Transmitting utility vs. Tranceiver utility

[RiderOnTheStorm]

These quotes were from another tread that was going off topic:

WONDERFUL!!! ... I NEED SUCH! ... I'm just returning here from a COPD Pneumonia hospitalization that began, the very day you posted this, and ended the 11th April, and today I'm planing to attempt opening a lawful money account, using My SSA check with 'DEMAND IS MADE FOR LAWFUL MONEY, per 12 USC Sect. 411, ___ hal-richard ___: d.b.a. TRANSMITTING UTILITY' on the bank's "Signature Card".... I'll NOT be leaving here for this effort, until +/- 3:30 p.m. CT, so PLEASE give My any feedback you may have

Sure.

I see some Strawman Redemption theory that I disagreed with - you should be a TRANCEIVER UTILITY if anything. I think you best just write in:

David Merrill.

David, can you explain why he should be a tranceiver utility instead of a transmitting utility? Also do you have any specific reason you don't agree with the strawman redemption theory?

[David Merrill]

I never liked anything about the Strawman Redemption. So the distinction I was making between transciever and transmission utility is superfluous now - to me.

Nobody was ever able to convince anybody that there was any law behind any of that. I kept hearing a lot of hopeful rumors but when I was able to find people actually witnessing it in the courtroom, it failed.

[bobbinville]

As an old shortwave radio buff, I'd like to suggest that this is another case of people confusing the words "transceiver" and "transmitter."

Let's say that David and I are ham radio buffs, and want to "chew the rag" about redeeming lawful money (to pick an arbitrary topic). If he and I have transceivers, I can transmit a radio signal to him and he can receive it; and then he can reply, using that same piece of equipment, by transmitting a signal which I can receive with my original piece of equipment. However, if all that he and I have are transmitters, neither of us can send a signal which the other can hear without also having separate receivers.That's why ham operators almost always have transceivers.

One reason why I was a shortwave buff and never a ham radio operator is that my shortwave radio got ham bands; and unless you are a hardcore radio geek some of the most boring conversations you will ever hear will come from ragchewing ham operators.

[RiderOnTheStorm]

I never liked anything about the Strawman Redemption. So the distinction I was making between transciever and transmission utility is superfluous now - to me.

Nobody was ever able to convince anybody that there was any law behind any of that. I kept hearing a lot of hopeful rumors but when I was able to find people actually witnessing it in the courtroom, it failed.

what do you mean by witnessing it in the courtroom? you set up a treasury account and send all bills into them and they discharge the debt.

do you mean for fines?

[David Merrill]

Thanks for elaborating Bobbinville.

No. They don't ROTS.

P.S. What is peculiar is that you will likely respond insisting that they do.

[EZrhythm]

[RiderOnTheStorm]

There is no need to attempt to set up these presumed "treasury" accounts as the United States is already under obligation. I have had numerous successes with sending an account statement back to the issuer with this written across it; "This name and account number are the property of the United States. Please forward to the owner in care of the Treasury of the United States"

Can you prove any of these successes? If they are property of the US then what gives you the right to charge items using that name and account number?

[David Merrill]

The only time I attempted to set up the account was municipal and I spent time in jail about it. Please excuse me for being a little shy.

It is probably worth paying attention especially in light of EZ's post. My allegory may be much plainer. I was successfully using Public Office Money Certificates for quite some time.

The references are important to acknowledge. Especially the citation - that has been long removed from the US Code. The Letter of Credit still stands unchallenged. Page 1. Page 2. The simplicity of this approach is found in the nature of legal tender - that refusal to accept legal tender is a debt waived.

Something quite significant is that lately the USDC's seem to have adopted a no cash policy? More on that elsewhere. I am still processing a mental model around this new development.

THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE.

So the clerk of court filed the suit just the same and the new suitor volunteered a payment (not a discharge) of the $400 by USPS money order (lawful money "Pay to _____") as a donation.

To keep this short and sweet though, I was enjoying how these POMC's function so nicely that while running around without license plates all they could do was nail me for parking tickets because I refused to pay rent on my roadways. So I ordered up a POMC for $1500 on an account with the City (METRO organization). Finally the vacant District Attorney had probable cause for "Theft" charges and jumped me on it. I called him on it back but some might say I confessed because I had to appear to accept the plea bargain in order to get the indictment on SUTHERS in order.

Therefore I tend to shun the traditional STRAWMAN REDEMPTION as both dangerous and as EZ points out an unnecessary risk (redundancy/theft).



Regards,

David Merrill.

[EZrhythm]

David, do you feel it would have been beneficial to add "VOID WHERE PROHIBITED BY LAW" to your certificates?

[EZrhythm]

Can you prove any of these successes? If they are property of the US then what gives you the right to charge items using that name and account number?

Prove for what purpose? Proof is where one finds it for themselves. When I have seen "evidence" or "testimony" of a success, if I was going to apply that method it was up to me to go after my own proof.

...What gives one the right is the acceptance, by the entity who is logging the account, of the signor's signature.

[David Merrill]

David, do you feel it would have been beneficial to add "VOID WHERE PROHIBITED BY LAW" to your certificates?

I have stayed away from them ever since. In addition to theft they accused forgery because the POMC's looked too much like traditional checks.

[RiderOnTheStorm]

There is no need to attempt to set up these presumed "treasury" accounts as the United States is already under obligation. I have had numerous successes with sending an account statement back to the issuer with this written across it; "This name and account number are the property of the United States. Please forward to the owner in care of the Treasury of the United States"

Who would the owner be? The social security office or vital statistics?

[RiderOnTheStorm]

Something quite significant is that lately the USDC's seem to have adopted a no cash policy? More on that elsewhere. I am still processing a mental model around this new development.