Currently being denied my deposit with demand to redeem lawful money

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Michael Joseph]

A demand for lawful money is a claim upon that which relief can be granted. It is the proper application of law. However don't think that the Bank Stores are stocked full of intelligent persons who understand all aspects of their business. That is why they have a legal department - just like any other business these days.

The law of course is a benefit to those who make its use. The trustees are tasked to carry out the lawful demands of the beneficiary - unless of course the beneficiary has suffered a CIVIL DEATH - come he is the heir let us kill him and the estate shall be ours - and the greedy trustees have SEIZED [by force] upon the inheritance.

Hi welcome to customer service, may I help you. Please give me the account name and number so we can address your concern. A covenant in death. A mark of a beast organization.

To say "its my money" is a falsehood. In fact it torts the entire system of death. You are presumed to be acting for an estate [the deceased infant] - therefore you act in and for another. To claim "its mine" is a tort against the triple crown and therefore its grantor the Pontiff. You may not like it but then again many play the game [myself included] without any idea of the rules. But we are learning to distinguish the subtle nature of the flaw in the original claim.

Seems a rigged game when one asks to know the rules and is told to purchase a mouthpiece or teacher. One responds - I cannot afford to know - nevertheless ignorance is no defense.

Shall I declare myself now in your presence?

Regards,
MJ

[Robert Henry]

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.

Thanks for clarifying, Doug and we are in agreement, for the most part.

Perhaps I have failed to express my position clearly, please forgive me if that is so. The gist of it, for me, is that once the Notice and Demand has been properly served, posted and published the code is fulfilled and therefore all is redeemed by default. The Notice and Demand is your substantive evidence, already in the record, that demand has been made and the redeemed checks show that you have only been using lawful money. Overwhelming evidence, in my opinion.

I hope this is clarifying.

[doug555]

Thanks for clarifying, Doug and we are in agreement, for the most part.

Perhaps I have failed to express my position clearly, please forgive me if that is so. The gist of it, for me, is that once the Notice and Demand has been properly served, posted and published the code is fulfilled and therefore all is redeemed by default. The Notice and Demand is your substantive evidence, already in the record, that demand has been made and the redeemed checks show that you have only been using lawful money. Overwhelming evidence, in my opinion.

I hope this is clarifying.

Yes, thanks! I was unaware that you already had on record a "Notice and Demand".

Then that stamp "Redeemed Lawful Money" makes sense in that it indicates a STATUS rather than a DEMAND.

I was just concerned that one might be relying on a stamp that only established a STATUS NOTICE, instead of a stamp that expressly established a LAWFUL MONEY DEMAND record.

If only such Notices were recorded, eventually one would have to substantiate that Notice with the actual associated Demand record being on file somewhere in the public.

I do not rely on a separate "Notice and Demand". I rely on the handwritten Demand that I use on every deposit slip & check that I issue, and that such constitutes Non-Hearsay Evidence (FRE 803.6.B).

Thanks for providing that needed context.