This is a perfect example. The constitution says "No State" and you apply it to the federal government. It's a blatant and totally baffling distortion.Hey I know you will burst into flames if you get too close to the original copy maybe look at this long enough to figure it out.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselvesand our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The Congress shall have Power To.........
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To coin Money
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
No State shall ............ coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;"
Yup The People promote Welfare.............wouldn't know that these days but the money borrowed to pay benefits is borrowed on future bonds.......taxes. Go spend a couple days and find out what a bill of exchange is in the commercial world.
See where it says Money comes from the Treasury? Clear lawful distinction between legal tender and lawful money. Money comes from surplus of Tender in Payment....it would be Money because Treasury coined it with US logo......states can't coin federal Money...or emit bills of credit Money on US's behalf....they may coin gold and silver as Legal Tender and the US may coin these into Money.
Impossible! The deficit is falling as well as unemployment Obama wrecking economy
- Thread starter ChesusRice
- Start date
This is a perfect example. The constitution says "No State" and you apply it to the federal government. It's a blatant and totally baffling distortion.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Cite what I said that was out of context of law and not merely out of the context of your opinion then. Been asking for that the whole time. Everything I said was very well sourced, it was you that went to the UCC for your defense....I stuck to federal, congressional, and constitutional law....and common law case law that upholds all these.........you went to UCC and tax court failing to distinguish between the types of law these are..............
which in common law is tantamount to gross negligence;FRAUD
No one's claiming the law has been redefined. The definition of "money" in federal law has nothing to do with the definition of "money" in the UCC; the definition of "instrument" in the UCC is likewise a pure matter of state law that has nothing to do with the federal government.
I provide the authors' opinion merely to inform how we should be reading the text. The states didn't "override" legal tender by adopting the UCC, they merely defined "money" in state commercial law, which has nothing to do with federal law.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Perfect example of you not being able to read. I did no such thing just because I did not want to make a huge post and you claim to know what is in between...........
"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."
I did not apply this to Federal Government as a whole only in the sense of Tender and Taxes.............and this is how this whole bullshit argument has gone......
........And there you go case closed..........tokeprep applying attributes to my words that I did not............taking them out of context all while claiming that is what I did. Watch Dr. Phil its called "projection"............
​BuSTED
Your sources are often fine. The problem is taking them out of context. It's not a matter of my opinion; you've started from the position that David Merrill is correct. You basically ignore everything to the contrary and develop wacky explanations as necessary in response to my pestering in order to defend that core belief. I started with no position; I merely checked to see if what you said was there was there, and it wasn't and isn't.
The court cases are the best illustration. You took explicit statements that contradicted you and then told us they were based on endorsement, bonding, coins, etc., even though the opinions said absolutely nothing about it any of it. That's taking things out of context! All I did was quote and highlight; you grafted whole new sentences of explanation, whole new citations, and read language to not make any logical sense. You didn't do it just once, you did it every single time.
And you brought up negotiable instruments, not me. You may not have realized that they were governed by the UCC in all 50 states, but I did, and I knew Article 3 said it was expressly inapplicable to money. It's just another hole in the bullshit argument.
The tax court still has to follow the follow the law, and most of the court cases I gave you were not from the tax court, so that's a senseless thing to bicker about.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
........................................................................CIRCuLAR...........................................................................
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
He is. So is Ron Paul in all the well sourced books I have read of his......so is Thomas Sowell and all the books I have read of his........so is Robert Arthur:Menard in his books as well...............You are denying huge parts of history where Natural Law and common law stand as mirror images of equity/maritime and you are ignoring the mirror in between.......................why are you singling out David Merrill? I focus on his sources some of which I presented here and gave him full credit so as not to PLAGIARIZE.
His sources are solid. Your context is not.
"See where it says Money comes from the Treasury? Clear lawful distinction between legal tender and lawful money. Money comes from surplus of Tender in Payment....it would be Money because Treasury coined it with US logo......states can't coin federal Money...or emit bills of credit Money on US's behalf....they may coin gold and silver as Legal Tender and the US may coin these into Money."
You literally just said that money must come from the treasury, coined by the treasury with the US logo. You necessarily imply that nothing else is money. The constitution does not say that.
If you don't understand the difference between state and federal law, you really haven't read that constitution you're always touting.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
The "person" was created for our protection, not for our governance.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
You are at work right now sucking up tax dollars aren't you.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Its real simple. You are using words to claim authority to explain something. I am using the same words to explain something in a different way and negate the authority. Being as we agree we are all equal, the one in dishonor is the one claiming authority with no basis but the words that are upheld and do the opposite.
Ron Paul and Thomas Sowell are claiming that I can redeem my Federal Reserve Notes for lawful money under 12 USC 411 by endorsing a check? Please show me where, because I would love to see that.
Mentioning Robert Arthur:Menard in the same category as those men is a total farce. Here's what Wikipedia says about his theories:
"Freemen" believe that statute law is a contract, and that individuals can therefore opt out of statute law, choosing instead to live under what they call "common" (case) and "natural" laws. Under their theory, natural laws require only that individuals do not harm others, do not damage the property of others, and do not use "fraud or mischief" in contracts. They say that all people have two parts to their existence - their body and their legal "person". The latter is represented by their birth certificate; some freeman will claim that it is entirely limited to the birth certificate. Under this theory, a "strawman" is created when a birth certificate is issued, and that this is the entity which is subject to statutory law. The physical self is referred to by a slightly different name, for example "John of the family Smith", as opposed to "John Smith".[SUP][1][/SUP]
Many FOTL beliefs are based on idiosyncratic interpretations of Admiralty or Maritime law, which they claim governs the commercial world. These beliefs stem from fringe interpretations of various nautical-sounding words, such as ownership, citizenship, dock, or birth (berth) certificate. Freemen refer to the court as a "ship", the court's occupants as "passengers" and claiming that anyone leaving are "men overboard".[SUP][1][/SUP]
Freemen will try to claim common law (as opposed to admiralty law) jurisdiction by asking "Do you have a claim against me?" This, they contend, removes their consent to be governed by admiralty law and turns the court into a common law court, so that proceedings would have to go forward according to their version of common law. This procedure has never been used successfully.[SUP][1][/SUP]
Freemen often will not accept legal representation; they believe that to do so would mean contracting with the state. They believe that the United Kingdom and Canada are now operating in bankruptcy and are therefore under admiralty law. They believe that since the abolition of the gold standard in 1917, UK currency is backed not by gold but by the people (or the legal fiction of their persons). They describe persons as creditors of the UK corporation. Therefore, a court is a place of business, and a summons is an invitation to discuss the matter at hand, with no powers to require attendance or compliance.[SUP][1][/SUP]"
Total butterfly net bullshit. There are then 7 cases from the United Kingdom where judges laughed people who made these arguments off to jail; and this gem from a Canadian court, on the stuff I just quoted above:
"The bluntly idiotic substance of Mr. Mead’s argument explains the unnecessarily complicated manner in which it was presented. OPCA ["Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments"] arguments are never sold to their customers as simple ideas, but instead are byzantine schemes which more closely resemble the plot of a dark fantasy novel than anything else. Latin maxims and powerful sounding language are often used. Documents are often ornamented with many strange marking and seals. Litigants engage in peculiar, ritual‑like in court conduct. All these features appear necessary for gurus to market OPCA schemes to their often desperate, ill‑informed, mentally disturbed, or legally abusive customers. This is crucial to understand the non-substance of any OPCA concept or strategy. The story and process of a OPCA scheme is not intended to impress or convince the Courts, but rather to impress the guru’s customer."
Indeed, I recall a David Merrill post with a sample document that I'm supposed to file with my county recorder or some similarly situated official which is supposed to do a lot of the same things this guy claims his document was supposed to do. Alas, it's pure lunacy.
I work when I'm at work. I would never access this kind of web site on a government computer or network.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Plainly says Money comes from Federal government every time....then says "
- No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury"
Which is also Federal Government that is in charge of issuing Money.....Fed and ppl buy treasuries no???
Doesn't say FRN's are Money but here we are arguing Remedy..........
CIRCuLAR
You aren't using the same words. You add a whole paragraph in to explain the same words instead of using them. When you have to "explain" what the court meant as something totally different than what it actually said, it should be obvious that you have a problem. When your "explanation" of what the court said renders part of the text logically incoherent, it should be undeniable that you took a wrong step. These court cases destroy the whole David Merrill argument, so you are desperately misreading them and questioning them on any basis you can find. ("That's a tax court!" as if they have no obligation to follow the law.)
We are not equal.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Then let's establish this.......you a stoner that doesn't want a drug test and hiding being here? In which case I will not mention or reference your "credentials" long as you don't anymore. Something like "Im on a stoner site" will suffice.
It says "money..." and "no money...". It does not define money, so it doesn't say Federal Reserve Notes are money and it doesn't say they aren't. Fortunately, in Juilliard the supreme court tells us that congress can make paper currency lawful money, and later courts have held that Federal Reserve Notes are indeed lawful money.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
See that right there??? See what you did?? Did I say that??? What an incredible douche you are.
I don't work for the government right now, but I still have a professional career. I could tell you I worked in the house codifying statutes and you would probably still insist that it's untrue and that I'm just an idiot. You wouldn't care what I had done anyway, don't pretend otherwise.