Reality coldcocks Snit... again. Was: The Duc is up for thesale!
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
12/3/10 3:16 PM: 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_. Now who is the idiot? Me who understands the difference and my rights or you who would be paying taxes if you stopped trolling long enough to earn some money? Hmmmm, who to believe... a crackpot on Usenet who insists that he has proved if A=B and B=C that A C and insists people are lying if they assume that his own claims are honest or this: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=106503,00.html See section C. LOL! -- [INSERT .SIG HERE] |
Reality coldcocks Snit... again. Was: The Duc is up for the sale!
On Dec 3, 3:20Â*pm, Snit wrote:
(snip) Hmmmm, who to believe... .... USC or IRS talking points Â* Â* 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. |
Reality coldcocks Snit... again. Was: The Duc is up for the sale!
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! -- You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch |
Reality coldcocks Snit... again. Was: The Duc is up for the sale!
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." 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? |
Reality coldcocks Snit... again. Was: The Duc is up for the sale!
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." 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! -- You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch |
Reality coldcocks Snit... again. Was: The Duc is up for thesale!
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] |
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] |
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". |
Reality coldcocks Snit... again. Was: The Duc is up for the sale!
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 |
Reality coldcocks Snit... again. Was: The Duc is up for thesale!
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] |
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. |
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 |
Reality coldcocks Snit... again. Was: The Duc is up for the sale!
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 |
Snit continues to argue that FRN are "lawful money"
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) |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:50 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter