Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Reality coldcocks Snit... again. Was: The Duc is up for thesale!
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
12/4/10 12:08 AM: Steve Carroll wrote: On Dec 3, 3:20 pm, Snit wrote: (snip) Hmmmm, who to believe... ... USC or IRS talking points http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=106503,00.html I'll see your *partial quote* from the IRS's pile of marketing bullshit and raise you additional, pertinent context from this case that the IRS didn't bother to include (for obvious reasons): "Defendant argues that the Federal Reserve Notes in which he was paid were not lawful money within the meaning of Art. 1, ? 8, United States Constitution. We have held to the contrary. United States v. Ware, 10 Cir., [**7] 608 F.2d 400, 402-403. We find no validity in the distinction which defendant draws between "lawful money" and "legal tender." HN6Go to this Headnote in the case.Money is a medium of exchange. Legal tender is money which the law requires a creditor to receive in payment of an obligation. The aggregate of the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution includes broad and comprehensive authority over revenue, finance, and currency. Norman v. B. & O. R. Co., 294 U.S. 240, 55 S. Ct. 407, 79 L. Ed. 885. In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money. Defendant received Federal Reserve Notes when he cashed his pay checks and used those notes to pay his personal expenses. He obtained and used lawful money." Note the judge's line which states: "In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money." Congress made a clear distinction between "legal tender" and "lawful money" so judges wouldn't have to do anything thinking about this issue and get all confused the way you are. The law passed by Congress was not suitable for this dishonest, activist judge... here is his obvious contradiction: "He obtained and used lawful money." Hint: Neither partial quotes referenced on the internet version of the IRS's talking points or bogus, district level case law (this won't ever get to the SC, also for obvious reasons) supersede the USC. That certain judges won't uphold certain laws is irrelevant to what the law states. If you knew anything about the law you'd understand that. You're welcome. LOL! We find no validity in the distinction which defendant draws between "lawful money" and "legal tender." LOL indeed! But, by all means, explain why you understand things better than the courts... oh, Steve... you are amusing in your desperate attempts to change the topic from your current humiliations. Why did you pick a topic you obsessed over in 2006 where you showed yourself to be a conspiracy whacko trying to evade taxes? -- [INSERT .SIG HERE] |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Reality coldcocks Snit... again. Was: The Duc is up for the sale!
On Dec 4, 10:17*am, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on 12/4/10 12:08 AM: Steve Carroll wrote: On Dec 3, 3:20 pm, Snit wrote: (snip) Hmmmm, who to believe... ... *USC or IRS talking points http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=106503,00.html I'll see your *partial quote* *from the IRS's pile of marketing bullshit and raise you additional, pertinent context from this case that the IRS didn't bother to include (for obvious reasons): "Defendant argues that the Federal Reserve Notes in which he was paid were not lawful money within the meaning of Art. 1, ? 8, United States Constitution. We have held to the contrary. United States v. Ware, 10 Cir., *[**7] 608 F.2d 400, 402-403. We find no validity in the distinction which defendant draws between "lawful money" and "legal tender." HN6Go to this Headnote in the case.Money is a medium of exchange. Legal tender is money which the law requires a creditor to receive in payment of an obligation. The aggregate of the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution includes broad and comprehensive authority over revenue, finance, and currency. Norman v. B. & O. R. Co., 294 U.S. 240, 55 S. Ct. 407, 79 L. Ed. 885. In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money. Defendant received Federal Reserve Notes when he cashed his pay checks and used those notes to pay his personal expenses. He obtained and used lawful money." Note the judge's *line which states: "In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money." Congress made a clear distinction between "legal tender" and "lawful money" so judges wouldn't have to do anything thinking about this issue and get all confused the way you are. The law passed by Congress was not suitable for this dishonest, activist judge... here is his obvious contradiction: "He obtained and used lawful money." Hint: Neither partial quotes referenced on the internet version of the IRS's talking points or *bogus, district *level case law (this won't ever get to the SC, also for obvious reasons) supersede the USC. *That certain *judges won't uphold certain laws is irrelevant to what the law states. If you knew anything about the law you'd understand that. You're welcome. LOL! * * We find no validity in the distinction which defendant * * draws between "lawful money" and "legal tender." LOL indeed! But, by all means, explain why you understand things better than the courts... You're confused... as usual The discussion here is about whether or not FRNs are "lawful money" from a legal standpoint, it's not about whether or not someone named Rickman couched his argument properly so as to be seen 'valid' by a judge. It's also not about a judge's misinterpretation of a law he referenced as he simultaneously created a glaring contradiction in his opinion. I "understand" exactly what I said: Federal Reserve Notes are not "lawful money" as per title 12 of the USC. Were you able to comprehend what you read from this judge (instead of engaging in law worship via case law) you'd be asking him how he could referenced Congress' intent to make clear that FRN are not lawful money, yet, he simultaneously claimed Rickman used lawful money when he used FRN. So... what we have here is you arguing that the law created under title 12 is not a law and your evidence that it isn't a law is: The misguided opinion of a district court judge who clearly misinterpreted the law he referenced even *as* he referenced it. By the way... that the IRS saw fit to only include a tiny, self serving snippet and not the judge's blatant contradiction is a pretty big clue how these folks operate. You're welcome for this education. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Reality coldcocks Snit... again. Was: The Duc is up for the sale!
Steve Carroll wrote:
On Dec 4, 10:17 am, Snit wrote: Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on 12/4/10 12:08 AM: Steve Carroll wrote: On Dec 3, 3:20 pm, Snit wrote: (snip) Hmmmm, who to believe... ... USC or IRS talking points http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=106503,00.html I'll see your *partial quote* from the IRS's pile of marketing bullshit and raise you additional, pertinent context from this case that the IRS didn't bother to include (for obvious reasons): "Defendant argues that the Federal Reserve Notes in which he was paid were not lawful money within the meaning of Art. 1, ? 8, United States Constitution. We have held to the contrary. United States v. Ware, 10 Cir., [**7] 608 F.2d 400, 402-403. We find no validity in the distinction which defendant draws between "lawful money" and "legal tender." HN6Go to this Headnote in the case.Money is a medium of exchange. Legal tender is money which the law requires a creditor to receive in payment of an obligation. The aggregate of the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution includes broad and comprehensive authority over revenue, finance, and currency. Norman v. B. & O. R. Co., 294 U.S. 240, 55 S. Ct. 407, 79 L. Ed. 885. In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money. Defendant received Federal Reserve Notes when he cashed his pay checks and used those notes to pay his personal expenses. He obtained and used lawful money." Note the judge's line which states: "In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money." Congress made a clear distinction between "legal tender" and "lawful money" so judges wouldn't have to do anything thinking about this issue and get all confused the way you are. The law passed by Congress was not suitable for this dishonest, activist judge... here is his obvious contradiction: "He obtained and used lawful money." Hint: Neither partial quotes referenced on the internet version of the IRS's talking points or bogus, district level case law (this won't ever get to the SC, also for obvious reasons) supersede the USC. That certain judges won't uphold certain laws is irrelevant to what the law states. If you knew anything about the law you'd understand that. You're welcome. LOL! We find no validity in the distinction which defendant draws between "lawful money" and "legal tender." LOL indeed! But, by all means, explain why you understand things better than the courts... You're confused... as usual The discussion here is about whether or not FRNs are "lawful money" from a legal standpoint, it's not about whether or not someone named Rickman couched his argument properly so as to be seen 'valid' by a judge. It's also not about a judge's misinterpretation of a law he referenced as he simultaneously created a glaring contradiction in his opinion. I "understand" exactly what I said: Federal Reserve Notes are not "lawful money" as per title 12 of the USC. Were you able to comprehend what you read from this judge (instead of engaging in law worship via case law) you'd be asking him how he could referenced Congress' intent to make clear that FRN are not lawful money, yet, he simultaneously claimed Rickman used lawful money when he used FRN. So... what we have here is you arguing that the law created under title 12 is not a law and your evidence that it isn't a law is: The misguided opinion of a district court judge who clearly misinterpreted the law he referenced even *as* he referenced it. By the way... that the IRS saw fit to only include a tiny, self serving snippet and not the judge's blatant contradiction is a pretty big clue how these folks operate. You're welcome for this education. LOL! -- You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Ping: Snit and Socks | Gardening | |||
Snit's position on an OSX "inconsistency": "user error" | Gardening | |||
Bloody VERMIN Cats again, and again, and again, and again....:-(((( | United Kingdom | |||
Quarintine? Reality? | Ponds |