A regular deposit of lawful money.

[allodial]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

For those who need the enlightment: endorser = surety.

[RThomas]

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]

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]

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]

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!