A regular deposit of lawful money.

[Anthony Joseph]

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?

Thank you for your time.

RThomas

Lawful money, as I understand it, is non-self-bonding currency. The line, in my opinion, is the required remedy from the entire FED Act, and subsequent code, written in as the culpability dodge from enslaving a population via debt; those who facilitate the system can always point to the remedy if ever any charges of crimes are brought against them.

The line cannot be "irrelevant" or "nothing", as you put it, or why put it in at all? The "and for no other purpose" line is accurate when one signature bonds one's self to the credit or currency; essentially anyone who signature endorses is a FED Bank and subject to all the rules and regulations thereof.

Section 16 of the 1913 FED Act explains that one has the right of choice to NOT be a FED Bank and to NOT bond one's self as chattel behind the priavte credit of the FED by demanding lawful money instead. The demand, when properly formed on and for the record, is all that is required by law to avoid the obligations and liabilities of the private credit and currency of the Federal Reserve.

The section does not apply to you, or an average Joe Sixpack, unless the privilege of using private credit is initiated. Signature endorsment (self-bonding) is the act that initiates. If one handles and uses FRN paper without such self-bonding endorsment, then the only line that applies is the written-in remedy FROM THE ACT:

"They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand..."

The rest does not apply at all.

The paper one holds then IS lawful money which is PUBLIC money and not subject to the PRIVATE law of the Federal Reserve system. There are two distinct seals and two signatures on every FRN which denotes the dual nature of the paper; it can serve as private FED currency or it can serve as public lawful money. The one holding and using it has the power to decide which role and character it will play.

There must be a choice, and a remedy available, when such a system is as imposing and all-encompassing as the Federal Reserve is.

[RThomas]

Lawful money, as I understand it, is non-self-bonding currency. The line, in my opinion, is the required remedy from the entire FED Act, and subsequent code, written in as the culpability dodge from enslaving a population via debt; those who facilitate the system can always point to the remedy if ever any charges of crimes are brought against them.

This one sees lawful money as specie or whatever this one accepts as having value in this one’s mind; a note that contains a first and paramount lien cannot be lawful money to this one.
Where in the act does it state that such act applies to a Joe Sixpack or that this use is authorized? This one has shown that it clearly does not. Thus it was not written to be Joe Sixpack’s remedy. Joe Sixpack’s remedy is not to accept them at all as any Fed. Bank cannot legally issue them to Joe Sixpack and he is not bound to receive them (i.e. “shall receive”). This is not an authorized ‘purpose’ by ‘their’ words. No ‘beliefs’ are needed to see this.


The line cannot be "irrelevant" or "nothing", as you put it, or why put it in at all? The "and for no other purpose" line is accurate when one signature bonds one's self to the credit or currency; essentially anyone who signature endorses is a FED Bank and subject to all the rules and regulations thereof.

It is in there as remedy for the member ‘banks’ who ‘shall receive’ FRNs. There is no authority in 12 § 411 to ‘issue’ a debt note to substitute as payment (See: novation in Bouvier’s; especially #6) to a private Joe Sixpack. There is no requirement that Joe Sixpack ‘shall receive’ FRNs as payment for the member bank’s debt to him. Can point out where the word ‘debt’ is in this code? This one does not allow this one’s mind to be misdirected from the plain language and stated purpose of the act as stated in the code.

Section 16 of the 1913 FED Act explains that one has the right of choice to NOT be a FED Bank and to NOT bond one's self as chattel behind the priavte credit of the FED by demanding lawful money instead. The demand, when properly formed on and for the record, is all that is required by law to avoid the obligations and liabilities of the private credit and currency of the Federal Reserve.

Please post the language in the act you speak of and also show that the clear statements in the above code are incorrect as opposed to the language in the act.
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). Did you do any of these things to become a member bank? Where do you find that cashing a check or depositing a check magically turns one into a Fed bank? By ‘their’ words a Federal reserve agent is one who is designated as such by the Board of Governors (see: 12 § 305). Were you designated as a Federal reserve agent?


The section does not apply to you, or an average Joe Sixpack, unless the privilege of using private credit is initiated. Signature endorsment (self-bonding) is the act that initiates. If one handles and uses FRN paper without such self-bonding endorsment, then the only line that applies is the written-in remedy FROM THE ACT:

"They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand..."

The rest does not apply at all.

It absolutely does apply, but not to Joe Sixpack or this one. It applies to Federal reserve banks/agents and member banks. It clearly states the authorized purpose and use of Federal reserve notes within the Federal reserve system. This one and Joe Sixpack are not by ‘their’ words a part of this system. The questions should be is a member bank's issuance to and Joe Sixpacks use of FRNs an authorized purpose?

The paper one holds then IS lawful money which is PUBLIC money and not subject to the PRIVATE law of the Federal Reserve system. There are two distinct seals and two signatures on every FRN which denotes the dual nature of the paper; it can serve as private FED currency or it can serve as public lawful money. The one holding and using it has the power to decide which role and character it will play.

If one does not want to be under the ‘PRIVATE’ law of the Federal reserve system, than why would one claim rights from it? The rest appears to this one as mere opinion, please show where they declared by their acts and codes that Federal reserve notes serve a dual purpose. The only purpose this one sees is the clearly limited purpose stated in 12 § 411.

There must be a choice, and a remedy available, when such a system is as imposing and all-encompassing as the Federal Reserve is.

This one appreciates the time you have taken to post. Your post would have been more fruitful to this one if it contained direct answers to the prior posted questions. As you can see this one has brought forward more questions from your last post. This one has provided ‘their’ words in support of what this one sees. As one should know, if one cannot answer simple direct questions than one will not be able to show any validity to that one’s claims.

RThomas ****

[RThomas]

Here is more that this one sees:

TITLE 12--BANKS AND BANKING

CHAPTER 1--THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY


Sec. 1. Office of Comptroller of the Currency

There shall be in the Department of the Treasury a bureau charged
with the execution of all laws passed by Congress relating to the issue

[[Page 2]]

and regulation of a national currency secured by United States bonds
and, under the general supervision of the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, of all Federal Reserve notes, except for the
cancellation and destruction, and accounting with respect to such
cancellation and destruction, of Federal Reserve notes unfit for
circulation, the chief officer of which bureau shall be called the
Comptroller of the Currency, and shall perform his duties under the
general directions of the Secretary of the Treasury. The Comptroller of
the Currency shall have the same authority over matters within the
jurisdiction of the Comptroller as the Director of the Office of Thrift
Supervision has over matters within the Director's jurisdiction under
section 1462a(b)(3) of this title. The Secretary of the Treasury may not
delay or prevent the issuance of any rule or the promulgation of any
regulation by the Comptroller of the Currency.

This one sees the above as stating that ‘their’ national currency is under the direct enforcement of regulations by a bureau of ‘their’ ‘Department of the Treasury.’

This one sees the above as stating that ‘their’ federal reserve notes are under the same such bureau but, also under the ‘general’ supervision of ‘their’ Federal reserve system’s ‘Board of Governors.’

Thus, ‘their’ national currency and ‘their’ federal reserve notes are not deemed by ‘them’ to be the same. The enforcement for each falls under different supervision. The only logical conclusion this one can see is that Federal reserve notes are not considered by ‘them’ to be a national currency.

RThomas

[RThomas]

This one is curious as to the lack of continued participation in the subject matter of this thread, as it has progressed, by David Merrill. This one knows that he has no obligation, but this thread has progressed as to directly contradict to his theory of 'redemption.' If those that are practicing his projected method of 'redemption' cannot respond to simple questions than one would think the professor of them would step in to assist and continue his teachings. 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.'

RThomas

[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.

[David Merrill]

This one is curious as to the lack of continued participation in the subject matter of this thread, as it has progressed, by David Merrill. This one knows that he has no obligation, but this thread has progressed as to directly contradict to his theory of 'redemption.' If those that are practicing his projected method of 'redemption' cannot respond to simple questions than one would think the professor of them would step in to assist and continue his teachings. 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.'

RThomas

I scan and gist. So I caught my name and read a little. But I have been busy with redeeming the world - in one fell swoop!

I mentioned that to the cashier at the small organic foods store. She glazed over for about two seconds and then started describing this morning's meditation session in great detail. She felt physically fulfilled but was not satisfied with that - it tasted bland. She desires the spice of daily discovery and growth. Then she asked me to describe what I meant by redeeming the world. And I will explain it to you once the record is set up a little better; I don't want Internet chatter to affect the record if you know what I mean.

At a glance though I do not get your point - that the discussion about redeeming lawful money has taken on an opposite posture or description. But if it does, I am of a rather serene mood and hope I learn something. - Like seeing Kwai Chang KANE imbibing in alcohol in the final scene of the Kung Fu series...

[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
****

[RThomas]

I scan and gist. So I caught my name and read a little. But I have been busy with redeeming the world - in one fell swoop!

I mentioned that to the cashier at the small organic foods store. She glazed over for about two seconds and then started describing this morning's meditation session in great detail. She felt physically fulfilled but was not satisfied with that - it tasted bland. She desires the spice of daily discovery and growth. Then she asked me to describe what I meant by redeeming the world. And I will explain it to you once the record is set up a little better; I don't want Internet chatter to affect the record if you know what I mean.

At a glance though I do not get your point - that the discussion about redeeming lawful money has taken on an opposite posture or description. But if it does, I am of a rather serene mood and hope I learn something. - Like seeing Kwai Chang KANE imbibing in alcohol in the final scene of the Kung Fu series...

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. This one does not see the 'cryptic' thoughts you intend to convey. This one sees the truth as being able to stand in the the light.This one gave considerable thought to your words. This one does not see 'that the discussion concerning redeeming lawful money has taken on an opposite posture or description.' This one has provided what this one sees and has only sought clarification of what you see and what others ‘redeeming lawful money’ claim to see. Without providing clarification (clearing the clouds in one’s mind as to such claims) this one can only see a belief being projected, and this one is not a believer.

RThomas

[David Merrill]

Maybe this will help:

The post was to tell everybody that this one is staying pretty busy these days and am allowing the thread to develop without me. Your first-person post is however tempting...


Sadly when it is made all complicated then things get frustrating.



P.S. After a quick review I am chalking it up to the Thread Topic. By the nature of the distinction drawn between regular and special we start making decisions on the far side of the teller window. I imagine that is why I have just been doing other things.

[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.