Originally Posted by
Anthony Joseph
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.