A regular deposit of lawful money.

[RThomas]

The point was to allude to their tendency to try to pull counterfeits "over our eyes", so to speak.

This is on topic as it refers to the images from ‘their’ imagination’



When it comes to 'beginnings' the beginnings of mankind are likely distinct from the beginnings of artificial political entities.

This is off topic and I presented what I see above; let us just agree that our perceptions of ‘genesis’ are not the same.


When dealing with modern banks, one might be dealing with contracts, covenants or pledges of a system a few steps removed from reality.

I see that one is ‘dealing’ with contracts, covenants, or pledges, but, I see these as one’s own doing (i.e. voluntary). The removal from reality, as I hear you saying, I see as taking advantage of one’s inability to separate truth from belief. In other words, many cannot see the concept behind a common phrase ‘perception is reality.’ Many accept ‘religion’ of others as truth.



***
Lawful money:

When it comes to lawful money the ability of a bank to make substitutes is apparent.

I do not see it as ‘their’ ability; I see it as ‘their’ offer. One’s agreement makes the law. Thus their offer (tender) becomes law once accepted and becomes ‘lawful’ ‘money,’ thus one accepts ‘their’ reality as ones own and shows that one is bearing fruit for ‘the beast.’ In true law a ‘loan’ does not transfer absolute title; it only transfers title to possession and use. If I ‘loan’ my lawnmower to a neighbor it does not convey any right to them to transfer or sell my lawnmower to another; they do not have absolute title to it. They were only granted title for possession and use, to be returned on demand. This is what many see as their deposit being with any bank, and a bank would have a difficult time showing that the loan of a lawnmower or money or the fruits of your labor to them was intended by you to convey absolute title as a gift would. I do not allow myself to, in essence; get wrapped up in ‘their’ words’ I look to the concepts (thoughts) behind ‘their’ words.

Redemption for lawful money appears to touch upon who is the one that imparts credit to the instrument in question.


I see the instrument as the means of a showing of a ‘meeting of the minds.’ If the instrument is clear as ‘pay to bearer on demand’ than I see the instrument as a true note expressing the debtor, creditor relationship. But, if the instrument does not express what the relationship is between the holder and the issuer, than I can only see this as an instrument of deception, especially if one is led to believe that what they are being given is ‘in kind’ to what they loaned.

The act of redemption for lawful money appears to trump the FRB's or the FRB member's imparting credit to the instrument and thusly affects tax liability.

As I stated to Anthony Rock above, “as contracts are fluid and any subsequent action can novate prior actions ‘at the end of the day’ what did you accept as ‘lawful’ ‘money?’” And to you I would ask, ‘at the end of the day’ did you receive anything from the issuer of FRNs that showed they held full title and that they were able to pass full title to you? Would you claim that your possession of FRNs is evidence of full title without a signed agreement from a bank, or any issuer, showing they have a right to pass full title? What I see is that one who ‘loans’ has an inherent right to dictate the conditions of the possessions and use of what is ‘loaned.’ Do you see this or not? Do you see, or not, that in any true court that sees true law one will be judged by his last act as opposed to any claims made by one prior to one’s last act?


However, there is reason to believe that a separate ledgering exists with respect to redemption of lawful money.

There may be a reason to believe what you present, but it would be only a matter to a believer.

xxxxxxxxxx