The statement on the bill was so that no-one could refuse it during the "Great Rebellion", as the American Revolution was called at the time. A citation from 1869 is typical: https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/...
At that time, the government did not wish to give person the option of refusing the (new) U.S. Dollar and demanding gold or silver before completing a transaction with the government or private individuals.
The Department of the Treasure has stated a legal opinion that the law does not apply to a large class of private transactions, on the grounds that a "debt" does not exist until the transaction is complete.
There is case law on paying the debt in cash as opposed to gold and silver, but Google Scholar doesn't report anything on refusal to accept cash for a non-debt.
An arguement can be made that the intention of the US founding fathers was to give "debt" its broadest possible reading, and that the position of the Treasury is pilpul, and requires authorizing legislation, such as (Canada's) "Currency Act"
This, of course, does not speak to other parts of the criminal code. For example, it may well be illegal to refuse to sell a necessity to a minor if they only have cash.
... If it is used by an xbox game, then it only forbids you from recording your gaming sessions.
This makes it hard to prove you won when you're playing in a for-money tournament. Better have your phone on a tripod, recording the match as you play
My old employer, https://worldgaming.com/ sponsors just such tournaments and asks for evidence in case of two people claiming to have won.
If I compare 25 people's birthdays to one another, I have a 50% chance of getting a match. That's because I compare one person with 25 others, another with 24, another with 23, and so on. That's with a 1:365 chance of sucess on a single trial (0.27%).
Now try this with a few thousand "people of interest" out of 25 billion.
"Despite redacting the names and email addresses of the public servants handling the case, the FBI released not only the author’s name and address in the file (technically improper since there was no waiver, albeit understandable) but the name, email address and home address of another requester who also used the script to file requests. Their name along with their email and physical addresses were left unredacted not once, not twice, not thrice but seven times, not including the email headers, several of which also showed their name and email address."
Other emails show that the FBI’s Obama-era FOIA office consulted a number of people from the Criminal Justice Information Services division for the purpose of singling out "suspicious" FOIA requests for possible prosecution targeting.
I'd love to know what they considered a "suspicious" FOIA request.
"Spock, did you see the looks on their faces?" "Yes, Captain, a sort of vacant contentment."