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

tokeprep said:

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.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry didn't you already address this post on your own? Thread police?

tokeprep said:

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.

Click to expand...

See here we go again with your garbage. I don't personally dislike you just dislike your assertions with no backing such as this one. It's just retarded and denies that UCC is maritime law adopted to be state commercial law and federal jurisdiction comes into play, Constitutionally of course, in regulating interstate commerce...........which the First Judiciary Act is in harmony with.....and the UCC is in harmony with.....and the USCode and 12usc411 and the Federal Reserve Act and the coinage acts and banking acts and 31usc5115 is in harmony with......


......only thing out of tune here is you and your imaginary statutory jurisdiction that you can only barely define in your own head let alone provide any evidence of.........and your tax court decisions.....please state it for me again tokeprep...is tax court an article III court competent to provide Remedy from conducting the economy in international commercial paper, which our currency has become and in fact is?

BigNBushy said:

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.

Click to expand...

I think we should be careful to break the English and American traditions apart. In the United States, the substantive difference between law and equity was the remedy available. At law, you could only get money; in equity, you could get injunctions. There were special pleading rules for each kind of suit, so the distinction was actually significant. In the federal courts and in the courts of 47 states, this distinction between law and equity was abolished. Courts are now competent to grant both kinds of remedies.

You want $100,000 in damages from me? Go to federal district court. You want an injunction against me? Go to federal district court. You're in the same court and you fill out exactly the same forms; you follow exactly the same procedures and file exactly the same documents. Indeed, sometimes law and equity are mixed up in the same suits. If Apple sues Samsung over a patent and requests $10 billion in damages, it probably also requests an injunction barring Samsung's use of the patent at the same time; and at the very beginning of the suit, Apple probably tries to get an injunction against Samsung that prevents them from selling products that violate the patent. Same court, same procedures, all flowing together.

This distinction between law and equity shouldn't be confused with the use of equitable principles today. The judge can invoke equity as he pleases, and much court procedure today actually originated from the equity courts, so indeed, judges are constantly invoking equity. When you said a plaintiff with unclean hands won't have much luck with equity, you mean the judge isn't going to be tempted to gloss in his favor in making a decision--the judge will just refuse to invoke equitable principles. This has no legal significance (other than potentially being bad for our plaintiff). Thus there is no substantive separation between law and equity, you just have one court that's competent to grant whatever remedy it believes appropriate.

twostrokenut said:

See here we go again with your garbage. I don't personally dislike you just dislike your assertions with no backing such as this one. It's just retarded and denies that UCC is maritime law adopted to be state commercial law and federal jurisdiction comes into play, Constitutionally of course, in regulating interstate commerce...........which the First Judiciary Act is in harmony with.....and the UCC is in harmony with.....and the USCode and 12usc411 and the Federal Reserve Act and the coinage acts and banking acts and 31usc5115 is in harmony with......

Click to expand...

Don't worry, I don't personally dislike you either. I understand that you must really believe these things that you're saying, but that's why I'm walking you through to reality. You just don't know how bodies of law are organized.

First, maritime law = admiralty law. They're used interchangeably in the constitution and both terms refer to the same body of law. There's a really peculiar thing about admiralty law in our federal system: state law is substantively irrelevant. It's called "Reverse Erie" if you want to look it up, but basically, federal courts apply federal admiralty law and state courts also apply federal admiralty law, even if it contradicts with state law.

Since "maritime law" is exclusively federal law--with even state courts being constitutionally obligated to apply federal admiralty law--it cannot possibly include the UCC, which is state law enacted solely at the state level.

......only thing out of tune here is you and your imaginary statutory jurisdiction that you can only barely define in your own head let alone provide any evidence of.........and your tax court decisions.....please state it for me again tokeprep...is tax court an article III court competent to provide Remedy from conducting the economy in international commercial paper, which our currency has become and in fact is?

Click to expand...

I already answered your question about the tax court. I never said it was an Article III court, and you drone on about it as if it makes a difference because apparently the tax court can do whatever the fuck it wants. No, no, the tax court still has to follow the law. The fact that it's not precedential itself does not alter the fact that it is based on precedential decisions. Some of those cases cited and clearly explained some of the court holdings you were misconstruing, and that's the only reason you're so keen to attack the tax court.

The Milam court had the wisdom to use those quotation marks to hide its secret message in the opinion; the tax court judge must have just gone to a really crappy law school if he didn't follow those magic quotations.

tokeprep said:

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.

Click to expand...

Sure just find the commercial contract court is enforcing and there you go big boy time knew you could do it you gets a & minus though took too long.

twostrokenut said:

Sure just find the commercial contract court is enforcing and there you go big boy time knew you could do it you gets a & minus though took too long.

Click to expand...

That doesn't sound like federal rules of anything.

BigNBushy said:

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.

Click to expand...

My bad thought you might have been following along....just hoping you could elaborate as much as you possibly could and hoping you have a legal background.....I certainly don't...but I have been arguing with someone here whom is claiming absolute supreme authority on the topic at hand. The information I am seeking is in the form of courts of competent jurisdiction and what is meant by this proper jurisdiction to apply common law Remedy retained in the First Judiciary Act.....I have identified 12usc411 and the Redemption it preserves as Remedy to commercial paper money.....

I would just like you to elaborate as much as possible what jurisdictions courts have....we have established that the supreme, federal district and local state civil courts competent to rule in law and equity.....my contention is that maritime/admiralty or merchant law only courts still exist.....like traffic court....certainly not a civil court so what is it's jurisdiction and also why is tax court not able to make case law....has it anything to do with its jurisdiction?

Any elaboration would be much appreciated and yes I think you hit the nail on the head with your explanation.

You can't appreciate how hard it actually was to get the different types of law even entered into discussion here as it has simply been written off as non existent merely because of the two being blended in certain courts deemed competent to do so......

I was just asking for elaboration and continuance of the history of equity courts and maritime courts in the US and wondering if you could positively ID article I courts that may exist today....specifically federal claims court and tax court..........thank you in advance.

tokeprep said:

I think we should be careful to break the English and American traditions apart. In the United States, the substantive difference between law and equity was the remedy available. At law, you could only get money; in equity, you could get injunctions. There were special pleading rules for each kind of suit, so the distinction was actually significant. In the federal courts and in the courts of 47 states, this distinction between law and equity was abolished. Courts are now competent to grant both kinds of remedies.

You want $100,000 in damages from me? Go to federal district court. You want an injunction against me? Go to federal district court. You're in the same court and you fill out exactly the same forms; you follow exactly the same procedures and file exactly the same documents. Indeed, sometimes law and equity are mixed up in the same suits. If Apple sues Samsung over a patent and requests $10 billion in damages, it probably also requests an injunction barring Samsung's use of the patent at the same time; and at the very beginning of the suit, Apple probably tries to get an injunction against Samsung that prevents them from selling products that violate the patent. Same court, same procedures, all flowing together.

This distinction between law and equity shouldn't be confused with the use of equitable principles today. The judge can invoke equity as he pleases, and much court procedure today actually originated from the equity courts, so indeed, judges are constantly invoking equity. When you said a plaintiff with unclean hands won't have much luck with equity, you mean the judge isn't going to be tempted to gloss in his favor in making a decision--the judge will just refuse to invoke equitable principles. This has no legal significance (other than potentially being bad for our plaintiff). Thus there is no substantive separation between law and equity, you just have one court that's competent to grant whatever remedy it believes appropriate.

Click to expand...

None of this explains you using tax court decisions to redefine in your own image the new definition of lawful money........you have completely ignored Congressional Definition or supreme court and federal district court (courts of competency for law and equity) of lawful money and how it is completely in conflict with legal tender only commercial paper elastic currency........even ucc "under protest" is arguing with you as I have pointed out to you....."under protest" is the very thing that demands any contract you are party to that makes you bound to the commercial code be revealed.......

...my contention is that The Federal Reserve Act is this contract....your signature bond on the back of you paycheck is absolute legal evidence of your endorsement of the debt money system and to not demand redemption is also legal evidence of your being perfectly happy being in this situation...


......go to district court if you want tokeprep most civility will just go to the notary.....sent it to you certified mail.......you will have a few weeks for each step which is something like notice, final notice, failure to address and contest the notices will constitute judgement....how is this not correct?

twostrokenut said:

The information I am seeking is in the form of courts of competent jurisdiction and what is meant by this proper jurisdiction to apply common law Remedy retained in the First Judiciary Act.....I have identified 12usc411 and the Redemption it preserves as Remedy to commercial paper money.....

Click to expand...

Read your own statute. It's a maritime remedy in state courts.

I would just like you to elaborate as much as possible what jurisdictions courts have....we have established that the supreme, federal district and local state civil courts competent to rule in law and equity.....my contention is that maritime/admiralty or merchant law only courts still exist.....like traffic court....certainly not a civil court so what is it's jurisdiction and also why is tax court not able to make case law....has it anything to do with its jurisdiction?

Click to expand...

You know what's really hilarious about this? The statute that you literally just mentioned above answers your question: "That the district courts shall have, exclusively of the courts of the several States...exclusive original cognizance of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction...saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it." The maritime/admiralty court is the federal district court under the very Judiciary Act you're claiming as authority. There are no special federal maritime/admiralty/merchant law courts. Go look at a list of the courts of the United States and you'll very easily see it.

You can't appreciate how hard it actually was to get the different types of law even entered into discussion here as it has simply been written off as non existent merely because of the two being blended in certain courts deemed competent to do so......

Click to expand...

I never said there was no historical distinction, I said that distinction was irrelevant today. And it is. Your acknowledgment that law and equity are blended together in the federal courts is why there is no meaningful distinction in the modern legal system.

I was just asking for elaboration and continuance of the history of equity courts and maritime courts in the US and wondering if you could positively ID article I courts that may exist today....specifically federal claims court and tax court..........thank you in advance.

Click to expand...

Equity courts = federal district courts. Maritime courts = federal district courts.

twostrokenut said:

None of this explains you using tax court decisions to redefine in your own image the new definition of lawful money........you have completely ignored Congressional Definition or supreme court and federal district court (courts of competency for law and equity) of lawful money and how it is completely in conflict with legal tender only commercial paper elastic currency........even ucc "under protest" is arguing with you as I have pointed out to you....."under protest" is the very thing that demands any contract you are party to that makes you bound to the commercial code be revealed.......

Click to expand...

There were only a couple tax court decisions. The rest were district or circuit court decisions. There was no congressional definition; the supreme court case never said there was a congressional definition; the later cases never said there was a congressional definition. If we we read in the congressional definition you assert, the later court cases make no logical sense--they literally say that the Federal Reserve is authorized to issue United States Notes.

The UCC isn't applicable to money, so "under protest" is irrelevant, as is anything else you want to say about the code.

...my contention is that The Federal Reserve Act is this contract....your signature bond on the back of you paycheck is absolute legal evidence of your endorsement of the debt money system and to not demand redemption is also legal evidence of your being perfectly happy being in this situation...

Click to expand...

The Federal Reserve Act is legislation, not a contract. It is the law. Your signature on your paycheck just enables one bank to transfer funds to your account at another bank.

Indeed, your redemption nonsense isn't even plausible because the statute says that the Federal Reserve Notes must be tendered to a reserve bank or the treasury in exchange for lawful money. The fact that a check passes through the Fed clearinghouse does not mean that you tendered notes for redemption. All the Fed had from you was a check; all the Fed did was move electronic numbers from an account at one bank to an account at another bank. There never were any notes. You only get notes if you take them out of your bank.

I don't know how you can argue that the endorsement bullshit is sufficient this when it's indisputable that the requirements of the statute for redemption aren't being met. There is no tendering of notes to anyone.

......go to district court if you want tokeprep most civility will just go to the notary.....sent it to you certified mail.......you will have a few weeks for each step which is something like notice, final notice, failure to address and contest the notices will constitute judgement....how is this not correct?

Click to expand...

I don't know what you're trying to describe.

Why don't you start your bullcrap with my original disclaimer and the first mention of erie in this thread yee of absolute legal monetary knowledge...you know bushy was prolly talking about unclean hands as in a murder trial having a "body of evidence" which is example of competency to rule basic right and wrong in common law.......this is absolutely what mean in relation to lawful remedy to legal monetary policy you are just playing dumb right now because someone is chiming in having given their own disclaimer and you have assumed all liability in this discorse by claiming absolute supreme authority on this subject as it relates to monetary policy.

I attacked tax court because you introduced it into evidence in a civil discussion.....tax court must have a contract to exist....you deny the siggy on "cheques" as bonded evidence of contract.....you deny two party siggy on front of a bill of exchange aka fed reserve note as evidence of contract into equity....so where is the contract that makes americans use fed notes then if you don't like my version of things?

Your version of lawful money being redefined in court is just retarded. Your insistance court can redefine congress without a check or balance is retarded....Iam on acell phone right now I will dig up all the quotes Ineed later to support these assertions.

You saying fed notes are lawful money with nothing more in your corner than marxist end game theoryunknown to american law is retarded. You asserting this through tax court decisions not competent to rule on lawful money is retarded of course they can't provide commonlaw remedy congress is free to create a court to deal with notes established in 12usc411 that pertain to the fed act but only district and other competent courts may rule on notes issued in 31usc5115........gonna fumble fuck around to save face and try and act like lawful money and redemption wasn't upheld in milam? Gonna fummble fuck around and pretend ware has not upheld 31ucs5115 as commonlaw lawful money? Gonna keep pretending you don't know peoples real wealth generating labor wages and property aren't used as collateral to float fed notes?

Lol it sounds like you failing in your claim of authority to anyone who has kept up here.

You know what's really funny? I only read the last sentence which is only a partial truth....I introduced into the record the fact federal district courts were ruling in equity maritime in regards to frns. It was I who recognized the civil court upholding civil def of money distinguished from commerce def of money....and upholding both in harmony as if contract os present to do so. It was you who insisted there was no distinction and "the blend" facilitates a dictoral approach to monetary policy The People cannot contract out of.........all in defense thinking it proves frns are not debt instruments.....tisk tisk........ We are not in court but there is a record here that what Iam saying right now is true.....you have been arguing frns are money....not ucc money but green back us note money.....now you play it off because your ignorance embarrasses you its ok the marketplace of ideas forgives you.

No congressional def my ass I'm on a cell so having to address point by point but I gave a clear 37th congressional def that is law right now coded in 31usc5115 that is distinct in attribution of lawful inelastic paper currency issued by government not merely legal elastic bills of a commercial bank established in 12usc411 and issued by you taking out a loan that will surely fail, as your argument here has.......and everyone has to assume and be responsible for your failure by dealing with inflation......just like your inflated watered down monetary theories here..

Fed can't override 31usc5115 andd issue us notes fed can only redeem fed notes and do the behing the curtain oz style accounting then hand you fed notes back and laugh at your confusion.....

Requirement to meet the statute isa simple demand got any cases documenting the demand that wasn't upheld in civility? Thought not genius. Court not required to explain equity fed accounting to you that's out of your jurisdiction now between fed and treasury and congress to place counterfeiting blame game.

twostrokenut said:

Why don't you start your bullcrap with my original disclaimer and the first mention of erie in this thread yee of absolute legal monetary knowledge...you know bushy was prolly talking about unclean hands as in a murder trial having a "body of evidence" which is example of competency to rule basic right and wrong in common law.......this is absolutely what mean in relation to lawful remedy to legal monetary policy you are just playing dumb right now because someone is chiming in having given their own disclaimer and you have assumed all liability in this discorse by claiming absolute supreme authority on this subject as it relates to monetary policy.

Click to expand...

The absolute supreme authority is the statute that you're outright ignoring.

twostrokenut said:

I attacked tax court because you introduced it into evidence in a civil discussion.....tax court must have a contract to exist....you deny the siggy on "cheques" as bonded evidence of contract.....you deny two party siggy on front of a bill of exchange aka fed reserve note as evidence of contract into equity....so where is the contract that makes americans use fed notes then if you don't like my version of things?

Click to expand...

There is no contract. The constitution, according to the supreme court, gives congress the power to authorize a fiat currency. That's that. Why would there be a contract? The government is merely exercising the sovereign powers ceded to it by the people in the constitution. The signatures on the bills are legally meaningless--they aren't required.

The tax court exists because congress legislatively established it under its Article I power. Again, it has nothing to do with a contract. There is none. You have no practical choice but to deal in Federal Reserve Notes and to pay income tax.

Your version of lawful money being redefined in court is just retarded. Your insistance court can redefine congress without a check or balance is retarded....Iam on acell phone right now I will dig up all the quotes Ineed later to support these assertions.

Click to expand...

It's not my insistence, it's yours. You're the one telling us the court redefined congress!

You saying fed notes are lawful money with nothing more in your corner than marxist end game theoryunknown to american law is retarded. You asserting this through tax court decisions not competent to rule on lawful money is retarded of course they can't provide commonlaw remedy congress is free to create a court to deal with notes established in 12usc411 that pertain to the fed act but only district and other competent courts may rule on notes issued in 31usc5115........gonna fumble fuck around to save face and try and act like lawful money and redemption wasn't upheld in milam? Gonna fummble fuck around and pretend ware has not upheld 31ucs5115 as commonlaw lawful money? Gonna keep pretending you don't know peoples real wealth generating labor wages and property aren't used as collateral to float fed notes?

Click to expand...

You cannot keep saying that I asserted anything through tax court decisions that were incompetent. I gave you a substantial number of cases--most of them not tax court cases--all saying exactly the same things. The tax court merely reflects what the law is and proves how absurd your interpretations of some of the cases were.

See, we have no dispute on lawful money and redemption being upheld in Milam or on United States Notes being held to be lawful money. Absolutely true. It's what you think all of that means that's problematic, because your interpretations rely on adding paragraphs of material about endorsement and commercial law to make the cases compatible with your claims. The distortions are yours, not mine. I'm not shoving words in any court's mouth (gems like "Oh, even though they said absolutely nothing about coins, their decision that Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money is surely based on coins!").

twostrokenut said:

You know what's really funny? I only read the last sentence which is only a partial truth....I introduced into the record the fact federal district courts were ruling in equity maritime in regards to frns.

Click to expand...

You haven't produced a single scrap of evidence that any federal court ever ruled anything in maritime jurisdiction in Federal Reserve Notes. Zilch. It is not a "fact" if no court has ever done it.

It was I who recognized the civil court upholding civil def of money distinguished from commerce def of money....and upholding both in harmony as if contract os present to do so.

Click to expand...

I never said courts were using commercial definitions of money to find that Federal Reserve Notes were lawful money. I said courts found Federal Reserve Notes to be lawful money based on the congress' power in Juilliard.

Commercial law has nothing to do with it. None of the court decisions we've referenced mentions commercial law (unless they're calling it inapplicable), so how can you possibly say those courts are "upholding both in harmony" when they did no such thing? The definition of money in commercial law is enacted at the state level and has nothing to do with the definition of lawful money in federal statutes. State law is not federal law.

It was you who insisted there was no distinction and "the blend" facilitates a dictoral approach to monetary policy The People cannot contract out of.........all in defense thinking it proves frns are not debt instruments.....tisk tisk........ We are not in court but there is a record here that what Iam saying right now is true.....you have been arguing frns are money....not ucc money but green back us note money.....now you play it off because your ignorance embarrasses you its ok the marketplace of ideas forgives you.

Click to expand...

I merely insisted that there is no distinction today. You pointed to that statute and claimed it was absolute proof that separate courts of law and equity still existed, and that was absolute bullshit. Now you've been rambling on and on about some distinction that we both seem to agree no longer exists.

The Judiciary Act doesn't give the people the right to contract out of anything because it's a statute granting jurisdiction to federal courts over admiralty cases. Commercial law is a totally separate thing. The statute saves to suitors a right to go to state court instead of federal court where common law remedies are available in admiralty cases. Not in commercial law cases, in admiralty cases.

You apparently don't even know what I've been arguing. Federal Reserve Notes are certainly "money" under the UCC, and they are certainly not "green back us note money." A Federal Reserve Note is not a United States Note; I do not claim that they are in any way equivalent except in that congress has the constitutional power to authorize them and to make them lawful money. The fact that both notes are lawful money does not mean that they are the same thing. Logical fallacy alert!