Originally Posted by
Anthony Joseph
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.
Reply With Quote