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

Re: [tips_and_tricks] Dollar sign/symbol

Expand Messages
  • Bob law
    Jim, The nature of, and structure of, our alleged government, upon the public record hasn t changed (publically) for over a hundred years. Now we both know
    Message 1 of 34 , Mar 4, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Jim,
      The nature of, and structure of, our alleged
      government, upon the public record hasn't changed
      (publically) for over a hundred years. Now we both
      know better than that, as to actual application of
      governmental structures which are currently in place,
      but it is one of those dirty little secrets they do
      not want made public.
      So, yes you are right in that these USDC cases are
      actual true and correct. I do not argue their reality.
      But does this case or cases have holding to you in
      your personal or professional capacity? If this is so
      Jim then why does even the Internal Revenue Manual say
      that the IRS is not "bound" by an adverse case in the
      USDC, or Tax Court and they can ignore those rulings,
      which stand in contradistinction to their end goals
      where your case may be within their sights????
      Come on Jim, one case has nothing to do with another,
      unless you are within the confines of the courts
      jurisdiction. If you are not, then those prior rulings
      have no holding upon you, nor does the law applicable
      to their subjects. Are you a subject of the federal
      congress critters, only you can make that
      determination, but I choose liberty rather than
      servitude. Only you can determine whose servant you
      are, and you will rise and fall acording to your
      Master.
      Respectfully,
      Bob L.




      --- jm367@... wrote:
      >
      >
      > Federal jurisdiction in the States is interesting,
      > especially in the money
      > context. Don't miss Ableman v. Boothe in your
      > study. Does anybody really
      > think George Wallace is still stanidng in the school
      > house door ?
      >
      > And there are quite a number of cases involving
      > postal inpectors and using
      > the mails for fraud which I suggest you study, too.
      >
      > I have read Lopez. It's a bare start and fifty
      > years late.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
      > --------------------~-->
      > Give underprivileged students the materials they
      > need to learn.
      > Bring education to life by funding a specific
      > classroom project.
      >
      http://us.click.yahoo.com/FHLuJD/_WnJAA/cUmLAA/aQSolB/TM
      >
      --------------------------------------------------------------------~->
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      > tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >

      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
      http://mail.yahoo.com
    • 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.