Lawful money v Legal Tender Dispute

[palani]

SCOTUS does not accept Visa. They do not accept Mastercard. They do not accept specie. They do accept personal check, cashier check, money order or certified check as noted below.



Source:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/caseha...dcases2007.pdf

I am guessing that payment is required to access the de facto corporate side of the court rather than the de jure side.

[David Merrill]

Good guess.

The clerk of SCOTUS is screening all suits. The proprietor of the phone line there was showing up BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS DEPARTMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT, at least until I started using that in process.

Then they changed it.

Quote Rule 45.1 of the same Rules please. We should all get a little insight into SCOTUS being Executive, not Judicial!


Regards,

David Merrill.

[mrg]

The $300 is bribery and extortion.

It is also obstruction of justice.

docket fees.

Sums collected for placing the case on the docket or calender; fees allowable to attorneys under a federal statute. Anno: 22 ALR 1208.

(emphasis added)
Ballentine's 3rd

Docket fee.

An attorney's fee, of a fixed sum, chargeable with or as part of the costs of the action, for the attorney of the successful party;

so called because chargeable on the docket, not as a fee for making docket entries.

(emphasis added)
Black's 6th

When you invoke a court you must assert your jurisdiction to hold it and cannot let the judge usurp your judicial power.

This means you do not pay an attorney fee to him to conduct your court, you do not submit documents to him for his approval, you do not motion him to move your court, you deny everything he has tried to file and you strike anything that he has attempted to enter of record.

He will not like you.

You are not trying to make friends with him.

Without the judge you can eject attorneys and enter your own orders including a declaratory judgment if no other party appears for court in person.

[Shoonra]

This is silly and based on a misunderstanding so elementary that I suspect someone is being obtuse.

The US Supreme Court, like all courts, requires a filing fee to defray the court's own expenses for the labor and materials involved in its clerical operation. The Court wants a check or money order to create a paper trail of the payment and avoid problems. Supreme Court Rule 38 sets the fees for the various clerical chores such as docketing, reproducing documents, and certifying copies. Congress authorized the US Supreme Court to set these fee amounts; 28 USC sec 1911.

The Supreme Court will also consider applications to proceed in forma pauperis - without the payment of fees (S.Ct. Rule 39) - but this requires the litigant actually to be poor and not merely reluctant to spend money.

The Clerk of the Court "screens" submissions only to the extent of making sure that they comply with the Court's own rules, such as the inclusion of the appropriate fee, the appropriate paper size and signatures, etc. The Clerk does not make any decision about the merits of the arguments presented in the submissions.

These filing fees to the clerk's office are not "attorney's fees' or the like.

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

The Court wants a check or money order to create a paper trail of the payment and avoid problems.

And what exactly do you think the Court desires to do w/ this "paper trail"?

Why does the Court need such a paper trail?

[Shoonra]

Is there physical pain associated with being so slow witted?

The Supreme Court doesn't waant people to send cash for the same reason the IRS and other govt agencies, and virtually every mail order firm doesn't.

Cash in the envelope, or the expectation of it, is a temptation to too many people: postal employees, office clerks, etc. A check or money order made payable to the proper recipient not only discourages theft of envelopes but, if there's any sort of dispute about whether or how much money was paid, provides clear evidence of the amount, date, whether/when it was cashed, and so forth.

Some oldtimers may remember when the tax returns told people to make their checks out to "IRS" -- then about ten years ago they got smart and asked people to write out "US Treasury' becauise it was discovered that checks were being filched - before or after they reached the IRS address - and the "i" was being changed to an "m" so that the checks were altered to be payable to "MRS. Smith" or something like that.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

The Clerk of the Court "screens" submissions only to the extent of making sure that they comply with the Court's own rules, such as the inclusion of the appropriate fee, the appropriate paper size and signatures, etc. The Clerk does not make any decision about the merits of the arguments presented in the submissions.

They aren't supposed to, but in practice clerks and secretaries of any office or court can be difficult, often refusing to perform their duties as they run "interference" for the master. This happens on every level of society, from small-time professionals to big companies to courts of the state.

I once had a clerk of the property registrar refuse to file an act until their own attorneys "reviewed" it. Why? Because one of the parties names was the local city! So if I go there w/ a document naming any other person, thats OK, no questions asked- but if THE CITY is named, then the clerk will "decide"? As though some city attorney has a veto on what gets filed? So much for separation of powers...

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Is there physical pain associated with being so slow witted?

The Supreme Court doesn't waant people to send cash for the same reason the IRS and other govt agencies, and virtually every mail order firm doesn't.

Cash in the envelope, or the expectation of it, is a temptation to too many people: postal employees, office clerks, etc. A check or money order made payable to the proper recipient not only discourages theft of envelopes but, if there's any sort of dispute about whether or how much money was paid, provides clear evidence of the amount, date, whether/when it was cashed, and so forth.

There is a certain logic in what you write.

The only lawful purpose for a bank (to my mind), and the reason for which they were first introduced by the Templars (well, introduced in their modern form in the West) was for the purpose of providing secure transferrence of funds from one geographic locale to another.

It's the only reason I would (or ever do) use a "bank" (i.e.,when I'm traveling and I desire to have access to funds, w/o bringing along my gold and/or silver).

My point is simply that I bristle when I hear "money paper trail" mentioned in the same breath as some agency of government. The last thing we "need" in this world is "electronic" cash, or having the government stick its dirty lil snout into the "paper trail" of financial transactions that we make over the course of our lives.

Some oldtimers may remember when the tax returns told people to make their checks out to "IRS" -- then about ten years ago they got smart and asked people to write out "US Treasury' becauise it was discovered that checks were being filched - before or after they reached the IRS address - and the "i" was being changed to an "m" so that the checks were altered to be payable to "MRS. Smith" or something like that.

IRS agents filching $$ for themselves under the table?

Would've thunk it???

[Shoonra]

It's not an evaluation of the "merits" of the pleading if the clerk of court checks with someone about the proper designation of something that might have an official title. For example, a suit against the IRS should properly be captioned "v. the United States", because neither the IRS nor the Dept of Treasury have been authorized by Congress to sue or be sued in their own names.

The people filching the checks sent to the IRS were not "IRS agents". They were mail clerks, many of them not even federal civil servants but privately contracted labor.

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

For example, a suit against the IRS should properly be captioned "v. the United States", because neither the IRS nor the Dept of Treasury have been authorized by Congress to sue or be sued in their own names.

I wonder why that is?

The people filching the checks sent to the IRS were not "IRS agents". They were mail clerks, many of them not even federal civil servants but privately contracted labor.

Of course...

Federal civil servants are biologically incapable of doing any wrong.

Still, I wonder whether you would be willing to testify under the penalty of perjury that "no IRS agent has ever filched $$ under the table, unlawfully, from a taxpayer"..