PDA

View Full Version : A regular deposit of lawful money.



RThomas
08-16-11, 07:35 AM
A possible non-confrontational and non-endorsement for checks: ‘A regular deposit of lawful money.’

From Bouviers 1856 (online),

REGULAR DEPOSIT. One where the thing deposited must be returned. It is distinguished from an irregular deposit.


IRREGULAR DEPOSIT. This name is given to that kind of deposit, where the thing deposited need not be returned; as, where a man deposits, in the usual way, money in bank for safe keeping, for in this case the title to the identical money becomes vested in the bank, and he receives in its place other money.

Hence, a lawful (substantive) deposit cannot be replaced with a legal (form of law) interpretation of that deposit.

Brian
08-16-11, 03:53 PM
Good find!

David Merrill
08-16-11, 09:28 PM
Thanks! I agree - a good find. Non-endorsement of paychecks does not seem to be much of an issue. We have a thread and member Karl Nathan sharing his experience but I think it more that he is in a small community and friendly with the people at the bank. Being close and friendly, believe it or not, is the source of the confrontation! In other words, speaking openly in conversation and explaining things that need no explanation is what is causing the illusion that the bank can abstain from the non-endorsement transactions. Karl Nathan prefers to be polite than to just tell his friends - Just do it!

The confrontation I am concerned about is that The Memo seems to have circulated (from the OCC?) so that when a customer support manager calls the attorney about the Signature Card for electronic transfers, before any conversation can occur, the attorney is warning, Do not allow any extra verbiage on the Signature Card form! It is traditional to accept a scribbled signature, sometimes only a first letter scribble. So what would be the problem with changing my signature to "Lawful Money"?



http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/2574/refundredemption.jpg

EZrhythm
08-16-11, 10:29 PM
Yes, GREAT find RThomas!

Exactly, David! On certain documents I have changed my signature to, "Without Prejudice".

shikamaru
08-17-11, 10:35 AM
Do note:

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?332-Deposit-account

RThomas
08-17-11, 02:22 PM
David,

I agree that there is nothing wrong with your form of endorsement. It is my nature to always seek improvement in what I know and what I do.

Shikamaru,

The definitions in blacks 1 through 5 of regular and irregular deposits (and general vs. special (>sounds like jurisdiction<)) expound on what I posted above which conceptually says the same as your noted post but in different words. Blacks 6 and forward removed the definitions. There are two non-identical types of money being used but the sum is the same. The definitions in Blacks show how the conversion takes place. Your paycheck (with a blank endorsement) is a general irregular deposit and its identical money is that type with substance which is loaned to the bank (they get vested title). They take your substantive money and (without disclosure) give back debt money (not ‘identical,’ but ‘other money’). These two monies are 180 degrees the opposite (mirror images) with the same sum (Blacks uses the terms ‘not the same money’ along with ‘a like sum’).

RThomas

shikamaru
08-17-11, 04:12 PM
Shikamaru,

The definitions in blacks 1 through 5 of regular and irregular deposits (and general vs. special (>sounds like jurisdiction<)) expound on what I posted above which conceptually says the same as your noted post but in different words. Blacks 6 and forward removed the definitions. There are two non-identical types of money being used but the sum is the same. The definitions in Blacks show how the conversion takes place. Your paycheck (with a blank endorsement) is a general irregular deposit and its identical money is that type with substance which is loaned to the bank (they get vested title). They take your substantive money and (without disclosure) give back debt money (not ‘identical,’ but ‘other money’). These two monies are 180 degrees the opposite (mirror images) with the same sum (Blacks uses the terms ‘not the same money’ along with ‘a like sum’).

RThomas

I completely concur.

The attachment of the link by me was my sad attempt to get more traffic to the Lex Mercatoria area of the board ....LOL.

David Merrill
08-17-11, 05:11 PM
I am proposing that the signature is quite flexible and would solve things for Karl Nathan too.

If at my boss's bank, the full non-endorsement, since that goes over for cashing my paycheck. At my bank I could sign "Lawful Money" or "Regular Deposit of Lawful Money". The teller would say, this is not the signature on your Signature Card and I would say, Let me correct the Signature Card.

Planet Merrill can be fun!

David Merrill
08-17-11, 05:20 PM
P.S. Thinking this through a bit. You got that verbiage from 1856 (Bouvier's). So that was way before 1913 and 1933 when irregular deposits became the norm.

In other words you would be demanding that your deposit be regarded as a "regular" deposit - that you did not want the bankers to do anything "irregular" with it like holding it in reserve for loans and fractional lending.

Good find! Now you have me wondering if it might go over better than the, Lawful Money Demanded pursuant to Title 12 USC §411? My guess is that the attorneys who gave it any thought at all would justify things by saying, Abnormal is the New Normal. By regular, he must mean Regular.

RThomas
08-17-11, 07:23 PM
David,

The definitions were in Blacks up till 1990 when the 6th edition came out. Your thoughts are the same as mine; few would question it up front. Only the most learned attorneys would catch it. You're reversing their projected confusion back to them. It could be slightly expanded to “A regular deposit of lawful money for credit of identical money.” With proper inquiry this may position them to have to admit that your prior deposits were not considered regular and that you were not credited with lawful money but given an equal sum of ‘other’ but ‘not the same’ ‘specie’ of money. This may be the way to force payment of gold and silver ‘specie’ by weight (dollars) as opposed to Federal Reserve Notes denominated as an equivalent ‘sum’ of dollars. In other words, your checks might have to be paid ‘dollar for dollar’ in specie and not an equivalent ‘sum’ of ‘other’ money.

A blank or general endorsement might be your oath spoken granting general jurisdiction to treat your deposit as they wish and repay you with any form of money they wish, thus your deposit would be considered irregular. A special endorsement might be the same as a special grant of jurisdiction for a specific purpose for your deposit that it be treated as a regular deposit (i.e. I deposit $100 dollars in gold and I want $100 dollars in gold paid back (same specie)). This is clearly a regular accounting of your deposit and what most people who are still confused over forms of money think they have today. We know that today’s normal bank practices with their treatment of deposits are irregular (a conversion is occurring).

A general irregular deposit is a loan to the bank. At least as early as 1937 all deposits were presumed to be general deposits. I’m still searching for earlier cases to see if a change took place and at what period of time.

See: Woolley v. City of Natchez, 89 F. 2d 937 - Circuit Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit 1937
89 F.2d 937 (1937) (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5888653749349853573&q=%22regular+deposit%22&hl=en&num=100&as_sdt=3,48)


The amounts deposited stood and remained as a credit to the city, and subject to its withdrawal until actually applied to the payment of the bonds and coupons. It is equally elementary that all deposits in a bank are general unless at the time of making there is a definite, special agreement to the contrary. It is therefore elementary law that the presumption with reference to a bank deposit is that it is general, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Borgess Hospital v. Union Industrial Trust & Savings Bank, 265 Mich. 156, 251 N.W. 363; Jennings v. United States F. & G. Co., 294 U.S. 216, 55 S.Ct. 394, 79 L.Ed. 869, 99 A.L.R. 1248; Keyes v. Paducah & I. R. R. Co. (C.C.A.) 61 F.(2d) 611, 86 A. L.R. 203; Santee Timber Corporation v. Elliott (C.C.A.) 70 F.(2d) 179, 93 A.L.R. 874; Pres. and Directors of Manhattan Co. v. Blake, 148 U.S. 412, 13 S.Ct. 640, 37 L. Ed. 504. Cf. Morse Banking Vol. 1, § 289; Bouvier, p. 293; Webster's Dictionary "Deposit (a)."

I’ll keep digging.

RThomas

David Merrill
08-17-11, 08:56 PM
Thank you.

RThomas
08-19-11, 06:11 AM
I want to add another thought to this thread. That thought is that demanding lawful money to be returned to you via a non-endorsement may not be the same as demanding via declaration or a ‘special’ (think of jurisdiction) endorsement that the fruits of your labor be recognized as equivalent to lawful (substantive) money and that it is not a loan with no repayment expected in kind (i.e. same ‘specie,’ not the same ‘sum’ in other money or currency (an irregular deposit)). If the presumption is that your deposit is ‘irregular’ and ‘general’ than a demand for lawful money may not rebut the presumption given to your purpose of ‘deposit.’ In other words one should demand what the purpose of their deposit is (safekeeping) where you retain title and then demand the same ‘money’ or specie in return. This would rebut any presumption of a loan being made with unspecified repayment terms, which would leave any bank the right to determine repayment and the form of money to repay with (other money). If you do not define your deposit than the presumption that your deposit is ‘general’ stands and a demand for lawful money to be repaid is without merit and results in other money (debt money), hence, one will still be given FRN’s. Conceptually one may need to separate a demand for lawful money to be returned on a deposit, from the demand that your deposit (the fruits of your ‘substantive’ labor) be recognized as the same (equivalent) to the agreement in ‘substantive’ ‘dollars’ on the front of your check and not an equivalent ‘sum’ of ‘other’ forms of money denominated in 'dollars'.

P.S. What I share above is merely what I see (my thoughts from my imagination). It is is not intended to say that you must see the same (accept my images).

David Merrill
08-19-11, 11:17 AM
I follow that clearly. To me, what you are saying is probably an accurate application. - All the way back to the Credit River Money Decision for example. The bank put up no consideration, so your credit was the only consideration.

The birth certificate goes a long way toward your Credit Rating - as it identifies you that way, in the legal name and often TO BE PART OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM WHICH IS A PROPER INCOME TAX.

This all, what you said, creates the illusion that there is an account. After all, they were never giving out these FRN/stock certificates in the Fed for free. Endorsement costs you a Return of Income. And therefore the stock certificates stay ready for redemption if you redeem them. Within the Federal Reserve System FRNs are money. But from without it, FRNs are stock certificates in the Fed.

My impression of Motla68's proposal about the 1099 C Form is that one is skirting about on a border, dancing dangerously on the top of a fence.

RThomas
08-19-11, 06:10 PM
David,

I am going to be busy over the next few days and will add more when life allows. Nobody has achieved the ‘holy grail,’ receiving actual money of substance for the substance of their labor. In short the results many are getting here may be just the Fed’s way of carrying on and using band aids to prevent any mortal bleeding. I am beginning to see that there may be one more step that need be taken. My thoughts are still in motion.

RThomas

motla68
08-19-11, 07:19 PM
My impression of Motla68's proposal about the 1099 C Form is that one is skirting about on a border, dancing dangerously on the top of a fence.

Here is a little more on how that works out, we are only keeping the state honorable by correctly reporting events. This is from the IRS instructions for form 1099-C:
"" When Is a Debt Canceled
A debt is deemed canceled on the date an identifiable event occurs
or, if earlier, the date of the actual discharge if you choose to file
Form 1099-C for the year of cancellation. An identifiable event is:
1. A discharge in bankruptcy under Title 11 of the U.S. Code.
For information on certain discharges in bankruptcy not required to
be reported, see Exceptions on this page. ""

I believe these FRNS to be promissory notes that discharges the debts since they are not backed by anything. Also how do I know they do not have any other bonds attached to this event (account with the court) worth thousands of dollars?

Here is the kicker though to why I think certain methods of taking care of tickets completely disappear from the public record, when it is revealed at certain names are " Property of the State" as shown on Psyop's parking ticket shown, starting out with another clip from IRS instructions form 1099-C:
"" CAUTION
Do not file Form 1099-C when fraudulent debt is canceled
due to identity theft. Form 1099-C is to be used only for
cancellations of debts for which the debtor actually incurred
the underlying debt. ""

When we reveal that we know the named account is " property of the state " after they tried to identify us as the name, it is identity theft they tried to take from us, so instead of suffering any liabilities for identity theft they get rid of that accounting from the public record as soon as possible just in case someone tries to file 1099-C for it.
But of course your not going to get them to admit to any of that on the record, they are not going to accuse themselves as we should not be accusing ourselves of being statutory employees that have an oath of office or appointment of duty. They will not stay honorable unless we operate honorable to ourselves.
This is another example of how we can be our own worst enemy sometimes.

Furthermore, can the state prove they actually incurred an underlying debt? I don't think so.

David Merrill
08-19-11, 10:33 PM
David,

I am going to be busy over the next few days and will add more when life allows. Nobody has achieved the ‘holy grail,’ receiving actual money of substance for the substance of their labor. In short the results many are getting here may be just the Fed’s way of carrying on and using band aids to prevent any mortal bleeding. I am beginning to see that there may be one more step that need be taken. My thoughts are still in motion.

RThomas


Thanks for your contributions.

My perspective involves a ten-year cure on this Bill of Exchange, one of the documents in this mosaic (http://imageshack.us/f/13/offeringtobeijing.jpg). That mosaic is but a piece of a much larger mosaic describing the sublime esoteric that helps us to draw the distinction between fate and destiny. For my bloodline, the Charter (http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/544/charteroffreedomsandexe.pdf)begins with Teunis Jansen Laenan VAN PELT and has a marked anointing by Master Mason WASHINGTON with my ancestor Peter VAN PELT. There is mention of a perpetual inheritance (http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/4227/freedomsandexemptions1.jpg)of which I can prove my bloodline.

Doctor in the law Dale LIVINGSTON, Esquire has a different perspective (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImMDhjZGRhODctMDdiOS00ODRmLTljN TMtZDAxNjQ2ZTFkMjJj&hl=en_US) on the same events. It helps to understand that Esquire is of the Crown Templars in flavor. Then you might see that to him, treason was actually the custodians of the record found on the hill at the Mason Library and Museum. This is where the Knights Templar reside.

Motla68 has yet a different approach:


Here is a little more on how that works out, we are only keeping the state honorable by correctly reporting events. This is from the IRS instructions for form 1099-C:
"" When Is a Debt Canceled
A debt is deemed canceled on the date an identifiable event occurs
or, if earlier, the date of the actual discharge if you choose to file
Form 1099-C for the year of cancellation. An identifiable event is:
1. A discharge in bankruptcy under Title 11 of the U.S. Code.
For information on certain discharges in bankruptcy not required to
be reported, see Exceptions on this page. ""

I believe these FRNS to be promissory notes that discharges the debts since they are not backed by anything. Also how do I know they do not have any other bonds attached to this event (account with the court) worth thousands of dollars?

Here is the kicker though to why I think certain methods of taking care of tickets completely disappear from the public record, when it is revealed at certain names are " Property of the State" as shown on Psyop's parking ticket shown, starting out with another clip from IRS instructions form 1099-C:
"" CAUTION
Do not file Form 1099-C when fraudulent debt is canceled
due to identity theft. Form 1099-C is to be used only for
cancellations of debts for which the debtor actually incurred
the underlying debt. ""

When we reveal that we know the named account is " property of the state " after they tried to identify us as the name, it is identity theft they tried to take from us, so instead of suffering any liabilities for identity theft they get rid of that accounting from the public record as soon as possible just in case someone tries to file 1099-C for it.
But of course your not going to get them to admit to any of that on the record, they are not going to accuse themselves as we should not be accusing ourselves of being statutory employees that have an oath of office or appointment of duty. They will not stay honorable unless we operate honorable to ourselves.
This is another example of how we can be our own worst enemy sometimes.

Furthermore, can the state prove they actually incurred an underlying debt? I don't think so.


That perspective is skewed by the fact that the United States is not, nor ever was bankrupt. Here is a bankruptcy (http://www.occ.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/2011/nr-occ-2011-110.html) - in my email just today. There are of course senators and congressmen who make allusions to bankruptcy and foreclosure in the Congressional Record, but that does not prove anything. What Motla68 might show if he is serious is who is keeping the United States in Receivership.

Here is the kicker though to why I think certain methods of taking care of tickets completely disappear from the public record, when it is revealed at certain names are " Property of the State" as shown on Psyop's parking ticket shown, starting out with another clip from IRS instructions form 1099-C:

I think the big problem with that is that Property of the State is part of the sticker that Psyop stuck on the ticket. It is of course among proven verbiage that comprises the Demand for lawful money.

If you combine Property of the State with known effective remedy found in current law, it is questionable that the Property of the State declaration had any effect. Albeit the debt - due to obligations of the US and the character of US notes (inelastic (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode31/usc_sec_31_00005115----000-.html)) albeit in the form of Fed notes (stock certificates await redemption - these particular ones fit in the wallet and circulate widely); the debt of $15 may indeed by property of the state - the state in possession of the debt.

Since 1934 the law states clearly that we can only redeem "lawful money" and lawful money means fully bonded. This redacts the action of redemption to restricted endorsement - meaning that the banksters cannot honestly lend upon money in your account and we have more and more indication that their attorneys are explaining that to them clearly.

Rock Anthony (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/search.php?searchid=18580) has recently posted some very delightful insight about this here. Mainly, that if you redeem lawful money by signature card it is only fair that you bank with an interest-free checking account and maybe where you have to pay the bank for checks and by transaction too.


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. Then again I am judging from my perspective. There is a whole history between 1861 and 1913 involving Canada too! (Footnotes. (http://img860.imageshack.us/img860/3474/goldrequirements.pdf))


http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/5859/walkerfowlertoddonhjr19.jpg

RThomas
08-20-11, 07:56 AM
“The bank put up no consideration, so your credit was the only consideration.”

I’ll expand more on this later, but my initial response would be, is it the bank (an instrumentality of the US) that received the ‘consideration’ or the US? Is it possible that the banks consideration is a form of set-off (think national debt)? My mind is still very fluid on this but the waters are calming to show a glass like reflection.

“Within the Federal Reserve System FRNs are money."

Within the transaction I am speaking to FRNs is ’other’ money given back in an equivalent ‘sum’ under the presumption that one's ‘irregular’ deposit was a ‘loan’.

“But from without it, FRNs are stock certificates in the Fed.”

Within the transaction I am speaking to one’s ‘regular’ deposit is not declared by one to have been made in ‘stock certificates in the Fed’ but declared to be lawful money which has been declared by the US under their original fixing of the weights of gold and silver thus defining ‘dollars’. Thus one’s substance is not a loan, but deposited for safekeeping and a demand that the same ‘specie’ of ‘dollars’ be returned.

I have more to share as to what I am now seeing

motla68
08-20-11, 12:00 PM
“The bank put up no consideration, so your credit was the only consideration.”

I’ll expand more on this later, but my initial response would be, is it the bank (an instrumentality of the US) that received the ‘consideration’ or the US? Is it possible that the banks consideration is a form of set-off (think national debt)? My mind is still very fluid on this but the waters are calming to show a glass like reflection.

“Within the Federal Reserve System FRNs are money."

Within the transaction I am speaking to FRNs is ’other’ money given back in an equivalent ‘sum’ under the presumption that one's ‘irregular’ deposit was a ‘loan’.

“But from without it, FRNs are stock certificates in the Fed.”

Within the transaction I am speaking to one’s ‘regular’ deposit is not declared by one to have been made in ‘stock certificates in the Fed’ but declared to be lawful money which has been declared by the US under their original fixing of the weights of gold and silver thus defining ‘dollars’. Thus one’s substance is not a loan, but deposited for safekeeping and a demand that the same ‘specie’ of ‘dollars’ be returned.

I have more to share as to what I am now seeing

ok, RThomas, lets expand upon your thoughts here, was it you that accepted it as value or was it the merchant licensed by the state to do business who accepted the value in exchange for goods and services? See below image

632

The front serialized is the private and the back is the public side, I know this is ass backwards but complain to Congress who once called Lawful Money by itself in circulation " green backs ". They are both obligations of the U.S. Treasury AND Federal Reserve Bank being partly that they were printed by the Federal Burea of Engraving and printing and the FRB is duty bound by the Federal Reserve Act.
Go to the following link and read the first paragraph section for yourself:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/section16.htm

Cheers!

David Merrill
08-20-11, 11:02 PM
“The bank put up no consideration, so your credit was the only consideration.”

I’ll expand more on this later, but my initial response would be, is it the bank (an instrumentality of the US) that received the ‘consideration’ or the US? Is it possible that the banks consideration is a form of set-off (think national debt)? My mind is still very fluid on this but the waters are calming to show a glass like reflection.

“Within the Federal Reserve System FRNs are money."

Within the transaction I am speaking to FRNs is ’other’ money given back in an equivalent ‘sum’ under the presumption that one's ‘irregular’ deposit was a ‘loan’.

“But from without it, FRNs are stock certificates in the Fed.”

Within the transaction I am speaking to one’s ‘regular’ deposit is not declared by one to have been made in ‘stock certificates in the Fed’ but declared to be lawful money which has been declared by the US under their original fixing of the weights of gold and silver thus defining ‘dollars’. Thus one’s substance is not a loan, but deposited for safekeeping and a demand that the same ‘specie’ of ‘dollars’ be returned.

I have more to share as to what I am now seeing


ok, RThomas, lets expand upon your thoughts here, was it you that accepted it as value or was it the merchant licensed by the state to do business who accepted the value in exchange for goods and services? See below image

632

The front serialized is the private and the back is the public side, I know this is ass backwards but complain to Congress who once called Lawful Money by itself in circulation " green backs ". They are both obligations of the U.S. Treasury AND Federal Reserve Bank being partly that they were printed by the Federal Burea of Engraving and printing and the FRB is duty bound by the Federal Reserve Act.
Go to the following link and read the first paragraph section for yourself:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/section16.htm

Cheers!



Thanks for providing that link to §411 et seq as the attorneys say:

Click Here (http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/section16.htm).

The key in understanding any illusion of an account with the Treasury, even based in HJR-192 is to fit a proper substitution into the term Special Drawing Rights as the major currency - Special Drawing Right Certificates as currency that is exchanged for the issuance of Fed notes. If you are in a hurry just do a Search while on the Fed Faqs page linked - Ctrl-F. That way you can read about SDRs in context of §411 et seq.

I have shown you the Senate Report (http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/3599/publiclaw94564.pdf) several times lately. Where this started for me was long ago it seems now, and far, far away at the Tuesday Night Law Club Meetings. A guest speaker from California told me about the Secret Jamaica Rambouillet Accord and that if anybody sensed I was getting close, then I would be killed. Sure enough, when I found it in the State Department Bulletin, THEY came and killed me!

The actual minutes of the meeting were secret, and still are as you read on Pages 3-4.

Page 3. (http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/55/pl945643.jpg)
Page 4. (http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/7357/pl945644.jpg)

First I grabbed this paragraph from the State Department Bulletin.


http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/SeizeGold.jpg

That is from Undersecretary KATZ writing in the Bulletin. Here is the entire Report (http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/7752/katzonsdrs.pdf).

You can get a definition off Wiki or many other hits to compare to mine:

Special Drawing Rights - The average US Dollar or equivalent value per US Dollar as determined of five exemplary nations. Exemplary nations being where the people are duped into endorsing private credit from their respective central banks, rather than to redeem lawful money.

With that in mind, substitute that mental model into "special drawing rights" as you read the Treasury Faqs (http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/section16.htm) link.



Regards,

David Merrill.

motla68
08-21-11, 12:33 AM
David, thank you very much. Among other references to this it is quite a revealing key of knowledge for anyone who doubts this function can be accomplished.

I am considering modifying the stamp a bit due to other things found for certain presentments. Instead of putting " Property of the State " replace with " Gift to the State "
and " Deposit for Credit" replace with " Deposit for Settlement " . Will share with you more when one of us here comes up with some results.

David Merrill
08-21-11, 01:26 AM
You are quite welcome Motla68;


Here is something (https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B1EaV_bU7VImZmY5OWI0YWUtMDdhOS00MzE1LTg1MTI tNjNjNGVhN2M5YzU5&hl=en_US) that will help. This too. (http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/9137/jamaicarambouilletaccor.pdf) Read it with one eye on a mirror, to cover your back! [wink]

Richard Earl
08-21-11, 01:30 AM
Thank you David. I'm glad you're feeling better since that time when they killed you. They sure don't fool around. :D

David Merrill
08-21-11, 01:53 AM
Thank you David. I'm glad you're feeling better since that time when they killed you. They sure don't fool around. :D


Thanks for catching that. It was a significantly serious lesson though - that it may be found in the State Department Bulletin.

RThomas
08-21-11, 06:35 AM
My attempt is to show a simple concept and a presumption from ‘them’ shown by ‘their’ words. In the context of this thought, ‘them’ and ‘their’ means any one external to the one.

Conceptually, seeing how to control a camel within one's tent is not the same as seeking to see how that camel originally was allowed into the tent. My prior posts speak to the latter.

Again, when time allows I will expand. What I have cursorily read so far appears off topic.

RThomas
08-21-11, 07:00 AM
"property of the state"

I now see what you are presenting. Perception becomes reality, a two way street in deed.

motla68
08-21-11, 04:55 PM
You are quite welcome Motla68;


Here is something (https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B1EaV_bU7VImZmY5OWI0YWUtMDdhOS00MzE1LTg1MTI tNjNjNGVhN2M5YzU5&hl=en_US) that will help. This too. (http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/9137/jamaicarambouilletaccor.pdf) Read it with one eye on a mirror, to cover your back! [wink]

One word comes to mind reading all this " linchpin " .
Truly the epiphany of the saying of money being a root of evil, used to control. It seems they literally use symbolism into the Sona of money being the redemption to a God of sorts.
A difficult thing for the masses to do is wake up to the Estate which was given to us by the one true God before the foundation of this world was ever created.

motla68
08-21-11, 05:08 PM
"property of the state"

I now see what you are presenting. Perception becomes reality, a two way street in deed.

You might see some more simplification coming to light when you just start calling instruments for what they are, i.e. SSN is property of the SSA, Birth Certificate is Property of the State, Drivers license is property of the state. So the next time a government agent asks you for any of these things state the condition of which you are offering the instrument at least verbally, " this is property of the state and if your looking for a benefit from the state take this instrument". You will get some kodak moments of facial expressions when you do this.

motla68
08-21-11, 09:43 PM
I know we talked about this HJR 192 thing not long ago, found it in my files and forgot that I had read it once before, this is the caveat that brings the meaning of Lawful Money to the international scene, evidence of this was finding the Saskatchewan charter in Canada says that Lawful Money of Canada has the same meaning as Lawful Money of the United States of America.

It appears that everything was moved up to the international level one succession step at a time as was the Lieber Code mentioned before:
" The "Lieber Instructions" strongly influenced the further codification of the laws of war and the adoption of similar regulations by other states. They formed the origin of the project of an international convention on the laws of war presented to the Brussels Conference in 1874 and stimulated the adoption of the Hague Conventions on land warfare of 1899 and 1907. "
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/73cb71d18dc4372741256739003e6372/a25aa5871a04919bc12563cd002d65c5?OpenDocument (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/73cb71d18dc4372741256739003e6372/a25aa5871a04919bc12563cd002d65c5?OpenDocument)

David Merrill
08-21-11, 11:04 PM
One word comes to mind reading all this " linchpin " .
Truly the epiphany of the saying of money being a root of evil, used to control. It seems they literally use symbolism into the Sona of money being the redemption to a God of sorts.
A difficult thing for the masses to do is wake up to the Estate which was given to us by the one true God before the foundation of this world was ever created.


One might give a listen to what goes on in the Sanctuary (https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B1EaV_bU7VImYmU2N2YyMDEtM2QxYS00OTYwLWEwMTg tOGU0M2Q0Y2ZhNGQ5&hl=en_US) of a well-enlightened church. However, this pastor was quickly dismissed by the 501(C)(3) component.


http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/5627/fkearmedguard.jpg



I know we talked about this HJR 192 thing not long ago, found it in my files and forgot that I had read it once before, this is the caveat that brings the meaning of Lawful Money to the international scene, evidence of this was finding the Saskatchewan charter in Canada says that Lawful Money of Canada has the same meaning as Lawful Money of the United States of America.

It appears that everything was moved up to the international level one succession step at a time as was the Lieber Code mentioned before:
" The "Lieber Instructions" strongly influenced the further codification of the laws of war and the adoption of similar regulations by other states. They formed the origin of the project of an international convention on the laws of war presented to the Brussels Conference in 1874 and stimulated the adoption of the Hague Conventions on land warfare of 1899 and 1907. "
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/73cb71d18dc4372741256739003e6372/a25aa5871a04919bc12563cd002d65c5?OpenDocument (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/73cb71d18dc4372741256739003e6372/a25aa5871a04919bc12563cd002d65c5?OpenDocument)

A good reality check is to remember that the Emergency (and the Lieber Code) were terminated in 1976. The artifacts that remain are only about remedy from the Fed - more like the Fed's remedy from the Run of people demanding lawful money. It always comes around to that - redeeming lawful money. That is the component that is effective while the allusion to a Treasury Account always creates the illusion that is where the Setoff came from.

Treefarmer
08-22-11, 12:11 AM
You might see some more simplification coming to light when you just start calling instruments for what they are, i.e. SSN is property of the SSA, Birth Certificate is Property of the State, Drivers license is property of the state. So the next time a government agent asks you for any of these things state the condition of which you are offering the instrument at least verbally, " this is property of the state and if your looking for a benefit from the state take this instrument". You will get some kodak moments of facial expressions when you do this.

I recently had the opportunity to try this out.
I was traveling in an old mini-van which I had bought with lawful money many years ago and which I keep up with my labor and a regular infusion of parts, but which is branded with a TENNESSEE license plate nevertheless.
I was on the great Plains somewhere in the mid-west late at night, pumping gas at a gas station which was closed but had left the pumps open for business with credit and debit cards.
I was the only one there as far as I could tell. The gas station had one light which was the only light in the area.
I saw a house about 200 yards away that had no lights on. I could not see what else was in the neighborhood, if anything.

I pumped gas using a debit card and because I was tired I decided to take a nap right there in my van.
I don't know how long it was after I dozed off, when I awoke from a cop knocking on my window and shining a light on me.
He demanded to see a DL from me.
I had the STATE OF TENNESSEE DL clipped to a sun visor pocket above the driver seat.
The driver door window was rolled down about 3 inches at the time.
I moved from the floor in the back where I was laying into the front of the van between the seats and flipped the visor against the window where the cop was so he could see it.
I told him that the STATE OF TENNESSEE issues such things (as a DL) and that if he desired this benefit he should go ahead and take it.
He said that he could not read it nor reach it there so I got the ignition key out of my pocket and turned the lock cylinder far enough for the power to come on, and then rolled the power window down another 8 inches or so.
At this point the cop was able to reach the DL in the visor pocket and he took it with him to his patrol car.

I laid back down in my nap spot.
The cop spent some time with that DL, perhaps 8 to 10 minutes.
This DL has a squeaky clean record attached to it.
When the cop came back he knocked on the window again and I got up again and kneeled on the floor of the van between the seats.
He put the DL back where he found it.

I asked him if he knew of a good place for taking a nap in the area.
He said that the gas station was as good a place as any, unless the owner showed up and asked me to leave. He added that he thought this was unlikely.
I told him that in this case I would continue to take my nap there. We wished each other a good night.

I power napped maybe 25 more minutes, which refreshed me enough so that I could return to traveling on the Interstate highway.

I look forward to exploring this concept further, as opportunities arise.

RThomas
08-22-11, 06:38 PM
When one removes the presumption of a loan being made to the bank one also removes any subsequent presumption that one is a banker. You're not making any loans and acting like a banker. Thus the legal tender laws and all banking laws no longer apply to you. The bank cannot discharge their debt to you with ‘other’ money. Their debt to you must be paid with ‘specie.’ The identical lawful money you have declared your check to be via ‘a regular deposit of lawful money’. This is the ‘linchpin’ in deed.

David Merrill
08-22-11, 08:15 PM
And along the way, keep insightful people nearby, and keep them talking.


Thank you RThomas.

Treefarmer
08-23-11, 12:12 AM
When one removes the presumption of a loan being made to the bank one also removes any subsequent presumption that one is a banker. You're not making any loans and acting like a banker. Thus the legal tender laws and all banking laws no longer apply to you. The bank cannot discharge their debt to you with ‘other’ money. Their debt to you must be paid with ‘specie.’ The identical lawful money you have declared your check to be via ‘a regular deposit of lawful money’. This is the ‘linchpin’ in deed.

Got paid by bank check for a raft trip I ran last week.
I'm trying out the new verbiage on it.
I'm writing it in above my stamped "Redeemed for lawful money pursuant 12 USC 411, True Name, dba LEGAL NAME" verbiage.
I'm keeping a copy of it for evidence.
I've noticed that our bank tellers never look at the back of the checks we present to them, almost as if they don't want to see what it says there.

RThomas
08-23-11, 02:17 AM
Got paid by bank check for a raft trip I ran last week.
I'm trying out the new verbiage on it.
I'm writing it in above my stamped "Redeemed for lawful money pursuant 12 USC 411, True Name, dba LEGAL NAME" verbiage.
I'm keeping a copy of it for evidence.
I've noticed that our bank tellers never look at the back of the checks we present to them, almost as if they don't want to see what it says there.

I doubt what you are proposing to do will work. It serves no purpose to rebut the presumption that you are a banker and then cite law that is based on the presumption that you are an agent of the Federal Reserve. I think more study is required before anyone attempts this. After having spent more time thinking this through, I now retract the statement of this being non-confrontational.

Treefarmer
08-23-11, 02:50 AM
I doubt what you are proposing to do will work. It serves no purpose to rebut the presumption that you are a banker and then cite law that is based on the presumption that you are an agent of the Federal Reserve. I think more study is required before anyone attempts this. After having spent more time thinking this through, I now retract the statement of this being non-confrontational.

So you are saying that citing 12 USC 411 turns me into an agent of the Fed?

RThomas
08-23-11, 05:14 AM
So you are saying that citing 12 USC 411 turns me into an agent of the Fed?

In the manner you are citing it one would be declaring them self to be an agent of the Fed. If one declares his check to be of lawful money, and not a loan which can be replaced with other money then what would one be seeking redemption for? Title 12 @ 411 applies to Federal reserve banks and agents thereof in the purpose of, and redemption for, Federal reserve notes. Why would one re-declare their check to be equivalent to Federal reserve notes and seek redemption after one just declared it to be of lawful money? If one is not a banker then the stated purpose of Federal reserve notes does not apply to them. Citing Title 12 @ 411 for this reason would be useful. Can anyone see a box forming?

David Merrill
08-23-11, 03:20 PM
In the manner you are citing it one would be declaring them self to be an agent of the Fed. If one declares his check to be of lawful money, and not a loan which can be replaced with other money then what would one be seeking redemption for? Title 12 @ 411 applies to Federal reserve banks and agents thereof in the purpose of, and redemption for, Federal reserve notes. Why would one re-declare their check to be equivalent to Federal reserve notes and seek redemption after one just declared it to be of lawful money? If one is not a banker then the stated purpose of Federal reserve notes does not apply to them. Citing Title 12 @ 411 for this reason would be useful. Can anyone see a box forming?


Federal Reserve notes are stock certificates. There are enough of these generated in various denominations so that they are easily traded - currency. Motla68 found a great link - Title 12 U.S.C. §411 et seq (http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/section16.htm). You as a bank have to buy FRNs, for them to be issued to you. Since 1933 to save the Fed FDR opened this up to everybody as quasi-Fed banks. You buy the FRNs with your labor, your salary checks.

You buy stock in the Fed when you cash your paycheck by endorsing private credit.

You choose not to buy stock in the Fed when you cash your paycheck demanding to redeem lawful money.

If you go with Pete HENDRICKSON's Cracking the Code technique of a Zero Income Return you argue no liability on worn out interpretations of Title 26 (IR Code) after you have already bought Fed stock. If you demand lawful money at the initial transaction, cashing your paycheck therefore, you have refused to do business with the Fed. Now you are just using that note format because it is the only recognized currency and therefore lawful money. It is fully bonded by the obligations of the United States for creating the Fed.

In this description of the contracting I do not see how one can interpret resorting to the Demand provided by law making you an agent of the Fed. You are demanding not to be in agreement with the Fed. If anything you are making the declaration that Congress is your agent, making you the sovereign. That is to say your agent provided the remedy written into the law for you to remain the sovereign.

motla68
08-23-11, 03:57 PM
Why not just say " Lawful Money " without all the encoding?
You could pull it from a legal dictionary and have it mean the same instead of mentioning the 12 @ 411 encoding as a statutory employee or agent in contract would do.

RThomas
08-23-11, 06:09 PM
Federal Reserve notes are stock certificates. There are enough of these generated in various denominations so that they are easily traded - currency. Motla68 found a great link - Title 12 U.S.C. §411 et seq (http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/section16.htm). You as a bank have to buy FRNs, for them to be issued to you. Since 1933 to save the Fed FDR opened this up to everybody as quasi-Fed banks. You buy the FRNs with your labor, your salary checks.

You buy stock in the Fed when you cash your paycheck by endorsing private credit.

You choose not to buy stock in the Fed when you cash your paycheck demanding to redeem lawful money.

If you go with Pete HENDRICKSON's Cracking the Code technique of a Zero Income Return you argue no liability on worn out interpretations of Title 26 (IR Code) after you have already bought Fed stock. If you demand lawful money at the initial transaction, cashing your paycheck therefore, you have refused to do business with the Fed. Now you are just using that note format because it is the only recognized currency and therefore lawful money. It is fully bonded by the obligations of the United States for creating the Fed.

In this description of the contracting I do not see how one can interpret resorting to the Demand provided by law making you an agent of the Fed. You are demanding not to be in agreement with the Fed. If anything you are making the declaration that Congress is your agent, making you the sovereign. That is to say your agent provided the remedy written into the law for you to remain the sovereign.


I don’t have time for a full explanation so this will have to suffice for now.

Sec. 411. Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation;
redemption

Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making
advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as
hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said
notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable
by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all
taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful
money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the
city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.

Hence the need to properly rebut any presumption one is a bank, stop making loans to banks. Federal reserve notes are lawful money to banks.

RThomas
08-23-11, 06:11 PM
Why not just say " Lawful Money " without all the encoding?
You could pull it from a legal dictionary and have it mean the same instead of mentioning the 12 @ 411 encoding as a statutory employee or agent in contract would do.

That might work depending on the wording, the rebuttal just has to clear.

I am off to go camping through the weekend. Have a good week all. I will try to share more when I return.

David Merrill
08-23-11, 08:09 PM
Endorsement lends the bank credit?

I guess that is what he means. Have a good trip. See you when you return.

Treefarmer
08-24-11, 02:23 AM
Very interesting, thank you all for your thoughtful comments.
After thinking about it some more I can see that it would be odd to call a bank check lawful money and then also demand that it be redeemed in lawful money.

I don't like the idea of being a Fed bank.
And I like the idea of trading my labor for debt on which I have to pay a "return of income" even less, because it tends to impoverish and inconvenience me to an intolerable degree.

Motla68's suggestion has appeal because of it's simplicity. Has anyone tried this approach?

RThomas
08-29-11, 05:23 AM
I’m back. I’m going to try and go through how the camel gets into one’s tent.

I’ll start with the actions of a Joe Sixpack (JS). JS has been told all his life that the bank needs a blank endorsement on the back of his check when he deposits his check or even deposits it for a brief period for the purpose of ‘cashing’ his check. JS signs his check that is denominated in ‘dollars’ on the front, with a blank endorsement, walks up to the teller, slides the check across the counter and removes his hand. The teller then picks up the check. Stop your mind at this point and let’s review what just happened within this stage of this trans-‘action.’

JS just gave the bank a check with a blank endorsement that granted the bank via his signature a ‘general’ jurisdiction over his check, thus a ‘general’ deposit. This presumption of his act being a general deposit is laid out within the concepts I previously posted and stated conceptually in this case of ‘theirs’,

See: Woolley vs. City of Natchez (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5888653749349853573&q=%22regular+deposit%22&hl=en&num=100&as_sdt=3,48) (1937)

The amounts deposited stood and remained as a credit to the city, and subject to its withdrawal until actually applied to the payment of the bonds and coupons. It is equally elementary that all deposits in a bank are general unless at the time of making there is a definite, special agreement to the contrary. It is therefore elementary law that the presumption with reference to a bank deposit is that it is general, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Borgess Hospital v. Union Industrial Trust & Savings Bank, 265 Mich. 156, 251 N.W. 363; Jennings v. United States F. & G. Co., 294 U.S. 216, 55 S.Ct. 394, 79 L.Ed. 869, 99 A.L.R. 1248; Keyes v. Paducah & I. R. R. Co. (C.C.A.) 61 F.(2d) 611, 86 A. L.R. 203; Santee Timber Corporation v. Elliott (C.C.A.) 70 F.(2d) 179, 93 A.L.R. 874; Pres. and Directors of Manhattan Co. v. Blake, 148 U.S. 412, 13 S.Ct. 640, 37 L. Ed. 504. Cf. Morse Banking Vol. 1, § 289; Bouvier, p. 293; Webster's Dictionary "Deposit (a)."

The following case of ‘theirs’ states the same. By ‘them’ it is from 1865 and discloses a little more. It is a particularly interesting read as it talks about a suit in which one bank repaid the other bank in other money that had the same sum as the money deposited but not the same value.

See: Marine Bank vs. Fulton Bank (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4675356235775837049&q=%22general+deposit%22&hl=en&num=100&as_sdt=3,48&as_ylo=1800&as_yhi=1913) (1865)

All deposits made with bankers may be divided into two classes, namely, those in which the bank becomes bailee of the depositor, the title to the thing deposited remaining with the latter; and that other kind of deposit of money peculiar to banking business, in which the depositor, for his own convenience, parts with the title to his money, and loans it to the banker; and the latter, in consideration of the loan of the money and the right to use it for his own profit, agrees to refund the same amount, or any part thereof, on demand.


JS is presumed by ‘them’ to have made a private loan to a public ‘federal’ bank. By his own acts the only logical presumption is that JS would be correctly presumed by ‘them’ to be a private banker. What happens after this point becomes the clincher, or the ‘linchpin’. When JS demands money back from his ‘demand deposit account,’ he is offered other money that was only brought in to existence for ‘their’ banks as per title 12 @ 411.

TITLE 12--BANKS AND BANKING

CHAPTER 3--FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

SUBCHAPTER XII--FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES


Sec. 411. Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation;
redemption

Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making
advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as
hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said
notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable
by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all
taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful
money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the
city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve
bank.


At this point if JS accepts ‘their’ money he is confessing to be the banker ‘they’ presumed him to be by his acts. JS by his own confession — by his act of acceptance— just subjected himself to all laws governing the use of ‘their’ money. Why is it ‘their’ money? JS loaned money —the fruits of his labor—that he held title to —money that was free and clear of any third party liens—, his loan transferred title to his money (see the case above Marine Bank vs. Fulton Bank). When demanding his money back or an equivalent money if he accepts FRN’s, than he is accepting not only that their presumption that he is a banker is true, but he also is accepting ‘their’ money that does not transfer title back. JS converts himself from a creditor to a debtor. All the bank did was make an offer. The holder of the title of FRN’s is shown below.


TITLE 12--BANKS AND BANKING

CHAPTER 3--FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

SUBCHAPTER XII--FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES


Sec. 414. Authority of Board of Governors respecting issuance of
notes; interest; lien

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System shall have the
right, acting through the Federal Reserve agent, to grant in whole or in
part, or to reject entirely the application of any Federal Reserve bank
for Federal Reserve notes; but to the extent that such application may
be granted the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System shall,
through its local Federal Reserve agent, supply Federal Reserve notes to
the banks so applying, and such bank shall be charged with the amount of
the notes issued to it and shall pay such rate of interest as may be
established by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve system on
only that amount of such notes which equals the total amount of its
outstanding Federal Reserve notes less the amount of gold certificates
held by the Federal Reserve agent as collateral security. Federal
Reserve notes issued to any such bank shall, upon delivery, together
with such notes of such Federal Reserve bank as may be issued under
subchapter XIII \1\ of this chapter upon security of United States 2 per
centum Government bonds,

[[Page 145]]

become a first and paramount lien on all the assets of such bank.


The question is how can JS avoid ‘their’ presumptions (i.e. kick the camel out of his tent)? JS should not have granted ‘general’ jurisdiction to any ‘federal’ bank over the fruits of his labor. JS should define the jurisdiction he is granting to the bank, and not make a loan to any bank which transfers title to the fruits of his labor unless JS can get an agreement from any such bank that his demand for return of his deposit will be made with money that also is a return of title to that money. Under ‘their’ current monetary system the title to JS’s labor flows to ‘them’ and is not being returned. JS should preemptively rebut any presumptions ‘they’ can or might make from his actions. JS should declare that the dollars specified on the front of his check are lawfully recognized by ‘them’ as weight in gold or silver and not accept a re-deeming of such ‘dollars as being equivalent to the declared face value of FRN’s (I’ve already alluded to this in prior posts, but more on this to come later). JS should by his endorsement not allow any presumption to occur that would make him a banker under ‘their’ laws subjecting him to ‘their’ will. JS should not be a lender or a borrower. JS should not seek any benefit from any bank, ultimately he should be paying for ‘their’ service. JS should act lawfully and avoid any entanglements of legalities (i.e. ‘their’ form of law).

Next (coming soon) I will speak to what I see as the fraud behind ‘their’ money as shown by ‘their’ law and ‘their’ definitions. I will also share what I see as the best way to use ‘their’ words against ‘them’ and retain your inherent title to your labor.

‘Them,’ ‘their,’ and ‘theirs’ is all inclusive of anyone external to the one. The language within my posts is not a creation of the one true god but is used only for the purpose of conveying thoughts. I as one with the one true god reserve an inherent and equal right to decide the meaning of my ‘words.’ I am not ‘religious.’ If one believes, then one understands at one's own peril. If one seeks truth, then one will see truth.

RThomas

David Merrill
08-29-11, 11:35 PM
That is worth reading several times!

Thank you for your research. What I hear out of it is elastic currency and inelastic currency. US notes cannot be used for reserve currency and there is a fixed amount of notes. Inelastic. There are two different kinds of currency and the bankers and Congress are trying to make them into one kind of currency - faulty metaphysics.

Treefarmer
08-30-11, 02:10 AM
I second that; thank you for your research RThomas.
I'm looking forward to seeing more of it.

allodial
08-30-11, 06:30 PM
Ah but again the topic of 'nemo dat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemo_dat_quod_non_habet)' must be added to the light of this thread.


The 'nemo dat' rule applies: Nemo dat non quad non habet (no-one can pass a better title than they themselves have). In other words, the transferee's title is subject to defects (or subject to equities)

Also if you sign in blank, you just laid a bearer instrument for the teller or bank to steal. Leaving it on the counter could be construed to be abandonment (1099-A). Also, don't forget the role the deposit slip plays! By signing in blank, the bank or teller or attorney-in-the-closet can steal the check and substitute it with something else to your unawares. Consider also the currency denominated on the front of the check.

The State Department of Revenue or DMV are probably somehow associated with the FRB. The US Social Security Administration are obviously associated with the FRB. This the "requirement" for a DL or SS card or credit card for ID..all of those are perhaps evidence of your being an 'FRB banker' before you can have some of those FRNs.

If I recall correctly, a check made out to the bank by its account holder (rather than to YOUR PERSON) should not require you to present ID especially if you exchange it for a bank draft, money order or cashier's check (I recall a dishonest and upset teller that knew that she couldn't require ID and so she decided to point out that there were two different colors of ink on the check so she refused to even exchange it for a cashier's check--I made it clear that I didn't want cash but she looked hard for a reason to say why she couldn't 'process' it--lack of State ID wasn't the reason! She seemed deeply upset and embarassed way down inside in an inexplicable way. As if her Cybernetic program had its feelings hurt.).

Perhaps the tax liability :) comes from the FRB, erm, umm, somehow ...cancelling :) the check (i.e. thus their transmission of their credit) and your person's liability on the check for the tax is based the total amount cancelled...perhaps.


There are numerous exceptions to the nemo dat rule (http://www.answers.com/topic/nemo-dat-quod-non-habet). Legal tender, for example, does not adhere to the rule in certain circumstances. If a rogue buys goods from a bona fide merchant, that merchant will not have to return the bills to the true owner. To hold the rule to be otherwise would be disruptive to the economy and prevent the free flow of goods in an economy. The same may be true of other "negotiable" instruments, such as cheques. If a thief A steals a cheque from B and sells it to innocent C, C is entitled to deal with the cheque, and A cannot claim it back from C (though the name appearing on the cheque may affect the validity of such a transfer).

There is *ahem* good reason to believe that a bank is PURCHASING a check (a security) from a person when a person cashes it. For those who might be unaware, negotiation of a check has to do with TRANSFER OF TITLE to the underlying assets. The term 'Crossed check' or 'crossed cheque' is probably hardly heard of around the USA--perhaps by design. Signing in blank allows it to be stolen! They could substitute dirt cookies. Mainly seems that they want to be able to easily turn it over to the FRB for credit on their own account thus they push the blank endorsement.

If you make a blank endorsement on a check--perhaps you are approving or consenting to it being stolen? *shrugs*


Oftentimes Catholic seminarians are mistaken for priests and asked to bless objects. If he is unable to convince his interlocutor that he is not able to bless things, there has been a longstanding practice among some seminarians to recite "Nemo dat quod non habet, in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti" over the item, to the great rapture of well-meaning pious persons and the great amusement of those who speak Latin. I don't know if it's worth incorporating into the article, but it may be worth mentioning if it can be properly sourced.


Although cash and other negotiable instruments are personal property, the original owner can lose title to an innocent purchaser, since it is almost impossible to prove she originally owned the cash. The person who has given something in value in exchange for the stolen money, without the knowledge that it was stolen, acquires the right to the property. For example, the store that unknowingly sold a stereo to a bank robber who paid with the stolen cash is not required to give the money back.

RThomas
08-30-11, 08:33 PM
Allodial,

You are closer to seeing what I see. It is all about the title. The cases I presented above show that title is transferred in a bank deposit. They also say that a bank deposit is a loan. A loan signifies that the only title conveyed was for use and possession and not ultimate title. The bank knows it is a deposit and cannot deny their acceptance of the deposit as a loan, plus they always issue back a receipt (no abandonment). The bank then turns around and repays with their money which only conveys use and possession, hence the first and paramount lien against all assets of the receiver. Their notes do not say ‘pay to the order of’ or ‘pay to bearer’ because they are not iou’s, they are you owe me’s. They’re keeping title that they cannot show was ever conveyed to them. A proper endorsement could ‘box them in’ so to speak where they will have to return the substance of one’s labor with money of substance (i.e. with full title) or risk exposing themselves.

RThomas

allodial
08-30-11, 09:01 PM
Allodial,

You are closer to seeing what I see. It is all about the title. The cases I presented above show that title is transferred in a bank deposit. They also say that a bank deposit is a loan. A loan signifies that the only title conveyed was for use and possession and not ultimate title. The bank knows it is a deposit and cannot deny their acceptance of the deposit as a loan, plus they always issue back a receipt (no abandonment). The bank then turns around and repays with their money which only conveys use and possession, hence the first and paramount lien against all assets of the receiver. Their notes do not say ‘pay to the order of’ or ‘pay to bearer’ because they are not iou’s, they are you owe me’s. They’re keeping title that they cannot show was ever conveyed to them. A proper endorsement could ‘box them in’ so to speak where they will have to return the substance of one’s labor with money of substance (i.e. with full title) or risk exposing themselves.

RThomas

Well if one really wants to get to heart of it, it might do one well to consider the bank to be an extension of the U.S. Court of the Exchequer / U.S. Tax Court. If you pledged your labor to a company, and it is bankrupt how do you expect it to pay you? Also, if its one's interaction with a bank are a court proceeding perhaps the style of proceeding is 'admiralty' (Rule E, FRCP (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/RuleE.htm))?

RThomas
08-31-11, 06:26 AM
Allodial,

The only way one will find the way out of ‘their’ ‘rabbit hole’ is to see how one got into it at the beginning (i.e. the genesis; the creation). Once one sees that one is in ‘their’ ‘rabbit hole,’ one cannot escape by using ‘their’ laws. One can quote ‘their’ law (oath spoken: or ‘their’ grant of jurisdiction to the one) and hold ‘their’ law against ‘them.’ Inherent rights and voluntary obligations are what true law is founded on, nothing more and nothing less. All that they project to the one is ‘their’ form or forms of law; it is merely ‘their’ claim as to what is true law. The concept of what is happening to title with regard to ‘money’ (i.e. the fruits of one’s labor) is the same as what is happening conceptually to the title being claimed to one’s mind. Theft.

RThomas

allodial
08-31-11, 05:41 PM
Allodial,

The only way one will find the way out of ‘their’ ‘rabbit hole’ is to see how one got into it at the beginning (i.e. the genesis; the creation). Once one sees that one is in ‘their’ ‘rabbit hole,’ one cannot escape by using ‘their’ laws. One can quote ‘their’ law (oath spoken: or ‘their’ grant of jurisdiction to the one) and hold ‘their’ law against ‘them.’ Inherent rights and voluntary obligations are what true law is founded on, nothing more and nothing less. All that they project to the one is ‘their’ form or forms of law; it is merely ‘their’ claim as to what is true law. The concept of what is happening to title with regard to ‘money’ (i.e. the fruits of one’s labor) is the same as what is happening conceptually to the title being claimed to one’s mind. Theft.

RThomas
Well seems more of mixing applies and oranges. Dealing with banks is a bit different matter than creation of mankind. Artificial political entities do not exist in nature. However, it is agreed that knowing the greater truth can give one the gumption and equipment to be steadfast. Also, it might be insightful to know that 'garden (http://www.memidex.com/plantation+garden)' is regarded to be a synonym for 'plantation (http://www.synonyms.net/synonym/plantation)'. When a 5 year old starts "school" they place him/her in a "garden of children" (kindergarten; gan yeladim), no?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_WpddSs21q68/TJoLN8TAQnI/AAAAAAAABFM/jIteuihn9L4/s320/Email+From+America+2+-+Rhode+Island+State+Seal.jpg


Providence Plantations was the first permanent European American settlement in present-day Rhode Island. It was established at Providence in 1636 by English clergyman Roger Williams and a small band of followers who had left the repressive atmosphere of the Massachusetts Bay Colony to seek freedom of worship. Narragansett sachems Canonicus and Miantonomi granted Williams a sizable tract of land for his new village.

Rock Anthony
09-01-11, 03:17 AM
Excellent conversation going on here!

RThomas, are you suggesting that deposits of lawful money into a bank can still be considered as loans to the bank?

I have an agreement with BofA such that only lawful money goes in, and only lawful money comes out - no conversion of labor to Fed credit.

P.S. Excellent posts, you have made. Thanks for the dilligent research. Perhaps Admin will add a "Thank You" feature to StSC.

P.P.S. I remember initiating a chat session with BofA. I asked if they offered a "Special Depository" type of account as a product to its customers. As a matter of fact, I even provided the legal defintion of "special deposit" during the chat session. The answer was, "no".



SPECIAL DEPOSIT. A deposit made of a particular thing with the depositary: it is distinguished from an irregular deposit.
2. When a thing has been specially deposited with a depositary, the title to it remains with the depositor, and if it should be lost, the loss will fall upon him. When, on the contrary, the deposit is irregular, as where money is deposited in a bank, the title to which is transferred to the bank, if it be, lost, the loss will be borne by the bank. This will result from the same principle; the loss will fall, in both instances, on the owner of the thing, according to the rule res perit domino. See 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 1 054.

allodial
09-01-11, 08:05 PM
This could be the stuff of a separate thread....

653

654


"...the bank being merely a debtor may discharge its indebtedness to the depositor in any currency that is legal tender, although the deposit was made in gold, unless there was a special agreement to repay in like currency."

RThomas
09-02-11, 05:24 AM
Excellent conversation going on here!

RThomas, are you suggesting that deposits of lawful money into a bank can still be considered as loans to the bank?

What they are projecting to one via their case law is their presumption is that one’s deposit is a loan. My questions to you would be what is ‘lawful’ ‘money’ to you? Who ultimately decides that the ‘money’ that you accept is ‘lawful’ ‘money?’ Does the ‘money’ that you accept pass clear title (free and clear of any liens like the ‘money’ stated as ‘dollars’ you deposited)? What title did you pass to the bank when you deposited the substance of your labor? Was the title that you passed full title or only title to the use and possession (as a loan would convey)?

I have an agreement with BofA such that only lawful money goes in, and only lawful money comes out - no conversion of labor to Fed credit.

To properly respond to this I would need to see the actual wording. My initial response would be that I see some merit in the ‘no conversion of labor to Fed credit, but, as contracts are fluid and any subsequent action can novate prior actions ‘at the end of the day’ what did you accept as ‘lawful’ ‘money?’

P.S. Excellent posts, you have made. Thanks for the dilligent research. Perhaps Admin will add a "Thank You" feature to StSC.

P.P.S. I remember initiating a chat session with BofA. I asked if they offered a "Special Depository" type of account as a product to its customers. As a matter of fact, I even provided the legal defintion of "special deposit" during the chat session. The answer was, "no".

They may not offer it, but that does not mean one cannot clarify the title passed to them. I see them as being able to be placed in a position of having a difficult time explaining why they would only accept a passing of full title vs. a limited title (i.e. for possession and use only). A loan is defined by ‘their’ law ‘diction’ary, Bouvier’s below;

LOAN, contracts. The act by which a person lets another have a thing to be used by him gratuitously, and which is to be returned, either in specie or in kind, agreeably to the terms of the contract. The thing which is thus transferred is also called a loan. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 1077.





2. A loan in general implies that a thing is lent without reward; but, in some cases, a loan may be for a reward; as, the loan of money. 7 Pet. R. 109.

3. In order to make a contract usurious, there must be a loan; Cowp. 112, 770; 1 Ves. jr. 527; 2 Bl. R. 859; 3 Wils. 390 and the borrower must be bound to return the money at all events. 2 Scho. & Lef. 470. The purchase of a bond or note is not a loan ; 3 Scho. & Lef. 469; 9 Pet. R 103; but if such a purchase be merely [I]colorable, it will be considered as a loan. 2 John. Cas. 60; Id. 66; 12 S. & R. 46; 15 John. R. 44.

It would be helpful if cites to your definition were included, as dictionary names lead to verification and the date of definitions show when changes have been made in relation to their monetary system presented (they will be bound by meanings in existence at the time of their will/wish expressed). This definition is cited as being made from Bouvier, thus it is not a direct cite of Bouvier (it’s one’s cite of another’s cite).



To Allodial:

The ‘book’ of 'Genesis', as I see such, speaks to the creation of all; I see it as referring to all which includes things of matter, man, and things (thoughts) of the mind. I see creation as dynamic and not static. I see creation (i.e. genesis) as a process (used for lack of a better word) that exists in the here and now. A seed of an image from a ‘beast’s’ imagination (mind) planted into a one’s fertile mind will need constant watering (reminding). This seed can grow if given the right ‘feed’ and will mature to bear fruit. The fruit produced will be shown by that one’s actions. If one is one with the one true god then he is one in possession of the ability to see truth as opposed to belief and can resist this ‘evil’ seed. If not, the seed will take root and the actions of this one will bear fruit for that ‘beast’ and become one with him. That one will become a ‘second’ ‘beast.’ I do not want to change the subject matter of this thread. The above is stated only as clarifying my use of the words that I used and as a showing of what I see. If you do not see then you do not see; I do not ask for your understanding, nor do I wish for you to understand. Seek truth and one will see, else one will be left to one’s understandings.

allodial
09-02-11, 04:00 PM
The point was to allude to their tendency to try to pull counterfeits "over our eyes", so to speak. When it comes to 'beginnings' the beginnings of mankind are likely distinct from the beginnings of artificial political entities. When dealing with modern banks, one might be dealing with contracts, covenants or pledges (http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/contracts.html) of a system a few steps removed from reality.

http://www.russianlegacy.com/catalog/images/matryoshka_traditional/ND50-001.jpg

***
Lawful money:

When it comes to lawful money the ability of a bank to make substitutes is apparent. Redemption for lawful money appears to touch upon who is the one that imparts credit to the instrument in question. The act of redemption for lawful money appears to trump the FRB's or the FRB member's imparting credit to the instrument and thusly affects tax liability. However, there is reason to believe that a separate ledgering exists with respect to redemption of lawful money.

RThomas
09-03-11, 05:13 AM
The point was to allude to their tendency to try to pull counterfeits "over our eyes", so to speak.

This is on topic as it refers to the images from ‘their’ imagination’



When it comes to 'beginnings' the beginnings of mankind are likely distinct from the beginnings of artificial political entities.

This is off topic and I presented what I see above; let us just agree that our perceptions of ‘genesis’ are not the same.


When dealing with modern banks, one might be dealing with contracts, covenants or pledges (http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/contracts.html) of a system a few steps removed from reality.

I see that one is ‘dealing’ with contracts, covenants, or pledges, but, I see these as one’s own doing (i.e. voluntary). The removal from reality, as I hear you saying, I see as taking advantage of one’s inability to separate truth from belief. In other words, many cannot see the concept behind a common phrase ‘perception is reality.’ Many accept ‘religion’ of others as truth.



***
Lawful money:

When it comes to lawful money the ability of a bank to make substitutes is apparent.

I do not see it as ‘their’ ability; I see it as ‘their’ offer. One’s agreement makes the law. Thus their offer (tender) becomes law once accepted and becomes ‘lawful’ ‘money,’ thus one accepts ‘their’ reality as ones own and shows that one is bearing fruit for ‘the beast.’ In true law a ‘loan’ does not transfer absolute title; it only transfers title to possession and use. If I ‘loan’ my lawnmower to a neighbor it does not convey any right to them to transfer or sell my lawnmower to another; they do not have absolute title to it. They were only granted title for possession and use, to be returned on demand. This is what many see as their deposit being with any bank, and a bank would have a difficult time showing that the loan of a lawnmower or money or the fruits of your labor to them was intended by you to convey absolute title as a gift would. I do not allow myself to, in essence; get wrapped up in ‘their’ words’ I look to the concepts (thoughts) behind ‘their’ words.

Redemption for lawful money appears to touch upon who is the one that imparts credit to the instrument in question.


I see the instrument as the means of a showing of a ‘meeting of the minds.’ If the instrument is clear as ‘pay to bearer on demand’ than I see the instrument as a true note expressing the debtor, creditor relationship. But, if the instrument does not express what the relationship is between the holder and the issuer, than I can only see this as an instrument of deception, especially if one is led to believe that what they are being given is ‘in kind’ to what they loaned.

The act of redemption for lawful money appears to trump the FRB's or the FRB member's imparting credit to the instrument and thusly affects tax liability.

As I stated to Anthony Rock above, “as contracts are fluid and any subsequent action can novate prior actions ‘at the end of the day’ what did you accept as ‘lawful’ ‘money?’” And to you I would ask, ‘at the end of the day’ did you receive anything from the issuer of FRNs that showed they held full title and that they were able to pass full title to you? Would you claim that your possession of FRNs is evidence of full title without a signed agreement from a bank, or any issuer, showing they have a right to pass full title? What I see is that one who ‘loans’ has an inherent right to dictate the conditions of the possessions and use of what is ‘loaned.’ Do you see this or not? Do you see, or not, that in any true court that sees true law one will be judged by his last act as opposed to any claims made by one prior to one’s last act?


However, there is reason to believe that a separate ledgering exists with respect to redemption of lawful money.

There may be a reason to believe what you present, but it would be only a matter to a believer.


xxxxxxxxxx

Rock Anthony
09-04-11, 02:01 AM
"I have an agreement with BofA such that only lawful money goes in, and only lawful money comes out - no conversion of labor to Fed credit." -Rock Anthony

"To properly respond to this I would need to see the actual wording. My initial response would be that I see some merit in the ‘no conversion of labor to Fed credit, but, as contracts are fluid and any subsequent action can novate prior actions ‘at the end of the day’ what did you accept as ‘lawful’ ‘money?’" -RThomas


The agreement can be seen by clicking here (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/dynamics/showentry.php?e=12&catid=3).

Basically, all deposits and withdrawals are subject to my demand for lawful money per 12 USC 411.

I recently upload an image to the downloads section (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/dynamics/attachment.php?attachmentid=55&d=1314855207), signaling a warning against step number 5.

The agreement I have with Bank of America effectively bypasses step number 5, where those checks are "endorsed by the recipients."

Effectively, I do not endorse Fed credit for deposits, nor do I endorse Fed credit for withdrawals. What the bank does in between those deposits and withdrawals is not my "direct" concern. I would like to think they adhere to banking laws and do not co-mingle lawful money deposits with Fed credit. If the bank does indeed co-mingle, then the bank has to suffer the consequences if it is caught!

RThomas
09-04-11, 09:04 AM
Rock Anthony,

This one has obligations that do not allow a complete response. It is late here. This one will respond more completely when this one can.

The more pertinent question this one asked of you is 'at the end of the day' what did you accept as lawful money? Despite your declarations, what was your final act, taking Specie or FRN's? I see the phrase 'at the end of the day' as conceptually holding great significance.

RThomas

David Merrill
09-04-11, 03:06 PM
Thank you everybody. I think this may well be a breakthrough in understanding what the bankers see from that perspective.



http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-39904/TS-528341.mp3



Form 1040 example (http://api.ning.com/files/tvX3rTrdTzxXlzH60U9AnageCaPnnolnieF8sAsPwiegogIVaN 5zAXRf70fXjZXVryXUP06SgZWxmm7zztaM7z6Roc8nOaXG/Form_1040_Example.pdf).

allodial
09-04-11, 04:02 PM
Thank you everybody. I think this may well be a breakthrough in understanding what the bankers see from that perspective.



http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-39904/TS-528341.mp3



Form 1040 example (http://api.ning.com/files/tvX3rTrdTzxXlzH60U9AnageCaPnnolnieF8sAsPwiegogIVaN 5zAXRf70fXjZXVryXUP06SgZWxmm7zztaM7z6Roc8nOaXG/Form_1040_Example.pdf).

RThomas the excerpt from one of their attorneys does not constitute my agreement or acceptance of their perspective. It would be a very irrational presumption. But knowing what is going through the mind of the 'beast' holding a double-barrel shotgun against your head can be insightful. The Soviets were well-known for underscoring how important it was to known one's adversary. I have no bank accounts, social security numbers, last name, first name, middle name. I'm neither employed, unemployed or employable. I live on private land. AFAIK the only 'address' I have is my name. I treat the 'artificial entities' for what they are. At one point along the way, I was part of putting pressure on Jefferson County, Mo. jailers to make sure Alfred Adask was treated rightly back when they were unlawfully holding him. Relevantly Alfred's knowing the distinction between reality and attorney-imagined things (i.e. knowing the truth) is what got him off the hook so to speak. The line of distinction between reality and attorney-created imaginary worlds is more of a wall or a hedge.

I avoid their courts. I avoid carrying State ID or State driver license or the like. I am unaware of making any presumptions about anyone associated with this forum. Thanks.

That said, redemption for lawful money (a wonderful remedy that goes along with knowing who you are and/ir what your name is) appears to be a kind of origination of credit 'into a check' whereby one prevents the FRB from treating you as a mere endorser. As stated before, IMHO its not so much about the physical silver or gold as it is about the honesty and fairness with which we deal with one another--just weights and balances. The notion being that lawful money U.S. dollars being pegged to gold regardless of what they are made of. If one reads the excerpt from the book on banking I figure one should see that it encourages and underscores the importance of redemption for lawful money.

#1 "Redeemed for lawful money" does not appear to be a deposit but insteads invokes the treasury side of the FRB or of the FRB member--therefore the 'general deposit' might be avoided thereby (that is the point of the snippet from earlier--which was not intended to promulgate or push their ideas over the remedy but to show WHY one MUST assert remedy!).
#2 "Deposited in exchange for credit on account" evidences an exchange where there would be no 'increase' --no tax.
#3 Blank endorsement appears to allow them to STEAL the check and pretend they gave you something for nothing--so you get taxed. Yay? What fun is that!?

The point: if one wants remedy redeem for lawful money or denominate transactions in lawful money. My posts are aimed to push the level of comprehension to get folks way beyond mere emotionalistic copy and paste or emulation to actually being able to be a light to others.

Anyone with sense I figure should read the following

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=653&d=1314907501

and if they are out to seek remedy, they WOULD AVOID GENERAL DEPOSITS LIKE THE PLAGUE. The truth is part of the remedy.


http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-39904/TS-528341.mp3

Special deposit vs. general deposit is exactly what I was aiming to contrast to the edification of all! Very informative recording. Thanks for the post!

Rock Anthony
09-04-11, 08:25 PM
Rock Anthony,

This one has obligations that do not allow a complete response. It is late here. This one will respond more completely when this one can.

The more pertinent question this one asked of you is 'at the end of the day' what did you accept as lawful money? Despite your declarations, what was your final act, taking Specie or FRN's? I see the phrase 'at the end of the day' as conceptually holding great significance.

RThomas

At the end of the day, I received Obligations of the UNITED STATES and not Obligations of ROCK JOHNSON.

The point is, regardless of what I've received, I haven't bonded myself to credit. The UNITED STATES has already done that, so I choose to leave the obligation with the US.

allodial
09-04-11, 10:05 PM
At the end of the day, I received Obligations of the UNITED STATES and not Obligations of ROCK JOHNSON.

The point is, regardless of what I've received, I haven't bonded myself to credit. The UNITED STATES has already done that, so I choose to leave the obligation with the US.

There is merit that one's intent or take on the deal is important because of the requirement for there to be a 'meeting of the minds' with respect to contracts. The UCC is subordinate to 'contract law'.

RThomas
09-05-11, 08:01 AM
At the end of the day, I received Obligations of the UNITED STATES and not Obligations of ROCK JOHNSON.

The point is, regardless of what I've received, I haven't bonded myself to credit. The UNITED STATES has already done that, so I choose to leave the obligation with the US.

Rock Anthony,

Sec. 411. Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation;
redemption

Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making
advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as
hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said
notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable
by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all
taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful
money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the
city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve
bank.

What you say you accepted is already declared by them as obligations of such ‘United States.’ What precisely does your endorsement accomplish ‘at the end of the day’ if you still accept their note of a debt to them (See : Their USC 12 § 414)? If Rock Anthony is not one with such ‘United States,’ then why is Rock Anthony, 'at the end of the day,' accepting any debt obligation of such ‘United States?’

If such ‘United States’ has, as you say, already bonded you to credit (this one notes that you do not specify whose credit you say you are being held to and by whose law), then are you saying they also have power and authority to bind you to debt?

RThomas

Rock Anthony
09-05-11, 01:35 PM
Rock Anthony,

Sec. 411. Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation;
redemption

Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making
advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as
hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said
notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable
by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all
taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful
money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the
city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve
bank.

What you say you accepted is already declared by them as obligations of such ‘United States.’

Exactly! The United States is obligated to pay the debt of those notes. After all, it was the United States that incurred the debt to begin with.

What precisely does your endorsement accomplish ‘at the end of the day’ if you still accept their note of a debt to them (See : Their USC 12 § 414)?

Not an 'endorsement', rather a non-endorsement! I accept notes for which the United States is obligated to pay the debt - not notes for which I am obligated to pay.

At the end of the day, it is ROCK JOHNSON (a US Person) that is accepting the debt obligations. Then Rock Anthony exchanges those obligations of the US for food at the groceries store.

If such ‘United States’ has, as you say, already bonded you to credit (this one notes that you do not specify whose credit you say you are being held to and by whose law), then are you saying they also have power and authority to bind you to debt?

No. I said (perhaps not clearly in my previous post) that the United States bonds itself [not me] to the notes. And in my dealings with the commercial banks, I avoid bonding myself to credit that is created by the banks. At the end day I receive notes that are obligations of the United States - why the heck would I bond myself to newly created bank credit, thereby establishing obligations for myself, when there already exits credit that is bonded by the United States, aka 'lawful money'?

There is bonded credit already available. I receive and use what is already there. Therefore I avoid bonding myself to new credit, which would incur obligations for myself.



How money is created. (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/dynamics/attachment.php?attachmentid=55&d=1314855207)

See step number five in the image that is on the other side of the above link. "These checks are dispersed throughout the country, endorsed by the recipients, and deposited into the banks."

Not endorsed by me, nor by ROCK JOHNSON!

Thanks, RThomas. I absolutely appreciate that you accept nothing posted in these forums at face value.

I hope that within this post I did a better job of explaining myself.

Regards,
Rock Anthony

RThomas
09-05-11, 06:04 PM
Rock Anthony,

What you are saying is that your endorsement of their law (as by one's acts show such law grants one 'as a bank', a right of redemption), would be greater proof of your intent and acceptance, than your last act of physically taking possession of bank currency FRN’s, which this one sees as a novation of any prior acts and admits that you are a banker as per that same law (see; Title 12 § 411, ‘and for no other purpose’).

RThomas

Rock Anthony
09-05-11, 06:41 PM
Rock Anthony,

What you are saying is that your endorsement of their law (as by one's acts show such law grants one 'as a bank', a right of redemption), would be greater proof of your intent and acceptance, than your last act of physically taking possession of bank currency FRN’s, which this one sees as a novation of any prior acts and admits that you are a banker as per that same law (see; Title 12 § 411, ‘and for no other purpose’).

RThomas

Nope. What I'm saying is that I never endorse their credit.

Your observations are leading to more and more insight. However, my main concern is whether or not I'm bonded to credit. I choose not to be bonded.

I'm convinced that the signature endorsement of credit is what perfects the bonding process - not the mere acceptance of FRNs.

allodial
09-05-11, 08:41 PM
For those who need the enlightment: endorser = surety.

RThomas
09-05-11, 08:58 PM
Rock Anthony,

This one will rephrase the matter with direct questions. Obviously this is an internet forum and not a deposition. In a deposition, bankers and attorneys could be forced to answer with a yes or a no. They would not be able to give circular answers that may appear to answer but, in fact do not. They can be easily cornered into a box surrounded by their own words. This one does not know you and is not implying that you are an attorney or a banker. This one is merely seeking to see the foundation for your claims.

Do you agree that the Federal reserve banks were created by the ‘United States’?

Do you agree that the creator has the paramount right to declare the ‘law’ over their creation?

Is Title 12 § 411 a law for banks?

Are you a bank?

Are FRN’s for Federal reserve banks/agents and for no other purpose?

Are FRN’s already bonded by the statement of obligation in Title 12 § 411?

Who do you see as bonding FRN’s as meant by the statement in Title 12 § 411?

Does your endorsement/non-endorsement trump the first and paramount lien on FRN’s as stated in Title 12 § 414?

If yes to the last question, what is your physical proof?

In contract law concerning offer and acceptance, does your last act trump all prior acts?

At the end of the day was your last act to physically accept FRN’s?

You say you are convinced, does this mean you are acting based on a belief?

Thank you in advance for your time.

RThomas

RThomas
09-05-11, 09:10 PM
For those who need the enlightment: endorser = surety.

This one sees that endorsement can equal surety. This one sees endorsement as a jurisdictional grant by the endorsee. It can be general (i.e. unlimited) or specific (i.e. limited). What this one does not see is that accepting and using camel codes is the best way to get the camel out of the tent. One may believe that he can control the camel and live with the camel in his tent, but enlightened ones know that camels and their codes belong outside of the tent.

RThomas

allodial
09-05-11, 09:32 PM
This one sees that endorsement can equal surety. This one sees endorsement as a jurisdictional grant by the endorsee. It can be general (i.e. unlimited) or specific (i.e. limited). What this one does not see is that accepting and using camel codes is the best way to get the camel out of the tent. One may believe that he can control the camel and live with the camel in his tent, but enlightened ones know that camels and their codes belong outside of the tent.

RThomas


For those who need the enlightment: endorser = surety.

Clarification and correction: "For those who need the enlightenment, in MANY, IF NOT ALL, THEIR treatises an 'endorser' on a bill of exchange is regarded to be a 'surety."

RThomas
09-05-11, 09:43 PM
Clarification and correction: "For those who need the enlightenment, in MANY, IF NOT ALL, THEIR treatises an 'endorser' on a bill of exchange is regarded to be a 'surety."

That is perfect!

allodial
09-05-11, 09:58 PM
That is perfect!

However if you ever sit down to play a game of Chess with someone it might just be a good idea to make it known up front (or at some point along the way) that for you, say, a "knight piece" gets to do anything that a "Queen piece" gets to do. The flag flying on a bank's parking lot in the bank's lobby is intended to be a notice to you from them as to the 'rules' they are 'playing' by. As far as THEY are concerned, you have been given notice. Did you give them notice?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2017/1512185664_775236ca1c_z.jpg

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=1076982321822&id=d8ec716a85180646ec67c21e411233da

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=1056518840080&id=31b73437af5ca9bd0a9813a49676a6a1

http://blog.nj.com/ledgerupdates_impact/2008/05/large_robber1.jpg

RThomas
09-05-11, 10:25 PM
However if you ever sit down to play a game of Chess with someone it might just be a good idea to make it known up front (or at some point along the way) that for you, say, a "knight piece" gets to do anything that a "Queen piece" gets to do. The flag flying on a bank's parking lot in the bank's lobby is intended to be a notice to you from them as to the 'rules' they are 'playing' by. As far as THEY are concerned, you have been given notice. Did you give them notice?


This one sees endorsement as a jurisdictional ‘notice’. That is the substance of this thread. This one is seeking to perfect that. This one sees their rules as their rules for them. The rules between them and this one would be in the agreements signed at the opening of any account and any subsequent novation via endorsement.

RThomas

allodial
09-06-11, 02:33 AM
This one sees endorsement as a jurisdictional ‘notice’. That is the substance of this thread. This one is seeking to perfect that. This one sees their rules as their rules for them. The rules between them and this one would be in the agreements signed at the opening of any account and any subsequent novation via endorsement.

RThomas

If, for example "U.S. citizen" means to Bob a sovereign among sovereigns, one of the posterity of the sovereign people which established The United States of America then Bob might do well to make, say, a certificate of facts as to that meaning. :) I know someone that when the established a bank account for a company they gave the 'bank officer' a letter indicating their intent and that also included a reservation of rights. If you have an interpretation of the terms of the bank agreement, it might help to make your interpretation known to them by notice.

allodial
09-06-11, 03:41 AM
The teller would say, this is not the signature on your Signature Card and I would say, Let me correct the Signature Card.

At one point does staffing police departments and bank lobbies with incompetents indoctrinated with fluff become a crime?

Rock Anthony
09-06-11, 02:51 PM
Rock Anthony,

This one will rephrase the matter with direct questions. Obviously this is an internet forum and not a deposition. In a deposition, bankers and attorneys could be forced to answer with a yes or a no. They would not be able to give circular answers that may appear to answer but, in fact do not. They can be easily cornered into a box surrounded by their own words. This one does not know you and is not implying that you are an attorney or a banker. This one is merely seeking to see the foundation for your claims.

Do you agree that the Federal reserve banks were created by the ‘United States’?

Do you agree that the creator has the paramount right to declare the ‘law’ over their creation?

Is Title 12 § 411 a law for banks?

Are you a bank?

Are FRN’s for Federal reserve banks/agents and for no other purpose?

Are FRN’s already bonded by the statement of obligation in Title 12 § 411?

Who do you see as bonding FRN’s as meant by the statement in Title 12 § 411?

Does your endorsement/non-endorsement trump the first and paramount lien on FRN’s as stated in Title 12 § 414?

If yes to the last question, what is your physical proof?

In contract law concerning offer and acceptance, does your last act trump all prior acts?

At the end of the day was your last act to physically accept FRN’s?

You say you are convinced, does this mean you are acting based on a belief?

Thank you in advance for your time.

RThomas

You're dishing out the homework assignments. I'll try not to get a failing grade. ;)

I'll respond to your points later on [-]today[/-] this week. Thanks, RThomas.

RThomas
09-07-11, 09:41 AM
You're dishing out the homework assignments. I'll try not to get a failing grade. ;)

I'll respond to your points later on [-]today[/-] this week. Thanks, RThomas.

Thank you for your notice. Life is paramount over this forum, and this one sees that. In the interim, this one will continue to add this ones thoughts and findings to this thread. This one will still await your truths as you see them at a later time. This one sees that one who is awake is one with a dynamic mind (i.e. one that sees all possibilities) and not of a static mind subjected to and externally made final by any external declaration of another’s projected truth.

In the search for truth, the first and paramount goal is the truth. All else, and any one else becomes secondary. If you do not have the time I will wait patiently. From this ones reading of this forum and others, you appear to be a follower of David’s thoughts. As David is seen as a prominent member (if not the actual administrator) of this forum, this one will accept answers from David in your stead, if David is up to clarifying such claims. This one is merely seeking to see the foundation for them.

RThomas

Anthony Joseph
09-07-11, 07:35 PM
FRNs have a dual character and capacity; they function as US Notes which are NOT a reserve currency and are WITHOUT the scope of the Federal Reserve Banks, Districts, "laws" and regulations.

Remedy from private credit was written into the original Federal Reserve Act of 1913 Section 16 now codified at Title 12 U.S.C. §411. Remedy from private credit was obviously REQUIRED by the writers and enactors of this law since the voluntary compliance and agreement of the people was a necessity in order to avoid culpability of treason and enslavement via debt. FDR needed to "persuade" the people to deposit their checks into "new accounts" to be "held in trust" in order to save the Federal Reserve Bank's expiring charter and to avoid complete failure, defualt and bankruptcy of the United States of America.

Demanding and applying remedy pursuant to the FED ACT of 1913 and 12USC411 is AVOIDANCE of obligation and liability according to the laws governing FED Banks. What a demander or redeemer of lawful money receives or holds are US Notes in the form of FRNs which renders said demander/redeemer exempt and immune from the laws governing the Federal Reserve System. The paper has dual use and dual character; one is the private currency of a federal reserve banker the other is public currency held and used by a man or woman who is absent that capacity and character.

RThomas
09-07-11, 09:46 PM
Anthony Joseph,

I see nothing in ‘their’ codes or statutes that support what you are saying. What you are projecting requires one to stretch one’s imagination and believe you. This one will not cast off one image to merely accept another. Please show in ‘their’ codes and statutes support for your claim.

Here is what this one sees:

Title 12 § 411

Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making
advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as
hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said
notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable
by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all
taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful
money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the
city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve
bank.


This one sees that they are to be issued to Federal reserve banks through Federal reserve agents.

This one sees Federal reserve notes shall be received by national banks, member banks, and Federal reserve banks.

What this one does not see is the words everyone, every person, natural person, or US citizen.

This one does not see the words public debt, private debt, or even just debt.

Now from Title 31 § 5103:

Sec. 5103. Legal tender

United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes
and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are
legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign
gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts.

The phrase (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks), is a parenthetical. A Parenthetical is extraneous matter and incidental to the main subject matter. A parenthetical is de-emphasized and can be removed without affecting the main subject matter. This is from Bryan Garner’s Redbook. Thus only U.S. coins and currency are declared as legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues.


RThomas

Anthony Joseph
09-08-11, 01:36 AM
Anthony Joseph,

I see nothing in ‘their’ codes or statutes that support what you are saying. What you are projecting requires one to stretch one’s imagination and believe you. This one will not cast off one image to merely accept another. Please show in ‘their’ codes and statutes support for your claim.

Here is what this one sees:

Title 12 § 411

Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making
advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as
hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said
notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable
by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all
taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful
money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the
city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve
bank.


This one sees that they are to be issued to Federal reserve banks through Federal reserve agents.

This one sees Federal reserve notes shall be received by national banks, member banks, and Federal reserve banks.

What this one does not see is the words everyone, every person, natural person, or US citizen.

This one does not see the words public debt, private debt, or even just debt.

Now from Title 31 § 5103:

Sec. 5103. Legal tender

United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes
and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are
legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign
gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts.

The phrase (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks), is a parenthetical. A Parenthetical is extraneous matter and incidental to the main subject matter. A parenthetical is de-emphasized and can be removed without affecting the main subject matter. This is from Bryan Garner’s Redbook. Thus only U.S. coins and currency are declared as legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues.


RThomas

Please explain then what you determine the line: "They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank" means to you.

RThomas
09-08-11, 03:05 AM
Please explain then what you determine the line: "They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank" means to you.

To this one it means absolutely nothing. This one sees it as irrelevant. This one is not a Federal reserve bank, a member of the Federal reserve system, or a Federal reserve agent. This one is questioning how these entities can get away with using Federal reserve notes beyond the purpose as clearly stated and finalized with “and for no other purpose.” Can you show where in 12 § 411 or elsewhere in the code that there is any statement that this section applies to this one or an average Joe Sixpack?

Thank you for your time.

RThomas

Anthony Joseph
09-08-11, 05:47 PM
To this one it means absolutely nothing. This one sees it as irrelevant. This one is not a Federal reserve bank, a member of the Federal reserve system, or a Federal reserve agent. This one is questioning how these entities can get away with using Federal reserve notes beyond the purpose as clearly stated and finalized with “and for no other purpose.” Can you show where in 12 § 411 or elsewhere in the code that there is any statement that this section applies to this one or an average Joe Sixpack?

Thank you for your time.

RThomas

Lawful money, as I understand it, is non-self-bonding currency. The line, in my opinion, is the required remedy from the entire FED Act, and subsequent code, written in as the culpability dodge from enslaving a population via debt; those who facilitate the system can always point to the remedy if ever any charges of crimes are brought against them.

The line cannot be "irrelevant" or "nothing", as you put it, or why put it in at all? The "and for no other purpose" line is accurate when one signature bonds one's self to the credit or currency; essentially anyone who signature endorses is a FED Bank and subject to all the rules and regulations thereof.

Section 16 of the 1913 FED Act explains that one has the right of choice to NOT be a FED Bank and to NOT bond one's self as chattel behind the priavte credit of the FED by demanding lawful money instead. The demand, when properly formed on and for the record, is all that is required by law to avoid the obligations and liabilities of the private credit and currency of the Federal Reserve.

The section does not apply to you, or an average Joe Sixpack, unless the privilege of using private credit is initiated. Signature endorsment (self-bonding) is the act that initiates. If one handles and uses FRN paper without such self-bonding endorsment, then the only line that applies is the written-in remedy FROM THE ACT:

"They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand..."

The rest does not apply at all.

The paper one holds then IS lawful money which is PUBLIC money and not subject to the PRIVATE law of the Federal Reserve system. There are two distinct seals and two signatures on every FRN which denotes the dual nature of the paper; it can serve as private FED currency or it can serve as public lawful money. The one holding and using it has the power to decide which role and character it will play.

There must be a choice, and a remedy available, when such a system is as imposing and all-encompassing as the Federal Reserve is.

RThomas
09-08-11, 09:37 PM
Lawful money, as I understand it, is non-self-bonding currency. The line, in my opinion, is the required remedy from the entire FED Act, and subsequent code, written in as the culpability dodge from enslaving a population via debt; those who facilitate the system can always point to the remedy if ever any charges of crimes are brought against them.

This one sees lawful money as specie or whatever this one accepts as having value in this one’s mind; a note that contains a first and paramount lien cannot be lawful money to this one.
Where in the act does it state that such act applies to a Joe Sixpack or that this use is authorized? This one has shown that it clearly does not. Thus it was not written to be Joe Sixpack’s remedy. Joe Sixpack’s remedy is not to accept them at all as any Fed. Bank cannot legally issue them to Joe Sixpack and he is not bound to receive them (i.e. “shall receive”). This is not an authorized ‘purpose’ by ‘their’ words. No ‘beliefs’ are needed to see this.


The line cannot be "irrelevant" or "nothing", as you put it, or why put it in at all? The "and for no other purpose" line is accurate when one signature bonds one's self to the credit or currency; essentially anyone who signature endorses is a FED Bank and subject to all the rules and regulations thereof.

It is in there as remedy for the member ‘banks’ who ‘shall receive’ FRNs. There is no authority in 12 § 411 to ‘issue’ a debt note to substitute as payment (See: novation in Bouvier’s; especially #6) to a private Joe Sixpack. There is no requirement that Joe Sixpack ‘shall receive’ FRNs as payment for the member bank’s debt to him. Can point out where the word ‘debt’ is in this code? This one does not allow this one’s mind to be misdirected from the plain language and stated purpose of the act as stated in the code.

Section 16 of the 1913 FED Act explains that one has the right of choice to NOT be a FED Bank and to NOT bond one's self as chattel behind the priavte credit of the FED by demanding lawful money instead. The demand, when properly formed on and for the record, is all that is required by law to avoid the obligations and liabilities of the private credit and currency of the Federal Reserve.

Please post the language in the act you speak of and also show that the clear statements in the above code are incorrect as opposed to the language in the act.
By ‘their’ words being a member bank requires applying for, subscribing to, buying stock in, and acceptance from the Board of Governors (See: 12 § 321; 12 § 222). Did you do any of these things to become a member bank? Where do you find that cashing a check or depositing a check magically turns one into a Fed bank? By ‘their’ words a Federal reserve agent is one who is designated as such by the Board of Governors (see: 12 § 305). Were you designated as a Federal reserve agent?


The section does not apply to you, or an average Joe Sixpack, unless the privilege of using private credit is initiated. Signature endorsment (self-bonding) is the act that initiates. If one handles and uses FRN paper without such self-bonding endorsment, then the only line that applies is the written-in remedy FROM THE ACT:

"They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand..."

The rest does not apply at all.

It absolutely does apply, but not to Joe Sixpack or this one. It applies to Federal reserve banks/agents and member banks. It clearly states the authorized purpose and use of Federal reserve notes within the Federal reserve system. This one and Joe Sixpack are not by ‘their’ words a part of this system. The questions should be is a member bank's issuance to and Joe Sixpacks use of FRNs an authorized purpose?

The paper one holds then IS lawful money which is PUBLIC money and not subject to the PRIVATE law of the Federal Reserve system. There are two distinct seals and two signatures on every FRN which denotes the dual nature of the paper; it can serve as private FED currency or it can serve as public lawful money. The one holding and using it has the power to decide which role and character it will play.

If one does not want to be under the ‘PRIVATE’ law of the Federal reserve system, than why would one claim rights from it? The rest appears to this one as mere opinion, please show where they declared by their acts and codes that Federal reserve notes serve a dual purpose. The only purpose this one sees is the clearly limited purpose stated in 12 § 411.

There must be a choice, and a remedy available, when such a system is as imposing and all-encompassing as the Federal Reserve is.

This one appreciates the time you have taken to post. Your post would have been more fruitful to this one if it contained direct answers to the prior posted questions. As you can see this one has brought forward more questions from your last post. This one has provided ‘their’ words in support of what this one sees. As one should know, if one cannot answer simple direct questions than one will not be able to show any validity to that one’s claims.


RThomas ****

RThomas
09-09-11, 04:06 AM
Here is more that this one sees:

TITLE 12--BANKS AND BANKING

CHAPTER 1--THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY


Sec. 1. Office of Comptroller of the Currency

There shall be in the Department of the Treasury a bureau charged
with the execution of all laws passed by Congress relating to the issue

[[Page 2]]

and regulation of a national currency secured by United States bonds
and, under the general supervision of the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, of all Federal Reserve notes, except for the
cancellation and destruction, and accounting with respect to such
cancellation and destruction, of Federal Reserve notes unfit for
circulation, the chief officer of which bureau shall be called the
Comptroller of the Currency, and shall perform his duties under the
general directions of the Secretary of the Treasury. The Comptroller of
the Currency shall have the same authority over matters within the
jurisdiction of the Comptroller as the Director of the Office of Thrift
Supervision has over matters within the Director's jurisdiction under
section 1462a(b)(3) of this title. The Secretary of the Treasury may not
delay or prevent the issuance of any rule or the promulgation of any
regulation by the Comptroller of the Currency.

This one sees the above as stating that ‘their’ national currency is under the direct enforcement of regulations by a bureau of ‘their’ ‘Department of the Treasury.’

This one sees the above as stating that ‘their’ federal reserve notes are under the same such bureau but, also under the ‘general’ supervision of ‘their’ Federal reserve system’s ‘Board of Governors.’

Thus, ‘their’ national currency and ‘their’ federal reserve notes are not deemed by ‘them’ to be the same. The enforcement for each falls under different supervision. The only logical conclusion this one can see is that Federal reserve notes are not considered by ‘them’ to be a national currency.

RThomas

RThomas
09-09-11, 05:00 AM
This one is curious as to the lack of continued participation in the subject matter of this thread, as it has progressed, by David Merrill. This one knows that he has no obligation, but this thread has progressed as to directly contradict to his theory of 'redemption.' If those that are practicing his projected method of 'redemption' cannot respond to simple questions than one would think the professor of them would step in to assist and continue his teachings. This one is merely seeking to see the basis for claims that a demand for lawful money can be sustained 'after the fact' (ex post facto) of acceptance of 'other' 'money.'

RThomas

Anthony Joseph
09-09-11, 06:03 PM
The fact the you see lawful money a certain way does not mean that is how the law or others see it. Something that has value can be defined in any number of ways; if I can exchange a redeemed FRN for eggs or milk then it has value as a form of money which can be exhanged for goods and services. Same as a box of rocks, if someone accepts it as having value, then it does.

I do not think you are reading my posts with complete comprehension since you continue to infer that I suggest the ACT applies to your fictional "Joe Sixpack". It does not. What I say is that the paper issued by the Federal Reserve is redeemable in lawful money if the demand is made. The demand of lawful money exempts "Joe Sixpack" and anyone else form the entire ACT and the obligations therein.

You do not offer an explanation of your view about the line "They shall be redeemed..." other than to say it is "irrelevant" or "nothing". You question the validity of remedy as explained and practiced by some and yet you cannot offer an explanation as to your view of what the line means. You suggest that the remedy offered here is not valid since your view of lawful money differs from what is promoted here on redeeming lawful money as per 12USC411. By that same logic, your view that it is NOT remedy is invalid since you do not explain the meaning of the line in question (They shall be redeemed...) which you say proves your point.

Offer to us a different coherent meaning to that line in 12USC411 and perhaps we can discuss your view further. Without that, you are just questioning a form of remedy without any basis or explanation of your own regarding the specific line of the ACT that some view as the written in and required remedy from it.

Other than that, we can agree to disagree.

David Merrill
09-09-11, 11:31 PM
This one is curious as to the lack of continued participation in the subject matter of this thread, as it has progressed, by David Merrill. This one knows that he has no obligation, but this thread has progressed as to directly contradict to his theory of 'redemption.' If those that are practicing his projected method of 'redemption' cannot respond to simple questions than one would think the professor of them would step in to assist and continue his teachings. This one is merely seeking to see the basis for claims that a demand for lawful money can be sustained 'after the fact' (ex post facto) of acceptance of 'other' 'money.'

RThomas

I scan and gist. So I caught my name and read a little. But I have been busy with redeeming the world - in one fell swoop!

I mentioned that to the cashier at the small organic foods store. She glazed over for about two seconds and then started describing this morning's meditation session in great detail. She felt physically fulfilled but was not satisfied with that - it tasted bland. She desires the spice of daily discovery and growth. Then she asked me to describe what I meant by redeeming the world. And I will explain it to you once the record is set up a little better; I don't want Internet chatter (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLjrD-oXkhA&feature=related) to affect the record if you know what I mean.

At a glance though I do not get your point - that the discussion about redeeming lawful money has taken on an opposite posture or description. But if it does, I am of a rather serene mood (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDlcM_DQBOc) and hope I learn something. - Like seeing Kwai Chang KANE imbibing in alcohol in the final scene of the Kung Fu series...

RThomas
09-10-11, 02:17 AM
The fact the you see lawful money a certain way does not mean that is how the law or others see it. Something that has value can be defined in any number of ways; if I can exchange a redeemed FRN for eggs or milk then it has value as a form of money which can be exhanged for goods and services. Same as a box of rocks, if someone accepts it as having value, then it does.

This one sees that lawful money must come with free and clear title. This one sees that lawful money will retain intrinsic value in spite of any bank collapses, Government collapses, inflationary effects of other ‘forms’ of money, or any other monetary system collapse. Can you show that your ‘redeemed’ FRNs, in whatever form imagined, in any of the aforementioned situations would still have purchasing power for goods and services? Can you show that the value of your ‘redeemed’ lawful money is not still subject to the acts of others?

I do not think you are reading my posts with complete comprehension since you continue to infer that I suggest the ACT applies to your fictional "Joe Sixpack". It does not. What I say is that the paper issued by the Federal Reserve is redeemable in lawful money if the demand is made. The demand of lawful money exempts "Joe Sixpack" and anyone else form the entire ACT and the obligations therein.

I appreciate your concern as to this one’s reading comprehension, thank you. We agree that the ‘ACT,’ as you say (I assume you mean ‘their’ code at 12 § 411; please correct me if needed), does not apply to “Joe Sixpack.” This is the reason for this one’s prior question, “If one does not want to be under the ‘PRIVATE’ law of the Federal reserve system, than why would one claim rights from it?” You say it does not apply on one hand and then say but this part does. This one cannot see your logic.

You do not offer an explanation of your view about the line "They shall be redeemed..." other than to say it is "irrelevant" or "nothing". You question the validity of remedy as explained and practiced by some and yet you cannot offer an explanation as to your view of what the line means.

Asked and answered. From post #82

“It is in there as remedy for the ‘member’ ‘banks’ who ‘shall receive’ FRNs.”

And here from post #80:

“To this one it means absolutely nothing. This one sees it as irrelevant. This one is not a Federal reserve bank, a member of the Federal reserve system, or a Federal reserve agent. This one is questioning how these entities can get away with using Federal reserve notes beyond the purpose as clearly stated and finalized with “and for no other purpose.” Can you show where in 12 § 411 or elsewhere in the code that there is any statement that this section applies to this one or an average Joe Sixpack?”

Would you agree that in reading any sentence in a section of code that one must look at the context of the whole section to ascertain the intended meaning of any single sentence?

You suggest that the remedy offered here is not valid since your view of lawful money differs from what is promoted here on redeeming lawful money as per 12USC411. By that same logic, your view that it is NOT remedy is invalid since you do not explain the meaning of the line in question (They shall be redeemed...) which you say proves your point.

Please show where this one’s words are as you claim them to be.

This is all this one has said in relation to David’s ‘remedy:’

“but this thread has progressed as to directly contradict to his theory of 'redemption.'”

This one’s meaning is that this one’s findings within ‘their’ words do not show support for his ‘remedy.’

This one then followed with this:

“This one is merely seeking to see the basis for claims that a demand for lawful money can be sustained 'after the fact' (ex post facto) of acceptance of 'other' 'money.'”



Offer to us a different coherent meaning to that line in 12USC411 and perhaps we can discuss your view further. Without that, you are just questioning a form of remedy without any basis or explanation of your own regarding the specific line of the ACT that some view as the written in and required remedy from it.

This one has not disputed the plain meaning of the line you refer to. This one does not see that line of that section of code applies to anyone but the mentioned banks. This one has read that line in context with the section as a whole. It would be more fruitful to this one if you show where your vision is derived from. This one only sees you as appearing to project empty claims from your imagination and asking this one to believe. Can you show the basis for your claims and correct how you appear to this one if what this one sees is not true.

Other than that, we can agree to disagree.

You only answered one question and we agreed. I have responded directly to all that you have brought forward. Are you willing to do the same?



RThomas
****

RThomas
09-10-11, 04:30 AM
I scan and gist. So I caught my name and read a little. But I have been busy with redeeming the world - in one fell swoop!

I mentioned that to the cashier at the small organic foods store. She glazed over for about two seconds and then started describing this morning's meditation session in great detail. She felt physically fulfilled but was not satisfied with that - it tasted bland. She desires the spice of daily discovery and growth. Then she asked me to describe what I meant by redeeming the world. And I will explain it to you once the record is set up a little better; I don't want Internet chatter (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLjrD-oXkhA&feature=related) to affect the record if you know what I mean.

At a glance though I do not get your point - that the discussion about redeeming lawful money has taken on an opposite posture or description. But if it does, I am of a rather serene mood (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDlcM_DQBOc) and hope I learn something. - Like seeing Kwai Chang KANE imbibing in alcohol in the final scene of the Kung Fu series...

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. This one does not see the 'cryptic' thoughts you intend to convey. This one sees the truth as being able to stand in the the light.This one gave considerable thought to your words. This one does not see 'that the discussion concerning redeeming lawful money has taken on an opposite posture or description.' This one has provided what this one sees and has only sought clarification of what you see and what others ‘redeeming lawful money’ claim to see. Without providing clarification (clearing the clouds in one’s mind as to such claims) this one can only see a belief being projected, and this one is not a believer.

RThomas

David Merrill
09-10-11, 01:47 PM
Maybe this will help:


http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/3011/12usc411pre1934.jpg

http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/7039/12usc411.jpg


The post was to tell everybody that this one is staying pretty busy these days and am allowing the thread to develop without me. Your first-person post is however tempting...


Sadly when it is made all complicated then things get frustrating.



P.S. After a quick review I am chalking it up to the Thread Topic. By the nature of the distinction drawn between regular and special we start making decisions on the far side of the teller window. I imagine that is why I have just been doing other things.

Anthony Joseph
09-10-11, 02:57 PM
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/images/styles/CinemaIce/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/images/styles/CinemaIce/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?p=4411#post4411)

This one sees that lawful money must come with free and clear title. This one sees that lawful money will retain intrinsic value in spite of any bank collapses, Government collapses, inflationary effects of other ‘forms’ of money, or any other monetary system collapse. Can you show that your ‘redeemed’ FRNs, in whatever form imagined, in any of the aforementioned situations would still have purchasing power for goods and services? Can you show that the value of your ‘redeemed’ lawful money is not still subject to the acts of others?



I appreciate your concern as to this one’s reading comprehension, thank you. We agree that the ‘ACT,’ as you say (I assume you mean ‘their’ code at 12 § 411; please correct me if needed), does not apply to “Joe Sixpack.” This is the reason for this one’s prior question, “If one does not want to be under the ‘PRIVATE’ law of the Federal reserve system, than why would one claim rights from it?” You say it does not apply on one hand and then say but this part does. This one cannot see your logic.


Asked and answered. From post #82

“It is in there as remedy for the ‘member’ ‘banks’ who ‘shall receive’ FRNs.”

And here from post #80:

“To this one it means absolutely nothing. This one sees it as irrelevant. This one is not a Federal reserve bank, a member of the Federal reserve system, or a Federal reserve agent. This one is questioning how these entities can get away with using Federal reserve notes beyond the purpose as clearly stated and finalized with “and for no other purpose.” Can you show where in 12 § 411 or elsewhere in the code that there is any statement that this section applies to this one or an average Joe Sixpack?”

Would you agree that in reading any sentence in a section of code that one must look at the context of the whole section to ascertain the intended meaning of any single sentence?


Please show where this one’s words are as you claim them to be.

This is all this one has said in relation to David’s ‘remedy:’

“but this thread has progressed as to directly contradict to his theory of 'redemption.'”

This one’s meaning is that this one’s findings within ‘their’ words do not show support for his ‘remedy.’

This one then followed with this:

“This one is merely seeking to see the basis for claims that a demand for lawful money can be sustained 'after the fact' (ex post facto) of acceptance of 'other' 'money.'”



This one has not disputed the plain meaning of the line you refer to. This one does not see that line of that section of code applies to anyone but the mentioned banks. This one has read that line in context with the section as a whole. It would be more fruitful to this one if you show where your vision is derived from. This one only sees you as appearing to project empty claims from your imagination and asking this one to believe. Can you show the basis for your claims and correct how you appear to this one if what this one sees is not true.


You only answered one question and we agreed. I have responded directly to all that you have brought forward. Are you willing to do the same?

RThomas****

Well, I think we can agree on another point: I have no faith in the actual paper or it's sustaining value over time. That would be misguided trust in a man made system when that system's currency was created to lose value over time (fractional reserve lending - improper and false balances).

US Notes are lawful money and also fiat. So your definition of what lawful money is does not coincide with the law regarding these notes. US Notes are NOT issued by the Federal Reserve and therefore NOT subject to any of the rules, regulations, obligations or liabilities including the RETURN OF INCOME REQUIREMENT associated with the endorsed use of the FED's private credit and currency. If "They shall redeemed in lawful money..." means any lawful money than US Notes fit that "bill" (pun).

Your point that only a "Federal Reserve Bank" is able to use FRNs and are therefore be subject to the code and ACT thereof, is true. However, you do not see the subtlety and obfuscation of the system that treats ANYONE who signature endorses the FED's private credit on the back of their paychecks as a Federal Reserve Bank. How else could they incur the tax liability associated with the Federal Reserve's "money system"? Unfortunately for most, the privilege of use of private credit results in one being treated as a "FED BANK" by being subject to RETURN OF INCOME liability as opposed to other sanctioned "FED BANKS" (any bank that has an account with the FED) who gain the most profit from that use by lending upon usury and fractional reserve banking. The FED doesn't care about Joe Sixpack's incompetence or complacency in that regard; if you don't profit as much as others... tough PAY ME MY TAX!

Techincally, if one forms and keeps the full and accurate record of one's demand for lawful money, the notes they hold should hold their value in the sense that they should be treated as US Notes being on par with the $42.22/oz gold being earmarked by the Treasury at that value on the WORLD BANK/IMF's international market. Do I have faith in that recognition by those who are bound by law to recognize that? NO. I have no faith in any paper as having or sustaining value over time. My only faith is in the Ever-living Creator above who is in total control and provides the ability to be redeemed to anyone who truly desires it. It matters not what the situation or circumstances are created by men; His sons and daughters have redemption waiting and available when they choose to accept that gift. Redemption translates in many ways, in my view, according to the times one lives in.

In this case, The FED ACT of 1913 codified at 12USC411 provides remedy from the tax liability associated with the endorsed use of FED's private credit. That is all. In 1933 the contract with the FED was opened to all citizens who were persuaded to change the way they deposited their salary checks...

Franklin D. Roosevelt after the Banker’s Holiday in 1933 on March 6th during the address at the White House Governors’ Conference.

“Recognized Government bonds are as safe as Government currency. They have the same credit back of them. And, therefore, if we can persuade people all through the country, when their salary checks come in, to deposit them in new accounts, which will be held in trust and kept in one of the new forms I have mentioned, we shall have made progress.”

Quoting from the Congressional Record of 1933;

“…The money will be worth 100 cents on the dollar, because it is backed by the credit of the Nation. It will represent a mortgage on all the homes and other property of all the people in the Nation.”

Those who identify themselves with the full or legal name are the "FED BANKS" who choose to redeem in lawful money. Those who do not identify themselves with the full or legal name either direct the trust to redeem lawful money or they only accept cash which is redeemed lawful money since the holder never bonded him/herself behind the potential elastic increase of the currency. That paper, then, is essentially an IOU slip from the United States of America which people may, or may not, place value in. Currently most people do and one can exchange that paper for good and services.

RThomas
09-10-11, 04:43 PM
David,

Thank you again for your time. This one will be involved in life for a few days but will come back to this thread.

Anthony,

We are up to two, fantastic. Same to you as stated above to David.

Have a good weekend.

RThomas

David Merrill
09-10-11, 08:19 PM
Kudos for addressing the banker's legal business. I have just been attending proving the demand for lawful money to this point. I have something to add soon as I get one in my hand though... I hear the new Washington $1 coins do not say IN GOD WE TRUST, which is against the law. I am thinking Monday to go get one at the Post office - two actually, I pocket one for evidence and then show the Postal Inspector that it is a crime. More on this Monday.

stoneFree
09-10-11, 09:30 PM
if you're referring to the Presidential 1 dollar coin series begun in 2007, then yes, the inscription IN GOD WE TRUST appears on the edge. Or at least it should have, apparently some coins were released without the lettering, in error.
http://presidential-coins.com/side_view_presidential-dollars.jpg

Edge errors

Not long after the first 2007 George Washington Presidential dollars were released into circulation in February 2007, collectors, dealers and the general public began reporting numerous edge errors. The date, Mint mark and mottoes IN GOD WE TRUST and E PLURIBUS UNUM should appear on the edges of the Presidential dollars. The edge inscriptions on circulation-quality coins are added in a step separate from and following the striking of the obverse and reverse sides.

The most prevalent form of edge error on the Washington dollar coins is the missing edge lettering. Coins from both the Philadelphia Mint and Denver Mint were struck and shipped to the counting and bagging stations without being fed into the edge-lettering equipment. http://www.coinworld.com/error-and-variety-coins/

David Merrill
09-10-11, 10:59 PM
Cool! Then the fellow who refused to accept one (article) turned away a valuable collector coin?


Thanks!!



What I was talking about though - if you find the banker in violation of law you might consider application of this Form (http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/9098/complaintformfederal.pdf). I have not acquired any direct (suitor) experience with this except one district court magistrate voiced an order...


http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/1845/criminalcomplaintformfe.jpg


http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/9908/criminalcomplaintrespon.jpg



Looking carefully though; Document #113? This is a slush case for documents that fail to be clear which case they are to be filed in. The magistrate is coercing the use of that file category for one thing. Another thing is that it does not specify on the Form that this form is only for federal prosecutors to use.

Time will tell us though, as we are in process of testing the form. It looks like anybody can take responsibility in front of a federal judge and any judge (not magistrate) denying that right, to be a private attorney general at the least, would be in violation of right. The main support for this is that the magistrate fails to cite any statute or code to support the assertion. Additionally magistrates cannot make dispository decisions and this is definitely a criminal case disposition. Only a judge can make this kind of decision but magistrates can make a decision like the one coerced here; to return a document that is unclear about which case it is to be filed in. However the Criminal Complaint was quite clear about the Case #.



Regards,

David Merrill.

stoneFree
09-12-11, 07:24 PM
Yes, valuable collector coin. More background info contained in this article: Mint police officer pleads guilty to coin theft (http://www.coinworld.com/articles/mint-police-officer-pleads-guilty-to-coin-the/):

The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was moved from the edge to the obverse in 2009 following complaints in 2007 and 2008 about the production of “Godless dollars” — the Presidential dollars without the edge inscriptions. Congress in 2008 ordered the motto moved from the edge to the obverse or reverse; the Mint implemented the change on the 2009 Presidential dollars.
By my estimate, this thief alone was responsible for release of about 50,000 "Godless dollars."

doug555
09-13-11, 12:30 AM
Does "lawful money" confer legal title as well equitable title when one demands it?

If yes, then shouldn't we also demand "special deposit" on the restrictive endorsement on, for example, a payroll check (and also on bank signature card), so that one retains legal title (ownership) of the substance/labor that it represents, and that bank only gets equitable title (use) while it is in their possession?

Unless we retain legal title, how can ever truly pay for and have legal title of the goods/services those funds are exchanged for?

My point and belief is that we should add the phase "special deposit" to the non-endorsement wording, for example:

"Special deposit and lawful money per 12 USC 411 are demanded for all transactions."


Using "special deposit" invokes trust law and equity, which is something that I believe is needed for enforcement of our "unalienable rights" ("Black's 4th: rights that cannot be sold or transferred").

This needs more research, and perhaps the senior members here can provide more insight on this...

David Merrill
09-13-11, 04:08 AM
Does "lawful money" confer legal title as well equitable title when one demands it?

If yes, then shouldn't we also demand "special deposit" on the restrictive endorsement on, for example, a payroll check (and also on bank signature card), so that one retains legal title (ownership) of the substance/labor that it represents, and that bank only gets equitable title (use) while it is in their possession?

Unless we retain legal title, how can ever truly pay for and have legal title of the goods/services those funds are exchanged for?

My point and belief is that we should add the phase "special deposit" to the non-endorsement wording, for example:

"Special deposit and lawful money per 12 USC 411 are demanded for all transactions."


Using "special deposit" invokes trust law and equity, which is something that I believe is needed for enforcement of our "unalienable rights" ("Black's 4th: rights that cannot be sold or transferred").

This needs more research, and perhaps the senior members here can provide more insight on this...

Albeit food for thought; my first reaction is that the special deposit demand is inherent in the demand for lawful money. Here we are getting into the banker's business and I am not against that. I am just not really that concerned.

But my first notion on it is that all customers at a certain bank would have their deposited bills together, all on the same ledger. The only difference between the special deposit demand and not would be that when you made a withdrawal you might be getting bills from another customer there who demands lawful money when he makes a paycheck deposit.

Michael Joseph
09-13-11, 04:15 AM
Albeit food for thought; my first reaction is that the special deposit demand is inherent in the demand for lawful money. Here we are getting into the banker's business and I am not against that. I am just not really that concerned.

But my first notion on it is that all customers at a certain bank would have their deposited bills together, all on the same ledger. The only difference between the special deposit demand and not would be that when you made a withdrawal you might be getting bills from another customer there who demands lawful money when he makes a paycheck deposit.

In my opinion, A SPECIAL DEPOSIT invokes a Trust Relationship with the Banker such that the banker must hold with great care "in trust" the special nature of the deposit. Banker is Trustee of the Trust Account for the benefit of FIRST MIDDLE LAST [Estate].

In other words the funds cannot be co-mingled with other funds. For example, if you were to make a demand for Lawful Money and then deposit the instrument on account, then that deposit could be co-mingled with other types of moneys. And, therefore, the banker is in no way estopped from Fractional Reserve practices when a GENERAL DEPOSIT is created.

Therefore, in my opinion, either just Cash the Check and hold the notes without the banking system, or create a SPECIAL DEPOSIT account. The first option seems the most logical; however, with the recent PUSH by the banking establishment to put DEBIT cards in the hands of the Acct. Holders, I think the system is pushing hard towards an electronic means of exchange. Therefore, a SPECIAL DEPOSIT Trust Account may be prudent.

Fee Simple is Absolute Title.

David Merrill
09-13-11, 09:42 AM
Yes, valuable collector coin. More background info contained in this article: Mint police officer pleads guilty to coin theft (http://www.coinworld.com/articles/mint-police-officer-pleads-guilty-to-coin-the/):

By my estimate, this thief alone was responsible for release of about 50,000 "Godless dollars."


I went to the post office for some Washington coins and the clerk was a bit baffled. The article I read was change made at the post office so somehow I thought...

I went next door to the bank. The pudgy security guard was quite amicable, even holding the door. I found the teller window and wanted to buy a $20 roll of the Washington Dollars, taking my chances maybe one would have a blank edge. The teller only had the current Dollars featuring President HAYES - in $25 rolls. I looked it over in the roll and the IN GOD WE TRUST is very small but on the bottom under the bust. I decided to buy a roll anyway...

She got on her computer and wanted my full legal name.

I am not giving you any information to buy coins.

You are not a customer here are you?

No.

We need to have your personal information for every single transaction.

She gave me back my $30 in bills marked lawful money and I walked out past the security guard, who was still very friendly. I stopped briefly to set up lunch and chess. My call did not go through but the security guard came out a moment after me and glared very suspiciously. I gave him a friendly, Good bye but he did not warm up at all.



In my opinion, A SPECIAL DEPOSIT invokes a Trust Relationship with the Banker such that the banker must hold with great care "in trust" the special nature of the deposit. Banker is Trustee of the Trust Account for the benefit of FIRST MIDDLE LAST [Estate].

In other words the funds cannot be co-mingled with other funds. For example, if you were to make a demand for Lawful Money and then deposit the instrument on account, then that deposit could be co-mingled with other types of moneys. And, therefore, the banker is in no way estopped from Fractional Reserve practices when a GENERAL DEPOSIT is created.

Therefore, in my opinion, either just Cash the Check and hold the notes without the banking system, or create a SPECIAL DEPOSIT account. The first option seems the most logical; however, with the recent PUSH by the banking establishment to put DEBIT cards in the hands of the Acct. Holders, I think the system is pushing hard towards an electronic means of exchange. Therefore, a SPECIAL DEPOSIT Trust Account may be prudent.

Fee Simple is Absolute Title.

I agree stipulating that if you demand lawful money your bills are a pooled special deposit. It is illegal to consider your funds as reserve for fractional lending but they may be pooled into deposits with other customers of that bank that demand lawful money.

doug555
09-14-11, 12:51 AM
Does "lawful money" confer legal title as well equitable title when one demands it?

If yes, then shouldn't we also demand "special deposit" on the restrictive endorsement on, for example, a payroll check (and also on bank signature card), so that one retains legal title (ownership) of the substance/labor that it represents, and that bank only gets equitable title (use) while it is in their possession?

Unless we retain legal title, how can ever truly pay for and have legal title of the goods/services those funds are exchanged for?

My point and belief is that we should add the phase "special deposit" to the non-endorsement wording, for example:

"Special deposit and lawful money per 12 USC 411 are demanded for all transactions."


Using "special deposit" invokes trust law and equity, which is something that I believe is needed for enforcement of our "unalienable rights" ("Black's 4th: rights that cannot be sold or transferred").

This needs more research, and perhaps the senior members here can provide more insight on this...


I believe we have a duty to preserve the legal title to the Birthright, not only of our own personal birthright, but the Birthright & Blessing granted to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and finally, by Jacob to Joseph's 2 sons, Ephraim and Manasseh (Gen 48).

Ps 24.1 states that "The earth is the Lord's, and all it contains, The world and those who dwell in it." He is the ultimate Owner of all, and in Genesis 2:15 He told man to "keep it".

I believe we were appointed trustees to keep the legal title (ownership/responsibility/liability), and if we do "general deposits" that gives the banks legal title to the funds that represent our (the Father's) labor, putting us in breach of trust of the original Birthright granted in the Garden of Eden (earth), and also the special Birthright/Blessing granted to Abraham's descendants - which I believe we are today in America, as the tribe of Manasseh. Recommended book (http://reluctant-messenger.com/judahs_sceptre_josephs_birthright.htm)

So, we need to preserve the chain of legal title from the Beginning in Genesis as Man, and as His People today. Demanding "special deposit" fulfills that responsibility because we retain legal title thereby.

It remains to be seen if there will be opposition to this. If this is all about a worldwide battle over the ownership of The Birthright, I imagine there will be.

But it appears from Eccl 12:7 that the Creator gave the spirit to Man at birth, and who can dispute that I, the spirit in man (1 Cor 2:11), as the recipient of that gift, was the first entity to give labor (in the "labor/delivery" room) to deliver to this world this body that I am in and animate, by the grace of the Creator, and therefore I have a priority lien and interest on all this body produces, and for which I am trustee to The Eternal Father of all. So I have perfect title to this body and its proceeds, both legal and equitable title. This is "among" the unalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, I believe.

So perhaps we can utilize the "freedom of religion" beliefs "card" to assist us in enforcing the "special deposit" demand on the non-indorsement stamp, if we encounter resistance. Perhaps we can draw up and publish a Declaration and Affidavit on this "birthright" to "lawful money" and its ownership preservation by "special deposit" in order to maintain our unalienable rights to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness".

Again, this is for discussion and guidance from the senior members here.

RThomas
09-14-11, 10:37 AM
[QUOTE=Anthony Joseph;4419]Well, I think we can agree on another point: I have no faith in the actual paper or it's sustaining value over time. That would be misguided trust in a man made system when that system's currency was created to lose value over time (fractional reserve lending - improper and false balances).

US Notes are lawful money and also fiat. So your definition of what lawful money is does not coincide with the law regarding these notes. US Notes are NOT issued by the Federal Reserve and therefore NOT subject to any of the rules, regulations, obligations or liabilities including the RETURN OF INCOME REQUIREMENT associated with the endorsed use of the FED's private credit and currency. If "They shall redeemed in lawful money..." means any lawful money than US Notes fit that "bill" (pun).

Your definition of lawful money (i.e. US currency notes and coins) does not fit ‘their’ definition as stated in the coinage act of 1965 and ‘their’ subsequent act in 1983 (Pub. L. 97-258). These acts reduced the status of your ‘redeemed US notes’ to mere legal tender which is not the same as lawful money or even a representation of lawful money. They have been brought down to the same status as FRNs with no title conveyed. They can in deed be fiat ‘money’ if one subjects to a blind trust in ‘them.’ Why would one accept a representation of ‘lawful money’ that is still subject to the acts of the one issuing it?



Your point that only a "Federal Reserve Bank" is able to use FRNs and are therefore be subject to the code and ACT thereof, is true. However, you do not see the subtlety and obfuscation of the system that treats ANYONE who signature endorses the FED's private credit on the back of their paychecks as a Federal Reserve Bank. How else could they incur the tax liability associated with the Federal Reserve's "money system"? Unfortunately for most, the privilege of use of private credit results in one being treated as a "FED BANK" by being subject to RETURN OF INCOME liability as opposed to other sanctioned "FED BANKS" (any bank that has an account with the FED) who gain the most profit from that use by lending upon usury and fractional reserve banking. The FED doesn't care about Joe Sixpack's incompetence or complacency in that regard; if you don't profit as much as others... tough PAY ME MY TAX!

If ‘their' system ‘treats’ anyone as a Federal reserve bank than you should be able to show a treatise from ‘them’ expressing this. This one has searched ‘their’ ‘law’ and can only see the projected requirements for becoming such a bank (see: 12 § 221/221a) within ‘their’ ‘system’. Thus, ‘their’ requirements would effectively rebut any presumption that ‘they’ may ‘treat’ anyone as a Federal reserve bank. This one cannot see any subtle obfuscation of ‘their’ projection of ‘their’ claim of law. This one sees that the grey matter in this one’s head and the readers of this thread are most likely the same as yours (thus this one’s capacities are no greater than any one other). Do you claim a greater level of insight and/or that the grey matter in your head is superior to all watching this thread?

Techincally, if one forms and keeps the full and accurate record of one's demand for lawful money, the notes they hold should hold their value in the sense that they should be treated as US Notes being on par with the $42.22/oz gold being earmarked by the Treasury at that value on the WORLD BANK/IMF's international market. Do I have faith in that recognition by those who are bound by law to recognize that? NO. I have no faith in any paper as having or sustaining value over time. My only faith is in the Ever-living Creator above who is in total control and provides the ability to be redeemed to anyone who truly desires it. It matters not what the situation or circumstances are created by men; His sons and daughters have redemption waiting and available when they choose to accept that gift. Redemption translates in many ways, in my view, according to the times one lives in.

‘Should be.’ are words that this one can only see as a projection (or as you say via post #85 an offer/promotion of belief). If as you offer and promote that such ‘redeemed money’ is on par with gold as measured in dollars (one dollar equals 1oz/ 42.22, as you claim) , than can you show that your ‘redeemed money’ has the same purchasing power of gold at this claimed weight as opposed to the market value of FRNs as measured in the same weight of dollars of gold ( in the same kind of money as stated on one’s check or the face value of a FRN you say your ‘non-endorsement’ allows you to imagine to be the same as a US note?) Or does your ‘redeemed money’ only hold the purchasing power equivalent to that of a ‘rediscounted’ commercial paper currency as FRNs are declared by ‘them’ to be (see: Federal reserve act of 1913)?

In this case, The FED ACT of 1913 codified at 12USC411 provides remedy from the tax liability associated with the endorsed use of FED's private credit. That is all. In 1933 the contract with the FED was opened to all citizens who were persuaded to change the way they deposited their salary checks...

Franklin D. Roosevelt after the Banker’s Holiday in 1933 on March 6th during the address at the White House Governors’ Conference.

“Recognized Government bonds are as safe as Government currency. They have the same credit back of them. And, therefore, if we can persuade people all through the country, when their salary checks come in, to deposit them in new accounts, which will be held in trust and kept in one of the new forms I have mentioned, we shall have made progress.”

No, this one does not see that the act creating the Federal reserve system provided remedy to anyone outside of their creation nor was the system opened to all via Federal reserve notes. The authorization for issuance and the purpose for are clearly stated. And yes, this one sees that it is possible that this was the beginning, for banks to take advantage of the unwitting to provide a blank endorsement. This one has never understated the importance of jurisdiction granted by endorsement. This sees the main purpose of endorsement as a clarification and statement of title to one’s labor that is being conveyed (i.e. it is ‘not a gift’).

Quoting from the Congressional Record of 1933;

“…The money will be worth 100 cents on the dollar, because it is backed by the credit of the Nation. It will represent a mortgage on all the homes and other property of all the people in the Nation.”

Those who identify themselves with the full or legal name are the "FED BANKS" who choose to redeem in lawful money.

The words you cite cannot stand over ‘their’ final declarations.’ One may think such words are an expose of their will or one may think such words are a subtle obfuscation of their intent but in the context of how the words you present were expressed this one cannot see how you can sustain any claim of a holding of such words as valid over the final declarations ‘they’ have made in ‘their’ projection to this one, the one, or any one. The underlined of your words above is not congruent with ‘their’ words. As this one stated prior and as you have not rebutted (see: post #82) ‘By ‘their’ words being a member bank requires applying for, subscribing to, buying stock in, and acceptance from the Board of Governors (See: 12 § 321; 12 § 222).’ ‘Their’ words are clear and no presumption can come into existence except through one’s silence or lack of objection. This one has read both UNITED STATES vs. RICKMAN and UNITED STATES vs.WARE and both were cases decided after the fact of acceptance of FRNs.

Those who do not identify themselves with the full or legal name either direct the trust to redeem lawful money or they only accept cash which is redeemed lawful money since the holder never bonded him/herself behind the potential elastic increase of the currency. That paper, then, is essentially an IOU slip from the United States of America which people may, or may not, place value in. Currently most people do and one can exchange that paper for good and services.[QUOTE/]

Continued by post limitation?

RThomas
09-14-11, 10:38 AM
This one sees that you are not separating a single act of endorsement from the separate and subsequent act of acceptance. This one clearly sees that two single acts cannot be held to be one single act. This one sees that if one demands lawful money and at the end of the day accepts what is tendered as lawful money, but does not come with free and clear title, at the end of the day one is not in possession of lawful money or even a paper IOU payable to bearer of lawful money (which would be a promise to pay true lawful money and cannot be lawful money in and of itself). If one demands lawful money and at the end of the day accepts FRNs, than by that one’s final one act FRNs become lawful money by acceptance of that one. That one cannot, after the fact of acceptance (ex post facto), declare them to be otherwise. No magical thoughts are needed to see this. At the end of the day, one’s last act in commonly accepted contract law (and true law) is that the last act of acceptance trumps (novates) any prior act or demand. Please correct this one if this one is incorrect. To all others following this thread this is the substance of the sharing of what this one sees. Because most others accept a fiat ‘money’ does not make such ‘lawful’ money. To state such is to state that the acts of the many bind the one. Can you show that the will of ‘government’ or as you may choose to see ‘the belief of the majority’ may bind the one? What intrinsic power do they hold to place themselves between this one and this one’s supreme ruler (the one true god). Just to clarify, this one is not ignorant of the concept of vior dire with reference to peers.
This one sees and agrees that you (as one with David) is promoting and offering (your words, and not of this one; see your post #85) a ‘remedy’ that you will not answer direct questions to or show the basis of such. Please correct what this one sees if this one is incorrect. This one sees you as making a claim that you are not willing to support, yet continue to offer and promote (images over substance). At the end of the day, holding FRNs in any state real or imagined will leave one subject to and not sovereign (independent) from acts of another.

As to the rest of the posts on this thread since this one’s last post, this one sees no nexus founded on substance within such posts to the subject matter of this thread.


**RThomas**

Anthony Joseph
09-14-11, 06:42 PM
Without the act of self-bonding, whether knowingly or through ignorance, one is not obligated to or liable for a piece of paper, used and recognized as the main medium of exchange on this land, simply by accepting it. The bonding, and obligatory surety evidence, are shown on the bills themselves in the form of two signatures who represent the parties who are responsible for making good on their promissory note (IOU) issues.

If I accept an IOU from Tom, I am not liable for his promise to pay, Tom is. If Bill accepts Tom's IOU from me as valuable consideration for a good or service, then my end has been satisfied with NO further obligation whatsoever. I never agreed to be liable for the IOU from the beginning (non-endorsment) even though I accept and hold it; Tom, the original issuer was and still remains the responsible and liable party by his signature as the bond.

I agree that whoever accepts the IOU along the way is taking a risk if confidence in Tom falls away. However, the IOU stands as a lawful medium of exchange as long as there is confidence in Tom to make good on his promise.

Non-endorsers treat the Federal Reserve's issues as "Tom", they use the IUOs without the added voluntary self-bonding of the elastic system behind it.

Your stance is that by merely accepting an FRN piece of paper, regardless of one's demand for lawful money, one is obligated and liable for that paper after the fact as the act of mere acceptance of an FRN note cancels any prior intent or demand. That opinion could be at odds with the stance of the IRS itself.

Do you hold the same opinion if you accept an FRN from another man or woman as a payment for a good or service you provided? If you don't, then I may begin to comprehend your angle on this issue a little better. My stance is that the simple demand for lawful money conveys the intent that I wish to remain without the Federal Reserve's Districts and jurisdiction. That translates to highest title absent any first lien by the Treasury/FED/IRS and NO return of income requirement.

What can a bank issue to a holder of a check who conveys that what is being presented is lawful money already? Is any bank capable of issuing anything other than FRNs (or tokens) to one who wishes to receive cash in order to be able to buy food or other life necessities?

RThomas
09-14-11, 08:20 PM
Without the act of self-bonding, whether knowingly or through ignorance, one is not obligated to or liable for a piece of paper, used and recognized as the main medium of exchange on this land, simply by accepting it. The bonding, and obligatory surety evidence, are shown on the bills themselves in the form of two signatures who represent the parties who are responsible for making good on their promissory note (IOU) issues.

If I accept an IOU from Tom, I am not liable for his promise to pay, Tom is. If Bill accepts Tom's IOU from me as valuable consideration for a good or service, then my end has been satisfied with NO further obligation whatsoever. I never agreed to be liable for the IOU from the beginning (non-endorsment) even though I accept and hold it; Tom, the original issuer was and still remains the responsible and liable party by his signature as the bond.

I agree that whoever accepts the IOU along the way is taking a risk if confidence in Tom falls away. However, the IOU stands as a lawful medium of exchange as long as there is confidence in Tom to make good on his promise.

Non-endorsers treat the Federal Reserve's issues as "Tom", they use the IUOs without the added voluntary self-bonding of the elastic system behind it.

Your stance is that by merely accepting an FRN piece of paper, regardless of one's demand for lawful money, one is obligated and liable for that paper after the fact as the act of mere acceptance of an FRN note cancels any prior intent or demand. That opinion could be at odds with the stance of the IRS itself.

Do you hold the same opinion if you accept an FRN from another man or woman as a payment for a good or service you provided? If you don't, then I may begin to comprehend your angle on this issue a little better. My stance is that the simple demand for lawful money conveys the intent that I wish to remain without the Federal Reserve's Districts and jurisdiction. That translates to highest title absent any first lien by the Treasury/FED/IRS and NO return of income requirement.

What can a bank issue to a holder of a check who conveys that what is being presented is lawful money already? Is any bank capable of issuing anything other than FRNs (or tokens) to one who wishes to receive cash in order to be able to buy food or other life necessities?

You are still avoiding giving direct answers to questions and are continuing to ‘promote’.

Does the conversion of Tom’s substantive deposit of the dollars given for the fruits of his labor take place at the time of his deposit or at the time of his acceptance of FRNs? This is a simple question that you seem to want to avoid.

Can Tom pass substantive absolute title that Tom does not hold to any kind of paper?

Would you agree or disagree that a check, in stead of FRNs, from Tom would pass absolute title to the dollars in his account, because actual conversion by acceptance has not yet taken place by Tom?


RThomas

Anthony Joseph
09-15-11, 01:45 AM
You are still avoiding giving direct answers to questions and are continuing to ‘promote’.

Does the conversion of Tom’s substantive deposit of the dollars given for the fruits of his labor take place at the time of his deposit or at the time of his acceptance of FRNs? This is a simple question that you seem to want to avoid.

Can Tom pass substantive absolute title that Tom does not hold to any kind of paper?

Would you agree or disagree that a check, in stead of FRNs, from Tom would pass absolute title to the dollars in his account, because actual conversion by acceptance has not yet taken place by Tom?


RThomas

I believe I have answered that question; I see NO conversion when the demand for lawful money is made. You believe that the acceptance of FRNs UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE nullifies any prior demand or intent. I disagree with your assessment in that regard.

In a way, your gripe (according to your view) is with the FED and the "official" banks that operate under its system. You say that banks have no business issuing FRNs to you or the average "Joe Sixpack" (JS) because "their" law prohibits that. You also do not believe that JS is a quasi-FED bank, or treated like one, since there exists no overt wording of law or treatise spelling that out. And yet, everyday JS receives FRNs when he brings a check to a bank to cash. How do you explain that? Do you wish to bring charges against every bank in the US for falsely and unlawfully issuing FRNs to everday people who are not FED banks, or agents thereof, according to their law? Maybe you should bring that action in a court of competent jurisdiction and see how you make out. I for one would be extremely interested and curious as to the response you get.

The contract with the FED which applied to official FED banks, as written in the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 Section 16, by obvious deduction was opened to the general population in 1933 whereby their signature endorsment created the bond behind the elasticity of the FED's currency and credit enabling the FED to keep their charter intact and to continue to grow their stranglehold upon the assets of the United States of America via debt. How else can you explain your stance that when one receives or accepts FRNs, it obligates the acceptor to all the rules and regulations governing the private credit of the Federal Reserve?

My opinion is that conversion only takes place when one signature endorses a check in the conventional way we were all taught by those we trusted in.

RThomas
09-15-11, 09:37 AM
I believe I have answered that question; I see NO conversion when the demand for lawful money is made. You believe that the acceptance of FRNs UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE nullifies any prior demand or intent. I disagree with your assessment in that regard.

This one’s thoughts to your beliefs are addressed within the following.

In a way, your gripe (according to your view) is with the FED and the "official" banks that operate under its system.

Not necessarily a gripe, but more of an observation of truth. Yes the truth this one sees is that the ‘Fed banks’ are operating outside the US legal code that authorizes the system in which the ‘FED’ acts.

You say that banks have no business issuing FRNs to you or the average "Joe Sixpack" (JS) because "their" law prohibits that.

The US code which is held out to be the foundation for their acts states this, not this one.

You also do not believe that JS is a quasi-FED bank, or treated like one, since there exists no overt wording of law or treatise spelling that out.

This one has repeatedly stated that this one is not a believer. This one sees that the stated US code does not allow for any presumption or conclusion that JS is a ‘FED bank’ or even a ‘quasi-FED bank.’ Where do you draw your conclusions from?

And yet, everyday JS receives FRNs when he brings a check to a bank to cash. How do you explain that?

The average Joe Sixpack was brought into ‘their’ world and implanted with ‘their’ seeds of images and is without true knowledge. This one sees that it is the truth that will set JS free, but only if JS seeks it. Otherwise, JS will be left to JS’s understandings and subject to not being excepted through ‘their’ severability clauses.



Do you wish to bring charges against every bank in the US for falsely and unlawfully issuing FRNs to everday people who are not FED banks, or agents thereof, according to their law?

This one does not see that this one would have standing to bring charges against ‘every’ bank. As this one stated in post #34 “I now retract the statement of this being non-confrontational.” This thread is about this one’s search for the genesis or the nexus to their codes, private law, or however one deems to sees it. The process that would naturally follow is not a topic of this thread, but is a valid discussion for a subsequent thread. This one is well aware of the rabbit holes of such process and does see how to reach the light at the end of any such tunnel. This one sees that one must begin at the beginning (i.e. the creation) and then take ‘baby steps.’ Seeing the foundation of any illusions or claims would be the first step.


Maybe you should bring that action in a court of competent jurisdiction and see how you make out. I for one would be extremely interested and curious as to the response you get.


You appear to believe that such cannot happen. This one is not a believer.

The contract with the FED which applied to official FED banks, as written in the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 Section 16, by obvious deduction was opened to the general population in 1933 whereby their signature endorsment created the bond behind the elasticity of the FED's currency and credit enabling the FED to keep their charter intact and to continue to grow their stranglehold upon the assets of the United States of America via debt.

This one sees a lot of conjecture in this long sentence not supported by substance. This one agrees that such act in 1913 applies to such banks mentioned within such act and to no one else. You cite section 16 as a part of such act and state that it applies to all. You still appear to ‘promote’ that one can claim a right via one line in an act that you state does not apply to you. You are clearly taking one line out of context of the act as a whole. This one cannot see your ‘obvious deduction.’ This one sees that a voluntary acceptance of ‘their’ ‘money’ that has a ‘first and paramount lien’ on it cannot by any stretch of any one’s imagination be true lawful money. And one’s final possession of such leaves one with no proof as to the title of that money regardless of any prior demand.

How else can you explain your stance that when one receives or accepts FRNs, it obligates the acceptor to all the rules and regulations governing the private credit of the Federal Reserve?

This one has asked you many times if your last act trumps all other acts in within a negotiation with another (contract law). You now state that a prior act of endorsement/non-endorsement (demand) trumps your final act (within such negotiation) of acceptance. Hence this one asks and has repeatedly asked, ‘at the end of the day’ what do you possess that will prove to anyone that your prior demand for lawful money was achieved after your final act of acceptance (this one does not see a claim of metaphysics getting you very far)? Please show any law or any general maxim reflecting true law relating to contracts or ‘offer and acceptance’ that would support your belief or show substance for your claim. This one sees that a final act of acceptance of ‘their’ money is also acceptance to the stated lien on that ‘money’ subjecting one to their rules or regulation to the use of such.



My opinion is that conversion only takes place when one signature endorses a check in the conventional way we were all taught by those we trusted in.

This one sees, in reference to conversion, that this is your opinion (belief). As to what you say all have been taught I see as a willful act of non-disclosure and a belief (trust) (religion) established by them without foundation. This one is merely seeking the foundation for your truths stated as to see that they are not rooted in a projected belief from ‘them.’

This one has never denied the importance of proper special endorsement. This one sees from ‘their’ law dictionaries, from past to present, that the focus should be on title (i.e. ‘Not a gift’) and not a simple demand for ‘lawful money’ which is left open for interpretation (what’s lawful to one may not be lawful to another, thus the focus should be on the word ‘dollar’ within the original agreement on the face of a check). There is much this one has not presented here yet. All that this one has provided thus far relates more to the concepts of what is taking place between deposits and what is offered and received for such deposits. This one sees that the actual conversion takes place when one accepts a note of debt in place of credit due him and may be held (absent any objection) by his own last act to novate any prior claim to the fruits of his labor (shown in prior posts).

This one is also aware that a general endorsement within ‘their’ laws, cases, and definitions, still could not be held to overcome the common accepted understanding of the general populace (e.g. a jury) of any state (e.g. nation) that full title was knowingly conveyed to any bank and that such title was knowingly agreed to not be returned (see: 12 § 414); given that by the agreements with banks the general understanding is that deposits passing title are loans with limited title (not a gift) to be returned with the same title on demand. In this one's research so far this issue of title to what is being held out to all as ‘money’ has never been raised. Nor does this one see you as willing to address the issue of title except by stating that demand for lawful money trumps acceptance and possession of FRNs, yet you have not shown any way to prove absolute title of such money. You have not shown that any bank in possession of such notes which do not convey full title to such bank can issue them to you with full title with or without such demand.








**RThomas**

Anthony Joseph
09-15-11, 06:13 PM
I do not not agree that "the last act", as you describe it by being handed FRN paper, consitutes conversion or agreement to the FR code when one clearly demands lawful money.

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

U.S. notes serve no function that is not already served by Federal Reserve notes. As a result, the Treasury Department stopped issuing U.S. notes, and none have been placed into circulation since January 21, 1971. Those that remain in circulation are obligations of the U.S. government.

How can that be? How can Federal Reserve notes serve or function as U.S. Notes if FRNs are "for no other purpose"? The Treasury is speaking to the dual function and character of the Federal Reserve note in that it can serve the function of a U.S. note. U.S. notes are without the scope of the Federal Reserve system's rules, regulations, obligations and liabilities. So, according to the Treasury, a FRN will serve as a U.S. note if need be. Your opinion is that is not possible or spelled out in their "law" and yet, he it is in plain english.

How does one establish or initiate the "U.S. Note function" of an FRN since it is obviously possible by the admission of the Treasury? The demand for lawful money makes FRNs function as USNs thereby avoiding the obligations and liabilities of the private credit of the FED.


From http://www.21silver.com/?show=merrill&read=federal_reserve_act_remedy

Therefore, one should pay attention only to how Congress defines lawful money.

US v. Rickman, 638 F.2d 182:


In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money.
In a similar case,

US v. Ware, 308 F.2d 400:


United States notes shall be lawful money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt.


US Notes are lawful money per the agreement and definitions of Congress.

FRNs function as US Notes per the Treasury.

RThomas
09-16-11, 09:36 AM
This is just a quick note to all that this one has not abandoned this thread. This one’s obligations are paramount to this one and this thread is not an obligation this one holds. As this one’s word is this one’s bond, this one will return to this thread and soon.


This one’s short and abridged response is that there appears to be confusion between ‘lawful money’ and ‘title’ within the offer of ‘any’ such ‘money.’

RThomas

Rock Anthony
09-16-11, 05:25 PM
This is just a quick note to all that this one has not abandoned this thread. This one’s obligations are paramount to this one and this thread is not an obligation this one holds. As this one’s word is this one’s bond, this one will return to this thread and soon.

Neither have I abandoned. The obligation that brings the regular paycheck has consumed my time.

This one’s short and abridged response is that there appears to be confusion between ‘lawful money’ and ‘title’ within the offer of ‘any’ such ‘money.’

Perhaps the endeavor to clear the confusion is why this thread is so interesting.

RThomas

I'll interject my thoughtful response after my other obligations are satisfied.

Thanks, Anthony Joseph, joining the conversation.

Axe
09-17-11, 10:49 PM
‘By ‘their’ words being a member bank requires applying for, subscribing to, buying stock in, and acceptance from the Board of Governors (See: 12 § 321; 12 § 222).’ ‘Their’ words are clear and no presumption can come into existence except through one’s silence or lack of objection.

applying for,: Application for your account
subscribing to,: Agreement by signature
buying stock in,: Accepting FRNs
acceptance from the Board of Governors: Automatic

Unless you can cite specific criteria as outlined by the Board of Governors in
considering or approving, the application can be approved "upon receiving".

"This one" sees this as a jurisdictional matter. Are you placing yourself under a private set of rules
by merely "using" FRNs? I believe so. Ignorance of the rules is no excuse.

If I am on someone's land and the owner doesn't want me to be, I am trespassing, whether I realized
it was his land or not.

If I am "summoned" to court, and report that it is my name on the summons,
the action of me showing up has shown that I am placing myself under that jurisdiction, no?

What we have is a system of control that "everyone" is under through coercion and ignorance.

If I identify myself as a "Person" in the wrong room, I am confessing to be whatever "they"
define a "Person" to be. The fact that "I" may have and understand the word "person" to mean
something else matters not. I have confessed.

If "they" have defined a FED Bank to mean the same thing a "person" means, then in that room
I've just confessed to being a FED Bank. If Fed Bank means anyone that has a bank account,
or anyone that files a return, or anyone that has ever identified themselves with a social security
number, then that's what I have confessed to, whether that's what I understood or not.

RThomas, I find your findings and thesis compelling but incomplete. From reading your posts, I'm
gathering that your position is that anything you receive from your labor is lawful money. That's
important, because if you believe you are going to the bank with lawful money already, then your
assertion for title makes sense.

What I need, to come in line with what you're saying is your proof that what you have been paid by
your employer or your customers "is" lawful money".

If you are an employee, you have filed a W2, no?

Does the business that pays you do business in FRNs? If a business, do customers buy what
you sell in FRNs?

If you are a business man, you have been licensed to do business by a state and city/county. In the
process of doing business either as an employee or a business owner, there are many forms, signatures
and hoops to jump through before you receive any green (money).

Say you are correct and that all you need to do is hold "title" to your deposit. How do you prove that
your deposit was lawful money to begin with? The way I see it, there is just as much burden of proof
on you to show that, as there is on anyone to show proof that they received lawful money rather than
Fed Notes from the bank after their restricted endorsement.

To follow your own standard (set up by you in this thread), please make your case that your labor has
only generated lawful money, as it would be in a deposition, where only yes/no answers may be required.

I suspect that you are an attorney of some sort (apologies if I am mistaken) so hopefully you will forgive
my ignorance, but please also cite the source that states "if I respond to a name, that makes it my name".

For clarity, I want to emphasize that I'm not hostile. I, like you I suspect am simply on a journey for the truth
and wish nothing more than to secure freedom from slavery. Thank you for starting this thread, and thanks
to all who have participated.

Tom

doug555
09-20-11, 10:43 PM
RThomas,

I agree with your most recent statement that "This one has never denied the importance of proper special endorsement. This one sees from ‘their’ law dictionaries, from past to present, that the focus should be on title (i.e. ‘Not a gift’) and not a simple demand for ‘lawful money’..." and ask if that focus on title is to be directed at legal title, equitable title, or perfect title, and about what, and why?

For example, if we, as people, do not have perfect title to our own labor, how can we legitimately demand legal title (via special deposit) and lawful money for the funds on the payroll check transferred to a bank?

Doug

allodial
09-21-11, 04:41 AM
Perhaps they don't want to deal with 'real people'. Perhaps they want to only deal with corporations.

RThomas
09-21-11, 06:45 AM
Rock Anthony,

Quote: “Perhaps the endeavor to clear the confusion is why this thread is so interesting.”

This one sees your response as the best answer to all of my questions. Your response exhibits a mind that is open to all possibilities and believes no one, which also includes this one. Thus, this one asks that you do not believe this one but to seek the truth as can only be found within you. This one holds no will or wishes to lead you. This one’s words are merely a sharing of thought.





RThomas,

I agree with your most recent statement that "This one has never denied the importance of proper special endorsement. This one sees from ‘their’ law dictionaries, from past to present, that the focus should be on title (i.e. ‘Not a gift’) and not a simple demand for ‘lawful money’..." and ask if that focus on title is to be directed at legal title, equitable title, or perfect title, and about what, and why?

For example, if we, as people, do not have perfect title to our own labor, how can we legitimately demand legal title (via special deposit) and lawful money for the funds on the payroll check transferred to a bank?

Doug


Doug,

Thank you for an on topic post that is not an attempt to redirect or ‘attorn’ the topic.

The title one holds to the fruits of one’s labor prior to walking into a bank for deposit is held in a perfect title (no one else has any valid claim to the fruits of your labor: the fruits of your labor are what you agreed to accept in exchange for such). It cannot be a legal title as there can be no external ‘form’ of law that can claim any right to, or overcome an inherent or intrinsic lawful title (legal does not equal lawful; it is an external claim under a ‘form’ of ’law’).

The title to one’s labor cannot be an equitable title, as there is no one else that holds an ‘equal’ claim to it (think consent).

This one’s thoughts are that stating ‘not a gift’ or any other such words that convey that one is retaining ultimate, absolute or final title is necessary. Thus one should not give (i.e. gift) a general jurisdiction over the fruits of one’s labor.

As to your ‘what’; paper is only evidence of title. Paper is not a true commodity (monetarily speaking). A commodity is ‘money’ only upon acceptance (e.g. corn, sea shells, and etc.). Paper can only be ‘money’ upon acceptance. Paper can only pass title as evidenced on the paper itself and within the rules noticed (via acts, statutes, or codes) by its creators.

The paychecks issued to you are all stated in ‘dollars.’ Was that not your agreement to accept ‘dollars’ for the fruits of your labor? One could choose to accept another ‘form’ (legal) of dollars in a piece of paper ‘denominated’ in ‘dollars,’ which are not ‘dollars’ but mere evidence of debt, thus novating their debt to you by your acceptance of their paper which evidences your debt to them by your acceptance via the ‘first and paramount lien’ (i.e. consent and voluntary servitude). ‘Dollars’ as their words (their bond) say is a specific measurement in the weight of gold.

As to your last question;

“For example, if we, as people, //Are you one with the one true god or are you one with and subject to the will or beliefs of “the” (or another) “people?”//do not have perfect title to our own labor // Are you speaking as one of a collective, or as one?//, how can we legitimately demand legal title //Are you seeking to claim legal title or lawful title?// (via special deposit) and lawful money //What is lawful money to you, is it a commodity, a piece of paper showing evidence of title to a commodity, or paper showing an acceptance of debt?// for the funds on the payroll check transferred to a bank?// Were the funds transferred to the bank expressed as a commodity or as paper (accepted) money?//”


This one does see ‘remedy’ in their Title 12 § 411 in conjunction with Title 12 § 414 and Title 31 § 5103. The remedy is not within a single line which one may believe one can claim an inherent right from and then claim ignorance of the whole. The remedy is in using their words (i.e. their bond) against them. They authorized FRNs for their banks to use and only mandated that their banks ‘shall receive.’ The true remedy is to just say no (refuse acceptance) and then to stand over their claims (i.e. their words, bonds, acts, statutes, and codes) as to what is true.

This one is aware that many here are thinking whether or not this type of challenge has been raised against ‘them.’ This is where my current search is at. As of now, this one finds no challenge to the question of a perfect ‘title’ to the fruits of one’s labor or a valid claim to interject as third party to such ‘title.‘

Given the questions within what this one sees as an apparent redirecting of the subject matter of this thread, this one will (my word is my bond) respond to them, at my leisure. Doug’s questions were directly on topic and sought clarification. This one does see an obligation to clarify the thoughts that one shares if they are thoughts making a claim. This one makes no claims. This one responds as a courtesy. This one will continue to share what this one sees if this one’s sights are directly challenged. All of the above is nothing more than a sharing of what this one sees and none are claims.


RThomas

Richard Earl
09-21-11, 02:09 PM
This is a very interesting thread. I did speak with my cousin who happens to work at a bank as a loan's officer. I asked him to look into anything he knows about these types of deposits. This is his response.


As far as I know, there's no such thing for us - a deposit is a deposit. If you wanted the same bills/notes as the one you deposited, you'd have to get a safety deposit box.

Perhaps the safety deposit box represents the special deposit and thus the checking account/etc represents a general deposit.

Axe
09-28-11, 10:17 PM
Perhaps they don't want to deal with 'real people'. Perhaps they want to only deal with corporations.

Exactly. This, I think is the crux of the matter.


Thank you for an on topic post that is not an attempt to redirect or ‘attorn’ the topic.

I believe you are the one demanding answers that would be acceptable in a deposition. You have done an excellent job of finding exact cites so far, also implying "attorning". Duality.

The "topic" of this thread was "A regular deposit of Lawful Money". My post was exactly on topic. My direct question was how do you prove that your employer paid you in lawful money to begin with. Off topic?

For someone "just sharing" you are very quick to demand exact and specific answers from those who are also "just sharing".


This one has asked you many times if your last act trumps all other acts in within a negotiation with another (contract law). You now state that a prior act of endorsement/non-endorsement (demand) trumps your final act (within such negotiation) of acceptance. Hence this one asks and has repeatedly asked, ‘at the end of the day’ what do you possess that will prove to anyone that your prior demand for lawful money was achieved after your final act of acceptance (this one does not see a claim of metaphysics getting you very far)? Please show any law or any general maxim reflecting true law relating to contracts or ‘offer and acceptance’ that would support your belief or show substance for your claim. This one sees that a final act of acceptance of ‘their’ money is also acceptance to the stated lien on that ‘money’ subjecting one to their rules or regulation to the use of such

If you did not want discussion on "your thoughts" then why post them here? If discussion is desired, why are not all points considered?


Anthony Joseph

I do not not agree that "the last act", as you describe it by being handed FRN paper, consitutes conversion or agreement to the FR code when one clearly demands lawful money.

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-cen...al-tender.aspx

U.S. notes serve no function that is not already served by Federal Reserve notes. As a result, the Treasury Department stopped issuing U.S. notes, and none have been placed into circulation since January 21, 1971. Those that remain in circulation are obligations of the U.S. government.

How can that be? How can Federal Reserve notes serve or function as U.S. Notes if FRNs are "for no other purpose"? The Treasury is speaking to the dual function and character of the Federal Reserve note in that it can serve the function of a U.S. note. U.S. notes are without the scope of the Federal Reserve system's rules, regulations, obligations and liabilities. So, according to the Treasury, a FRN will serve as a U.S. note if need be. Your opinion is that is not possible or spelled out in their "law" and yet, he it is in plain english.

How does one establish or initiate the "U.S. Note function" of an FRN since it is obviously possible by the admission of the Treasury? The demand for lawful money makes FRNs function as USNs thereby avoiding the obligations and liabilities of the private credit of the FED.

There you are, asked and answered... but no response...

I'm not trying to be critical of you, I'm quite enjoying the discussion and would like it to move forward. I think you are advancing the discussion, which is after all the goal, right?

Let's not make this "I'm right, your wrong," can we just agree that an ironclad remedy is the goal?


The title one holds to the fruits of one’s labor prior to walking into a bank for deposit is held in a perfect title (no one else has any valid claim to the fruits of your labor: the fruits of your labor are what you agreed to accept in exchange for such). It cannot be a legal title as there can be no external ‘form’ of law that can claim any right to, or overcome an inherent or intrinsic lawful title (legal does not equal lawful; it is an external claim under a ‘form’ of ’law’).

The title to one’s labor cannot be an equitable title, as there is no one else that holds an ‘equal’ claim to it (think consent).

Who holds that bank account? You? The trustee? The ENITITY? On who or what does the title fall? Who is paid? Who made the agreement of labor?

You mention that you want the genesis, isn't that it? I'm not telling you, I'm asking you, don't get defensive.

RThomas
09-29-11, 06:38 AM
Axe,

At this one’s leisure (when it is convenient for this one) this one will respond. This one has no obligation to respond, but this one has given this one’s word. This one has responded to all of your questions thus far and will respond more in depth within this one’s obligation to. This one has given this one’s word (bond). Have you no patience?

The delay to this one’s response is directly related to one’s access to ‘their’ law library as this one is more concerned with their claims than your beliefs. This one will return, in this one’s good time to respond with their words to counter your beliefs. After all this thread is not about you and this one is it? Is it not your wish to find independence from their claims? Or do you just wish to argue with this one? What’s your purpose within this thread? This one has stated no intent to abandon this thread. This one stands by this one’s words. You appear to be attempting to ‘rush justice’ for your empty claims within this thread, when there is no 'jurisdiction' requiring any answer. Have patience, friend. This one will answer courteously and in due time (which is not due to you but only offered by my word).

RThomas

Axe
09-29-11, 08:54 PM
Is it not your wish to find independence from their claims?

Yes. Exactly why I posed the questions I did. Was not your purpose discussion?

Is it then your position that you "have" the answer and are trying to convince us of it?
I was under the impression that this was a "possibility" and you were bringing it before
the group for ideas and feedback.

My "purpose"? I can read the same as you friend. I read what you wrote and see holes
in your reasoning. I see clear answers offered to you in some of the questions you posed
and I offered my opinion on them. Is it your position that you are right and I am wrong?

Is it then your position that I have no place in this thread?


You appear to be attempting to ‘rush justice’ for your empty claims within this thread, when there is no 'jurisdiction' requiring any answer. Have patience, friend. This one will answer courteously and in due time (which is not due to you but only offered by my word).

Accusing someone of "empty claims" is not courteous.

Look, if I have offended you by asking questions that you don't deem "worthy"
of your intellect, or by offering answers to questions you posed openly, please
disregard them. I shall not strive with you.

Good Luck,

Tom

RThomas
09-30-11, 06:24 AM
This one has requested patience from you as a friend. We are friends seeking the same goal, no? This thread is not my life, nor does this one see it as your life. This one knows what this one has shown in this thread and this one hears your questions to such. This one does not see a nexus as to the subject matter of this thread within your questions but, this one does see what appears to be a reframing of the subject matter and an attempt to redirect the burden of proof to where it does not belong. This one’s sights have been shown and are ‘cited.’ This one does not see your sights backed by ‘their’ cites. This one has requested patience from you for a ‘grace’ period to respond which has been granted to you only by this one’s word. This ones word is the only proof of this ones obligation. Yes, no? Patience is requested, friend.

RThomas