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

Re: [tips_and_tricks] Dollar sign/symbol

Expand Messages
  • Bob law
    Jim, I will reply in text as appropriate. ... [First I never questioned the legal implication of the symbol. Nor it s historic roots, nor it s factual
    Message 1 of 34 , Mar 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      I will reply in text as appropriate.

      > Well, now that we have confirmation that the two
      > verticle stripe with S symbol actually exists in
      > legal usage,
      [First I never questioned the "legal" implication of
      the symbol. Nor it's historic roots, nor it's factual
      application now did I. This is a direct
      misunderstanding on your part as to the inference of
      my dialog.]

      your question is what is the legal significance ?
      [Not at all as it is immaterial. There is plenty of
      court cases on the subject matter, which needs not be
      rehearsed herein as same relates to money, currency,
      tender, exchange medium, etc.,etc., ad nauseum.]

      > Well, for one thing a stamp is an obligation of the
      > United States, cancelled or not. See Title 18.
      [Indeed, and to whom is Title 18 applicable....hmmm?
      Not to me, or to you(unless you are a citizen born
      upon the federal soil, or one subject to the express
      legislative authority of Congress), this is for sure.
      Therefore, once again you prove my point in fact, as
      you site a section of code which is relevant only to a
      select segment of human kind. Namely government
      impersonators, and federal citizenry.]

      > For another thing, the International Postal
      > Convention requires settlement in gold. See the
      > terms of the Convention and there is also a court
      > case. So, the stamp is denominated with the double
      > verticle symbol appropriate for specie.
      [To those to whom the convention has holding. To no
      one else. Do you have any information which would show
      in fact where anyone has ever even got a case heard
      before this tribunal? I doubt it. Also, what types of
      cases does this alleged court hear? What is the nature
      and cause of the action before the court in the case
      you reference? Who were the combatants in the case?
      Were they true corporeal beings or were they fictions?
      See there is much left to the imagination of those who
      portend to understand these mysteries Jim, but I for
      one do not subscribe to these Paytriot myths, until I
      am shown where I am in error. If I am please show me,
      and I will repent of my position and publically state
      my error.]

      > You can't get benefit of the terms of the convention
      > because you are not a party to the convention.
      [Nor are you, so again you prove my point in fact as
      that since you and I (and possibly everyone else)are
      not party to the convention, the two stripe "Red Fox
      Stamp" has no more significance than any other style
      of/or denomination of any other postal stamp, other
      than to perform according to the contract entered into
      by the parties subject to the contract of the postal
      agreement. No mythical magic being applied thereto,
      because I attached a Red Fox Stamp to the corners of
      my documents and therefore the documents have some
      mythical secret overture in law to grant me remedy
      which I would not otherwise be entitled.]

      > You are not buying anything from the Post Office
      > except the obligation of the United States to
      > perform a dollar's worth of mail delivery service.
      [Thank you for verifying my contention Jim to others
      who believe otherwise. To those who believe that the
      Red Fox Stamp attaches some magical form of law to a
      document, you are, as far as I can determine from the
      public record, in error. It will avail you no more
      remedy in law, than if you winked your eye, spun in a
      circle three times and said the right magic words, and
      poof, the enemy went running away frightened by your
      magic.....yeah right.]

      I mean no disrespect to you personally Jim, but these
      people who proffer such legal theories about the Red
      Fox Stamp stuff making their documents into "super
      documents", make me wonder what kind of education
      these people have...can't they read the law and
      understand it?
      Bob L.

      Do you Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
    • Frog Farmer
      ... Actually, people of both views can be accomodated, just as for some we live in a republic while others swear it is a democracy. Some people will deal in
      Message 34 of 34 , Mar 8, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        On Mar 8, 2005, at 10:44 AM, Robert Mulder wrote:

        > The FDIC has a different opinion on this matter:
        > "It is the opinion of the Secretary of the Treasury that Public Law
        > 93-373 did not repeal or alter the so-called Gold Clause Resolution of
        > 1933 (31 U.S.C. 463). The Resolution prohibits any contractual
        > provision which purports to give the obligee the option of requiring
        > payment of the obligation in money or a specified amount of gold.
        > Deposit contracts which purport to give the bank's customer such an
        > option are therefore rendered legally unenforceable by the terms of
        > the Gold Clause Resolution. Contracts specifically payable only in
        > gold may be similarly unenforceable where the parties to the contract
        > view the gold as a medium of discharging a debt, such as a deposit
        > liability, rather than as a commodity to be traded."

        Actually, people of both views can be accomodated, just as for some we
        live in a republic while others swear it is a democracy.

        Some people will deal in debt, and some will not. The reason gold is
        money is because it is a store of value and a medium of exchange. It is
        perfect U.S. money for transacting common law exchanges of property, or
        labor. Notice that even in the secretary's eyes, it all depends upon
        how the parties "view" the gold. Isn't that interesting? And notice
        the clever slight of hand trying to equate "discharge of debt" (in
        equity jurisdiction, no doubt) with "payment" at the common law, which
        finally extinguishes debt (while "discharge" merely transfers it to
        another party), and usually avoids debt creation altogether. The
        secretary depends upon the people involved to have a view. Should we
        do some man-on the street interviews and see how many Post-911
        Americans have a view on the topic?

        The Secretary of the Treasury has to maintain an opinion (but you don't
        have to agree with it!) that permits the monetization of debt as
        politically driven public policy. But one who claims his rights to
        property, and exercises them with gold and silver, cannot be made to
        part with his common law substance only to be "compensated" with
        "elastic" units of irredeemable bad debt. That result, where the human
        suddenly awakes to the fact that he lost his gold and now has a right
        to pursue debt in court, until he accepts paper fiat legal tender ( or
        better yet, "a deposit liability") is a voluntary action. He must
        first have permitted a debt to be created. This requires consciousness
        in the moment, and a timely objection when debt is being offered.
        Because once a debt exists, so-called "legal tender" can discharge it
        by government fiat.

        The old method of "cash on the barrelhead" protected everyone, with no
        one having to become either a creditor or a debtor, and wouldn't that
        feel nice in this time when the more you borrow the richer you become,
        when nothing is lent and nothing is paid back? "And yet real goods
        and services are transferred to the government."
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.