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

our great (now extinct) democrats, have turned communist. and now, they make the rules. they dont abide by them. ohbama is not an american, does not have america on his list of "who to help". its every body else he wants to help. he told us. a "LEVEL PLAYING FIELD". WHICH MEANS, "AMERICA LAST". and train our youth, to think our goverment, is our new god. no. sorry. dont work that way. this is why we are failing. the weed cannot replace our maker. he made it. not the other way.

tokeprep said:

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...

Its real simple. Because employees still take oaths of office. Period. You like to think the Constitution doesn't matter that the democracy solved the problems but the Republic did and none of your crew has the balls to amend the founding document or propose we abandon it in regards to monetary policy based in lawful bills of credit. No, instead we all pretend the bonded commercial bank notes ARE lawful bills of credit instead of maritime bills of exchange and ppl like you are falling for it in droves....good luck with that the math will catch with you sooner or later...ppl aren't that productive with endless credit and bankruptcy protection genius.

FRN's are not lawful money they are simply more whiskey to accommodate a huge hangover. They are a lot of hair of the dog that bit you.

tokeprep said:

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"?

Click to expand...

Nope simply go back to your earlier assertion the Fed is the final destination for all checks and anything resembling a check.....and remember even that local bank orders notes from the Fed branch.....also remember the Fed Act literally makes you a bank cause they are in your wallet.........but yeah keep pretending to tell me something.

tokeprep said:

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.

Click to expand...

Oh so proof of a definition by it not being previously defined and interpreted by a court of non proper jurisdiction because it was not copyrighted is not nutty..........but yeah I am the ignorant uninformed one....david merrill is a nut job right sure lol someone who takes a definition directly from the constitution and puts the word lawful in front of it, not requiring quotes just as you will notice there is no definitions section of the Constitution right? it just says money is this and that no quotes needed because it is a body of law.....its like having a tie dyed shirt and saying its a tie dyed tie dyed shirt its just retarded but this is where the foundation of your argument lies..............good good luck with that genius.

twostrokenut said:

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.

Click to expand...

There is no definition of lawful money. Not anywhere. That's the point. This has nothing to do with law and equity.

twostrokenut said:

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.

Click to expand...

Congress is going to spend money anyway. That's about interest groups and campaigns, not the monetary system.

twostrokenut said:

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??

Click to expand...

I'll give you a prime example.

US v. Rickman: "Defendant argues that the Federal Reserve Notes in which he was paid were not lawful money within the meaning of Art. 1, s 8, United States Constitution. We have held to the contrary. United States v. Ware, 10 Cir., 608 F.2d 400, 402-403. We find no validity in the distinction which defendant draws between “lawful money” and “legal tender.” ... In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money. Defendant received Federal Reserve Notes when he cashed his pay checks and used those notes to pay his personal expenses. He obtained and used lawful money."

Your answer to this case is that Rickman endorsed the notes under commercial law without protesting, blah blah blah, and thus agreed to be party to the fiat money currency system. Lovely, but that's adding a whole lot of stuff to the court's opinion. And it makes no sense.

The court here tells you straight up that there is no distinction between legal money and legal tender. Yeah, yeah, "defendant draws," but guess what, Rickman is making the same argument you are: Federal Reserve Notes are merely legal tender not lawful money, like United States Notes. That's what the court is calling bullshit, saying there's no difference today. Then the court tell us that Rickman obtained and used lawful money. He never made a demand, he didn't have a restrictive endorsement on his checks, but he received Federal Reserve Notes when he cashed his checks. How did he obtain and use lawful money, then, if lawful money is your congressional "definition"?

This is why it's crackpot. You're rewriting court opinions and ignoring inconvenient segments. This court case is saying exactly what I just told you, and yet you're going to come back telling me that I just don't understand. You're going to highlight the line that says "Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are...redeemable in lawful money" and ignore the line that says "He obtained and used lawful money" getting Federal Reserve Notes. Your reading makes no sense.

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......

Click to expand...

Law and equity is irrelevant. The tax court has to follow the law, and that's the whole point.

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.

Click to expand...

I said people had no choice and you told me people had a choice. It has nothing to do with them being lawful and it never did--the whole issue was practicality. If it's impractical, then you effectively have no choice but to do something else.

twostrokenut said:

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.

Click to expand...

That's actually not true. Some states retain common law marriage, but only a handful, and they have marriage license statutes additionally. The rest of the states have marriage statutes. So marriage is generally something governed by statute--it has nothing to do with the common law.

The marriage benefits are statutory benefits. If being married would reduce my income tax payment, that's a statutory marriage benefit originating from the Internal Revenue Code. It has nothing to do with equity.

The government doesn't have the authority to grant rights, the constitution has the authority to grant rights. The supreme court decision that just invalidated DOMA did so on the basis of due process and equal protection, as I've already stated. The right to marry, for all people, is based on the due process clause.

twostrokenut said:

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.

Click to expand...

You're the one who told me to go see David Merrill for more information. David Merrill is a pathological tax protestor who has been part of publicizing multiple different tax protest schemes; this is just the latest iteration in a never-ending stream of tax protestor crackpot bullshit. The courts inevitably dismiss every argument they make and send them to the curb to seek a new theory to justify their rampant and willful tax evasion.

Whenever tokeprep is challenged to think and research he just calls you a name.....

Click to expand...

I never called you a tax protestor, I called David Merrill a tax protestor. I never accused you of not paying taxes. David Merrill is rather up front about not paying taxes, telling you how you should set up an evidence repository in case the IRS ever comes after you.

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.........

Click to expand...

I have no idea what you're talking about. What jurisdictions did I skip? I gave you a mixture of federal district, circuit, and tax court cases. I've already said this multiple times, so I don't understand why you're telling me I failed to identify anything.

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.

Click to expand...

I called the argument tax protestor bullshit because that's what it is. Not paying taxes is the Christ, Twostroke, and redemption is the Christianity. Christianity is built on Christ--it cannot exist without him. This redemption nonsense would not exist had it not been constructed by tax protestors to justify their willful tax evasion. It would just be one of countless anachronisms in the code that no one ever pays attention to because the meaning is well settled as a matter of law.

I didn't mention Erie, I mentioned the Reverse Eric doctrine. That's not Erie. Most of the cases were presented by me. Go back and look for yourself, genius. You only posted a few; I posted nearly a dozen.

twostrokenut said:

Its real simple. Because employees still take oaths of office. Period.

Click to expand...

Which employees, where? And so what? An oath of office has nothing to do with a jurisdiction statute telling us when federal courts can hear admiralty cases.

You like to think the Constitution doesn't matter that the democracy solved the problems but the Republic did and none of your crew has the balls to amend the founding document or propose we abandon it in regards to monetary policy based in lawful bills of credit. No, instead we all pretend the bonded commercial bank notes ARE lawful bills of credit instead of maritime bills of exchange and ppl like you are falling for it in droves....good luck with that the math will catch with you sooner or later...ppl aren't that productive with endless credit and bankruptcy protection genius.

FRN's are not lawful money they are simply more whiskey to accommodate a huge hangover. They are a lot of hair of the dog that bit you.

Click to expand...

The constitution doesn't prohibit our present monetary system, so why would it be amended? The courts have held that congress has the power to establish the monetary system that it has. That's the law. Period. Whether you like it or not, the courts are empowered in our constitutional system to make decisions about what is constitutional and unconstitutional, and they have concluded that the congress' delegation of power to the Fed was constitutional, and that Federal Reserve Notes are not "unconstitutional money." Done.

Source your claim that Federal Reserve Notes are "maritime bills of exchange." Thanks.

twostrokenut said:

Nope simply go back to your earlier assertion the Fed is the final destination for all checks and anything resembling a check.....and remember even that local bank orders notes from the Fed branch.....also remember the Fed Act literally makes you a bank cause they are in your wallet.........but yeah keep pretending to tell me something.

Click to expand...

Except the Federal Reserve Act specifically defines words like "bank" and "federal reserve bank." The act does not say that you are a bank because the notes are in your wallet. By all means, show me where the act says otherwise. You will not succeed, because it says no such thing.

A check is not a Federal Reserve Note. Presenting a check with an endorsement to the Fed is not presenting Federal Reserve Notes for redemption--they don't cash the check, they just move electronic balances between banks. No Federal Reserve Notes. When the bank requests notes from the reserve bank, they don't post that check with a restrictive endorsement as collateral, so how is that relevant at all? It's not.

twostrokenut said:

Oh so proof of a definition by it not being previously defined and interpreted by a court of non proper jurisdiction because it was not copyrighted is not nutty..........but yeah I am the ignorant uninformed one....david merrill is a nut job right sure lol someone who takes a definition directly from the constitution and puts the word lawful in front of it, not requiring quotes just as you will notice there is no definitions section of the Constitution right? it just says money is this and that no quotes needed because it is a body of law.....its like having a tie dyed shirt and saying its a tie dyed tie dyed shirt its just retarded but this is where the foundation of your argument lies..............good good luck with that genius.

Click to expand...

I already told you to drop the tax court cases. Look at all of the other cases if you please and limit your discussion to those, because you're totally ignoring all of the other cases in favor of continuing to diss the tax courts. Since I asked you to do this several pages ago, I don't understand why you haven't moved on.

As for money being in quotes--you've got to tell me where that's relevant. I've given you court decisions with and without quotations, from courts other than the tax court. Since they use the phrases in exactly the same context, the quotations cannot possibly have the significant you ascribe to them.

Indeed, I posted another court decision in a totally unrelated case making fun of people for believing that capitalization of their names was significant. They basically said "The court feels obliged to tell the defendant that not everything he's read on the internet is true." Guess who's a big proponent of the capitalization-in-your-name-has-legal-significance theory? That's right, David Merrill. Indeed, in his speaking materials--yeah, that's right, he's a paid speaker on the lecture circuit with no conflict of interest in this whatsoever, rest assured--he even writes his name that way. But let me guess, the court didn't mean what it said, right? Name capitalization actually is legally significant just like David Merrill told us, right?

Federal Reserve Notes for Federal Reserve Notes should make total sense to you when you realize that there is nothing but fiat money left in existence. The government has nothing to give you. There are at least $1.2 trillion Federal Reserve Notes outstanding; there are only $300 million in United States Notes authorized, with only $61 million available for issue. Technically, the government could redeem your Federal Reserve Notes for United States Notes, absolutely, because the statute authorizing the latter says they are lawful money, and Federal Reserve Notes are redeemable in lawful money. But since the treasury can only print $61 million in United States Notes, they'd run out real fast, and they aren't obligated to redeem in any specific kind of lawful money, just lawful money. Even with United States Notes, the note is just fiat paper.

tokeprep said:

Congress is going to spend money anyway. That's about interest groups and campaigns, not the monetary system.

Click to expand...

Let's get started fresh here and eliminate the more complicated equity parts cause this is the culmination ov everything we have been discussing. Again cell keypad and all the cases r dun to death Ijust saw rickman on the screen really?

Is our government really set up for congress to just "spend money anyway"? You really think that? You know we are at the debt ceiling with no buget right? You know government is funded by the people as a check and balance on government right? You know congress used to need constituancy approval for voting......also constitutional approval... and congress ppl were certainly in dishonor if they had to take whoever NONCONGRESSIONAL author of legislations word for what the "complicated" legislation as good reason to vote yes....right?

How can you not see it is congress that is out of hand and court needs your help to slap it down court can't be party to suit I reckon, right?

So you have congress contracting in equity with the world bank let's face it the fed is bedfellowes with the imf.....in effect creating its own currency that is merely legal not lawful....then this currency is expanded or quite literally drafted apon serving as its own reserve and you fail to see how the final check "clearinghous"'s notes are literally checks drawn on their lawful reserves which are then drawn on the us.....so congress makes its own money its own laws its own courts and you think voting will ever make this fair?

You simply accept congress ultimate supreme funny money ruler of the universe gets to tell you how the laws panned out really sorry didn't even sign this letter that had nothing to do with your question partner but thanks for letting me "serve you"? This is just reality in tokeprep land? Man that
sounds fukkin awful for the congress by the congress!

That's why you can't see it right there it absolutely is ALL ABOUT THE MONETARY SYSTEM.....its the source of abused power you know it.

that's ridiculous rickman says frns are legal tender.....the decision can't uphold congress and assign a new attribute at the same time that's retardation.......law and equity are blended though so court is free to assume defendant knows the difference since defendant spouted lawful money.......court found no validity in defendants distinction but court is not obliged to explain equity to you.....especially if you fail to ask them to per the 6th amendment genius why should they everybody's getting paid and ignorance is no excuse genius.

tokeprep said:

That's actually not true. Some states retain common law marriage, but only a handful, and they have marriage license statutes additionally. The rest of the states have marriage statutes. So marriage is generally something governed by statute--it has nothing to do with the common law.

The marriage benefits are statutory benefits. If being married would reduce my income tax payment, that's a statutory marriage benefit originating from the Internal Revenue Code. It has nothing to do with equity.

The government doesn't have the authority to grant rights, the constitution has the authority to grant rights. The supreme court decision that just invalidated DOMA did so on the basis of due process and equal protection, as I've already stated. The right to marry, for all people, is based on the due process clause.

Click to expand...

So the constitution grants the right so who wrote the constitution? You did. You grant your own rights that's the big secret. You keep it in common law by demanding it as remedy...you go into equity to seek financial gain in the form of lower tax payments so using your logic you are a tax protestor screaming you have a "right" to pay lower taxes than 2 singles.....pretty weird I would fail to recognize equity too on purpose for financial gain just as congress does bravo tokeprep see didn't even have to slam cristians or homo's to make that point that's called having grown up discourse big guy no name calling your rents or whatever should have taught you better.

twostrokenut said:

Let's get started fresh here and eliminate the more complicated equity parts cause this is the culmination ov everything we have been discussing. Again cell keypad and all the cases r dun to death Ijust saw rickman on the screen really?

Click to expand...

You should bother to read it.

Is our government really set up for congress to just "spend money anyway"? You really think that? You know we are at the debt ceiling with no buget right? You know government is funded by the people as a check and balance on government right?

Click to expand...

The government is funded by the federal government's tax power, which was written into the constitution when the previous government dependent on voluntary contributions found itself destitute. The right of the people to control government spending can only be exercised by voting for politicians who will actually manage it well, because congress has the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States--backed by its tax power--and congress has the power to appropriate that money as it pleases.

You know congress used to need constituancy approval for voting......also constitutional approval... and congress ppl were certainly in dishonor if they had to take whoever NONCONGRESSIONAL author of legislations word for what the "complicated" legislation as good reason to vote yes....right?

How can you not see it is congress that is out of hand and court needs your help to slap it down court can't be party to suit I reckon, right?

Click to expand...

I think the congress is a disturbing example of what results from rampant gerrymandering, political ignorance, and general indifference on the part of the American people. But we have the power to vote these people in and out, as well as the power to stop gerrymandering, to not be ignorant, and to not be indifferent about issues that actually affect all of us. Congress is a abomination and out of control, certainly, but that's on us, its keepers.

So you have congress contracting in equity with the world bank let's face it the fed is bedfellowes with the imf.....in effect creating its own currency that is merely legal not lawful....then this currency is expanded or quite literally drafted apon serving as its own reserve and you fail to see how the final check "clearinghous"'s notes are literally checks drawn on their lawful reserves which are then drawn on the us.....so congress makes its own money its own laws its own courts and you think voting will ever make this fair?

Click to expand...

See, this is crazy. Federal Reserve Notes were authorized by the congress in 1913, long before the World Bank or IMF were created. And there was no "contract in equity." Those organizations were established by international agreements between world governments. There's no such thing as an "international contract in equity." International agreements aren't regulated by the legal system of individual member signatories.

The Fed clearinghouse doesn't involve notes. Electronic amounts are debited and credited as a result of the checks; the bank pays Federal Reserve Notes out of the currency it has on hand. Money is constantly going out of the bank, yes, but money is also constantly coming back into the bank. All checks are not "drawn on the US." Money mostly just shifts between people through economic activity: you get paid, you spend or deposit money, the people you paid deposit or spend it, the person they paid deposits or spends it.

You simply accept congress ultimate supreme funny money ruler of the universe gets to tell you how the laws panned out really sorry didn't even sign this letter that had nothing to do with your question partner but thanks for letting me "serve you"? This is just reality in tokeprep land? Man that
sounds fukkin awful for the congress by the congress!

Click to expand...

I merely accept that congress exercises the powers we gave it in the constitution unless and until we alter it. If the people want to change the monetary system, they have two options:

1) They can amend the constitution to specify something about the monetary system, which would render the Federal Reserve Act void.
2) All they need to do is elect a congress that will repeal the Federal Reserve Act. Done. Any court interpretation of the Federal Reserve Act will vanish, the Fed will vanish, and congress will be free to craft something else.

twostrokenut said:

That's why you can't see it right there it absolutely is ALL ABOUT THE MONETARY SYSTEM.....its the source of abused power you know it.

Click to expand...

It's about money, not the monetary system. Money is the source of power. Congress would have money regardless of the existence of the Fed; it was the income tax that enabled the explosive growth of the federal government, not the creation of the Fed. The income tax would existence regardless of the monetary system, and yes, congress would certainly collect and spend the money abusively, just as they always have and just as they probably always will. That's the nature of politics.

tokeprep said:

Which employees, where? And so what? An oath of office has nothing to do with a jurisdiction statute telling us when federal courts can hear admiralty cases.



The constitution doesn't prohibit our present monetary system, so why would it be amended? The courts have held that congress has the power to establish the monetary system that it has. That's the law. Period. Whether you like it or not, the courts are empowered in our constitutional system to make decisions about what is constitutional and unconstitutional, and they have concluded that the congress' delegation of power to the Fed was constitutional, and that Federal Reserve Notes are not "unconstitutional money." Done.

Source your claim that Federal Reserve Notes are "maritime bills of exchange." Thanks.

Click to expand...

I will get right on that massa sir hold ur breath while I do your bidding sire don't hit with internet words too hard massa imma work fasta....shove it dude try not to enjoy it too much plenty of ppl left on riu to correct ur nonesense I've reached the end of it all.

twostrokenut said:

that's ridiculous rickman says frns are legal tender.....the decision can't uphold congress and assign a new attribute at the same time that's retardation.......law and equity are blended though so court is free to assume defendant knows the difference since defendant spouted lawful money.......court found no validity in defendants distinction but court is not obliged to explain equity to you.....especially if you fail to ask them to per the 6th amendment genius why should they everybody's getting paid and ignorance is no excuse genius.

Click to expand...

Yes, Rickman did say Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender. In the very same breath, the court said other things: "Defendant received Federal Reserve Noteswhen he cashed his pay checks and used those notes to pay his personal expenses. He obtained and used lawful money." That's that. He got Federal Reserve Notes--he obtained and used lawful money. Period. This isn't the tax court saying it either, it's the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Ouch.

This has nothing to do with law and equity being blended. Absolutely nothing. The fact that you just wrote that above means that you haven't absorbed anything from the discussions of law and equity had in this thread. You're still repeating inaccurate assertions about what the concepts even mean.