By the time that it reaches your hand cash - it functions as (if) lawful money. Either you signed for it, signed a demand for it (non-endorsement) or somebody handed it to you and we can presume that they did. When I spouted that it is superfluous that was because I was only doing it to share the word about remedy. I like that people often get curious enough to Google Cornell Law and plug in the Title and Section! Right there, when somebody does that for the first time they probably owe me big time for that lesson alone. I enjoy that.Originally Posted by Rock Anthony
I made a highlight in red of my recent point. In the above described transaction, you probably do not want to use your evidence repository for every time (we all hope it is often) that somebody hands you pay - in cash. - Whether by paycheck or not - when you receive the cash.Negotiable means to trade-up. It is illegal fiduciary responsibility to trade-down. We always trade up in our negotiations - the essence of win-win.
Therefore Fed notes are negotiable because there is a higher form of currency allegedly available to trade-up to - US notes. In form, since US notes cannot be used as a reserve currency and there is a set amount of them in circulation (non-elastic) they are a higher form of currency. US notes are non-negotiable. The only thing you can trade-up for is energy - material goods and services.
Since January 21, 1971 FRNs function for US notes. Therefore due to Treasury policy, FRNs are actually performing as US notes too. So if you have endorsed private credit the FRNs in your pocket are FRNs but if you have not, then the FRNs in your pocket are US notes. By renaming them US currency notes Congress has adjusted the face value to be the same.
In my opinion Congress has defrauded itself, if that is possible.
My suggestion, at least for clerk of court transactions - which means every bill in your wallet if you are a court of competent jurisdiction is to buy one of these stamps.
The UPS Store owner wanted me to sign for a letter when I had specified No Signature Required. I told her I was not signing anything while I tore it open and pulled out cash to give her $5 as agreed. She was a bit perplexed and I suppose it came off rude. I was hoping that the lesson - that signatures are of value would override the rudeness. But this led me to be concerned the other day, that I might get into a confrontation. She insisted but I looked it over and decided she deserved a receipt.
There was however the possibility that the letter would have ended up In Evidence if I was to press charges for Grand Larceny - here in Colorado the threshold between petty and grand is $400. That is to say, if I would have been pressed into calling the police because she was keeping my property from me. Therefore I instructed the party sending me to include the demand for lawful money at the originating transaction:
My point really, in response to your inquiry is that I am the clerk unless I am using a clerk - aka the evidence repository. So I function as the clerk for my transaction. I had the evidence there is no tax liability on the money included with the evidence package - should it have gone that way. As it went, things are good because I have no problem with the owner having a signed receipt for delivery. However I still don't know about all the UPS terms on the back. That is why I hardly ever sign for things like that - Who is going to stop and read a bunch of legaleze under those conditions?
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. In hindsight - next time I will strike through any agreement to terms on the back. Down there at the bottom:
If the owner objects I should request an oral reading, nice and slow so I can understand them clearly... I will have a lot of questions.
Reply With Quote