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

[twostrokenut]

How is it not the same thing? "Eliminated" and "blended" mean exactly the same thing--it's one court now. That's why there's no distinction.

A federal district court is a court of law and equity; by the statute, it is the court with original jurisdiction over maritime claims, saving to suitors the right to seek common law remedies in state courts. If you have a maritime claim, you can bring it in either federal or state court. This has absolutely nothing to do with remedy in 12 USC 411.

There are still a few states that distinguish between law and equity in state law/state courts. The rest have eliminated the distinction, just as the federal courts have.

I made a strawberry banana smoothie by blending both fruits, not by eliminating either....the smoothie sill has banana and strawberry and the qualities of each

 

[twostrokenut]

I understand your assertion. 12 USC 412, which describes the collateral requirement, doesn't actually use "money" or "lawful money" though. So why are you saying Federal Reserve Notes "must be collateralzied with lawful reserves"?

Regardless, as I have already noted, if you posted Federal Reserve Notes as collateral for Federal Reserve Notes, you would get exactly what you posted back, because the statute says that the notes must be fully collateralized. Thus the notes cannot actually collateralize themselves.



Here we go again with crazy mixing of laws. The UCC is state law enacted at the state level--it is not federal law. The UCC has nothing to do with federal jurisdiction; federal jurisdiction exists if the constitution or a federal statute says that the federal courts have jurisdiction. The Judiciary Act grants the federal courts original jurisdiction over maritime/admiralty claims.

Since the UCC wasn't enacted until the middle of the 20th century, I find it peculiar that you think a defendant would have to reserve their "right to protest on record under UCC 1-207" negating "the jurisdiction that 1-103 establishes" in a federal admiralty case. The UCC would be completely irrelevant because it isn't federal admiralty/maritime law.

I deny that. The UCC is international law enacted at the state level. It says its international law in article 1.

"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."

Law Merchant is the old school wording for Maritime same thing.

 

[tokeprep]

I made a strawberry banana smoothie by blending both fruits, not by eliminating either....the smoothie sill has banana and strawberry and the qualities of each

Ok. You still destroyed the fruits to make your smoothie, and now they're combined together in a mixture. They are no longer distinct fruits. That's the whole point.

You keep talking about the difference between law and equity as if it means something today. That's what you haven't justified.

 

[tokeprep]

I deny that. The UCC is international law enacted at the state level. It says its international law in section 1.

And where is that, exactly?

"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."

Law Merchant is the old school wording for Maritime same thing.

You realize this doesn't say the UCC is international law, don't you? It says some law, unless displaced by provisions of the code, is still applicable.

The law merchant is not admiralty law. It is not "old school wording" for the same thing. Do you even bother to evaluate the truth of your statements before you make them? Because one Google search would inform you.

 

[ginwilly]

The one question I can never get an answer to from the Keynesian "deficits don't matter", "we can print as much as needed without harm" people..

Why bother collecting taxes?

 

[Harrekin]

The one question I can never get an answer to from the Keynesian "deficits don't matter", "we can print as much as needed without harm" people..

Why bother collecting taxes?

To take money out of circulation, it'll extend their funny-"money's" lifespan by slightly staving off increased inflation.

I'm personally gonna keep buying more silver, I'll keep swapping my spare funny money for metals, these recent low prices in the paper markets are gonna make me a killing in 10-15 years when prices are vastly higher than now.

 

[tokeprep]

The one question I can never get an answer to from the Keynesian "deficits don't matter", "we can print as much as needed without harm" people..

Why bother collecting taxes?

I wouldn't conflate deficits with money printing. Deficit spending is possible only because the financiers expect to be repaid. If you aren't collecting taxes, how can you possibly repay them? "Deficits don't matter" applies to a $1 trillion deficit in a $4 trillion budget, not a $4 trillion deficit in a $4 trillion budget.

As for the general proposition: if your $1 trillion in borrowed funds generates $5 trillion in economic activity over 10 years, it's not a bad deal. The problem is identifying economic projects that will actually produce such returns--it's something the American government is notoriously bad at. That's why I generally don't think governments should intervene in their economies, except in crisis situations.

 

[twostrokenut]

Ok. You still destroyed the fruits to make your smoothie, and now they're combined together in a mixture. They are no longer distinct fruits. That's the whole point.

You keep talking about the difference between law and equity as if it means something today. That's what you haven't justified.

Well why do you think you have justified that it doesn't? Where have you shown it doesn't by continually failing to identify the courts I asked you to on purpose? Nothing was destroyed you don't destroy hundreds of years of what law is with absolutley no law that specifically destroys it your logic that they are blended and thereford destroyed is made up bullcrap to suit your position.

 

[twostrokenut]

And where is that, exactly?



You realize this doesn't say the UCC is international law, don't you? It says some law, unless displaced by provisions of the code, is still applicable.

The law merchant is not admiralty law. It is not "old school wording" for the same thing. Do you even bother to evaluate the truth of your statements before you make them? Because one Google search would inform you.

OMG thank you teacher....LOL fail. Also please identify all the courts and what type of law they operate under for the BILLIONTH time, thanks. ....especially all the court types from all the cases you quoted in your defense. The Constitution only allows for criminal actions in civil, admiralty and tribunal jurisdictions....you are suggesting a new unknown jurisdiction only known to yourself sir.......marxists don't have the balls to try that yet.

Your wordgames are complete nonsense you have completely run short of substance. You are left arguing admiralty is not merchant law and it really doesn't matter either way because these require a common law or civil contract to enter into and be enforced. Happens on Judge Judy all the time. Doesn't matter if it's right or wrong judge must uphold contracts of the seas with laws of the seas which the UCC without one doubt is.

 

[tokeprep]

Well why do you think you have justified that it doesn't? Where have you shown it doesn't by continually failing to identify the courts I asked you to on purpose? Nothing was destroyed you don't destroy hundreds of years of what law is with absolutley no law that specifically destroys it your logic that they are blended and thereford destroyed is made up bullcrap to suit your position.

I already demonstrated why there is no distinction. If you want to go to federal court, the federal court is competent to grant you money damages and injunctions. There you go. That makes it a court of law and equity, no special pleading rules required. That's all we're really talking about, whether you realize it or not.

Why have special actions for money damages available in some courts and then other non-money remedies available in other courts? Why have one set of procedure for money and another set of procedure for an injunction? No law was destroyed, the historical distinction between law and equity was just abolished because it was meaningless and archaic.

 

[twostrokenut]

The same crisis exists today that did in 1933....no money in the bank in a "capitalist" "constitutional" economy!


It will be common knowledge once again really soon.....even the kid making my sandwich laughs his ass off when I ask if they still take FRN's.

 

[tokeprep]

OMG thank you teacher....LOL fail. Also please identify all the courts and what type of law they operate under for the BILLIONTH time, thanks. ....especially all the court types from all the cases you quoted in your defense.

I already did that in an earlier post. I don't think you replied to it. Try searching "Article 3" or "Article III" and it should come up.

The Constitution only allows for criminal actions in civil, admiralty and tribunal jurisdictions....you are suggesting a new unknown jurisdiction only known to yourself sir.......marxists don't have the balls to try that yet.

What you just said doesn't even make sense. The constitution allows for criminal actions in civil jurisdictions? Huh?

Likewise, I'm not suggesting "a new unknown jurisdiction." The UCC is state law. It's literally a state statute, enacted solely at the state level in every individual state--and each state has slight variations in their UCC. That's that. It's not international law and it's not federal law.

Your wordgames are complete nonsense you have completely run short of substance. You are left arguing admiralty is not merchant law and it really doesn't matter either way because these require a common law or civil contract to enter into and be enforced. Happens on Judge Judy all the time. Doesn't matter if it's right or wrong judge must uphold contracts of the seas with laws of the seas which the UCC without one doubt is.

It's not a word game. You told us that admiralty and the law merchant were the same thing. Well, Mr. Definitions:

Admiralty: "concerning activities which occur at sea, including on small boats and ships innavigable bays. Admiralty law (maritime law) includes accidents and injuries at sea, maritime contracts and commerce, alleged violations of rules of the sea over shipping lanes and rights-of-way, and mutiny and other crimes on shipboard. Jurisdiction over all these matters rests in the Federal Courts, which do not use juries in admiralty cases. There are other special rules in processing maritime cases, which are often handled by admiralty law specialists. Lawyers appearing in admiralty cases are called "proctors."" http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Admiralty.

Law Merchant: "The system of rules and customs and usages generally recognized and adopted by traders as the law for the regulation of their commercial transactions and the resolution of their controversies. The law merchant is codified in the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), a body of law, which has been adopted by the states, that governs mercantile transactions." http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/law+merchant.

What is it you told us again? "Law Merchant is the old school wording for Maritime same thing." Oh yeah, right, except not at all.

The UCC is certainly not the "law of the sea" either. The law of the sea actually has nothing to do with admiralty law or the law merchant--they're totally distinct things. But obviously you don't seem to understand that, since you keep throwing it all together.

 

[tokeprep]

The same crisis exists today that did in 1933....no money in the bank in a "capitalist" "constitutional" economy!

It will be common knowledge once again really soon.....even the kid making my sandwich laughs his ass off when I ask if they still take FRN's.

The houses, the buildings, the roads, the inventory, the crops--all imagined, certainly! All imaginary!

There's no wealth in the world, man, none, just worthless stacks of bullshit paper.

 

[BigNBushy]

The origins of the equity courts were church courts. We no longer have those. However, modern civil courts can rule on the basis of equity. There are options available in case resolution that have their beginnings in equity.

 

[twostrokenut]

The one question I can never get an answer to from the Keynesian "deficits don't matter", "we can print as much as needed without harm" people..

Why bother collecting taxes?

It's the collateral that floats the debt money system. Apparently we all enjoy the "benefit" of discharging our debts instead of paying them outright. Same reason they can't just raise the min wage to make life awesome and same reason everyone wants to dance around identifying court jurisdictions.

 

[twostrokenut]

The origins of the equity courts were church courts. We no longer have those. However, modern civil courts can rule on the basis of equity. There are options available in case resolution that have their beginnings in equity.

Please continue........

 

[twostrokenut]

Ok. You still destroyed the fruits to make your smoothie, and now they're combined together in a mixture. They are no longer distinct fruits. That's the whole point.

You keep talking about the difference between law and equity as if it means something today. That's what you haven't justified.

There are published rules for Civil Procedure, equity and maritime procedure and even military court procedures.....none exist for your imaginary creature.

Please identify the published rules for procedure for this new non-distinct fruit..........cmon we all anxiously await your expertise.

 

[tokeprep]

There are published rules for Civil Procedure, equity and maritime procedure and even military court procedures.....none exist for your imaginary creature.

Please identify the published rules for procedure for this new non-distinct fruit..........cmon we all anxiously await your expertise.

Can you please link me to the federal rules for equity and maritime procedure? Thanks.

Obviously the published rules are the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I've already said it repeatedly.

 

[tokeprep]

Please continue........

Do you not comprehend that you're agreeing with my point here?

 

[BigNBushy]

Please continue........

I don't know what you mean by this request. I feel I have explained it fairly simply, and well. I do not wish to go into detail as it has been some time since I was familiar with the subject and could give wrong information. I suppose I could get more basic. In Jolly Olde England there were two options available to a plaintiff. If the complaint was of a particular type the case would more properly be held in an equity court which was a church court. Obviously then other types were more suited for civil courts. Today, we don't have church courts. The US did, at one time, as I understand it, have both church and law courts. Today, the law/civil courts will sometimes use resolutions that in days past were found in courts of equity. These are not the preferred solutions. Some have been codified or defined by legislation, some are in common law now. A court would typically prefer to rule by law, but in certain cases they will rule on equity. Here is a nice distinction. If you are a plaintiff, with unclean hands, generally equity is not an option to you.