A regular deposit of lawful money.

[RThomas]

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