Originally Posted by
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.
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?
Reply With Quote