Currently being denied my deposit with demand to redeem lawful money

[Noah]

It is simple. If I don't have the stamp handy I'll just handwrite "Redeemed Lawful Money per 12 U.S.C. 411" backside of the check. I use the Smartphone for deposits too - very handy.

It's not too hard to see whats going on here, even in the eyes of the unpottytrained observer. Seems doug555 has even given us a clue with his username.

[doug555]

It is simple. If I don't have the stamp handy I'll just handwrite "Redeemed Lawful Money per 12 U.S.C. 411" backside of the check. I use the Smartphone for deposits too - very handy.

It's not too hard to see whats going on here, even in the eyes of the unpottytrained observer. Seems doug555 has even given us a clue with his username.

Try Isaiah 55:5 and https://pentecostnation.wordpress.co...tecost-nation/

[BLBereans]

Is this any different than a store coupon, basically?

Store issues coupon.

Store outlines terms and conditions regarding use and redemption of coupon. (Usually coupons are NOT for resale or any other use NOT outlined... hint!)

Potential customer obtains coupon.

Customer presents coupon and makes demand for redemption.

Store redeems coupon, NOT customer.

Customer receives what store expressed would be the item(s) provided at redemption.

Customer cannot force redemption; customer can only present coupon and make demand.

Store is self-obligated to perform in trust/agreement outlined in terms and conditions.

Terms and conditions may also outline what recourse customer may seek for failure to perform by store and who has control over deciding the recourse.

Customer is NOT liable for store's failure to perform.

[Robert Henry]

Is this any different than a store coupon, basically?

You would have to be exchanging one type of coupon (FRN) for another (US Note) in this analogy.

US Notes are out of circulation and FRN's have been deemed their functional equivalent. Therefore, the transmutation from FRN to lawful money, on demand, is purely metaphysical.

[itsmymoney]

[ATTACH]2189[/ATTACH]


Thanks for posting this stamp, which I know is what David has always recommended and used, and which is working, but sometimes is rejected as a "restrictive endorsement".

Here is WHY I do NOT use this stamp.

Technically, 12 USC 411 states that one may only demand lawful money, after which the system is presumed to have the duty to "redeem" it into lawful money.

12 USC 411 does not say that we actually do the redeeming. That is not our responsibility, IMO. That is the system's job.

Therefore, the wording in this stamp is presumptuous. It is stating something that may not have occurred yet.

We cannot technically state, at the time that we stamp our instrument, that it is, at that instant, "Redeemed Lawful Money".

Also, look at it this way.

If it already has been redeemed as it says on the stamp, then the system would then NOT have to redeem that amount on that instrument, and the person stating that it was already redeemed could be accused of fraud-in-the-factum.

So, this is an important technicality that IMO should be thoroughly discussed here, and resolved ASAP.

This is why I use this handwritten demand below:

[ATTACH]2190[/ATTACH]

Doug555,

I see where you are headed with this (and my actual job-for-pay is to analyze every possibility), but the negotiable instrument is the check in your hand. If the stated 'money' on that check were truly previously 'redeemed' (regardless of lawful money or FRN's), then that check itself is non-negotiable. Meaning, the person trying to deposit or cash it was ALREADY PAID that amount via lawful money AND via a DIFFERENT check, coin, or other instrument - NOT the check in hand. So why would the bank then deposit/cash the check in hand if it was presumed to be already deposited/cashed based on the novation on the back?

[BLBereans]

You would have to be exchanging one type of coupon (FRN) for another (US Note) in this analogy.

US Notes are out of circulation and FRN's have been deemed their functional equivalent. Therefore, the transmutation from FRN to lawful money, on demand, is purely metaphysical.

Show me where it is expressed that the FRN is exchanged for USN in the "terms and conditions" regarding redeeming.

I read that it is "gold", in the original "agreement circa 1913, and then changed to "lawful money" in the novation circa 1934.

Is there an express definition of "lawful money" in the novation which states it defined as 'USN' as it relates to the "new agreement"?

BTW, of course the "transmutation" is metaphysical for this matter; however, I believe the point is to clearly express one's demand to avoid "fees" (taxes) for use of the FRN in ways other than what is expressly permitted... "for no other purpose..."; is it not?

[doug555]

Doug555,

I see where you are headed with this (and my actual job-for-pay is to analyze every possibility), but the negotiable instrument is the check in your hand. If the stated 'money' on that check were truly previously 'redeemed' (regardless of lawful money or FRN's), then that check itself is non-negotiable. Meaning, the person trying to deposit or cash it was ALREADY PAID that amount via lawful money AND via a DIFFERENT check, coin, or other instrument - NOT the check in hand. So why would the bank then deposit/cash the check in hand if it was presumed to be already deposited/cashed based on the novation on the back?

But since the default currency for all transactions is private credit (FRNs), then one is not "ALREADY PAID that amount via lawful money"... right?

IMO, that presumption of using the default currency must always be rebutted.

[doug555]

Is this any different than a store coupon, basically?

Store issues coupon.

Store outlines terms and conditions regarding use and redemption of coupon. (Usually coupons are NOT for resale or any other use NOT outlined... hint!)

Potential customer obtains coupon.

Customer presents coupon and makes demand for redemption.

Store redeems coupon, NOT customer.

Customer receives what store expressed would be the item(s) provided at redemption.

Customer cannot force redemption; customer can only present coupon and make demand.

Store is self-obligated to perform in trust/agreement outlined in terms and conditions.

Terms and conditions may also outline what recourse customer may seek for failure to perform by store and who has control over deciding the recourse.

Customer is NOT liable for store's failure to perform.

Great analogy!

Notice that it is always "value" that is being exchanged - NOT the mediums of exchange.

Therefore, this analogy may also apply to using "bills" as "coupons"... as "credit vouchers".

[Robert Henry]

Show me where it is expressed that the FRN is exchanged for USN in the "terms and conditions" regarding redeeming.

[SNIP]

BTW, of course the "transmutation" is metaphysical for this matter; however, I believe the point is to clearly express one's demand to avoid "fees" (taxes) for use of the FRN in ways other than what is expressly permitted... "for no other purpose..."; is it not?

I don't have a cite for US Notes being deemed lawful money on hand but it has been discussed here and elsewhere. I believe the only "terms and conditions" are that they shall be redeemed on demand and the full text of the code seems very clear in that regard, at least to me.

It is worth noting that there is no specific direction in the code as to how to go about redeeming, only that it happens on demand. By that even a simple verbal demand should suffice. I believe our purpose here is to provide overwhelming evidence.

If one has served, posted and published one's demand and kept the records of redeemed checks how could it be proven that demand was not made?

[BLBereans]

I don't have a cite for US Notes being deemed lawful money on hand but it has been discussed here and elsewhere. I believe the only "terms and conditions" are that they shall be redeemed on demand and the full text of the code seems very clear in that regard, at least to me.

It is worth noting that there is no specific direction in the code as to how to go about redeeming, only that it happens on demand. By that even a simple verbal demand should suffice. I believe our purpose here is to provide overwhelming evidence.

If one has served, posted and published one's demand and kept the records of redeemed checks how could it be proven that demand was not made?

You won't find a cite. Just because "it has been discussed here and elsewhere" doesn't make it the express agreement terms and conditions for FRN redemption.

Of course there is no specific direction in the code as to how to go about redeeming; does Wal-Mart specifically spell out their private financials to you as regards to your coupon redemption with them?

"That's our business; you just bring the coupon in and we will take care of it "in-house".

Redemption doesn't happen on demand; ..."they shall be redeemed upon demand...". Shall is a future tense word. Whether or when "they" redeem or not is not our problem in this specific instance. Our demand is made expressly known and therefore we are NOT liable in any way either for "mis-use" or failure to perform. That is our purpose, to provide a lawful record of our "non-use" of FRNs for purposes other than expressly permitted in the agreement.

[Robert Henry]

You won't find a cite. Just because "it has been discussed here and elsewhere" doesn't make it the express agreement terms and conditions for FRN redemption.

Of course there is no specific direction in the code as to how to go about redeeming; does Wal-Mart specifically spell out their private financials to you as regards to your coupon redemption with them?

"That's our business; you just bring the coupon in and we will take care of it "in-house".

Redemption doesn't happen on demand; ..."they shall be redeemed upon demand...". Shall is a future tense word. Whether or when "they" redeem or not is not our problem in this specific instance. Our demand is made expressly known and therefore we are NOT liable in any way either for "mis-use" or failure to perform. That is our purpose, to provide a lawful record of our "non-use" of FRNs for purposes other than expressly permitted in the agreement.

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.

[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.

[Robert Henry]

I believe all I have shared is personal experience.

I believe ALL of this is interpretation and opinion - the only way to know is by doing. I would encourage others to find what resonates and follow the heart, however, over-complication of a simple and proven process may lead to confusion - or worse - and perhaps dissuade others newly coming to this process.

If you have found anything in these posts to be accusatory, would you please forgive me?