Chase redeems their coupon!

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Hardly "testimony". A credit card contract is very clear that checks and other financial documents are accepted "subject to collection" - meaning: subject to being turned into money in the usual banking process.

Since you blanked out all the useful information, there's no way for anyone to doublecheck that your funny money wasn't rejected on further processing.

And, contrary to your claim, the credit card contract says that, yes, a debt can be turned over to a collection agency or to some other third party that can make further efforts including a lawsuit. Collection agencies are usually real bulldogs about this because, unlike the credit card company itself, they don't see you as a "valued customer" who mustn't be antagonized.

That is a laughable post Shoonra. The testimony, the Statement is from Chase. So there is no debt remaining to sell to another subsequent collection agent. If Chase would have turned the debt over to a subsequent collection agent Chase would not provide a Statement saying there was no more $13K+ debt. That would undermine the product, the sold outstanding debt, severely.

...subject to being turned into money in the usual banking process.

Yes indeed. and there is less than $50 remaining of the original $13K in a late fee and a finance charge. So the suitor simply authorized them to do it again, redeem their coupon.

Thank you for such edifying conversation.


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S.

Originally Posted by redy2fiyt

You know what happens when you "assume" don't you...

Doesn't really hold a candle in an arguement. Let's stick to the facts of this specific incident.

Also, I'm still baffled at the failure to file an oath issue. If the statute says it was required, and it was never filed within the prescribed timeframe, how can you overlook that? I agree with David. It looks like a case of might makes right.

Cool! You better be ready to subtract a few more people from that four million Shoonra.

[Shoonra]

The oath issue is a non-starter. It's been tried in some other places and usually the courts have said:
(1) There is a legal presumption, with regard to govt offices, that something that ought to have been done was done.
(2) The matter of having an oath on file in some office other than the person who gave the oath involves the responsibilities of a number of other people -- not just the person who took the oath, but the person who was supposed to send it to the other office, the person at the other office who was supposed to receive it, the person at the other office who was supposed to put it in the correct file, etc.

So the courts tend not to disqualify someone (nor invalidate his actions) who is otherwise qualified and who has been recognized as qualified and in office, just because his oath cannot be found in another office.

[redy2fiyt]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

The oath issue is a non-starter. It's been tried in some other places and usually the courts have said:
(1) There is a legal presumption, with regard to govt offices, that something that ought to have been done was done.
(2) The matter of having an oath on file in some office other than the person who gave the oath involves the responsibilities of a number of other people -- not just the person who took the oath, but the person who was supposed to send it to the other office, the person at the other office who was supposed to receive it, the person at the other office who was supposed to put it in the correct file, etc.

So the courts tend not to disqualify someone (nor invalidate his actions) who is otherwise qualified and who has been recognized as qualified and in office, just because his oath cannot be found in another office.

So, why do we have statutes? Why even have the oath then if it doesn't mean anything to the courts. If there's a requirement in the statues, it would seem logical that it was placed there for a reason and that it should not be over looked by tribunals based on "pre-assumptions"

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

The oath issue is a non-starter. It's been tried in some other places and usually the courts have said:
(1) There is a legal presumption, with regard to govt offices, that something that ought to have been done was done.
(2) The matter of having an oath on file in some office other than the person who gave the oath involves the responsibilities of a number of other people -- not just the person who took the oath, but the person who was supposed to send it to the other office, the person at the other office who was supposed to receive it, the person at the other office who was supposed to put it in the correct file, etc.

So the courts tend not to disqualify someone (nor invalidate his actions) who is otherwise qualified and who has been recognized as qualified and in office, just because his oath cannot be found in another office.

Oh, well that makes all the difference in the world! Only certain laws, rules and regulations need to be followed as written. Thanks for that legal determination. Now we all know!

This is an premier example of why there is disgust with the multitude of governments now in operation. Instead of equal justice, it is arbitrary based upon which group, organization or association you are a member and what laws the police state chooses to enforce.

No matter how you paint it, it's not that difficult for one person to follow through on (aside from being elected or appointed) the single most important step to entering office.

[bridge of sighs]

Having a hard time uploading files.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

The oath issue is a non-starter. It's been tried in some other places and usually the courts have said:
(1) There is a legal presumption, with regard to govt offices, that something that ought to have been done was done.
(2) The matter of having an oath on file in some office other than the person who gave the oath involves the responsibilities of a number of other people -- not just the person who took the oath, but the person who was supposed to send it to the other office, the person at the other office who was supposed to receive it, the person at the other office who was supposed to put it in the correct file, etc.

So the courts tend not to disqualify someone (nor invalidate his actions) who is otherwise qualified and who has been recognized as qualified and in office, just because his oath cannot be found in another office.

The court has no jurisdiction.


Dear FreeFromContract;


It is good to hear from you again! As you see, there is not much point in spending time on Shoonra's sophistry.

I have heard it stated much better in case citations about vacant offices. The people who voted John Suthers into the office are the ones who are subject to his office, vacant or not. That is to say that by voting him into office and in general not giving a hoot whether he qualifies his office or not, they validate his office for them.

And here is where Shoonra starts calling me by an inferred bonding agent - Van Pelt.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[bridge of sighs]

Statute 1 -1789 First statute is the oath of Office June 1 1789.http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwsllink.html

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by bridge of sighs

Statute 1 -1789 First statute is the oath of Office June 1 1789.http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwsllink.html

Good find. And the Enacting Clause is still in full force and effect too.

Section 18. Enacting clause. The style of the laws of this state shall be: "Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Colorado".

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Eloquent testimony Shoonra.

Up until bankruptcy (Bankers' Holiday) in 1933 one could easily see the distinction between Federal Reserve Notes and lawful money.

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

My understanding also is that prior to Banker's Holiday in 1933, FRNs were only used and circulated amongst and between the Fed banks themselves... i.e., they were not used by the general public prior to 1933.

The reason that FRNs do not say they are lawful money is that they are redeemable in lawful money.

That is why I presented Title 12 U.S.C. §411 as found in the Code Books today.

Wait..

So I thought that Fed notes were "debt notes", etc, and did not represent lawful money??..

Does 12 U.S.C. §411 mean that I can go over to the Fed Reserve Bank in San Francisco and exchange my Fed Notes for gold?

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by psholtz

My understanding also is that prior to Banker's Holiday in 1933, FRNs were only used and circulated amongst and between the Fed banks themselves... i.e., they were not used by the general public prior to 1933.

I believe that. Prior to 1933 the people were not Government bonds.

Wait..

So I thought that Fed notes were "debt notes", etc, and did not represent lawful money??..

Does 12 U.S.C. §411 mean that I can go over to the Fed Reserve Bank in San Francisco and exchange my Fed Notes for gold?

Better get a closer look at the video and the linked case. You can exchange FRNs for USNs in the form of FRNs. But doing so is nonsense because you already endorsed private credit to get the FRNs as FRNs.

United States notes are the "lawful money" in 12 U.S.C. §411.

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ublicMoney.wmv

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ney_case_1.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ney_case_2.jpg


Regards,

David Merrill.