Chase redeems their coupon!

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Codee

I do not find Shoonra insulting. I find her arguments generally are of a neutal emotional pull and she has interacted with me very reasonably.

Of course not. The insult was directed at me, not you.

SFBFKADVP

That is an acronym for a crude slur. I think Elfninosmom is probably a bit more insulted than me though. She called my clerk and attempted to scare Cecilia (deputy) into thinking I am a dangerous Patriot nut job. On the inverse, she is very sensitive about making enemies in cyberspace because she understands how easily these enemies might manifest - she has removed her blog where Shoonra grabbed the acronymic insult. [My mistake from the failed link Shoonra posted. Elfninosmom's blog is still okay... http://www.elfninosmom.blogspot.com ]

Regarding 12 USC sec 411: I spoke too soon when I said it had never been raised in a court decision. It has been mentioned but rarely - very obliquely in federal cases but a bit more clearly in state cases.

The section was intended to authorize the issuance of FRNs, the usual Federal Reserve Notes which are now the primary currency, and (this is significant) to make clear that FRNs are accepted as money by all American banks. This section makes clear how FRNs are issued and that they are federally authorized currency consistent with the Constitution, Art. I sec 8 cl 5. Since the US went off the gold and silver standards, they are the primary and ubiquitous form of US money...

For a practicing attorney I cannot believe that she would make such an admission. She must realize that you have to be smart enough to avoid the private credit at the paycheck transaction in order for this to impact fractional reserve banking; and that is unfortunately a difficult process - to overcome a lifetime of conditioning.

The key word in her post is "authorize". The only authority for a flexible money supply is of course that it always be redeemable in "lawful money". It is just silly to think that you can take FRNs into a Federal Reserve Bank (any American bank) and trade them for more FRNs. That is just an exercise in futility. That is just stupid.

If you can redeem FRNs in lawful money, then lawful money is something different than FRNs. Therefore lawful money (US Notes) can masquerade as FRNs.

Thank you muchly for that one Shoonra. You are a great asset.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by FreeFromContract

When was it that the act was originally passed (the act authorizing the use of FRNs).

As shown on the pages from USCS that SFBFKADVP reproduced, it was originally enacted in 1913. And, yes, while the US was still on the gold standard or the silver standard, FRNs could be exchanged for those precious metal coins.

Originally Posted by FreeFromContract

What part of that is from the Provenza case and what part is your own opinion?......

How nice, provide a cert. denied cite which does not address the debt instruments issue but instead mentions what the "evidence produced"....

I think I see your problem. You think that I'm YOUR law librarian. Not so. I provide -- unlike some people I could mention -- clear citations to published court decisions that you can read for yourself. These should be available in every law school library, most court houses, some prison libraries, and maybe some of these decisions are available on the internet.

Originally Posted by FreeFromContract

Last time I checked (two minutes ago on several 1, 5, 10 and 20 FRNs - commonly called dollar bills) all FRNs state "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE". How does the information you provided back up your opinion? Why doesn't it say "THIS NOTE IS LAWFUL MONEY..."?

A distinction without a difference. The FRNs have said "legal tender" -- and before FRNs, the United States Notes said "legal tender" -- for as long as they have been issued. And if they said "lawful money" instead, I'm sure I'd be explaining things to someone who wants to know why they don't say "legal tender".

Originally Posted by FreeFromContract

Art. I sec 8 of the Constitution states in part, "To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;".
.....
What escaped your post is that Art I sec 10 of the Constitution states in part, "Section 10. No state shall ... coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; ...."

So my questions is this: Did those who drafted the constitution intend this section to only apply to the individual states?

If your answer is YES: Why then did the US Federal Government keep Gold and Silver in reserve? Why was it that once upon a time FRNs could be exchanged (redeemed) for Gold or Silver?

Yes, Section 8 enables the federal govt to mint coins and regulate their value. And section 10 forbids state govts from minting their own coins and says that if a state govt wants to use some currency additional to federally issued money it's limited to precious metal coins already existing -- meaning foreign coins whose value is already regulated by the US Congress under Section 8; the state govt cannot make gold powder or foreign paper a "tender" (which may explain why the expression "legal tender" was chosen for FRNs and US Notes), but only what was already minted out of precious metal by a foreign source.

And the Supreme Court already dealt with the paper money issue: If section 8 means what it says about Congress regulating the value of the money it issues, then there must have been some contemplation in 1787 (when no gold or silver mining existed in the US) of money made of something other than precious metal; otherwise the value would be controlled entirely by the market prices for the metallic ingredients and not by Congress.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

As shown on the pages from USCS that SFBFKADVP reproduced, it was originally enacted in 1913. And, yes, while the US was still on the gold standard or the silver standard, FRNs could be exchanged for those precious metal coins.

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

REDEEMABLE... IN GOLD OR LAWFUL MONEY AT...

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.


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. When you see the acronym SFBFKADVP think Sh*t For Brains.

David Merrill Van Pelt (who swears his name is just David Merrill), Colorado

This one was the "private banker" who triggered the Montana Freeman standoff against the FBI. He was once arrested for proffering bogus Montana Freeman checks. On the more amusing side, he also claims to have the cure for SARS, and once sued Jesus Christ on behalf of his motor scooter. He is known to some as SFBFKADVP (which is the acronym for "**** For Brains Formerly Known As David Van Pelt"). He seems to think that he is an expert on something called "advanced-resonance inductive plasma physics". However, when you google that term, the only entries that appear are his, certainly suggesting that it's something he just made up.

I love the Readers to read how upset you are with these success stories Shoonra.

[Shoonra]

I would hardly call instigating the Montana Freemen standoff and promoting Freemen funny money a "success story". Suing Jesus Christ probably won't get you mentioned in the same breath as Clarence Darrow, either.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

I would hardly call instigating the Montana Freemen standoff and promoting Freemen funny money a "success story". Suing Jesus Christ probably won't get you mentioned in the same breath as Clarence Darrow, either.

Funny you would base a post in anything Elfninosmom says.

[SaveUncleSam]

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




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.


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. When you see the acronym SFBFKADVP think Sh*t For Brains.




I love the Readers to read how upset you are with these success stories Shoonra.

Pardon my language but that blogger is a hack. Anyone who uses language like that is immediately deemed uncredible. Seems like she doesn't like much of what is being talked about on here and what you say and do David. Remember, black is white; white is black. If government says something, the opposite is true. Tey say you must pay income tax, the opposite is that you have a choice to contract or not!

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by SaveUncleSam

Pardon my language but that blogger is a hack. Anyone who uses language like that is immediately deemed uncredible. Seems like she doesn't like much of what is being talked about on here and what you say and do David. Remember, black is white; white is black. If government says something, the opposite is true. Tey say you must pay income tax, the opposite is that you have a choice to contract or not!

Agreed! Elfninosmom called my clerk only to attempt to pursuade whoever answered I am a dangerous Patriot-gun toting nut job. Well, Cecilia may have been polite to Elfninosmom per custom but we rather enjoyed the event for a bit. The wonderful thing is that Elfninosmom broadcast the deputy's first response when my name was mentioned:

Oh yeah! I know David Merrill. He is a Sovereign.

I really enjoy that part of her testimony. Elfninosmom says it like I am bad for using the county clerk and recorder for my clerk of court.

That is a typical attitude among the Quatlosers though. I think the few dopes who write where I do there are just hoping to compete in witty insults. It does not matter that a credit card debt has been discharged, or that a case has been dismissed that saved a fellow $.5M in alleged back taxes. All that does is, as you see with Shoonra, sink them deeper into base insults.

Thank you for getting my point. I want you to think Sh*t For Brains whenever you read that acronym. There is an Ignore List function available and if you don't think Shoonra is contributing in a positive way, use it.

I like her posts for the wonderful insights of a trained wannabee litigant turned librarian with so little practice in a courtroom/collections process. Judge Roy Bean would never make all the admissions, even on the Internet, that Shoonra is capable of.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Funny you would base a post in anything Elfninosmom says.

Actually these details were mentioned on this website -- and I found newsclippings verifying them -- before I found Elfninosmom's elegant summary.

BTW, what was your inmate number??

[rottweiler]

She looks like the Bride of Frankenstein.

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Funny you would base a post in anything Elfninosmom says.

[rottweiler]

The Federal Reserve Note is constitutional because it was intended for the federal possessions and territories of the Federal State, not the several states. Congress can do whatever it damn well pleases with it's possessions and territories like DC, military bases, and National Parks. When state nationals accept a federal benefit like SS their status changes to that of a naturalized US federal citizens and their rights like the 5th amendment right to remain silent become privileges like the 5th amendment privilege to remain silent and their jurisdiction goes from the common law to admiralty. Congress can take away priviledges but not rights.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

As shown on the pages from USCS that SFBFKADVP reproduced, it was originally enacted in 1913. And, yes, while the US was still on the gold standard or the silver standard, FRNs could be exchanged for those precious metal coins.



I think I see your problem. You think that I'm YOUR law librarian. Not so. I provide -- unlike some people I could mention -- clear citations to published court decisions that you can read for yourself. These should be available in every law school library, most court houses, some prison libraries, and maybe some of these decisions are available on the internet.



A distinction without a difference. The FRNs have said "legal tender" -- and before FRNs, the United States Notes said "legal tender" -- for as long as they have been issued. And if they said "lawful money" instead, I'm sure I'd be explaining things to someone who wants to know why they don't say "legal tender".



Yes, Section 8 enables the federal govt to mint coins and regulate their value. And section 10 forbids state govts from minting their own coins and says that if a state govt wants to use some currency additional to federally issued money it's limited to precious metal coins already existing -- meaning foreign coins whose value is already regulated by the US Congress under Section 8; the state govt cannot make gold powder or foreign paper a "tender" (which may explain why the expression "legal tender" was chosen for FRNs and US Notes), but only what was already minted out of precious metal by a foreign source.

And the Supreme Court already dealt with the paper money issue: If section 8 means what it says about Congress regulating the value of the money it issues, then there must have been some contemplation in 1787 (when no gold or silver mining existed in the US) of money made of something other than precious metal; otherwise the value would be controlled entirely by the market prices for the metallic ingredients and not by Congress.