Non filing attorney

[LPC]

What a life, sitting in your underwear at 9am on a Friday morning.

For those of us with a home office, that's "casual Friday."

(There's also shirtless Monday, showerless Tuesday, ....)

And my personal favorite - fluffy slipper Thursday.

I usually aim for some semblance of clothing by the time the UPS or FedEx guy gets here at around 10 am, though.

But have you ever tried to have a conversation with the FedEx guy?

I once made what I thought was an amusing remark to the FedEx guy, and he looked at me with a blank expression, and then I thought, "Wait, there's a reason that he's the FedEx guy and not the lawyer working at home!"

The life of the home office junkie makes for really cheap dry cleaning bills. The only time I wear a suit these days is at depositions, in court, and in front of cameras.

I gave a presentation on home offices at an ABA Annual Meeting at which I pointed out that there was always an unexpected cost of additional toilet paper and NO ONE thought I was funny.

[David Merrill]

That doesn't work for me. It is a private definition that works for them:

Definition

Any money (coin or paper) that is issued directly by the United States Treasury and not the Federal Reserve System - this includes gold and silver coin, Notes, Bonds, etc.

Regards,

David Merrill.

[webhick]

That doesn't work for me.

You lost me. What doesn't work for you?

[David Merrill]

That doesn't work for me.

You lost me. What doesn't work for you?

Their definition:

http://www.investorwords.com/2733/lawful_money.html

[grixit]

At work though, the cruel bastards force us to be business casual - Dockers, knit sportshirt and comfy, non-sneaker looking shoes.

There's nothing casual about leather pants. They are dressy. So, most office polices do not exclude leather pants. I once knew a guy who thought that the casual day policy was too lax (people were showing up in sweats and stained t-shirts), so he showed up in heels, leather pants, and a flashy tank top for work one day. And he kept doing it until they changed the policy.

Personally, i'd like to make any dress code that's stronger than the public indecency law or the safety regulations should be illegal. Let people work in what makes them the most comfortable, whether it's an amish leisure suit or a no nonsense red and yellow striped power thong.

[webhick]

I found a tax protester site that said that referred to the definition of "lawful money" being contained in Title 12, Section 152. It was repealed in 1994, so I had to pull up an old copy.

Repealed Section 152 from the House

But, like I said, if you pull it up in the current code, it's been repealed. I'm no lawyer, but I take this to mean that lawful money no longer exists by definition.

Oh well. No skin off my back. I deal in FRNs (the stuff sitting in my pocket) anyway.

[grixit]

How does he make a living then?

[Doktor Avalanche]

How does he make a living then?

With difficulty, unless he can scam $500 out of someone with his patent de-tax system that makes absolutely no sense to anyone outside of Planet Van Pelt.

Aside from that I honestly don't know. I also wonder how it is he affords an ISP.

[Nikki]

How does he make a living then?

His mother gives him a nice allowance.

[David Merrill]

Webhick, don't let David Merrill (Van Pelt) bother you. In fact if you just ignore all of his postings you will not miss a thing and you will save yourself a lot of time and angst.

Read some of the other threads and you will understand that DMVP's grasp on reality is tenuous at best. This is a person who once named his motor scooter as a plaintiff in a suit against Jesus Christ.

Then there is the whole can't hold a job, pay alikmony, or child support thing, but that is a direct result of certain issues he has.

No Webhick;

Do not listen to CaptainKickback. He is exemplary of protectionism, denial and dissociation from reality that will prevent you from ever understanding the truth about who you are and who society has convinced you to be in criminal syndicalism.

Thank you for the link to that revoked Code. I have added it to my link library among...

http://friends-n-family-research.info/F ... case_1.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/F ... case_2.jpg

A direct result.

http://www.investorwords.com/2733/lawful_money.html

Definition

Any money (coin or paper) that is issued directly by the United States Treasury and not the Federal Reserve System - this includes gold and silver coin, Notes, Bonds, etc.

Examine this definition that almost works for me. It however does not clarify how in the world US Notes are required to be in existence but just the same they cannot be easily found at face value. [I spent $12 for a $2 USN the other day.] To understand this, note that Juliard has never been affected, like the demand for gold and silver coin*:

http://friends-n-family-research.info/F ... uliard.jpg

...that notes of the United States... shall be reissued and kept in circulation...

Then again, the reasons to ignore such amateur journalist/reporters blurting about others on the Internet, especially those who fancy themselves psychoanalysts, should be quite obvious to you by now. You seem the type who never really puts much weight on anything you get from Internet Yarn...

I suggest you apply a timeline. In 1994 the Patriot Movement was in an energetic state and Congress had to get that Code definition off the books. Mainly because fractionalizing loans had devalued the dollar making it impossible to compare anymore since morphing the exchange rate from fixed (gold) to floating (SDRs) in 1976 - Jamaica/Rambouillet. The Repeal did not effect Notes in the definition from the link. That is why I called it a private definition; they did not elaborate on Notes and for that matter did not explain the Repeal you mentioned. It is not inaccurate as far as definitions go. It is just suited to that website's purposes.

Another accurate timeline is that FRNs were deemed adaquate for all the purposes US Notes filled in 1971 so the Treasury quit putting more US Notes into circulation. That is all. They did not take them out of circulation. In 1984 Freedom League printed an article while they apparently could redeem actual US Notes from a Federal Reserve Bank somewhere. Around 1992 researchers were noting the definition and making legal demands about gold and silver coin adjunct to Title 12 U.S.C. §411 and Congress was pressured into repealing an otherwise obscure definition in 1994 - thanks again for that link. Understanding the graduation of events over thirty-five years is helpful in understanding what lawful money is to be redeemed since 1971:

http://www.treas.gov/education/faq/curr ... nder.shtml

United States notes serve no function that is not already adequately served by Federal Reserve notes. As a result, the Treasury Department stopped issuing United States notes, and none have been placed into circulation since January 21, 1971.a

None have been taken out of circulation. The coin dealer who sold me the US note the other day assures me he must honor it for the $2 on its face.

One still has the right to redeem federal reserve notes in US notes, and other forms of lawful money. But you can see that one does not have the right, anymore to demand gold and silver coin. That right ended on March 28, 1861.

What I like about the private definition is that we are obviously not limited to gold and silver coin as far a lawful money.


Regards,

David Merrill.


* Anyone noting the United States Note across the top would gladly give me $2 worth of stuff for it and trade their FRNs for it. However, if US Notes had ever been taken out of circulation, they would be destroyed.

[.]

I told you that this clown has a bright future as a stand-up financial comic.

[Randall]

At work though, the cruel bastards force us to be business casual - Dockers, knit sportshirt and comfy, non-sneaker looking shoes.

There's nothing casual about leather pants. They are dressy. So, most office polices do not exclude leather pants. I once knew a guy who thought that the casual day policy was too lax (people were showing up in sweats and stained t-shirts), so he showed up in heels, leather pants, and a flashy tank top for work one day. And he kept doing it until they changed the policy.

Personally, i'd like to make any dress code that's stronger than the public indecency law or the safety regulations should be illegal. Let people work in what makes them the most comfortable, whether it's an amish leisure suit or a no nonsense red and yellow striped power thong.

About 15 years ago I was an adjunct prof of accounting. The school had a dress code that said that skirts could not be more than 4 inches above the knee. one day a shapely young lady came in wearing a skirt that was obviously shorter than allowed. Knowing the dress code did not provide any guidance on how to handle this matter, I had to deal with it as I felt best, so I told her she had to take it off. Sadly, my efforts to enforce the rules were ignored.

[webhick]

All this talk of FRNs and lawful money doesn't really mean a damned thing. I deal in whatever currency is popular and works. Why? Why make life more difficult than it has to be?

Seeing as how there's no definition in place anymore, lawful money and $2.11 (FRN) will buy me a large coffee at Dunkins. The history behind that really isn't relevant, unless you're trying to change the law or find a loophole. Simple fact is, if I bring "lawful money" into Dunkins to pay for my coffee, they're going to look at me like I have two heads - and I'm more than likely going to leave empty-handed.

People wanted definitions on lawful money. I put one up. You requested one that was not a "private" definition. A simple Google for "lawful money us code" brought me to a few TP sites which pointed out the Title and Section. I looked it up. It was repealed in 1994. I googled for "1994 us code" and pulled up a site that linked to the old copies dating back to like 1988. It only took 5-10 minutes. It was too easy. It may as well as have a big flashing neon sign above it.

Now it seems you are looking for clarification on "how in the world US Notes are required to be in existence but just the same they cannot be easily found at face value". Something tells me that this is going to take longer than the last one. I do not have time right now to acquiesce to your request. Perhaps later.

Then again, the reasons to ignore such amateur journalist/reporters blurting about others on the Internet, especially those who fancy themselves psychoanalysts, should be quite obvious to you by now. You seem the type who never really puts much weight on anything you get from Internet Yarn...

There are reasons to ignore everyone, David. And there are reasons to listen. I try to listen to everyone and make my own opinions. I like to see substantiating or refuting proof whenever possible, which will help me draw more informed conclusions. The Internet, and its "yarns" are very much a part of society. It has weight whether we like it or not.

[David Merrill]

Seeing as how there's no definition in place anymore, lawful money and $2.11 (FRN) will buy me a large coffee at Dunkins. The history behind that really isn't relevant, unless you're trying to change the law or find a loophole. Simple fact is, if I bring "lawful money" into Dunkins to pay for my coffee, they're going to look at me like I have two heads - and I'm more than likely going to leave empty-handed.

Nope. But the lacadaisical outlook simply means that you are a percentage slave. That is what I enjoy about Quatloos so much! It is so easy to manipulate what the dimwitted think about and even think. Financial comedy.

This would hike the price of cheap consumer goods at Wal-Mart and inflame the lower classes, which is why the U.S. won't really do it.

Here is where the thread was stolen from Large. I am chuckling because my clerk sent the Request directly to Beijing. - But you cannot blame the guy, from here it looks like we control the Chinese. That is what we were taught to believe.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[webhick]

Nope. But the lacadaisical outlook simply means that you are a percentage slave. That is what I enjoy about Quatloos so much! It is so easy to manipulate what the dimwitted think about and even think. Financial comedy.

Go ahead, David. Keep laughing and calling me names. My lackadaisical outlook enables me to do two things: not care what you think about me, and not give a flying crap what you call me.

Oh, and I'm not just a dimwitted easily-manipulated percentage slave - I'm also the dumbest person here. I'm shooting for an award, but am having difficulty preparing my acceptance speech (or obtaining nominations). I should hire a speech-writer and buy a thesaurus.

[Prof]

Nope. But the lacadaisical outlook simply means that you are a percentage slave. That is what I enjoy about Quatloos so much! It is so easy to manipulate what the dimwitted think about and even think. Financial comedy.

Go ahead, David. Keep laughing and calling me names. My lackadaisical outlook enables me to do two things: not care what you think about me, and not give a flying crap what you call me.

Oh, and I'm not just a dimwitted easily-manipulated percentage slave - I'm also the dumbest person here. I'm shooting for an award, but am having difficulty preparing my acceptance speech (or obtaining nominations). I should hire a speech-writer and buy a thesaurus.

Because I don't count the non-person, count Van Pelt, you are obviously not the dumbest person here. That has to be the Captain -- what else can you say about someone who is a SECOND GENERATION MARINE. (It's an Army thing.)

Second, don't worry about formal education. I've got too much (thanks to the GI Bill). Others, too little. But, the richest man in Lancaster, SC when I was a boy could not read or write -- but he sure could "figger."

As for wealth, the two richest men I know -- both worth close to a billion (estimates vary)-- have never married, live in poverty or almost poverty, and one is not educated because he does not have the capacity. Obviously, both inherited their wealth.

As your posts illustrate, life is largely what you make of it yourself.

[LDE]

Demosthenes wrote:

The 411 "lawful money" argument has lost repeatedly in court.

I don't understand the argument. What argument? So David Merrill gives a definition (which apparently is no longer law) but says it doesn't work for him. So we're left without a definition. But he implies that a United States Note, backed by nothing, is somehow "lawful" whereas a Federal Reserve Note, backed by nothing, isn't. So what's the difference? U.S. notes were backed by nothing even when FRNs were, in theory, backed by a percentage of their value in gold, even though you couldn't redeem them as such.

Webhick has the right idea. If I can reliably exchange around $8 for a good lunch just about anywhere, why should I care if technically the money is "lawful"? As for David Merrill's claims that he can help me understand who and what I really am (or however he exactly phrased it; I don't care to look up the exact verbiage), may I counterassert that my identity is not defined by my wealth or political status. Both are nuisances that I try to work around.

Finally, David, "blurt" is not a synonym for "say" or "write." Your use of it is not only insulting, but ungrammatical.

[David Merrill]

My lackadaisical outlook enables me to do two things: not care what you think about me, and not give a flying crap what you call me.

Ditto.

[David Merrill]

Demosthenes wrote:

The 411 "lawful money" argument has lost repeatedly in court.

I don't understand the argument. What argument?

That is misdirection. The gold and silver coin argument is the only one that keeps losing in court.

You will find no judges saying one has no right to redeem FRNs in lawful money. Since Prof has no 1914 Bouvier's apparently, he feels there is no such thing as an irrecusable obligation. - the party line of any good attorney.

David, you were asked point blank what you consider "lawful money." Can you please explain? FRNs say right on their face that they are legal tender. Isn't that lawful money? Could you post a picture of some "lawful money"? You've referred to it a number of times but I don't know what you mean by the phrase.

Maybe that is true. Maybe somebody has asked me point blank what I think lawful money is. It keeps me entertained, financial comedy, that everybody seems to think it matters, my definition of it rather than the fact it can be redeemed on demand.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Joey Smith]

Translation: It is another completely nonsensical, gibberish argument by DMVP that nobody who matters believes in, and the courts have certainly not shown the slightest indication of supporting.

It is every bit as ridiculous as the "vapor money" theory that daily floats around the numerous born losers at Sooooeeeeyjuris.