Another bonded promissory note scheme perp charged

[Judge Roy Bean]

I don't see Van Pelt's posts but one can only imagine that he feels compelled to "help" a fellow nut ball and concoct more irrational blather.

If you've been around the issues for a few years, you probably recognize the "... if only the valiant patriot had done it the right way ..." theme.

Not much really changes over the years no matter how hard you try, does it Van Pelt?

[David Merrill]

I don't see Van Pelt's posts but one can only imagine that he feels compelled to "help" a fellow nut ball and concoct more irrational blather.

If you've been around the issues for a few years, you probably recognize the "... if only the valiant patriot had done it the right way ..." theme.

Not much really changes over the years no matter how hard you try, does it Van Pelt?

You are missing out Big Time, JRB! Especially if you have not been keeping up on the comments on the Sun Herald article you posted...

The hilarious part is that he will not read this!!

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

But then, if he read my posts he would know my name is David Merrill, not Van Pelt.

[wserra]

Bonded Promissory Notes are mentioned in definitions for legal tender routinely.

Ah. I take it that would be the leading Supreme Court case, Routinely v. United States.

I hate to break it to you, David, but "routinely" isn't a cite. It's the same thing as profferring "everybody knows that" when asked for proof.

[David Merrill]

Refuse a bonded promissory note and get what you deserve.

[Pottapaug1938]

Refuse a bonded promissory note and get what you deserve.

A chance to sue for, or demand, something of genuine value...?

[notorial dissent]

Since there is no such thing as a “bonded promissory note” to begin with, “a bunch of hogwash” pretty neatly sums up everything Merrill has or ever will present.

[Prof]

Regarding bonded promissory notes, this concept is pure gibberish, apparently based upon redemptionist theory and the issuance of bonds by governments and corporations to raise money. As an aside, I think I can actually created a "bonded promissory note" by collateralizing a note with a bond issued by a corporation or a government-- which is no different from securing any note with a lien under Art. 9 on some asset of the obligor with value.

Promissory notes are simply promises to pay. Some are unsecured; some are secured; some are guaranteed. Some are secured and guaranteed.

A bond may take the form of promissory note (but not a necessarily a negotiable instrument under Art. 3 of the UCC). A bond may be secured, guaranteed, and so forth. This type of bond is usually issued by a corporation and billions are traded on the exchanges. A bond is also a promise to answer for the debt or obligations of another; DMVP is certainly experienced with the business of bail bonds. A bond may also be given by a third person (a surety) to insure performance of work by the obligor (see the construction business). The surety's promise, which is not a note for many reasons, may in turn be collateralized or secured.

Corporate bonds come in many flavors, and all are forms of notes, e.g. promises to pay; these come in several flavors, including guaranteed and collateralized obligations. The securitization of debt instruments also creates bonds, to be sold on the exchanges. See the current real estate mess.

None of these documents are "bonded promissory notes."

Of course, the Treasury does issue "bonds." These are debt instruments and government bonds are issued by all sorts of governmental agencies, then sold to buyers, in order to finance governments. These bonds are ordinarily negotiable but are not defined as negotiable instruments. Government bonds are generally backed by the full faith and credit of the governmental entity, and some have a first claim on certain tax streams. These bonds are not issued by DMVP and his like"minded" fellow travellers. They are issued by the governmental entities and are promises to the holder that the government will pay the holder. They are not issued by the holder with the holder promissing tha the government will pay the recipient.

The documents discussed by DVMP and others are pure fictions, imagining that Americans all have some sort of account at the US Treasury that can be redeemed and used to pay debts. The "bonded promissory note" is a note executed by the citizen, and promises that the holder can draw on this ficticious account.

This is no different than imagining that all Americans have accounts at the BANK OF AMERICA and the issuing drafts on that account to pay bills. Both transactions are criminal, because no such accounts exist. Of course, many of the people who issue such documents have a defense -- insanity.

[David Merrill]

Tim's TIN is [xxx-xx-xxx]

Click Here.

[David Merrill]

Regarding bonded promissory notes, this concept is pure gibberish, apparently based upon redemptionist theory and the issuance of bonds by governments and corporations to raise money. As an aside, I think I can actually created a "bonded promissory note" by collateralizing a note with a bond issued by a corporation or a government-- which is no different from securing any note with a lien under Art. 9 on some asset of the obligor with value.

Promissory notes are simply promises to pay. Some are unsecured; some are secured; some are guaranteed. Some are secured and guaranteed.

A bond may take the form of promissory note (but not a necessarily a negotiable instrument under Art. 3 of the UCC). A bond may be secured, guaranteed, and so forth. This type of bond is usually issued by a corporation and billions are traded on the exchanges. A bond is also a promise to answer for the debt or obligations of another; DMVP is certainly experienced with the business of bail bonds. A bond may also be given by a third person (a surety) to insure performance of work by the obligor (see the construction business). The surety's promise, which is not a note for many reasons, may in turn be collateralized or secured.

Corporate bonds come in many flavors, and all are forms of notes, e.g. promises to pay; these come in several flavors, including guaranteed and collateralized obligations. The securitization of debt instruments also creates bonds, to be sold on the exchanges. See the current real estate mess.

None of these documents are "bonded promissory notes."

Of course, the Treasury does issue "bonds." These are debt instruments and government bonds are issued by all sorts of governmental agencies, then sold to buyers, in order to finance governments. These bonds are ordinarily negotiable but are not defined as negotiable instruments. Government bonds are generally backed by the full faith and credit of the governmental entity, and some have a first claim on certain tax streams. These bonds are not issued by DMVP and his like"minded" fellow travellers. They are issued by the governmental entities and are promises to the holder that the government will pay the holder. They are not issued by the holder with the holder promissing tha the government will pay the recipient.

The documents discussed by DVMP and others are pure fictions, imagining that Americans all have some sort of account at the US Treasury that can be redeemed and used to pay debts. The "bonded promissory note" is a note executed by the citizen, and promises that the holder can draw on this ficticious account.

This is no different than imagining that all Americans have accounts at the BANK OF AMERICA and the issuing drafts on that account to pay bills. Both transactions are criminal, because no such accounts exist. Of course, many of the people who issue such documents have a defense -- insanity.

Therefore FRNs and US notes are bonded promissory notes. They circulate just as John Williams is published for circulation from the SoS.

I Imagine your argument is really with Notorial Dissent - he is the Quatloser who says that BPNs don't exist at all!

[wserra]

I Imagine your argument is really with Notorial Dissent - he is the Quatloser who says that BPNs don't exist at all!

That's Prof's bottom line too, David.

Thanks, Prof. My eyes glazed over while contemplating "secured" vs. "securitized" vs. "guaranteed", and you explained it clearly and concisely.

[David Merrill]

Federal Reserve notes are promissory notes, bonded by the US government. Ergo bonded promissory notes.

I certainly agree there is not Treasury Direct or any other account setting behind the instruments the patriots call Bonded Promissory Notes. I have been telling people about that for a very long time. All that seized gold bought American out of the Great Depression. The bond behind the new created currency - fractional lending - is endorsements made by people on their salary checks.

They have all the while been FDR's Government Bonds, and they obviously come from the new forms, and the trust formed in 1933.

As for the old man, it will likely dissolve when he begins to realize the whole thing is because he tried to overpay the fine by $4.50. He should not have rounded up.

[Pottapaug1938]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Note

[David Merrill]

Federal Reserve notes have no intrinsic value - therefore they qualify as promissory notes.

What I want to remind you all of though is that this docket entry proves that this bonded promissory note was accepted for full payment in the US district court. I checked yesterday - click here.

This POMC was also accepted and discharged the court debt way back when:



As did five or six others. The vacant DA tried to prosecute me for one where I wrote the POMC for over the amount - to set up an account for any future fines and charges the City accused me of. The DA had to coerce forgery accusations on what was constructed out of that extra amount as theft. The forgery was that the instrument, as you see it, was me intentionally passing the POMC as a bank check so that would not have stood up to trial anyway.

My point is about the old man being prosecuted for tendering a perfectly good promissory note - as good as any Federal Reserve note because the man is presumed to have been a good Fed bank like several of you point out - endorsing private credit FRNs; read the first sentence carefully:



That is the account. The same as the Fed. 72-year old Drew Allen RAYNER has been fabricating currency on his signature bond all his life as he was taught to endorse the back of his paychecks:



That puts him in the same standing to issue bonded promissory notes as the Fed. However, he fabricated more than the City was asking for, and therefore he might be presumed to be asking for change - which could be coerced into a fraud accusation.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Prof]

FRN's can be analagized to many forms of bearer paper. However, FRN's are issued by the US and backed by the US for use as money -- which can be borrowed, lent, or used to buy dinner. No "bond" is involved. There is no promisory note, no promise to pay on on demand. There is no promise to pay on behalf of another. There is just a promise that these pieces of paper, created and sanctioned by the government, can be exchanged among private and public individuals, for goods, services, debts, as gifts, etc. This is more efficient than barter. In fact, the use of specie is actually just a form of barter, since specie goes up and down in value. Some days, you can get a goat for a silver coin; as goats get scare, it takes two silver coins. At the same time, you might be able to get a goat for a bottle of whiskey; the next day, after the still explodes, said goat might be exchanges for a glass of whiskey.

Further, endorsement of a paycheck does not create or execute a bond. A paycheck is a bank check, a special form of instrument, generally governed by Art 4 of the UCC. A paycheck may be endorsed in blank or made payable to the order of another. It may be endorsed without recourse. Endorsement does create two obligations, unless made without recourse. The first is an obligation to insure good title (the person endorsing owns/is entitled to the value of the check; in other words it wasn't stolen or forged). It also creats a obligation to pay the person receiving the endorsed check if the maker of the check defaults. This is not a bond; it is a contractual agreement -- "If this check bounces, I will make it good." It works like a guarantee.

There is no bond; there is no promisory note; DMVP has no idea what he is talking about.

[Judge Roy Bean]

... DMVP has no idea what he is talking about.

It's never stopped him from trying, though.

[David Merrill]

... DMVP has no idea what he is talking about.

It's never stopped him from trying, though.

The thing is JRB, that you and Prof are a Quatlosers and this guy is a federal judge!



Click Here.

Over a year later RUSSELL got nervous - probably because he could find no paper trail to any Treasury Direct account on a SSN or a birth certificate. All the notes (yes, bonded promissory notes) that he has been issuing from his signature endorsement are in circulation, not setting in a Treasury Direct or whatever account. All that while the federal judge did not Order the fellow to pay up "properly" out-of-pocket or refer the matter to the AG for prosecution?

Note, that has not happened as of yesterday. So I thinks I best stick with what I know to be true from experience, history and fact - which agrees with a federal judge, rather than consider contrary truths from the Quatludes. Drew Allen RAYNER is in trouble over the extra $4.50 he fabricated in "change". It even makes sense when you think it through - if you write the BPN for the exact charge it works, but if you write it for over, then you are asking for trouble!



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Pottapaug1938]

David, your docket entry talks about a "Memorandum/Notice" of payment in full. Could you also show us the docket entry in which the Court accepts your whatever-it-was and orders that your debt be recognized as paid in full?

[wserra]

In case anyone is wondering what David is babbling about now - it does have to do with "bonded promissory notes", which is why it hasn't migrated to Flames.

United States v. Donald McDowell, docket 07-mc-583 (MOED) was a proceeding to enforce an IRS summons. The DJ overruled the unintelligible objections McDowell filed and ordered him to comply. McDowell didn't. The Court fined him, then incarcerated him, until he complied. After he was released, the govt moved to reduce the fine to judgment - total $14,400 - which motion the Court granted on July 28, 2008. As you can see from the segment of the docket David copied, on November 4, 2008, one Kennedy M. Russell sent the clerk a "bonded promissory note" in that amount. It sat there.

But do you see the "Letter to Court from Kennedy M. Russell, Sr. re: Bonded Promissory Note" docketed December 7, 2009? Here it is. Russell contritely, yea sheepishly, apologizes, and writes that he has since learned that this item "was and is invalid". Never mind. Please.

But, David wonders, "All that while the federal judge did not Order the fellow to pay up "properly" out-of-pocket or refer the matter to the AG for prosecution?" Well, David, having been reduced to judgment, this situation is similar to a credit card debt also reduced to judgment. Until paid, it operates as a lien, and gives the judgment creditor - the govt - the ability to execute on assets. Have they done so? Who knows? Judgment execution doesn't require court approval; for all we know, the govt has collected. If not, perhaps it has concluded that you can't get blood from a stone.

As for "prosecution" - for a judgment debt - well, David, I guess you advocate the reinstitution of debtors' prison. And I thought you were in favor of freedom.

[Prof]

David, your docket entry talks about a "Memorandum/Notice" of payment in full. Could you also show us the docket entry in which the accepts your whatever-it-was and orders that your debt be recognized as paid in full?

Memorandum and Order was a document filed by a fool named Kennedy-Mike:Russell; the order was never entered by the Court. Later, the whole thing was withdrawn by Russell in a letter in which he told the Court he was very sorry. The case was then closed, with the defendant McDowell still indebted, one supposes, the the US of A.

DVMP is an idiot; if he has PACER, he should read the documents. And, DVMP, the Judge was Hon./Ms. Jean C. Hamilton. And, there are former federal judges who lurk on this forum.

[Nikki]

David is seriously slipping.

He posted a document without redacting it beyond recognition -- leaving an actual case reference which could then be traced.

Unfortunately, the facts of the case (which he chose to ignore in his little excerpt) totally contradict what he would have us believe.

I'm certain he'll be much more careful, in the future, to prevent anyone from checking his facts.