WTP "Historic Lawsuit" Dismissed by DC Circuit

[Cobalt Shiva]

The law is right there in the Constitution; no state can abrogate the obligations of contracts.

So, if two parties write up a contract to commit murder, no state can prosecute either of the parties?

[Doktor Avalanche]

The law is right there in the Constitution; no state can abrogate the obligations of contracts.

So, if two parties write up a contract to commit murder, no state can prosecute either of the parties?

That depends on whether or not they had capacity.

[David Merrill]

The law is right there in the Constitution; no state can abrogate the obligations of contracts.

So, if two parties write up a contract to commit murder, no state can prosecute either of the parties?

That depends on whether or not they had capacity.

no. standing...

In 1913 the Congress wrote up terms for private credit from central (international) bankers called the Federal Reserve Act. Private individuals can and routinely subscribe through endorsement to the same agreement - however people using the private credit for elastic currency have to pay the Return of Income yearly (April 15). Congress does not because it is a representative body.

Ergo - national debt.


Regards,

[grixit]

Thanks for everybody continuing the tradition of jokes about David Merrill hearing voices- since my daily/hourly nemesis is Top 40 music stuck in my head- they always remind me of my fave line from my fave song, from the best band ever:

Ocean, by lush ( 1:27- 2:00)

" ...Take me down
down where their voices drown
down where the only sound
echoes for me..."

http://h1.ripway.com/sucker4lush/lush-Ocean.mp3

I think "Split Level Head" by Napoleon XXXIII would be more appropriate.

[Doktor Avalanche]

So, if two parties write up a contract to commit murder, no state can prosecute either of the parties?

That depends on whether or not they had capacity.

no. standing...

In 1913 the Congress wrote up terms for private credit from central (international) bankers called the Federal Reserve Act. Private individuals can and routinely subscribe through endorsement to the same agreement - however people using the private credit for elastic currency have to pay the Return of Income yearly (April 15). Congress does not because it is a representative body.

Ergo - national debt.


Regards,

A debt which Congress is responsible for.

My goodness, Mr. Merrill:Van Pelt (or whatever you're calling yourself these days)! What's your point?

[LPC]

My goodness, Mr. Merrill:Van Pelt (or whatever you're calling yourself these days)! What's your point?

Is that rhetorical? I mean, you're not really expecting a coherent answer, are you?

I'm now waiting for an opportunity to smite someone with my new curse: "A plague of Merrills upon you."

[Nikki]

My goodness, Mr. Merrill:Van Pelt (or whatever you're calling yourself these days)! What's your point?

Is that rhetorical? I mean, you're not really expecting a coherent answer, are you?

I'm now waiting for an opportunity to smite someone with my new curse: "A plague of Merrills upon you."

Does that mean you're going to Pelt them?

[Brian Rookard]

My goodness, Mr. Merrill:Van Pelt (or whatever you're calling yourself these days)! What's your point?

Is that rhetorical? I mean, you're not really expecting a coherent answer, are you?

I'm now waiting for an opportunity to smite someone with my new curse: "A plague of Merrills upon you."

Does that mean you're going to Pelt them?

Not just Pelt ... VAN Pelt!

[wserra]

I'm now waiting for an opportunity to smite someone with my new curse: "A plague of Merrills upon you."

That's insufficiently Old Testament.

How about "I will (Van) Pelt you with filth, I will treat you with contempt and make you a spectacle." - Nahum 3:6

God says it's OK.

[David Merrill]

Pelt them with a plague of Merrills?

Good one for Quatlosers! You are typically pretty droll in the Insultinator mode...

The Income Tax as you interprete it was outlawed back in 1894. It was banned for being unconstitutional because Income by definition is not taxable. The only thing to be taxed by way of income according to the Constitution is gains and profits, dividends and such - not compensation.

Ergo no perjury charges for Pete Hendrickson; only empty contempt threats should he fail to commit perjury.

I believe you Quatlosers like to overlook the purpose of the 1913 Sixteenth Amendment added in conjunction with the 1913 elastic currency of the Federal Reserve Act. Making elastic currency without bonding it would be counterfeiting, now, wouldn't it?

The Income Tax of 1913 is only legal because of endorsement of Government bonds.

“Recognized Government bonds are as safe as Government currency. They have the same credit back of them. And, therefore, if we can persuade people all through the country, when their salary checks come in, to deposit them in new accounts, which will be held in trust and kept in one of the new forms I have mentioned, we shall have made progress.” The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt; 1933 The Year of Crisis; Random House 1938; page 19. Excerpt from the Address before the Governors’ Conference at the White House. March 6, 1933.

I enjoy your inference I am Van Pelt - endorsing the artifice you could presume as a government bonding. But I assure you that I have never knowingly handled a Federal Reserve Note in my life. Only lawful money properly redeemed United States Notes, in the form of FRNs.

http://www.friesian.com/notes.htm


Regards,

David Merrill.

[.]

Pelt them with a plague of Merrills?

Good one for Quatlosers! You are typically pretty droll in the Insultinator mode...

The Income Tax as you interprete [sic] it was outlawed back in 1894 < snip further meaningless word-salad >

It was ever thus, and no doubt will continue to be. Take your meds, dude. Stop posting. Seek help. If you won't do that, at least let go of your fixation on the Fed, FRNs, bonds, BOEs and the like. Admit to your name. You'll feel better. If not, take another pill and then stop posting word-salad from Planet Van Pelt. It's getting old.

[silversopp]

Not for the Fed. Look in your wallet if you want to see what a Federal Reserve Bank stock certificate looks like.

I doubt that anyone here has any stock certificates for the Federal Reserve Bank in their wallet (unless someone here owns a bank?). The FRNs are not stock certificates. FRNs can be transferred and exchanged to other parties, FED Stock cannot. You are free to own as many or as few FRNs as you'd like, FED Stock ownership is mandated based upon the amount of a capital a bank has available.

People with no understanding of finance and banking should not be commenting on the Federal Reserve

[Randall]

We have these lunatics saying, "There is no law."

The law is right there in the Constitution; no state can abrogate the obligations of contracts.

But that is not positive law.

[David Merrill]

We have these lunatics saying, "There is no law."

The law is right there in the Constitution; no state can abrogate the obligations of contracts.

But that is not positive law.

Good joke, Randall.

[David Merrill]

Pelt them with a plague of Merrills?

Good one for Quatlosers! You are typically pretty droll in the Insultinator mode...

The Income Tax as you interprete [sic] it was outlawed back in 1894 < snip further meaningless word-salad >

It was ever thus, and no doubt will continue to be. Take your meds, dude. Stop posting. Seek help. If you won't do that, at least let go of your fixation on the Fed, FRNs, bonds, BOEs and the like. Admit to your name. You'll feel better. If not, take another pill and then stop posting word-salad from Planet Van Pelt. It's getting old.

You are pretty sick.

[.]

People with no understanding of finance and banking should not be commenting on the Federal Reserve

If this was true, silence would rule on Planet Van Pelt, positive law notwithstanding.

[David Merrill]

Not for the Fed. Look in your wallet if you want to see what a Federal Reserve Bank stock certificate looks like.

I doubt that anyone here has any stock certificates for the Federal Reserve Bank in their wallet (unless someone here owns a bank?). The FRNs are not stock certificates. FRNs can be transferred and exchanged to other parties, FED Stock cannot. You are free to own as many or as few FRNs as you'd like, FED Stock ownership is mandated based upon the amount of a capital a bank has available.

People with no understanding of finance and banking should not be commenting on the Federal Reserve

Thank you Silversopp;

Can you link an example?

[Doktor Avalanche]

My goodness, Mr. Merrill:Van Pelt (or whatever you're calling yourself these days)! What's your point?

Is that rhetorical? I mean, you're not really expecting a coherent answer, are you?

I'm now waiting for an opportunity to smite someone with my new curse: "A plague of Merrills upon you."

I may be an incurable optimist but I know a dead horse when I see one.

[David Merrill]

Not for the Fed. Look in your wallet if you want to see what a Federal Reserve Bank stock certificate looks like.

I doubt that anyone here has any stock certificates for the Federal Reserve Bank in their wallet (unless someone here owns a bank?). The FRNs are not stock certificates. FRNs can be transferred and exchanged to other parties, FED Stock cannot. You are free to own as many or as few FRNs as you'd like, FED Stock ownership is mandated based upon the amount of a capital a bank has available.

People with no understanding of finance and banking should not be commenting on the Federal Reserve

That is helpful.

The FRNs are not stock certificates. FRNs can be transferred and exchanged to other parties, FED Stock cannot.

FED Stock can be transferred between banks. And to be a banker you must have some FED Stock. I like where this is going...



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Cobalt Shiva]

FED Stock can be transferred between banks.

Between member banks.

And to be a banker you must have some FED Stock.

No, that is not a correct statement.