A regular deposit of lawful money.

[David Merrill]

Endorsement lends the bank credit?

I guess that is what he means. Have a good trip. See you when you return.

[Treefarmer]

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?

[RThomas]

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

[David Merrill]

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.

[Treefarmer]

I second that; thank you for your research RThomas.
I'm looking forward to seeing more of it.

[allodial]

Ah but again the topic of 'nemo dat' must be added to the light of this thread.

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)

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.

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 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).

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.

If you make a blank endorsement on a check--perhaps you are approving or consenting to it being stolen? *shrugs*

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.

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.

[RThomas]

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

[allodial]

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)?

[RThomas]

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

[allodial]

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?

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.