Source: http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/index.php?/topic/30801-accepted-for-value-australia-do-i-have-a-chance/&amp;do=findComment&amp;comment=343983
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 08:25:28+00:00

Document:
blacks law dictionary defines HUMANS as bankers.?
you can do anything a banker can do.
Accept means you will pay the document.
If you pay the document/ negotiable estimate, then obviously it belongs to you.
anyone who sends you a bill and does not send you the check to pay it with, has created a liability witch they did not provide the remedy.
uniform commercial code doctrine: in order to create liability you have have to make presentment (give it to them. hand them paper).
"we use to get presentments from the irs and they wouldn't send the check, so we use to write back and say thanks for what you sent but where's the check, and then after a period of time they then started to send the check" winston shrout.
"Write all below on a bill its considered a MONEY ORDER it must be Diagonally (historical significance / how bankers use to do it)"
When you accept this as a banker (and that you are) you turn this document into currency.
every piece of paper that is backed by the faith and consciousness is something you can then use to exchange for energy with.
Faith in credit, if there was no faith in Australian currency then it would be no good.
all currency in the world is debit, there is no gold?
A private person who keeps a bank; one who is engaged in the business of banking. People v. Doty, 80 N. Y. 228; Auten v. Bank, 174 U. S. 125, 19 Sup. Ct. 628, 43 L. Ed. 920; Richmond v. Blake, 132 U. S. 592, 10 Sup. Ct. 204, 33 L. Ed. 481; Meadowcroft v. People, 163 111. 56, 45 N. E 303, 35 L R. A. 176, 54 Am. St Rep. 447.
This word embraces everything about which a person can be employed. People v. Com’rs of Taxes, 23 N. Y. 242, 244. That which occupies the time, attention, and labor of men for the purpose of a livelihood or profit. The doing of a single act pertaining to a particular business will not be considered engaging in or carrying on the business; yet a series of such acts would be so considered. Goddard v. Chaffee, 2 Allen (Mass.) 305, 79 Am. Dec. 796; Sterne v. State, 20 Ala. 46. Labor, business, and work are not synonyms. Labor may be business, but it is not necessarily so; and business is not always labor. Making an agreement for the sale of a chattel is not within a prohibition of labor upon Sunday, though it is (if by a merchant in his calling) within a prohibition upon business. Bloom v. Richards, 2 Ohio St. 387.
The business of receiving money on deposit, loaning money, discounting notes, issuing notes for circulation, collecting money on notes deposited, negotiating bills, etc. Bank v. Turner, 154 Ind. 456, 57 N. E. 110. See BANK; BANKER.
I'd imagine you'd be breaching several clauses of the trades practices act if you try to use such a defence.
From what I can determine from your post, a single act of business does not constitute being in business so you wouldn't fit the definition of being a banker until you had some history of banking, even if it did apply to Australian law.
As far as I can tell(?) a "Remittance" is a species of money, once you accept it for the value presented,your bill is paid.
Have you checked out; Benlowery & Gordon Hall....lots of interesting podcasts & youtube vids....?????
There are over 50 success's in the state's doing this, lots of large accountants who deal with the IRS have known this for many many many years.
it all makes sense you are basically billing your stock at the exchange for the funds, look up your birth certificate number call a good brooker and get them to look up how much its work "billions" at the new york stock exchange.
I think a banker by definition can be anyone who "touches" money, think about it we are all bankers, its got nothing to do with fair trade policy ^_^.
If they made presentment then they have to provide a remedy for it cause they just created liability in the public....."
I can see how this would apply to the institution responsible for issuing the currency ie with a debt incurred through the IRS the currency is being issued by an agent of the US government (the federal reserve) so the faith in the currency is relevant as both the IRS and the federal reserve are institutions of the US government.
How does this apply to a debt incurred through an institution that is not affiliated with any bodies that issue that currency. Wouldn't any contractual obligations that were agreed upon when the service is initiated have to be adhered to ?
This is turning into a very intriguing discussion.
They get paid twice if you are not aware.
This is a dark rabbit hole to go down!!!
Check the gordon hall link!!
Would the fed be in to the issuance of money at a dollar+ profit if it was an agency of the Gov't??
Nah man,The fed owns the US gov't!
Truth is more like the gov't is an agency of the \fed!!!
yes thats the catch you have to request a bill. Your idea is brillant to say that!!!
So, let me get this straight. If a company sends you a bill, they've created a liability for which they must provide remedy? How does that work? You are paying for a service?
At which point you make payable the money they have been legally forced to send you...?
That cant be right... Does that mean for example that if the company I contract to re roof my house sends me a bill rather than an account statement and doesnt hand deliver the original copy of that bill to me with wet blue signatures... I can accept for payment the copy of the bill they have sent me forcing them to send me the money for the bill which I subsequently return to them as payment?
so has anyone actually tried not paying their bills because according to you they're not bills?
Surely not, if so, couldnt the company or manager simply pull the same trick on you, with the same bill, creating a never ending loop?
Again, not sure I'm quite grasping this.
Is this a possible example of this trick in action...?
Your credit card provider sends you your monthly/60 day whatever statement as they do.
Again, a statement, so from what I gather, not relevant to this.
You contact a finance company, find out how they bill you etc and learn they send you paper copies of your outstanding balance as a bill each month.
You borrow X dollars from finance company and pay off credit cards.
Use this accepted for payment trick with the finance company.
If you borrow money then you pay it back with interest as you agreed in the contract.
All of this talk about not wanting to pay and getting out of paying is a bit of "I am all right Jack". At what point do you think about the person or the company that you owe the money to.
None of us like having to pay our bills but it is about doing the right thing and behaving like an adult and excepting you responsibilities including you debts.
I think you may have missed the point. Before you pull out the moral sword, this video (and subsequent thread) seems to be primarily focusing on the taxman, the biggest thief of all.
It's also looks to address some interesting issues. For example, that fiat currency has no value until it is given value by a banker. Also that the laws/processes being shown here seem to be well and truly out of date and aren't keeping up with the times. A comparison or example would be our privacy laws; there is no law against someone standing out on the street with a high megapixel camera and taking pictures of you and your family from the foot path.
Once again. People seem to be taking offence to hypothetical examples rather than addressing or adding constructive feedback to the questions being asked by them.
I ran into much the same problem in another thread here on SAB. People seem incapable of seeing past the black and white of things. Poor form folks, I would have expected a little more open mindedness and creative response to what I've been seeing.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.