On Dec 4, 10:15*am, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
12/4/10 9:00 AM:





Steve Carroll wrote:
On Dec 4, 12:08 am, "Big Crotch on a Small Fish" BigCrotch@SmallFish
wrote:
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."

So, Steve, what is that distinction again? *Hmmmm, what do you think the
terms "no validity in the distinction" mean? *LOL!





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!

And this part is just as bizarre... see if you can figure out why:

"The Law: Congress is empowered "[t]o coin Money, regulate the value
thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the Standard of weights and
measures." U.S. Const. Art. I, � 8, cl. 5. Article I, Section 10 of
the Constitution prohibits the states from declaring as legal tender
anything other than gold or silver, but does not limit Congress' power
to declare the form of legal tender. "

How about you, gluehead? Wanna take a stab at it?

LOL!

Wow... this is tough:

(snip addressing of personality over content by Snit)

On the other hand we have the words of the government

There is no "other hand... there is only the law of a gov't which
states the same thing the judge who has sworn to uphold that law
referred to when he wrote:

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

And here is the pertinent part (pertinent to this discussion) of the
law this sworn judge referred to:

"They [FRNs] shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the
Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington,
District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank."

There is no way to interpret the law or the judges' acknowledgement of
the law as anything other than what the law says... FRN are "are
redeemable in lawful money"... which, to all sane, honest and
honorable people who can comprehend what they read, clearly points out
the fact that FRN are not "lawful money".