reply to post by charles1952
thank you for the apology.
there really is no need to be nasty.
(unless we are pressuring a nerve ??)
also, there hasn't been a secured debt instrument from the government
since the establishment of the Fed Reserve.
why would a treaty need to be involved in the establishment of UCC ?
the rest of those questions, would be best answered by the person filing the claim, don't you think ??
i am simply adding to the conversation, not disputing the claim.
are you diputing the claim without evidence ??
hmmmm, i'm still reviewing Congressional records so i reserve comment on that opinion.
you have yet to show anything that says different and that's the problem.
'no, no, that's not so' isn't sufficient without source or substance.
(balanced budget that year ? maybe just a banking modification ? or perhaps, gold confiscations or was that 34? and, if there was no bankruptcy,
why 3yrs of the confiscations ??)
in the post of VAs you are referencing ...
you have to pass their test don't you?
is a question, not an assertion
no, you deflected there from the comments indicating that lawyers, the BAR and England are all relative to one another.
besides, we are not discussing an exam of efficiency
we are discussing the agents of the Crown appointed as trustees of the afore-mentioned bankruptcy
... which by the way has now been established
that ALL lawyers are, in fact, required to join the BAR ... so, where does their loyalty reside ??