Reality coldcocks Snit... again. Was: The Duc is up for the sale!
Steve Carroll wrote:
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".
LOL!
--
You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch
|