Greetings from the northwest

[ExpiredLabel]

Hello all, I recently "woke up" at age 24, in fact today to the reality of my past mishandling with the fed and their elastic currency. I first want to say I understand that pursuant to title 12 subsection 11 I'm allowed to demand for legal tender, but I'm even more extremely curious about what this means retroactively speaking given the last few years I've been working and also my most recent tax return. Given the fact had I known in the past I would have of course dealt in legal tender where does this leave me, and more importantly if I went into my bank on monday and changed all my FRN to legal tender would I still be accountable for fed tax this coming tax season or, would I simply not apply. As you all can tell I'm young, eager and willing to step up and fulfill my role and obligation as a patriot of this fare country, I only need the proper schooling :P
please help with any and all guidance, I appreciate anyone forthcoming with answering my questions and helping me to be my own man. Thank you all. Now to get back to trying to make sense of all this

[David Merrill]

Hello all, I recently "woke up" at age 24, in fact today to the reality of my past mishandling with the fed and their elastic currency. I first want to say I understand that pursuant to title 12 subsection 11 I'm allowed to demand for legal tender, but I'm even more extremely curious about what this means retroactively speaking given the last few years I've been working and also my most recent tax return. Given the fact had I known in the past I would have of course dealt in legal tender where does this leave me, and more importantly if I went into my bank on monday and changed all my FRN to legal tender would I still be accountable for fed tax this coming tax season or, would I simply not apply. As you all can tell I'm young, eager and willing to step up and fulfill my role and obligation as a patriot of this fare country, I only need the proper schooling :P
please help with any and all guidance, I appreciate anyone forthcoming with answering my questions and helping me to be my own man. Thank you all. Now to get back to trying to make sense of all this

We (suitors) tried the bluff that not informing/schooling us about remedy from elastic currency is fraud by omission. It worked well for three full years. Then I speculate through a process I call, "Getting the Memo" the agents were informed by the IRS attorneys basically that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Which I tend to agree with.

I say in both of my videos that since the central bankers are banking on your endorsement they take that pledge very seriously.

Synchronicity is the conscious memory that everything is happening all at once, time being an illusion.

It is therefore no accident you are here, right now.

Welcome!!



P.S. You may have already noticed a slant that I have about my heritage (perpetual inheritance) akin to New York METRO organization. The source of this Refund check is quite telling!

[Brian]

It appears this little clip holds some insight to them. "When a promise has been made here there is no turning back"

And by the way she redeemed him......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3URGZYBOpAM&feature=player_detailpage&t=336

It does seem as though the memo has been circulated. Even though I think we have a usufruct right to using FR credit. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/usufruct

[ManOntheLand]

David Merrill said:

We (suitors) tried the bluff that not informing/schooling us about remedy from elastic currency is fraud by omission. It worked well for three full years. Then I speculate through a process I call, "Getting the Memo" the agents were informed by the IRS attorneys basically that ignorance of the law is no excuse.


I believe the difficulty with IRS is due to the relatively weak tactic of claiming that someone defrauded you, without identifying a specific party or act of fraud. Claiming fraud puts the burden on you to prove fraud. The IRS "memo" probably says you have no chance of proving fraud.

Nonetheless, a commercial contract cannot be compelled. It must be your choice. If you did not know that income tax obligation was one of the conditions of signing the back of your checks, then you really did not choose the obligation, did you?

A stronger position with IRS might be to claim that no contract imposing an income tax obligation was ever formed, due to lack of disclosure, no meeting of the minds, no intent to be bound, no consideration, and unconscionable contract (Had you been aware of remedy from your first paycheck ever, you would surely have made your demand. Only duress and intimidation might have prevented you from doing so if you had been sufficiently aware that you could demand lawful money.)

Something along the lines of fraud by omission could be claimed, as long as you drop the word "fraud" from the claim. Per UCC (binding on IRS and banks) excerpted from Thomson/West's Contracts in a Nutshell p. 292-293: "Conduct that is designed to prevent, or likely to prevent another from learning a fact is equivalent to an assertion that the fact does not exist... A misrepresentation is material if it would be likely to induce a reasonable person to assent to a bargain. If a misrepresentation is material, it can provide grounds for avoiding a contract even if it was only a negligent or even an innocent misrepresentation."

There is no explicit disclosure anywhere that endorsing your check into a Fed Reserve Bank account would cause you to incur income tax obligations. Paychecks are merely the proceeds of your labor, which you have a fundamental right to receive, per Butcher's Union v. Crescent City and Coppage v. Kansas and Amendment IX of the Constitution. It may be presumed by IRS/Federal Courts that you knowingly waived that right by bonding your check into the Fed Reserve system, but that presumption can be rebutted.

Per Brady v. United States: "Waivers of rights must not only be voluntary, they must be knowing, intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the likely consequences."

[Michael Joseph]

David Merrill said:

We (suitors) tried the bluff that not informing/schooling us about remedy from elastic currency is fraud by omission. It worked well for three full years. Then I speculate through a process I call, "Getting the Memo" the agents were informed by the IRS attorneys basically that ignorance of the law is no excuse.

UNDERTAKE. Check out Johnny B. Signature on back of instrument is an UNDERTAKING in PROMISE in ACCOMMODATION in SURETY.

Follow the rabbit Neo.

UNDERTAKING, contracts. An engagement by one of the parties to a contract to the other, and not the mutual engagement of the parties to each other; a promise. 5 East, R. 17; 2 Leon. 224, 5; 4 B, & A. 595.

UNDERTOOK. Assumed; promised.

2. This is a technical word which ought to be inserted in every declaration of assumpsit, charging that the defendant undertook to perform the promise which is the foundation of the suit; and this though the promise be founded on a legal liability, or would be implied in evidence. Bac. Ab Assumpsit, F; 1 Chit. Pl. 88, note p.


LEX MERCATORIA = LAW MERCHANT

ACCOMODATION, com. law. That which is done by one merchant or other person for the convenience of some other, by accepting or endorsing his paper, or by lending him his notes or bills.

2. In general the parties who have drawn, endorsed or accepted bills or other commercial paper for the accommodation, of others, are, while in the hands of a holder who received them before they became due, other than the person for whom the accomodation was given, responsible as if they had received full value. Chit. Bills, 90; 91. See 4 Cranch, 141; 1 Ham. 413; 7 John. 361; 15 John. 355, 17 John. 176; 9 Wend. 170; 2 Whart. 344; 5 Wend. 566; 8 Wend. 437; 2 Hill, S. C. 362; 10 Conn. 308; 6 Munfd. 381.


An ACCOMMODATION PARTY - Lets see what the COMMON LAW says:A person signing an instrument is presumed to be an accommodation party and there is notice that the instrument is signed for accommodation if the signature is an anomalous indorsement or is accompanied by words indicating that the signer is acting as surety or guarantor with respect to the obligation of another party to the instrument. Except as provided in Section 3-605, the obligation of an accommodation party to pay the instrument is not affected by the fact that the person enforcing the obligation had notice when the instrument was taken by that person that the accommodation party signed the instrument for accommodation.

Questions:

1. Do you execute the back of the check "absent accommodation"?
2. What does the term "anomalous" mean within the context of the code?


You are the only party to answer 1. But lets follow the rabbit shall we?

ANOMALOUS INDORSEMENTSo then what is an INDORSEMENT:"Indorsement" means a signature, other than that of a signer as maker, drawer, or [as] acceptor, that alone or accompanied by other words is made on an instrument for the purpose of (i) negotiating the instrument, (ii) restricting payment of the instrument, or (iii) incurring indorser's liability on the instrument, but regardless of the intent of the signer, a signature and its accompanying words is an indorsement unless the accompanying words, terms of the instrument, place of the signature, or other circumstances unambiguously indicate that the signature was made for a purpose other than indorsement. For the purpose of determining whether a signature is made on an instrument, a paper affixed to the instrument is a part of the instrument.
(b) "Indorser" means a person who makes an indorsement.
(c) For the purpose of determining whether the transferee of an instrument is a holder, an indorsement that transfers a security interest in the instrument is effective as an unqualified indorsement of the instrument.
(d) If an instrument is payable to a holder under a name that is not the name of the holder, indorsement may be made by the holder in the name stated in the instrument or in the holder's name or both, but signature in both names may be required by a person paying or taking the instrument for value or collection.


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

Demand is made for lawful money per 12USC411 and absent accommodation and absent recourse and without liability assumed:

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


However most of you sign the back of a check "LEGAL M. NAME". And therefore you make an INDORSEMENT as ACCOMMODATION PARTY = SURETY. So enjoy that - because in doing so you UNDERTAKE for another party or person. So again enjoy that. All the court cases in the world can't help you - the Law of the Land today is LEX MERCATORIA - IT IS THE COMMON LAW = UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE.

BECAUSE the Government has become Trustee for the Bond Holders = International Banker.

Over and out,
mj

[Michael Joseph]

The parties, by agreement, may determine the standards by which the performance of those obligations is to be measured if those standards are not manifestly unreasonable. Whenever [the Uniform Commercial Code] requires an action to be taken within a reasonable time, a time that is not manifestly unreasonable may be fixed by agreement.

(c) The presence in certain provisions of [the Uniform Commercial Code] of the phrase "unless otherwise agreed", or words of similar import, does not imply that the effect of other provisions may not be varied by agreement under this section.

====

The High Contracting Parties may vary the Agreement for their Persons. But that presumes an existing Law Boundary.

[ManOntheLand]

(c) A person signing an instrument is presumed to be an accommodation party

The operative word being PRESUMED. If there was no intent to be an accommodation party, (or even any knowledge of what that is), the fellow who is just trying to get paid for his labor has unknowingly waived his fundamental right. Per Brady, this is no waiver at all. This is the argument I would make, anyway.

[JohnnyCash]

Why argue when you can simply make your demand?
Sixth straight year of NONtaxpayer here. http://jesse2012.com//SSA_E3.jpg

[Michael Joseph]

(c) A person signing an instrument is presumed to be an accommodation party

The operative word being PRESUMED. If there was no intent to be an accommodation party, (or even any knowledge of what that is), the fellow who is just trying to get paid for his labor has unknowingly waived his fundamental right. Per Brady, this is no waiver at all. This is the argument I would make, anyway.

I suppose one might cry about milk already spilled; and then there is one who will just put a new tool in their tool chest:

absent accommodation and absent liability assumed
and without recourse and without prejudice and
absent suretyship and absent joinder and demand
is made for lawful money per 12USC411

Are you giving me legal advise as to how I sign a record? Did I ask you for legal counsel? Are you an attorney? If so, when did I consent to your counsel? Produce the record, trust, contract or agreement.

Otherwise continue to wallow in the mire of PRESUMPTION LAND. I like to removel presumptions - in Administrative Remedy. Do you have a UCC? Are you a head of State? Or are you operating a Person of State? Surely you comprehend the Common Law of Commerce?

Please show me whereupon the Notes your name appears. I am waiting for that day. But perhaps your name appears on a CREDIT instrument? Cheque?

[ManOntheLand]

I have given this a bit more thought...even if IRS holds the PERSON liable for some income tax, can't you request a discharge of the debt per 12 U.S.C. 95(a) if they send you a bill? I suppose if there were any withholdings they would subtract that out of any refund.

I see plenty of merit in the argument of just letting it go. But if one were so inclined, one could request a refund making the argument that one did not knowingly agree to be an accommodation party; and one could sue after 6 months if IRS won't honor the refund claim. I think it would be a fact matter for a jury to decide as to whether a reasonable person would know he was agreeing to be an accommodation party by simply signing the back of his paycheck to get paid. It might be interesting to see if they would let things get that far...

On the other hand, if there is no refund claim to be made, and it is just a matter of them sending you a bill, one could attempt to discharge it, or ask them to declare the amount not collectible (this can be done when there is some doubt as to whether the amount is owed) or compromise on the amount on that basis. The libel of review might discourage them from collecting as well.

[ExpiredLabel]

[ExpiredLabel]

Thanks to all whom contributed so far, I've read some and ask for clarification on how to properly do this and friday is a hop skip and a jump away :P

From my understanding I would first need to close down my current account and reopen with the demand for legal tender on the signature card. Followed by the demand on the check where my usual endorsement would have gone.

I also assume that if I follow through with this for a year that and take care to do proper filing and copying of expenses/paychecks that I could then prove to the IRS that they cant tax me.

Im curious about how the rest of the year would play out till tax season assuming I start this friday. How would april go down as suddenly I've opted out of the elastic currency in the middle of the year? Would I still file that 1040 ez? Please, just looking for that clarification. Again thanks to all whom contributed, I sincerely appreciate it


P.S- is it a good idea to file that RoL? and for what end?