Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Alternate Bank of Canada Press Release (Score 1) 156

Nice try but U3-603 refers to negotiable instruments,which is a written promise to pay an individual a stated amount of money. A bill in a restaurant isn't a negotiable instrument, for example. Yea, those most courts would simply say take the money and both of you stop wasting our time. My point is some people seem to believe that if a business refuses to accept your cash in payment you are discharged of the obligation to pay; which is not the case.

Comment: Re:Alternate Bank of Canada Press Release (Score 1) 156

Disclaimer first, this is US centric, though it 'should' work in many countries.

So absent a state law failure to accept cash in no way eliminates a debt.

Actually, it kind of does. Work out the logic and realize that not all businesses are creditors.

You're take is interesting, though wrong. Being a creditor has no bearing on the what you must accept in payment; in fact it's pretty clear no one is required to accept cash. Why don't you try it, go to court, and report back?

Comment: Re:Fair and impartial? (Score 1) 638

by Registered Coward v2 (#49184809) Attached to: Snowden Reportedly In Talks To Return To US To Face Trial

Come on, quit the lies. Here is what you wrote:

They might even point out he could have done the same thing in the US, via leaks to newspapers or to a sympathetic representative, without hurting the US by giving it to China and Russia.

That is YOUR claim that he, in your own words, "could have done the same thing in the US, via leaks to newspapers", which is in fact what he did.

You keep ignoring the They might even point out part of my post; where I state one tack the government could chose to take. I make no claim to what he did or didn't do, despite your attempts to ascribe such to me. My point is there are many argument the government can make to convince a jury to acquit but his only hope seems to be to convince someone that what he did doesn't deserve punishment. As I have said, when the facts and the law are against you you have a tough road to hoe.

Either you were ignorant of the facts, or you're shilling. Somehow, I doubt a shill would be stupid enough to try to pull one over my eyes, but you never know.

No, but I wonder why you ignore what I actually say in order to argue that Snowden will win if he goes to trial.

Also, he only needs one juror to hang the jury. Or one acquittal for double jeopardy to apply - "nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb" since this is a capital case.

True, I just think it is a remote possibility that they get an acquittal or even a hung jury. If they really wanted to be bastards they could charge him with some offenses and if they lose come back with other separate offenses without it being double jeopardy. I doubt they would do that just was I doubt they would fail to get a conviction.

\

William Shatner ain't riding in and saying "Denny Crane" and saving the day right before the end credits; returning to face trial would most likely end very badly for him.

Comment: Re:Alternate Bank of Canada Press Release (Score 1) 156

they can file a complaint, but ouu would win in court. If you refuse cash for a debt, then person who owes you the debt can legally tell you he considers the matter settled. No court is going ot look favorably on you if you dont take cash for a debt.

Except there is no requirement to accept cash and you'd still wind up losing and paying up. For some reason people think "Legal Tender" = "Must Accept" when it does not.

Comment: Re:Alternate Bank of Canada Press Release (Score 1) 156

And then i will write payment refused on the receipt and never pay you. If you press it in court, a judge is NOT going to like that you refused legal tender to settle the debt, regardless of form. You are right you can refuse, but then the person indebted to you can simply write the debt off leaving you little recourse.

And you would lose in court. There is no law requiring someone to accept legal tender in payment of a debt; and failure to do so does not absolve someone of liability for the debt.

Comment: Re:Alternate Bank of Canada Press Release (Score 1) 156

Per treasury.gov

This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.

Comment: Re:Alternate Bank of Canada Press Release (Score 1) 156

Actually there is no legal requirement to take cash, debt or no debt. You can refuse to accept cash if you want.

Actually, there is, sort of. You can refuse to accept cash: however, they are valid legal payment for the debt, so if you refuse the payment, you are either de facto implying the debt no longer exists (because you're not accepting repayment for it), or you're breaking the law by refusing legal payment. You cannot refuse repayment in cash and then claim the debt still exists. IANAL, so I'm sure there are subtleties involved with, for e.g., contracts (i.e. you agree to give them 10 widgets later in exchange for 5 doohickeys now, offering cash instead would be a violation of the contract), but generally, creditors must accept cash in repayment of debts.

=

Per the web site you referenced:

This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.

So absent a state law failure to accept cash in no way eliminates a debt.

Comment: Re:Fair and impartial? (Score 1) 638

by Registered Coward v2 (#49184351) Attached to: Snowden Reportedly In Talks To Return To US To Face Trial

Are you seriously going to continue to deny that you were wrong when you said that "instead of leaking it to the Russians and Chinese, he could have leaked it to reporters?" Come on, that duck won't fly. Get real. Please.

I am not making a claim one way or another on the facts. I am pointing out there are a lot of arguements the government can use to paint a very damning picture of what he did in order to secure a conviction. He has neither the law nor facts on his side and thus is in a very bad position. It will be hard to make him a sympathetic defendant. You believe it would be easy for him to be found not guilty through jury nullification or a hung jury; I do not think it is as easy as you think and thus believe his returning to yhe US and hoping to walk based on a trial victory is a very risky move.

Comment: Re:Alternate Bank of Canada Press Release (Score 1) 156

In the U.S. you cannot decline payment made in cash (if you normally take cash).

Sure you can, if you haven't delivered the goods. Notice the reference to "all debts"? If a debt doesn't exist, you have every right to demand pork bellies before you hand over the merchandise.

OTOH, if the restaurant cashier doesn't want to take your bill in cash after your meal, you can tell them to take it or leave it.

Uh no. There is no legal requirement for an individual or business to accept cash. If they refuse cash payment and you walk out with out paying they can file a theft complaint. Just because a note is legal tender does not mean it must be accepted for payment.

Comment: Re:Alternate Bank of Canada Press Release (Score 1) 156

This isn't entirely correct, you're not allowed to not take cash to settle a debt. If there's no debt, you're more than welcome to tell people to piss off with their bag of change.

Actually there is no legal requirement to take cash, debt or no debt. You can refuse to accept cash if you want.

Comment: Re:Fair and impartial? (Score 1) 638

by Registered Coward v2 (#49182873) Attached to: Snowden Reportedly In Talks To Return To US To Face Trial

You can have your own set of opinions, but you can't have your own set of facts. Fact is that he initially leaked it to journalists. The governments' actions forced him into hiding, not his choice.

Facts are what are presented in court. The government may dispute his facts with evidence to the contrary. That's why we have juries, to decide cases based on the facts. Even if the government did force his hand that shows he realized he broke the law and decided to run to avoid getting punished. Regardless of our opinion on the rightness of his actions things do not look good for him. Each side will present facts that best suit their narrative. we obviously disagree on what we think the outcome will be but the truth of the matter is, no matter what we want it to be, the fate would be in the hands of a jury and no one knows how they will decide. To me, basing your hope of avoiding a serious prison term is to be able to convince a jury that you do not deserve to be convicted despite what the law says is a very risky thing to do.

And I think after two or three hung juries, they'll let it slide.

As I have said, I don't think the government will have a hard time getting a conviction that results in serious time. You disagree. That's fine; and in the end if he returns a jury will decide which one of us was correct assuming he doesn't return under a plea bargain. Personally, I would not return absent a plea, even then that has some risk because if i remember correctly a plea bargain is not binding on a court.

Comment: Re:Fair and impartial? (Score 1) 638

by Registered Coward v2 (#49182317) Attached to: Snowden Reportedly In Talks To Return To US To Face Trial

Too bad your version of the facts isn't the true one. He initially DID give the information to reporters - Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras. It was only when things got too hot that he ended up "on the other side." At no point before he was forced into hiding was he "spying for the Russians and Chinese."

It all depends on how you spin the facts; and the prosecution will do so to make him look as bad as possible. He has no idea what others have said to investigators, and even once he finds out pre-trial it's his word against theirs and he may not come across as the most honest and truthful witness to a bunch of jurors. An innocent joke to a coworker that "the Russians would love to know we can do x" or musing "I wonder what X would pay of this" could be construed as part of a plan to commit espionage, for example In the end it's all about whose story is better and his isn't exactly the best since it hinges on jurors believing what he did was for the greater good and thus should ignore the law.

All it takes is one juror to hang a jury ... and IF it ever goes to trial (doubtful) that's a likely scenario.

While I doubt it ever goes to trial simply because he has too much to lose absent a plea bargain I am not convinced they couldn't get a conviction or that a hung jury is the likely scenario. They may not convict on every count they'll charge him with but likely would find him guilty of enough counts to spend the rest of his life behind bars and in solitary.

And if they get a hung jury they can just retry him if they want and meanwhile keep him in jail since he has proven to be a flight risk. In the end the odds are not in his favor absent a plea bargain, and the US has little incentive to cut a favorable deal since most of the damage probably has already been done. They can just let him fall deeper and deeper into a bad psychological state since time is on their side; who knows at some point Putin may decide giving him up gets him something more valuable or even decide letting him go is to dangerous and as a result he gets charged with a crime in Russia or suffers an accident. He is only valuable as long as he either has information or is seen as a bargaining chip, and that is a really bad negotiation position to be in.

Comment: Re:and you never will find the money (Score 2) 156

you can't run from government regulation in hatred of it as a great evil, and then expect government to come to rescue you when you inevitably get fucked. you got fucked, because there's no regulations.

Sure you can. Americans call them Tea Party Republicans.

Comment: Re:Fair and impartial? (Score 1) 638

by Registered Coward v2 (#49181111) Attached to: Snowden Reportedly In Talks To Return To US To Face Trial

One thing I would point out that he gave them to point out to the American people the extent to which the government was violating the constitutiion; there was no way to do that without the whole world knowing (including the ruskies and the chinese).

While you could legitimately argue that he was doing a good thing that is not the point. The point is can you make the argument convincingly enough to convince a jury not to convict despite ample evidence laws were broken? I think that is a high bar to clear, and the counter to letting the world know is he did not have to go to the Chinese and the Russians and hand over a treasure trove of material and that is the issue at trial. The prosecution would hammer home that the damage he did far outweighed any good he sought to do and focus on his spying for the Chinese and Russians. They might even point out he could have done the same thing in the US, via leaks to newspapers or to a sympathetic representative, without hurting the US by giving it to China and Russia. They will make as strong an emotional appeal to the jurors as his lawyers would. Since neither the law nor the facts are on his side he is reduced to a very, IMHO, long shot attempt to convince a jury to ignore both and acquit. He will be portrayed in the worst possible light, with everything he did while working for the government and later on the run, to make him a very unsympathetic defendant. Is he willing to bet his life on a long shot?

And, of course, if the government hadn't been breaking the law and the constitution, none of this would have happened, and it's to prevent the USA from becoming another North Korea / USSR / China.

That would probably hurt him since jurors are likely not think we are heading in that direction and thus find the claim a bit outrageous and thus discount his need to reveal the information.

And then to ask the same question that's been asked about the banks - why not a single conviction for the law-breakers.

That would probably be ruled inadmissible since it is irrelevant to the case and would think a lawyer that did that would be on shaky ethical ground.

In the end, our opinion on what he did is irrelevant, what counts is that of the jurors and I doubt popular opinion would be so strongly in his favor that he could win on jury nullification strategy; especially since the prosecution is free to press how badly he damaged American security while his lawyer would have to very carefully navigate the ethical grounds of making a jury nullification argument.

Most public domain software is free, at least at first glance.

Working...