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

RE: WARNING-IFRAME-Re: [tips_and_tricks] George Mercier/ FRN's vs what?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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.