Returned BOE

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by aksis

Good questions. How does a Federal Reserve Note finaly get settled?Good questions. How does a Federal Reserve Note finaly get settled?

Good questions indeed. I'd also like to see what type of accounting chicanery is going on between the Federal Reserve and the gooberm't that gives their scam the appearance of legitimacy.

Here's some info they're (the FRB) willing to disclose at a high level:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/paymentsystems/coin/

And here's the hint of the chicanery:

The asset counterpart to the Federal Reserve liability takes the form of securities of the U.S. Treasury and government-approved enterprises (Treasury and federal agency securities represent the majority of the total collateral for currency in circulation). Because the value of currency in circulation changes daily, the Reserve Banks monitor and report changes in net payments to the Board.

and then at the end of the page the following is stated....

Coin, however, is an asset on the Federal Reserve's balance sheet, and is a direct obligation of the U.S. Treasury. As an asset, the Federal Reserve buys coin from the Mint at face value.

[dorkenbutt]

Shoonra,

Please tell me where using FRNs is not substituting one debt (obligation) for another? FRNs are nothing more than evidence of debt and that is all. See Title 18 § 8 and Title 12 § 411. Maybe your definition of obligation is different than everyone else's. Basically it means DEBT.

So tell me "how do FRNs finally get settled." Also is not a check a BOE? Are not checks used all the time to discharge debt? Notice I did not say "pay." Please tell me how "legal tender" has the ability to "pay" anything?

Also where is it stated that a Promissory Note is not "legal tender?" Is not a Promissory Note a tender offer and do not banks use them all the time?

Can one be required to "pay" in any particular kind of coin or currency, to pay in gold, to pay in an amount in money of the United States measured thereby? Is this not declared to be against public policy? If it is against public policy, then tell me how does one "pay" with any THING? You can't do the impossible.

Where is using a BOE, a Promissory Note, or any other negotiable instrument not legal? Are you stating all these instruments are fraudulent? If not which ones are fraud? You stated that using a BOE is attempting to substitute one debt for another. Is that not what is done all the time when you cash a check (BOE) at the bank? Are you not substituting one debt (BOE) for another (FRN). What makes that BOE not a fraud?

[KarenM]

Originally Posted by aksis

Good questions. How does a Federal Reserve Note finaly get settled?


Sincerely,

Christopher Theodore: Rhodes

There is no need for it to get 'settled' since it is money -- legal tender.

If you were living in a society where the money was conch shells, they'd never get 'settled' either. They'd just continue to be exchanged as their money forever. It would only be when someone wrote an IOU or a promissory note for shells that it would have to be settled, later, with real shells.

The 'notes' that I mentioned that need to be settled are the promissory notes that were mentioned earlier. I apologize if I confused you by just saying 'notes'.

[Extramural]

Originally Posted by dorkenbutt

Shoonra,

Please tell me where using FRNs is not substituting one debt (obligation) for another?

Yes, Bernie [Shoonra], Pray tell.

[dorkenbutt]

Originally Posted by KarenM

There is no need for it to get 'settled' since it is money -- legal tender.

If you were living in a society where the money was conch shells, they'd never get 'settled' either. They'd just continue to be exchanged as their money forever. It would only be when someone wrote an IOU or a promissory note for shells that it would have to be settled, later, with real shells.

The 'notes' that I mentioned that need to be settled are the promissory notes that were mentioned earlier. I apologize if I confused you by just saying 'notes'.

Please show me in the law where it says FRNs are "money" and not merely legal tender and evidence of debt. Why don't FRNs have to be settled with real money? Do you know the difference between real money and legal tender? What is a Federal Reserve Note? Also show me where FRNs have the ability to extinguish debt? It is impossible for this to occur since you are simply exchanging one form of debt for another, perpetually. The debt never gets settled because everyone just continues to pass the debt along. What a racket!!

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by dorkenbutt

Please show me in the law where it says FRNs are "money" and not merely legal tender and evidence of debt.

Someone else has already cited UCC 1-201(24) to the effect that legal tender is money.

The difference might be that Spanish doubloons or Indian rupees are money but, in the US, not legal tender.

Federal law says that FRNs are legal tender and may be used to pay federal taxes, fees, and fines. If the federal govt accepts it as payment, why can't you?

[Shoonra]

If the BoE that was mentioned at the start of this thread is the so-called "International Bill of Exchange" that DiM posted on this website as a link to the Eccelsia website -- a truly demented do***ent with all sort of mystic symbols, a reference to a "zionist cancellation algorithm" - whatever that is, and a claim that this piece of paper churned from his typewriter is worth all the of federal debt -- it's not even a real BoE.

A BoE is a draft, much like a check, except a check is drawn upon a bank. It is an (1) unconditional promise to (2) pay money at (3) a future date either specified in the do***ent or agreed on by the parties. DiM's do***ent is 0 for 3.

Besides, even a real BoE is a matter of negotiation and acceptance between the parties (and, like a check, the acceptance is "conditional" depending on being able to cash in the do***ent for real money in full and when promised). You cannot simply push a BoE, even a good one, at a creditor and compel him to accept it. A BoE, being a promise of future payment, is not itself a tender of payment but merely an expression of debt.

I have not seen anyone accept one of DiM's illusory BoEs but there have been several court cases rejecting other homebrew and illusory BoEs.

[jcsmjd]

If US is bankrupt, please enlighten and inform who are the creditors and/or surety? Surely a bankrupt entity and/or its issue is without the ability to issue credit. I am trying to grasp what you mean by: "in the US".

Is is possible for a creditor to also be "in the US"? Who is making the loans to the UNITED STATES, INC? [Creditor]

If men and women, on the lands commonly referred to by the US, are making loans, cannot the creditor just correct the books by zeroing out the debt?

I only ask questions, I make no claims.

Thank you.

jcsmjd

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

If the BoE that was mentioned at the start of this thread is the so-called "International Bill of Exchange" that DiM posted on this website as a link to the Eccelsia website -- a truly demented do***ent with all sort of mystic symbols, a reference to a "zionist cancellation algorithm" - whatever that is, and a claim that this piece of paper churned from his typewriter is worth all the of federal debt -- it's not even a real BoE.

A BoE is a draft, much like a check, except a check is drawn upon a bank. It is an (1) unconditional promise to (2) pay money at (3) a future date either specified in the do***ent or agreed on by the parties. DiM's do***ent is 0 for 3.

Besides, even a real BoE is a matter of negotiation and acceptance between the parties (and, like a check, the acceptance is "conditional" depending on being able to cash in the do***ent for real money in full and when promised). You cannot simply push a BoE, even a good one, at a creditor and compel him to accept it. A BoE, being a promise of future payment, is not itself a tender of payment but merely an expression of debt.

I have not seen anyone accept one of DiM's illusory BoEs but there have been several court cases rejecting other homebrew and illusory BoEs.

And now it turns out Shoonra is Bernie? Interesting name for a woman. Are you a boy or girl Shoonra?

Whatever. I just seems to me that such convolutions abound. Here is a good example:

Originally Posted by US v Rickman; 638 F.2d 182

In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money.

and

Originally Posted by US v Ware; 608 F.2d 400

United States notes shall be lawful money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt.

There you have it. Both are legal tender, but only one is lawful money. The other, FRNs, are only redeemable in lawful money. Look! Here's more proof:

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...ot_dollars.jpg

Even the FRN of 1928 was clearly not a US dollar or lawful money - even when it could be redeemed in gold.

The basis for Shoonra's attorney perspective is found in my Signature, but more recently in a rejection of the gold seizure and HJR-192. Well folks, these things really did happen and they set the stage for Shoonra's convolution of reality - that would say that they didn't. Or to say that even though they did happen, the accounts somehow magically balanced out so that the US government does not owe it back - is not obliged to be holding it in trust.

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

I have coined Monday, August 13, 2007 Bernanke's Helicopter but even so, the day I published the letter, the Asian Market dipped over 6%. On August 13 it was magically no longer required that loans produce currency through fractional lending - Bernanke got his chance to drop paper currency from a helicopter by simply calling it "liquidity".

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...y_of_Money.zip

So valid BOE or not, it sure is a barrel of monkeys.

You cannot simply push a BoE, even a good one, at a creditor and compel him to accept it.

That is only true if the creditor is not a trustee holding the gold seized in 1933 in trust. See? That is not really a creditor at all, is it. In Shoonra's convoluted reality, the banks actually lend money instead of a bond on the borrower called private credit...

www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P1.jpg
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P2.jpg
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P3.jpg
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P4.jpg



Regards,

David Merrill.

[KarenM]

David Merrill:

Wasn't the Credit River case overturned and declared a 'nullity' by a higher court within the state?

That being the case, what's the point in citing it?