negotiable Instruments are...

[Ice]

I'm still trying to figure out what you think would be an argument.



Remember this: Statements of Fact (affidavits) are not arguments.

[iamfreeru2]

Ice,



Again do not make presumptions. I never said an Affidavit is an argument. The facts do not matter, as the court still sees you as the Defendant or the Plaintiff no matter whether you say you are or not. An affidavit is rebuttable which will creat the argument. This I care not to do. If you can settle something without going to court would that not be a better solution? Going to court to fight in this present system is a bad idea. Number one I do not have the authority to represent the Defendant as the flesh and blood man. I am not a pro se litigant as that makes me the one being represented. As I believe all courts are commercial in nature that makes me the Debtor. I would much rather control the fiduciary (counsel) for the Defendant (Debtor)as the flesh and blood man in the private. It is much safer that way.



iamfreeru2

[logos]

Sorry all. I've been busy with legal matters these past few days.



iamfreeru2, your post of Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 06:15 PM CDT:

What we are talking about is using "liabilities" (FRN's) in the public.

Actually, we were discussing whether the words "pay" and "discharge" are synonymous, but please continue.

When using them in the public although they are used to "pay" debt, they neither discharge or "pay" debt at all.

True, they don't pay. They can't as per Bouvier's "paying" involves the tendering of lawful money, which of course, FRN's are not. But they discharge. You do remember our discussing whether "pay" = "discharge" where I claimed (with evidence to substantiate) they aren't synonymous, while you claimed (with yet-to-be-seen evidence to substantiate) they are synonymous, right?

I accept your claim upon proof of claim that there is satisfaction and accord when FRN's are used, as you say, to discharge a debt.

I conditionaly accept your offer to respond upon you first responding to my prior offer for you to substantiate your claim (rebut my analysis of Bouvier's definitions) that the words "pay" & "discharge" are synonymous. Clue: if they are synonymous, why two distinct definitions in Bouvier's? Hmm.......

If the debt is, in fact, as I maintain, increased by their (FRN's) use and not discharged, then how can there be satisfaction and accord at all in the public.

To which debt are you referring? The individual/relative debt or collective debt? There is a difference. If you take your car to a mechanic for repairs, after he repairs it, you are in debt to him. You can satisfy the <u>relative debt between you</u> with FRN's (he's not suing you for non-"payment", so apparently he is satisfied), but it's the <u>collective debt of all of us </u>here in this country that increases by the continued use of those instruments. So, there is satisfaction and accord on individual contracts (relative debts), but NO satisfaction and accord for our collective debt to the Fed/IMF/Int'l Bankers.

To satisfy a bebt means to satisfy it.

Your self-referencing definition clarifies the meaning quite well, thank you.

It means you are the absolute owner of the thing you satisfied the debt on.

Even if you satified the debt with lawful money--actually paid it, that is--you still might not be the absolute owner. Ownership can be qualified without debt ever factoring into the equation. Two examples: (1) the property is being held in trust, or (2) after paying for the property one "registers" it with the gov't (even if the gov't doesn't later bond said property). It would depend on the situation.

Are you the absolute owner of the car you just used FRN's to purchse or that $150.000.00 home you just "Paid" off using FRN's.

No, and for a reason besides those stated above: when using the property of another (FRN's in this case) to acquire things, a trust of some kind is created which taints one's ownership of the item in question. This is per an old book on trusts discussed in a back-issue of the AntiShyster magazine. We don't even have absolute ownership of the shirts on our backs.

I am not mixing anything.

A reading of your posts clearly shows you have introduced different subjects (licenses, state seizing one's property) into our discussion whose purpose was to determine the meanings of the words "pay" and "discharge".

It matters not that the property is registered.

Those who've researched the legal ramifications of property registration and land patents will tell you registration really does matter.

It is registered because you will never have "satisfaction and accord" "Payment" on the debt, because there is no real money in the public to do so.

Real estate, for example, is registered because someone went down to town hall and filled out a registration form! A car is registered because someone filled out the registration form. Unless it's filled out, the Motor Vehicle Dept will tell you they don't consider it registered! Property is registered (so as to be taxed, controlled, etc) by a voluntary act on your part,

"satisfaction and accord", "payment", and the lack of lawful money in circulation notwithstanding. Hahahaha... This is hilarious.

You are making assumptions and presumptions regarding what I

have said in my previous posts.

Please enumerate the alleged assumptions and presumptions so I may address them and possibly correct myself.



On another note: I agree with you re the use of a Letter Rogatory. I'm inclined to agree that is how we should be interfacing with their courts. Have you been listening to Jack Smith's material?

It would be very tuff for us to say we satisfied (paid) the debt with a BoE if we are presummed and assumed to be the STRAWMAN (DEBTOR). That is a big no no in my opinion.

I don't see what's wrong with doing this. I think people successfully do so more than we hear about it. True, one is presumed to be the debtor. But a presumption can be overcome. The BoE is a lawful instrument and saying you satisfied a debt with it is no different than saying you did the same with a check or M.O., at least from a commercial standpoint. Of course, the BoE is a touchy subject because of HJR192, etc., but that's the political aspect of it.



Looking forward to your posts and being kept on my toes.

[Jerseee]

iamfree,



I believe the courts is where we should start--not avoid them. How will we ever get them back?



"Thomas Jefferson put it well when he said. "I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion".

Thomas Jefferson’s letter, September 28, 1820."



"2nd Treatise of Gov. Sec. 202. "Where-ever law ends, tyranny begins, if the law be transgressed to another's harm; and whosoever in authority exceeds the power given him by the law, and makes use of the force he has under his command, to compass that upon the subject, which the law allows not, ceases in that to be a magistrate; and, acting without authority, may be opposed, as any other man, who by force invades the right of another. by John Locke"



Just my opinion on the matter....

[iamfreeru2]

Jersee,



I respect your opinion. I believe today we are far from bringing back anything closely resembling what we had back in Thomas Jefferson's day, although I would love to see that happen.



In my opinion fighting in this system is only making things worse. We have redemption, which I believe has been setup by the Father to take care of His children. He has always provided and always will to those that love Him and have faith.



God says: "But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those that persecute you in order that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."



The Father is in control of all things and we need to stop getting in His way. If we look to Him and follow His lead we will be victorious, but if we are not He is still on His throne. He may be trying to teach to stop waring against each other and let Him be God. Why do we take control of everything ourselves and push the Father asside? No wonder we have so many problems and cannot deal with them. The problem is we are dealing with them in our own strength and not His. Since when is He so weak that He can't take care of the problems we face.



This is one reason I lean toward what Jack Smith is teaching. I like the LR and the fact that I do not have to war to get results. What Jack teaches is more in line with Scripture. I would rather deal in the private any day. I believe it is what the Father is leading me to do. You see I believe I have been called to do this. I do not have to explain, but felt you needed to know where I am coming from



iamfreeru2

[Jerseee]

iamfree,



I understand and thanks for breakin' it down like that. It wasn't necessary but helpful. Hey as long as you are in honor--I think that is all that matters since honor has footprints on the path you are walking.



godspeed to you.

[iamfreeru2]

Logos,



Notice the below definitions from Bouvier's. This is my evidence that pay= discharge.



A contract is not discharged without payment or accord and satisfaction. 2. Contracts may be discharged by, 1. Payment. 2. Accord and satisfaction



SATISFACTION, practice. An entry made on the record, by which a party in whose favor a judgment was rendered, declares that he has been satisfied and paid.



7. Accord with satisfaction when completed has two effects; it is a payment of the debt; and it is a species of sale of the thing given by the debtor to the creditor, in satisfaction; but it differs from it in this, that it is not valid until the delivery of the article, and there is no warranty of the thing thus sold, except perhaps the title; for in regard to this, it cannot be doubted, that if the debtor gave on an accord and satisfaction the goods of another, there would be no satisfaction. See Dation, en paiement.



As you can see by the above definitions in Bouvier's accord and satisfaction and payment can be rendered the same as Payment= Discharge. FRNs do not discharge a debt, because they are debt. What part of this do you not understand? FRNs are liabilities and not assets. In the private with people that do not know any better you can have satisfaction and accord with FRNs and I will concede that point. However, in the public, which is where we must all deal, there is no accord and satisfaction, no discharge with FRNs. To discharge means to render a contract null and void by payment, accord and satisfaction. FRNs cannot and never will give accord and satisfaction in the Public, because it means to pay, which FRNs cannot do. You and I are both in agreement on this.



Again the registration of vehicles, homes etc. is because there is no Payment, Accord and Satisfaction, Discharge. It is considered to be property of the STATE, because you do not own the property in question. It was never paid for (Discharged). It will be taken from you if you do not register it, as that is a requirement of STATE property. It is true that if you do not register it is not considered to be and it will be confiscated from you. You are right this is hilarious.



iamfreeru2

[Ice]

Ever consider using more than $20.00 of real silver when purchasing a vehicle??

[iamfreeru2]

Ice,



I have certainly considered using Silver or even Gold to purchase vehicles with. I am also an advocate of using whatever means available to protect what I have so that BB can't glom onto it. I have placed liens on property for friends and I do believe in the use of Land Patents and plan on using one myself.





Logos,



You assumed I was saying something that was not what I was saying. When I said it matters not that the property is registered I was simply stating registered or not it will be taken unless you do something to protect it. If you do not register the property it will be taken for not registering their (STATE) property, which they (STATE) are only allowing you to use. If you register it you are agreeing with the STATE that it belongs to them. So in that sense it maters not whether it is registered or not.



I am in total agreement with you regarding the use of Land Patents and the like to protect property from confiscation. I have protected property by placing liens on it. I will be placing a Land Patent on my property as soon as I have enough info with which to proceed.



You and I are in agreement on almost all of the issues discussed. We just disagree regarding discharge.



Thanks for keeping me on my toes as well.



iamfreeru2

[iamfreeru2]

Logos and Ice,



Sorry for repeating myself in the previous post. My bad.



iamfreeru2