And what I posted is no court has ever heard a case after someone has demanded lawful money via restricted endorsement as on this and other threads. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 40017194
Dude, you're admitting that your entire premise has never been recognized by the courts. Show us any court ruling every affirming that FRNs *must* be redeemed in US Notes. You can't. Show us any court ruling that demanding lawful money makes you immune from taxation.
The courts have instead contradicted you, upholding the redemptions of FRNs with FRNs under Title 12 USC 411. And found that FRNs are lawful money.
Something you insist could never happen. Once again, your argument is the bug. And reality is the windshield.
No contract, no obligation. And your claim there has never been a case proclaiming lawful money non-taxable is also a lie, one search on the web I found 2 of them. Quoting:
Says you, pretending that *you* are a legal authority. You're not. You're just a shill trying to drive up webtraffic to your website by offering us the latest in a series of imagine 'tax avoidance' cons.
Taxation jurisdiction is established geographically
. As the USSC makes ridiculously clear:
The power then to lay and collect duties, imposts, and excises may be exercised and must be exercised throughout the United States. Does this term designate the whole, or any particular portion of the American empire? Certainly this question can admit of but one answer. It is the name given to our great republic, which is composed of states and territories. Quoting: USSC: Loughbourgh v Blake
YOU say that jurisdiction is established only through contract. Citing your imagination. Neither the law nor the courts recognize this.
The USSC says that jurisdiction is established geographically. Within the United States. Which is the States and territories.
The USSC wins. Your imagination remains legally worthless.
So I ask again, what's the value of a legal argument that isn't recognized by the courts?