I Hear That Change in Your Pocket Going Ching-A-Ling-A-Ling

Post 47

*MAP UPDATE*
Over the last week it looks like Obama regained control in the state of Colorado. McCain, however, then took control of Indiana while reinforcing his ground in Ohio. McCain also gained ground, though did not take the lead, in both New Mexico and New Hampshire. If New Hampshire switched, with all other states remaining the same, then we would have a 269-269 tie. The overall outlook nationally is +1.8 points for Obama.

*END OF MAP UPDATE*

So, I had been planning on making this entry about Biden being chosen as Obama's running mate but decided to trump Lisa over at GCJ with this story today. Biden SHOULD be up by this coming Wednesday. Enjoy

So, I was looking through the AP Wire on my IPhone on Saturday and came upon a funny story in the local news section of it; it appears as though a court in Ohio refused to accept a 'heavy fine payment'. The fine payment happens to be for speeding tickets and is being paid for in pennies. Now, after I stopped laughing and cleaned up everything I threw around when convulsing I started to think about this. I think that there are several things wrong with the court not accepting this payment. Amongst them, the three most prevalent are: You were not specific - This is legal tender - Your precedent sucks. Frankly, I think that the court should be required to accept this mans payment, or, deny taking it but count it as being paid. I really have nothing that grinds my gears to end this paragraph though... damn.

You Were Not Specific:
When a court makes an order of any sort they are usually quite specific. If they are asking for property back they will ask for specific property - you stole a Pentium 4 (ick) computer with 2 gig ram and Vista they expect a Pentium 4 (ick) computer with 2 gig ram and Vista returned. Courts rarely leave this sort of thing up in the air. If a court asks for payment in cash, credit, or check then they should expect payment in cash, credit, or check. If the court just asks for payment in anything they should expect payment in anything. This is the fundamental problem of this decision to avoid accepting the payment; the court was not specific enough. Unless they ordered the payment to be specific they have NO RIGHT to require it to change AFTER THE FACT. Hopefully the court learned from this mistake.


This Is Legal Tender:
If the defendant had come in and paid with Canadian Pennies or Euros the court would have had the right, no, the duty, to refuse his payment (though why they would, when those are worth more, is unknown). However, the man came in and paid his fees with what is considered legal tender in the United States. In fact, the Coinage act of 1965 says:

“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.”

To me, this clearly shows that these pennies should have been accepted by the court. Now, I understand the courts position; they are saying that there is an unfair undue burden on the court now due to this. However, I also can see that all they need to do is take the pennies to the bank, have them weighed, and then have them converted (for free) into real monies. Unless the court is trying to say that they have the right to determine federal law in currency, they should accept all legal tender.


Your Precedent Sucks:
While discussing this case with Lisa from GCJ she sent me a link to some precedent that the court could use to defend itself. In _State v. Carroll_, 1997 WL 118064 (Ohio App. 4 Dist.), the courts ruled that:

“"It defies logic and common sense that this Congress intended such a wooden and broad application of the statute beyond the control of the payee regardless of the circumstances." [At 4-5] The Court reasoned that under the law authorizing the clerk to collect and issue receipts for the payment of fines, etc., the clerk could "provide a reasonable procedure for the place, time and manner of accepting fines consistent with the efficient operation of the clerk's office."”

The problem with this ruling is that it uses no case law from before and actually overrides several cases in other states. I understand the concept of a reasonable procedure for time place and manner but can not understand how pennies fit any of these three categories. You can close shop at 5 and open at 9, you can say it needs to be sent to a certain address, and you can even say that it should be paid in certain coins - BUT, unless you say that in the order, you have NO RIGHT to change your mind AFTER THE FACT. I don't care if an earlier court said that you could, this is illogical and a gross overstepping of the courts bounds.

This decision throws common sense out the window as it allows the courts to change their orders on the whim of the judges and secretaries. It also creates precedent that allows the courts to challenge FEDERAL STATUTES THAT ARE FEDERAL ONLY.









As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole.
Feel free to e-mail me if you so wish too instead.
Thanks,
Robert M. Barga,
Editor of http://whalertly.blogspot.com/
barga.24@osu.edu



Stumble It!