Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
12/4/10 12:08 AM:

Steve Carroll wrote:
On Dec 3, 3:20 pm, Snit wrote:

(snip)

Hmmmm, who to believe...

... USC or IRS talking points

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=106503,00.html

I'll see your *partial quote* from the IRS's pile of marketing
bullshit and raise you additional, pertinent context from this case
that the IRS didn't bother to include (for obvious reasons):

"Defendant argues that the Federal Reserve Notes in which he was paid
were not lawful money within the meaning of Art. 1, ? 8, United States
Constitution. We have held to the contrary. United States v. Ware, 10
Cir., [**7]
608 F.2d 400, 402-403. We find no validity in the distinction which
defendant draws between "lawful money" and "legal tender." HN6Go to
this Headnote in the case.Money is a medium of exchange. Legal tender
is money which the law requires a creditor to receive in payment of an
obligation. The aggregate of the powers granted to Congress by the
Constitution includes broad and comprehensive authority over revenue,
finance, and currency. Norman v. B. & O. R. Co., 294 U.S. 240, 55 S.
Ct. 407, 79 L. Ed. 885. In the exercise of that power Congress has
declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are
redeemable in lawful money. Defendant received Federal Reserve Notes
when he cashed his pay checks and used those notes to pay his personal
expenses. He obtained and used lawful money."

Note the judge's line which states:

"In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal
Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money."

Congress made a clear distinction between "legal tender" and "lawful
money" so judges wouldn't have to do anything thinking about this
issue and get all confused the way you are.

The law passed by Congress was not suitable for this dishonest,
activist judge... here is his obvious contradiction:

"He obtained and used lawful money."

Hint: Neither partial quotes referenced on the internet version of the
IRS's talking points or bogus, district level case law (this won't
ever get to the SC, also for obvious reasons) supersede the USC. That
certain judges won't uphold certain laws is irrelevant to what the
law states. If you knew anything about the law you'd understand that.

You're welcome.

LOL!


We find no validity in the distinction which defendant
draws between "lawful money" and "legal tender."

LOL indeed!

But, by all means, explain why you understand things better than the
courts... oh, Steve... you are amusing in your desperate attempts to change
the topic from your current humiliations. Why did you pick a topic you
obsessed over in 2006 where you showed yourself to be a conspiracy whacko
trying to evade taxes?

--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]