Clarity please

[Brian]

Hello James Paul,

In my estimate, the FRN is a dual capacity note. So I will say it like this: There are TWO seals on said note and two signatories. So then both the USN and the FRN are legal tender and Both are LAWFUL TO USE but only one is Lawful Money OF the United States. Just like there can be two children in a room from two different families and one child is OF his daddy and another child is OF his daddy.

So then any slick is going to just say you got lawful money - but that is obfuscation in that a FRN is lawful to USE but is NOT lawful money OF the United States.

As I said this is my opinion.

Shalom,
MJ

Bingo! What matters is who issues the "money". The treasury of the US or A private bank. Lawful money of the U.S. (coin or US currency notes) or Bank credit (Lawful money).

[shikamaru]

Bingo! What matters is who issues the "money". The treasury of the US or A private bank. Lawful money of the U.S. (coin or US currency notes) or Bank credit (Lawful money).

Notes, bills, and coins issued by the U.S. Treasury (actually .... the Department of the Treasury) is lawful money.

Notes and bills issued by the FRB is legal tender.

US Treasury bills and notes are used as a reserve currency, but not a circulating one.

Also, don't you find it strange that the article 'the' is in the official title?

Strangely enough, I've heard that postal money orders are lawful money.

[Brian]

Notes, bills, and coins issued by the U.S. Treasury (actually .... the Department of the Treasury) is lawful money.

Notes and bills issued by the FRB is legal tender.

US Treasury bills and notes are used as a reserve currency, but not a circulating one.

Also, don't you find it strange that the article 'the' is in the official title?

Strangely enough, I've heard that postal money orders are lawful money.

Shik, re-read pages 6 and 7 of this doc: Lawful Money

I think there may be a distinction between "lawful money" and "lawful money of the U.S." That distinction being who issues it. Both may be lawful (authorized by law) but one is issued by a private bank and the other by the Treasury. I don't know for sure, but it seems to fit. At any rate does adding "of the U.S." make it any less effective?

[JohnnyCash]

I have interesting news today. I deposited a check, my first attempt, and when I did so I did notendorse it . I placed on the back "demand lawful money ( US note) as per Title 12 USC S 411" then I signed James Paul DBA James Paul Fexxxxxxx and as an added layer under that I added "UCC 1-308 without pejudice"

What's interesting is how some folks just can't seem to remember a simple demand. "Redeemed Lawful Money pursuant to 12 USC 411" Eight words. Not saying your demand won't work but user "freedave" here also had lotsa trouble with this (just like BAMAJiPS). Kept rearranging and adding new words into the demand before disappearing about a year ago. Or was it just feigned trouble and ignorance?

[Michael Joseph]

Shik, re-read pages 6 and 7 of this doc: Lawful Money

I think there may be a distinction between "lawful money" and "lawful money of the U.S." That distinction being who issues it. Both may be lawful (authorized by law) but one is issued by a private bank and the other by the Treasury. I don't know for sure, but it seems to fit. At any rate does adding "of the U.S." make it any less effective?

(a) saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it; and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land,..." The First Judiciary Act; September 24, 1789(emphasis added)

=====

Regarding Postal Money Orders they are issued "PAY TO" they lack the language of negotiability which is "PAY TO THE ORDER OF". This means that a Postal Money Order is non-assignable.

Why get so wrapped up in semantics, the answer is simple : how to get lawful money : THEY SHALL BE REDEEMED IN LAWFUL MONEY ON DEMAND.....AT ANY FEDERAL RESERVE BANK.

Now then anyone making a use of Federal Reserve Notes is by default is involved in Federal Reserve Banking. So dear reader, Walmart, Wells Fargo, Best Buy are all Federal Reserve Banks.

On my side of the counter - "Demand is made for lawful money per 12USC411" is my administrative lawful process. I don't give a crap what is actually happening on the other side of the counter. If I make a use for the benefit of the Public, then the Public gets the benefit. And it is known that HE WHO IS WITH THE BENEFIT IS WITH THE OBLIGATION. So then, I allow the Trustee to perform and I hope to never trespass his office.


Shalom,
Michael Joseph

[David Merrill]

Very Advanced!

[Anthony Joseph]

(a) saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it; and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land,..." The First Judiciary Act; September 24, 1789(emphasis added)

=====

Regarding Postal Money Orders they are issued "PAY TO" they lack the language of negotiability which is "PAY TO THE ORDER OF". This means that a Postal Money Order is non-assignable.

Why get so wrapped up in semantics, the answer is simple : how to get lawful money : THEY SHALL BE REDEEMED IN LAWFUL MONEY ON DEMAND.....AT ANY FEDERAL RESERVE BANK.

Now then anyone making a use of Federal Reserve Notes is by default is involved in Federal Reserve Banking. So dear reader, Walmart, Wells Fargo, Best Buy are all Federal Reserve Banks.

On my side of the counter - "Demand is made for lawful money per 12USC411" is my administrative lawful process. I don't give a crap what is actually happening on the other side of the counter. If I make a use for the benefit of the Public, then the Public gets the benefit. And it is known that HE WHO IS WITH THE BENEFIT IS WITH THE OBLIGATION. So then, I allow the Trustee to perform and I hope to never trespass his office.


Shalom,
Michael Joseph

What were the "respective districts" within the United States in 1789 prior to the formation in 1790?

[Michael Joseph]

What were the "respective districts" within the United States in 1789 prior to the formation in 1790?

Excellent Question: Consider the following word groupings:..

In the United States District Court
for the District of North Carolina

[Anthony Joseph]

Excellent Question: Consider the following word groupings:..

In the United States District Court
for the District of North Carolina

Excellent answer.

To make it more clear...

The States United, within their respective districts, as opposed to, The United States Districts.

[David Merrill]

I still think it better, plainer, to say the city of Washington (overlaid fiction upon) in the State. Put this way it expresses a municipal jurisdiction that has been imposed upon the states for revenue purposes.

Further to clarify, the Act of 1790 was what obligated the State(s) through the imposed district(s) to collect revenue toward the debts of the city of Washington - the United States (one of the three USSC-acceptable definitions). However if you were to look into the Judiciary Act of 1789 you would likely find as according to Dr. Dale LIVINGSTON Esq. that was actually when the districts were formed.

Listen to the 8:00 Minute Mark there and get to the center of the delusion. The US government was never formed on a territorial jurisdiction; but rather a municipal jurisdiction of New York City. LIVINGSTON has organized this setting in his mind as based on a fraud but then again his ancestor NY Chief Justice Robert LIVINGSTON (Grand Master) was involved. He goes on to the 12:00 Minute Mark though to describe NY as the only state that did not want to get involved by sending its delegates to ratify. Then two minutes later (14:00) we find Alexander HAMILTON (the central banking advocate) is the only delegate for NY being two more delegates short. The 16:45 Minute Mark reveals that the Grand Master of the Masons swore in WASHINGTON, and that was done on the porch of the Lodge!

In modern times the same exercise of the Masons as Priests is expressed through municipal home rule:

The priests' dominions are the cities and their suburbs - look at I Chronicles chapter 6. It takes quite a while to discover how clear and simple this all is. But well worth the journey for me especially being a Patroon and descended from the Patroon who built that wall around his estate on Manhattan that became Wall Street - where WASHINGTON was sworn in! Here is the Van Pelt Milestone as found today:

Notice with whom it sets in the Brooklyn Historical Society Museum. When destiny and heritage are coherent, there is peace.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[shikamaru]

Shik, re-read pages 6 and 7 of this doc: Lawful Money

I think there may be a distinction between "lawful money" and "lawful money of the U.S." That distinction being who issues it. Both may be lawful (authorized by law) but one is issued by a private bank and the other by the Treasury. I don't know for sure, but it seems to fit. At any rate does adding "of the U.S." make it any less effective?

Bank credit becomes legal tender when mandated by a government to be accepted for payment of debt by creditors.
Legal tender laws are an obligation on creditors, not debtors.

Lawful money has a wider significance than legal tender according to Shoonra the Useful .

[Keith Alan]

Bank credit becomes legal tender when mandated by a government to be accepted for payment of debt by creditors.
Legal tender laws are an obligation on creditors, not debtors.

Lawful money has a wider significance than legal tender according to Shoonra the Useful .

And creditors, having been obliged to receive legal tender, can then find remedy by demanding lawful money at any Federal Reserve bank. That much seems clear.

[David Merrill]

And creditors, having been obliged to receive legal tender, can then find remedy by demanding lawful money at any Federal Reserve bank. That much seems clear.

That sheds some great light, thank you.



Endorsers receive the benefit of being a creditor but never collect on the benefit (consideration) thus rendering the contract "naked".

[Keith Alan]

Yes I suppose it does strengthen the argument for demanding lawful money. The more I learn about this, the more I'm stymied by government's apparently deliberate obfuscation of what otherwise should be a clear and simple procedure.

They hide the remedy, withold US notes from circulation, and require unreasonable conditions to exercise what plainly is a civil right.

[David Merrill]

Yes I suppose it does strengthen the argument for demanding lawful money. The more I learn about this, the more I'm stymied by government's apparently deliberate obfuscation of what otherwise should be a clear and simple procedure.

They hide the remedy, withold US notes from circulation, and require unreasonable conditions to exercise what plainly is a civil right.

I think the government has been by and large replaced by a central banking cartel, a public trust, named the Federal Reserve System. It is as though Congress has become a subservient agent of the Fed.