Silver Bonds

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

If you really think that FRNs are valueless, take all you have and dump them in the collection plate at church.

It's extremely unwise to keep tempting fate in this way..

Keep repeating this over and over and over again often, and soon enough your FRNs really will be worthless..

The Fed just cut interest rates again, didn't they?

And, going back to the original question, the judge can insist on payment in US currency (including FRNs). From the way the statute reads, I don't think the judge can insist on FRNs to the exclusion of silver coins or US Notes and if you want to pay your fine that way, dollar for dollar at face value, I'm sure the judge will gladly accept it.

That's the "technicality" I'm interested in exploring..

It's my understanding that judges *won't* accept silver dollars, or silver bullion, in discharge of debt (apparently the legal system isn't set up to handle/process physical metal), even though as you indicate it's a legitimate way in which to discharge the debt. The offer is made, and the judge refuses it. Debt is discharged.

I've heard of people having success in this manner, and I was wondering if anyone on this board has heard of that, or knew more details, etc..

[Shoonra]

Looking at the legal tender law, the judge must accept any currency that was ever issued by the US govt, including silver certificates, coins including (old) silver or gold coins, FRNs, United States Notes and Gold Certificates (which have not been issued in about 70 years). But he cannot accept bullion.

I would think that any sensible person would realize that any of the older forms of money, especially the gold or silver coins, are worth a lot more than face value in FRNs if sold to a collector. The judge can only accept them at face value.

I would have thought that if you really believed that FRNs were worthless, you wouldn't have hesitated to give the FRNs to the judge and keep the silver and gold for yourself.

[Shoonra]

If there is consideration and it is refused, then the debt is void, that is BASIC contract law.

I think that you, perhaps, misunderstand the concept of consideration. Consideration is an element of the formation of a contract, not the form of payment itself.

As for refusal of payment making the debt void, not only is that not "basic contract law", it doesn't even seem to be part of the more sophisticated deails of contract law. Under the UCC, and before the UCC under the common law of business practices, unless explicitly specified otherwise in the agreement, creditors/vendors could insist on payment in legal tender and reject any other forms of payment, such as merchandise, checks and other promises of future payment.

A refusal of an actual tendering of legal tender of the full amount -- such as might be justified in the creditor's mind if, for example, it was made in an hour or place where the money or he might not be safe from robbers -- does not erase the debt. It merely freezes whatever interest or late penalties have accrued to that moment, although these may start mounting again if the debtor thereafter refuses to part with the money at a more appropriate time and place.

If the creditor/vendor accepts a check, it constitutes payment only if the check does not bounce. If he accepts a promissory note or some other kind of promise of future payment, then the original debt is displaced by the debt created by the promissory note - so non-payment means a lawsuit on the promissory note rather than on the original transaction.

I hope this makes things clear for you.

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

I would have thought that if you really believed that FRNs were worthless, you wouldn't have hesitated to give the FRNs to the judge and keep the silver and gold for yourself.

The FRNs I possess were obtained through my labor.

I have no desire to trade my labor unnecessarily to those who are completely and utterly undeserving of it.

[Shoonra]

Have it your way. Don't pay the fine, make many new friends in the slammer.

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Have it your way. Don't pay the fine, make many new friends in the slammer.

It's not a matter of not paying the fine.

I fully intend to pay the fine one way or another.. it's a $35 parking ticket.. hardly worth making an Alamo stand over. But I try to live life in such a way so as to extract as many learning opportunities as I can from it.

The FRN system is clearly corrupt to the core, as are the (fraudulent) judges and lawyers who support it.

If I can use opportunities like this to learn how the System works, how corrupt it is, how fraudulent it truly is, then I fully intend to, and that was my intention in starting this thread.

[ezrhythm]

Yes, it definitely is possible to discharge a debt with a silver bond.
Here on this site, Kitchie has told of a silver bond used to cover the $1000 appeal fee for a traffic case.
I have a generic version of one but it is on a pc that's far away from me at the moment.
I also have a copy, on that same pc, of two receipts from when someone used a silver bond to cover traffic fines.

[artificialsteve]

Originally Posted by ThomPaine

why in the world would one want to pay a parking ticket?

That is such an effective answer. LOL!!!

[robhalford88]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

I think that you, perhaps, misunderstand the concept of consideration. Consideration is an element of the formation of a contract, not the form of payment itself.

As for refusal of payment making the debt void, not only is that not "basic contract law", it doesn't even seem to be part of the more sophisticated deails of contract law. Under the UCC, and before the UCC under the common law of business practices, unless explicitly specified otherwise in the agreement, creditors/vendors could insist on payment in legal tender and reject any other forms of payment, such as merchandise, checks and other promises of future payment.

A refusal of an actual tendering of legal tender of the full amount -- such as might be justified in the creditor's mind if, for example, it was made in an hour or place where the money or he might not be safe from robbers -- does not erase the debt. It merely freezes whatever interest or late penalties have accrued to that moment, although these may start mounting again if the debtor thereafter refuses to part with the money at a more appropriate time and place.

If the creditor/vendor accepts a check, it constitutes payment only if the check does not bounce. If he accepts a promissory note or some other kind of promise of future payment, then the original debt is displaced by the debt created by the promissory note - so non-payment means a lawsuit on the promissory note rather than on the original transaction.

I hope this makes things clear for you.

Sure, Shoonra, whatever you say.