Discharging Debt with Bonds

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by Dave the Jailbird

For instance I would blow Shoonra out of the water with a couple items about bonding elastic currency, and his own admission that US notes are inelastic ....

Don't flatter yourself. United States Notes were authorized by an 1862 statute that expressly limited the face value of the United States Notes in circulation to three million dollars, even though they were not backed by any Treasury reserve or other collateral.

Originally Posted by Dave the Jailbird

..., Shoonra explains to us that we can still redeem lawful money - those inelastic US notes are handed to us in the form of FRNs..... US Notes in the form of FRNs

DiM actually thinks that Federal Reserve Notes are, if he squints at them, really United States Notes and if he walks out a bank with FRNs it's the bank's mystical way of complying with his insistence on payment in United State Notes. United States Notes were authorized by an 1862 Act (repealed in 1982), Federal Reserve Notes by a 1913 Act. They are, or were (until the FRNs got the new portraits, watermarks and security microprinting), printed on similar paper with similar artwork, but the United States Notes had red seals and serial numbers and actually said "United States Note". They are both legal tender (although it appears that there never was a time when United States Notes were statutorily guaranteed to be exchangeable for silver or gold currency), but one is not the other.

If FRNs are really as flimsy and worthless as DiM and others claim, you're entitled to wonder they go to such efforts to get their hands on FRNs. Or, perhaps more significantly, why the governments and the banks of foreign countries - who presumably have a better grounding in this topic than DiM does - will also accept and seek out FRNs.

Originally Posted by Dave the Jailbird

However I only hope I am right. I have found the federal repository as it is founded in Freemasonry - the administrative arm of The Sanhedrin - administering Pauline Christianity (Knights Templar) - the Seven Noachide Laws.

Dave's tin foil helmet must be a bit tight.

Originally Posted by Dave the Jailbird

Since Shoonra has defined his perspective by asserting the Pope nullified the Magna Charta, I find it easy to rest my case smug in that I am right.

Even though it's not mentioned in the Robin Hood comic books, yes, the 1215 Magna Charta had a legal lifespan of only about 90 days. The most reliable references on English legal and constitutional history bear witness to this fact. Sources like Stubb's Select Charters, Holt's history of the Magna Carta, McKechnie's history of the Magna Carta, the British Museum's guidebook to the Magna Carta, and even the Smithsonian's guidebook to the Bicentennial display of the Magna Carta. DiM is entitled (as others are) to his opinions, but he's not entitled to his own facts.

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

For instance I would blow Shoonra....

I'm sure you would, but Shoonra doesn't "go that way."

LOL

[David Merrill]

DiM actually thinks that Federal Reserve Notes are, if he squints at them, really United States Notes and if he walks out a bank with FRNs it's the bank's mystical way of complying with his insistence on payment in United State Notes.

Exactly! I think that is the first time Shoonra has gotten around to admitting I make sense. If you do not endorse private credit - you redeemed the lawful money and you redeemed the national debt by the amount on your paycheck. Good for you.

That is what the law says and I suppose I may have to wait a couple months before Shoonra will acknowledge that elastic currency is not lawful money by definition of Congress but inelastic currency is lawful money by definition. Any third grader can tell that FRNs in private credit form are not lawful money as the US code says:

They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand...

I doubt even Shoonra can spin legaleze enough to be convincing even on Quatloos that lawful money = FRNs.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[PANICPASS]

Exactly! I think that is the first time Shoonra has gotten around to admitting I make sense. If you do not endorse private credit - you redeemed the lawful money and you redeemed the national debt by the amount on your paycheck. Good for you.

The amount on your pay statement, not paycheck is the amount you received in private credit. If the amount you received in private credit does not match the amount on your paycheck, then there is a conflict as to how much private credit you received vs. how much you didn't receive. But that is never the issue. You cannot argue private credit issue with IRS.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by PANICPASS

The amount on your pay statement, not paycheck is the amount you received in private credit. If the amount you received in private credit does not match the amount on your paycheck, then there is a conflict as to how much private credit you received vs. how much you didn't receive. But that is never the issue. You cannot argue private credit issue with IRS.

Exactly. Very good point there.

And it cannot be argued with Shoonra. That is because Shoonra is a collection agent/registered attorney. Basically, Shoonra and KarenM/AndyK are collection agents for the Fed.

And that is my point all along. You would never argue with the IRS about this. What you do is direct your Return, with evidence of non-endorsement to an attorney in the IRS who will understand better that there is still remedy available.

If I understand Shoonra's posts lately, he is saying that the remedy of lawful money as stipulated by the Fed Act §16 and Title 12 U.S.C. §411 is no longer available. Shoonra admits that US notes are inelastic and it is obvious that FRNs are elastic; just the same - Shoonra insists that they are both lawful money. That cannot be so; just as the Fed cannot take away the remedy from elastic currency:

They [FRNs] shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand...

I have often described what you said as a bowl-horizon effect. For instance if you stayed inside a huge bowl long enough, you would think of the rim of the bowl as the horizon when the true horizon lies beyond the rim of the bowl. That is what arguing lawful money with the IRS is like. You would have to get the IRS to argue your right to redeem lawful money pursuant to law, in the courts.

Sure Shoonra can make his arguments in cyberspace and all it does is prepare us to argue in the courts, should the IRS be stupid enough to argue there - or one of us be stupid enough to argue that lawful money has to be equated in precious metals. One can accept US notes in the form of FRNs easily by non-endorsing their paycheck.

The other point you made is true and thanks for pointing that out. Deductions other than Withholdings would be treated like insurance premiums. You would be paying for Unemployment, Disability and SSI premiums on a future claim. However the only purpose in filing at all, once you are redeeming lawful money, is to get back your Withholdings come April 15. [Then in theory you might even convince your employer to quit the Withholdings, since you get it all back and deserve any interest and other benefits from it during the tax year. Withholdings becomes like a mandatory non-interest savings account with the IRS.]


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Exactly! I think that is the first time Shoonra has gotten around to admitting I make sense.

Wrong.

You are so dense or delusional, you don't even realize when you are being ridiculed.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Wrong.

You are so dense or delusional, you don't even realize when you are being ridiculed.

Wrong; the points you ridiculed me on defined your understanding of lawful money to be correct. You protect the Bank and Fund with your doctrine that remedy was terminated in 1982 - was it?

Federal Reserve Notes are fully redeemable in lawful money - according to the law today Shoonra. So instead of endorsing private credit, redeem lawful money before you put your hands on FRNs in the form of private credit.

You have explained that you understand this in your post. Thanks again!



Regards,

David Merrill.

[robhalford88]

Originally Posted by KarenM

Except for the facts that no such bonds exist, the Department of the Treasury routinely forwards requests such as these to the FBI, and no one has ever been successful in attempting to use these "bonds" for anything, your theory is foolproof.

Why don't you ask David Merrill what happened to him when he attempted to negotiate one of these BOEs? See if he recalls the time he spent in jail over it.

I conditionally accept your claim that no one has ever been successful in attempting to use these bonds for anything, upon poroof of claim from you.

Put up or shut up.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

DiM claims that I made some reference about him regarding prison rape. I never suggested he had been raped. I have always believed that he was extremely willing and cooperative.

As for you Bernie, you are gonna have heaps of chances to experience this for yourself.
Types like you are lower than whale **** at the bottom of the ocean. You, lawnugget and karenugget better laugh and enjoy yourself now, because a time is coming where your types will swing and not in the kids playground either.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

It doesn't matter if I'm certain. The government's certain and it's already sent a way a number of people for this sort of funny money.

Poor widdle bernie, all full of fear of the man. Diddums.

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Better able to survive what? The legal profession isn't going to go away.

Ha ha, you seem to think you are immortal. I got news for ya. In fact, lots of you predatory trash WILL be going away.

Originally Posted by trooper2ls

Good luck to everyone else on achieving their goals of independence. The only thing left for me is to build a greenhouse this summer just in case we get a year without a summer like in 1816 that caused world crops to fail and a worldwide famine. No amount of technology can overcome the will of nature.

..J

But lawyers are superhuman, they don't need nature, they will just sue, didn't you hear about that?

Originally Posted by mrg

How is your so-called "secularism" other than "religion?"

Do you "understand" why every courtroom in the downtown Chicago circuit court of Cook County has "IN GOD WE TRUST" on the wall in two foot tall gold lettering, and why there is someone dressed as a priest sitting behind a raised altar-like platform hearing confessions, taking pleadings, making dispensations, and the like?

You just are partial to a particular "state" religion is all.

Of course they are partial to their religion, for like all whores, they do what they have to do get paid.
Morals, law and that? Screw that, gimme my $$$$$$.
They wonder why their lives are under threat?

Originally Posted by Lawdog

I'm sure you would, but Shoonra doesn't "go that way."

LOL

I bet you do though and ol Andy pretending to be a woman too.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Federal Reserve Notes are fully redeemable in lawful money - according to the law today Shoonra. So instead of endorsing private credit, redeem lawful money before you put your hands on FRNs in the form of private credit.

Yes, the provision in the 1913 Federal Reserve Act does say (and still says) that Federal Reserve Notes are "redeemable in lawful money". However nowhere does current law define "lawful money" and certainly nowhere does the current law distinguish between "lawful money" and "legal tender". And, although this may be difficult to understand, nowhere does the law say that FRNs are, themselves, not lawful money; presumably if they are interchangeable with a currency called lawful money then they are either lawful money themselves or the equivalent of it..

In fact the last time any form of currency was expressly described as "lawful money" was the 1862 law creating United States Notes, which described that paper money as both lawful money and legal tender. And even that provision was repealed in 1982. Gold and silver coinage was never described in statutes as "lawful money" -- so the expression seems to confined to (one form of) paper money.

In the sixty years or so, court decisions such as Rickman and Milam have made it clear that FRNs, being legal tender, are currency that must be accepted, and cannot be legally refused in hopes of being paid in gold or silver coinage.

And YOUR interpretation is even flakier -- when you get FRNs at the bank you can squint at them and convince yourself that they are "United States Notes in the form of Federal Reserve Notes" -- but somehow when you use those FRNs to buy something, the vendor who takes them from you is receiving only FRNs and not USNs. Seems to me that, using your logic, a proportion of FRNs in circulation (perhaps a significant proportion) have previously been squinted at and declared by you to be United States Notes instead of FRNs, so that you cannot safely refuse any FRNs since you may already have declared them to be USNs.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by robhalford88

I conditionally accept your claim that no one has ever been successful in attempting to use these bonds for anything, upon poroof of claim from you.

Put up or shut up....

I bet you do though and ol Andy pretending to be a woman too.

Don't you just love Rob's moods!

For a rant; that was one to defeat all Quatloser ranting and raving Rob. And my bill of exchange for all the money in the world doesn't begin to strike fear in the hearts of the attorners - like the Middle Temple admission. - And my Signature - I mean really!! Shoonra has already admitted here that it was fallacy in King John's forfeiture of England that led to the Bar's Bull**** about the Poop's authority anyway.

And speaking about that Brit's are pretty bent about the new PM visiting NY at the same time as the Poop visits Washington - What's his name - Brown? That's a hard one now, isn't it?

Rob; I hope you know that post puts you above Jin Renqing in favor of being my friend; even though he was Retired to a Think Tank. And I hope the readers here know that I would talk as I do to the inmates anywhere in the world regardless of their reaction.


Regards,

David Merrill.