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

Re: [tips_and_tricks] George Mercier/ FRN's vs what?

Expand Messages
  • Nilbux@aol.com
    In a message dated 8/31/2004 8:32:03 PM US Mountain Standard Time, ... FRNs do not represent wealth, they expropriate wealth and the Fed admits this. The Fed
    Message 1 of 18 , Aug 31, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 8/31/2004 8:32:03 PM US Mountain Standard Time, frogfrmr@... writes:

      FRNs are great! they are light and easy to carry, can represent a lot
      >of wealth without taking up a lot of room

      nilbux reply:
      FRNs do not represent wealth, they expropriate wealth
      and the Fed admits this.  The Fed admits they operate
      a confidence game and that the history of banking is a
      history of fraud.

      It matters none what they admit when less that one
      per cent read it and the few who recite it are ridiculed.
      Read page 3 of Modern Money Mechanics.

       
    • David L. Miner
      Frog -- You seem to be operating under the belief that all of us can choose to live on a farm and grow everything we need. This is simply not possible. So we
      Message 2 of 18 , Aug 31, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Frog --

        You seem to be operating under the belief that all of us can choose to live
        on a farm and grow everything we need. This is simply not possible. So we
        are all faced with how do we implement the proper political views within the
        realm of reality. Your reality is simply impossible for most Americans. It
        is not a matter of choice, it is a matter of impossibility.

        I am happy for you that you have been able to do without FRNs for 25 years.
        I applaud your situation and your efforts. Me, I disagree with your claim
        that somehow using FRNs places me under some form of federal servitude. I
        am one of the most free individuals I have ever met. I have not filed a
        return and have not paid income taxes in more than 14 years. I use a Common
        Law business trust to conduct business. I use their FRNs against them by
        using them to purchase hard assets and build my wealth in ways and in areas
        where the fed govt cannot touch it. I will be able to retire at age 60 with
        a comfortable income that the fed govt cannot reach or even know about. And
        I will continue living in the Greatest Nation in history, and not retreat to
        some frog farm or some third world country to do so. I have no problems
        with those who do, I just choose not to.

        You and others that claim that the mere use or even handling of a FRN places
        me into some form of servitude is simply not true. You and others who claim
        that there must be some set of extremely difficult steps I must go through
        in order to be free are simply not correct.

        I fully understand the nature of FRNs, and have given speeches and written
        articles concerning the unconstitutional nature of the Federal Reserve and
        FRNs. But the "different jurisdiction" you allege does not exist unless I
        choose to let it exist. I can be and am a Sovereign Citizen whether or not
        I use gold or FRNs or chickens. The 14th Amendment ADDED certain benefits
        but TOOK NOTHING AWAY from me. It just so happens that what the Amendment
        added I choose to not utilize. But I am still a Sovereign Citizen
        regardless of what you believe or claim.

        If what you and so many others claim is true in reality and not just your
        imaginations, then how can so many people using FRNs fight the IRS in court
        and win? If these people are truly in servitude with no rights and the fed
        govt has all power, then how in heaven's name could they ever win and walk
        away without paying income taxes?

        There is no question about the fact that the fed govt has grown far beyond
        its Constitutional limitations. We have not had a Constitutional Republic
        since about the time President Lincoln declared war against half of America.
        The fed reserve is indeed unconstitutional. FRNs are indeed
        unconstitutional. Gold and silver money is required of the States ONLY, and
        not of the fed govt, but FRNs are still not Constitutional. But the bondage
        created here has absolutely nothing to do with using FRNs or any other
        govt-issued paper. The bondage has everything to do with the apathy of most
        Americans. We The People have abdicated our responsibility to manage our
        government. We have allowed it to get totally out of control. And these
        same excesses will continue and increase until We The People suck it up and
        do something about our paid public servants who ignore the very Oaths of
        Office they swear.

        You can refuse to use FRNs all you want and that won't change the govt's
        excesses one whit. FRNs are only one of many means the fed govt uses to
        keep We The People in check.

        We need to attack the root of the problem, which is a fed govt that has
        grossly exceeded its Constitutional limitations. FRNs and at least a dozen
        other very important and legitimate issues are merely symptoms of the root
        problem. And even the total elimination of FRNs will not in any way bring
        our fed govt back into its Constitutional limitations.

        Yours in freedom,

        Dave Miner
        www.FreedomSite.net
      • David L. Miner
        Nilbux -- I have challenged you before on this one, and you still have not responded. Please post for us the quote from Page 3 (or any other page) of Modern
        Message 3 of 18 , Sep 1, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Nilbux --
           
          I have challenged you before on this one, and you still have not responded.  Please post for us the quote from Page 3 (or any other page) of Modern Money Mechanics that states what you claim.  I have read the entire document a number of times and have never found your reference.
           
          The fed never admits to a con game or fraud in the entire document.

          Yours in freedom,

          Dave Miner
          www.FreedomSite.net

           

          -----Original Message-----
          From: Nilbux@... [mailto:Nilbux@...]
          Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 11:51 PM
          To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: WARNING-IFRAME-Re: [tips_and_tricks] George Mercier/ FRN's vs what?

          In a message dated 8/31/2004 8:32:03 PM US Mountain Standard Time, frogfrmr@... writes:

          FRNs are great! they are light and easy to carry, can represent a lot
          >of wealth without taking up a lot of room

          nilbux reply:
          FRNs do not represent wealth, they expropriate wealth
          and the Fed admits this.  The Fed admits they operate
          a confidence game and that the history of banking is a
          history of fraud.

          It matters none what they admit when less that one
          per cent read it and the few who recite it are ridiculed.
          Read page 3 of Modern Money Mechanics.

           

        • Frog Farmer
          ... No, I m not. I live in a 900 sq. ft. house on a regular size lot about 1/5 of an acre. I do not grow everything I need. ... False premise, false
          Message 4 of 18 , Sep 1, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            On Aug 31, 2004, at 8:55 PM, David L. Miner wrote:

            > Frog --
            >
            > You seem to be operating under the belief that all of us can choose to
            > live
            > on a farm and grow everything we need.

            No, I'm not. I live in a 900 sq. ft. house on a regular size lot about
            1/5 of an acre. I do not grow everything I need.

            > This is simply not possible.
            False premise, false conclusion.

            > So we
            > are all faced with how do we implement the proper political views
            > within the
            > realm of reality.

            "Proper political views"? Sounds like "political correctness". We are
            ALL in the "realm of reality" in case you didn't know it.

            > Your reality is simply impossible for most Americans. It
            > is not a matter of choice, it is a matter of impossibility.

            You ignore that FRNs are only 3 to 5 % of what can be used as money,
            yet you think that 100% of the people are compelled to use that 5%.
            You seem to believe that living in a particular place or doing
            particular work subjects one to compulsory FRN usage. That is just
            plain wrong. The main factor is a lack of will. That's what gets most
            people using FRNs.

            > I am happy for you that you have been able to do without FRNs for 25
            > years.
            > I applaud your situation and your efforts. Me, I disagree with your
            > claim
            > that somehow using FRNs places me under some form of federal servitude.

            It places you under laws dealing with FRNs as their subject. Why do
            you ignore certain aspects of FRN use that do not attach to use of
            other mediums? And the fact that you receive debt for substance is
            quite a loss. I'd say you are conquered more by the Federal Reserve
            than the federal government. They are not the same, you know.

            > I
            > am one of the most free individuals I have ever met. I have not filed
            > a
            > return and have not paid income taxes in more than 14 years.

            Got you beat there by over a decade.

            > I use a Common
            > Law business trust to conduct business.

            Are you the Creator, the Trustee, or the Beneficiary? How does your
            Common Law trust avoid operating in Equity when it uses FRNs and Fed
            credit? Don't you know that a common law trust leaves the common law
            when it enters into equity, just like anyone else?

            > I use their FRNs against them by
            > using them to purchase hard assets and build my wealth in ways and in
            > areas
            > where the fed govt cannot touch it.

            Yes, you "purchase" but do not PAY.
            You choose to discharge your debts in equity, not at common law.

            > I will be able to retire at age 60 with
            > a comfortable income that the fed govt cannot reach or even know
            > about. And
            > I will continue living in the Greatest Nation in history, and not
            > retreat to
            > some frog farm or some third world country to do so.

            Retreat? How is my frog farm different than the Greatest Nation in
            history? FRNs are helping to turn this country into a third world
            country, and your every little bit helps.

            > I have no problems
            > with those who do, I just choose not to.
            >
            > You and others that claim that the mere use or even handling of a FRN
            > places
            > me into some form of servitude is simply not true.

            As far as you know. I happen to know differently. You refuse to
            consider that FRNs do not effect PAYMENT.
            You are robbed as well as you rob others with them. Just because you
            can ignore it does not change that REALITY.

            > You and others who claim
            > that there must be some set of extremely difficult steps I must go
            > through
            > in order to be free are simply not correct.

            I NEVER CLAIMED THAT "there must be some set of extremely difficult
            steps I must go through in order to be free".
            You couldn't quote it, so why make it up?

            > I fully understand the nature of FRNs, and have given speeches and
            > written
            > articles concerning the unconstitutional nature of the Federal Reserve
            > and
            > FRNs. But the "different jurisdiction" you allege does not exist
            > unless I
            > choose to let it exist.

            Oh, really? What makes you so special that exempts you? How do you
            manage to operate in the equity jurisdiction without being affected by
            it? It IS a jurisdiction "different" from the common law.

            > I can be and am a Sovereign Citizen whether or not
            > I use gold or FRNs or chickens. The 14th Amendment ADDED certain
            > benefits
            > but TOOK NOTHING AWAY from me. It just so happens that what the
            > Amendment
            > added I choose to not utilize. But I am still a Sovereign Citizen
            > regardless of what you believe or claim.

            "Sovereign" and "citizen" are mutually exclusive terms.

            > If what you and so many others claim is true in reality and not just
            > your
            > imaginations, then how can so many people using FRNs fight the IRS in
            > court
            > and win?

            FRNs are obviously not the only issue. And many people quickly realize
            that FRN use is not compulsory, and that if everyone were to use them,
            there would not be enough to go around. (Even though the presses run
            24/7.)

            > If these people are truly in servitude with no rights and the fed
            > govt has all power, then how in heaven's name could they ever win and
            > walk
            > away without paying income taxes?

            You must believe there is only one issue. Or one lawful status of man.
            Tsk tsk tsk.

            > There is no question about the fact that the fed govt has grown far
            > beyond
            > its Constitutional limitations. We have not had a Constitutional
            > Republic
            > since about the time President Lincoln declared war against half of
            > America.

            But you and others will take and accept whatever you find. I require
            law, not consensus beliefs, to back the claims of others upon me.

            > The fed reserve is indeed unconstitutional. FRNs are indeed
            > unconstitutional. Gold and silver money is required of the States
            > ONLY, and
            > not of the fed govt, but FRNs are still not Constitutional. But the
            > bondage
            > created here has absolutely nothing to do with using FRNs or any other
            > govt-issued paper. The bondage has everything to do with the apathy
            > of most
            > Americans. We The People have abdicated our responsibility to manage
            > our
            > government. We have allowed it to get totally out of control. And
            > these
            > same excesses will continue and increase until We The People suck it
            > up and
            > do something about our paid public servants who ignore the very Oaths
            > of
            > Office they swear.

            Here in California, they refuse to swear the required oaths, but that
            doesn't stop the people from groveling before the impostors. You can't
            even reject their admittedly flawed paper, even though ones such as I
            can easily. No, requiring oaths and lawful money is beyond the mental
            ability of today's crop of brainwashed victims, who all have to wait
            for a concensus to stop waiving rights and demand accountability from
            their neighbors who seek to oversee them.

            > You can refuse to use FRNs all you want and that won't change the
            > govt's
            > excesses one whit.

            I can refuse to vote in the Ladies Auxiliary and that won't change what
            they do one whit either.

            So what? I'm not waiting for a concensus to live my life as a free
            man. I also do not feel the need to join the Ladies Auxiliary just
            because they vote on something, and I do not feel compelled to part
            with my time, liberty or property in return for debt when substance
            provides me more rights.

            > FRNs are only one of many means the fed govt uses to
            > keep We The People in check.
            >

            Speak for yourself.

            > We need to attack the root of the problem, which is a fed govt that has
            > grossly exceeded its Constitutional limitations.

            Dream on! I've raised the issue of oaths of office as a constitutional
            requirement, yet who takes that seriously besides me?

            "We" don't need to do anything. It is individuals who waive
            constitutional requirements one by one. I cannot afford to wait until
            a majority decides not to waive their rights anymore. BTW, accepting
            discharge instead of payment is a waiver.

            > FRNs and at least a dozen
            > other very important and legitimate issues are merely symptoms of the
            > root
            > problem. And even the total elimination of FRNs will not in any way
            > bring
            > our fed govt back into its Constitutional limitations.

            Do you have any idea what it WOULD do??
          • David L. Miner
            Frog -- I said: Me, I disagree with your claim that somehow using FRNs places me under some form of federal servitude. Then you said: It places you under
            Message 5 of 18 , Sep 2, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Frog --

              I said: "Me, I disagree with your claim that somehow using FRNs places me
              under some form of federal servitude."

              Then you said: "It places you under laws dealing with FRNs as their subject.
              Why do you ignore certain aspects of FRN use that do not attach to use of
              other mediums?"

              Such as?

              You said: ""And the fact that you receive debt for substance is quite a
              loss."

              It is no loss at all if I can turn around and use that "debt" to purchase
              things of substance.

              You said: "How does your Common Law trust avoid operating in Equity when it
              uses FRNs and Fed credit?" Then you went on to say: "Yes, you "purchase"
              but do not PAY. You choose to discharge your debts in equity, not at common
              law."

              As a free and Sovereign individual, I can operate in Equity when I choose
              and leave that realm when I choose. What is your problem with Equity,
              anyway? What matters as long as the debt is discharged?

              And you said that you never claimed that "there must be some set of
              extremely difficult steps I must go through in order to be free". Yet you
              and others have claimed several times in this group that the reason most
              choose to not subscribe to your views was the "fact" that most people won't
              put in the effort to do otherwise. It does take effort. Most people, and
              every company I know of, will not accept gold or silver as payment.

              You said: ""Sovereign" and "citizen" are mutually exclusive terms."

              Only in your world, not in mine.

              I said: "If these people are truly in servitude with no rights and the fed
              govt has all power, then how in heaven's name could they ever win and walk
              away without paying income taxes?" Then you relied: "You must believe there
              is only one issue. Or one lawful status of man. Tsk tsk tsk."

              Nice sound bite, but you never addressed my question. If these people use
              FRNs and somehow lose their power or sovereignty and become subjects with n
              rights, how do they win against those who are supposedly in control of their
              lives?

              You said: "But you and others will take and accept whatever you find. I
              require law, not consensus beliefs, to back the claims of others upon me."

              First, I do not accept whatever I find, or we would not be engaged in this
              discussion. Nor would I have successfully stopped filing tax returns almost
              15 years ago. Second, you do not require law, or you would accept the Fed
              Reserve and its money. The Fed does not operate by "consensus belief" as
              you suggest. The Fed may operate outside our Constitution but it DOES
              operate under the laws passed by our Congress over the past 90 years.

              I have no idea what the Ladies Auxiliary has to do with our discussion of
              FRNs, but feel free to offer any irrelevant comments you want.

              The bottom line is simple. I do not subject myself to anything just by
              using FRNs unless I choose to be subjected. Which I do not. You are
              totally correct in that many in America and around the world use FRNs
              without knowing what they are. But you are not correct that using FRNs is
              always bad in every way.

              But the good news is that America is still free enough for you to live how
              you want and for me to live how I want. Free enough for a while, that is...

              Yours in freedom,

              Dave Miner
              www.FreedomSite.net



              ---
              Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
              Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
              Version: 6.0.742 / Virus Database: 495 - Release Date: 8/19/2004
            • John Wilde
              Forgive them Dave for they know not from which they speak sometimes. Some guru out there has told them equity is a bad, wicked, terrible and awful thing. Just
              Message 6 of 18 , Sep 2, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Forgive them Dave for they know not from which they speak sometimes.
                Some guru out there has told them equity is a bad, wicked, terrible and
                awful thing. Just like some people try and tell us that some drugs that
                "they" don't like are a bad, wicked, terrible and awful thing. That is
                why this movement has waged this never ending war against "equity" as
                the gummint has waged the never ending war on some drugs. The mentality
                is the same, and the result will be the same. Disaster.

                g'day
                John Wilde

                David L. Miner wrote:

                >Frog --
                >
                >I said: "Me, I disagree with your claim that somehow using FRNs places me
                >under some form of federal servitude."
                >
                >Then you said: "It places you under laws dealing with FRNs as their subject.
                >Why do you ignore certain aspects of FRN use that do not attach to use of
                >other mediums?"
                >
                >Such as?
                >
                >You said: ""And the fact that you receive debt for substance is quite a
                >loss."
                >
                >It is no loss at all if I can turn around and use that "debt" to purchase
                >things of substance.
                >
                >
                >
              • leos
                ... from the public, not from them! If you the public create the note from which a book entry is created from which checks are issued to others, they put up
                Message 7 of 18 , Sep 3, 2004
                • 0 Attachment


                  > They (the banks) admit all "money" is created through loans.
                  Promissory notes
                  from the public, not from them! If you the public create the note
                  from which a book entry is created from which checks are issued to
                  others, "they" put up nothing whatsoever, stand to lose nothing,
                  have taken no risk, what else would you call this other than
                  a "con"???
                  >   ----- Original Message -----
                  >  
                  From: David L. Miner
                  >   To:
                  href="mailto:tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com">tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                  >   Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 9:04
                  AM
                  >   Subject: RE: WARNING-IFRAME-Re: [tips_and_tricks] George
                  Mercier/ FRN's vs what?
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 9:04 AM
                  Subject: RE: WARNING-IFRAME-Re: [tips_and_tricks] George Mercier/ FRN's vs what?

                  Nilbux --
                   
                  I have challenged you before on this one, and you still have not responded.  Please post for us the quote from Page 3 (or any other page) of Modern Money Mechanics that states what you claim.  I have read the entire document a number of times and have never found your reference.
                   
                  The fed never admits to a con game or fraud in the entire document.

                  Yours in freedom,

                  Dave Miner
                  www.FreedomSite.net

                   

                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: Nilbux@... [mailto:Nilbux@...]
                  Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 11:51 PM
                  To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: WARNING-IFRAME-Re: [tips_and_tricks] George Mercier/ FRN's vs what?

                  In a message dated 8/31/2004 8:32:03 PM US Mountain Standard Time, frogfrmr@... writes:

                  FRNs are great! they are light and easy to carry, can represent a lot
                  >of wealth without taking up a lot of room

                  nilbux reply:
                  FRNs do not represent wealth, they expropriate wealth
                  and the Fed admits this.  The Fed admits they operate
                  a confidence game and that the history of banking is a
                  history of fraud.

                  It matters none what they admit when less that one
                  per cent read it and the few who recite it are ridiculed.
                  Read page 3 of Modern Money Mechanics.

                   


                • jm367@bellsouth.net
                  The fraud and the con arises from construction of person in the 14th amendment and from statutes which defined person such as the Dictionary Act The people in
                  Message 8 of 18 , Sep 3, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    The fraud and the con arises from construction of person in the 14th amendment and from statutes which defined person such as the Dictionary Act  The people in the person of their sovereignty, that is in their proper person, have the reserved right to emit bills of credit.  This right was prohibited to the States and not granted to the federal power. In the character or capacity of a person authorized to exist by a State, there exists no valid right under the Constitution to emit bills of credit and neither has any other person authorized to exist by a State, such as a corporation, the right to emit bills of credit.  This right is reserved to the people in their proper person.   Fractional reserve banking is not emitting bills of credit.  It is emitting bills which can be redeemed from reserves of money.
                     
                  • Frog Farmer
                    ... How about the Equity jurisdiction including the version of the UCC in your state? The topic of the differences between law and equity are beyond my time
                    Message 9 of 18 , Sep 3, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Sep 2, 2004, at 10:41 AM, David L. Miner wrote:

                      > I said: "Me, I disagree with your claim that somehow using FRNs places
                      > me
                      > under some form of federal servitude."
                      >
                      > Then you said: "It places you under laws dealing with FRNs as their
                      > subject.
                      > Why do you ignore certain aspects of FRN use that do not attach to use
                      > of
                      > other mediums?"
                      >
                      > Such as?

                      How about the Equity jurisdiction including the version of the UCC in
                      your state?
                      The topic of the differences between law and equity are beyond my time
                      available to explain, but are easily researched on the net.

                      > You said: ""And the fact that you receive debt for substance is quite a
                      > loss."
                      >
                      > It is no loss at all if I can turn around and use that "debt" to
                      > purchase
                      > things of substance.

                      See, you willingly take a guaranteed loss because you believe that it
                      will shortly be cancelled by passing off your bad commercial paper.
                      What about people who want to preserve their right not to be forced to
                      become a speculator in commercial paper? That "if" of yours is a
                      mighty big one. A lot of people may not have the confidence that they
                      can obtain a value equal to that which they would have to give to
                      receive FRNs.

                      And you ignore the concept of "payment" of debt versus mere discharge
                      of debt. Many people's religion admonishes them to avoid usury and
                      debt. What about them?

                      > As a free and Sovereign individual, I can operate in Equity when I
                      > choose
                      > and leave that realm when I choose.

                      Do you think most people are aware of the distinction, and know when
                      and what they are doing? Isn't it obvious that they do not, even on
                      such as this list where one would presume an above-average knowledge of
                      the law? I'll bet that hundreds of messages in the archives would
                      point out where the writer was unaware of the distinctions between law
                      and equity, where his or her complaint about what was happening in
                      their lives contained an assumption that they were in possession of
                      common law rights that were being violated, instead of the fact that
                      they were in equity chafing under the restriction of their privileges
                      therein.

                      > What is your problem with Equity, anyway?

                      It is uncertain. It is arbitrary. Rights are not as well protected.
                      At least you have to volunteer into it, or at least give consent to
                      it, but most people do not know that. You see so many people
                      complaining about perceived rights violations after signing an
                      application to be specially regulated in the equity jurisdiction. I
                      prefer to exercise the freedoms that the founders envisioned as long as
                      doing so is possible. I prefer to shun usury and debt. I demand all
                      of my rights at all times and wish to waive none for any cause or
                      reason.

                      > What matters as long as the debt is discharged?

                      What matters? Does it matter that a lender be paid? In your "world"
                      of debt discharge, debts mount forever, and are never extinguished.

                      In a mathematically impossible system where all new money is borrowed
                      into existence, but the amount necessary to pay the interest is not
                      created independently, somebody is BOUND to lose. This is not
                      "justice".

                      > And you said that you never claimed that "there must be some set of
                      > extremely difficult steps I must go through in order to be free". Yet
                      > you
                      > and others have claimed several times in this group that the reason
                      > most
                      > choose to not subscribe to your views was the "fact" that most people
                      > won't
                      > put in the effort to do otherwise.

                      Just because most people will not do something, does not mean that it
                      is "extremely difficult"!

                      Most people are LAZY. Most AVOID putting forth any more than MINIMUM
                      effort.

                      Doing without FRNs only takes will power and thought. Yes, even those
                      two things are something most are not willing to maintain.

                      This does not mean it is difficult, rather it points to the quality of
                      character extant today.

                      Would you hold that properly setting the clock on a VCR is "extremely
                      difficult"? Why is it that most people have the wrong time on their
                      VCR? Get it? Laziness, not difficulty, is what determines what gets
                      done and what does not today.

                      > It does take effort.

                      Yes, to think and speak does take some effort, but actually burns few
                      calories.

                      > Most people, and
                      > every company I know of, will not accept gold or silver as payment.

                      Am I to believe that you have asked "every company you know of" if they
                      will accept gold and silver as payment? And "most people"??

                      This is in a country that has Article 1 Section 10 in the constitution.
                      This is in a country that used gold and silver for most of its
                      existence, and where the more highly educated and the wealthy still do.
                      And all the world's countries maintain gold stocks which they daily
                      trade amongst themselves. Even many online companies provide gold and
                      silver payment services. I just don't think your curiosity has led you
                      to explore the possibilites as diligently as you might have done.

                      Were you born relatively recently? Are the companies you deal with run
                      by executives born after JFK was assassinated?

                      You really should become able to trade in real money, what with the
                      inevitable collapse of the FRN fiat system.

                      > You said: ""Sovereign" and "citizen" are mutually exclusive terms."
                      >
                      > Only in your world, not in mine.

                      Isn't it great how more than one world can occupy the same space?!

                      Citizens are subjects of a sovereign. Sovereigns are subject only to
                      the Creator of the Universe.

                      Also, if you have FRNs and no silver or gold in your pockets, it must
                      be assumed that you are a vagrant insolvent upon the public debt, with
                      no substance to pay (extinguish) your debts. You will only be presumed
                      able to discharge your debts as a privilege granted you by the legal
                      tender laws.

                      > I said: "If these people are truly in servitude with no rights and the
                      > fed
                      > govt has all power,

                      That's another IF I never said. My mind has trouble accepting the
                      concept of "fed govt" as a meme. We could discuss the details of why,
                      but that is for a more convenient time. As for the "servitude",
                      haven't you ever heard the old maxim that "the borrower is servant to
                      the lender"? Are you able to properly identify those two parties when
                      FRNs are involved?

                      > then how in heaven's name could they ever win

                      Win? Win what? Are "they" all disputing the SAME ISSUE?

                      > and walk
                      > away without paying income taxes?"

                      Even a taxpayer can have a bad year!

                      > Then you relied: "You must believe there
                      > is only one issue. Or one lawful status of man. Tsk tsk tsk."
                      >
                      > Nice sound bite, but you never addressed my question.

                      It was a bad question, which I'm trying now to help you improve and
                      clarify. First you assumed something I never said. Then with that as
                      a precondition, you use a non-existent meme (often substituted for
                      numerous real entities, but in your case it remained unidentifiable) to
                      claim a power I never admitted existed. Maybe it would help not to use
                      the words, "all power".

                      > If these people use
                      > FRNs and somehow lose their power or sovereignty and become subjects
                      > with n
                      > rights, how do they win against those who are supposedly in control of
                      > their
                      > lives?

                      I'll advise you on a case by case basis. With whose would you like to
                      start?

                      Also, define "win". It's easy for subjects to have "wins" in courts of
                      chancery IF they are skilled enough. After all, every case has a
                      winner and loser, does it not? If all wins were always on the side of
                      the prosecution, what need would there be to try any case? The outcome
                      could be predicted with certainty. But no, even subjects occasionally
                      "win". So what? I don't see what that has to do with anything.

                      It takes a certain level of thought and preparation (another alien
                      concept today) to arrange for a court to even discuss the money issue
                      and FRNs and gold and silver. They hate to do it in front of
                      witnesses. I already related one of my "wins" using the issue in a
                      previous message. What about it appeared "extremely difficult" to you?
                      I would say that (a) thinking enough to be able to (b) speak English
                      capably enough to make official record is "extremely difficult" for
                      anyone unfortunate enough to be "legally impaired" as a result of
                      recent public "education" (sic).

                      > You said: "But you and others will take and accept whatever you find.
                      > I
                      > require law, not consensus beliefs, to back the claims of others upon
                      > me."
                      >
                      > First, I do not accept whatever I find, or we would not be engaged in
                      > this
                      > discussion.

                      You accept FRNs. You say you know all about them, and you still accept
                      them.
                      You call them "dollars", do you not? You do this even though the
                      experts who create them tell you point blank that they are not dollars
                      and also that they were never intended to substitute for dollars. Are
                      you denying this?

                      Yet because "most people" do the same, you feel justified. And you see
                      that you can possibly obtain advantages over your fellow man by use of
                      this "scheme". You accept and profit via fractional reserve banking,
                      if we are to believe you.

                      In any dishonest system, one "wins" and one loses. FRNs help you win,
                      by permitting you to take from others without payment, and by letting
                      you pass on the debt to someone else. The level of debt goes up and
                      up. You profit. Hooray.

                      > Nor would I have successfully stopped filing tax returns almost
                      > 15 years ago.

                      How do we know? How do we know WHY you stopped filing tax returns? Do
                      you think that all people who have stopped filing have done it for the
                      exact same reason you did?

                      > Second, you do not require law, or you would accept the Fed
                      > Reserve and its money.

                      You err in calling it "money". Even they will tell you that. I do
                      require law, but no law you can show me requires that I willingly
                      accept debt in lieu of payment. As I've pointed out several times
                      now, with no rebuttal from anyone, FRNs can only be "compelled" on a
                      judgment creditor. No law compels one to accept the role of creditor.
                      I do not permit debts to me to be created. I do not engage in usury.
                      I do not waive payment nor permit confiscation. Show me the law that
                      you think makes doing those things compulsory on the part of everyone.

                      If you cannot produce such a law, admit that doing these things is a
                      voluntary choice made by individuals one by one. You choose to engage
                      in the use of a mathematically impossible "system" while I do not. I
                      claim that this subjects me to fewer laws that operate over your
                      voluntary choices. Refute it if you can, but I do not have time to
                      explain to you all the ramifications of your actions. Time spent on
                      your own researching various topics will do that for you.

                      > The Fed does not operate by "consensus belief" as
                      > you suggest.

                      Ever hear the term "open market committee"? But I didn't say that the
                      Fed operated by "consensus belief". The Fed PROFITS from concensus
                      belief, as apparently you do as well. Whereas the Fed is honest
                      enough to tell the truth about FRNs, you call them dollars in your
                      dealings with others. You use FRNs for reasons that were not among
                      those of their creator. You use them as dollar substitutes while you
                      call them dollars. You use them under conditions covered by
                      regulations of what is known as the Law Merchant.

                      > The Fed may operate outside our Constitution but it DOES
                      > operate under the laws passed by our Congress over the past 90 years.

                      Yawn....yeah, so? Did I say it didn't? The Congress could pass a law
                      saying I could eat shit, but that doesn't mean that I'll do it.

                      > I have no idea what the Ladies Auxiliary has to do with our discussion
                      > of
                      > FRNs, but feel free to offer any irrelevant comments you want.

                      Some people feel the need to vote, so they join groups that otherwise
                      should not include them just to be able to vote in those groups.
                      Some people, like me, cannot vote in elections without surrendering
                      certain rights and joining groups we would rather not join. I do not
                      feel the need to vote so strongly that I will accept the rules of any
                      group just to be able to vote.

                      Likewise, some people feel the need to enjoy any convenience or
                      expedience they see being enjoyed by others.
                      In the same way that people will waive rights in order to be able to
                      vote, some people will waive rights in order to enjoy convenience and
                      expedience. In the absence of other venues, would your need to vote
                      cause you to join the Ladies Auxilliary if you heard that doing so
                      would permit you a vote in their election? In the PERCEIVED absence
                      of real money, do you feel compelled to accept as an inferior
                      substitute those things (FRNs) that were never designed to be a
                      substitute for real money? Yes, you do. You might as well go join the
                      Ladies Auxilliary so you can vote in their next election.

                      > The bottom line is simple. I do not subject myself to anything just by
                      > using FRNs unless I choose to be subjected.

                      You just haven't been in the right place at the wrong time yet. Just
                      wait. Someday you will see.
                      You might try driving while black on I-95 sometime with a large roll of
                      FRNs. Then you'll see how they're "special". In the meantime,
                      research "search and seizure" and "cash" (even though "cash" is a
                      misnomer for FRNs, people generally make that mistake as well).

                      > Which I do not. You are
                      > totally correct in that many in America and around the world use FRNs
                      > without knowing what they are. But you are not correct that using
                      > FRNs is
                      > always bad in every way.

                      I never said their use was always bad in every way. Using such
                      absolute terms, and putting them into someone else's mouth, is
                      something you should try to avoid doing.

                      > But the good news is that America is still free enough for you to live
                      > how
                      > you want and for me to live how I want.

                      You'd best speak for yourself. I feel like I'm in the old Soviet Union
                      where I live. How do you like the "freedom" afforded those who are not
                      Republicans in New York City right now? That cage of barbed wire
                      fences virtually shouts out "FREEDOM!!"

                      > Free enough for a while, that is...

                      Maybe where you are. Where I am, we've already crossed the event
                      horizon of tyranny.
                    • Frog Farmer
                      ... It was nice to learn of its existence and characteristics. It explains why a lot of what goes on is so different from what we were taught to expect. ...
                      Message 10 of 18 , Sep 3, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Sep 2, 2004, at 12:20 PM, John Wilde wrote:

                        > Forgive them Dave for they know not from which they speak sometimes.
                        > Some guru out there has told them equity is a bad, wicked, terrible and
                        > awful thing.

                        It was nice to learn of its existence and characteristics. It
                        explains why a lot of what goes on is so different from what we were
                        taught to expect.

                        > Just like some people try and tell us that some drugs that
                        > "they" don't like are a bad, wicked, terrible and awful thing. That is
                        > why this movement has waged this never ending war against "equity" as
                        > the gummint has waged the never ending war on some drugs. The
                        > mentality
                        > is the same, and the result will be the same. Disaster.

                        I don't see the correlation. In the drug situation, some people
                        attempt to control others.

                        In the movement's effort to inform people of the consequences of
                        equity, some people don't want to be controlled by others.

                        How is the mentality the same? And this result of disaster...WHEN?
                        I've been avoiding FRNs and controls of the equity jurisdiction for
                        over a quarter of a century. Disaster does not only NOT appear on my
                        horizon, but when those who depend upon equity seem to suffer, my
                        fortunes seem to multiply. For example, this year the FRN devalued
                        about 25% while my chosen forms of exchange increased in value, even to
                        FRN users. I'd say a 25% devaluation was the disaster end of the
                        deal, wouldn't you?
                      • leos
                        Might one inquire where on a FRN does it refer to a redemption of some kind? Might we know what money reserves you refer to? I know of no money in use in
                        Message 11 of 18 , Sep 4, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Might one inquire where on a FRN does it refer to a redemption of some kind?  Might we know what "money" reserves you refer to? I know of no "money" in use in the USA, only IOU's.
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: jm367@...
                          Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 1:00 PM
                          Subject: Re: WARNING-IFRAME-Re: [tips_and_tricks] George Mercier/ FRN's vs what?

                          The fraud and the con arises from construction of person in the 14th amendment and from statutes which defined person such as the Dictionary Act  The people in the person of their sovereignty, that is in their proper person, have the reserved right to emit bills of credit.  This right was prohibited to the States and not granted to the federal power. In the character or capacity of a person authorized to exist by a State, there exists no valid right under the Constitution to emit bills of credit and neither has any other person authorized to exist by a State, such as a corporation, the right to emit bills of credit.  This right is reserved to the people in their proper person.   Fractional reserve banking is not emitting bills of credit.  It is emitting bills which can be redeemed from reserves of money.
                           

                        • jm367@bellsouth.net
                          FRN are emergency scrip, having nothing I know of to do with fractional reserve money banking. ... From: leos Might one inquire where on a FRN does it refer to
                          Message 12 of 18 , Sep 4, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            FRN are emergency scrip, having nothing I know of to do with fractional reserve money banking.
                            ----- Original Message -----
                            From: leos

                            Might one inquire where on a FRN does it refer to a redemption of some kind? 
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.