Is Non-Endorsement the same as Demanding Lawful Money?

[Freed Gerdes]

Notwithstanding.

That is a tricky word in that Notice and Demand.



I am just mentioning it because it might be clearer that only contracts outside the scope of the fraud by omission are spoken of here. Otherwise it might seem contradictory that all contracts are void nunc pro tunc, but those by provision of law or contract are still good.

Might I suggest this wording instead:

"Not withstanding any other provision of law or contractual obligations; NO{delete this, and substitute]
As the above demand is my explicit choice under the option provided in 12 USCode 411, the highest law of the land, to eschew any and all use of
Federal Reserve credit, no provision of any contract for private credit with any lesser entity shall be construed to act or operate in any way or manner to eliminate, diminish, supersede, or otherwise modify any provision contained within this Notice and demand. This Notice and Demand is
now on and for the lawful record and is within the cognizance of the United States. Any and all parties
claiming to preside, act or operate from within that realm are duly advised."

Please advise whether this suggested form is preferable, especially whether "law of the land" invites difficulties with regard to admiralty law.

Freed

[Edited several weeks later:] After giving this some more thought, I perceive that the 'notwithstanding' issue can be resolved by emphasizing the explicit, which always takes precedence over the implicit. Since the Fed Reserve and its bankster minions want to create a record which proves that you are a taxpayer, but do not want to mention lawful money, their contracts always use inference and assumpsit to achieve their purpose, but this is implied agreement, which can be trumped by explicit demand. So the Notice should say:
This Notice and Demand is now on, and for, the lawful record and is within the cognizance of the United States. This Demand is Explicit for the Redemption of Lawful Money. No term of any other contract, which term seeks to establish, through inference, assumpsit, or words of art, that an implicit request has been made to use Federal Reserve credit, shall supercede this explicit Demand, or impair such Demand in any way. Any and all parties claiming to preside, act or operate from within that realm are duly advised.

It would seem that with this Notice and Demand on record, you would be free to contract for a bank credit card, using lawful money... the contract specifies a debtor/creditor relationship, but it does not specify the notes in which the credit balances would be kept. Seems to me that the bank would now be in the position of having to rebut your presumption.

Freed