Is this thead a correct reflection of "the Process"?

[David Merrill]

Yes. That thread is about my first of two videos.

Welcome Axe! I am glad you found your way here. The Freemen forum opened up quickly and was popular immediately. A lot of folks enjoy this subject material - and everybody needs remedy.

The objective of utilizing the remedy that is written in the law is that a target not be painted on your back. The endorsement on the back of a paycheck is your agreement to do business with the Federal Reserve. If there is no agreement in place, then it is unlikely that there will be any sensical prosecution that arises.

People are finding that any Withholdings are fully Refunded based on the remedy being properly applied. If, They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand... is being incorrectly applied or interpreted here nobody is explaining why. On the SJC website the best sounding board was Shoonra the Useful.

Shoonra, Bernard J. SUSSMAN is a retired law librarian with a Bar Card (DC) since 1978. His attempts to explain that remedy from elastic currency does not actually exist really taught me a lot. Nobody of consequence agrees with him though.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Goldi]

What I would like an answer on is why use the terminology non-negotiable? Why that instead of non-redeemable? Federal reserve notes are negotiable, according to the Bouvier's Law definition of NEGOTIABLE: NEGOTIABLE. That which is capable of being transferred by assignment; a thing, the title to which may be transferred by a sale and indorsement or delivery.