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

twostrokenut

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member
"According to the Law, federal reserve notes are lawful money."

Even your case law doesn't say that an no law anywhere does yet Iam somehow the moron lol.

Ucc says exactly what kind of law it is when it says it tries to remain in harmony with common law it has to because the constitution IS common law natural law whaevs you want to call it where contracts are derived keep playing dumb....you drew the civil line the ucc is not civil law period.

I'm done arguing you just pick and choose what to acknowledge pfft no worries first line in this response proves you don't know jack...little fyi last nuggey your getting from me the ucc was adopted by the 50 states in 1964..........damn ain't that the year the money lost silver? What an amazing coincidence.

The gig is up we all know this was done on implied consent.....noone demanded remedy everyone gets to discharge debts with limited liability with bankruptcy protections for some no protection for others some get bennies some do not that's how it goes when you apply for stuff.....apply legally means to beg....if you beg it is assumed you know what you are begging for.*
 
twostrokenut

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member
"1-103. Construction of [Uniform Commercial Code] to Promote its Purposes and Policies: Applicability of Supplemental Principles of Law.

(a) [The Uniform Commercial Code] must be liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying purposes and policies, which are: (1) to simplify, clarify, and modernize the law governing commercial transactions; (2) to permit the continued expansion of commercial practices through custom, usage, and agreement of the parties; and (3) to make uniform the law among the various jurisdictions.

(b) Unless displaced by the particular provisions of [the Uniform Commercial Code], the principles of law and equity, including the law merchant and the law relative to capacity to contract, principal and agent, estoppel, fraud, misrepresentation, duress, coercion, mistake, bankruptcy, and other validating or invalidating cause supplement its provisions."

Hmmm supplemental principles of Law.

Hmmm modernize the law governing commercial transactions...

Hmmm various jurisdictions..

Hmm the principles of law and equity.....not principles of Law mind you.


Including the Law Merchant and bla bla other forms of contract law and bankruptcy bla bla ....oh shit I heard our debt is the largest in the world so wait that means we are bankrupt have been since 1933 there was a giant bank run.

Can't keep pissing down ppls back and expect them to think its raining. Oh so article 3 of the ucc only applies to the "other" instruments of the fed lmao and I am the loon??
 
T

tokeprep

Well-Known Member
twostrokenut said:
"According to the Law, federal reserve notes are lawful money."

Even your case law doesn't say that an no law anywhere does yet Iam somehow the moron lol.
Click to expand...
It doesn't literally say "Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money." It doesn't need to literally say that.

Ucc says exactly what kind of law it is when it says it tries to remain in harmony with common law it has to because the constitution IS common law natural law whaevs you want to call it where contracts are derived keep playing dumb....you drew the civil line the ucc is not civil law period.
Click to expand...
The constitution is the constitution. Contracts are a mixture of common and statutory law unique to each of the fifty states in the union. You want to talk about a "civil line"--if you mean civil versus criminal, then the UCC is civil law.

I'm done arguing you just pick and choose what to acknowledge pfft no worries first line in this response proves you don't know jack...little fyi last nuggey your getting from me the ucc was adopted by the 50 states in 1964..........damn ain't that the year the money lost silver? What an amazing coincidence.
Click to expand...
I'm not picking and choosing.

I wouldn't call it a coincidence at all. The adoption of the Uniform Commercial Code made economic activity between states easier, because it created common bodies of state commercial law. This certainly fueled demand for notes and coins, but it also reflected prosperity that was increasingly consuming silver output. Population growth, economic expansion, and surging industrial demand for silver combined together to make its use as currency impractical.

The gig is up we all know this was done on implied consent.....noone demanded remedy everyone gets to discharge debts with limited liability with bankruptcy protections for some no protection for others some get bennies some do not that's how it goes when you apply for stuff.....apply legally means to beg....if you beg it is assumed you know what you are begging for.*
Click to expand...
Ok.
 
T

tokeprep

Well-Known Member
twostrokenut said:
"1-103. Construction of [Uniform Commercial Code] to Promote its Purposes and Policies: Applicability of Supplemental Principles of Law.

(a) [The Uniform Commercial Code] must be liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying purposes and policies, which are: (1) to simplify, clarify, and modernize the law governing commercial transactions; (2) to permit the continued expansion of commercial practices through custom, usage, and agreement of the parties; and (3) to make uniform the law among the various jurisdictions.

(b) Unless displaced by the particular provisions of [the Uniform Commercial Code], the principles of law and equity, including the law merchant and the law relative to capacity to contract, principal and agent, estoppel, fraud, misrepresentation, duress, coercion, mistake, bankruptcy, and other validating or invalidating cause supplement its provisions."

Hmmm supplemental principles of Law.

Hmmm modernize the law governing commercial transactions...

Hmmm various jurisdictions..

Hmm the principles of law and equity.....not principles of Law mind you.
Click to expand...
Principles of law and equity. So what?

Including the Law Merchant and bla bla other forms of contract law and bankruptcy bla bla ....oh shit I heard our debt is the largest in the world so wait that means we are bankrupt have been since 1933 there was a giant bank run.

Can't keep pissing down ppls back and expect them to think its raining. Oh so article 3 of the ucc only applies to the "other" instruments of the fed lmao and I am the loon??
Click to expand...
Where does it say instruments of the Fed? Ah. Right then.
 
twostrokenut

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member
tokeprep said:
It doesn't literally say "Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money." It doesn't need to literally say that.
Click to expand...
Um ya it does its not the "letter of the law" for nothing.
No I don't mean Civil vs Criminal that is what you mean and why you are confused. I mean contract vs no contract...if you get caught stealing you are a criminal no contract needed to prove you guilty.

The UCC does not say it is Civil Law anywhere and only someone that really is ignorant would confuse Commercial Law and Law Merchant with Civil Law......go read it again maybe with a Dictionary this time preferably from 1964 that helps.

Oh make its use impractical LOL you mean phase it out so we all don't find out we are Broke.....no it's not a coin-cidence.

When I read what you say about the UCC you say it accommodated moving silver out of the public's hands as money and into industrial hands where it was needed more and had a higher demand......you use this to explain away the "coincidence" lol....what does this have to do with the Constitutionally protected right to use intrinsic money that has been watered down to todays right to use non-negotiable fiat paper notes bearing no interest printed by Gov not GovCo?
 
T

tokeprep

Well-Known Member
twostrokenut said:
Um ya it does its not the "letter of the law" for nothing.
No I don't mean Civil vs Criminal that is what you mean and why you are confused. I mean contract vs no contract...if you get caught stealing you are a criminal no contract needed to prove you guilty.
Click to expand...
You don't need a contract for commercial law to be applicable. You can find a UCC "contract" where state common law wouldn't previously have found and enforced a "contract."

The UCC does not say it is Civil Law anywhere and only someone that really is ignorant would confuse Commercial Law and Law Merchant with Civil Law......go read it again maybe with a Dictionary this time preferably from 1964 that helps.
Click to expand...
Again, I think you're confusing terms. Civil law has several distinct meanings: first, in the United States, "civil law" usually means non-criminal law, and second, "civil law" can also refer to a civil law legal system, which is one based on statutes and ad hoc decisions, not court precedents. Related to the latter term, "civil law" is a specific body of law within civil law legal systems, along with other bodies of law, including commercial law. But this is continental European law, not English law, and not American law. When you say confuse "commercial law" with "civil law," you're not talking about the system in the United States. Commercial law is civil law.

I retrieved the definition you asked for that makes my case: "In the United States, the term civil law has two meanings. One meaning of civil law refers to a legal system prevalent in Europe that is based on written codes. Civil law in this sense is contrasted with the common-law system used in England and most of the United States, which relies on prior case law to resolve disputes rather than written codes. The second meaning of civil law refers to the body of laws governing disputes between individuals, as opposed to those governing offenses that are public and relate to the government—that is, civil law as opposed to Criminal Law." http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/civil+law.

You'll have to explain what you mean by "civil law."

Oh make its use impractical LOL you mean phase it out so we all don't find out we are Broke.....no it's not a coin-cidence.
Click to expand...
Silver has nothing to do with being broke. Silver is just a shiny metal that sits around when it's tied up in coins and bars; everything we have is far more substantial and has far more utility than silver. Currency is made of paper, but houses and cars and laptops are all very real.

When I read what you say about the UCC you say it accommodated moving silver out of the public's hands as money and into industrial hands where it was needed more and had a higher demand......you use this to explain away the "coincidence" lol....what does this have to do with the Constitutionally protected right to use intrinsic money that has been watered down to todays right to use non-negotiable fiat paper notes bearing no interest printed by Gov not GovCo?
Click to expand...
I didn't say the UCC accommodated moving silver out of the public's hands. It has nothing to do with that. The treasury didn't need the UCC to stop redeeming silver certificates and minting silver coins. Economic activity was the driving force.

What constitutional right to use "intrinsic money"? The constitution provides you with no such right.
 
T

tokeprep

Well-Known Member
twostrokenut said:
In the title.....negotiable instruments. Ah. Right then.
Click to expand...
The title doesn't say anything about the Fed. The title says negotiable instruments. The provision on the Fed's regulatory authority doesn't say anything about instruments of the Fed; it's there because the Fed has the power to regulate some things that are negotiable instruments. Federal Reserve Notes are totally unrelated.
 
twostrokenut

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member
tokeprep said:
The title doesn't say anything about the Fed. The title says negotiable instruments. The provision on the Fed's regulatory authority doesn't say anything about instruments of the Fed; it's there because the Fed has the power to regulate some things that are negotiable instruments. Federal Reserve Notes are totally unrelated.
Click to expand...
Unrelated? Are you mental? So you endorse your negotiable instrument, deposit it in the bank where it becomes a deposit on which new loans are created .........by ordering fed notes from the fed.........and its just totally unrelated......right.
 
twostrokenut

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member
BTW Civil criminal actions happen all the time I think it happened to OJ........for it to be civil and criminal there must be an injured party.
 
T

tokeprep

Well-Known Member
twostrokenut said:
Unrelated? Are you mental? So you endorse your negotiable instrument, deposit it in the bank where it becomes a deposit on which new loans are created .........by ordering fed notes from the fed.........and its just totally unrelated......right.
Click to expand...
When you deposit a check, you're just moving existing money from one account to another account. So yes, your deposit becomes one on which new loans could be created, but the money removed from the other bank correspondingly reduces its ability to make loans. Meeting cash demand doesn't necessarily require ordering more notes when people cash their checks, of course, because money is moving around constantly. Your employer's bank loses funds when money is transferred to your account at another bank, but your employer's bank also has lots of people getting paid and depositing checks drawn on other banks.
 
T

tokeprep

Well-Known Member
twostrokenut said:
BTW Civil criminal actions happen all the time I think it happened to OJ........for it to be civil and criminal there must be an injured party.
Click to expand...
There's no such thing as "civil criminal" actions. The first case in that instance was a criminal case seeking criminal penalty for murder, required to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt; the second case was a civil case seeking financial redress for wrongful death, with a much lower burden of proof. The actions were totally separate.

Obviously some crimes can create both criminal and civil liability, such as murder (murder plus wrongful death). If you burned a house down, you would be criminally liable for arson and civilly liable for the property you destroyed. Whether the state wins or loses the criminal arson case, the owner of the house is entitled to sue you in civil court for the value of the house. Of course, the state need not bring an arson case for the owner to bring a civil case; and just because the state brings an arson case it doesn't mean the owner has to bring a civil case.

Totally separate, new trials and everything.
 
twostrokenut

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member
tokeprep said:
When you deposit a check, you're just moving existing money from one account to another account. So yes, your deposit becomes one on which new loans could be created, but the money removed from the other bank correspondingly reduces its ability to make loans. Meeting cash demand doesn't necessarily require ordering more notes when people cash their checks, of course, because money is moving around constantly. Your employer's bank loses funds when money is transferred to your account at another bank, but your employer's bank also has lots of people getting paid and depositing checks drawn on other banks.
Click to expand...
Right it moves from your boss' bank where it was already a Deposit there and lent upon....then it moves to your bank as a deposit where it can be loaned upon .....and yes both banks will order more notes from the Fed to cover loans or deposits beyond the "necessary reserves" which is 10%....so you think your paycheck is a UCC Article 3 instrument but not what you endorsed it for.....the "elastic" cash......right.

Let's say you get a $500 check each month from your boss so you think the $500 sitting in bossman's account does not get used for lending deposit? No it counts wherever it is because it is checkbook money in the system....NEGOTIABLE checkbook money credits.....the actual physical notes are demand notes from essentially the SAME BANK.....you think when you endorse your $500 negotiable instrument it becomes non negotiable because it is cash now or merely computer deposit? If it became non negotiable on deposit the bank could not loan it out simple as that......I see where you may think the physical Notes may be non-negotiable cause they are in your hand but they are lent on soon as you spend them and the vendor or goods/service provider deposits them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top