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

Re: [tips_and_tricks] procedure

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 19 , Sep 1 8:30 PM
       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 2 of 19 , Sep 2 1:00 AM
        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 3 of 19 , Sep 2 10:36 AM
          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 4 of 19 , Sep 14 12:56 PM
            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 5 of 19 , Sep 14 1:08 PM
              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.