| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Walter |
Posted - 27 Oct 2004 : 08:26:33
A local bank has started refusing to take checks endorsed with "without prejudice." This language, as many here should know, comes from the U.C.C. section 1-207. I am going to prepare a response to the bank as to why they must accept this phrase included in an endorsement. I am hoping for some guidance from the forum.
1) I was in a foreign country years ago and had occasion to cash a check written to me. I was directed at the bank to sign my name diagonally across the FACE of the check. Does anyone know about this practice and why in the U.S.A. we sign on the back?
2) Does signing on the back make the one signing like a bank which is merely negotiating the check as opposed to demanding payment? What assumptions or regulations may attach when endorsing a check?
Thank you. |
| 20 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| David Merrill |
Posted - 06 Jan 2005 : 06:40:12
Maybe we should examine the action of endorsement. I got an interesting email from some suitors who are listening to a teacher/lecturer named William Thornton at www.1215.org which contained this comment in his historical comment about jurisdiction:quote:
Absent their oaths establishing this servitude, there was "no jurisdiction." And they were right. Despite laws making it a crime to willfully refuse to make a return and pay this tax, NONE were charged or arrested.... The crown went one better. It ordered that every man shall swear an oath of allegiance to the crown!
Might that be the source of discomfort about the fingerprint? Not having a bank account and/or need to endorse (by oath) the chattel system of national debt, I failed to see what makes anyone uncomfortable about identifying themselves positively with a fingerprint (ignorance excluded). Might it be that in the kingdom of heaven proposed by Jesus Christ, one and only one Torah law had changed with the advent of the Messiah - that we would no longer be swearing out oaths? quote:
The current Internal Revenue Code is about as close to legislated chaos as could ever be envisioned. No two people beginning with identical premises will reach the same conclusion under the IRC. Is not that chaos? Thus, in every instance where the government attempts to use oaths to bind a people, the result has been chaos.
Hence, this writer [Anonymous] is forced to the conclusion that Jesus was right. We ought to avoid oaths at all costs, save our own souls, and for precisely that reason.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. I am likely the only one here who has read Carroll Quigley's Tragedy and Hope - The History of the World in Our Time, the full version, from cover to cover. |
| Cornerstone Foundation |
Posted - 05 Jan 2005 : 23:15:10
quote:
Originally posted by berkano
I think that some people go into these situations with a chip on their shoulder, and that's part of why they get hassled so much. I know because I used to have a big chip on my shoulder, being so sure how misguided the "world" is, and how unfair it was that they would not reverence my "rights." I dropped the chip, and now people are much more accommodating and helpful.
Cornerstone Foundation wrote:
berkano:
That is probably very good guidance you are implying...generally speaking.
Best Regards,
Marty |
| Livefree |
Posted - 05 Jan 2005 : 21:42:54
Yep, that's all he's got down pat alright, i.e., patriot mythology. (snerk, snerk)
|
| berkano |
Posted - 05 Jan 2005 : 21:33:34
Last time I went into a bank to cash a check, they cashed it upon presentment of my Christ commonwealth ID card and a bit of an explanation from me. The teller refused, so I talked to the bank manager on duty and she cashed it cheerfully.
I think that some people go into these situations with a chip on their shoulder, and that's part of why they get hassled so much. I know because I used to have a big chip on my shoulder, being so sure how misguided the "world" is, and how unfair it was that they would not reverence my "rights." I dropped the chip, and now people are much more accommodating and helpful.
I opened a bank account without any positive identification. I'm reasonably sure I could open account tomorrow without any identification, even with the new Homeland Security rules. I found a Swiss Bank that would open me an account and as long as I list my ministerial order as the beneficial owner of the funds, nobody, not any government agency on earth, can touch the funds or see any info about the account. No, I'm not going to say which bank because I don't want people with wrong intent messing it up for me and my congregation before we even get started building a relationship of trust with said bank.
I currently don't accept any kind of checks for anything. If people want to give money to my Saviour's cause, I tell them to send it to the ministry cuz I don't want my hands on it.
What some people are lacking is the coveture of a congregation. That's the problem I see. So many people would be benefitted by forming congregations and appointing ministers. That would be your interface for doing any necessary business with the world. If you had the backing and testimony of a congregation behind you, that would make the people at the bank reconsider their position on ID and fingerprint requirements.
Gather together people, and appoint faithful ministers for yourselves according to the model and doctrine laid down by the Christ! What are you waiting for? The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.
.Berkano
P.S. If David is a government agent, he sure does have his patriot mythology down pat. . . (snerk, snerk) |
| Cornerstone Foundation |
Posted - 05 Jan 2005 : 10:37:13
The following are exerpts from an Associated Press article which we were told was written by reporter Jackie Burchard of the Great Falls Tribune in Great Falls, Montana. The article came to our attention when it was published in the Billings, Montana newspaper The Billings Gazette on 6-1-1998 under the headline Banks endorse thumbprints as new security measure:
quote:
Still, the idea of the thumbprint bothers some people, who see it as an invasion of privacy or just a commentary on the need for crime prevention.
"Once we explain to people why we're doing it - that it protects them in case their checks are stolen - then they're amenable to the process," Bruskotter said.
Obviously, the program isn't going to stop everyone from stealing checks or from cashing forged ones. It's meant more as a deterrent.
"It might scare some people," [Betty] Dezort [head of customer service for Heritage Bank] said. "But that's what we want, for them to just walk off and not even bother us."......
Legal considerations
And a provision of Montana law might create prolems for the program. Under state law, banks cannot refuse to cash checks from their own institutions. That means that if someone with proper identification comes into the bank and declines to be thumbprinted, he or she must be allowed to cash a check drawn on that bank, said officials at two Great Falls lending institutions.
Banks also have to be careful not to discriminate.
That's why Dezort said her bank is moving slowly before enacting the program.
"We're writing our policy now," she said.
|
| David Merrill |
Posted - 05 Jan 2005 : 06:49:49
I have a pretty strict definition of paranoia. Basically the slightest symptom and I pull out the 'p' word. It rubs a lot of people the wrong way. Thing is it almost always becomes a mirror for the readers to view their own conditioning.
I forgot to mention that the man I interviewed offered to do the same thing. If the bank president would not have cashed the check, he was intending to charge a bad check fee.quote:
Is this a negotiable instrument? --- Yes.
Also I remember the second question... quote:
Are the funds available to honor this instrument? --- Yes.
The second question would not be about identity because the president could just fall back on bank policy, "I don't really know who you are without the fingerprint."
When a customer comes in wondering why the bank is defaming and libelling them, not cashing their checks. That might get them to review an exception to the "Fingerprint Program".
Livefree might consider assessing a bad check fee over the fingerprint. But somehow I suspect the bank will just say, "Go ahead." Like it will never come around upon them. The tactic may not work so well for a woman.
Regards,
David Merrill. |
| yardstick |
Posted - 04 Jan 2005 : 20:02:18
I didnt realize what a can of worms I had opened! heh
Very educational though...
What I found interesting about the article I posted, was that Mr. McIver's answer was to return the check to the 'person' who issued it and charge them a [dishonored] returned check fee of $50. |
| David Merrill |
Posted - 02 Jan 2005 : 19:55:42
I would assume the bank you have an account at is not a 'strange' bank in the manner I said. But I suppose if someone wrote you a check at their bank and it was closer, then your reference to a 'strange bank' applies.
In a telephone conversation with a man of like mind as you, I learned some things. I pried a little and he genuinely examined why he felt troubled about giving a fingerprint. I cannot speak for him but it think it came to both privacy issues as he has no police record and felt this was the first 'mug shot' step toward tracking him personally. Also he expressed a notion about it being a precursor to the 'mark of the beast' in Revelation.
I asked him a question and he is pondering it:
quote:
If someone cashed a $500 check from your account, how much of that would your bank be liable for?
That is the bank's claim to a policy of positive identification. Therefore you might write a waiver of liability for your funds and then they would gladly waive the fingerprint requirement? Just a thought.
Speaking of policy the man I spoke with this afternoon typically would say, "I do not participate with the Fingerprint Program." Often the teller will just cash the check anyway. Once though he found himself in the bank president's office discussing policy. He inquired the UCC drill:
quote:
Is this a negotiable instrument? --- Yes.
Am I the secured party on the instrument? --- Yes.
But the president said that it came down to policy. The man informed the president that bank policy did not supersede the UCC and asked for his card for future proceedings. The president gave him a card but accompanied him out to the lobby and got his check cashed*.
You make comments like:
quote:
Most people in fact don't see a reason to offer their fingerprint to strange banks, unless they are forced to.
In other words, they are putting a gun to your head, as usual.
I don't buy it. You are not being forced into anything. That is an illusion. Lose the conditioning and you will see things a lot clearer.
Regards,
David Merrill.
* By cashing the check the president defeated any future claim. At Office Max there are computers linked to Parts Max (or something like that). Well, I wanted something ordered from their Internet branch and they insisted on a credit card. I felt it was their problem that they could not order on cash. The manager calmly said he would order it and pay by money order. It would take a couple days to get the ordering done. By getting the order executed (even by stopping at the grocery on his way home to get a money order and sending it in the mail to Parts Max) the manager wisely defeated my claim. I had my sister order it on her card.
P.S. I don't do much shopping but the grocery stores have a 'discount card' program. [See Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/sw4qw/index.shtml for insight on database information and tracking microeconomic trends clear down to the household level.] I have no address, very little information at all beside my name David Merrill, so I have never bothered trying to get a card. But I asked a couple times, "Are you going to charge me more than the people who have cards?" Kind of like I couldn't believe my favorite grocery would discriminate against me. The cashier would just use a card they keep at each register. Now they just ask if I have a card, "No.", and they swipe the slot with theirs.
Remember how they used to ask for your name and address at Radio Shack? Yep. Me. At least I will take credit for it by the timing. I bought something and the receipt says that for a cash refund you have to provide an address. I held up the line until the manager refunded me cash but wrote a letter to Radio Shack Headquarters. The manager was saying she would be 'written up' for the refund so I politely explained to Headquarters they shouldn't penalize the manager because there is no law requiring me to have an address therefore they cannot assert a policy that is without the scope of the law. Within a couple weeks the Radio Shacks all stopped asking for that information on cash transactions.
But it was not always that way. I recall trembling when the Radio Shack guy called me on the address I gave. He knew that street was not that long to have that number. It was like he was Nazi Gestapo or something. I was thoroughly conditioned at that time.
|
| Livefree |
Posted - 02 Jan 2005 : 19:04:11
quote:
I don't have a bank account. I see no reason to go into a strange bank and volunteer my fingerprint.
I don't see a reason to offer my fingerprint to strange banks either. Most people in fact don't see a reason to offer their fingerprint to strange banks, unless they are forced to. |
| David Merrill |
Posted - 02 Jan 2005 : 17:40:48
I don't have a bank account. I see no reason to go into a strange bank and volunteer my fingerprint. |
| Livefree |
Posted - 02 Jan 2005 : 17:29:07
quote:
Don't you see the fingerprint is about the best positive identification possible?
If you want to volunteer your fingerprint that is your business. I prefer not to volunteer it due to the fact that is a "priori restraint on my rights to privacy and due process in the absence of probable cause of wrong-doing."
You sound like a government agent, David. I bet you are one. |
| David Merrill |
Posted - 02 Jan 2005 : 14:53:00
Indeed METRO is nearly synonymous with "Citibank".
It should not surprise anyone that Citibank would move to disarm people. However, Don Cline, the author of the linked article http://www.tysknews.com/Articles/banks.htm
fails to take into account so much in history about Manhattan Island, the NYSE and its original Charter in the Freedoms and Exemptions Granted to Patroons from the Dutch East Indies Trading Company out of the Habsburg Dynasty and its (the Dynasty's) custodianship of the original estate. The Habsburgs alone spawned 19 Kings of Jerusalem - the Bloodline of Jesus Christ. This infrastructure was prophecied in the Holy Bible as early as Genesis 49:10 which I hear by rumor was where George Washington placed his hand specifically to take his Father of our Country oath of office.
Don Cline, like you and many others, feels that giving a fingerprint violates one's rights:
quote:
I talked to the retired FBI agent who designed this inkless fingerprint system the banks are using to force us into their system. I pointed out that requiring a fingerprint from me as a condition of cashing a payroll check and thereby providing me with my own property lawfully due me — my wages, in legal tender — was a direct and egregious violation of many of my rights.
And that is just the same paranoid spin that wraps people around the axle, fighting with bank policy without understanding it. Do you want someone else to be able to sweep your account or what? Don't you see the fingerprint is about the best positive identification possible?
I am going to expose a couple things on a new Topic. I think I will call it "Original War by Propaganda".
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
| Livefree |
Posted - 02 Jan 2005 : 14:08:49
This is an excellent article:
http://www.tysknews.com/Articles/banks.htm |
| Livefree |
Posted - 02 Jan 2005 : 13:31:41
quote:
For you to properly identify yourself for a transaction?
I don't think so.
I never said that the fingerprint was used to identify yourself for a transaction.
Here's something I just found on this subject:
The fingerprint is not used for identification. It is merely kept on file in case the check turns out to be fraudulent. That is the very definition of a warrantless and a priori restraint on my rights to privacy and due process in the absence of probable cause of wrong-doing.
The banks can get away with all this because the banks have court rulings in their favor all the way back to the beginnings of this country to the effect that as soon as you put your money in a bank, it is no longer yours. If the bank goes belly up, you have no specific right to YOUR money. You have only the same rights as any other general creditor. Also, if the bank refuses to cash your check for any reason or no reason at all, you have no right against the bank. You have a right against the person who gave you the check, but that's all. If you go back to the person who wrote you the check, you find that he has no right to his own money he put into his account to cover the check either because it has been "co-mingled" with everyone else's money.
Government loves that word, "co-mingled". If you co-mingle your money with the money of others, you no longer have any claim to your money. But if government robs you in an illegal IRS or RICO confiscation and co-mingles your money with other legalized thefts, robberies, and euphemistically-labeled confiscations, you don't have any right to their money either.
If the bank can refuse to cash your payroll check because you claim your right to the privacy of your fingerprint, then the bank can refuse to cash your payroll check for any reason at all — or no reason.
If the bank can refuse to cash your payroll check because you refuse to pay their extortionate fee to collect your own wages, then the bank can set any fee it wants and keep your earnings if you don't want to pay the fee.
quote:
If you are concerned about your bank giving funds over to the IRS or whatever, just make sure you are at a bank that is secure. That they will not divert funds on anything short of a signed court order and that they are fully aware a Notice of Lien or Levy is not a court order. Read the entire tariff carefully and strike through any insecure clauses or move on to the next bank.
There's no such thing as a "secure" bank. And if you do find such a bank, let me know, because I'd like to open an account.
quote:
If you think providing a fingerprint is violation of 4th and 5th Amendment rights then you are obviously in a contentious relationship, at least from your perspective with your bank. They probably wonder why you even bank there. But you are definitely applying the Constitution in a skewed manner.
I don't bank there. I only go there to cash my check. And no, David, I'm not applying the constitution in a skewed manner. Look in the mirror. It is your brain that is skewed, not mine.
|
| David Merrill |
Posted - 02 Jan 2005 : 08:19:23
quote:
It is oppressive to have to give your fingerprints just to cash a check. It is violating your 4th and 5th Amendment rights-- To be secure in your person and property (4th Amendment), and Not to be a witness against yourself (5th Amendment).
Your fingerprint is your property and they are violating your rights by giving you no choice but to give them up. In other words, they are putting a gun to your head, as usual
For you to properly identify yourself for a transaction?
I don't think so.
What about the safety of your funds? Spyware and Adbots prowl and invade to broadcast private information about your Internet activity and identity to unknown parties. Identity theft is becoming commonplace as an inherent symptom of the high-speed Information Highway. And you use NuSkin?
All the tellers have to do is start looking. [Another thing, most banks would use optical scanners for fingerprints. Like I say, I scarcely go in banks anyway. But an optical scanner will read your fingerprint right through the NuSkin (assuming it is a skin-like clear paint-on film. In which case you have been fooling only yourself that you are not giving a fingerprint). The NuSkin would produce a blotchy smudge only on ink-on-paper fingerprints and any coherent teller would detect the NuSkin and pull you back for police interrogation.]
For years now I have been putting my thumbprint on my signature as a matter of ID. When people ask why I say, "It is a much better unique identifier than a SSN and picture IDs can be easily forged." - something like that. They usually nod and agree.
If you are concerned about your bank giving funds over to the IRS or whatever, just make sure you are at a bank that is secure. That they will not divert funds on anything short of a signed court order and that they are fully aware a Notice of Lien or Levy is not a court order. Read the entire tariff carefully and strike through any insecure clauses or move on to the next bank.
If you have bench warrants in your community then you failed to abate the nuisance properly and are not aware of Refusal for Cause. That is the function of signing all your contracts, "True Name dba FIRST MIDDLE LAST" - removal from the first hand testimony you are the Birth Certificate bonding entity. At best whether you know it or not, you, the woman, are no more than the secured party for the benefits of the contract. All assumptions made around that contract can be easily defeated if you are in the know.
If you think providing a fingerprint is violation of 4th and 5th Amendment rights then you are obviously in a contentious relationship, at least from your perspective with your bank. They probably wonder why you even bank there. But you are definitely applying the Constitution in a skewed manner.
I would blame Eustace Mullins (The Rape of Justice etc) but whenever you argued that Eustace was telling the reader that the Constitution was not an admiralty document, I would read the quotes you were writing and see otherwise. [A year ago on another Topic. http://ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=306&whichpage=1 ] You were misreading the author in my opinion. The Constitution is an admiralty document but a lot of people misconstrue that application and therefore cannot relate to agents of a foreign principal operating through national debt and bankruptcy on this soil properly.
The "oppression" of giving a fingerprint for banking transactions is by and large in your mind.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. I saw an important lesson at the beginning of this Topic. Defeating ignorance at the teller window solved the problem. Edification is Key.
|
| Livefree |
Posted - 02 Jan 2005 : 00:12:49
quote:
The author of the article has misidentified the source of the oppression to be giving fingerprints, not the true source, the Birth Certificate bonding to grant and capitalize the debt/credit generating "good faith and credit" behind the almighty Federal Reserve Note.
It is oppressive to have to give your fingerprints just to cash a check. It is violating your 4th and 5th Amendment rights-- To be secure in your person and property (4th Amendment), and Not to be a witness against yourself (5th Amendment).
Your fingerprint is your property and they are violating your rights by giving you no choice but to give them up. In other words, they are putting a gun to your head, as usual. |
| David Merrill |
Posted - 01 Jan 2005 : 23:34:04
I suppose that would depend on where he left them. Thought it was interesting enough to comment PostScript.
Back to the point. The article I read seems skewed by the belief that one should avoid giving a fingerprint for identification. Like it is oppressive to have to positively identify ourselves. I disagree with the presentation.
It is the Birth Certificate bond and the presumptions of being chattel against that national debt that become oppressive and that only if somebody does not know how to Refuse for Cause the presumption while it is being presented in a contract offer.
So thinking that one should not identify themselves positively just tells me acceptance of that misdirection. The author of the article has misidentified the source of the oppression to be giving fingerprints, not the true source, the Birth Certificate bonding to grant and capitalize the debt/credit generating "good faith and credit" behind the almighty Federal Reserve Note.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
| Livefree |
Posted - 01 Jan 2005 : 23:25:49
quote:
The scars became his fingerprints.
Those scared fingerprints were not evidence that he was Al Capone, unless they had some other way of identifying him. |
| David Merrill |
Posted - 01 Jan 2005 : 22:31:04
The acid scarred his fingertips. The scars became his fingerprints. |
| Livefree |
Posted - 01 Jan 2005 : 22:19:14
quote:
I recall something about Al Capone. Allegedly he dipped his fingertips in acid and destroyed his fingerprints... only to have a set that were immediately recognizable anyway. His tactic only lasted until the next time he was booked at the jail.
Explain how a set of destroyed fingerprints can then have a set that are immediately recongizable anyway. |
|
|
