redeeming coupons

A collection of old posts from all forums. No new threads or new posts in old threads allowed. For archive use only.
David Merrill

redeeming coupons

Post by David Merrill »

I would like to improve upon this authorization for creditors to redeem their coupon:
Notice of the Potentiality of crime's being committed


The fact that you are presenting a coupon tells me, even though it is not specifically mentioned, that this is designed to be a payment of interest against the bond(s) your people have purchased. I am aware the line of credit that the government or Federal Reserve System issued to create this bond is secured by myself, myself being one of the lenders. The bonded pledge series number is ______SSN_____ All along it has been my assets that have been pledged for this bond, and I can find no place where I am to be charged interest on my own money, Creating double enrichment on your company's part. Unless you can provide proof that these U.C.C. STATUTES do not pertain to our agreement, your company's use of my collateral and your failure to process this coupon payment should make your company guilty of the following crime:

Impeding Commerce: Via Breach of Contract is the only crime.

USA: 27 CFR 72.11 - code of federal regulations defines Commercial Crimes as any of the following types of crimes (federal or State): "Offenses against the revenue laws: burglary; forgery; counterfeiting; kidnapping; larceny: robbery; illegal sale or possession of deadly weapons: prostitution (including soliciting, procuring, pandering, white slaving, keeping house of ill fame, and like offences); extortion; swindling and confidence games; and attempting to commit, conspiring to commit, or compounding any of the foregoing crimes. Addiction to narcotic drugs and use of marijuana will be treated as if such were commercial crime.”
Larceny. Felonious stealing, taking and carrying, leading, riding, or driving away another's personal property, with intent to convert it or to deprive owner thereof. The unlawful taking and carrying away of property of another with intent to appropriate it to use inconsistent with latter's rights. The essential elements of a "larceny" are an actual or constructive taking away of the goods or property of another without the consent and against the will of the owner or possessor and with a felonious intent to convert the property to the use of someone other than the owner.
Obtaining possession of property by fraud, trick or device with preconceived design or intent to appropriate, convert, or steal is "larceny."

Plain English definitions

coupon: Noun

1. A negotiable certificate attached to a bond that represents a sum of interest due
2. 1: a negotiable certificate that can be detached and redeemed as needed [syn: voucher] 2: a test sample of some substance

bond:

A debt instrument issued for a period of more than one year with the purpose of raising capital by borrowing. The Federal government, states, cities, corporations, and many other types of institutions sell bonds. Generally, a bond is a promise to repay the principal along with interest (coupons) on a specified date (maturity). Some bonds do not pay interest, but all bonds require a repayment of principal. When an investor buys a bond, he/she becomes a creditor of the issuer. However, the buyer does not gain any kind of ownership rights to the issuer, unlike in the case of equities. On the hand, a bond holder has a greater claim on an issuer's income than a shareholder in the case of financial distress (this is true for all creditors). Bonds are often divided into different categories based on tax status, credit quality, issuer type, maturity and secured/unsecured (and there are several other ways to classify bonds as well). U.S. Treasury bonds are generally considered the safest unsecured bonds, since the possibility of the Treasury defaulting on payments is almost zero. The yield from a bond is made up of three components: coupon interest, capital gains and interest on interest (if a bond pays no coupon interest, the only yield will be capital gains). A bond might be sold at above or below par (the amount paid out at maturity), but the market price will approach par value as the bond approaches maturity. A riskier bond has to provide a higher payout to compensate for that additional risk. Some bonds are tax-exempt, and these are typically issued by municipal, county or state governments, whose interest payments are not subject to federal income tax, and sometimes also state or local income tax.

sight letter of credit:

A letter of credit that is payable as soon as the required documents have been presented.

Lender : Definition

A private, public or institutional entity which makes funds available to others to borrow.

Secured:

Backed by a pledge of collateral. opposite of unsecured.

Your people just need to submit my coupon for payment/Discharge. I trust that you have not given me a fraudulent coupon. Processed in the normal way, the payment information on the bottom of the coupon will allow it to run through, because your people accept the fact that I do not have to pay interest on my own money. Submit the coupon to the FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM for payment per the following statutes in their system:

U.C.C. TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 1 > § 8

§ 8. Obligation or other security of the United States

The term “obligation or other security of the United States” includes all bonds, certificates of indebtedness, national bank currency, Federal Reserve notes, Federal Reserve bank notes, coupons, United States notes, Treasury notes, gold certificates, silver certificates, fractional notes, certificates of deposit, bills, checks, or drafts for money, drawn by or upon authorized officers of the United States, stamps and other representatives of value, of whatever denomination, issued under any Act of Congress, and canceled United States stamps.

Section 1-201 (24). "Money". Section 6(5), Uniform Negotiable Instruments Law. The test adopted is that of sanction of government, whether by authorization before issue or adoption afterward, which recognizes the circulating medium as a part of the official currency of that government. The narrow view that money is limited to legal tender is rejected.

U.C.C. 4-3-603. Tender of payment. Statute text

(a) If tender of payment of an obligation to pay an instrument is made to a person entitled to enforce the instrument, the effect of tender is governed by principles of law applicable to tender of payment under a simple contract.

(b) If tender of payment of an obligation to pay an instrument is made to a person entitled to enforce the instrument and the tender is refused, there is discharge, to the extent of the amount of the tender, of the obligation of an indorser or accommodation party having a right of recourse with respect to the obligation to which the tender relates.

(c) If tender of payment of an amount due on an instrument is made to a person entitled to enforce the instrument, the obligation of the obligor to pay interest after the due date on the amount tendered is discharged. If presentment is required with respect to an instrument and the obligor is able and ready to pay on the due date at every place of payment stated in the instrument, the obligor is deemed to have made tender of payment on the due date to the person entitled to enforce the instrument.

U.C.C. 4-3-112. Interest. Statute text

(a) Unless otherwise provided in the instrument, (i) an instrument is not payable with interest, and (ii) interest on an interest-bearing instrument is payable from the date of the instrument.

(b) Interest may be stated in an instrument as a fixed or variable amount of money or it may be expressed as a fixed or variable rate or rates. The amount or rate of interest may be stated or described in the instrument in any manner and may require reference to information not contained in the instrument. If an instrument provides for interest, but the amount of interest payable cannot be ascertained from the description, interest is payable at the judgment rate in effect at the place of payment of the instrument and at the time interest first accrues.
[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin, it is of importance, third person sing. present tense of interesse, to be between, take part in: inter-, inter- + esse, to be; see es- in Indo-European Roots.]

U.C.C. 4-3-203. Transfer of instrument; rights acquired by transfer. Statute text

(a) An instrument is transferred when it is delivered by a person other than its issuer for the purpose of giving to the person receiving delivery the right to enforce the instrument.

So let us hear the conclusion of this matter, if you don't accept the coupon there is discharge/Payment, if you do accept the coupon, which I recommend, and forward the coupon to the Federal Reserve pursuant to H.J.R192 there is Discharge/Payment available for you on your books. If you do not continue to keep my account open and working, you are committing a crime against commerce and an actionable offense committed by you or your company. I, True Name, certify that I have served the coupon by Express Mail XXXXXXXXXX for redemption with these accompanying contract terms herein in the mail postage prepaid to:

____I suggest you rounddate the RM# above; and the .90 cent stamps__


who shall become the holder in due course of this coupon and purported debt. If I have not filled out the coupon correctly I authorize, GIVE YOU POWER OF ATTORNEY in this matter, for yourself/your COMPANY so please correct it as needed and send me a copy of the corrections. If this is not true then please provide me with the statutes that you purport to be pertinent to why I would need to be paying interest, or paying double on my own money. In the alternative it is incumbent upon you to explain why this coupon, generated by yourself and/or your company making you culpable for its representation and/or fraud, is not an obligation and payment that the Federal Reserve System is required by their own laws to pay?

Trustor/accommodation party to above stated bond Series No. Coupon Number after filling in the entire amount in the “Payment Amount” line.

Furthermore, my signature in my true name and signet below asseverate that at the time of entering into any agreement with you and/or your company I was not aware of my position and character being the creditor. I presumed you had assets behind the currency you were lending. You or your company worked very hard to create the illusion you were a lending institution capable of making loans instead of generating wealth for yourself borrowing my credit. I will not endorse or participate with the stellionation and fractionalizing of Federal Reserve Notes and other abracadabra you and/or your company has created to make me look like a debtor.


___________________________
True Name
Especially after a few threads here about redeeming lawful money by entitlement, (thank you all), I want to incorporate some explicit verbiage about using private credit to back loans in bad faith. - To bring this up to the light for attorneys so that they will just correct the account without making the traditional threat, bluff of collecting before sending a Statement of zero balance.

Thanks again in advance!



Regards,

David Merrill.
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Post by notorial dissent »

A shredder would be a good start, followed by a complete wipe of all your hard drives.

Nonsense and legalistic drivel, your stock in trade, but still nonsense from beginning to end.
David Merrill

Post by David Merrill »

notorial dissent wrote:A shredder would be a good start, followed by a complete wipe of all your hard drives.

Nonsense and legalistic drivel, your stock in trade, but still nonsense from beginning to end.

Thank you for that Notorial Dissent, but you are not as helpful as usual by arguing points. Joey was very helpful on my other thread:
In other words, it was just David's perpetual gibberish.

And on that note, I am locking this overly long and completely stupid thread.
Because we already had discussed the definition of lawful money several times:



And Joey simply wanted to shut down the show early before I brought it up at that particular and revealing moment.

I also made mention of the Dutch East Indies claim with John J----- BULTON in regards to preparing for any Brown mediation techniques. Just look at the first page if you don't have enough time to read:


You are welcome.

This reminds me when developing the template for the current Libel of Review I was working with a Jewish fellow, now in Israel, to redeem his house from Chase Manhattan. This fellow was consulting heavily with the predecessor authors of the same title - Cracking the Code; not Pete Hendrickson.

I had copied this and recall handing him the original, jokingly saying, "Here. See what they (the earlier CtC authors) think of this Code Key!"



Then there was a commentary from Dr. James Gates that may be a little difficult to find on my disk. I recall our discussion arose from a graduate student of his at the university there in Maryland who saw into the simple treatment of the Fine Structure Constant and quickly went through nearly a year of heavy psychotropic pharmaceuticals in a Bethesda mental hospital, only to return finally to Gate's Superstring mentoring.

So there is no intentional cover to blow. I am just me and find things interesting enough around here. Even Joey's little tiff of shutting down my thread before I can pull definitions for the umteenth time.

viewtopic.php?t=789&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=75


Regards,

David Merrill.
I wish I had grabbed a copy of Avi's letter, in which Chase Manhattan relenquished all claim to his mountain home. But he was off to Israel in a flash the moment it was his to sell.

And you have not addressed the fact that Chase redeemed a coupon and sent a Statement saying so on the nonsense and legalistic drivel you say should be shredded.


Special thanks to Wesley Marc SERRA for his contributions in clarifying the current court opinions about redeeming lawful money. I wll get Rickman and Warc later today! We have to remember though that the only technical definition for lawful money in Title 12 U.S.C. §411 has been repealed in Congressional obfuscation - think about that. Definitions being Repealed for words that are still being used in other statutes? An honest Congress might Amend definitions; but repealing one??

http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fast ... 0%20%20%20

And wonderfully that left the NGO arena to have to publish an identical definition for Webhick to bring to the Comedy Club!


lawful money

Definition

Any money (coin or paper) that is issued directly by the United States Treasury and not the Federal Reserve System - this includes gold and silver coin, Notes, Bonds, etc.

A special thanks to Webhick. You are terrific!

Ergo Joey, when trying to face down the truth, there is very little you can do that will not benefit the truth.



Regards,

David Merrill.
User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 7581
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 6:39 pm

Post by wserra »

David Merrill wrote:Because we already had discussed the definition of lawful money several times:

http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fast ... 0%20%20%20
http://www.investorwords.com/2733/lawful_money.html
For anyone who cares (and God knows why I even bother to post this):

(1) Van Pelt's first definition of "lawful money" comes from 12 USC 152, which: (a) applied only to "associations organized for issuing gold notes" under 12 USC 151 and nothing else, (b) which "associations" have not existed for decades, and (c) both sections 151 and 152 were formally repealed in 1994.

(2) Van Pelt's second definition of "lawful money" comes from a random, completely unofficial web site which he appears to like, and which sells "licensing", advertising and "advisor" referrals.

Nice sources, David.
Special thanks to Wesley Marc SERRA
Anytime.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume
Nikki

Post by Nikki »

cou·pon(kpn, ky-)
n.
1. A negotiable certificate attached to a bond that represents a sum of interest due.
2.
- a. One of a set of detachable certificates that may be torn off and redeemed as needed: a food coupon.
- b. A detachable part, as of a ticket or advertisement, that entitles the bearer to certain benefits, such as a cash refund or gift.
- c. A certificate accompanying a product that may be redeemed for a cash discount.
- d. A printed form, as in an advertisement, to be used as an order blank or for requesting information or obtaining a discount on merchandise.
3. A detachable slip calling for periodic payments, as for merchandise bought on an installment plan.
Isn't it cute how David always ignores definitions which would sink his battleship?
David Merrill

Post by David Merrill »

wserra wrote:
David Merrill wrote:Because we already had discussed the definition of lawful money several times:

http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fast ... 0%20%20%20
http://www.investorwords.com/2733/lawful_money.html
For anyone who cares (and God knows why I even bother to post this):

(1) Van Pelt's first definition of "lawful money" comes from 12 USC 152, which: (a) applied only to "associations organized for issuing gold notes" under 12 USC 151 and nothing else, (b) which "associations" have not existed for decades, and (c) both sections 151 and 152 were formally repealed in 1994.

(2) Van Pelt's second definition of "lawful money" comes from a random, completely unofficial web site which he appears to like, and which sells "licensing", advertising and "advisor" referrals.

Nice sources, David.
Special thanks to Wesley Marc SERRA
Anytime.

Please find the formal definition for lawful money at 12 U.S.C. §411.


Thanks in advance.

David Merrill - not Van Pelt. [You attorney-types are always trying to form Government bonds!]


P.S. Nikki and CaptainKickback;
Nikki wrote:
cou·pon(kpn, ky-)
n.
1. A negotiable certificate attached to a bond that represents a sum of interest due.
2.
- a. One of a set of detachable certificates that may be torn off and redeemed as needed: a food coupon.
- b. A detachable part, as of a ticket or advertisement, that entitles the bearer to certain benefits, such as a cash refund or gift.
- c. A certificate accompanying a product that may be redeemed for a cash discount.
- d. A printed form, as in an advertisement, to be used as an order blank or for requesting information or obtaining a discount on merchandise.
3. A detachable slip calling for periodic payments, as for merchandise bought on an installment plan.
Isn't it cute how David always ignores definitions which would sink his battleship?
That is why I have incorporated the definition used for coupon on the authorization.
Nikki

Post by Nikki »

David Merrill lies again.

In his opening blather he said
Plain English definitions
coupon: Noun
1. A negotiable certificate attached to a bond that represents a sum of interest due
2. 1: a negotiable certificate that can be detached and redeemed as needed [syn: voucher] 2: a test sample of some substance
But in his response to an allegation that he specifically ignored a portion of the definition, to wit
A detachable slip calling for periodic payments, as for merchandise bought on an installment plan.
he responds
That is why I have incorporated the definition used for coupon on the authorization.
It's exceptionally easy to prove anything you want when you tailor the definitions and premises to agree with your conclusion.
David Merrill

Post by David Merrill »

Nikki wrote:David Merrill lies again.

In his opening blather he said
Plain English definitions
coupon: Noun
1. A negotiable certificate attached to a bond that represents a sum of interest due
2. 1: a negotiable certificate that can be detached and redeemed as needed [syn: voucher] 2: a test sample of some substance
But in his response to an allegation that he specifically ignored a portion of the definition, to wit
A detachable slip calling for periodic payments, as for merchandise bought on an installment plan.
he responds
That is why I have incorporated the definition used for coupon on the authorization.
It's exceptionally easy to prove anything you want when you tailor the definitions and premises to agree with your conclusion.

Yeah. But is it that easy to get the credit card company to send an offset?



Regards,

David Merrill.
Nikki

Post by Nikki »

Anything is easy when you don't provide any records of what happened.

So far, this thread only contains your laughable allegations and people laughing at them.
David Merrill

Post by David Merrill »

Nikki wrote:Anything is easy when you don't provide any records of what happened.

So far, this thread only contains your laughable allegations and people laughing at them.

What you did was highlight in bold the definition you want me to put in the authorization. Well, the authorization would not be nearly as effective if I did that. By using the correct definition for coupon, the authorization is a much more effective setoff.

But thanks for your input Nikki. I however do not agree with you that by not using your highlighted definition for coupon, that makes me a liar.


Regards,

David Merrill.
Nikki

Post by Nikki »

By not using the definition appropriate to the document at hand, you are a liar.
David Merrill

Post by David Merrill »

Nikki wrote:By not using the definition appropriate to the document at hand, you are a liar.

No. By not using the definition you think should apply to the document at hand, you have decided I am a liar. The setoff executed proves you wrong in the assumption about the correct definition considering it cost in the examples shown, Chase about $13K to simply conform to the law.

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/success-s ... oupon.html

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/attachmen ... 1169082753


Regards,

David Merrill.
Nikki

Post by Nikki »

With respect to your link (as usual):
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
Until the time comes that you can post a verifiable document substantiating your hallucinations, you are a liar.
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Post by notorial dissent »

wserra wrote:
David Merrill wrote:Because we already had discussed the definition of lawful money several times:

http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fast ... 0%20%20%20
http://www.investorwords.com/2733/lawful_money.html
For anyone who cares (and God knows why I even bother to post this):

(1) Van Pelt's first definition of "lawful money" comes from 12 USC 152, which: (a) applied only to "associations organized for issuing gold notes" under 12 USC 151 and nothing else, (b) which "associations" have not existed for decades, and (c) both sections 151 and 152 were formally repealed in 1994.


(2) Van Pelt's second definition of "lawful money" comes from a random, completely unofficial web site which he appears to like, and which sells "licensing", advertising and "advisor" referrals.

Nice sources, David.
Special thanks to Wesley Marc SERRA
Anytime.
Wserra, that is because the only sources Merrill can get to agree with him are the ones he makes up himself or misquotes until they agree with him.
Merrill wrote: Please find the formal definition for lawful money at 12 U.S.C. §411.
I do have to thank Merrill for one thing, in his proven inability to read what he copies, he gave me the answer to something I had been looking for. In the quote below he proves once again that he can neither read nor comprehend.
Merrill wrote:U.C.C. TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 1 > § 8

§ 8. Obligation or other security of the United States

The term “obligation or other security of the United States” includes all bonds, certificates of indebtedness, national bank currency, Federal Reserve notes, Federal Reserve bank notes, coupons, United States notes, Treasury notes, gold certificates, silver certificates, fractional notes, certificates of deposit, bills, checks, or drafts for money, drawn by or upon authorized officers of the United States, stamps and other representatives of value, of whatever denomination, issued under any Act of Congress, and canceled United States stamps.
The critical part is highlighted, specifically that there is a differentiation between Federal Reserve Notes which are used internally, and Federal Reserve Bank Notes which are circulated, and which was what §411 was originally speaking to. Thanks again Merrill for playing, You Haven't Got a Clue.
David Merrill

Post by David Merrill »

notorial dissent wrote: Thanks again Merrill for playing, [/b]You Haven't Got a Clue.

No. Thank you!

I am ahead of you on that. There have been no Federal Reserve Bank Notes since the Great Depression.

One thing I will concede about the video article that is not completely accurate is the author's use of US Treasury notes for US notes. But since US Treasury notes, by that name were no longer circulated after Bretton Woods, we can easily assume that the author is speaking of US notes.

http://www.friesian.com/notes.htm

http://www.friesian.com/notes.htm#fed




Regards,

David Merrill. [not Merrill - you attorney-types infer a Government bond on Mr. Merrill.


http://friends-n-family-research.info/F ... sified.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/F ... rected.jpg

Note the dates. I sent a complaint ($350 accepted) to Congress as administrator of the district courts about falsifying documents in Denver and got the Certificates corrected.]
.
Pirate Purveyor of the Last Word
Posts: 1698
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 2:06 am

Post by . »

Some misinformed voice in Van Pelt's head wrote:But since US Treasury notes, by that name were no longer circulated after Bretton Woods
That would come as a great surprise to the people and institutions who own the billions of dollars worth of two and five year U.S. Treasury notes that are in existence today.
All the States incorporated daughter corporations for transaction of business in the 1960s or so. - Some voice in Van Pelt's head, circa 2006.
David Merrill

Post by David Merrill »

. wrote:
Some misinformed voice in Van Pelt's head wrote:But since US Treasury notes, by that name were no longer circulated after Bretton Woods
That would come as a great surprise to the people and institutions who own the billions of dollars worth of two and five year U.S. Treasury notes that are in existence today.

Yep. I misspoke on that point. I looked through the linked article and could not find what I thought I had read on that before. I was thinking of this passage and retirement:
Federal Reserve Bank Notes,
National Currency


Identical to National Banks Notes in form and function but issued by Federal Reserve Banks, these notes were retired in 1945.

However the author in the 1984 article is talking about US notes when he speaks of US Treasury notes.



Regards,

David Merrill.
Last edited by David Merrill on Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Doktor Avalanche
Asst Secretary, the Dept of Jesters
Posts: 1767
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 10:20 pm
Location: Yuba City, CA

Post by Doktor Avalanche »

Okay, let me see if I got this straight:

We can't ban him?

Okay, maybe not but I think it's high time we let little Davey sit in the corner and gibber to himself. The guy is definately delusional and it's painfully clear that nobody here is going to convince him otherwise.

I move we ignore him from here on out. Anyone second that proposal?
The laissez-faire argument relies on the same tacit appeal to perfection as does communism. - George Soros
David Merrill

Post by David Merrill »

David Merrill wrote:
. wrote:
Some misinformed voice in Van Pelt's head wrote:But since US Treasury notes, by that name were no longer circulated after Bretton Woods
That would come as a great surprise to the people and institutions who own the billions of dollars worth of two and five year U.S. Treasury notes that are in existence today.

Yep. I misspoke on that point. I looked through the linked article and could not find what I thought I had read on that before. I was thinking of this passage and retirement:
Federal Reserve Bank Notes,
National Currency


Identical to National Banks Notes in form and function but issued by Federal Reserve Banks, these notes were retired in 1945.

However the author in the 1984 article is talking about US notes when he speaks of US Treasury notes.



Regards,

David Merrill.


No bites?

Okay. So that didn't get anybody to correct me?

http://goldismoney.info/forums/attachme ... 1157326662

This is what the author of the 1984 article in my video is talking about when he says US notes. Nothing else. But at that time he was likely able to actually exchange FRNs for US notes at any Federal Reserve bank. Maybe not - it is just more likely he could find them according to Title 12 U.S.C. §411 - which is still on the books.

Dear Doktor;


That is not going to be happening anytime soon.


Dear Nikki;


Thank you for your contribution. But it would be detrimental to the work product to use the wrong definition for coupon. People sometimes add the attachments for the Libel of Review to their US case jackets separately so that they can get certified copies individually. Call (719) 520-6200 and request by Reception #:

1) Credit River Money Decision - #203290555
2) Title 12 U.S.C. §411 - #207015932
3) Thirteenth Amendment - #95110459

I am off to by some more copies myself. You people are great!



Regards,

David Merrill.
Demosthenes
Grand Exalted Keeper of Esoterica
Posts: 5773
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 3:11 pm

Post by Demosthenes »

Doktor Avalanche wrote:Okay, let me see if I got this straight:

We can't ban him?

Okay, maybe not but I think it's high time we let little Davey sit in the corner and gibber to himself. The guy is definately delusional and it's painfully clear that nobody here is going to convince him otherwise.

I move we ignore him from here on out. Anyone second that proposal?
I stopped reading his gibberish months ago. He's mentally ill, and I don't reason with or laugh at mentally ill people. I continue to watch the threads where he posts because, as soon as people stop countering his scam information, he's out of here. I won't allow Q to be used to help mentally ill con artists peddle their con.