David Merrill wrote:Other than to attack a 72-year old man for a perfectly legal bonded promissory note like this is obviously to frighten him into taking a plea bargain.
If it is in fact "perfectly legal", then the matter will never get to a "plea bargain". The "bonded promissory note" is on paper, available to the defense. If "perfectly legal", then a motion to dismiss will be granted. End of case.
Problem is, of course, it's not "perfectly legal".
The deciding case is Trebilcock v. Wilson. By not collecting, or even attempting to collect the debt with the Treasury or holder of the Bond, the City has waived the obligation.
David,
here is the free full-text version of
Trebilcock. Please quote the part that says that, if a creditor fails to perform the pointless task of attempting to collect on an obviously fraudulent instrument, it waives the debt.
To those who can read,
Trebilcock says nothing more than that the parties to a contract can agree that payment will be made in a certain form - there "in specie", interpreted to mean gold and silver coin. Did the city of Poplarville agree that Rayner would pay the ticket by "bonded promissory note"? If not, then
Trebilcock doesn't apply. And the case has pretty much been limited to its place and time by
Norman v. Baltimore & O. RR. Co., 294 U.S. 240 (1935). In
Norman the Supreme Court, after citing
Trebilcock and other earlier cases, noted that "The rulings, upholding gold clauses and determining their effect, were made when gold was still in circulation and no act of the Congress prohibiting the enforcement of such clauses had been passed". The law and its interpretations change.
What doesn't change, however, is that you can't take a case enforcing a clause requiring payment in gold and silver coin when such were still being minted as sanctioning the use of a "bonded promissory note". The law means what it says, not what you'd like it to say.