This is why I have no respect for the courts anymore.

Freedom1Man · Sep 15, 2013

EMNofSeattle said:
Your federal law does not require a state to accept tender only that currency is tender. Read the language of the law, it places no responsibility on the part of a state court to accept. Please cite the law requiring courts of the State of Washington to accept a jar of coins

Tender can always be refused however the amount tendered has to be deducted from the debt.

You cite the law showing that coins are not legal tender.

You need to look up what legal tender is. That is your homework.

EDIT here is the information.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/tender

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/legal+tender

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/legal+tender

http://definitions.uslegal.com/l/legal-tender/

Legal tender is currency that cannot legally be refused in payment of debt. The Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, defines legal tender as "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."

How can you even have this argument when you don't even know the meaning of the words that you're using?

eye95 · Sep 16, 2013

EMNofSeattle said:
but what is WASHINGTON LAW regarding the duty of courts to accept US Currency? just because it is tender does not require anyone to accept it. if you incurr a debt to me, and I say I will only accept payment in $10 dollar bills I have the right not to accept 20s.

which law or policy of Washington courts deals with what tender they may except.

I did that same research to aid me in a dispute with TriCare. My conclusion is that law applies to the federal government only. However, TriCare would still NOT take cash. They force you either to give them a credit card number that they will repeatedly automatically charge or a bank account number that they will repeatedly automatically draft. The only way I've found around it is to buy a Visa gift card ($3) and give them the new number each time. They won't even take a check. I still send them a check every time and make them reject it. I redeposit the check and then, at the very last minute, call them with the card.

No respect for the People at all.

EMNofSeattle · Sep 16, 2013

eye95 said:
I did that same research to aid me in a dispute with TriCare. My conclusion is that law applies to the federal government only. However, TriCare would still NOT take cash. They force you either to give them a credit card number that they will repeatedly automatically charge or a bank account number that they will repeatedly automatically draft. The only way I've found around it is to buy a Visa gift card ($3) and give them the new number each time. They won't even take a check. I still send them a check every time and make them reject it. I redeposit the check and then, at the very last minute, call them with the card.

No respect for the People at all.

that's privatization for you... isn't tricare a private contractor hired to manage the military benefit system?

eye95 · Sep 16, 2013

TriCare is managed by several contractors, depending on where you live. The irony of this is that my wife, although I am assured she is covered, does not appear on my policy paperwork, because she lives on one region handled by one contractor, and I live in another region handled by another contractor.

I have tried to work these issues with the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs. What a nimrod! Then again, he is an Obama guy.

However, as an agent of the government, collecting the money for the government, the contractors are bound by the same restrictions. The government cannot get around its limitations by getting someone to perform its tasks for them!

Otherwise, were the government to collect the fees itself, instead of using a contractor, could the clerk collecting the money on behalf of the government say, "Oh, I am not the government. I am just an employee. I don't have to take cash!"?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

carolina guy · Sep 16, 2013

Been this route before...at least with taxes...

You need to find where UCC 3-603 has been codified in your states statutes...

basically,

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/3-603

§ 3-603. TENDER OF PAYMENT.

(a) If tender of payment of an obligation to pay an instrument is made to a person entitled to enforce the instrument, the effect of tender is governed by principles of law applicable to tender of payment under a simple contract.

(b) If tender of payment of an obligation to pay an instrument is made to a person entitled to enforce the instrument and the tender is refused, there is discharge, to the extent of the amount of the tender, of the obligation of an indorser or accommodation party having a right of recourse with respect to the obligation to which the tender relates.

(c) If tender of payment of an amount due on an instrument is made to a person entitled to enforce the instrument, the obligation of the obligor to pay interest after the due date on the amount tendered is discharged. If presentment is required with respect to an instrument and the obligor is able and ready to pay on the due date at every place of payment stated in the instrument, the obligor is deemed to have made tender of payment on the due date to the person entitled to enforce the instrument.

For Washington, I would start looking here:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=62A.3-603

Not really too knowledgeable about WA laws, but I suspect that since this involves a licensed activity (thereby commerce) that the UCC / law of agency would hold some water. I suppose I would have also followed up with a letter to the judge stating that their collections agents find counting a couple hundred $1 coins to be more onerous than the same number of $1 bills, and could the judge point to the specific RCW that allows the refusal of legal tender because it would take some time to count versus the same amount of time to count for another form of legal tender.

Almost sounds like a civil rights lawsuit...

Freedom1Man · Sep 16, 2013

RCW 62A.3-603
Tender of payment.

(a) If tender of payment of an obligation to pay an instrument is made to a person entitled to enforce the instrument, the effect of tender is governed by principles of law applicable to tender of payment under a simple contract.

(b) If tender of payment of an obligation to pay an instrument is made to a person entitled to enforce the instrument and the tender is refused, there is discharge, to the extent of the amount of the tender, of the obligation of an indorser or accommodation party having a right of recourse with respect to the obligation to which the tender relates.

(c) If tender of payment of an amount due on an instrument is made to a person entitled to enforce the instrument, the obligation of the obligor to pay interest after the due date on the amount tendered is discharged. If presentment is required with respect to an instrument and the obligor is able and ready to pay on the due date at every place of payment stated in the instrument, the obligor is deemed to have made tender of payment on the due date to the person entitled to enforce the instrument.

georg jetson · Sep 16, 2013

Freedom1Man said:
Because, I wanted it on record that I had tendered payment. The FRN thing, I wanted on audio because no-one would believe me otherwise.

I see, but whats the point whether people believe what a traffic judge says about frns?

Freedom1Man · Sep 16, 2013

georg jetson said:
I see, but whats the point whether people believe what a traffic judge says about frns?

The letter was from the lead judge at Redmond's Court house. The point was to show how pointless and stupid these courts are.

Then, reading what some of the forum's statists have to say make me lose hope for the human race.

carolina guy · Sep 17, 2013

EMNofSeattle said:
just get a T-shirt write your name, bank, routing number, signature, and "pay to the order of Internal Revnue Service on it... (the shirt off your back) on it.... according to the Uniform Commercial Code this would constitute a "draft" a form of negotiable instrument valid for payment.

+1, although with remote capture and deposit, they can just hand you the shirt back when you are done.

countryclubjoe · Sep 17, 2013

The bigger question to be asked is, are traffic (kangaroo courts) even constitutional?

Do traffic courts follow common law or are they governed by some quasi agency that was formed to charge citizens fees and impose fines?

If you do not acknowledge their jurisdiction over you then they cannot violate your rights.

Stay out of traffic court.

My .02

CCJ

carolina guy · Sep 17, 2013

countryclubjoe said:
The bigger question to be asked is, are traffic (kangaroo courts) even constitutional?

Do traffic courts follow common law or are they governed by some quasi agency that was formed to charge citizens fees and impose fines?

If you do not acknowledge their jurisdiction over you then they cannot violate your rights.

Stay out of traffic court.

My .02

CCJ

Why not? If one applies for and gets a government permission slip to exercise a "benefit", I guess you get whatcha asked for...

I suppose you can always walk or ride a horse.

Freedom1Man · Sep 17, 2013

carolina guy said:
Why not? If one applies for and gets a government permission slip to exercise a "benefit", I guess you get whatcha asked for...

I suppose you can always walk or ride a horse.

It's hard to park a horse anywhere in most cities here in the US of A

countryclubjoe · Sep 17, 2013

carolina guy said:
Why not? If one applies for and gets a government permission slip to exercise a "benefit", I guess you get whatcha asked for...

I suppose you can always walk or ride a horse.

Indeed. Sheepel like having the privilege of driving and bowing to the quasi agency that strips the sheepel of his rights.

They blindly enter into a contract with an agency and surrender their right to travel and give jurisdiction to agents of the government.

They pay fines and fees and are forced to incur insurance costs. They lose all their privacy.

My .02

CCJ

carolina guy · Sep 17, 2013

Freedom1Man said:
It's hard to park a horse anywhere in most cities here in the US of A

Why? There are fire hydrants all over the place, not to mention bike racks.

Logan 5 · Sep 17, 2013

Hmmm. you know guys, pulling stupid stunts like that, paying a fine with only coins, if anything it's creating enemies. We stand a better chance of winning a few battles and possibly the war with the courts and court personnel on our side instead of leery of contact because we're being dicks. If you are so confident that it's ok to speed, go ahead and speed. I won't stop you. But the second you are involved in a speed-related accident and the finger is pointed at you, if anyone dies in that accident I pray to God they nail you with every charge imaginable.

The speed limits are not always chosen wisely. That I'll admit. But for the most part they are decided by the engineers that build and/or maintain those roads. They aren't thinking "hey, this road can really handle some flashy speedster doing 95, but let's make this a ticket-trap and post it as 35 instead!"

When you pick issues with the courts over small stuff like that, you're creating enemies. We don't have time for that. We need allies.

marshaul · Sep 17, 2013

Creating enemies?

Next, the rape victim will have "created" her enemy by not putting out fast enough.

carolina guy · Sep 17, 2013

Logan 5 said:
Hmmm. you know guys, pulling stupid stunts like that, paying a fine with only coins, if anything it's creating enemies. We stand a better chance of winning a few battles and possibly the war with the courts and court personnel on our side instead of leery of contact because we're being dicks. If you are so confident that it's ok to speed, go ahead and speed. I won't stop you. But the second you are involved in a speed-related accident and the finger is pointed at you, if anyone dies in that accident I pray to God they nail you with every charge imaginable.

The speed limits are not always chosen wisely. That I'll admit. But for the most part they are decided by the engineers that build and/or maintain those roads. They aren't thinking "hey, this road can really handle some flashy speedster doing 95, but let's make this a ticket-trap and post it as 35 instead!"

When you pick issues with the courts over small stuff like that, you're creating enemies. We don't have time for that. We need allies.

I am not advocating operating a motor vehicle in an unsafe manner, nor do I don't think anyone else was either.

But, I don't think you will EVER find an "ally" in the court personnel by NOT making known your displeasure of an injustice. If he had walked in with $100 bills, would they have worked to reduce his fine? Not likely. I believe this was not only his 1A right, but the UCC says he was within his rights.

georg jetson · Sep 17, 2013

Freedom1Man said:
The letter was from the lead judge at Redmond's Court house. The point was to show how pointless and stupid these courts are.

These courts are not pointless and stupid. Their point is to rob and control us and they've done it in very clever ways.

Freedom1Man said:
Then, reading what some of the forum's statists have to say make me lose hope for the human race.

There does appear a need to hit the reset button.

georg jetson · Sep 17, 2013

countryclubjoe said:
The bigger question to be asked is, are traffic (kangaroo courts) even constitutional?

Do traffic courts follow common law or are they governed by some quasi agency that was formed to charge citizens fees and impose fines?

That depends on the state. I can tell you here in La that they are indeed constitutional because traffic court is criminal court. The unconstitutional part is that the state requires filing citations with a district or municipal court. The problem with that is according to my state's apa those cases should be dismissed because the state has not exhausted it administrative remedies.

countryclubjoe said:
If you do not acknowledge their jurisdiction over you then they cannot violate your rights.

Stay out of traffic court.

My .02

CCJ

Challenging jurisdiction is the correct action if you have the time. Exactly what argument are you using to "not acknowledge their jurisdiction over you"?

georg jetson · Sep 17, 2013

countryclubjoe said:
Indeed. Sheepel like having the privilege of driving and bowing to the quasi agency that strips the sheepel of his rights.

They blindly enter into a contract with an agency and surrender their right to travel and give jurisdiction to agents of the government.

They pay fines and fees and are forced to incur insurance costs. They lose all their privacy.

My .02

CCJ

What contract? Cite evidence of this "contract" you say "they blindly enter into".

This is why I have no respect for the courts anymore.

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member