Where can I find the definition?

[wserra]

As other posters have pointed out, these guys aren't looking for an answer. God Himself could write an answer in the clouds over their homes but, if it wasn't the one they wanted, they'd come up with some nonsense in hopes of painting it as a good faith belief. Not being God, I'll just attempt a legal answer.

This is yet another silly TP attempt to conflate different meanings into one. 31 USC 5112(d)(1) requires that the reverse of a coin contain "a designation of the value of the coin". By a simple reading of the rest of the statute, it is clear that this clause refers to the denomination - $.25, $.50, $50, whatever - not the fair market value. Were it the latter, the Sacajawea would have to contain on its reverse, "Worth a loaf of bread". So when Chumpnor insists that someone point to the law which defines the value (in the sense of "fair market value", not "denomination") of money, the answer is what Arthur Rubin said - it doesn't exist, because Congress doesn't set fair market values, the market does. I suppose the closest Congress could come is wage/price control, and when attempted that created substantial economic and legal questions.

This seems obvious to anyone not intent on sticking his fingers in his ears and whistling. Still, the Supreme Court (in one of those price-control cases) has in fact taken judicial notice of the fact that Congress does not set fair market value: "It is well known, and the court will take judicial notice of the fact, that the purchasing power of money has been much less since 1917 than it was in 1912, when the order was made; and that the cost of labor, materials and supplies necessary for the proper operation and maintenance of street railways has greatly increased". Banton v. Belt Line Ry. Corporation, 268 U.S. 413 (1925). In other words, the fair market value of "labor, materials and supplies", measured in dollars, increased; and the fair market value of a dollar, measured in "labor, materials and supplies", decreased. Congress had nothing to do with it.

[Joey Smith]

Why gold? Why not Beaver pelts or pretty seashells as the backing for currency?

The truth is that all the major nations started moving off the gold standard in the middle of the Great Depression -- it was largely the gold standard that caused the Great Depression since the worldwide production of gold did not keep up with economic growth thus causing massive deflation -- and after many decades the transition off the gold standard was finally completed during the Nixon Administration.

As for your other drivel, you've been answered -- you just don't like the answer. Same for Kahre, except that he's getting ready to spend some years in jail because of it.

[Chemnor]

You want an easy, one sentence law that covers everything Chemnor, well that's just not going to happen. Don't like it? Tough. Law, like life is not unicorns and rainbows, it can be confusing, complicated and may on occasion cause you to wake up nearly broke, hungover and with a new tattoo.

Really? I think the Father of the Constitution may disagree with your definition of law. Now silly ole' me...I agree with James Madison concerning law. You are the one that seems to have faith in Marxist unicorns. But then faith is a belief in things unseen. I just obviously do not have your deeply held religious beliefs. You are a man of great faith. Not me. I have no faith in government. I only have faith in Christ. I am indeed a doubting Thomas and I want to see the law. No matter how long it is as long as it is in clear and unequivocal language and if not, that's okay too because then I am still exempt. But I MUST know so that I can "believe to be true and correct as to every material matter" or I would be committing a felony if 26 USC § 7206 applies to me.

Law does not need to be one sentence. I could be 100 sentences. But they does have to be not so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; they cannot be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow because law is defined to be a rule of action and cannot be a rule of action if it is little known, and less fixed?

“It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed? ” PUBLIUS. (Madison) Federalist Papers 62

So if you want to believe in unicorns and not clearly written and unequivocal law and that is your religion then I will not try to stop you from your faith. I am no religious bigot. You have the prefect right to worship as you see fit.

[Demosthenes]

What does your brother think of your PR efforts mid-trial, Christopher?

[Thule]

I know of no country that requires gold and silver for a medium of exchange and how could they?

Changed your mind about countries requiring gold or silver? Fair enough.

In Zimbabwe their credit system collapsed completely, some people used other nations paper and coin currencies, many people would only take gold for their products. Still do.

True. I don't think the economic policy of Zimbabwe is an example the rest of us should follow, though.

[Judge Roy Bean]

...

And I did test it, but not in court. In order to go to court I would have needed to be arrested or at least charged with some crime.

You haven't heard of the civil courts? Civil suits are filed to obtain rulings and relief all the time. If it's really worth 30 years of goofy "research" why not spend the $350 and quit irritating everyone.

Of course, you'd have to make a more cogent and less shop-worn argument, but - oh, wait a minute - I get it now; as long as you don't have an actual ruling you can keep posting drivel all over the Internet.

[LegalEagleMan]

Changed your mind about countries requiring gold or silver? Fair enough.

I don't think I changed my mind. I said there are parts of the world where that is the only thing accepted as a medium of exchange. If I did say what you hinted, yes that would not correct based on what I have seen.

[Chemnor]

Why gold? Why not Beaver pelts or pretty seashells as the backing for currency?

I agree. Gold is not necessary. What good will gold be as a standard after we can create it like we can create diamonds. In fact silver was used by the Founders, not gold. Sea shells have worked in the past. So has salt and cows. If it works I am fine with it as long as I am told EXACTLY what it is and do not have to guess like I do now.

Why not just calculate the GNP and establish a dollar as one one trillionth of the GNP?

Just give me a standard and make it fixed, then stick to it so my savings is not robbed by governemnt created inflation.

Declare what a dollar is. Have Congress tell me what it is so I don't have to guess because what a dollar is effects penal statutes and it is a fundamental tenet of due process that "[n]o one may be required at peril of life, liberty or property to speculate as to the meaning of penal statutes." Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U.S. 451, 453 (1939). A criminal statute is therefore invalid if it "fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden." United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114, 123 (1979)

[Thule]

Double...

[Thule]

Changed your mind about countries requiring gold or silver? Fair enough.

I don't think I changed my mind. I said there are parts of the world where that is the only thing accepted as a medium of exchange. If I did say what you hinted, yes that would not correct based on what I have seen.

I stand corrected. Still, the parts of the world where the majority of people demand gold or silver, are basicly parts of the world I'd rather not be (Zimbamwe, for instance).

[LegalEagleMan]

Why gold? Why not Beaver pelts or pretty seashells as the backing for currency?

Some people trade all kinds of stuff, I saw a special on TV a few years ago. There are people in the South Pacific that use some type of shell.

Gold and silver is what the King's selected for payment, they had no use for more food than they could eat.

The truth is that all the major nations started moving off the gold standard in the middle of the Great Depression -- it was largely the gold standard that caused the Great Depression since the worldwide production of gold did not keep up with economic growth thus causing massive deflation -- and after many decades the transition off the gold standard was finally completed during the Nixon Administration.

Actually, the US entered basically a depression in the 30s, by 1936 some recovery was taking place by this time the US was off of gold and entered another depression in 1937. Only by wiping 100 million off the planet did the necessarily cleaning out process and even than it was slow.

Being on the gold standard or not means nothing. Right now the growth rate of credit is not even enough to make interest payments, without the federal government it would have collapsed. Eventually it will collapse no matter who gets in front of the train.

Federal reserve Z1 report, see Total Credit Market Debt. Total Credit creation for Q1 2009 was $371B, without the federal government -$95B. Credit creation in 2007 was over $4.5T for the year.

Getting even further off topic.

[Chemnor]

...

And I did test it, but not in court. In order to go to court I would have needed to be arrested or at least charged with some crime.

You haven't heard of the civil courts? Civil suits are filed to obtain rulings and relief all the time. If it's really worth 30 years of goofy "research" why not spend the $350 and quit irritating everyone.

Of course, you'd have to make a more cogent and less shop-worn argument, but - oh, wait a minute - I get it now; as long as you don't have an actual ruling you can keep posting drivel all over the Internet.

I have heard of them and used them successfully in Nevada on many political issues. My son got to vote without a Social Secuirty Number and I got my other son and my friend back on the ballot using civil courts. I even collected several grand worth of FRNs (yes they still have value to anyone that will take them) from the government for harassing me while petitioning and that never passed the deposition stage. I got administrative rulings too. And injunctions too.

But in order to sue the government you need to have a case or controversy. Like when they are harassing you when you are petitioning on State property. What would mine be? Can you tell me since you know so much about civil courts?

I have no disagreements with them about taxing me. I cannot sue for you. You want to be a slave and voluntary servitude is not unconstitutional. They told me I am not required to file and I agree. So what would be the case or controversy? I have no levy or lien against me. There is no NOD. What relief would I be seeking?

They will not tell me what a dollar is but how is that a case or controversy? And besides I have not yet exhausted my administrative remedies on that issue yet.

Please share your wisdom. I would love to sue them if ONLY I had a case or controversy.

[Chemnor]

You are getting into some myth stuff now. All "credit" is creating is something from thin air. Patriot nut job myth stuff. If you can't "credit" from thin air I would like to know where it is all stored.

Okay. Where does the Federal Reserve get the trillions to loans to the US?

What is the collateral the US uses to get such loans?

It has nothing to do with Leninism, humans have been using credit since civilization has started. Way before Lenin's great great great great great grandfather was even a sperm and an egg.

Any financial system built on the premise of usury with interest attached will collapse do to the in ability to expand. Go do a search on exponential growth on youtube. Humans keep doing the same stupid things in regards to that, but it's fun watching them try. Either way, I am way off topic.

It has everything to do with Leninism unless you reject Lenin's own words.

Do you think Leninism is some new concept? That is just one of the many new names for it. The plans of Gadianton were once a name for the same basic plans. All are satanic. All seek to enslave the little guy.

Letter to: Messieurs. Iklheimer, Morton and Vandergould, No. 3 Wall St., New York, U.S.A.:
“Dear Sirs: A Mr. John Sherman has written us from a town in Ohio, U.S.A., as to the profits that may be made in the National Banking business under a recent act of your Congress (National Bank Act of 1863), a copy of which act accompanied his letter. Apparently this act has been drawn upon the plan formulated here last summer by the British Bankers Association and by that Association recommended to our American friends as one that if enacted into law, would prove highly profitable to the banking fraternity throughout the world.
“Mr. Sherman declares that there has never before been such an opportunity for capitalists to accumulate money, as that presented by this act and that the old plan, of State Banks is so unpopular, that the new scheme will, by contrast, be most favorably regarded, notwithstanding the fact that it gives the National Banks an almost absolute control of the National finance. ‘The few who can understand the system,’ he says ‘will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favors, that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantages that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical (adverse) to their interests.’ Please advise us fully as to this matter and also state whether or not you will be of assistance to us, if we conclude to establish a National Bank in the City of New York…Awaiting your reply, we are
Your respectful servants.
Rothschild Brothers.
London, June 25, 1863”

Old Old plan. Long before Leninism or even before John Lennon.

[Demosthenes]

What does your brother think of your PR efforts mid-trial, Christopher?

[Nikki]

What does your brother think of your PR efforts mid-trial, Christopher?

She scares me.

[Judge Roy Bean]

I have heard of them and used them successfully in Nevada on many political issues. My son got to vote without a Social Secuirty Number and I got my other son and my friend back on the ballot using civil courts. I even collected several grand worth of FRNs (yes they still have value to anyone that will take them) from the government for harassing me while petitioning and that never passed the deposition stage. I got administrative rulings too. And injunctions too.

But in order to sue the government you need to have a case or controversy. Like when they are harassing you when you are petitioning on State property. What would mine be? Can you tell me since you know so much about civil courts?...

With all your experience and years and years and years of research you should have been able to raise a cognizant issue (or find a willing foil to risk it for you). Since there really isn't one in a practical sense, you're going to have to get more creative. For $2,500 FRN's per hour I'd be willing to help. Forty hours in advance. No guarantees.

[Joey Smith]

There is no Constitutional requirement that Congress define in intimate detail or to anybody's satisfaction what a "dollar" is, and any shortcoming of Congress in defining a "dollar" is no defense to a criminal prosecution like Kahre's.

In the U.S. system, the courts are the final and ultimate arbiters of what is constitutional or not; suffice it to say that the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are paid in dollars and they cash their checks.

Anybody who doesn't want to deal in dollars is free to leave at any time; don't let the door hit your arse on the way out.

[Quixote]

They told me I am not required to file and I agree.

Technically, you told them that you are not required to file. They only confirmed your conclusion based on the facts you supplied. Only through self reporting, or a thorough audit, would the IRS have access to the information needed to determine if you had a filing requirement. If you supplied the IRS with ambiguous information about your income, as your posts to this thread suggest you did, their conclusion was almost certainly incorrect.

[Demosthenes]

If you supplied the IRS with ambiguous information about your income, as your posts to this thread suggest you did, their conclusion was almost certainly incorrect.

AKA, garbage in, garbage out.

[Judge Roy Bean]

...That is just one of the many new names for it. The plans of Gadianton were once a name for the same basic plans. All are satanic. All seek to enslave the little guy....

Ah, that 'splains it.