Using IOUs for discharging debt

iamfree,

Thanks for the feedback. I am not familiar with the use of an "evidence jacket" or whatever label we want to place on evidence in a court file - evidence is evidence. Neither have I read/watched any of Winston's material on appointment of fiduciaries, although this makes sense from "both sides of the fence." It sounds as if the court can only recognize fictions and entities that are civilly dead, is another way of saying, "go get an attorney" as fiduciary who is usually more skilled to review, deal with the judge, and defend the legal process. This way the issue of whether the account is valid or not never materializes. Because that is all the court would be doing in this instance of reviewing an administrative process for estoppel, it would not rule on any merits, or substance of the exemption. This would be a written/ordered default victory, which gives closure of the matter and is still better than a loss of course, but is far from recognition of the exemption. Then again, I would never expect them to recognize it anyway.

-squirrels

[David Merrill]

Dear Francis;


I provided these links:

http://www.occ.treas.gov/fr/fedregister/69fr50293.pdf
http://friends-n-family-research.in...al_rule_R4C.jpg
http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/js1894.htm


So maybe we are not on the same page if you are not finding reference to the final rule.

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Dear Francis;


I provided these links:

http://www.occ.treas.gov/fr/fedregister/69fr50293.pdf
http://friends-n-family-research.in...al_rule_R4C.jpg
http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/js1894.htm


So maybe we are not on the same page if you are not finding reference to the final rule.

Thanks Dave, I read it more carefully and did see the Final Rule. The rule was dealing with the requirement that a national bank get prior approval before substantially changing the composition of its assets or becoming a stripped or dormant bank. How does that relate to writing a bill of exchange for all the money in the world? In the federal registry reference there was also a final rule dealing with Truth In Lending and home mortgages.

[iamfreeru2]

Originally Posted by squirrels

iamfree,

Thanks for the feedback. I am not familiar with the use of an "evidence jacket" or whatever label we want to place on evidence in a court file - evidence is evidence. Neither have I read/watched any of Winston's material on appointment of fiduciaries, although this makes sense from "both sides of the fence." It sounds as if the court can only recognize fictions and entities that are civilly dead, is another way of saying, "go get an attorney" as fiduciary who is usually more skilled to review, deal with the judge, and defend the legal process. This way the issue of whether the account is valid or not never materializes. Because that is all the court would be doing in this instance of reviewing an administrative process for estoppel, it would not rule on any merits, or substance of the exemption. This would be a written/ordered default victory, which gives closure of the matter and is still better than a loss of course, but is far from recognition of the exemption. Then again, I would never expect them to recognize it anyway.

-squirrels

Under Winston's teaching if, followed to the letter, it does not matter if the exemption is recognized, although the exemption can be utilized later to reduce the national debt. By their (creditor) estoppel by acquiescence, estoppel by laches, estoppel in pais (agreement), the BoE is funded by the liquidation of their assets under Bankruptcy. That is the process that others I know have used. He also uses the International Claim that one is presently using now. I will keep you informed of the progress.

[David Merrill]

Dear Francis;


You inquired:

Thanks Dave, I read it more carefully and did see the Final Rule. The rule was dealing with the requirement that a national bank get prior approval before substantially changing the composition of its assets or becoming a stripped or dormant bank. How does that relate to writing a bill of exchange for all the money in the world?

The bill of exchange was due in August of 2001. That due date began a thirty day term to either honor or protest the bill. Neither was done. Judgment came due on September 11, 2001. There are many different models to approach a comprehensive explanation from and I am sure now you got me thinking about explaining, I will come up with some clearer posts in the next couple days.

Thank you IamFree;

Under Winston's teaching if, followed to the letter, it does not matter if the exemption is recognized, although the exemption can be utilized later to reduce the national debt. By their (creditor) estoppel by acquiescence, estoppel by laches, estoppel in pais (agreement), the BoE is funded by the liquidation of their assets under Bankruptcy.

http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/BOE1.gif
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/BOE2.gif

I am grabbing this quote because it is handy. It seems clear enough when you read the bill of exchange with it. Recognition is irrelevant. Process is the relevant matter. The bill of exchange has a life of its own in good faith. These are sacred instruments. The Latin maxim says a lot:

From Cyclopedic Law Dictionary 3rd Edition

Fides Servanda est; simplicitas juris genitum praevaleat. Good faith is to be preserved; the simplicity of the law of nations should prevail Story, Bills §15

A reading of the Holy Bible tells us that the wealth of the wicked will eventually be dispensed to the righteous. This is a concept called the kingdom of heaven. The Harvard Economics Research Project launched a jubilee of sorts too. Whether a true document or not, the precept of government, whether banking cartels or not, owning property is an absurdity. Government functions as a trustee. Public trust in the case of Article VI of the Constitution. That is what I like about Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars, the concept of energy is true to form:

http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/sw4qw/index.shtml
link to Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars paper

Energy

Energy is recognized as the key to all activity on earth. Natural science is the study of the sources and control of natural energy, and social science, theoretically expressed as economics, is the study of the sources and control of social energy. Both are bookkeeping systems: mathematics. Therefore, mathematics is the primary energy science. And the bookkeeper can be king if the public can be kept ignorant of the methodology of the bookkeeping.

All science is merely a means to an end. The means is knowledge. The end is control. Beyond this remains only one issue: Who will be the beneficiary?

In 1954 this was the issue of primary concern. Although the so-called "moral issues" were raised, in view of the law of natural selection it was agreed that a nation or world of people who will not use their intelligence are no better than animals who do not have intelligence. Such people are beasts of burden and steaks on the table by choice and consent.

So taken quite literally, there are two kinds of people. Intelligent enough to be heirs apparent (beneficiaries) and those who would enslave themselves with ignorance. People who spend little or no time contemplating the nature of money and national debt.

As a trustee makes claim of ownership to assets due the beneficiaries, the trust itself transforms self-executing into an alter ego. This is very disruptive to trust, to the trust. See? That word is a noun and verb at the same time. A trustee is anybody instilled with trust. Even a prisoner at county jail is called a trustee if the guards can trust him not to run off while picking up litter by the highway. The moment that trust is gone; back on the bus and its indoors for the rest of his sentence. So without trust there is no trust. Get the concept?

The Comptroller of the Currency is a position of public trust. Being IMF/IBRD World Bank the principal of the trust is international in nature - United Nations charter. Law of nations like on the top of the bill of exchange. Same thing, same combinatorial mathematics down to the 2000 people petitioning together a positive law jural society called home rule. New York through the Patroons and Wall Street, the UN Plaza and the Ashkenazim/Khazarian elitism is truly the capital city of the world. The global municipality is complete.

These factors in their timing mean there is to be a conveyance of all the assets, a conveyance back to the original estate (instead of the extant representative/counterfeit estate).

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

Werner Maximilian* built his home right in the middle of town without utilities. Anyway, to cut that story short when the City/METRO organization began making claims, Werner cured a bill of exchange waiver of tort for the private national debt of $5.5t. The bond rule is that the amount be twice that and sure enough, when it came due $11t disappeared from the Stock Market (March 14, 2000). That accomplishment encouraged me to write the bill of exhange subject.

Take a look again at IamFree's quotation above. Read it again.

The final rule being imposed by the Comptroller of the Currency was an intrusive control action about the release of real assets from the banking system. Since these private bankers (Federal Reserve System) have not paid consideration for the loans they derive credit for from the people anyway, that means the properties taken in collateral and held assets are only theirs by illusion. The final rule was a last ditch effort to maintain that illusion. But I saw through it and by notice and grace given through the federal register, quashed the final rule before it could cure thirty days.

In its place is another risk management project called the Basel II Accord. At least that fits things as I understand them. The central bankers are quickly scrambling to get some kind of grip on risk management.** There are a couple other important factors I am not going into tonight. It really comes down to the results of the G-8 Summit which I heard on the BBC World News a few nights ago was originally (before the London attacks) intending to forgive the national debts for all the continents. (I think I heard that correctly.)

Thank you for asking Francis. I have enjoyed articulating what the final rule has to do with the bill of exchange. After some sleep and a day or two of contemplation, I am sure I will be able to clarify it some more.


Regards,

David Merrill.


* Run that name through a search engine with "Habsburg". Interesting.

** Browse for yourself. http://www.federalreserve.gov/calendar.htm

I ran the search you suggested on Werner Maximillian Habsburg and the house of Habsburg. Very interesting. I noticed the house had some Ferdinands, wasn't one of the world wars started by the assassination of an archduke Ferdinand? Your earlier reference to the Bankruptcy Judge- Daniel was interesting.
I had come back to your reply Dave and explanation of the final notice.Thank you.
You stated, "A reading of the Holy Bible tells us that the wealth of the wicked will eventually be dispensed to the righteous". Do you mean a later day event? I thought it said, " the wealth of the wicked is laid up for the just" indicating that it could be taken by the just (if we can discover how to do that). or as stated elsewhere "the kingdom of heaven suffers violence and the violent take it by force" (energy?).

[hooded50]

Earlier in the thread, some people were discussing the "value" of Federal Reserve Notes. These "notes" (FRN's) have absolutely no intrinsic value whatsoever. The Federal Reserve has even admitted this themselves in their publication entitled Modern Money Mechanics: A Workbook on Bank Reserves and Deposit Expansion". In that Publication, under the heading What Makes Money Valuable?", the Federal Reserve states:

"In the United States neither paper currency nor deposits have value as commodities. Intrinsically, a dollar bill is just a piece of paper, deposits merely book entries. Coins do have some intrinsic value as metal, but generally far less than their face value." [emphasis mine]

The ONLY value that FRN's have is the willingness of the people to accept them as payment. The only value the FRN's have is the value that the people choose to give them.

Also, there was another interesting quote in that same Publication. In speaking about where the money that banks "lend" actually comes from, it states that:

"Of course, they [banks] do not really pay out loans from the money they receive as deposits. If they did this, no additional money would be created. What they do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers' transaction accounts." [emphasis mine]

Imagine that - the Federal Reserve actually admitting that the money that banks "loan" is actually created by the BORROWER when he signs the promissory note. The bank claims to have "loaned" the borrower money, but what about the money that the borrower loaned to the bank when he signed the promissory note? When does the bank pay the borrower back for that loan made by the borrower to the bank?

If the customer loans the bank 10k, and the bank loans the customer 10k, then the two debts would cancel each other out, and whatever you were buying would be "paid for" the instant you sign the promissory note. However, the bank starts with nothing, and ends up with the face value of the "loan" plus interest. The customer pays the bank back, but the bank never pays the customer a dime.

And, WE were stupid enough to fall for THIS?

Sheeewwwwwwwwwwww...........

[Shoonra]

I must admit that I had a LOT of difficulty following this thread.

However, there is a definite difference between a Federal Reserve Note (FRN) and other financial instruments such as a Bill of Exchange (BOE) or Certified Promissory Note (CPN) or even an IOU.

Those other documents are mere evidence of a right to payment -- if the IOU is lost or destroyed, the underlying right to payment still exists and if the debtor is honest he will write out a replacement document -- but the FRN is the payment itself; if the FRN is destroyed the payment ceases to exist and nobody replaces it. Congress had declared FRNs to be legal tender pursuant to the authority granted Congress in the US Constitution, Art. I, sec. 8. As legal tender, FRNs must be accepted as payment; nobody is required to accept those other documents.

The simple fact is that generating a BOE or a promissory note or an IOU or even a check does not compel the IRS to accept it or to accredit it as payment of taxes. Only if the instrument is successfully converted to FRNs will the IRS treat it as a payment; until then, they are mere evidence of the IRS's right to be paid, and the IRS already had that right by virtue of the tax laws even before those documents were written up. If someone sends bad paper to the IRS, the tax debt will be reinstated if it was temporarily treated as paid, as soon as the worthlessness of the paper is apparent.

IRS operations are not governed by the UCC, but under the UCC a vendor may refuse any of those other documents and insist on being paid in FRNs; UCC sec 2-511. Generating homespun BOEs and the like is not a a valid payment of federal taxes; cf. US v. Kahn (M.D. Fla 8/12/2004) 94 AFTR2d 5816.

The videotape of Leroy Schweitzer was very interesting. I had not seen him in action until now. He was thoroughly wrong about his instructions, but it was intriguing to see how his mind worked. Back in Montana, his computer-generated funny money came to be known as "Leroy Checks', and he was shameless enough to pass this bad paper to his neighbors as payments. It took them, and the local banks, about a week or so to find out that they were utterly worthless. Schweitzer and his buddies refused to make good on their own bad checks. Eventually some of the local shops posted signs about "We don't accept Leroy checks!"

Schweitzer went to prison and is still in prison for a good reason.

I should add that Mr Merrill's document for supposedly amassing all the world's money is very interesting. He doesn't tell us when he actually took possession of all that money. Somewhere on his document was a "zionist cancellation algorithm" number -- that's a new one on me; what is it and where does it come from, as I cannot find it in any of my references. Since he clearly has much more money than he needs, I'd really be appreciative if he could spare me just one or two million dollars.

[citizensoldier]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Congress had declared FRNs to be legal tender pursuant to the authority granted Congress in the US Constitution, Art. I, sec. 8. As legal tender, FRNs must be accepted as payment; nobody is required to accept those other documents.

You are incorrect - the original jurisdiction Congress never had the power to declare what is legal tender. The law is clear in section 1 article 10 of the constitution:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

What does the original jurisdiction Congress have lawful authority to do from article 1 section 8:

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Please explain how the authority to coin gold and silver and regulate the value translates into determining what IS money.

The reality of today, the Congress most people believe to be the legislative body in the federal government is actually a board in a private corporation known as the United States. Being a private corporation enacted to conduct business for the United States of America, it can define what it will accept as payment in a bartered exchange like any other corp. However, the law is plain for all to see what constitutes as money - FRNs are not it.

[Shoonra]

Article I section 10 (not the other way around) limits the State governments from coining money or making anything other than gold & silver legal tender. It's a limit upon the state govts, not on the federal govt.

The federal govt, specifically Congress, has the authority, under Article I section 8, to coin money -- something that the states are expressly forbidden to do, regulate the value of the money it has coined and also regulate the value of any foreign money. At the time the Constitution was written there was neither a gold mine nor a silver mine in North America, all the gold and silver was gotten from foreign sources, including foreign coins. Therefore, when it says that states are limited to using gold & silver if they want something besides federally-minted coins, then the states were using foreign gold & silver coins -- the value of which was already regulated by Congress. Essentially, Congress regulates whatever is used as legal tender.

Now, if Congress is to have any authority at all to regulate the value of domestic or foreign money, it follows that the money ought to be valued at something more than its intrinsic metallic ingredients, otherwise the value is regulated entirely by the market for precious metals not the Congress. So the Constitution clearly contemplated money made with paper or with base metals.