A regular deposit of lawful money.

[David Merrill]

Thank you.

[RThomas]

I want to add another thought to this thread. That thought is that demanding lawful money to be returned to you via a non-endorsement may not be the same as demanding via declaration or a ‘special’ (think of jurisdiction) endorsement that the fruits of your labor be recognized as equivalent to lawful (substantive) money and that it is not a loan with no repayment expected in kind (i.e. same ‘specie,’ not the same ‘sum’ in other money or currency (an irregular deposit)). If the presumption is that your deposit is ‘irregular’ and ‘general’ than a demand for lawful money may not rebut the presumption given to your purpose of ‘deposit.’ In other words one should demand what the purpose of their deposit is (safekeeping) where you retain title and then demand the same ‘money’ or specie in return. This would rebut any presumption of a loan being made with unspecified repayment terms, which would leave any bank the right to determine repayment and the form of money to repay with (other money). If you do not define your deposit than the presumption that your deposit is ‘general’ stands and a demand for lawful money to be repaid is without merit and results in other money (debt money), hence, one will still be given FRN’s. Conceptually one may need to separate a demand for lawful money to be returned on a deposit, from the demand that your deposit (the fruits of your ‘substantive’ labor) be recognized as the same (equivalent) to the agreement in ‘substantive’ ‘dollars’ on the front of your check and not an equivalent ‘sum’ of ‘other’ forms of money denominated in 'dollars'.

P.S. What I share above is merely what I see (my thoughts from my imagination). It is is not intended to say that you must see the same (accept my images).