Check Non-Endorsement Verbiage

[Michael Joseph]

Is the "demander" also the "redeemer"?

I maintain that the claimant issues forth demands whereof he/she seeks relief. In my humble opinion, They shall be redeemed on demand is a requirement upon those who hold an oath of office. The one who demands does so without duty. The trustee must keep the ledger/accounting.

I keep it as simple as possible. I make my demand for Lawful Money and what is given to me is of little accord. I have fulfilled the law what is left is for the trustee to perform his/her duty to the public.

Therefore it is my opinion that the "demander" is not the "redeemer".

[Chex]

There you go.........

I maintain that the claimant issues forth demands whereof he/she seeks relief. In my humble opinion, They shall be redeemed on demand is a requirement upon those who hold an oath of office. The one who demands does so without duty. The trustee must keep the ledger/accounting. I keep it as simple as possible. I make my demand for Lawful Money and what is given to me is of little accord. I have fulfilled the law what is left is for the trustee to perform his/her duty to the public. Therefore it is my opinion that the "demander" is not the "redeemer".

Just sign check as: REDEEMED IN LAWFUL MONEY PURSUANT TO 12 USC 411

The point being, in conclusion, it’s not a legal determination that’s up to the Treasury, the Treasurer, the Secretary of the Treasury, the bank teller or the bank notary, judge or the IRS.

This is a decision to demand lawful money that’s up to you, by remedy. You’re the one who makes the choice.

A woman in a small Maine bank had the bank manager demand that she strike through the restricted endorsement (is what it was called up there).

DEPOSITED FOR CREDIT ON ACCOUNT OR EXCHANGED FOR NON-NEGOTIABLE FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES OF EQUAL VALUE

She was a single mom. She had to. Her demand was clear and witnessed by the notary at the bank.

The following week she hand wrote a simpler demand for lawful money, and it worked fine.

REDEEMED IN LAWFUL MONEY PURSUANT TO 12 USC 411

Thank you John-Henry Hill.

[Stephen]

At first I too used "DEPOSITED FOR CREDIT ON ACCOUNT OR EXCHANGED FOR NON-NEGOTIABLE FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES OF EQUAL VALUE". The first bank I tried that at was far away from where I lived so most transactions were done by mail. I got a call from that bank's teller to tell me she could not accept that endorsement because "it transferred liability to the bank". Later I asked if they would accept the one that began with "Redeemed". She said she would not and that I should simply sign it.

The second bank I tried the one beginning with "Deposited" the teller summoned the bank manager. After some discussion between them they did accept it, but the teller said it was "very iffy".

Now I am using a Trodat stamper that says

Redeemed Lawful Money
Pursuant to 12 USC § 411
www.law.cornell.edu/uscode

I no longer bank at the first bank above. All the banks I do business with now accept this one beginning with "Redeemed" above without question. I believe this is due to the ignorance of the teller. In an ignorant teller's mind what money that we are dealing with here wouldn't be lawful?

It is a sad state of affairs that a fast one has been pulled on the public which has been tricked into using an instrument of exchange that represents a debt liability instead of a value. That is the way the real world works. There are lot of people who want what's yours, and so work out ingenious ways to get it. That includes the banks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aH9OIIJcQM8

I still need to know:

If the absence of my middle name where my cursive signature is on my driver's license has relevance regarding whether I should include my middle name in the trust name portion of the non-endorsement. Currently I am including it on the reasoning that including it makes a complete trust name.

If there is any benefit to using block lettering for the names instead of a cursive script. Currently I am using block lettering.

Whether it makes a difference whether I use a comma or semicolon between my family name and my trust's name. Currently I am using a semicolon.

The question whether to use the one beginning with "Redeemed" or "Demand" has stimulated an in depth debate among senior members. Although I appreciate seeing the different viewpoints, I was hoping for a simple answer.

[Chex]

The one who demands does so without duty. The trustee must keep the ledger/accounting.

MJ what does that mean "The one who demands does so without duty." and who exactly is the trustee who must keep the ledger/accounting?


verbage I like that.

[Michael Joseph]

MJ what does that mean "The one who demands does so without duty." and who exactly is the trustee who must keep the ledger/accounting?

A claim is equal to a demand - but if the claim is made WITHIN a certain Law Boundary, then that claim must have a mechanism upon which relief can be granted. Since I don't find my name upon the notes I do not have the Management of those notes in circulation and the use of those notes is subject to the Statutes developed and understood by those who consent to the Use.

What I mean is I move the exchange upon certain understandings based on my demand or lack thereof. If I lack a claim, then I will have a duty to give accounting [you might call that a return]. Otherwise, I have no duty to give an accounting as I was not responsible for the Ordering up of new book entries.

See it is by MY ORDER of which the store performs. Therefore since I took on the management, I also take the liability.

There always remains a presumption and the trustee must give account if demanded of him to prove his/her innocence. Therefore just to comprehend uses and trust one can escape duty in claim. I claim Lawful Money by demanding it. See at once I bound myself within a certain law boundary.

Consider, is it lawful to use USN's to buy in say China? Only if the heads of State [husbandmen] have entered upon an agreement! For the citizen [wife] is subject to the heads of State [husbandmen]. See this is Romans 13 and the heads of State are subject to God in Oath to the "people" and "God". For to tort a man is to tort God. For know ye now that ye are the temple of God.

Therefore we see the demand is made "subject to" the Code: 12USC411. Which is merely a reflection of a rule within a law boundary. I use the term "rule" very crudely now. But I think it gets it done. So therefore as a BENEFICIARY I demand Lawful Money - which is a PUBLIC BENEFIT - but at once I am GRANTEE in receipt of the benefit of the Use of Lawful Money undertaking now in and for the United States Districts. For you have just as much right to use lawful money as I do. Only thing separating my ability to make that use from another is KNOWLEDGE.

Officers of State occupy upon certain offices. Seems Jacob Joseph LEW is Governor of the IMF and Secretary of the Treasury. Of course it is also true that notice to agent is notice to principal. The IRS as you know is not an agency of the U.S. government.

See in Diversified Metal Products vs T Bow Company Trust we find that the proper party in suit would be the United States of America. Now ask yourself who established the Use of the notes? Was it not the United States of America in Congress? Now not to go to deep down that rabbit hole but merely to touch on the demand is made FOR something of which relief may be granted within the Law Boundary whereof said demand issues unto and grant thereof.

In the end money in any form is only as good as the willingness of the people to place their trust in that exchange medium. Thusly money is understood by Faith.

IN GOD WE TRUST