Bill Of Exchange 1882 has been ammended.

[ljtherock]

The Bills of Exchange act has been ammended and it appears tha it as been ammended because of what is going on in the lawful rebellion movement, especially in respect of A4V.

As an example of what has been ammended: Accepting a bill/Honouring a bill will now be seen as you are going to pay it with currency/money.

So the way I read it is that just accepting for value now will not mean you have discharged it but that you will discharge it with your currency (pounds).

I sugest all those interested go and check out the ammended bill and re-familiarise themselves with it.

[The Freeman-on-the-Land known as Michael]

This is the second time this unsubstantiated hearsay has been posted on this forum, withthout any reference to the alleged amendment of said Act. This is because the claim is utter horseshite, as anybody who is familiar with the Act can easily discern.

Peace

[gepisar]

The Bills of Exchange act has been ammended and it appears tha it as been ammended because of what is going on in the lawful rebellion movement, especially in respect of A4V.

As an example of what has been ammended: Accepting a bill/Honouring a bill will now be seen as you are going to pay it with currency/money.

So the way I read it is that just accepting for value now will not mean you have discharged it but that you will discharge it with your currency (pounds).

I sugest all those interested go and check out the ammended bill and re-familiarise themselves with it.

Can you show/demonstrate why you think this has happened...perhaps there is a misunderstanding somewhere?

[The Freeman-on-the-Land known as Michael]

Here is the original link posted on TPUC:

http://www.tpuc.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=10865

And here is the post from last week:

viewtopic.php?f=63&t=4523

Nothing of any substance has been posted in support of this spurious claim, in spite of repeated requests.

Peace

[ljtherock]

This is the second time this unsubstantiated hearsay has been posted on this forum, withthout any reference to the alleged amendment of said Act. This is because the claim is utter horseshite, as anybody who is familiar with the Act can easily discern.

Peace

Firstly, you sign your comments with "peace", except you comment with volatility. A tree will be known by the fruit it bears, will it not.

Now from my understanding the bill of exchange has been ammended from wha I can see as it appears to be different in some senses as to when I first read it and I did read it a couple of times.

You can check the link youself, surely you also can check it simply by going to the statte law website but tha said here is the link:

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&title=bills+of+exchange&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&TYPE=QS&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=1072040&ActiveTextDocId=1072040&filesize=196705

My original post as you state so eloquently and with good intention to me (not), was not intended to be "horseshite" or to mislead anyone. It may be that I am incorrect but I did not save a copy of the original bill, so can not compare it. However, it does state within the bill that "Acceptance of bill will be expressed as a sum of monies is to be paid", maybe not in those exact words but something very similar I beleive.

[The Freeman-on-the-Land known as Michael]

I already have checked the Act. Twice. Cross-referencing with older versions. There have been no amendments and you have not demonstrated otherwise, as you have done nothing except link to the unamended act itself. I will comment no further. Others must do their own research to ascertain the veracity of the claim.

Peace Out

[ljtherock]

I already have checked the Act. Twice. Cross-referencing with older versions. There have been no amendments and you have not demonstrated otherwise, as you have done nothing except link to the unamended act itself. I will comment no further. Others must do their own research to ascertain the veracity of the claim.

Peace Out

If you have a copy of the act and have checked it against the one I posted the link to then I shall not question it as you have proven my statement to be incorrect, although I will state that It was obviously an honest genuine error on my part.

So with the claim withdrawn then there is no point anyone attempting to ascertain the claim as the claim is proven incorrect, for which I thank you for your assistance.

Now I ask, although it is noted that you shall make no further comment, I ask if you are a moderator of this board?

If so maybe it would be better that you remove this topic I have started so as in order not to waste the time of others.

Please also note that no wilfull intention to detract from this freeman on the land movement was meant by me but also I at no point became volatile within my comments as I feel it is disrespectful to do so against people that have not done so to me. I do swear by and live by "Do unto others as you would have done unto you".


Once again my apologies to you and others that may have been misled.
I will leave it up to you as to whether or not your reactions to my comment were justified or not.

[Farmer]

If no post can confirm this to have happened with evidence by this evening I will lock the thread and move it to The Chamber of Horrors.

[ljtherock]

Thank you "Farmer", it would be much appreciated if you do.