Does a promissory note have

User avatar
Hektor
Posts: 2951
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 6:04 pm
Location: Soviet Canukistan
Contact:

Re: Does a promissory note have

#476

Post by Hektor » Tue Aug 23, 2016 6:48 pm

Ooooh Ooooh, we've come to the fourteenth amendment of the united States now huh? Shoot, statists, how long before we can haz this thing called the REAL 13th Amendment which was totally ratified and makes it illegal to be a British Accreditation Registry-type law talkin' folk? Accepted for Value? Birth Certificate Bonds being traded on the stock exchange?

Am I the only one who reads JSG, um, "legal explanations" in the voice of Vincent Adultman talking about his business transactions?

[youtube][/youtube]

User avatar
Just some guy
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Does a promissory note have

#477

Post by Just some guy » Tue Aug 23, 2016 7:54 pm

Suranis wrote:
In any case, I am a citizen of the European union and a citizen of Ireland. Being one does not make the other impossible. Its not that hard to grasp...
So when people ask where you were born you say Ireland or the EU?

Having lots of family members from Ireland, I can already tell you that they say they were born in Ireland least some American fool take them for being from Scotland.

Do you know why you say you were born in Ireland?

Because while Ireland might be a PART OF the EU, it is not THEE EU, is it?

After Ireland became part of the EU, were people born there considered born in the EU or born in IRELAND?

User avatar
Just some guy
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Does a promissory note have

#478

Post by Just some guy » Tue Aug 23, 2016 8:00 pm

Mikedunford wrote:
Just some guy wrote:
Piffle wrote: I see what you did. You conveniently swapped "originator" for "customer". :nope:

The customer who made application for the loan does not become the originator of a subsequent transfer of funds pursuant to the approved loan agreement.
Oh did I do that?

(c) "Originator" means the sender of the first payment order in a funds transfer.

(d) The term "sender" in this Article includes the customer in whose name a payment order is issued

(3) "Customer" means a person, including a bank, having an account with a bank or from whom a bank has agreed to receive payment orders.
You skipped steps. First, as I already mentioned, you haven't shown that there are no relevant Federal Reserve regulations/circulars that might conflict with the UCC, nor have you shown that there are no other federal laws that might conflict in this particular case. Second, you haven't shown that the funds transfer qualifies as a "payment order" - a term which is also defined in 4A, and in a way that I think might be problematic for you.

Fill in those blanks and come back. Once you've done that, we can move on to some of the many other massive problems in your argument.

That is because I am not the one suggesting there might be, you are the suggesting there might be flyers that contradict my position, but have yet to show any.

The funds transfer is not the payment order, the payment order is me telling the bank that I wont to buy his house, so make the check out to him.

(1) "Payment order" means an instruction of a sender to a receiving bank, transmitted orally, electronically, or in writing, to pay, or to cause another bank to pay, a fixed or determinable amount of money to a beneficiary if:

(i) the instruction does not state a condition to payment to the beneficiary other than time of payment,

(ii) the receiving bank is to be reimbursed by debiting an account of, or otherwise receiving payment from, the sender, and

(iii) the instruction is transmitted by the sender directly to the receiving bank or to an agent, funds-transfer system, or communication system for transmittal to the receiving bank.



Unless of course you are saying the bank decides what house I want to buy and who I want to pay?

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 8072
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Does a promissory note have

#479

Post by Northland10 » Tue Aug 23, 2016 8:03 pm

JSG has proven me wrong. I did not think he could get any more idiotic. I was wrong.
North-land: of the family 10

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
Just some guy
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Does a promissory note have

#480

Post by Just some guy » Tue Aug 23, 2016 8:11 pm

Dr. Caligari wrote:
Just some guy wrote:1. Was Virginia beach not a part of the united states before the 14th amendment?

2. did the passing of the 14th amendment transfer territory jurisdiction of Virginia beach to the federal united states?
You're bouncing all over the lot here-- we were talking about bank loans and promissory notes. But the answers to your questions are:

1. Yes, it was part of the United States, and

2. No, the 14th Amendment did not transfer territorial jurisdiction over Virginia to the "federal United States."
1. so why before the 14th were people considered state citizens and not US citizens?

2. So why after the 14th were people no longer considered born in Virginia and instead born in the united states?

User avatar
Just some guy
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Does a promissory note have

#481

Post by Just some guy » Tue Aug 23, 2016 8:15 pm

Suranis wrote:1 Yes
2 The passing of the US constitution locked the various states into a federal collective after the failure of the lose confederacy of states. From then on people were both Citizens of the states and citizens of the US. The 14th amendment had fuck all to do with it. After all it was said that it was "declaratory of existing rights, and affirmative of existing law.”

I'm not even from the US and I know this shit.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html ... _user.html
1. So why were people born there before the 14th amendment not called US CITIZENS? If you say they were, I challenge you to find something that backs you up.

2. the constitution and the lose confederacy of states eh? yeah you know what you are talking about.

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 8072
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Does a promissory note have

#482

Post by Northland10 » Tue Aug 23, 2016 8:16 pm

Just some guy wrote:
1. so why before the 14th were people considered state citizens and not US citizens?

2. So why after the 14th were people no longer considered born in Virginia and instead born in the united states?
If they were not citizens of the United States who was in Congress?
No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.
Does the Constitution start "We the People of Virginia Beach?"

Have you even read the Constitution?

Oh, I was born in Kalamazoo, and Michigan and the United States, all at the same time.
North-land: of the family 10

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 8072
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Does a promissory note have

#483

Post by Northland10 » Tue Aug 23, 2016 8:17 pm

Just some guy wrote:2. the constitution and the lose confederacy of states eh? yeah you know what you are talking about.
Um.. the Articles of Confederation. Did they leave that out of your 120 year old books?
North-land: of the family 10

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
Just some guy
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Does a promissory note have

#484

Post by Just some guy » Tue Aug 23, 2016 8:19 pm

Northland10 wrote:Even during the civil war, the union considered Virginia and the other southern states to still be part of the United States. Being in a state of rebellion did negate Constitutional protections but they were still part of the United States at least territorial wise.
Are you saying that the states were federal territory?

If Ireland or Greece left the EU, would they still be part of the EU?

User avatar
Just some guy
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Does a promissory note have

#485

Post by Just some guy » Tue Aug 23, 2016 8:21 pm

Northland10 wrote:
Just some guy wrote:
1. so why before the 14th were people considered state citizens and not US citizens?

2. So why after the 14th were people no longer considered born in Virginia and instead born in the united states?
If they were not citizens of the United States who was in Congress?
No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States[/highlight], and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.
Does the Constitution start "We the People of Virginia Beach?"

Have you even read the Constitution?

Oh, I was born in Kalamazoo, and Michigan and the United States, all at the same time.

Is Kalamazoo federal territory?

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 8072
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Does a promissory note have

#486

Post by Northland10 » Tue Aug 23, 2016 8:23 pm

Just some guy wrote:
Northland10 wrote:Even during the civil war, the union considered Virginia and the other southern states to still be part of the United States. Being in a state of rebellion did negate Constitutional protections but they were still part of the United States at least territorial wise.
Are you saying that the states were federal territory?

If Ireland or Greece left the EU, would they still be part of the EU?
What does the EU have to do with anything. The union did not recognize the right of the states to separate themselves from the union and nullify the Constitution. The belief of the federal government and the states that did not secede was that the Constitution and the laws made therein did not provide a mechanism to leave the Constitution union.

It is about the US Constitution. What rules the EU has is up to the EU and their member states.
North-land: of the family 10

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 8072
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Does a promissory note have

#487

Post by Northland10 » Tue Aug 23, 2016 8:24 pm

I guess the asshole is just trolling, so I'm done playing.
North-land: of the family 10

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
Just some guy
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Does a promissory note have

#488

Post by Just some guy » Tue Aug 23, 2016 8:25 pm

Northland10 wrote:
Just some guy wrote:2. the constitution and the lose confederacy of states eh? yeah you know what you are talking about.
Um.. the Articles of Confederation. Did they leave that out of your 120 year old books?
Um the United states was born with the AOC, never died, and no one born in a state was considered a citizen of the us, hence the state citizens having different rights then the federal US CITIZENS(which at the time were folks in DC and other FEDERAL TERRITORIES like the NW territory.)

User avatar
Just some guy
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Does a promissory note have

#489

Post by Just some guy » Tue Aug 23, 2016 8:27 pm

Northland10 wrote:
Just some guy wrote:
Northland10 wrote:Even during the civil war, the union considered Virginia and the other southern states to still be part of the United States. Being in a state of rebellion did negate Constitutional protections but they were still part of the United States at least territorial wise.
Are you saying that the states were federal territory?

If Ireland or Greece left the EU, would they still be part of the EU?
What does the EU have to do with anything. The union did not recognize the right of the states to separate themselves from the union and nullify the Constitution. The belief of the federal government and the states that did not secede was that the Constitution and the laws made therein did not provide a mechanism to leave the Constitution union.

It is about the US Constitution. What rules the EU has is up to the EU and their member states.
Who cares what the UNION recognized, the declaration makes it clear as day, when the government needs to be disbanded it will...end of story.

You know who else thought the colonies did not have the right to secede?

It did not provide a mechanism because one is not needed, did England provide a mechanism for us to leave them?


How about you show me in the constitution were it says the states can not leave the union?

User avatar
Dr. Caligari
Posts: 1099
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2010 6:22 pm

Re: Does a promissory note have

#490

Post by Dr. Caligari » Tue Aug 23, 2016 8:30 pm

no one born in a state was considered a citizen of the us, hence the state citizens having different rights then the federal US CITIZENS(which at the time were folks in DC and other FEDERAL TERRITORIES like the NW territory.)
Then, as Northland asked you, who was elected to Congress from Virginia before the 14th Amendment?
J.D., Miskatonic University School of Law

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44267
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Does a promissory note have

#491

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Tue Aug 23, 2016 8:38 pm

SovCit bullshitter. I think we should leave him to get stopped for "traveling" rather than driving. I'm sure he's got his Kingdom of Heaven paper license plates. I wonder where he finds all the time to do this. I suspect it's government assistance from the government he hates so much.

Thanks, Obama.

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 8072
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Does a promissory note have

#492

Post by Northland10 » Tue Aug 23, 2016 8:40 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote: I wonder where he finds all the time to do this. I suspect it's government assistance from the government he hates so much.
Wouldn't surprise me. He's a lazy little selfish prick who feeds at the troth while probably complaining about others receiving benefits even though they are trying to actually better themselves.
North-land: of the family 10

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

Re: Does a promissory note have

#493

Post by Piffle » Tue Aug 23, 2016 8:46 pm

Just some guy wrote:How about you show me in the constitution were it says the states can not leave the union?
See Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869).

Oh, I forgot. Your approach to legal research doesn't consider case law interpreting the Constitution, does it?

Toodle-loo, Kiddies!

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 16586
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Does a promissory note have

#494

Post by Suranis » Tue Aug 23, 2016 8:55 pm

Just some guy wrote:
Suranis wrote:
In any case, I am a citizen of the European union and a citizen of Ireland. Being one does not make the other impossible. Its not that hard to grasp...
So when people ask where you were born you say Ireland or the EU?

Having lots of family members from Ireland, I can already tell you that they say they were born in Ireland least some American fool take them for being from Scotland.

Do you know why you say you were born in Ireland?

Because while Ireland might be a PART OF the EU, it is not THEE EU, is it?

After Ireland became part of the EU, were people born there considered born in the EU or born in IRELAND?
Oh boy now he has Irish family members. What a surprise

The EU unlike the US is an economic and increasingly political union of independence states with a long history of being independent countries. The USA is made of non independent states that never had an existence as independent states. They were always part of the USA for their entire existence.

Talk to Germany sometime about where they came from. They are as likely to say something like Bavaria rather than Germany. Does not stop Germany being a unified country.

And people born here were and are considered both "born in the EU or born in IRELAND." Here is an Irish Passport... which doubles as an EU Passport. It's right there on the top.

Image

And now for extra comedy..
Just some guy wrote:1. So why were people born there before the 14th amendment not called US CITIZENS? If you say they were, I challenge you to find something that backs you up.
I already did, Mr Mighty Reader. The stiff I quoted from 1830 said flat out that anyone born in the USA was an american citizen. But since you insist
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”

William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 86 (1829)
“And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.”

James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW, pg. 258 (1826
)
“As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”

James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)
“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence,…A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.”

St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES (1803)
“That all natural born citizens, or persons born within the limits of the United States, and all aliens subject to the restrictions hereinafter mentioned, may inherit real estate and make their pedigree by descent from any ancestor lineal or collateral…”

January 28, 1838, Acts of the State of Tennessee passed at the General Assembly, pg. 266 (1838)
“The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President… The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. ”

Lynch vs. Clarke (NY 1844)
“Every person, then, born in the country, and that shall have attained the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States, is eligible to the office of president.”

Lysander Spooner, The Unconstitionality of Slavery, pg. 119 (1845)
“in like manner every one who first saw the light on the American soil was a natural-born citizen ; but the power of naturalization, which, under the king, each colony had claimed to regulate by its own laws, remained under the confederacy with the separate states.”

George Bancroft, History of the United States, from the Discovery of the American Continent: The American Revolution., pg. 439 (1866)
“Every person born within the United States, its Territories, or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural-born citizen of the United States in the sense of the Constitution…Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England; that is, within the ligeance, or, as it is generally called, the allegiance of the King; and aliens are such as are born out of it.” …… “It makes a man a subject in England, and a citizen here, and is, as Blackstone declares, ‘founded in reason and the nature of government’ … The English Law made no distinction … in declaring that all persons born within its jurisdiction are natural-born subjects. This law bound the colonies before the revolution, and was not changed afterward.” ‘

Rep. Wilson, 1866 Civil Rights Act debates. 10 Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1115, 1117 (1866)
The 14th amendment was, of course, in 1868. All these people didn't get the memo. And I actually have a lot more quotes I could throw at you...
2. the constitution and the lose confederacy of states eh? yeah you know what you are talking about.
Uh... Articles of Confederation. Look it up, Mr Fantastic Reader

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation
The Continental Congress printed paper money which was so depreciated that it ceased to pass as currency, spawning the expression "not worth a continental". Congress could not levy taxes and could only make requisitions upon the States. Less than a million and a half dollars came into the treasury between 1781 and 1784, although the governors had been asked for two million in 1783 alone.[33]

When John Adams went to London in 1785 as the first representative of the United States, he found it impossible to secure a treaty for unrestricted commerce. Demands were made for favors and there was no assurance that individual states would agree to a treaty. Adams stated it was necessary for the States to confer the power of passing navigation laws to Congress, or that the States themselves pass retaliatory acts against Great Britain. Congress had already requested and failed to get power over navigation laws. Meanwhile, each State acted individually against Great Britain to little effect. When other New England states closed their ports to British shipping, Connecticut hastened to profit by opening its ports.[34]
This was all before the drafting of the Constitution.

I bet you think that the Texans won the Battle of the Alamo too.
Learn to Swear in Latin. Profanity with class!
https://blogs.transparent.com/latin/lat ... -in-latin/

User avatar
dunstvangeet
Posts: 504
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:53 am

Re: Does a promissory note have

#495

Post by dunstvangeet » Tue Aug 23, 2016 9:07 pm

Just some guy wrote:1. so why before the 14th were people considered state citizens and not US citizens?
This has to be one of the most idiotic statements that there ever was. Before the 14th Amendment, there are at least 3 different references to U.S. citizenship in the Constitution (Article I, Section 1, Clause 2: "Citizen of the United States", Article I, Section 1, Clause 3: "Citizen of the United States", Article II, Section 1, Clause 5: "natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States". If nobody was to be a Citizen of the United States until the 14th Amendment, why did they put "Citizen of the United States" three different times in the ORIGINAL Constitution?

Is it true that people mainly considered their state, yes. However, that has no relevence. They were also citizens of the United States.
2. So why after the 14th were people no longer considered born in Virginia and instead born in the united states?
Because the Federal Constitution deals with the Federal Government. Why would the Federal Government say that anybody born in Virginia is a citizen of the United States and the state in which they reside? They'd have to amend that statement anytime a new state was admitted into the Union. Virginia is part of the United States. Anybody born in Virginia is also born in the United States, just as anybody born in Richmond is also born in Virginia, and the United States, and while they reside there, they are citizens of all three.

You can be a citizen of dozens of entities that you reside in. You can be a citizen of: school districts, community college districts, water control districts, irrigation districts, port districts, regional air quality control authorities, fire districts, hospital districts, mass transit districts, sanitary districts and authorities, people’s utility districts, domestic water supply districts and authorities, cemetery districts, park and recreation districts, metropolitan service districts, special road districts, road assessment districts, highway lighting districts, health districts, vector control districts, water improvement districts, weather modification districts, geothermal heating districts, transportation districts, county service districts, chemical control districts, weed control districts, emergency communication districts, diking districts, and soil and water conservation districts. Each one of these is a separate governmental entity, which means that all of them have citizens. And if there's one where you live, then you're a citizen of it.

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 8072
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Does a promissory note have

#496

Post by Northland10 » Tue Aug 23, 2016 9:09 pm

Suranis wrote: The EU unlike the US is an economic and increasingly political union of independence states with a long history of being independent countries. The USA is made of non independent states that never had an existence as independent states. They were always part of the USA for their entire existence.
In all fairness, Texas did have that 10 years where they were independent but they decided that going it alone was not the best choice.
North-land: of the family 10

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 7884
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:25 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Historic Restoration Woodworker
Contact:

Re: Does a promissory note have

#497

Post by RoadScholar » Tue Aug 23, 2016 9:39 pm

"Your manuscript is both good and original; but the part that is good is not original, and the part that is original is not good."

---Samuel Johnson (1709 - 1784)
The bitterest truth is healthier than the sweetest lie.
X3

User avatar
Just some guy
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Does a promissory note have

#498

Post by Just some guy » Tue Aug 23, 2016 9:53 pm

Dr. Caligari wrote:
no one born in a state was considered a citizen of the us, hence the state citizens having different rights then the federal US CITIZENS(which at the time were folks in DC and other FEDERAL TERRITORIES like the NW territory.)
Then, as Northland asked you, who was elected to Congress from Virginia before the 14th Amendment?
Citizens of the states were also citizens of the us, BUT they were citizens of the state first and foremost. Being born in Virginia do not make you a citizen of the us, the fact that Virginia was a part of the union made you a us citizen SECOND to that of your state.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26669
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Does a promissory note have

#499

Post by bob » Tue Aug 23, 2016 10:04 pm

Just some guy wrote:so why before the 14th were people considered state citizens and not US citizens?
Just some guy wrote:Citizens of the states were also citizens of the us
:yankyank:
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
dunstvangeet
Posts: 504
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:53 am

Re: Does a promissory note have

#500

Post by dunstvangeet » Tue Aug 23, 2016 10:08 pm

Northland10 wrote:
Suranis wrote: The EU unlike the US is an economic and increasingly political union of independence states with a long history of being independent countries. The USA is made of non independent states that never had an existence as independent states. They were always part of the USA for their entire existence.
In all fairness, Texas did have that 10 years where they were independent but they decided that going it alone was not the best choice.
That was actually, not because Texas actually wanted to go it alone, the U.S. didn't really want to acquire Texas, as it was a slave state, and it was still being claimed as part of Mexico. The northern Senators didn't want it because they figured that it could be admitted as multiple states, affecting the balance between slave states and non-slave states in the Senate. Martin Van Buren didn't want it because it could have meant all-out war with Mexico.

Post Reply

Return to “FEMA Camp 7½”