negotiable Instruments are...

[Im Huami]

Just read all 11 pages of this thread. I have to concur with
Jaylon this is an excellent thread.

I found this yesterday. Some of it seems a bit esoteric but I read every word.

http://www.wealth4freedom.com/law/Presentments-I.htm

Also would like to hear more from those who have used

AFV to successfully discharge debt.

[Jerseee]

I'm just bringing this topic back to the top.

Also, This has nothing to do with accepted for value or UCC redemption. My first post is meant to educate newbies--nothing more.

Hope it helps

[powder]

This thread was a great read. I have been wondering about BoE, checks, and the like.

The knowledge in the community is astounding.

For those that have read Mary's book, one option suggested is check on closed account. Having read this thread I begin to question if that is just begging for trouble.

Isn't the copyright owner responsible for producing a copyright notice?

Isn't a check a promise to pay?
Was the argument used by the agencies for the charges ever 'brought to the people' (I don't mean court). I mean someone who knows someone who ... knows them personally. Has their story gotten out?

[Shoonra]

A traffic ticket is positively not a negotiable instrument because it does not embody a signed promise to pay a certain amount of money.

A check is a negotiable instrument, as far as the transaction at hand goes, but in a more technical sense it is not a mere promise to pay, it is an ORDER to the bank on which it was written for that bank to pay out the money. Although checks are usually treated as if they were money, they are "subject to collection" - meaning that if the check bounces for any reason, there was no payment.

Offering a bill of exchange or a promissory note (or even a "certified promissory note" although I don't recall hearing of such a thing outside this website) in a gesture of payment of a debt is simply prolonging the debt (and also verifying the existence of the debt - so the debtor cannot thereafter deny owing that amount). The debt is not discharged or paid or satisfied, or whatever word you want to use to say that debt is extinguished, until whatever document was used is replaced (by the debtor or the bank) with real money (including FRNs). So giving the creditor a bill of exchange or promissory note does not make the debt vanish. It certainly does not morph a debtor into a creditor, so that submitting a document prolonging the debt does not entitle one to start calling himself the creditor (and a court will regard this as a dishonest act). Under the UCC, the creditor may at his discretion reject a promissory note or bill of exchange or any other substitute for payment in real money.

[Jerseee]

This is very touching. But it is ashame that all of this is post is based on UCC authority and not contract law. You are right if you are talking code. Code is not Law.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

A traffic ticket is positively not a negotiable instrument because it does not embody a signed promise to pay a certain amount of money.

A check is a negotiable instrument, as far as the transaction at hand goes, but in a more technical sense it is not a mere promise to pay, it is an ORDER to the bank on which it was written for that bank to pay out the money. Although checks are usually treated as if they were money, they are "subject to collection" - meaning that if the check bounces for any reason, there was no payment.

Offering a bill of exchange or a promissory note (or even a "certified promissory note" although I don't recall hearing of such a thing outside this website) in a gesture of payment of a debt is simply prolonging the debt (and also verifying the existence of the debt - so the debtor cannot thereafter deny owing that amount). The debt is not discharged or paid or satisfied, or whatever word you want to use to say that debt is extinguished, until whatever document was used is replaced (by the debtor or the bank) with real money (including FRNs). So giving the creditor a bill of exchange or promissory note does not make the debt vanish. It certainly does not morph a debtor into a creditor, so that submitting a document prolonging the debt does not entitle one to start calling himself the creditor (and a court will regard this as a dishonest act). Under the UCC, the creditor may at his discretion reject a promissory note or bill of exchange or any other substitute for payment in real money.

[bridge of sighs]

Federal reserve notes represent a first lien on all assets of the Federal reserve banks, and on the collateral specifically held against them. http://www.ustreas.gov/education/faq...l-tender.shtml

[Jerseee]

Great post Bride of sighs!

To further add, Shoonra claimed, "Offering a bill of exchange or a promissory note (or even a "certified promissory note" although I don't recall hearing of such a thing outside this website) in a gesture of payment of a debt is simply prolonging the debt (and also verifying the existence of the debt - so the debtor cannot thereafter deny owing that amount). The debt is not discharged or paid or satisfied, or whatever word you want to use to say that debt is extinguished, until whatever document was used is replaced (by the debtor or the bank) with real money (including FRNs)."

Well this is dependent upon if you apply the law or the code. If one applies the law, you can find success--it won't be easy but it is there. Now if you apply the code (UCC, statutes, and the like) get ready for a bullsh*t ride of misdirection, red herrings, and trickery to get you to admit to an alleged debt wihtout your accusor proving their claim.

Also, tendering a CPN is not verifying the existence of the alleged debt. If someone would take the time to read the note and the notice that accompanies the note--it would be clear that the note is a good faith payment. And it is payment--reagardless of what others may say. Since FRNs are backed by faith and not actual gold and silver. So why not have the law and your faith in the law back your note versus the misinformed faith of the people?

have fun

[Shoonra]

You will find that all 50 states and the D of C have enacted the Uniform Commercial Code, sometimes with tiny changes, as state law.

Originally Posted by bridge of sighs

Federal reserve notes represent a first lien on all assets of the Federal reserve banks, and on the collateral specifically held against them. http://www.ustreas.gov/education/faq...l-tender.shtml

I agree with Jersee.. that is a great link Bridgeofsighs... the important issue with this message from the treasury, especially with the notion of paying a debt, is this... Because the use of FRN's represents a first lein on anything purchased with the FRN, a private man or woman can never in reality claim ownership of those items that have been purchased with the FRN as long as the lein is unpaid. Therefore, whether you pay with BOE, CPN, FRN, Check, or any other fiat Money or promise to pay, the purchased items are not yours.

Jerry.

[Libertarian]

as well as reading the first post on UCC 1-304(b); there is no doubt that a traffic ticket is a negotiable instrument

What am I missing? How is a traffic ticket a promise to pay a specified sum to the bearer or holder?