Banks, Collectors, and CRAsDiscuss the elimationa of secured and unsecured "debt", as well as tactics for dealing with debt collectors and credit reporting agencies.
The topic of this thread is discharging debts using bonds, NOT refusal for cause. There are plenty of R4C threads on here if you would like to discuss that..
Please stay on topic if you are going to post in my thread, preferably with helpful information, regarding the original premise of the thread.
Thanks
Thom
__________________
Blowing down the house of cards, one puff at a time.
Last edited by ThomPaine : 04-06-2008 at 11:20 AM.
This is hilarious proof that you have no idea how negotiable instruments are defined in the UCC.
Here, I'll lay it out for you. You need to be educated.
UCC section 3-104, Negotiable Instrument:
Court papers clearly do not qualify under this definition. As the U.S. District Court for Idaho said in U.S. v. Andra, 923 F.Supp. 157 (1996):
Gee Lawpuppy:
Sounds to me like your quoted text of the UCC (Under "a" "1, 2, and 3" shows that when a "court" issues an "order" to pay a fine, they have completed what is known as a "Negotiable Instrument".
Am I ever glad for that Ignore List feature! My guess is that this is what Lawdog and Shoonra are after. (attached)
According to the instructions, the "back door" to the Treasury is the "federal" side of the Treasury.
Enjoy!!
P.S.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThomPaine
The topic of this thread is discharging debts using bonds, NOT refusal for cause. There are plenty of R4C threads on here if you would like to discuss that..
Please stay on topic if you are going to post in my thread, preferably with helpful information, regarding the original premise of the thread.
Thanks
Thom
We should discuss R4C because one would need to R4C subsequent presentments. If you do not R4C the subsequent presentments, then the black robed attorney in any subsequent hearings would presume you admit the BOE never paid off the debt.
One has to be a court of competent jurisdiction for this to hold. I am sure that the dismissal attached was not the end of the story. Shoonra will probably dig up that failure to R4C resulted in a subsequent foreclosure.
Here is just one anecdote. A fellow tendered a LoC (BOE) of a similar nature and the mortgage companies peeled away revealing Duetsche Bank Trust Company to be the creditor. He subpoenaed the original note in common law to the foreclosure hearing on the 22nd. He served that subpoena on the 16th and when he got to the hearing found he had lost because he missed the hearing on the 17th! So he indicted the magistrate for having a vacant office and they allowed him another hearing. He went in order to confirm the mortgage company had received the BOE.
They denied having received the BOE. He cited the Return Receipt that the official admitted to purjury - they had indeed received the BOE after all. So now all he needed was that transcript. They will not provide him with the transcript! Over 10 weeks and no transcript.
But nobody is touching any of his property. He Refuses process for Cause.
So if you are touchy about R4C Thom, then you are doing readers here a disservice - protection of property rights depends on proper R4C and a good evidence repository about that building a record. I take your preemptive warning about me not broaching R4C as simple ignorance and a rather slipshod generalization you have made about me. Maybe it seems R4C is all that I am discussing but without a mastery of R4C, like in this example attached, the foreclosure may go through next time, just by using underhanded techniques and a different attorney in a black robe.
Regards,
David Merrill.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoonra
It is worth noting that the fealty to the Pope, which you cited for its explicit mention of the Templar abbey in Dover, is the legal basis for the invalidation of the Magna Carta after it was sealed at Runnymede.
During discussion about the Treaty of 1213 and the Magna Charta (1215).
It wasnt my intention to chastise you or anyone else contributing to the thread. I was merely trying to focus on a specific situation using a bond for discharge where there is a willing creditor and debtor. In this example, there is no court case, no presentments needing refusal, no IRS dealings, taxes owed, etc. Just trying to make the connection between the BOE and the actual discharge. I will read through the docs you and trooper posted.
I appreciate all of the input so far, but it doesnt really apply to what I want to accomplish. If the bonds are both lodged and accepted by the Treasury how do I actually use them to discharge something IF I have a willing creditor and debtor and none of the other aforementioned stuff is involved?
My earlier response was an effort to stay on topic and keep miscreants from changing direction and cluttering things up.
I appreciate any useful information that anyone can provide relating to discharge of debt using a BOE that may be lodged with the Treasury Dept
Regards,
Thom
__________________
Blowing down the house of cards, one puff at a time.
Last edited by ThomPaine : 04-06-2008 at 01:19 PM.
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.
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 personally filed a complaint with the FBI in regard to a merchant (litigant in court) who had mishandled one of these BOE's (incidentally; this was after I had issued the BOE). I am still out here enjoying my freedom to rebut presumptions of the naysayers.
We are cool then. It sounded like you were saying all David Merrill talks about is Refusal for Cause. Maybe so - but there is good reason for that.
Quote:
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.
Thank you KarenM;
That brings out a great point to make in this arena. The redemption of the BOE is not the point anyway. I doubt that any mortgage company in its right corporate mentality would dare taking a BOE like Sara Fugate's to any window anywhere near the Treasury. The point is that when the creditor refuses to redeem the BOE, the debt is waived.
All that need to be proven is that the BOE was tendered. And that was my point with the anecdote. I am pretty sure these homeowners were never evicted from their home. Likely the dismissal stuck because all they would need to do is prove they had tendered that BOE any time in the future.
I have attached a POMC like what KarenM is talking about. They all work fine - so fine the charge I indicted John Suthers (for running a vacant DA office for eight years) over was forgery. That means I made the POMC too close to the shape and size of the typical bank check. That is all they had to charge me with. There is nothing wrong with paying off this kind of an alleged debt with a POMC - just be sure not to make it anything like another popular instrument or they will trump up a fairly subjective charge of forgery. Technically the accusation was that I was trying to trick the cashier into thinking it was a typical bank check.
I recall when the investigator gave up any hope the charges could stick. He wanted me to admit that it looked like a check. All I would do is point out Pay to instead of Pay to the Order of and that there was no bank, or account number or anything like that. Any literate cashier could see at a glance it is not a check.
Even that forgery charge was a joke. But you may want to take note I am on KarenM's Buddy List. She only speaks up when I bring something up like this - the truth about bonds and money - and more importantly, she speaks up almost every time I say something important like this - edifying to the readers here.
Like Shoonra used to do with his insults and homosexual rape prison-scare tactics.
This recent one is going to get me insulted for sure. The suitor liening the IRS agent has filed in both his and the agent's counties. I have sanitized his name and address from the lien but those of you not inclined to break windows April 15 are encouraged to purchase a Certified Copy with both Reception #s and frame it! [I say that only because those windows now belong to a court of competent jurisdiction.]
Jail and Prison?
That admittedly by Shoonra only applies to false and frivolous liens. Whereas the suitor has been redeeming lawful money for quite some time now and that means any NOFTL (Notice of Federal Tax Lien) alleged against the suitor by the IRS agent is the false lien. The lien attached below is quite genuine and based in real violation of rights and tort.
Regards,
David Merrill.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoonra
It is worth noting that the fealty to the Pope, which you cited for its explicit mention of the Templar abbey in Dover, is the legal basis for the invalidation of the Magna Carta after it was sealed at Runnymede.
During discussion about the Treaty of 1213 and the Magna Charta (1215).
The debt is not waived, defaulted, considered paid, or in any other way affected as a result of tendering a home-made bill of exchange.
Since the BoE is not a negotiable instrument, since it has absolutely no value in commerce, it is not a valid trender for any kind of debt UNLESS the parties have agreed ahead of time that it will be acceptable.
David Merrill's wordsmithing aside, he has yet to demonstrate that tendering a BoE has accomplished anything for him, except getting a couple of nights in jail.
The debt is not waived, defaulted, considered paid, or in any other way affected as a result of tendering a home-made bill of exchange.
Since the BoE is not a negotiable instrument, since it has absolutely no value in commerce, it is not a valid trender for any kind of debt UNLESS the parties have agreed ahead of time that it will be acceptable.
David Merrill's wordsmithing aside, he has yet to demonstrate that tendering a BoE has accomplished anything for him, except getting a couple of nights in jail.
That POMC was only part of the alleged debt. I offered to tender another and the clerk emphatically dissuaded me doing that. The entire debt had been forgiven. There were no fines. But demonstrate that the fines were forgiven? I don't see much need to do that over you KarenM.
You are nobody here. Whereas I am speaking in my true name and even have my true name on the Handle I registered here with. Whereas you are most likely an attorney? Are you? Will you even tell us that much about yourself?
Are you registered on Quatloos? As whom?
Additionally, the stance you are taking is one that Shoonra has even given up on.
I doubt you will deny that gold was seized in 1933 and that the Emergency FDR was declaring war on has long been declared by Congress over. So that wealth should be held in trust? Or has it been stolen by the Fed or US fair and square?
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. I recall using POMCs on a traffic case (a one week sentence) where the jail was making me pay $12/day for "work release" privileges - even though I did not turn myself in voluntarily (something that never happened). After the first day of work release, they waived all charges for the week.
Interestingly I was billing the "judge" for days in jail, that made him my boss and so when he heard I was coming to the courthouse to get his signature that I had worked that day, collecting our agreed on amount for my new job sleeping at night in the jail, he quickly came down sick with laryngitis before I could get there...
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoonra
It is worth noting that the fealty to the Pope, which you cited for its explicit mention of the Templar abbey in Dover, is the legal basis for the invalidation of the Magna Carta after it was sealed at Runnymede.
During discussion about the Treaty of 1213 and the Magna Charta (1215).
The bond does exist. It was created it using all the proper procedures and public laws, etc. It was then sent it to the Treasury for acceptance. They did not return it as defective and have had it for almost 3 months, plenty of time. Because it has been accepted and lodged, it IS a negotiable instrument now and can be used to discharge debt. I personally know people who have done this successfully with all sorts of debt and they did not goto court, they are not in jail, etc. because they didnt do anything wrong or illegal.
I said ALL of this at the beginning of the thread, but its good to know that you are 100% positive that no one anywhere in the entire world has EVER done anything with one of these bonds... Must be cool to know so much....
The principles are basic economics, please dont clutter up the thread with your junk and dont be afraid to work on your reading comprehension skills.
Cheers,
Thom
__________________
Blowing down the house of cards, one puff at a time.
Last edited by ThomPaine : 04-06-2008 at 03:07 PM.
