Check Non-Endorsement Verbiage

[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.

[Stephen]

There is this blog posting at:
http://quatloosia.blogspot.com/searc...lawful%20money
that seems to contain a lot of bad news for the redeem for lawful money legal theory. I am seeking to independently verify the case results given in that blog. At the moment I do not know where to look.

[Chex]

How can an IRS agent make a judicial decision?

[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.

[Chex]

There is this blog posting at: http://quatloosia.blogspot.com/searc...lawful%20money
that seems to contain a lot of bad news for the redeem for lawful money legal theory. I am seeking to independently verify the case results given in that blog. At the moment I do not know where to look.

Bank v. Supervisors, 74 US 26 - Supreme Court 1869