-Caveat Lector-
Kris Millegan wrote:
> The whole point is that the bankers and lawyers have gotten together
> so well in the last 100 years or so that by just spending a dollar
> bill, a currency furnished by the Federal Reserve Banking System,
> by partaking of that BENEFIT, you are, by law knowledgeable about.
> Law and equity have been affectively blended.
> Most people of Euro stock still don't get it. They do not understand
> the consent they are implying by using money. It shows. And badly.
from:
http://www.egroups.com/list/fwo-list/1437.html
<A HREF="http://www.egroups.com/list/fwo-list/1437.html">FWO-list</A>
Frog Farmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
gary wrote:
> Not using FRNs might well have some economic risks depending upon the
> situation of the particular person. Someone who works a regular job and
> decides he will no longer use FRNs so he explains what a no-no FRNs are
> to his boss and says he will only accept coins as payment from now on,
> can you see a risk here?
Back in the days when I used to work a "regular job" many years ago, I
always received a "paycheck" from my boss, and it was never a question
as to what I would accept in trade for his check. Even back then though,
I used to exchange my check directly for silver coinage at a coin
dealer, because FRNs were falling in perceived value daily against
silver coin. But even today, it is very possible to exchange your
paycheck for clad coins (or silver coins) without your boss finding out
and holding it against you for some political reason. You may have to
make arrangements with his bank (or a coin dealer), so that they can
have bags of coins ready when you are expected to visit. Many local
businesses (like grocery stores) regularly pick up bags of coins from
local banks, so it's really nothing extraordinary. It's just that they
like the courtesy of a warning that they will need a larger amount on
hand.
> A self-employed person, let's say a plumber, decides no more FRNs so
> he tells all his customers that from now on he isn't going to accept
> payment by FRNs, checks or CC and that if they want sevice, they
> will have to pay in coins.
> See any risk here?
Yes, I see a risk in describing oneself as "self-employed", since it's
an oxymoron of statutory origin and a detrimental label that must be
self-affixed. It leads to all sorts of nasty attempts at regulation on
the part of "government-employed" busy-bodies. Now, for a plumber
to only accept coins from his customers, I don't see that as a problem.
Aside from having to make a one-time-per-customer request and short
explanation, he could offer a slight "discount" to the customer. This
might actually increase his market share. When I used to do mechanical
repairs on automobiles, my willingness to only accept coins never adversely
impacted my ability to secure enough work to do. In fact, most of my
work came about as a result of referrals. I think it might be the same
with a plumber.
> Perhaps, for you, the lose of all or part of the income with which you
> support your family would only be an "inconvenience".
I quit receiving "income" when I stopped accepting FRNs and Credit.
Now I just get paid (or ripped off, as the case may be).
> OK, I'll ask again, exactly what do you get to do as a holder of a
> "certain lawful status" that someone who uses FRNs can't do? In other
> words what exactly do you gain from this "lawful status" other than the
> self satisfaction of holding it or at least believeing you hold it?
> Your answer to a similar question later in your post seems to indicate
> it was more a matter of you seeing that only those with this status have
> the right to defend their rights. You have the right to your opinion on
> the matter, fortunately, it is not binding on the rest of us.
Only those who have rights have the right to defend those rights.
Those who waive certain rights may not, without incurring penalties,
attempt to defend the rights that they have waived, otherwise there
wouldn't be such a concept as the waiver of rights, would there? How
can you justify defending (in the extreme, to the death) a right you
have waived? Seems to me that that would be criminal. I think I
already answered this question once, but just in case, here it is again:
What right does a person who uses FRNs waive? Answer: the right to be
paid. Acceptance of FRNS is a direct waiver of the right to be paid, and
a grant of the privilege of discharge. Creation of a debt waives the
right to be paid. Look at your bankruptcy laws. FRNs ("legal tender")
can only be compelled upon a creditor, a creditor who has waived the
right to be paid, and thus the debt is, in the words of the court,
"merely discharged". Allodial title to substance does not change hands
through discharge, only "mere possession" changes hands through
discharge of debt.
> No one can get a jury of his peers.
Therefore no one should consent to being tried by a jury not of his
peers, but many do, do they not? Many people will waive almost any
right you can mention. I've seen people waive rights they never knew
they had until they were asked to waive them, and then they waive them,
in what seems to be an attempt to win approval and less harsh treatment
by their enemies. This is known as "appeasement".
> Yep, and most Pro Ses lose cause they don't know them well
> enough to get a case heard.
Amen! Why claim to be Pro Se, instead of merely Pro Per?
> >> How many PDs or Pro Ses will ever be good enough to
> >> win against the "government", I'd guess damn few.
Why not ask, "how many in pro per will ever be good enough to defeat
that man standing in oppostion over there at the similar table on the
other side of the room, the one who wasn't good enough to succeed in
private practice, the one who doesn't even know that his license to
practice could not fit into one of those little credit card windows in
his wallet (we have a video of our local county counsel searching his
wallet for his license after being asked to produce it - and coming up
empty handed), the man who didn't even see the case file for the first
time until he was in court on the arraignment? When you're in court,
the entire (imagined) might of the government is focused through the
brain and mouth of usually one man, a man who cannot survive without
government support. How often do they rely upon the supposedly
impartial judge for support? Almost all the time. One might better ask
"can this man over there fight his way out of a wet paper bag"? Most
government wins are a result of pro se incompetence, I would say. And
why are pro ses incompetent? I blame the parents! They leave the
education of their progeny to their enemies. What should be expected?
There was a time in America when it was assumed that every man was
capable of standing for himself in a court of law in front of a jury
of his peers. Just because it's out of fashion doesn't mean it's
impossible. It needs to happen a lot more. A lot more.
> Gotta ask questions here. I've heard Mr. Gordon spoken well of but,
> how do you know 90% of his students have won all their cases?
George ran a correspondence law school. In it, students were not shy to
the point of not communicating, as students in most schools are today.
Actually, I purposely understated the figure that George himself
reported. His report was that out of all students, only a handful lost
their cases, and those were lost because they were abandoned. Of all
the local students of his that I know of (about 30), NONE have lost
any of their cases. In fact, several have set precedents. The first
traffic case appeal in our county to have ever been filed (meaning that
no citizens ever appealed a lost traffic case before 1984) was filed by
an 18 year old female who stood at 4'11" and weighed about 90 pounds.
She won after conviction and before the appeal was heard, same as a
case I had.
> How many cases would that be?
As if the exact number mattered! I don't know...a lot, that's for
sure. What magic number would be necessary for you to consider it
relevent?
> Also, since there have been all these wins, there
> should be some cases that I could read, do you have some court cites or
> at least the names of some litigants and the court it was heard in so I
> can look up a few?
Most of the wins consisted of dismissals, and dismissals don't make any
record, although I think that they should, just to give an indication of
how many frivolous cases the government files against citizens. At one
time, a prosecutor said to a judge, "your honor, I would point out the
long string of prosecutions on Mr. Gordon's record", to which Mr. Gordon
replied, "yes, and how many of those ended in convictions"? George had
23 cases going when I was taking his course, and only one conviction at
that time. I haven't been compiling statistics since then. Part of his
excellent course was how to successfully defend multiple cases without
getting confused. I myself could only amass three cases at one time.
All were eventually dismissed. I only had one conviction, but that was
dismissed when they saw I was serious about an appeal.
Goerge set a published precedent in the 9th circuit. I don't have the
cite.
> >I have more pressing things to do, no offense List Members!
>
> Then why respond to posts? In the time you have spent on just this
> subject, without providing the information, you could have write a
> detailed course. You are, of course, under no real obligation to do
> so, seems a waste though.
Good question, "why respond to posts"? I'd hate for anyone to take
my non-response personally, I guess. But I do reserve the right to
determine the length and breadth of my replies. Despite your vote of
confidence, I could not write a detailed course on international travel
in the time I've taken to post here. If I were to write a detailed
course on anything, it might be on how to derail a prosecution, but,
it's already been done - no use reinventing the wheel. The time I spent
replying to the questions on arraignment and citizen's arrest took me
hours, and elicited no response to speak of, so you can see why I might
not spend much time doing research for others when the sources are
available on the Net to anyone here.
> That brings to mind another question, how do you pay for things when you
> travel? Do you pay for your tickets with coins? Do you go to countries
> that have fractional banking and if so, what do you use for money? Or
> is it just FRNs that you don't use?
I travel like the Pope and the Queen - somebody else takes care of all
of that, usually the person inviting me. I have no desire to travel
uninvited, since after all, most knowledgeable people the world over are
trying to come HERE. I live in perpetual vacationland. Just today
though, I thought about Somalia...
There are lots of things I don't use besides FRNs. Too many to list.
> If someone stops you on the street an asks you the best way to get to a
> certain place, do you respond as above? Or do you simply tell them the
> best way you know?
The first thing I usually say is, "you can't get there from here",
waiting to see their reaction.
> Practical also means, "Having reference to useful ends to be attained."
> This is more what I had in mind, what useful ends have you attained by
> the none use of FRNs?
I've retained my lawful status and my right to be paid and pay for what
I want to pay for. I've denied prosecutors the opportunity to point out
that I use FRNs, which they see as a tool for them to use against people
when they try to assert jurisdiction over them.
> It just doesn't make any sense to me that all your clients only except
> coin as payment for what they do or that they have some giant horde that
> they saved from before FRNs or from their paper route when they were a
> kid. I'd guess there's damn few people with enough coins saved up to get
> through more than a couple of months worth of normal expenses
Your conclusions are what do not make any sense. I never said that all
that my clients accept are coins, or that they had a giant hoard that
they saved from before there were FRNs (I think the earliest FRN I ever
saw was from around 1925). Why do you think that coins do not change
hands every day and that people cannot get more each day without doing
as I do, that is, accepting coins exclusively? You accept coins without
objection, do you not? You don't accept FRNs exclusively, do you? You
could decide to do so - I know people who do that. I know people who
accept coins, but will not accept one-cent pieces. There is such a wide
range of things that people accept or don't accept. As I said before
the only people forced to accept FRNs are creditors after a judgement -
it's a voluntary thing for everyone else.
> If the freedom being promoted is only, DON'T have a SSN, DON'T have a
> driver's license, DON'T use FRNs, DON'T use banks, DON'T etc, etc, etc,
> etc., then there is NO advantage. I guess the question is, what is the
> point of being free if all you've got are don'ts.
If the freedom being promoted is only, DON'T have a SSN (slave tattoo),
DON'T have a driver's license (Massa's permission to go to town), DON'T
use FRNs (Massa's credit card), DON'T use banks (instrumentalities of
Frog Farmer's public servants), DON'T etc, etc, etc, etc., then there is
NO advantage. I guess the question is, what is the point of being free
if all you've got are don'ts.
If that's how you have to frame the question, you should quit resisting
immediately and go volunteer all your time at the UN. You know,
throughout history, there have been slaves who have had a higher
standard of living than some free people. And again, you are coming at
this from the side of the comfortable slave. It really isn't a concern
of yours what free people enjoy, since the option is apparently closed
to you.
> I would like a specific answer here. What rights can someone who uses
> an ATM machine not defend?
The right to be paid and the right to privacy. And the right to retain
all the product of their labor. There are probably many more, but it
really doesn't matter how many.
> Are you saying that someone who uses FRNs can't use a PSQ?
> If so, when would this become a problem while using a PSQ?
No, I didn't say that. Anyone may use a PSQ.
Well, six hours later I still can't find statisitics for how much
coinage and FRNs are in circulation. In 1984, the percentages of M1 for
each were approximately the same (under 5%). Maybe they've drastically
changed, but I doubt it. I'm going to keep looking. But not tonight.
Frog Farmer, over and out!
The Frog Farm
http://www.rarebird.net/frogfarm
------------ FREE WORLD ORDER: <http://www.buildfreedom.com> ------------
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
