FRNs and HJR 192 Repealed

[Jerseee]

Originally Posted by Ry123

Thanks for the link David M. So what do you pay with? or what does your promissory note look like? It looks like it would have to have discharge debt to the order of not pay.

Ry123,

I think you should read more and study more about what money is and is not. A note is not money and money is not a note. I say this because you used the word "pay".

You cannot pay with notes---you can only satisfy the alleged debt with a note. You can only pay with lawful money (precious metals and stones).

Your post got hammered because of the wording you used--which in-turn has exposed how much you know about the subject.

I will be more than happy to chat with you to help you understand the concept. Please do not misconstrue my post as a "slam". I'm only trying to help.

have fun

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

It's not a promissory note because it does not promise a payment of a readily ascertained amount on a readily ascertained future date.

It's not a bill of exchange either, since it is not unconditional, does not identify who is to pay and who is to be paid, nor even articulate a definite amount of money. It does not instruct one person to pay another person a specific amount of money, unconditionally, which is the purpose of a BOE.

I'd call it "a ticket to adventure" since trying to use this to pay for something will lead to experiences you might otherwise never have. For example, being quizzed by federal agents about your right to an amount equal "to all outstanding debts" of the International Bank, about the reference to an arrest warrant, about the mention of a "Zionism cancellation algorithm" (what's that? the expression cannot be found in any court case, law review, or newspaper clipping!!), etc.

The picture of this document is so small that I cannot read it all, but I'll bet it's got more weird stuff in its text.

I might add that just writing up a BOE, even one that fits the legal definition, isn't enough. The person who is supposed to pay out the money for it must accept it and accept it in writing.

This post by Shoonra and another post by Judge Roy Bean are on my mind...

Originally Posted by Judge Roy Bean

The CCC's have been able to get away with force-feeding new versions of their "annual" agreements to the extent that if you continue to use the card, each year you'll find changes in the contract that become binding. There is a lot of court activity going on in the arbitration realm, and there are even disparities between federal districts on how they view the law. Some of those may end up having to be decided at the Supreme Court level. Until then, it's murky, at best.


I think what people don't realize is that the vast majority of the disputes that are arbitrated have no relationship to simply eliminating the whole debt. Most are rather simple disputes about charges, fees, refunds, billing errors, etc. Taking such matters to court is truly stupid. Check the cost of filing a case today. Federal courts are $350.00. State courts have a laundry list of fees. The typical attorney that might appear in such a case might bill anywhere from $150 and hour to $250 an hour. Even going pro se you have to consider what your time is worth and the other side (believe me) will attempt to motion-practice you into spending days or your time when you thought it might be hours.


It depends on your position. If you're going to try and argue that obtaining goods and services with the card can somehow be ignored and the debt washed away with a bogus legal theory about banks not loaning money (or whatever the flavor is this year), you won't stand a chance in arbitration OR court. But if you have a dispute about a charge or they did something really stupid with your account, it's much better to get in front of an arbitrator than waste your time and money (and everyone else's tax dollars) in court.


I agree that it needs to be revamped. It's getting to the point of blocking even ligitimate legal issues from seeing trial. And there are courts out there who simply don't want to jump into the icy water and make rulings that they know will result in perpetual appeals, particularly when you look at the case load and dockets.

There is something about novation common to both posts I feel it critical for people to understand. A hipocritical one-sidedness that is frankly disturbing. JRB feels that arbitration is a proper substitute for judiciary, in a roundabout way that is. He understands that there are arbitration clauses that circumvent his veiled complaint about arbitration. Of course if an insurance company loses a case or two they will select a more favorable arbitrator. This all from a non-judicial judge at that! Judge Roy Bean should disclose his attorney registration number before he portrays himself to be the Honorable Judge Roy Bean; even in cyberspace.

The common denominator with Shoonra's blurt above is that she is claiming that my BOE cannot be a BOE because there is no specified amount (in the corners apparently). This is nonsensical in light that she feels FRNs for instance function on the declared value while even the coinage is hollowed out of value by cheaper metals as the numbers have no meaning and it takes the same amount of expense to make a $100 bill as it does to make a $1 bill.

But that is not really the root of her hypocrisy. Where she is really disturbing about value is that there is no declared value in the corners of the birth certificates. They are obviously bank notes in contemplation of a value later; when the child grows up and develops a credit rating and can apply for a loan which will print up the FRNs. As the people go bankrupt, bumping nearly monthly into the debt ceiling, the value on the FRNs goes down (inflation). More and more hidden taxes through devaluation of the dollar (remember FRNs and dollars are factually different in specie) including even the dismissal of M3 Reports, are imposed during time and that means the FRNs with the same numbers on them go less to purchase energy/wealth.

Just in case you failed to see it, I figured I would point out this one-sidedness shared by both Shoonra and Judge Roy Bean. However, both of them have commented about the BOE and therefore they are aware of it. From their side of things, which I consider an illusion, it is better they give the BOE no confidence. Noting the bill cured on 9/11 it would just get even more befuddling to them.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Ry123]

Hi Jerseee,

Payment as in tender of, but on it say discharge to the order of as there is no gold money to pay with. The products are asking for measured $ gold money which is against public policy but the promissory note says Dols & Cts, so is not against public policy.

Thanks for input. Please help with any correction.

Ps there is www.onlinebible.net software, it's good it helps to correct any mistranlated words.

Originally Posted by Jerseee

Ry123,

I think you should read more and study more about what money is and is not. A note is not money and money is not a note. I say this because you used the word "pay".

You cannot pay with notes---you can only satisfy the alleged debt with a note. You can only pay with lawful money (precious metals and stones).

Your post got hammered because of the wording you used--which in-turn has exposed how much you know about the subject.

I will be more than happy to chat with you to help you understand the concept. Please do not misconstrue my post as a "slam". I'm only trying to help.

have fun

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Like so much on this website, this is only half-right.

True, I'm half left...

Originally Posted by Shoonra

As a matter of fact, part of that 1982 Act was current 31 US Code sec 5103: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes ....) are legal tender for all debts. ...." 96 Stat 980.

Shoonra, can you point me to the cite that specifies that FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES are, in fact, United States currency?

I only ask because on all of the FRN's I have seen, it says "THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" all by itself, and there is no mention of it being "US currency" or "United States currency."

I think your cite above is a well crafted attempt to hide the fact that there is no United States currency. (not by you, but by those who wrote it).

Thanks

Henry Franklin

[Jerseee]

Originally Posted by Ry123

Hi Jerseee,

Payment as in tender of, but on it say discharge to the order of as there is no gold money to pay with. The products are asking for measured $ gold money which is against public policy but the promissory note says Dols & Cts, so is not against public policy.

Thanks for input. Please help with any correction.

Ps there is www.onlinebible.net software, it's good it helps to correct any mistranlated words.

Ry123,

Glad to read that you haven't misread or misinterpretted my post. Thanks.

$ = no silver. When you draw a line through something, it usually points towards nothing there or of value.

Try not ot get hung up on the public policy thing. Its not a blanket policy.

Tender, means to offer.

As far as the note reads---IMHO using the terms dollars and cents is okay. Public Policy backs the note--not dollars and cents.

Notes are backed by faith---always. You have to believe that the note, dollar, euro, yen, franc, food stamp, or whatever is going to do what you want it to do. This is an act of faith. that is the value of the dollar. When confidence is high--the dollar is high.

Precious metals and stones have a value all their own.

[David Merrill]

Pardon me. Misplaced post.

[Shoonra]

Shoonra, can you point me to the cite that specifies that FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES are, in fact, United States currency?

Well, obviously, 31 US Code 5103 includes FRNs among the official authorized forms of currency.

This case might be helpful, as it addresses some of the claims I have seen on this forum.

In re Walton (Bankr. ND Ohio 7/8/87) 77 Bankr.Rptr 617. Walton, the debtor, claimed he had paid off his mortgage. His argument was that he had been lent, by the Federal Land Bank, money in the form of FRNs, which Walton now claimed were "only promises to pay and not legal tender", and that he had fully repaid these loans with his own "Certified Promissory Notes" - which, as payment was further sought by the Land Bank, he replaced with newer Certified Promissory Notes but never with govt-issued money.

The court held that the bank (and presumably anybody else) could refuse to accept the Certified Promissory Notes as a form of payment. On the other hand, "There can be no challenge to the legality of Federal Reserve Notes. And we take judicial notice of the fact that Federal Reserve Notes are valued in dollars."

In another court case, Kauffman v. Citizens State Bank (1981) 102 Wis.2d 528, 307 N.W.2d 325, another debtor tried to wriggle out of his obligations by arguing that the bank had lent him FRNs, which he accepted at the time but now contended that he must not repay them on the pretext that FRNs are not real money but only a substitute for money. The court held, "Congress has declared that the Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender for all debts, public and private. ... That section is well within the constitutional authority of Congress. .... Because [31 US Code 5103] makes Federal Reserve Notes legal tender, they are money ... and are not passed off as money or as an equivalent for money."

A great many, probably hundreds, of tax dodgers have tried to get away with either not counting the FRNs they accumulated as income or else counting them at a very steep discount on the supposition of some exchange rate for gold. Invariably and consistently they have all crashed and burned in court.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Because [31 US Code 5103] makes Federal Reserve Notes legal tender, they are money ... and are not passed off as money or as an equivalent for money."

A great many, probably hundreds, of tax dodgers have tried to get away with either not counting the FRNs they accumulated as income or else counting them at a very steep discount on the supposition of some exchange rate for gold. Invariably and consistently they have all crashed and burned in court.

I don't really see where my question was answered. [It wasn't.]

So there isn't anything that says that FRN's are US Currency?

Good try though. ;)

In fact, Here's the text, as retrieved from Cornell, of the 31 USCS 5103:

"United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts."

The FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES I have seen, are all caps. Surely there is a difference if the Capitalization is only on the "F".

I know, I must be a conspiracy theorist.

Bottom line, this cite does not define United States currency. I believe, there is no such thing, but then I am one of those wackos.

Henry Franklin

P.S.
For someone who would surrender an issue of this magnitude to a "court" of no honor, they really get what they pay for, huh?

[Jerseee]

Shoonra,

The cases you have posted are on point!!!

They are correct the way I read them.

The folks in those cases made one very big mistake...they accepted the notes first and tried to fight them later. You can't have it both ways.

So to bolster your position by posting these cases was a good move. However, everything goesback to what I am constantly saying---"it's all about ACCEPTANCE."

If they had refused the notes from the beginning and then went to fight it--the case would have been much more different and I doubt that you would have posted that.

Also, the wording in the promissory note is more important than the title of the note. its one thing to tender a CPN--its another thing to tender a CPN that is backed by code/statute/public policy and/or Law--then signed by a notary and endorsed by a sovereign.

I haven't lost yet when I get a notary involved.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Well, obviously, 31 US Code 5103 includes FRNs among the official authorized forms of currency.

This case might be helpful, as it addresses some of the claims I have seen on this forum.

In re Walton (Bankr. ND Ohio 7/8/87) 77 Bankr.Rptr 617. Walton, the debtor, claimed he had paid off his mortgage. His argument was that he had been lent, by the Federal Land Bank, money in the form of FRNs, which Walton now claimed were "only promises to pay and not legal tender", and that he had fully repaid these loans with his own "Certified Promissory Notes" - which, as payment was further sought by the Land Bank, he replaced with newer Certified Promissory Notes but never with govt-issued money.

The court held that the bank (and presumably anybody else) could refuse to accept the Certified Promissory Notes as a form of payment. On the other hand, "There can be challenge to the legality of Federal Reserve Notes. And we take judicial notice of the fact that Federal Reserve Notes are valued in dollars."

In another court case, Kauffman v. Citizens State Bank (1981) 102 Wis.2d 528, 307 N.W.2d 325, another debtor tried to wriggle out of his obligations by arguing that the bank had lent him FRNs, which he accepted at the time but now contended that he must not repay them on the pretext that FRNs are not real money but only a substitute for money. The court held, "Congress has declared that the Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender for all debts, public and private. ... That section is well within the constitutional authority of Congress. .... Because [31 US Code 5103] makes Federal Reserve Notes legal tender, they are money ... and are not passed off as money or as an equivalent for money."

A great many, probably hundreds, of tax dodgers have tried to get away with either not counting the FRNs they accumulated as income or else counting them at a very steep discount on the supposition of some exchange rate for gold. Invariably and consistently they have all crashed and burned in court.

[Ry123]

Jerseee, would it be good to write a positive a + in front of the numbers to say that you're not paying with debt money in a bank account?

Originally Posted by Jerseee

Ry123,

Glad to read that you haven't misread or misinterpretted my post. Thanks.

$ = no silver. When you draw a line through something, it usually points towards nothing there or of value.

Try not ot get hung up on the public policy thing. Its not a blanket policy.

Tender, means to offer.

As far as the note reads---IMHO using the terms dollars and cents is okay. Public Policy backs the note--not dollars and cents.

Notes are backed by faith---always. You have to believe that the note, dollar, euro, yen, franc, food stamp, or whatever is going to do what you want it to do. This is an act of faith. that is the value of the dollar. When confidence is high--the dollar is high.

Precious metals and stones have a value all their own.