Age Thomson

Jul 05, 2014 6:08 PM
As I am still pretty new to the group, could you expand a bit on this? I'm interested in the backstory leading you up to this point Chris Evan.


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Jul 05, 2014 6:08 PM
Type of Post:
Place of Post:


Chris Evan

Jul 05, 2014 6:25 PM
Are you in the States?


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Jul 05, 2014 6:25 PM
Type of Post:
Place of Post:


Age Thomson

Jul 05, 2014 6:26 PM
No, I am not, but I'm still trying to read everything here regardless :)


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Jul 05, 2014 6:26 PM
Type of Post:
Place of Post:


Chris Evan

Jul 05, 2014 6:27 PM
If you are in the States I can explain it to you up to and including back until 1791. If not, I don't think it works unless you controlled a VESSEL in the States. :-D


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Jul 05, 2014 6:27 PM
Type of Post:
Place of Post:


Chris Evan

Jul 05, 2014 6:30 PM
This isn't worth your time....but it started with Clause 9 of the Judiciary Act of 1791, includes the Legal Tender Acts of 1862 and 1864, which made the language of Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act necessary. It changed slightly in 1933, 1964, and finally in 1971. Its access to sovereign money pursuant to 31 USC 5115.


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Jul 05, 2014 6:30 PM
Type of Post:
Place of Post:


Chris Evan

Jul 05, 2014 6:30 PM
Off the top of my head.....


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Jul 05, 2014 6:30 PM
Type of Post:
Place of Post:


Chris Evan

Jul 05, 2014 6:32 PM
Section 16 is codified at 12 USC 411...discharge of the obligation is found at 12 USC 95a(2). And its not my fault


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Jul 05, 2014 6:32 PM
Type of Post:
Place of Post:


Chris Evan

Jul 05, 2014 6:38 PM
It doubles as a RESTRICTIVE ENDORSEMENT thereby damaging third party usage to the instrument pursuant to the Check 21 Act. :-D


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Jul 05, 2014 6:38 PM
Type of Post:
Place of Post:


Chris Evan

Jul 05, 2014 6:38 PM
Sovereign money = INELASTIC.


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Jul 05, 2014 6:38 PM
Type of Post:
Place of Post:


Chris Evan

Jul 05, 2014 6:42 PM
Scott Duncan....what exactly does this TENDER? Just my right of beneficial usage correct?


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Jul 05, 2014 6:42 PM
Type of Post:
Place of Post:


Mike Lamb

Jul 05, 2014 6:44 PM
So Chris, you recommend that I pull up this information and research it with due diligence? I currently "inhabit" North Carolina.


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Jul 05, 2014 6:44 PM
Type of Post:
Place of Post:


Chris Evan

Jul 05, 2014 6:46 PM
Definitely!! David Merrill is the best source


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Jul 05, 2014 6:46 PM
Type of Post:
Place of Post:


Chris Evan

Jul 06, 2014 9:33 PM
Scott Duncan, I was reading the Check 21/act and I see it is applicable to United States dollars...further research shows that there is no statutory definition of USDs. That would make the Act outright theft and operating under the Color of Law...do you have anything to add to this statement??


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Jul 06, 2014 9:33 PM
Type of Post:
Place of Post:


Sue Rakestraw

Jul 07, 2014 3:42 AM
Michael, here is a link for David Merrill's info on the Suitors Clause: http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/content.php


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Jul 07, 2014 3:42 AM
Type of Post:
Place of Post:


Mike Lamb

Jul 07, 2014 6:07 AM
Yeah, like everything else, I have to research this further. It is ironic, because I do not "sign" checks. I stopped doing that a couple years ago. I simply write ONLY DEPOSIT REAL LAWFUL MONEY TO ACCT # - So, I may have been doing that incorrectly then. One interesting thing the audio mentioned was the "signature card". I do not get "paychecks". All of that is direct deposit, so I need to go to payroll and review what I have on "file" with that dept.


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Jul 07, 2014 6:07 AM
Type of Post:
Place of Post: