Creditors In Commerce Sentenced To Prison

https://shazereverquar.wordpress.com...son-sentences/

The two guiding lights of Creditors in Commerce are now fallen stars and have been convicted and sentenced to hard time in Federal prison.

On June 15th, 2015, Brandon Alexander Adams received a 40-month prison sentence. The following day, Gordon Leroy Hall was hammered with a stiff term of eight years.

February 4th, 2014, Hall and Adams were indicted on four counts of “attempting to produce fictitious instruments purporting to be actual securities issued under the authority of The United States.”


Read the two comments after the article, the second one is very heavy stuff.

Quote:

---

Attachment 2781

---

Case documents and information here. The impression I get is that they were using methods related to 1099OID, Doug Riddle, Tim Turner (?) and issuing "Money Orders" in some manner. I haven't seen a copy of the money order they allegedly issued. Seems they are keeping out of case jackets the issues. But from the charges they were likely issuing the MOs payable against the U.S. Treasury. Related transcript document here.

In all honesty acceptance of a can be done lawfully and there are lawful and workable methods for handling debts to the IRS. I'm not sure why so many people have an aversion to sitting down and reading a book on bills of exchange, promissory notes, money securities--but will risk so much on what "he said".

Another related complaint is attached here: Attachment 2782

Playing in the commercial sand box can be a dangerous game. Lots and lots of rules. IMO, it is better not to complicate freedom by trying to find their built in exceptions. Unalienable rights are much more simple than the bureaucracy's BS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pumpkin

Playing in the commercial sand box can be a dangerous game. Lots and lots of rules. IMO, it is better not to complicate freedom by trying to find their built in exceptions. Unalienable rights are much more simple than the bureaucracy's BS.

---

I view this differently.

Play in that game within its own "sandbox". This is what vehicles such as trusts and corporations (which is a variant of a trust) are for.

Commerce (as is law) are analogues of warfare. The problem is that most participants participate in a fashion which leaves them totally exposed. At least take a defensive position and at some point build a fortification.

There are no freedoms within systems. Systems are based on boundaries, constraints, and rules. One must come out of them for freedom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shikamaru

Commerce (as is law) are analogues of warfare.

---

The monetary systems and systems of free trade and exchange are extensions effectively of a courts of equity. The weaponization of commerce, trade or exchange of a society is evidence of inside treason, subversion or the like. Equity must follow the law or it is not equity. If equity is not at the heart of the court's purpose, then it is not a court of equity. The head of the Court of the Exchequer was referred to as "the Treasurer". Lawful money and equity perhaps go hand in hand. Perhaps one can choose inequity/iniquity and the consequences instead (i.e. become a target of prosecution of war)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by allodial

The monetary systems and systems of free trade and exchange are extensions effectively of a courts of equity. The weaponization of commerce, trade or exchange of a society is evidence of inside treason, subversion or the like. Equity must follow the law or it is not equity. If equity is not at the heart of the court's purpose, then it is not a court of equity. The head of the Court of the Exchequer was referred to as "the Treasurer". Lawful money and equity perhaps go hand in hand. Perhaps one can choose inequity/iniquity and the consequences instead (i.e. become a target of prosecution of war)?

---

In English history, Lex Mercatoria developed independently of the Common Law. Such systems also developed their own courts independently of the law of the land. Merchant courts focused on speed and quick resolution. It was a ruling by Lord Mansfield that merged Lex Mercatoria with English Common Law. This move was one of the complaints the colonists had against England and was a factor in crafting the Declaration of Independence.

It is interesting that two hundred years after the merger of Lex Mercatoria with Common Law, the federal courts of the US merged the procedures of law and equity with state courts to follow.

While the procedures were merged, the bodies of law, however, remain separate and distinct.

In all likelihood, merchant law is a continuation of Babylonian Law.

The merger in law and equity is maybe why you might hear rumors of financial accounting (i.e. financial-style record-keeping) being associated with all cases. :) Common law dealt with substance. Bills of exchange == equity == equity follows the law ==> AS IF you had paid with gold/silver/substance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shikamaru

It is interesting that two hundred years after the merger of Lex Mercatoria with Common Law, the federal courts of the US merged the procedures of law and equity with state courts to follow.

---

Federal Reserve Established? ~1913. US gold confiscation? 1933. Social Security established? ~1935. Merger of law and equity on Federal level? 1938. New York State merged law and equity in 1848 with the "Field Code".

Merger of law and equity in the US is at the Federal level. Delaware, Mississippi and Tennessee don't quite subscribe to the Federal merger of law and equity. Illinois and New Jersey are two other.

and the passing of HJR 192 on June 5, 1933

And 48 Stat. 112:

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attac...0&d=1429688847

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attac...1&d=1429688848

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attac...2&d=1429689071

Quote:

---

In 1933, Congress passed a Joint Resolution ("the 1933 Statute")
providing that any obligation containing a gold clause "shall be
discharged upon payment, dollar for dollar, in any coin or currency
which at the time of payment is legal tender for public and private
debts." Ch. 48, 48 Stat. 112, 113 (1933) (formerly codified at
21 U.S.C. § 463). The statute gave the obligor the option of
paying its debts in any form of legal tender, including gold, and
prevented any obligee from enforcing gold clauses in existing or
future obligations. The Gold Reserve Act of 1934, however,
foreclosed the obligor's option of paying in gold by banning the
use of gold as legal tender. See Gold Reserve Act of 1934, ch.
6, 48 Stat. 340 (1934) (repealed). From 1933 forward, the railroads
made the interest payments on their bonds in currency.

In 1977, Congress amended the 1933 Statute by providing that it
did "not apply to obligations issued on or after the date of
enactment of this section." 91 Stat. 1227, 1229 (1977). The 1933
statute and its amendment were then recodified in 1982 as follows:
An obligation issued containing a gold clause or governed by a gold
clause is discharged on payment (dollar for dollar) in United
States coin or currency that is legal tender at the time of payment.
This paragraph does not apply to an obligation issued after October
27, 1977.
31 U.S.C. § 5118(d)(2). In 1985, Congress reauthorized the use of
gold coin as legal tender when it provided for the minting of $50
"Gold Eagle" coins. See Gold Bullion Coin Act of 1985, Pub.L.
No. 99-185, 99 Stat. 1177 (codified as amended at 31 U.S.C. § 5112
(1994)). --899 F2d 536 Adams v. Csx Transportation Inc

---

Pertains to gold rather than silver. Lawful money was originally in silver coin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by allodial

And 48 Stat. 112:Pertains to gold rather than silver. Lawful money was originally in silver coin.

---

If the United States can declare Federal Reserve Notes to be a legal tender in payment of money debts, but the United States cannot change the standard of value nor make anything lawful money, but the value of gold and silver.

Then why isn’t the [31 U.S. Code § 5112 - Denominations, specifications, and design of coins] The Secretary of the Treasury doing its job?

June 6, 1960, second session of the 86th Congress, at the hearings before the Subcommittee #3 on H.R. 8516 and H.R. 8627, the Committee on Banking and Currency, lead by the Honorable Wright Patman, posed several questions to Mr. Allen, the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago;

Mr. Patman: Now Mr. Allen, when the Federal Open Market Committee buys a million dollar bond you create that money on the credit of the nation to pay for that bond don't you?

Mr. Allen: That is correct.

Mr. Patman: And the credit of the nation is represented by Federal Reserve Notes in that case, isn't it? If the banks want the actual money, you give them Federal Reserve Notes in payments don't you?

Mr. Allen: That could be done, but nobody wants the Federal Reserve Notes.

Mr. Patman: Nobody wants them, because the banks would rather have the credit as reserves but that is the modus operandi if currency is desired.

Mr. Allen: That is right.

Mr. Patman: In other words, when the open market committee buys a million dollar bond, it doesn't take a million dollars out of anybody's account; there is no money taken from any bank or any individual; they create that money on the books of the banks, the 12 Federal Reserve Banks, to by that bond, don't they?

Mr. Allen: That is correct.

Subcommittee Hearings, June 6, 1960 @ pgs. 39 and 43

August 19, 2015 Pennsylvania court says payroll cards are not 'lawful money' Court's analysis

The WPCL states that wages "shall be paid in lawful money of the United States or check." The employer argued that because the funds loaded onto the payroll cards could be "readily converted to cash at a bank or an ATM," they should be deemed "money" under the statute. The court rejected that argument, explaining that the statute specifically requires employers to pay wages in "lawful money of the United States."

While the term "lawful money" isn't defined by the statute, the court ruled that it includes only money that is legal tender for the payment of debts. The court found that payroll cards do not fall within that definition.

The court recognized that this was a case of first impression in Pennsylvania (meaning it was the first time the issue has been litigated here) and that the WPCL vests the Pennsylvania Department of Labor & Industry (L&I) with the power to issue regulations governing the statute's administration. The court noted that "an appellate court, as well as Pennsylvania employers and wage-earners, could benefit from [L&I] expressing a formal position on the matter."

The most solid definition of dollars in the sense of lawful money is a silver coin meaning U.S. dollars lawful money ~= silver dollars. However, if they aren't putting sufficient lawful money in circulation then they maybe they are holding it for you indirectly?

Lodi you got domestic mail in the wind popular has a price [message SPACE] your staff might diminish any space deemed frivolous no persistence on my part as this is a xparte notice a response is obligatory or optional when its deemed who is doomed the translation cant send a private message