Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
Funny how this has been hashed over, even here and then the discovery just evolved for me!

See the way payment is to the recipient's ORDER? Quite literally then, this is the opportunity to choose this day, so to speak. Do you endorse the private credit from the local central bank? If so, that is you choosing the ORDER of the districts and issuance of elastic currency, promoting the false balances of growing the economy by fractional lending.

Or you might choose your own redemption. A redemptive ORDER?

A man is presumed to be among the endorsing ORDER; among the Federal Reserve districts by endorsement of private credit, and as chattel substantiating the national debt. Maynard James writes an interesting line:

Fetch me the Spirit, the Son and the Father;
Tell Them Their Pillar of Faith has ascended.

[Listen with my ears; Maynard James says - Give me my Word. - Not Wings.]

Is not Grace allowing for a man upon Redemption to transcend one ORDER into a higher ORDER of Creative Process? Who might be in authority to hold him back? Any man?

Would that not be the ultimate hubris? - To disallow a man to ascend?


Legally, pay-to-order instruments are "negotiable" -- meaning that the cheques or drafts generally require endorsement (most usually countersignature or payable into a bank account). This is in contrast to "pay-to-bearer" instruments, which don't require endorsement.

So why make a cheque "pay to the order of"? (private taxable)
Shouldn't we be making them as "pay to the bearer"? (public exempt)
Wouldn't that enforce the record for redemption even more?