Re: [tips_and_tricks] FRN's and Legal Tender
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.
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
- 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 email@example.com, "Christopher Dilts"
- 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
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.
>From: "Bill" <bill_of_rights@...>>Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org>To: <email@example.com>>Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] FRN's and Legal Tender>Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 21:07:33 -0500>>
- On May 2, 2005, at 7:07 PM, Bill wrote:
> To Christopher Dilts,I haven't used FRNs since 1981.
> 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.
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
"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
I care because use of debt carries with it certain legal disabilities.