JulianSwig
asked on
Facebook or Twitter to resist false premise law enforcement
Dear EE;
In the S.F. Bay Area our principle transit system is the BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit).
I have discovered that the system has no lawful basis for imposing fares or for citing for fare evasion. In other words people can ride free.
To teach the facts I have distributed to parked commuter’s cars business cards inviting people to contact me by email. When they do respond I email send them attached documents such as the one attached here.
I am getting less than 1% response to my cards and no one to date has stood up to the BART. I worry that people fear I may be distributing maleware. Would a Facebook or Twitter presence mitigate such fears?
Rather than direct prospects to contact me at my home email I would direct them to Facebook or Twitter.
My next question would be a request to be walked through the procedures for setting up with Facebook or Twitter.
Thank you,
Julian Swig
00-TO-CITING-OFFICER-BART.doc
In the S.F. Bay Area our principle transit system is the BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit).
I have discovered that the system has no lawful basis for imposing fares or for citing for fare evasion. In other words people can ride free.
To teach the facts I have distributed to parked commuter’s cars business cards inviting people to contact me by email. When they do respond I email send them attached documents such as the one attached here.
I am getting less than 1% response to my cards and no one to date has stood up to the BART. I worry that people fear I may be distributing maleware. Would a Facebook or Twitter presence mitigate such fears?
Rather than direct prospects to contact me at my home email I would direct them to Facebook or Twitter.
My next question would be a request to be walked through the procedures for setting up with Facebook or Twitter.
Thank you,
Julian Swig
00-TO-CITING-OFFICER-BART.doc
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Darr247
Buy a Google shirt, act like you belong there and ride the google buses free... they pay BART a dollar each stop, so you should be all good.
ASKER
Tom;
The fine is for "dollars", i.e. real money, not Federal Reserve notes. Dollars are not available at this point in history.
CaPenC 640(c)(1) is a description, not a prohibition. A description cannot be violated.
"Evasion of the payment of a fare of the system" is not a sentence. No verb.
000-INTRODUCTION-640-FREE.docx
00-FRN-is-not-MONEY-640--1-.doc
The fine is for "dollars", i.e. real money, not Federal Reserve notes. Dollars are not available at this point in history.
CaPenC 640(c)(1) is a description, not a prohibition. A description cannot be violated.
"Evasion of the payment of a fare of the system" is not a sentence. No verb.
000-INTRODUCTION-640-FREE.docx
00-FRN-is-not-MONEY-640--1-.doc
ASKER
Darr247
What are the Google buses? And how do they relate to BART? I live in the East Bay not Silicone Valley.
What are the Google buses? And how do they relate to BART? I live in the East Bay not Silicone Valley.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
Tom;
" requirements of the modern economic world,"
Businesses and individuals are free to transact in FRNs.
But they cannot be compelled to transact with government with FRNs
[My present focus is California with its CaGovC6850 relating to the "dollar"]
I see no need for the Supreme Court to agree. I would assume they already do.
Why wouldn't they?
I am aware that a few Federal judges have accommodated the myth that the
FRN is legal tender but they have done so in DICTA not with RULINGS.
The word "dollar(s)" is present in the Constitution. Congress cannot up and say
"now dollar means the FRN" and Congress has not done so. The Supreme Court
knows this. Congress has postured at 31 USC 5103 but Congress has nowhere made the FRN legal tender.
I have engaged in a Public Records Act exchange with the Calif. Board of Equalization.
Guess what? They have no authority to receive Sales Tax in FRNs. They are presently with egg on their face where this issue is concerned. If I owned a business I would be in a position to refuse them FRNs then meet the BOE in court if they chose to take me there. Or better I could sue them for a Declaration of Rights because I would have an actual controversy.
" requirements of the modern economic world,"
Businesses and individuals are free to transact in FRNs.
But they cannot be compelled to transact with government with FRNs
[My present focus is California with its CaGovC6850 relating to the "dollar"]
I see no need for the Supreme Court to agree. I would assume they already do.
Why wouldn't they?
I am aware that a few Federal judges have accommodated the myth that the
FRN is legal tender but they have done so in DICTA not with RULINGS.
The word "dollar(s)" is present in the Constitution. Congress cannot up and say
"now dollar means the FRN" and Congress has not done so. The Supreme Court
knows this. Congress has postured at 31 USC 5103 but Congress has nowhere made the FRN legal tender.
I have engaged in a Public Records Act exchange with the Calif. Board of Equalization.
Guess what? They have no authority to receive Sales Tax in FRNs. They are presently with egg on their face where this issue is concerned. If I owned a business I would be in a position to refuse them FRNs then meet the BOE in court if they chose to take me there. Or better I could sue them for a Declaration of Rights because I would have an actual controversy.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
I object in principle to the author of an "opinion zone" question highlighting his opinion as the "Accepted Solution," even at zero points. IMO, the "Accepted Solution" should be awarded to one of those who responded with the most helpful reply to the question and/or the author's posted opinions.
However, I see no issue with an author awarding himself "Assisted Solutions" (at zero points) as long as they don't exceed the number of solutions awarded to those who responded.
IMHO, it's not right for an author to solicit opinions of others and then highlight his own as the best -- the "Accepted Solution, unless there were no responses, or some of the participants were in agreement."
WS
However, I see no issue with an author awarding himself "Assisted Solutions" (at zero points) as long as they don't exceed the number of solutions awarded to those who responded.
IMHO, it's not right for an author to solicit opinions of others and then highlight his own as the best -- the "Accepted Solution, unless there were no responses, or some of the participants were in agreement."
WS
The Federal Reserve did not exist in 1789, so it could not possibly in the Constitution.
Since Congress authorized the Federal Reserve, they ceded some authority to it. I too think that was a terrible idea, but it's still legal.
Bill Clinton and member of congress can stay out of jail with word semantics, but average citizens can't. If you commit perjury or ignore a fine or a court order, you will eventually be jailed.
Since Congress authorized the Federal Reserve, they ceded some authority to it. I too think that was a terrible idea, but it's still legal.
Bill Clinton and member of congress can stay out of jail with word semantics, but average citizens can't. If you commit perjury or ignore a fine or a court order, you will eventually be jailed.
ASKER
I appreciate the push back the experts gave. It was a good debate.