A regular deposit of lawful money.

[RThomas]

Without the act of self-bonding, whether knowingly or through ignorance, one is not obligated to or liable for a piece of paper, used and recognized as the main medium of exchange on this land, simply by accepting it. The bonding, and obligatory surety evidence, are shown on the bills themselves in the form of two signatures who represent the parties who are responsible for making good on their promissory note (IOU) issues.

If I accept an IOU from Tom, I am not liable for his promise to pay, Tom is. If Bill accepts Tom's IOU from me as valuable consideration for a good or service, then my end has been satisfied with NO further obligation whatsoever. I never agreed to be liable for the IOU from the beginning (non-endorsment) even though I accept and hold it; Tom, the original issuer was and still remains the responsible and liable party by his signature as the bond.

I agree that whoever accepts the IOU along the way is taking a risk if confidence in Tom falls away. However, the IOU stands as a lawful medium of exchange as long as there is confidence in Tom to make good on his promise.

Non-endorsers treat the Federal Reserve's issues as "Tom", they use the IUOs without the added voluntary self-bonding of the elastic system behind it.

Your stance is that by merely accepting an FRN piece of paper, regardless of one's demand for lawful money, one is obligated and liable for that paper after the fact as the act of mere acceptance of an FRN note cancels any prior intent or demand. That opinion could be at odds with the stance of the IRS itself.

Do you hold the same opinion if you accept an FRN from another man or woman as a payment for a good or service you provided? If you don't, then I may begin to comprehend your angle on this issue a little better. My stance is that the simple demand for lawful money conveys the intent that I wish to remain without the Federal Reserve's Districts and jurisdiction. That translates to highest title absent any first lien by the Treasury/FED/IRS and NO return of income requirement.

What can a bank issue to a holder of a check who conveys that what is being presented is lawful money already? Is any bank capable of issuing anything other than FRNs (or tokens) to one who wishes to receive cash in order to be able to buy food or other life necessities?

You are still avoiding giving direct answers to questions and are continuing to ‘promote’.

Does the conversion of Tom’s substantive deposit of the dollars given for the fruits of his labor take place at the time of his deposit or at the time of his acceptance of FRNs? This is a simple question that you seem to want to avoid.

Can Tom pass substantive absolute title that Tom does not hold to any kind of paper?

Would you agree or disagree that a check, in stead of FRNs, from Tom would pass absolute title to the dollars in his account, because actual conversion by acceptance has not yet taken place by Tom?


RThomas