Impossible! The deficit is falling as well as unemployment Obama wrecking economy

[twostrokenut]

Not only "special", but SUBSIDIZED by your tax dollars.

By the way, who is that character on your avatar? I recognize him but can't remember who it is

Nothing subsidy is paid out directly in taxes. She gets the loan from the collateral of them.

It's Murray Rothbard of course, without the bow-tie.

 

[twostrokenut]

You've completely lost me. The Big Bang is presumed to be the "emergence" of the entire spacetime continuum from (...) to, well, here. Its recontraction has not been established but is a popular hypothesis and not theory. I'm trying to see how that relates to the perception of having rights, or to the universe having a "purpose". Purpose is necessarily more than naked timeline. cn

Sure I suppose the contraction is all theory but something being infinitely divisible is not....lending credit that contraction is not. Assuming the universe will contract then expand and contract again and assuming life will happen again and again I find higher purpose and claim of right.

Glass half empty man?

 

[twostrokenut]

So I am sitting here "smoking" my ecig from China. It's a Vision clearomizer so I know it's safe against the only known problem with this system which was inferior plastic that might leech with highly acidic juices.

So, I just heard the Fed is pissed at China because they expect China to, and I may be misquoting what I heard on the news last night but to the best of my ability: either "monetize" or facilitate through "QE" some of the obligations or what ever. In my layman's terms this means China is expected by the Fed to turn on its paper currency pressed to keep from publicly embarrassing the Fed.

I am wondering how much my Ecigs will cost if China were to impose sanctions on the US......If we made our own, my whole kit was like 45 bucks with two cigs same exact kits that sells one cig in the Bay Area for over $100.....paid the union workers, produced them here then consumed them ourselves.

Would our real wealth have decreased because of this?

 

[tokeprep]

Here's US v. Gardiner: "Gardiner next asserts that he was not subject to the jurisdiction of the IRS because he did not receive ‘money’in 1970 and 1971 as the Federal Reserve Notes he received were not lawful money. Such an argument has been summarily found to be without merit, United States v. Scott, 521 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1975); cf. Milam v. United States, 524 F.2d 629 (9th Cir. 1974), and we so find here."

Defendant's Argument.
Court's Decision
Your oversight.

Gardiner received and bonded money of account then complained they were not lawful money. such argument has been found without merit.

Except that's not the argument he makes. He argues he didn't receive money BECAUSE Federal Reserve Notes are not lawful money. This is the argument the court says is without merit.

It is exceedingly simple: Federal Reserve Notes are not lawful money. Not because of this or that, not provided that he did this or that--just that they aren't. Period. You cannot apply your gloss to these decisions adding things that aren't there; you cannot modify the defendant's argument and declare that the decision is based on what you made his argument. His argument is obvious to anyone here who's reading it, and it's not what you're rewriting it to be.

Now tax court can redefine Congress? OMG national currency is lawful money to the Federal Reserve System fo sho that's part of their assets. Non-negotiable assets. So defendant argues Fed notes should be deflated against gold then calculate tax? Pretty silly.

The tax court isn't redefining anything, only interpreting the law.

Reading comprehension, yet again. It is lawful money to the Fed? That's not what the sentence says: "Congress has delegated the power to establish this national currency which is lawful money to the Federal Reserve System." How do I know this is the right construction? Because they pretty much lifted the red phrase straight from Juilliard; they're saying the power to establish that lawful currency has been delegated to the Fed.

The statement about the taxpayer's argument in this case is irrelevant to the statement of the law at the beginning, which is that congress gave the Fed the power to establish lawful money.

More tax court really you haven't even established your theory in the Supreme Court yet.

Maybe lawful money in the sense they can be held for Reserves on other Fed notes only, nothing more. Is this civil court tokeprep?

Why would I have to establish my theory in the supreme court? The supreme court denied cert on some of these cases. The law is what the courts say the law is until they, the supreme court, or congress say otherwise.

Why do you have to speculate when the case is so explicit? The court means Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money. Period. You know where they got that conclusion? From these other court cases that you are misconstruing to say something else, because judges actually know how to read them. Why does it matter if this is civil court?

Rickman argues his bonded commercial paper (his paycheck)is not article 1 section 8 money.

Rickman: "Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money"

Ware: "United States notes shall be lawful money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt."

That's not the statement of the argument the court gives us. They state the argument as he was paid in Federal Reserve Notes which were not lawful money; there's nothing there about checks, bonded commercial paper, or any of the other gloss you want to throw on. The court then says it has held to the contrary and explains that there is no distinction between "legal tender" and "lawful money." The mention of cashing checks comes later, and it has nothing to do with the statement of the law; it has nothing to do with there being no distinction between lawful money and legal tender.

Even if you incomprehensibly want to restate the argument and then misapply the court's holding, this statement in the case destroys your key argument: "We find no validity in the distinction which defendant draws between “lawful money” and “legal tender.”" This court says the distinction you want to draw between lawful money and legal tender is meaningless. How can you possibly continue to assert otherwise when you have a court so plainly saying it? Your whole argument is based on there being a distinction.

Links please for all your sources. Standard unit of money that has not changed is in 31usc5101 right? More proof Hamilton's definition is alive and functioning well. Reference FRN's? where?

If you Google the text you should find it. https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/646/646.F2d.1185.80-1099.html.

How is this proof that Hamilton's definition is alive and functioning well...? They draw no distinction between money and money of account.

I'm going to excise the next few to focus on the others, because I certainly agree they're not as strong or explicit as the others.

Specie argument. This case further emphasizes FRN's are merely legal tender.

Then how do you square that with the case that says there's no distinction between legal tender and lawful money?

 

[tokeprep]

So I am sitting here "smoking" my ecig from China. It's a Vision clearomizer so I know it's safe against the only known problem with this system which was inferior plastic that might leech with highly acidic juices.

So, I just heard the Fed is pissed at China because they expect China to, and I may be misquoting what I heard on the news last night but to the best of my ability: either "monetize" or facilitate through "QE" some of the obligations or what ever. In my layman's terms this means China is expected by the Fed to turn on its paper currency pressed to keep from publicly embarrassing the Fed.

I am wondering how much my Ecigs will cost if China were to impose sanctions on the US......If we made our own, my whole kit was like 45 bucks with two cigs same exact kits that sells one cig in the Bay Area for over $100.....paid the union workers, produced them here then consumed them ourselves.

Would our real wealth have decreased because of this?

I don't think what you're describing has anything to do with the Fed. Chinese governments and companies supposedly have trillions of dollars in endangered obligations; the government has responded by extending maturity dates, lowering interest rates, etc., in order to prevent debt from defaulting. This debt is Chinese debt, tied to Chinese construction and Chinese business. It sounds like you're describing China potentially monetizing some of this outstanding debt by printing new money.

Why would China impose sanctions on the United States? Do they not want $300 billion a year?

 

[twostrokenut]

I don't think what you're describing has anything to do with the Fed. Chinese governments and companies supposedly have trillions of dollars in endangered obligations; the government has responded by extending maturity dates, lowering interest rates, etc., in order to prevent debt from defaulting. This debt is Chinese debt, tied to Chinese construction and Chinese business. It sounds like you're describing China potentially monetizing some of this outstanding debt by printing new money.

Why would China impose sanctions on the United States? Do they not want $300 billion a year?

No it was on dateline or niteline or some shit like that, specifically mentioned the Fed and China.

So your contention is China owns no US debt? I think it was about China monetizing some US debt.

Hypothetically impose sanctions like maybe they think we pollute too much or take some other uppity stance, anything like that.

 

[tokeprep]

No it was on dateline or niteline or some shit like that, specifically mentioned the Fed and China.

So your contention is China owns no US debt? I think it was about China monetizing some US debt.

Hypothetically impose sanctions like maybe they think we pollute too much or take some other uppity stance, anything like that.

I've tried searching but I can't find anything. Do you just mean they're just going to sell treasury securities? Because monetizing debt in the currency sense makes no sense here. China can only monetize its own debt.

 

[twostrokenut]

Except that's not the argument he makes. He argues he didn't receive money BECAUSE Federal Reserve Notes are not lawful money. This is the argument the court says is without merit.

It is exceedingly simple: Federal Reserve Notes are not lawful money. Not because of this or that, not provided that he did this or that--just that they aren't. Period. You cannot apply your gloss to these decisions adding things that aren't there; you cannot modify the defendant's argument and declare that the decision is based on what you made his argument. His argument is obvious to anyone here who's reading it, and it's not what you're rewriting it to be.

Is this official transcript? Well it would have to be for you to cite it as law. Can't have it both ways. 'money' is lowercase and in quotes; we have established this is defined by your office staff as "money of account". Hows that for a gloss?
Gardiner asserts his right to have lawful money after signing and bonding his money of account. Can't have it both ways.

The tax court isn't redefining anything, only interpreting the law.

You have yet to diff between the tax court and Supreme Court for sake of this thread. It was you that drew the civil boundary. You also have been saying court decisions are law without diffing between the competency of the courts and now we are at tax court.

Tell me tokeprep why do you feel the need basically name call when you don't have anything left to say?

The constitution freed a whole nation of people. Racism!
FRN's are not lawful money and are redeemable in lawful money that is not gold or silver.
Tax protester!
Here are Supreme and District cased that support me. Tax court!

Reading comprehension, yet again. It is lawful money to the Fed? That's not what the sentence says: "Congress has delegated the power to establish this national currency which is lawful money to the Federal Reserve System." How do I know this is the right construction? Because they pretty much lifted the red phrase straight from Juilliard; they're saying the power to establish that lawful currency has been delegated to the Fed.

The statement about the taxpayer's argument in this case is irrelevant to the statement of the law at the beginning, which is that congress gave the Fed the power to establish lawful money.

it would have to say "congress has delegated new power to establish this new national currency" for your interpretation to make any sense at all. Then we would have different conflicting law between branches to deal with. You complicate things too much.

They liftid it straight from Juiliard you say? Tell me then what was "this national currency" then, since and now? Oh yeah the 37th congressional one.

"this national currency" is the national currency that existed when the decision was written. Period. You cite this as official transcript then that's how it is. It has been here since Lincoln and always has. You have even failed to cite the "under 12usc411" pertaining to the statement in question not that it even has to be there but it is. It makes no sense at all to state the new powers of the fed to declare a new currency then restrict that statement with congressional rules of 12usc411 it is your reading comprehension in question here.

Why would I have to establish my theory in the supreme court? The supreme court denied cert on some of these cases. The law is what the courts say the law is until they, the supreme court, or congress say otherwise.

Oh ok now the law is what the court says until congress.....earlier in the thread you said the law is what congress says it is......which branch is legislative again?

How about this. Where is the Authorization for Congress to give Money Powers to Court? Any Court? Much less the Fed? Especially in light of 12usc411;31usc5101(def of "money"),5103 Legal Tender,5115 US notes;37th Congress(def of lawful money);Juiliard that upholds all this;Milam that upholds all this;.......shit of the top my head.....what else.....Rickman upholds these and Ware upholds these.......then all your tax cases uphold these.......then you cite nothing but these cases that establish a new lawful currency having no provisions WHATSOEVER.

Why do you have to speculate when the case is so explicit? The court means Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money. Period. You know where they got that conclusion? From these other court cases that you are misconstruing to say something else, because judges actually know how to read them. Why does it matter if this is civil court?

Poe v CIR cites what when making this claim same thing you do???
You are literally arguing Tax Court dictates monetary policy and is capable of establishing new Statutory Law for itself instead of being restricted to the Tax Code.
Answer the question law man is this civil court.?.?

That's not the statement of the argument the court gives us. They state the argument as he was paid in Federal Reserve Notes which were not lawful money; there's nothing there about checks, bonded commercial paper, or any of the other gloss you want to throw on. The court then says it has held to the contrary and explains that there is no distinction between "legal tender" and "lawful money." The mention of cashing checks comes later, and it has nothing to do with the statement of the law; it has nothing to do with there being no distinction between lawful money and legal tender.

Even if you incomprehensibly want to restate the argument and then misapply the court's holding, this statement in the case destroys your key argument: "We find no validity in the distinction which defendant draws between “lawful money” and “legal tender.”" This court says the distinction you want to draw between lawful money and legal tender is meaningless. How can you possibly continue to assert otherwise when you have a court so plainly saying it? Your whole argument is based on there being a distinction.

Quit yer bitching court found no validity in the distinction on which defendant draws between Money and Tender.....why the fuck would it?

"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., 608 F.2d 400, 402-403."

translation: We have held to the contrary. The FRN's for in which he was paid were not lawful money regardless of Art. 1 S 8 because they were bonded as money of account.......Ware: US notes are lawful money.

If you Google the text you should find it. https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/646/646.F2d.1185.80-1099.html.

How is this proof that Hamilton's definition is alive and functioning well...? They draw no distinction between money and money of account.

because lawful money is @37th congress and money is @ 31usc5101

I'm going to excise the next few to focus on the others, because I certainly agree they're not as strong or explicit as the others.

Don't bring anymore tax ones until you establish competent jurisdiction to change Supreme or District court too.



Then how do you square that with the case that says there's no distinction between legal tender and lawful money?

lol no case says that you made it up.....you mean the one that finds no validity between defendants distinction of those defs.

..........................

 

[twostrokenut]

I've tried searching but I can't find anything. Do you just mean they're just going to sell treasury securities? Because monetizing debt in the currency sense makes no sense here. China can only monetize its own debt.

Ya I can't find it either anymore. Maybe someone else saw it too idk.

It only makes sense to the original scenario I posted, sanctions that is. The piece I saw on china and the fed only made me think of the scenario.

 

[tokeprep]

Is this official transcript? Well it would have to be for you to cite it as law. Can't have it both ways. 'money' is lowercase and in quotes; we have established this is defined by your office staff as "money of account". Hows that for a gloss?
Gardiner asserts his right to have lawful money after signing and bonding his money of account. Can't have it both ways.

It's straight out of the text of the case. We have established that "money" and "money of account" are not distinct things. The supreme court case that everyone cites says "money." So I'm not sure what point you're trying to make about the word "money" in the case.

Whatever Gardiner asserted is totally irrelevant, the fact that you keep ignoring. The assertion he makes is that Federal Reserve Notes are not lawful money, and the court says that assertion is bullshit. The court says nothing about his signing and bonding money of account, so it makes no sense for you to be talking about it. Their language is exceedingly clear.

You have yet to diff between the tax court and Supreme Court for sake of this thread. It was you that drew the civil boundary. You also have been saying court decisions are law without diffing between the competency of the courts and now we are at tax court.

Tell me tokeprep why do you feel the need basically name call when you don't have anything left to say?

The constitution freed a whole nation of people. Racism!
FRN's are not lawful money and are redeemable in lawful money that is not gold or silver.
Tax protester!
Here are Supreme and District cased that support me. Tax court!

I'm not claiming the tax court has the authority of the supreme court. I merely cite the tax court as a further example of what the well-established law is. They cite some of the other cases in furtherance of their conclusions, following my interpretation of them, not the insane interpretation you've developed. It's further evidence of how ridiculous this redemption nonsense is.

it would have to say "congress has delegated new power to establish this new national currency" for your interpretation to make any sense at all. Then we would have different conflicting law between branches to deal with. You complicate things too much.

And why is that? Because I certainly see no reason.

They liftid it straight from Juiliard you say? Tell me then what was "this national currency" then, since and now? Oh yeah the 37th congressional one.

"this national currency" is the national currency that existed when the decision was written. Period. You cite this as official transcript then that's how it is. It has been here since Lincoln and always has. You have even failed to cite the "under 12usc411" pertaining to the statement in question not that it even has to be there but it is. It makes no sense at all to state the new powers of the fed to declare a new currency then restrict that statement with congressional rules of 12usc411 it is your reading comprehension in question here.

Alas, if we follow your construction of what that means, the court is literally saying that congress has delegated to the Fed the power to issue United States Notes: "Congress has delegated the power to establish this national currency which is lawful money to the Federal Reserve System." That doesn't make any sense, which is why you should know it's absurd.

Again, I agree that it would make no sense if the Federal Reserve Act had originally been written that way. Of course, we already know it wasn't, which is why your argument that it "doesn't make sense" is baseless. When they wrote it, it made sense; when they removed gold redemption, it still made sense; only when they made all United States currency equivalent did it cease to make sense, and that was more than 50 years after the text had been written.

Oh ok now the law is what the court says until congress.....earlier in the thread you said the law is what congress says it is......which branch is legislative again?

If you're questioning this you don't understand our constitutional system. Congress passes a law and the courts interpret that law; the interpretations of the courts are binding as law unless congress changes the law. The courts never "make law," they merely interpret the law, but their interpretations are law unless they are overridden.

Everything I've said is entirely consistent with this. You must look not just at what congress said but also at what the courts said; and the courts have the last word unless congress speaks again. That's just our system.

How about this. Where is the Authorization for Congress to give Money Powers to Court? Any Court? Much less the Fed? Especially in light of 12usc411;31usc5101(def of "money"),5103 Legal Tender,5115 US notes;37th Congress(def of lawful money);Juiliard that upholds all this;Milam that upholds all this;.......shit of the top my head.....what else.....Rickman upholds these and Ware upholds these.......then all your tax cases uphold these.......then you cite nothing but these cases that establish a new lawful currency having no provisions WHATSOEVER.

Upholds what, exactly? Upholds what the court upholds, not what you stuff into the courts' mouths.

To say that the courts have no power is to say that congress has now power. It's worthy of an eye roll.

Poe v CIR cites what when making this claim same thing you do???
You are literally arguing Tax Court dictates monetary policy and is capable of establishing new Statutory Law for itself instead of being restricted to the Tax Code.
Answer the question law man is this civil court.?.?

I merely quote the tax court stating what the law is. They looked at the same cases we're looking at and they took my side of things, not yours. They're the judges, the experts in statutory law, not you or I. But evidently you think you know better.

The court case doesn't purport to establish statutory law and they're obviously commenting on something outside of the tax code.

Quit yer bitching court found no validity in the distinction on which defendant draws between Money and Tender.....why the fuck would it?

"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., 608 F.2d 400, 402-403."

translation: We have held to the contrary. The FRN's for in which he was paid were not lawful money regardless of Art. 1 S 8 because they were bonded as money of account.......Ware: US notes are lawful money.

Except that makes absolutely no sense given the rest of the paragraph. But when you rely on taking things totally out of context to make your argument, what should we expect? Indeed: "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." How did he obtain and use lawful money if he endorsed a check and received Federal Reserve Notes? The defendant doesn't argue that he made any demand, so how could he have obtained and used lawful money?

Here's yet more evidence from Rickman: "Defendant claims error in the instruction that Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money. We have held that they are. The instruction was proper." The defendant specifically argues that an instruction the judge gave that Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money was in error, and the court expressly says that it has held Federal Reserve Notes are indeed lawful money, and thus the instruction was proper.

because lawful money is @37th congress and money is @ 31usc5101

Don't bring anymore tax ones until you establish competent jurisdiction to change Supreme or District court too.

And what is it that you think the two things have to do with each other...? Because the answer seems to be nothing.

Do you not understand that tax court decisions are reviewable by higher courts...?

lol no case says that you made it up.....you mean the one that finds no validity between defendants distinction of those defs.

Which is exactly the same distinction that you draw: Federal Reserve Notes are only legal tender and not lawful money. That's why he wasn't reporting the Federal Reserve Notes he received as income on his tax returns, because his contention was that only lawful money was reportable. As mere legal tender, his tens of thousands of Federal Reserve Notes were supposedly immune. Except the court said is argument was lunatic bullshit.

 

[cannabineer]

Sure I suppose the contraction is all theory but something being infinitely divisible is not....lending credit that contraction is not. Assuming the universe will contract then expand and contract again and assuming life will happen again and again I find higher purpose and claim of right.

Glass half empty man?

More of an engineer sort.
The optimist claims the glass is half full.
The pessimist claims the glass is half empty.
The engineer, now, will tell you you have 92% too much glass. cn

 

[twostrokenut]

More of an engineer sort.
The optimist claims the glass is half full.
The pessimist claims the glass is half empty.
The engineer, now, will tell you you have 92% too much glass. cn

Engineer works too......coke can would as well........go ahead and figure the percentage to cheers

 

[heckler73]

More of an engineer sort.
The optimist claims the glass is half full.
The pessimist claims the glass is half empty.
The engineer, now, will tell you you have 92% too much glass. cn

Oddly enough, that's how an economist would see it, too. It's just not efficient enough, damnit!
Like the blind guy playing golf... The economist would say "he should play at night!" since that would be the more efficient allocation of scarce resources.

 

[twostrokenut]

The court cases certainly are not helping you prove Fed notes are but mere representatives of lawful money.....and the last representative paper currency that has that attribute was arguably a mere representation of Money itself..... that carry no interest on the public debt and can't be used for taxes on imports.

So why does it not make sense to bond something like why do you think that is not contractual in the world of commerce? Which literally deals in stocks, bonds, notes, bills of exchange, negotiable and non-negotiable instruments. What is a mortgaged backed security? What are treasuries ? What are savings bonds? This world which literally has provisions for pesky little things like Constitutions and Acts of governments.

Bail bondsmen do pretty well.
If someone were to transport a car for you they are bonded I hope.
Mortgage note has two party signature bonding it right on the front.
I can buy a bond instead of having car insurance in my state.

In a sense the Fed has authority to issue US notes already issued by Treasury but hey they're all tight like that now ya know? They still must do so under 12usc411 through the act of redemption.

When they wrote it it made sense and it still does now to those of us that wish to return to some semblance of Constitutional Money.

There is only one lawful currency of the US and those are the demand notes and coins issued by Treasury. Yep zinc quarters and thin copper shelled pennies.

To tell me "they made all US currency equivalent" is asinine in lieu of you not even knowing the part of our currency still exists today.

Apparently you don't understand our Constitution. Let the eye rolling commence. The Constitution established the Supreme Court only, as a check on Congress and Executive. Congress established inferior courts by Act. By your reasoning Congress established a child that now controls its parent. I would be happy to discuss this as an aside.

Flexible, elastic wtf ever you want to call FRN's can't be force on free people in a free country and still remain that way. It has to be voluntary and has to have an out, or redemption. If not you will have to admit we are not free people.

On Rickman the part you are arguing clearly tells Rickman his notes were redeemabe and cites directly from 12usc411 on this matter pointing out Congress has given this option. Rickman signs his check, bonding the notes that could have been lawful money then payed his expenses giving others this option. Rickman surely receives some coins from this which qualify as lawful money also game over.

37th congress is the definition of lawful money currency notes in the US. By any court.

• Which is exactly the same distinction that you draw: Federal Reserve Notes are only legal tender and not lawful money. That's why he wasn't reporting the Federal Reserve Notes he received as income on his tax returns, because his contention was that only lawful money was reportable. As mere legal tender, his tens of thousands of Federal Reserve Notes were supposedly immune. Except the court said is argument was lunatic bullshit.​
  
  

If he bonds his check as income then he is required to file a return and court upheld it Period. They even provided that it was redeemable.

Lunatic bullshit?? WTF?? This is money of society. The same exact society that won't give you the gay "rights" because they don't have to if you contract outside your rights with them......this leads to the same question over and over.......

Why don't you and your credentials answer us all is traffic court civil court like Judge Judy? What is the difference. Was traffic court established in the First Judiciary act of 1789? Federal District court civil? Maritime? Tribunal? What is the difference between these and what are their competencies of the lawful issue at hand?

What does " exclusive original cognizance " mean?

Are all the cases cited civil court? Please explain, thanks.

 

[tokeprep]

The court cases certainly are not helping you prove Fed notes are but mere representatives of lawful money.....and the last representative paper currency that has that attribute was arguably a mere representation of Money itself..... that carry no interest on the public debt and can't be used for taxes on imports.

So why does it not make sense to bond something like why do you think that is not contractual in the world of commerce? Which literally deals in stocks, bonds, notes, bills of exchange, negotiable and non-negotiable instruments. What is a mortgaged backed security? What are treasuries ? What are savings bonds? This world which literally has provisions for pesky little things like Constitutions and Acts of governments.

Bail bondsmen do pretty well.
If someone were to transport a car for you they are bonded I hope.
Mortgage note has two party signature bonding it right on the front.
I can buy a bond instead of having car insurance in my state.

Fortunately there's no such thing with respect to Federal Reserve Notes. Your belief otherwise is based on the rantings of a hopelessly moronic crackpot.

In a sense the Fed has authority to issue US notes already issued by Treasury but hey they're all tight like that now ya know? They still must do so under 12usc411 through the act of redemption.

Except that makes absolutely no sense.

When they wrote it it made sense and it still does now to those of us that wish to return to some semblance of Constitutional Money.

There is only one lawful currency of the US and those are the demand notes and coins issued by Treasury. Yep zinc quarters and thin copper shelled pennies.

Your nostalgia is not the law.

To tell me "they made all US currency equivalent" is asinine in lieu of you not even knowing the part of our currency still exists today.

I never claimed otherwise.

Apparently you don't understand our Constitution. Let the eye rolling commence. The Constitution established the Supreme Court only, as a check on Congress and Executive. Congress established inferior courts by Act. By your reasoning Congress established a child that now controls its parent. I would be happy to discuss this as an aside.

The fact that congress can establish courts does not render the judgments of the courts it establishes irrelevant. The number of justices on the supreme court is subject to congressional dictates as well--does this tender the judgments of the supreme court irrelevant? Of course not .

Flexible, elastic wtf ever you want to call FRN's can't be force on free people in a free country and still remain that way. It has to be voluntary and has to have an out, or redemption. If not you will have to admit we are not free people.

Except there is no meaningful redemption and you've not demonstrated otherwise except for your bullshit theoretical case built on poor reading comprehension skills.

On Rickman the part you are arguing clearly tells Rickman his notes were redeemabe and cites directly from 12usc411 on this matter pointing out Congress has given this option. Rickman signs his check, bonding the notes that could have been lawful money then payed his expenses giving others this option. Rickman surely receives some coins from this which qualify as lawful money also game over.

Oh, he surely receives some coins, and that makes it qualify as lawful money? If the court meant that the court would have said that. The fact that you just added your own bullshit about coins reveals that your argument is baseless.

If the court wanted to mention coins they would have done so. They didn't.

37th congress is the definition of lawful money currency notes in the US. By any court.

Except no court has ever said that in United States history. It's total bullshit that only you have said.

[quote]If he bonds his check as income then he is required to file a return and court upheld it Period. They even provided that it was redeemable.

Lunatic bullshit?? WTF?? This is money of society. The same exact society that won't give you the gay "rights" because they don't have to if you contract outside your rights with them......this leads to the same question over and over.......

Why don't you and your credentials answer us all is traffic court civil court like Judge Judy? What is the difference. Was traffic court established in the First Judiciary act of 1789? Federal District court civil? Maritime? Tribunal? What is the difference between these and what are their competencies of the lawful issue at hand?

What does " exclusive original cognizance " mean?

Are all the cases cited civil court? Please explain, thanks.[/QUOTE]

I already asked you to explain the relevant of that judiciary act twice and you chose not to do so. Why ask about it if you're going to ignore me anyway?

 

[cannabineer]

Engineer works too......coke can would as well........go ahead and figure the percentage to cheers

I begin to understand. You were never interested in serious discourse. cn

 

[twostrokenut]

I begin to understand. You were never interested in serious discourse. cn

I was in a societal sense.

Edit: Serious discourse of economics or having the right to grow when your only right (edit: purpose)is to die is pretty impossible imho.

 

[twostrokenut]

Fortunately there's no such thing with respect to Federal Reserve Notes. Your belief otherwise is based on the rantings of a hopelessly moronic crackpot. Federal Reserve Notes aren't bonded.....this makes you the moronic crackpot. They are bonded as "obligations of the US"....that bond is Joe Schmoe going to work every day and paying his taxes.....not just income taxes as you are focusing on but other federal taxes as well. This is the bond that floats any obligation of the US; genius.Except that makes absolutely no sense.To Congress and the Fed and the courts that cite 12usc411 it does. You are the only one confused.Your nostalgia is not the law. Disprove that with law then instead of whining like a child. I proved my argument that the only lawful currency notes that exist right now are contained in 31usc5115 ; something you claim to maintain and to have spent years learning; crackpot.I never claimed otherwise. You absolutely claimed US notes still exist as remnants not currently authorized for issue.The fact that congress can establish courts does not render the judgments of the courts it establishes irrelevant. The number of justices on the supreme court is subject to congressional dictates as well--does this tender the judgments of the supreme court irrelevant? Of course not .It establishes them as "inferior" which is different than "supreme". The number of justices tenders the judgement irrelevant? Now who is the crackpot with fake credentials.Except there is no meaningful redemption and you've not demonstrated otherwise except for your bullshit theoretical case built on poor reading comprehension skills.I don't have to demonstrate my "bullshit", the 9th circuit did already.....Milam. "Appellant is entitled to redeem his note, but not in precious metal."Has your whining overturned this? Thought not.Oh, he surely receives some coins, and that makes it qualify as lawful money? If the court meant that the court would have said that. The fact that you just added your own bullshit about coins reveals that your argument is baseless.If the court wanted to mention coins they would have done so. They didn't. Milam and Rickman uphold redemption plain as day despite your opinion. Why would court mention coins, their status is not in question by anyone but you. Again you claim authority based on something you won't reveal because that is the only source of bullshit here. All US coins are lawful money. Provide evidence to the contrary or STFU with your delusional garbage.Except no court has ever said that in United States history. It's total bullshit that only you have said.No US court has ever upheld 37th congressional definition of lawful US currency notes........right.....right......US v Ware: "It is also to be noted that Congress Has already come to grips with the question whether United States notes are legal tender in 31 U.S.C. § 452, which provides:16United States notes shall be lawful money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt."So wrong again. I would rather be Mr. Definitions than Mr. Credentials any day.

If he bonds his check as income then he is required to file a return and court upheld it Period. They even provided that it was redeemable.Lunatic bullshit?? WTF?? This is money of society. The same exact society that won't give you the gay "rights" because they don't have to if you contract outside your rights with them......this leads to the same question over and over.......Why don't you and your credentials answer us all is traffic court civil court like Judge Judy? What is the difference. Was traffic court established in the First Judiciary act of 1789? Federal District court civil? Maritime? Tribunal? What is the difference between these and what are their competencies of the lawful issue at hand?What does " exclusive original cognizance " mean?Are all the cases cited civil court? Please explain, thanks.

I already asked you to explain the relevant of that judiciary act twice and you chose not to do so. Why ask about it if you're going to ignore me anyway?

It was you that mentioned this all as outside the Civil Boundary......based on this I know for a fact you know what that means......then you complain of "rights" that are actually "benefits" of society that lie outside the Civil Boundary you highlighted. Then you continue on your merry way to ignore this.I asked you to explain it with your full credentials and authority you have claimed. Reneging on that now???You drew the civil boundary, like me to quote it??You claim authority on courts and how the relate to law, you have cited Supreme court and I have cited district court then you cite tax court.All courts mentioned in this thread pertainent to this discussion: Supreme, Federal District, Tax, Traffic.Atricle 3 of the Constitution provided for courts. Article 1 also provides for court. Explain the difference Mr. Constitution; Mr Credentials; Mr Authority.Ignorance is no excuse. You can not claim Authority that you can't explain.Tell us Mr. Credentials and Mr. Constitution..........what is the difference in all 4 of these based on the civil boundary you drew???Your furtherance in not answering this question will serve notice of your ignorance on this matter..............or as I suspect, faked defensive ignorance given the credentials you have claimed.

 

[tokeprep]

Federal Reserve Notes aren't bonded.....this makes you the moronic crackpot. They are bonded as "obligations of the US"....that bond is Joe Schmoe going to work every day and paying his taxes.....not just income taxes as you are focusing on but other federal taxes as well. This is the bond that floats any obligation of the US; genius.

Now tell me, where is this nonsense about bonding coming from? According to you, if it's not in the statute, it's not the law. And yet...it's not in there, is it!?

To Congress and the Fed and the courts that cite 12usc411 it does. You are the only one confused.

No one is claiming the Fed has the power to issue United States Notes; 12 USC 411 doesn't purport to give the Fed the power to issue United States Notes either. The logical extension of your bastardization of the court case is what reveals that your interpretation is flawed.

As you point out, authorization to issue United States Notes is tucked in the section of the code on money, which you deemed to be exceedingly significant a few pages back and evidence that only the treasury could issue money. Now the Fed has the power to issue money? Oh, only in a sense? Then why did the court say 12 USC 411 authorizes the Fed to issue a national currency that is lawful money? The court doesn't say it's just an authorization to redeem for lawful currency!

Disprove that with law then instead of whining like a child. I proved my argument that the only lawful currency notes that exist right now are contained in 31usc5115 ; something you claim to maintain and to have spent years learning; crackpot.

You proved no such thing. You grafted whole new sentences into court cases, distorted arguments, twisted quotation marks, ignored text, referred to irrelevant definitions, and resorted to other such amateur tactics.

Tax protestors like David Merrill are pathologically opposed to taxes; they feel that they should not constitutionally have any legal obligation to pay them, and by drawing a John Nash A Beautiful Mind-style map of the law, they're right. Alas, it is exceedingly obvious from a brief examination of any of his arguments that David Merrill has zero legal training and apparently zero experience with legal stuff as well. He's just a crackpot who wants to deny reality so that he has no obligation to pay taxes, even though the courts have dismissed every tax protest argument as utter bullshit. It has nothing to do with the truth.

You absolutely claimed US notes still exist as remnants not currently authorized for issue.

I said they hadn't been issued in more than four decades and that that the $300 million amount makes them irrelevant to financing a government that spends $10 billion a day. That doesn't mean they aren't authorized. Unfortunately for your case, $239 million of that amount has been issued and outstanding for a very long time, which leaves only $61 million even available to be issued for this redemption scheme...without a single dollar of notes issued in four decades.

The fact that the currency is authorized does not make your case plausible.

It establishes them as "inferior" which is different than "supreme". The number of justices tenders the judgement irrelevant? Now who is the crackpot with fake credentials.

Absolutely. That doesn't alter the fact that the law is what those inferior courts say it is unless and until the supreme court says otherwise (or congress weighs back in). Do you really not understand that?

There have been multiple schemes in American history to stuff extra justices on the supreme court in order to get favorable decisions. Adding justices to the court can literally change the law.

I don't have to demonstrate my "bullshit", the 9th circuit did already.....Milam. "Appellant is entitled to redeem his note, but not in precious metal."Has your whining overturned this? Thought not.

The bullshit is everything you graft on about United States Notes, not the redemption part. Milam is Federal Reserve Notes for Federal Reserve Notes, and yet you insist that there's some unspoken, hidden upholding of the magical United States Notes wash that somehow happens on redemption.

Milam and Rickman uphold redemption plain as day despite your opinion. Why would court mention coins, their status is not in question by anyone but you. Again you claim authority based on something you won't reveal because that is the only source of bullshit here. All US coins are lawful money. Provide evidence to the contrary or STFU with your delusional garbage.

My opinion isn't that they don't uphold redemption and you know it. My opinion is that they don't acknowledge or uphold the crackpot bullshit about United States Notes that they don't bother to mention at all.

Why would the court mention coins? If coins were at issue, they would mention coins, and they would go through the law on coins. But obviously coins were not at issue, because the case says Federal Reserve Notes and it says NOTHING about coins. Even if it did say something about coins, how would handing someone a penny and $1,000 in Federal Reserve Notes mean that they had received lawful money? 1 penny of lawful money versus $1,000 in not lawful money, and the court chooses to say that he received lawful money?

Obviously spurious. If the courts intended to draw these distinctions, they wouldn't have relied on you to do it for them.

No US court has ever upheld 37th congressional definition of lawful US currency notes........right.....right......US v Ware: "It is also to be noted that Congress Has already come to grips with the question whether United States notes are legal tender in 31 U.S.C. § 452, which provides:16United States notes shall be lawful money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt."So wrong again. I would rather be Mr. Definitions than Mr. Credentials any day.

Your claim is that the statute from the 37th congress is the definition of "lawful money currency notes" by any court. What you just quoted says that congress has answered the question of whether United States are legal tender. The court then quotes the statute, stating that United States Notes arelawful money and arelegal tender. The statute never claims to be a definition of lawful money and the court you just quoted doesn't call it a definition of lawful money either, despite your seeming insistence otherwise.

No court has ever said that your statute is a definition of lawful money.

Why ask about it if you're going to ignore me anyway?

It was you that mentioned this all as outside the Civil Boundary......based on this I know for a fact you know what that means......then you complain of "rights" that are actually "benefits" of society that lie outside the Civil Boundary you highlighted. Then you continue on your merry way to ignore this.I asked you to explain it with your full credentials and authority you have claimed. Reneging on that now???You drew the civil boundary, like me to quote it??You claim authority on courts and how the relate to law, you have cited Supreme court and I have cited district court then you cite tax court.All courts mentioned in this thread pertainent to this discussion: Supreme, Federal District, Tax, Traffic.Atricle 3 of the Constitution provided for courts. Article 1 also provides for court. Explain the difference Mr. Constitution; Mr Credentials; Mr Authority.Ignorance is no excuse. You can not claim Authority that you can't explain.Tell us Mr. Credentials and Mr. Constitution..........what is the difference in all 4 of these based on the civil boundary you drew???Your furtherance in not answering this question will serve notice of your ignorance on this matter..............or as I suspect, faked defensive ignorance given the credentials you have claimed.

I have no idea what the "civil boundary" is, so you're going to have explain what you mean by that phrase. It's not a legislative term, so I'm not sure why you think I already know what it means. I don't remember drawing it either...please do quote it.

I'll be happy to answer any question you have about the authority of the courts, but you're going to have to make it more clear. What is that you want to know or what is that I said that you're disputing? I don't know what the difference is based on the "civil boundary." Perhaps you should just make your claim about the Judiciary Act in full and then let me have it.

Edit: I'm still unclear on civil boundary, but I just played a video and it's David Merrill jumping straight into the Judiciary Act, so I'll watch that and probably add another post below this to deal with it.

 

[tokeprep]

Alright, this just took looking up the Judiciary Act to dispense with: "A district court shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the states, of any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled." This statute is about admiralty/maritime jurisdiction. That's it. And yet, according to David Merrill, this statute required a remedy against elastic currency to be written into the Federal Reserve Act?

I dug up an older and fuller version of the original statute from an 1808 supreme court case: "...and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, including all seizures...saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it; and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land, or other waters..."

Edit: I figured I might as well finish the video since I started watching it, so a few other points:

1) The statute doesn't give you the right to redeem money at your local bank: "They 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." Writing a restrictive endorsement on a check is not presenting Federal Reserve Notes for redemption at a Federal Reserve bank. Bizarrely, David Merrill has several times referred to any holder of Federal Reserve Notes--including individual people--as a "Federal Reserve bank" in this video. You can redeem your notes in lawful money from yourself?

2) Absolutely no evidence is presented that a Federal Reserve Note can function as a United States Note. The basis is a sentence in a FAQ on the treasury's web site: "United States notes serve no function that is not already adequately served by Federal Reserve notes." David Merrill pretends this means that "Federal Reserve Notes function as United States Notes when they aren't endorsed." Not only is that not what the sentence says, the words aren't and aren't claimed to be law. Why is someone so steeped in the code relying solely on that FAQ page to make this point?

3) Absolutely no evidence is given for bonding, endorsement, etc., as a block to redeeming money. It's pure assertion--he cites nothing.