This is not subject matter that I am knowledgeable about. As such I can approach this conversation without any preconceived ideas or clouded thoughts. Basically I am an outside observer.
Why must there be one remedy, only one remedy, and nothing else but one remedy ? It brings to mind the old adage “There is more than one way to skin a cat.” What remedy, NAY, how many remedies existed prior to §16 of the Fed Act (Title 12 U.S.C. §411)? From the discourse I’ve read, It would seem that David firmly believes that none, no not one, remedy existed prior to §16 of the Fed Act (Title 12 U.S.C. §411).
Motla68 speaks of at least one remedy that existed prior to §16 of the Fed Act (Title 12 U.S.C. §411). And for speaking on this, he was banned. In legal legal land, even case law stands forever unless or until it is overturned and a “New” truth is presented. For motla68 to be wrong, there must be wet ink verbiage clearly displaying that the old remedy is now mute, null, and void. Without such wet ink evidence to the contrary, it stands to reason that the old remedy continues to stand on its own merit.
Even an old remedy, though discarded, forgotten, and no longer used, remains valid unless made invalid via wet ink presentments stating such remedy is now invalid.
So back to square one. Why can’t both remedies be fully effective in their own Right? The missing link seems to be the “Smoking Gun” evidence that motla68’s remedy is no longer in effect.
We can locate that “Smoking Gun” evidence that motla68’s remedy is no longer in effect or we can attack and bann the messenger. Another maxim of natural law is that “Force follows the path of least resistance.”
Sorry David, like I said, “This is not subject matter that I am knowledgeable about.”
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Banja
