PDA

View Full Version : California Residents Hit With Government Ban On Paying By Cash



Serpo
29th January 2011, 10:54 PM
California Residents Hit With Government Ban On Paying By Cash

District officials want to find out who “uncommonly antagonistic” individuals are by tracing requests for public records, while federal government paints cash users as potential terrorists


Residents of Discovery Bay, California will be the first in the country to be officially denied the right to use cash to pay for public services, in a move that echoes the Department of Homeland Security’s drive to depict those who use physical money as potential terrorists.

As reported by the Contra Costa Times recently, from May onwards, residents will no long be allowed to pay water bills or purchase park permits after the Discovery Bay Community Services District board voted to ban cash transactions for all services.

Anyone paying for such public services must do so with a credit/debit card, a check or money order.

The declaration on all US money bills that “This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private” will no longer apply in Discovery Bay when it comes to paying the government.

One former director on the District Board told the Times that he believes the move has come in response to a small amount of anonymous requests for copies of public records, which were then paid for in cash, a perfectly legal right.

Residents of the town have been described as “uncommonly antagonistic toward local government”, and former director David Piepho believes some are attempting to use public records “to be like snipers and take shots.”

He believes that by banning cash payments, the local government will be able to identify who these individuals are or prevent them from requesting further public information.

However, district representatives have denied those claims, instead suggesting that the ban is being put in place because handling cash puts city officials under threat from potential thieves.

The ruling sets a dangerous precedent, not only in that it effectively limits access to public records, but also particularly in light of the fact that the federal government is pushing an agenda to identify those who exclusively use cash to pay for things and do not own credit cards as suspicious and potential terrorists.

As part of the Commercial Facilities Sector Training and Resources, the following PSA video titled DHS Video No Reservations – Extension of “See Something, Say Something” program was recently released by Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

The video suggests that “Terrorists and criminals do their best to cover their tracks. This may include paying by cash.” The hotel receptionist acts baffled and dumbfounded when a guest asks to pay in cash and says he does not use credit cards. Like a dutiful tattle tale she alerts her manager, concluding “I guess it’s not a problem, it’s just… WEIRD.” The narrator of the video then confirms “This is suspicious behaviour”.

Of course, what really is “WEIRD” is the fact that we’re expected to believe that US citizens will find it perfectly normal being asked to report on each other for a government that wishes your every purchase to be electronically traceable on the off chance that you might be an enemy of the state.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRMcdgMhz2w&feature=player_embedded
http://www.prisonplanet.com/california-residents-hit-with-government-ban-on-using-cash.html

midnight rambler
29th January 2011, 11:00 PM
Under Section 3-603(b) of the UCC (and California's state code mirrors this exactly) if a tender is made and is refused, then the debt is discharged to the amount of the tender. Sounds to me like they're doing the citizenry a favor.

Edited to correct cite and add link.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/article3.htm#s3-603

Cobalt
29th January 2011, 11:10 PM
Those goofy Californians get goofier and goofier.

They don't have enough money to buy a pot too piss in but they figure they can turn down a payment of cold hard cash that doesn't have any credit card fees tied too it which means they get all the money

Libertytree
29th January 2011, 11:16 PM
Under Section 3-306(b) of the UCC (and California's state code mirrors this exactly) if a tender is made and is refused, then the debt is discharged to the amount of the tender. Sounds to me like they're doing the citizenry a favor.


Most folks don't know that and will blindly obey. The politicians ain't gonna learn until it's too late and the people explode, exerting their full wrath upon them. Should be a great show. Like, stuff a water bill payment down a councilman's throat and see if he don't change his fuckin' tune.

midnight rambler
30th January 2011, 01:14 AM
Under Section 3-306(b) of the UCC (and California's state code mirrors this exactly) if a tender is made and is refused, then the debt is discharged to the amount of the tender. Sounds to me like they're doing the citizenry a favor.


Most folks don't know that and will blindly obey. The politicians ain't gonna learn until it's too late and the people explode, exerting their full wrath upon them. Should be a great show. Like, stuff a water bill payment down a councilman's throat and see if he don't change his fuckin' tune.


My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.

Low_five
30th January 2011, 01:49 AM
Under Section 3-603(b) of the UCC (and California's state code mirrors this exactly) if a tender is made and is refused, then the debt is discharged to the amount of the tender. Sounds to me like they're doing the citizenry a favor.

Edited to correct cite and add link.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/article3.htm#s3-603


So whats your damage if they continue to refuse to give you information? Is it a contract agreement when you go to get stuff from the govt? Who do you sue?

midnight rambler
30th January 2011, 01:51 AM
Under Section 3-603(b) of the UCC (and California's state code mirrors this exactly) if a tender is made and is refused, then the debt is discharged to the amount of the tender. Sounds to me like they're doing the citizenry a favor.

Edited to correct cite and add link.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/article3.htm#s3-603


So whats your damage if they continue to refuse to give you information? Is it a contract agreement when you go to get stuff from the govt? Who do you sue?


One would sue whomever the officeholder responsible is.

Glass
30th January 2011, 02:12 AM
Under Section 3-603(b) of the UCC (and California's state code mirrors this exactly) if a tender is made and is refused, then the debt is discharged to the amount of the tender. Sounds to me like they're doing the citizenry a favor.

Edited to correct cite and add link.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/article3.htm#s3-603


So whats your damage if they continue to refuse to give you information? Is it a contract agreement when you go to get stuff from the govt? Who do you sue?


The law exists under Admiralty, which is adversarial. On that basis the other party does not need to reveal their strategy.

Buddha
30th January 2011, 03:51 AM
HA! no cash? that's just grand. Let me get this straight. The federal reserve prints currency for pennies, then loans it to the gov at face value + interest. Then the state gov will not accept it? GTFO.

vacuum
30th January 2011, 04:09 AM
Or put another way. The government declares by fiat that FRNs are the only legal mechanism to pay off debt. But then they don't accept them!

Twisted Titan
30th January 2011, 05:30 AM
Or put another way. The government declares by fiat that FRNs are the only legal mechanism to pay off debt. But then they don't accept them!



Because it proves my Thesis quite cleary.

It is not about money........Fiat Money is a Fiction
IT IS ALL ABOUT THE CONTROL.
The debt makes you a wage slave that will control the most coveted asset of all.

TIME.

Time is the great equalizer among us......... For all the Billions that the elite can create at the click of a mouse not one extra minute can be made So those in power did the next best thing.

Force Multiplers

By increasing the number of wage slaves out there they can almost yeild the same results as if they were to get more time. I just read about some wall street Tycoon Hedge Fund manager got a 8 billion dollar bonus) they figured out he was making 159 DOLLARS PER SECOND since they cant actually get it they come as close as possible in terms of the relative

T

kregener
30th January 2011, 05:51 AM
Fucking Prison Planet 'News'...

crazychicken
30th January 2011, 07:20 AM
This info deserves a BIG THANK YOU!

CC




Under Section 3-603(b) of the UCC (and California's state code mirrors this exactly) if a tender is made and is refused, then the debt is discharged to the amount of the tender. Sounds to me like they're doing the citizenry a favor.

Edited to correct cite and add link.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/article3.htm#s3-603

StreetsOfGold
30th January 2011, 07:38 AM
one small step closer to the mark of the beast.
You will
1) take it
2) not take it and die for not taking it
3) get out of here before (raputred) it becomes required (that's me)

Horn
30th January 2011, 07:58 AM
and do not own credit cards as suspicious and potential terrorists.

Electronic dollar positive.

ShortJohnSilver
30th January 2011, 08:18 AM
In a way they are doing us a favor ... showing their teeth now ... they are hastening the day of the FRNs demise.

mrnhtbr2232
30th January 2011, 08:22 AM
Dear U.S. Department of Homeland Security: Fuck You.

mick silver
30th January 2011, 08:33 AM
dam ... the show that just want stop .... we are all living in one fuck up world

Son-of-Liberty
30th January 2011, 01:59 PM
This sort of thing doesn't concern me too much. As long as there is still cash in circulation. Like Midnight Rambler posted if they refuse payment they just did you a favor. Get them on a voice recorder or something and when they try to cut off your water or whatever you can sue. In fact you can pay your bills in pennies if you want . It is all "legal tender."

Cobalt
30th January 2011, 02:56 PM
I looked online and paying water bills online isn't currently an option, they are also in a process of no longer adding water bills onto tax bills so water bills will be stand alone billing.

Meliorist
30th January 2011, 04:07 PM
Under Section 3-603(b) of the UCC (and California's state code mirrors this exactly) if a tender is made and is refused, then the debt is discharged to the amount of the tender. Sounds to me like they're doing the citizenry a favor.

Edited to correct cite and add link.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/article3.htm#s3-603
Yes, if they truly reject legal tender the debt is discharged. But they can still cut off your water and refuse to turn it on just as a retailer can refuse pennies: what hasn't yet been purchased is not a debt (the two parties can agree to contract on any terms they want).

solid
30th January 2011, 04:48 PM
Yes, if they truly reject legal tender the debt is discharged. But they can still cut off your water and refuse to turn it on just as a retailer can refuse pennies: what hasn't yet been purchased is not a debt (the two parties can agree to contract on any terms they want).


A bill is a debt though, that's the difference. Yes, they can shut off the water for future use, such as the retailer refuses penniess...but they can't go after the past water use, the debt owed on the bill. That debt should then discharged.

vacuum
30th January 2011, 05:50 PM
Yes, if they truly reject legal tender the debt is discharged. But they can still cut off your water and refuse to turn it on just as a retailer can refuse pennies: what hasn't yet been purchased is not a debt (the two parties can agree to contract on any terms they want).


A bill is a debt though, that's the difference. Yes, they can shut off the water for future use, such as the retailer refuses penniess...but they can't go after the past water use, the debt owed on the bill. That debt should then discharged.

I'd think there are laws requiring they provide service to citizens. They can't arbitrarily cut off water of people on a whim. They can probably only do it in certain cases, like for those who don't pay, or for those who use excessive amounts of water. Neither of those reasons are valid in this case.

Son-of-Liberty
30th January 2011, 10:38 PM
I think so too. If the city is providing it then it is a public service. I don't think they can discriminate and decide who gets water and who doesn't. As long as you pay the bill which is usually sent out after the service is provided then you should be good.

etc
30th January 2011, 11:08 PM
Federal Reserve Notes are not:

1. Cash
2. Money
3. Legal Tender
4. Notes
5. Dollars