Public Money by right - direct experiences please!

[PANICPASS]

Federal Reserve Notes are not public money. Public money is "interest free" money with ownership rights. FRNS are interest bearing inflationary promissory notes confering no property rights.

[PANICPASS]

The W-4 is a tax form not an application for private credit. It is a form to withhold interest (tax) on the private credit you agreed to exchange for your labor.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by PANICPASS

Federal Reserve Notes are not public money. Public money is "interest free" money with ownership rights. FRNS are interest bearing inflationary promissory notes confering no property rights.

Non-negotiable Federal Reserve Notes are US Notes and public money by law. Why don't you tell me what currency is "interest free" with ownership rights?

Originally Posted by PANICPASS

The W-4 is a tax form not an application for private credit. It is a form to withhold interest (tax) on the private credit you agreed to exchange for your labor.

I am glad you understand that. You are saying that by signing the W4 Form you have agreed to cash your paychecks for private credit. And I disagree. You still have the right to cash your paychecks for public money instead.







Regards,

David Merrill.

[PANICPASS]

The Constitution does not authorize private credit.


"Public money is the lawful money of the United States which the Constitution authorizes Congress to issue, conferring a property right; whereas the private credit issued by the feds is neither money nor property, permitting the user an equitable interest but denying allodial title."


I am glad you understand that. You are saying that by signing the W4 Form you have agreed to cash your paychecks for private credit. And I disagree. You still have the right to cash your paychecks for public money instead.



I did not say the W4 is an agreement to cash your paycheck for private credit. I said it is an agreement to pay interest on the private credit you agreed to exchange for your labor. If you know those credits are not taxable then why do you sign the form?

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by PANICPASS

...I said it is an agreement to pay interest on the private credit you agreed to exchange for your labor. If you know those credits are not taxable then why do you sign the form?

I disagree with your usage of the term interest and pay. But if you must then we have to introduce the concepts of natural law formed through the Seven Noachide Laws. First I should answer your question again:

If you know those credits are not taxable then why do you sign the form?

Answer: At best your employer will label you a problem employee. The attorney, if your employer is large enough to keep one handy will charge a lot of money (salary) to call the IRS agent and get instructions to simply deduct withholdings. Several suitors have simply tried Refusing the presentment (W4 Form) for Cause unsigned. It would seem by simply accepting employment by a corporation one has consented to various diversions of funds.

So with that answered that leaves the man or woman a person for simply being a daughter corporation.

Originally Posted by PANICPASS

The Constitution does not authorize private credit.

Corporations (US - 1871) operate under charter. International and combinatorial treaty. I spent some time proving that out yesterday. http://www.suijuris.net/forum/attach...1&d=1158549326 and http://www.suijuris.net/forum/attach...mg0024_dce.jpg As a member of a combine called the United Nations and without a treasury of its own (linked) there is effectively no United States economically.

Ergo one can accept that reality or the reality you seem to offer - that the only way to deal with a nation run amuck outside the authority of its own constitution is force or economic competition.* The provisions to move in the realm of international treaty are consitutional.

Public Law 102-14 must be viewed outside the scope of Christian fanaticism and force-shaping the Seven Noachide Laws into the Book of Revelation as a mystic book on Futurism. I have been utilizing the hyperbolic warnings of Rottweiller lately to bring that point to the forefront. http://www.suijuris.net/forum/end-da...-gibson-8.html And we cannot forget my utilization of Shoonra and Judge Roy Bean calling me Van Pelt especially when they are upset with me. For me to reshape my name from David Merrill to David Merrill Van Pelt is to utilize the privilege in social compact of a legal or full name - to feign self to be another. That is nakar, or nokriy from Noachide (Sons of Noah/heathens). - Deuteronomy 23:20 and read in a Judeo-Christian foundation of Western Law, says that the Israelites may charge usury - interest - but only upon the Noachide.

Ergo my opening sentence in this post above.

I wish I could write three points together so the Reader would understand how they function in conjunction to create the illusion one has no right to the Constitution and its provisions for public money as a non-taxable event when cashing paychecks. Those subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (same verbiage as the 14th Amendment of 1868) were labeled the combatant enemy in 1933 in amendments to the Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917 - replacing the German nationals in America. So maybe one would just follow my suggestion of reading this post three times through instead.

In summary the only legal thing about the Federal Reserve System in America is our right to constitutional public money in the alternative. And the Federal Reserve System will prosper as long as people are ignorant of that right.


Regards,

David Merrill.


* When one can accept the sovereign responsibility, one has also accepted the responsibility to view economics in the light of being a sovereign. This provides for the right to Refuse for Cause treaties in formation through publication in the Federal Register - like the Basel II Accord and final rule.

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/banks-...king-anpr.html

[PANICPASS]

n summary the only legal thing about the Federal Reserve System in America is our right to constitutional public money in the alternative. And the Federal Reserve System will prosper as long as people are ignorant of that right.


There is no public money. Writing NON-NEGOTIABLE, etc. on the back of a check is not going to transform FRNS into public money, I don't care what you, Levi Philos, or Big Al say about it. There is no public money.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by PANICPASS

n summary the only legal thing about the Federal Reserve System in America is our right to constitutional public money in the alternative. And the Federal Reserve System will prosper as long as people are ignorant of that right.


There is no public money. Writing NON-NEGOTIABLE, etc. on the back of a check is not going to transform FRNS into public money, I don't care what you, Levi Philos, or Big Al say about it. There is no public money.

That is your opinion about the legality of the Federal Reserve System.

I suggest you handwrite on your W4 Form, "Withhold only non-negotiable Federal Reserve Notes: signature" That should defeat any concerns you have about using the word claim.

You, like Judge Roy Bean claim we have no right to deal with public money. The law says differently. There is evidence to the contrary and I have presented some of it here.

Your post tells me that even skeptical Readers are understanding my point. Shoonra understands my point, JRB and you understand my point. Thank you.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[PANICPASS]

I suggest you handwrite on your W4 Form, "Withhold only non-negotiable Federal Reserve Notes: signature" That should defeat any concerns you have about using the word claim.

It’s not “my” form. And besides, why would I write: "Withhold only non-negotiable Federal Reserve Notes when, according to you, non-negotiable federal reserve notes are non-taxable?

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by PANICPASS

I suggest you handwrite on your W4 Form, "Withhold only non-negotiable Federal Reserve Notes: signature" That should defeat any concerns you have about using the word claim.

It’s not “my” form. And besides, why would I write: "Withhold only non-negotiable Federal Reserve Notes when, according to you, non-negotiable federal reserve notes are non-taxable?

So that they are held in account as they are anyway. This is so that you can get the funds refunded when you file the 1040 Form. Of course I am only talking about people who have employers who hand out W4 Forms.*

The use of domestic emergency currency is non-taxable because the United States has set up no tax structure around the use of US Notes. REDCLOUD feels that income is itself taxable and that is just not true. Income decides the amount of "taxation" which is a Return upon however much private credit has been granted from the Federal Reserve over the tax year. For instance Congress for the US just keeps deferring it and allowing others (persons who get the privilege of private credit) to appease the banksters - Congress just keeps voting to raise the debt ceiling until people like you with your opinion that the Federal Reserve can operate outside the Constitution fail to be in the majority.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Until then the banksters are happy with the national debt piling up because people are fooled, like you, into thinking that private credit is the only method of financial operation available.

You can always exercise your right not to sign a W4 Form but if you have only had the job for 2 hours on a sixty-day probation period, don't expect to keep it. And if you are fairly vested expect the corporate attorney to do what the agent-over-the-phone says and take the maximum amount of withholdings on the schedule regardless of consent on the W4 Form.

I am suggesting you deal in public money - domestic emergency currency and get a full Refund of the withholdings. Your skeptical perspective has been very useful in making this point about US Notes metaphysically being available in non-negotiable Federal Reserve Notes. Thanks again!



Regards,

David Merrill.


* Do not think I am admitting to your point. I am simply saying that if you are concerned that you are paying the tax at the time of withholding, stipulate non-negotiable FRNs. Since it is an account that is refunded with the Refund after Return, this is not necessary to stipulate.

[charlene]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

This thread is for direct experiences of members who have engaged in non-endorsement of private credit of the Federal Reserve by exercising their right to public money.

Basically this is done by cashing paychecks with while writing or stamping:



Here is an example of direct testimony of someone who had experience non-endorsing paychecks:



I have been warned by Shoonra not to be surprised if your check is refused for cashing marked this way. Judge Roy Bean spun an arrest in California at the Bank of America attempting to convince people they could be arrested without any recourse to the law if they non-endorsed FRNs with their paychecks.


Hopefully we can accurately assess the risks if people will stay on topic of sharing direct experiences. Please, if you want to debate the validity of this method go over to:

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/asset-...tive-blog.html



Regards,

David Merrill.

David,
You have to take the last two words off "equal value".
I do this with no problem in Columbus, Ohio
Charlene