CR(tm) Principles

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

CR(tm) Principles

iamsomedude
Administrator
This post was updated on .


DOWNLOAD: Commecial Redemption Principles

COMMERCIAL REDEMPTION PRINCIPALS

COMMERCIAL REDEMPTION PRINCIPALS


UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION


AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.


Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.


ARTICLE. IV.

Section. 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall

be proved, and the Effect thereof.


(Comment) The debt must be fully accepted, as stated above in order not to fall into the public policy of being in rebellion. Now that the debt has been completely accepted, the United States or the State is free to pay the debt, as no lawful money exists (gold or silver) in circulation for any of us to pay it, and when We use Our Social Security Number in the EIN format, it is an "Act" of the public. They are also free from paying the debt if they choose as We are now set free, or emancipated for this transaction in this system. Any complaint about the public policy, emancipating the slave is also considered as rebellion against the United States, and will not be paid upon claim.


Those that have the gold, make the rules. They have the gold, they made the rules, We are just taking advantage of the specific remedy made for us due to this specific problem.


Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


(Comment) The "presumption" is You are a US citizen. Now that You have completely accepted the debt, You have the right to due process of law. There are only two kinds of "persons" in the United States as far as these 14th amendment courts are concerned, debtors and creditors. You have been marked by them as a debtor, and this is the only safe way to reverse the "presumptions" onto them to provide the proof of claim, which is due to You now..........as due process of law now applies due to You honoring the debt. Equal protection insures no arbitrary judgment can be applied to You, as Your "duty" is done.

Constitution of the United States Article I

Section. 10. No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.


(Comment) No judge has the authority to "make" any "Thing" but gold or silver coin a tender in payment of debts. There is no gold or silver coined in the United States today, therefore no debt can be "paid". If You deny the debt and are convicted under their process, any verdict is in gold and/or silver because that is the only authority the judge has to issue a judgment under, or You can be compelled into slavery at this point into discharging the debt in FRN slave notes, or of course there is always a possible jail term that will be made to fit. If You elect into slavery, You can opt to use Federal Reserve Notes to "discharge" Your debts, as authorized by HJR-192, but You cannot be compelled to do so, unless You deny the debt. Federal Reserve Notes are script produced by private corporations, that are not affiliated with the government. The government is charged with the responsibility for Our money supply. They have elected (correctly or not) to contract that job out to the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve charges high interest on using the money supply. We must accept the debt so the United States is free to pay the debt it is charged with for subletting out the job for providing the money supply. It is their debt, not Ours as it is their responsibility to provide the money supply for this country.


No judge has the authority to impair Our contracts (as long as We fully accept the debt). The only thing they can do is join in and become liable (the court corporation) for the contract by trying to interfere with it.


ARTICLE XIII.


Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.


Ratified 18th of December, 1865 by 27 of the 36 States.


NOTE: Rebellion against the United States is a crime, to deny the debt is therefore a crime, (rebellion) subject to commitment to slavery and involuntary servitude.


HJR-192

"To assure uniform value to the coins and currencies of the Unites States, Whereas the holding of or dealing in gold affect public interest, and are therefore

subject to proper regulation and restriction; and


Whereas the existing emergency has disclosed that provisions of obligations which purport to give the obligee a right to require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency of the United States, or in an amount in money of the United States measured thereby, obstruct the power of the Congress to regulate the value of the money of the United States, and are inconsistent with the declared policy of the Congress to maintain at all times the equal power of every dollar, coined or issued by the United States, in the markets and in the payment of debts,


Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of t Representative of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that

(a) every provision contained in or made with respect to any obligation which purports to give the obligee a right to require payments in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency, or in an amount in money of the United States measured thereby, is declared to be against public policy; and no such provision shall be contained in or made with respect to any obligation hereafter incurred. Every obligation, heretofore or hereafter incurred, whether or not any such provision is contained therein or made with respect thereto, shall be discharged upon payment, dollar for dollar, in any coin or currency which at time of payment is legal tender for public and private debts. Any such provision contained in any law authorizing obligations to be issued by or under authority of the United States, is hereby repealed, but the repeal of any such provision shall not invalidate any other provision or authority contained in such law.


(b) As used in this resolution, the term 'obligation' means any obligation (including every obligation of and to the United States, excepting currency) payable in money of the United States; and the term 'coin or currency' means coin or currency of the United States, including Federal Reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve banks and national banking associations.


Sec. 2 The last sentence of paragraph (1) of subsection (b) of section 43 of the Act entitled 'An Act to relieve the existing national economic emergency by increasing agricultural purchasing power, to raise revenue for extraordinary expenses incurred by reason of such emergency, to provide emergency relief with respect to agricultural indebtedness, to provide for the orderly liquidation of joint-stock land banks, and of other purposes;, approved May 12, 1933, is amended to read as follows:


"All coins and currencies of the United Stated (including Federal Reserve notes and circulating notes of the Federal Reserve banks and national banking associations) heretofore or hereafter coined or issued, shall be legal tender for all debts, public and private, public charges, taxes, duties, and dues, except that gold coins, when below the standard weight and limit of tolerance provided by law for the single piece, shall be legal tender only at valuation in proportion to their actual weight.'


Approved, June 5, 1933, 4:40 p.m. 31 U.S.C.A. 462, 463


House Joint Resolution 192, 73d Congress, Sess. I, Ch. 48, June 5, 1933 (Public Law No. 10 )


(Comment) legal tender for all debts simply means that it is evidence You have rendered that evidences the debt and they cannot then ask for further evidence of the debt in this system.


Contracts


I have a very old book on commercial law, by J.A. Lyons, copyright 1894 and

again in 1901, and it says: Essentials of a contract-

  1. Competent parties.


  2. An agreement or assent.*


  3. Consideration.


  4. Legal subject matter.


The question is about the agreement (or assent)


They sent a billing, they say, on a valid contract. They were the one that sent the bill, which is a voluntary action on their part. They can't later say they didn't want to do business with You, they sent the invitation, of payment. We are, at this stage, rendering honor to their word that there is a valid, "legal" contract. And there is lawful money to make the payment with, as there would be in the Republic. We agree to accept their billing in full, thereby "purchasing" the contract using a token amount of "legal" tender, to seal the deal. Now, all We ask after We have honored, what they said was Our obligation, is to prove their claim. If they don't prove the claim We have honored, on blind faith up to this point, they assent to the account closing (in the process We use), and any "tender" becomes an overpayment because they didn't "produce" the claim as required in commercial law. The same principal that will "convict" You if You refuse the debt, now will convict them if they don't produce the evidence of Your debt.


There are several possibilities in contracts:


  1. Valid.


  2. Void.


  3. Voidable.


Now under the heading of consideration in this book, some of the elements that are considered "not usually sufficient" as far as consideration is concerned is "impossible", another is "moral", "gratuitous", "executed", "illegal".


Their demand for "money" when there is no lawful money in this country puts them in a quandary. They can't force Us to use Federal Reserve Notes without running into a moral issue of forcing Us into slavery. There is no lawful money, so the government was forced to give Us a remedy, which they are "legally" compelled to accept. There is no choice, from their standpoint. The only choice is Ours, if We want to voluntarily become a slave to them, or assert Our remedy that was provided with this "money-less" condition.


Now they face the problem, they can't prove their claim, due to an impossibility for Us to pay lawful money, or they are "forced" to accept the remedy that has been provided for Us, that they must concede by "doing business" in this

commercial system. Either way, now that We know what Our remedy is, We can be winners if We use Our remedy. There is no "legal" move they can use against Us for using it, because that is making a claim that is against public policy, and therefore "rebellion" against the United States. It is completely Our choice. They already made their choice when they entered into this commercial game, in this system, and sent the billing in this "democratic" system.


NOVATIONS

Also note it shows where another person can take the place of the original debtor. To make any of these be accepted, there has to be consideration (money like a Postal Money Order) otherwise the creditor will not actually have to accept it.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/n027.htm


Novation is a substitution of a new for an old debt. The old debt is extinguished by the new one contracted in its stead; a novation may be made in three different ways which form three distinct kinds of novations.


The first takes place without the intervention of any new person, where a debtor contracts a new engagement with his creditor, in consideration of being liberated from the former. This kind has no appropriate name and is called a novation generally. (This is the one We are normally using.)


The second is that which takes place by the intervention of a new debtor, where another person becomes a debtor instead of a former debtor, and is accepted by the creditor, who thereupon discharges the first debtor. The person thus rendering himself debtor for another, who is in consequence discharged, is called expromissor; and this kind of novation is caned expromissio. (This question was asked the other day, but nobody seemed to want to comment on My answer which showed it is OK and (You can make it stick, as long as You send a PMO (consideration) with it))


The third kind of novation takes place by the intervention of a new creditor where a debtor, for the purpose of being discharged from his original creditor, by order of that creditor, contracts some obligation in favor of a new creditor. There is also a particular kind of novation called a delegation. (They do this all of the time, that is why We have a hard time knowing who to address in the business letter and so forth.)


It is a settled principle of the common law, that a mere agreement to substitute any other thing in lieu of the original (must accept the entire debt) obligation is void unless actually carried into execution and accepted as satisfaction. No action can be maintained upon the new agreement, nor can the agreement be pleaded as a bar to the original demand. But where an agreement is entered into by deed, that deed gives, in itself, a substantive cause of action and the giving such deed may be sufficient accord and satisfaction for a simple contract debt.


The general rule seems to be that if one indebted to another by simple contract, give his creditor a promissory note, drawn by himself for the same sum, without any new consideration, the new note shall not be deemed a satisfaction of the original debt unless so intended and accepted by the creditor. But if he transfer the note he cannot sue on the original contract as long as the note is out of his possession. (Must include a minimum of $1.00 to eliminate this possibility, to compel acceptance.)


NOVATION AGREEMENT - A legal instrument executed by (a) the contractor (transferor), (b) the successor in interest (transferee), and (c) the by which, among other things, the transferor guarantees performance of the contract, the transferee assumes all obligations under the contract, and the purchaser recognizes the transfer of the contract and related assets. (Comment) When they transfer the "account" to a successor, they have to make any guarantees to the collector they deal with. Our Novation is as agreed to in the past, and it is supposed to be disclosed to the new collector and then they assume all obligations of the contract. Do You think this is why some of them are trying to transfer the account We have AFV-RFV'd and then CA'd, to compel the new collector into being responsible for the debt it has accepted instead of providing proof of claim?


Using Commercial Redemption, We never make any claims, only agreements in trade for the default the one demanding payment (or performance) is bound to make in this system. As long as this method is used, there is nothing We can ever be called upon to prove, and the courts have no jurisdiction to enter into Our private affairs (contract) without our assent. We, in the end are the only one with standing to even possibly lodge a complaint with clean hands and good standing, but do not because it is not open for any judgment by an outside source. Everything remains within Our Own Jurisdiction, bound by a token amount of consideration, and using Our "EIN" places the transaction as a public "Act" that places them in rebellion against public policy upon complaint or persistence of the claim, and We are now the judge of the affair.

~ Boris

We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.

If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CR(tm) Principles

franc
As stated above, the CR process is outside the jurisdiction of court, unless we assent to it. If so, why would we file the turnabout documents into court? Is filing documents into court an act of assent to its jurisdiction?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CR(tm) Principles

iamsomedude
Administrator


you ONLY file into the court using the Verification of Complaint and only then when the matter is brought into court for then the court would then have to prove jurisdiction and if the court is a conservator of peace and you bring the peace, where is the jurisdiction to go to war?
~ Boris

We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.

If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CR(tm) Principles

Rschallmo
Hey Boris

In my situation , I filed into the case the CR(tm) ( sent to Wilmington Savings and attorney ) to Land Court to give them a courtesy copy because it is ONLY a Order of Notice. The attorney has to file this because of persons entitled to the benefit of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. Wilmington Savings is claiming to have interest in a Mortgage covering the property now held by plaintiff by assignment  and filed a complaint for determination of Defendants Servicemembers status. That's why I didn't do the Verification of Complaint. Would this be the right way since it's only a Order of Notice and not an Order?

Bob
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CR(tm) Principles

iamsomedude
Administrator


I would treat every mailing from the court as an offer and act accordingly.

If the plaintiff did not have a claim when you did the CR(tm), then why would the same have the need to determine "service status" unless that one is seeking to administrate the estate? So, where is the claim underwriting the NEED to put that request into the court?

It is ALL the same bullshit.
~ Boris

We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.

If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CR(tm) Principles

Rschallmo
Ok . That's why I ask questions because I'm not sure. You're right , it's all the same BS . I will get the next CR (tm) letter ready to send off after the 30 days are up. The attorney got the letter Monday and the Wilmington Savings is still in transit as of today.

Would it be wise to send the Verification of Complaint or let the CR process play out? In the mean time I will study more of the process.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CR(tm) Principles

iamsomedude
Administrator

CR(tm) "process" first

Verification of Complaint is for when and if the matter hits court

~ Boris

We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.

If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.