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

Case law: "Redemption", "Strawman", etc.

Expand Messages
  • Jake
    For 20 years I ve seen variations of Redemption , Strawman , UCC , Admiralty , etc. arguments & for longer than that they ve been shot down, but they re
    Message 1 of 5 , Jun 22, 2010

    For 20 years I've seen variations of "Redemption", "Strawman", "UCC", "Admiralty", etc. arguments & for longer than that they've been shot down, but they're still being promoted & what's worse, people looking for that "silver bullet" are still buying.   


    I've attached 2 court rulings (.pdf) which cover many common arguments so anyone interested can see how those arguments have been dealt with by the courts & whether anyone likes the rulings or not is irrelevant.  People can choose "legal la-la-land" if they want, but it's certainly a lot smarter to see what happens in the real world.


    One case is U.S. v. Greenstreet, a 1996 ruling from a U.S. district court in Texas & the other is McLaughlin v. CitiMortgage, Inc., from a U.S. district court in Connecticut, just decided on the 11th of this month.  


    I highly recommend that anyone considering using "Redemption", "Strawman", "UCC", "Admiralty", "Sovereignty", "common law", etc. arguments read both cases & also the other cases referred to in those rulings.  Welcome to the real world.  


    ~ ~ ~         


  • johndplumber
    Jake, Thanks for the examples of how not to use redemption theories, I have often wondered how to make a claim for money when one believes that there is no
    Message 2 of 5 , Jun 28, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Jake,
      Thanks for the examples of how not to use redemption theories,
      I have often wondered how to make a claim for money when one believes that there is no money. In the case of Mclaughlin v. Citi Mortgage the burden to provide proof of claim is on the litigant making the allegations; yet he says, (and I don't believe any exists). :)
      In this case how could the court go against his religious beliefs and award him money? Though, it is very generous of the court to allow Mclauglin to substantiate his claim before allocating the court costs.

      In my opinion McLaughlin should apologies to the court for presenting himself of being double minded; in order to try to claim for monies that does not exist as currencies of gold and silver do not longer exist, and agree with the court on it determination.

      He should also give evidence of his religious beliefs concerning how money is created out of then air or that of the eithers of mind-stuff. there are quite a few articles about this, There is written by a professor in Italy about this, it is also mentioned in the secret bankers manual, also I believe that the credit river determination could help.

      If he doesn't show due cause, or something to effect of his beliefs; I believe, he will have summary judgment placed on him, to pay all costs. Even without a legal mouth piece the court may choose not to listen to his ideology as by being pro see in such a hearing he cannot claim to be a man on the land, that the diversity issue that he suppose to create by claiming he is not the one on the birth certificate becomes squashed by his own admittance of representing himself in court, other than stating that he has come under intimidation and duress to correct the record. I believe the saying goes, "it is not what goes into the mouth, it is what comes out that defiles the man. Here is a link to the catholic encyclopedia of the meaning of redemption http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12677d.htm

      What do you think, does he have a chance, can he be redeemed out from his efforts? In only claiming that he is a sovereign (G-d-Man)

      In the other case it shows to me something bordering close to fraud, allegedly the defendants placed a UCC1 on a security agreement that the other parties did not agree to. I wonder how this could ever happen. I believe it shouldn't happen and I agree with the court in its decision, that was based on the only arguments discussed and it didn't seem that the defendants had any proof of which they should have under the fair trading act. As the discussion shows I wonder how could there be a debt, if there is evidence of a debt that never existed.
      Many people of faith believe Ishua-ben-Joseph pre-paid for our sins (debts), so if this is the case how can they sue their brothers or anything such as corporations and straw-men that are not of the life of the real world when they are only but fictions, due of legalities.
      As you welcome me to the real world allow me to state; "Truth is the faith that belongs to the eyes of the beholder, such is "the real world" of the one who knows "I-Am"
      I dont believe as yet there is a silver bullet, I am glad there are too many mirrors about and in the case that we shoot it off we better be wearing shoes or else we would cut our feet, I believe that many of us are at war, HJR192 declares that, though I think the real war is within ourselves, As it advises in Desiderata; I do try to walk in peace amongst the noise and haste. As such I don't see myself as a soldier of truth and justice, though as a scientist to gain knowledge of what works and what doesn't.

      All the best
      John. M
      Australia



      --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, Jake <jake_28079@...> wrote:
      >
      > For 20 years I've seen variations of "Redemption", "Strawman", "UCC", "Admiralty", etc. arguments & for longer than that they've been shot down, but they're still being promoted & what's worse, people looking for that "silver bullet" are still buying.   
      > I've attached 2 court rulings (.pdf) which cover many common arguments so anyone interested can see how those arguments have been dealt with by the courts & whether anyone likes the rulings or not is irrelevant.  People can choose "legal la-la-land" if they want, but it's certainly a lot smarter to see what happens in the real world.
      > One case is U.S. v. Greenstreet, a 1996 ruling from a U.S. district court in Texas & the other is McLaughlin v. CitiMortgage, Inc., from a U.S. district court in Connecticut, just decided on the 11th of this month.  
      > I highly recommend that anyone considering using "Redemption", "Strawman", "UCC", "Admiralty", "Sovereignty", "common law", etc. arguments read both cases & also the other cases referred to in those rulings.  Welcome to the real world.  
      > ~ ~ ~         
      >
    • Jake
      ... John, you re operating under the false notion that only gold or silver coin is money .  Never forget this fact: Money is merely a medium of exchange
      Message 3 of 5 , Jul 2, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        > I have often wondered how to make a claim for money when one believes that there is no money.
        John, you're operating under the false notion that only gold or silver coin is "money".  Never forget this fact: "Money is merely a medium of exchange for goods and services."  "Money" can be anything parties to a contract agree on & it can be whatever a government says it is.
        And regarding commercial transactions, a definition of "Money" found in Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. (p. 1005) is:

        �"A medium of exchange authorized or adopted by a domestic or foreign government as part of its currency.  U.C.C. 1-204(24)."

        > . . . I believe that many of us are at war, HJR192 declares that . . .
        "HJR 192" was effectively repealed in 1977 & a "House Joint Resolution" is not law.  What stemmed from it was, but it's irrelevant now & as much as we might like to turn the clock back before 1933, or 1913 (Federal Reserve Act) for that matter, it ain't gonna happen.
        > As such I don't see myself as a soldier of truth and justice, though as a scientist to gain knowledge of what works and what doesn't.

        I can tell you what works & what doesn't from years of experience & I'll preface my comments with what my Dad told me over 40 years ago (he was a business lawyer for nearly 50 years): "Lawyers don't know law, they just know procedure." I found out he was right too.
        Where people lose their butts time & time again is inventing their own procedures because they don't like the ones in the law books - neither do I, but I learned long ago that he who plays the game the best wins.  One analogy I've used many times is that you don't referee a basketball game with football rules - in either administrative or judicial actions, you're in their ballpark & you�will play by their rules - or wish you had. �

        ~ ~ ~


        Jake,

        Thanks for the examples of how not to use redemption theories,

        I have often wondered how to make a claim for money when one believes that there is no money. In the case of Mclaughlin v. Citi Mortgage the burden to provide proof of claim is on the litigant making the allegations; yet he says, (and I don't believe any exists). :)
      • Frog Farmer
        ... I m also a scientist. HJR192 was repealed long ago before many people were born. Does anyone but a few here know the effect of repeal?? Why are all the
        Message 4 of 5 , Jul 3, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          > I believe that many of
          > us are at war, HJR192 declares that, though I think the real war is
          > within ourselves, As it advises in Desiderata; I do try to walk in
          > peace amongst the noise and haste. As such I don't see myself as a
          > soldier of truth and justice, though as a scientist to gain knowledge
          > of what works and what doesn't.

          I'm also a scientist. HJR192 was repealed long ago before many people
          were born.

          Does anyone but a few here know the effect of repeal??

          Why are all the "redemption" hucksters refusing to admit it was
          repealed? I see all of them starting out depending upon its existence!

          They offer it as the reason for their stance. None that I've ever met
          or heard ever tried to live as though it never existed (the result of
          repeal). No, they NEED it to exist to support their theories!

          So, it exists in the minds of most who never cared to know it was
          repealed a long time ago. Another long but shorter time ago I posted
          right here on this list about the repeal, which I had personally
          discovered by myself shortly after the repeal, quite by accident while
          doing other research. What prompted my posts on it back then was the
          fact that many years after that another person sent me a file containing
          different evidences of its repeal than the original statutes at large
          where I saw it was repealed. So the word was obviously spreading, but
          obviously new users of this list never go back into the archives to
          discover what has already been discussed, or look in the files section
          to see what treasures lie there, so we still see people talking as
          though HJR192 was a meaningful law instead of a relic of warped history.

          The interesting thing is that "redemption people" cannot seem to
          function without the assumed existence of HJR192. They always start out
          mentioning it as the cause of their behavior and almost mystical
          religious beliefs regarding it. The funny part for me is when they
          confess to never trying to pay their debts with gold, and they ignore
          the existence of gold and silver US coinage which MANY people (too many
          to invite to a party here at the Frog Farm) use and handle every day.
          And they seem to fail to realize that as recognized in the recent Kahre
          decision, Congress has created TWO concurrent monetary systems, from
          which any American may choose for conducting his affairs!

          As a result of that decision, which was a stupid one if you ask me, but
          it's current and so we must live under it as we do everything else we
          currently suffer, I carry a selection of "monetary items" in my pocket
          and am ready to entertain any self-professed "certified public
          accountant" with a wager.

          The wager is, he or she cannot correctly account for the items in my
          pocket that I received in trade for my own labors and properties, and
          cannot specify with certainty the correct government-issued form for
          reporting the resultant figure as income (if indeed it IS income, which
          I dispute but will save that for later.)

          Out of three accountants to whom I proposed this wager, with the
          stipulation that it be observed by any three unbiased witnesses who
          would decide the winner, all have so far declined and one is no longer
          speaking to me at all.

          It doesn't matter. The GAME is OVER!

          Bureaucratic oligarchy or constitutional republic, you choose your way
          today because a fork in the road makes a choice necessary. We cannot
          hope to wait for a consensus among the brainwashed before we experience
          our own inherited freedom. I made the decision for my freedom when I
          was six years old and have been successfully defending it ever since. I
          am now almost 60 years old. I believe that the freedom the founders
          envisioned and experienced themselves is available for those who want it
          and the ramifications that come with it. One cannot be both free and a
          subject of another. Yet many slaves want the trappings of freedom, but
          when handed the keys to their chains they hesitate to remove them and
          prefer to wait for permission from their masters, who of course will
          never give it or admit it is all within the slave's own powers to end or
          continue his condition.

          Happy Independence Day!

          Regards,

          FF
        • Michael
          ... If it were me, I would cite Black s Law De Luxe Fourth Edition: MONEY: In usual and ordinary acceptation it means gold, silver, or paper money used as
          Message 5 of 5 , Jul 5, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, Jake <jake_28079@...> wrote:

            > And regarding commercial transactions, a definition of
            >"Money" found in Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. (p. 1005) is:
            >
            >  "A medium of exchange authorized or adopted by a domestic
            > or foreign government as part of its currency.  U.C.C.
            > 1-204(24)."

            If it were me, I would cite Black's Law De Luxe Fourth Edition:

            "MONEY: In usual and ordinary acceptation it means
            gold, silver, or paper money used as circulating
            medium of exchange, and does not embrace notes,
            bonds, evidences of debt, or other personal or
            real estate."

            It goes on to explain more about "money", often
            only as coin.

            "Evidences of debt." Isn't that....Why I believe it is.

            Not picking on you, Jake. Just picking a "better definition.'
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.