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.