A regular deposit of lawful money.

[RThomas]

I believe I have answered that question; I see NO conversion when the demand for lawful money is made. You believe that the acceptance of FRNs UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE nullifies any prior demand or intent. I disagree with your assessment in that regard.



In a way, your gripe (according to your view) is with the FED and the "official" banks that operate under its system.



You say that banks have no business issuing FRNs to you or the average "Joe Sixpack" (JS) because "their" law prohibits that.

The US code which is held out to be the foundation for their acts states this, not this one.

You also do not believe that JS is a quasi-FED bank, or treated like one, since there exists no overt wording of law or treatise spelling that out.


And yet, everyday JS receives FRNs when he brings a check to a bank to cash. How do you explain that?





Do you wish to bring charges against every bank in the US for falsely and unlawfully issuing FRNs to everday people who are not FED banks, or agents thereof, according to their law?




Maybe you should bring that action in a court of competent jurisdiction and see how you make out. I for one would be extremely interested and curious as to the response you get.


You appear to believe that such cannot happen. This one is not a believer.

The contract with the FED which applied to official FED banks, as written in the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 Section 16, by obvious deduction was opened to the general population in 1933 whereby their signature endorsment created the bond behind the elasticity of the FED's currency and credit enabling the FED to keep their charter intact and to continue to grow their stranglehold upon the assets of the United States of America via debt.



How else can you explain your stance that when one receives or accepts FRNs, it obligates the acceptor to all the rules and regulations governing the private credit of the Federal Reserve?




My opinion is that conversion only takes place when one signature endorses a check in the conventional way we were all taught by those we trusted in.

**RThomas**

[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-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-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.


From http://www.21silver.com/?show=merril...rve_act_remedy

Therefore, one should pay attention only to how Congress defines lawful money.

US v. Rickman, 638 F.2d 182:

In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money.

In a similar case,

US v. Ware, 308 F.2d 400:

United States notes shall be lawful money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt.

US Notes are lawful money per the agreement and definitions of Congress.

FRNs function as US Notes per the Treasury.

[RThomas]

This is just a quick note to all that this one has not abandoned this thread. This one’s obligations are paramount to this one and this thread is not an obligation this one holds. As this one’s word is this one’s bond, this one will return to this thread and soon.


This one’s short and abridged response is that there appears to be confusion between ‘lawful money’ and ‘title’ within the offer of ‘any’ such ‘money.’

RThomas

[Guest]

Neither have I abandoned. The obligation that brings the regular paycheck has consumed my time.Perhaps the endeavor to clear the confusion is why this thread is so interesting.

RThomas

I'll interject my thoughtful response after my other obligations are satisfied.

Thanks, Anthony Joseph, joining the conversation.

[Axe]

applying for,: Application for your account
subscribing to,: Agreement by signature
buying stock in,: Accepting FRNs
acceptance from the Board of Governors: Automatic

Unless you can cite specific criteria as outlined by the Board of Governors in
considering or approving, the application can be approved "upon receiving".

"This one" sees this as a jurisdictional matter. Are you placing yourself under a private set of rules
by merely "using" FRNs? I believe so. Ignorance of the rules is no excuse.

If I am on someone's land and the owner doesn't want me to be, I am trespassing, whether I realized
it was his land or not.

If I am "summoned" to court, and report that it is my name on the summons,
the action of me showing up has shown that I am placing myself under that jurisdiction, no?

What we have is a system of control that "everyone" is under through coercion and ignorance.

If I identify myself as a "Person" in the wrong room, I am confessing to be whatever "they"
define a "Person" to be. The fact that "I" may have and understand the word "person" to mean
something else matters not. I have confessed.

If "they" have defined a FED Bank to mean the same thing a "person" means, then in that room
I've just confessed to being a FED Bank. If Fed Bank means anyone that has a bank account,
or anyone that files a return, or anyone that has ever identified themselves with a social security
number, then that's what I have confessed to, whether that's what I understood or not.

RThomas, I find your findings and thesis compelling but incomplete. From reading your posts, I'm
gathering that your position is that anything you receive from your labor is lawful money. That's
important, because if you believe you are going to the bank with lawful money already, then your
assertion for title makes sense.

What I need, to come in line with what you're saying is your proof that what you have been paid by
your employer or your customers "is" lawful money".

If you are an employee, you have filed a W2, no?

Does the business that pays you do business in FRNs? If a business, do customers buy what
you sell in FRNs?

If you are a business man, you have been licensed to do business by a state and city/county. In the
process of doing business either as an employee or a business owner, there are many forms, signatures
and hoops to jump through before you receive any green (money).

Say you are correct and that all you need to do is hold "title" to your deposit. How do you prove that
your deposit was lawful money to begin with? The way I see it, there is just as much burden of proof
on you to show that, as there is on anyone to show proof that they received lawful money rather than
Fed Notes from the bank after their restricted endorsement.

To follow your own standard (set up by you in this thread), please make your case that your labor has
only generated lawful money, as it would be in a deposition, where only yes/no answers may be required.

I suspect that you are an attorney of some sort (apologies if I am mistaken) so hopefully you will forgive
my ignorance, but please also cite the source that states "if I respond to a name, that makes it my name".

For clarity, I want to emphasize that I'm not hostile. I, like you I suspect am simply on a journey for the truth
and wish nothing more than to secure freedom from slavery. Thank you for starting this thread, and thanks
to all who have participated.

Tom

[doug555]

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?//”

[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.

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".

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?

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]

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]