Redemption of Lawful Money at US Bank

[Ares]

What does "bonding your substance" mean?

Bonding your labor / yourself (your substance = you) to pay for the fee's of its use.

Where is it stated that I would be liable for a duty or fee of for use of FRNs if I do not redeem them for lawful money?

It isn't stated anywhere but is very much implied when you're REQUIRED by PRIVATE LAW to violate the 5th amendment when you file your taxes each year. Lawful money has no such implications, restrictions or duties.

Where is it stated that if I endorse private credit I am agreeing to a contract and am liable for fees for its use?

Contract law is binding whether you agree to it or not. You're looking for black and white answers but it isn't stated anywhere. You have to read through court cases that David and others have cited to read what ISN'T SAID that says you're liable for the taxes.

And if the contract is not disclosed, how could it be a valid contract?

It's valid with the endorsement of your signature. Government doesn't come out to the public and say "Hey there are United States Notes and all you have to do is demand them and you don't owe us a penny." That's where you have to go and read history of governments the world over and they all operate by deception. You as well as the rest of us were told from birth that we must pay "our fair share" to the government. Never teaching us or showing us that the founding fathers said that a man's labor is of his own and should never be taxed.

[freedave]

Bonding your labor to pay for the fee's of its use.



It isn't stated anywhere but is very much implied when you're REQUIRED by PRIVATE LAW to violate the 5th amendment when you file your taxes each year. Lawful money has no such implications, restrictions or duties.



Contract law is binding whether you agree to it or not. You're looking for black and white answers but it isn't stated anywhere. You have to read through court cases that David and others have cited to read what ISN'T SAID that says you're liable for the taxes.



It's valid with the endorsement of your signature. Government doesn't come out to the public and say "Hey there are United States Notes and all you have to do is demand them and you don't owe us a penny." That's where you have to go and read history of governments the world over and they all operating by deception. You as well as the rest of us were told from birth that we must pay "our fair share" to the government. Never teaching us or showing us that the founding fathers said that a man's labor is of his own and should never be taxed.

Thank you again, Ares.

I get the general idea.

Based upon what I have looked at so far, it seems to me that, as I've written before, this remedy would, if valid and broadly applied, eliminate the current destructive practices of the Fed, the IRS, etc.

It also appears that there is no simple and easy way to understand it enough to establish a certainty as to whether or not it is valid.

Am I correct in that?

[Chex]

[freedave]

It’s a right to contract. For example your employment has negotiations through the union that includes the pay scale and the benefits and there ready to be negotiated. The president of the union and management assemble, negotiate, and agree on the proposals. The then contact is settled and you as a “resident” of the membership represented by your elected official(s) and management are now under the terms of the contract.

After a certain amount has passed and one of those “agreements” has a clause in it that has you do something that you feel is not part of the agreement and refuse to abide by contract law.

As the chain of command goes you first talk to management who also must enforce the contract and they tell you it’s in the job description that you have no recourses but to do it.

Seeing that you disagree with these rules in the managements office eventually they get tired of your unwarranted complaint and eventually tell you “Don’t argue the contact here you have no standing.”

You don’t like the answer so you take it to the union and the union tells you its part of the negotiated contract.

You tell the union saying that if I knew that was in the contract I would have never voted on those proposals. But it’s too late your bound by the contract whether you knew about it or not.

I have seen it where a self proclaimed CEO’s taken the responsibility on themselves and spoke for the membership as a whole without the voice of the membership.

What recourse do you have? You can file a grievance although a contract is a contract unless it is deemed unsafe; you under an agreement now have to abide by the rules. Those who have made the rules you’re governed under will enforce them and the ones who assisted on making the rules will also have to enforce them as well. There is not really much of a choice.

On the other hand if you were not part of the contract such as the manager who is not part of the agreement has no contractual agreement to it is free and clear of all the requirements.

If you were to try to bring in outside council into preserving your rights such as a lawyer to represent you, you have to remember the first duty of fair representation does not even require that the union do a particularly good job at representing grievances. Unions are only prohibited from acting in arbitrary or discriminatory ways, or in bad faith that’s why companies rather have a union to control that an individual of body corporate.

Think about it as a contract. If you were told that any use of private credit was to be taxed; you would not go for it, nobody would. So how does “someone” come up with an idea that locks someone into a contact without their acknowledgement? Had to be with your consent other wise it would not be a valid contract? Are there age restrictions to contract? Did someone create someone just to get the job done for their mutual benefit? Did you inherit a title?

What you have to find is the source of this contract that locked you into it.

Non est factum (Latin for "it is not [my] deed") is a doctrine in contract law that allows a signing party to escape performance of the agreement. A claim of non est factum means that the signature on the contract was signed by mistake, without knowledge of its meaning, but was not done so negligently.

Again, based upon what I have looked at so far, it seems to me that, as I've written before, this remedy would, if it is valid and if it is broadly applied, eliminate the current destructive practices of the Fed, the IRS, etc.

It also appears that there is no simple and easy way to understand it enough to establish a certainty as to whether or not it is valid.

Am I correct in that?

[Chex]

How did you get into the destructive practices of the Fed, the IRS, etc to begin with?

[freedave]

How did you get into the destructive practices of the Fed, the IRS, etc to begin with?

That's a pretty broad question -- one answer is by identifying with a physical body on this planet.

Would you like to respond to my post?

Non est factum (Latin for "it is not [my] deed") is a doctrine in contract law that allows a signing party to escape performance of the agreement. A claim of non est factum means that the signature on the contract was signed by mistake, without knowledge of its meaning, but was not done so negligently. Does that apply?

Again, based upon what I have looked at so far, it seems to me that, as I've written before, this remedy would, if it is valid and if it is broadly applied, eliminate the current destructive practices of the Fed, the IRS, etc.

It also appears that there is no simple and easy way to understand it enough to establish a certainty as to whether or not it is valid.

Am I correct in that?

[Ares]

Again, based upon what I have looked at so far, it seems to me that, as I've written before, this remedy would, if it is valid and if it is broadly applied, eliminate the current destructive practices of the Fed, the IRS, etc.

That is correct. When you redeem lawful money you are telling the Fed, IRS and the Federal Government that you want no part in it's game of deception.

Lawful money is outside the scope of the IRS, and what you do is you force the FED to pay off the national debt and not you. Because the FED has to go to the treasury to request lawful money. When you endorse private credit the treasury goes to the fed and says I need more private credit creating a national debt which the fed happily agrees too because they get to incur more interests on worthless linen printed from thin air.

I prefer the fed holding the bag for the debt instead of me and my fellow Americans. So I'll do my part and stop endorsing private credit.

[David Merrill]

I just expressed it a new way to the Suitors.

Redemption is calling the bankers on using government debt for money.

[freedave]

Thank you, Ares, for addressing that part of my response -- that is certainly an extremely desirable result.

But, as I also wrote, it appears that there is no simple and easy way to understand this enough to establish a certainty as to whether or not it is valid.

Am I correct in that?

[freedave]

I just expressed it a new way to the Suitors.

Redemption is calling the bankers on using government debt for money.

That seems to be a good way to put it.

But again, it appears that there is no simple and easy way to understand this enough to establish a certainty as to whether or not it is valid.

Am I correct in that?

[David Merrill]

Thank you again, Ares.

I get the general idea.

Based upon what I have looked at so far, it seems to me that, as I've written before, this remedy would, if valid and broadly applied, eliminate the current destructive practices of the Fed, the IRS, etc.

It also appears that there is no simple and easy way to understand it enough to establish a certainty as to whether or not it is valid.

Am I correct in that?

I am not sure that you are correct so much as that you are logical. If logic is correct then you are correct, by logic... See?

It is not that way though. Ronald Ernest PAUL is a terrific example. He wants to abolish the Fed, sure enough but does not see the logic in letting his constituency do it for him. Instead his constituency thwarts him at every turn by signing endorsement for private credit and makes PAUL look like a fringe lunatic or at best, a flake.

Here is what I suggest. There is no harm in redeeming lawful money - or at least in making your demand known; whether it applies in law or not. Just so long as you don't involve your employer that is, or start preaching it to others around the water cooler. You can make your demand for lawful money risk free and you decide whether you want to try it out come April 15th. If you don't want to risk being thought of as a tax protested wait until next year to decide. My point is that by exercising your right to demand lawful money now, you will very likely answer a lot of questions you seem to be having difficulty with now.

Try something like, next time you take something back to Lowe's for a cash refund when they want you to sign for the cash sign "Lawful Money". You are very likely to think about that and digest it, what you did and evaluate the national debt etc. and these things will cogitate more clearly in your mind.

[freedave]

I am not sure that you are correct so much as that you are logical. If logic is correct then you are correct, by logic... See?

It is not that way though. Ronald Ernest PAUL is a terrific example. He wants to abolish the Fed, sure enough but does not see the logic in letting his constituency do it for him. Instead his constituency thwarts him at every turn by signing endorsement for private credit and makes PAUL look like a fringe lunatic or at best, a flake.

Here is what I suggest. There is no harm in redeeming lawful money - or at least in making your demand known; whether it applies in law or not. Just so long as you don't involve your employer that is, or start preaching it to others around the water cooler. You can make your demand for lawful money risk free and you decide whether you want to try it out come April 15th. If you don't want to risk being thought of as a tax protested wait until next year to decide. My point is that by exercising your right to demand lawful money now, you will very likely answer a lot of questions you seem to be having difficulty with now.

Try something like, next time you take something back to Lowe's for a cash refund when they want you to sign for the cash sign "Lawful Money". You are very likely to think about that and digest it, what you did and evaluate the national debt etc. and these things will cogitate more clearly in your mind.

Thank you for the somewhat enigmatic first line of your response -- there are certainly truths higher than logic, but logic is pretty reliable when it comes to questions of law, finance and practicality.

When I ask my question regarding understanding, I'm not only being logical, I'm referring to reality.

I am definitely a great admirer of Ron Paul and have a fairly good understanding of the Fed, the monetary system, who is behind it, etc.

My main concern regarding redeeming lawful money is that it might cause difficulty with a financial institution and/or single me out in some way -- I try to keep a low profile.

Regarding taking something for a cash refund, are you suggesting that I put only the words "Lawful Money" rather than any kind of usual name? And, if I do that, and it is not accepted, what do I do then?

[David Merrill]

Thank you for the somewhat enigmatic first line of your response -- there are certainly truths higher than logic, but logic is pretty reliable when it comes to questions of law, finance and practicality.

When I ask my question regarding understanding, I'm not only being logical, I'm referring to reality.

I am definitely a great admirer of Ron Paul and have a fairly good understanding of the Fed, the monetary system, who is behind it, etc.

My main concern regarding redeeming lawful money is that it might cause difficulty with a financial institution and/or single me out in some way -- I try to keep a low profile.

Regarding taking something for a cash refund, are you suggesting that I put only the words "Lawful Money" rather than any kind of usual name? And, if I do that, and it is not accepted, what do I do then?

They will accept it. If not I suppose you could write a name next to your demand and then you will have demanded lawful money.

[freedave]

I am not sure that you are correct so much as that you are logical. If logic is correct then you are correct, by logic... See?

It is not that way though. Ronald Ernest PAUL is a terrific example. He wants to abolish the Fed, sure enough but does not see the logic in letting his constituency do it for him. Instead his constituency thwarts him at every turn by signing endorsement for private credit and makes PAUL look like a fringe lunatic or at best, a flake.

Here is what I suggest. There is no harm in redeeming lawful money - or at least in making your demand known; whether it applies in law or not. Just so long as you don't involve your employer that is, or start preaching it to others around the water cooler. You can make your demand for lawful money risk free and you decide whether you want to try it out come April 15th. If you don't want to risk being thought of as a tax protested wait until next year to decide. My point is that by exercising your right to demand lawful money now, you will very likely answer a lot of questions you seem to be having difficulty with now.

Try something like, next time you take something back to Lowe's for a cash refund when they want you to sign for the cash sign "Lawful Money". You are very likely to think about that and digest it, what you did and evaluate the national debt etc. and these things will cogitate more clearly in your mind.

Thank you for the somewhat enigmatic first line of your response -- there are certainly truths higher than logic, but logic is pretty reliable when it comes to questions of law, finance and practicality.

When I ask my question regarding understanding, I'm not only being logical, I'm referring to reality.

I am definitely a great admirer of Ron Paul and have a fairly good understanding of the Fed, the monetary system, who is behind it, etc.

My main concern regarding redeeming lawful money is that it might cause difficulty with a financial institution and/or single me out in some way -- I try to keep a low profile.

Regarding taking something for a cash refund, are you suggesting that I put only the words "Lawful Money" rather than any kind of usual name? And, if I do that, and it is not accepted, what do I do then?

[freedave]

Thank you for the somewhat enigmatic first line of your response -- there are certainly truths higher than logic, but logic is pretty reliable when it comes to questions of law, finance and practicality.

When I ask my question regarding understanding, I'm not only being logical, I'm referring to reality.

I am definitely a great admirer of Ron Paul and have a fairly good understanding of the Fed, the monetary system, who is behind it, etc.

My main concern regarding redeeming lawful money is that it might cause difficulty with a financial institution and/or single me out in some way -- I try to keep a low profile.

Regarding taking something for a cash refund, are you suggesting that I put only the words "Lawful Money" rather than any kind of usual name? And, if I do that, and it is not accepted, what do I do then?

I am now in communication with someone who had been part of the SuiJuris Forum and is applying the redeeming lawful money remedy using the phrase "deposited for credit on account." He told me of some interesting experiences he has had.

It seems to me that if there were 100,000 people doing this, assuming the remedy is valid, it would mean the end of the Fed and the IRS.

Again, my main concern regarding redeeming lawful money is that it might cause difficulty with a financial institution and/or single me out in some way -- I try to keep a low profile.

And again, regarding taking something for a cash refund, are you suggesting that I put only the words "Lawful Money" rather than any kind of usual name? And, if I do that, and it is not accepted, what do I do then?

I am about to send a check for deposit into a brokerage account in the name of an LLC -- is there something I could write on it which would not raise any "red flags"?