Endorsement lends the bank credit?
I guess that is what he means. Have a good trip. See you when you return.
Printable View
Endorsement lends the bank credit?
I guess that is what he means. Have a good trip. See you when you return.
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?
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 (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 (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
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.
I second that; thank you for your research RThomas.
I'm looking forward to seeing more of it.
Ah but again the topic of 'nemo dat' must be added to the light of this thread.
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.Quote:
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)
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 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.Quote:
There are numerous exceptions to the nemo dat rule. 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).
If you make a blank endorsement on a check--perhaps you are approving or consenting to it being stolen? *shrugs*
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
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)?
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' is regarded to be a synonym for '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/_WpddSs21q6...State+Seal.jpg
Quote:
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.
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".
Quote:
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.
This could be the stuff of a separate thread....
Attachment 653
Attachment 654
Quote:
"...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."
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.
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 of a system a few steps removed from reality.
http://www.russianlegacy.com/catalog...l/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.
The agreement can be seen by clicking here.
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, 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!
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
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.
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/attac...3&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.
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!
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
How money is created.
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
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.
For those who need the enlightment: endorser = surety.
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
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
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/...5236ca1c_z.jpg
http://ts3.mm.bing.net/images/thumbn...67c21e411233da
http://ts1.mm.bing.net/images/thumbn...9813a49676a6a1
http://blog.nj.com/ledgerupdates_imp...ge_robber1.jpg
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.
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
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.
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
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