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

[twostrokenut]

The remedy in the act you're talking about is about ships, not about money.

LOL

As for the second paragraph, that's absolutely true. The UCC definition of "instrument" is applied all the time. Alas, Article 3 says that "money" is not a "negotiable instrument." Article 3 also says that a "negotiable instrument" is the same as an "instrument." Thus money is not a negotiable instrument or an instrument, because the article says that it isn't applicable to money. That's what makes the definitions irrelevant to Federal Reserve Notes.

Now, for anything else that is not "money," the definition of instrument is relevant and applicable.

The stuff about each state's rendition--I take it you mean Utah? Gold and silver, if authorized as a medium of exchange under state law, would presumably be "money" under the same definition as "Federal Reserve Notes." Thus they cannot be negotiable instruments. It has nothing to do with being gold and silver and everything to do with being "money" under the definition of the word in the UCC, which is totally independent and apart from the definition in federal law.

In the definition of "instrument" from UCC with a LINKhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/search/display.html?terms=instrument&url=/ucc/3/article3.htm#s3-104

(a) Except as provided in subsections

(c) and (d), "negotiable instrument" means an unconditional promise or order to pay a fixed amount of money, with or without interest or other charges described in the promise or order, if it:


(c) An order that meets all of the requirements of subsection (a), except paragraph (1), and otherwise falls within the definition of "check" in subsection (f) is a negotiable instrument and a check.

(1) is payable to bearer or to order at the time it is issued or first comes into possession of a holder;

(d) A promise or order other than a check is not an instrument if, at the time it isissued or first comes into possession of a holder, it contains a conspicuous statement, however expressed, to the effect that the promise or order is not negotiable or is not an instrument governed by this Article.

Now go find me a conspicuous statement that makes Fed notes non-negotiable while I sit here on a copy of 37th congress making US notes non-negotiable in their issuance. Check your move.


So the question becomes what is this conspicuous statement, however expressed? Where do you think that is in US Law? Given the UCC really isn't that old only been around since 1952??

Remember the Fed is a check clearinghouse and can fractionally lend meaning "elastic" or negotiable........

You know "restrictive endorsement" is in this section of UCC as well????

Check. Your move.

 

[twostrokenut]

According to what?

According to them not having a statute that restricts their quantity and attributing them lawful money. They only have one making them legal tender for issuance to reserve banks and agents to be expanded by borrowing.

Savings bond negotiable or non-negotiable and why.

 

[twostrokenut]

Alas, it doesn't give federal courts the competency to apply common law remedies generally in whatever cases they please.

Of course not provided there is a contract in equity and both parties agreed....court must uphold the contract in equity.....so why would any one care given there is specific remedy provided by congress in the Federal Reserve Act that would allow federal courts to do so smarty??? Redeeming legal tender (equity money) to lawful money (lawful money) literally takes you from law of equity to just law as far as money is concerned making the court perfectly competent to do so as evidenced in Milam.

 

[tokeprep]

According to them not having a statute that restricts their quantity and attributing them lawful money. They only have one making them legal tender for issuance to reserve banks and agents to be expanded by borrowing.

Your claim is that Federal Reserve Notes are negotiable instruments under maritime law. Now explain to me why that's the case. Federal maritime law has nothing to do with the UCC, so the negotiable instrument question seems entirely irrelevant.

Savings bond negotiable or non-negotiable and why.

They aren't negotiable instruments because they aren't transferable.

 

[tokeprep]

Of course not provided there is a contract in equity and both parties agreed....court must uphold the contract in equity.....so why would any one care given there is specific remedy provided by congress in the Federal Reserve Act that would allow federal courts to do so smarty??? Redeeming legal tender (equity money) to lawful money (lawful money) literally takes you from law of equity to just law as far as money is concerned making the court perfectly competent to do so as evidenced in Milam.

All of that is pure assertion backed by nothing. You tell me the basis of this "contract in equity" nonsense is the Judiciary Act, and then we learn that the "saving to suitors" clause you're basing everything on is about maritime law, and about a remedy in state courts on top of it, not even federal courts!

The point is that it's not the basis of the redemption provision in the Federal Reserve Act. To suggest otherwise is to say that a grant of jurisdiction to federal courts that left some common law power in the hands of state courts in a maritime context necessitates that congress "provide a common law remedy" of currency redemption. What does the jurisdictional competency of federal courts have to do with congress making law? Absolutely nothing.

The redemption provision is not required by the Judiciary Act at all, it's there because congress chose to write it into the statute. They were not constitutionally or in any other way bound to do so.

 

[twostrokenut]

Court is not in dishonor upholding the equity contract either they are just doing their job till you say "hey I honestly didn't know the difference". Who has done that in any of these cases??

Congress did it's job writing in Remedy. But only arguably so because all that remains is Remedy for non-negotiable bills or coins of credit as what pass for "lawful money" to satisfy the statute. You can call me Austrian or Right-Winged or member of the Constitution Party Conspiracy Nut or wtf ever else but I just showed you how losing silver and gold from the currency was a crime really and proved Fed notes suck fucking balls and did absolutley none of the claims you claimed they did why don't you go ahead and restate them now something to the tune of:

Oh fed notes are so awesome the facilitated the Marxist wet dream of wealth for all and greater wealth the world has ever known cause we fuckin got Ipads and shit now cause back in the ghetto 1913 days we were all just dumass ignernt southerners......get off your fuckin high horse "boss" it aint working.

What facilitated all the wealth and freedom in the world was free all kinds of colored people with gold and silver in their hands to do wtf ever they wanted to with it. You thinking white people were the only free people before the 13th is retarded. You spoke of slavery economic equality fukin smacked slavery's ass as evidenced by any black slave owner who happened to be black because he bought his freedom and some slaves.

Go coca-cola. Go superman. Go team free market Murica.

 

[tokeprep]

In the definition of "instrument" from UCC with a LINKhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/search/display.html?terms=instrument&url=/ucc/3/article3.htm#s3-104

I don't know how else I can explain this to you.

Article 3-102: "(a) This Article applies to negotiable instruments. It does not apply to money, to payment orders governed by Article 4A, or to securities governed by Article 8."

Whenever you're trying to determine whether the UCC is applicable, you have to start with what it says about its own scope. In this case, Article 3 begins by telling us that it is applicable only to negotiable instruments and not to money. The definition of instrument you're citing is in 3-104. If you're dealing with something that is "money," then the definition in 3-104 is inapplicable according to 3-102, which says the Article--meaning all of the definitions and everything else following 3-102--is inapplicable to money.

If your definition is inapplicable under the UCC, then how can it possibly be relevant?

Now go find me a conspicuous statement that makes Fed notes non-negotiable while I sit here on a copy of 37th congress making US notes non-negotiable in their issuance. Check your move.

The UCC says that Federal Reserve Notes aren't negotiable instruments. The fact that it's not conspicuous is not damning because the UCC is intended to cover lots of currencies, not just the dollar.

The fact that congress said United States Notes are non-negotiable means such notes are non-negotiable by statute, I absolutely agree. But did congress say that Federal Reserve Notes are negotiable?

So the question becomes what is this conspicuous statement, however expressed? Where do you think that is in US Law? Given the UCC really isn't that old only been around since 1952??

Remember the Fed is a check clearinghouse and can fractionally lend meaning "elastic" or negotiable........

You know "restrictive endorsement" is in this section of UCC as well????

Check. Your move.

You don't need a conspicuous statement to make something true or not true. If there's no conspicuous statement one way or the other, the question is ambiguous at best and either interpretation is potentially plausible. But these arguments were already made and settled, so plausibility is irrelevant--these are now settled matters of law. There is absolutely no doubt in the courts of the United States that Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money despite your insistence otherwise; there is no serious debate anywhere about whether Federal Reserve Notes are negotiable instruments or not. I quote you proof and you just distort it to say all kinds of things that it doesn't say--that's on you. I didn't have to add or any words or say that the court meant something other than what it actually said. You've given us long spiels about endorsement and bonding even when the court's statements have nothing to do with that argument; you've attributed decisions to specie and coins even when neither the defendant nor the court breathes either word. It's pure distortion and blissful, ostrich-like ignorance.

The "restrictive endorsement" section of the UCC is irrelevant because the beginning of the article--the section on its applicability--says that that the article is inapplicable to money. It makes no sense to apply something that is by definition inapplicable.

 

[tokeprep]

Court is not in dishonor upholding the equity contract either they are just doing their job till you say "hey I honestly didn't know the difference". Who has done that in any of these cases??

What difference is that? There is no difference.

Congress did it's job writing in Remedy. But only arguably so because all that remains is Remedy for non-negotiable bills or coins of credit as what pass for "lawful money" to satisfy the statute. You can call me Austrian or Right-Winged or member of the Constitution Party Conspiracy Nut or wtf ever else but I just showed you how losing silver and gold from the currency was a crime really and proved Fed notes suck fucking balls and did absolutley none of the claims you claimed they did why don't you go ahead and restate them now something to the tune of:

Oh fed notes are so awesome the facilitated the Marxist wet dream of wealth for all and greater wealth the world has ever known cause we fuckin got Ipads and shit now cause back in the ghetto 1913 days we were all just dumass ignernt southerners......get off your fuckin high horse "boss" it aint working.

The concurrent jurisdiction of state courts in maritime law has nothing to do with congress "writing in Remedy." The fact that you still can't recognize this is baffling.

What facilitated all the wealth and freedom in the world was free all kinds of colored people with gold and silver in their hands to do wtf ever they wanted to with it. You thinking white people were the only free people before the 13th is retarded. You spoke of slavery economic equality fukin smacked slavery's ass as evidenced by any black slave owner who happened to be black because he bought his freedom and some slaves.

Go coca-cola. Go superman. Go team free market Murica.

Our greatest expansions of innovation and prosperity came after the gold standard had been pared, and I would argue that even more significant innovation and prosperity came after it had been absolutely pared. So it makes little sense to suggest that "free...people with gold and silver in their hands" had anything to do with it, because they had very little of it in their hands.

I never claimed white people were the only free people. That doesn't alter the fact that millions of people were held in bondage solely on the basis of race; it doesn't change the fact that they were denied equality in more places than not for more than 100 years after slavery ended; it doesn't change that white men were more universally and disproportionately free than their black counterparts. Black slave owners? I don't care what color they were--obviously the constitution didn't actually stand for freedom for all if any owner of any color holds slaves of any color.

 

[twostrokenut]

All of that is pure assertion backed by nothing. You tell me the basis of this "contract in equity" nonsense is the Judiciary Act, and then we learn that the "saving to suitors" clause you're basing everything on is about maritime law, and about a remedy in state courts on top of it, not even federal courts!

The point is that it's not the basis of the redemption provision in the Federal Reserve Act. To suggest otherwise is to say that a grant of jurisdiction to federal courts that left some common law power in the hands of state courts in a maritime context necessitates that congress "provide a common law remedy" of currency redemption. What does the jurisdictional competency of federal courts have to do with congress making law? Absolutely nothing.

The redemption provision is not required by the Judiciary Act at all, it's there because congress chose to write it into the statute. They were not constitutionally or in any other way bound to do so.

You are missing the point even the state court even the county is common law court or civil court just like federal district court. I think article III courts provide civil court competent to provide common law remedy.....it is maritime court that is incompetent.

 

[tokeprep]

You are missing the point even the state court even the county is common law court or civil court just like federal district court. I think article III courts provide civil court competent to provide common law remedy.....it is maritime court that is incompetent.

There's generally no distinction between law and equity in state courts either. Article III courts are certainly competent to provide a common law remedy in some matters. But that's not what your statute says. Your statute is a grant of jurisdiction over maritime/admiralty to federal courts, with the caveat that state courts retain some concurrent jurisdiction.

 

[twostrokenut]

I don't know how else I can explain this to you.

Article 3-102: "(a) This Article applies to negotiable instruments. It does not apply to money, to payment orders governed by Article 4A, or to securities governed by Article 8."

Whenever you're trying to determine whether the UCC is applicable, you have to start with what it says about its own scope. In this case, Article 3 begins by telling us that it is applicable only to negotiable instruments and not to money. The definition of instrument you're citing is in 3-104. If you're dealing with something that is "money," then the definition in 3-104 is inapplicable according to 3-102, which says the Article--meaning all of the definitions and everything else following 3-102--is inapplicable to money.

If your definition is inapplicable under the UCC, then how can it possibly be relevant?



The UCC says that Federal Reserve Notes aren't negotiable instruments. The fact that it's not conspicuous is not damning because the UCC is intended to cover lots of currencies, not just the dollar.

The fact that congress said United States Notes are non-negotiable means such notes are non-negotiable by statute, I absolutely agree. But did congress say that Federal Reserve Notes are negotiable?



You don't need a conspicuous statement to make something true or not true. If there's no conspicuous statement one way or the other, the question is ambiguous at best and either interpretation is potentially plausible. But these arguments were already made and settled, so plausibility is irrelevant--these are now settled matters of law. There is absolutely no doubt in the courts of the United States that Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money despite your insistence otherwise; there is no serious debate anywhere about whether Federal Reserve Notes are negotiable instruments or not. I quote you proof and you just distort it to say all kinds of things that it doesn't say--that's on you. I didn't have to add or any words or say that the court meant something other than what it actually said. You've given us long spiels about endorsement and bonding even when the court's statements have nothing to do with that argument; you've attributed decisions to specie and coins even when neither the defendant nor the court breathes either word. It's pure distortion and blissful, ostrich-like ignorance.

The "restrictive endorsement" section of the UCC is irrelevant because the beginning of the article--the section on its applicability--says that that the article is inapplicable to money. It makes no sense to apply something that is by definition inapplicable.

You aren't firing on all cylinders ucc negotiable instruments apply to checks or notes that are not specified as non-negotiable including defintion of UCC money which provides for currency established by government (us notes) and intergovernmental whatever (fed notes)...

Its not ambiguous or up for interpretation the conspicuous statement for fed notes is 12usc411 aka Federal Reserve Act genius. Which provides for redeemable legal tender notes of equity that can be ever expanded by contract in equity with the Fed and lets the Fed even set interest rates in equity "elastic" money.

That's why its legal not lawful stoopid ass boy have you made an ass of yourself. Legal definition pertains to contract lawful definition depends on civil court decision or Constitution or congressional statute that is constitutional.

 

[twostrokenut]

Find and link the ucc definition of money.

• 
  

  • Definitions are the important thing, though, right? This is how the word "money" is defined in Article 3:
    
    "(24) "Money" means a medium of exchange currently authorized or adopted by a domestic or foreign government. The term includes a monetary unit of account established by an intergovernmental organization or by agreement between two or more countries." ​

  
  
  • 
    
    ​
    
    
  
  

I am looking at this article 3 right now and can find absolutely no instance of this definition.

 

[twostrokenut]

Found all these


(f) "Check" means (i) a draft, other than a documentary draft, payable on demand and drawn on a bank or (ii) a cashier's check or teller's check. Aninstrument may be a check even though it is described on its face by another term, such as "money order."


Which Fed notes are. Such as "note".

 

[twostrokenut]

Here it is again

• Article 3 says that "money" is not a "negotiable instrument." Article 3 also says that a "negotiable instrument" is the same as an "instrument." Thus money is not a negotiable instrument or an instrument, because the article says that it isn't applicable to money. That's what makes the definitions irrelevant to Federal Reserve Notes. ​

• 
  
  ​
  
  

got article 3 of UCC from Cornell right in front of me....not seeing it partner.....wait could this be what I asked you to link earlier that you have failed to do????

Yep looking pretty bunk partner.

 

[tokeprep]

You aren't firing on all cylinders ucc negotiable instruments apply to checks or notes that are not specified as non-negotiable including defintion of UCC money which provides for currency established by government (us notes) and intergovernmental whatever (fed notes)...

Now you're misreading the definition of "money." The intergovernmental organization part has absolutely nothing to do with the Fed, unless you don't know what an "intergovernmental organization" is. This is hopeless for you because it's not based on the definition you're disputing. The fact that you're insisting on such inane readings of such obvious text is evidence of your desperation to not let any of the dominoes fall.

Its not ambiguous or up for interpretation the conspicuous statement for fed notes is 12usc411 aka Federal Reserve Act genius. Which provides for redeemable legal tender notes of equity that can be ever expanded by contract in equity with the Fed and lets the Fed even set interest rates in equity "elastic" money.

That's why its legal not lawful stoopid ass boy have you made an ass of yourself. Legal definition pertains to contract lawful definition depends on civil court decision or Constitution or congressional statute that is constitutional.

The Federal Reserve Act says nothing about a "contract in equity." Your contract in equity apparently comes from nowhere, because you can't identify the source. The Judiciary Act? Ha! Everyone here can see what a farce that is.

Legal and lawful are only distinct if congress has defined them to be distinct, and the courts of the United States have the power to interpret the words as well, absolutely. Your argument otherwise is totally bizarre.

 

[twostrokenut]

LOL here again

• The UCC definition of "instrument" is applied all the time. Alas, Article 3 says that "money" is not a "negotiable instrument." Article 3 also says that a "negotiable instrument" is the same as an "instrument." Thus money is not a negotiable instrument or an instrument, because the article says that it isn't applicable to money. That's what makes the definitions irrelevant to Federal Reserve Notes. ​

• 
  
  
  
  
  ​
  
  

 

[tokeprep]

Find and link the ucc definition of money.

• 
  
  • 
    
    ​
    
    
  
  

I am looking at this article 3 right now and can find absolutely no instance of this definition.

I already told you it's Article 1. 1-201, number 24.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/article1.htm#s1-201.

 

[twostrokenut]

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

• This is hopeless for you because it's not based on the definition you're disputing. The fact that you're insisting on such inane readings of such obvious text is evidence of your desperation to not let any of the dominoes fall.​
  
  

I am so glad I got this post in right after you put your foot in your bunk larfy mouth with that failed attempt at a save on that last post........the pot calling the kettle black indeed.

 

[tokeprep]

Found all these
(f) "Check" means (i) a draft, other than a documentary draft, payable on demand and drawn on a bank or (ii) a cashier's check or teller's check. Aninstrument may be a check even though it is described on its face by another term, such as "money order."

Which Fed notes are. Such as "note".

Your definition of "check" is in 3-104. 3-102 states that Article 3 is inapplicable to "money." If Federal Reserve Notes are "money" under the UCC definition, then the Article 3 definition of check is inapplicable and irrelevant. What do you not understand about this?

You cannot cite a definition in a statute only applicable if something is not money to prove that it must not be money. That's logically circular.

 

[twostrokenut]

The Federal Reserve Act says nothing about a "contract in equity." Your contract in equity apparently comes from nowhere, because you can't identify the source. The Judiciary Act? Ha! Everyone here can see what a farce that is.

the Federal Reserve Act is the contract facilitating the equity. Judiciary Act establishes competency to return from equity. HAHAHAHA

Legal and lawful are only distinct if congress has defined them to be distinct, and the courts of the United States have the power to interpret the words as well, absolutely. Your argument otherwise is totally bizarre.

they defined legal tender and Constitution defined lawful money wtf else really matters to the common man in common law hahahahaha your philosophy otherwise is bizarre and bunk and pretends your philosophy is more important than man's rights

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