Hjr 192 W/o UCC FS

[weishaupt1776]

Okay, if HJR 192 happened in '33, but the UCC started in '50, how could someone could have discharged debt w/in that 17 year window?

There's gotta be a way besides the "name game"/ "it ain't me" approach using a UCC FS.

There was no UCC for those 17 years, so there had to be another way.

[Bird]

weis:

HJR 192 is independent of the UCC. One does not need to make mention of any UCC business to rely on HJR 192 for the discharge of debts... the verbage is all right there in the resolution.

[weishaupt1776]

That's the point. I was putting it in question form for critical thinking.

If The UCC FS is the only way to discharge debt using HJR 192, then no one would've been able to do it for 17 years, Kabeesh?

[Sweed]

Weis,

Another critical thinking question: Do you use the UCC FS to discharge debt?

[weishaupt1776]

NO. It's via bond/BOE, etc . .
I did mess up in that sentence, though. I meant using a UCC FS in the discharging process.

[Sweed]

Check this link out:

http://www.fourwinds10.com/news/05-g...irs-fraud.html

[weishaupt1776]

Definitely intriguing reading - no doubt

The only thing I don't like about it, is that he doesn't footnote too much of his research.

The information is compelling, and even seems reasonable, but undocumented.

[Jerseee]

Jason,

Glad you could stop by for a while to post.

All,

Jason hit it on the head. that is basically what HJR 192 is. They cannot demand payment in a particular specie of currency since they already know that they slowly but surely stole all the real money.

However, FRNs are not unconstitutional. FRNs have nothing to do with any constitutional issue concerning commerce. Since the Fed is a private banking institution and the government contracts with them--this makes them a "contractor".

Personally, I would not mix up anything about the constitutionality of FRNs---because FRNs are only a product produced by the Fed. Furthermore, I would not even discuss the money issue in court, since courts do not make policy. What I would do is apply the interpretation of the essence of HJR 192. This issue has already been decided.

Also, I have never used a BOE or the like, for one main reason...alot of folks are not familiar with the note. Now all the other things that BOEs and whatnot do, is news to me.

[iamfreeru2]

Although I have not had 100% success with a FBoE, I can say I have had success using them. I can say I have had great success using them to discharge IRS debt.

A few years ago I met Barton Buhtz and he helped me discharge 1997-2000 with a BoE. It amounted to about $13,000.00. I have my IMF specific in front of me and after the BoE was tendered the IRS sent me my IMF showing a SFR was submitted and all zeroes were reported. Zero income, zero wages, zero tax owed, etc., etc.

My Strawman was issued a notice of tax owed for 2001 & 2002 and I tendered a BoE for that as well. Then a notice of deficiency was sent and I tendered a BoE for that and the last thing I received regarding those years was a notice of intent to levy. I then appointed Dennis Parizek as fiduciary in the matter and sent him a Letter Rogatory w/copy to the Chief Counsel of the IRS w/attachments for all I had done. I then sent for another IMF specific and the same thing ocurred. A SFR was issued according to the IMF and again all zeroes.

I am awaiting my IMF now for 1993-1996 where the IRS said my Strawman owed more money.I tendered a BoE and I got a letter from the IRS stating they received my correspondence, but have not completed their investigation and I would hear from them in 45 days. This was almost 5 months ago and I have heard nothing. This is why I sent for my IMF once again to see what has transpired.

I agree that there are people that do not know how to use the BoEs and are trying to use them in improper ways. I believe when used with knowledge they are as safe as any other procedure. The key is definitely understanding not only who you are but what you are doing as well. I have learned much since embarking on this journey, but I will never have learned all I need to know. My suggestion is study, study, and then study some more. Learn from those in the know as well. Be very careful, however, as there are many wolves in sheeps clothing ready to give you worthless instruction designed to get you in big trouble.

[Sweed]

I regards to Jasons comments, one does need to be careful when delving into the world of BOE's.

The BOE is a class of negotiable instrument identified in Witkin – Negotiable Instruments, Vol. 3 as a Bill of Acceptance Time Draft. The document is legally and lawfully presented for processing not as an instrument for collection with the Bureau of Public Debt, but to be processed through the UCC Contract Trust at the Internal Revenue Service.

A Court Order signed by Judge William C. Johnson, Jr. December 27, 2002 in Volusia County 2001-31518-CICI, and, more recently, the jury decision in the Superior Court of California, County of Tulare in the case of Al Jenan over Bank of Sierra demonstrate that the Bonded Registered Bill of Exchange is a valid instrument.

August 30, 2002 in the case of U.S. vs. Jerry Williamson, W-91-CR-38(6) the USDC Waco, Texas Judge Walter S. Smith, Jr., granted full acceptance of the Bill of Exchange drawn on Williamson’s UCC Contract Trust.

I direct your attention to numerous references in the Federal Reserve System, Bank Examiner’s manuals, the Department of the Treasury approved manuals, Commercial Banking Codes including, but not limited to UCC 3-104(c), Witkin – Negotiable Instruments, Vol. 3, (including the 2003 Supplement) and Spencer v. Sterling Bank, 63 Cal Ap. 4th 1055 and Guaranty Trust Co. of NY v. Henwood et al, 59 S. Ct. 847.

Some of the above cases confirm that Jason is right, you may have to defend yourself in front of a judge. The good news is that a properly drafted Bonded Registered Bill of Exchange drawn on a UCC Contract Trust is a valid instrument.