UCC believe it or not

[Steel]

Originally Posted by Little Brother 192

Re-organizational bankruptcies however are administered sometimes over many many years. (My father is a bankruptcy lawyer)

Also said state of emergency lasting 40 years could delay others dutys.
For me for now the point must be settled and I will continue seeking answers.
any help is appreciated.

[robhalford88]

Funny enough, I agree to a degree with bernie.
I would say that bankrupt is the wrong term, insolvent would be a better description.

[Steel]

Originally Posted by robhalford88

Funny enough, I agree to a degree with bernie.
I would say that bankrupt is the wrong term, insolvent would be a better description.

That may be the answer, simply a term.
If I say pain and you say hurt it is still suffering but by another name.
Does not change the need to clarify the basis of the memorandum being first, A broke Country.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Little Brother 192

(My father is a bankruptcy lawyer)

And you are just a rancorous wannabe?

What happened?

[Steel]

Originally Posted by mrg

And you are just a rancorous wannabe?

What happened?

maybe he will suprise us all,

Shoonra took challenge and I have tried hard to anchor that into something,
I read Proclamation 2040 http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=14485
Executive Order 6073 http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/print.php?pid=14507
Executive Order 6102 http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=14611
Executive Order 6111 http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/print.php?pid=14621
Executive Order 6260 http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/print.php?pid=14509
SENATE REPORT NO. 93-549 http://usa-the-republic.com/emergenc...0Bankrupt.html
which leads to "Act of October 6, 1917" excellent reading here http://www.barefootsworld.net/war_ep.html
and after all that I concure with Shoonra on this point,
the US did not go bankrupt in 1933, rather 1933 is the evidence of something a bit further back....
You may have to read this a few times....
"In 1917, the Trading with the Enemy Act (Public Law 65-91, 65th Congress, Session I, Chapters 105, 106, October 6, 1917) was passed and which defined, regulated and punished trading with enemies, who were then required by that act to be licensed by the government to do business. The National Banking System Act (Public Law 73-1, 73rd Congress, Session I, Chapter 1, March 9, 1933), Executive Proclamation 2038 (March 6, 1933), Executive Proclamation 2039 (March 9, 1933), and Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111 and 6260 prove that in 1933, the United States Government formed under the executive privilege of the original martial rule went bankrupt, and a new state of national emergency was declared under which United States citizens were named as the enemy to the government and the banking system as per the provisions of the Trading with the Enemy Act. The legal system provided for in the Constitution was formally changed in 1938 through the Supreme Court decision in the case of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 US 64, 82 L.Ed. 1188. "
The Memorandum still stands as I see it but the rabbit hole go's deeper.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by Little Brother 192

Re-organizational bankruptcies however are administered sometimes over many many years. (My father is a bankruptcy lawyer)

Please ask you dad if the US govt is, or ever was, legally bankrupt.

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by freebeme

First off I have counseled three people in law at the bar.

Second what happened is I make a **** load of money working as a civil engineer and cad modeler. Since problem solving and math are my favorite subjects I earn a living doing that.

See MRG, I have letters from three judges recommending me to any law school. I just have no need to go. I have helped all my friends and myself in law.

It must be confusing to you that I have so many options at my disposal and you have none. I guess you can always play the race card... however only you chose to be as stupid and ignorant as you are.

I love it. Finally an admission that you are not an attorney, yet you also admit that you have practiced law. This would make a great story for the California Bar to entertain themselves with.. an individual guilty by admission to the crime of 'Unlicensed Practice of Law'.

Got to save this quote and identification for future reference showing how in California it is permissible for men and women to practice law without a license. That would make a good distinctive showing of how there is no equality under the law.

Thanks Cody.

Jerry Carlos

[mrg]

And you are just a rancorous wannabe?

What happened?

Also spracht der Doppleganger?

"...play the race card?"

Why would you say something like that?

Even for you, isn't that sort of scraping the bottom of the slop trough?

You be's funny boy?

[robhalford88]

Originally Posted by Steel

That may be the answer, simply a term.
If I say pain and you say hurt it is still suffering but by another name.
Does not change the need to clarify the basis of the memorandum being first, A broke Country.

No, it makes little difference what term you use, the result is the same.