What is a Bill of Exchange?

[the worm that turned]

Ok so let's discuss here once and for all to determine exactly what a BOE is and therefore what we can apply the BOE Act 1882 to:

Here is the link from OPSI website: Definition as per Act (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1882/cukpga_18820061_en_2#pt2-pb1-l1g3)

Here is a definition from my legal dictionary (Osborn's Concise 7th Edition):

"A form of negotiable instrument. [followed by definition from BOE Act 1882]. A bill is given by the drawer, and addressed to the drawee, who becomes the acceptor by writing his name across the face of the bill. The bill is payable to the payee, who must be named or indicated with reasonable certainty. If the payee is a fictitious or non-existing person the bill may be treated as payable to bearer."

[the worm that turned]

Looking further at my legal dictionary under negotiable instrument. It mentions that "The most important negotiable instruments are bills of exchange, cheques and promissory notes"

So, cheques are particular bills of exchange (as explained in the act) that involve banks, the definition in the act is

"A cheque is a bill of exchange drawn on a banker payable on demand."

Promissory notes are other types of bills of exchanges, normally known as bank notes.

So we have defined two particular BOEs (cheques and bank notes) so what are all the others then? It surely can't only be cheques and bank notes, otherwise what's the point of the first (and larger section) of the BOE Act for??

I propose that Credit Card and Loan Agreements (including those appended to mortgage deeds) are BOEs and as such, unless defined otherwise on the actual document (negotiable instrument) they are negotiable (can be traded/sold on). Anyone else agree?

[Ian2day]

Would it be correct to say that credit cards do not come under the jurisdiction of the FSA? If so, then it is because they are a different kind of financial instrument. Such as a bond or bill of exchange. I am thinking back to commerce lessions at school and my memory fails me. I think that it is a receipt for a financial transaction generated from the sale of a stock, share or bond. It is just a record of a transaction having taken place. So instead of a bill of sale. It is a record of an exchange taking place. Used to keep track of transaction in a place like a stock exchange. Which handles millions of such deals each day. So instead of handing over money with each transaction a BoE is issued. These are collected up and at the end of the week the various investmant brokers will settle or collect the debt. As traders are paid commission per transaction completed.

This is from over 25 years ago. So not sure if accurate or a load of nonsense.

[number_6]

The lack of response to this thread may actually be an indicator. Most users of this forum don't even know what a bill of exchange is, but are willing to use the term in any notices that they send. So, as I have said elsewhere, an invoice, or request for payment is not a bill of exchange. Unless it can be proved otherwise?

[theoneandonly]

The lack of response to this thread may actually be an indicator. Most users of this forum don't even know what a bill of exchange is, but are willing to use the term in any notices that they send. So, as I have said elsewhere, an invoice, or request for payment is not a bill of exchange. Unless it can be proved otherwise?

I thought the reason people asked for a proper bill which conforms to the criteria of a outlined in the bill of exchange act.. was because a request for payment or invoice does not carry enough weight for it to be paid.

or have i missed the point?

[merlincove]

By writting 'your name across the facer of the bill' a BOE can also be defined as a parking ticket, any transaction statement, ie the piuece of paper signed for from a credit card transaction, a loan agreement (tho i am not sure a credit card agreement applies), a mortgage agreement.

In fact anything that we sign that has a value or more importantly, an agreed value.

I understand that i styand to be corrected in my comprehension.

:D

[relentless]

A BILL, OF EXCHANGE may be defined as an unconditional,
order in writing by one person upon another for the
payment of a certain sum of money absolutely’ and at all
events. Among -merchants a bill of exchange is usually
called a “draft.” When accepted it is called an “acceptance.”
-Law of Negotiable Instruments.

[number_6]

A BILL, OF EXCHANGE may be defined as an unconditional,
order in writing by one person upon another for the
payment of a certain sum of money absolutely’ and at all
events. Among -merchants a bill of exchange is usually
called a “draft.” When accepted it is called an “acceptance.”
-Law of Negotiable Instruments.

Yes, we are aware of that. But the OP is requesting exactly which bills are a bill of exchange. The reason is because elsewhere I have stated that a utility bill, an invoice for labour or materials, a PCN or Council Tax bill is not a bill of exchange. They are merely a request for payment.

[the worm that turned]

Yes, we are aware of that. But the OP is requesting exactly which bills are a bill of exchange. The reason is because elsewhere I have stated that a utility bill, an invoice for labour or materials, a PCN or Council Tax bill is not a bill of exchange. They are merely a request for payment.

I think the confusion comes (for me as well) from the use of the word Bill. I spoke to a solicitor and Rob Menard also commented on another thread that there are various types of bill (e.g. a bill of lading, invoice bill, council tax bill) and that is not necessarily the same as a bill of exchange.

However, the way I see it, an instruction from one person to pay money to another IS a bill of exchange (assuming it meets the definition in the BOE Act). My confusion is that no one ever quotes the BOE anywhere.

So is a contract, where it states that A will pay B money (for a service I assume), also a BOE???

[Ian2day]

Perhaps the Governators IOU's are an examples of a Bill of Exchange.

[pleasuredome]

a Bill is a written order to someone else to pay a certain sum for a certain liability, etc. if it isnt an order then it is only an offer for you to accept a liability which you didnt create. however, an order creates its own liability which can billed for, and thus we end up in a merry-go-round of bills and orders. i remember virgin media trying to charge my dad for sending him a paper "bill", and then i got on the phone to them and we came to the conclusion that i was right and that it is nonsense to charge for sending a "bill". maybe they drank too much tea with the mad hatter?

if you research the act of paying and words related to it, you'll find that payment only ever at best "satisfies" a liability. it never zeros it. the only way to zero a liability that some owes you is to fore give them. "there is greater happiness in giving than there is in receiving". did god not GIVE his only begotten son and that if we accept that consideration we may be relieved of our sins/debts? was that not the new covenant (contract/agreement)? forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors?

everything was given freely to us; life, love, the planet and its resources. what the fuck are we doing paying for it and charging people for it?

[girlgye]

Were you truely wafted from Vic Beck PD :D

[pleasuredome]

Were you truely wafted from Vic Beck PD :D

lol, well he has opened my eyes more to what i was already seeing.

[girlgye]

Anyway Are you suggesting that an account cannot thus be zeroed? It has to be fore - given?

[pleasuredome]

Anyway Are you suggesting that an account cannot thus be zeroed? It has to be fore - given?

yep, even their accounts have to be fore given. does one start at zero or start with a debt in a game of monopoly? does a company start its life with no capital?

[relentless]

Yes, we are aware of that. But the OP is requesting exactly which bills are a bill of exchange. The reason is because elsewhere I have stated that a utility bill, an invoice for labour or materials, a PCN or Council Tax bill is not a bill of exchange. They are merely a request for payment.

That would be correct, as a BOE has three parties involved...

- The nearest app-roach, was the custom which prevailed at
Rome where one paid money to another in that city to be
repaid by the latter at another place.

eg; A court order for the defendant to pay the plantiff would be a BOE

[burnttoast]

The lack of response to this thread may actually be an indicator. Most users of this forum don't even know what a bill of exchange is, but are willing to use the term in any notices that they send. So, as I have said elsewhere, an invoice, or request for payment is not a bill of exchange. Unless it can be proved otherwise?

Any request which shows a liabilty to the creditor and requests payment....is a bill of exchange. And since no LAWFUL payment can be made, the instrument becomes the negotiable instrument to settle the debt....there is a bit more to the process...OR YOU CAN CHOOSE TO USE THE DEBT NOTES AND INCUR MORE PUBLIC DEBT.

Many are missing the dynamics of it all....while the Bill is not charged, YOU can CHARGE it with your EXEMPTION....
The argument is that many in the PUBLIC, won't recognize it as currency....this is why you need to send it (BILL) to the PRIVATE/PUBLIC Accounting body (CENTRAL FINANCING OFFICER) to process and Discharge of Setoff...Only your private Account (Exemption) evidenced by your BC can do this....you are the only thing which has SUBSTANCE. Money from the PUBLIC is LIABILITY....research this and all will be clearer. It's not an overnight realization process.

Peace

[merlincove]

Any request which shows a liabilty to the creditor and requests payment....is a bill of exchange. And since no LAWFUL payment can be made, the instrument becomes the negotiable instrument to settle the debt....there is a bit more to the process...OR YOU CAN CHOOSE TO USE THE DEBT NOTES AND INCUR MORE PUBLIC DEBT.

Many are missing the dynamics of it all....while the Bill is not charged, YOU can CHARGE it with your EXEMPTION....
The argument is that many in the PUBLIC, won't recognize it as currency....this is why you need to send it (BILL) to the PRIVATE/PUBLIC Accounting body (CENTRAL FINANCING OFFICER) to process and Discharge of Setoff...Only your private Account (Exemption) evidenced by your BC can do this....you are the only thing which has SUBSTANCE. Money from the PUBLIC is LIABILITY....research this and all will be clearer. It's not an overnight realization process.

Peace

Heavy, but i tend to agree with this for the most part.

Any request which shows a liability, either a lawful / accepted one or an unlawful / frauf=dulent one is a bill of exchange. It is only by accepting the later, and agreeing their validity through signature, ie in respect of pcn's etc, that we validate it from being unlawful and fraudulent to being legal and accepted.

Nothing has currency unless we apply consent to it as having value: we are the only curency, and a BOE only applies if we consent.

[girlgye]

No No6 but if the OP is seriously putting forward paperwork to the Mortgage bandits he really ought to bloody well know the answer to his own question by now. It seems to me he is putting forward the topic for exploration, learning, insight and study just like lawyers do wouldn't you agree being a law lecturer?

[girlgye]

. I am thinking back to commerce lessions at school and my memory fails me. I think that it is a receipt for a financial transaction generated from the sale of a stock, share or bond. It is just a record of a transaction having taken place. So instead of a bill of sale. It is a record of an exchange taking place. Used to keep track of transaction in a place like a stock exchange. Which handles millions of such deals each day. So instead of handing over money with each transaction a BoE is issued. These are collected up and at the end of the week the various investmant brokers will settle or collect the debt. As traders are paid commission per transaction completed.



This is from over 25 years ago. So not sure if accurate or a load of nonsense.


Bloody posh school then.:D

[girlgye]

yep, even their accounts have to be fore given. does one start at zero or start with a debt in a game of monopoly? does a company start its life with no capital?

Not correct. Accounts have been set off and zeroed using the popular methods.

[pleasuredome]

Not correct. Accounts have been set off and zeroed using the popular methods.

would you care to elaborate what such "popular methods" are?

[girlgye]

a4v do a search on David Icke should through up the remedies. Give em a whirl and let us know how you get on ;)

[pleasuredome]

a4v do a search on David Icke should through up the remedies. Give em a whirl and let us know how you get on ;)

does the use of A4V not involve set-off from a prepaid account? if not where did the value in such an account come from?

[Ian2day]

Bloody posh school then.:D

A secondry modern that was actively complicit in ripping me off. My home town is rife with it, really rife with corruption etc...

[girlgye]

does the use of A4V not involve set-off from a prepaid account? if not where did the value in such an account come from?


Not necessarily. It can be done in other ways it assumes there is some bond with some capital in it somewhere. If you do research into those areas you may decide to come from that angle.

I can't say how the woman zeroed her account but I will ask her. It was on her 2nd mortgage. Maybe she meant something else as zero can mean lots of things but if she no longer has to pay her 2nd mortgage I think doesn't matter what you call it does it?

Have you had any success using this method? Have you tried?

[girlgye]

A secondry modern that was actively complicit in ripping me off. My home town is rife with it, really rife with corruption etc...

I don't remember getting taught commerce at secondary modern or it even being on the menu. I guess some school maybe specialise. I went to a drama type school. Don't s'pose you noticed that though.:p

[number_6]

Any request which shows a liabilty to the creditor and requests payment....is a bill of exchange. And since no LAWFUL payment can be made, the instrument becomes the negotiable instrument to settle the debt
Peace
But a negotiable instrument by definition is transferable. How can you transfer to another party a request for payment such as a utility bill?

[girlgye]

oh yes No6 now you are cooking.

You don't.

Well not by any methods I've tried. They ignore a4v but then that was before the days I know how to cure them and collect. :rolleyes:

So maybe another crack at the whip. I think I'll just start again. well infact just at the computer doing that right now.
Great minds think alike eh.

[girlgye]

Any request which shows a liabilty to the creditor and requests payment....is a bill of exchange. And since no LAWFUL payment can be made, the instrument becomes the negotiable instrument to settle the debt....there is a bit more to the process...OR YOU CAN CHOOSE TO USE THE DEBT NOTES AND INCUR MORE PUBLIC DEBT.

Many are missing the dynamics of it all....while the Bill is not charged, YOU can CHARGE it with your EXEMPTION....
The argument is that many in the PUBLIC, won't recognize it as currency....this is why you need to send it (BILL) to the PRIVATE/PUBLIC Accounting body (CENTRAL FINANCING OFFICER) to process and Discharge of Setoff...Only your private Account (Exemption) evidenced by your BC can do this....you are the only thing which has SUBSTANCE. Money from the PUBLIC is LIABILITY....research this and all will be clearer. It's not an overnight realization process.

Peace

Gosh I got that concept from Rideout but you know it's just truly sank in. I'm at a stage in my learning where I think I've learned nowt again. Very demoralising. Maybe need to take a break.
Anyway the penny's finally dropped.
I love synchronicity. Amazing.

[pleasuredome]

Not necessarily. It can be done in other ways it assumes there is some bond with some capital in it somewhere. If you do research into those areas you may decide to come from that angle.

I can't say how the woman zeroed her account but I will ask her. It was on her 2nd mortgage. Maybe she meant something else as zero can mean lots of things but if she no longer has to pay her 2nd mortgage I think doesn't matter what you call it does it?

Have you had any success using this method? Have you tried?

oh yeah, ages ago. it must have worked cos i never got it back lol

[Ian2day]

I don't remember getting taught commerce at secondary modern or it even being on the menu. I guess some school maybe specialise. I went to a drama type school. Don't s'pose you noticed that though.:p

It was the only O level I took. The rest were Gcse's. I scored the highest in the mock and the lowest in the actual exam itself. Fucking corrupt teachers switching results round for the kids of their buddies from the lodge. I'm sure that they did it with my 12 plus too.

I should of been learning Latin and obtaining some social capital. Instead I ended up making Ninja death stars in metalwork and bunking off to go fishing lol It was the lesson were we got told how the fractional reserve banking system worked. This was from a very nervous looking teacher.

He kept saying this is how the system works, and stared at us, just hoping that the penny dropped. We all sat there in silence. As reality was exposed, for a very short moment, in our otherwise dull training of how to be shelf stackers and burger flippers. He was replaced shortly afterwards.

girlgye you a drama queen, never. Now your person, that is another case altogether! lol :p

[Ian2day]

Gosh I got that concept from Rideout but you know it's just truly sank in. I'm at a stage in my learning where I think I've learned nowt again. Very demoralising. Maybe need to take a break.
Anyway the penny's finally dropped.
I love synchronicity. Amazing.

It was the only O level I took. The rest were Gcse's. I scored the highest in the mock and the lowest in the actual exam itself. Fucking corrupt teachers switching results round for the kids of their buddies from the lodge. I'm sure that they did it with my 12 plus too.

I should of been learning Latin and obtaining some social capital. Instead I ended up making Ninja death stars in metalwork and bunking off to go fishing lol It was the lesson were we got told how the fractional reserve banking system worked. This was from a very nervous looking teacher.

He kept saying this is how the system works, and stared at us, just hoping that the penny dropped. We all sat there in silence. As reality was exposed, for a very short moment, in our otherwise dull training of how to be shelf stackers and burger flippers. He was replaced shortly afterwards.

girlgye you a drama queen, never. Now your person, that is another case altogether! lol :p

Kraynites!

[girlgye]

oh yeah, ages ago. it must have worked cos i never got it back lol

on what?

Are you talking about your traffic ticket? I think they've given up on us lot.

I tried your notice you first ever sent me. Remember those days when we were new and fresh - god. Seems like a million miles away.
Haven't heard from them since. That was the M6 toll. I was going the wrong way on the motorway due to their frigging design! Then I had to turn back and go through the gates and they expected me to pay!

I just did that for kicks one day.

Now I just frigging ignore everything I can't even be bothered to write no contract anymore. So overwhelmed with it all.

Still believe me that is not wise where Utilities are concerned.

[girlgye]

Kraynites!

Wow must be lurv eh.

I never read that lemme see what time you posted it and whether it was the same time I posted mine. That would be well cool.
Wow it was. LOL.
ne ne ne ne ne ne

[Ian2day]

Wow must be lurv eh.

I never read that lemme see what time you posted it and whether it was the same time I posted mine. That would be well cool.
Wow it was. LOL.
ne ne ne ne ne ne

A public decleration as well now. My, my, you will have me off, (oh Matron!) to Gretna Green, before the sheets are cold! :eek:

[pleasuredome]

on what?

Are you talking about your traffic ticket? I think they've given up on us lot.


i did it on a credit card statement. they never sent me it back so it can only be assumed that they accepted it. of course, they did send the next one saying that the amount was still owing. funnily enough they never said who the amount was owed to, so who gives a fuck right? lol

[girlgye]

No to be authentic it has to be zeroed, officially well least that's what most are saying is proof that there is some sort of set off account.

Your debt is still hanging out there in the wind somewhere and they are still making the greens on it.

Maybe they just can't be bothered for the energy it will take in expenses. No such luck with my lot though.

So gonna start getting upping the ante next week with that lot.

All 8 of my lovely bugles.

[girlgye]

A public decleration as well now. My, my, you will have me off, (oh Matron!) to Gretna Green, before the sheets are cold! :eek:

Nah I've gone of you, you just called me matron. Walks off in a huff.

[pleasuredome]

Your debt is still hanging out there in the wind somewhere and they are still making the greens on it.


my debt? lol

[girlgye]

your doppleganger debt lol

[icarus]

It was the only O level I took. The rest were Gcse's. I scored the highest in the mock and the lowest in the actual exam itself. Fucking corrupt teachers switching results round for the kids of their buddies from the lodge. I'm sure that they did it with my 12 plus too.

I should of been learning Latin and obtaining some social capital. Instead I ended up making Ninja death stars in metalwork and bunking off to go fishing lol It was the lesson were we got told how the fractional reserve banking system worked. This was from a very nervous looking teacher.

He kept saying this is how the system works, and stared at us, just hoping that the penny dropped. We all sat there in silence. As reality was exposed, for a very short moment, in our otherwise dull training of how to be shelf stackers and burger flippers. He was replaced shortly afterwards.

girlgye you a drama queen, never. Now your person, that is another case altogether! lol :p

I had a history lecturer at college who also had interesting things to say.

He got replaced as well.

I don't understand the rest of this thread, bit above me. Some sort of Freeman thing I think. I'll keep reading in the hope it sinks in.:)

[merlincove]

I had a history lecturer at college who also had interesting things to say.

He got replaced as well.

I don't understand the rest of this thread, bit above me. Some sort of Freeman thing I think. I'll keep reading in the hope it sinks in.:)

good luck with that icarus :D

[the worm that turned]

Ha ha. This thread is brilliant. I set it up as a definitive thread to specifically talk about defining what is and what isn't a Bill of Exchange because we were previously hijacking another thread that wasn't about Bills of Exchange and talking about them!??!?!?!?!

So anyway...

We have agreed that a cheque and promissory note is a BOE. A suggestion has been made that anything that request payment is a BOE.

Anything else? Do we agree that ANYTHING requesting a payment is a BOE.

[ufochick]

Ha ha. This thread is brilliant. I set it up as a definitive thread to specifically talk about defining what is and what isn't a Bill of Exchange because we were previously hijacking another thread that wasn't about Bills of Exchange and talking about them!??!?!?!?!

So anyway...

We have agreed that a cheque and promissory note is a BOE. A suggestion has been made that anything that request payment is a BOE.

Anything else? Do we agree that ANYTHING requesting a payment is a BOE.

Well in the states we have a check (same as cash, at stores they run it through a computer and it comes out of your account right then), a paycheck (meaning you got paid from working), a loan (meaning you have a legal obligation to pay it back) or a bill (meaning you must pay money). Our taxes are normally taken out of our paychecks or included in a bill (unless one is self employed then you must pay taxes on your own). What are the liscenses you guys talk about?

:)

[merlincove]

Ha ha. This thread is brilliant. I set it up as a definitive thread to specifically talk about defining what is and what isn't a Bill of Exchange because we were previously hijacking another thread that wasn't about Bills of Exchange and talking about them!??!?!?!?!

So anyway...

We have agreed that a cheque and promissory note is a BOE. A suggestion has been made that anything that request payment is a BOE.

Anything else? Do we agree that ANYTHING requesting a payment is a BOE.

i would say yes.

a bill at a bar / restraunt does not require a signmature to varify, but when we pay with an iou (fiat currency) there is a sig pertaining to the value already on it.

[burnttoast]

But a negotiable instrument by definition is transferable. How can you transfer to another party a request for payment such as a utility bill?

By CHARGING the Bill with your Exemption # which has your asset funds...Many bills if you notice also come with a "Voucher" attached. Top Portion (usually) is the bill statement, bottom voucher (usually).

Top portion is A4V'd.
Bottom (voucher) is signed and endorsed.
Ever notice the lovely Transit numbers on these little vouchers?..it's the credit to set off/discharge the payment your sending 'em (Bill you've A4V'd)......quite a fascinating process really.
Those CFO's in the know, use your Exemption all the time..in this process your creating the payment with it and telling them to monetise it, the voucher sets it off and Voila you've not doubled the public debt the bill would normally incur...yes Virginia, they know how to do that.

In Canada, as Forum member Rob Menard has shown, these Vouchers have a Credit ID #96.....


Peace

[relentless]

But a negotiable instrument by definition is transferable. How can you transfer to another party a request for payment such as a utility bill?


You can't. The "remittance advice" or "payment slip" is NOT a negotiable instrument!
Nor is the top part (2/3s) a Bill (of exchange)

[the worm that turned]

I love it when there are two completely conflicting opinions!

Burntoast - suggests that you can A4V the top half (or 2/3) and allow them to offset it against your bond, asset (whatever it is called as I still haven't worked out how to access this :( ) and then the company can use the remittance note (bottom half or 1/3) that we sign and endorse (not sure what you mean by endorse here) to offset/discharge the payment we send.

Wow! Not sure I fully comprehend the workings of that but I would certainly give it a go if I knew how!!

Relentless - states that neither part are a negotiable instrument or BOE.

SO the question for me is, who is right and have you any proof?

[yozhik]

Seems to me we have finally hit the crux of the matter.

[burnttoast]

You can't. The "remittance advice" or "payment slip" is NOT a negotiable instrument!
Nor is the top part (2/3s) a Bill (of exchange)

Sorry you are incorrect...........feel free to review Modern Money Mechanics and Accepted for Value with Winston Shrout for more info...

I have had the above work for me firsthand with an income tax notice.

Research more about merchant law and bankruptsy if you seek even more proof.

Peace

[girlgye]

Sorry you are incorrect...........feel free to review Modern Money Mechanics and Accepted for Value with Winston Shrout for more info...

I have had the above work for me firsthand with an income tax notice.

Research more about merchant law and bankruptsy if you seek even more proof.

Peace

Ah but bet ya ain't had such luck with the Utilities.:p

[relentless]

Seems to me we have finally hit the crux of the matter.


exactly... This is also where Winston stalls.

[girlgye]

Where does Winston stall? 1040V was not applied properly but I believe there are those who do get him and are doing more than well on that technology.

Tell me exactly what technology of his has failed?
I put it to you that what fails is the man who applies it not knowing what to do with it in the first place.

[girlgye]

I love it when there are two completely conflicting opinions!

Burntoast - suggests that you can A4V the top half (or 2/3) and allow them to offset it against your bond, asset (whatever it is called as I still haven't worked out how to access this :( ) and then the company can use the remittance note (bottom half or 1/3) that we sign and endorse (not sure what you mean by endorse here) to offset/discharge the payment we send.

Wow! Not sure I fully comprehend the workings of that but I would certainly give it a go if I knew how!!

Relentless - states that neither part are a negotiable instrument or BOE.

SO the question for me is, who is right and have you any proof?


My view is with relentless on remittances, at this juncture. Unless of course you go that bit further and explore what one Robert Arthur et al have put forward. I don't recall Winston talking about fuel bills. If he has please point me to the video please. I haven't seen all of his offerings.

The clue would be in asking does the Queen have a leccy bill?

[relentless]

Where does Winston stall? 1040V was not applied properly but I believe there are those who do get him and are doing more than well on that technology.

Tell me exactly what technology of his has failed?
I put it to you that what fails is the man who applies it not knowing what to do with it in the first place.

I'm not saying his "technology" fails... to a point, there is, IMO a piece of the puzzle missing, a very crucial part, and on this point I know W.S differs...;)

[girlgye]

I've just seen on the tpuc forums someone talk about waiving the benefit only being half of the picture. Yeah right.

He goes onto say that there is a reverse mirror trust which you agreed to by signing up to the benefit in the first place. Mysteriously omits to say what to do about it like.

So all the bunnys go tell me more guru. No doubt you will be lead to another guru who has that bit more of the puzzle ie ah what you need to do chick is do a revocation of power of attorney ooooh tell me more.

Then you go into this mammoth rabbit warren of mammoth proportions. Not that RPA doesn't work, it does, I know.

I'd like to see the judge who refused me when I waived the benefit privilages but negated to record it just before he sent me down deal with that at a later date.

No I didn't do anything wrong and I doubt that Winston did either. However, someone just maybe somewhere is looking for loopholes which I'm sure they'll be able to back up with the relevant documentation that is unimpeachable eh?

[klogger]

Taking a cheque as a BoE then we have:

1) The person writing the cheque;
2) The person receiving the cheque;
3) The person settling the cheque (the bank);

With a restaurant bill, Council Tax bill etc. then the restaurant gives you a bill for the food that they gave you:

1) The restaurant is not writing a cheque;
2) You are not receiving a cheque;
3) No one will cash the restaurant bill in and give you money for it - at least not that I have seen real proof of.

That would make it a transfer of equitable title (of the restaurants food) from the seller (the restaurant) to the buyer (me/you). This I would say is a Bill of Sale and not a Bill of Exchange.

The thing with a Bill of Exchange is that it requires three parties to engage in it. The Bill from the restaurant involves only two - unless you include the exemption account. However, there is so little evidence that the exemption account works that I can't give it too much credit without further proof from those who claim to have done it. The best I ever get from that request is 'go and watch Winston Shrout'. However, his talks are very complex and extremely long and are not really proof as such. I would like to see a detailed guide of:

1) I did this to claim access to my exemption account;
2) I did this with a bill;
3) They sent me this confirming that the bill was paid;
4) My new balance in my exemption account is ...

If the restaurant bill is actually a Bill of Exchange then what is a Bill of Sale? Could someone who thinks a restaurant bill, Council Tax bill etc. is a Bill of Exchange give me a concrete scenario of what a Bill of Sale is? That might convince me to change my position.

[number_6]

If the restaurant bill is actually a Bill of Exchange then what is a Bill of Sale? Could someone who thinks a restaurant bill, Council Tax bill etc. is a Bill of Exchange give me a concrete scenario of what a Bill of Sale is? That might convince me to change my position.

No need to change your position, you are correct.

[number_6]

Sorry you are incorrect...........feel free to review Modern Money Mechanics and Accepted for Value with Winston Shrout for more info...


Try ordering tickets for a Winston Shrout seminar and write Accepted for Value accross the invoice, and see the result.

[burnttoast]

Try ordering tickets for a Winston Shrout seminar and write Accepted for Value accross the invoice, and see the result.

Why? When I can 1099 OID them along with the rest of my transactions out of my corporate account for each calendar Year, and be reimbursed...oh but You'd need to see it to believe it no?.....
It would appear your a clear example of why some don't indulge this information.......perhaps I won't any further.

G'day.

Peace

[number_6]

...oh but You'd need to see it to believe it no?.....


Until I see proof, then you are quite correct, I don't believe it.

[number_6]

It would appear your a clear example of why some don't indulge this information.......perhaps I won't any further.

G'day.

Peace

Probably a good idea. Giving out false information that others here might believe (and subsequently lead them down a dangerous path) I consider at best, irresponsible. If you refuse to back up your claims with proof, then perhaps it is indeed wise not to post any claims.

[the worm that turned]

Lots of people (e.g. governments) promote things without accepted proof (which is often where conspiracy theories originate), however it doesn't prevent millions of people believing it and therefore making it their truth and therefore their reality.

I am sure Burnttoast has done what he says in Canada, but why should he prove it to you, me or anyone else. He isn't saying go and do it, he is just saying that it can be done.

I would love it if I was spoon fed all the answers, and I am sure deep-down you would too, but it isn't going to happen (otherwise it would just be the norm as everyone would be doing it).

[number_6]

I am sure Burnttoast has done what he says in Canada, but why should he prove it to you, me or anyone else. He isn't saying go and do it, he is just saying that it can be done.

I would love it if I was spoon fed all the answers, and I am sure deep-down you would too, but it isn't going to happen (otherwise it would just be the norm as everyone would be doing it).

Personally, I don't believe it. There is so much rubbish posted on sites such as this, wild claims, but when proof is requested, the same old answer: "go and do your own research" What bollocks. If such methods were legitimate, lawful methods of satisfying payment of a bill, why is it considered by the "chosen few" that the information must be kept secret? What could they possibly lose by describing their methods? Surely, if they have the attitudes that they claim to have, they would take great delight in more people doing the same.
How is it possible to research that which is pure crap?
There is much talk here of "sheeple", but it would appear that a high percentage of members here would fall into that category, blindly following unproven untried methods, believing it as fact.

[burnttoast]

Personally, I don't believe it. There is so much rubbish posted on sites such as this, wild claims, but when proof is requested, the same old answer: "go and do your own research" What bollocks. If such methods were legitimate, lawful methods of satisfying payment of a bill, why is it considered by the "chosen few" that the information must be kept secret? What could they possibly lose by describing their methods? Surely, if they have the attitudes that they claim to have, they would take great delight in more people doing the same.
How is it possible to research that which is pure crap?
There is much talk here of "sheeple", but it would appear that a high percentage of members here would fall into that category, blindly following unproven untried methods, believing it as fact.

Would a Sworn Notarized Affidavit of Truth Billed to you directly about my personal experience on this matter satisfy your belief?

OR

Are you looking for someone to spoon feed it to you?
Didn't you just say the research involved in this is crap anyway?
Haven't you already come to your conclusion?
Did your Mom not give you enough hugs as a child?
Do you realize your getting all revved up over someone who uses a Muppet as an Avatar?
Is the Oven on?
What rhymes with orange?


"He can who thinks he can, and he can't who thinks he can't. This is an inexorable, indisputable law.
Pablo Picasso

Peace

[number_6]

Did your Mom not give you enough hugs as a child?
Do you realize your getting all revved up over someone who uses a Muppet as an Avatar?
Is the Oven on?
What rhymes with orange?


D'you Know what? The more you post such intelligent remarks such as that above with such conviction you may actually sway me into believing everything you say.
We need more posts like this, to show that we really are serious, and are persuing our quest in an adult way that onlookers will respect.

[number_6]

Didn't you just say the research involved in this is crap anyway?


Peace

No, I said it is pointless in researching a claim by a member here, when that claim made by the member is crap. Keep up.

[micklemus]

Number 6 you've made my morning! Just read a number of your earlier posts too.

Very nice to find a voice of reason. I'm in the 'mad' corner with you.

By lets not let reason get in the way of a good theory! :)

Keep going. I gave up on this particular subject matter about 10 months ago. Got worn out with the rhetoric, but it's nice to dip in now and again to see what's happening in this most alternative of legal worlds.

In fact keep going everyone. It's all good, whatever.

[yozhik]

One man's journey is another man's entertainment?

[number_6]

One man's journey is another man's entertainment?

But, one man's bill of sale is not another man's bill of exchange.

[number_6]

Number 6 you've made my morning! Just read a number of your earlier posts too.

Very nice to find a voice of reason. I'm in the 'mad' corner with you.

By lets not let reason get in the way of a good theory! :)


The more time that I spend here, I am beginning to believe that indeed many forum members have actually avoided paying council tax, electricity bills, etc etc. However, when they finally finish school and abandon the comforts of living with mum and dad and actually get a place on their own they will look back at some of their posts with disbelief.

[yozhik]

Is that the overpowering scent of smugness I detect in the air?

:rolleyes:

[micklemus]

The more time that I spend here, I am beginning to believe that indeed many forum members have actually avoided paying council tax, electricity bills, etc etc. However, when they finally finish school and abandon the comforts of living with mum and dad and actually get a place on their own they will look back at some of their posts with disbelief.

Ha ha ha!

But no, serving notices etc truly works, someone on a forum somewhere told me so!

Seriously for one moment, the tough bit comes with the fact that there are occasional success stories but people don't understand that they don't happen for the reasons that they'd like to believe. Typical scenario - lets say a utility company chases a bill, debt collectors are involved etc and Freddie Freeman starts shouting "Magna Carta" "I'm a natural being, not an NI number" "I've contracted out of the system" "have a notice from me" "where's my contract with you" etc etc etc. At present it seems that most who have done this sort of thing in the UK are people who are struggling to keep their heads above water financially (and I emphasise that I don't wish to condescend anyone; it's just a statement of fact, based on what I've seen). The collection people at this point actually start thinking "nutter" and "too much hassle to be worth chasing because they don't have the money anyway" and they back off. These are not victories for freeman philosophy, they are merely reflections of modern business. No point in trying to get blood out of a stone and all that.

Been a year or so now and I've still not seen an example of the former.

It's all good though and I'm not going to derail this thread; I'm very happy to watch it and others like it.

Good times! More than one way up that mountain and all that. Marvellous.

PS - interesting irony about freeman philosophy and honour when it comes to examples like that...

:)

[micklemus]

One man's journey is another man's entertainment?

Very good

:)

[burnttoast]

No, I said it is pointless in researching a claim by a member here, when that claim made by the member is crap. Keep up.

Who's been AS KING the Questions?

WHO HAS BEEN MAKING THE CLAIMS?

IS A Notarized Affidavit of Truth billed to you directly on my claim NOT PROPER FORM OF PROOF?

NOTICE how you never responded to the public offer, yet continue to make claims? (dishonor in grownup land)

Well?

Peace

[micklemus]

PS - I said I don't want to derail, so just to put things back on subject -

"BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT 1882

3.— Bill of exchange defined.

(1) A bill of exchange is an unconditional order in writing, addressed by one person to another, signed by the person giving it, requiring the person to whom it is addressed to pay on demand or at a fixed or determinable future time a sum certain in money to or to the order of a specified person, or to bearer.
(2) An instrument which does not comply with these conditions, or which orders any act to be done in addition to the payment of money, is not a bill of exchange.
(3) An order to pay out a particular fund is not unconditional within the meaning of this section; but an unqualified order to pay, coupled with (a) an indication of a particular fund out of which the drawee is to re-imburse himself or a particular account to be debited with the amount, or (b) a statement of the transaction which gives rise to the bill, is unconditional.
(4) A bill is not invalid by reason—

(a) That it is not dated;
(b) That it does not specify the value given, or that any value has been given therefor;
(c) That it does not specify the place where it is drawn or the place where it is payable"

[micklemus]

PPS - "person" =

1. A human being capable of rights, also called a natural person. Or
2. A corporation or legal person, also known as an artificial person (see Interpretation Act 1978, section 5, Sch 1)

So a "person" is not necessarily an unreal character/legal fiction. But the primary example of an unnatural person is a limited company, which is recognised as a separate legal entity (i.e. a person for the purposes of UK law and freeman parlance).

Persons include companies otherwise a company would have no legal standing and consequently no legal rights or obligations. Hence a company can, through its board/authorised signatories, sign bills of exchange (primary example being cheques)

For the purposes of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, "person" includes "persons" whether in a body corporate or not (section 1 thereof).

[number_6]

Is that the overpowering scent of smugness I detect in the air?

:rolleyes:

Yeah, you're probally right, but I can't help it.

[micklemus]

PPPS - ...hence (in UK) the freeman theory that a "person" is different from a human being is, unfortunately, bollackoz

[number_6]

PPPS - ...hence (in UK) the freeman theory that a "person" is different from a human being is, unfortunately, bollackoz

Agreed.

[number_6]

Who's been AS KING the Questions?

WHO HAS BEEN MAKING THE CLAIMS?

IS A Notarized Affidavit of Truth billed to you directly on my claim NOT PROPER FORM OF PROOF?

NOTICE how you never responded to the public offer, yet continue to make claims? (dishonor in grownup land)

Well?

Peace

Yesterday I was not worthy of such information, now you wish to share all?
Why not post up here what you have so that we all may see it?

[girlgye]

But, one man's bill of sale is not another man's bill of exchange.

OK No 6. You take major digs at our Canadian counterpart who is revealing themself to me by the day!

Yet when we come to ask you the same you fall strangely silent too. Come on indicating that you are on our side and doing your thing lawfully yet whenever I ask you questions you don't even deign to respond never mind point me in the right direction.

So here we go again though I doubt I shall get an answer from you.

I know a receipt is not a bill of exchange which is why I can't get my utility bills discharged.

However, a bill of exchange must take place between two people and it is down to the banker (fiduciary) the holder of the trust to pay isn't it?

Don't patronise us. No one talked about a restaurant bill here.

[girlgye]

Ha ha ha!

But no, serving notices etc truly works, someone on a forum somewhere told me so!

Seriously for one moment, the tough bit comes with the fact that there are occasional success stories but people don't understand that they don't happen for the reasons that they'd like to believe. Typical scenario - lets say a utility company chases a bill, debt collectors are involved etc and Freddie Freeman starts shouting "Magna Carta" "I'm a natural being, not an NI number" "I've contracted out of the system" "have a notice from me" "where's my contract with you" etc etc etc. At present it seems that most who have done this sort of thing in the UK are people who are struggling to keep their heads above water financially (and I emphasise that I don't wish to condescend anyone; it's just a statement of fact, based on what I've seen). The collection people at this point actually start thinking "nutter" and "too much hassle to be worth chasing because they don't have the money anyway" and they back off. These are not victories for freeman philosophy, they are merely reflections of modern business. No point in trying to get blood out of a stone and all that.

Been a year or so now and I've still not seen an example of the former.

It's all good though and I'm not going to derail this thread; I'm very happy to watch it and others like it.

Good times! More than one way up that mountain and all that. Marvellous.

PS - interesting irony about freeman philosophy and honour when it comes to examples like that...

:)

Well it's this attitude that makes me unwilling to show my success and demonstrate how I achieved it. I guess that's what you really want though isn't it?

[micklemus]

Well it's this attitude that makes me unwilling to show my success and demonstrate how I achieved it. I guess that's what you really want though isn't it?

Not at all, I'm all ears.

My hat has been sitting on a plate with knife and fork at the ready for over a year now, it's very dusty and the ketchup will be past its sell by date soon.

I'm not deriding anyone for sticking up for themselves - good on them. I'm only saying that freeman philosophy (in the UK) is utter nonsense... at least in the way most "freeman" types understand it, as largely portrayed on this forum. Having said that, I saw one UK forum member heading in what has the potential to become a more productive direction in one respect recently...

I don't need a bastardisation of English law to create an illusion in my mind that I'm free. I'm free anyway. If I need to lock horns with the system I will do so as and when I choose. Besides, would I want to step out of the system completely at the moment? Probably not right now. Would you? I doubt it. You're in it or you're out; there ain't no middle ground. So, for me it eventually comes down to a crucial point which is this....

Since most freemen appear (looking at this forum anyway) to want the benefits of being part of the system and part of society but perhaps not get caught by it or pay for certain things along the way (note my previous comment about the irony of freemanery and honour though) I would suggest an understanding of how the legal system really works would sometimes be advantageous. And maybe the political system too. Doing things like reading excerpts from a US law dictionary when you're based in the UK or believing that the Magna Carta is the universal panacea without even knowing what it says, or spouting rubbish about who/what is a "person" without actually checking what the law really says, or believing that the entire UK system is subject to admiralty law because some chap said so, these things just make well meaning people look terribly foolish and leave them no better off than they were before. And that sort of thing is rife here.

That said, when the time comes that proof of the freeman antidote is put before me (and not more rhetoric or dodgy stories about lucky scrapes with the law) I'll grab my knife and fork.

If you've achieved success from being a freeman then I'm all yours (if a knarly old beardy man is your thing!). But freeman success is not -

(a) being a barrack room lawyer;
(b) being a royal pain in the arse;
(c) striking it lucky with a copper who can't be arsed to argue with your constant questions about "where's the contract" etc
(d) ducking a debt because someone can't be bothered to sue you
(e) innumerable variations on (a) to (d) above.

If it is then the terminology has been somewhat downgraded over time.

Success from being a freeman must mean you are completely immune from the law, end of, and you effectively set your own rules of engagement. No police intervention ever, no civil action, immunity from all contracts, no tax liabilities, etc etc etc. Because you're a freeman. And of course, on the flip side, no health service, no benefits etc etc either.

If it is or has become all about (a) above [and 95% of the time I suspect that is the case, looking at commentaries on car tax, eviction, debt collection etc] then I'll chip in (constructively) where I can as well. And have done on this thread.

Otherwise I shall maintain a healthy level of scepticism. Healthy in the sense that my mind isn't closed (that is plain arrogance and stupidity) - although it's been hard holding the door open for this long.

Please be warned about snake oil vendors. Whether they mean well or not, if the product is no good for you then it's no good for you, end of.

Sorry, but that was a very long answer to your question. The short answer is "no that's not all I want".

:)

[the worm that turned]

You make some interesting points Micklemus but again like 90% of other posts fail to address what is a Bill of Exchange (the title of this thread). :D

Not sure I agree with your point about a freeman-on-the-land being immune from the law. Perhaps statute law, but not law (i.e. God's law, common law)

[yozhik]

PPS - "person" =

1. A human being capable of rights, also called a natural person. Or
2. A corporation or legal person, also known as an artificial person (see Interpretation Act 1978, section 5, Sch 1)

Right ... let's get pedantic ...

What is a 'human being capable of rights'?
Capable of rights??


Also, is it;
a) human being ... capable of rights, or
b) human ... being capable of rights

Primary School Grammar;
You can NOT use the word to be defined in a definition.
i.e. a 'person' is also called a 'natural person' = FAIL

So a "person" is not necessarily an unreal character/legal fiction. But the primary example of an unnatural person is a limited company, which is recognised as a separate legal entity (i.e. a person for the purposes of UK law and freeman parlance).

Persons include companies otherwise a company would have no legal standing and consequently no legal rights or obligations. Hence a company can, through its board/authorised signatories, sign bills of exchange (primary example being cheques)

For the purposes of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, "person" includes "persons" whether in a body corporate or not (section 1 thereof).

'Includes' is limiting.
'Including' is expanding.

i.e.
'person' includes 'persons' ... means is limited to 'persons'.

In legalese, the statement;
'animals' includes cats ...means when [in this statute/act/etc] the word 'animal'is written, it is limited to cats.
So if this definition was stipulated in the legislation, it would not refer to dogs.

However, if it specificed in the definitions or interpretation;

'animals' means quadrapeds including cats, dogs and horses ... whilst specifying those three animals, it is not limted to just those three animals.

For the sake of clarity, if that same definition was written as;
'animals' includes cats, dogs and horses ... it would be limited to those three specific animals.

In your example, if the definition states;
'person' includes 'persons' ... it is limited to persons; i.e.more than two.

[girlgye]

Not at all, I'm all ears.

My hat has been sitting on a plate with knife and fork at the ready for over a year now, it's very dusty and the ketchup will be past its sell by date soon.

I'm not deriding anyone for sticking up for themselves - good on them. I'm only saying that freeman philosophy (in the UK) is utter nonsense... at least in the way most "freeman" types understand it, as largely portrayed on this forum. Having said that, I saw one UK forum member heading in what has the potential to become a more productive direction in one respect recently...

I don't need a bastardisation of English law to create an illusion in my mind that I'm free. I'm free anyway. If I need to lock horns with the system I will do so as and when I choose. Besides, would I want to step out of the system completely at the moment? Probably not right now. Would you? I doubt it. You're in it or you're out; there ain't no middle ground. So, for me it eventually comes down to a crucial point which is this....

Since most freemen appear (looking at this forum anyway) to want the benefits of being part of the system and part of society but perhaps not get caught by it or pay for certain things along the way (note my previous comment about the irony of freemanery and honour though) I would suggest an understanding of how the legal system really works would sometimes be advantageous. And maybe the political system too. Doing things like reading excerpts from a US law dictionary when you're based in the UK or believing that the Magna Carta is the universal panacea without even knowing what it says, or spouting rubbish about who/what is a "person" without actually checking what the law really says, or believing that the entire UK system is subject to admiralty law because some chap said so, these things just make well meaning people look terribly foolish and leave them no better off than they were before. And that sort of thing is rife here.

That said, when the time comes that proof of the freeman antidote is put before me (and not more rhetoric or dodgy stories about lucky scrapes with the law) I'll grab my knife and fork.

If you've achieved success from being a freeman then I'm all yours (if a knarly old beardy man is your thing!). But freeman success is not -

(a) being a barrack room lawyer;
(b) being a royal pain in the arse;
(c) striking it lucky with a copper who can't be arsed to argue with your constant questions about "where's the contract" etc
(d) ducking a debt because someone can't be bothered to sue you
(e) innumerable variations on (a) to (d) above.

If it is then the terminology has been somewhat downgraded over time.

Success from being a freeman must mean you are completely immune from the law, end of, and you effectively set your own rules of engagement. No police intervention ever, no civil action, immunity from all contracts, no tax liabilities, etc etc etc. Because you're a freeman. And of course, on the flip side, no health service, no benefits etc etc either.

If it is or has become all about (a) above [and 95% of the time I suspect that is the case, looking at commentaries on car tax, eviction, debt collection etc] then I'll chip in (constructively) where I can as well. And have done on this thread.

Otherwise I shall maintain a healthy level of scepticism. Healthy in the sense that my mind isn't closed (that is plain arrogance and stupidity) - although it's been hard holding the door open for this long.

Please be warned about snake oil vendors. Whether they mean well or not, if the product is no good for you then it's no good for you, end of.

Sorry, but that was a very long answer to your question. The short answer is "no that's not all I want".

:)


I think you should stay where you are. You seem to think the law as it stands in ALL it's complexities doesn't have to prove itself either - or perhaps it doesn't need to. That's why we don't have a tier system for appealing and judges with more knowledge of the law that can put right an errant lawyer.

Yet for a freeman to be successful he MUST get everything right with whatever encounter he has! How do you suppose they achieve it when most have no money to pay for a stenographer and entering a court that refuses to record what they say.

You've completed contradicted yourself in turns.

[the worm that turned]

Right ... let's get pedantic ...

What is a 'human being capable of rights'?
Capable of rights??


Also, is it;
a) human being ... capable of rights, or
b) human ... being capable of rights

Primary School Grammar;
You can NOT use the word to be defined in a definition.
i.e. a 'person' is also called a 'natural person' = FAIL



'Includes' is limiting.
'Including' is expanding.

i.e.
'person' includes 'persons' ... means is limited to 'persons'.

In legalese, the statement;
'animals' includes cats ...means when [in this statute/act/etc] the word 'animal'is written, it is limited to cats.
So if this definition was stipulated in the legislation, it would not refer to dogs.

However, if it specificed in the definitions or interpretation;

'animals' means quadrapeds including cats, dogs and horses ... whilst specifying those three animals, it is not limted to just those three animals.

For the sake of clarity, if that same definition was written as;
'animals' includes cats, dogs and horses ... it would be limited to those three specific animals.

In your example, if the definition states;
'person' includes 'persons' ... it is limited to persons; i.e.more than two.

According to my legal dictionary (Osborn's Concise 7th ed):

person. The object [nice] of rights and duties, that is, capable of having rights and of being liable to duties. Persons are of two kinds, natural and artificial. A natural person is a human being; an artificial person is a collection or succession of natural persons forming a corporation. "Individual" denotes a human being.

persona. [Roman law] (1) A human being. (2) A being or entity capable of enjoying legal rights, or subject to legal duties; e.g. a person or corporation. (3) a man's political and social rights collectively; his legal capacity

Interesting eh? I think we should be looking at "persona" and here is why (could be completely wrong here :)). But first read this from Wikipedia

"Roman law today

Today, Roman law is no longer applied in legal practice, even though the legal systems of some states like South Africa and San Marino are still based on the old Ius Commune. However, even where the legal practice is based on a code, many rules deriving from Roman law apply: No code completely broke with the Roman tradition. Rather, the provisions of Roman law were fitted into a more coherent system and expressed in the national language. For this reason, knowledge of Roman law is indispensable to understand the legal systems of today. Thus, Roman law is often still a mandatory subject for law students in civil law jurisdictions.

As steps towards a unification of the private law in the member states of the European Union are being taken, the old Ius Commune, which was the common basis of legal practice everywhere, but allowed for many local variants, is seen by many as a model."

So - we must understand Roman law to UNDERSTAND modern law. IMO this means that to understand the term "person" as used in statute law, you must UNDERSTAND (submit to) Roman law. As per the definition above, persona has 3 meanings. It is either (1) a human being (simple), (2) a thing that can enjoy (is allowed) rights and is subject to duties (statutes) or (3) the legal capacity (Yoz what does that mean?) of a man (i.e. a man is not a person, it HAS a person or persona)

So those who doubt the whole person/man issue, you (IMHO) are wrong and here is your proof!!

[number_6]

So here we go again though I doubt I shall get an answer from you.

I know a receipt is not a bill of exchange which is why I can't get my utility bills discharged.

However, a bill of exchange must take place between two people and it is down to the banker (fiduciary) the holder of the trust to pay isn't it?

Don't patronise us. No one talked about a restaurant bill here.
Of course I will answer a sensibly put question.
I agree with your post. A utility bill is not a BoE. However you are not quite correct by saying a BoE must have two people. It must have three parties, payee, drawer and drawee. However that doesn't always mean three people. You can be both the drawer and payee at the same time, as in the case when you write out a cheque to yourself. In fact you may be any combination of the three parties.
I am pleased that you state that you cannot get your utility bills discharged, maybe others will take notice of you.

[the worm that turned]

Of course I will answer a sensibly put question.
I agree with your post. A utility bill is not a BoE. However you are not quite correct by saying a BoE must have two people. It must have three parties, payee, drawer and drawee. However that doesn't always mean three people. You can be both the drawer and payee at the same time, as in the case when you write out a cheque to yourself. In fact you may be any combination of the three parties.
I am pleased that you state that you cannot get your utility bills discharged, maybe others will take notice of you.

I've managed to have my gas bill discharged because they can't show me a contract. The threat of billing them per letter (due to a failure to rebut my claim for charges per letter) has lead them to credit my account by the amount of gas they were attempting to bill me for.

That doesn't mean it is a BOE though

[yozhik]

Just to get really fucking pedantic and to throw another discussion point into the melting pot ...

Noun
human being (plural human beings)

1. A person; a large sapient, bipedal primate, with notably less hair than others of that order, of the species Homo sapiens.
1749, Henry Fielding, Tom Jones, volume III, VII xiv:
He began to reflect that in a few Minutes he might possibly deprive a human Being of Life, or might lose his own.
2. Another, extinct member of the genus Homo.


Source: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/human_being

[OK... so not the Mt Everest of sources ... but still VERY interesting info]

Extinct?
Really???





human
c.1250, from M.Fr. humain "of or belonging to man," from L. humanus, probably related to homo (gen. hominis) "man," and to humus "earth," on notion of "earthly beings," as opposed to the gods (cf. Heb. adam "man," from adamah "ground"). Cognate with O.Lith. zmuo (acc. zmuni) "man, male person." Displaced its O.E. cognate guma (from P.Gmc. *guman-) which survives only in disguise in bridegroom. First record of humankind is from 1645. Humanoid (1918) is a hybrid of L. humanus and Gk. -oeides "like," from eidos "form, shape" (see -oid).

Source: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=human&searchmode=none

"Of or belonging to man"?
Hmmmm...

You mean ... errrr ... like the 'person' [human being] belongs to the man?

[micklemus]

You make some interesting points Micklemus but again like 90% of other posts fail to address what is a Bill of Exchange (the title of this thread). :D

Not sure I agree with your point about a freeman-on-the-land being immune from the law. Perhaps statute law, but not law (i.e. God's law, common law)

Ummm, post 77 et seq http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1058419171&postcount=77

Or was that tongue in cheek?

Sorry, don't always get sarcasm.

:)

[micklemus]

Right ... let's get pedantic ...

What is a 'human being capable of rights'?
Capable of rights??


Also, is it;
a) human being ... capable of rights, or
b) human ... being capable of rights

Primary School Grammar;
You can NOT use the word to be defined in a definition.
i.e. a 'person' is also called a 'natural person' = FAIL



'Includes' is limiting.
'Including' is expanding.

i.e.
'person' includes 'persons' ... means is limited to 'persons'.

In legalese, the statement;
'animals' includes cats ...means when [in this statute/act/etc] the word 'animal'is written, it is limited to cats.
So if this definition was stipulated in the legislation, it would not refer to dogs.

However, if it specificed in the definitions or interpretation;

'animals' means quadrapeds including cats, dogs and horses ... whilst specifying those three animals, it is not limted to just those three animals.

For the sake of clarity, if that same definition was written as;
'animals' includes cats, dogs and horses ... it would be limited to those three specific animals.

In your example, if the definition states;
'person' includes 'persons' ... it is limited to persons; i.e.more than two.

Interesting, but can I clarify one point - this isn't my definition....

Thought you guys want to know what the law says. I've told you what the law says. We can pontificate about it all we like, but that's what it says.

So a person IS a human being, but in law a company is a person as well. Straw man theory has (daftly) decided that if a company is a person then a human being has a separate alias which is a company (or an artificial person at least). No!

The law actually recognises that human beings are human beings. People are people.


OOw Depeche Mode

People are people so why should it be-e-e
You and I should get along so awfully
[DUM DUM DUM]



[Hope not]



E!

:)

[yozhik]

I think you need to read my post again.

The law is the law.

Yes it is ... and legalese is legalese.
Well according to 'the law', a 'person' is an extinct member of the genus Homo.
According to the Act you cited, 'person' is limited to [includes] 'persons'.
According to the law, a 'person' is a 'human being' which is defined as being 'of or belonging to man'.

Let me put this another way, in question form.

Are you an extinct member of the genus Homo?
Do you belong to a man?
Are you capable of being more than two in number?

To be a 'person', you must have answered YES to all three questions.
If not ... then, why not?

[girlgye]

Ah I never said that I can't get my utilities discharged did I?

I said you can't do it through a bill of exchange because they send invoices.

there's a whole gravy train going on a remittance gold fever rush. I prefer good old tried and tested methods.

Though it is hard WTT when your utilities are outside.

I may pay now to bring mine inside, privately.

Well done you.

I don't think they have done it out of agreement. A friend has had his council tax waived due to it being unlawful.

Doesn't mean they aren't going to stop sending him bills and harrassing him.

It's putting a stop to all the harrassment that needs to happen.

My guess is you just did a conditional acceptance. They couldn't be arsed with the fight for the fact that they would probably lose and they let you away with it this time.

Well done. ;)

[girlgye]

and number 6 can I be the Grantor and holder in due course of a hidden trust that was foisted upon me by frigging fraud?

I have a feeling I'm gonna get one of those deafening silences.

[girlgye]

Why do I get the feeling I'm in the middle of two conversations.

Oh is that you again Yoshik?

Slaps his head.

Stop wasting your breath.

[micklemus]

I think you need to read my post again.

The law is the law.

Yes it is ... and legalese is legalese.
Well according to 'the law', a 'person' is an extinct member of the genus Homo.
According to the Act you cited, 'person' is limited to [includes] 'persons'.
According to the law, a 'person' is a 'human being' which is defined as being 'of or belonging to man'.

Let me put this another way, in question form.

Are you an extinct member of the genus Homo?
Do you belong to a man?
Are you capable of being more than two in number?

To be a 'person', you must have answered YES to all three questions.
If not ... then, why not?

This is getting very circular, so I'll try one more time only - none of what you're saying reflects what the law actually says. You are embarking on a debate about language and semantics, which are different matters. Like mathematics, the law has definitions. True that sometimes legal definitions follow ordinary dictionary meanings but not always.

I don't wish to condescend and no offence is intended but you do understand how judges, barristers and solicitors interpret the law don't you? And you do understand Parliamentary drafting? If there are problems in these areas then anyone seeking to apply the law, or investigate it, is going to have difficulties sooner or later.

Here lies a major problem with internet forum experts seeking to guide people on the law. It's the blind leading the blind, however well intended their actions are.

Good luck all of you in your consumer battles. You will have victories along the way and that's great. Incidentally I've had a major one with BT myself connected with their billing procedures, but claiming to be a freeman has nothing to do with it.

I'll buy a fresh bottle of ketchup.

:)

[micklemus]

.....You seem to think the law as it stands in ALL it's complexities doesn't have to prove itself either - or perhaps it doesn't need to. That's why we don't have a tier system for appealing and judges with more knowledge of the law that can put right an errant lawyer.

Yet for a freeman to be successful he MUST get everything right with whatever encounter he has! How do you suppose they achieve it when most have no money to pay for a stenographer and entering a court that refuses to record what they say.

You've completed contradicted yourself in turns.

Your first paragraph is wrong in a number of respects -

1. If a lawyer is errant or negligent as your advisor then you have rights of complaint and you may have a claim in negligence;
2. If a judge makes an incorrect decision, whether following errant submissions or because he misdirects himself then you have a right of appeal;
3. If a judge has refused to allow you to proceed to appeal (whether on an application at the end of a hearing or on a subsequent application for permission) then the judge is basically telling you that your appeal hasn't a hope of succeeding;
4. We do have a tiered system, which is broadly - County Court, High Court, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court (previously House of Lords)
5. The general rules on appeal procedures (for England & Wales) can be found in CPR 52, which is freely available online.

Opening part of second paragraph is as true for a freeman (actually, we must be talking about a layperson because a freeman would be immune) as it is for the lawyers. As to the second part, I follow you to a degree but not completely. Yes, you wouldn't get a stenographer for free - agreed on that - but surely the hearing was recorded? Take a look at the Practice Direction to CPR 39, again freely available online.

Where have I contradicted myself?

PS - your above post replied to a long one from me, which in turn was answering one from you about proof of success as a freeman. As I mentioned in my long post, I would be very pleased to hear about how being a freeman has won the battle for you. Genuinely. By PM or otherwise, I'd love to know.

[yozhik]

I don't wish to condescend and no offence is intended but you do understand how judges, barristers and solicitors interpret the law don't you?

And you do understand Parliamentary drafting?

No.
No I do not stand under their interpetations.

... and therein lies the rub ... and quite possibly the source or reason for the 'cyclic argument'.

Your premise seems to hinge on agreement of interpretation.
My counter argument is based on their not being agreement.

So let us simply agree on interpetation being the core issue and leave it at that.

[micklemus]

Agreed

Therefore one does need to exercise caution in one's guidance to others, perhaps?

Good luck

[yozhik]

Agreed

Therefore one does need to exercise caution in one's guidance to others, perhaps?

Good luck

Totally.
100% in agreement.

As I have posted ad nauseum ... do your own due diligence.
This is a forum, where ideas are exchanged and opinions are debated.

I have never seen it,nor will ever treat it, as a source of absolute truths.

I've lost count of the number of times my opinions have been amended, altered, reversed and abandoned in the time spent on this forum thus far.

For me, the whole FOTL concept is a work in progress.




On a separate but loosely connected matter ...

Just for cerebral chewing gum ... consider the term 'human being' as a shortening of the term 'human Being of Life', which would have been used in years gone by.

'Being of Life' was/is a significant term, which through time [and design?] has been pushed aside.



Whilst some may label me as a 'person'; I do not have to agree to it.
You can call me whatever you wish; it has no relevance to the truth of who I am.
Many more may view me as a 'human being'; again, I do not have to acknowledge nor subscribe to this description or species label.

I was, I am, I will be.


To throw another piece of kindling onto the fire, it [the pigeon holing of 'human being'] could be interpeted as the attempt to separate the indivisible duo of the earthly Being of Life and the spiritual Being of Life.

[vinumentis]

Convention Providing a Uniform Law For Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes
(Geneva, 1930) The League of Nations
http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/bills.of.exchange.and.promissory.notes.convention. 1930/doc.html

As you all may know, this convention has been reflected in most of the EU countries acts. Where I'm now, it is the case, altough it has been translated in national commercial code around 1956.

Bought one day an old book about commercial law and this "detail" was mentioned.
I hope this helps you.

Regards,
vinumentis:)

[yozhik]

Spooky!

Have only recently [last 48 hours] been down the whole 'Acceptance and Payment for Honour' rabbit hole.

link (http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&searchDay=19&searchMonth=11&searchYear=2009&searchEnacted=0&text=%26quot%3bacceptance+for+honour%26quot%3b&extent=E%2bW%2bS%2bN.I.&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=1072040&ActiveTextDocId=1072116&filesize=7225)

Perfect timing vinumentis; nice info.

[sindakit]

@GG

If you wanto A4V utilities bill, you need to let it cure. A bit like bacon! 30 days is the time needed. you prob already knew that tho.

[number_6]

@GG

If you wanto A4V utilities bill, you need to let it cure. A bit like bacon! 30 days is the time needed. you prob already knew that tho.

So have you done it with success?

[burnttoast]

Yesterday I was not worthy of such information, now you wish to share all?
Why not post up here what you have so that we all may see it?

Is this not your 3rd go at dishonor?
When did "we all" start making false claims?
And when did you get to be the mouthpiece for "we all"?

[for the lovely attendants of the forum...at about this point..actually earlier, good 'ol 6 was in dishonor by remaining silent (Accepting) to my offer of a Sworn Affidavit of Truth billed directly to him and continuing his false claims against me...which is perceived as FRAUD..but I'm a big boy and I'll get over it...oh by the way these sentences don't exist because they are in bracket form, exemplified by a quote wrap around to procure the four corner rule....a little esoteric giveaway for the freeman newbs today.

Peace

[number_6]

Is this not your 3rd go at dishonor?
When did "we all" start making false claims?
And when did you get to be the mouthpiece for "we all"?


I am bored with your style of posting, I'll leave you to it.

[burnttoast]

I am bored with your style of posting, I'll leave you to it.

Can you leave me to it then, to assume any further posting is purely fraudulent on any claim you make against me, as I've offered to give you Lawful evidence to the contrary?

P.S - Sorry you're bored.

Peace

[micklemus]

O blimey not again.....

[girlgye]

Can you leave me to it then, to assume any further posting is purely fraudulent on any claim you make against me, as I've offered to give you Lawful evidence to the contrary?

P.S - Sorry you're bored.

Peace

Aw. I thought you were Leslie but you can't be. Too polite.
Listen mate you've had a result if you've managed to get him to draw down his sword. ;)

[yozhik]

Whilst some may label me as a 'person'; I do not have to agree to it.
You can call me whatever you wish; it has no relevance to the truth of who I am.
Many more may view me as a 'human being'; again, I do not have to acknowledge nor subscribe to this description or species label.

I was, I am, I will be.


OK ... until I report otherwise, I am not recognising the term 'human being' to apply to me. I do not consent to being referred to as a 'human being'.
Some of my earlier posts in this thread go some way to explaining why I believe it may have been dangerous for a 'man' to consent to being labelled a 'human being' ... but the following information is the straw that broke the camels back ... for me anyway.


http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/c0ff88443d.jpg (http://www.freeimagehosting.net/)


Sorry ... what????
Hedge funds have Human Rights??
:mad:

Know who you are!!
I was, I am, I will be.

[asky]

I cannot find any evidence to suggest that their claims have been successful though.

I do agree that it is devaluing the act
But then again it is only an Act after all.

asky

[yozhik]

The mere fact that legal firms are using a 'breach of Human Rights' as a viable defence argument for commercial disputes between companies is enough for me.

As you have stated; the law is about probability.
This argument shouldn't even be worthy of consideration [plain English, not legalese].

If a Hedge Fund can sue Northen Rock for perceived 'breaches of its Human Rights', then it attests to 'human being' being as much of a legal fiction as 'person'.

[asky]

Just maybe the act does, when it says "person" include corporations and the very fact the Human Rights Act was passed in the first place was for those very entities..

ASKY

[yozhik]

So you're suggesting that the Human Rights Act was specifically legislated for the benefit of protecting the rights of corporations?

[asky]

Why not?

Its as good a reason as any.
And it would be the con of the century as well wouldnt it?

asky

[yozhik]

Why not?

Its as good a reason as any.
And it would be the con of the century as well wouldnt it?

asky

Human Rights Act = protection of corporations?

... and [if true] you think that's OK?

[asky]

I didnt say it was OK but it is possible that it was passed for corporations/persons rather than human beings.

It does mention person a lot doesnt it and it is a Statute after all so who knows its worth some investigation
I think we can agree on that at least.

asky

[asky]

http://www.gnb.ca/0062/Acts/acts/h-11.htm

States
“person”, in addition to the extended meaning given by the Interpretation Act, includes an employment agency, an employers’ organization and a trade union;

So its quite possible

asky

[micklemus]

OK ... until I report otherwise, I am not recognising the term 'human being' to apply to me. I do not consent to being referred to as a 'human being'.
Some of my earlier posts in this thread go some way to explaining why I believe it may have been dangerous for a 'man' to consent to being labelled a 'human being' ... but the following information is the straw that broke the camels back ... for me anyway.


http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/c0ff88443d.jpg (http://www.freeimagehosting.net/)


Sorry ... what????
Hedge funds have Human Rights??
:mad:

Know who you are!!
I was, I am, I will be.

I wouldn't worry too much, yozhik. You've been given a rag tag of references. The Human Rights Act that you've been quoted relates to Canada, that place where (as David Icke knows) the words "kangaroo" and "court" are sometimes loving bedfellows (ref Mr Warman etc).

The Human Rights Act for the UK is The Human Rights Act 1998, which codifies the European Convention on Human Rights (which is reproduced at Schedule 1 of the Act).

Also, looking at the wording of the convention, the Act and in particular the title of the Act, I think it's pretty clear who it applies to.

Putting it as neutrally as I can, I don't think asky's theory carries much weight.

[the nine]

Probably a good idea. Giving out false information that others here might believe (and subsequently lead them down a dangerous path) I consider at best, irresponsible. If you refuse to back up your claims with proof, then perhaps it is indeed wise not to post any claims.

I do hope that you acknowledge your great work here on your CV.
would you place it in the hobbies section, or voluntary work, or part time employment?

"Spending hours on David Icke's website forum.. saving people from bad advice, given to them by anonymous posters."

I suspect this would give your peers a valuable insight into your character. And also to any potential employers, an indication of your (possible) charitable nature and concern for what you would term mostly 'benefit scroungers' and 'children'.

[the nine]

Just maybe the act does, when it says "person" include corporations and the very fact the Human Rights Act was passed in the first place was for those very entities..

ASKY

this wouldnt surprise me at all!

[girlgye]

what has the last 14 or so posts got to do with the study of Bills of Exchange may I ask?

[yozhik]

what has the last 14 or so posts got to do with the study of Bills of Exchange may I ask?

2 eggs
1 pint milk
2 oz flour
pinch of salt




:D

[asky]

micklemus wrote
Putting it as neutrally as I can, I don't think asky's theory carries much weight.

Theory??
It was an off hand comment that was in response to a post from Yozhik about a corporation using the Human rights act which developed into me finding a source which stated in its definition that the word "person" was not only a human being in the context of the act.

Thats as far as it went

I dont know about you but I tend to base my theories on a little more research than that.

asky

[micklemus]

micklemus wrote


Theory??
It was an off hand comment that was in response to a post from Yozhik about a corporation using the Human rights act which developed into me finding a source which stated in its definition that the word "person" was not only a human being in the context of the act.

Thats as far as it went

I dont know about you but I tend to base my theories on a little more research than that.

asky


Quite. Think if you look at what I've said on this thread you'll have gathered that my penneth is based on more than conjecture.

[micklemus]

what has the last 14 or so posts got to do with the study of Bills of Exchange may I ask?

Quite...

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1058419171&postcount=77

:)

[number_6]

I do hope that you acknowledge your great work here on your CV.
would you place it in the hobbies section, or voluntary work, or part time .

Never had a CV. Only ever worked for myself. "Work" a term often not understood here.

[yozhik]

Never had a CV. Only ever worked for myself. "Work" a term often not understood here.

meow ...

[number_6]

meow ...

All very well yozhik, but I do beleive the nine's post violates the forums rules.

[yozhik]

All very well yozhik, but I do beleive the nine's post violates the forums rules.

Relax man ... report it ... let the mods deal with it.
Life's too short to sweat the small stuff.
Besides ... we're still banging heads in another thread ... much too important to worry about this one.

:D

[girlgye]

Never had a CV. Only ever worked for myself. "Work" a term often not understood here.

Now whos the troll press that mod button now.....:rolleyes:

[number_6]

report it ... let the mods deal with it.


Not in my nature.

[number_6]

Now whos the troll press that mod button now.....:rolleyes:

girlgye, even you know deep down I am not a troll.....but I am sceptical.

[the worm that turned]

Can a mod please look at the title of this thread and attempt to put it back on track or close it as it is beginning to become pointless creating specific threads on here.

Moan moan moan!