mailing that back using the [company supplied] bill-pay address.....or are you doing some type of private communication w/ the company CFO?

The company supplied address.

[macsdm]

Freed - this is the best, most concise explanation (and QUESTION) of what I have been trying to get others here to acknowledge since last year.

Thanks!

The problem is HOW to redeem lawful money WITHIN the context of an amended contract with a federal reserve institution. I have not been able to amend such successfully - going to try another institution this week.

I think the difficulty arises in the nature of lack of choice (banking cartel) and the illusion of "voluntary" contract with the cartel: namely that having a "bank" account is voluntary and so on.

Peace -scott

[David Merrill]

The Fed response letter makes an interesting misdirection, perhaps assisted by the inquiry with regards to 31 USC 5115, by pretending that the reserve issue in question is something other than the reserve used for fictional reserve banking. The correct issue of reserves is found at 12 USC 461; FR banks are required to keep (an insignificant) reserve against their demand accounts. This required reserve balance is calculated and reported by each FR bank weekly, to the regional Federal Reserve bank. Lawful money may not be used as part of this reserve. So the letter response was intended to confuse this issue, further to their long held strategy of blurring the distinction between lawful public money, issued by the Treasury under the Constitution, and private money, issued by the Fed, which is not money, but debt obligations. I got a similar line of obfuscation from the Chief Legal Counsel of the Richmond Fed bank; under no circumstances is anyone going to get in writing the true nature of the relationship between Federal Reserve debt money and income taxes.

As to the UCC-3 Reconcilation Statement issue, I have seen a lot written on the subject of how to 'correct' your Treasury account. The IRS uses this account to track the taxes they will demand, and will hold you the natural person liable for the tax debt assigned to the trust. (The IRS has to use a trust account as they are a corporation, and cannot contract with a natural person.) This is the primary purpose of the cestui que vie trust. When you collapse the trust by making an appearance, proving that you are not dead, the trustee (Sec of Treasury) has one and only one remaining duty: to return the res to you, the rightful owner. The trustee is responsible for any debts he may have allowed the trust to accumulate while he was responsible for it, so you can just leave the wreckage of the trust in his care. (You still have the duty to pay any income taxes due for the interval when you were still using their debt money, ie, this year's taxes.) Once you remove your assets, the trust has no validity. Further, since you have severed your contract with the Federal Reserve, the trust will not accumulate any new debts; the trust is non-operational as of the date of your demand. And you have no further interest in it. If the trustee made a mess of it, through fraud, false accounting, acceptance for value of your birth certificate, etc, it is his mess to clean up. You take your estate out of the bankruptcy and back into the clean air of Constitutional money. You now have no trust in the Federal government; you use real money, not debt, and you pay for your assets in full, so the Federal Reserve does not perfect liens against your assets in the future. At this point you have no contractual relationship with the Federal Reserve; you have escaped the bankers' plot to steal your assets. Let's END THE FED.

Finally, I have seen a lot written here about how the government 'owns' your legal name. This is clearly wrong; the government has established a CQVtrust in your legal name, in which the Sec of Treasury holds legal title to your estate, and you enjoy equitable title, which means you get to use the estate, but the govt owns it. Once you collapse the CQV trust by making an appearance and demand, legal title reverts to your legal name as the fictional entity/corporate person who can contract, with you the natural person as the accommodation agent. I took the further step of registering my legal name as a dba in my state, to take it out of US jurisdiction, and to make it clear that I the natural person own the name. Now the government still has a Treasury account in my legal name, but I have no interest in it, and do not use it. This is probably a clearer explanation of what EZ means when he says that the government owns that account (but it is not correct to say that the government owns the name).

We tend to identify ourselves through license. We are simply trained that way:

I certainly enjoy reading your elaboration. Thank you.

My point is that my identity is struck here as well as with others, in my actions and words - my issues of communication and creation. Communication and creation are synonyms. Only beings of like order can truly communicate. I like myself as I am here - my identity. My ego borrows time from eternity.

[Freed Gerdes]

Scott, there can be no difficulty in redeeming lawful money. Congress used the words 'shall be redeemed...' in Title 12 USC. This construction carries the connotation of mandatory; the bank cannot refuse. Some banks, including Bank of America, will try to obfuscate this issue in several ways. The legal department of the RIchmond Federal Reserve Bank will also try to muddy the water, and will not answer a direct question concerning redemption. This is not your problem; the Fed Regional Banks are charged with maintaining the legal operation of Fed banks in their regions. Your duty ends with your demand; whether the Sec of Treasury actually redeems any FRN's is not important to you. The only advantage you obtain is you have redeemed the FRN's, and are now not extending and endorsing Fed private credit, not trading in Fed securities, and not triggering the irrecusable obligation to file a return and pay income taxes on the money redeemed. Since the banks are attempting to refuse demands for redemption, it is incumbent on you to maintain your own record of your demand, in case the IRS should challenge your claims. Thus I recommend letters to the bank clearing stating your demand, which will force them to respond with further denials. These documents prove that they received your demand; keep these records in a safe place. David suggest opening an evidence repository with the District Court; this is the surest/safest route, but costs money, time, and inconvenience. Should the IRS question you, you can send them copies of your correspondence; should they initiate a collection action, you can sue them in district court, and enter your correspondence as evidence. I told the IRS that I had made the demand, and hence was not reporting stock transactions done in lawful money, which would explain why my return did not match their 1099; have not heard back, and don't expect to. Next year I won't file a return, which may generate a standard form letter or not. But if your records are complete, you are adequately prepared for any reaction from the IRS.

As to banks claiming their accounts are voluntary, etc, if you read the account agreement carefully, you will not find any reference to FRN's. The BofA agreement says all deposits must be in US dollars, which would seem to preclude FRN's, but their presumption is that by opening an account at a Fed bank, the sole promoter of FRN's, that you are wanting to bank in their private money. Making your demand refutes this presumption, and per 12 USC, they are not at liberty to refuse.

David, I hear your comment about the power of the name, and about giving others the power to act as agent with your name. Making your demand, and the appearance which collapses the trust, is the equivalent of telling them that they cannot use your name in vain any more. Collapsing the trust revokes their power as agent; in essence you have fired the trustee and taken back title to your estate. Since the Sec of Treasury has allowed lawful money to circulate at par with FRN's, which have collapsed in value under the Fed's endless printing, it is clear that the Secretary does not deserve your trust; he has violated his constitutional oath.

Freed G

[David Merrill]

David, I hear your comment about the power of the name, and about giving others the power to act as agent with your name. Making your demand, and the appearance which collapses the trust, is the equivalent of telling them that they cannot use your name in vain any more. Collapsing the trust revokes their power as agent; in essence you have fired the trustee and taken back title to your estate. Since the Sec of Treasury has allowed lawful money to circulate at par with FRN's, which have collapsed in value under the Fed's endless printing, it is clear that the Secretary does not deserve your trust; he has violated his constitutional oath.

Freed G

Thanks for mentioning it. I thought it sounded a bit esoteric and am glad the readers can tie it together. It was really a mood as much as anything - that I describe my identity and thus if I am careful about it can identify myself correctly and avoid error.

Furthermore, every time we identify ourselves it is done by a statement about who or what we trust at that moment. Interesting.

[amosfella]

As I've been looking, I think that there's more to collapsing the Cestue que trust that just making a claim, or redeeming lawful money. But, I think that the correct sentence structure language might be part of it, as well as redeeming lawful money. I do believe that there are more components to collapsing it.
I am speculating on this matter, but from my reading in the law dictionaries, and other books, I believe that we're kinda at the halfways point for this. But I think that a few other things are necessary to be done to finish the collapse of the trust. My thoughts on this have been evolving for a while, but are not, I believe, fully complete. I haven't tried any of this yet, as I don't believe the process in my mind has been completed, but I think I've put a lot of pieces together. If elaboration is desired, let me know.