? on Discharge of Mortgage

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

No, in 1935 it could not have called for payment in gold.

Right on!

The gold was collected in 1933.

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

I guess your theory is that the gold was stolen by the FDR administration?

Is that what you are saying?

If not; then why would you deprive Sara Fugue of what is due her?


Regards,

David Merrill.

[David Merrill]

There might be some trouble putting your house on the market. But in most cases after a few years the Deutsche Bank's foreclosure claim, in receivership goes stale:

I'm still in my Home, what a cozy place to be ... (True Name initials):

Subject: Merry Christmas


Enjoy ....

http://www.thecompassgroup.biz/merryxmas.swf

I mean really; since it never existed except in some notion we could wage a war against the Great Depression to begin with. And that is addressed in the Libel of Review.

In this particular example, the suitor lives in a large mountain cabin on lots of land. Probaby a very beautiful Christmas setting. He has a banner under his email...

'Many are the plans in a man's heart,
but it's the Lord's purpose that prevails."
Proverbs 19:21.

I am not forwarding this email to make people feel bad about what has been lost to people subjecting their children (us) to be chattel bond, but I hope it allows Shoonra and other attorners to consider the misery they cause propagating the conditioning.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[sucker4lush]

Congress just wanted to let it be known that everybody's allowed get five $1's for a $5, and trade up for newer bills- nice!

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by sucker4lush

Congress just wanted to let it be known that everybody's allowed get five $1's for a $5, and trade up for newer bills- nice!

Thanks for bringing that amplified. I recall a couple Quatlosers trying that as I had clarified the history of the remedy from elastic currency. Make no mistake - the purpose of the Federal Reserve Act is to provide the ability to fabricate currency on credit - elastic currency. (See attachment) The second attachment - the FRA remedy in its original verbiage is just to assure the Reader Congress assumes that people know banks will provide change and newer crisper bills when requested, without writing legislation to that effect.

The third attachment explains why twenty years later in 1933, Congress and FDR had to face losing the charters, or accusing people of "hoarding" gold - simply because they knew the charters were due and wanted the gold safe in their own possession - or at least in banks that were not expiring...

I appreciate the opportunity to make it perfectly clear to the readers - mainly because redeeming lawful money instead of private credit from the Fed is the most important peaceful remedy available today. Maybe the only remedy that is still in full force and effect. We can see by the legislative history of it codified that it is genuinely to redeem lawful money - in US notes the form of federal reserve notes.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...1----000-.html

And the remedy had to be altered to accomodate the gold seizure.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...000-notes.html

Congress defines lawful money to be US notes and FRNs are redeemable in US notes/lawful money.

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.

As district Crown attorners obfuscate that I hope it is clear to the readers that saying "redeemed in lawful money on demand" would just be silly to trade FRNs for newer fresher FRNs and change. To me, when I hear somebody seriously resorting to that argument, I know they realize I have won the debate.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Jerry Pitts]

Bills of Exchange Act
PART II: BILLS OF EXCHANGE
Form and Interpretation of Bill

Bill of exchange
16.
(1) A bill of exchange is an unconditional order in writing, addressed by one person to another, signed by the person giving it, requiring the person to whom it is addressed to pay, on demand or at a fixed or determinable future time, a sum certain in money to or to the order of a specified person or to bearer.

Non-compliance with requisites
(2) An instrument that does not comply with the requirements of subsection (1), or that orders any act to be done in addition to the payment of money, is not, except as hereinafter provided, a bill.

Unconditional order
(3) An order to pay out of a particular fund is not unconditional within the meaning of this section, except that an unqualified order to pay, coupled with
(a) an indication of a particular fund out of which the drawee is to reimburse himself or a particular account to be debited with the amount, or
(b) a statement of the transaction that gives rise to the bill,
is unconditional.

R.S., c. B-5, s. 17.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

The Hallenbeck decision does not even mention FRNs. It deals with a bank's liability to cover checks forwarded from another bank that it does not reject within the regulatory deadline. A BoE is a draft which is not drawn on a bank, therefore this situation is inapplicable to a BoE.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

Bills of Exchange Act
PART II: BILLS OF EXCHANGE
Form and Interpretation of Bill

Bill of exchange
16.
(1) A bill of exchange is an unconditional order in writing, addressed by one person to another, signed by the person giving it, requiring the person to whom it is addressed to pay, on demand or at a fixed or determinable future time, a sum certain in money to or to the order of a specified person or to bearer.

Non-compliance with requisites
(2) An instrument that does not comply with the requirements of subsection (1), or that orders any act to be done in addition to the payment of money, is not, except as hereinafter provided, a bill.

Unconditional order
(3) An order to pay out of a particular fund is not unconditional within the meaning of this section, except that an unqualified order to pay, coupled with
(a) an indication of a particular fund out of which the drawee is to reimburse himself or a particular account to be debited with the amount, or
(b) a statement of the transaction that gives rise to the bill,
is unconditional.

R.S., c. B-5, s. 17.

Combined with Jerry's Signature in the Post above, I see two explanations.

1) Why people calling dollar bills bills is because they are bills of exchange.

2) Why after such an avid and determined argument with me here, Shoonra has lost every point and given up.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

how does 'lawful money redemption' apply to 'mortage relief'/ debts? Its one thing to avoid creating liabilities- how does it affect existing contracts?

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

how does 'lawful money redemption' apply to 'mortage relief'/ debts? Its one thing to avoid creating liabilities- how does it affect existing contracts?

As demonstrated recently with Shoonra;

If the Treasury will not honor one's desire to redeem lawful money to discharge debts, then the US government stole all the gold in 1933.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[sucker4lush]

Or, someone would just have to say that she intended from the jump to be using this undefined "lawful money", not the legal counterfeit- as Rothbard called it - in all her affairs. If it works for contracts with the IRS, it should work for contracts with banks too.

Speakin' o' the "Quatlosers", David Merrill, did you ever see Wserra's take on Article 1 Section 10? Just as priceless!

Originally Posted by Quatloos poster

"No States shall.....make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts........" Now remember the States are prohibited from accepting anything but gold and silver as "payment" of debts.

Originally Posted by Wserra's reply

Not at all, but at about the same level as your "legal tender != lawful money" stuff. It says that no state can legislate ("make") anything other than gold and silver into good tender - in other words, that states can't coin or print money.

If you use his logic that "make a tender" = "coin or print money", then you have to carry the "but gold and silver Coin" over to the other side of the equation also, which he "forgot" to do. So, using his equation, the States would be able to coin and/or print money, as long as it be in the form of gold and silver Coin. Wow!

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

I guess the gold was stolen. Or not. So what? I know you have been over this time and again, but it's only just beginning to dawn on me the bigger picture.

Rocky Balboa- "I'm not punchy, I just got a relaxed brain..."

A mortgage contract requires payment in u.s. money. One thing is freeing bux from the presumption of tax liability, another is paying a claim. The difference between a case of compelled debt and contracted debts is that of criminal vs civil. I have the right to pay debts at law ie- in gold or silver. With a mortgage I may have contracted this right away.

The way out I am seeing, is that at some point a contract has to be brought into the present. I can sign and sign and sign, but I can't permanently alienate something essential, like my will (like permanently losing a power of attorney- it's impossible). If a contract just doesn't work out, I have a right to pay the damage, to get clean; to pay the debt- a perpetuity shall not be in law, because the impossible cant be required.

It is noteworthy that the right to foreclose on a mortgage is merely hypothetical. If it were secure then the UCC would apply- yet mortgages are specifically excluded from the ambit of the UCC.

This relates to something I mentioned on another thread- that in civil law countries the name for a mortgage is a 'hypothecate', and that a superior class of creditor exists- a secured party.