Fri Aug 28, 2009 1:42 pm hvncb <hvncb@...

> Message #40204 of 40230 my two cents is that "payable to them" should (big word!) work as well as they are not a private entity and "payment" works for "public and private" as the Feds monitor both jurisdictions. Once they are in; ie, do business within the closed, bankrupt system they have no right to demand a particular kind of currency. From what I understand, many in gov't, including the Treasury, have no idea what is going or how money is created but the cat is out of the bag.... little by little they will learn the system! Message #40201 of 40230 Fri Aug 28, 2009 1:24 pm AngelicNutrition@... I would also ask for their letter from the treasury dept that showed any defects. I assume you did make these payable or deposited to the US treasury? Assuming you did- they have no authority to make determinations for or in behalf of the US Treasury as such they are impersonating an officer of the US gov and assuming powers they have no right to assume. IF however they have a letter of deficiency from the dept of treasury, then you can offer to resolve any conflict- ask for a copy of the letter. Now if you made it payable to them- they dont have to recognize it and the treasury dpt has no vested interest so there is no or little enforcement capability messages8-27-9\legaltender.doc Re: A4V ...The Battle Begins 1st resistance MY REPLY Message #40160 of 40167 I'm about to send this to the paralegal who returned my a4v payments , I thought I'd share it with all of you , and thanks to those who contributed to what I composed here. And LMK if you have anything I should maybe add. Fri Aug 28, 2009 3:55 am "Detroit Rock City" <crystalguitars@ Consumer's paralegalI am in receipt of your letter , and the return of my payments. I was however surprised to see them returned, since I have sent out so many payments of this type, and never seen one returned. Were there defects ? You state they do not constitute legal tender, yet you specify no defect in the instruments. These are lawful negotiable instruments I have mailed to Consumer's Energy, sometimes referred to as a banker's acceptance. As a private banker and secured party creditor to the united states currently operating in a state of bankruptcy I have the right to discharge these debts accordingly. Which is what I instructed to do . You have no authority , nor does any other commercial entity have any authority to NOT accept this lawful form of debt discharge. The case to which you refer has absolutely no bearing on this situation, and your misinterpretation of that case decision is clear . Perhaps my letter was confusing to someone, I thought it was frank and specific. I will be returning my negotiable instruments to the CFO office for processing, perhaps this time they will be recognized and processed properly. There are maxims in commerce, one being " he who brings the debt, must also bring the remedy", Consumer's holds my remedy Another one is, " A payment made and rejected , is considered to be paid " , by law. These documents are clearly marked received Aug 8, and no defects are specified. They were payment submitted and rejected , the debts therefore must be considered to be paid . Shall we find out ? Because 31 U. S. C. sec. 5103 doesn't apply to the matter. It makes no difference what 5103 says when the Supreme Court. has ruled on the matter of being able to demand a certain specie of tender. I was not asking for your legal advice, and the documents mailed to you do not represent payment, IT IS PAYMENT. you are correct, that 31 U. S. C. sec. 5118 (d) (2) provided for many years that a requirement of repayment of debt in a particular kind coin or currency could be made by legal tender. However, as of October 21, 1977 Legal tender for discharge of debt is no longer required. That is because legal tender is not in circulation at par with the promises to pay credit. Negotiable instruments GuarantyTrust Co. of New York vs. Henwood, 307, U.S. 847 (1939) holds that 31 U.S.C. 5118 was enacted to remedy the specific evil of tying debt to any particular currency or requiring payment in a greater number of dollars than promised. Since October 27, 1977, there can be no requirement of repayment in legal tender either, since legal tender was not loaned and repayment need only be made in equivalent kind: A negotiable instrument representing credit. 31 U. S. C. sec. 5118 (d) (2) An obligation issued containing a gold clause or governed by a gold clause is discharged on payment (dollar for dollar) in United States coin or currency that is legal tender at the time of payment. This paragraph does not apply to an obligation issued after October 27, 1977. A4V ...The Battle Begins 1st resistance Message #40157 of 40166 Re: [RedemptionByMethod] A4V ...The Battle Begins 1st resistance Fri Aug 28, 2009 3:24 am CINDY LUCE <clluce@...>

I know several other Michiganders that received the same letter from Consumers Energy, and one is being sued for attempted fraud, because he sent the A4V and Money Order (old technique) back into them. So far he does still have his power, but who knows for how long. Consumers Energy sites a case that took place in Utah in a case, where that court determined only "legal tender" is the only form of Negotiable Instrument to be used to pay the Utility bills. Again was "legal tender" specifically stated as the FIAT form of money? If that is the case, any persons issuing Checks of all forms would be in contempt of court. --- On Thu, 8/27/09, Ralph F wrote: Subject: Re: [RedemptionByMethod] A4V ...The Battle Begins 1st resistance Date: Thursday, August 27, 2009, 7:50 PM Because 5103 doesn't apply to the matter. It makes no difference what 5103 says when the S Ct. has ruled on the matter of being able to demand a certain specie of tender. On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 5:10 PM, Cheryl Gonzalez <creditor@ wrote: What the letter quoted was: By statute, 31USC 5103 why is everyone else using 31 U. S. C. sec. 5118 brokenwrench wrote: > find the fed case this came from this was sent to me by jean keating who copied it from a federal court ruling > > 31 U. S. C. sec. 5118 (d) (2) provided for many years that a requirement of repayment of debt in a particular kind coin or currency could be made by legal tender. As of October 21, 1977 Legal tender for discharge of debt is no longer required. That is because legal tender is not in circulation at par with the promises to pay credit. Negotiable instruments Guaranty Trust Co. of New York vs. Henwood, 307, U.S. 847 (1939) holds that 31 U.S.C. 5118 was enacted to remedy the specific evil of tying debt to any particular currency or requiring payment in a greater number of dollars than promised. Since October 27, 1977, there can be no requirement of repayment in legal tender either, since legal tender was not loaned and repayment need only be made in equivalent kind: A negotiable instrument representing credit. > > --- On Thu, 8/27/09, Detroit Rock City <crystalguitars@ comcast.net> wrote: > Jeffery-D here with an interesting twist . I mailed out ( what should be > recognized as a lawful negotiable instrument) a full page 8x11 page print outs of my gas bills marked a4v ( as we do ) to Consumer's Energy, along with my standard intimidating and accusing letter for payment, a copy of hjr 192, and 1040v . Today I got a letter from some paralegal saying this- " I am returning the original documentation submitted by you dated July 29 2009. The documents submitted, purporting to represent payment of a utility bill, do not constitute legal tender in Michigan or anywhere else in the United States. By statute, 31USC 5103( copy enclosed) Congress has established that united states coins and currency constitute legal tender for all debts. In a case with somewhat similar facts as this , a court in Arizona rules that a utility in Arizona was not required to accept anything other than legal tender in payment of a utility bill. A copy of that case is enclosed. To avoid any interruptions in service please pay promptly in legal tender, or contact our customer service to set up a payment arrangement. " > WOW, is this person confused and misinformed or what ? > > Not only did she misinterpret the case she sites , which allows them to > accept legal tender , as I read it I see nothing that says they are not > required to accept anything but legal tender . I do not believe they have > any authority NOT to accept payment a4v. Nowhere is the bankruptcy of the > us addressed. > But this woman actually put in writing that they demand payment in " legal > tender" . > Now , is that not clearly a violation of public policy , and a federal > felony ? In writing , no less ! > I have her email address and will be preparing a response , as well > as sending a4v to the collection dept for one bill, and another for the > collection agency after me for the other bill. > I'll leave it there for now > Jeffery-Dean: Saxon

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful