I think that we are on the same page. Recently we (brain trust) discussed how David Wynn setup the mathematics for Russell J.: GOULD to make a claim on Now-ness syntax. He has some really difficult dots to connect but the precept and hypothesis are right there. In that nobody has made a prior claim in international treaty. I don't think he ever had a chance because he based things on a faulty presumption - that the fringes around the flag are admiralty. I don't think so; but even if he is right there is no support of it in Title 4. Just the same, my point is that when one endorses private credit from the Fed, that is central banking according the the Fed Act and the promise is I will (not). Meaning one has wandered into assumpsit - out of the now.

Remember I have been claiming the "now" for years by saying, "When heritage and destiny are coherent, there is peace." The only place where heritage can intersect with destiny is in the current moment now. The endorsement promise is that, "I will not redeem this note. I will pass it along as private credit as a member bank and as an insurance policy..." There in the "insurance policy" you promise that this contract will reside in admiralty.

So the proposal you make is that when you redeem lawful money you can engage in commercial banking instead of central banking?

I like that. I enjoy where this is going.