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:

On one hand we have you, a hate-filled troll who is trying to obfuscate your
current humiliations by bringing up debates from 2006 (through a sock, no
less) and who is clearly a whacko trying to redefine things to avoid paying
taxes... who cannot accept that once the gold standard went away the money
itself became money and not a deed of sorts for some gold (or other item)...

On the other hand we have the words of the government, the ones who control
the money flow, saying that those who try to make such distinctions are
incorrect.

While there may be some places where wording and whatnot is not as it should
be through the laws written over hundreds of years (gee, go figure), clearly
the intent of the law (and the meaning, as upheld by the courts) is that the
bills in my pocket is legal tender / lawful money and that there is no real
difference in almost all situations since the gold standard was dropped.

But that will all go over your head. And is rather boring. Better be real
exciting or make a new sock if you want to keep getting my attention on
this.


--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

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".

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

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?


--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

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.

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

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]

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)

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)

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