Flawed Redemption Process

[logos]

Originally Posted by Ice

Start with people in elected office... VOTE FOR SOMEONE ELSE.

We've been hearing that one for years. JUST VOTE FOR THE RIGHT GUY! Unfortunately that has never really done anything as the problem is much bigger than merely voting people in. Speaking from personal experience, the "good guys" are either ignored, or made to look like nuts. Besides, vote fraud is rampant--it's an industry in this country. There's much that can be said to show this approach is largely ineffectual, but this should suffice.

Originally Posted by Ice

What war? We are at war with our government?

The gov't is at war with us per the Trading With The Enemy Act.

Originally Posted by Ice

I thought we were wrestling with men that are attempting to steal the wealth from the people of this nation... by bribing elected officials. Our elected officials still see us as someone they need to convince to voter for them... so I doubt they consider us slaves.

After having heard and read the Elite refer to us as "useless eaters" and "cannon fodder", I'd have to say they DO see us as slaves and morons. Their puppet politicians see us as a bunch of TV land idiots whom they can--and continuously do--bulldoze into going along with their rehashed scams and rhetoric.

Originally Posted by Ice

The impertinent ones that act outside of the bounds of authority granted to them must be held accountable...

I'm not so sure they are accountable to us to begin with. I don't think they represent us but are merely officers of a municipal corp. to whom their real allegiance is owed in much the same way a lawyer's allegiance is to the court first, client second.

Originally Posted by Ice

There are many more in jail due to redemption processes than there are for using the Law

The reverse is probably more accurate.

Originally Posted by Ice

I've also noticed that people using "redemption" arguments in court do not fair well.

You're in dishonor, ergo screwed, if you argue, methodology notwithstanding. I think we all agree the cardinal rule is: NEVER ARGUE.

[logos]

weishaupt1776:

I'll try to answer your queries in the hope of bettering my understanding. Iamfree, correct me if I err.



I don't think we really ask the SoT to verify the discharge, per se. We do notify him that we've authorized the "creditor" to use the exemption to discharge the STRAWMAN's debt. He'll know if the debt was discharged if the "creditor" presents the BoE to him and he doesn't dishonor it. Then, if the creditor keeps coming after you after discharge, he'll know the creditor is committing fraud by misusing your exemption. He verifies the discharge via silence--no news is good news--in the same way a check is assumed to clear if the bank doesn't reject it.

He doesn't have to issue a Notice of Dishonor, but I think he would to make sure the books are balanced, just like a bank would. The DIB and SoT can talk, I think. They just can't reveal data you don't want revealed to the public.



It isn't so much about them proving a negative as it is about them rebutting your Affidavit that supports the Letter Rogatory.

In terms of paperwork, we make a sworn statement that we discharged the debt. The only one who can rebut that presumption is the drawee (SoT). In the paperwork we only claim "this is what we did--discharged the debt". In court we are there only to settle and close the matter, there is no reason to say anything else. We mustn't because the Fiduciary does the talking for the DEFENDANT.



I hope this helps.

[iamfreeru2]

Logos, thanks for the help. One thing you need to remember weishaupt1776 is that the SoT is the only one that can say whether the BoE is any good or a fraud. Although, as you stated, the SoT is prohibited from revealing private information, the fact is if there has been no notice of dishonor from him the debt is discharged. He is the only one, as the drawee, that can render the NOD. The MC must go to him and no one else. If they go to anyone else that is like telling the bank to go to the closet and they will be satisfied, but they went to the basement instead. Why did they go to the basement when we told them to go to the closet?



Logos good job of explaining.



iamfreeru2

[redpilltaker]

If they go to anyone else that is like telling the bank to go to the closet and they will be satisfied, but they went to the basement instead. Why did they go to the basement when we told them to go to the closet?



Uh, cause what's in the closet is scary? You never really do know who/what will be in there do you?



Sorry Iam, and everyone else as well...I crack me up!



Looked over your docket report this last weekend...sure wish a person could actually pull the filings like PACER.



Will be calling Barton in the morning...



Later,



RPT

[Jerseee]

iamfree,



I have made my points and by your own words nonetheless. I did not mention the Constitution throughout my exposure of you. YOU mentioned the Constitution. I mentioned the bible. You talk of scripture and UCC codes--this has been proven by your own words.



Anytime, I find you on this site spreading both doctrines at the same time you will be questioned. If you inject faith with the use of the money changer's code--you will be questioned.



If you want ot maintain some form of credibility--stick with code or with scripture but not with both. If others want to follow you that is there choice--but you have been exposed in your contradiction and your guru's teaching are one of contradiction that misleads.



Now prove me wrong if I have not proven anything--just don't say I proved nothing. And I am not speaking about the Constitution, the law on the books or the like. I am talking about you mixing scripture with the code of the money changers and using their code to get remedy and ignoring god's decision on such people.



All, I'd be wary of seeking guidance from such gurus that want to bastardize law and embrace the money changer's code. Dance with the devil if you want. There is a reason they get thrown in jail.

[logos]

It has been stated the SoT (drawee) is the only one who can dishonor the BoE. Many of you already know the reason why, but I'd like to clarify why this is so for those who may not know. For starters, a BoE is a written order from party A (drawer) ordering party B (dawee) to pay party C (payee), with checks and money orders being the most common flavor of BoE.
An every-day scenario: I (drawer) pay you (payee) with a check drawn on My Bank. You deposit the check in Your Bank. Could or would Your Bank ever tell you my check is no good because of, for example, NSF (insufficient funds)? Your Bank knows nothing about the account at My Bank. All they can and will do is pass the check along to My Bank. My Bank is being ordered to pay on the check. Only My Bank would know if (a) the account on which it is drawn even exists, and (b) if there are sufficient funds in the account.
Because My Bank (drawee) is bearing the burden/responsibility to pay the check, only it is in the position to declare it bogus or in some way no good by refusing to paying out (dishonor); no one else can speak for My Bank in this regard. So it is the same with our BoE's drawee, John Snow -- SoT.

[Jerseee]

logos,



Thanks for bringing back the topic.



I do know of that process--but can you explain why it does not run that smooth?



Because if this was the case everyone would do it.

[logos]

Jerseee:

I'm not sure exactly which process you refer to.

[Jerseee]

logos,



It was the process you just explained above. YOu stated:



"An every-day scenario: I (drawer) pay you (payee) with a check drawn on My Bank. You deposit the check in Your Bank. Could or would Your Bank ever tell you my check is no good because of, for example, NSF (insufficient funds)? Your Bank knows nothing about the account at My Bank. All they can and will do is pass the check along to My Bank. My Bank is being ordered to pay on the check. Only My Bank would know if (a) the account on which it is drawn even exists, and (b) if there are sufficient funds in the account.

Because My Bank (drawee) is bearing the burden/responsibility to pay the check, only it is in the position to declare it bogus or in some way no good by refusing to paying out (dishonor); no one else can speak for My Bank in this regard. So it is the same with our BoE's drawee, John Snow -- SoT."



If this was the case (an everyday scenario)--why doesn't it run this smooth when BoE's are done through John Snow?

[logos]

Jerseee:

My scenario was intended for newbies to explain to why Snow is the only one who can dishonor the BoE.

The clearing of BoE's through John Snow is itself smooth. It's the other people involved--normally the "creditor" payee that gives one grief by continuing to come after you even after discharge--that try to keep things from running smoothly.