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

Re: [tips_and_tricks] procedure

Expand Messages
  • Nilbux@aol.com
    In a message dated 8/31/2004 8:03:56 PM US Mountain Standard Time, ... I have sent three of them yet they keep demanding I make payments in federal reserve
    Message 1 of 19 , Aug 31, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 8/31/2004 8:03:56 PM US Mountain Standard Time, dashboy979@... writes:

      Why are they rejecting a second bill of credit (promissory note) to satisfy the first?


        I have sent three of them yet they keep demanding I make payments in federal reserve notes.

      Do they really?  Do they actually say "federal reserve notes?"

          The state prosecutor sent me a letter stating
          in bold, underlined capitals:


          "THIS OFFICE DOES NOT ACCEPT CASH"

        

         






    • John Wilde
      Ah, that s the dirty little secret. It would fall under the Truth in Lending Act. It turned on incomplete disclosure. They re supposed to fully disclose all
      Message 2 of 19 , Sep 1, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Ah, that's the dirty little secret.  It would fall under the Truth in Lending Act.  It turned on incomplete disclosure.  They're supposed to fully disclose all aspects of the loan, including the fact that what they loaned you was the Bill of Credit that you had given them.  This is the achilles heel of the mortgage game.  They don't want to have to admit that what they are lending you is the Bill of Credit.  So you will find that on a case by case situation, when pressed, banks and mortgage companies will settle cases.  That way there is no judicial decision for anyone to point to as a basis for a large class action or other type of action that will result in a major decision by an appellate court.  It's called self-preservation.

        g'day
        John Wilde

        Russell Mortland wrote:
        So how did I win an arbitration against my mortgage company if they extended a bill of credit and I purportedly excepted..
        They were suppose to loan money not credit.
        They also monetize my note and made money out of thin air according to the Federal Reserve own publications.
        Never loaned any of there money 


        From: John Wilde [mailto:jpwilde@...]
        Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 6:21 PM
        To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] procedure

        No they loan you the Bill of Credit that you emitted to them when you executed the note.  There is no law or constitutional provision that prohibits you from using a Bill of Credit as a medium of exchange.

        g'day
        John Wilde
         

      • John Wilde
        Probably because your credit worthiness is no longer to their benefit. Remember what I said about the history of Article I, Section 8, Clause 2. The initial
        Message 3 of 19 , Sep 1, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Probably because your credit worthiness is no longer to their benefit.  Remember what I said about the history of Article I, Section 8, Clause 2.  The initial draft permitted Congress to borrow money, and emit Bills of Credit, on the Credit of the United States.  Thus, the Bills of Credit are always emitted on the credit worthiness of the borrow.  You will find almost without exception that your credit worthiness is usually twice that of the mortgage.  When you fall below that, then the banks start denying you the ability to "borrow", because your Bill of Credit isn't as sellable on the open market.  Remember one thing, sometime after you get your mortgage, banks and mortgage companies tend to sell the note.  If your credit worthiness is not very good, then your note is not very appealing to the market.

          g'day
          John Wilde

          Andre' Jackson wrote:



          John Wild,

          so if I attack the breach of contract I must show that they failed to disclose the fact that they loaned me back my bill of credit converted to federal reserve notes/check to pay the merchant?

          Why are they rejecting a second bill of credit (promissory note) to satisfy the first? I have sent three of them yet they keep demanding I make payments in federal reserve notes.


        • David L. Miner
          Nilbux -- About a thousand times over the past year you have posted: The state prosecutor sent me a letter stating in bold, underlined capitals: THIS OFFICE
          Message 4 of 19 , Sep 1, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Nilbux --
             
            About a thousand times over the past year you have posted: "The state prosecutor sent me a letter stating in bold, underlined capitals: "THIS OFFICE DOES NOT ACCEPT CASH""
             
            Someday it will dawn on you that the letter has absolutely nothing to do with your claims concerning FRNs.  The letter merely means that you should pay up and the office doesn't want to have cash laying around or its employees will steal it.  So they want checks to pay the bills due.  There is no disclaimer concerning FRNs or cash or anything else in that letter, regardless of what you have deluded yourself into believing.

            Yours in freedom,

            Dave Miner
            www.FreedomSite.net

             
             
            -----Original Message-----
            From: Nilbux@... [mailto:Nilbux@...]
            Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 11:10 PM
            To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: WARNING-IFRAME-Re: [tips_and_tricks] procedure

            In a message dated 8/31/2004 8:03:56 PM US Mountain Standard Time, dashboy979@... writes:

            Why are they rejecting a second bill of credit (promissory note) to satisfy the first?


              I have sent three of them yet they keep demanding I make payments in federal reserve notes.

            Do they really?  Do they actually say "federal reserve notes?"

                The state prosecutor sent me a letter stating
                in bold, underlined capitals:


                "THIS OFFICE DOES NOT ACCEPT CASH"

              

               






          • jm367@bellsouth.net
            Person in Article I means the body, soul, and spirit of a man, as it does in the 4th article of amendment. However, the persons which are today emitting bills
            Message 5 of 19 , Sep 1, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Person in Article I means the body, soul, and spirit of a man, as it does in the 4th article of amendment.
              However, the persons which are today emitting bills of credit are artificial in nature.  For instance, a credit corporation in the money market can emit a bill of credit.
              This, however, according to your construction of the Constitution, is a power reserved to people.  I agree with this construction.
              The fact is that the 10th amendment is not a check on the 14th amendment and by that shift or dodge of misconstruction of powers granted, the courts allow Congress by legislation to empower corporations, municipal and public, to emit bills of credit, which is a power which was originally reserved to the people.  And people are only allowed to emit bills of credit in the character or capacity of an artificial person.
              The emission of bills of credit by the Federal Reserve is a usurpation of power reserved to the people.
               
            • jm367@bellsouth.net
              There is money and there is credit; there is cash and there is notes. They will not accept cash money. (This is a condition on the fine which is not
              Message 6 of 19 , Sep 1, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                There is money and there is credit; there is cash and there is notes.  They will not accept cash money.  (This is a condition on the fine which is not authorized.)  Why cannot every demand in this "nothing but credit accepted" set of circumstances be satisfied with an emergency promissory note ?
                 
                ----- Original Message -----
                 
                "The state prosecutor sent me a letter stating in bold, underlined capitals: "THIS OFFICE DOES NOT ACCEPT CASH""
                 
                 
              • Bill
                Article I, Section 8, Clause 2 states that Congress shall have the power......to borrow Money on the credit of the United States. It says nothing about
                Message 7 of 19 , Sep 1, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                   Article I, Section 8, Clause 2 states that "Congress shall have the power......to borrow Money on the credit of the United States."  It says nothing about borrowing "credit."  It specifically says, "money."  The unit of money is the dollar, which is 371.25 grains of pure silver or a silver to gold ratio of 15/1 (See Coinage Act of 1792).
                   
                  Moreover, it certainly says nothing about corporations having the power to lend credit or to create "money."
                   
                  Bill
                   
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 10:26 AM
                  Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] procedure

                  Probably because your credit worthiness is no longer to their benefit.  Remember what I said about the history of Article I, Section 8, Clause 2.  The initial draft permitted Congress to borrow money, and emit Bills of Credit, on the Credit of the United States.  Thus, the Bills of Credit are always emitted on the credit worthiness of the borrow.  You will find almost without exception that your credit worthiness is usually twice that of the mortgage.  When you fall below that, then the banks start denying you the ability to "borrow", because your Bill of Credit isn't as sellable on the open market.  Remember one thing, sometime after you get your mortgage, banks and mortgage companies tend to sell the note.  If your credit worthiness is not very good, then your note is not very appealing to the market.

                  g'day
                  John Wilde

                  Andre' Jackson wrote:



                  John Wild,

                  so if I attack the breach of contract I must show that they failed to disclose the fact that they loaned me back my bill of credit converted to federal reserve notes/check to pay the merchant?

                  Why are they rejecting a second bill of credit (promissory note) to satisfy the first? I have sent three of them yet they keep demanding I make payments in federal reserve notes.



                • leos
                  HJR 192 clearly stated no one can demand payment in a particular specie. It just has to be legal tender at the time of tender. FRN.s, negotiable instruments,
                  Message 8 of 19 , Sep 2, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    HJR 192 clearly stated no one can demand payment in a particular specie.  It just has to be legal tender at the time of tender. FRN.s, negotiable instruments, etc. If legal tender is offered or sent, the debt is discharged if they take it or not!  (UCC)
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 8:29 PM
                    Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] procedure



                    John Wild,

                    so if I attack the breach of contract I must show that they failed to disclose the fact that they loaned me back my bill of credit converted to federal reserve notes/check to pay the merchant?

                    Why are they rejecting a second bill of credit (promissory note) to satisfy the first? I have sent three of them yet they keep demanding I make payments in federal reserve notes.


                  • Nilbux@aol.com
                    In a message dated 9/2/2004 10:09:33 AM US Mountain Standard Time, ... Payment is not mentioned in the legal tender statutes because the sole function of
                    Message 9 of 19 , Sep 2, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      In a message dated 9/2/2004 10:09:33 AM US Mountain Standard Time, leos@... writes:


                      HJR 192 clearly stated no one can demand payment in a particular specie.  It just has to be legal tender at the time of tender. FRN.s, negotiable instruments, etc. If legal tender is offered or sent, the debt is discharged if they take it or not!  (UCC)


                          "Payment" is not mentioned in the legal tender statutes
                           because the sole function of legal tender is to take labor
                           and property without payment.  THIS IS SLAVERY made
                           possible by dishonest Abe.  His contemporary, Horace
                           Greeley, newspaper publisher, called it slavery:

                      "We have stricken the (slave) shackles from four million human beings and brought all laborers to a common  level, not so much by  the  elevation of  former  slaves as by reducing  the  whole working  population, white and black, to a condition of serfdom.While boasting of our ignoble deeds, we are careful  to control the ugly fact that by an iniquitous money system we have nationalized a system of oppresssion which, though more refined, is not less cruel than the old system of chattel slavery." 

                      People in communist countries are controlled with legal tender, credit, fear, lies, illusions disease and amusements (that inhibit serious thinking) AS WE ARE!

                      Request: God, The Devil and Legal Tender by Rushdoony
                                           from: nilbux@...   (free, 1 page)

                    • Russell Mortland
                      Thanks John, a little update, even though we won the arbitration in May 2004, they are proceeding against us and not the arbitration firm to get the
                      Message 10 of 19 , Sep 8, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Thanks John,
                        a little update, even though we won the arbitration in May 2004, they are proceeding against us and not the arbitration firm to get the arbitration vacated in the Florida federal district court which is the district that the arbitration took place.  The FAA only allows vacate within 3 months of the award and they served after the 3 month time period being the award was May 12. 2004.  In all there pleading before and up till now they state it was an extention of credit
                         
                        I just mailed yesterday a dismissal pursuant to FRCP Rule 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), 12(b)3, and 12(b)6. 
                        They never ask for relief from us only NAC who was the arbtration company.
                         

                        UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                        FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

                        JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

                        GREEN TREE SERVICING, L.L.C. f/k/a,

                        CONSECO FINANCE SERVICING CORP.,

                        Plaintiff,

                        vs.                                                                                                                        Case #3:04-CV-0056-HLA-TEM

                        RUSSELL MORTLAND and

                        TINA MORTLAND,

                        Defendants.

                        ______________________________________________________________________________________________

                        MORTLAND’S MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT

                        TO RULE 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), 12(b)3, and 12(b)6

                        ______________________________________________________________________________________________

                        COMES NOW Russell and Tina Mortland, by restricted appearance, in propria persona, without legal counsel and wanting same and demand this court to dismiss the Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award (hereinafter "Plaintiff’s Motion") pursuant to Rules 12(b)1, 12(b)2, 12(b)3, 12(b)6 and would show the court the following:

                        1. The Plaintiff’s Motion states, "Green Tree is a foreign limited liability corporation incorporated in Delaware, with its principal place of business in St. Paul, Minnesota," and that "The Mortlands are residents of Texas. This statement if taken as true, shows that none of the parties have any ties to this forum. This court has no subject matter jurisdiction because there is no controversy in this forum between the parties.

                        2. This court has no evidence before it and no set of facts in the Plaintiff’s Motion show any ties by the Mortland’s to this forum. This court has no reason to believe that any controversy exists in the jurisdiction of this forum that would give the court jurisdiction over the persons of the Mortland’s. The Mortland’s have no minimum contact with this forum and none are plead.

                        3. The venue is improper, because none of the parties reside within the forum district. An appropriate place of trial, is based primarily on convenience of the parties (not fairness). The case must be heard either: (1) in any district where the defendants reside; (2) in any district in which a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391. The plaintiff claims that the events took place with the Bankruptcy Court in Illinois and with a State District Court in Hays County, Texas. The plaintiff makes no claim against the Mortlands that took place in this forum district.

                        4. The plaintiff fails to make a demand to the court in the pleadings and make no claim against the Mortlands and their motion fails to state a claim upon which relief could be granted against the Mortlands. The pleadings state that this is a motion to vacate an arbitration award. This is clearly a suit against the NAC, not the Mortlands. The plaintiff’s motion states, " 1) the NAC exceeded its powers; 2) the NAC entered the award in violation of the automatic stay provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 362, the Bankruptcy Court Approval Order, Confirmation Order and Order denying the Mortlands’ motion to lift the stay; 3) the NAC had evident partiality in favor of the Mortlands; 4) the NAC was guilty of gross misconduct in failing to consider Green Tree’s evidence; 5) the NAC engaged in misbehavior prejudicial to Green Tree; and 6) there was a manifest disregard of the law by the NAC."

                        5. It is clear that the Mortlands are not mentioned as having responsibility for any of the six alleged causes of action claimed by the plaintiff. The Mortlands are not attorney’s nor are they versed in the law, they cannot defend the actions or deeds or even reply to the accusations made by the plaintiff against the NAC in their motion. It is apparent that they knew that the NAC must be served with notice within three months after the award was filed or delivered. They claim in their motion that they had notice that the award was handed down on May 12, 2004, in their opening statement. The plaintiff mistakenly asserts that 9 U.S.C. § 12 states that the Mortlands must be served. It is clear from the pleadings that the NAC is the adverse party and that Mortlands are not parties to this claim.

                        PLAINTIFF FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM

                        6. The Plaintiff’s Motion fails to state a claim against the Mortlands and the adverse party to the arbitration has not been either noticed or sued in the required time 3 month time period. In addition, the Plaintiff’s Motion does not make out any controversy or argument between the parties to this suit and it is not brought in the district where the defendants are domiciled.

                        PRAYER

                        7. For the reasons stated above, the Mortlands command that this court dismiss this action with prejudice for failure to state a claim and lack of both subject-matter and personal jurisdiction. In addition the Mortlands command this court to issue a finding of fact and conclusion of law that reflects the fact that the Plaintiff did not serve upon the adverse party (NAC) or his attorney within the three months after the NAC delivered the award pursuant to 9 USC § 12.

                        8. In addition the Mortlands command this court to sanction the Plaintiff and his attorney for filing a frivolous action to which the Mortlands have had to reply.



                        From: John Wilde [mailto:jpwilde@...]
                        Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 10:21 AM
                        To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] procedure

                        Ah, that's the dirty little secret.  It would fall under the Truth in Lending Act.  It turned on incomplete disclosure.  They're supposed to fully disclose all aspects of the loan, including the fact that what they loaned you was the Bill of Credit that you had given them.  This is the achilles heel of the mortgage game.  They don't want to have to admit that what they are lending you is the Bill of Credit.  So you will find that on a case by case situation, when pressed, banks and mortgage companies will settle cases.  That way there is no judicial decision for anyone to point to as a basis for a large class action or other type of action that will result in a major decision by an appellate court.  It's called self-preservation.

                        g'day
                        John Wilde

                        Russell Mortland wrote:
                        So how did I win an arbitration against my mortgage company if they extended a bill of credit and I purportedly excepted..
                        They were suppose to loan money not credit.
                        They also monetize my note and made money out of thin air according to the Federal Reserve own publications.
                        Never loaned any of there money 


                        From: John Wilde [mailto:jpwilde@...]
                        Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 6:21 PM
                        To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] procedure

                        No they loan you the Bill of Credit that you emitted to them when you executed the note.  There is no law or constitutional provision that prohibits you from using a Bill of Credit as a medium of exchange.

                        g'day
                        John Wilde
                         
                      • Frog Farmer
                        ... That says a lot for the quality of character of government employees today, doesn t it? When did the presumption that government employees were honest
                        Message 11 of 19 , Sep 14, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On Sep 1, 2004, at 9:04 AM, David L. Miner wrote:

                          > Someday it will dawn on you that the letter has absolutely nothing to
                          > do with your claims concerning FRNs.  The letter merely means that you
                          > should pay up and the office doesn't want to have cash laying around
                          > or its employees will steal it. 

                          That says a lot for the quality of character of government employees
                          today, doesn't it? When did the presumption that government employees
                          were honest change to the assumption that they would steal if given the
                          opportunity?

                          > So they want checks to pay the bills due. 

                          What they "want" is different from what they can require from anyone.
                          They cannot "require" one to waive all the rights necessary in order to
                          participate in the benefits of fractional reserve banking in order to
                          have a checking account. Don't you know that the signature card is a
                          waiver of rights under contract? Since when did this become mandatory
                          in order to follow the law? Can a man be required to deal with a
                          third party in order to relate to his government?

                          If one can speak competently about the money issue, and knows what a
                          "dollar" is, one need not worry about either "cash" (sic) or checks.
                          Or even cheques.

                          > There is no disclaimer concerning FRNs or cash or anything else in
                          > that letter, regardless of what you have deluded yourself into
                          > believing.

                          However, there is the statement "this office does not accept cash".
                          Could it be because the office "knows" that there is no longer any real
                          "cash" in circulation, and therefore, like the trucks that have "driver
                          carries no cash" painted on the sides, they are warning the even more
                          character-degraded public that the office contains no medium worth
                          stealing capable of PAYING debts and transferring allodial titles, and
                          only deals in DISCHARGE of debt with registered commercial paper
                          capable of being replaced if stolen, guaranteeing only insurable
                          equitible interests?
                        • Frog Farmer
                          ... As in substance versus concepts. ... As in silver or gold versus FRNs. ... Real cash is all in the hands of the few, while the many are satisfied with
                          Message 12 of 19 , Sep 14, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On Sep 1, 2004, at 11:46 AM, <jm367@...> wrote:

                            > There is money and there is credit;

                            As in substance versus concepts.

                            > there is cash and there is notes. 

                            As in silver or gold versus FRNs.

                            > They will not accept cash money. 

                            Real cash is all in the hands of the few, while the many are satisfied
                            with colored paper, no matter what the writing on it says.

                            > (This is a condition on the fine which is not authorized.)  Why
                            > cannot every demand in this "nothing but credit accepted" set of
                            > circumstances be satisfied with an emergency promissory note ?

                            Why should a man who eschews the use of credit and usury suddenly
                            reverse his position and engage in creating commercial debt
                            instruments? A thorough investigation might prove that the "nothing
                            but [imaginary] credit accepted" set of circumstances arose in an
                            imaginary world where debt is mistakenly taken to be money, privileges
                            are mistakenly taken to be rights, equitible insurable interest is
                            mistakenly taken to be common law ownership by the confused and
                            dumbed-down majority of publicly "educated" subject persons.
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.