PDA

View Full Version : iowa highway pirates get beat



cheka.
8th December 2016, 10:27 PM
https://www.casino.org/news/poker-players-win-civil-forfeiture-case-iowa-police

Poker Players Win Civil Forfeiture Case against Iowa Police

Two California poker players have won their longstanding battle with the state of Iowa after they had their bankrolls confiscated during a warrantless search by two state troopers in 2013.

William “Bart” Davis and John Newmerzhycky claimed that $100,020 was seized unlawfully from the trunk of their car under the controversial civil forfeiture scheme, which allows law enforcement to confiscate cash and property from detainees without the need for a warrant or criminal charge.

On Monday, the very day the state agreed to settle the lawsuit by returning 90 percent of the funds to the players, plus $60,000 in damages, it also announced it would disband its Iowa Drug Interdiction Team, which oversees the state’s civil forfeiture scheme. The Iowa Attorney General’s office declined to say whether the two decisions were related.

Until the 1980s, civil forfeiture was used almost exclusively to target convicted drug kingpins. But the broadening of its scope over the past 30 years has led many critics to claim the system is being abused to generate profits for law enforcement agencies and that officers are incentivized to confiscate cash under circumstances that possibly violate the constitution.

Long Battle to Clear Names

In April 2013, Davis and Newmerzhycky were driving through Iowa along the Interstate 80 when they were pulled over by officers Justin Simmons and Eric VanderWiel, ostensibly for failing to signal as they changed lanes, although video surveillance in the patrol car later showed that this was not the case.

Along with the cash in the trunk, which was essentially the entirety of the players’ bankrolls, they found a tiny amount of marijuana (0.001 grams), although both men were medical marijuana cardholders in their home state of California.

As a result, the players were hit with felony charges and their bank accounts frozen. In the ensuing expensive and protracted battle to clear their names Newmerzhycky suffered a stroke, brought on, he believes, by the stress of the situation.
Pushing Constitutional Boundaries

“Those Iowa cops pretty much put an end to [poker] and ruined my life I had people willing to back me at the time, but after this happened that was all off the table,” Newmerzhycky later told Card Player Magazine. “Basically, I had to move out of my house and be homeless for a while because I couldn’t pay my mortgage.”

Glen Downey, the attorney for the two gamblers, said he believes the settlement of his clients’ lawsuit and the disbanding of the Drug Interdiction Team were no coincidence.

“The true importance of this lawsuit was that it forced the state of Iowa to re-examine its decades-long practice of pushing the constitutional boundaries of the state’s civil asset forfeiture law and to disband the Iowa Drug Interdiction Team.”

osoab
9th December 2016, 04:33 PM
Did anyone get reprimanded or lose a job?

palani
9th December 2016, 05:53 PM
Beat?

They used the float for 3 years.

cheka.
9th December 2016, 06:25 PM
Beat?

They used the float for 3 years.

beat yes

the state agreed to settle the lawsuit by returning 90 percent of the funds to the players, plus $60,000 in damages, it also announced it would disband its Iowa Drug Interdiction Team, which oversees the state’s civil forfeiture scheme.

palani
9th December 2016, 07:13 PM
beat yes

I suppose you have some idea what the Lawyers Guild will charge for this 'success'?

What is your best guess?

While you are at it do a search for 12 USC 411 and give me your ideas on what congress meant to convey by this 'code'. If you have a federal reserve note in your possession does that make you the owner? And if you aren't the owner then what is your status?

Carl
9th December 2016, 09:05 PM
I suppose you have some idea what the Lawyers Guild will charge for this 'success'?

What is your best guess?

While you are at it do a search for 12 USC 411 and give me your ideas on what congress meant to convey by this 'code'. If you have a federal reserve note in your possession does that make you the owner? And if you aren't the owner then what is your status?

If the note in in your possession, it is your property, you are its owner, no one else has a claim on it, not even a creditor or the U.S.G.

midnight rambler
9th December 2016, 09:23 PM
If the note in in your possession, it is your property, you are its owner, no one else has a claim on it, not even a creditor or the U.S.G.

While you may *believe* you 'own' the piece of paper with the ink on it in your possession the truth and the reality, as set forth in 12 USC 411, is that there is ONLY ONE purpose and NO OTHER purpose for Federal Reserve Notes and that is to make advances to Federal Reserve banks through Federal Reserve agents.

cheka.
9th December 2016, 09:34 PM
I suppose you have some idea what the Lawyers Guild will charge for this 'success'? pennies on the dollar

What is your best guess? pennies on the dollar

While you are at it do a search for 12 USC 411 and give me your ideas on what congress meant to convey by this 'code'. If you have a federal reserve note in your possession does that make you the owner? And if you aren't the owner then what is your status? it makes you the user. status = user.

anything else?

Carl
9th December 2016, 09:34 PM
While you may *believe* you 'own' the piece of paper with the ink on it in your possession the truth and the reality, as set forth in 12 USC 411, is that there is ONLY ONE purpose and NO OTHER purpose for Federal Reserve Notes and that is to make advances to Federal Reserve banks through Federal Reserve agents.

They make those advances to service deposit account holders' demand for the monetary medium. The ristriction is on the banks, they cannot use the notes for any other purpose. That's why banks never loan money.

midnight rambler
9th December 2016, 09:37 PM
Carl, on their face FRNs are debt...are you going to claim (some other party's) debt as your own?

cheka.
9th December 2016, 09:37 PM
poof

http://www.dps.state.ia.us/ISP/information/ispmiscinfo.shtml

Drug Interdiction

The Iowa State Patrol has expanded our involvement in drug interdiction along Iowa's highway system. State Troopers have received specialized training in detecting persons transporting illegal drugs. These techniques are utilized after a motorist is stopped for a violation of Iowa law. In recent years, the Iowa State Patrol has experienced significant increases in the numbers of narcotics arrests. Since 1997 the Iowa State Patrol has seized more than $13,000,000 in illegal drugs.

http://www.interstatedrugbust.com/drug-stop/interstate_traffic_stops/

The Iowa State Patrol, tasked with the job of patrolling Iowa’s vast highways and interstate roads, has developed two teams of State Troopers whose sole job is to interdict individuals transporting drugs and money. They often make interdiction stops in Cass, Adair, Dallas, Poweshiek, Iowa, Johnson, Jasper and Polk counties. The Pottawattamie County Sheriff’s Office located in Council Bluffs, has an officer, Brian Miller, dedicated to interstate drug interdiction. (We were recently interviewed for an article in the Des Moines Register regarding this subject. Click here to read the article)

These cops profile and target out-of-state vehicles. If you are from the east coast, west coast, Colorado, the desert southwest or basically anywhere in the country other than Iowa, you are a target. Police theorize that drugs travel eastbound because drugs like meth, marijuana and heroin originate in the southwest in states like California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. Additionally, several western states like Colorado and Oregon have legalized Marijuana. Money then travels westbound to purchase the drugs. Thus, the cops on the Drug Interdiction Teams conduct traffic stops almost exclusively on motorists from outside of Iowa. In fact, in one case we obtained and analyzed citation data from a member of the Iowa State Patrol’s Drug Interdiction Team East and found that over a four year period he wrote 92% of his tickets to non-Iowa plated vehicles.

So, here is how a drug interdiction investigation during an interstate drug traffic stop works. A State Trooper sitting in the median or atop an overpass identifies a car he deems suspicious. Then the cop pulls out to follow the car. Often the officer drives up next to the car to see whether the driver looks over. Next, the Trooper finds a reason, usually a minor traffic offense like speeding or window tint, to stop the car.

After stopping the car, the officer informs the driver that he is only issuing a warning ticket and asks the driver to come sit in the patrol. During this time the cop makes important observations of the exterior and interior of the vehicle. After returning to the patrol car, the Trooper conducts a “motorist interview”. This interview consists of many questions about the driver’s travel plans, background, family, work history, etc. If there are passengers the officer will return to the stopped vehicle and speak with them to see if their stories match the driver’s. Eventually, the officer will give the driver the warning and tell him to have a nice day.

As the driver exits the patrol car so does the Trooper. The Trooper asks the driver’s permission to ask a few additional questions. These questions are whether drugs, weapons or large sums of cash can be found in the vehicle. After the driver indicates no drugs, weapons or money are in the vehicle the officer asks if he can run a drug dog around the car. If the driver says no, the officer detains the occupants and calls for a dog. The dog arrives minutes later and sniffs the vehicle. A positive sniff results in a full scale search of the vehicle. If drugs or cash are found, the car is impounded and brought to a DOT shed. The Iowa Department of Narcotics Enforcement is called and the driver (and passengers) is interrogated. Often, if cash is found the police attempt to have the driver (and passengers) sign a waiver form disclaiming any interest in the money so that it can be forfeited to the state or federal government.

While not every criminal and/or seized property case stemming from these drug interdiction traffic stops is defendable, many are quite defendable. Knowing what issues to look for and how to properly litigate these cases is key to successfully defending them. We have been on the forefront of successfully litigating these cases. One such example is the case of State v. Harahan. In Hanrahan we lost at the district court level on our motion to suppress evidence but won in the Iowa Court of Appeals. As a result, all criminal charges were dropped and over $50,000.00 was returned. If you have been the victim of an interstate drug interdiction traffic stop call us immediately. Let us put our experience to work for you.

midnight rambler
9th December 2016, 09:39 PM
poof

http://www.dps.state.ia.us/ISP/information/ispmiscinfo.shtml

Drug Interdiction

The Iowa State Patrol has expanded our involvement in drug interdiction along Iowa's highway system. State Troopers have received specialized training in detecting persons transporting illegal drugs. These techniques are utilized after a motorist is stopped for a violation of Iowa law. In recent years, the Iowa State Patrol has experienced significant increases in the numbers of narcotics arrests. Since 1997 the Iowa State Patrol has seized more than $13,000,000 in illegal drugs.

The primary job of 'law enforcement' is to protect the interests of the top while keeping the little people 'in line'*.

*this involves the generous application of violence in insure that the proles don't get any bright ideas about being 'equal'

midnight rambler
9th December 2016, 09:44 PM
Often the officer drives up next to the car to see whether the driver looks over.

I'm wondering what the correct response is...does one ignore the donut muncher, smile and wave, stick one's tongue out at them, flip them off, or do something else...?? I'm confused. ???


This interview consists of many questions about the driver’s travel plans, background, family, work history, etc.

The correct response here, at least imo, is to ask, "Am I under arrest?" Generally the answer will be, "No." At which point the next thing to say is, "With all due respect I'm not going to provide you with *any* information. This interview is over. Am I free to go?"*

*a family friend who has since passed would simply not say a single word to any of the interview questions (Where are you going? Where have you been? etc., etc.), he would simply sit there mute

Oh, and fwiw, naturally a dog can be trained to give a 'positive sniff' indication by any number of commands, limited only by the imagination. Afterall, the dog wants to please his master and get rewarded, what better way to do that than to indicate at every single opportunity?

cheka.
9th December 2016, 09:47 PM
this amount for one year, from only one source of funds....2004. tens of millions have been spent since this tidbit. lawyer crap is almost rounding error

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:6LhaxQlckxQJ:www.grassley.senate.go v/news/news-releases/grassley-applauds-funding-iowa-commerce-justice-and-state-federal-spending-bill+&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Highway Drug Interdiction Team, $765,000 – Funds will help put together a combined effort of specialized agents and troopers that could address the problem of drugs being moved across interstate highways in Iowa. Agents would coordinate to arrest and seize contraband and assets from drug traffickers and work with prosecutors to assure successful prosecutions. The Division of Narcotics Enforcement estimates approximately 80% of illegal drugs seized in Iowa are imported from other states. Drugs also pass through Iowa on their way to destination cities such as Minneapolis, Chicago, Detroit and New York.

Cebu_4_2
9th December 2016, 10:42 PM
Never been there, never need to either. I don't do any drugs but to partake in an expedition that risks evidence to be had at their will I would just have to exempt myself.

palani
10th December 2016, 04:45 AM
If the note in in your possession, it is your property, you are its owner, no one else has a claim on it, not even a creditor or the U.S.G.

I wonder how much property a slave can 'own'? Using other people(s) credit is evidence that you have none to call your own.

palani
10th December 2016, 04:51 AM
it makes you the user. status = user ... anything else?

Are you sure you would rather be classed a 'user' than an 'owner'?

Uses were introduced into England by the ecclesiastics in the reign of Edward Ill or Richard II, for the purpose of avoiding the statutes of
mortmain

boogietillyapuke
10th December 2016, 06:28 AM
Using other people(s) credit is evidence that you have none to call your own.

Using other people's credit will get you arrested. Stealing other people's shit will get you arrested.

If you write words on a piece of paper and give someone a gun saying they have the power to steal other people's shit with impunity, it's still stealing.

Carl
10th December 2016, 06:31 AM
Carl, on their face FRNs are debt...are you going to claim (some other party's) debt as your own?

FRNs are not debt, they are legal tender notes that are used to pay debts, public and private, says so on every note. FRNs are public money.

palani
10th December 2016, 07:03 AM
FRNs are not debt
Rather than defining them by what they ARE I would suggest looking at them for what they are NOT. They are not specie.


they are legal tender notes that are used to pay debts, public and private, says so on every note
A tender is an offer. A legal tender is a legal offer. This is in opposition to an illegal offer, such as a bale of weed or an offer to 'wack' someone.

FRNs are public money.
False. For if it were true that sentiment would be proclaimed HERE:


Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.

As with ANY tender you are not REQUIRED to accept it. To so require would be an involuntary servitude and, as you are well aware, such involuntary servitude was the reason given for the (un)civil war.

midnight rambler
10th December 2016, 07:15 AM
FRNs are not debt, they are legal tender notes that are used to pay debts, public and private, says so on every note. FRNs are public money.

Apparently you are very confused. By law notes are redeemable...in reality what are FRNs redeemable for?

Carl
10th December 2016, 07:54 AM
Apparently you are very confused. By law notes are redeemable...in reality what are FRNs redeemable for?

No, by law FRNs are not redeemable and by law they are final payment for all debts, public charges, taxes and dues, both public and private.

The legal tender FRN is what the U.S.G. owes in final payment for all of its debts, and it is what the banks legally owe to all deposit account holders upon their demand.

Glass
10th December 2016, 08:06 AM
No, by law FRNs are not redeemable and by law they are final payment for all debts, public charges, taxes and dues, both public and private.

The legal tender FRN is what the U.S.G. owes in final payment for all of its debts, and it is what the banks legally owe to all deposit account holders upon their demand.

FRN's are not both legal tender and payment, final or other wise "for debts public and private". They are only the first part: legal tender. It says that on the note itself and does not mention payment.

Carl
10th December 2016, 08:11 AM
Rather than defining them by what they ARE I would suggest looking at them for what they are NOT. They are not specie.
Irrelevant, immaterial and beside the point. FRNs are legal tender money.


A tender is an offer. A legal tender is a legal offer. This is in opposition to an illegal offer, such as a bale of weed or an offer to 'wack' someone.

And you pull that tired old canard out your ass. The term under discussion is "LEGAL TENDER", which is defined as: any official medium of payment recognized by law that can be used to extinguish a public or private debt, or meet a financial obligation.


False. For if it were true that sentiment would be proclaimed HERE:
False. The legal tender is defined in law, Section 31 U.S.C. 5103 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5103), as: United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues.


As with ANY tender you are not REQUIRED to accept it. To so require would be an involuntary servitude and, as you are well aware, such involuntary servitude was the reason given for the (un)civil war.

False. There is no law that requires anyone to use or accept the legal tender money. You're free to use the debt based private credit generated by the Fed and the banks as if it were money, as you please.

Carl
10th December 2016, 08:20 AM
FRN's are not both legal tender and payment, final or other wise "for debts public and private". They are only the first part: legal tender. It says that on the note itself and does not mention payment. They don't need the words "final payment" on the note, the very act of their use as final payment makes it so.

midnight rambler
10th December 2016, 08:54 AM
Anyone who thinks a debt can be *paid* with a debt is insane.

Carl
10th December 2016, 09:06 AM
Anyone who thinks a debt can be *paid* with a debt is insane.

Exactly. That's why referring to and accepting Fed and bankster generated asset-backed, debt based PRIVATE credit as if it were money, is about the most insane notion proffered. That's why everyone should demand payment in debt free legal tender public money.

palani
10th December 2016, 12:52 PM
FRNs are legal tender money.
Yet they are not LAWFUL money. Else why would 12 USC 411 suggest they could be REDEEMED in lawful money upon request (aka 'demand')?




The term under discussion is "LEGAL TENDER", which is defined as: any official medium of payment recognized by law that can be used to extinguish a public or private debt, or meet a financial obligation.
"Can"? Not "shall"? Point being you cannot be ORDERED to accept a certain method of payment. Such is the nature of offer and acceptance as opposed to offer and WILL NOT ACCEPT.



The legal tender is defined in law, Section 31 U.S.C. 5103 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5103), as: United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. This reminds me of the IRS definition of "income" which includes "all income". You don't define something by using that same thing in the definition.

Suppose I were to define "all men" as "the entire population of men short or tall with white pigmentation or with any pigmentation at all". Of course this definition excludes albinos because they have no pigmentation. It also excludes medium height men not to mention that one might decide to exclude himself from the definition of "all men" simply because he is no part of "all" being a singular man.




https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5103 There is no law that requires anyone to use or accept the legal tender money. You're free to use the debt based private credit generated by the Fed and the banks as if it were money, as you please.
You do so at your own risk. Frankly this is why high school diploma's are issued ... to make the recipient feel that he has gained sufficient knowledge to make such a decision. If one were to closely examine the risks one assumes by placing someone elses property in one's wallet I expect there would be many fewer takers.... insisting instead for specie as established by the U.S. courts


SPECIE. Metallic money issued by public authority.
2. This term is used in contradistinction to paper money, which in some countries is emitted by the government, and is a mere engagement which represents specie. Bank paper in the United States is also called paper money. Specie is the only constitutional money in this country. See 4 Monr. 483.

Notice that this definition defines specie as 'constitutional money' and not 'lawful money'. I'll let you scratch your head over the distinction between these two terms. [I am willing to give you a hint though. There is no 'lawful money' ever included in 'income'. Income includes kickbacks as well as drug/prostitution money.]

Glass
10th December 2016, 04:17 PM
Apparently you are very confused. By law notes are redeemable...in reality what are FRNs redeemable for?

yes I agree on the confusion. Not a criticism just an observation.

Carl appears to comprehend the situation well enough. I'm not sure of the purpose of claiming something false then presenting a response that is the same as the thing he says is false. Because the response suggests he gets it. Hurried replies?

I see this as two people agreeing the same thing:

False. There is no law that requires anyone to use or accept the legal tender money. You're free to use the debt based private credit generated by the Fed and the banks as if it were money, as you please.

The things I would add are:

To tender something is to offer something to be considered as/for payment, however payment is not effected until acceptance of the offer is made. To "offer" legal tender for something does not constitute the event of payment. Acceptance of the offer/tender constitutes the payment event.

We've agreed: There is no requirement to accept legal tender.

However acceptance and offer can occur at different times in a transaction. Acceptance can come before an offer/tender and most usually it does. Especially when it comes to a shop or store. At the time a shop or store opens for trading on a day, if it's products are marked with priced denominated in FRN's then what is required for acceptance has been declared. All that remains is for tenders/offers to be presented.

If an alternative to FRN's is desired to be accepted as payment then that must be negotiated before anything is tendered or offered. It is then up to the parties to decide on the specifics. Chickens, pigs, beans, lawful money. Nothing in law precludes something else being negotiated for this purpose.

midnight rambler
10th December 2016, 04:45 PM
Acceptance of the offer/tender constitutes the payment event.

If the offer is limited strictly to evidence of debt there is NO WAY IN THE WORLD that there can be 'payment'. To 'pay' for something is to EXTINGUISH the debt, and as I asserted earlier it's impossible to 'pay' a debt with a debt* as the debt still exists and is NOT extinguished.

*this situation is known as discharging debt (with limited liability, a benefit of the corporate state), NOT 'paying' debt

Glass
10th December 2016, 05:01 PM
If the offer is limited strictly to evidence of debt there is NO WAY IN THE WORLD that there can be 'payment'. To 'pay' for something is to EXTINGUISH the debt, and as I asserted earlier it's impossible to 'pay' a debt with a debt* as the debt still exists and is NOT extinguished.

*this situation is known as discharging debt (with limited liability, a benefit of the corporate state), NOT 'paying' debt

yes correct, the tender-er is just getting themselves off the hook for the obligation.

palani
10th December 2016, 05:02 PM
this situation is known as discharging debt (with limited liability, a benefit of the corporate state), NOT 'paying' debt

My position is that all payments made with FRNs are of a corporate nature. I don't believe man realizes he acts as a fictitious being when he does things out of natural law and against reason. The goes along with the nom de guerre (all caps) or last name first, then first name then middle initial and ties the name to a welfare state number and a date tied to your mother informing the state of your arrival. These are all Articles of Incorporation.

Walter Mitty
11th December 2016, 07:06 AM
I think the laws are so convoluted only the Elite Bankers and their minions know for sure what the truth is regarding FRN , U.S.Treasury Notes and lawful money.

I believe one of the reasons the Treasury started minting the Gold & Silver Eagles was to have a vehicle to exchange FRN for " Lawful Money".
Too many people were waking up to the nature of our currency.
Silver Eagles are " $1 " face value coins. So ,you can exchange FRN for Lawful Money, just not on a 1 to 1 basis. ( I used to do it all the time at coin shops for a premium)I wonder if the Treasury would exchange U.S. Notes for Silver eagles on a 1 to 1 basis. ( approx. $1.29 U.S. Notes per Silver Eagle). It would be interesting to go to the correct Dept. at the Treasury and try to exchange U.S. Notes for lawful money and see what happens.
Of course there are no U.S Treasury notes in circulation other than collector items so it is not an issue.

Thank God for the Bill of Rights, especially the First and Second Amendments ,and the Internet.
Zbigniew Brzezinski said, " It used to be easier to control a million people than kill a million people. Now it is easier to kill a million people than control a million people". I wonder if this is a window into what the Elites are thinking. Interesting times indeed.

palani
11th December 2016, 08:37 AM
I believe one of the reasons the Treasury started minting the Gold & Silver Eagles was to have a vehicle to exchange FRN for " Lawful Money".
Er .... those would be 'constitutional money'. Don't make a mistake. Lawful money lacks definition (so you may supply your own definition as I have done) but constitutional money is what is required of constitutional states.


No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

States are required to TENDER gold and silver coin (anyone actually ever seen a coin with both gold and silver?). That means they must OFFER gold and silver coin. I guess this means they might actually accept something else but may only offer these two things.

Walter Mitty
11th December 2016, 10:54 AM
In my opinion if the Supreme law of the land is the Constitution and the Constitution defines what a dollar is ( a United States Dollar not a private bank FRN dollar) then by extension a "Lawful" Dollar is Silver. The original FRN dollars stated they were redeemable in lawful money and were redeemed in Silver (and Gold) ergo lawful money must be Silver ( As far as a single dollar is concerned.)
It took about 100 years for the first monkey business vis-a- vis the gold standard to muck up the works. And another approx 30 -40 years for the Federal Reserve act to finish the job.
But I contend the Treasury will exchange FRN dollars for extra Constitutional dollars ( Silver eagles do contain 371.25 grains of pure Silver) through their Agent's who have arrangements with the Treasury to acquire Silver Eagles. They are redeemable , just not one to one against an FRN dollar and at a premium.
The Federal Reserve banks will no longer redeem them (even at a premium ) but then the current FRN dollar does not say they will.

palani
11th December 2016, 11:58 AM
the Constitution defines what a dollar is
The dollar is mentioned twice in the U.S. Constitution. Neither place attempts to define what it is. It is merely a word. You might write DOLLAR on a piece of paper and place the Arabic numerals 100 on the four corners and you have created 100 dollars.


The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.


Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

No attempt was made by congress to define a dollar before the 1792 Coinage Act. This of course was done under power granted to congress as follows (origin U.S. Constitution)


To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures

Now if congress (thru 12 USC 411) says you will receive lawful money upon demand and you so demand and you receive a piece of paper that HAPPENS to look like a FRN I would have to say you have received lawful money. Congress after all does not ever lie. You did not ever receive constitutional money in the form of gold or silver but they never made any claim that you would so there is no lie involved there at all. Congress is honorable. You are honored to have made the claim and have received lawful money and everyone goes away happy ... no charges.... no claims ... no complaints.

Or if you prefer you could wait till hell freezes over and continue to demand gold and silver. Worry about it till then and you will find vallium to be your best friend.

Chill.

Carl
11th December 2016, 12:27 PM
If the offer is limited strictly to evidence of debt there is NO WAY IN THE WORLD that there can be 'payment'. To 'pay' for something is to EXTINGUISH the debt, and as I asserted earlier it's impossible to 'pay' a debt with a debt* as the debt still exists and is NOT extinguished.

*this situation is known as discharging debt (with limited liability, a benefit of the corporate state), NOT 'paying' debt

Paying with debt free, legal tender FRNs extinguishs the debt.

Using a debit or credit card is the same as writing a check for payment, it's an order to the bank for the transfer of money from one account to another. You are intrusting your bank to make that money transfer and the payee is trusting that the transfer was completed as the bank affirmed. The money should be at the payee's bank available for withdrawal, payment complete.

Crediting an account with the amount and payment, are two entirely different things.

Carl
11th December 2016, 12:35 PM
~ Too many people were waking up to the nature of our currency. ~

Considering that 98% of all commerce is still being conducted in electronic transfers that only credits accounts, I would say that the vast majority of people are totally unaware that they haven't paid, or been paid, and probably never will be paid.

Cebu_4_2
11th December 2016, 03:47 PM
Considering that 98% of all commerce is still being conducted in electronic transfers that only credits accounts, I would say that the vast majority of people are totally unaware that they haven't paid, or been paid, and probably never will be paid.

Get as many cards as you can, buy silver and gold with them. Change the address on the cards where the bill goes and phone number. Don't make any payment. Only downside is the credit rating but who needs those now since you have a buttload of silver and gold...

Carl
11th December 2016, 04:10 PM
Get as many cards as you can, buy silver and gold with them. Change the address on the cards where the bill goes and phone number. Don't make any payment. Only downside is the credit rating but who needs those now since you have a buttload of silver and gold...

I haven't bought gold and silver in ages, use to require cash or a cashier's check to make quantity purchases.

monty
20th March 2017, 02:07 PM
Rand Paul introduces assest forfeiture reform legislation . . . . . .

http://rare.us/rare-politics/populist/rand-paul-introduces-the-most-sweeping-reform-of-civil-asset-forfeiture-law-in-decades/

Rand Paul introduces the most sweeping reform of civil asset forfeiture law in decades

March 17, 2017 3:16 pm

Sen. Rand Paul has long taken the lead in calling for the reform of civil asset forfeiture laws, a controversial police practice in which authorities basically steal the property of citizens without due process and little recourse. Billions (http://www.ocregister.com/articles/law-737639-police-seized.html) have been seized from citizens by the police based on nothing more than suspicion, which many see as a direct violation of the Fifth Amendment.

It’s state-sanctioned theft (http://rare.us/rare-politics/rare-liberty/police-state/now-cops-can-just-steal-money-from-your-bank-account-during-roadside-stops/). “Under civil forfeiture laws, your property is guilty until you prove it innocent,” says (http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/videos/john-oliver-amplifies-the-absurdity-of-civil-forfeitures-20141006) the Institute for Justice’s Scott Bullock.

On Thursday, Sen. Paul reintroduced FAIR (Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration) Act (https://www.paul.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/FAIRAct2017.pdf), which specifically addresses victims of civil asset forfeiture who have not been convicted of a crime.

RELATED: John McCain says Rand Paul is “now working for Vladimir Putin” (http://rare.us/rare-politics/issues/foreign-policy/john-mccain-says-rand-paul-is-now-working-for-vladimir-putin/)

“The federal government has made it far too easy for government agencies to take and profit from the property of those who have not been convicted of a crime,” Paul’s statement read. “The FAIR Act will protect Americans’ Fifth Amendment rights from being infringed upon by ensuring that government agencies no longer profit from taking the property of U.S. citizens without due process.”

The House companion FAIR legislation is being introduced by Republican Rep. Tim Walberg of Michigan.
Some have observed that if implemented, this legislation could be the most significant reform in decades. Heritage Foundation policy analyst Jason Snead writes (http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/civil-rights/324420-rand-paul-tim-walberg-bring-forfeiture-reform-to-the-115th) at The Hill, “The bill, if passed, would be the most sweeping reform of abuse-prone federal civil forfeiture law since the 1980s.”

Back then, Congress turned to civil forfeiture laws to empower law enforcement authorities to seize and forfeit the ill-gotten gains of drug kingpins, criminal organizations, and money launderers, as well as the property they used to commit their crimes. To encourage the use of this newly enhanced tool, Congress created the Assets Forfeiture Fund and allowed federal law enforcement agencies to keep the proceeds of successful forfeitures.

The result? An exponential increase in forfeiture activities. In 1985, the first year the fund existed, it brought in just $27 million (http://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/report/civil-asset-forfeiture-good-intentions-gone-awry-and-the-need-reform). In 2012, the value of forfeited assets was $4.3 billion. Today, more than 400 federal laws authorize the seizure of cash, cars, and homes for a range of alleged offenses, and allow forfeiture proceeds to be divided with state and local agencies through Equitable Sharing programs administered by the Treasury and Justice Departments.



The issue of criminal justice reform is not new, but receiving popular support is a fairly recent trend. Both right and left, Republicans and Democrats, have been instrumental in raising awareness at both the local and national level.

“Paul and Walberg first introduced the FAIR Act in 2014,” Snead writes. “At the time, civil forfeiture was something few people had heard of, and there appeared to be little appetite for reform.”

“But in the years since, dozens of state legislatures have reined in their abuse-prone forfeiture statutes, and last year Congress advanced several forfeiture-reform bills, though none has yet made it to the president’s desk,” he added.

RELATED: Rand Paul asks why “good socialist” Bernie Sanders won’t pay the same tax rate as Donald Trump (http://rare.us/rare-politics/rand-paul-asks-why-good-socialist-bernie-sanders-wont-pay-the-same-tax-rate-as-donald-trump/)

Some criticized (http://reason.com/blog/2017/02/09/rand-pauls-curious-confirmation-politics) Paul’s vote to confirm President Trump’s Attorney General Jeff Sessions in February precisely because Sessions has been outspoken in opposing reform to civil asset forfeiture. Paul noted that any other appointment to that post would likely have the same positions on this issue, and also that as a senate colleague he felt he could try to change Sessions’ mind, something that would be more difficult with an Attorney General with whom Paul had no prior relationship.

Nor are Paul’s mind-changing efforts limited to Sessions.

“There was a discussion the other day in the White House about civil asset forfeiture,” Paul said (http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/02/17/rand-paul-wants-to-change-trumps-mind-about-civil-asset-forfeiture/) in February. “I think civil asset forfeiture is a terrible idea until you’ve convicted someone, and I’d like to have that discussion with the president,” the senator added.

Disclosure: I co-authored the 2011 book The Tea Party Goes to Washington with Sen. Rand Paul.

Dogman
20th March 2017, 02:22 PM
Been going on in some areas of Texas for frigging Years.

Sent using Forum Runner

Neuro
28th November 2017, 04:25 AM
anything else (https://www.casino-online-canada.ca)?????

Yeah go and fuck yourself spamtroll!