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

Re: [tips_and_tricks] FRN's and Legal Tender

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 8 , May 2 8:05 AM
    • 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 2 of 8 , May 2 8:30 AM
      • 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 3 of 8 , May 2 7:07 PM
        • 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 4 of 8 , May 3 10:15 AM
          • 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 5 of 8 , May 3 11:40 AM
            • 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.