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]

Steve Carroll wrote:
On Dec 4, 12:03 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 are erroneously arguing the law in Title 12 is not a law and
you're saying that FRNs are "lawful money" . Your "evidence" for these
claims is a snippet off the IRS website of a case where the judge
clearly misinterpreted Congress' intent as laid out in Title 12 (as
shown to you by me, the guy who found the rest of the judge's words
that include his blatant contradiction.

(snip Snit's arguing the personality over content... again)

LOL!

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

On Dec 4, 12:19*pm, Snit wrote:
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

.... is that you can't stick to an actual argument but instead can
only take shots at a personality because the content confuses you.



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.

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

Irrelevant. The question under discussion here is:

Are FRNs "lawful money"?

There is no question of Congressional intent with respect to answering
this question. As per Title 12:

"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."

If someone told you that you could redeem a banana for your apple
would you consider the apple to be a banana before the transaction
ever took place? Do you even know what the word redeem means, Snit?

LOL!

(snip more irrelevant material and discussion of personality over
content by Snit)

Steve Carroll wrote:
On Dec 4, 12:19 pm, Snit wrote:
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

... is that you can't stick to an actual argument but instead can
only take shots at a personality because the content confuses you.



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.

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

Irrelevant. The question under discussion here is:

Are FRNs "lawful money"?

There is no question of Congressional intent with respect to answering
this question. As per Title 12:

"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."

If someone told you that you could redeem a banana for your apple
would you consider the apple to be a banana before the transaction
ever took place? Do you even know what the word redeem means, Snit?

LOL!

(snip more irrelevant material and discussion of personality over
content by Snit)

LOL!

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

Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
12/4/10 12:44 PM:

What is sad

... is that you can't stick to an actual argument but instead can
only take shots at a personality because the content confuses you.

Hey, I was going to ignore you unless you said something really absurd,
amusing and a bit original (not just repeating your past BS). And you did
it... though, of course, you snipped and ran from the evidence you could not
deal with as you did so... and that is your main MO.

In any case, you humiliated yourself horribly in multiple debates...

* 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

And more. Because you were so humiliated you changed the topic to a debate
from ***2006***. Not a typo: 2006. Got it: 2006.

And then, when I merely show where you are an ignorant fool pretending it is
OK for you to evade taxes based on legal theories which have been rejected
by the courts, you whine that it is I who cannot stick to an actual
argument...

The irony of that, Steve, is just amazing. It is so absurd and stupid you
*had* to have done so on purpose. Such stupidity cannot be an accident.
And it worked - you got my attention... the thing you really want (hence
your socks)

Now can you top that to keep getting my attention? You will have to do
something quite amusing to keep it. I wish you luck!


--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 12/4/10 12:44 PM:

What is sad

... is that you can't stick to an actual argument but instead can
only take shots at a personality because the content confuses you.

Hey, I was going to ignore you unless you said something really
absurd, amusing and a bit original (not just repeating your past BS).
And you did it... though, of course, you snipped and ran from the
evidence you could not deal with as you did so... and that is your
main MO.

In any case, you humiliated yourself horribly in multiple debates...

* 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

And more. Because you were so humiliated you changed the topic to a
debate from ***2006***. Not a typo: 2006. Got it: 2006.

And then, when I merely show where you are an ignorant fool
pretending it is OK for you to evade taxes based on legal theories
which have been rejected by the courts, you whine that it is I who
cannot stick to an actual argument...

The irony of that, Steve, is just amazing. It is so absurd and
stupid you *had* to have done so on purpose. Such stupidity cannot
be an accident. And it worked - you got my attention... the thing you
really want (hence your socks)

Now can you top that to keep getting my attention? You will have to
do something quite amusing to keep it. I wish you luck!

Listen you little drug addict, this debate has nothing to do with my showing
how stupid you are on other topics. I brought this up just to show everyone
in all the forums this thread is cross posted how stupid you are. And now
you are going to run away like the coward you are. Why not respond to Steve
Carroll and not just me? What are you afraid of?

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

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?

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

On Dec 4, 12:51*pm, Snit wrote:

(snip of Snit discussing personality over content)

you whine that it is I who cannot stick to an actual argument...

Whine? You're clearly not sticking "to an actual argument"

(snip more of the same)

Nothing left... I guess Snit is done making his "argument" and
presenting his "evidence"

Steve Carroll wrote:
On Dec 4, 12:51 pm, Snit wrote:

(snip of Snit discussing personality over content)

you whine that it is I who cannot stick to an actual argument...

Whine? You're clearly not sticking "to an actual argument"

(snip more of the same)

Nothing left... I guess Snit is done making his "argument" and
presenting his "evidence"

LOL!

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

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

On Dec 4, 3:49*pm, "Big Crotch on a Small Fish" BigCrotch@SmallFish
wrote:
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!


Well, think about it... how else can they dismiss arguments as
frivolous when it's obvious they can't be if the law applies? The best
counter argument I've personally seen comes from Dr. Flaherty... and
it falls down when you apply a few basic facts to it. I've now given
Snit the name... we can wait to see if he tries to pick up Flaherty's
argument and go with it. Snit's only real interest is in proving me
wrong so there's a good chance he'll do it

Big Crotch on a Small Fish wrote:
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!

(crickets chirping)


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

Big Crotch on a Small Fish wrote:
Steve Carroll wrote:
On Dec 4, 12:51 pm, Snit wrote:

(snip of Snit discussing personality over content)

you whine that it is I who cannot stick to an actual argument...

Whine? You're clearly not sticking "to an actual argument"

(snip more of the same)

Nothing left... I guess Snit is done making his "argument" and
presenting his "evidence"

LOL!

(crickets chirping)


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

Steve Carroll wrote:
On Dec 4, 3:49 pm, "Big Crotch on a Small Fish" BigCrotch@SmallFish
wrote:
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!


Well, think about it... how else can they dismiss arguments as
frivolous when it's obvious they can't be if the law applies? The best
counter argument I've personally seen comes from Dr. Flaherty... and
it falls down when you apply a few basic facts to it. I've now given
Snit the name... we can wait to see if he tries to pick up Flaherty's
argument and go with it. Snit's only real interest is in proving me
wrong so there's a good chance he'll do it

LOL!

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