Redemption of Lawful Money at US Bank

[Brian]

Thank you for this, Brian.

Do you use this for depositing checks and/or cashing checks?

How do you sign the check? (exactly as you see above)

Have you had any problems with it?

Have you had any positive results? (positive results will be hopefully revealed upon filing this year)

dave, I use this for depositing checks via the ATM, my signature card for the account was modified with "ALL transactions to be conducted in redeemed lawful money pursuant USCA12 section 411" upon opening the account which solicited some funny looks but was accepted.

I don't typically cash the checks as I don't want to solicit any ignorant questions, but all of the checks I have restrictively endorsed since last Feb have gone thru without issue.

[freedave]

Thank you again, Brian.

Do you withdraw money via the ATM?

And do you have any reason to believe this works beyond your own understanding of the law?

[Publius]

According to my understanding of the theory, it might be correct that the "redemption" is effected by virtue of having limited the terms of the check, but my question is, "When does the 'redemption' happen -- when the check is deposited or when currency is received by the depositor?"

The point about whether or not "we are acting on faith alone" seems to me to be very important -- have you, yourself, experienced any problems with doing this?

.

To address your questions:
Regarding when it happens. . . . I cannot show that "redemption" does actually happen. At a minimum, it seems to me that our negotiated (stated) terms are as good at a bank's negotiated (stated) terms, and our terms are expressed in the endorsement qualifier (not concealed or expressed merely by reference).
Also, it appears to our reading that the statutes which govern the Federal Reserve Bank, its NOTES; their use and function, sure does look as if "They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank."
So, we made / make the damand and that is all which appears as required by the statute's stated terms for the function of redeeming. So, again, we act on faith.
Logic tells me that if an organization is given the privilege of operating under the limited capacity of a grant of government, that organization's function is likewise limited or more restricted than the powers under which the granting government functions.

I see one problem in this scenario: we, living beings, are not the depositors or account holders. We are only the signatory sureties for the named account holders, they being artifices, and ens legis, a.k.a. creatures of the STATE OF X________ (fill in the blank). The necessity of the Account holder's character as being an artifice is that the system in which it is engaged is not open to the participation of living beings. The "bank" is an artifice, dealing in artificial "money" in the character of a corporation (artificial person) under statutes and regulations (artificial law). I like to tink that their world is admiralty, of the sea; the sea being fatal to living man, a place where he cannot live. Man's place is on the nourishing land, on the shores of the sea. He may contact the sea and take from it, but never live there. We may contact the artificial world which we create and take from it (the fruits being those developed from others' contact and interaction) but we canot live in it or alter its very nature of being a hostile environment to us, the living. The accounts are named in the artificial person name and we are trying to extinguish the fiat money system which underpins the world in which the artificial persons function. Every transaction is one half money (or credit, with the transaction permanently in limbo). Artificial money cannot pay for an actual existing thing, it can only discharge the debt to another willing holder or surety. In the case of the FEDERAL RESERVE System, the NOTES and all data entries effectively denominated in notes, act as a pool of the discharged debts and place all property into a presumed limbo state wherein all property is encumbered by the entanglement of the banker's interests and claims. They get their grubby fingers on our property by getting us to label (register or otherwise restrict) the property ownership as being that of a numbered Person (individual, trust, corporation, association or other artifice.) It is a fantastic system by which most folks believe that they are protecting their assets, when in fact, they are volunteering them into bondage. SO you, living man, are only the operator of the account which is named to an artifice, and you speak for and act for the benefit of the artifice. Does that make you the trustee for the benefit of operating the account to the benefit of the artifice and its owner (the banker) ? The banker entered the artifice name on the account instead of your living being name. This was done at your directive by having provided the SSN as the primary identifier of the account.
So, I do hope that I am not on a rant here and off track. I always invite and look forward to correction. So, I believe the "redemption" happens when the qualifiedly endorsed check is accepted and processed by the bank, whether or not the process is crediting an account or exchanging NOTES.
The SSN is the hub of the wheel and the marker by which all "commerce" is recorded, regulated and taxed.

Question #2 asked about problems. I have had no problems relative to this process, but neither can I claim any benefit.

[David Merrill]

Publius commented:

We need evidence from experiences suitors relative to this supposition.

We have plenty of evidence but there is an element that prevents enough details for a proof over cyberspace. A comprehensive evidence package is not available. There are suitors who are tax preparers and even bankers/licensed tax preparers but they like to filter their experiences sanitized, even with other suitors. If a suitor broadcasts details, fine; that is why we call it a brain trust. We trust each other. If a suitor sends something interesting to me though, I will sanitize it and broadcast it with my commentary. If it is a success story about the IRS though, I will send the sanitized rendition and comment back to the suitor alone for approval before I broadcast it to the brain trust.

We do not have a lot of sanitized success stories because I just do not bother with the sanitizing process unless a better example comes along and since they are sanitized, they cannot be verified and you will just have to believe me... So it gets so no better success stories come along until somebody is willing to give their address and SSN over the Internet.

One of my favorites is this one where NY (METRO's Finest) pondered the state tax return carefully enough to add on the $125 School Tax Credit but did not flag that there are thousands of $$$ of withholdings on zero taxable income!

If you want to look at those figures awhile, you might be able to convince yourself I am not lying.

However on Quatloos I am moderated and forbidden to show examples like this because, If you are going to show examples boasting that you can break the law, they have to be verifiable!

I worked carefully with the suitor and have shown you exactly what he is comfortable with me showing you.

[freedave]

To address your questions:
Regarding when it happens. . . . I cannot show that "redemption" does actually happen. At a minimum, it seems to me that our negotiated (stated) terms are as good at a bank's negotiated (stated) terms, and our terms are expressed in the endorsement qualifier (not concealed or expressed merely by reference).
Also, it appears to our reading that the statutes which govern the Federal Reserve Bank, its NOTES; their use and function, sure does look as if "They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank."
So, we made / make the damand and that is all which appears as required by the statute's stated terms for the function of redeeming. So, again, we act on faith.
Logic tells me that if an organization is given the privilege of operating under the limited capacity of a grant of government, that organization's function is likewise limited or more restricted than the powers under which the granting government functions.

I see one problem in this scenario: we, living beings, are not the depositors or account holders. We are only the signatory sureties for the named account holders, they being artifices, and ens legis, a.k.a. creatures of the STATE OF X________ (fill in the blank). The necessity of the Account holder's character as being an artifice is that the system in which it is engaged is not open to the participation of living beings. The "bank" is an artifice, dealing in artificial "money" in the character of a corporation (artificial person) under statutes and regulations (artificial law). I like to tink that their world is admiralty, of the sea; the sea being fatal to living man, a place where he cannot live. Man's place is on the nourishing land, on the shores of the sea. He may contact the sea and take from it, but never live there. We may contact the artificial world which we create and take from it (the fruits being those developed from others' contact and interaction) but we canot live in it or alter its very nature of being a hostile environment to us, the living. The accounts are named in the artificial person name and we are trying to extinguish the fiat money system which underpins the world in which the artificial persons function. Every transaction is one half money (or credit, with the transaction permanently in limbo). Artificial money cannot pay for an actual existing thing, it can only discharge the debt to another willing holder or surety. In the case of the FEDERAL RESERVE System, the NOTES and all data entries effectively denominated in notes, act as a pool of the discharged debts and place all property into a presumed limbo state wherein all property is encumbered by the entanglement of the banker's interests and claims. They get their grubby fingers on our property by getting us to label (register or otherwise restrict) the property ownership as being that of a numbered Person (individual, trust, corporation, association or other artifice.) It is a fantastic system by which most folks believe that they are protecting their assets, when in fact, they are volunteering them into bondage. SO you, living man, are only the operator of the account which is named to an artifice, and you speak for and act for the benefit of the artifice. Does that make you the trustee for the benefit of operating the account to the benefit of the artifice and its owner (the banker) ? The banker entered the artifice name on the account instead of your living being name. This was done at your directive by having provided the SSN as the primary identifier of the account.
So, I do hope that I am not on a rant here and off track. I always invite and look forward to correction. So, I believe the "redemption" happens when the qualifiedly endorsed check is accepted and processed by the bank, whether or not the process is crediting an account or exchanging NOTES.
The SSN is the hub of the wheel and the marker by which all "commerce" is recorded, regulated and taxed.

Question #2 asked about problems. I have had no problems relative to this process, but neither can I claim any benefit.

Thank you again Publius.

I looks to me like much of what you wrote may derive from the redemption/commerce ideas of people like Winston Shrout, Tim Turner, etc., which I do not understand very well and the results of which I have not been able to verify.

How long have you been attempting to redeem lawful money in terms of how many checks you have deposited, how many checks you have "cashed"?

[freedave]

Publius commented:




We have plenty of evidence but there is an element that prevents enough details for a proof over cyberspace. A comprehensive evidence package is not available. There are suitors who are tax preparers and even bankers/licensed tax preparers but they like to filter their experiences sanitized, even with other suitors. If a suitor broadcasts details, fine; that is why we call it a brain trust. We trust each other. If a suitor sends something interesting to me though, I will sanitize it and broadcast it with my commentary. If it is a success story about the IRS though, I will send the sanitized rendition and comment back to the suitor alone for approval before I broadcast it to the brain trust.

We do not have a lot of sanitized success stories because I just do not bother with the sanitizing process unless a better example comes along and since they are sanitized, they cannot be verified and you will just have to believe me... So it gets so no better success stories come along until somebody is willing to give their address and SSN over the Internet.

One of my favorites is this one where NY (METRO's Finest) pondered the state tax return carefully enough to add on the $125 School Tax Credit but did not flag that there are thousands of $$$ of withholdings on zero taxable income!

If you want to look at those figures awhile, you might be able to convince yourself I am not lying.

However on Quatloos I am moderated and forbidden to show examples like this because, If you are going to show examples boasting that you can break the law, they have to be verifiable!

I worked carefully with the suitor and have shown you exactly what he is comfortable with me showing you.

This is helpful.

On the other hand, Pete Hendrickson has lots of refunds posted on his site.

From what I understand, many times refunds are given, but many times years later the IRS takes actions against the person.

I know one such person personally whose success appeared on Pete's site -- he wound up filing conventionally rather than deal with the repercussions.

Can you give us an idea of approximately how many people have applied this remedy, for how long, and what is the degree of adverse consequences, if any, experienced by those people?

[Publius]

Notes to two people follow:

Note to David Merrill, In regard to your post #108, Thank you for posting that document. I do believe I had seen it elsewhere on the site.

Also, I offer my appologize to you if you felt that I was challenging the veracity of any claim you had made or evidence you had proffered relative to the claims of others. Your use of the word "lying" disturbed me. It is because of your presentations on the sui juris site and the occasional poor behavior of others on that site in response to your writings that I participate in this forum. I respect your opinions and value the extraordinary efforts you have made to provide us information and evidence that we may consider in arriving at our own decisions. Thank you for trusting us, essentially anonymous people, to know your thoughts and share in your discoveries. We are enriched by one anothers' sharing.

My calling for evidence was not a challenge to flush out liars, it was just a call for those who are holding bricks to came forth and offer them for us all to use to build a strong house. I believe that the very existence of this site and its sustained use indicates that not one of us can solve the challenges alone and that the concept and function of a brain trust, brain bank, brainstorming is fundamental to our success. Whether one labels it as a brotherhood or just a bunch of independents hollering into the valley doesn't really matter. The important matter is that we share what we find when it is known to us, by our best ability to determine, that it is truthful. Each is at his own risk to decides what he will depend on.

Note to Freedave, Regarding post#109; I have heard the name Winston Shrout but I know nothing more about him. I am aware of but have not studied Tim Turner's program either.
I have been using the "Deposited for credit on account or exchanged for non-negotiable FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES of face value" for three or more years. I have used it since whenever it was that I first became aware of it by way of D.M.'s posts elsewhere. And now I am close to changing what I stamp because of the refinements I have found on this site.

Regarding your post #110, If one can posture themselves so to not interact with the taxing entitles, I think is far superior to giving them something and then looking for a way to get it back. That "they" seem to be able to do, or simply go ahead and do, whatever they wish, makes them so corrupt that one cannot comfortably act in good faith with them. My father lost a nice home to "them" despite an excellent attempt at defense. I witnessed their lying and denial of good sound defenses. Their actions are plain old theft.

And, yes, it could seem as if some process "worked" now, only to find in a year or some years later that "they" then consider the relied upon process as improper, frivilous, protest. . . (and any other of the many villainizing prejudices they apply) and they move against you in a big way. Anything and all things which are connected with an SSN are at risk, whether you play by the rules or not (my belief). It is the SSN and all the regulations adherent to its use which entangle us in their revenue farming process. Best to stay off the farm if you don't wan't to be milked and brought to slaughter. or some, that means a great change in lifestyle. The outcome of their occupation of our halls of govermnent, institution of banking and schools is that America has become, functionally, a conquered nation.

So, do we recognize an enemy and attempt to fight, or do we recognize an enemy and lick its boots in the hopes of staying in its good graces ?
One's conscience and concern for our future generations might be the brightest guiding light. The cost of the fight, for many, outweighs any cost they might have coughed up to "them" in voluntary compliance. So, it must be that a greater prize is sought by those involved.

The occasional back bighting and bickering disturbs me. It is destructive beyond the intended target. I am pleased to have seen little of that on this site.

[freedave]

Notes to two people follow:

Note to David Merrill, In regard to your post #108, Thank you for posting that document. I do believe I had seen it elsewhere on the site.

Also, I offer my appologize to you if you felt that I was challenging the veracity of any claim you had made or evidence you had proffered relative to the claims of others. Your use of the word "lying" disturbed me. It is because of your presentations on the sui juris site and the occasional poor behavior of others on that site in response to your writings that I participate in this forum. I respect your opinions and value the extraordinary efforts you have made to provide us information and evidence that we may consider in arriving at our own decisions. Thank you for trusting us, essentially anonymous people, to know your thoughts and share in your discoveries. We are enriched by one anothers' sharing.

My calling for evidence was not a challenge to flush out liars, it was just a call for those who are holding bricks to came forth and offer them for us all to use to build a strong house. I believe that the very existence of this site and its sustained use indicates that not one of us can solve the challenges alone and that the concept and function of a brain trust, brain bank, brainstorming is fundamental to our success. Whether one labels it as a brotherhood or just a bunch of independents hollering into the valley doesn't really matter. The important matter is that we share what we find when it is known to us, by our best ability to determine, that it is truthful. Each is at his own risk to decides what he will depend on.

Note to Freedave, Regarding post#109; I have heard the name Winston Shrout but I know nothing more about him. I am aware of but have not studied Tim Turner's program either.
I have been using the "Deposited for credit on account or exchanged for non-negotiable FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES of face value" for three or more years. I have used it since whenever it was that I first became aware of it by way of D.M.'s posts elsewhere. And now I am close to changing what I stamp because of the refinements I have found on this site.

Regarding your post #110, If one can posture themselves so to not interact with the taxing entitles, I think is far superior to giving them something and then looking for a way to get it back. That "they" seem to be able to do, or simply go ahead and do, whatever they wish, makes them so corrupt that one cannot comfortably act in good faith with them. My father lost a nice home to "them" despite an excellent attempt at defense. I witnessed their lying and denial of good sound defenses. Their actions are plain old theft.

And, yes, it could seem as if some process "worked" now, only to find in a year or some years later that "they" then consider the relied upon process as improper, frivilous, protest. . . (and any other of the many villainizing prejudices they apply) and they move against you in a big way. Anything and all things which are connected with an SSN are at risk, whether you play by the rules or not (my belief). It is the SSN and all the regulations adherent to its use which entangle us in their revenue farming process. Best to stay off the farm if you don't wan't to be milked and brought to slaughter. or some, that means a great change in lifestyle. The outcome of their occupation of our halls of govermnent, institution of banking and schools is that America has become, functionally, a conquered nation.

So, do we recognize an enemy and attempt to fight, or do we recognize an enemy and lick its boots in the hopes of staying in its good graces ?
One's conscience and concern for our future generations might be the brightest guiding light. The cost of the fight, for many, outweighs any cost they might have coughed up to "them" in voluntary compliance. So, it must be that a greater prize is sought by those involved.

The occasional back bighting and bickering disturbs me. It is destructive beyond the intended target. I am pleased to have seen little of that on this site.

Thank you, Publius, for your responses to my posts and for all the very relevant points you made.

Yes, I agree that posturing oneself so as to not interact with the taxing entitles is a much better way to go.

Have you encountered any difficulties in using what you have been stamping?

[David Merrill]

I guess "lying" is a strong word. I think my sentiment is that you should not readily believe even me. What you should do is just what you are doing. Understand it by doing it. You are very likely to become a success story.

To reveal how many people would be to reveal other things I don't wish to reveal on a chat room.

[allodial]

FYI, just for clarification on a side note: the account at the SSA is separate from the account at the IRS. A connection between the SSN and the IRS is made by filing a W4, filing a 1040..things like that. It could be that a "social security account number" and a "social security number" might be different enough to warrant attention to detail.

[freedave]

I guess "lying" is a strong word. I think my sentiment is that you should not readily believe even me. What you should do is just what you are doing. Understand it by doing it. You are very likely to become a success story.

To reveal how many people would be to reveal other things I don't wish to reveal on a chat room.

OK, how does this look?

Deposited for credit on account #XXXXXXX
to be redeemed in lawful money by demand
USCA12 section 411
John Doe (signed)

[David Merrill]

FYI, just for clarification on a side note: the account at the SSA is separate from the account at the IRS. A connection between the SSN and the IRS is made by filing a W4, filing a 1040..things like that. It could be that a "social security account number" and a "social security number" might be different enough to warrant attention to detail.

I was thinking about this the other day.

The SSN is to identify an account and while it is never to be used for identification purposes the IRS calls it a Taxpayer Identification Number.

OK, how does this look?

Deposited for credit on account #XXXXXXX
to be redeemed in lawful money by demand
USCA12 section 411
John Doe (signed)

You are still talking about the check to the broker? I told you I have little experience with that. But it looks like a good demand; like you understand many aspects of paychecks that have been pointed out on this site.

[allodial]

The SSN is to identify an account and while it is never to be used for identification purposes the IRS calls it a Taxpayer Identification Number.

Yep. AFAIK the IRS does not 'see' "social security accounts numbers" they 'see' "tax ID numbers". My study of the IRS specifications for e-filing or the like revealed lack of any computational distinction between an "EIN" or an "SSN" entered on a form or into a database. Since a year or two such may have changed for some reason or another. The IRS, a bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, does appear to maintain some kind of link between the IRS and SSA for verifying whether an SSAN exists. AFAIK, the IRS and the US Department of the Treasury are wholly separate from the U.S. Social Security Administration. While the digits of the SSAN might generally be the same as that of a US tax ID or account # established with the IRS, they are not at all the same accounts and there is no inherent link between the two accounts. The IRS account would likely never, ever exist if a SS-4, 1040, W2 or W4 was never filed.

[freedave]

You are still talking about the check to the broker? I told you I have little experience with that. But it looks like a good demand; like you understand many aspects of paychecks that have been pointed out on this site.

Yes, I am still talking about the check to the brokerage firm.

Thank you, David, for your validation of my demand -- I think I may use it.

[freedave]

Is the validity of this remedy supported by anything more than the one sentence from the statute?