Discharging Debt with Bonds

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

. But you have failed to consider that I might actually be homosexual

On the contrary, I am sure that in some Colorado jail cell there's a pillow with your teeth marks in it.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by KarenM

And when you absolutely fail to find any evidence of the bonds for which you are searching, all you will have accomplished it prove that there's a massive conspiracy to keep them secret and out of sight of the general public.

Trebil**** v. Wilson solves that problem Andy. The Fugate hearing/transcript simply proved that a good faith attempt had been made to pay up from funds kept in trust by the Treasury. It is not difficult to prove the funds exist.

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

So if the government does not still have funds to cover all the private credit, then the government stole the money and gave it to Zionist Attorney Bar/Crown Brethren (see attachment) like Shoonra? I hardly think so:

Originally Posted by Shoonra

One little glitch in his argument: If FRNs are so awful, how come the IRS accepts FRNs or checks that convert to FRNs, as does every other govt office - municipal, state, federal. What are the odds that you know something that all of them don't? I mean, apart from knowing how to grab your ankles.

One little glitch in his argument, Shoonra:

FRNs are the only thing accepted by the IRS. There were many patriots who would offer lawful money instead of FRNs and be refused.

My favorite anecdote was the rich suitor who sent me to pay up the $6 filing fee in gold and silver coin. I actually had the transaction done and was holding the receipt. The deputy said wait a minute and to this day I wish I had put that receipt in my pocket...

A moment later she came back from the accounting office and quickly leaned over the counter and snatched the receipt from my hand! She gave me back the coins and my filing.

The next day the suitor tried it again with three witnesses, including me. The manager kept insisting that we could only pay by check or federal reserve notes. When we persisted, the deputy sheriff assigned to watch us told us to leave the premises.

Dave the Jailbird has not yet succeeded in convincing me that he has a better grasp of the law than the judges of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals who issued the Milam decision. In fact, he ignores it completely even though it's in nice big type.

Of course not Shoonra. You still insist that it is the government courts of the collections process for the Fed that get to define lawful money. That is incorrect. According to the Constitution, it is Congress "in that power". But I admit it; I did not read that case - mainly because you seemed to think that putting it in big font gave special power for the courts to define lawful money.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

I mean, apart from knowing how to grab your ankles...
On the contrary, I am sure that in some Colorado jail cell there's a pillow with your teeth marks in it.

Originally Posted by Moses

why dont you take this garbage to a pm.or better yet ask dm for his phone number and talk over coffee.im trying to read info on the thread and half of the posts are of you guys bickering.not that its not good info it just doesnt need to be in this thread.

I have not figured out how to use homosexual slurs to explain how to perfect remedy in America. I certainly was able to use Van Pelt, - the false branding of a legal or full name though. So Shoonra quit. And the SFB (**** For Brains) acronym was a for sure indicator that I had touched a nerve; so Shoonra quit that ugly insult too.

Persisting with the homosexual imagery is particularly disgusting to heterosexuals, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Homophobics - well, about anyone who thinks deviant sexual behavior should be kept off Suijuris.net. The simple logic that FRNs shall be redeemed in lawful money proves FRNs are not lawful money. That's gotta hurt. I tried though, I even offered to Shoonra that I might be a homosexual, (which could be true but without any homosexual experiences in my lifetime, I am not quite sure myself yet) in the hopes he will not get himself banished from the site for being a revolting little man.

Shoonra has often brought great insights to us here. I often thank him; or I would say I have failed to thank him enough for his contributions here.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

FRNs are the only thing accepted by the IRS. There were many patriots who would offer lawful money instead of FRNs and be refused.

My favorite anecdote was the rich suitor who sent me to pay up the $6 filing fee in gold and silver coin. I actually had the transaction done and was holding the receipt.

Something's being left out of this story. I suspect that some attempt was made to "recalculate" the filing fee by paying something other than US coins in the same face amount.

Originally Posted by David Merrill

And the SFB (Sh!t For Brains) acronym was a for sure indicator that I had touched a nerve; so Shoonra quit that ugly insult too.

Don't count your chickens too soon. Actually, now that you've publicly admitted your credence in the Protocols of Zion and such, I prefer to call you Shi'ite for Brains.

Originally Posted by David Merrill

The simple logic that FRNs shall be redeemed in lawful money proves FRNs are not lawful money.

A little too simple. The only currency that was ever explicitly declared to be "lawful money" was United State Notes -- paper money(!), back around 1862. Not even gold or silver got that title. And you weren't even guaranteed the ability to redeem US Notes in gold or silver. But the provision about United States Notes was repealed in 1982.

IF the expression with regard to FRNs meant something special in 1913, Congress didn't say so, and since since then it has become fairly obvious from the statutes and the court cases that "redeemable in lawful money" is synonymous with "redeemable in legal tender" -- which FRNs already are, so presumably FRNs can be traded for other FRNs (such as breaking large bills into small bills and change), coins, and, if anyone is foolish enough to let collectors' items go for their face value, any previous US currency.

Originally Posted by David Merrill

.... the government stole the money and gave it to Zionist Attorney Bar/Crown Brethren like Shoonra....

Dammit, and I keep checking my mailbox!!

[charlene]

You now use a Bonded PN to Paulson to offset debt you must send him Power of Attorney and appoint him as Fiduciary on Form 56
This does work follow Sam Kennedy and Winston they are right on it.
Cb

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

...it has become fairly obvious from the statutes and the court cases that "redeemable in lawful money" is synonymous with "redeemable in legal tender"...

Why, precisely, is the quite obvious reservation "fairly obvious" stipulated?

For the most obvious reason perhaps?

How, precisely, is it other than that the obvious rhetorical artifice "fairly obvious," as well as the obvious rhetorical artifice "it has become," are chimerical fancy rather than solid substance?

How, precisely is the postulation "from the statutes and the court cases" other than overly broad, undefined, and ambiguously vague?

Will YOU, YOURSELF, please, with precisely limited, accurately defined, and specifically particular verifiable validity, PROVE your CLAIM that "redeemable in lawful money" is synonymous with "redeemable in legal tender?"

Since I am giving notice to all herein that YOU, YOURSELF have, admittedly, given notice of substantially less than full veracity of the sufficiency of "the statutes and the court cases," to PROVE your statement ("redeemable in lawful money" is synonymous with "redeemable in legal tender"), will YOU, YOURSELF provide PROOF from more reliable and substantive sources?

This is a formal challenge per the stated and published forum requisites.

Please stay precisely on point.

I formally request forum moderation of your proof of claim to ensure that this issue is addressed directly, forthrightly, straightforwardly, with specific particularity, with credible simplicity, substantively, and responsively.

How precisely, have you not made a CLAIM, admitted to its insufficiency, and would have it accepted as sufficient proof of CLAIM?

Please PROVE your claim: "redeemable in lawful money" is synonymous with "redeemable in legal tender."

That would, of course, logically, and neccesarily preclude using that which you, yourself, have given NOTICE as being insufficient.

[David Merrill]

It is a waste of time to request even of Shoonra a retired law librarian to prove something that is obviously not true. The sentence declaring the remedy itself proves by English structure that FRNs are not lawful money.

If FRNs shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand, that in itself proves that FRNs are not themselves lawful money.

That is too simple for Shoonra.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Don't count your chickens too soon. Actually, now that you've publicly admitted your credence in the Protocols of Zion and such, I prefer to call you Shi'ite for Brains.

I am figuring that retirement has you taking yourself a little too seriously in cyberspace Shoonra. I like to consider myself non-homophobic so the homosexual slurs are pretty ineffective to insult me. I was just trying to give you fair warning you are offending readers with your crude behavior and that might get you banned. It would be all our loss if you got banned.

As for the Protocols, they are admittedly a forgery. They are not a fabrication - a forgery. That means there is an original genuine document that has been altered to frame the Jews as the original author.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Shoonra]

Well, I came up with one case (Milam) that said that FRNs could be redeemed with other FRNs and so far DiM has come up with no case that decided otherwise.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Well, I came up with one case (Milam) that said that FRNs could be redeemed with other FRNs and so far DiM has come up with no case that decided otherwise.

That is what I have been saying all along Shoonra. It makes no sense to redeem FRNs with more FRNs unless they are old and ratty or you just want to make change - 5-$20s for $100 etc. If you walk into the bank with the FRNs demanding to redeem them, then you have already accepted private credit from the Fed. So what you want to do is redeem the FRNs without ever endorsing the private credit at all.

Ergo, you non-endorse the paycheck: attached are some samples.

One suitor was paid a rubber paycheck and his bank had to return the paycheck to him. The attorneys at his bank tore off the verbiage. It stood as evidence there was no bond to fractionalize off him as chattel - placing a first lien on anything he would have purchased with the private credit. Or better in your terms, the US notes they had given him (in the form of FRNs) were inelastic. And the bank had failed to enter that amount on a different ledger because they had tendered him lawful money instead of ordinary (private credit) FRNs.

So many suitors started marking the non-endorsement all over the backside of their paychecks.

Thank you again for pointing that all out so plainly Shoonra.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Shoonra]

A second case that specifically addressed the "lawful" status of FRNs:

US v. Rickman (10th Cir. 1980) 638 F2d 182:

..........
Defendant argues that the Federal Reserve Notes in which he was paid were not lawful money within the meaning of Art. 1, § 8, United States Constitution. We have held to the contrary. United States v. Ware, 608 F.2d 400, 402-403. We find no validity in the distinction which defendant draws between "lawful money" and "legal tender." Money is a medium of exchange. Legal tender is money which the law requires a creditor to receive in payment of an obligation. .... Defendant received Federal Reserve Notes when he cashed his pay checks and used those notes to pay his personal expenses. He obtained and used lawful money. .....

[indio007]

This whole thread is pointless. The fed is private.

The naysayers are trying to claim private bonds can't discharge public debts. If that was the case, the FED would be an impossibility. Private FED notes discharge public debt. Equality before the law dictates anyone can do the same.

But if you don't believe me, send me a private bearer bond for $10,000,000 with your notorized signature on it and I will turn it into US coin or currency. What do you think a fair fee for that service would be? Of course, i will have to pay you back. In fact you could tax back. Your signature is the currency. You have the same sovereign status over your currency as the FED and/or US has over theirs. Can the courts demand payment in FRNs? Insist on paying in coinage or US notes. It would be treason for the judge not to accept that offer to the court. I'm not mad. I'm happy the government treats private men equally and all may discharge his public debts in exchange for using public money. US currency is duty free. The fed charges a fee.
I can charge a fee too.

Who wants to send we their worthless private bond?