$20 bill 1934 series

[David Merrill]

I thought this interesting.

[shikamaru]

According to "the Informer", the U.S. Treasury has been abrogated for the department of the Treasury.
I would think U.S. Treasury Department is different from department of the Treasury.

[David Merrill]

I am not sure what that means - abrogated.

[motla68]

I thought this interesting.

Yes it is pretty interesting, but how about we figure out what we can do with a instrument that is being used today?

UCC 3-104 Negotiable Instruments

(d) A promise or order other than a check is not an instrument if, at the time it is issued or first comes into possession of a holder, it contains a conspicuous statement, however expressed, to the effect that the promise or order is not negotiable or is not an instrument governed by this Article

[motla68]

According to "the Informer", the U.S. Treasury has been abrogated for the department of the Treasury.
I would think U.S. Treasury Department is different from department of the Treasury.

It is all lies until someone discovers and verifies the artifacts for themselves. It would have been nice if you could provide some sort of reference to use that validates 3rd party hearsay.
Saves time debating the facts rather then slinging opinions back an forth.

[David Merrill]

I have heard about this abrogation - that it happened in 1921. I have never understood any reason that it affects me enough to verify it. I have seen arguments about it but never delved into the topic for the same reason.

I think Larry BECRAFT wrote an article about it; saying that something insignificant actually happened.

[shikamaru]

I have heard about this abrogation - that it happened in 1921. I have never understood any reason that it affects me enough to verify it. I have seen arguments about it but never delved into the topic for the same reason.

I think Larry BECRAFT wrote an article about it; saying that something insignificant actually happened.

What you are referring to is the abolition of the independent treasury.

It dealt in specie. The Whigs destroyed it favoring a central bank. When the Democrats won in 1844, it was re-established. Banks in the system were subtreasuries.
The powers of these substreasuries and their funds were gradually transferred from them to district banks of the Federal Reserve.

In my opinion, this history is important since some factions were so hell bent on creating a centralized bank in the U.S.

"The Informer" also says that George Washington created districts in which to place the First Bank of the United States within it. These districts are also known as the States of <state> or "this state".

State of <blank> meaning the state belonging to <blank>.
There is the geographical state in addition to this fictional overlay or district.

We may even need to bring in federal territorial law.

[motla68]

What you are referring to is the abolition of the independent treasury.

It dealt in specie. The Whigs destroyed it favoring a central bank. When the Democrats won in 1844, it was re-established. Banks in the system were subtreasuries.
The powers of these substreasuries and their funds were gradually transferred from them to district banks of the Federal Reserve.

In my opinion, this history is important since some factions were so hell bent on creating a centralized bank in the U.S.

"The Informer" also says that George Washington created districts in which to place the First Bank of the United States within it. These districts are also known as the States of <state> or "this state".

State of <blank> meaning the state belonging to <blank>.
There is the geographical state in addition to this fictional overlay or district.

We may even need to bring in federal territorial law.

I do not think the Independent treasury was, but will check a resource that I might have.

I believe that was in the Judiciary Act of 1789 for the districts.

[shikamaru]

I believe that was in the Judiciary Act of 1789.

Now this is bugging me...

Root and hog time ....

[motla68]

Now this is bugging me...

Root and hog time ....

Is everyone assumed to know who "the informer" is and that what he says is truth? or that we were assumed to be alive in the time George Washington was alive?
At least I gave a specific resource to work from.

[shikamaru]

Is everyone assumed to know who "the informer" is and that what he says is truth?

Those who are serious about researching this type of material know him quite well.

David knew who I was talking about.

Sarcastic questioning doesn't provide great cover for your ignorance.

or that we were assumed to be alive in the time George Washington was alive?
At least I gave a specific resource to work from.

I have already. You need to go to this thread: http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showt...wall-and-more-!!

You must have a short memory or something.

[motla68]

Those who are serious about researching this type of material know him quite well.

David knew who I was talking about.

Sarcastic questioning doesn't provide great cover for your ignorance.



I have already. You need to go to this thread: http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showt...wall-and-more-!!

You must have a short memory or something.

Really, i do not know the informer, never met and shook hands with him, never had a conversation with him so no I do not know him, it is just a voice on a audio file.

You should check out Part 1 again and take heed to what the man speaking is saying at the 11 min mark to the the 13 min. mark. It may prove to be more effective in your posts.

[shikamaru]

Really, i do not know the informer, never met and shook hands with him, never had a conversation with him so no I do not know him, it is just a voice on a audio file.

And that is called ignorance.
Glad you can admit it.
Admittance is the first step in rectification.

You should check out Part 1 again and take heed to what the man speaking is saying at the 11 min mark to the the 13 min. mark. It may prove to be more effective in your posts.

More effective than your sarcastic questions?

If this is going to turn into your usual session of derailment, save it for another thread. I'm speaking with David.

[shikamaru]

It is all lies until someone discovers and verifies the artifacts for themselves. It would have been nice if you could provide some sort of reference to use that validates 3rd party hearsay.
Saves time debating the facts rather then slinging opinions back an forth.

Does the CoreSource method fall into this realm?

[motla68]

And that is called ignorance.
Glad you can admit it.
Admittance is the first step in rectification.



More effective than your sarcastic questions?

If this is going to turn into your usual session of derailment, save it for another thread. I'm speaking with David.

No, I am just specifically pointing out that instead of saying " according to the informer " or " the informer said this " you might come up with the actual document he is referencing instead of having to root and hog through all of his audio files. I do not get it, is the informer your god or something?