Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Dollar sign/symbol

Expand Messages
  • Frog Farmer
    ... And I saw a man pay property taxes to the assessor who was highly inarticulate with the proper amount of pinto beans since he was free to interpret the
    Message 1 of 34 , Mar 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      On Feb 27, 2005, at 9:26 AM, Occupant Family wrote:
      > I was involved with "Gene's Bean's" case in Michigan
      > where JC Penney sued a fellow for what his wife had run up on their
      > credit account and the Judge (who became really pissed when we called
      > the Wall Street Journal on his ruling) shouted: "I don't care if you
      > pay it
      > in coffee beans!" when queried by Gene as to the substance of the
      > money
      > of account the Judge could ORDER it paid in! The Judge knew he had
      > blown it right then as his pencil went flipping up in the air and he
      > said "Damn!"
      > No appeal taken as the plaintiff won a judgment and the defendant
      > "paid"
      >  it in coffee beans! Case closed!

      And I saw a man pay property taxes to the assessor who was highly
      inarticulate with the proper amount of pinto beans since he was free to
      interpret the numbers without anything saying what they meant.

      > I used to have a court case that stated if there was no "Dollar
      > Symbol" on the
      > billing it was arbitrary and void for failure to state a "value".
      > Numbers without
      > the symbol are not "denominated in money"! It was a case involving a
      > "tax bill"
      > and I think it was a State Appeals Court that made the ruling! Do not
      > remember the State off hand! Possibly Indiana or Ohio!

      And I saw a case that claimed to say that the numbers on price tags
      were themselves money, and if you stole a tag, you stole money.
      It was a lowest level court, and he waived all kinds of rights, but the
      guy did jail time for removing a price tag from a bag of potato chips.
    • Frog Farmer
      ... Actually, people of both views can be accomodated, just as for some we live in a republic while others swear it is a democracy. Some people will deal in
      Message 34 of 34 , Mar 8, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        On Mar 8, 2005, at 10:44 AM, Robert Mulder wrote:

        > The FDIC has a different opinion on this matter:
        >  
        > "It is the opinion of the Secretary of the Treasury that Public Law
        > 93-373 did not repeal or alter the so-called Gold Clause Resolution of
        > 1933 (31 U.S.C. 463). The Resolution prohibits any contractual
        > provision which purports to give the obligee the option of requiring
        > payment of the obligation in money or a specified amount of gold.
        > Deposit contracts which purport to give the bank's customer such an
        > option are therefore rendered legally unenforceable by the terms of
        > the Gold Clause Resolution. Contracts specifically payable only in
        > gold may be similarly unenforceable where the parties to the contract
        > view the gold as a medium of discharging a debt, such as a deposit
        > liability, rather than as a commodity to be traded."

        Actually, people of both views can be accomodated, just as for some we
        live in a republic while others swear it is a democracy.

        Some people will deal in debt, and some will not. The reason gold is
        money is because it is a store of value and a medium of exchange. It is
        perfect U.S. money for transacting common law exchanges of property, or
        labor. Notice that even in the secretary's eyes, it all depends upon
        how the parties "view" the gold. Isn't that interesting? And notice
        the clever slight of hand trying to equate "discharge of debt" (in
        equity jurisdiction, no doubt) with "payment" at the common law, which
        finally extinguishes debt (while "discharge" merely transfers it to
        another party), and usually avoids debt creation altogether. The
        secretary depends upon the people involved to have a view. Should we
        do some man-on the street interviews and see how many Post-911
        Americans have a view on the topic?

        The Secretary of the Treasury has to maintain an opinion (but you don't
        have to agree with it!) that permits the monetization of debt as
        politically driven public policy. But one who claims his rights to
        property, and exercises them with gold and silver, cannot be made to
        part with his common law substance only to be "compensated" with
        "elastic" units of irredeemable bad debt. That result, where the human
        suddenly awakes to the fact that he lost his gold and now has a right
        to pursue debt in court, until he accepts paper fiat legal tender ( or
        better yet, "a deposit liability") is a voluntary action. He must
        first have permitted a debt to be created. This requires consciousness
        in the moment, and a timely objection when debt is being offered.
        Because once a debt exists, so-called "legal tender" can discharge it
        by government fiat.

        The old method of "cash on the barrelhead" protected everyone, with no
        one having to become either a creditor or a debtor, and wouldn't that
        feel nice in this time when the more you borrow the richer you become,
        when nothing is lent and nothing is paid back? "And yet real goods
        and services are transferred to the government."
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.