Pay No Taxes legally -End the FED -synopsis page 8-Why are waiting for someone to do it for us like Ron paul

Ron Paul preparing to announce tomorrow 4th of July
the implementation of a transitional gov. 4 the USR

Anyone ever wonder why so many of the talk show speakers leave out lawful money? All the irs talk and jurisdiction talk, without lawful money, falls short.

I've asked Rob if he uses lawful money and haven't gotten a reply. I don't think this works cause he is still asking for help keeping the lights on. If money was free he would be on a desert island with Fred and Nina.

I asked Howard Griswald thru the chat on last nights call if he redeemed lawful money. He kinda blew it off. He said they can do whatever they want so it doesn't do much. He drones on and on about breach of fiduciary duty.

1. So what's the difference between these two, and which is preferred on the back of a check?:

DEPOSIT FOR CREDIT ON ACCOUNT OR EXCHANGE FOR NON-NEGOTIABLE US TREASURY NOTES OF FACE VALUE PER 12 USC § 411.

and

DEPOSIT FOR CREDIT ON ACCOUNT OR EXCHANGE FOR NON-NEGOTIABLE FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES OF FACE VALUE PER 12 USC § 411.

2. Also, should/can we add "WITHOUT PREJUDICE" to this check endorsement?

I and a friend had rubber stamps made up and did this our banks. Eventually the tellers stopped taking instruments with the indorsement stating they were instructed by the bank's security department not to. The teller stated she was told if I were to continue to try to do this the bank would close the account.

My friend said his bank gave him a similar response. I don't think we can force them to take instruments with the indorsement. Anyhow, we have other remedies anyway.

After much thought, it would seem that vipers have entered among the doves.

First, the poster who went to his parents, who 'knew a guy' who had redeemed lawful money and been sent to prison for tax reasons, who they contacted via facebook for confirmation. The whole story seems unlikely at best and contrived (poorly) at worst. A case number would be strong conformation, asked for, but not given.

Next comes the poster who, 'with a friend', rubber stamped restricted endorsements and was then told by 'tellers' they would close accounts should they continue. Also alluded to was mystery 'other remedies' which he did not share.

It seems the shill unit is carefully treading around the subject, telling stories and casting shadows with no substance. Feeble, as are most stories told against truth which is easy to verify for ones self.

Remedy spelled out in 12-USC 411 has stood, mostly unaltered in wording, since the Federal Reserve act was written into 'color of law' more than 70 years ago.

It works.

Dude, relax...


Thank you for going to savingstosuitorsclub.net. The non-endorsement is just the start. You can now decide when and with whom you want to contract. If some guy in a funny suit says you have to sign a ticket(contract) you can refuse for cause that contract within 72 hours. Be patient in the learning let it soak in.
perhaps I simply haven't responded because I missed this thread being bumped and, having read everything here and finding savingforsuitors, I've had better places to spend my time.

As far as proving my claims, screw that, I have nothing to prove to anyone. Take my story as anecdotal and leave it at that. For clarification purposes I did ask my father for a follow up but suffice it to say, he hadn't spoken with the guy in over 16 years and after learning he'd been in prison my father doesn't want to bother reaching out again. I certainly wasn't going to go prying into a stangers life asking for case numbers just to 'prove' my account to a bunch of GLPers.
Believe me or not, I wasn't trying to scare anyone off of this, if you'll actually read my last sentence instead of trying to dismantle everything as shillery you'll see that.

Most my father learned was that they got the guy due to the money his company paid on his behalf into SS and his company coverage insurance, as the company didn't redeem and it didn't pass through his redeem only account. So yeah, dude tripped up, i.e. Be Vigilante guys, just like I said.



I was stressing utmost vigilance, nothing more.

"Fed Judge rules your Bank Accounts are not Your property, banks not responsible if they lose your funds."
Thread: Fed Judge rules your Bank Accounts are not Your property, banks not responsible if they lose your funds.

Look what happens when you openly endorse "their" monies!! The Judge told the truth, flat out, when you endorse their property, they can do whatever they like with it!!

Who needs any more proof of 12-USC 411 or what will happen to all "your" goods and 'money' if you keep endorsing their property?

Better learn from this people.