Check Non-Endorsement Verbiage

[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]

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?

[lorne]

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?

That is another piece of evidence. All we suitors who redeem lawful money are never brought to court over it. There is never a contest or controversy; we just win. The IRS sides with David Merrill and lets us keep our earnings. THERE ARE NO CASES. It's as if they are afraid of us or what a judicial review of non-endorsement might reveal.

Thanks for pointing that out, Stephen. At the end of the day ... would you rather join the countless convicted who endorsed private credit of the FED, or all we non-endorsers who never see the inside of a courtroom?

[Michael Joseph]

That is another piece of evidence. All we suitors who redeem lawful money are never brought to court over it. There is never a contest or controversy; we just win. The IRS sides with David Merrill and lets us keep our earnings. THERE ARE NO CASES. It's as if they are afraid of us or what a judicial review of non-endorsement might reveal.

Thanks for pointing that out, Stephen. At the end of the day ... would you rather join the countless convicted who endorsed private credit of the FED, or all we non-endorsers who never see the inside of a courtroom?

lorne here is the thing, one must choose for himself. Which means fear must be conquered. Most folk have learned the method to conquer fear is by and thru knowledge. But this is only part of the equation. For one can assimilate all the knowledge one needs and yet still remain static in fear. And what is yet even worse in apathy.

Until one really knows for self, then all remains in conjecture. Consider carefully the following:

Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Mat 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

Is it okay to steal? Consider carefully before you answer.

[David Merrill]

Get a PACER subscription and you can look for yourself.

I recall how annoyed it made me that finally, after years of my posting on Quatloos Wserra (Wesley SERRA) discovered that suitors are actually extant. Wserra began searching for Libels of Review to ridicule.

I suppose that you might have to take the post above to heart.

That is another piece of evidence. All we suitors who redeem lawful money are never brought to court over it. There is never a contest or controversy; we just win. The IRS sides with David Merrill and lets us keep our earnings. THERE ARE NO CASES. It's as if they are afraid of us or what a judicial review of non-endorsement might reveal.

Thanks for pointing that out, Stephen. At the end of the day ... would you rather join the countless convicted who endorsed private credit of the FED, or all we non-endorsers who never see the inside of a courtroom?

If you think any suitor filed so as to get any authority in a federal judge, you might view the LoR's as failures.

But I assure you that the star "victim" of Wserra's ridicule is still using the LoR and keeping the various pests at bay. I will even risk disclosing a little private conversation. It may save you some time and effort. Notice the date on that thread/blog. And consider that through about a dozen Refusals for Cause that I know about, the IRS and the State have done nothing but try this and that paper presentment only to have it Refused for Cause. Then they wait a few months and try something else, a different approach from a different agent or office...

Very annoying indeed but then they are getting paid to do this so I guess I understand. The taxpayer jurisdiction keeps treating its employees well for useless harassment.

Read emails from the bottom up.

That gives me great comfort.


I sometimes lie awake and scared...then I pray and ask God give YOU wisdom...
THANKS for all...I refuse to be part of that "society".

On Sep 22, 2015 1:29 PM, "David Merrill" <> wrote:

This "new"-ness indicates how well R4C works so far.


From:
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 2:18 PM
To: David Merrill
Subject: RE: I received another threat...

Yes, new...



On Sep 22, 2015 1:16 PM, "David Merrill" <> wrote:


Of course Refuse it for Cause immediately.

Is this new though? It does not sound the same as before.



From:
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 12:19 PM
To: David Merrill
Subject: I received another threat...

Hi David;

I received a notice of "Intent to Record a Notice of State Tax Lien.
Should I just R4C again?

P.S. Considering how old that thread and blog are, and that there are no injuries to speak of to any suitor who masters Refusal for Cause and Recording in an evidence repository, I think it is inaccurate to say that I/We are in any trouble.

[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.