A regular deposit of lawful money.

[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]

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.

[Guest]

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?

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.

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".

SPECIAL DEPOSIT. A deposit made of a particular thing with the depositary: it is distinguished from an irregular deposit.
2. When a thing has been specially deposited with a depositary, the title to it remains with the depositor, and if it should be lost, the loss will fall upon him. When, on the contrary, the deposit is irregular, as where money is deposited in a bank, the title to which is transferred to the bank, if it be, lost, the loss will be borne by the bank. This will result from the same principle; the loss will fall, in both instances, on the owner of the thing, according to the rule res perit domino. See 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 1 054.

[allodial]

This could be the stuff of a separate thread....

"...the bank being merely a debtor may discharge its indebtedness to the depositor in any currency that is legal tender, although the deposit was made in gold, unless there was a special agreement to repay in like currency."

[RThomas]

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

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.



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".

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.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

[allodial]

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.

[RThomas]

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

[Guest]

"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!

[RThomas]

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

[David Merrill]

Thank you everybody. I think this may well be a breakthrough in understanding what the bankers see from that perspective.

http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-39904/TS-528341.mp3

Form 1040 example.

[allodial]

Thank you everybody. I think this may well be a breakthrough in understanding what the bankers see from that perspective.

http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-39904/TS-528341.mp3

Form 1040 example.

RThomas the excerpt from one of their attorneys does not constitute my agreement or acceptance of their perspective. It would be a very irrational presumption. But knowing what is going through the mind of the 'beast' holding a double-barrel shotgun against your head can be insightful. The Soviets were well-known for underscoring how important it was to known one's adversary. I have no bank accounts, social security numbers, last name, first name, middle name. I'm neither employed, unemployed or employable. I live on private land. AFAIK the only 'address' I have is my name. I treat the 'artificial entities' for what they are. At one point along the way, I was part of putting pressure on Jefferson County, Mo. jailers to make sure Alfred Adask was treated rightly back when they were unlawfully holding him. Relevantly Alfred's knowing the distinction between reality and attorney-imagined things (i.e. knowing the truth) is what got him off the hook so to speak. The line of distinction between reality and attorney-created imaginary worlds is more of a wall or a hedge.

I avoid their courts. I avoid carrying State ID or State driver license or the like. I am unaware of making any presumptions about anyone associated with this forum. Thanks.

That said, redemption for lawful money (a wonderful remedy that goes along with knowing who you are and/ir what your name is) appears to be a kind of origination of credit 'into a check' whereby one prevents the FRB from treating you as a mere endorser. As stated before, IMHO its not so much about the physical silver or gold as it is about the honesty and fairness with which we deal with one another--just weights and balances. The notion being that lawful money U.S. dollars being pegged to gold regardless of what they are made of. If one reads the excerpt from the book on banking I figure one should see that it encourages and underscores the importance of redemption for lawful money.

#1 "Redeemed for lawful money" does not appear to be a deposit but insteads invokes the treasury side of the FRB or of the FRB member--therefore the 'general deposit' might be avoided thereby (that is the point of the snippet from earlier--which was not intended to promulgate or push their ideas over the remedy but to show WHY one MUST assert remedy!).
#2 "Deposited in exchange for credit on account" evidences an exchange where there would be no 'increase' --no tax.
#3 Blank endorsement appears to allow them to STEAL the check and pretend they gave you something for nothing--so you get taxed. Yay? What fun is that!?

The point: if one wants remedy redeem for lawful money or denominate transactions in lawful money. My posts are aimed to push the level of comprehension to get folks way beyond mere emotionalistic copy and paste or emulation to actually being able to be a light to others.

Anyone with sense I figure should read the following



and if they are out to seek remedy, they WOULD AVOID GENERAL DEPOSITS LIKE THE PLAGUE. The truth is part of the remedy.

http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-39904/TS-528341.mp3

Special deposit vs. general deposit is exactly what I was aiming to contrast to the edification of all! Very informative recording. Thanks for the post!

[Guest]

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.