Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
12/4/10 12:14 PM:

Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 12/4/10 11:47 AM:

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!

Your normal snip and run job, Steve... but in the end you are
admitting, publicly, that you do not pay taxes on this money you do
not see as being "lawful money". That, Steve, is a crime - tax
evasion.

Do you not have any common sense at all?

Go to hell, Gluey.

What is sad for you, Steve, is that you pulled up an argument from 2006...
one that has clearly been eating away at you for all this time... and you
did so just to run from your more recent BS... much of which was recycled
from 2003. Yes, you are a persistent and desperate troll.

But even with all of your persistence, and with years of research, you
failed to be able to find these:

==================

Cuellar vs. US, 2007

MR. BEARD:
Well, I'm distinguishing between currency and transaction because
as I understand it at least transaction might implicate in a
banking context, but cash is cash, if you will. So --

JUSTICE GINSBURG:
And it doesn't matter for purposes of the bulk cash statute that
it was illegal. It could be perfectly lawful money.

MR. BEARD:
Yes, Your Honor, absoluteluy. That's certainly true.

==================

http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159932,00.html
-----
United States v. Rickman, 638 F.2d 182, 184 (10th Cir. 1980) * the
court affirmed the conviction for willfully failing to file a
return and rejected the taxpayer¹s argument that ³the Federal
Reserve Notes in which he was paid were not lawful money within
the meaning of Art. 1, § 8, United States Constitution.²
-----

==================

You have been searching like a crazed lemur since 2006 to find such
references... and you could not. I tried for just a few minutes... and
found what you could not.

But have fun evading taxes - maybe you will end up back in jail.

There - I think I gave you more than the three posts I said I would... on a
topic I could not care less about and is not relevant to anything dealing
with your current BS.

What a pathetic troll you are.


--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]