Unbelevable if true!!!

[Celtic Rogue]

WE DON'T KNOW HOW TO WORK THE SYSTEM LIKE THESE FOLKS DO!


It seems that every couple of days New Orleans loses one of its
treasured ENTREPRENEURS .
http://us.f1136.mail.yahoo.com/ya/download?mid=1%5f267034%5fAEWniGIAAA8ATn1zTAfDnnCd C0g&pid=1.2.3&fid=Inbox&inline=1

Lets get the players straight before we go on with this.

LARMONDO "FLAIR" ALLEN
His Companion: Kawanner Armstrong



His Sons : Christian Allen
Kwan Allen
Larmondo Allen, Jr.

His Daughters: Deidra Allen
Larmenshell Allen
Lamonshea Allen
Larmomdriel Allen
Larmerja Allen
Korevell Allen


AT AGE 25 - He had 9 Children.
(Could Kawanner Armstrong Possibly Be The Mother Of All Of His Kids?)

His Father: Burnell Thompson
His Mother: Esther Allen
His Stepfather: Bruce Gordy


His Brothers: Burnell Thompson
Edgar Thompson
Wil Willis
Danta Edwards
Reshe Edwards
Mattnell Allen
Burnell Allen
Lester Allen


His Sisters: Shannail Craig
Lekiksha Thompson
Gwendolyn Carter
Jessica Willis
Katina Gordy


Grandparents: Delors Allen
J.C. Allen
Anna Laura Thompson
Will Thompson





So, lets see now....

His Father, Burnell Thompson, fathered his brothers Burnell, Edgar and his sister Lekiksha.
His Stepfather, Bruce Gordy, fathered his Sister Katina.
His Mother, Esther Allen, must have been unwed when she gave birth to:


Larmondo, Mattnell, Burnell and Lester.



We don't know who fathered Wil Willis and Jessica Willis, or Dante and Reshe Edwards.
Lets hope sisters Shannail Craig and Gwendolyn Carter are married.

GOT THE ABOVE ALL STRAIGHT?
********************
NOW, THE REST OF THE STORY

He was 25 and had 3 sons and 6 daughters.
NINE welfare recipients collecting $1500 each.....
That equals $13,500 a month !!! Now add Food Stamps,
Free medical, Free school lunches,


on and on and on AND ON.

Do the math... that's $162,000 +++ a year.
Anyone out there, sittin' on their butt while reading
this e-mail, making that kind of money doing nothing?

Now that, to me, is a real Entrepreneur.
(AND BECAUSE OF THEIR FATHERS DEATH, ALL OF THE KIDS WILL COLLECT
SOCIAL SECURITY UNTIL THEY ARE 18)

And people wonder what is wrong with our country!

Government out of money??? Obama said he'd have to stop Medicare and SS payments -


but never mentioned Welfare !!

We have become a nation of dumb people.


The smartest are sitting home having kids and collecting our hard earned tax dollars.


Irresponsible behavior pays in the UNITED STATES.
No wonder this Country is going BANKRUPT !!!!

[Nomoss]

Its just so good what you talking about??
I got my cadey. I got my nice nits.
Its like what's you talking about...
You ALL KNOW what I am saying..yes?
Yes its 2.30 am and a few home brews but
This is NOT GOOD.

[TheNocturnalEgyptian]

Can I just say that on the basis of the amount of effort you put into the markup code alone, I am impressed.

[Twisted Titan]

A 162k for humping

I think that rivials hassidic jews and what they rake in

[solid]

It used to be that folks had kids to work their farms and land. Each kid was an extra set of hands.

Now, it seems folks have kids just to collect a welfare check. Each kid is an extra check.

[nunaem]

They may have gamed the welfare system, but another system, nature, will eventually catch up to them.

[solid]

They may have gamed the welfare system, but another system, nature, will eventually catch up to them.

What's unfortunate, is the children may end up being victims of their parents stupidity. They didn't ask to be brought into the world that way.

As of now, it's all of us paying for this through our taxes. However, as crazy as it sounds, I think single childless men are going to be directly targeted in the future. No way we can remain single and obligation free. They will eventually make single men pay child support to random women who have kids.

It's already happening on a small scale now. Men are paying 18 years child support for children that are not biologically theirs. With DNA testing, there's absolutely no reason why the courts can not find the biological father and identify that person. But they don't, or are too lazy, and enslave the wrong guy for 18 years. All the law cares about...is that some guy pays. It doesn't matter 'who', just as long as any guy gets forced into slavery.

[Gaillo]

I found that "article" somewhat annoying (actually HUGELY annoying...) - the WORST kind of "lead the reader around by the nose-ring because he can't think for himself" kind of "journalism".

Synopsis: A bunch of New Orleans blacks with stupid pseudo-African names and varying degrees of wedlock/lack-of-wedlock/incest have tons of children, collect tens of thousands of dollars in welfare and .gov benefits, and now get Social Security payouts because 25-year-old babydaddy got his ass killed (we're all assuming during some kind of criminal activity).

There... less than a decent sized paragraph (actually just ONE run-on sentence), no endless font and color changes, no "leading you on" with inuendo, easy to read, and to the point.

P.S. What's so "unbelievable" about all that? Sounds like "par for the course" to me. ::)

P.P.S. The only thing I found TRULY surprising about the article was that none of the girls was named "LaVitra". ;D

[Bigjon]

I have heard tales from fairly reliable sources that Minnesota has such easy and friendly welfare agencies that there is regular traffic from Chicago to Mpls of people who get their monthly welfare fix. Another thing I've heard is our welfare cards have been used as far away as Washington DC.

Our legislature passed a law requiring something like 3/6 months to establish residency before applying for welfare and the welfare agencies took it to court and the Minnesota Supreme Court struck the law down. When it warms up the bums head for "moneyapolis" to get their easy fix.

[Joe King]

"Swipe yo' EBT, It's FREE!....Swipe yo' EBT, It's FREE!....Swipe yo' EBT, It's FREE!....Swipe yo' EBT, It's FREE!...."

[jimswift]

This is an email I received couple weeks ago:



Bread Winner...

I was speaking to an emergency room physician this morning. He told me that a woman in her 20s came to the ER with her 8th pregnancy.

She stated, "My momma told me that I am the breadwinner for the family."

He asked her to explain. She said that she can make babies and babies to get money for the family.

It goes like this: The grandma calls the Department of Child and Family Services and states that the unemployed daughter is not capable of caring for these children. DCFS agrees and states that the child or children will need to go to foster care.

The grandma then volunteers to be the foster parent, and thus receives a check for $1500 per child per month in Illinois .

Total yearly income:
$144,000 tax-free,not to mention free healthcare (Medicaid) plus a monthly card entitling her to free groceries, etc, and a voucher for 250 free cell phone minutes per month. This does not even include WIC and other welfare programs...

Indeed, grandma was correct in that her fertile daughter is the "breadwinner" for the family.

This is how the ruling class spends our tax dollars.

Is this a GREAT COUNTRY or what...
Don't forget to pay your taxes!!!

There are a lot of Breadwinners depending upon you and me!

[Awoke]

Yeah, you guys are effed.

[Ares]

All of this nonsense is supported by our (I'm guilty of this as well) redemption in federal reserve notes. Hardly anyone redeems lawful money anymore. If people realized that they could redeem U.S. Notes instead of Federal Reserve Notes, this nonsense would collapse in on itself.

The remedy is to redeem lawful money and stay outside of the federal reserve system.

[Ash_Williams]

Did I take some acid or does this thread really look like this?

[sirgonzo420]

All of this nonsense is supported by our (I'm guilty of this as well) redemption in federal reserve notes. Hardly anyone redeems lawful money anymore. If people realized that they could redeem U.S. Notes instead of Federal Reserve Notes, this nonsense would collapse in on itself.

The remedy is to redeem lawful money and stay outside of the federal reserve system.


Nice to see 12 USC 411 (Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act) mentioned here.

[Ares]

Nice to see 12 USC 411 (Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act) mentioned here.

The more I read of David Merrill's work, the more I understand that really is the linchpin of our society. Everything from the ground up revolves around the government knowing that people in mass are not redeeming lawful money, so they can do as they please. Because anyone who doesn't redeem lawful money is giving them consent to do as they please.

I'm in the process of getting my ducks in a row to extricate myself, and my wife from this ponzi scheme. I have a meeting with a representative of my credit union to see if I can redeem my lawful money yet still be able to hold an account. By law banks / credit unions must give you lawful money upon demand. BUT they are not required to hold it into account.

[sirgonzo420]

The more I read of David Merrill's work, the more I understand that really is the linchpin of our society. Everything from the ground up revolves around the government knowing that people in mass are not redeeming lawful money, so they can do as they please. Because anyone who doesn't redeem lawful money is giving them consent to do as they please.

I'm in the process of getting my ducks in a row to extricate myself, and my wife from this ponzi scheme. I have a meeting with a representative of my credit union to see if I can redeem my lawful money yet still be able to hold an account. By law banks / credit unions must give you lawful money upon demand. BUT they are not required to hold it into account.


If you make your demand on the back of a check where a "normal person" would "endorse", there shouldn't be a problem. If all deposited checks are "non-endorsed" properly, then all funds in the account should be "lawful money". You could also change your "signature card" at the bank/credit union.

I don't like asking for permission, so I just do things my way anyway, and the bank hasn't closed the account I use.

Banks very rarely close a customer's account without that customer's consent, usually via a signature.

If they *do* try to close the account on you, they will likely still request your signature on something, even if it is merely a withdrawal slip for the balance of your account. If you want to keep the account open, don't sign any paperwork closing the account, and/or don't withdraw all the funds in the account.

I have brought 12 USC 411 up here before, but generally it doesn't garner much attention.

[po boy]

All of this nonsense is supported by our (I'm guilty of this as well) redemption in federal reserve notes. Hardly anyone redeems lawful money anymore. If people realized that they could redeem U.S. Notes instead of Federal Reserve Notes, this nonsense would collapse in on itself.

The remedy is to redeem lawful money and stay outside of the federal reserve system.

I did this non endorsement on the back of checks for around 6 mo before BOA said no more. I never received US notes just plain ole FRN.

If people did this en mass I'm sure they would ignore the law just as BOA did to me.

Wasn't it David Merrill who promoted this.

[Ares]

If you make your demand on the back of a check where a "normal person" would "endorse", there shouldn't be a problem. If all deposited checks are "non-endorsed" properly, then all funds in the account should be "lawful money". You could also change your "signature card" at the bank/credit union.

I don't like asking for permission, so I just do things my way anyway, and the bank hasn't closed the account I use.

Banks very rarely close a customer's account without that customer's consent, usually via a signature.

If they *do* try to close the account on you, they will likely still request your signature on something, even if it is merely a withdrawal slip for the balance of your account. If you want to keep the account open, don't sign any paperwork closing the account, and/or don't withdraw all the funds in the account.

I have brought 12 USC 411 up here before, but generally it doesn't garner much attention.

My issue is that my employer strictly uses direct deposit only, so I'll have to amend my direct deposit slip with my employer to use "redeemed in lawful money pursuant to Title 12 U.S.C. 411" then my birth name. But since I use electronic payment for various utilities and the like I need to have an account. I don't have a bank, I use a credit union and they can close the account, since according to law they do not have to hold U.S. Notes in a customers account, just redeem it upon demand.

[Glass]

I've read that a non interest bearing checking account does the trick. DYODD. To continue the OT for a sec, you guys might like to listen to creditors in commerce audio. Boston. File one is inaudible. After that it's good. Variaton on Merrils perspectives.

[Ares]

I did this non endorsement on the back of checks for around 6 mo before BOA said no more. I never received US notes just plain ole FRN.

If people did this en mass I'm sure they would ignore the law just as BOA did to me.

Wasn't it David Merrill who promoted this.


Yes, it is David Merrill who is promoting this and still does as far as I know without even so much as a peep from the IRS. Which is vastly different from Pete Hendrickson (cracking the code) who is now serving jail time. Pete either ignores or doesn't understand that he is accepting federal reserve notes and is responsible for "fees" that go along with its use.

Po Boy - that's my concern as well, because like I was discussing with Sirgonzo420 banks must redeem it upon demand. You are creating a record for the I.R.S. that you do not want federal reserve notes it is the demand that is the key, not what they give you. They'll give you FRN's because USN's do not exist anymore and haven't since 1971. But you've made the demand and the banks must respect it, as well as the I.R.S. However banks are not required to hold it into an account since USN's are an inelastic currency. Meaning banks can't loan out 9 dollars for every 1 dollar you have in account. It must be a 1:1 ratio or not at all.
You'll also not incur interest on your account since USN's are lawful money they do not incur interest as they are not a fractionally reserved currency.

Also BOA can not say "no more" and I would clearly cite the 12 USC 411 that states that lawful money is redeemable upon demand. Do NOT make the mistake of asking for gold or silver, just request lawful money. It has been upheld before and BOA's legal team will know. They are however not obligated to hold your money into account.

[sirgonzo420]

Yes, it is David Merrill who is promoting this and still does as far as I know without even so much as a peep from the IRS. Which is vastly different from Pete Hendrickson (cracking the code) who is now serving jail time. Pete either ignores or doesn't understand that he is accepting federal reserve notes and is responsible for "fees" that go along with its use.

Po Boy - that's my concern as well, because like I was discussing with Sirgonzo420 banks must redeem it upon demand. You are creating a record for the I.R.S. that you do not want federal reserve notes it is the demand that is the key, not what they give you. They'll give you FRN's because USN's do not exist anymore and haven't since 1971. But you've made the demand and the banks must respect it, as well as the I.R.S. However banks are not required to hold it into an account since USN's are an inelastic currency. Meaning banks can't loan out 9 dollars for every 1 dollar you have in account. It must be a 1:1 ratio or not at all.
You'll also not incur interest on your account since USN's are lawful money they do not incur interest as they are not a fractionally reserved currency.


United States Notes no longer circulate, because, according to the Treasury, FRNs serve the same purpose.

FRNs carry two seals; a Federal Reserve Seal, and a Treasury seal [fun fact: the faces on FRNs always face toward the Treasury seal, except for bankster lover Hamilton on the $10, which faces toward the Fed seal].

The issue is BONDING.

Since FRNs were designed to be an "elastic currency" (from beginning lines of Federal Reserve Act), the bonding must come from somewhere, i.e. your signature endorsement.

United States Notes (and, since 1971, USNs in the form of FRNs) are backed and bonded by the signatures on the notes themselves; the US Treasury.

[sirgonzo420]

My issue is that my employer strictly uses direct deposit only, so I'll have to amend my direct deposit slip with my employer to use "redeemed in lawful money pursuant to Title 12 U.S.C. 411" then my birth name. But since I use electronic payment for various utilities and the like I need to have an account. I don't have a bank, I use a credit union and they can close the account, since according to law they do not have to hold U.S. Notes in a customers account, just redeem it upon demand.

You might want to change any direct deposit paperwork with your employer, to make clear your demand.

I don't make too much of an issue with it with the bank, or worry about what happens on their end of the counter.

On your payments to your utility companies, in the memo line, you could put: Paid in "lawful money" per 12 USC 411.

[Ares]

You might want to change any direct deposit paperwork with your employer, to make clear your demand.

I don't make too much of an issue with it with the bank, or worry about what happens on their end of the counter.

On your payments to your utility companies, in the memo line, you could put: Paid in "lawful money" per 12 USC 411.

That would also apply at the checkout at say a grocery store if I decide to pay electronically correct?

Paid in "lawful money" per 12 USC 411 (Ares middle last name)

[sirgonzo420]

That would also apply at the checkout at say a grocery store if I decide to pay electronically correct?

Paid in "lawful money" per 12 USC 411 (Ares middle last name)

I would, if for no other reason, just to show "good faith" on your part to stay without the Federal Reserve System by redemption in "lawful money".

[Ares]

If you make your demand on the back of a check where a "normal person" would "endorse", there shouldn't be a problem. If all deposited checks are "non-endorsed" properly, then all funds in the account should be "lawful money". You could also change your "signature card" at the bank/credit union.

I don't like asking for permission, so I just do things my way anyway, and the bank hasn't closed the account I use.

Banks very rarely close a customer's account without that customer's consent, usually via a signature.

If they *do* try to close the account on you, they will likely still request your signature on something, even if it is merely a withdrawal slip for the balance of your account. If you want to keep the account open, don't sign any paperwork closing the account, and/or don't withdraw all the funds in the account.

I have brought 12 USC 411 up here before, but generally it doesn't garner much attention.

The signature card could also be applied to electronic transfers as well correct? I have a paypal account that I use to purchase products on-line.

[Bigjon]

All of this nonsense is supported by our (I'm guilty of this as well) redemption in federal reserve notes. Hardly anyone redeems lawful money anymore. If people realized that they could redeem U.S. Notes instead of Federal Reserve Notes, this nonsense would collapse in on itself.

The remedy is to redeem lawful money and stay outside of the federal reserve system.

I was the person who posted the 1984 Freedom League article that DM based this work on, so I know a little about this. I have never tried to use this, because people are stupid and juror's are people. It might be right according to the law, but when has the law ever stopped the IRS from hanging someone evading their scam?

link to DM article on our site: http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?43746-Dave-Merrill-on-redeeming-non-endorsed-non-expandable-lawful-money

[sirgonzo420]

The signature card could also be applied to electronic transfers as well correct? I have a paypal account that I use to purchase products on-line.


If your Paypal account is funded with "lawful money" funds, then you are using "lawful money" when you use Paypal. It wouldn't hurt to mention it in the memo lines if you want to take extra steps to make your demand clear.

[Ares]

I was the person who posted the 1984 Freedom League article that DM based this work on, so I know a little about this. I have never tried to use this, because people are stupid and juror's are people. It might be right according to the law, but when has the law ever stopped the IRS from hanging someone evading their scam?

link to DM article on our site: http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?43746-Dave-Merrill-on-redeeming-non-endorsed-non-expandable-lawful-money

My understanding from reading the material myself is that it wouldn't even make it to the court as USN's are outside of the scope of the I.R.S. As they only deal with Private Credit.

[po boy]

Ares I did explain to the BOA teller and they still refused but another way around this is to deposit through the atm.

I have no bank account anymore so it's a non-issue for me however I like the idea of not letting the sob fictionalize currency.

If the IRS wants to dispute it say show me the endorsement on the check.

[Ares]

Ares I did explain to the BOA teller and they still refused but another way around this is to deposit through the atm.

I have no bank account anymore so it's a non-issue for me however I like the idea of not letting the sob fictionalize currency.

If the IRS wants to dispute it say show me the endorsement on the check.

Exactly, with non-endorsement or restrictive endorsement you remove yourself from their system. Hence the remedy. I have yet to convince my wife that this is a worth while endeavor. I'll keep you all posted. It seems between David, and SirGonzo420 a lot of my questions were answered as to how to maintain an account and still be able to function in the world they've built.

[Bigjon]

My understanding from reading the material myself is that it wouldn't even make it to the court as USN's are outside of the scope of the I.R.S. As they only deal with Private Credit.

I can see you in a court of law holding up a FRN and telling the court that this is really a US Note, it just looks like a FRN, but isn't, because I didn't endorse private credit. You are technically right, but you have to convince some juror who believes anytime the US Attorney indicts someone they have to be guilty.

I have a lot to lose and don't want to gamble it on the hope they won't pursue me.

From what I have seen this sort of thing only works for those who don't have anything worth going after.

[Ares]

I can see you in a court of law holding up a FRN and telling the court that this is really a US Note, it just looks like a FRN, but isn't, because I didn't endorse private credit. You are technically right, but you have to convince some juror who believes anytime the US Attorney indicts someone they have to be guilty.

I have a lot to lose and don't want to gamble it on the hope they won't pursue me.

From what I have seen this sort of thing only works for those who don't have anything worth going after.

I'm married, and have a daughter. I also have a lot to lose. But I'm also repulsed to know that I am funding my own enslavement. Paying for services that I will never use, yet are forced from me at the barrel of a gun. If there is a remedy, I will use it and take my chances. Never will I have to say, if only I had tried.

Again from my understanding it's the redemption upon demand that matters, not the FRN they give you. You can simply recite the Treasury's website stand on lawful money and FRN's which say they serve the same purpose. So it goes back to the redemption upon demand that is the key. You have to make it known that you did not want Private Credit.


The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 authorized the production and circulation of Federal Reserve notes. Although the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP) prints these notes, they move into circulation through the Federal Reserve System. They are obligations of both the Federal Reserve System and the United States Government. On Federal Reserve notes, the seals and serial numbers appear in green.
United States notes serve no function that is not already adequately served by Federal Reserve notes. As a result, the Treasury Department stopped issuing United States notes, and none have been placed into circulation since January 21, 1971.

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender.aspx

(a) The Secretary of the Treasury may issue United States currency notes. The notes—
(1) are payable to bearer; and
(2) shall be in a form and in denominations of at least one dollar that the Secretary prescribes.
(b) The amount of United States currency notes outstanding and in circulation—
(1) may not be more than $300,000,000; and <-- The banking Holiday was designed and still on the books FOR THIS!!! They can inflate FRN's to infinity.
(2) may not be held or used for a reserve.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_31_00005115----000-.html

[Shami-Amourae]

Video related:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzspsovNvII

[Bigjon]

I'm married, and have a daughter. I also have a lot to lose. But I'm also repulsed to know that I am funding my own enslavement. Paying for services that I will never use, yet are forced from me at the barrel of a gun. If there is a remedy, I will use it and take my chances. Never will I have to say, if only I had tried.

Again from my understanding it's the redemption upon demand that matters, not the FRN they give you. You can simply recite the Treasury's website stand on lawful money and FRN's which say they serve the same purpose. So it goes back to the redemption upon demand that is the key. You have to make it known that you did not want Private Credit.



http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender.aspx

It's my understanding you have not done this.

Let us know how it works for you. They let Pete Henderson go for 6 or 7 years before they made an example out of him.

If it were just me and no heirs, no wife, I would try it also.

Good Luck

[Ares]

It's my understanding you have not done this.

Let us know how it works for you. They let Pete Henderson go for 6 or 7 years before they made an example out of him.

If it were just me and no heirs, no wife, I would try it also.

Good Luck

I'll definitely keep everyone posted. This is relatively new so who knows. I haven't seen or read about anyone being hassled by the I.R.S using this method. If you have read or seen the I.R.S. hassling someone using this method, please let me know.

[k-os]

Video related:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzspsovNvII

That video was disturbing, and one of my chihuahuas started howling! I wonder what that means.

[Libertarian_Guard]

Where's the link to the 'Jerry Springer' show?

[bl96S5eu]

That video was disturbing, and one of my chihuahuas started howling! I wonder what that means.
He wants his EBT, it's free!