Despite what the upper level post says, there is no Federal law that imposes a general requirement to accept Federal Reserve Notes in satisfaction of any debt. The legal tender for all debts wording on the face of those notes is derived from Title 31, United States Code, Section 5103 ("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. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts."). State and local law may vary and require acceptance of Federal Reserve Notes in satisfaction of a debt. LEGAL tender does not in and of itself mean MANDATORY tender.

An alternative answer to your question would be that you contractually agreed to pay in certain forms and not others. The most restrictive constraint will usually control when there is a conflict between law and a contract.

When I was in high school and they were adding on and renovating, everybody wanted as many classes in the portables as possible because they had air conditioning and our 50 year old school building didn't.

I'm sure more was learned in them than could have been learned in a 90 degree classroom.

A state retains concurrent jurisdiction over crimes committed contrary to state law in that state, even within the "special aircraft jurisdiction". Also, not all criminal offenses committed on an aircraft within the "special aircraft jurisdiction" can be prosecuted as a federal offense.

We're supposed to be okay with crashing flying objects to buildings? Did Al-Qaeda have it right all along? Should we give them medals instead of killing them? Is Bin Laden due a wrongful death payment?

These are legitimate concerns when you start complaining about a fine for a moron who caused his drone to fly into a stationary object.

Possession of stolen property requires that the property was stolen in the first place.

To steal something requires (among other elements) an intent to deprive the rightful owner of enjoyment of the property.

If you take something for the purpose of turning it in, that intent is not present and thus the property is not considered stolen.

This is true, but I've come to find calling it the DMV online is easier since its more commonly understood.

Was my first job and it $10/hr with only a HS diploma. The abuse I inevitably took was worth it compared to the horror of working at Burger King like my mom did as her first job.

He was dad (to the best of my knowledge and belief). Policy, however, was that we couldn't allow them to sign for it unless their name was on the birth certificate. Even though I could clearly tell they were related (same address on license, report card/transcript, etc), dad had to be on the birth certificate to sign.

As far as practical applications go, I had zero night driving experience before I got my license, whereas the GDL kids have had at least 2 or at least 10 hours at night.

But, the majority of driver ed time here is spent in the classroom, learning road rules to pass the written test and watching Red Asphalt (which should be a teenage rite of passage, as far as I'm concerned).

I think Michigan's rules for terminating at 18 assume that if you get a license after that age, you're self disciplined to do the practice on your own during the 30 day time restriction before you can take your road test.

Something like that. You went to drivers ed, you got certificate, you brought it in and you would get your paper (replaced 10 of these daily, they don't survive the washer) level 1 license. You go back to drivers ed, get some experience, and about a year or so later you were back in (ugh) to get a hard plastic level 2 license. Then once you were 17 + had level 2 for 6 months, unless parents said otherwise, they'd automatically mail a Level 3, which has no restrictions.

You never don't get a "full" license until you turn 18.

This. In Michigan, I waited until I was 18 just to avoid dealing with graduated driver licensing laws. The bureaucracy alone they create is a PITA.

During my time working at the DMV, kids would often bring their fathers in to sign for approving their next level license. At least twice a day I was sending home angry kids because daddy dearest wasn't on the birth certificate.

IRS said you owed $68,000. Accountant said you were due back $5,000.

Since this is an anecdote about ineffective TurboTax, what did TurboTax say you owed/were due?

I don't buy this.

Title 26, United States Code, Section 6103 states:

(i) Disclosure to Federal officers or employees for administration of Federal laws not relating to tax administration
(1) Disclosure of returns and return information for use in criminal investigations
(A) In general
Except as provided in paragraph (6), any return or return information with respect to any specified taxable period or periods shall, pursuant to and upon the grant of an ex parte order by a Federal district court judge or magistrate judge under subparagraph (B), be open (but only to the extent necessary as provided in such order) to inspection by, or disclosure to, officers and employees of any Federal agency who are personally and directly engaged in—
(i) preparation for any judicial or administrative proceeding pertaining to the enforcement of a specifically designated Federal criminal statute (not involving tax administration) to which the United States or such agency is or may be a party,
(ii) any investigation which may result in such a proceeding, or
(iii) any Federal grand jury proceeding pertaining to enforcement of such a criminal statute to which the United States or such agency is or may be a party,
solely for the use of such officers and employees in such preparation, investigation, or grand jury proceeding.

(4) Use of certain disclosed returns and return information in judicial or administrative proceedings
(A) Returns and taxpayer return information
Except as provided in subparagraph (C), any return or taxpayer return information obtained under paragraph (1) or (7)(C) may be disclosed in any judicial or administrative proceeding pertaining to enforcement of a specifically designated Federal criminal statute or related civil forfeiture (not involving tax administration) to which the United States or a Federal agency is a party—
(i) if the court finds that such return or taxpayer return information is probative of a matter in issue relevant in establishing the commission of a crime or the guilt or liability of a party, or
(ii) to the extent required by order of the court pursuant to section 3500 of title 18, United States Code, or rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

The fact that you couldn't get the drive out isn't a security issue, it's an Apple engineering issue.

US centric: The Freedom of Information Act is designed to get information on other subjects. The Privacy Act is what you cite and a far better tool to get information on yourself.