Results 1 to 10 of 118

Thread: A regular deposit of lawful money.

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Quote Originally Posted by Rock Anthony View Post
    Excellent conversation going on here!

    RThomas, are you suggesting that deposits of lawful money into a bank can still be considered as loans to the bank?

    What they are projecting to one via their case law is their presumption is that one’s deposit is a loan. My questions to you would be what is ‘lawful’ ‘money’ to you? Who ultimately decides that the ‘money’ that you accept is ‘lawful’ ‘money?’ Does the ‘money’ that you accept pass clear title (free and clear of any liens like the ‘money’ stated as ‘dollars’ you deposited)? What title did you pass to the bank when you deposited the substance of your labor? Was the title that you passed full title or only title to the use and possession (as a loan would convey)?

    I have an agreement with BofA such that only lawful money goes in, and only lawful money comes out - no conversion of labor to Fed credit.

    To properly respond to this I would need to see the actual wording. My initial response would be that I see some merit in the ‘no conversion of labor to Fed credit, but, as contracts are fluid and any subsequent action can novate prior actions ‘at the end of the day’ what did you accept as ‘lawful’ ‘money?’

    P.S. Excellent posts, you have made. Thanks for the dilligent research. Perhaps Admin will add a "Thank You" feature to StSC.

    P.P.S. I remember initiating a chat session with BofA. I asked if they offered a "Special Depository" type of account as a product to its customers. As a matter of fact, I even provided the legal defintion of "special deposit" during the chat session. The answer was, "no".

    They may not offer it, but that does not mean one cannot clarify the title passed to them. I see them as being able to be placed in a position of having a difficult time explaining why they would only accept a passing of full title vs. a limited title (i.e. for possession and use only). A loan is defined by ‘their’ law ‘diction’ary, Bouvier’s below;

    LOAN, contracts. The act by which a person lets another have a thing to be used by him gratuitously, and which is to be returned, either in specie or in kind, agreeably to the terms of the contract. The thing which is thus transferred is also called a loan. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 1077.

    [I have been reading several bank agreements online and none state any agreement to accept anything that is not in kind to what was deposited. What one deposits is free and clear of any liens, what they are ‘offering’ or ‘tendering’ is not free and clear of any liens. It is not in specie or in kind. One deposited money for one’s credit and did not receive money for one’s credit in return; one is tendered (offered) money of one’s debt instead. This is 180 degrees the opposite of what one deposited; (a mirror image)]



    2. A loan in general implies that a thing is lent without reward; but, in some cases, a loan may be for a reward; as, the loan of money. 7 Pet. R. 109.

    3. In order to make a contract usurious, there must be a loan; Cowp. 112, 770; 1 Ves. jr. 527; 2 Bl. R. 859; 3 Wils. 390 and the borrower must be bound to return the money at all events. 2 Scho. & Lef. 470. The purchase of a bond or note is not a loan ; 3 Scho. & Lef. 469; 9 Pet. R 103; but if such a purchase be merely colorable, it will be considered as a loan. 2 John. Cas. 60; Id. 66; 12 S. & R. 46; 15 John. R. 44.

    It would be helpful if cites to your definition were included, as dictionary names lead to verification and the date of definitions show when changes have been made in relation to their monetary system presented (they will be bound by meanings in existence at the time of their will/wish expressed). This definition is cited as being made from Bouvier, thus it is not a direct cite of Bouvier (it’s one’s cite of another’s cite).

    To Allodial:

    The ‘book’ of 'Genesis', as I see such, speaks to the creation of all; I see it as referring to all which includes things of matter, man, and things (thoughts) of the mind. I see creation as dynamic and not static. I see creation (i.e. genesis) as a process (used for lack of a better word) that exists in the here and now. A seed of an image from a ‘beast’s’ imagination (mind) planted into a one’s fertile mind will need constant watering (reminding). This seed can grow if given the right ‘feed’ and will mature to bear fruit. The fruit produced will be shown by that one’s actions. If one is one with the one true god then he is one in possession of the ability to see truth as opposed to belief and can resist this ‘evil’ seed. If not, the seed will take root and the actions of this one will bear fruit for that ‘beast’ and become one with him. That one will become a ‘second’ ‘beast.’ I do not want to change the subject matter of this thread. The above is stated only as clarifying my use of the words that I used and as a showing of what I see. If you do not see then you do not see; I do not ask for your understanding, nor do I wish for you to understand. Seek truth and one will see, else one will be left to one’s understandings.

  2. #2
    The point was to allude to their tendency to try to pull counterfeits "over our eyes", so to speak. When it comes to 'beginnings' the beginnings of mankind are likely distinct from the beginnings of artificial political entities. When dealing with modern banks, one might be dealing with contracts, covenants or pledges of a system a few steps removed from reality.



    ***
    Lawful money:

    When it comes to lawful money the ability of a bank to make substitutes is apparent. Redemption for lawful money appears to touch upon who is the one that imparts credit to the instrument in question. The act of redemption for lawful money appears to trump the FRB's or the FRB member's imparting credit to the instrument and thusly affects tax liability. However, there is reason to believe that a separate ledgering exists with respect to redemption of lawful money.
    Last edited by allodial; 09-02-11 at 04:36 PM.
    All rights reserved. Without prejudice. No liability assumed. No value assured.

    "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
    "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2
    Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Thess. 5:21.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by allodial View Post
    The point was to allude to their tendency to try to pull counterfeits "over our eyes", so to speak.

    This is on topic as it refers to the images from ‘their’ imagination’



    When it comes to 'beginnings' the beginnings of mankind are likely distinct from the beginnings of artificial political entities.

    This is off topic and I presented what I see above; let us just agree that our perceptions of ‘genesis’ are not the same.


    When dealing with modern banks, one might be dealing with contracts, covenants or pledges of a system a few steps removed from reality.

    I see that one is ‘dealing’ with contracts, covenants, or pledges, but, I see these as one’s own doing (i.e. voluntary). The removal from reality, as I hear you saying, I see as taking advantage of one’s inability to separate truth from belief. In other words, many cannot see the concept behind a common phrase ‘perception is reality.’ Many accept ‘religion’ of others as truth.



    ***
    Lawful money:

    When it comes to lawful money the ability of a bank to make substitutes is apparent.

    I do not see it as ‘their’ ability; I see it as ‘their’ offer. One’s agreement makes the law. Thus their offer (tender) becomes law once accepted and becomes ‘lawful’ ‘money,’ thus one accepts ‘their’ reality as ones own and shows that one is bearing fruit for ‘the beast.’ In true law a ‘loan’ does not transfer absolute title; it only transfers title to possession and use. If I ‘loan’ my lawnmower to a neighbor it does not convey any right to them to transfer or sell my lawnmower to another; they do not have absolute title to it. They were only granted title for possession and use, to be returned on demand. This is what many see as their deposit being with any bank, and a bank would have a difficult time showing that the loan of a lawnmower or money or the fruits of your labor to them was intended by you to convey absolute title as a gift would. I do not allow myself to, in essence; get wrapped up in ‘their’ words’ I look to the concepts (thoughts) behind ‘their’ words.

    Redemption for lawful money appears to touch upon who is the one that imparts credit to the instrument in question.


    I see the instrument as the means of a showing of a ‘meeting of the minds.’ If the instrument is clear as ‘pay to bearer on demand’ than I see the instrument as a true note expressing the debtor, creditor relationship. But, if the instrument does not express what the relationship is between the holder and the issuer, than I can only see this as an instrument of deception, especially if one is led to believe that what they are being given is ‘in kind’ to what they loaned.

    The act of redemption for lawful money appears to trump the FRB's or the FRB member's imparting credit to the instrument and thusly affects tax liability.

    As I stated to Anthony Rock above, “as contracts are fluid and any subsequent action can novate prior actions ‘at the end of the day’ what did you accept as ‘lawful’ ‘money?’” And to you I would ask, ‘at the end of the day’ did you receive anything from the issuer of FRNs that showed they held full title and that they were able to pass full title to you? Would you claim that your possession of FRNs is evidence of full title without a signed agreement from a bank, or any issuer, showing they have a right to pass full title? What I see is that one who ‘loans’ has an inherent right to dictate the conditions of the possessions and use of what is ‘loaned.’ Do you see this or not? Do you see, or not, that in any true court that sees true law one will be judged by his last act as opposed to any claims made by one prior to one’s last act?


    However, there is reason to believe that a separate ledgering exists with respect to redemption of lawful money.

    There may be a reason to believe what you present, but it would be only a matter to a believer.
    xxxxxxxxxx
    Last edited by RThomas; 09-03-11 at 05:17 AM.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by RThomas View Post
    "I have an agreement with BofA such that only lawful money goes in, and only lawful money comes out - no conversion of labor to Fed credit." -Rock Anthony

    "To properly respond to this I would need to see the actual wording. My initial response would be that I see some merit in the ‘no conversion of labor to Fed credit, but, as contracts are fluid and any subsequent action can novate prior actions ‘at the end of the day’ what did you accept as ‘lawful’ ‘money?’" -RThomas
    The agreement can be seen by clicking here.

    Basically, all deposits and withdrawals are subject to my demand for lawful money per 12 USC 411.

    I recently upload an image to the downloads section, signaling a warning against step number 5.

    The agreement I have with Bank of America effectively bypasses step number 5, where those checks are "endorsed by the recipients."

    Effectively, I do not endorse Fed credit for deposits, nor do I endorse Fed credit for withdrawals. What the bank does in between those deposits and withdrawals is not my "direct" concern. I would like to think they adhere to banking laws and do not co-mingle lawful money deposits with Fed credit. If the bank does indeed co-mingle, then the bank has to suffer the consequences if it is caught!
    Last edited by Rock Anthony; 09-04-11 at 02:42 AM.

  5. #5
    Rock Anthony,

    This one has obligations that do not allow a complete response. It is late here. This one will respond more completely when this one can.

    The more pertinent question this one asked of you is 'at the end of the day' what did you accept as lawful money? Despite your declarations, what was your final act, taking Specie or FRN's? I see the phrase 'at the end of the day' as conceptually holding great significance.

    RThomas

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by RThomas View Post
    Rock Anthony,

    This one has obligations that do not allow a complete response. It is late here. This one will respond more completely when this one can.

    The more pertinent question this one asked of you is 'at the end of the day' what did you accept as lawful money? Despite your declarations, what was your final act, taking Specie or FRN's? I see the phrase 'at the end of the day' as conceptually holding great significance.

    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.
    Last edited by Rock Anthony; 09-04-11 at 08:32 PM.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Rock Anthony View Post
    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'.
    All rights reserved. Without prejudice. No liability assumed. No value assured.

    "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
    "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2
    Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Thess. 5:21.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Rock Anthony View Post
    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
    Last edited by RThomas; 09-05-11 at 10:08 AM.

  9. #9

    Cool At the end of the day...

    Quote Originally Posted by RThomas View Post
    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
    Last edited by Rock Anthony; 09-05-11 at 02:05 PM.

  10. #10
    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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •