Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [tips_and_tricks] Sec 7804 usc 26, and refusal for cause letter

Expand Messages
  • Mel Gillespie
    I am attaching these for group study purposes. You might find this very interesting. I am attaching these for group study purposes. You might find this very
    Message 1 of 4 , May 3, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      I am attaching these for group study purposes.  You might find this very interesting.

    • GENE MACDONALD
      Click on attachment..................    The Old Must Go Away Before We Can Receive The New -Author Anonymous ... From: Al Cintra-Leite Date:
      Message 2 of 4 , May 4, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Click on attachment.................. 
         
        

         

        "The Old Must Go Away Before We Can Receive The New"
        -Author Anonymous
        -------Original Message-------
         
        Date: 5/3/2009 5:02:41 PM
        Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Hagar Vs Rec. Dist #108
         
          thought this may help someone....
         
         
          "The acts of Congress making the Notes of the United States a Legal
        Tender DO NOT apply to involuntary contributions in the nature of TAXES
        or ASSESSMENTS exacted under State laws, but only to DEBTS in the
        strict sense of the terms; that is, to obligations founded on
        contracts, expressed and implied, for the payment of money." Hagar v.
        Rec. Dist #108, 111 U.S. 701 (1884). In the case aforesaid, the high
        court also stated:
         
        FREE Animations for your email - by IncrediMail! Click Here!
      • Frog Farmer
        GENE MACDONALD sent another great file by clarity showing that FRNs of any stripe are not legal tender. I ve said all those facts before at some time or
        Message 3 of 4 , May 4, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          GENE MACDONALD sent another great file by "clarity" showing that FRNs of
          any stripe are not legal tender.

          I've said all those facts before at some time or another over the years.

          And I've also said that I saw the original repeal of HJR192, that it
          occurred in 1978. Clarity found it "reported" in 1982. It was
          "reported" in the Statutes at Large when it occurred. I used to have a
          photocopy; it was stolen, and I have not been motivated to go find it
          and copy it again. If I ever do, I'll post a copy here.

          But it is at least gratifying to see another who recognizes the
          significance of capital lettering, and the ramifications thereof!

          So, now that it has been made crystal clear once again, are we to expect
          anyone to act upon the information in their own lives and get to be "the
          first on their block" to do so? I've been using this info for years!
          And so have others! And this list has covered all of this before, and
          yet, here is ANOTHER perspective on the same facts, the same situation!

          Mr. Kahre was aware. Some of his "employees" were; some were not - you
          can tell by their own statements. You can tell by ANYONE's statements
          whether or not they are "monetarily aware." Merrill Jenkins always used
          to say, "the unaware are unaware of being unaware". And so human nature
          and life go on...

          Don't believe a lie today!

          Regards,

          FF
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.