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

twostrokenut said:

This note is a contract that reads "The United States of Amererica will pay to the bearer on demand five dollars redeemable in gold or lawful money".
It is not five dollars, it is not gold and it is not lawful money....and is no longer redeemable in gold or silver but still an obligation for lawful money and five dollars none the less.

Click to expand...

Except it's not a contract at all. The note says that because legislation provided for it; that legislation could be modified at any time, and it was.

This note bears the same contract and is not redeemable in lawful money, or gold anymore....iirc 37th congress provided for redemption in bonds in $50 incriments (as they are aware this is still a fiat debt instrument)

Click to expand...

The 37th congress didn't provide for any redemption in bonds. Instead the statute said that United States Notes could be converted into bonds in some circumstances.

This is a Certificate that Certifies one Silver Dollar is on deposit at Treasury which means this is not an "instrument" and this is non negotiable.....although it is a demand certificate.

Click to expand...

It wouldn't have been a negotiable instrument because it would satisfy the definition of "money" in the UCC.

twostrokenut said:

Lol here's a case affirming fed notes negotiable instruments....it is us v salman

" A Federal Reserve note is a negotiable instrument-it can “pass from hand to hand, either by delivery or indorsement, giving to each successive recipient a right against the debtor.” Thomas E. Holland, The Elements of Jurisprudence 315-16 (13th ed.1924)."

" Ted Reusser, a bank examiner with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency of the Department of the Treasury, testified at Salman's trial that sight drafts are commonly nonnegotiable and that labeling a sight draft nonnegotiable does not render it invalid, but merely places “some limitations on how [it] can be passed around if people play by the rules.” 3 Therefore, a sight draft, unlike a Federal Reserve note, is not necessarily a member of the negotiable class of financial instruments......"

But wait I already know the reply.....that's irrelevant eh?

Click to expand...

US v. Salman calls Federal Reserve Notes negotiable. Definition of "negotiable": "transferable from one person to another by being delivered with or without endorsement so that the title passes to the transferee." Federal Reserve Notes are certainly negotiable. That has never been in dispute--people trade notes for goods and services all the time.

That does not make Federal Reserve Notes "negotiable instruments" under Article 3 of the UCC. Evidently you don't understand the distinction.

twostrokenut said:

The contract is whatever...the note is a contract....the fed act is a contract....ss trust is a contract whatever....a contract must exist the fact the notes are elastic, negotiable and there is literally no "profit" sitting in treasury is evidence of contract......

Click to expand...

Then you don't know what a "contract" is. Legislation is not a contract because congress or the courts can modify it as they please with no consequences whatsoever. If that's the case, you have no contract. When the government promised to redeem your notes in gold, that's all it was: an unenforceable and voluntary promise that could be withdrawn at will by changing the law.

The Fed is following the law that congress passed until congress changes it, not operating under a contract.

Redemption "scheme"?? So congress is scheming then? So proir to 1933 why did supreme court uphold wages as not "income" then?

Click to expand...

I specifically said in my post that the "scheme" is United States Notes tax protestor bullshit, not the statute.

As for "wages" not being "income" prior to 1933, which supreme court case are you talking about?

You are pushing your tax protestor bullshit argument to evade the discussion at hand lawful money being non taxable is a complete aside to this discussion and you know it....this discussion is about why frns are debt instruments and carry interest as you (tokeprep)have erroneously insisted they are not......having claimed complete authority on the matter no less........which is a huge liability you have assumed in this discussion then you reckon its on me to explain everything for you; its on the person that claims authority to justify the authority then the subject matter......I have claimed zero authority but provided sources for all evidence you are simply wrong about what the bank notes are in federal law merchant....and what they are in Law....commercial law is the law of contracts and fed notes are commercial instruments simple as that.

Click to expand...

I've addressed everything you said and refuted all of it in detail. You cannot possibly accuse me of evading anything. The main problem here is that you just have no clue about any of what you're addressing. This paragraph is a perfect example!

1) We went over debt monetization a long time ago. No interest and no debt from the process--never. That's exactly why printing money is supposedly evil, and yet you deny that it's even a reality.
2) The "law merchant" in the United States is the UCC, which is enacted solely in state law. The only "law merchant" you're going to find at the federal level are statutes related to admiralty.
3) "Commercial law" is commercial law. The "law of contracts" is a totally separate body of law.

Of course, I agree with you that Federal Reserve Notes are commercial instruments. They're constantly used to facilitate commerce.

Congress did not delegate its money powers in the fed act go ahead and piece together quotes from the act to that effect and reckon how us notes, coins, bonds and treasuries figure into that ficticious assertion, thanks.

Click to expand...

I didn't mean that congress delegated all of its powers. My point was that congress delegated its power by law; it signed no contract.

twostrokenut said:

the federal reserve act makes clear there are no such obligations??? Lol the food stamp program makes clear it is to provide healthy food and proper nutrition...having worked in grocery stores for some time I can't count the number of fatties I have counted swiping a benefits card purchasing buggies full of soft drinks and junk food.....ya we know how much the fed chairman makes so what?

Click to expand...

Since corporate law is state law enacted solely at the state level and the Fed is not established as such a corporation, you cannot argue that the Fed has traditional obligations to its shareholders. It has only the obligations specified in the federal law that created it, which is the Federal Reserve Act.

Congress is a 16 year old girl with a credit card and has charged anything her heart desires......this is corruption and deception on the highest level.

When you get a loan the big secret is the note you sign is the actual money bonded by your substance or "promise to pay". Without your signature on the note there is nothing to loan you. You provide the consideration on both sides of the contract and you pay the debt as well. Without your siggy the bank has nothing to give you....without your siggy you have nothing to give them.....consideration must be provided on both sides to be lawful.

The catch 22 is that this is a "benefit" offered by statute. It literally is the same benefit congress enjoys to get their loans on demand....they do it and we do it.

If you borrow 1k from a bank your signed promise to pay 1k is the money.....bank deposits the money and creates 1k in banknotes representing the money for you to "benefit" from.....if you pay back the banknotes the original money you signed is retired and the books are balanced leaving no money and you scrounging for interest....but there's not any so you must default and forfeit your work and property.

This system is the antithesis of property rights because now the bank can repo whatever you "purchased" with the 1k.....having provided no consideration. This would be a "seizure on land" resulting from equity contract based on false consideration.....unless the bank was honest and disclosed all this to you which they didn't but hey you never asked either now did you?

So where is the remedy written in for this transaction? 12usc411 of course, unless of course your bank lent you something other than federal reserve notes....which were literally negotiated into existence when signed the loan.... pffft kaapow.

Click to expand...

When you borrow money from a bank, you sign an agreement to pay the money back, and that is certainly a contract. Everything else you said is ridiculous. You want to know why the bank needs your signature on loan documents and why they will never loan you money without it? Because they need to be able to take you to court in the event that you don't pay, and they need evidence that you actually borrowed money from them and owe it to them in order to win. That's it. Period. Indeed, the courts have addressed your claims:

McGregor v. Wells Fargo Bank: "In Demmler v. Bank One NA, No. 2:05–cv–322, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9409, at *10 (S.D.Ohio Mar. 9, 2006) the court considered allegations similar to those made in the instant case: “Plaintiff alleges that the promissory note he executed is the equivalent of ‘money’ that he gave to the bank. He contends that Bank One took his ‘money,’ i.e., the promissory note, deposited it into its own account without his permission, listed it as an ‘asset’ on its ledger entries, and then essentially lent his own money back to him.” The court considered the allegations “patently ludicrous” and noted that “imilar arguments have been rejected by federal courts across the country...see also Thomas v.Countrywide Home Loans, No. 2:09–CV–00082–RWS, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29553, at *4 (N.D.Ga. Mar.29, 2010) (referring to “vapor theory” or “unlawful money” theory as “frivolous” and adopting the court's discussion in Thomas v. Countrywide Home Loans, Civil Action No. 1:09–CV–1386–WBH (N.D.Ga. Sept. 15, 2009), where the court noted the unanimous rejection of the theory and observed that the theory “is viable only if the Court accepts Plaintiff[s'] assertion that when they gave Countrywide the promissory note, they gave it their ‘money,’ which Countrywide simply lent back to them.”

Everything you just said about how banks lend money is total bullshit that you cannot possibly source or support with facts. If you don't like the way that particular case said it, I've got a dozen others that reach exactly the same conclusion.

twostrokenut said:

Ted Reusser, being a bank examiner for the Comptroller of the Currency tells us that restrictive indorsment of an instrument with simple verbage indicating such places "limitations on how it can be passed around if people play by the rules."......the "people" that may "play by the rules" are bankers.....cause Ted is a bank examiner.

Click to expand...

It's absolutely true that restrictive endorsements affect what banks can do. If you sign a check and write that it can only be deposited in a certain numbered account, the bank cannot deposit it to any other account.

If you write "Redeemable in Lawful Money Pursuant to 12 USC 411" on your checks, it's legally meaningless because Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money. That's why banks permit people to do it--their lawyers told them it was totally meaningless. Every time you cash a check a check, you're getting lawful money.

Tokeprep;9322912]It's absolutely true that restrictive endorsements affect what banks can do. If you sign a check and write that it can only be deposited in a certain numbered account, the bank cannot deposit it to any other account.

If you write "Redeemable in Lawful Money Pursuant to 12 USC 411" on your checks, it's legally meaningless because Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money. That's why banks permit people to do it--their lawyers told them it was totally meaningless. Every time you cash a check a check, you're getting lawful money.[/QUOTE]

I will address the last point for now....you literally just said your check IS frns.....and a check is an "instrument" so chase your tail for a while more.....restrictive indorsement only affects instruments you can't restrictivly endorse a us note, savings bond or silver coin.......federal law merchant is alive and well....ucc is a patchwork of contract admiralty law that facilitates the supremacy clause.....catch your tail yet?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/417

12 USC § 417 - Custody and safe-keeping of notes issued to and collateral deposited with Reserve agent



"All Federal Reserve notes and all gold certificates, Special Drawing Right certificates, and lawful money issued to or deposited with any Federal Reserve agent under the provisions of the Federal Reserve Act shall hereafter be held for such agent, under such rules and regulations as the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System may prescribe, in the joint custody of himself and the Federal Reserve bank to which he is accredited. Such agent and such Federal Reserve bank shall be jointly liable for the safe-keeping of such Federal Reserve notes, gold certificates, Special Drawing Right certificates, and lawful money. Nothing herein contained, however, shall be construed to prohibit a Federal Reserve agent from depositing gold certificates and Special Drawing Right certificates with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, to be held by such Board subject to his order, or with the Treasurer of the United States for the purposes authorized by law."


The colored items are distinct from each other since we are in grade school now

The FRN's in this section are treated as collateral....or reserves.

twostrokenut said:

I will address the last point for now....you literally just said your check IS frns.....and a check is an "instrument" so chase your tail for a while more.....restrictive indorsement only affects instruments you can't restrictivly endorse a us note, savings bond or silver coin.......

Click to expand...

I literally said no such thing. I said when you cash a check you get Federal Reserve Notes.

You can't restrictively endorse Federal Reserve Notes either, so I have no idea where you're trying to go with that. A check is the only thing you can restrictively endorse, and a check is a check, not a Federal Reserve Note.

federal law merchant is alive and well....ucc is a patchwork of contract admiralty law that facilitates the supremacy clause.....catch your tail yet?

Click to expand...

Oh yeah? Where is it then? Thanks.

The UCC is not "a patchwork of contract admiralty law." I have no idea what that's even supposed to mean. The UCC is commercial law, not admiralty law at all. Admiralty is its own universe of law, something you apparently still cannot grasp.

twostrokenut said:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/417

12 USC § 417 - Custody and safe-keeping of notes issued to and collateral deposited with Reserve agent

"All Federal Reserve notes and all gold certificates, Special Drawing Right certificates, and lawful money issued to or deposited with any Federal Reserve agent under the provisions of the Federal Reserve Act shall hereafter be held for such agent, under such rules and regulations as the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System may prescribe, in the joint custody of himself and the Federal Reserve bank to which he is accredited. Such agent and such Federal Reserve bank shall be jointly liable for the safe-keeping of such Federal Reserve notes, gold certificates, Special Drawing Right certificates, and lawful money. Nothing herein contained, however, shall be construed to prohibit a Federal Reserve agent from depositing gold certificates and Special Drawing Right certificates with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, to be held by such Board subject to his order, or with the Treasurer of the United States for the purposes authorized by law."

The colored items are distinct from each other since we are in grade school now

The FRN's in this section are treated as collateral....or reserves.

Click to expand...

Just one problem with your argument here: that statute was written in 1917, when "Federal Reserve Notes" and "lawful money" were actually legally distinct things. For the more than fifty years the government linked currency to precious metals after congress wrote that statute, it was significant. You're correct that for the duration of that period Federal Reserve Notes were not lawful money, merely legal tender. I agree 100%. When the link to precious metals was entirely abandoned, though, any text that presumed such links became an anachronism. The things ceased to be distinct and the courts have consistently confirmed this to be true.

tokeprep said:

Just one problem with your argument here: that statute was written in 1917, when "Federal Reserve Notes" and "lawful money" were actually legally distinct things. For the more than fifty years the government linked currency to precious metals after congress wrote that statute, it was significant. You're correct that for the duration of that period Federal Reserve Notes were not lawful money, merely legal tender. I agree 100%. When the link to precious metals was entirely abandoned, though, any text that presumed such links became an anachronism. The things ceased to be distinct and the courts have consistently confirmed this to be true.

Click to expand...

A civil conversation.

Just a little problem with your argument ....that distinction that you are linking to gold and silver.....is still very distinct in current law....even though redemption in specie is over.

That distinction is Law.

That distinction has not been blended or mis construed in any court competent to establish case law on the distinction.....the distiction was upheld every time....and
infact is current law.

Think about it. The bailout of East India company sparked our nation...lawful money is a rock solid founding principle not a loose end for housekeeping.

twostrokenut said:

A civil conversation.

Just a little problem with your argument ....that distinction that you are linking to gold and silver.....is still very distinct in current law....even though redemption in specie is over.

That distinction is Law.

Click to expand...

What current law are you talking about where there's a distinction? If you want to redeem your silver certificate or your United States Note, all you're going to get is Federal Reserve Notes.

That distinction has not been blended or mis construed in any court competent to establish case law on the distinction.....the distiction was upheld every time....and
infact is current law.

Think about it. The bailout of East India company sparked our nation...lawful money is a rock solid founding principle not a loose end for housekeeping.

Click to expand...

Which case says that lawful money and Federal Reserve Notes are distinct things in modern times? We had quite a big list, and I don't remember any saying that.

tokeprep said:

What current law are you talking about where there's a distinction? If you want to redeem your silver certificate or your United States Note, all you're going to get is Federal Reserve Notes.



Which case says that lawful money and Federal Reserve Notes are distinct things in modern times? We had quite a big list, and I don't remember any saying that.

Click to expand...

Current laws with distinction? Top of my head, wild guess 12usc411, other sections of title 12....and 31usc5115 also Rickman yeah that's law too and Milam upholds the distinction as well.

You want to redeem a silver certificate for anything? You are SOL you had a time frame for that and the window is closed sorry it is a banking emergency you did not protest.

Lawful Money is seperation from The Crown in history.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00VZdnmy-KU
[youtube]00VZdnmy-KU[/youtube]

twostrokenut said:

Current laws with distinction? Top of my head, wild guess 12usc411, other sections of title 12....and 31usc5115 also Rickman yeah that's law too and Milam upholds the distinction as well.

Click to expand...

The text of the statute was written when the distinction still existed. You cannot ignore that redemption for precious metals was subsequently ended, and that all currency was made equivalent and redeemable solely for Federal Reserve Notes.

If you mean Rickman and Milam state that United States Notes and Federal Reserve Notes are distinct things, I agree. They do not say that legal tender and lawful money are distinct; they do not say Federal Reserve Notes are not lawful money. The distinction is irrelevant.

You want to redeem a silver certificate for anything? You are SOL you had a time frame for that and the window is closed sorry it is a banking emergency you did not protest.

Lawful Money is seperation from The Crown in history.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the game's over, that's the point. Federal Reserve Notes are all we have. There is no magic currency conversion by redemption.

tokeprep said:

The text of the statute was written when the distinction still existed. You cannot ignore that redemption for precious metals was subsequently ended, and that all currency was made equivalent and redeemable solely for Federal Reserve Notes.

If you mean Rickman and Milam state that United States Notes and Federal Reserve Notes are distinct things, I agree. They do not say that legal tender and lawful money are distinct; they do not say Federal Reserve Notes are not lawful money. The distinction is irrelevant.



Yeah, the game's over, that's the point. Federal Reserve Notes are all we have. There is no magic currency conversion by redemption.

Click to expand...

The distinction still exists and does not cease to on tokepreps wishes alone........it even was updated last month by tokepreps co workers to make sure the distinction is current because as long as the currency is elastic the distinction must remain to get around the Law......

See this is the whole point right here and shows your botness outright. Factually fed notes aren't all we have not at all. So you label anyone who doesn't want to use negotiable fed notes (Salman v US) a tax protestor just because you don't understand what they are trying to do. So find everything presented here in an article 3 court case then, thanks.

I'm pretty sure you won't even find it in an article 1 court either because of the nature of the remedy is in competent jurisdiction.

Didn't you say they were getting frivolous fines?

This had nothing to do with gayness or slavery except in true "blame america" fashion when all logical arguments ceased to be.....name calling is all that's left....tax protestor wtf ever tokeprep what has that label to do with this law argument of negotiable instruments as currency? Just name calling that's all it is.

So now frns are all we have lol wow hard to argue with delusions....fed notes are all we have for large commercial transactions.....can't micro manage the markets and make congress gift giving, "right" endowwing genies without them.....and your ignorance is what facillitates it all....peace out... nothing left to say here to you about it.

twostrokenut said:

The distinction still exists and does not cease to on tokepreps wishes alone........it even was updated last month by tokepreps co workers to make sure the distinction is current because as long as the currency is elastic the distinction must remain to get around the Law......

Click to expand...

Oh, no, you're just an idiot. I already explained to you what it means for the code to be "updated." If you still can't grasp it, there's nothing left to do but call you an idiot. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, you don't try to independently confirm anything you say or believe, you have horrible reading comprehension skills, and you don't even seem to make a serious effort to actually understand anything at all. By your own account you work in a grocery store and have absolutely no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

I'm not going to repeat what it means for the code to be "updated" if you're just going to ignore it and continue sounding like an idiot. That's on you. Anything who knows about about the code and the structure of the American legal system sees that you are utterly clueless, flailing desperately.

See this is the whole point right here and shows your botness outright. Factually fed notes aren't all we have not at all. So you label anyone who doesn't want to use negotiable fed notes (Salman v US) a tax protestor just because you don't understand what they are trying to do. So find everything presented here in an article 3 court case then, thanks.

Click to expand...

You must not have read Salman v. US, because you don't actually seem to know what the case is about. I'm not surprised--you rarely seem to read anything you refer to, aside from a paragraph or a sentence, because apparently you don't understand what "context" is.

Likewise, apparently you don't understand the difference between a thing being negotiable and being a "negotiable instrument" under the conditions of a statute.

Almost all of the cases brought up in this whole discussion are opinions from Article III courts with precedential effect. Find what? I can re-paste the list again if you like.

I'm pretty sure you won't even find it in an article 1 court either because of the nature of the remedy is in competent jurisdiction.

Click to expand...

Made-up pseudo-legal crackpot nonsense that doesn't actually mean anything at all. But apparently you aren't capable of comprehending that.

Didn't you say they were getting frivolous fines?

Click to expand...

$5,000 penalties for making frivolous arguments rejected by the courts. Then people not only have to pay 100% of the tax they originally owed, plus interest and penalties, they also have to pay the $5,000 frivolous dispute penalty.

This had nothing to do with gayness or slavery except in true "blame america" fashion when all logical arguments ceased to be.....name calling is all that's left....tax protestor wtf ever tokeprep what has that label to do with this law argument of negotiable instruments as currency? Just name calling that's all it is.

So now frns are all we have lol wow hard to argue with delusions....fed notes are all we have for large commercial transactions.....can't micro manage the markets and make congress gift giving, "right" endowwing genies without them.....and your ignorance is what facillitates it all....peace out... nothing left to say here to you about it.

Click to expand...

Only if you don't understand the purpose of this redemption scheme, which is supposedly to avoid paying income taxes. That's it. The people who came up with this did so when their specie arguments had been firmly rejected by the courts. That's why it's tax protestor bullshit--it's baseless, ignorant, and developed entirely by non-lawyers without legal training who don't have a clue. Worst, the purveyors make their livings telling other people how to evade taxes! They aren't even disinterested!

Federal Reserve Notes are practically all we have. Get the fuck over it and accept what it is an undeniable reality. The US economy is $15 trillion a year; the debt is about $15 trillion. That $61 MILLION in United States Notes the treasury could issue? Yeah, right. I'm laughing at you because the idea is so incredibly foolish.

But that's exactly what you would expect from a fool.

tokeprep said:

Oh, no, you're just an idiot. I already explained to you what it means for the code to be "updated." If you still can't grasp it, there's nothing left to do but call you an idiot. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, you don't try to independently confirm anything you say or believe, you have horrible reading comprehension skills, and you don't even seem to make a serious effort to actually understand anything at all. By your own account you work in a grocery store and have absolutely no idea what the fuck you're talking about.



I'm not going to repeat what it means for the code to be "updated" if you're just going to ignore it and continue sounding like an idiot. That's on you. Anything who knows about about the code and the structure of the American legal system sees that you are utterly clueless, flailing desperately.


The bolded is proof who the fucking idiot is.......this token......syntax is OK but logic is way off....F nonetheless LOL LOL LOL

LOL you "worked for a Representative"LOL LOL LOL too funny like I said all you got is name calling everything you say falls flat on its ass.....your post are evidence and record of this LOL LOL LOL

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectionUScode.action?collectionCode=USCODE

"The United States Code is the codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States. It is divided by broad subjects into 51 titles and published by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives. The U.S. Code was first published in 1926. The next main edition was published in 1934, and subsequent main editions have been published every six years since 1934. In between editions, annual cumulative supplements are published in order to present the most current information."

So why would anyone need tokeprep to explain what a code update is??? No-one does... no-one asked for your explanation.



You must not have read Salman v. US, because you don't actually seem to know what the case is about. I'm not surprised--you rarely seem to read anything you refer to, aside from a paragraph or a sentence, because apparently you don't understand what "context" is.

Didn't read it did you? Must be why you got jack shit in rebuttal of what I said about it here. Unlike token I read and comprehend before I post. Salman got busted counterfeiting sight drafts and thought making them non-negotiable exemped him from prosecution based on the definition of the fictious instrument he created.....it was explained to him his instrument was fictitious however it was labeled and how it was labeled was a technicallity already addressed in case law....in Howick.....an aside was the Comptroller Ted Reusser clearly identifying FRN's as negotiable and how non-negotiable instruments are handled by banks if they "play by the rules".... now go cry in your Fruit Loops about it....here's a link anyone can read.....

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1114398.html

Likewise, apparently you don't understand the difference between a thing being negotiable and being a "negotiable instrument" under the conditions of a statute.

I understand what negotiable instrument is in Commercial Banking terms....as well as currency that comes from commercial banks, you are the one who denies it.

Comptroller of Currency does why the fuck do you think you know better is the disturbing thing here your bullshit is baseless...you have ZERO source for anything you type here, this statement is no different. Up until a few pages ago you thought State adopted UCC was new law LOLOLOLOL instead of simply an expansion of Law Merchant and other contract Law LOLOL fucking moron.

Almost all of the cases brought up in this whole discussion are opinions from Article III courts with precedential effect. Find what? I can re-paste the list again if you like.

Find what I asked for oh yeah you can't comprehend what I asked. Add Salman to your fail list now that you actually willingly admit you know what an Article III court is....you pretend to comprehend what it is at least dumb ass. Grocery Boy says Bacon?

Made-up pseudo-legal crackpot nonsense that doesn't actually mean anything at all. But apparently you aren't capable of comprehending that.

I comprehend that all you can base your opinion on is your own opinion. So what was made up other than your assertion Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money? Ever prove that? NOPE. What was made up and not well sourced besides your assertion that FRNs are non-negotiable? NOTHING. So now you use projection to make me seem as if I have your little bitch qualities in argument and defense.....I do not.

.........Pseudo legal LOL LOL what did you state to counter anything I said? Jack shit. Including slavery and gays LOL LOL not one fucking thing.

$5,000 penalties for making frivolous arguments rejected by the courts. Then people not only have to pay 100% of the tax they originally owed, plus interest and penalties, they also have to pay the $5,000 frivolous dispute penalty.

You mean all the people on saving the suitors club? The place David Merrill hangs out now? Lots of documented success there and not one instance of the fine sorry douche, another fail due to lack of research. Your claim that dude does a "circuit" and charges for information is likewise baseless but hey that's how you roll we're all used to it.

Only if you don't understand the purpose of this redemption scheme, which is supposedly to avoid paying income taxes. That's it. The people who came up with this did so when their specie arguments had been firmly rejected by the courts. That's why it's tax protestor bullshit--it's baseless, ignorant, and developed entirely by non-lawyers without legal training who don't have a clue. Worst, the purveyors make their livings telling other people how to evade taxes! They aren't even disinterested!


So how do the "purveyors" of your system make their living then? I do the grocery store thing as stated earlier, sorry what do you do again besides play the market then spend it all and bitch and complain? You don't even own a car do you own anything? How can a market master such as your self not benefit from your vast knowledge of currency and markets LOL very ironic.

So you are not a lawyer correct? Oh yeah only token gets to preach the gospel with no credentials lol what a fucking control freak hypocrite you are which is why I am finishing up my final thoughts on this subject.....

The specie arguments are what is frivolous I tried to show you that even with your own cases but you fail at comprehension so be it.......cases of specie redemption were heard way past the time specie redemption expired....yet you fail to comprehend why you can't find the case law of what we talk about here.....so be it.

You attempt to define the purpose??? The purpose of redemption is to end the Fed and return to some semblance of honest money.....literally pay off the debt by lawful accounting, obviously over your head.

Federal Reserve Notes are practically all we have. Get the fuck over it and accept what it is an undeniable reality. The US economy is $15 trillion a year; the debt is about $15 trillion. That $61 MILLION in United States Notes the treasury could issue? Yeah, right. I'm laughing at you because the idea is so incredibly foolish.

But that's exactly what you would expect from a fool.

Why would I accept your undeniable reality? I don't like Federal Reserve Notes or Cocks or any semblance of your reality moron.

See this is your problem does anyone left reading this thread need you to tell them what US GDP is??? Nope but there you go anyway.........So you think a voluntary "practical" monoply on currency that has not been properly idintified as voluntary in public discourse is acceptable and an undeniable reality that can never change?? Glad you will never re-produce right now honestly. Just as the Debt Ceiling is statutorily raised so can the limit of US Notes.....although the accounting is, and would be, dramaticlly different.

Click to expand...

Wow more name calling from the token because his arguments FAILED wow shocker.

twostrokenut said:

The bolded is proof who the fucking idiot is.......this token......syntax is OK but logic is way off....F nonetheless LOL LOL LOL

LOL you "worked for a Representative"LOL LOL LOL too funny like I said all you got is name calling everything you say falls flat on its ass.....your post are evidence and record of this LOL LOL LOL

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/coll...ionCode=USCODE

"The United States Code is the codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States. It is divided by broad subjects into 51 titles and published by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives. The U.S. Code was first published in 1926. The next main edition was published in 1934, and subsequent main editions have been published every six years since 1934. In between editions, annual cumulative supplements are published in order to present the most current information."

So why would anyone need tokeprep to explain what a code update is??? No-one does... no-one asked for your explanation.

Click to expand...

This doesn't say that the code is updated to remove all anachronisms, to reflect the interpretations of courts, or for a variety of other reasons. The code is "updated" in the sense that all the changes congress has made are included.That's what you do not comprehend.

Didn't read it did you? Must be why you got jack shit in rebuttal of what I said about it here. Unlike token I read and comprehend before I post. Salman got busted counterfeiting sight drafts and thought making them non-negotiable exemped him from prosecution based on the definition of the fictious instrument he created.....it was explained to him his instrument was fictitious however it was labeled and how it was labeled was a technicallity already addressed in case law....in Howick.....an aside was the Comptroller Ted Reusser clearly identifying FRN's as negotiable and how non-negotiable instruments are handled by banks if they "play by the rules".... now go cry in your Fruit Loops about it....here's a link anyone can read.....

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1114398.html

Click to expand...

Yes, it wasn't about tax protesting, it was about outright fraud. That's the point. I already said that Federal Reserve Notes are negotiable. I posted the definition of negotiable for you and we have no problem with that. But the case doesn't call them negotiable instruments or say that they're governed by the UCC, and that's your argument. The fact that something is "negotiable" does not make it a "negotiable instrument" under the UCC, which is obviously what you moronically seek to imply.

I understand what negotiable instrument is in Commercial Banking terms....as well as currency that comes from commercial banks, you are the one who denies it.

Comptroller of Currency does why the fuck do you think you know better is the disturbing thing here your bullshit is baseless...you have ZERO source for anything you type here, this statement is no different. Up until a few pages ago you thought State adopted UCC was new law LOLOLOLOL instead of simply an expansion of Law Merchant and other contract Law LOLOL fucking moron.

Click to expand...

Exposing your blithering ignorance again, Twostroke? You don't seem to realize--because you wouldn't have a fucking clue, never having bothered to look--that the UCC actually displaces many principles of the then-existing law merchant and law of contracts, in the various states. Indeed, the fact that it is a uniform commercial code, adopted by fifty independent states, suggests that there must have been some changes to what had then been the law in the states. Why would there be any impetus for a uniform commercial code otherwise? What you're saying makes no sense.

Find what I asked for oh yeah you can't comprehend what I asked. Add Salman to your fail list now that you actually willingly admit you know what an Article III court is....you pretend to comprehend what it is at least dumb ass. Grocery Boy says Bacon?

Click to expand...

What did you ask? I have no idea.

I comprehend that all you can base your opinion on is your own opinion. So what was made up other than your assertion Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money? Ever prove that? NOPE. What was made up and not well sourced besides your assertion that FRNs are non-negotiable? NOTHING. So now you use projection to make me seem as if I have your little bitch qualities in argument and defense.....I do not.

.........Pseudo legal LOL LOL what did you state to counter anything I said? Jack shit. Including slavery and gays LOL LOL not one fucking thing.

Click to expand...

Just all the court cases you had to rewrite for your silly little fantasy to make any sense. Magical coins, magical checks where the court doesn't mention them at all, magical lawful money somehow without the supposedly necessary demand. You ignore the cases.

Likewise, the UCC explicitly says money--without any reference whatsoever to lawful money--is not a negotiable instrument. Your silly fantasy requires otherwise, but you ignore the text of the statute and the very open-ended definition of "money" it contains in order to pretend.

You mean all the people on saving the suitors club? The place David Merrill hangs out now? Lots of documented success there and not one instance of the fine sorry douche, another fail due to lack of research. Your claim that dude does a "circuit" and charges for information is likewise baseless but hey that's how you roll we're all used to it.

Click to expand...

Perhaps not yet. Eventually it will happen, as it has with many other tax protestor movements. Wasn't David Merill part of some of those?

So how do the "purveyors" of your system make their living then? I do the grocery store thing as stated earlier, sorry what do you do again besides play the market then spend it all and bitch and complain? You don't even own a car do you own anything? How can a market master such as your self not benefit from your vast knowledge of currency and markets LOL very ironic.

So you are not a lawyer correct? Oh yeah only token gets to preach the gospel with no credentials lol what a fucking control freak hypocrite you are which is why I am finishing up my final thoughts on this subject.....

The specie arguments are what is frivolous I tried to show you that even with your own cases but you fail at comprehension so be it.......cases of specie redemption were heard way past the time specie redemption expired....yet you fail to comprehend why you can't find the case law of what we talk about here.....so be it.

You attempt to define the purpose??? The purpose of redemption is to end the Fed and return to some semblance of honest money.....literally pay off the debt by lawful accounting, obviously over your head.

Click to expand...

Not you, the real purveyors, the people who sell books and appear on the lecture circuit. There's quite a club of them, happy to give a presentation to your group in exchange for some cash, which they won't pay any tax on.

You think the statement that Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money is somehow limited by the fact that it's said where a litigant made a specie argument. It's not. It's a statement of the law. You cannot seem to understand the distinction.

Why would I accept your undeniable reality? I don't like Federal Reserve Notes or Cocks or any semblance of your reality moron.

See this is your problem does anyone left reading this thread need you to tell them what US GDP is??? Nope but there you go anyway.........So you think a voluntary "practical" monoply on currency that has not been properly idintified as voluntary in public discourse is acceptable and an undeniable reality that can never change?? Glad you will never re-produce right now honestly. Just as the Debt Ceiling is statutorily raised so can the limit of US Notes.....although the accounting is, and would be, dramaticlly different.

Click to expand...

Unless and until it's raised, you have no choice but to use Federal Reserve Notes. Even if you believed in this redemption fantasy, you cannot deny that the $61 million in United States Notes--after this has been circulating for more than 30 years--would certainly have been redeemed.

Wow more name calling from the token because his arguments FAILED wow shocker.

Click to expand...

You said they were your last thoughts, so I wanted to make a few things clear.

Tokenperv, you realise the "Law" he refers to is the United States Constitution...?

Harrekin said:

Tokenperv, you realise the "Law" he refers to is the United States Constitution...?

Click to expand...

The law he refers to where? Because he has frequently invoked law from other sources.