Keep and Bear Arms

LEGAL TENDER AND THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

(Or How Your Bank Will Deprive You Of Your Right to Keep and Bear Arms)

by Don Cline
frdmftr@mindspring.com
Freedom Fighter Net

In spite of multiple state statutes to the contrary, the international banking dynasties we fought off in the American Revolution believe they have found a way to restore us to the feudal days of old, when private rights -- such as the right to keep and bear arms -- existed only when some twerp in a position of power granted a "boon" to a serf or vassal.

[For a more complete overview from the beginning, please see Freedom Fighter Net and scroll halfway down the page to "The Banking Treachery".]

Update: April 8, 2002

Some interesting things have been happening, including attorney incompetence (on the other side) and, well, a "psywar" of sorts.

To recap:

The banks in Arizona have taken it upon themselves to usurp ownership and control of wages earned by those who choose, for whatever reason, to avoid the surveillance nightmare of holding a bank account. It started back in July of 1995 with the requirement of a fingerprint on the face of any check cashed over the counter, and today requires the aforesaid fingerprint, identification from two institutions on a bank-approved list (all of which save one are banks or financial institutions of some kind), and as of July of 2001, cashing a business check (such as a payroll check) over the counter requires payment of a fee. Currently the fee is $3.00; however, if they can get away with charging a $3.00 fee there is no reason they can't charge a $300.00 fee some day in the future when they figure their robbery is entrenched well enough. In fact, there is no reason why they could not charge a fee based upon political considerations, such as one's involvement in politically incorrect activities -- like gun ownership, political activism for private rights, smoking, obesity, or whatever dictatorial fad is currently in fashion.

I refuse to allow some twerp at the employers' bank decide whether I receive my wages or not. The law requires "reasonable identification" and "indorsement" of the check and "surrender" of the check, and that's all (See A.R.S. 47-3501). The rest is internal policy decisions of the bank, and as a non-account-holder I am not responsible for same. The employer is required by law to pay my wages, however -- on time, in the correct amount, stat. The Arizona Labor Code requires that employers may pay wages in "lawful money of the United States" or by "negotiable bank checks". (See A.R.S. 23-351 et seq.). "Negotiable" is defined by the Uniform Commercial Code as an instrument which is "unconditional" and "payable on demand" (See A.R.S. 47-3104): Thus if conditions are imposed upon the cashing of the payroll check, then the check is not unconditional and is not payable on demand. If the bank won't cash the check, then the check is not negotiable and the wages have not been paid "by negotiable bank check". And the bank is specifically exempted by statute from being liable for any check it refuses to accept. (See A.R.S. 47-3408.)

As I pointed out, however, the employer is required by law to pay wages -- on time, in the correct amount, stat. Nothing in the law permits the employer to refuse to fulfill his duty because of something his bank does. His bank is not even a party to the employment contract.

When the employer went ballistic because I warned him he would be committing a class 2 misdemeanor if he required me to purchase goods and supplies (my own wages!) from any particular person (his bank is an "artificial person"), he refused all future communication from me which prevented me from performing my duties. This, coupled with his refusal to pay wages lawfully due and owing, clearly amounts to "Constructive Discharge" under A.R.S. 23-1502.

(It is also a class 2 misdemeanor for an employer to demand a fee, commission, or gratuity (payable to anyone) as a condition of employment. (See A.R.S. 23-202.) Receiving wages is a condition of employment, after all. (See A.R.S. 23-350 and A.R.S. 23-351. So I sued him for treble wages under A.R.S. 23-355 for refusing to pay me my wages, and for wrongful termination on three grounds: He constructively discharged me in retaliation for telling him he was violating the law (See A.R.S. 23-1501(3)(c)(ii)); in retaliation for refusing to be subject to extortion as a condition of employment (See A.R.S. 23-1501(3)(c)(viii)), and for refusing to be coerced into buying goods and supplies (my own wages!) from a particular vendor (his bank) as a condition of employment (See A.R.S. 23-1501(3)(c)(ix)). Both of these last two are class 2 misdemeanors under the Arizona Labor Code as well as grounds for a wrongful termination lawsuit, and conspiring with his bank to deprive me of his wages is Theft, Conspiracy to Commit Theft, and Theft by Extortion under the Arizona Criminal Code.

I filed my Complaint; the defense attorney Answered the Complaint, and I filed a Disclosure as required by the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure. The defense attorney failed to file his Disclosure as required. So after waiting three weeks beyond his deadline, I finally filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds of his failure to file Disclosure and failure to respond substantively in his Answer to my Complaint. That got his attention big time, and he scrambled to get to the status hearing (pre-trial conference) so he could beg the Courts' indulgence. The Court gave him a week to file his Disclosure.

He did file his Disclosure and as of today's date I have already researched his citations of rulings and found that every single one of them says what he quotes it as saying in the first part of the sentence, but then goes on and supports my position in the remainder of the sentence. So if the Court rules that the statutes mean what they say and the rulings cited by the defense mean what they actually say, this should be a certain win. But nothing is certain in these days of government and judicial lawlessness, so I am taking no chances.

Current status:

After filing his Disclosure, he filed an Opposition to my Motion for Summary Judgment and a Motion for Leave to Use the Information in his Disclosure. (That surprised me; I guess since he was late he had to disclose and then ask permission to use what he disclosed. I find it strange, but it doesn't affect anything.) I rebutted (shredded his arguments, actually) in his Opposition and requested that the Court rule favorable on my Motion for Summary Judgment, knowing full well that the Court would not so rule because there were too many unresolved issues outstanding. Then I spent three pages pointing out how I do not want a default ruling from the Court based upon the defense' inability to do it right: I want a ruling declaring what the employer did was illegal so the word will go out to other employers that they can't have slave employees by letting their banks refuse to cash their payroll checks. (I figure the employer will then sue his bank for his costs, which I want him to do anyway -- he has statutory authority under A.R.S. 47-4402.)

As expected, the Court denied my Motion for Summary Judgment, but has not yet ruled on the defense' Motion for Leave to Use the Information in his Disclosure. It looks like we are going to trial in June unless the Court rules against him (unlikely) or declares the law in such a manner that the defense realizes they don't have a chance.

So that is where we currently sit. Meanwhile I have been unemployed nearly a year now while prosecuting this matter in court and we have been just breaking even on my wife's salary. If anyone believes this is a worthy cause -- to force employers to pay wages as a matter of the employee's right instead of letting the employers' banks decide whether to withhold wages or not -- we could use some assistance.

--
Don Cline
frdmftr@mindspring.com
Freedom Fighter Net
__________________________________________
DISCLAIMER: The above is based upon my personal research as cited. I do not give legal advice. Take no action, and omit no action, based upon the above. Do your own research and/or consult your own lawdog or legal beagle before making any legal decision.
__________________________________________
PGP Public Key available on request

	Print This Page

Written By:	Don Cline
	LEGAL TENDER AND THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS (Or How Your Bank Will Deprive You Of Your Right to Keep and Bear Arms) by Don Cline frdmftr@mindspring.com Freedom Fighter Net In spite of multiple state statutes to the contrary, the international banking dynasties we fought off in the American Revolution believe they have found a way to restore us to the feudal days of old, when private rights -- such as the right to keep and bear arms -- existed only when some twerp in a position of power granted a "boon" to a serf or vassal. [For a more complete overview from the beginning, please see Freedom Fighter Net and scroll halfway down the page to "The Banking Treachery".] Update: April 8, 2002 Some interesting things have been happening, including attorney incompetence (on the other side) and, well, a "psywar" of sorts. To recap: The banks in Arizona have taken it upon themselves to usurp ownership and control of wages earned by those who choose, for whatever reason, to avoid the surveillance nightmare of holding a bank account. It started back in July of 1995 with the requirement of a fingerprint on the face of any check cashed over the counter, and today requires the aforesaid fingerprint, identification from two institutions on a bank-approved list (all of which save one are banks or financial institutions of some kind), and as of July of 2001, cashing a business check (such as a payroll check) over the counter requires payment of a fee. Currently the fee is $3.00; however, if they can get away with charging a $3.00 fee there is no reason they can't charge a $300.00 fee some day in the future when they figure their robbery is entrenched well enough. In fact, there is no reason why they could not charge a fee based upon political considerations, such as one's involvement in politically incorrect activities -- like gun ownership, political activism for private rights, smoking, obesity, or whatever dictatorial fad is currently in fashion. I refuse to allow some twerp at the employers' bank decide whether I receive my wages or not. The law requires "reasonable identification" and "indorsement" of the check and "surrender" of the check, and that's all (See A.R.S. 47-3501). The rest is internal policy decisions of the bank, and as a non-account-holder I am not responsible for same. The employer is required by law to pay my wages, however -- on time, in the correct amount, stat. The Arizona Labor Code requires that employers may pay wages in "lawful money of the United States" or by "negotiable bank checks". (See A.R.S. 23-351 et seq.). "Negotiable" is defined by the Uniform Commercial Code as an instrument which is "unconditional" and "payable on demand" (See A.R.S. 47-3104): Thus if conditions are imposed upon the cashing of the payroll check, then the check is not unconditional and is not payable on demand. If the bank won't cash the check, then the check is not negotiable and the wages have not been paid "by negotiable bank check". And the bank is specifically exempted by statute from being liable for any check it refuses to accept. (See A.R.S. 47-3408.) As I pointed out, however, the employer is required by law to pay wages -- on time, in the correct amount, stat. Nothing in the law permits the employer to refuse to fulfill his duty because of something his bank does. His bank is not even a party to the employment contract. When the employer went ballistic because I warned him he would be committing a class 2 misdemeanor if he required me to purchase goods and supplies (my own wages!) from any particular person (his bank is an "artificial person"), he refused all future communication from me which prevented me from performing my duties. This, coupled with his refusal to pay wages lawfully due and owing, clearly amounts to "Constructive Discharge" under A.R.S. 23-1502. (It is also a class 2 misdemeanor for an employer to demand a fee, commission, or gratuity (payable to anyone) as a condition of employment. (See A.R.S. 23-202.) Receiving wages is a condition of employment, after all. (See A.R.S. 23-350 and A.R.S. 23-351. So I sued him for treble wages under A.R.S. 23-355 for refusing to pay me my wages, and for wrongful termination on three grounds: He constructively discharged me in retaliation for telling him he was violating the law (See A.R.S. 23-1501(3)(c)(ii)); in retaliation for refusing to be subject to extortion as a condition of employment (See A.R.S. 23-1501(3)(c)(viii)), and for refusing to be coerced into buying goods and supplies (my own wages!) from a particular vendor (his bank) as a condition of employment (See A.R.S. 23-1501(3)(c)(ix)). Both of these last two are class 2 misdemeanors under the Arizona Labor Code as well as grounds for a wrongful termination lawsuit, and conspiring with his bank to deprive me of his wages is Theft, Conspiracy to Commit Theft, and Theft by Extortion under the Arizona Criminal Code. I filed my Complaint; the defense attorney Answered the Complaint, and I filed a Disclosure as required by the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure. The defense attorney failed to file his Disclosure as required. So after waiting three weeks beyond his deadline, I finally filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds of his failure to file Disclosure and failure to respond substantively in his Answer to my Complaint. That got his attention big time, and he scrambled to get to the status hearing (pre-trial conference) so he could beg the Courts' indulgence. The Court gave him a week to file his Disclosure. He did file his Disclosure and as of today's date I have already researched his citations of rulings and found that every single one of them says what he quotes it as saying in the first part of the sentence, but then goes on and supports my position in the remainder of the sentence. So if the Court rules that the statutes mean what they say and the rulings cited by the defense mean what they actually say, this should be a certain win. But nothing is certain in these days of government and judicial lawlessness, so I am taking no chances. Current status: After filing his Disclosure, he filed an Opposition to my Motion for Summary Judgment and a Motion for Leave to Use the Information in his Disclosure. (That surprised me; I guess since he was late he had to disclose and then ask permission to use what he disclosed. I find it strange, but it doesn't affect anything.) I rebutted (shredded his arguments, actually) in his Opposition and requested that the Court rule favorable on my Motion for Summary Judgment, knowing full well that the Court would not so rule because there were too many unresolved issues outstanding. Then I spent three pages pointing out how I do not want a default ruling from the Court based upon the defense' inability to do it right: I want a ruling declaring what the employer did was illegal so the word will go out to other employers that they can't have slave employees by letting their banks refuse to cash their payroll checks. (I figure the employer will then sue his bank for his costs, which I want him to do anyway -- he has statutory authority under A.R.S. 47-4402.) As expected, the Court denied my Motion for Summary Judgment, but has not yet ruled on the defense' Motion for Leave to Use the Information in his Disclosure. It looks like we are going to trial in June unless the Court rules against him (unlikely) or declares the law in such a manner that the defense realizes they don't have a chance. So that is where we currently sit. Meanwhile I have been unemployed nearly a year now while prosecuting this matter in court and we have been just breaking even on my wife's salary. If anyone believes this is a worthy cause -- to force employers to pay wages as a matter of the employee's right instead of letting the employers' banks decide whether to withhold wages or not -- we could use some assistance. -- Don Cline frdmftr@mindspring.com Freedom Fighter Net __________________________________________ DISCLAIMER: The above is based upon my personal research as cited. I do not give legal advice. Take no action, and omit no action, based upon the above. Do your own research and/or consult your own lawdog or legal beagle before making any legal decision. __________________________________________ PGP Public Key available on request