Re: FBI Raids Liberty Dollar - Confiscates All Ron Paul Dollar

"Robert Miller" <xyzstargazzr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:46aba$47705a0f$62118be6$457@xxxxxxxxxx:


"Deadrat" <a@xxxxx> wrote in message
news:uhIbj.909$6%.747@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Robert Miller" <xyzstargazzr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:80017$476f33b6$4b5937f6$20065@xxxxxxxxxx:


<snip>

If the Federal debt is ever paid, there will not be any
Federal Reserve Notes in circulation.

FRNs are not promissory notes. They are not evidence of debt.
The US does issue debt instruments. These are called treasury
notes and bills. But those can be paid off (and we were on
track to do that in 2000), and there would still be FRNs.

So we have a monitary system designed to create more debt,
but never pay it off.

Don't you think you should at least learn to spell monetary?

The interest on the debt is the lion share of the debt.
However if silver & gold coin or titanium and paladium coins
were in circulation there would not be any interest owed to
the Federal Reserve Bank.

The public debit is about $9 trillion; the money supply is
about $1 trillion.

You mean Congress' debt is about $9 trillion.

No, Congress votes for it; the President signs it into law. They're
our creatures, like it or not. It's the public debt.

the public debt in the
form of credit card and consumer debt is something over $20
trillion dollars.

This is private debt.

Then there are the perhaps another $20 trillion dollars in
foreign banks used
primarily for buying and selling oil around the world. The dollar
is our most
important export. It costs us about 4 cents to print $100 FRN and
we export it for $100 worth of oil. But we don't get $100 worth of
oil do we? When we take into account 90 years of inflation we only
get about $7 worth of oil.

How barrels of oil does $100 buy? About one, right? How many bushels
of wheat does $100 buy? About 10. What was the ratio 90 years ago?

Money would be in circulation, not borrowed into circulation.
A simple concept with great resistence. Why? Because the
Federal Reserve can not charge interest and make a profit on
such a system.

For example the Bonds Lincoln floated to fund the
reconstruction have never been redeemed. They still draw
interest. Something like $262 has been paid in interest for
every $1 lincoln borrowed. Why would someone cash them in @
4% interest they pay face value about every 18 years.

1. Reconstruction didn't get started until after the Civil War
ended. Lincoln was already dead.


So he was already dead. It was his policy and wish to borrow the
money. It really doesn't matter if he was alive or dead when the
money was actually borrowed.

This is exactly why I have a problem with your arguments. You've
stated that Lincoln floated funds for Reconstruction. He couldn't
have. Not only do Presidents not have the power to do so, he was
dead during Reconstruction. But that doesn't even slow you down. No
matter, you say, it was his policy and he wished to borrow the money.
Well, it couldn't have been his policy because he was dead. And if
wishes were facts, I'd be young, rich, and handsome.

The amount of interest paid on those bonds which are still
outstanding is still the same.

So you claim. Can you back that up? Issue numbers? The market on
which they're traded? Anything?

2. Lincoln was President. Presidents can't float bonds.

3. Please tell me where Reconstruction Bonds are traded. I
don't believe they've never been redeemed.

4. How do you get $262? Please show your work.

I went to a mortgage calculation website $1 @ 4% compounded
interest for 142 years yelds $262

I shouldn't have quibbled. 142 years takes us to 1865, the year the
war ended. I doubt that any bonds were floated before the Radical
Republicans took over in 1867 and probably not after Johnson's
impeachment. Do you know the issue date on these bonds? Or why they
didn't have a maturity period?

Pay perticular attention to section 5 on the two principal
qualities essential to the validity of a note;

It's an unconditional promise to pay a sum of money. A
promissory note for $20 is nominally worth twenty dollars.
A defective promissory note for $20 is nominally worth
negative twenty dollars, in some sense. The defective note
might be considered the opposite (in accounting terms) of
the sum of money represented by the note's face value. But
that doesn't make promissory notes (espeicially
non-defective ones) the opposite of money. They're in
different categories.

Why not? The only thing that gives them value is federal
law.

What's the antecedent to "them"? Promissory notes? What does
this comment mean? Money is a medium of payment; promissory
notes are debt. They're different things, not oppposite things.
Do you mean that promissory notes and legal tender are
opposites?

And nothing below makes a promissory note the opposite of
money. Unless you have your own definition of opposite. Or
money.

PROMISSORY NOTE, contracts. A written promise to pay a
certain sum of money, at a future time, unconditionally. 7
Watts & S. 264; 2 Humph. R. 143; 10 Wend. 675; Minor, R.
263; 7 Misso. 42; 2 Cowen, 536; 6 N. H. Rep. 364; 7 Vern.
22. A promissory note differs from a mere acknowledgment
of debt, without any promise to pay, as when the debtor
gives his creditor an I 0 U.
(q.v.) See 2 Yerg. 50; 15 M. & W. 23. But see 2 Humph.
143; 6 Alab. R. 373.
In its form it usually contains a promise to pay, at a
time therein expressed, a sum of money to a certain person
therein named, or to his order, for value received. It is
dated and signed by the maker. It is never under seal.

2. He who makes the promise is called the maker, and he to
whom it is made is the payee. Bayley on Bills, 1; 3 Kent,
Com, 46.

3. Although a promissory note, in its original shape,
bears no resemblance to a bill of exchange; yet, when
indorsed, it is exactly similar to one; for then it is an
order by the indorser of the note upon the maker to pay to
the indorsee. The indorser is as it were the drawer; the
maker, the acceptor; and the indorsee, the payee. 4 Burr.
669; 4 T. R. 148; Burr. 1224.

4. Most of the rules applicable to bills of exchange,
equally affect promissory notes. No particular form is
requisite to these instruments; a promise to deliver the
money, or to be accountable for it, or that the payee
shall have it, is sufficient. Chit. on Bills, 53, 54.

5. There are two principal qualities essential to the
validity of a note; first, that it be payable at all
events, not dependent on any contingency; 20 Pick. 132; 22
Pick. 132 nor payable out of any particular fund. 3 J. J.
Marsh. 542; 5 Pike, R. 441; 2 Blackf. 48; 1 Bibb, 503; 1
S. M. 393; 3 J. J. Marsh. 170; 3 Pick. R. 541; 4 Hawks,
102; 5 How. S. C. R. 382.

And, secondly, it is required that it be for the payment
of money only; 10 Serg. & Rawle, 94; 4 Watts, R. 400; 11
Verm. R. 268; and not in bank notes, though it has been
held differently in the state of New York. 9 Johns. R.
120; 19 Johns. R. 144.

Notice "it is required that it be for the payment of money
only;"

"Money" does not mean with another promissory note, but in
gold or silver coin.

I'm beginning to understand. You think that FRNs are
promissory notes and not money. But you're wrong. FRNs don't
promise redemption in anything, and by law, they're money.
Even if you don't like it.

They did promise redemption,

Who's "they"? Under what section of the USC? With what?


Federal Reserve Notes were redeemable for lawful money why is that so
difficult to understand?

Lawful money turns out to be more FRNs. FRNs haven't been redeemable
for anything else for a long time.

but when they print more FRN's than can
be covered by real money. They must change the terms and
conditions.

First they gave us the progressive income tax. (1913) They said
it would never
be more than 1 or 2%. This is called taxation by
misrepresentation.

Then (1916) they gave us the Federal Reserve, which is neither
Federal nor has
any reserve.

Then (1934) they stole all of our gold coins and gave us federal
reserve notes
instead and promised to redeem them for lawful money.

Then, they gave us (in 1963) , federal reserve notes with no
promise to pay in
"lawful money".

(1965) they gave us copper sandwiches in place of silver coins.
But they still
looked kind of like silver coins.

In 1977, Russell Munk, Asst General Counsel for the U.S.
Treasury, admitted that federal reserve notes are not dollars.

In 1985, the Ron Paul revolution began with the Gold and Silver
Bullion Coin act.

Ron and his fellow Congressmen gave us back honest money. They
created a gold and silver system to challenge the worthless
FRN's and its companion in crime, progressive taxation
administered by our friends at the IRS.

Ron Paul gave us back gold and silver coins-honest money in
which actual wealth could be stored and exchanged. The gold
coins said on its face $50. The silver coin said on its face one
dollar.

So some American people here in Nevada began using these gold
and silver coins in business.

But the IRS said no to these folks. If you try to actually use
these legal tender
gold and silver coins in business, we will prosecute you.
Because this would destroy our system of progressive taxation
coupled with inflation, which is the
way that we steal the wealth of the American people. Tax the
rich! Well, everyone is in the rich bracket when a frn is only
worth 7 cents.

Gold Bullion Coin Act of 1985
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Gold Bullion Coin Act of 1985, Pub. L. No. 99-185, 99 Stat.
1177 (Dec. 17,
1985), codified at 31 U.S.C. § 5112(a)(7) through (a)(10), 31
U.S.C. § 5112(i),
31 U.S.C. § 5116(a)(3), and amending 31 U.S.C. § 5118(d) and 31
U.S.C. § 5132
(a)(1), has helped the American Gold Eagle to quickly become one
of the world's
leaders in gold bullion coin. Produced from gold mined in the
United States, American Eagles are imprinted with their gold
content and legal tender "face" value.

The act was signed by Ronald Reagan in 1985. One requirement is
that all gold used
in minting the coins would be from "newly mined domestic
sources".

So here is the most modern law defining "Dollar's" as lawful
money i.e. Gold and
Silver coins. And they are legal tender in the United States.

Thanks for your economicopolitical point of view. Now how about
answering my questions and backing up your claims? You can start
with Reconstruction Bonds that supposedly were never redeemed.
You can reply to the evidence I cited from the USC that overrides
the 1792 coinage act. You can tell me in simple terms how a debt
instrument and the means of paying that debt are somehow
"opposites."

A debt instrument is proof of debt FRN's are proof of the debt of
the Congress to the Federal Reserve, a private bank.

FRNs are not proof of debt. You're thinking of treasury notes and
treasury bonds. Congress doesn't carry debt; it finds others to
shoulder the burden. The Federal Reserve is not a private bank. It's
a public bank regulator.

Then you simply don't understand how our money is created. Are you
saying the Federal Reserve is a brance of the Federal government?

Gold and Silver coin are money and are not borrowed into existence.

True.

They are
the opposite of a debt instrument because they were not created
from debt.

You've confused the money supply with the public debt.

You can buy bread, milk, and butter with both FRN's and Silver or
gold coins,
but FRN's will lose value over time because of inflation. Silver
and gold coins will not lose value over time due to inflation

No, their values will fluctuate though.

Notice I said over time due to inflation. Of coarse if you don't know
what causes inflation, you wouldn't understand this statement. Since
inflation is caused by printing excess money, causing the existing
money to lose value.

Or it can be caused by shortages in the economy. Or lack of confidence
in the economy which pushes up long-term interest rates.

Gold and silver are immune to this type of fluctuation. If suddenly
there were
an abundant new supply of silver or gold the price of the silver or
gold would
fall as has happened in the past. These are short term and local
fluctuations.

I'm glad you can see the difference so clearly.

After that, we can get around to the new stuff. You can cite the
court cases in which people were prosecuted for using legal tender
in commercial transactions. Hint: the IRS wouldn't be involved
in any such case. That would be the United States Treasury,
probably through the Secret Service.


I guess you are not as smart as you think you are.

I'll grant you that.

The IRS did try to prosicute

It's prosecute, and the IRS does not prosecute people. That would be
the office of the United States Attorney.

Semantics. The IRS brought the case, for supposed tax evasion, which
it lost.

It doesn't cost any more to be precise. The USA brought the case; not
the IRS. The case was about tax evasion, not using legal tender.

some people 5 people with 161 counts agianst them.

Please tell me the title: US v Who?

Oh, never mind. The defendant was Robert Kahre in Las Vegas. And of
course, the case was brought by the USA, not the IRS.

After 4 months in trial the jury returned not one conviction on
even one count.

And, of course, no was prosecuted for "using legal tender." They
were prosecuted for not paying taxes. What Kahre did was very
clever. He paid his employees in US coinage, gold coins to be exact.
And then everyone pretended that this income was equal to the face
value of the coins and not on the value of the gold in the coins,
which was much more.

When the paper FRN money has lost value virtually every year and the
gold has not lost it's value.

Um, so?

The jury refused to convict. I doubt I would have voted to convict,
either. If the gov says its coins are legal tender and gives a face
value, then they're stuck with it.

What was your point here? That people were prosecuted for using
legal tender? They weren't.

The gold coins were legal tender coins, they can be depositied into
their bank accounts.

Yes and yes and no one was prosecuted for conducting commerce with them.

But the difference between FRN's and lawful money is clear.

The difference under the law is zero; FRNs are a proper subset of lawful
money.


6. A promissory note payable to order or bearer passes by
indorsement, and although a chose in action, the holder
may bring suit on it in his own name. Although a simple
contract, a sufficient consideration is implied from the
nature of the instrument. Vide 5 Com. Dig. 133, n., 151,
472 Smith on Merc. Law, B. 3, c. 1; 4 B. & Cr. 235 7 D. P.
C. 598; 8 D. P. C. 441 1 Car. & Marsh. 16. Vide Bank note;
Note; Reissuable note.

United States Federal Reserve Notes will be
worthless the same day the United States is
shut down.

Well, of course. What's your point? You think
that the same day the US is shut down you'll be
able to eat Silver Liberties?

I will be able to trade silver coin or bullion
for food or energy unless the government passes a
law confiscating all gold and silver.

The hypothetical here is that it's the day after
the US is shut down. The gov won't be passing any
laws on that day.

That's very good. What happens on that day to all
the people who have their life savings evidenced by
federal reserve notes in the bank? It'd be the same
as when the Confederacy lost the war and the people
had trunks full of worthless Confederate paper
money.

Depending on the situation, you might not be able to
rtade bullion either. But your point is obviously
true.
So what?

It would be a little
ironic for a government that was formed to
protect private property rights, to
treat the private property of it's citizens as
loot.

And your point?

Every government eventually fails, when they forget
why they were formed, and what the duty of a public
servant is. To often they consider themselves the
master and the public the servant.

Every government has either failed or hasn't yet
failed. Does anyone dispute that?

When has silver or gold ever failed as a currency? Not
since they were first used in trade have either one
been worthless in exchange of goods or services.

Silver and gold are worthless in commerce under two
conditions: 1) there are no commodities to exchange
(e.g., in a famine), and 2) there is so little social
order that exchanges can't be made safely and in good
faith.

The fact that someone criminal or government agent would
steal the gold or silver is not proof that it is
worthless, but of it's value, and their lack of respect
for your property rights.

Of course not. It just makes your claim of the superiority
of bullion suspect. That's all.

In what way?

Under certain conditions (i.e., civil disorder, but not too
much civil disorder), it's better to have bullion. Otherwise,
it's a drag.

It is no more difficult to carry a Gold or Silver Certificate
than it is to carry a Federal Reserve Note.

This is true. Except that under the condition I cited (civil
disorder, but not too much civil disorder), no one you do business
with is going to trust and accept a certificate issued by a
non-functioning government.

The last time that happened people were taking their gold and
silver certificates to the banks, but the government printed more
certificates than they could redeem.

And when the gov can't redeem them, no one will accept your
certificates. They'll demand bullion.

That's very true! Except the government can pass a law that requires
a person
to accept a worthless bank note in payment of debt. It's happened
twice in the
United States that I know of. Once during the revolutionary war, then
again in
1933 and that law is still in effect.

I can't seem to get you to focus on a point. I thought we were talking
about using bullion as money, but then instead you seemed to endorse
having "lawful money" backed by and redeemable for gold or silver (since
it's "no more difficult to carry"). When I point out how useless that
is, you say "very true!"

Do you understand why I'm having a hard time following?

Except for the banker who must
carry a supply of Silver and Gold coins to back the paper. Else
a run on the bank will ultimately be the result.

Hence it's safer to put your trust in gold or silver as
a store of value than it is in one government or
another not to debase it's own currency.

Bullion is not a free store of value. You must protect
it and assay it. That said, there are certainly many
historical examples in which governmental legal tender
has lost its value while bullion retain its own.

I don't recall anybody making the claim that bullion is a
free store of value.

In other words, it may or may not be "safer to put your
trust in gold or silver as a store of value." That's all.

It is much safer when you consider that paper money loses
value due to the over production of paper money. As is
currently happening now.

The value of bullion fluctuates as well.

How much has bullion fluctuated in the last 100 years?

In 1907 god was about $20.66/oz. It's now about $795.25.

When you figure that the dollar is only worth about 4% of it's
purchasing power in 1913 due to inflation that gold would be
worth about $32/oz The same goes for silver. There is about
$14 of silver in the old silver dollars. So one silver dollar can
still buy more than 4 gallons of gas in many parts of the country.

Go ahead. Try pumping 4 gallons of gas and offering the attendant a
silver dollar. You've got the Bobby Kahre problem in reverse.

I'm talking of the absolute value of the silver dollar compared to the
absolute cost of gasoline today. If we still used the 90% U.S. silver
dollars you could buy 3 1/2 gallons of gasoline.

I've got some of those. How much gas do you think I can buy with one?

What you've failed to take into account in all this is that incomes
are part of inflation. So, yeah. The purchasing power of the dollar
has declined in 1913, but inflation has increased my wages since
then. (Well, I wasn't alive in 1913, but you get my drift.)

In 1913 it was possible for the husband to work, and the wife stay
home and raise the children. Today it is extremely difficult for most
households to earn enough to support a family.

And your point? There are more poor people in the country today than in
1913? Really?

Only when you compare it to FRN's

compared to
FRN's. Gold is more volitle because there is not nearly as much
gold and it's price can easily be manipulated. Try to
manipulate the price of silver and you will
find as the Hunt Brother's did that there are unimaginable
stockpiles of silver around the planet, and mines waitting for
the right price to be opened
up on short notice.

There was a moment when Silver spiked to over $50 an ounce, but
that was a tiny blip and it was the speculators that got burned
for the most part.

Governments hate competition! Of the 3 most
important monopolies, Money is the first most
important monopoly.

And your point?

I was wondering if you have a point? or if you are
pointless.

Even though I asked first, I'll answer you. I'm
trying to understand what you're talking about. You
either say things that don't make sense (FRN =
promissory note, debt instruments as the opposite of
money, dictionary definitons of the dollar, etc.) or
you say things that are stone cold obvious (failed
governments have worthless currency, US legal tender
is a monopoly).

<shrug>
Maybe it's just me.
</shrug>

I think it's just you. Since these are not complicated
issues. With thousands of years of history to provide
examples.

These are extremely complicated issues. You are free to
oversimiplify them in your own mind. But I'll point to
my paragraph above my <shrug>.

If you can convince somebody they can not understand
simple economics, then you have the power to tell them the
Emperor wears a beautyful suit of clothes. Out of fear of
looking foolish they may even go along with you.

Yet anyone can read a very good book that explains the
history of modern economics so that virtually anyone can
understand what the Federal Reserve is who created it, how
they lied to the Congress and the American people, as well
as their ultimate aims.

The Creature from Jekyll Island, A second look at the
Federal Reserve System by G. Edward Griffin.

Great. Is this the same guy who's responsible for "A World
Without Cancer: The Story of Vitamin B17" and "Capitalist
Conspiracy"?

I'll pass.

Ignorance is bliss.

Then G. Edward Griffin is in hog heaven.

Robert

Why do you believe you are so knowledgeable on the subject?

I don't. I never claimed to be. *You're* the true believer.

I'd be surprised if you know what is the actual cause of
"inflation" if you do know what causes it I don't believe you'd
prove it here.

I don't know. *You're* the one who claims to know.

There may be no reason other than the underlying mathematics of
the social forces involved. See my discussion of the power law
with the true believer in the ownership of property being the
source of all economic harm.

Sounds like communist doctrine. Property owners take much better
care of their property and the environment than people with no
property ownership rights.

To be honest with you, I couldn't follow the doctrine as hard as I
tried. Something to do with economic rent and rights.

What do you of rights?

What do I (know?) of rights? I know a bit about the Bill of Rights.

I'll bet you support group rights over individual rights.

What are "group rights"?

I can think of two rights that are exercised in concert with others,
collective bargaining and bringing class action suits.

I can think of rights that depend on group membership but which are
exercised individually, e.g., the right to vote and protection from
certain kinds of discrimination.

Most other rights are individual rights, like freedom of speech, due
process, and the right to privacy.

I support them all.

Just a guess.

I can't tell what you're guessing at. Did I answer your implied
question?

Define people by the group they belong to.

No thanks.

There'a a lot of data out there. I choose to winnow my sources by
refusing to consider people who push the laetrile cancer-cure
scam.

I'm curious what kind of filter you use to winnow you sources. You
don't actually have to read your sources to determine if they are
correct or not. I suspect you judge your sources based on the title
or subject as much as anything else.

I'll admit to winnowing my sources based on the smell test. And it's
possible to go wrong here, for instance I might dismiss Shockley's
work on semiconductors based on his racial theories.

I know a woman cured of MS by using sea salt and met a clinical
nutritionist an MD who confirmed that sea salt can cure MS.

This is another example that supports my skepticism. You're simply
too credulous. You know about a woman whose MS went into remission
after she ingested sea salt. And you've met an MD who claims that
sea salt can cure MS. Does sea salt cure MS? Not on the basis of an
anecdote and an appeal to authority.

It is known that sea salt contains 80 minerals and elements. It is
also know
that humans have used sea salt as their primary source of salt for
thousands of years. I should be no great stretch to understand that
sea salt is likely more
healthy that pure sodium cloride in a persons diet.

It's a hypothesis. A good deal weaker than "sea salt can cure MS." Has
it been tested?

I don't know that sea salt will cure MS,

I thought you knew someone was cured by sea salt and an MD who confirmed
this.

but I do know that the
medical establishment is less interested in low cost preventitive
measures than it is
making a profit. Not like the good old days when most hospitals were
run by one church or another.

Which good old days were these? The pre-polio-vaccine days? The
Spanish Influenza days?

Of coarse

<sorry excuse="the devil">
So it was coarse sea salt? Why didn't you say so?
</sorry>

since many MD's will say it's impossible. It must be impossible.

To be fair, what they actually say is that there's no scientific
evidence that it happens.

When it cost hundreds of millions of dollars to have a new treatment
approved. Why would anyone invest the money in research that can
never pay back the money invested? The FDA prevents more treatments
than it allows, and the treatment it allows most often have serious
and dangerous side effects.

There are more non-efficacious and unsafe treatments than there are safe
and effective ones. I'm not defending the FDA, but their bad policy
decisions don't reflect on the scientifc method.

I am willing to be convinced. But I suspect all you've got is
received knowledge that you haven't bothered to check. Why didn't
you find the USC concerning coinage?

I read it a long time ago

That's fine (no pun on silver intended). This is a newsgroup
intended for wide-ranging conversation; not a court of law bound by
rules of evidence. But I find it curious that your conviction seems
to be inversely proportional to your research effort.

I think you could say the same thing about anybody's research efforts.
If I build a hybrid/electric bicycle using an electric motor of my
own design. It's sucsess will be based on my research efforts, and my
talents in a modest machine shop.

But I'm not talking about anybody; I'm talking about you. I'm not
talking about electric bicycles; I'm talking about your posts. See below.

and I've read a great many other papers on the subject of silver as
money

and even silver as the most effective anti-biotics on the market.

Silver is indeed an effective antibiotic. It kills living things.
Silver is a toxic heavy metal like lead and mercury, it accumulates
in the body where it has no known use and is eliminated only slowly.
It's a known carcinogen.

Really? what evidence do you have of silver's toxic effect on humans?

Google "silver toxicity." The disease is called systemic argyria.

In the middle ages royalty would file silver into their food. Causing
their skin
to turn blue, thus the term (bluebloods) aside from the undesirable
effect of
turning blue

Doesn't it bother you that so much of what you think you know isn't
true? Argyria causes the skin to turn grey, not blue, and what would
that have to do with blood anyway?

The phrase "blue blood" somes from the Spanish "sangre azul," used by
those light-skinned Spaniards proud of their white skin, which showed
that they had no Moorish blood in them. The blue veins near the skin's
surface are more prominent in people with pale skin.

I have read no reports of causing cancer or other serious health
effects.

Then you haven't looked very hard.

Please don't let your credulity lead you into ingesting silver.

I have made and used a simple device that made an ionized silver
solution. Not a true colloidal silver generator, but would create a
small percentage of silver colloids in solution. That from friday to
monday cured a very bad abcessed tooth. I saved $70 on anti-biotics,
and it worked faster than the anti-biotics would have worked. With no
side effects.

I'm glad to hear it. Quit while you're still healthy. Silver is a toxic
heavy metal that has no function in the human body. Once in, it tends to
linger, binding to and disabling various enzymes.

Do you want your epitaph to be "I saved $70 on anti-biotics"?

Robert


.