A regular deposit of lawful money.

[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?