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?

[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

[Anthony Joseph]

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

I believe I have answered that question; I see NO conversion when the demand for lawful money is made. You believe that the acceptance of FRNs UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE nullifies any prior demand or intent. I disagree with your assessment in that regard.

In a way, your gripe (according to your view) is with the FED and the "official" banks that operate under its system. You say that banks have no business issuing FRNs to you or the average "Joe Sixpack" (JS) because "their" law prohibits that. You also do not believe that JS is a quasi-FED bank, or treated like one, since there exists no overt wording of law or treatise spelling that out. And yet, everyday JS receives FRNs when he brings a check to a bank to cash. How do you explain that? Do you wish to bring charges against every bank in the US for falsely and unlawfully issuing FRNs to everday people who are not FED banks, or agents thereof, according to their law? Maybe you should bring that action in a court of competent jurisdiction and see how you make out. I for one would be extremely interested and curious as to the response you get.

The contract with the FED which applied to official FED banks, as written in the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 Section 16, by obvious deduction was opened to the general population in 1933 whereby their signature endorsment created the bond behind the elasticity of the FED's currency and credit enabling the FED to keep their charter intact and to continue to grow their stranglehold upon the assets of the United States of America via debt. How else can you explain your stance that when one receives or accepts FRNs, it obligates the acceptor to all the rules and regulations governing the private credit of the Federal Reserve?

My opinion is that conversion only takes place when one signature endorses a check in the conventional way we were all taught by those we trusted in.

[RThomas]

I believe I have answered that question; I see NO conversion when the demand for lawful money is made. You believe that the acceptance of FRNs UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE nullifies any prior demand or intent. I disagree with your assessment in that regard.

This one’s thoughts to your beliefs are addressed within the following.

In a way, your gripe (according to your view) is with the FED and the "official" banks that operate under its system.

Not necessarily a gripe, but more of an observation of truth. Yes the truth this one sees is that the ‘Fed banks’ are operating outside the US legal code that authorizes the system in which the ‘FED’ acts.

You say that banks have no business issuing FRNs to you or the average "Joe Sixpack" (JS) because "their" law prohibits that.

The US code which is held out to be the foundation for their acts states this, not this one.

You also do not believe that JS is a quasi-FED bank, or treated like one, since there exists no overt wording of law or treatise spelling that out.

This one has repeatedly stated that this one is not a believer. This one sees that the stated US code does not allow for any presumption or conclusion that JS is a ‘FED bank’ or even a ‘quasi-FED bank.’ Where do you draw your conclusions from?

And yet, everyday JS receives FRNs when he brings a check to a bank to cash. How do you explain that?

The average Joe Sixpack was brought into ‘their’ world and implanted with ‘their’ seeds of images and is without true knowledge. This one sees that it is the truth that will set JS free, but only if JS seeks it. Otherwise, JS will be left to JS’s understandings and subject to not being excepted through ‘their’ severability clauses.



Do you wish to bring charges against every bank in the US for falsely and unlawfully issuing FRNs to everday people who are not FED banks, or agents thereof, according to their law?

This one does not see that this one would have standing to bring charges against ‘every’ bank. As this one stated in post #34 “I now retract the statement of this being non-confrontational.” This thread is about this one’s search for the genesis or the nexus to their codes, private law, or however one deems to sees it. The process that would naturally follow is not a topic of this thread, but is a valid discussion for a subsequent thread. This one is well aware of the rabbit holes of such process and does see how to reach the light at the end of any such tunnel. This one sees that one must begin at the beginning (i.e. the creation) and then take ‘baby steps.’ Seeing the foundation of any illusions or claims would be the first step.


Maybe you should bring that action in a court of competent jurisdiction and see how you make out. I for one would be extremely interested and curious as to the response you get.


You appear to believe that such cannot happen. This one is not a believer.

The contract with the FED which applied to official FED banks, as written in the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 Section 16, by obvious deduction was opened to the general population in 1933 whereby their signature endorsment created the bond behind the elasticity of the FED's currency and credit enabling the FED to keep their charter intact and to continue to grow their stranglehold upon the assets of the United States of America via debt.

This one sees a lot of conjecture in this long sentence not supported by substance. This one agrees that such act in 1913 applies to such banks mentioned within such act and to no one else. You cite section 16 as a part of such act and state that it applies to all. You still appear to ‘promote’ that one can claim a right via one line in an act that you state does not apply to you. You are clearly taking one line out of context of the act as a whole. This one cannot see your ‘obvious deduction.’ This one sees that a voluntary acceptance of ‘their’ ‘money’ that has a ‘first and paramount lien’ on it cannot by any stretch of any one’s imagination be true lawful money. And one’s final possession of such leaves one with no proof as to the title of that money regardless of any prior demand.

How else can you explain your stance that when one receives or accepts FRNs, it obligates the acceptor to all the rules and regulations governing the private credit of the Federal Reserve?

This one has asked you many times if your last act trumps all other acts in within a negotiation with another (contract law). You now state that a prior act of endorsement/non-endorsement (demand) trumps your final act (within such negotiation) of acceptance. Hence this one asks and has repeatedly asked, ‘at the end of the day’ what do you possess that will prove to anyone that your prior demand for lawful money was achieved after your final act of acceptance (this one does not see a claim of metaphysics getting you very far)? Please show any law or any general maxim reflecting true law relating to contracts or ‘offer and acceptance’ that would support your belief or show substance for your claim. This one sees that a final act of acceptance of ‘their’ money is also acceptance to the stated lien on that ‘money’ subjecting one to their rules or regulation to the use of such.



My opinion is that conversion only takes place when one signature endorses a check in the conventional way we were all taught by those we trusted in.

This one sees, in reference to conversion, that this is your opinion (belief). As to what you say all have been taught I see as a willful act of non-disclosure and a belief (trust) (religion) established by them without foundation. This one is merely seeking the foundation for your truths stated as to see that they are not rooted in a projected belief from ‘them.’

This one has never denied the importance of proper special endorsement. This one sees from ‘their’ law dictionaries, from past to present, that the focus should be on title (i.e. ‘Not a gift’) and not a simple demand for ‘lawful money’ which is left open for interpretation (what’s lawful to one may not be lawful to another, thus the focus should be on the word ‘dollar’ within the original agreement on the face of a check). There is much this one has not presented here yet. All that this one has provided thus far relates more to the concepts of what is taking place between deposits and what is offered and received for such deposits. This one sees that the actual conversion takes place when one accepts a note of debt in place of credit due him and may be held (absent any objection) by his own last act to novate any prior claim to the fruits of his labor (shown in prior posts).

This one is also aware that a general endorsement within ‘their’ laws, cases, and definitions, still could not be held to overcome the common accepted understanding of the general populace (e.g. a jury) of any state (e.g. nation) that full title was knowingly conveyed to any bank and that such title was knowingly agreed to not be returned (see: 12 § 414); given that by the agreements with banks the general understanding is that deposits passing title are loans with limited title (not a gift) to be returned with the same title on demand. In this one's research so far this issue of title to what is being held out to all as ‘money’ has never been raised. Nor does this one see you as willing to address the issue of title except by stating that demand for lawful money trumps acceptance and possession of FRNs, yet you have not shown any way to prove absolute title of such money. You have not shown that any bank in possession of such notes which do not convey full title to such bank can issue them to you with full title with or without such demand.

**RThomas**

[Anthony Joseph]

I do not not agree that "the last act", as you describe it by being handed FRN paper, consitutes conversion or agreement to the FR code when one clearly demands lawful money.

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-cen...al-tender.aspx

U.S. notes serve no function that is not already served by Federal Reserve notes. As a result, the Treasury Department stopped issuing U.S. notes, and none have been placed into circulation since January 21, 1971. Those that remain in circulation are obligations of the U.S. government.

How can that be? How can Federal Reserve notes serve or function as U.S. Notes if FRNs are "for no other purpose"? The Treasury is speaking to the dual function and character of the Federal Reserve note in that it can serve the function of a U.S. note. U.S. notes are without the scope of the Federal Reserve system's rules, regulations, obligations and liabilities. So, according to the Treasury, a FRN will serve as a U.S. note if need be. Your opinion is that is not possible or spelled out in their "law" and yet, he it is in plain english.

How does one establish or initiate the "U.S. Note function" of an FRN since it is obviously possible by the admission of the Treasury? The demand for lawful money makes FRNs function as USNs thereby avoiding the obligations and liabilities of the private credit of the FED.


From http://www.21silver.com/?show=merril...rve_act_remedy

Therefore, one should pay attention only to how Congress defines lawful money.

US v. Rickman, 638 F.2d 182:

In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money.

In a similar case,

US v. Ware, 308 F.2d 400:

United States notes shall be lawful money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt.

US Notes are lawful money per the agreement and definitions of Congress.

FRNs function as US Notes per the Treasury.

[RThomas]

This is just a quick note to all that this one has not abandoned this thread. This one’s obligations are paramount to this one and this thread is not an obligation this one holds. As this one’s word is this one’s bond, this one will return to this thread and soon.


This one’s short and abridged response is that there appears to be confusion between ‘lawful money’ and ‘title’ within the offer of ‘any’ such ‘money.’

RThomas

[Rock Anthony]

This is just a quick note to all that this one has not abandoned this thread. This one’s obligations are paramount to this one and this thread is not an obligation this one holds. As this one’s word is this one’s bond, this one will return to this thread and soon.

Neither have I abandoned. The obligation that brings the regular paycheck has consumed my time.

This one’s short and abridged response is that there appears to be confusion between ‘lawful money’ and ‘title’ within the offer of ‘any’ such ‘money.’

Perhaps the endeavor to clear the confusion is why this thread is so interesting.

RThomas

I'll interject my thoughtful response after my other obligations are satisfied.

Thanks, Anthony Joseph, joining the conversation.

[Axe]

‘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.

applying for,: Application for your account
subscribing to,: Agreement by signature
buying stock in,: Accepting FRNs
acceptance from the Board of Governors: Automatic

Unless you can cite specific criteria as outlined by the Board of Governors in
considering or approving, the application can be approved "upon receiving".

"This one" sees this as a jurisdictional matter. Are you placing yourself under a private set of rules
by merely "using" FRNs? I believe so. Ignorance of the rules is no excuse.

If I am on someone's land and the owner doesn't want me to be, I am trespassing, whether I realized
it was his land or not.

If I am "summoned" to court, and report that it is my name on the summons,
the action of me showing up has shown that I am placing myself under that jurisdiction, no?

What we have is a system of control that "everyone" is under through coercion and ignorance.

If I identify myself as a "Person" in the wrong room, I am confessing to be whatever "they"
define a "Person" to be. The fact that "I" may have and understand the word "person" to mean
something else matters not. I have confessed.

If "they" have defined a FED Bank to mean the same thing a "person" means, then in that room
I've just confessed to being a FED Bank. If Fed Bank means anyone that has a bank account,
or anyone that files a return, or anyone that has ever identified themselves with a social security
number, then that's what I have confessed to, whether that's what I understood or not.

RThomas, I find your findings and thesis compelling but incomplete. From reading your posts, I'm
gathering that your position is that anything you receive from your labor is lawful money. That's
important, because if you believe you are going to the bank with lawful money already, then your
assertion for title makes sense.

What I need, to come in line with what you're saying is your proof that what you have been paid by
your employer or your customers "is" lawful money".

If you are an employee, you have filed a W2, no?

Does the business that pays you do business in FRNs? If a business, do customers buy what
you sell in FRNs?

If you are a business man, you have been licensed to do business by a state and city/county. In the
process of doing business either as an employee or a business owner, there are many forms, signatures
and hoops to jump through before you receive any green (money).

Say you are correct and that all you need to do is hold "title" to your deposit. How do you prove that
your deposit was lawful money to begin with? The way I see it, there is just as much burden of proof
on you to show that, as there is on anyone to show proof that they received lawful money rather than
Fed Notes from the bank after their restricted endorsement.

To follow your own standard (set up by you in this thread), please make your case that your labor has
only generated lawful money, as it would be in a deposition, where only yes/no answers may be required.

I suspect that you are an attorney of some sort (apologies if I am mistaken) so hopefully you will forgive
my ignorance, but please also cite the source that states "if I respond to a name, that makes it my name".

For clarity, I want to emphasize that I'm not hostile. I, like you I suspect am simply on a journey for the truth
and wish nothing more than to secure freedom from slavery. Thank you for starting this thread, and thanks
to all who have participated.

Tom