Who gave us the authority to administrate the strawman account, can you prove it?

[Richard Earl]

I like that transcript. It tells alot. Thank you for the link, David!

[David Merrill]

I find this exerpt from the walker case most telling regarding the inherent protectionism of the nexus to taxation/enslavement...

page 13

4 So what is the backing for these Federal Reserve
5 Notes, the legal tender paper? And the backing is the taxing
6 power of the United States. Federal Reserve Notes under the
7 Federal Reserve Act are defined as a full faith and credit
8 obligation of the United States. So that means that should
9 there be a default in payment of Federal Reserve Notes, the
10 government has the right to raise taxes to fully back the
11 notes and their -- I won't get into the technicality of how
12 that backing is done, but there is still a residual form of
13 backing of Federal Reserve Notes in the Fed's accounting

14 system today.


Signature endorsement, it seems, is a "technicality" not worthy of "getting into" on the record; I wonder why.

Thank you for dissecting that with insight!

Lewish, is a Beast-slayer!!! Sorry for this quick aside,Is their any more intel on his most interesting case?

Yes, the case itself. A lot of the docs are pretty big though, from the looks of it so if you have a few bucks, grab it off PACER and put it in the Downloads area please.

I like that transcript. It tells alot. Thank you for the link, David!

You are welcome! Lewis Vincent is an early era Suitor. He is kind of a bulldog (tenacious) and we were talking just as I was considering putting together the brain trust. Well, Lewis caught wind of it and called me insisting I let him in; which did not set right at that moment on the phone with him and I suppose we could call it Personality Conflict but we parted ways... which is something I regret now that the brain trust is mature enough to handle forceful personalities with conflicting views. I think that Lewis might have destroyed it when it was fledgling, or steered it into a dangerous place without remedy written into the law.

Like Anthony Joseph points out in the Transcript, albeit acquitted that would seem to be where Lewis Vincent is at to this day; to get Walker Fowler so close to forming a complete Record of redemption and failing to seal the deal!

I am enjoying a lot of facets of what got on the record though; especially with the Quatlosers. They are totally bent out of shape about that transcript. Here is another facet worth considering. Think about the shock testing in Canada preparing the USA for fractional lending between 1863 and 1913. Look at the Footnotes. Then take in this passage:

[Chex]

A contract implied in law (or quasi-contract), unlike a true contract based upon the express or apparent intention of the parties, is not based on a promissory agreement or the apparent intention of the parties to undertake the performance in question.

Quasi-contracts or contracts implied in law are obligations imposed by law to prevent unjust enrichment. The essential elements for an action under this theory are a benefit conferred upon a defendant by the plaintiff, the defendant’s appreciation of the benefit, and the defendant’s acceptance and retention of the benefit under circumstances that make it inequitable for him to retain it without paying the value thereof.

Quasi-contracts, therefore, are obligations created by the law for reasons of justice, not by the express or apparent intent of the parties. Thus, it may be said that obligations of this type should not properly be considered contracts at all, but a form of the remedy of restitution.

SOURCE Rabon v. Inn of Lake City, Inc., 693 So.2d 1126, 1131-32 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)

[shikamaru]

A contract implied in law (or quasi-contract), unlike a true contract based upon the express or apparent intention of the parties, is not based on a promissory agreement or the apparent intention of the parties to undertake the performance in question.

Quasi-contracts or contracts implied in law are obligations imposed by law to prevent unjust enrichment. The essential elements for an action under this theory are a benefit conferred upon a defendant by the plaintiff, the defendant’s appreciation of the benefit, and the defendant’s acceptance and retention of the benefit under circumstances that make it inequitable for him to retain it without paying the value thereof.

Quasi-contracts, therefore, are obligations created by the law for reasons of justice, not by the express or apparent intent of the parties. Thus, it may be said that obligations of this type should not properly be considered contracts at all, but a form of the remedy of restitution.

SOURCE Rabon v. Inn of Lake City, Inc., 693 So.2d 1126, 1131-32 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)

Given the information, my interpretation is that quasi-contracts are instruments and tools of equity.

Equity decides what is "just" or "fair" while keeping quiet on issues of law.

[Darkcrusade]

David,I think i found what you refer to as the 'silver bullet' and the rounds with lewish? here =


http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/topic....o,suitors,1789