Impossible! The deficit is falling as well as unemployment Obama wrecking economy
- Thread starter ChesusRice
- Start date
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Us v salman........"A Federal Reserve note is a negotiable INSTRUMENT"..........
The only "law" that frns are "lawful money" absolutely mentions defendant cashing his paycheck......that's called a bond in "equity"..........
The only "law" that frns are "lawful money" absolutely mentions defendant cashing his paycheck......that's called a bond in "equity"..........
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
For Sure. Law is we can't get into a War if it is not declared and we have not been "hit first".......the Law says we may contract in equity..... I am really having a hard time thinking of any contract that is not equitable honestly..........even if I mow your lawn for a month on a lost bet you still are "getting paid".
......so we have contracted in equity for everything...wars..."rights" aka benefits....I will take it a step further....I think it absolutely proper to say Law is that Rosie and her partner can't "have a child"...that is two girls just can't produce a child....of course she has adopted children....last I checked adoption is not free.....so through contract law + "money" Rosie gets kids by the grace of law of Society.....law says Rosie gets kids.....Law says she does not unless she contracts with some other entity and basically purchases children and agrees to provide a good home to them.......
IDK Rosie or her kids, how many she has or the circumstances of her having them......I am sure she's a great parent. Law is she can't have her own kids with her partner....end of story....she may use the law to obtain some.....the law is that those kids are her responsibility.....and the law is they are Society's responsibility as well...which means Rosie's tax breaks come out of my pocket....
Am I saying I won't take advantage of tax breaks with my own children? Nope I prolly will but it's not "free money" and the reality is the government literally takes what it gives me in tax breaks out of someone's pocket, and puts it in mine......I don't have a "right" to someone else's "money" weather or not it was derived from "income" or labor wages it's stealing no matter how you try and justify it.......
.....if you justify it by saying one group is "in need" of it more than the other then you believe in Marxism weather you care to identify it as such or not..........if you are a proponent of the Central Bank as a mechanism that facilitates government authority and action in deciding who is "in need" and in favor over others then you are a closet Marxist or just a stupid sheep.
I think Erie and Reverse Erie is just a paradox......Federal Law Merchant applies in one, state UCC in the other.....six inches on one side, half a foot on the other..........
If you believe that, then he is incorrect, because the constitution doesn't make the distinction he speaks of. I welcome either of you to show it!
I laugh again, Twostroke. I laugh gleefully at this wonderful display of your ignorance. The quotation in your case is from 1924, decades before the Uniform Commercial Code was ever drafted. It is totally irrelevant to the question, because the source did not exist, and yet you invoke it anyway!
No, Twostroke, that would be an outright lie, because I gave you plenty of cases where that was not the case. See Page 144, where they're all recorded for your convenience, and you will see that you are lying.
Show me where it says we may "contract in equity."
It's an irrelevant question, so why are you wasting your time?
IDK Rosie or her kids, how many she has or the circumstances of her having them......I am sure she's a great parent. Law is she can't have her own kids with her partner....end of story....she may use the law to obtain some.....the law is that those kids are her responsibility.....and the law is they are Society's responsibility as well...which means Rosie's tax breaks come out of my pocket....
Am I saying I won't take advantage of tax breaks with my own children? Nope I prolly will but it's not "free money" and the reality is the government literally takes what it gives me in tax breaks out of someone's pocket, and puts it in mine......I don't have a "right" to someone else's "money" weather or not it was derived from "income" or labor wages it's stealing no matter how you try and justify it.......
.....if you justify it by saying one group is "in need" of it more than the other then you believe in Marxism weather you care to identify it as such or not..........if you are a proponent of the Central Bank as a mechanism that facilitates government authority and action in deciding who is "in need" and in favor over others then you are a closet Marxist or just a stupid sheep.[/quote]
None of that is contractual, you just don't know what a contract is.
As for your personal philosophy, I take no issue with that. So be it.
And what is this federal law merchant?
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Nothing you quoted Harrekin saying involved me...........if Harrekin believes that, then I am incorrect....LOGICAL FAIL
The Constitution is the source of all government and Law in this country...it really does not need to distinguish...it even has a nifty supremacy clause so whatever.
The Constitution is not the source of rights, only the protector.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
tokeprep said:
No quotes buddy but you already knew that.......because you read the case as you have claimed.....you claim to know better then assert ignorance on purpose to mislead....that literally is fraud.....the quoted part is sourced the part about FRN's being "negotiable instruments" stands as common law.....common knowledge to anyone but you.US V SALMAN said:
So how does it feel to say that I cannot read or comprehend when we have yet another example of you being the one who fails at comprehension? You claimed to have read an comprehended this shit evidenced by your shit talking.....OUCH.
BTW in this day and age LOL covers "laugh" and "laugh gleefully" just fyi I know how valuable your time is LOLOLOL
I lied? Is an article I court competent to redefine lawful money, thus redefining 100 year old legislation? Nope. So out of all your cases which were the ones from article III courts? Right, only the one I mentioned..........so you call me a liar in an attempt to cover your fraudulence........LOL par for the course by you so far.
Page 144???
I only have 48 total pages in this thread sooooooooo why not bring them to the forefront again.....plenty of links on my posts and none in yours that's a pretty good tell....and tale.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Lex mercatoria...............Uniform law governing commercial transactions.........that existed way before the UCC was adopted in the states....before the US was a country......maybe google it........https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_mercatoria
He's referring to your capitalization, so I don't understand why you think it doesn't involve you.
The quotation is a source from 1924. The quotation isn't common law either--it's text from a secondary source (an academic monograph). Since the UCC hadn't been enacted, it has nothing to do with the UCC.
The case you have is discussing negotiable instruments in the context of statutes that involve fictitious financial instruments. The UCC is never invoked because it is irrelevant; this case does not purport to involve or interpret the UCC. Despite that fact, you want to jump from this case to "Federal Reserve Notes are negotiable instruments under the Uniform Commercial Code, and the provisions of the code on negotiable instruments apply to Federal Reserve Notes." It's senseless.
US v. Gardiner, Mathes v. CIR, US v. Rickman, Wilson v. US, Maxwell v. IRS, US v. Darcy, US v. Wangrud, and Milam are all cases from Article III courts. Only one case on my list was from the tax court; I can't find another one of the cases again, but I think it was from the bankruptcy court. Seven of the nine were Article III, and here you are telling everyone that only a single case on the list was!
This is why I said your ranting about the tax court's incompetence made no sense. It was a single case that was consistent with what all the others--from Article III courts--said.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
I never said the quote was common law the quote is sourced god you are a dumb fuck.
Your context is make believe...."federal reserve notes are negotiable instruments" stands on its own in that case......without your magical 1924 quote distraction.
So where is negotiable instrument defined for the purposes of commercial transactions then if not the ucc? No ucc in that case lol so where do all the commercial terms come from then?
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
So why not source those cases then? Provide all of us links to each one so we all may see what you are seeing in them? Where's the links? I just looked up Gardiner and there's like 5 of them and not one mentions lawful money soooooooo go ahead and link each case then everyone will have a baseline, thanks.
Where does the constitution purport to establish contract law, Twostroke? If you're going to claim it you're going to share it.
Contracts are state law and the law is unique in every state. The constitution is not the source of state contracts law.
What part of that paperwork is a contract? You seem to think that anything involving a statute is a contract.
Yes, it existed before all that. Is it still the law? Where? That's the question.
We're talking about statutes that involve financial instruments. I think it's clear why "negotiable instrument" came up. The court doesn't invoke the UCC for negotiable instruments, it cites a 1924 monograph. I don't think they're stupid, they knew exactly what they were doing--they didn't mean to cite the UCC because they weren't discussing it.
You presume there is a definition of "negotiable instrument" in federal law in 1924. There may not have been one.
My first Google search brought this up as the first result for Gardiner: http://openjurist.org/531/f2d/953/united-states-v-gardiner. I don't know why you had such a hard time finding it.
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Articles/MathesVCIR1978.htm
http://openjurist.org/638/f2d/182/united-states-v-a-rickman
Wilson you can find mentioned in this document, making my argument: http://img541.imageshack.us/img541/5240/doc10motiontostrikememo.pdf. The citation is apparently only in a commercial database.
http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/Wangrud.htm
Unfortunately, I cannot find a public source for Maxwell or Darcy. I obtained the text through a university subscription.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
OK now what parts of those cases .....available to the public.......excluding the ones you can't source and the Fed does not bother to source....."make your argument" that were not a part of the Milam decision as well?
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Maybe while those cases are getting sourced and thought are gathered on them by the person that asserts they are meaningful we could get back to original intent of the thread.
Obama fixed the deficit. lol
So what? How does that affect when we will operate at a surplus again? That date move towards now or later? Everyone thinks Obama was....LOLOLO sorry is, this great Economic genius...who will be the next Andrew Jackson and remind us how wealthy we are operating at a surplus? Even though Lincoln created a defacto Congress when the Southern states walked out, at least he refused to bend over to the bankers interest rates........ Are Economists silly enough to still think things are better off economically when we operate as a debtor nation?The Debt is the problem................
Who owes the Debt and where do they get the money to pay it from? What forms of payment are accepted for payment of the Debt? Aren't you glad we are grown ups now and know why Debt has a capital 'D'? So you owe it and I owe it ultimately correct?
So even though you (tokeprep) draw from the public couffer (as if such a thing still exists in reality) and I contrubute to it as evidenced by your admission you know I am a "grocery" boy.....single, no kids I would add.....and your admission you "worked for legislature", you think you have authority over me on the matter? That gives you title and standing above me on the subject which happens to be my real effort actual manual labor?
I am not saying legislature does not contribute real effort in their work either; I fully recognize mental work and intellectual work in artists and other thinkers just that their work is paid by mine which makes them DEPENDENT thinkers hardly artist or intellectuals IMHO most of them..... their work is supposedly authoritative to mine; their decisions are generally accepted to override mine; this is the reality of it;..... they therefore use me as an engine to claim authority over me and use me an the engine that also exercises that authority........the complete opposite of freedom in a free country. Factually this is servitude and lawfully you cannot be compelled into servitude.
It's basically slavery in that I would be slave to the majority opinion of Congress if endorsed by the President. The Democracy is Congress.. LOL ask your rep if he refers to "our democracy" and why he would do such a thing.
In any case I can't see any dispute as to who owes the public debt (no capitalization needed there neat rule huh?).
Obama fixed the deficit. lol
So what? How does that affect when we will operate at a surplus again? That date move towards now or later? Everyone thinks Obama was....LOLOLO sorry is, this great Economic genius...who will be the next Andrew Jackson and remind us how wealthy we are operating at a surplus? Even though Lincoln created a defacto Congress when the Southern states walked out, at least he refused to bend over to the bankers interest rates........ Are Economists silly enough to still think things are better off economically when we operate as a debtor nation?The Debt is the problem................
Who owes the Debt and where do they get the money to pay it from? What forms of payment are accepted for payment of the Debt? Aren't you glad we are grown ups now and know why Debt has a capital 'D'? So you owe it and I owe it ultimately correct?
So even though you (tokeprep) draw from the public couffer (as if such a thing still exists in reality) and I contrubute to it as evidenced by your admission you know I am a "grocery" boy.....single, no kids I would add.....and your admission you "worked for legislature", you think you have authority over me on the matter? That gives you title and standing above me on the subject which happens to be my real effort actual manual labor?
I am not saying legislature does not contribute real effort in their work either; I fully recognize mental work and intellectual work in artists and other thinkers just that their work is paid by mine which makes them DEPENDENT thinkers hardly artist or intellectuals IMHO most of them..... their work is supposedly authoritative to mine; their decisions are generally accepted to override mine; this is the reality of it;..... they therefore use me as an engine to claim authority over me and use me an the engine that also exercises that authority........the complete opposite of freedom in a free country. Factually this is servitude and lawfully you cannot be compelled into servitude.
It's basically slavery in that I would be slave to the majority opinion of Congress if endorsed by the President. The Democracy is Congress.. LOL ask your rep if he refers to "our democracy" and why he would do such a thing.
In any case I can't see any dispute as to who owes the public debt (no capitalization needed there neat rule huh?).
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
"May not have been one"? Can you find one now?
Financial instruments.
Equitable instruments.
Law and equity are blended they are not the same.
The law of negotiable instruments is old international law adopted as state law and is uniform in all 50 states do we really need a federal definition? Does the court or comptroller? No. We just need the banking statute and a law dictionary after we made sure we are under proper jurisdiction, thanks George Washington.
Of course this is nonsense to you because you contend FRN's are money under UCC thus are DQd from "instruments"......might want to write a letter to the Treasury and correct them fella the comptroller of the Currency and all the banks and article 3 courts are disagreeing with you, ouch.
The comproller in that case (salman) was an authority on banks and banking statutes....negotiable instrument is used extensivly go find "negotiable instruments" in a definitions section of the code or in the statutes.....Iam betting you will not so where does the definition come from then? Oh yeah old maratime commercial int'l law of vessels contract law an extension of which the UCC is.
So the UCC was adopted in 1964 eh? Shit that makes sense cause that's when the value of the money was removed except for copper in 1982 and nickel today but copper and nickel aren't lawful money now are they?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/article1.htm#s1-102
So now answer your own question supplemental principles of what Law????