Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others

Guest Post by Eric Peters

One of the ways you know you live in a police state is when the police exempt themselves from the law and enforce made-up laws on the populace without any repercussions.

For instance, legal tender laws.

They define as legal tender “United States coins and currency” for “all debts, public charges, taxes and dues” (Federal Coinage Act of 1965).

It says so, right on the money.

Billy Spaulding of Manchester, NH discovered that this law can be ignored by the same police who issued him a ticket for violating another law.

-----------------------------------------------------
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal

-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)

One they approved of and so enforce.

Spaulding received a parking ticket for parking too near a fire hydrant. It is against the law.

But when he showed up at the county clerk’s office to pay the $75 fine, as per the law, the clerk would not accept payment. Which Spaulding attempted to make using pennies.

Which may be inconvenient for the clerk. But legal tender, nonetheless. The law is the law. Except when it isn’t.   

“You’re not paying it like this,” the irritated clerk told Spaulding. And proceeded to call in a squadron of cops to enforce this violation of the law.

The cops showed up and instead of correcting the clerk as to the law, informing him that while it might be a hassle to count out $75 in pennies, the law is that pennies are money and just as valid under the law as paper money.

The clerk’s refusal to accept lawful money absolves Spaulding of any further obligation to pay.

Or should have.

He made the attempt; his payment was refused.

But that’s not the way it goes, no matter what the law is.

How about if Spaulding had reached into the clerk’s till and snatched a handful of pennies? Wouldn’t that be theft as much as if he’d grabbed a handful of dollar bills? Are we to believe the cops would not have arrested him on the spot for stealing pennies? Would the charges have been less serious? Would the judge, at sentencing, have said: Oh, he only took pennies; no big deal. You are free to go . . . ?

So why is using pennies to pay a debt any less valid under the law?

The answer is, it isn’t.

But that doesn’t matter when you haven’t got the gun and the badge. When you do, the law is whatever you want it to be.

So the cops – rather than ensuring that Spaulding’s legal right to pay his fine using legal tender was respected – began to harass Spaulding, who had committed no crime. “You don’t have a bank account?” one of them asks. His partner says something about the clerk not having a coin counter.

Which is immaterial.

Pennies, like dimes and quarters, are are “coins” – money – duly issued by the U.S. Mint and per the law are legal tender for “all debts, public charged, taxes and dues.”

Like it or not.

Except when the enforcers of the law – and puckish government bureaucrats – decide they do not like the law.

Including the law that it’s legal to film public servants in public.

The Manchester cops sicced on Spaulding by the annoyed county clerk did not like that Spaulding’s friend was video recording the encounter and ordered him to shut off the camera based on the non-law that “you have to advise us” if you’re recording. Which is not the law. Indeed, is contrary to the law – which states that there is no expectation of privacy in a public area and it is absolutely legal to video record government workers – this includes cops and clerks – out in public performing their “official duties.” The courts – including the Supreme Court – have affirmed this, repeatedly.

Nonetheless, the cops shut down the video – using threats and intimidation, which is assault under the law.   

Were they arrested?

No, of course not. Notwithstanding that their assault is on video and not debatable. Yet if a citizen committed exactly the same legal offense, he’d have been arrested. Try it yourself and see. Go up to a cop and insist that he turn off his camera – and back that up with a clear threat that you will take it if he does not.

Tell a cop writing you a ticket that what he’s doing isn’t legal (even though it is) and refuse to accept the ticket, as the clerk refused to accept Spaulding’s money. Everyone knows what will happen because everyone knows there is a double standard. The law isn’t even the law. It is whatever those who enforce it decide they think it is.

Law enforcement isn’t expected to know the law – and self-exempts itself from the law. We, on the other hand, are expected to obey whatever they say, regardless of the law.

One of the ironies of this particular encounter is that Spaulding is a former Marine, who (ostensibly) was “fighting for our freedoms.” He received a stern lesson about what he actually fought for.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
7 Comments
Anonymous
Anonymous
April 7, 2017 11:18 am

The constitution specifies States make only gold and silver coins as tender in payment of debt, maybe the State should have demanded he pay in actual gold or silver coinage if he insisted on paying in coin in return.

(Article 1, Sec. 10)

Jason Calley
Jason Calley
  Anonymous
April 7, 2017 1:44 pm

There have been a case or two where employers (with the agreement of their employees) actually paid wages in gold and silver. Unfortunately, the employers ended up being charged and convicted of income tax fraud. Here’s how it happened. Suppose an employee had a weekly wage (in Federal Reserve Notes) of $1000.00 a week. A US Silver Eagle costs about $20 FRN but has a stamped denomination on it of $1. Pay the employee fifty Silver Eagles (worth about $1000 FRN) but in actuality, since Silver Eagles are legal tender, you have paid him a wage of $50.00, and he should pay taxes on a $50 income.

Sounds legal to me, but the IRS disagreed. They charged him and it went to trial, where he was found guilty. The decision was not worded this way, but if the judge had been honest he would have said, “We have more guns than you. We are willing to use them. Give us you money or else!”

Anonymous
Anonymous
  Jason Calley
April 7, 2017 2:29 pm

Yeah, but that wasn’t in dealing with the State as paying a fine to it is.

Brian
Brian
  Anonymous
April 7, 2017 2:26 pm

If an individual state wishes to makes its own money, it can do so ONLY in gold and silver.

The federal government however can make dogshit legal tender if it wishes too. It sure looks like it has with the issuance of Federal Reserve notes.

Mike Murray
Mike Murray
April 7, 2017 1:43 pm

If you view this “revelation” as something new, I suggest you should (as one of my D.I.’s said) “WAKE THE FUCK UP”!
The law is always “whatever they say it is” until (or if) you can prove differently.

General
General
April 7, 2017 5:10 pm

FYI. The IRS is the enforcement division of the Federal Reserve.

The banks committed a coup against the Federal Government ages ago. Most people just don’t know it.

Brian
Brian
  General
April 7, 2017 9:42 pm

The IRS is the collections division for the use of Federal Reserve credit.

Fixed it for ya. BTW it’s all spelled out here:

Having thus, in the exercise of undisputed constitutional powers, undertaken to provide a currency for the whole country, it cannot be questioned that Congress may constitutionally secure the benefit of it to the people by appropriate legislation. To this end, Congress has denied the quality of legal tender to foreign coins, and has provided by law against the imposition of counterfeit and base coin on the community. —>>To the same end, Congress may restrain (tax) by suitable enactments the circulation as money of any notes (FRN’s) not issued under its own authority. <<— Without this power, indeed, its attempts to secure a sound and uniform currency for the country must be futile.

Viewed in this light as well as in the other light of a duty on contracts or property, we cannot doubt the constitutionality of the tax under consideration.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/75/533/case.html