Quote Originally Posted by Ares View Post
Dave, The note is of NO SIGNIFICANCE. It could say The Federal Reserve Monopoly on the note. It doesn't matter. What matters is your non-endorsement. When you sign the check normally without the redemption you are bonding your substance to the check and the money that is given to you. If you receive a check more than 600 dollars and you don't redeem it, you are liable for the duty or fee of it's use (taxation). Since lawful money is legislated into existence by an act of congress it falls outside the scope of direct taxation. Because the government tried taxing lawful money and the supreme court told them that it was unconstitutional as all direct unapportioned taxes are. HOWEVER if you endorse PRIVATE CREDIT you are agreeing to a contract and you are liable for the fee's of it's use. Thats why tax protestors get into trouble is they don't realize they are endorsing private credit and are liable for it's use. The constitution gives us unlimited right to contract. It is up to us to determine what contracts are beneficial and which ones are not.

Hopefully that makes sense and you're able to get a clearer picture of why the note they give you is of no importance. It's your demand in lawful money that is of substance.
Thank you for responding, Ares.

What does "bonding your substance" mean?

Where is it stated that I would be liable for a duty or fee of for use of FRNs if I do not redeem them for lawful money?

Where is it stated that if I endorse private credit I am agreeing to a contract and am liable for fees for its use?

And if the contract is not disclosed, how could it be a valid contract?