It is interesting to see how the EU and USA mobile markets evolved differently, which I attribute in part to the different cultural identity in the two places. US Companies see themselevs as US companies and so it was natural for them to dvelop a US network acrosss the entire country. The EU companies were more likly to seethemselves as French or German as were regulators in those countries who would protrct them from foriegn competition. As aresultyou have a very localized network rather than an EU wide network.
It's just as localized in the US. The US just happens to be a larger country. But go to Canada or Mexico and you will pay exorbitant roaming fees to.
True, but the continental US is about as large as Europe and is also made up of a number of individual states who also jealously guard their rights and powers; but the strong federal system and cultural history of the US made it easier to create one giant roam free marketplace about as large as the total EU market. We do pay through the nose for roaming outside of the US; although years ago Canada only cost an additional $5/month for unlimited calling while there or to there.
You've obviously never served on a jury. It is the JURY who decide what the facts of the case are, and jurors are not nearly as naive as you seem to think. Oh - wait - you're probably in the US, where jurors are paid so little that everyone and their dog tries to get out of jury duty, leaving only those stupid enough not to get out of it to serve.
Actually I have; and ad hominem does not add to your argument. But to your point, juries make a finding of fact based on the evidence presented and what they believe to be the truth. Which gets to my point which you consistently seem to ignore for some unknown reason; perhaps you do not want to believe Snowden would be convicted and receive a life sentence or two. I think it is a very risky bet on his part to return and face a trial. My experiences on juries is that no matter how sympathetic we are to the defendant if the facts, under the law, point to guilt we found them guilty. Jury nullification is not an easy thing to accomplish; especially when neither rte facts nor law are on your side.
Yes, the US jury selection is messed up but in my experience most people didn't try to get out of jury duty. A more likely scenario is those most likely to really think about the fact are not selected to serve on a jury because they may rule against one side. I am quite surprised when I get picked to actually be on one because I generally do not fit the profile of a desirable juror based on my background and education.
Anyway, we seem to be arguing two points. You are focusing on Snowden's actions and weather or not he should be found guilty; I am focusing on the risk he faces going to trial. You see the facts and say "He should be exonerated based on a greater god argument," I see them and say "They can be twisted many ways to make a story, most of which may not work in his favor."
I ignore what you said because there's no way they can present "proof" that contradicts the facts.
Don't be so sure. Everything introduced in a court case is a fact, the jury needs to decide who made the most compelling argument based on their facts and whose facts are in fact the correct ones. it's all about picking a story to get the jury to focus on on the argument you make and decide it is the correct one.
If they are citizens they they are eligible for financial aid that any other US citizen is; and depending on you residency status in a state would qualify for in state tuition. As for taxes, yes filing US tax forms is a pain but unless your tax situation is very complex it is not that bad. been there, done that, paid the taxes. The question is it worth it to them to have the option of moving / working / studying in the US without having to get a visa?
There's indeed all kind of commercial issues. No-one will disagree on that.
Yet, daily practices are very strange pricing schemes with all EU telco's. Where calling mobile may be cheaper than land line. But roaming is indeed a very practical issue for anyone crossing a border, and getting charged over 2 euro for 1 megabyte of data is more the rule than the exception.
Smarter users avoid getting unexpected bills using pre-pay plans. But on average, _everyone_ is being ripped of left or right. There are no fair plans. It's hard to find a,say, 100 euro true unlimited plan. It's hard to find roaming at normal prices. It _does_ exist though, it you search. But as said, most providers will just rip you off whenever they find a chance.
It is interesting to see how the EU and USA mobile markets evolved differently, which I attribute in part to the different cultural identity in the two places. US Companies see themselevs as US companies and so it was natural for them to dvelop a US network acrosss the entire country. The EU companies were more likly to seethemselves as French or German as were regulators in those countries who would protrct them from foriegn competition. As aresultyou have a very localized network rather than an EU wide network.
More legally - this shows how the EU has sometimes embarrassing little power. The EU parliament votes. The joining countries overrule. They just use 'EU' as excuse when convenient, and ignore as soon they please too, which often leads to schizophrenic state politics. This is just a symptom.
Concluding: the EU parliament chooses the most ethical-correct choice. The members of the EU choose to ignore it for, mostly, commercial reasons.
The EU is learning ehat the US learned right after the American War. A confederation does not work to create a single political or social entity.
But when you think about it, what would stop a provider with a single antenna in say, Andorra or Vatican, to offer unlimited plans at Euro 5/month and free ride on providers with real network coverage?
Providers have roaming agreements where they reimburse each other for roaming in the US. As long as it is relatively balanced there is no real cost to it. A single tower providercwould get killed in such a acenario sinc they would pay much more than they take in. That's also why they will drop you if you roam too much.
Excellent points. The US is also experince issues with AP 1000 construction. Part of the problem as you point oit is experience. Many of yhe engineers, architects, skilled trades etc. that built the last generation of plants have retired or moved on so much of the lessons learned will have to be relearned the hard way.
There are ways of dealing with this scenario. The simplest being, don't keep the information on the laptop. After entering the country, use VPN or some other secure means of downloading the data.
Exactly, I have an IronKey drive that is password protected and self destructs after 10 wrong attempts. It's small and easily stored away from all the other jump drives etc. I carry it to increase its chance of being overlooked if some wants to search my machine. They can search my laptop and nothing important is revealed.
To a large degree I think the problem is actually lack of practice actually building power plants. So of course the cost and time estimates aren't accurate enough. EPR is a new reactor design.
While the design is new we've been building pressure vessel, primary and secondary containments, turbine buildings and cooling towers for a while. While some of the issues can be traced to a new design the industry also tends to get overly optimistic about the cost structure of each new generation.
I wouldn't worry about seeing any $10,000 or even $100,000 notes as those reside in private collections and while still legal tender someone would be a fool to try an use one. I would however question where they got a $100,000 note and I believe that the secrete service would also have some questions as those were only used for inter-bank transfers.
I fully agree, though it would be interesting to see the face on clerk that was handed one of them and the alarm on the collector's part when the clerk put a big line on it with an anti-counterfeit pen.
Nuclear is cheap. Project delays are not cheap in nuclear, or a dam (hydro if you will) or a tunnel or any large scale project. Uncertain political environment is a death knell for large scale projects.
Another problem is plans are often overly optimistic to make the costs look good and the actual construction varies form the design due to poor project management, which opens up licensing issues and causes further delays driving up costs. The industry is its own worst enemy in many ways.
once you have reactors, you're stuck with them for the better part of a century and when shit goes wrong, it goes really wrong.
can we start switching over to solar panels and batteries yet? seriously, we are bombarded by free power every single day!
While solar has promise it faces a similar issue as many other power generation solutions do: NIMBY. People want power from a wall outlet but don't want production facility nearby, whether it's nuclear, coal, wind, solar or what have you.
You talk out of your ass. Look up relevant cases before spewing in ignorance, two decades ago even the IRS was bitch slapped after refusing trucker who paid in pennies. Refusing legal tender puts you in a very bad position in a court of law.
Sure, Rosen v Continental Airlines. Refusing cash didn't put them in a bad position.
Again, UCC 3 - 603 refers to negotiable instruments, not debts. A negotiable instrument is a debt but not all debts are negotiable instruments. While I agree a judge could contort it to include your example a restaurant bill isn't a negotiable instrument. I also agree a judge would likely tell them to "take the cash." The whole argument is a bit silly since i doubt a place would refuse cash unless it was in some really silly form, such as offering to pay a $5 bill with a $10,000 or $100,000 note.
Nice try but U3-603 refers to negotiable instruments,which is a written promise to pay an individual a stated amount of money. A bill in a restaurant isn't a negotiable instrument, for example. Yea, those most courts would simply say take the money and both of you stop wasting our time. My point is some people seem to believe that if a business refuses to accept your cash in payment you are discharged of the obligation to pay; which is not the case.
Nice try but U3-603 refers to negotiable instruments,which is a written promise to pay an individual a stated amount of money. A bill in a restaurant isn't a negotiable instrument, for example.
Disclaimer first, this is US centric, though it 'should' work in many countries.
So absent a state law failure to accept cash in no way eliminates a debt.
Actually, it kind of does. Work out the logic and realize that not all businesses are creditors.
You're take is interesting, though wrong. Being a creditor has no bearing on the what you must accept in payment; in fact it's pretty clear no one is required to accept cash. Why don't you try it, go to court, and report back?
They might even point out he could have done the same thing in the US, via leaks to newspapers or to a sympathetic representative, without hurting the US by giving it to China and Russia.
That is YOUR claim that he, in your own words, "could have done the same thing in the US, via leaks to newspapers", which is in fact what he did.
You keep ignoring the They might even point out part of my post; where I state one tack the government could chose to take. I make no claim to what he did or didn't do, despite your attempts to ascribe such to me. My point is there are many argument the government can make to convince a jury to acquit but his only hope seems to be to convince someone that what he did doesn't deserve punishment. As I have said, when the facts and the law are against you you have a tough road to hoe.
Either you were ignorant of the facts, or you're shilling. Somehow, I doubt a shill would be stupid enough to try to pull one over my eyes, but you never know.
No, but I wonder why you ignore what I actually say in order to argue that Snowden will win if he goes to trial.
Also, he only needs one juror to hang the jury. Or one acquittal for double jeopardy to apply - "nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb" since this is a capital case.
True, I just think it is a remote possibility that they get an acquittal or even a hung jury. If they really wanted to be bastards they could charge him with some offenses and if they lose come back with other separate offenses without it being double jeopardy. I doubt they would do that just was I doubt they would fail to get a conviction.
\
William Shatner ain't riding in and saying "Denny Crane" and saving the day right before the end credits; returning to face trial would most likely end very badly for him.
they can file a complaint, but ouu would win in court. If you refuse cash for a debt, then person who owes you the debt can legally tell you he considers the matter settled. No court is going ot look favorably on you if you dont take cash for a debt.
Except there is no requirement to accept cash and you'd still wind up losing and paying up. For some reason people think "Legal Tender" = "Must Accept" when it does not.
And then i will write payment refused on the receipt and never pay you. If you press it in court, a judge is NOT going to like that you refused legal tender to settle the debt, regardless of form. You are right you can refuse, but then the person indebted to you can simply write the debt off leaving you little recourse.
And you would lose in court. There is no law requiring someone to accept legal tender in payment of a debt; and failure to do so does not absolve someone of liability for the debt.
This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.
Actually there is no legal requirement to take cash, debt or no debt. You can refuse to accept cash if you want.
Actually, there is, sort of. You can refuse to accept cash: however, they are valid legal payment for the debt, so if you refuse the payment, you are either de facto implying the debt no longer exists (because you're not accepting repayment for it), or you're breaking the law by refusing legal payment. You cannot refuse repayment in cash and then claim the debt still exists. IANAL, so I'm sure there are subtleties involved with, for e.g., contracts (i.e. you agree to give them 10 widgets later in exchange for 5 doohickeys now, offering cash instead would be a violation of the contract), but generally, creditors must accept cash in repayment of debts.
=
Per the web site you referenced:
This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.
So absent a state law failure to accept cash in no way eliminates a debt.
Are you seriously going to continue to deny that you were wrong when you said that "instead of leaking it to the Russians and Chinese, he could have leaked it to reporters?" Come on, that duck won't fly. Get real. Please.
I am not making a claim one way or another on the facts. I am pointing out there are a lot of arguements the government can use to paint a very damning picture of what he did in order to secure a conviction. He has neither the law nor facts on his side and thus is in a very bad position. It will be hard to make him a sympathetic defendant. You believe it would be easy for him to be found not guilty through jury nullification or a hung jury; I do not think it is as easy as you think and thus believe his returning to yhe US and hoping to walk based on a trial victory is a very risky move.
In the U.S. you cannot decline payment made in cash (if you normally take cash).
Sure you can, if you haven't delivered the goods. Notice the reference to "all debts"? If a debt doesn't exist, you have every right to demand pork bellies before you hand over the merchandise.
OTOH, if the restaurant cashier doesn't want to take your bill in cash after your meal, you can tell them to take it or leave it.
Uh no. There is no legal requirement for an individual or business to accept cash. If they refuse cash payment and you walk out with out paying they can file a theft complaint. Just because a note is legal tender does not mean it must be accepted for payment.
Slashdot Mirror
Because he's not RMS and probably doesn't have a problem with closed source software, like most of the world.
And here I thought it was because he showered regularly...
It is interesting to see how the EU and USA mobile markets evolved differently, which I attribute in part to the different cultural identity in the two places. US Companies see themselevs as US companies and so it was natural for them to dvelop a US network acrosss the entire country. The EU companies were more likly to seethemselves as French or German as were regulators in those countries who would protrct them from foriegn competition. As aresultyou have a very localized network rather than an EU wide network.
It's just as localized in the US. The US just happens to be a larger country. But go to Canada or Mexico and you will pay exorbitant roaming fees to.
True, but the continental US is about as large as Europe and is also made up of a number of individual states who also jealously guard their rights and powers; but the strong federal system and cultural history of the US made it easier to create one giant roam free marketplace about as large as the total EU market. We do pay through the nose for roaming outside of the US; although years ago Canada only cost an additional $5/month for unlimited calling while there or to there.
You've obviously never served on a jury. It is the JURY who decide what the facts of the case are, and jurors are not nearly as naive as you seem to think. Oh - wait - you're probably in the US, where jurors are paid so little that everyone and their dog tries to get out of jury duty, leaving only those stupid enough not to get out of it to serve.
Actually I have; and ad hominem does not add to your argument. But to your point, juries make a finding of fact based on the evidence presented and what they believe to be the truth. Which gets to my point which you consistently seem to ignore for some unknown reason; perhaps you do not want to believe Snowden would be convicted and receive a life sentence or two. I think it is a very risky bet on his part to return and face a trial. My experiences on juries is that no matter how sympathetic we are to the defendant if the facts, under the law, point to guilt we found them guilty. Jury nullification is not an easy thing to accomplish; especially when neither rte facts nor law are on your side.
Yes, the US jury selection is messed up but in my experience most people didn't try to get out of jury duty. A more likely scenario is those most likely to really think about the fact are not selected to serve on a jury because they may rule against one side. I am quite surprised when I get picked to actually be on one because I generally do not fit the profile of a desirable juror based on my background and education.
Anyway, we seem to be arguing two points. You are focusing on Snowden's actions and weather or not he should be found guilty; I am focusing on the risk he faces going to trial. You see the facts and say "He should be exonerated based on a greater god argument," I see them and say "They can be twisted many ways to make a story, most of which may not work in his favor."
I ignore what you said because there's no way they can present "proof" that contradicts the facts.
Don't be so sure. Everything introduced in a court case is a fact, the jury needs to decide who made the most compelling argument based on their facts and whose facts are in fact the correct ones. it's all about picking a story to get the jury to focus on on the argument you make and decide it is the correct one.
If they are citizens they they are eligible for financial aid that any other US citizen is; and depending on you residency status in a state would qualify for in state tuition. As for taxes, yes filing US tax forms is a pain but unless your tax situation is very complex it is not that bad. been there, done that, paid the taxes. The question is it worth it to them to have the option of moving / working / studying in the US without having to get a visa?
There's indeed all kind of commercial issues. No-one will disagree on that.
Yet, daily practices are very strange pricing schemes with all EU telco's. Where calling mobile may be cheaper than land line. But roaming is indeed a very practical issue for anyone crossing a border, and getting charged over 2 euro for 1 megabyte of data is more the rule than the exception. Smarter users avoid getting unexpected bills using pre-pay plans. But on average, _everyone_ is being ripped of left or right. There are no fair plans. It's hard to find a,say, 100 euro true unlimited plan. It's hard to find roaming at normal prices. It _does_ exist though, it you search. But as said, most providers will just rip you off whenever they find a chance.
It is interesting to see how the EU and USA mobile markets evolved differently, which I attribute in part to the different cultural identity in the two places. US Companies see themselevs as US companies and so it was natural for them to dvelop a US network acrosss the entire country. The EU companies were more likly to seethemselves as French or German as were regulators in those countries who would protrct them from foriegn competition. As aresultyou have a very localized network rather than an EU wide network.
More legally - this shows how the EU has sometimes embarrassing little power. The EU parliament votes. The joining countries overrule. They just use 'EU' as excuse when convenient, and ignore as soon they please too, which often leads to schizophrenic state politics. This is just a symptom.
Concluding: the EU parliament chooses the most ethical-correct choice. The members of the EU choose to ignore it for, mostly, commercial reasons.
The EU is learning ehat the US learned right after the American War. A confederation does not work to create a single political or social entity.
But when you think about it, what would stop a provider with a single antenna in say, Andorra or Vatican, to offer unlimited plans at Euro 5/month and free ride on providers with real network coverage?
Providers have roaming agreements where they reimburse each other for roaming in the US. As long as it is relatively balanced there is no real cost to it. A single tower providercwould get killed in such a acenario sinc they would pay much more than they take in. That's also why they will drop you if you roam too much.
Excellent points. The US is also experince issues with AP 1000 construction. Part of the problem as you point oit is experience. Many of yhe engineers, architects, skilled trades etc. that built the last generation of plants have retired or moved on so much of the lessons learned will have to be relearned the hard way.
There are ways of dealing with this scenario. The simplest being, don't keep the information on the laptop. After entering the country, use VPN or some other secure means of downloading the data.
Exactly, I have an IronKey drive that is password protected and self destructs after 10 wrong attempts. It's small and easily stored away from all the other jump drives etc. I carry it to increase its chance of being overlooked if some wants to search my machine. They can search my laptop and nothing important is revealed.
To a large degree I think the problem is actually lack of practice actually building power plants. So of course the cost and time estimates aren't accurate enough. EPR is a new reactor design.
While the design is new we've been building pressure vessel, primary and secondary containments, turbine buildings and cooling towers for a while. While some of the issues can be traced to a new design the industry also tends to get overly optimistic about the cost structure of each new generation.
I wouldn't worry about seeing any $10,000 or even $100,000 notes as those reside in private collections and while still legal tender someone would be a fool to try an use one. I would however question where they got a $100,000 note and I believe that the secrete service would also have some questions as those were only used for inter-bank transfers.
I fully agree, though it would be interesting to see the face on clerk that was handed one of them and the alarm on the collector's part when the clerk put a big line on it with an anti-counterfeit pen.
Nuclear is cheap. Project delays are not cheap in nuclear, or a dam (hydro if you will) or a tunnel or any large scale project. Uncertain political environment is a death knell for large scale projects.
Another problem is plans are often overly optimistic to make the costs look good and the actual construction varies form the design due to poor project management, which opens up licensing issues and causes further delays driving up costs. The industry is its own worst enemy in many ways.
once you have reactors, you're stuck with them for the better part of a century and when shit goes wrong, it goes really wrong.
can we start switching over to solar panels and batteries yet? seriously, we are bombarded by free power every single day!
While solar has promise it faces a similar issue as many other power generation solutions do: NIMBY. People want power from a wall outlet but don't want production facility nearby, whether it's nuclear, coal, wind, solar or what have you.
You talk out of your ass. Look up relevant cases before spewing in ignorance, two decades ago even the IRS was bitch slapped after refusing trucker who paid in pennies. Refusing legal tender puts you in a very bad position in a court of law.
Sure, Rosen v Continental Airlines. Refusing cash didn't put them in a bad position.
Again, UCC 3 - 603 refers to negotiable instruments, not debts. A negotiable instrument is a debt but not all debts are negotiable instruments. While I agree a judge could contort it to include your example a restaurant bill isn't a negotiable instrument. I also agree a judge would likely tell them to "take the cash." The whole argument is a bit silly since i doubt a place would refuse cash unless it was in some really silly form, such as offering to pay a $5 bill with a $10,000 or $100,000 note.
Nice try but U3-603 refers to negotiable instruments,which is a written promise to pay an individual a stated amount of money. A bill in a restaurant isn't a negotiable instrument, for example. Yea, those most courts would simply say take the money and both of you stop wasting our time. My point is some people seem to believe that if a business refuses to accept your cash in payment you are discharged of the obligation to pay; which is not the case.
Nice try but U3-603 refers to negotiable instruments,which is a written promise to pay an individual a stated amount of money. A bill in a restaurant isn't a negotiable instrument, for example.
Disclaimer first, this is US centric, though it 'should' work in many countries.
So absent a state law failure to accept cash in no way eliminates a debt.
Actually, it kind of does. Work out the logic and realize that not all businesses are creditors.
You're take is interesting, though wrong. Being a creditor has no bearing on the what you must accept in payment; in fact it's pretty clear no one is required to accept cash. Why don't you try it, go to court, and report back?
Come on, quit the lies. Here is what you wrote:
They might even point out he could have done the same thing in the US, via leaks to newspapers or to a sympathetic representative, without hurting the US by giving it to China and Russia.
That is YOUR claim that he, in your own words, "could have done the same thing in the US, via leaks to newspapers", which is in fact what he did.
You keep ignoring the They might even point out part of my post; where I state one tack the government could chose to take. I make no claim to what he did or didn't do, despite your attempts to ascribe such to me. My point is there are many argument the government can make to convince a jury to acquit but his only hope seems to be to convince someone that what he did doesn't deserve punishment. As I have said, when the facts and the law are against you you have a tough road to hoe.
Either you were ignorant of the facts, or you're shilling. Somehow, I doubt a shill would be stupid enough to try to pull one over my eyes, but you never know.
No, but I wonder why you ignore what I actually say in order to argue that Snowden will win if he goes to trial.
Also, he only needs one juror to hang the jury. Or one acquittal for double jeopardy to apply - "nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb" since this is a capital case.
True, I just think it is a remote possibility that they get an acquittal or even a hung jury. If they really wanted to be bastards they could charge him with some offenses and if they lose come back with other separate offenses without it being double jeopardy. I doubt they would do that just was I doubt they would fail to get a conviction.
\
William Shatner ain't riding in and saying "Denny Crane" and saving the day right before the end credits; returning to face trial would most likely end very badly for him.
they can file a complaint, but ouu would win in court. If you refuse cash for a debt, then person who owes you the debt can legally tell you he considers the matter settled. No court is going ot look favorably on you if you dont take cash for a debt.
Except there is no requirement to accept cash and you'd still wind up losing and paying up. For some reason people think "Legal Tender" = "Must Accept" when it does not.
And then i will write payment refused on the receipt and never pay you. If you press it in court, a judge is NOT going to like that you refused legal tender to settle the debt, regardless of form. You are right you can refuse, but then the person indebted to you can simply write the debt off leaving you little recourse.
And you would lose in court. There is no law requiring someone to accept legal tender in payment of a debt; and failure to do so does not absolve someone of liability for the debt.
Per treasury.gov
This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.
Actually there is no legal requirement to take cash, debt or no debt. You can refuse to accept cash if you want.
Actually, there is, sort of. You can refuse to accept cash: however, they are valid legal payment for the debt, so if you refuse the payment, you are either de facto implying the debt no longer exists (because you're not accepting repayment for it), or you're breaking the law by refusing legal payment. You cannot refuse repayment in cash and then claim the debt still exists. IANAL, so I'm sure there are subtleties involved with, for e.g., contracts (i.e. you agree to give them 10 widgets later in exchange for 5 doohickeys now, offering cash instead would be a violation of the contract), but generally, creditors must accept cash in repayment of debts.
=
Per the web site you referenced:
This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.
So absent a state law failure to accept cash in no way eliminates a debt.
Are you seriously going to continue to deny that you were wrong when you said that "instead of leaking it to the Russians and Chinese, he could have leaked it to reporters?" Come on, that duck won't fly. Get real. Please.
I am not making a claim one way or another on the facts. I am pointing out there are a lot of arguements the government can use to paint a very damning picture of what he did in order to secure a conviction. He has neither the law nor facts on his side and thus is in a very bad position. It will be hard to make him a sympathetic defendant. You believe it would be easy for him to be found not guilty through jury nullification or a hung jury; I do not think it is as easy as you think and thus believe his returning to yhe US and hoping to walk based on a trial victory is a very risky move.
In the U.S. you cannot decline payment made in cash (if you normally take cash).
Sure you can, if you haven't delivered the goods. Notice the reference to "all debts"? If a debt doesn't exist, you have every right to demand pork bellies before you hand over the merchandise.
OTOH, if the restaurant cashier doesn't want to take your bill in cash after your meal, you can tell them to take it or leave it.
Uh no. There is no legal requirement for an individual or business to accept cash. If they refuse cash payment and you walk out with out paying they can file a theft complaint. Just because a note is legal tender does not mean it must be accepted for payment.