Using IOUs for discharging debt

[iamfreeru2]

Originally Posted by Squirrels

Yep. That is likely what would happen. But a good judge may also ask, "Is the note recognized as legal tender or otherwise marketable?

So, here is the problem I am having. A FRN is legal tender sufficent to discharge or even constitute "payment" of an obligation. [Yes, even though this is a lawful impossibility, Congress legislated it as legal and so people are fooled or trapped into accepting FRN's as a form of payment] Now, the note given to the judge is not recognized as legal tender and is not otherwise marketable, correct?

The note would be the same as giving a CPN or a BoE. It would be backed by the exemption of the real flesh and blood man/woman tendering it.

Case in point. We have a lady now going through the criminal tarffic court here in Gainesville, Florida. The State wants her strawman (defendant) to tender FRNs for the traffic fine. She (flesh and blood woman) has tendered a BoE for settlement and closure due to the fact that even though FRNs are "legal tender" they are not "money." The BoE is backed by her (flesh and blood woman) exemption under Public Law 73-10 HJR 912. This case has been going on now for over a year and has not gone to trial yet. Every time a meeting is scheduled it is a pre-trial conference because the court does not really know what to do. She (flesh and blood woman) is in the process now of issuing a bond to the judge, also based on the exemption and backed by "lawful money." We fully expect her to prevail in this.

Just because the Congress has created a statute that declares FRNs to be "legal tender" does not mean that a promissory note has no value. It depends on how they are being used. The gentleman that used the promissory note in that email I posted was Winston Shrout and he knows full well how to use it.

There are others that have used promissory notes to discharge due to the fact that it is a negotiable instrument. There is ample evidence to show that FRNs (also a promissory note) are simply liabilities and nothing more. You are certainly correct in stating the majority of people have been hoodwinked into believing something altogether different.

12 U.S.C. § 411. Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption.

Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank. (emphasis added)

An FRN may be "legal tender," but is nothing more that an obligation, liability, a promise to pay. Just as the email stated the real flesh and blood man/woman is the only one using substance.

I have dealt with this in other posts on this forum. The courts are fiction and deal only in legal fictions. The flesh and blood man/woman deal in reality. They are the only ones capable of extinguishing a debt.

iamfree,

Thanks for starting the new thread. I should have done it in the beginning.

Just because the Congress has created a statute that declares FRNs to be "legal tender" does not mean that a promissory note has no value. It depends on how they are being used. The gentleman that used the promissory note in that email I posted was Winston Shrout and he knows full well how to use it.

I wholeheartedly agree. I didn't realize that the note tendered IS backed by the exemption/substance/monetized future sweat equity. Now this makes theoretical sense why discharge or "payment" would occur as there is an account to settle with. For whatever reason, my brain would not have questioned the tender if it were a BOE, but using the note didn't "click" in my mind as a form of immediate settlement because of its negotiability. My mind was stuck into traditional note usage evidencing future performance.

I've been a Winston fan for at least 2-3 years now. If you can point me to any materials of his that are not sold on LRG, it would be greatly appreciated. I read/listen/watch his materials with zeal. A truly fascinating man he is.

Finally, we are on the same page again. Thanks for the "refresher course."

-squirrels

iamfree,

So, this brings me to my most troublesome issue, which is probably the most troublesome for everybody, because there is no single way to handle it. How do we get the fiction court to recognize the existance of the exemption/ss# w/o dashes as a valid account to settle with? What evidence can we present to back the theory? How does Winston do it? Or is it simply stating a position that forces them to find a reason why they allegedly continue to hold the instrument, why they allegedly haven't processed the instrument for payment from Fed. window, and they can't do so, so they leave the battlefield and lose by default? [this last method is what I have used to garner my "success" using BOE's, but I'm not personally satisfied with this method to consider it a success. I prefer written closure]

I hope I'm not opening up too large of a discussion here. But keep in mind I am well informed and we do not need to start from the beginning.

-squirrels

[wirlwind]

I don't think that I ever realized that the use of FRN's are "obligtions of the United states" because they took away our ability to repay debt with money. I mean I knew that, but I have never noticed that in writing before, even though I have read that USC before. That makes it much clearer. Thanks iamfree!

[iamfreeru2]

Originally Posted by squirrels

iamfree,

Thanks for starting the new thread. I should have done it in the beginning.

I wholeheartedly agree. I didn't realize that the note tendered IS backed by the exemption/substance/monetized future sweat equity. Now this makes theoretical sense why discharge or "payment" would occur as there is an account to settle with. For whatever reason, my brain would not have questioned the tender if it were a BOE, but using the note didn't "click" in my mind as a form of immediate settlement because of its negotiability. My mind was stuck into traditional note usage evidencing future performance.

I've been a Winston fan for at least 2-3 years now. If you can point me to any materials of his that are not sold on LRG, it would be greatly appreciated. I read/listen/watch his materials with zeal. A truly fascinating man he is.

Finally, we are on the same page again. Thanks for the "refresher course."

-squirrels

One of the problems we had was the fact that I did not make my post very clear. Sooo many other things on my mind lately. I will certainly be more clear in the future. I must leave now, but would like to continue this later. I do not know if what I have is not on LRG, but I do have contact with Winston's business manager regarding his material. Will talk about that later.

Oh, one interesting thing I have found that I would like to explore more is on www.CATfreedom.com. The CAT document has been tied into the silver bond. I would like to take a closer look at that. Later.

[David Merrill]

This confidence a couple weeks before the Freeman Standoff may shed some light. Appointment of fiduciary, by any means to execute offsets and adjustments by counterclaim (Libel of Review in admiralty). Note about the 3:00 minute mark of this snippet.

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...y_on_bills.wmv

Note the confidence at this point in the life of Justus Township. That is what it is all about, confidence and security building measures in bills of exchange. I am in the audience and ask a question about the "third method" around the 4:00 mark. Two weeks later when I competently (no UCC citation) endorsed a unique comptroller warrant (properly naming IMFIRS) at the same time it would have arrived to the Treasury in Ogden, the Montana Freeman Standoff was on.

http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/sui...elCalendar.jpg

Observing a peculiar alignment of timelines which matched perfectly to numbers in the Book of Daniel, and even to the day around the resolution of bankruptcy* in the United States, I wrote out a bill of exchange for all the money in the world. It came due on August 13, 2001 and that means without announcement of the forgiveness of debts, the bill came to judgment 30 days later, on September 11, 2001. You can get certified copies of documentation filed with my clerk by calling (719) 520-6200.

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

The OCC, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency tried to get a grip on what I had done by publishing intent to implement the "final rule" (in general, notice this is broad swipe noun in general, not "Final Rule") in the federal register (notice and grace). The purpose of that of course is to give people like me the final veto:

http://www.occ.treas.gov/fr/fedregister/69fr50293.pdf
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...l_rule_R4C.jpg
http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/js1894.htm

I wish you had just blended this Topic into Heidi's "Money from thin air" Topic. In my mind we are talking about the same thing. I am going to comment more about this there.



Regards,

David Merrill.


* That is to say, no cases can be properly closed while payment is still due. Understand that the case was filed the day before the 31 Day Government Shutdown - restructure in late 1995. Judge Wiley Young DANIEL closed that case in February of '97; bottom timeline on the image.

[iamfreeru2]

Originally Posted by squirrels

iamfree,

So, this brings me to my most troublesome issue, which is probably the most troublesome for everybody, because there is no single way to handle it. How do we get the fiction court to recognize the existance of the exemption/ss# w/o dashes as a valid account to settle with? What evidence can we present to back the theory? How does Winston do it? Or is it simply stating a position that forces them to find a reason why they allegedly continue to hold the instrument, why they allegedly haven't processed the instrument for payment from Fed. window, and they can't do so, so they leave the battlefield and lose by default? [this last method is what I have used to garner my "success" using BOE's, but I'm not personally satisfied with this method to consider it a success. I prefer written closure]

I hope I'm not opening up too large of a discussion here. But keep in mind I am well informed and we do not need to start from the beginning.

-squirrels

This is one of the problems we all have had. to get the courts to recognize what we have done. I like Jack Smith's approach, although I must admit it is more difficult that I first thought. But, what Jack says is it must be colored in a way that they will accept it. The courts do not deal with truth only fiction and too much truth will cause them to lable you some kind of fruit cake, like these guys from Quatloos(ers) do.

One way Winston addresses this issue, I do not know if you are aware or not, is to set up an evidence jacket (what David Merrill refers to as an evidence repository) with the federal court under diversity of citizenship. There are potential problems setting up such an evidence jacket. I think this is where David Merrill can help a great deal. Once the evidence jacket is set up it is a matter of a judicial review of the process. It is not a suit, but only a review. If the process is correct, then the respondent is estopped. Of course the process is what has estopped them to begin with. It is their silence when there is a duty to answer that is the estoppel. It is estoppel in pais, equitable estoppel, estoppel by acquiescence. If your process is incorrect the court will tell you and what should be done to correct it if you listen.

The lady I spoke of is having her judicial review now. She has directed one fiduciary in this and was given another one as well. When that one is brought up to speed, she will probably sh*t her pants. That is the other part of this, appointing a fiduciary and may be a fiduciary debtor and/or fiduciary creditor.

Any imput into this you have would be most helpful.

[iamfreeru2]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

This confidence a couple weeks before the Freeman Standoff may shed some light. Appointment of fiduciary, by any means to execute offsets and adjustments by counterclaim (Libel of Review in admiralty). Note about the 3:00 minute mark of this snippet.

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...y_on_bills.wmv

Note the confidence at this point in the life of Justus Township. That is what it is all about, confidence and security building measures in bills of exchange. I am in the audience and ask a question about the "third method" around the 4:00 mark. Two weeks later when I competently (no UCC citation) endorsed a unique comptroller warrant (properly naming IMFIRS) at the same time it would have arrived to the Treasury in Ogden, the Montana Freeman Standoff was on.

http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/sui...elCalendar.jpg

Observing a peculiar alignment of timelines which matched perfectly to numbers in the Book of Daniel, and even to the day around the resolution of bankruptcy* in the United States, I wrote out a bill of exchange for all the money in the world. It came due on August 13, 2001 and that means without announcement of the forgiveness of debts, the bill came to judgment 30 days later, on September 11, 2001. You can get certified copies of documentation filed with my clerk by calling (719) 520-6200.

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

The OCC, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency tried to get a grip on what I had done by publishing intent to implement the "final rule" (in general, notice this is broad swipe noun in general, not "Final Rule") in the federal register (notice and grace). The purpose of that of course is to give people like me the final veto:

http://www.occ.treas.gov/fr/fedregister/69fr50293.pdf
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...l_rule_R4C.jpg
http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/js1894.htm

I wish you had just blended this Topic into Heidi's "Money from thin air" Topic. In my mind we are talking about the same thing. I am going to comment more about this there.



Regards,

David Merrill.


* That is to say, no cases can be properly closed while payment is still due. Understand that the case was filed the day before the 31 Day Government Shutdown - restructure in late 1995. Judge Wiley Young DANIEL closed that case in February of '97; bottom timeline on the image.

David,

Thank you for your post. The fiduciary is most critical in this process. Since the flesh and blood cannot enter truth into the court a fiduciary is used to enter the evidence colorably so the court will se it. Only an attorney can represent the fictions and is used for that purpose as I am sure you are already very much aware.

I do not want to confuse the issue in the other thread and that is why I think it shoud stay here.

[David Merrill]

The original bill was served on Richard Grasso, chairman of the stock exchange and fiduciary.

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

One morning I walked in to my clerk's office and while Cecilia was getting my documents I noticed the proof of service already on her computer screen. There was nobody in line so the other request must have been by phone. Think of the odds.

http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/onscreen.jpg


Regards,

David Merrill.

The OCC, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency tried to get a grip on what I had done by publishing intent to implement the "final rule" (in general, notice this is broad swipe noun in general, not "Final Rule") in the federal register (notice and grace). The purpose of that of course is to give people like me the final veto:

Dave, I skimmed the Fed Registry excerpt and saw no mention of "final rule" or anything dealing with a bill of exchange. did I miss something?