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

[tips_and_tricks] FRN's and Legal Tender

Expand Messages
  • Bill
    To Christopher Dilts, Even if we acknowledge that FRN s are legal tender, where does it say that one is REQUIRED to tender payment in FRN s to the exclusion of
    Message 1 of 8 , May 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      To Christopher Dilts,

      Even if we acknowledge that FRN's are legal tender, where does
      it say that one is REQUIRED to tender payment in FRN's to the
      exclusion of anything and everything else? 
       
      Moreover, a statute canNOT amend the Constitution -- only a lawful amendment can do
      that.  Where is the Costitutional amendment that altered or abolished Art. I, Sec. 8,
      Clause 5 and Art. I, Sec. 10, Clause I?  I can't find them.
      Bill
    • Christopher Dilts
      Hello I agree but in mortgage for example it gives reference to UCC which allows FRN notes as tender. Not to mention most contracts state that the creditor is
      Message 2 of 8 , May 1, 2005
      • 0 Attachment

        Hello

        I agree but in mortgage for example it gives reference to UCC which allows FRN notes as tender. Not to mention most contracts state that the creditor is the one who decides what legal tender is in their contract. Plus we all know right to contract is a constitutional right and is binding unless person did not knowing waive a constitutional right (power of congress to coin money is not consider personal right but a mandated duty to congress) . As to the constitution overiding any statute yes you are absolutely right, but if you studied constitutional law you would know that the burden is against anyone claiming a statute is unconstitutional, the party must show how the statute shows no public interest, and go on an uphill battle since all statutes are considered presumed constitutionally vaild from the beging, and to challenge statute must follow proper procedure. Although above all the real probelm with bringing up very simplfied argument is the Supreme Court has already ruled that they will not hear if Congress gave it's authority to a FED to coin money because it is what they classifiy as a political question. Just like they will not hear anything about Republic form of government issue since it is politcal question. Making it next to impossible to win with such a simplified argument. If you do not beleive me study about 30 hours of constitutional law and I think you will see. May not be right but is the way it is.Hope I do not offend you but I spent quite alot of time researching the subject

        >From: "Bill" <bill_of_rights@...>
        >Reply-To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
        >To: <tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com>
        >Subject: [tips_and_tricks] FRN's and Legal Tender
        >Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 22:11:28 -0500
        >
        >
        >Bill
      • pireleif88@aol.com
        In a message dated 5/2/05 12:07:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ... Wiithin regards to above, my experience now tells me, hindsight servess 20/20 that both FRN as
        Message 3 of 8 , May 2, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 5/2/05 12:07:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time, bill_of_rights@... writes:


          Even if we acknowledge that FRN's are legal tender, where does
          it say that one is REQUIRED to tender payment in FRN's to the
          exclusion of anything and everything else?  


          Wiithin regards to above, my experience now tells me, hindsight servess 20/20 that both FRN as well as US Postal Money orders once sent are no longer acceptable means of transacting legal tender. I tried to pay an outstanding bill incurred with a major credit card company, only to learn first be told both forms of payment I was tendering them long time established as legal and acceptable, are no longer acceptable to them anymore, with warning given me should I continue on with same method as to means of paying my account, it would be terminated closed
        • Don Schwarz
          Under the Constitution, government can only perform those actions which are constitutional in means and results. If Congress allows FRN to circulate, then they
          Message 4 of 8 , May 2, 2005
          • 0 Attachment


            Under the Constitution, government can only perform
            those actions which are constitutional in means and results.

            If Congress allows FRN to circulate, then they must do so
            with the full principles of the Constitution, for nothing else
            allows currency to be circulated.

            The FRN must be identical to gold and silver coin.

            This is what the Constitution demands.

            WE know that they are not.

            Did ya see the guys who "found" the old money as they
            were fixing a roof in Massachusetts?

            The notes were marked, gold and silver CERTIFICATES.

            United State CERTIFICATES.

            GOLD CERTIFICATES

            SILVER CERTIFICATES 

            Now, because we "rent" them from the private central banking cartel
            known as the "Federal Reserve", they are only called "notes".

            Obtain old photos of what use to be written on our currency
            and what is missing now on the central banking notes.

            They ain't worth nothing!



            At 10:16 AM 5/2/05 -0400, you wrote:
            In a message dated 5/2/05 12:07:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time, bill_of_rights@... writes:


            Even if we acknowledge that FRN's are legal tender, where does
            it say that one is REQUIRED to tender payment in FRN's to the
            exclusion of anything and everything else? 


            Wiithin regards to above, my experience now tells me, hindsight servess 20/20 that both FRN as well as US Postal Money orders once sent are no longer acceptable means of transacting legal tender. I tried to pay an outstanding bill incurred with a major credit card company, only to learn first be told both forms of payment I was tendering them long time established as legal and acceptable, are no longer acceptable to them anymore, with warning given me should I continue on with same method as to means of paying my account, it would be terminated closed


            Yahoo! Groups Links
          • paradoxmagnus
            I believe you can still ALLEGE that a law is OVERBROAD & thus UNCONSTITUTIONAL as applied in matter at hand, can t you? An ordinance which as written, may
            Message 5 of 8 , May 2, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              I believe you can still ALLEGE that a "law" is OVERBROAD & thus
              UNCONSTITUTIONAL as applied in matter at hand, can't you?

              An ordinance which "as written, may result in arbitrary and erratic
              arrest and convictions." Papachristou v City of Jacksonville 31 L
              Ed 2d 110, 405 US 156, 92 S Ct 839

              A Statute that permits unbridled police discretion and is
              unconstitutional. Lanzetta v Jersey (1939) 83 L Ed 888, 306 US 451
              @ 453, 59 S St. 618 @619. See also Grayned v City of Rockford
              (1972) 33 L ed 2d 222, 408 US 104 @ 108, 109, 92 S Ct 2294 @2298-99

              Patrick in California

              It ain't what ya don't know that hurts ya. What really puts a hurtin'
              on ya is what ya knows for sure, that just ain't so. -- Uncle Remus


              --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "Christopher Dilts"
              <christopherdilts@h...> wrote:
              >
            • Bill
              To Christopher Dilts, Basically, what you told me is that there is no law, because the Constitution is virtually ignored. I already knew that. Moreover, what
              Message 6 of 8 , May 2, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                To Christopher Dilts,
                 
                Basically, what you told me is that there is no law, because the Constitution is virtually ignored.  I already knew that.  Moreover, what contract do you have with the government, bank, or credit institutions that requires payment in FRN's to the exclusion of anything and everything else?  I've certainly never seen one.
                 
                Bill
              • Christopher Dilts
                Hello What I was refering to was a mortgage and trying to bring up the tender argument in that type of sitatution. As to what I was trying to say about legal
                Message 7 of 8 , May 3, 2005
                • 0 Attachment

                  Hello

                  What I was refering to was a mortgage and trying to bring up the tender argument in that type of sitatution.

                  As to what I was trying to say about legal arguments dealing with constitution are much more difficult then many try to say they are. I never said anything to the effect that the constitution is of no effect, only that trying to win on that legal argument would be next to impossible when taking basic principals of constitutional law. If you like you can question me, not believe me, or whatever but please do not twist my words. Again I do hope not to have offended anyone , just trying to lead people in the right to direction.

                  Jamie

                  >From: "Bill" <bill_of_rights@...>
                  >Reply-To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                  >To: <tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com>
                  >Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] FRN's and Legal Tender
                  >Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 21:07:33 -0500
                  >
                  >
                • Frog Farmer
                  ... I haven t used FRNs since 1981. And nobody ever told me I had to, either. I don t understand why so many people think it s mandatory to use them. So many
                  Message 8 of 8 , May 3, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On May 2, 2005, at 7:07 PM, Bill wrote:

                    > To Christopher Dilts,
                    >  
                    > Basically, what you told me is that there is no law, because the
                    > Constitution is virtually ignored.  I already knew that.  Moreover,
                    > what contract do you have with the government, bank, or credit
                    > institutions that requires payment in FRN's to the exclusion of
                    > anything and everything else?  I've certainly never seen one.
                    >

                    I haven't used FRNs since 1981.

                    And nobody ever told me I had to, either.

                    I don't understand why so many people think it's mandatory to use them.

                    So many people believe so many lies.

                    I do know that courts will enforce their acceptance in the discharge of
                    debts.

                    "Neither borrower nor lender be."

                    Debt is the absence of money due and payable, but to most Americans,
                    it's just as acceptable as money in return for their life, liberty and
                    property, probably because they were taught in school that -1.00 is
                    equal to +1.00. And few living today have memories of carrying silver
                    and gold in their pockets everyday. Most people living today haven't
                    known real money, and are trained to think of evidences of debt as
                    money. And most don't care as long as whatever is used obtains the
                    pizza.

                    I care because use of debt carries with it certain legal disabilities.
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.