Discharging Mortgage

[David Merrill]

The final post in a very long debate... http://www.suijuris.net/forum/125061-post101.html

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/ucc/13...-mortgage.html

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Right on!

The gold was collected in 1933.

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ollections.jpg

I guess your theory is that the gold was stolen by the FDR administration?

Is that what you are saying?

If not; then why would you deprive Sara Fugue of what is due her?


Regards,

David Merrill.

I think it worth some thought.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[ZOBOLI]

By the way, writing the other day on the fourteen
original notes not provided; you might want to hear
this very relevent audio:

Friday, 2007 12 07

DBS & Muhammad Rafeeq in The French Connections
First Live ShoutCast.
(Please listen to these and these files first. Daryl
refers to Jim Sinclair's MineSet in this show.)

» Part 1 of 2 (7,7 MB)
» Part 2 of 2 (7,3 MB)

[Shoonra]

Notwithstanding DiiM's namecalling, the document he presents is not a tender of payment. It is an example of a "Public Office Money Certificate" (POMC), an illusory and worthless document which pretends that a govt office will pay the debt. In this case it's a particularly unconvincing example. This sort of document has already held to be not a valid tender of payment because it does not meet the requirement of UCC 2-511(2) of being made "in any manner current in the ordinary course of business." The ordinary course of business generally means that a bank could readily collect on an instrument but this cannot be processed by a bank. see G.M.A.C. v, Breault (NY Supreme Ct 1994) NY Law Journal, May 9, 1994 page 25.

Additionally, by pretending to be paid via the federal govt, this document constitutes a fictitious obligation, a felony under the counterfeiting laws.

Use a document like this and you can have what DiM has -- a jail record.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Notwithstanding DiiM's namecalling, the document he presents is not a tender of payment. It is an example of a "Public Office Money Certificate" (POMC), an illusory and worthless document which pretends that a govt office will pay the debt. In this case it's a particularly unconvincing example. This sort of document has already held to be not a valid tender of payment because it does not meet the requirement of UCC 2-511(2) of being made "in any manner current in the ordinary course of business." The ordinary course of business generally means that a bank could readily collect on an instrument but this cannot be processed by a bank. see G.M.A.C. v, Breault (NY Supreme Ct 1994) NY Law Journal, May 9, 1994 page 25.

Additionally, by pretending to be paid via the federal govt, this document constitutes a fictitious obligation, a felony under the counterfeiting laws.

Use a document like this and you can have what DiM has -- a jail record.

Evasive.

Shoonra stands upon the presumption that the gold seizure in 1933 is a justified theft. Additionally Shoonra supplies no indication that Sara Fugue was prosecuted or jailed for using the bill of exchange. Additionally Shoonra denies that dollar bills are bills of exchange.

Let's examine another bill of exchange (attached) - $35. Or better yet, a currency exchange - see how the rate will increase by $19 after January 1? I could buy 100 and sell them after January 1 for only $10 more than what I paid.

Namecalling? Esquire?


Regards,

David Merrill.

[David Merrill]

...an illusory and worthless document which pretends that a govt office will pay the debt.

While hopeful that Uncle Bernie would further shed light upon the thread topic, I suppose I may have to settle for that comment.

What has stultified Shoonra/Bernie around here is simply the fact that during a War on the Emergency in 1933, caused by the twenty year charters of the Federal Reserve Banks coming due, the US government seized America's gold. And due to the Emergency being relatively short lived, Congress has had to pay lip service to ending it, or that it has ended several times.

Ergo it is only logical that people can discharge debts from the wealth held in trust by government.

Use a document like this and you can have what DiM has -- a jail record.

Of course namecalling aside, one should take note that the only thing the DA had was a charge of forgery - that the POMC style too closely imitated a traditional checking account check. If you accept the bars of illusion rather than the physical bars; if you consider that might makes right out of fear of loss and imprisonment - then you are as much part of the problem as Shoonra.

Here is the style in which Shoonra/Bernie writes:

http://www.adl.org/mwd/redemption.asp

In fact here is Bernie:

http://www.adl.org/mwd/suss1.asp
http://www.adl.org/mwd/suss7.asp

The old paper money, especially before 1934, contained a statement that the paper money was "redeemable in lawful money" at Federal Reserve banks, but under an 1862 Act of Congress which persisted until 1982 (RS sec. 3588, former 31 USC sec. 452) declared that US paper money is "lawful money and a legal tender in payment of all debts, within the US, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt", so (at least from 1933, when the law was changed [48 Stat 112, ch.48] to restrict the Treasury's sale of silver and gold to the public) the Federal Reserve system would redeem paper currency with other denominations of paper currency or with ordinary (non-precious) coins; the expression "lawful money" and the restriction about payment on duties and interest on the public debt were dropped when the title was revised and enacted as positive law in 1982 (current 31 USC sec. 5103), so there is nothing in the law now that requires (or entitles) paper currency to be redeemed with precious metal. Several court decisions have clearly treated US paper currency as "lawful money"...

Question: If that is what Shoonra says, then why does he not simply quote himself while arguing with me?

Answer: Because I win the argument within Shoonra's quote. The only US paper currency that Congress has ever defined lawful money are US notes, which have never been taken out of circulation by the power of Congress - only substituted with FRNs in form by the Treasury. That is a very subtle substitution - US paper currency for US notes. Shoonra/Bernard L. Sussman is quite eloquent at providing attorney sophistry to attorneys and so we must continue to appreciate his contributions to the Suijuris community.


Librarian Bernard J. Sussman . . . . (202) 501-5861
Education: New School 1971 BA;
American U 1979 JD; Catholic U 1988 MLS

http://www.leadershipdirectories.com...B_sp_sum05.pdf




Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. It is really much simpler to try this approach;

Shoonra;

Let's presume I am misinterpreting your posts. Being an expert on lawful money and legal tender and soforth - if Sara Fugue's BOE or POMC or whatever is as faulty as you say, please explain to us the proper way to redeem the wealth secured by the US government in 1933?

Please explain that the US government did not steal it by showing us how to get it back.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

That is a very subtle substitution - US paper currency for US notes.

Shoonra/Bernard L. Sussman is quite eloquent at providing attorney sophistry to attorneys and so we must continue to appreciate his contributions to the Suijuris community.

I am sorry for having to disagree with you on these two points:

First, I fail to see the subtlty in the artifice of claiming that Congress declared "that US paper money is 'lawful money and a legal tender in payment of all debts, within the US, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt.'"

That is neither sophistry, nor subtle, that is a lie.

Second, I disagree that "Shoonra/Bernard L. Sussman is quite eloquent at providing attorney sophistry."

He is a merely a bought and "payed for" hack and a third rate propagandist.

I do not dispute that he is a contributor.

[Shoonra]

DiM focuses on 1933 when the US went off the gold standard. That's 1933 -- the depths of the Depression -- when most people had no gold at all, and the relatively few who were prosperous were hoarding it.

But this has nothing to do with presenting someone with an illusory draft that pretends that the govt will pick up the tab for their mortgage.

And DiM pretends that this worthless draft "too closely imitated a traditional checking account check". Of course it doesn't, which is one reason that the Fictitious Obligation law was adopted, to include fraudulent documents that don't resemble anything valid.

Such POMCs have been repeatedly held worthless and fraudulent in court. Not once has one of these homebrew been held a valid payment.

[fulltitle]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Notwithstanding DiiM's namecalling, the document he presents is not a tender of payment. It is an example of a "Public Office Money Certificate" (POMC), an illusory and worthless document which pretends that a govt office will pay the debt.

Without Prejudice.
Shoonra, actually that "Fugate document" isnt an example of a POMC. If FRNs have no intrinsic value according to those even you rely on, then thats kind've like saying they are worthless, no? Sarah S. Fugate to knowledge had claim on and security interest in the United States and she was using part of the value of the security interest to underwrite the BoE. BTW, Shoonra, if the FRNs are bcked by "all the goods in the U.S. economy": just exactly who made those goods and provided substance and labor to do such? Can you answer these questions, please?

DiM focuses on 1933 when the US went off the gold standard. That's 1933 -- the depths of the Depression -- when most people had no gold at all, and the relatively few who were prosperous were hoarding it.

That's interesting, I've met old folks who were alive during the depression who had been collecting gold coins and the like for years and years but kept their gold coins.

Additionally, by pretending to be paid via the federal govt, this document constitutes a fictitious obligation, a felony under the counterfeiting laws.

Shoonra, if the U.S. Treasury owes Bob Smith $1,000 in tax refunds, are you saying that such is not an obligation of the United States. And if Bob Smith wanted to issue a bond underwritten by that account are you saying that he'd be committing a felony by indicating that the Bond is an obligation of the United States.

SHOONRA: Is the United States Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service part of the United States government? Is the Social Security Administration in MD a United States entity/organization? If both are United States organizations then arent accounts with the SSA or USTreas also in the United States? You're actually an attorney and you would call such a BoE counterfeitting? Counterfeiting would be where you make a document or instrument that LOOKS LIKE, say, a bona-fide United States Treasury Check and pass it off as issued by the United States Department of the Treasury. Through all those court sessions its amazing that the judge, judges or attorneys involved managed to forget to tell the plethora of cops in the courthouse building to arrest Sara S. Fugate for Shoonra-land counterfeiting. Amazing.

Its amazing also that even after about a year after someone I know, as a trustee for a trust, issued a bill over $30K for setoff againt U.S. obligations--and it was indicated in the text that the bill was obligations of the United States--not a single Federal agent knocked or stopped by either of the offices mentioned on the instrument [and there at least one girl at one of them all day--the didnt even call on the phone]. Matter of fact the FBI offices arent that far from one of them. Matter of fact, no collection attempts were made after the Trustee explained to the accounting deparment folks what they could do with the bill (which was physically attached to their own)--pay their taxes or sell them to their bank.

And guess what they didnt send another bill, they acknowledge and agreed that they were overpayed but the trustee told him he didnt care it was just to cover any additional expenses or costs associated with handling the bills (i.e. he actually rewrote the value of the bill they issued on its face to match the bill he issued to underwrite theirs and thusly he gave them more money to KEEP just in case they had to pay their accountants some extra money or buy extra postage stamps). BTW, he also effectively told them if they didn't like the commercial law they were bound to that they should go take it up with the Secretary of State.

[ P.S. the bill had nothing to do with UCC or Redemption.]

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by mrg

He is a merely a bought and "payed [sic] for" hack and a third rate propagandist.

Oh come now. I'm at least second rate. And if I'm "paid for" then someone owes me a lot of money.

[Extramural]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Oh come now. I'm at least second rate. And if I'm "paid for" then someone owes me a lot of money.

They owe you paper. Printed paper. Nothing more...

You're still paid for, Bernie.


But, yes, at least you are second rate.