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 3, 3:16 pm, "Big Crotch on a Small Fish" BigCrotch@SmallFish
wrote:
Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 12/3/10 2:52 PM:

Ok, Steve, even you know you have completely humiliated yourself
on the current topics:

* You claiming I am "lying" to believe your comments about your
motorcycle accidents - given that you lie so much only an idiot
would believe you.

* The fact that you have been trying, and failing, since 2003 to
refute my argument about Bush, stated he
http://csma.gallopinginsanity.com/bush/

* Your accusations of my being like you - dishonest. You know I
am right that you lie more in one day than I do in a decade.

* Your confusion between absolute proof / proof beyond a
reasonable doubt

* Your insistence that legal opinions written by Supreme Court
justices are not written in a legal context

* Your insistence that if A = B and B = C then A C

Etc. You just repeatedly made a complete fool of yourself. Your
reaction... wave your white flag and hope you can get more
attention (through your socks) by bringing up a debate from
*2006* where you cannot figure out that this law exists:

-----
Section 31 U.S.C. 5103. Legal Tender
United States coins and currency (including Federal Reserve Notes
and circulating notes of Federal Reserve banks and national
banks) are
legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues.
Foreign
gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts.
-----

Snit proves he doesn't know the difference between "lawful money"
and "legal tender". LOL!

LOL!

First, Steve, let us not forget that the reason you are trying,
though your sock, to revive a debate from, I kid you not, *2006* is
because you know you have completely humiliated yourself on the
current debates *and* you are desperate to get my attention.

But, hey, I am in a charitable mood... so please, Steve, try to dig
yourself out of your pathetic hole and explain the difference
between "lawful money" and "legal tender" *and* explain why,
contrary to the view of the US courts, that the bills and coins in
my pocket should not be considered both.

Now, of course, even though you have had since *2006* to try to
build a case so you can actually, finally, for once actually make a
point, we both know you will fail. Worth my laughing at you for
another couple of posts... but, I warn you, if you do not actually
try to support your claims then you will simply bore me and I will
ignore not just your main name but also your new primary sock.

...

You are the one who always brings up the ancient debates. I am just
doing to you what you do to others. Don't whine like a baby.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lawfulmoney.asp
Oddly enough, the dollar bills that we carry around in our wallets
are not considered lawful money. The notation on the bottom of a
U.S. dollar bill reads "Legal Tender for All Debts, Public and
Private", and is issued by the U.S. Federal Reserve, not the U.S.
Treasury. Legal tender can be exchanged for an equivalent amount of
lawful money, but effects such as inflation can change the value of
fiat money. Lawful money is said to be the most direct form of
ownership, but for purposes of practicality it has little use in
direct transactions between parties anymore.

If you even look at your "money" you will see it says it is legal
tender and not lawful money. Think this does not make a difference?
We only have to pay taxes on lawful money. You and most Americans
are stupid enough to buy what the IRS tells you and pay taxes on
your lawful money (as you have to) and your legal tender
_which_you_do_not_have_to_.

I wouldn't take this argument to court. I've watched these cases for
years... I feel the reason that judges keep tossing these kinds of
arguments out as "frivolous" has more to do with your status. The
question really becomes: Does the pertinent section of Title 12 that
references the redeeming of FRN's in "lawful money" apply to the
person making the argument in court? This argument aside (and it gets
very involved), the opinion of the judge that Snit linked to showed
the judge misinterpreted the very thing that he referenced from Title
12 as he claimed Rickman used "lawful money". Bringing in things like
Rickman are irrelevant anyway... the question is a simple one: Are FRN
"lawful money"? This is answered in Title 12, not in Rickman or on an
IRS website. What isn't so clear is: To whom does it apply?

LOL!

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