Quote Originally Posted by freedave View Post
According to my understanding of the theory, it might be correct that the "redemption" is effected by virtue of having limited the terms of the check, but my question is, "When does the 'redemption' happen -- when the check is deposited or when currency is received by the depositor?"

The point about whether or not "we are acting on faith alone" seems to me to be very important -- have you, yourself, experienced any problems with doing this?

.

To address your questions:
Regarding when it happens. . . . I cannot show that "redemption" does actually happen. At a minimum, it seems to me that our negotiated (stated) terms are as good at a bank's negotiated (stated) terms, and our terms are expressed in the endorsement qualifier (not concealed or expressed merely by reference).
Also, it appears to our reading that the statutes which govern the Federal Reserve Bank, its NOTES; their use and function, sure does look as if "They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank."
So, we made / make the damand and that is all which appears as required by the statute's stated terms for the function of redeeming. So, again, we act on faith.
Logic tells me that if an organization is given the privilege of operating under the limited capacity of a grant of government, that organization's function is likewise limited or more restricted than the powers under which the granting government functions.

I see one problem in this scenario: we, living beings, are not the depositors or account holders. We are only the signatory sureties for the named account holders, they being artifices, and ens legis, a.k.a. creatures of the STATE OF X________ (fill in the blank). The necessity of the Account holder's character as being an artifice is that the system in which it is engaged is not open to the participation of living beings. The "bank" is an artifice, dealing in artificial "money" in the character of a corporation (artificial person) under statutes and regulations (artificial law). I like to tink that their world is admiralty, of the sea; the sea being fatal to living man, a place where he cannot live. Man's place is on the nourishing land, on the shores of the sea. He may contact the sea and take from it, but never live there. We may contact the artificial world which we create and take from it (the fruits being those developed from others' contact and interaction) but we canot live in it or alter its very nature of being a hostile environment to us, the living. The accounts are named in the artificial person name and we are trying to extinguish the fiat money system which underpins the world in which the artificial persons function. Every transaction is one half money (or credit, with the transaction permanently in limbo). Artificial money cannot pay for an actual existing thing, it can only discharge the debt to another willing holder or surety. In the case of the FEDERAL RESERVE System, the NOTES and all data entries effectively denominated in notes, act as a pool of the discharged debts and place all property into a presumed limbo state wherein all property is encumbered by the entanglement of the banker's interests and claims. They get their grubby fingers on our property by getting us to label (register or otherwise restrict) the property ownership as being that of a numbered Person (individual, trust, corporation, association or other artifice.) It is a fantastic system by which most folks believe that they are protecting their assets, when in fact, they are volunteering them into bondage. SO you, living man, are only the operator of the account which is named to an artifice, and you speak for and act for the benefit of the artifice. Does that make you the trustee for the benefit of operating the account to the benefit of the artifice and its owner (the banker) ? The banker entered the artifice name on the account instead of your living being name. This was done at your directive by having provided the SSN as the primary identifier of the account.
So, I do hope that I am not on a rant here and off track. I always invite and look forward to correction. So, I believe the "redemption" happens when the qualifiedly endorsed check is accepted and processed by the bank, whether or not the process is crediting an account or exchanging NOTES.
The SSN is the hub of the wheel and the marker by which all "commerce" is recorded, regulated and taxed.

Question #2 asked about problems. I have had no problems relative to this process, but neither can I claim any benefit.