Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Reality coldcocks Snit... again. Was: The Duc is up for the sale!
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". |
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 |