|
BOE's and the exemption
I've been thinking about BOE's and how some people claim to have discharged debt's&using such an&instrument that cited&Public Policy w/o having&been drawn on a Treasury account.&I think anyone who&has succeeded in this manner has merely "lucked out" for&various reasons. Such a document is, I believe, bogus.&By definition and operation, a BOE (in it's various flavors) must have a drawee. Who would be the drawee on the aforementioned type of "BOE"? The drawer is "ordering" Public Policy to pay/credit the payee? It doesn't make sense. Such a document can and should be rejected because it doesn't meet the requirements for being a BOE. If I were a lawyer for a bank that was tendered&such a "BOE" to discharge a mortgage for example, I should be able to win a foreclosure case on that point w/o bringing up the uncomfortable topic of Public Policy (HJR192,&PL73-10). People who have had successes using such a document may have&prevailed because the payee was willing to go along with it and knew&some way&to use&it despite the lack of a drawee, or because the judge didn't want to deal with the Public Policy issue, or some other reason.
Public Policy provides an exemption. When&this concept is mapped&into&an accounting&construct,&we have&(in theory) "unlimited credit". Public Policy is the <U>basis</U> for the credit, not the actual credit itself any more than a regulation, statute or code can be a credit (or debt, for that matter). You can't write a check or&draw a money order--BOE's themselves--on regs, stats, or codes. The "big" BOE is no different.
Don't get me wrong. I think one can access one's exemption w/o having a Treasury account; Public Policy stands on its own. There probably is a way to do this,&but whatever that document is, it's not a "drawee-free" BOE.
|
