Currently being denied my deposit with demand to redeem lawful money

[doug555]

Do you find a flaw in my interpretation?

Are you accusing me of purposeful "effective" unnecessary over-complication; as if my intents are less than honorable?

Here I thought I was helping doug555 hone his disclaimer.

The "over-complication" is the presumption that I am referring to in that stamp.

It complicates the issue, as previously explained.

Thanks for your interpretations.

[BLBereans]

The "over-complication" is the presumption that I am referring to in that stamp.

It complicates the issue, as previously explained.

Thanks for your interpretations.

You are welcome.

That is how I view it as well. The over-complication comes from anything more than forming an accurate record of the demand of lawful money.

If someone believes he/she can redeem something he/she did not issue in the first place, that is where complication may ensue. At the very least, it demonstrates a lack of understanding regarding who is authorized and or required to do what relating to 12USC411. This may prove to be the difference between being left alone and having to defend against false assumptions of liability to the point of interference of access to one's funds.

Glad that you see this as well.

[itsmymoney]

You are welcome.

That is how I view it as well. The over-complication comes from anything more than forming an accurate record of the demand of lawful money.

If someone believes he/she can redeem something he/she did not issue in the first place, that is where complication may ensue. At the very least, it demonstrates a lack of understanding regarding who is authorized and or required to do what relating to 12USC411. This may prove to be the difference between being left alone and having to defend against false assumptions of liability to the point of interference of access to one's funds.

Glad that you see this as well.

So what Doug555 and you appear to be saying, is that the 'redeemed' verbiage is open to interpretation as to WHOM and WHEN the 'redemption' occurred. I believe the INTENT is key here. It would seem that INTENT carries much weight in law. 'Willingness', i.e. INTENT. It's obvious to most that the INTENT of the language behind 'Redeemed in Lawful Money' MEANS, that 'I currently and in the future demand lawful money for this instrument WHENEVER the system (the bank/Treasury) must do so'. Unfortunately, this 'technicality' could bite us all in the ass if 'they' pull a Pete Hendrickson-style assault on those who RILM. For example, Johnny Cash has 8 years running. Who's to say they would not bust his 'chops' at some point? Johnny Cash, are you SO certain this could never happen to you? I think this is part of or most of Doug555's point. ANY 'fallacy' in our attempts/INTENT to execute our Rights will be take advantage of by 'them' if possible. Would anyone disagree?

I think the INTENT here is a huge factor in OUR favor. But 'they' appear to be able to rig any 'sure thing' in their favor.

[Robert Henry]

The "over-complication" is the presumption that I am referring to in that stamp.

It complicates the issue, as previously explained.

Thanks for your interpretations.

It would appear that the presumption, and hence over-complication, here is yours, Doug: "...after which the system is presumed to have the duty..."

Again, my question is; what evidence do you have of this?

What evidence do you have that anything happens in "the system", as you describe it, upon demand? What act does the teller in "the system" commit in performance of this duty you presume "them" to have, before handing me the FRN's due from the non-endorsed check I have provided them?

The redemption is IN the demand. Demand is made, therefore the notes are redeemed. Very simple. Unless one wishes to over-complicate the issue.

[Robert Henry]

I believe the INTENT is key here.

Well said. And if the proper method of serving, posting and publishing one's demand is used, along with the transactional record of redeemed checks, proving otherwise will be most difficult.

I believe that unless and until 12 USC 411 is somehow repealed or over-turned, this method properly executed will continue to yield success.

[itsmymoney]

It would appear that the presumption, and hence over-complication, here is yours, Doug: "...after which the system is presumed to have the duty..."

Again, my question is; what evidence do you have of this?

What evidence do you have that anything happens in "the system", as you describe it, upon demand? What act does the teller in "the system" commit in performance of this duty you presume "them" to have, before handing me the FRN's due from the non-endorsed check I have provided them?

The redemption is IN the demand. Demand is made, therefore the notes are redeemed. Very simple. Unless one wishes to over-complicate the issue.

RH, see my prior post above. All I think D555 is saying is, DO NOT leave any stone unturned for 'them' to un-turn for you, valid or not. His point is technically a valid one. The DEMAND is made at the time of redemption or at the proper time 'from this point forward', not presumed to be 'already executed'. It is certainly 'splitting hairs', but ANY crack in your language or execution will surely be 'used against you in a court of law' as 'they' like to say.

I don't think D555's intent is to over-complicate things, rather just to make people be more aware of WHAT they are doing and saying in a legal/lawful sense.

[Robert Henry]

RH, see my prior post above. All I think D555 is saying is, DO NOT leave any stone unturned for 'them' to un-turn for you, valid or not. His point is technically a valid one. The DEMAND is made at the time of redemption or at the proper time 'from this point forward', not presumed to be 'already executed'. It is certainly 'splitting hairs', but ANY crack in your language or execution will surely be 'used against you in a court of law' as 'they' like to say.

I don't think D555's intent is to over-complicate things, rather just to make people be more aware of WHAT they are doing and saying in a legal/lawful sense.

Thanks IMM. If I have led you, or others, to believe that I feel the issue is being deliberately and/or maliciously complicated, please forgive me.

I believe, however, and perhaps this is the root of it, that you have it backwards: the redemption occurs at the time of demand. As in the last post I made, my comprehension is that the redemption is IN the demand. It is self-executing.

[itsmymoney]

Well said. And if the proper method of serving, posting and publishing one's demand is used, along with the transactional record of redeemed checks, proving otherwise will be most difficult.

I believe that unless and until 12 USC 411 is somehow repealed or over-turned, this method properly executed will continue to yield success.

RH,

Well said as well. For example, in January 2013 I submitted an Affidavit of my INTENT to redeem lawful money for (perhaps ill-decided at that time) basically all 'NET pay' transactions, although not with that exact language. It was a flaw in my demand, thinking that I could not RILM any OTHER (besides NET pay) deductions/transactions from my GROSS pay (I since believe you can RILM 'ALL'). Regardless, the INTENT was there from the start to demand lawful money. So in my particular case, my checks and deposit slips for the past 2 years have the 'Redeemed' (past tense) language on those documents. But, if IRS/Treasury/Govco wants to bitch about that, then I believe I have GOOD standing of my INTENT (from January 2013 going forward) of redeeming 'present tense' pay in lawful money. All things being equal, I do not think there can be much debate about this - of course ANYTHING can be rigged.

[doug555]

It would appear that the presumption, and hence over-complication, here is yours, Doug: "...after which the system is presumed to have the duty..."

Again, my question is; what evidence do you have of this?

What evidence do you have that anything happens in "the system", as you describe it, upon demand? What act does the teller in "the system" commit in performance of this duty you presume "them" to have, before handing me the FRN's due from the non-endorsed check I have provided them?

The redemption is IN the demand. Demand is made, therefore the notes are redeemed. Very simple. Unless one wishes to over-complicate the issue.

I have no evidence. But then that is not my concern or domain.

The only thing I need to do is properly document my demands for lawful money for all transactions, and report same on the 1040 annually.

The evidence of the demands is all that matters to me, and that it is done without "overstatement", such as saying the FRNs are already redeemed.

It seems to me that one making such a claim is also required to provide evidence of same.

Someday, such a demand for evidence may be presented. Saying the evidence is "IN the demand" may not be enough.

[BLBereans]

The main objective is, I believe, to comprehend and understand what one decides to denote on instruments so as to avoid liability and/or interference of access to necessary funds.

Placing "redeemed in lawful money" on instruments is not a silver bullet impediment to those who work for the IRS (neither is the "demand is made..." verbiage for that matter).

However, if one's stance becomes, "Those FRNs are already redeemed" rather than "My demand is on the record" when faced with hard opposition, there is a potential for a "loophole" attack since one is presuming something that is NOT expressly written in the code being invoked. Remember it is NOT your language; it is legal code language.

That is why "lawful money demanded for all transactions" leaves less, if any, room for a "loophole" attack. That is all I am trying to convey which is why I also corrected doug555 regarding 12USC95a(2); there is NO demand language in that code, it is expressed that any conveyance, assignment, payment, etc. shall be a full acquittance and discharge.

Again, it is not we who acquit or discharge, yet that is what is expressly required when a conveyance, assignment, payment, etc. is made to and for the account of the United States.

Whether it is done or not again is not our concern; we only form the lawful record which dismisses any liability claim as relates to actions done pursuant to that section.