NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/misc/legal/21974

Text File | 1993-01-03 | 7.8 KB | 157 lines

Newsgroups: misc.legal
Path: sparky!uunet!caen!mtu.edu!pecampbe
From: [e-mail] (Paul Campbell)
Subject: Re: Sorry, we don't accept cash... Huh?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Michigan Technological University
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 06:00:44 GMT
Lines: 145

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bruce James Robrert Linley) writes:
>In a previous article [e-mail] (Paul Campbell) spake...
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bruce James Robrert Linley) writes:
>>>
>>>    I just had a disturbing experience with a Federal Express delivery
>>>yesterday. It was a COD for $30.00. So I hand the guy a twenty and a ten. To
>>>my surprise, he said that he cannot accept cash. Holy inflation, Batman, our
>>>money's worthless! Is this legal? Has the phrase, "This note is legal tender
>>>for ALL debts public and private" lost its meaning? What's the world coming to?
>>
>>So, quite well within their legal grounds, the carrier refused your
>>offer. And no, that paper you offered is worthless (unless the coinage
>>act of 1787 has been recently repealed or they suddenly started
>>placing wording on the notes stating that they were redeemable for
>>something other than more worthless paper).
>>
>
>Well, I have about $75 in U.S. silver certificates, which unlike the 'notes'
>(which they bear an uncanny resemblance to), say that they're redeemable for
>silver ON DEMAND. But I'll be dammed if I'm going to spend those just to
>please Federal Express.

These are true notes. They promise to pay someone (the bearer) a
specific amount (marked on it). Unfortunately, the Federal Reserve
renigged on these a while ago.

In fact, it's so bad now that everyone is getting in on the game...
"In addition to securities, the federal government issues noninterest-
bearing debt -- currency of paper money. Currency is so widely accepted
as a medium of exchange that most people do not think of it as debt."
--_Two Faces of Debt_, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, p.4 [Aug 1978]

>The reason I'm upset about the refusal to accept cash is that it can lead to
>a dangerous situation. Consider the following: MasterCard offers retailers
>all over the U.S. incentives (read: bribes) to refuse all forms of payments
>other than MasterCharge. If enough retailers comply we'll end up in a
>situation where MasterCard is in a position to control the effective supply,
>flow, and value of money in the U.S. A bad credit rating can now totally ruin
>an individual (more than it can now). The federal reserve board will be
>rendered useless. And MasterCard can now exert enormous political control
>over industry and individuals (government? who needs that?)

Okay, I could flame here. I'm not going to.

As you just stated, some corporation could control the so-called money
supply. Actually, it controls a supply of debt or maybe some pebbles or
paper or something that most people accept as valuable, which is only
backed up by the word of the same corporation. The situation which you
are claiming to fear is ALREADY A REALITY. The corporation you are worried
about is the Federal Reserve Bank. They already manipulate the "effective
supply".

Of course, I'll help you by providing some appropriate quotes:

"[Bank] Deposits are merely book entries." -- _Modern Money Mechanics_,
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, p.3 [rev. June 1975]

"Banks don't keep cash in checking accounts... Checkbook balances
are transferred between accounts as bookkeeping entries only." -- _I Bet
You Thought_, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, p. 7 [2nd ed. 1980]

And what's worse, the "experts" agree with you that this dangerous
situation spells trouble:
"Lenin is said to have delcared that the best way to destroy the
capitalist system was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process
of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an
important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not
only confiscate, but the confiscate arbitrarily; and while the process
impoverishes many, it actually enriches some." -- _Keynes on Inflation_,
1980 Annual Report, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, p.6.

Know what's really funny about Keynes' theory? He said that the government
HAS to tax heavily or people won't believe the fraud anymore (the term
inflation also means taxation here):
"If governments should refrain from regulation [taxation] the worthlessness
of the money [sic] becomes apparent, and the fraud upon the public can be
concealed no longer." -- _Economic Consequences of the Peace_, John Maynard
Keynes, p.225 [1919]

Oh, if you're a Christian, your god is pretty ticked off about the
situation, too.

"Divers weights and divers measures, both of them are alike abomination
to the Lord." -- Proverbs 20:10.

"Now faith is the substances of things hoped for, and the evidence of
things not seen." -- Hebrews 11:1

>the check I wrote him was backed up by my cash (the notes again) in the bank.
>Any credit payments made are back up by U.S. funds (read: cash) by the Credit

The term "U.S. funds" and equating it to your definition of "cash" is
wrong here. You should say that your credit is backed up by the word of
the Federal Reserve Banks that you do indeed owe them money and are paying
in the form of debt (another term for credit).

"The terms 'lawful money' or 'lawful money of the United States' shall
be construed to mean gold or silver coin of the United States." -- Title
12 United States Code, Section 152.

By the way, this is NOT a conspiracy theory. Several states have taken
action to rectify the problem. See the following Monetary Resolutions
demanding repeal of the Federal Reserve "Act":
HCM 2002, State of Arizona, January 21, 1982. 35th Legislature, 2nd
session.
H.J.R. 90, Alabama
Engrossed Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 127, Washington. 47th
Legislature, 2nd Extraordinary Session. Adopted Decmber 1, 1981.

>company. So I ask again why do they refuse to accept cash as payment? Since I
>needed something from Federal Express, a refusal to pay by something other
>than cash would only hurt me. But If someone I owe money to refused to accept

No. A refusal to accept something other than debt makes good sense. A
debt cannot pay a debt. And since it is all debt anyways, they can be
as tough about it as they want.

>cash repayment, I'd tell them to get screwed. If they took action against me
>for lack of payment, I'd go to court and win, because I offered to pay with
>something good for ALL DEBTS PUBLIC ***AND PRIVATE***. And before anyone talks

Okay, let me quote from the face of these notes again. "This note is legal
TENDER for all debts public and private." (emphasis mine). Note the
key word tender. Tender of payment means to offer to pay a debt. You seem
to have missed this one again. I can offer you anything I want. That is
tendering payment. You are not obliged to accept it, though if I refuse
to accept your offer of full payment (this must be a lawful payment, so
don't try to offer someone debt like you did anymore), then you do indeed
have a legal recourse.

>about how I pay the Credit bill, let me say that I do not send cash ONLY
>because it is not a good idea to send cash through the mail. I would, however,
>expect any company (credit card/gas/phone/etc.) to take cash If I paid at
>their office in person. And again, if they refused my cash, I'd consider any
>services/goods that I got from the company to be a free gift to me.

OK, so you are saying that you recognize the fraud and wish to use it
to your advantage against other people. Some people recognize the fraud
and do it only because they have to eat. You are saying that you do it
because you want to be one of the class of people that Keynes said would
be enriched by it.

>Flame away.

I did not flame. Sorry to disappoint you.