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

Re: [tips_and_tricks] procedure

Expand Messages
  • jm367@bellsouth.net
    Person in Article I means the body, soul, and spirit of a man, as it does in the 4th article of amendment. However, the persons which are today emitting bills
    Message 1 of 19 , Sep 1, 2004
      Person in Article I means the body, soul, and spirit of a man, as it does in the 4th article of amendment.
      However, the persons which are today emitting bills of credit are artificial in nature.  For instance, a credit corporation in the money market can emit a bill of credit.
      This, however, according to your construction of the Constitution, is a power reserved to people.  I agree with this construction.
      The fact is that the 10th amendment is not a check on the 14th amendment and by that shift or dodge of misconstruction of powers granted, the courts allow Congress by legislation to empower corporations, municipal and public, to emit bills of credit, which is a power which was originally reserved to the people.  And people are only allowed to emit bills of credit in the character or capacity of an artificial person.
      The emission of bills of credit by the Federal Reserve is a usurpation of power reserved to the people.
       
    • Bill
      Article I, Section 8, Clause 2 states that Congress shall have the power......to borrow Money on the credit of the United States. It says nothing about
      Message 2 of 19 , Sep 1, 2004
         Article I, Section 8, Clause 2 states that "Congress shall have the power......to borrow Money on the credit of the United States."  It says nothing about borrowing "credit."  It specifically says, "money."  The unit of money is the dollar, which is 371.25 grains of pure silver or a silver to gold ratio of 15/1 (See Coinage Act of 1792).
         
        Moreover, it certainly says nothing about corporations having the power to lend credit or to create "money."
         
        Bill
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 10:26 AM
        Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] procedure

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

        g'day
        John Wilde

        Andre' Jackson wrote:



        John Wild,

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

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



      • leos
        HJR 192 clearly stated no one can demand payment in a particular specie. It just has to be legal tender at the time of tender. FRN.s, negotiable instruments,
        Message 3 of 19 , Sep 2, 2004
          HJR 192 clearly stated no one can demand payment in a particular specie.  It just has to be legal tender at the time of tender. FRN.s, negotiable instruments, etc. If legal tender is offered or sent, the debt is discharged if they take it or not!  (UCC)
          ----- Original Message -----
          Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 8:29 PM
          Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] procedure



          John Wild,

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

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


        • Nilbux@aol.com
          In a message dated 9/2/2004 10:09:33 AM US Mountain Standard Time, ... Payment is not mentioned in the legal tender statutes because the sole function of
          Message 4 of 19 , Sep 2, 2004
            In a message dated 9/2/2004 10:09:33 AM US Mountain Standard Time, leos@... writes:


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


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

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

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

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

          • Frog Farmer
            ... That says a lot for the quality of character of government employees today, doesn t it? When did the presumption that government employees were honest
            Message 5 of 19 , Sep 14, 2004
              On Sep 1, 2004, at 9:04 AM, David L. Miner wrote:

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

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

              > So they want checks to pay the bills due. 

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

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

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

              However, there is the statement "this office does not accept cash".
              Could it be because the office "knows" that there is no longer any real
              "cash" in circulation, and therefore, like the trucks that have "driver
              carries no cash" painted on the sides, they are warning the even more
              character-degraded public that the office contains no medium worth
              stealing capable of PAYING debts and transferring allodial titles, and
              only deals in DISCHARGE of debt with registered commercial paper
              capable of being replaced if stolen, guaranteeing only insurable
              equitible interests?
            • Frog Farmer
              ... As in substance versus concepts. ... As in silver or gold versus FRNs. ... Real cash is all in the hands of the few, while the many are satisfied with
              Message 6 of 19 , Sep 14, 2004
                On Sep 1, 2004, at 11:46 AM, <jm367@...> wrote:

                > There is money and there is credit;

                As in substance versus concepts.

                > there is cash and there is notes. 

                As in silver or gold versus FRNs.

                > They will not accept cash money. 

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

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

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