Check Non-Endorsement Verbiage

[Chex]

headquartered in New York City, United States, and a division of McGraw Hill Financial.

[Chex]

The one who demands does so without duty. The trustee must keep the ledger/accounting.

MJ what does that mean "The one who demands does so without duty." and who exactly is the trustee who must keep the ledger/accounting?


verbage I like that.

[Michael Joseph]

MJ what does that mean "The one who demands does so without duty." and who exactly is the trustee who must keep the ledger/accounting?

A claim is equal to a demand - but if the claim is made WITHIN a certain Law Boundary, then that claim must have a mechanism upon which relief can be granted. Since I don't find my name upon the notes I do not have the Management of those notes in circulation and the use of those notes is subject to the Statutes developed and understood by those who consent to the Use.

What I mean is I move the exchange upon certain understandings based on my demand or lack thereof. If I lack a claim, then I will have a duty to give accounting [you might call that a return]. Otherwise, I have no duty to give an accounting as I was not responsible for the Ordering up of new book entries.

See it is by MY ORDER of which the store performs. Therefore since I took on the management, I also take the liability.

There always remains a presumption and the trustee must give account if demanded of him to prove his/her innocence. Therefore just to comprehend uses and trust one can escape duty in claim. I claim Lawful Money by demanding it. See at once I bound myself within a certain law boundary.

Consider, is it lawful to use USN's to buy in say China? Only if the heads of State [husbandmen] have entered upon an agreement! For the citizen [wife] is subject to the heads of State [husbandmen]. See this is Romans 13 and the heads of State are subject to God in Oath to the "people" and "God". For to tort a man is to tort God. For know ye now that ye are the temple of God.

Therefore we see the demand is made "subject to" the Code: 12USC411. Which is merely a reflection of a rule within a law boundary. I use the term "rule" very crudely now. But I think it gets it done. So therefore as a BENEFICIARY I demand Lawful Money - which is a PUBLIC BENEFIT - but at once I am GRANTEE in receipt of the benefit of the Use of Lawful Money undertaking now in and for the United States Districts. For you have just as much right to use lawful money as I do. Only thing separating my ability to make that use from another is KNOWLEDGE.

Officers of State occupy upon certain offices. Seems Jacob Joseph LEW is Governor of the IMF and Secretary of the Treasury. Of course it is also true that notice to agent is notice to principal. The IRS as you know is not an agency of the U.S. government.

See in Diversified Metal Products vs T Bow Company Trust we find that the proper party in suit would be the United States of America. Now ask yourself who established the Use of the notes? Was it not the United States of America in Congress? Now not to go to deep down that rabbit hole but merely to touch on the demand is made FOR something of which relief may be granted within the Law Boundary whereof said demand issues unto and grant thereof.

In the end money in any form is only as good as the willingness of the people to place their trust in that exchange medium. Thusly money is understood by Faith.

IN GOD WE TRUST

[Chex]

History used to be boring now boots are on the ground.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States....

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2

The federal government owns or controls about thirty percent of the land in the United States. These holdings include national parks, national forests, recreation areas, wildlife refuges, vast tracts of range and wasteland managed by the Bureau of Land Management, reservations held in trust for Native American tribes, military bases, and ordinary federal buildings and installations. Although federal property can be found in every state, the largest concentrations are in the west, where, for example, the federal government owns over eighty percent of the land within Nevada.

The narrowest conception, which can be called the proprietary theory, maintains that the Property Clause simply allows Congress to act as an ordinary owner of land. It can set policy regarding whether such lands will be sold or retained and, if they are retained, who may enter these lands and for what purposes. Under this conception, the clause confers no political sovereignty over federal landholdings. Unless one of the enumerated powers of Article I applies, such as the power to raise armies or establish a post office, political sovereignty over federal lands remains with the several states in which the land is located.

Bless you my friend.

..it amazed me how adeptly he (Michael Joseph) could take complex subject matter, like trust law and break it down so I could understand it.

[Michael Joseph]

History used to be boring now boots are on the ground.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States....

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2

The federal government owns or controls about thirty percent of the land in the United States. These holdings include national parks, national forests, recreation areas, wildlife refuges, vast tracts of range and wasteland managed by the Bureau of Land Management, reservations held in trust for Native American tribes, military bases, and ordinary federal buildings and installations. Although federal property can be found in every state, the largest concentrations are in the west, where, for example, the federal government owns over eighty percent of the land within Nevada.

The narrowest conception, which can be called the proprietary theory, maintains that the Property Clause simply allows Congress to act as an ordinary owner of land. It can set policy regarding whether such lands will be sold or retained and, if they are retained, who may enter these lands and for what purposes. Under this conception, the clause confers no political sovereignty over federal landholdings. Unless one of the enumerated powers of Article I applies, such as the power to raise armies or establish a post office, political sovereignty over federal lands remains with the several states in which the land is located.

Bless you my friend.

..it amazed me how adeptly he (Michael Joseph) could take complex subject matter, like trust law and break it down so I could understand it.

Thank you. I give glory to God. When I truly began an earnest study of the Bible absent any priest or preacher who was trying to tell me what it meant - it was then that I began to get glimpses at the original trust. And with more study, I began to see that the model is replicated in the earth so that one day those who are entirely carnal and literal might begin to see what is the truth. For the model only reflects that which is true. You might say the Light comes from the Sun but is not the Sun.

Hue-man kind. This post makes my day. I appreciate your kindness.

[george]

..it amazed me how adeptly he (Michael Joseph) could take complex subject matter, like trust law and break it down so I could understand it.

that had to be the most direct and to the point post and also the best one (or at least top 5) MJ has ever written here from my perspective! easy to read and without many sidetracks into off-topic. not that he goes off topic often but for those of us reading that lack a broader range of understanding on these matters, often it sure seems off topic and just adds more confusion.

I really like it when the members here get on the main subjects that started this forum, especially when they get down to the brass tacks technicalities. that really helped me start to grasp what all this fuss is about. and I have been following these methods for many years now. much prior to this forum.

that was a great post MJ.

[Michael Joseph]

thank you george.

Once when I was at college I overhead my Physics professor speaking to my Chemistry professor. They were talking about how the sciences are all connected but that few can perceive the connectivity and thusly they remain somewhat blinded to the bigger picture.

Like Jay Vincent, one of my early mentors, used to say - it is all one huge connected string. One makes leaping bounds when one connects philosophy to science. Therefore as for my part, I understand the world without when I have better understanding of the world within my consciousness.

Just like Madonna said "You hold the Key". I pray that you find your way thru your red [reed] sea.

[xparte]

MJ who should i thank for the word the man that speaks it glory does the rest

absent any priest or preacher Practising Cathaholics Without any Protesting Wasps to keep Basilica in familiar (in the Roman Catholic Church) a person rendering certain services in a pope's or bishop's household. Also i am thanking MJ for any Man that is given a wisdom is under the grace of God when it is imparted it glorify s the WORD forget in the beginning get u some word and wisdom with grace to till at or the end .Glory is what lifts a spirit from where its bound. Is the crew bound for glory it appears a voyage and its route has been set. whats not biblical about this crew are we not persecuted plagued offered kingdoms this could be yours.I have respect for law Gods simpler said for all Gods crew.

[Stephen]

I appreciate the opinions contributed to this thread. But in the end the only thing that matters is which, if any, of the non-endorsement verbiages have been an effective defense in court in regard to taxation. Can anyone cite any case law regarding these non-endorsements?

[BLBereans]

In my opinion, the only "case law" you will find on the record is that which skews the intent and proper claim of demand of lawful money so as to deceive the public and charge the unwitting "defendant".

The same "verbiage" can be utilized by many different people with many different outcomes. The only way to provide "an effective defense" against attack is to handle the matter honorably according to the rules of common law which, by the way, are unwritten - this is still a common law land.

All claims, no matter the nature of the pursuer or cause, should be handled in the same way. Know your rights and learn how to reserve, protect and exercise them. The right "verbiage" will not carry the day as a "silver bullet" or an "abracadabra" remedy. At best, it serves as a reference and benefit to the pursuer since it most likely is said pursuer who is subject to, and obligated to know, the relevant "law" being cited.

That does not, however, automatically prevent deception or tricks of the attorneys and "judges" during a case or proceeding which may cause one to fall victim and be held liable.

[ag maniac]

Stephen -- it has been said many times here......REMEDY is between your ears

So knowing to your very core that what you are doing is right & true, "sticking to your guns" [in a defense] would be a no-brainer.

[Stephen]

Stephen -- it has been said many times here......REMEDY is between your ears

So knowing to your very core that what you are doing is right & true, "sticking to your guns" [in a defense] would be a no-brainer.

There are countless Patriots who thought they had found remedy in law, stuck to their guns, and lost regardless of how legally correct their case actually was. Examples are Lindsey Springer, Sherry Peel Jackson, Joseph Bannister, William J Benson, etc. Many of them went to jail. Tom Cryer was one of the outlier exceptions, and he won not on proving his position on tax law, but by proving lack of criminal intent.

It does not matter what written law says. We have seen it does not matter in non tax related court decisions such as those that have upheld Eminent Domain abuse (Kelo), and upheld tainted Asset Forfeiture before a conviction (the Fourth and Fifth Amendments do not make any exceptions regarding assets made tainted by suspicion or mere accusation). All that really matters is operating law.

And so I ask again: Have any of these non-endorsement verbiages prevailed in operating law? I want to avoid finding out it won't by ending up in jail, or by being forced into an expensive tax penalty deal that will impoverish me for the rest of my life.

[Michael Joseph]

There are countless Patriots who thought they had found remedy in law, stuck to their guns, and lost regardless of how legally correct their case actually was. Examples are Lindsey Springer, Sherry Peel Jackson, Joseph Bannister, William J Benson, etc. Many of them went to jail. Tom Cryer was one of the outlier exceptions, and he won not on proving his position on tax law, but by proving lack of criminal intent.

It does not matter what written law says. We have seen it does not matter in non tax related court decisions such as those that have upheld Eminent Domain abuse (Kelo), and upheld tainted Asset Forfeiture before a conviction (the Fourth and Fifth Amendments do not make any exceptions regarding assets made tainted by suspicion or mere accusation). All that really matters is operating law.

And so I ask again: Have any of these non-endorsement verbiages prevailed in operating law? I want to avoid finding out it won't by ending up in jail, or by being forced into an expensive tax penalty deal that will impoverish me for the rest of my life.

If one doesn't know his/herself and one seeks justification from another, then that one had best not seek any remedy to their current condition. Thusly, that one will receive unto himself exactly what he believes. That is Divine Law. And no law of man will ever change the Divine Law. Essentially this one does not comprehend the causes which manifest the current effect. One cannot change the effects immediately for that would break Divine Law. One must first put into action causes which will manifest a different effect. Thusly the status quo cannot be changed immediately.

Thou shalt have no other Gods before Me.

A double minded man is unstable in all of his ways. Thusly if one seeks justification and judgment from a court, then that one submits to that Court. Meaning that one has placed his/her trust in a system. As such, generally speaking if one places a trust in another one should obey. That too is Divine Law.

Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey;...

Therefore one must first define REMEDY. Remedy from what exactly? How can one define remedy if one does not understand the causes which brought the effects that one seeks remedy. If one has no understanding of the Law Boundary which closes the effects, then one is unable to obtain remedy. Why? Because one is relying upon a Survey which one lacks knowledge.

And as always the answer keeps coming back over and over again to: Remedy truly is just from one's self. For if I truly believed then I would do that which was necessary. And that which is necessary is to frame remedy in context so that a plan might issue from my MIND. Then my Will and my Thought would align in Love as I move in Faith upon my Honor seeking the good for Me and other men and women of Honor. Which is to say I have given my Word - so be it done.

I hope you find that which you seek. Ultimately that which your mind dwells upon will manifest.

Best Regards,
MJ

[xparte]

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered.Talk about [double minded]Christ the only tax protest that ever matters is knowing who owes Caesar a true Name or a registered one JESUS CHRIST NAZARENE give chezzy august his tax Jesus Christ; and a true Name or me John James; if its your name then dont be ashamed of the gospelThe Christ is was and forever [ROMES inguinal] our true foreign national his single kingdom and single minded exemption. The TRINITY true God true Christ true Me One must sort out what's hateful and the rest will matter little as its moot .Christ ends little in suffering in a registered world but what a BALANCE Christ provides when we offend a tax man or a registered gun its just in the true nature and spirit of Christ . pythons life of brian a great satire that re presents that tragic truth.a bible cut & paste .my bible cherry pickin gets me a pass if on point when a man casts that first stone if its double minded its hardness quickly becomes dust being care less or correct is ones investment a shareholder and its dividends stock brokers beware .

[allodial]

In my opinion, the only "case law" you will find on the record is that which skews the intent and proper claim of demand of lawful money so as to deceive the public and charge the unwitting "defendant".

The same "verbiage" can be utilized by many different people with many different outcomes. The only way to provide "an effective defense" against attack is to handle the matter honorably according to the rules of common law which, by the way, are unwritten - this is still a common law land.

All claims, no matter the nature of the pursuer or cause, should be handled in the same way. Know your rights and learn how to reserve, protect and exercise them. The right "verbiage" will not carry the day as a "silver bullet" or an "abracadabra" remedy. At best, it serves as a reference and benefit to the pursuer since it most likely is said pursuer who is subject to, and obligated to know, the relevant "law" being cited.

That does not, however, automatically prevent deception or tricks of the attorneys and "judges" during a case or proceeding which may cause one to fall victim and be held liable.

Good points. Merely carrying the same sword that someone used victoriously will go how far? "David beat that giant with that a sword that looks like this one so I'm gonna buy it and carry it with me." I have ever encouraged the simplicity of: mastering and learning the principles which serve as foundations for all. Jesus Christ alluded to the same did he not?

For a few bucks, good books on contract law and trust law can be had via Amazon (actually since I started recommending the Calamari Perillo book they are instead of $5 a piece now $30+ even up to $100). For next to free the same: but at your local law library. And it might require a few months of turning off the television and reading through the books. Contract law is the foundation of all laws related to money, bills of exchange, bond, etc.

In learning about law, I would first start with a law dictionary and a book on contract law. I highly favor Calamari and Perillo's. Blacks law dictionaries and Bouvier's and even better Giles can be obtain online FREE although a printed law dictionary set like Bouvier's is highly recommended. IMHO the Calamari Perillo book is worth sitting around for hours and hours with a highlighter going over ever single word especially the parts about formation of contracts and contractual remedies.

If I were to establish a law school, I would make the Calamari / Perillo book foundation for contract law classes + an updated caselaw book. If you try to steal my Calamari -Perillo book, I might poke you with a fork.