A regular deposit of lawful money.

[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.