GardenBanter.co.uk - View Single Post - Reality coldcocks Snit... again. Was: The Duc is up for the sale!

Big Crotch on a Small Fish

Steve Carroll wrote:
On Dec 4, 10:17 am, Snit wrote:
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...

You're confused... as usual

The discussion here is about whether or not FRNs are "lawful money"
from a legal standpoint, it's not about whether or not someone named
Rickman couched his argument properly so as to be seen 'valid' by a
judge. It's also not about a judge's misinterpretation of a law he
referenced as he simultaneously created a glaring contradiction in his
opinion.

I "understand" exactly what I said: Federal Reserve Notes are not
"lawful money" as per title 12 of the USC. Were you able to comprehend
what you read from this judge (instead of engaging in law worship via
case law) you'd be asking him how he could referenced Congress' intent
to make clear that FRN are not lawful money, yet, he simultaneously
claimed Rickman used lawful money when he used FRN.

So... what we have here is you arguing that the law created under
title 12 is not a law and your evidence that it isn't a law is:

The misguided opinion of a district court judge who clearly
misinterpreted the law he referenced even *as* he referenced it.

By the way... that the IRS saw fit to only include a tiny, self
serving snippet and not the judge's blatant contradiction is a pretty
big clue how these folks operate.

You're welcome for this education.

LOL!

--
You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch