Currently being denied my deposit with demand to redeem lawful money

[BLBereans]

I have no need to find a cite as I have not questioned the validity of US Notes as lawful money. I merely provided the reference as courtesy for you to further investigate, if you so desired.

I appreciate your interpretation but my first-hand experience expresses, for me, the validity of the use of the verbiage being discussed here.

The discussion is not whether US Notes are lawful money, it is whether the specific code (12USC411) expressly defines USNs to be the lawful money referred to in that citation.

My initial posting on this topic was directed at doug555 who was trying to be precise with the language used on checks. Whether or not your "first-hand experience" expresses validity for you is something only you can comment on. I am merely trying to follow doug555's lead in being precise so as to form a proper record which leaves no doubt as to one's intent.

The fact remains that Robert Henry has no authority to redeem FRNs precisely because Robert Henry did not issue them. Robert Henry can only make a record of the 'demand' so as to dismiss any assumed liability for use of FRNs.

I have no authority to go to Wal-Mart, take someone's coupon and give them a product on the shelf - it's not my coupon and I didn't issue it.

Language and definitions are critical if you wish to participate in the game.

[Robert Henry]

Language and definitions are critical if you wish to participate in the game.

Indeed, thank you.

What seems to be happening here is an unnecessary over-complication of a very simple matter - which has been shown to be effective, as I and others have repeatedly attested.

What can any of us truly offer other than our own personal experience?

I wish you luck in implementing your interpretation. Please let us know how it works out for you.

[BLBereans]

Indeed, thank you.

What seems to be happening here is an unnecessary over-complication of a very simple matter - which has been shown to be effective, as I and others have repeatedly attested.

What can any of us truly offer other than our own personal experience?

I wish you luck in implementing your interpretation. Please let us know how it works out for you.

Do you find a flaw in my interpretation?

Are you accusing me of purposeful "effective" unnecessary over-complication; as if my intents are less than honorable?

Here I thought I was helping doug555 hone his disclaimer.

[doug555]

Do you find a flaw in my interpretation?

Are you accusing me of purposeful "effective" unnecessary over-complication; as if my intents are less than honorable?

Here I thought I was helping doug555 hone his disclaimer.

The "over-complication" is the presumption that I am referring to in that stamp.

It complicates the issue, as previously explained.

Thanks for your interpretations.

[BLBereans]

The "over-complication" is the presumption that I am referring to in that stamp.

It complicates the issue, as previously explained.

Thanks for your interpretations.

You are welcome.

That is how I view it as well. The over-complication comes from anything more than forming an accurate record of the demand of lawful money.

If someone believes he/she can redeem something he/she did not issue in the first place, that is where complication may ensue. At the very least, it demonstrates a lack of understanding regarding who is authorized and or required to do what relating to 12USC411. This may prove to be the difference between being left alone and having to defend against false assumptions of liability to the point of interference of access to one's funds.

Glad that you see this as well.

[itsmymoney]

You are welcome.

That is how I view it as well. The over-complication comes from anything more than forming an accurate record of the demand of lawful money.

If someone believes he/she can redeem something he/she did not issue in the first place, that is where complication may ensue. At the very least, it demonstrates a lack of understanding regarding who is authorized and or required to do what relating to 12USC411. This may prove to be the difference between being left alone and having to defend against false assumptions of liability to the point of interference of access to one's funds.

Glad that you see this as well.

So what Doug555 and you appear to be saying, is that the 'redeemed' verbiage is open to interpretation as to WHOM and WHEN the 'redemption' occurred. I believe the INTENT is key here. It would seem that INTENT carries much weight in law. 'Willingness', i.e. INTENT. It's obvious to most that the INTENT of the language behind 'Redeemed in Lawful Money' MEANS, that 'I currently and in the future demand lawful money for this instrument WHENEVER the system (the bank/Treasury) must do so'. Unfortunately, this 'technicality' could bite us all in the ass if 'they' pull a Pete Hendrickson-style assault on those who RILM. For example, Johnny Cash has 8 years running. Who's to say they would not bust his 'chops' at some point? Johnny Cash, are you SO certain this could never happen to you? I think this is part of or most of Doug555's point. ANY 'fallacy' in our attempts/INTENT to execute our Rights will be take advantage of by 'them' if possible. Would anyone disagree?

I think the INTENT here is a huge factor in OUR favor. But 'they' appear to be able to rig any 'sure thing' in their favor.

[Robert Henry]

I believe the INTENT is key here.

Well said. And if the proper method of serving, posting and publishing one's demand is used, along with the transactional record of redeemed checks, proving otherwise will be most difficult.

I believe that unless and until 12 USC 411 is somehow repealed or over-turned, this method properly executed will continue to yield success.

[Robert Henry]

The "over-complication" is the presumption that I am referring to in that stamp.

It complicates the issue, as previously explained.

Thanks for your interpretations.

It would appear that the presumption, and hence over-complication, here is yours, Doug: "...after which the system is presumed to have the duty..."

Again, my question is; what evidence do you have of this?

What evidence do you have that anything happens in "the system", as you describe it, upon demand? What act does the teller in "the system" commit in performance of this duty you presume "them" to have, before handing me the FRN's due from the non-endorsed check I have provided them?

The redemption is IN the demand. Demand is made, therefore the notes are redeemed. Very simple. Unless one wishes to over-complicate the issue.

[itsmymoney]

It would appear that the presumption, and hence over-complication, here is yours, Doug: "...after which the system is presumed to have the duty..."

Again, my question is; what evidence do you have of this?

What evidence do you have that anything happens in "the system", as you describe it, upon demand? What act does the teller in "the system" commit in performance of this duty you presume "them" to have, before handing me the FRN's due from the non-endorsed check I have provided them?

The redemption is IN the demand. Demand is made, therefore the notes are redeemed. Very simple. Unless one wishes to over-complicate the issue.

RH, see my prior post above. All I think D555 is saying is, DO NOT leave any stone unturned for 'them' to un-turn for you, valid or not. His point is technically a valid one. The DEMAND is made at the time of redemption or at the proper time 'from this point forward', not presumed to be 'already executed'. It is certainly 'splitting hairs', but ANY crack in your language or execution will surely be 'used against you in a court of law' as 'they' like to say.

I don't think D555's intent is to over-complicate things, rather just to make people be more aware of WHAT they are doing and saying in a legal/lawful sense.

[Robert Henry]

RH, see my prior post above. All I think D555 is saying is, DO NOT leave any stone unturned for 'them' to un-turn for you, valid or not. His point is technically a valid one. The DEMAND is made at the time of redemption or at the proper time 'from this point forward', not presumed to be 'already executed'. It is certainly 'splitting hairs', but ANY crack in your language or execution will surely be 'used against you in a court of law' as 'they' like to say.

I don't think D555's intent is to over-complicate things, rather just to make people be more aware of WHAT they are doing and saying in a legal/lawful sense.

Thanks IMM. If I have led you, or others, to believe that I feel the issue is being deliberately and/or maliciously complicated, please forgive me.

I believe, however, and perhaps this is the root of it, that you have it backwards: the redemption occurs at the time of demand. As in the last post I made, my comprehension is that the redemption is IN the demand. It is self-executing.