A regular deposit of lawful money.

[doug555]

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

[allodial]

Perhaps they don't want to deal with 'real people'. Perhaps they want to only deal with corporations.

[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

[Richard Earl]

This is a very interesting thread. I did speak with my cousin who happens to work at a bank as a loan's officer. I asked him to look into anything he knows about these types of deposits. This is his response.

As far as I know, there's no such thing for us - a deposit is a deposit. If you wanted the same bills/notes as the one you deposited, you'd have to get a safety deposit box.

Perhaps the safety deposit box represents the special deposit and thus the checking account/etc represents a general deposit.

[Axe]

Perhaps they don't want to deal with 'real people'. Perhaps they want to only deal with corporations.

Exactly. This, I think is the crux of the matter.

Thank you for an on topic post that is not an attempt to redirect or ‘attorn’ the topic.

I believe you are the one demanding answers that would be acceptable in a deposition. You have done an excellent job of finding exact cites so far, also implying "attorning". Duality.

The "topic" of this thread was "A regular deposit of Lawful Money". My post was exactly on topic. My direct question was how do you prove that your employer paid you in lawful money to begin with. Off topic?

For someone "just sharing" you are very quick to demand exact and specific answers from those who are also "just sharing".

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

If you did not want discussion on "your thoughts" then why post them here? If discussion is desired, why are not all points considered?

Anthony Joseph

I do not not agree that "the last act", as you describe it by being handed FRN paper, consitutes conversion or agreement to the FR code when one clearly demands lawful money.

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-cen...al-tender.aspx

U.S. notes serve no function that is not already served by Federal Reserve notes. As a result, the Treasury Department stopped issuing U.S. notes, and none have been placed into circulation since January 21, 1971. Those that remain in circulation are obligations of the U.S. government.

How can that be? How can Federal Reserve notes serve or function as U.S. Notes if FRNs are "for no other purpose"? The Treasury is speaking to the dual function and character of the Federal Reserve note in that it can serve the function of a U.S. note. U.S. notes are without the scope of the Federal Reserve system's rules, regulations, obligations and liabilities. So, according to the Treasury, a FRN will serve as a U.S. note if need be. Your opinion is that is not possible or spelled out in their "law" and yet, he it is in plain english.

How does one establish or initiate the "U.S. Note function" of an FRN since it is obviously possible by the admission of the Treasury? The demand for lawful money makes FRNs function as USNs thereby avoiding the obligations and liabilities of the private credit of the FED.

There you are, asked and answered... but no response...

I'm not trying to be critical of you, I'm quite enjoying the discussion and would like it to move forward. I think you are advancing the discussion, which is after all the goal, right?

Let's not make this "I'm right, your wrong," can we just agree that an ironclad remedy is the goal?

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).

Who holds that bank account? You? The trustee? The ENITITY? On who or what does the title fall? Who is paid? Who made the agreement of labor?

You mention that you want the genesis, isn't that it? I'm not telling you, I'm asking you, don't get defensive.

[RThomas]

Axe,

At this one’s leisure (when it is convenient for this one) this one will respond. This one has no obligation to respond, but this one has given this one’s word. This one has responded to all of your questions thus far and will respond more in depth within this one’s obligation to. This one has given this one’s word (bond). Have you no patience?

The delay to this one’s response is directly related to one’s access to ‘their’ law library as this one is more concerned with their claims than your beliefs. This one will return, in this one’s good time to respond with their words to counter your beliefs. After all this thread is not about you and this one is it? Is it not your wish to find independence from their claims? Or do you just wish to argue with this one? What’s your purpose within this thread? This one has stated no intent to abandon this thread. This one stands by this one’s words. You appear to be attempting to ‘rush justice’ for your empty claims within this thread, when there is no 'jurisdiction' requiring any answer. Have patience, friend. This one will answer courteously and in due time (which is not due to you but only offered by my word).

RThomas

[Axe]

Is it not your wish to find independence from their claims?

Yes. Exactly why I posed the questions I did. Was not your purpose discussion?

Is it then your position that you "have" the answer and are trying to convince us of it?
I was under the impression that this was a "possibility" and you were bringing it before
the group for ideas and feedback.

My "purpose"? I can read the same as you friend. I read what you wrote and see holes
in your reasoning. I see clear answers offered to you in some of the questions you posed
and I offered my opinion on them. Is it your position that you are right and I am wrong?

Is it then your position that I have no place in this thread?

You appear to be attempting to ‘rush justice’ for your empty claims within this thread, when there is no 'jurisdiction' requiring any answer. Have patience, friend. This one will answer courteously and in due time (which is not due to you but only offered by my word).

Accusing someone of "empty claims" is not courteous.

Look, if I have offended you by asking questions that you don't deem "worthy"
of your intellect, or by offering answers to questions you posed openly, please
disregard them. I shall not strive with you.

Good Luck,

Tom

[RThomas]

This one has requested patience from you as a friend. We are friends seeking the same goal, no? This thread is not my life, nor does this one see it as your life. This one knows what this one has shown in this thread and this one hears your questions to such. This one does not see a nexus as to the subject matter of this thread within your questions but, this one does see what appears to be a reframing of the subject matter and an attempt to redirect the burden of proof to where it does not belong. This one’s sights have been shown and are ‘cited.’ This one does not see your sights backed by ‘their’ cites. This one has requested patience from you for a ‘grace’ period to respond which has been granted to you only by this one’s word. This ones word is the only proof of this ones obligation. Yes, no? Patience is requested, friend.

RThomas