Another bonded promissory note scheme perp charged

[Judge Roy Bean]

http://www.sunherald.com/2011/07/21/329 ... arges.html

About a week after the fine was past due, the city received a certified letter containing a document that falsely appeared to be a “bonded promissory note” for $175, the indictment said. The document allegedly instructed the city to redeem the note through the U.S. Department of Treasury in Washington, D.C.

[David Merrill]

A 72-year-old Perkinston man faces up to 55 years in prison if found guilty of fraud charges filed over payment arrangements for a traffic ticket in Poplarville.

U.S. Attorney John Dowdy said Drew Allen Rayner also faces a fine of up to $500,000.

A judge fined Rayner $171.50 on March 7 and ordered the fine be paid within 60 days.

Rayner pleaded not guilty on Wednesday before Magistrate Judge Robert Walker, who set an unsecured bond of $25,000.

- A fitting way to get your jollies - Judge Roy Bean!

[Pottapaug1938]

A 72-year-old Perkinston man faces up to 55 years in prison if found guilty of fraud charges filed over payment arrangements for a traffic ticket in Poplarville.

U.S. Attorney John Dowdy said Drew Allen Rayner also faces a fine of up to $500,000.

A judge fined Rayner $171.50 on March 7 and ordered the fine be paid within 60 days.

Rayner pleaded not guilty on Wednesday before Magistrate Judge Robert Walker, who set an unsecured bond of $25,000.

- A fitting way to get your jollies - Judge Roy Bean!

I doubt that very many of us take any great pleasure in watching deluded folks like Rayner shoot themselves in their legal feet; in fact, the reason why most of us post here (and why, among other things, we spend time rfuting yoru fantasies) is that we hope to warn others against taking the same disastrous steps.

[David Merrill]

I think we should see the note itself.

[David Merrill]

Judge Roy Bean's handle and blogspot speak to his glee Poppycock;

Enough on that then. Other than to attack a 72-year old man for a perfectly legal bonded promissory note like this is obviously to frighten him into taking a plea bargain.

The deciding case is Trebilcock v. Wilson. By not collecting, or even attempting to collect the debt with the Treasury or holder of the Bond, the City has waived the obligation. Such an indictment in its severity discloses something new on the landscape though. Until now, that I recall the judge will allow the record to evade proper certification of service of the bonded promissory note. In other words the recipient party is never required to acknowledge that they received the Note.

Here however, the City is acknowledging that they received the note and are counting on a 72-year old man to be incompetent to stand trial, even if he wants to see the trial through.

We begin with US Notes in Trebilcock. They are fiat and in America it is easy to understand why somebody would object early to paper instead of metal. Therefore it was ruled that one has to accept legal tender as payment for debts. Ergo, if you reject legal tender then you waive the obligation and settle the charge by that action.


Live with it,

David Merrill.

[wserra]

Other than to attack a 72-year old man for a perfectly legal bonded promissory note like this is obviously to frighten him into taking a plea bargain.

If it is in fact "perfectly legal", then the matter will never get to a "plea bargain". The "bonded promissory note" is on paper, available to the defense. If "perfectly legal", then a motion to dismiss will be granted. End of case.

Problem is, of course, it's not "perfectly legal".

The deciding case is Trebilcock v. Wilson. By not collecting, or even attempting to collect the debt with the Treasury or holder of the Bond, the City has waived the obligation.

David, here is the free full-text version of Trebilcock. Please quote the part that says that, if a creditor fails to perform the pointless task of attempting to collect on an obviously fraudulent instrument, it waives the debt.

To those who can read, Trebilcock says nothing more than that the parties to a contract can agree that payment will be made in a certain form - there "in specie", interpreted to mean gold and silver coin. Did the city of Poplarville agree that Rayner would pay the ticket by "bonded promissory note"? If not, then Trebilcock doesn't apply. And the case has pretty much been limited to its place and time by Norman v. Baltimore & O. RR. Co., 294 U.S. 240 (1935). In Norman the Supreme Court, after citing Trebilcock and other earlier cases, noted that "The rulings, upholding gold clauses and determining their effect, were made when gold was still in circulation and no act of the Congress prohibiting the enforcement of such clauses had been passed". The law and its interpretations change.

What doesn't change, however, is that you can't take a case enforcing a clause requiring payment in gold and silver coin when such were still being minted as sanctioning the use of a "bonded promissory note". The law means what it says, not what you'd like it to say.

[fortinbras]

DVP used the Trebilcock case on the SuiJuris website a few years ago. And I set him straight on it back then. Obviously he refuses to learn and keeps repeating his worthless notions long after others have thoroughly rejected them. Sort of explains why he spent time in both jail and a psych ward.

His "interpretation" of Trebilcock has been repeatedly rejected by courts, and is contrary to the explicit terms of public law.

As for a "bonded promissory note" - I am not aware of such a thing ever having a legal existence. Every case that mentions this phrase says that the document bearing that title is worthless. It seems an oxymoron: A promissory note is a promise to pay a debt, bonding is a sort of guarantee much like insurance; if someone is willing to guarantee the payment of a promissory note, why not borrow the cash outright from that person to pay the creditor and then the debt exists only between the original debtor and the person who would have done the bonding?

[wserra]

It seems to me that the concept of a bonded note is not contradictory. I see no reason why someone whose actions are covered by a performance bond of some sort could not issue a note payment of which the bond would guarantee. Whether that is actually done, I have no idea.

Help from the commercial folks here? Prof? JRB? pantherphil?

ETA: JRB, as the OP, do you mind if this thread is moved to the TP or Sovereign forum? I think it on topic in either.

[David Merrill]

Thank you for linking Trebilcock Wesley.

It makes my point quite nicely.

...but Trebilcock refused to receive them, asserting that the note was payable in gold or silver coin of the United States.

It is inherent logic, that if the law requires one to accept legal tender and acceptance is refused, the obligation is waived.

This is why up until now the judge (prosecutor) will evade the acceptance of the bonded promissory note, usually by the bank or mortgage company, from getting into the record. This is different and I presume the reason they are doing it this way is that the prosecutor (including the judge obviously) is counting on this never getting to trial. Even if it does, it is likely a 72-year old will be deemed summarily incompetent to stand trial and his attorney will prosecute him.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[wserra]

Thank you for linking Trebilcock Wesley.

No problem.

It makes my point quite nicely.

...but Trebilcock refused to receive them, asserting that the note was payable in gold or silver coin of the United States.

It is inherent logic, that if the law requires one to accept legal tender and acceptance is refused, the obligation is waived.

It's not so simple as "the obligation is waived" - but we need not get there. The full quote:

In February, 1863, Wilson offered to pay the amount due on the note, principal and interest, and for that purpose tendered to Trebilcock such amount in United States notes, declared by the act of Congress of February 25th, 1862, to be a legal tender for all debts, public and private, with certain exceptions; but Trebilcock refused to receive them, asserting that the note was payable in gold or silver coin of the United States.

Emphasis supplied.

So, David, where does Trebilcock say that Rayner's "bonded promissory note" is legal tender? When did Congress declare that? And alternatively when, as I asked before, did the city of Poplarville agree that Rayner would pay them with one?

[David Merrill]

Look at it this way. Am I going to leave the legal tender to blow away? Just because you say you are refusing to accept it?

I suppose I could walk away and just call it your problem.

[Cathulhu]

Didn't you already walk away? Isn't that why you live under a bridge when you can't con Mom into letting you sleep in the basement again? Dude, gurus are supposed to go live on high mountains, not in gutters.

[fortinbras]

There is nothing in the Trebilcock decision that says that the debt was waived because Trebilcock couldn't force payment in one particular form of currency; Trebilcock could still collect his debt ... when he was willing to accept paper money. One of the intriguing questions of the case is why Wilson didn't use his paper money to get gold coin to satisfy Trebilcock instead of embarking on this litigation that must have been expensive in both time and money. Maybe this case was contrived to test the validity of United States Notes.

In any case Wilson was tendering money in the form of govt-issued United States Notes, expressly recognized in law as legal tender. Wilson wasn't trying to use some homebrew document like a promissory note. A promissory note, by the way, is NOT payment of anything; it's yet another promise of future payment, another expression of debt.

The Uniform Commercial Code, § 2-511, empowers a creditor to insist on payment in legal tender and reject any alternative instruments (such as checks or letters of credit). Which means that, yes, someone can refuse DVP's funny money and still insist on payment real money.

[Judge Roy Bean]

...
ETA: JRB, as the OP, do you mind if this thread is moved to the TP or Sovereign forum? I think it on topic in either.

Good idea.

[wserra]

Am I going to leave the legal tender to blow away?

Which of the voices in your head tells you that the "bonded promissory note" of some old guy in Mississippi is legal tender?

[Pottapaug1938]

Am I going to leave the legal tender to blow away?

Which of the voices in your head tells you that the "bonded promissory note" of some old guy in Mississippi is legal tender?

More to the point, David: please city ANY court case which holds that THIS PARTICULAR VARIETY of "bonded promissory note" is a legitimate instrument for the payment of debts. All it looks like, now, is a piece of fantasy paper issued by a deluded fool who is grasping at a politically palatable straw to avoid meeint his obligations.

[grixit]

I thought a promissory note was just an IOU with witnesses.

[Nikki]

David is an expert on BPNs. He even used one to get into jail some time ago.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Look at it this way. Am I going to leave the legal tender to blow away?

That's the problem with shopping carts....

[David Merrill]

David is an expert on BPNs. He even used one to get into jail some time ago.

To the contrary actually - to get out of jail...



http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/3385 ... redit1.jpg
http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/4481/l ... redit2.jpg

Bonded Promissory Notes are mentioned in definitions for legal tender routinely. And the point of HJR-192 is that legal tender cannot be refused, unless one chooses to waive the obligation.

Quatlosers are not very observant. If you look at the comments of JRB's gleeful article you find Glen RAYNER is likely drafting the promissory note for his father:

Good Lord...sounds like the crazy train in the Rayner family has more than one aboard...

More to the point, David: please city ANY court case which holds that THIS PARTICULAR VARIETY of "bonded promissory note" is a legitimate instrument for the payment of debts.

You have not shown us what particular kind of promissory note was tendered. I asked about this above - maybe Wesley can find the exhibit from the indictment? Truth be told though, you are all reading Planet Merrill into this - when what I said is that the receipt of the bonded promissory note is usually obfuscated for the reasons behind Trebilcock.

We might presume the Note was something like this. This memorandum is associated. The government discharged the obligation upon a lifetime of endorsements:



Which Mr. RUSSELL obviously did not understand when asked to come up with a magical account on his SSN or birth certificate. Click Here.

Therefore those of you who do not understand remedy, do so by choice. Those of you who do though - you are snakes in the grass for encouraging ignorance.


Regards,

David Merrill.