Understanding acceptance

Originally Posted by mikah2k

I appreciate your clear english writings Kgod999.



In re the IBOE, using your example of a court refusing acceptance:
who would be the payee?
who would be the drawee?
who would be the drawer?
who would be the maker?

Thanks in advance.

payee: you
drawee: the offeror (alleged creditor)
drawer: you
maker: you
let me make something clear. never send a iboe to anyone you are trying to discharge a debt to. I made this post to put YOU into the position of creditor and how u do that is by accepting and returning for settlement and closure the instrument they send you. when they dishonor that acceptance, THAT creates the funds for the iboe. they are holding taxes now, they become the delinquent debtor by not adjusting the account.

[charlesa6]

Originally Posted by kgod999

using federal reserve notes is priva face evidence the united states is bankrupt. nuf said about that. I AM NOT, I REPEAT, NOT telling people to file statutory bankruptcy under their rules. What i AM saying is under the rules of commerce, since the united states IS bankrupt, ANY corporate entity cannot give U CREDIT, the supreme court has backed that up, judge roy bean's opinions notwithstanding. thus, HOW can they make a claim? they cannot, thus they make offers for you to come down and trick u into the position of debtor.

O yea, what you no, they do that all the time, however if you let them do it to you.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Originally Posted by kgod999

using federal reserve notes is priva face evidence the united states is bankrupt. nuf said about that. I AM NOT, I REPEAT, NOT telling people to file statutory bankruptcy under their rules. What i AM saying is under the rules of commerce, since the united states IS bankrupt, ANY corporate entity cannot give U CREDIT, the supreme court has backed that up,

And all of the above is utterly meaningless BS. "Rules of commerce?"

Corporate and private entities offer and provide credit every minute of every day.

Originally Posted by kgod999

...judge roy bean's opinions notwithstanding. thus, HOW can they make a claim? they cannot, thus they make offers for you to come down and trick u into the position of debtor.

More BS. You use credit to get stuff, you wind up having to pay for it. Period.

[idknow]

Originally Posted by kgod999

there are two reasons i made this post.

1st: even though tendering a negotiable instrument to discharge a debt is legal (the instrument is funded by your signature), stupid people (people in a stupor) dont know that and may try to get you into trouble.

2nd: tendering a instrument that has been FUNDED by someone's dishonor under no circumstances can be construed as fraud in the bankruptcy, quite the contrary, you are the one operating in voluntary bankruptcy, the other party is in involuntary bankruptcy, they are holding funds (tax) and must be identified by one of several means, one of them being to liquidate their dishonor by drawing down on them with a iboe.

KGod,

ok, so if i unerstan correctly, I would like to ask

"how or what marks or distinguishes one who is voluntarily acting in bankruptcy?"

(I note that the word "operating" is a word defined in commerce thus I wish to
avoid it because I am not a corporation required to be registered nor presumed
to be IN commerce.)

As i see it, the bankruptcy was imputed to and upon all of us when the gold and
silver were removed from circulation, so what choice did any of us have?

I think it was David who wrote some time ago that we were left with no recourse
and forced to join the bankruptcy and ONLY discharge debt instead of paying it off.

is that a clear statement?

operating in bankruptcy voluntarily is honoring all your offers. In other words, anybody who makes a offer in bankruptcy is a debtor, to not honor your own offer when its accepted is operating in dishonor or involuntary bankruptcy. The whole game in the commercial world is to trick YOU into dishonor, thats why elvick and others started the redemption movement which is based on fact even though its overshadowed by a lot of theory which makes it look crazy so that people like judge bean can call you a idiot and point out what we already know that it can be easily attacked by stupid people. Keep this in your mind, ALL CORPORATIONS ARE BANKRUPT, THATS WHY THEY CALL YOU A JURISTIC PERSON IN COURT, LEGAL FICTIONS ARE ALL DEBTORS IN THE BANKRUPTCY. Any body who gets a charter or certification from the state is a fiction, thus the birth certificate. The game is to get you to dishonor their offer of the tax to the international monetary fund. If you dont accept it, you become liable for their offer. the problem has been getting them to honor their own offer. Everything is a tax issue, thats why its easier to discharge a irs debt vs all others. they overstand and understand whats going on but pretend they dont.

Originally Posted by idknow

KGod,

ok, so if i unerstan correctly, I would like to ask

"how or what marks or distinguishes one who is voluntarily acting in bankruptcy?"

(I note that the word "operating" is a word defined in commerce thus I wish to
avoid it because I am not a corporation required to be registered nor presumed
to be IN commerce.)

As i see it, the bankruptcy was imputed to and upon all of us when the gold and
silver were removed from circulation, so what choice did any of us have?

I think it was David who wrote some time ago that we were left with no recourse
and forced to join the bankruptcy and ONLY discharge debt instead of paying it off.

is that a clear statement?

[charlesa6]

You are precisely given adequate explanations to the world of commerce, Kgod999.

[idknow]

Originally Posted by kgod999

operating in bankruptcy voluntarily is honoring all your offers. In other words, anybody who makes a offer in bankruptcy is a debtor, to not honor your own offer when its accepted is operating in dishonor or involuntary bankruptcy.

The whole game in the commercial world is to trick YOU into dishonor, thats why elvick and others started the redemption movement which is based on fact even though its overshadowed by a lot of theory which makes it look crazy so that people like judge bean can call you a idiot and point out what we already know that it can be easily attacked by stupid people.

Keep this in your mind, ALL CORPORATIONS ARE BANKRUPT, THATS WHY THEY CALL YOU A JURISTIC PERSON IN COURT, LEGAL FICTIONS ARE ALL DEBTORS IN THE BANKRUPTCY. Any body who gets a charter or certification from the state is a fiction, thus the birth certificate. The game is to get you to dishonor their offer of the tax to the international monetary fund. If you dont accept it, you become liable for their offer. the problem has been getting them to honor their own offer. Everything is a tax issue, thats why its easier to discharge a irs debt vs all others. they overstand and understand whats going on but pretend they dont.

KGod, the your response above is good but i think the third sentence got off track and
is incomplete.

(reparsing and reformatting) you wrote,
"The whole game in the commercial world is to trick YOU into dishonor,
thats why elvick and others started the redemption movement which is based on fact even though its overshadowed by a lot of theory which makes it look crazy so that people like judge bean can call you a idiot and point out what we already know that it can be easily attacked by stupid people."

The sub- clause after the one and only comma is a parenthetical phrase that interrupts the
main phrase prior to the comma. You forgot to finish the first clause or
forgot to use punctuation.

can I ask you to finish the sentence or the thought by excluding the sub-clause?

thank you much.

[fulltitle]

Originally Posted by idknow

KGod, the your response above is good but i think the third sentence got off track and
is incomplete.

(reparsing and reformatting) you wrote,
"The whole game in the commercial world is to trick YOU into dishonor,
thats why elvick and others started the redemption movement which is based on fact even though its overshadowed by a lot of theory which makes it look crazy so that people like judge bean can call you a idiot and point out what we already know that it can be easily attacked by stupid people."

The sub- clause after the one and only comma is a parenthetical phrase that interrupts the
main phrase prior to the comma. You forgot to finish the first clause or
forgot to use punctuation.

can I ask you to finish the sentence or the thought by excluding the sub-clause?

thank you much.

Without Prejudice.
But perhaps it only operates on the presumption of you interacting through a persona.

[clarkee]

Originally Posted by Judge Roy Bean

I'll ask you a question in the same amateurish and ludicrous form: Yes or no: "Are you still beating your wife?" No matter the answer from the subject, it presumes agreement with the underlying context whether it is bogus or not. Most people around this forum aren't quite that simple-minded, albeit with some notable exceptions.

As to the "bankruptcy" you allege, it depends on who you ask and thus is a matter of opinion, not fact (learn the differences). Therefore the question is not answerable with a binary positive or negative response.

I agree with you on never make the offer. I let the adverse party make their offer to me. I can either accept it, or reject it for cause or whatever. I become holder in due course if I accept the offer, I believe. Correct me if I'm wrong. To be honest with the things that I read on the United States being bankrupt why would an individual file for bankruptcy if the country is already bankrupt. It would appear if that we are functioning in a debt society then everyone would be bankrupted automatically just because of the ways we are provided with discharging obligations with debt instruments. I think to actually pay for a debt it would have to be sustance for substance. All this theory or maybe truth is one big maze. Your intentions to do something could be in good faith and you still end up in trouble. I don't believe anyone has the real answer and thats why its called practicing law. Just my opinion

[robhalford88]

Originally Posted by Judge Roy Bean

I'll ask you a question in the same amateurish and ludicrous form: Yes or no: "Are you still beating your wife?" No matter the answer from the subject, it presumes agreement with the underlying context whether it is bogus or not. Most people around this forum aren't quite that simple-minded, albeit with some notable exceptions.

As to the "bankruptcy" you allege, it depends on who you ask and thus is a matter of opinion, not fact (learn the differences). Therefore the question is not answerable with a binary positive or negative response.

Hey there, Your Dishonour, what say you about this? Your silence shall be deemed as agreement.