"Redeeming Lawful Money"

[wserra]

We've yet to discuss specifically the latest David/Harvey delusion, "redeeming lawful money". I know, I know, we have not discussed alien abductions, bending spoons with your mind or the Mitch Modeleski bullshit du jour either. Some things may in fact be too dumb to warrant close attention - but we have discussed names in capital letters and gold fringes on flags, and you don't get much dumber than those. So, since David raised the subject, I thought we'd give it a thread.

The "argument", as I understand it, is based on 12 USC § 411. In relevant part, that statute provides that federal reserve notes "shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank". David draws two conclusions from this: that FRNs themselves are not "lawful money", and that "redeeming" your paycheck makes it non-taxable. The first of those conclusions is wrong but understandable; the second is wrong and gibberish.

To understand the current version of the statute, one needs a little history. The predecessor version of 12 USC § 411 was first enacted as 38 Stat. 265 in 1913. The U.S. was on the gold standard in 1913, "redeem" meant something very different than it does today, and the statute in so many words permitted redemption in gold. In 1934, the Gold Reserve Act nationalized privately-held gold bullion (not, obviously, ornaments and jewelry), and eliminated the provision of § 411 that permitted redemption in gold. However, there were still other forms of lawful money in circulation then - silver certificates, U.S. Notes, and perhaps one or two others (someone else can look it up). Those no longer exist today, but that provision of § 411 remains, basically an anachronism. The law contains many anachronisms. I'm sure everyone has seen the compilations of laws still on the books which do things like prohibit herding cattle on Main Street.

So, as to David's first contention: David takes the anachronism "redeem in lawful money" and infers that it means that FRNs are not "lawful money", something not completely illogical. It's wrong, though. "Lawful money" is not a phrase with a well defined meaning such as "legal tender". FRNs are, of course, legal tender. 31 USC 5103. It is very difficult to see how, whatever "lawful money" may mean, something which is defined by statute as legal tender isn't also "lawful money". The law requires a creditor to accept something that isn't money? That's pretty nuts.

Plenty of courts have specifically held that FRNs are "lawful money".

Defendant argues that the Federal Reserve Notes in which he was paid were not lawful money within the meaning of Art. 1, § 8, United States Constitution. We have held to the contrary. United States v. Ware, 10 Cir., 608 F.2d 400, 402-403. We find no validity in the distinction which defendant draws between "lawful money" and "legal tender." Money is a medium of exchange. Legal tender is money which the law requires a creditor to receive in payment of an obligation.

United States v. Rickman, 638 F.2d 182 (10th Cir. 1980). There are many, many others. For a few, see Poe v. C.I.R., T.C. Memo. 1983-312; United States v. Farber, 679 F.2d 733 (8th Cir. 1982); United States v. Ware, 608 F.2d 400 (10th Cir. 1979); Love v. Baldwin United Mortgage Co., 168 Ga.App. 361 (1983); Herald v. State, 107 Idaho 640 (1984); Brand v. State, 828 S.W.2d 824 (TX App. 1992). In fairness, there is a case in which the Third Circuit in dicta says differently. United States v. Thomas, 319 F.3d 640 (3rd Cir. 2003). We discussed that case in some detail earlier.

But, ignoring the history and the law, there is nonetheless some logic in saying that, since FRNs can be redeemed in lawful money, they are not themselves lawful money. Legally that's wrong, and historically it ignores how parts of statutes can become, through changing times and amendments to related statutes, anachronisms which no longer support that sort of inference. But, just from the language of the statute, it's not illogical.

It's the next part where they sail off into the cream cheese. One only arrives at the conclusion that 12 USC § 411 somehow renders otherwise taxable income non-taxable through logical knots of Gordian proportions. IIRC, those knots includes things like monetizing debt, Treasury accounts, public money and private credit (or was that private money and public credit?), the Chinese, the Sanhedrin and logarithmic spirals superimposed on maps.

Wild as this stuff is, I think David may well believe it. I doubt Harvey does. And, on certain other sites which shall remain nameless, you can find people who will accept anything that means they don't have to pay taxes.

Reminder: any responses that claim this has actually worked must contain verifiable proof.

[notorial dissent]

More to the point, 12 USC § 411 very specifically says:
Federal reserve notes
to be issued
at the discretion of the Board of Governors
for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks

said notes
shall be obligations of the United States
shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks

and finally
shall be redeemed in lawful money
on demand
at the Treasury Department of the United States
or at any Federal Reserve bank.


The law quite specifically says issued to Federal reserve banks for the purpose of making advances, NOTHING ELSE. We are not talking about regular currency here.

At the time this was written, in 1913, money was not regular wired or transferred telephonically commercially, and certainly wasn't between banks. It was moved in bulk, either in actual cash or in bullion. As witness that fine old cottage industry called armed car robbery, that thrived at the time. At that time the ONLY way to move large sums of money between the Fed and member banks, or between banks for that matter, was by physical transport, and when all the FED was doing was making an interem large loan to a member, it made no sense to use small regular bills when they could use the special Federal Reserve NOTES in very large denominations, that were ONLY to be used between banks and the FED, and not for circulation. The denominations of these bills ran from $1,000 to $100,000 and they were what was used to handle those kind of cash transfers for short term loans since the banks had to have physical assets on premises to meet asset requirements. The issue at discretion part of this referred to those special notes, that were not legal tender, and never intended to ever leave the banks themselves. They could, however, be "redeemed" at a FED bank for regular legal tender cash and coin if the bank actually needed that to meet its needs. 12 USC § 411 refers to banks, not commercial users, and does not at all refer to the regular FRN's that were then in use. There is nothing in 12 USC § 411 that refers to anything but FED member banks, and nothing whatsoever that says an individual can redeem for lawful money, as it refers ONLY to banks, despite what certain delusional types want to claim.

[fortinbras]

The nature and function of Federal Reserve Notes have changed since they were first introduced in 1913. Primarily, in 1933 they were explicitly declared to be "legal tender", along with any other currency ever produced by the federal govt. This elevated them from mere markers used among the banks to active currency. With the discontinuance of silver certificates, gold certificates, and United States notes, the FRNs are now the sole paper currency in circulation.

Although David Merrill van Pelt finds every excuse to quote the 1913 provision about redeeming, the simple fact is that the courts - in the Ware and Rickman cases for example - said that the lawful money that FRNs could be exchanged for was other FRNs, there being no other lawful money now in circulation (and the govt was not going to give collectors item old currency in exchange for FRNs).

[jg]

For a somewhat related IRS statement see http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/art ... 03,00.html

C. Contention: Federal Reserve Notes are not income.

Some assert that Federal Reserve Notes currently used in the United States are not valid currency and cannot be taxed, because Federal Reserve Notes are not gold or silver and may not be exchanged for gold or silver. This argument misinterprets Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution.

The Law: Congress is empowered "[t]o coin Money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the Standard of weights and measures." U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 5. Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution prohibits the states from declaring as legal tender anything other than gold or silver, but does not limit Congress' power to declare the form of legal tender. See 31 U.S.C. § 5103; 12 U.S.C. § 411. In United States v. Rifen, 577 F.2d 1111 (8 th Cir. 1978), the court affirmed a conviction for willfully failing to file a return, rejecting the argument that Federal Reserve Notes are not subject to taxation. "Congress has declared Federal Reserve notes legal tender . . . and federal reserve notes are taxable dollars." Id. at 1112. The courts have rejected this argument on numerous occasions.

Relevant Case Law:
United States v. Rickman, 638 F.2d 182, 184 (10 th Cir. 1980) - The court affirmed the conviction for willfully failing to file a return and rejected the taxpayer's argument that "the Federal Reserve Notes in which he was paid were not lawful money within the meaning of Art. 1, § 8, United States Constitution."

United States v. Condo, 741 F.2d 238, 239 (9 th Cir. 1984) - The court upheld the taxpayer's criminal conviction, rejecting as "frivolous" the argument that Federal Reserve Notes are not valid currency, cannot be taxed, and are merely "debts."

United States v. Daly, 481 F.2d 28, 30 (8 th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1064 (1973) - The court rejected as "clearly frivolous" the assertion "that the only 'Legal Tender Dollars' are those which contain a mixture of gold and silver and that only those dollars may be constitutionally taxed" and affirmed Daly's conviction for willfully failing to file a return.

Jones v. Commissioner, 688 F.2d 17 (6 th Cir. 1982) - The court found the taxpayer's claim that his wages were paid in "depreciated bank notes" as clearly without merit and affirmed the Tax Court's imposition of an addition to tax for negligence or intentional disregard of rules and regulations.

[David Merrill]

[Mod redacts unverified claim of success in violating the law. Explain all you want, David, but a claim of success must be accompanied by verifiable proof.] I just want people to take a moment and listen, since a hearing has been invited by Wserra.

Your posts are all very revealing about redemption of lawful money. The plain English is only a beginning to understand.

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

You should give Congress a little credit for knowing English and being able to revise, amend or abolish a statute if it is erroneous especially when they have had 100 years to do so. FRNs are not entirely synonymous with lawful money. Simple as that.

The nature and function of Federal Reserve Notes have changed since they were first introduced in 1913. Primarily, in 1933 they were explicitly declared to be "legal tender", along with any other currency ever produced by the federal govt. This elevated them from mere markers used among the banks to active currency.

Eloquently put. In other words in 1913 Congress invented the Fed to furnish banks with elastic currency. Since they were creating more currency than gold through fractional lending for 20 years before 1933 when it was time to for the banks to redeem their gold, there was not enough gold to cover the notes. It was going to be a big bank run on the Fed. FDR was Governor of NY and for the other global municipal jurisdiction reasons around METRO, that we will go into later if I am allowed to explain this much here, he was the guy for the job of saving the Fed.

He did that by allowing the private citizens of America to endorse the private credit from the Fed as though they were the pre-1933 banks Fortinbras is speaking about above. The primary Notice was issued to the State Governor's Conference.




It is amusing that Wserra started this thread when it is obviously a losing argument! If Congress says that people can redeem FRNs in lawful money by demand then why would anybody listen to Wserra about it?



Regards,

David Merrill.



P.S. US notes are technically still in circulation and for practical purposes have been replaced by FRNs. Last paragraph:

United States notes serve no function that is not already adequately served by Federal Reserve notes. As a result, the Treasury Department stopped issuing United States notes, and none have been placed into circulation since January 21, 1971.

By and large that is because everybody is endorsing private credit from the Fed according to FDR's 1933 trust agreement. But more practically it is just simpler to have one form of currency. Since Congress has never taken the US notes out of circulation (completely) they are holding the bills to preserve them from the ravages of handling. Replacing them would be a big burden and would increase the potential for counterfeiting.

Neither Rickman or Ware demanded lawful money with their paychecks. But with that in mind I can again use the courts to prove my point:

In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money.

and

United States notes shall be lawful money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt.

Mostly through skeptical discussion like this, I have developed many proofs. One of my favorites is with Title 31 becoming positive law by renaming US notes to United States currency notes. - None of which forms are still in circulation according to some of the ignorant posts above.

[jg]

...FDR was Governor of NY and for the other global municipal jurisdiction reasons around METRO, that we will go into later if I am allowed to explain this much here, he was the guy for the job of saving the Fed.

He did that by allowing the private citizens of America to endorse the private credit from the Fed as though they were the pre-1933 banks Fortinbras is speaking about above. The primary Notice was issued to the State Governor's Conference.

After the quote there was a picture of some text talking about getting people to buy government bonds.

1. Please explain what is meant by "allowing the private citizens of America to endorse the private credit from the Fed as though they were the pre-1933 banks"
Sorry for my ignorance, but the phrase "endorse the private credit" means nothing to me.
What, if any, significance is there in the phrase "as though they were the pre-1933 banks" as it implies or suggests, to me, that endorsing private credit [which you will hopefully define for me] was somehow changed in 1933.

2. Please help connect and contrast the "endorse the private credit" and "redeemed in lawful money on demand" phrases. What does one have to do with the other?
How are these two phrases realated (how are they similar, different, or the same) ?

As difficult as it may be, this is a genuine attempt for me, and perhaps others, to know what is meant by these phrases as being used in your comment.

[David Merrill]

...FDR was Governor of NY and for the other global municipal jurisdiction reasons around METRO, that we will go into later if I am allowed to explain this much here, he was the guy for the job of saving the Fed.

He did that by allowing the private citizens of America to endorse the private credit from the Fed as though they were the pre-1933 banks Fortinbras is speaking about above. The primary Notice was issued to the State Governor's Conference.

After the quote there was a picture of some text talking about getting people to buy government bonds.

1. Please explain what is meant by "allowing the private citizens of America to endorse the private credit from the Fed as though they were the pre-1933 banks"
Sorry for my ignorance, but the phrase "endorse the private credit" means nothing to me.
What, if any, significance is there in the phrase "as though they were the pre-1933 banks" as it implies or suggests, to me, that endorsing private credit [which you will hopefully define for me] was somehow changed in 1933.

2. Please help connect and contrast the "endorse the private credit" and "redeemed in lawful money on demand" phrases. What does one have to do with the other?
How are these two phrases realated (how are they similar, different, or the same) ?

As difficult as it may be, this is a genuine attempt for me, and perhaps others, to know what is meant by these phrases as being used in your comment.

Here is some context.

I suppose the simplest way to explain it is that the bankers were not hoarding gold - and the Federal Reserve was not hoarding gold either. It was the American people who were hoarding the gold.

In the past weeks the country has given a remarkable demonstration of confidence.

Listen to the audio clip - confidence in the Fed. That was of course with an armed guard at the doors of the sanctuary.

Redemption is redemption is redemption. That is the latest stir in patriot mythology; Plead Guilty to the Facts ONLY! They are like little kids though.

I don't care! I didn't do anything wrong! What are you going to do about it?

How do you arraign a guy like that? He can never understand the nature and the cause of the accusation if he does not understand that he did something wrong. He pleads guilty to the facts but does not feel like he did anything wrong! He is not fueling the oath-mongering machine with guilt! Our priestcraft is useless! He is immune to our spell! [Did we spell his name wrong?]This fellow is not holding up his support brick in our zigurat! Could it be that he has been redeemed of sin? How can we monetize sin if he found redemption from his sins somewhere else? How do we make him feel guilty, pretend we are Jesus and we un-forgive him?

Redeem lawful money by the same model. After all Jesus warned them about little kids.

[Kestrel]

Gold, silver and Federal Reserve Notes (redeemable or not) are passe.

I just filed my state income tax return on line.

I wasn't paid my wages in gold or silver, nor was I paid with Federal Reserve Notes. My federal and state tax withholding was not in gold, silver, or FRNs. My refund for overpayment will not be transmitted in gold, silver or FRNs. When I spend that refund I will also not use gold, silver or FRNs. I will simply make an accounting entry in my personal records, which will be automatically reconciled with the accounting entries of the other party. And the federal government, the state government, and the merchants who will receive my payments for the goods and services I will purchase are quite happy with that arrangement.

I don't know if Congress has ever declared this modern alternative to be "lawful money," but they sure do like encouraging everyone to use it.

[wserra]

David posted a snippet of a document - not even the whole thing - redacted past the point of any meaning, let alone verification. I have a question.

David, you post under your real (well, sorta) name. Have you ever managed to avoid paying taxes by "redeeming lawful money"? If so, why haven't you posted your own unredacted docs proving it? If you haven't managed to do so, why not? Haven't succeeded? Haven't tried? And all these other fine patriots who supposedly did - why are they so modest? In a 36-year career, I have kicked govt butt, in both civil and criminal cases, on multiple occasions. Subject only to client confidentiality - unless public, the cases are not mine to post - I have posted them when asked, probably most recently in the old Sui Juris forum. But if your method is so obviously lawful that it wins against the govt, why no verifying information? After all, these guys have already won, right? What's the harm in posting cases already won?

Unless, of course, they didn't win. Or they only won in the temporary sense of a thief stealing stuff that he's now afraid to fence, for fear of being caught. But that doesn't really sound like a righteous win, accomplished strictly according to law, now does it? Matter of fact, it sounds more like theft.

You should give Congress a little credit for knowing English and being able to revise, amend or abolish a statute if it is erroneous

How about all of those legislatures that have left in place old fornication laws? Those laws are obviously unenforceable, especially since Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), but they are still on the books in lots of jurisdictions. At least 12 USC 411 still has some application - exchanging tattered bills for new ones. Fornication laws have none, and an attempt to enforce them would provide the person arrested with an excellent civil rights suit. Do we give all those jurisdictions "a little credit for knowing English and being able to revise, amend or abolish a statute if it is erroneous"?

[David Merrill]

Gold, silver and Federal Reserve Notes (redeemable or not) are passe.

I just filed my state income tax return on line.

I wasn't paid my wages in gold or silver, nor was I paid with Federal Reserve Notes. My federal and state tax withholding was not in gold, silver, or FRNs. My refund for overpayment will not be transmitted in gold, silver or FRNs. When I spend that refund I will also not use gold, silver or FRNs. I will simply make an accounting entry in my personal records, which will be automatically reconciled with the accounting entries of the other party. And the federal government, the state government, and the merchants who will receive my payments for the goods and services I will purchase are quite happy with that arrangement.

I don't know if Congress has ever declared this modern alternative to be "lawful money," but they sure do like encouraging everyone to use it.

Let's pretend for a moment, so as not to boast success, that along the way you have agreed to transfer about $14K of your money to the IRS in an account with your Taxpayer ID# on it. Would you like a $14K pay raise if it carried the IRS's thoughtful blessing?

David posted a snippet of a document - not even the whole thing - redacted past the point of any meaning, let alone verification. I have a question.

David, you post under your real (well, sorta) name. Have you ever managed to avoid paying taxes by "redeeming lawful money"? If so, why haven't you posted your own unredacted docs proving it? If you haven't managed to do so, why not? Haven't succeeded? Haven't tried? And all these other fine patriots who supposedly did - why are they so modest? In a 36-year career, I have kicked govt butt, in both civil and criminal cases, on multiple occasions. Subject only to client confidentiality - unless public, the cases are not mine to post - I have posted them when asked, probably most recently in the old Sui Juris forum. But if your method is so obviously lawful that it wins against the govt, why no verifying information? After all, these guys have already won, right? What's the harm in posting cases already won?

Unless, of course, they didn't win. Or they only won in the temporary sense of a thief stealing stuff that he's now afraid to fence, for fear of being caught. But that doesn't really sound like a righteous win, accomplished strictly according to law, now does it? Matter of fact, it sounds more like theft.

You should give Congress a little credit for knowing English and being able to revise, amend or abolish a statute if it is erroneous

How about all of those legislatures that have left in place old fornication laws? Those laws are obviously unenforceable, especially since Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), but they are still on the books in lots of jurisdictions. At least 12 USC 411 still has some application - exchanging tattered bills for new ones. Fornication laws have none, and an attempt to enforce them would provide the person arrested with an excellent civil rights suit. Do we give all those jurisdictions "a little credit for knowing English and being able to revise, amend or abolish a statute if it is erroneous"?

It is okay if you do not think I photographed bills that I was in control of and able to spend.




As for others, they are not posting here because you are such assholes around here. I certainly will not post for them with any verifiable information. I recall saving one fellow's castle and also Elfninosmom calling the local county clerk and recorder trying to slur my reputation. Well, that backfired if anything as it would seem the manager there is allowing me to publish anything I am willing to put down a filing fee for. The castle-builder contacted me to assure me that he enjoys when I tell you Quatlosers about saving his artwork (castle). Thing is, this guy enjoys laughing at you assholes. He is accomplished - he was accomplished before I met him and that was long before integrating redemption of lawful money into the Libel of Review so it is probably a little off topic anyway.

To the rest of your post:

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


I will let Congress and the courts decide what and when the Statutes at Large need amendment and correction. You seem to think that you know better and I do not think you know better. You suppose that the legislation is there erroneously but the Congress obviously does not. Try reading the highlights on these two court opinions:

In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money.

and

United States notes shall be lawful money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt.

Look at the cases if you must. Please point out where (at the transaction of cashing their paychecks) either of these guys demanded lawful money?

That is a good way of going about it though. You verify the plain English of Congress with court opinions. At least I do.

Maybe it helps if I admit that FRNs are lawful money, once they are fully bonded. The FRNs in existence are fully bonded and therefore are lawful money. They are bonded by signatures of the US Treasurer and Secretary of the Treasury as you see on their face. However there are some FRNs out there, gobs of them in fact that came into existence legally through fractional lending. Those FRNs are bonded by the signature endorsement of private credit from the Fed. Naked Contract. Rather than being bonded by funds in the Treasury, they are bonded by the substance of people like Kestrel.



Regards,

David Merrill.




For years I was using this image for the definition of Name! Imagine that. How something more important was right in front of me...

[Duke2Earl]

Someone besides me will have to approve that complete and utter gibberish.

[The Observer]

I suspect that some part of David's last post does not meet the "verification" requirement, but I will let wserra be the final arbiter of that since this is his thread.

[Pottapaug1938]

C'mon now, folks. This guy out in Colorado STILL ducks, weaves, evades and misdirects when he is challenged to offer unredacted, verifiable proof that any of his legal fantasies and schemes are valid like he claims them to be. In the time that I have been reading his posts, he has always been thus; so why should he be any different now? I, for one, do not care to see any more of the same old bulldada from him.

Unless he provides objectively verifiable proof, in the form of documents from a court showing that the court has directly considered his claims and found them to be legally valid, this site should not waste any more space on his fantasies.

[David Merrill]

C'mon now, folks. This guy out in Colorado STILL ducks, weaves, evades and misdirects when he is challenged to offer unredacted, verifiable proof that any of his legal fantasies and schemes are valid like he claims them to be. In the time that I have been reading his posts, he has always been thus; so why should he be any different now?

No I don't.

[JamesVincent]

I suspect that some part of David's last post does not meet the "verification" requirement, but I will let wserra be the final arbiter of that since this is his thread.

I dont think any thing in that mess qualifies either. Only thing I see is a even longer explanation of why the courts are wrong and why he feels he is a "free man" and pictures of a defaced $100 bill that doesnt mean anything. Sorry, it does mean he is guilty of a federal crime for defacing it to start with.

[wserra]

As for others, they are not posting here because you are such assholes around here.

Oh, really? I kind of like to prove assholes wrong. Somehow I don't think that's the real reason.

And how about answering my questions here, David?

[wserra]

Unless he provides objectively verifiable proof, in the form of documents from a court showing that the court has directly considered his claims and found them to be legally valid, this site should not waste any more space on his fantasies.

Speaking for myself, I'm not doing it for David. I'm doing it so that Google picks this thread up in a search of "redeeming lawful money", and that readers can then see how completely unable David is, not only to prove that it works, but even to explain what it means. After only a couple of days, it's already #3 on the hit parade.

[Pottapaug1938]

C'mon now, folks. This guy out in Colorado STILL ducks, weaves, evades and misdirects when he is challenged to offer unredacted, verifiable proof that any of his legal fantasies and schemes are valid like he claims them to be. In the time that I have been reading his posts, he has always been thus; so why should he be any different now?

No I don't.

Yes you do, Weasel. Prove me wrong, if you dare -- but unless you can offer proof as specified above, please don't waste our time. Again.

[David Merrill]

Unless he provides objectively verifiable proof, in the form of documents from a court showing that the court has directly considered his claims and found them to be legally valid, this site should not waste any more space on his fantasies.

Speaking for myself, I'm not doing it for David. I'm doing it so that Google picks this thread up in a search of "redeeming lawful money", and that readers can then see how completely unable David is, not only to prove that it works, but even to explain what it means. After only a couple of days, it's already #3 on the hit parade.

I have proven it through the law and courts.




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

I can show you plenty of sanitized evidence that it works reliably. I honestly don't feel it worth trying to find somebody who would subject themselves to your verification. I am not even going to ask.

[David Merrill]

Unless he provides objectively verifiable proof, in the form of documents from a court showing that the court has directly considered his claims and found them to be legally valid, this site should not waste any more space on his fantasies.

Speaking for myself, I'm not doing it for David. I'm doing it so that Google picks this thread up in a search of "redeeming lawful money", and that readers can then see how completely unable David is, not only to prove that it works, but even to explain what it means. After only a couple of days, it's already #3 on the hit parade.

Thank you Wserra!

I took a look. Any of you can see my examples by searching "Redeeming Lawful Money" and a lot more derivatives in support of getting full refunds with "Redeem Lawful Money".

Even with this hit though, I have explained how simple it is. All you need do is make your demand.


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

If you make your demand clear with proper record-forming, then you have redeemed lawful money. It is as simple as that. Just make your demand. That is what I say in my videos and people searching can easily find my videos too.



Regards,

David Merrill.