what the heck is a private international administrative remedy demand

Hear, hear! I am in agreement with mrg.

[Shoonra]

If I owe $140 in "online" taxes (I joke, but the sad thing is I can see this money hungry government attempting to tax online time), can I offer to pay in $100 of pennies (in case you didn't know, the intrinsic value of the metal in a penny is now $.014 - what's next...plastic pennies?)? Sure. Can (or more appropriately, Will) the government reject such an offer? Of course.

Presumably, a debt, large or small, can be paid in any sort of Congressionally-authorized currency (or money or coinage or whatever term you like). There used to be, more than 20 years ago, a law that said that payments above a certain amount (like $20) could not be paid "in minor coins" -- this was deliberately concocted to prevent those spiteful payments of taxes or alimony with tons of pennies; but this provision no longer appears in the US Code.

Arguably you could, now, pay your taxes in pennies. But there are machines that can sort and count bushels of coins in a minute, and in return you'd have to lug around hundreds of pounds of coins at considerable trouble and expense to yourself.

There have been attempts to pay taxes in something other than money -- people have offered their cars or other properties as a substitute for money, but the law enables the IRS to refuse any non-monetary payments.
There were also attempts to pay the taxes with collector coins - old silver and gold coins - but the IRS is limited by law to counting these only for face value, so a 1910 ten dollar gold coin - now worth maybe $500 among collectors - will only be counted as if ten $1 FRNs.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Presumably, a debt, large or small, can be paid in any sort of Congressionally-authorized currency (or money or coinage or whatever term you like). There used to be, more than 20 years ago, a law that said that payments above a certain amount (like $20) could not be paid "in minor coins" -- this was deliberately concocted to prevent those spiteful payments of taxes or alimony with tons of pennies; but this provision no longer appears in the US Code.

Arguably you could, now, pay your taxes in pennies. But there are machines that can sort and count bushels of coins in a minute, and in return you'd have to lug around hundreds of pounds of coins at considerable trouble and expense to yourself.

There have been attempts to pay taxes in something other than money -- people have offered their cars or other properties as a substitute for money, but the law enables the IRS to refuse any non-monetary payments.
There were also attempts to pay the taxes with collector coins - old silver and gold coins - but the IRS is limited by law to counting these only for face value, so a 1910 ten dollar gold coin - now worth maybe $500 among collectors - will only be counted as if ten $1 FRNs.

Still going!

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by mrg

Still going!

Interesting history lesson Shoonra, but if that is all you got from my post, the subject matter was clearly not understood. That response may qualify as going off into a new dimension, not just a new tangent.

Absolutely remarkable.

[Ice]

I don't know why all this talk about "money" is going on. It has nothing to do with the Administrative Remedy.

No CPN needs to be offered in order to use these docs.

You request verification/validation under the law.

If they do not provide such they are at fault.

And, under law, they cannot take any further action when verification/validation has been requested.

Read the docs. Realize that all this talk about money, legal tender, "monetary theories" isn't necessary.

But since you've brought it up, if you owe me you better bring some kind of farm animal for payment... because I won't and absolutely refuse to accept FRN's for a private debt. AND, BY LAW, I CAN DO SO (regardless of what shoonra may think).

Ice

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Ice

I don't know why all this talk about "money" is going on. It has nothing to do with the Administrative Remedy.


But since you've brought it up, if you owe me you better bring some kind of farm animal for payment... because I won't and absolutely refuse to accept FRN's for a private debt.

AND, BY LAW, I CAN DO SO (regardless of what shoonra may think).

Ice

Here is one reason "why all this talk about 'money' is going on:"

Thread was set up for derailment by resident derailer on page one or two and successfully derailed about post #44 or so by the tag team derailing partner you mentioned.

Both are demonstrably accomplished in the art and artifice.

Neither submitted anything of substance or value to the stipulated topic.

I posted an illustration of how this is continually allowed to be practiced, despite rules of engagement to the contrary.

The issue should never have been allowed to be introduced for two reasons:

1. The derailer who brought it up was posting off topic, probably deliberately.

2. The post, in subject matter, is redundant and has been settled, for one, by virtue of non-responsiveness to challenge to prove claims and, according to the rules of engagement is moot, and should not be allowed to be continually re-introduced until the claim has been proved up in the manner stipulated as a challenge to claims made.

This practice of red herring, ad hominem, derailment will continue to occur, and according to those who favor the practices of the so called "trolls" being allowed, regardless of failing the rules of engagement, the practices of the "trolls" are deemed to be either healthy or a neccesary evil.

If this seems off topic, I am only responding to your first statement.

If I seem to be on an "anti troll" soapbox, consider: I have always demanded direct, straightforward, honest, valid, verifiable, point for point, orderly, non-deceptive, non-rhetorical, responsive, expository, cognitively reasoned, and ultimately evaluative, statements, arrived at through commonly accepted method for proof of law or its penultimate, to any challenges to claims, and have NEVER received anything remotely resembling such from any of the so-called trolls.

Your stipulation as to the form in which you must be paid or re-paid seems quite reasonable and pragmatic.

It is lawful and just.

Is a healthy colt less likely to depreciate in practical substantial value than privately issued evidence of debt obigation used as a "medium of exchange" based solely on confidence, i.e. a "con?"

[Ice]

Originally Posted by mrg

Is a healthy colt less likely to depreciate in practical substantial value than privately issued evidence of debt obigation used as a "medium of exchange" based solely on confidence, i.e. a "con?"

Okay... off topic again... but I gotta say that I could get a lot more use out of a healthy colt than a "note."

Thanks for your response. I too appreciate straight answers to straight questions... and there is a lot less of that going on.

Ice