Quote:
Notice here how in this paragraph trust law is the beginning and end, civil law in between.
Interesting notion in light of the Libel of Review.
Quote:
Notice here how in this paragraph trust law is the beginning and end, civil law in between.
Interesting notion in light of the Libel of Review.
Although good information I look at it as just a piece of the puzzle in the grand scale of things to be a stepping stone to the next level of knowledge. This is the journey I do not think in life there is a end level, you just get to the farthest level you can in what little time we have on this earth.
Please explain why in your opening post then, you would slow us down by not quoting the nearly impossible to read verbiage that caused the Setoff?
You just don't think the actual verbiage the woman stamped on the Coupon, causing the Setoff is a useful thing for us to know? I think it is a bit contrary, my ego aside or not, for you to preach about learning when twice now you have excluded the verbiage, ...or exchanged for [lawful money].
What's with that? How come I had to blow it up for everybody? Why did you avoid telling us what the stamp said?
David, I insert this request here as it is logical to do so:
I recall you had posted an image of a book page having to do with the Canadian equivalent regarding lawful money.
Was it to do with the Bank of Canada Act?
Please mine that extensive archive of yours when you've a moment, and either place it here or if you decide start another thread with it.
What prompted this request was seeing the Oz example you'd included above.
merci
Yes, the Bank of Canada Act. Momentarily...Quote:
Originally Posted by John Booth
That link is in this post.
For one if you made attempt to identify the other stamp of the same which is clearer, it would have been easier to see what is said:
Attachment 358Attachment 358
I cannot teach curiosity in a forum post, if there is a way to teach that I am not aware of it.
In your mind I was hiding it, in my mind I was not. To me even showing the actual instrument is going through great lengths for change on my part, it does not seem appreciated by you so far.
About the rest of your post, I ask why would I even do that when you have made the choice for everyone it seems of how it worked? Any attempt for anyone to think otherwise of your claim is completely dismissed, crapped on, spit on, locked away and key thrown out. So take some liability for your claim, if your claim is what you believe then do not ask for my interpretation even if the request is masked in the name of benefit for everyone else. If others want to know they will ask, you do not have to complete their thoughts for them, how can they learn self sufficiency if all this is done for them?
I have asked you to leave the past in the past and start out anew, but you keep bringing it up which is the whole point of this posting. You have noted a mistake, i believe It was corrected with the new attachment, if i could not have done it then would have attempted to explain why it could not be corrected, now live with it.
You show a Setoff but do not explain the cause? Then you think it is up to others to ask?Quote:
Originally Posted by motla68
I asked.
Why not make it clear about the verbiage? This is great! Now you have narrowed it down to simple non-endorsement redemption of a coupon without any of the vestigial Strawman Redemption, birth certificate fund-Treasury Direct allusion.
What more could I ask for?
I think people are here because they are curious. So you should give them a little more credit. I do. You completely excluded the non-endorsement verbiage a couple weeks ago and it was clearly intentional. In your opening post on this thread your misdirection was a little less obvious, so I want to know what it is you promote here - if not the remedy? Too bad for you the only success stories are from non-endorsements.
Then you tell us about another success story but have nothing to show us.
The only thing you have to show is validates nothing about robin egg-blue wrapping paper and such. But it certainly shows the remedy written into the law, if one is willing to claw through your obfuscation of that for everybody's benefit. Which I am.Quote:
Originally Posted by motla68
Hopefully you can come up with something...
Quote:
Originally Posted by motla68
There is another great example of what I am talking about.
You show a transcript that agrees that her non-endorsement verbiage is what affected Setoff. Great! That is wonderful. But the parts about robin egg-blue wrappers, canon law and such are just your narrative. Nothing more.
Why not post the transcript where she spoke of that?
Do you even understand why I am getting frustrated with you? You keep promoting that canon law and Lieber Code etc. is an effective remedy, but you apparently believe so based in nothing! You will not show us anything except that the remedy is non-endorsement of private credit; redeeming lawful money in conformity with §16 of the Fed Act and Title 12 U.S.C. §411. All you have done so far is exclude it from an example that utilized both hypothesis in hopes your preference would be believed.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Yes, let them I ask.. let them ask. This is what I am saying, I would like to hear from others who have questions. You say you ask, but you have already made up your mind how it worked, so why ask?Quote:
Originally Posted by David Merrill
Now your saying Canon law is not Right on? Have you changed your mind now? Keep in mind the following post is not from the past, it is from tonight
where you said this was right on:
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showt...ull=1#post2021
For me I could not give a rats backend what Quatlosers has to say about anything, but I see you like to post there too and take great stock in what they think of you. This is an example of the difference in our thinking. You like to have the last word, I get it now.
If you want to love you must die to the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by David Merrill
Romans 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, [even] to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
Romans 13:10 says Love is the fulfilment of the law.
Paul warns of misuse of the law
1 timothy 1-3
Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, [which is] our hope; Unto Timothy, [my] own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, [and] peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord. As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,
1 timothy 5 says to love from a pure heart. Was John Lennon right when he said: " all you need is love"?
The rest of the book of Timothy is a good read on the rest of this, I would suggest go checking it out because I really cannot tell you what to believe about it.