defending cash as legal tender
Donation protected
"This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private," unless those public debts are incurred in the New Paltz Town Justice Court. Within those hallowed halls, only credit cards and money orders are accepted. That's illegal, and I'd like to bring these well-intentioned, but misguided, justices to heel.
"The decision to limit payment to credit/debit cards and money orders or bank checks was to improve accounting and accountability for money that we receive," Town Justice Jonathan Katz said in a March 2016 New Paltz Times article. "The court receives over $70,000 per month."
"If money goes missing in the clerk's office, it's the judge's responsibility," said James Bacon, the other town justice. "In Rosendale, a lot of money went missing."
That's true: a court employee really did steal a bunch of money in Rosendale. Controlling that sort of behavior is critical anywhere money changes hands: private businesses, nonprofit agences, and government offices. The measures usually taken are to monitor the money that goes in and out, conduct audits, and do a better job in hiring honest people in the first place.
Instead, in their zeal to protect public monies and minimize their own liability, these justices have opted to simply stop accepting cash, and that's illegal. According to Title 31, § 5103 of the United States Code, "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."
What about a court fine is not a "public charge?" The goal of preventing thievery is laudable, but the method is not legal. It's also inequitable, because it hits hardest at those who can least afford it.
The credit card service used by the courts tacks on a 2.99% "convenience fee" to the fines and surcharges. A CNBC survey in 2015 determined that about 50% of Americans don't have any savings, which means that 1) they probably couldn't afford to hire an attorney and accept a plea deal whether or not they were guilty, and 2) they paid their fine by credit card and will only be paying the minimum each month, in which case that "convenience fee" is being compounded over time.
For those of us who do have a little money set aside for emergencies, how much that convenience fee (or the cost of a money order) hurts is proportional. Five dollars means something very different depending on whether one earns $100,000 or $20,000. It amounts to a further punishment for pleading guilty while poor.
I paid a fine in late May to this court, and I have in my possession a letter signed (with seal) by Justice Katz confirming that cash is not accepted. That means that I have legal standing to file an article 78 petition to compel court officials to obey the law. However, that process is beyond my resources: I'm advised that $25,000 is not an unreasonable amount of legal fees, and I'd also have to find an attorney who never intends on practicing before this court. (I'm not claiming the justices are vindictive; I'm simply repeating one local attorney's opinion.)
However, that's a lot of money to raise. It may not happen within the four months I have to file that suit. If that window closes, I will seek another individual with standing once there's enough money, either in New Paltz or somewhere else in the state. This policy was put into place with full knowledge of state judicial officials, and ultimately the change will have to be implemented far beyond New Paltz.
This is not a pedantic question. People with lower incomes, who are disproportionately affected by this policy, are also also disproportionately people of color. By violating this federal law, our justices are harming people in their attempts to avoid harm coming to them.
"The decision to limit payment to credit/debit cards and money orders or bank checks was to improve accounting and accountability for money that we receive," Town Justice Jonathan Katz said in a March 2016 New Paltz Times article. "The court receives over $70,000 per month."
"If money goes missing in the clerk's office, it's the judge's responsibility," said James Bacon, the other town justice. "In Rosendale, a lot of money went missing."
That's true: a court employee really did steal a bunch of money in Rosendale. Controlling that sort of behavior is critical anywhere money changes hands: private businesses, nonprofit agences, and government offices. The measures usually taken are to monitor the money that goes in and out, conduct audits, and do a better job in hiring honest people in the first place.
Instead, in their zeal to protect public monies and minimize their own liability, these justices have opted to simply stop accepting cash, and that's illegal. According to Title 31, § 5103 of the United States Code, "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."
What about a court fine is not a "public charge?" The goal of preventing thievery is laudable, but the method is not legal. It's also inequitable, because it hits hardest at those who can least afford it.
The credit card service used by the courts tacks on a 2.99% "convenience fee" to the fines and surcharges. A CNBC survey in 2015 determined that about 50% of Americans don't have any savings, which means that 1) they probably couldn't afford to hire an attorney and accept a plea deal whether or not they were guilty, and 2) they paid their fine by credit card and will only be paying the minimum each month, in which case that "convenience fee" is being compounded over time.
For those of us who do have a little money set aside for emergencies, how much that convenience fee (or the cost of a money order) hurts is proportional. Five dollars means something very different depending on whether one earns $100,000 or $20,000. It amounts to a further punishment for pleading guilty while poor.
I paid a fine in late May to this court, and I have in my possession a letter signed (with seal) by Justice Katz confirming that cash is not accepted. That means that I have legal standing to file an article 78 petition to compel court officials to obey the law. However, that process is beyond my resources: I'm advised that $25,000 is not an unreasonable amount of legal fees, and I'd also have to find an attorney who never intends on practicing before this court. (I'm not claiming the justices are vindictive; I'm simply repeating one local attorney's opinion.)
However, that's a lot of money to raise. It may not happen within the four months I have to file that suit. If that window closes, I will seek another individual with standing once there's enough money, either in New Paltz or somewhere else in the state. This policy was put into place with full knowledge of state judicial officials, and ultimately the change will have to be implemented far beyond New Paltz.
This is not a pedantic question. People with lower incomes, who are disproportionately affected by this policy, are also also disproportionately people of color. By violating this federal law, our justices are harming people in their attempts to avoid harm coming to them.
Organizer
Terence P Ward
Organizer
New Paltz, NY
