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

[twostrokenut]

Except that's not the answer. United States Notes cannot be used in that way because the statute authorizing them said so. It's not because "they aren't borrowed from anyone else."

No that is the answer. Of the 300 million in existence if they were equal to the public debt where would the interest in US notes come from? How would the interest in US notes be paid in US notes?

No disagreement that United States Notes are lawful money in the case, because the case merely quotes the statute, which says so. But as you point out, Title 31 is positive law. It is is literally the law. So you don't see the omission as the least bit problematic? If Title 31 is positive law, isn't what you're saying not the law?

Na not at all the codification is law and the original statute is law also and the court competent to uphold agrees as well on the civil side of the courtroom us notes are lawful money.....on the equity side they are legal tender.

Whoever owns the treasury debt the federal government issued.

Great should we negotiate with the Fed to pay it off then? Then congress would just owe them.

 

[tokeprep]

Nope remember I specifically reserved silence is not evidence of acknowledgment of anything you say or approval of it....just boredom...you can metaphorically speak of the constitution as a statute or state it as a simile like you did I just don't care to go down that road of fail. My silence is not ratification of your unfounded viewpoints.

But it is like a statute. You cannot possibly argue otherwise, which is why you aren't doing so--there is no argument. It's textual, it's set down on paper and published for everyone to read, and it was enacted by representatives of the people on behalf of the people.

How is the constitution like common law? It's not. It's the antithesis of common law.

 

[tokeprep]

No that is the answer. Of the 300 million in existence if they were equal to the public debt where would the interest in US notes come from? How would the interest in US notes be paid in US notes?

There were other types of currency in existence when United States Notes were created. The congress specified that United States Notes were not lawful money or a legal tender for those specific purposes, so presumably some other form of currency was. Had congress not placed any limitation, United States Notes certainly would have been payable for those specific purposes. Since Federal Reserve Notes aren't bounded by any similar language, it has no bearing on the "lawful money" issue. The limitation on United States Notes is irrelevant to other currency.

Na not at all the codification is law and the original statute is law also and the court competent to uphold agrees as well on the civil side of the courtroom us notes are lawful money.....on the equity side they are legal tender.

No court has ever uttered any such bullshit. The statute says United States Notes are both lawful money and a legal tender. Period. It has nothing to do with civil or equity because it's the command of congress totally independent of the courts.

Of course, the codification is the law, you're right. But the text I posted from the congress about enacting titles as positive law says the original enactments are repealed in the process. That would mean the statute you keep quoting was repealed except for what is codified in Title 31, since Title 31 is positive law. How am I misreading what the congress said?

Whoever owns the treasury debt the federal government issued.Great should we negotiate with the Fed to pay it off then? Then congress would just owe them.

Why would you? Congress borrowed and spent all that money. The Fed has nothing to do with it.

 

[twostrokenut]

Antethisis more like foundation. Evidenced by the judicary act. Common law goes back to rome maybe farther it is natural law put into writing and guaranteed as our foundation. Courts don't make new laws not their jurisdiction to legislate they make "findings" of the existing common law only in the absense of legislation but there is no absence of legislation in our discussion.

 

[twostrokenut]

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Show the published rules for criminal proceedings under "statutory jurisdiction". You go on and on about judicial statutory jurisdiction and criminal actions.

 

[twostrokenut]

12 USC 411 isn't about the legal tender status of Federal Reserve Notes, so how could it possibly be prima facie evidence of "legal tender status only"? 12 USC 411 is prima facie evidence of what the Federal Reserve Act says because the act is actually the law and the code is just an editorial statement of the law.

The fact that the Federal Reserve Act doesn't use "lawful money" is irrelevant because the term was never defined. The 37th congress didn't define it; the Judiciary Act didn't define it; 31 USC 5115 doesn't define it. The courts have said that someone who obtains and uses Federal Reserve Notes receives and spends lawful money. There's no spinning out of that one.

Ok put the crack pipe down 12usc411 literally says frns are "legal tender" and may be bought back for "lawful money" and other sections of title 12 mention "lawful money"

The court said someone that cashed their paycheck used lawful money.....the notes were bonded by the credit of the us....if you earn a check in the private sector you are the faith and credit of the united states.......and a minority by now.

 

[twostrokenut]

But it is like a statute. You cannot possibly argue otherwise, which is why you aren't doing so--there is no argument. It's textual, it's set down on paper and published for everyone to read, and it was enacted by representatives of the people on behalf of the people.

How is the constitution like common law? It's not. It's the antithesis of common law.

its like a statute cause its written and enacted by reps? An apple is defined as a round red fruit in a statute.... does that mean all round red fruits are apples? Nope. Lawful money is one us currency does that mean all us currency is lawful money? Nope.

 

[tokeprep]

Antethisis more like foundation. Evidenced by the judicary act. Common law goes back to rome maybe farther it is natural law put into writing and guaranteed as our foundation. Courts don't make new laws not their jurisdiction to legislate they make "findings" of the existing common law only in the absense of legislation but there is no absence of legislation in our discussion.

See, you don't understand what you're talking about. Roman law was civil law, based on codes. Common law developed from the English legal system, which replaced codes with judicial precedent. Those judicial precedents are the common law, with other courts are bound to follow them.

The courts do make new laws. That is the common law! Wrongful death is not something a legislature, on behalf of the people, dreamed up; instead it was the pure creation of a court, enabling people to obtain damages from other people even though the legislature never said they could. That's new law!

With legislation, there is no common law. Legislation is typically presumed to displace the common law, unless it specifically preserves it. The saving to suitors clause is a good example, since it's a statute asserting that a remnant of common law remains viable despite what the act says about federal admiralty jurisdiction.

 

[tokeprep]

Show the published rules for criminal proceedings under "statutory jurisdiction". You go on and on about judicial statutory jurisdiction and criminal actions.

What you're asking for makes no sense. There are no rules for criminal proceedings under "statutory jurisdiction." There are only rules for criminal proceedings. Whether the source of the proceeding is the common law or statutory law is irrelevant because the rules are exactly the same.

 

[tokeprep]

Ok put the crack pipe down 12usc411 literally says frns are "legal tender" and may be bought back for "lawful money" and other sections of title 12 mention "lawful money"

Uh...maybe you should put your crack pipe down, because 12 USC 411 does not use the phrase "legal tender." Period. It does use the phrase "lawful money," but not "legal tender."

The court said someone that cashed their paycheck used lawful money.....the notes were bonded by the credit of the us....if you earn a check in the private sector you are the faith and credit of the united states.......and a minority by now.

They cash their paycheck and got Federal Reserve Notes. The notes they received and used to pay their expenses were lawful money. That's what the court said, not anything about the notes being bonded and that making them lawful money.

 

[tokeprep]

its like a statute cause its written and enacted by reps? An apple is defined as a round red fruit in a statute.... does that mean all round red fruits are apples? Nope. Lawful money is one us currency does that mean all us currency is lawful money? Nope.

A statute doesn't actually purport to define what an "apple" is in the English language. A statute says something that is supposed to have legal effect. Presumably that definition impacts what you can label as an "apple" in stores. So be it. The constitution establishes the government of the United States and describes the relationship between that government, the states, and the people. It is exactly what it purports to be.

What says lawful money is one currency? Nothing. The statute says one currency is lawful money, not the opposite; you cannot presume the opposite from what the statute does say.

 

[twostrokenut]

What you're asking for makes no sense. There are no rules for criminal proceedings under "statutory jurisdiction." There are only rules for criminal proceedings. Whether the source of the proceeding is the common law or statutory law is irrelevant because the rules are exactly the same.

It is my understanding a criminal action under common law requires a sworn complaint from an injured party.

 

[tokeprep]

It is my understanding a criminal action under common law requires a sworn complaint from an injured party.

You need a complaint from an injured part in any case, criminal or civil, whether the law is statutory or common law. There is no case with no complaint.

 

[twostrokenut]

What you're asking for makes no sense. There are no rules for criminal proceedings under "statutory jurisdiction." There are only rules for criminal proceedings. Whether the source of the proceeding is the common law or statutory law is irrelevant because the rules are exactly the same.

So if you agree common law is preserved in the judiciary act...which you do citing it as a good example of such; but you don't agree "without prejudice" in the ucc is the same? You don't agree redemption of a private commercial banknote to actual no interest lawful us currency issued directly by treasury is the same? All simply based on an incorrect assumption on your part that fed notes are lawful money having no legislation saying so and merely iffy case law that does not become iffy if you apply the ucc?

So now you say redemption is no longer authorized on any level which is false. You just can't redeem in specie. So I get a fed note and explain why that works in commercial federal law merchant terms and that makes no sense to you on your pure faith assumption fed notes are lawful money not subject to ucc? How then are fed notes floating commercially all over the world then? Can't have it both ways.

 

[twostrokenut]

You need a complaint from an injured part in any case, criminal or civil, whether the law is statutory or common law. There is no case with no complaint.

Awesome so if I california stop a stop sign....don't come to a complete stop, make sure its aight to go, go then get an infraction....who is the injured party then and where is the complaint form?

 

[twostrokenut]

A statute doesn't actually purport to define what an "apple" is in the English language. A statute says something that is supposed to have legal effect. Presumably that definition impacts what you can label as an "apple" in stores. So be it. The constitution establishes the government of the United States and describes the relationship between that government, the states, and the people. It is exactly what it purports to be.

What says lawful money is one currency? Nothing. The statute says one currency is lawful money, not the opposite; you cannot presume the opposite from what the statute does say.

Lol "apple" is in no statute I know of just hypothetical example....how funny if it were that would simply mean statutes aren't for the average guy there are too many and they are too complicated for anyone but law society to stand under which is why common law remedy is preserved in all cases. Which is why the constitution is so deeply set in natural law.

 

[twostrokenut]

What you're asking for makes no sense. There are no rules for criminal proceedings under "statutory jurisdiction." There are only rules for criminal proceedings. Whether the source of the proceeding is the common law or statutory law is irrelevant because the rules are exactly the same.

So the proceedings are either civil or criminal then? If it's criminal the "regulations" are all the same then? If the source of the proceeding is the statute the proceeding is not bound by laws of the statute and it's definitions then? This is not a different source than Supreme Court District Court Constitutional common law then?

The crime of counterfeiting is only a crime for persons like you and I under one jurisdiction which is this bizarro "statutory" one, this jurisdiction literally allows another person to counterfeit legally.....you know the fed is technically a corporation a "body corporate" aka a "person".....so we all know Oprah is Oprah Inc. like literally same status as fed can Oprah open an Oprah Bank and print Oprah notes in this day and age? You know how many ppl would prolly use Oprah notes and have a bomb economy seriously?

 

[twostrokenut]

Wal-Mart Notes or bonds? Harbor Freight Notes or bonds? Oh wait I can buy stock in Oprah or Wal-Mart but I can't spend that stock as currency oh shit is that a Monopoly on Currency is that legal? Especially since we have 2 types from 2 sources to choose from supposedly as indicated by the Statutes?

 

[tokeprep]

So if you agree common law is preserved in the judiciary act...which you do citing it as a good example of such; but you don't agree "without prejudice" in the ucc is the same? You don't agree redemption of a private commercial banknote to actual no interest lawful us currency issued directly by treasury is the same? All simply based on an incorrect assumption on your part that fed notes are lawful money having no legislation saying so and merely iffy case law that does not become iffy if you apply the ucc?

I don't agree that the common law is preserved in the Judiciary Act. The Judiciary Act says that federal courts have admiralty jurisdiction, saving to suitors the right to a common law remedy in state court where the common law is competent to give it. If all the states abolished their common law admiralty remedies, the common law wouldn't be competent to give a remedy. This does not purport to preserve the common law, it merely says that people can utilize that common law where it exists to provide an admiralty remedy concurrent with federal jurisdiction. Because some states retain those common law admiralty remedies, they remain relevant

What about "without prejudice" in the UCC? If you're dealing with something the UCC doesn't apply to, the "without prejudice" provision is irrelevant.

It would make no sense to apply the UCC to the case law. The case law is about the interpretation of a federal statute; the UCC is merely state law enacted at the state level. The federal courts are not considering the UCC in their decisions about the meaning of the Federal Reserve Act. To suggest otherwise is absurd.

So now you say redemption is no longer authorized on any level which is false. You just can't redeem in specie. So I get a fed note and explain why that works in commercial federal law merchant terms and that makes no sense to you on your pure faith assumption fed notes are lawful money not subject to ucc? How then are fed notes floating commercially all over the world then? Can't have it both ways.

If you can't redeem for anything but paper, why does redemption matter? It doesn't. Redemption in specie is what I was referring to--holding some metal in your hand. When this ability finally ceased altogether in the 1960s and congress made the formerly specie money redeemable solely for Federal Reserve Notes, the distinction between types of currency broke down.

There's no such thing as "commercial federal law merchant terms," so I have no idea what you're claiming you did. I'm not making a "pure faith assumption" that Federal Reserve Notes are not subject to the UCC. The UCC doesn't require "lawful money" in its definition of "money"; the comments by the drafters say that the definition is intended to exceed "legal tender," and indeed, the definition is extremely broad, certainly encompassing the Fed's bills. You cannot possibly argue that Federal Reserve Notes aren't money under the UCC definition, which means they cannot be negotiable instruments in Article 3.

How are Federal Reserve Notes "floating commercial all over the world"? People are willing to accept them in exchange for goods and services, which enables the notes to circulate. There you go. It has nothing to do with them being negotiable and everything to do with them being currency--that's what currency does, generally, get exchanged in commerce.

 

[tokeprep]

Awesome so if I california stop a stop sign....don't come to a complete stop, make sure its aight to go, go then get an infraction....who is the injured party then and where is the complaint form?

The complaint is from the state, on behalf of the people, who through their representatives enacted the statute.