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,
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
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.
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://www.coinworld.com/error-and-variety-coins/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.
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. I have not acquired any direct (suitor) experience with this except one district court magistrate voiced an order...
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.
Last edited by David Merrill; 09-11-11 at 01:35 AM.
Yes, valuable collector coin. More background info contained in this article: Mint police officer pleads guilty to coin theft:
By my estimate, this thief alone was responsible for release of about 50,000 "Godless dollars."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.
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.Originally Posted by doug555
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.
Last edited by Michael Joseph; 09-13-11 at 04:18 AM.
The blessing is in the hand of the doer. Faith absent deeds is dead.
Lawful Money Trust Website
Divine Mind Community Call - Sundays 8pm EST
ONE man or woman can make a difference!
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.
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.
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
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.
Last edited by doug555; 09-14-11 at 11:39 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
