|
Canada/USA - The Law: Endorsing Checks "w/o prejudice"
|
sand-@wwdb.org
|
Jun 04, 2003 11:51 PDT
|
In my case I have a stamp which I use to stamp above my
name:
Without prejudice, non-assumpsit contract, all my rights
reserved
This harkens back to 1998 for me. It was a "hardening the
target" concept taught by Detax.
-----Original Message-----
From: Billy-Joe..Mauldin [mailto:wildb-@aeneas.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 5:51 AM
To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;
Subject: Endorsing Checks "w/o prejudice"
From: l----@ij.net
To: "Billy-Joe..Mauldin" <wildb-@aeneas.net>
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 9:55 PM
Subject: Re: Eendorsing Checks "w/o prejudice"
Most important clause in a signed and properly witnessed Sui
Juris declaration:
"I reserve my right not to be compelled to perform under any
contract or commercial obligation or bankruptcy that I did
not enter knowingly, voluntarily, or intentionally, and I do
not accept the liability associated with the compelled
benefit of any unrevealed contract, commercial agreement or
bankruptcy."
It is what is meant by placing "w/o prejudice" over your
signature.
Criminals in government won't pay much attention to it,
unfortunately.
Lon.
-----Original Message-----
From: Billy-Joe..Mauldin [mailto:wildb-@aeneas.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 7:11 PM
To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;
Subject: Endorsing Checks "w/o prejudice"
I endorse all checks I cash "without prejudice." For those
who don't know, this is a phrase, when above your signature,
that timely reserves your rights. I asked myself, self,
what are you going to tell the judge if he asks what right
you were reserving when you put without prejudice above your
name on the back of that check? I arrived at a conclusion.
I'm reserving the right to be paid with money as defined in
the US Constitution; i.e., gold or silver. In light of
that, I've never been paid!!
What have I gotten my whole life? I've gotten nothing but
checks (which are orders to pay) and notes (a future promise
to pay).
I was thinking about real estate transactions. Sometimes
the seller will not want a lump sum payment or cash for
their property because of the tax ramifications. What they
do instead is carry back a note so that the tax liability is
spread over the period of the note. If the buyer never pays
on the note they don't owe the taxes because they've had no
income. I think this concept is fairly well settled.
Well, we've never been paid on all of those notes we took!
I'm talking about Federal Reserve Notes. We haven't been
paid since 1964-65 when silver was taken out of circulation.
That being the case, much like the seller of property who
carries back a note and then doesn't get paid on it, we've
had no income!
I know of one person who raised this issue as a defense in
his criminal tax case. He took the stand and told the court
that he'd never received anything other than notes and
checks. He was acquitted. Another raised the issue with an
IRS agent. The agent agreed with him ceased attempting to
collect anything from him.
Something to think about anyway. Bear
For mailing use: Excellence Unlimited, 2830 27th St. Ln.,
Greeley, CO
80634-7849; 970-330-3883 fax 810-958-6113
www.legal-research-video.com
<http://www.legal-research-video.com/
www.legalbears.com
www.freedivorceforms.net
http://www.stores.ebay.com/bearscomputersandlawresearch
To subscribe to Tips & Tricks for court send an email to:
tips_and_tric-@yahoogroups.com
|
|
 |
|
