Re: In committing injustice, government argues that money isn't property

On Feb 24, 2025 at 10:41:38 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:

In economic terms, money isn't property. It's a denomination of past
labor and earnings paid to a business's capital until there is a purchase
of property. It's for convenience in economies in which the vast
majority of economic exchanges do not involve barter.
 
But this isn't a legal argument, till now.
 
The government fined a business $50,000 for a labor law violation. An
administrative hearing was held, but the argument is that the
administrative law judge wasn't impartial as an employee of the
enforcement department of the agency.

That's such a 'duh' argument it should never even have to have been made.

But of course, our courts are full of LAW & ORDER judges who are ethically
required to make the wrong ruling every time.

The business demanded due process, a trial in actual federal district court.
 
The government presented these arguments that he has no right to due
process:
 
(1) the government creates money, so you can't own it (fiat currency);

Wow. Just wow.

(2) the government can tax your money, so you don't own it; and
 
(3) the Constitution allows the government to spend money for the
"general welfare."
 
I'd like to see a pickpocket or a fraudster make that argument at his
criminal trial.
 
The government's arguments cite the Legal Tender Cases (I am aware of
the outcome but not the arguments). Debtors could not demand specie or
hard currency to repay debts. They were required to accept fiat
currency.

Except that's not true.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12772.htm

There is no federal statute mandating that a private business, a person, or an
organization must accept currency or coins as payment for goods or services.
Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether to accept
cash unless there is a state law that says otherwise.