negotiable Instruments are...

[Jerseee]

Logos,



Even if the alleged debt had been decided it was a debt--public policy is still in effect. So I would use that statement anyways. I always use the word "satisfy or satisfies" because this avoids inadvertent admission of saying pay or discharge. And it is in concert with public policy also I do not want my original position to be misconstrued... that the debt was indeed alleged and more than likely unproven. This is in case I get railroaded in court and the thief gets away with not verifying anything.



So its kind of what you are saying, answering without answering since the debt is alleged in my eyes regardless of their decision--just my form of rebellion.

[iamfreeru2]

Sorry all my computer crashed on me and have been working for the last 2 days to fix it.



Logos,



What we are talking about is using "liabilities" (FRN's) in the public. When using them in the public although they are used to "pay" debt, they neither discharge or "pay" debt at all. They create even more debt keeping those that use them as indentured slaves.



Discharging means to satisfy a debt and FRN's most certainly do not satisfy anything. 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. 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. Discharge means to satisfy a debt according to Bouvier's 1856. To satisfy a bebt means to satisfy it. It means you are the absolute owner of the thing you satisfied the debt on. 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.



I am not mixing anything. It matters not that the property is registered. 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.



To satisfy a debt can mean to "pay" in numerous different forms. If I were to say to a judge that I paid a debt by use of rocks would be perfectly okay to do so if that satisfied (discharged) the debt and was accepted as "payment," "satisfaction and accord." There is nothing wrong with saying to a judge a BoE paid a debt as long as it is done correctly. Try asking a judge if FRN's (Liabilities) can be accepted by the court as payment (satisfaction and accord) and see what he/she says.



The problem is when we talk to judges in the present system we are assumed and presumed to be the DEBTOR (STRAWMAN). Those assumptions and presumptions have to be rebutted and set asside without arguing (Dishonor). You are making assumptions and presumptions regarding what I have said in my previous posts.



One of the ways we can rebut the assumptions and presumptions is by entering the court by way of Letter Rogatory with a formal appointment of counsel (fiduciary) to represent the STRAWMAN (Trust). When we do this we direct the fiduciary as the Secured Party Creditor.



I am doing this with a BoE I tendered (Paid) for the debt on my home. The attorney for Plaintiff filed a Motion for Final Summary Judgment against our STRAWMAN and we have sent Letter Rogatory, cci, with the Plaintiff's attorney formally appointed as fiduciary for the STRAWMAN (Trust). This is all being done in the private. If I were to go into court on the public side then we would be presummed to be the Defendant (DEBTOR) representing ourselves. 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.



iamfreeru2

[iamfreeru2]

Akira,



The one that I thought had the qoute regarding holding BoEs, it was Paul O'Neil's quote, is not he one that has it. It is someone else and I will be trying to get it to post. I will let all know when I have it in my hands.



iamfreeru2

[Ice]

I don't think that anything need be done in regards to their presumption that you are the "STRAWMAN". They must "prove" everything. If you really feel a need to point out the distinction, a simple affidavit filed into the record would do it.



The Attorney will not put evidence into the record. Therefore, no summary judgment can be had. If the Judge gives summary judgment... immediately take steps to have it vacated.



Ice

[iamfreeru2]

Ice,



I would do that if I wanted to argue the case. To argue is a Dishonor and why would I do that when they have already dishonored. All the evidence is being included with the Letter Rogatory. This is why Sara Fugate lost her case in the public venue, because she argued. As a result of she submitting a Letter Rogatory it is now back in the private and the attorney she has appointed must do his responsiblity as fiduciary. He cannot back out and must send the evidence to the Data Integrity Board head for sustainability of the cci and if sustained the confidential information must be changed to reflect settlement and closure. This avoids going into their venue (jurisdiction) and it is resolved in the private, which is where it belongs.



iamfreeru2

[redpilltaker]

I still must be a "greenhorn", because when I see stuff like this it STILL blows my mind....



LETTERS ROGATORY. A letter rogatory is an instrument sent in the name and by the authority of a judge or court to another, requesting the latter to cause to be examined, upon interrogatories filed in a cause depending before the former, a witness who is within the jurisdiction of the judge or court to whom such letters are addressed. In letters rogatory there is always an offer on the part of the court whence they issued, to render a similar service to the court to which they may be directed whenever required. Pet. C. C. Rep. 236.

2. Though formerly used in England in the courts of common law, 1 Roll. Ab. 530, pl. 13, they have been superseded by commissions of Dedimus potestatem, which are considered to be but a feeble substitute. Dunl. Pr. 223, n.; Hall's Ad. Pr. 37. The courts of admiralty use these letters, which are derived from the civil law, and are recognized by the law of nations. See Foelix, Dr. Intern. liv. 2, t. 4, p. 800; Denisart, h.t.



Admiralty...civil law(Roman Civil Law by chance?)....OW, My little brain hurts!!



RPT

[Jerseee]

iamfree,



May I ask a favor of you?



Your post and position seem certain and unyielding. Would you post your success and/or failure (hope not the latter) on the forum so others may learn?

[Ice]

Originally Posted by iamfreeru2

Ice,



I would do that if I wanted to argue the case. To argue is a Dishonor and why would I do that when they have already dishonored.

What would be an "argument"?



Ice

[iamfreeru2]

RPT,



Are we not Sovereigns and as such able to use Letters Rogatory as one nation to another? When we use the LR we are keeping matters in the private as Sovereigns and NOT as DEBTOR STRAWMEN. We are requesting an investigation of (cci) and if the Confidential Commercial Information is sustained then we are stating it must be exempt from disclsure and the records must be changed to reflect this.



Jerseee,



Thank you for the request. That is exactly what I plan on doing when this is all over. I do not plan on failure, but if that should happen I will let all know and the reasons for that failure as well. All failure is, is learning what not to do the next time. It is just a stepping stone to success. If I can help someone else avoid my mistakes that is what I will do. After all we are all here to help one another. The more knowledge I receive the more confident I am and everyone else as well. Knowledge is power and if used properly positive changes are made. I would rather be a part of the solution rather part of the problem.



Ice,



The reason I say I do not want to argue, is that the enemy is very good at tripping us up into arguing (Dishonor) and therefore losing. The best way to avoid this is to not go into their venue (battle ground). Too may "patriots" are in battle mode and all they want to do is fight. They are right and everyone else is wrong. The enemy takes advantage of this. I do not wish to give them any advantage at all. I have been in this movement now for 12 years and have realized that when I go to war it accomplishes very little. Staying in the private and being at piece to resolve issues is much better in my humble opinion. I chose to use their cousel to assist me in resolving the issue and under 5 USC 552(a) they are required to change the records when the records are incorrect. I have tendered a BoE and there is discharge. Now they must go to John Snow to verify this and he is bound by the Privacy Act to silence. I do know the law says if you do not receive a Notice of Dishonor in 15 days the debt is discharged. He has not sent such notice and is required to do so. Therefore, the records must be changed and that is the reason for the LR.



iamfreeru2

[Jerseee]

I look forward to your success.