A regular deposit of lawful money.

[Anthony Joseph]

The fact the you see lawful money a certain way does not mean that is how the law or others see it. Something that has value can be defined in any number of ways; if I can exchange a redeemed FRN for eggs or milk then it has value as a form of money which can be exhanged for goods and services. Same as a box of rocks, if someone accepts it as having value, then it does.

I do not think you are reading my posts with complete comprehension since you continue to infer that I suggest the ACT applies to your fictional "Joe Sixpack". It does not. What I say is that the paper issued by the Federal Reserve is redeemable in lawful money if the demand is made. The demand of lawful money exempts "Joe Sixpack" and anyone else form the entire ACT and the obligations therein.

You do not offer an explanation of your view about the line "They shall be redeemed..." other than to say it is "irrelevant" or "nothing". You question the validity of remedy as explained and practiced by some and yet you cannot offer an explanation as to your view of what the line means. You suggest that the remedy offered here is not valid since your view of lawful money differs from what is promoted here on redeeming lawful money as per 12USC411. By that same logic, your view that it is NOT remedy is invalid since you do not explain the meaning of the line in question (They shall be redeemed...) which you say proves your point.

Offer to us a different coherent meaning to that line in 12USC411 and perhaps we can discuss your view further. Without that, you are just questioning a form of remedy without any basis or explanation of your own regarding the specific line of the ACT that some view as the written in and required remedy from it.

Other than that, we can agree to disagree.

[RThomas]

The fact the you see lawful money a certain way does not mean that is how the law or others see it. Something that has value can be defined in any number of ways; if I can exchange a redeemed FRN for eggs or milk then it has value as a form of money which can be exhanged for goods and services. Same as a box of rocks, if someone accepts it as having value, then it does.

This one sees that lawful money must come with free and clear title. This one sees that lawful money will retain intrinsic value in spite of any bank collapses, Government collapses, inflationary effects of other ‘forms’ of money, or any other monetary system collapse. Can you show that your ‘redeemed’ FRNs, in whatever form imagined, in any of the aforementioned situations would still have purchasing power for goods and services? Can you show that the value of your ‘redeemed’ lawful money is not still subject to the acts of others?

I do not think you are reading my posts with complete comprehension since you continue to infer that I suggest the ACT applies to your fictional "Joe Sixpack". It does not. What I say is that the paper issued by the Federal Reserve is redeemable in lawful money if the demand is made. The demand of lawful money exempts "Joe Sixpack" and anyone else form the entire ACT and the obligations therein.

I appreciate your concern as to this one’s reading comprehension, thank you. We agree that the ‘ACT,’ as you say (I assume you mean ‘their’ code at 12 § 411; please correct me if needed), does not apply to “Joe Sixpack.” This is the reason for this one’s prior question, “If one does not want to be under the ‘PRIVATE’ law of the Federal reserve system, than why would one claim rights from it?” You say it does not apply on one hand and then say but this part does. This one cannot see your logic.

You do not offer an explanation of your view about the line "They shall be redeemed..." other than to say it is "irrelevant" or "nothing". You question the validity of remedy as explained and practiced by some and yet you cannot offer an explanation as to your view of what the line means.

Asked and answered. From post #82

“It is in there as remedy for the ‘member’ ‘banks’ who ‘shall receive’ FRNs.”

And here from post #80:

“To this one it means absolutely nothing. This one sees it as irrelevant. This one is not a Federal reserve bank, a member of the Federal reserve system, or a Federal reserve agent. This one is questioning how these entities can get away with using Federal reserve notes beyond the purpose as clearly stated and finalized with “and for no other purpose.” Can you show where in 12 § 411 or elsewhere in the code that there is any statement that this section applies to this one or an average Joe Sixpack?”

Would you agree that in reading any sentence in a section of code that one must look at the context of the whole section to ascertain the intended meaning of any single sentence?

You suggest that the remedy offered here is not valid since your view of lawful money differs from what is promoted here on redeeming lawful money as per 12USC411. By that same logic, your view that it is NOT remedy is invalid since you do not explain the meaning of the line in question (They shall be redeemed...) which you say proves your point.

Please show where this one’s words are as you claim them to be.

This is all this one has said in relation to David’s ‘remedy:’

“but this thread has progressed as to directly contradict to his theory of 'redemption.'”

This one’s meaning is that this one’s findings within ‘their’ words do not show support for his ‘remedy.’

This one then followed with this:

“This one is merely seeking to see the basis for claims that a demand for lawful money can be sustained 'after the fact' (ex post facto) of acceptance of 'other' 'money.'”



Offer to us a different coherent meaning to that line in 12USC411 and perhaps we can discuss your view further. Without that, you are just questioning a form of remedy without any basis or explanation of your own regarding the specific line of the ACT that some view as the written in and required remedy from it.

This one has not disputed the plain meaning of the line you refer to. This one does not see that line of that section of code applies to anyone but the mentioned banks. This one has read that line in context with the section as a whole. It would be more fruitful to this one if you show where your vision is derived from. This one only sees you as appearing to project empty claims from your imagination and asking this one to believe. Can you show the basis for your claims and correct how you appear to this one if what this one sees is not true.

Other than that, we can agree to disagree.

You only answered one question and we agreed. I have responded directly to all that you have brought forward. Are you willing to do the same?

RThomas
****

[Anthony Joseph]

Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph

This one sees that lawful money must come with free and clear title. This one sees that lawful money will retain intrinsic value in spite of any bank collapses, Government collapses, inflationary effects of other ‘forms’ of money, or any other monetary system collapse. Can you show that your ‘redeemed’ FRNs, in whatever form imagined, in any of the aforementioned situations would still have purchasing power for goods and services? Can you show that the value of your ‘redeemed’ lawful money is not still subject to the acts of others?



I appreciate your concern as to this one’s reading comprehension, thank you. We agree that the ‘ACT,’ as you say (I assume you mean ‘their’ code at 12 § 411; please correct me if needed), does not apply to “Joe Sixpack.” This is the reason for this one’s prior question, “If one does not want to be under the ‘PRIVATE’ law of the Federal reserve system, than why would one claim rights from it?” You say it does not apply on one hand and then say but this part does. This one cannot see your logic.


Asked and answered. From post #82

“It is in there as remedy for the ‘member’ ‘banks’ who ‘shall receive’ FRNs.”

And here from post #80:

“To this one it means absolutely nothing. This one sees it as irrelevant. This one is not a Federal reserve bank, a member of the Federal reserve system, or a Federal reserve agent. This one is questioning how these entities can get away with using Federal reserve notes beyond the purpose as clearly stated and finalized with “and for no other purpose.” Can you show where in 12 § 411 or elsewhere in the code that there is any statement that this section applies to this one or an average Joe Sixpack?”

Would you agree that in reading any sentence in a section of code that one must look at the context of the whole section to ascertain the intended meaning of any single sentence?


Please show where this one’s words are as you claim them to be.

This is all this one has said in relation to David’s ‘remedy:’

“but this thread has progressed as to directly contradict to his theory of 'redemption.'”

This one’s meaning is that this one’s findings within ‘their’ words do not show support for his ‘remedy.’

This one then followed with this:

“This one is merely seeking to see the basis for claims that a demand for lawful money can be sustained 'after the fact' (ex post facto) of acceptance of 'other' 'money.'”



This one has not disputed the plain meaning of the line you refer to. This one does not see that line of that section of code applies to anyone but the mentioned banks. This one has read that line in context with the section as a whole. It would be more fruitful to this one if you show where your vision is derived from. This one only sees you as appearing to project empty claims from your imagination and asking this one to believe. Can you show the basis for your claims and correct how you appear to this one if what this one sees is not true.


You only answered one question and we agreed. I have responded directly to all that you have brought forward. Are you willing to do the same?

RThomas****

Well, I think we can agree on another point: I have no faith in the actual paper or it's sustaining value over time. That would be misguided trust in a man made system when that system's currency was created to lose value over time (fractional reserve lending - improper and false balances).

US Notes are lawful money and also fiat. So your definition of what lawful money is does not coincide with the law regarding these notes. US Notes are NOT issued by the Federal Reserve and therefore NOT subject to any of the rules, regulations, obligations or liabilities including the RETURN OF INCOME REQUIREMENT associated with the endorsed use of the FED's private credit and currency. If "They shall redeemed in lawful money..." means any lawful money than US Notes fit that "bill" (pun).

Your point that only a "Federal Reserve Bank" is able to use FRNs and are therefore be subject to the code and ACT thereof, is true. However, you do not see the subtlety and obfuscation of the system that treats ANYONE who signature endorses the FED's private credit on the back of their paychecks as a Federal Reserve Bank. How else could they incur the tax liability associated with the Federal Reserve's "money system"? Unfortunately for most, the privilege of use of private credit results in one being treated as a "FED BANK" by being subject to RETURN OF INCOME liability as opposed to other sanctioned "FED BANKS" (any bank that has an account with the FED) who gain the most profit from that use by lending upon usury and fractional reserve banking. The FED doesn't care about Joe Sixpack's incompetence or complacency in that regard; if you don't profit as much as others... tough PAY ME MY TAX!

Techincally, if one forms and keeps the full and accurate record of one's demand for lawful money, the notes they hold should hold their value in the sense that they should be treated as US Notes being on par with the $42.22/oz gold being earmarked by the Treasury at that value on the WORLD BANK/IMF's international market. Do I have faith in that recognition by those who are bound by law to recognize that? NO. I have no faith in any paper as having or sustaining value over time. My only faith is in the Ever-living Creator above who is in total control and provides the ability to be redeemed to anyone who truly desires it. It matters not what the situation or circumstances are created by men; His sons and daughters have redemption waiting and available when they choose to accept that gift. Redemption translates in many ways, in my view, according to the times one lives in.

In this case, The FED ACT of 1913 codified at 12USC411 provides remedy from the tax liability associated with the endorsed use of FED's private credit. That is all. In 1933 the contract with the FED was opened to all citizens who were persuaded to change the way they deposited their salary checks...

Franklin D. Roosevelt after the Banker’s Holiday in 1933 on March 6th during the address at the White House Governors’ Conference.

“Recognized Government bonds are as safe as Government currency. They have the same credit back of them. And, therefore, if we can persuade people all through the country, when their salary checks come in, to deposit them in new accounts, which will be held in trust and kept in one of the new forms I have mentioned, we shall have made progress.”

Quoting from the Congressional Record of 1933;

“…The money will be worth 100 cents on the dollar, because it is backed by the credit of the Nation. It will represent a mortgage on all the homes and other property of all the people in the Nation.”

Those who identify themselves with the full or legal name are the "FED BANKS" who choose to redeem in lawful money. Those who do not identify themselves with the full or legal name either direct the trust to redeem lawful money or they only accept cash which is redeemed lawful money since the holder never bonded him/herself behind the potential elastic increase of the currency. That paper, then, is essentially an IOU slip from the United States of America which people may, or may not, place value in. Currently most people do and one can exchange that paper for good and services.

[RThomas]

[QUOTE=Anthony Joseph;4419]Well, I think we can agree on another point: I have no faith in the actual paper or it's sustaining value over time. That would be misguided trust in a man made system when that system's currency was created to lose value over time (fractional reserve lending - improper and false balances).

US Notes are lawful money and also fiat. So your definition of what lawful money is does not coincide with the law regarding these notes. US Notes are NOT issued by the Federal Reserve and therefore NOT subject to any of the rules, regulations, obligations or liabilities including the RETURN OF INCOME REQUIREMENT associated with the endorsed use of the FED's private credit and currency. If "They shall redeemed in lawful money..." means any lawful money than US Notes fit that "bill" (pun).

Your definition of lawful money (i.e. US currency notes and coins) does not fit ‘their’ definition as stated in the coinage act of 1965 and ‘their’ subsequent act in 1983 (Pub. L. 97-258). These acts reduced the status of your ‘redeemed US notes’ to mere legal tender which is not the same as lawful money or even a representation of lawful money. They have been brought down to the same status as FRNs with no title conveyed. They can in deed be fiat ‘money’ if one subjects to a blind trust in ‘them.’ Why would one accept a representation of ‘lawful money’ that is still subject to the acts of the one issuing it?



Your point that only a "Federal Reserve Bank" is able to use FRNs and are therefore be subject to the code and ACT thereof, is true. However, you do not see the subtlety and obfuscation of the system that treats ANYONE who signature endorses the FED's private credit on the back of their paychecks as a Federal Reserve Bank. How else could they incur the tax liability associated with the Federal Reserve's "money system"? Unfortunately for most, the privilege of use of private credit results in one being treated as a "FED BANK" by being subject to RETURN OF INCOME liability as opposed to other sanctioned "FED BANKS" (any bank that has an account with the FED) who gain the most profit from that use by lending upon usury and fractional reserve banking. The FED doesn't care about Joe Sixpack's incompetence or complacency in that regard; if you don't profit as much as others... tough PAY ME MY TAX!

If ‘their' system ‘treats’ anyone as a Federal reserve bank than you should be able to show a treatise from ‘them’ expressing this. This one has searched ‘their’ ‘law’ and can only see the projected requirements for becoming such a bank (see: 12 § 221/221a) within ‘their’ ‘system’. Thus, ‘their’ requirements would effectively rebut any presumption that ‘they’ may ‘treat’ anyone as a Federal reserve bank. This one cannot see any subtle obfuscation of ‘their’ projection of ‘their’ claim of law. This one sees that the grey matter in this one’s head and the readers of this thread are most likely the same as yours (thus this one’s capacities are no greater than any one other). Do you claim a greater level of insight and/or that the grey matter in your head is superior to all watching this thread?

Techincally, if one forms and keeps the full and accurate record of one's demand for lawful money, the notes they hold should hold their value in the sense that they should be treated as US Notes being on par with the $42.22/oz gold being earmarked by the Treasury at that value on the WORLD BANK/IMF's international market. Do I have faith in that recognition by those who are bound by law to recognize that? NO. I have no faith in any paper as having or sustaining value over time. My only faith is in the Ever-living Creator above who is in total control and provides the ability to be redeemed to anyone who truly desires it. It matters not what the situation or circumstances are created by men; His sons and daughters have redemption waiting and available when they choose to accept that gift. Redemption translates in many ways, in my view, according to the times one lives in.

‘Should be.’ are words that this one can only see as a projection (or as you say via post #85 an offer/promotion of belief). If as you offer and promote that such ‘redeemed money’ is on par with gold as measured in dollars (one dollar equals 1oz/ 42.22, as you claim) , than can you show that your ‘redeemed money’ has the same purchasing power of gold at this claimed weight as opposed to the market value of FRNs as measured in the same weight of dollars of gold ( in the same kind of money as stated on one’s check or the face value of a FRN you say your ‘non-endorsement’ allows you to imagine to be the same as a US note?) Or does your ‘redeemed money’ only hold the purchasing power equivalent to that of a ‘rediscounted’ commercial paper currency as FRNs are declared by ‘them’ to be (see: Federal reserve act of 1913)?

In this case, The FED ACT of 1913 codified at 12USC411 provides remedy from the tax liability associated with the endorsed use of FED's private credit. That is all. In 1933 the contract with the FED was opened to all citizens who were persuaded to change the way they deposited their salary checks...

Franklin D. Roosevelt after the Banker’s Holiday in 1933 on March 6th during the address at the White House Governors’ Conference.

“Recognized Government bonds are as safe as Government currency. They have the same credit back of them. And, therefore, if we can persuade people all through the country, when their salary checks come in, to deposit them in new accounts, which will be held in trust and kept in one of the new forms I have mentioned, we shall have made progress.”

No, this one does not see that the act creating the Federal reserve system provided remedy to anyone outside of their creation nor was the system opened to all via Federal reserve notes. The authorization for issuance and the purpose for are clearly stated. And yes, this one sees that it is possible that this was the beginning, for banks to take advantage of the unwitting to provide a blank endorsement. This one has never understated the importance of jurisdiction granted by endorsement. This sees the main purpose of endorsement as a clarification and statement of title to one’s labor that is being conveyed (i.e. it is ‘not a gift’).

Quoting from the Congressional Record of 1933;

“…The money will be worth 100 cents on the dollar, because it is backed by the credit of the Nation. It will represent a mortgage on all the homes and other property of all the people in the Nation.”

Those who identify themselves with the full or legal name are the "FED BANKS" who choose to redeem in lawful money.

The words you cite cannot stand over ‘their’ final declarations.’ One may think such words are an expose of their will or one may think such words are a subtle obfuscation of their intent but in the context of how the words you present were expressed this one cannot see how you can sustain any claim of a holding of such words as valid over the final declarations ‘they’ have made in ‘their’ projection to this one, the one, or any one. The underlined of your words above is not congruent with ‘their’ words. As this one stated prior and as you have not rebutted (see: post #82) ‘By ‘their’ words being a member bank requires applying for, subscribing to, buying stock in, and acceptance from the Board of Governors (See: 12 § 321; 12 § 222).’ ‘Their’ words are clear and no presumption can come into existence except through one’s silence or lack of objection. This one has read both UNITED STATES vs. RICKMAN and UNITED STATES vs.WARE and both were cases decided after the fact of acceptance of FRNs.

Those who do not identify themselves with the full or legal name either direct the trust to redeem lawful money or they only accept cash which is redeemed lawful money since the holder never bonded him/herself behind the potential elastic increase of the currency. That paper, then, is essentially an IOU slip from the United States of America which people may, or may not, place value in. Currently most people do and one can exchange that paper for good and services.[QUOTE/]

Continued by post limitation?

[RThomas]

This one sees that you are not separating a single act of endorsement from the separate and subsequent act of acceptance. This one clearly sees that two single acts cannot be held to be one single act. This one sees that if one demands lawful money and at the end of the day accepts what is tendered as lawful money, but does not come with free and clear title, at the end of the day one is not in possession of lawful money or even a paper IOU payable to bearer of lawful money (which would be a promise to pay true lawful money and cannot be lawful money in and of itself). If one demands lawful money and at the end of the day accepts FRNs, than by that one’s final one act FRNs become lawful money by acceptance of that one. That one cannot, after the fact of acceptance (ex post facto), declare them to be otherwise. No magical thoughts are needed to see this. At the end of the day, one’s last act in commonly accepted contract law (and true law) is that the last act of acceptance trumps (novates) any prior act or demand. Please correct this one if this one is incorrect. To all others following this thread this is the substance of the sharing of what this one sees. Because most others accept a fiat ‘money’ does not make such ‘lawful’ money. To state such is to state that the acts of the many bind the one. Can you show that the will of ‘government’ or as you may choose to see ‘the belief of the majority’ may bind the one? What intrinsic power do they hold to place themselves between this one and this one’s supreme ruler (the one true god). Just to clarify, this one is not ignorant of the concept of vior dire with reference to peers.
This one sees and agrees that you (as one with David) is promoting and offering (your words, and not of this one; see your post #85) a ‘remedy’ that you will not answer direct questions to or show the basis of such. Please correct what this one sees if this one is incorrect. This one sees you as making a claim that you are not willing to support, yet continue to offer and promote (images over substance). At the end of the day, holding FRNs in any state real or imagined will leave one subject to and not sovereign (independent) from acts of another.

As to the rest of the posts on this thread since this one’s last post, this one sees no nexus founded on substance within such posts to the subject matter of this thread.


**RThomas**

[Anthony Joseph]

Without the act of self-bonding, whether knowingly or through ignorance, one is not obligated to or liable for a piece of paper, used and recognized as the main medium of exchange on this land, simply by accepting it. The bonding, and obligatory surety evidence, are shown on the bills themselves in the form of two signatures who represent the parties who are responsible for making good on their promissory note (IOU) issues.

If I accept an IOU from Tom, I am not liable for his promise to pay, Tom is. If Bill accepts Tom's IOU from me as valuable consideration for a good or service, then my end has been satisfied with NO further obligation whatsoever. I never agreed to be liable for the IOU from the beginning (non-endorsment) even though I accept and hold it; Tom, the original issuer was and still remains the responsible and liable party by his signature as the bond.

I agree that whoever accepts the IOU along the way is taking a risk if confidence in Tom falls away. However, the IOU stands as a lawful medium of exchange as long as there is confidence in Tom to make good on his promise.

Non-endorsers treat the Federal Reserve's issues as "Tom", they use the IUOs without the added voluntary self-bonding of the elastic system behind it.

Your stance is that by merely accepting an FRN piece of paper, regardless of one's demand for lawful money, one is obligated and liable for that paper after the fact as the act of mere acceptance of an FRN note cancels any prior intent or demand. That opinion could be at odds with the stance of the IRS itself.

Do you hold the same opinion if you accept an FRN from another man or woman as a payment for a good or service you provided? If you don't, then I may begin to comprehend your angle on this issue a little better. My stance is that the simple demand for lawful money conveys the intent that I wish to remain without the Federal Reserve's Districts and jurisdiction. That translates to highest title absent any first lien by the Treasury/FED/IRS and NO return of income requirement.

What can a bank issue to a holder of a check who conveys that what is being presented is lawful money already? Is any bank capable of issuing anything other than FRNs (or tokens) to one who wishes to receive cash in order to be able to buy food or other life necessities?

[RThomas]

Without the act of self-bonding, whether knowingly or through ignorance, one is not obligated to or liable for a piece of paper, used and recognized as the main medium of exchange on this land, simply by accepting it. The bonding, and obligatory surety evidence, are shown on the bills themselves in the form of two signatures who represent the parties who are responsible for making good on their promissory note (IOU) issues.

If I accept an IOU from Tom, I am not liable for his promise to pay, Tom is. If Bill accepts Tom's IOU from me as valuable consideration for a good or service, then my end has been satisfied with NO further obligation whatsoever. I never agreed to be liable for the IOU from the beginning (non-endorsment) even though I accept and hold it; Tom, the original issuer was and still remains the responsible and liable party by his signature as the bond.

I agree that whoever accepts the IOU along the way is taking a risk if confidence in Tom falls away. However, the IOU stands as a lawful medium of exchange as long as there is confidence in Tom to make good on his promise.

Non-endorsers treat the Federal Reserve's issues as "Tom", they use the IUOs without the added voluntary self-bonding of the elastic system behind it.

Your stance is that by merely accepting an FRN piece of paper, regardless of one's demand for lawful money, one is obligated and liable for that paper after the fact as the act of mere acceptance of an FRN note cancels any prior intent or demand. That opinion could be at odds with the stance of the IRS itself.

Do you hold the same opinion if you accept an FRN from another man or woman as a payment for a good or service you provided? If you don't, then I may begin to comprehend your angle on this issue a little better. My stance is that the simple demand for lawful money conveys the intent that I wish to remain without the Federal Reserve's Districts and jurisdiction. That translates to highest title absent any first lien by the Treasury/FED/IRS and NO return of income requirement.

What can a bank issue to a holder of a check who conveys that what is being presented is lawful money already? Is any bank capable of issuing anything other than FRNs (or tokens) to one who wishes to receive cash in order to be able to buy food or other life necessities?

You are still avoiding giving direct answers to questions and are continuing to ‘promote’.

Does the conversion of Tom’s substantive deposit of the dollars given for the fruits of his labor take place at the time of his deposit or at the time of his acceptance of FRNs? This is a simple question that you seem to want to avoid.

Can Tom pass substantive absolute title that Tom does not hold to any kind of paper?

Would you agree or disagree that a check, in stead of FRNs, from Tom would pass absolute title to the dollars in his account, because actual conversion by acceptance has not yet taken place by Tom?


RThomas