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

[David Merrill]

Just curious, are you using a foreign alphabet for signature?

Yes. That is paleo-Hebrew from the time of David. Sumarian Ostraca.

[Goldi]

"Therefore Fed notes are negotiable because there is a higher form of currency allegedly available to trade-up to" ...then why the stamp using the term non-negotiable federal reserve notes as a stamp for the back of a check? Why not non-redeemable in it's place. That would be a more correct statement.

[David Merrill]

"Therefore Fed notes are negotiable because there is a higher form of currency allegedly available to trade-up to" ...then why the stamp using the term non-negotiable federal reserve notes as a stamp for the back of a check? Why not non-redeemable in it's place. That would be a more correct statement.

Yes. That works too.

There are several variations proving out the definitions for FRNs and US notes by Congress, supported by the courts. We even find variations Down Under effective:

They shall be redeemed in lawful money by demand...

That you express your demand to redeem the cash transaction in lawful money, that is the execution of the operation in law. It seems a saddening distraction to pick apart the Demand so. It tells me that people are trying to appease attorneys about the definitions of the form around Federal Reserve Notes, rather than to understand the verbiage from Congress.

Just make your Demand clear. Then sign your Demand instead of signing Endorsement.

Regards,

David Merrill.



P.S. Protectionism drives a fierce venom on Quatloos - http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/view...118293#p118293

[Mark Christopher]

I have been looking into stamping the FRN to make it a US note. In another thread Martin Earl brought the concept of the president side of the note being split into 2 sides the FRN side and the US note side. I am looking at a 10 dollar note from 2006. In the US note side there is a very interesting thing going on, inside the box it says THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and We The People. It also has a serial number (minus the black 3 digit extension on the FRN side) and the number 10 is in green and is the only number not encumbered by the box. lets not forget it is signed by the Secretary of the Treasury (does he not EXPATRIATE to take that position? I will keep looking). I would think the signers are setting it up so one is WITHIN and one WITHOUT the UNITED STATES.

I would like to add my view that the FRN actual represents 3 trusts on 2 sides. The back of the note (who says its the back anyway I think it is really the front!) appears to be our trust with GOD. The whole side of the note says THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and IN GOD WE TRUST. Please note the font of the THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA on this side it is light green with a dark shadow around it. On the other side it is opposite (Black type with clear shadow). The back side is the only side that allows the 10 out of the box.

SO I have to agree with DM to stamp the backside which to me makes it OUR frontside and shows who we have trust in (GOD).

I will say this is all very confusing as I am sure it is meant to be.
Be Well
MC

[David Merrill]

Thank you for parsing that out carefully.

It brings to my mind how when I published my Lien the chief judge filed a new oath of office without the scope of God. Then I requested the transcript where I charged him and the prosecutor $10M each, and he prescribed the correct trust on account for settlement. I will need to read your post and examine my FRN and US Note carefully but we have some interesting things to post about here.


Regards,

David Merrill.