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

twostrokenut said:

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..

Click to expand...

As has already been covered, that is not a definition. The statute says United States Notes shall be this and that, this and that, "shall be lawful money," and shall not be used for this or that. It does not say that "lawful money shall have the following characteristics, and United States Notes shall be lawful money."

Your statute authorizes United States Notes to be issued, but it certainly does not purport to define lawful money. That's just a gross and desperate misinterpretation on your part because you see "lawful money" there and want to insist that the phrase could only possibly refer to United States Notes. Alas, when words aren't defined in statutes, they aren't defined.

twostrokenut said:

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.....

Click to expand...

Right, but according to your interpretations of the statutes and the court cases, multiple federal circuit courts have said that 12 USC 411 authorizes the Fed to issue United States Notes. This is obviously total bullshit, but if we take your word for it on what the courts' language meant in the opinions, that's what we get. Either the courts are horribly dumb or you're wrong. It's the latter.

You want to know who's laughing? The bank manager who had one of these wackos waste three hours of his time and 10 billable hours the first time someone came in about this nonsense; now he just gladly tells them that he'll be happy to change their signature card because the bank's attorneys let him know these people were crackpots and it was of no legal consequence.

As I pointed out, there is no tender to the reserve bank or the treasury. You don't even have a statutory basis to redeem Federal Reserve Notes because you didn't follow the requirements (unlike Milam, who actually showed up at one of these locations and tendered Federal Reserve Notes).

twostrokenut said:

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.

Click to expand...

I can't find any cases on "demand" and "Federal Reserve Notes." So no, I don't have a case not upholding it "in civility," and you don't have one that does either. Just like you have no evidence of the magic note wash or the magic accounting.

tokeprep said:

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.



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



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!").

Click to expand...

Right that's that...congress defined legal tender fiat currency fed notes in the fed act....12usc411 and all....including redemption into something they are not.....no court disputes this.....congress also defined another fiat us paper currency in 31usc5115 that is still ready for issue as lawful money.....completely different with different accounting....you have defined frns the attribute of lawful money no court or congress upholds...no imaginary fed money power changes any of this they are bound by feds contract with congress which is the fed act that's that
even bernanke reports to congress genius....

You absolutley failed in arguing this before bringing up tax court then having done so further distanced you from sensible argument where did you go to law school?

Little gems like us treasury coins being lawful money are already known by everyone and courts just not you apparantly everyone else knows what coinage acts are and how to read them.

Having no practical choice than to deal in fed notes is what redemption is for and why you fumble in grasping the concept that there are commpetitors ready to roll...paying income taxes was a complete aside for you to distract from these facts you are ignorant of by claiming anyone who grasps it is simply a tax protestor misrable fail.

That's the problem you are too concentrated on fallic logic pun intended. You introduce gay marriage "rights" into this economic law discussion then speak of logic fallacies failing to distinguish benefits of equity from the rights of society to stay out of equity...

The power does not exist to give lawful money attribute to frns you haven't proved that its on you to do so because you make the claim and I do not....you have to back that up with a statute or act because constitutional bills of credit are the lawful money backing for frns that's that genius just start searching "lawful money" in the uscode you will reach this conclusion sooner or later you being a coding clerk makes you no authority on this matter just a civil servant doing what he's told that's that genius.

And that's exactly the point glad you are coming around wonder why you can't find ur case lighten up man its just info and knowledge not the end days did you hear the supreme court rule that in equity gays should receive same benefits straights do? There ya go they still reserve competency to rule gays have natural right to marry if anyone makes the distinction as well lighten up now you know what the difference is and why you can't find your monetary case where suitor reserved 6th ammendment right to identify jurisdiction and competency.....noot so hard to grasp.

Bank manager can take it up with congress just as you can by voting for change.....especially a fed bank or other reserve agent they have no choice but to do the accounting right or deal with the comptroller none of my concern or yours.

There you go again the reqirement is simply a demand ppl much smarter than you put it into law.

tokeprep said:

Right, but according to your interpretations of the statutes and the court cases, multiple federal circuit courts have said that 12 USC 411 authorizes the Fed to issue United States Notes. This is obviously total bullshit, but if we take your word for it on what the courts' language meant in the opinions, that's what we get. Either the courts are horribly dumb or you're wrong. It's the latter.

You want to know who's laughing? The bank manager who had one of these wackos waste three hours of his time and 10 billable hours the first time someone came in about this nonsense; now he just gladly tells them that he'll be happy to change their signature card because the bank's attorneys let him know these people were crackpots and it was of no legal consequence.

As I pointed out, there is no tender to the reserve bank or the treasury. You don't even have a statutory basis to redeem Federal Reserve Notes because you didn't follow the requirements (unlike Milam, who actually showed up at one of these locations and tendered Federal Reserve Notes).

Click to expand...

putting words in my mouth......that's what we get? What you get is what Milam got, you get to redeem the notes just like Congress does .........courts are totally doing their job and you are ignorant.....their job is to follow the law, Redemption is the
law; The Judiciary act is the law; go cry to your congressman instead of crying here that FRN's carry no debt and bear no interest it's just totally bunk yet you spout it with imaginary authority and not one shred of proof other than the deficit projected to lower.......asinine.....Want to make change?? Just like SS all we have to do is keep doing what we've been doing and it will end.....

twostrokenut said:

Right that's that...congress defined legal tender fiat currency fed notes in the fed act....12usc411 and all....including redemption into something they are not.....no court disputes this.....congress also defined another fiat us paper currency in 31usc5115 that is still ready for issue as lawful money.....completely different with different accounting....you have defined frns the attribute of lawful money no court or congress upholds...no imaginary fed money power changes any of this they are bound by feds contract with congress which is the fed act that's that
even bernanke reports to congress genius....

Click to expand...

Yes, congress did define Federal Reserve Notes as legal tender, along with other things. Absolutely. Congress doesn't "define" the phrase "lawful money" in that statute. It merely authorizes the treasury to issue a certain kind of currency that is lawful money. The fact that the particular currency is lawful money does not mean that the statute defines lawful money.

I showed you a ton of court cases from all over the country upholding that Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money, so obviously that's not true. And the fact that Bernanke reports to congress reflects a proper delegation of congressional power to the Fed. The courts have held that congress must retain oversight when it delegates its power to another body.

You absolutley failed in arguing this before bringing up tax court then having done so further distanced you from sensible argument where did you go to law school?

Click to expand...

I'm not distancing myself from the tax court at all. They provided accurate statements of the law that they're bound to follow.

The only reason you dislike the tax court opinions so much is because they weren't flowery at all. No bullshit--they said things very directly. Instead of recognizing that they're properly interpreting the cases you're grossly distorting, you've attacked them as having no authority, as if they they can do whatever the fuck they want because they're not an Article III court. It's ridiculous.

Little gems like us treasury coins being lawful money are already known by everyone and courts just not you apparantly everyone else knows what coinage acts are and how to read them.

Having no practical choice than to deal in fed notes is what redemption is for and why you fumble in grasping the concept that there are commpetitors ready to roll...paying income taxes was a complete aside for you to distract from these facts you are ignorant of by claiming anyone who grasps it is simply a tax protestor misrable fail.

Click to expand...

You can't practically deal in coins when you're using cash in anything but small transactions. The idea that someone could conveniently do it is ridiculous.

As a practical matter, no one even deals in Federal Reserve Notes. Only 27% of cash register purchases are in 2012 were in cash, with the other 73% electronic. When you deposit your check, money just moves electronically from one account to another. If you spend it with your debit card, you never even use a Federal Reserve Note.

Tell me, is there a contract if you never handle a note?

twostrokenut said:

That's the problem you are too concentrated on fallic logic pun intended. You introduce gay marriage "rights" into this economic law discussion then speak of logic fallacies failing to distinguish benefits of equity from the rights of society to stay out of equity...

Click to expand...

Logic is essential to this discussion. Your failure to employ logic in favor of upholding the ridiculous, non-sensical rantings of a crackpot demonstrates why.

Society has no right "to stay out of equity." The courts are free to enter injunctions against you as they please, if they're warranted. Likewise, the courts are often free to employ equitable principles in deciding cases--the litigants have zero control over it.

The power does not exist to give lawful money attribute to frns you haven't proved that its on you to do so because you make the claim and I do not....you have to back that up with a statute or act because constitutional bills of credit are the lawful money backing for frns that's that genius just start searching "lawful money" in the uscode you will reach this conclusion sooner or later you being a coding clerk makes you no authority on this matter just a civil servant doing what he's told that's that genius.

Click to expand...

Of course it exists. Since congress never defined "lawful money" in a statute, the meaning of "lawful money" is unclear. The courts are free to interpret the statutes where congress has not been clear. Your insistence that the phrase was defined is based solely on the use of the phrase; the statute does not purport to be a definition, and the context around the phrase makes it obvious that it is not a definition of lawful money, merely a list of attributes of United States Notes instead.

Searching "lawful money" in the code and stopping there would just make me an idiot. The code is only part of the law. Indeed, in some cases, the code is actually a tiny fraction of the law, because there are hundreds of pages of case law on little sentences and paragraphs in the code. Lawyers don't search the code and stop.

twostrokenut said:

And that's exactly the point glad you are coming around wonder why you can't find ur case lighten up man its just info and knowledge not the end days did you hear the supreme court rule that in equity gays should receive same benefits straights do? There ya go they still reserve competency to rule gays have natural right to marry if anyone makes the distinction as well lighten up now you know what the difference is and why you can't find your monetary case where suitor reserved 6th ammendment right to identify jurisdiction and competency.....noot so hard to grasp.

Click to expand...

The definition of "marriage" in federal law has nothing to do with "equity." The supreme court decision was based on due process and equal protection, not natural rights. The idea of natural rights was displaced quite a long time ago in mainstream thought; the idea remains popular with a very limited group--the hard right wing, libertarians, Randists, and all that ilk. The fact that you believe in natural rights has nothing to do with the actual legal basis of the supreme court's decision.

And that's precisely the problem. The whole goal of this movement is to impose personal beliefs as limitations upon the federal government. But your personal beliefs are irrelevant to legal reality.

As for the saving to suitors clause case: I can tell you there's no case because the question has nothing to do with admiralty law, thus it has nothing to do with the clause. That shouldn't be so hard to grasp, but apparently it is, because you can't seem to comprehend that federal admiralty law is the only admiralty that exists--displacing state law because state courts must apply substantive federal admiralty law in admiralty cases brought under the saving to suitor clause--and that commercial law, where you draw negotiable instruments, is state law, enacted solely at the state level, and totally distinct from admiralty.

I still can't understand how this grant and reservation of concurrent court jurisdiction required congress to write a remedy into the Federal Reserve Act.

twostrokenut said:

Bank manager can take it up with congress just as you can by voting for change.....especially a fed bank or other reserve agent they have no choice but to do the accounting right or deal with the comptroller none of my concern or yours.

Click to expand...

There is no accounting. They don't have to do anything. All they do is smile and nod and assure people that they'll get their restrictive endorsement, knowing that it's absolutely meaningless. Ha, knowing that it doesn't even satisfy the statutory requirements for redemption on top of it, since local commercial bank branches aren't "federal reserve banks" under the Federal Reserve Act. Or should we go through the definitions and show you that local commercial bank branches are not "federal reserve banks"?

twostrokenut said:

There you go again the reqirement is simply a demand ppl much smarter than you put it into law.

Click to expand...

That's not the requirement for redemption in the statute: "[Federal Reserve Notes] shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank."

The statute does not say on demand to the treasury or the reserve banks, it says on demand at them. Notice that the statute also does not say "Checks shall be redeemed" but instead "Federal Reserve Notes." Checks are not Federal Reserve Notes. Writing a demand on a check and depositing it with a bank does not result in making a demand with Federal Reserve Notes at the treasury or a reserve bank.

Basically, your argument is that writing the restrictive endorsement on the check forces the reserve banks to redeem because checks travel through the Fed clearinghouse. Alright, so the Fed bank pick up the check with the endorsement. Why would they have to honor it? The check is not a Federal Reserve Notes; the statute gives them no obligation to redeem checks for lawful money. All they do is process the check.

twostrokenut said:

putting words in my mouth......that's what we get? What you get is what Milam got, you get to redeem the notes just like Congress does .........courts are totally doing their job and you are ignorant.....their job is to follow the law,

Click to expand...

Milam has nothing to do with a restrictive endorsement on a check. In Milam, he actually showed up with a $50 Federal Reserve Note and was offered $50 in equivalent Federal Reserve Notes back. That's the redemption they upheld, nothing to do with restrictive endorsements on checks. It is not implicit in their opinion; it should not be seen as a natural consequence of their opinion; it just has no connection whatsoever to their opinion. Milam involves a physical tender of Federal Reserve Notes at a physical reserve bank.

Redemption is the law; The Judiciary act is the law; go cry to your congressman instead of crying here that FRN's carry no debt and bear no interest it's just totally bunk yet you spout it with imaginary authority and not one shred of proof other than the deficit projected to lower.......asinine.....Want to make change?? Just like SS all we have to do is keep doing what we've been doing and it will end.....

Click to expand...

Obviously I don't dispute that federal district courts have jurisdiction in admiralty cases or that state courts have some concurrent jurisdiction in admiralty cases under the "savings to suitors" clause. This just has nothing to do with Federal Reserve Notes or 12 USC 411, because that statute is not and has nothing to do with admiralty law.

How does the right to bring an admiralty case in state court instead of federal court require congress to write remedies into federal statutes? It's so obviously spurious I can't believe you're still defending it.

Is it worth reading all that hooey? Saying anything new? Still can't find def of lawful money? Only evidence of the def in non positive title 12 and legal evidence in positive title 31? That's because the constitution isn't required to use the term "lawful money" cause its the law.....if it is the law and the word money is used then its lawful money, not legal money.....can't believe you still pretend ignorance on this ignoring law and equity still..........oh well whatever dude not the last time you will be wrong certainly better get used to it.

Look dude if you are happy having Representatives abusing fiduciary powers you think fed notes don't provide them by really not having your best interest in mind while they pay off all their friends, get sweet country wide deals.....eat caviar every day, have great health insurance all on your dime while not doing anything you say or even asking your permission how to spend your money then fine....keep shit talking.....just voting for the right guy doesn't work anymore in case you haven't noticed....they don't even ask you for money anymore.

In a nutshell thats how this thread has gone.....tokeprep says crackpot and that's that.....has he given any lawful reason for saying that??? Nope none at all besides court cased that don't say what he wants...yet I added "paragraphs" to it?? Nope walked you through the history of it and sourced every word I said.....wanna go further and speak of chancery courts??? They supposedly don't exist here but hey law and equity are blended.......not in tax court though genius......ppl can't conduct business in coins??? WTF does that have to do with them being lawful just because its not practical....continue to run around picking up the pieces then make your own picture out of them........or don't whatever.

tokeprep said:

The definition of "marriage" in federal law has nothing to do with "equity." The supreme court decision was based on due process and equal protection, not natural rights. The idea of natural rights was displaced quite a long time ago in mainstream thought; the idea remains popular with a very limited group--the hard right wing, libertarians, Randists, and all that ilk. The fact that you believe in natural rights has nothing to do with the actual legal basis of the supreme court's decision.

And that's precisely the problem. The whole goal of this movement is to impose personal beliefs as limitations upon the federal government. But your personal beliefs are irrelevant to legal reality.

As for the saving to suitors clause case: I can tell you there's no case because the question has nothing to do with admiralty law, thus it has nothing to do with the clause. That shouldn't be so hard to grasp, but apparently it is, because you can't seem to comprehend that federal admiralty law is the only admiralty that exists--displacing state law because state courts must apply substantive federal admiralty law in admiralty cases brought under the saving to suitor clause--and that commercial law, where you draw negotiable instruments, is state law, enacted solely at the state level, and totally distinct from admiralty.

I still can't understand how this grant and reservation of concurrent court jurisdiction required congress to write a remedy into the Federal Reserve Act.

Click to expand...

The act of marriage is in the common law...you didn't harm anyone marrying a dude it may disgust society but it did not harm them....the marriage benefits granted by your lord government are in equity and paid in elastic commercial paper genius.....government does not have authority to grant rights unless your are begging for their paper and their grace to favor you.....no different than begging a baron or lord for food imho.

Your tax protestor labels are bullshit. You have done that several times in this thread to keep you from sounding retarded. Where did you go to law school? That required to code statutes? Nope. Whenever tokeprep is challenged to think and research he just calls you a name.....you skipped jurisdictions when you introduced tax court into the discussion and you know it....you failed to stay in competency.....then failed to ID the jurisdictions when asked which is completely dishonorable.........you led up to these court decisions by calling me a tax protestor which I avoided and tried to get you to stay on point about the notes incurring debt and interest.....just name calling nonsense anyone reading this saw it bro you hung yourself....do keep talking though you just dig yourself deeper and deeper yet I am in lunacy because I can read.....real nice....btw the "cases you presented" were presented by me mostly........including Erie genius.