| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Walter
Advanced Member
USA
144 Posts |
 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. |
|
|
Shiloh
Senior Member
USA
69 Posts |
Posted - 21 Nov 2004 : 16:40:45
|
I believe that if the bank is not allowing you to write "Without Prejudice" are they not forcing you into a "Federal zone" and thus Kidnapping you? I wonder what legal ramifications they might be creating? Just thinking...out loud.
Shiloh |
 |
|
|
Walter
Advanced Member
USA
144 Posts |
Posted - 21 Nov 2004 : 16:51:07
|
It so happens that I wrote a short letter to the local bank VP (per her instructions) about why they should accept "without prejudice" and got a favorable reply from up the chain of command. I had no trouble cashing a check "without prejudice" last week, and the reply said they have instructed their operations people to accept it (rather than say it's the same as "without recourse"). So it appears that little problem is solved.
After looking at the UCC, it does seem by signing on the back one is making an "endorsement" and joining in their little commerce game. Thus one use of "without prejudice." It still would be good to understand the history of it all. For example, there is UCC verbiage about presenting the check for payment, but then one is required by the bank to sign on the back to make an "endorsement." Was there, is there, a way to present a check for payment without endorsing it, a la signing across the front as I once was told to do in that foreign country? An open question... |
Edited by - Walter on 21 Nov 2004 16:52:46 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 21 Nov 2004 : 18:49:44
|
I have not signed the back of a check in endorsement for years.
This is particularly annoying after booking when the Sheriff converts my cash into a check and I cannot get him to cash it back to me. Once I took the check to the bank but they would not cash it unless I endorsed it. So I returned it to the Sheriff with my request he cash it for me and that was the last of it ($25).
Endorsement is exactly that, endorsement. I know a lot of people have got to turn checks to survive and when I have to I will too. So next time they confuse me with the legal fiction and convert my cash to a check I am seriously thinking small claims in common law. Sue the Sheriff for unlawful conversion. There is never a forfeiture of property because a crime never got committed. That is proven by no warrant for failure to appear after a timely refusal for cause.
The accompanying abatement for misnomer proves that I do not even have a police record to date. So the trick is to make it simple enough for a jury to understand, convened in the common law like the Credit River Money Decision.
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/abatement.gif
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/judgment.jpg
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/affidavit2.jpg
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. I must have forgotten about the links.
Anyway, to Walter's issue about "Without Prejudice". The pressure to play the "commerce game" is to cause you to be responsible for the artifice as a person. I heard a report that somebody has even gotten a Passport signed "True Name dba FIRST MIDDLE LAST". The express trust is a lot easier to guard against presumptions than a constructive trust. Constructive trusts are basically presumptions in themselves.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 01 Jan 2005 19:39:26 |
|
|
|
Shiloh
Senior Member
USA
69 Posts |
Posted - 22 Nov 2004 : 13:43:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Merrill
I have not signed the back of a check in endorsement for years.
How do you recommend cashing checks from people you have labored for? I do not have a bank account. The banks around here are starting to refuse to cash checks without an account. Furthermore, the bank that the check is "funded" from refuses to cash their own check without payment of $5. Walmart allows cashing of "Payroll" checks for $3, but I think not "endorsing" it will create problems. Any suggestions on what you would do? As I do not support alcohal, cashing at a bar is out.
Shiloh |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 22 Nov 2004 : 15:13:20
|
Present that exact argument/complaint to whoever owes (or will owe) you and request payment in cash prior to performing. You may perform the work prior to getting paid so long as it is understood you will be paid in cash at the end of the job.
There really is no reason that a person cannot pay in cash. If they ask their attorney though, the attorney will tell them to pay by check for keeping records (IRS purposes). Once a lady agreed to pay me cash but insisted after the work that her attorney insisted she give me the check. I walked away from $75 and quit working for her. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 22 Nov 2004 18:23:43 |
|
|
|
yardstick
Senior Member
USA
52 Posts |
|
|
Livefree
Advanced Member
USA
270 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jan 2005 : 18:53:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by yardstick
Walter,
You may find this link informative:
http://www.cjmciver.org/cgi-bin/lwanread.cgi?2001-01-08
though the incident occured in late 2001, You may wish to contact Mr. McIver and find out what the result was.
Instead of arguing with these banks over a fingerprint, just get some NuSkin, put a heavy coat of it on your finger or thumb, and be over with it. I've been doing this and the bank tellers cannot see or tell that they don't have a fingerprint. |
Edited by - Livefree on 01 Jan 2005 18:53:48 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jan 2005 : 19:08:56
|
Make the authorization signature by signature card in the form:
"True Name dba First Middle Last"
or
"True Name dba FIRST MIDDLE LAST"
Depending on how it appears on the checks and general account information. Possibly your thumbprint is already a part of your signature? Mine is but I have no bank account. I don't endorse checks.
The article says:quote:
The motive is to cut down on check fraud, such as thieves cashing stolen checks.
And that may be true but I disagree with the presentation. I believe that is another way of saying that a fingerprint is better ID than a SSN or Birth Certificate. Papers and picture IDs are a lot easier to forge than a thumbprint. So if you want your funds protected then give them the best identification you can.
I think if you get caught using NuSkin, even on your own funds, you are likely to be sitting in a back room talking to police for over an hour. They will probably revoke your account and blacklist you all over town.
Regards,
David Merrill.
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. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 01 Jan 2005 19:20:08 |
|
|
|
Livefree
Advanced Member
USA
270 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jan 2005 : 22:31:04
|
| The acid scarred his fingertips. The scars became his fingerprints. |
|
|
|
Livefree
Advanced Member
USA
270 Posts |
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
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
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.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 01 Jan 2005 23:35:38 |
|
|
|
Livefree
Advanced Member
USA
270 Posts |
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. |
Edited by - Livefree on 02 Jan 2005 00:14:10 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
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.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 02 Jan 2005 11:15:07 |
|
|
|
Livefree
Advanced Member
USA
270 Posts |
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.
|
Edited by - Livefree on 02 Jan 2005 13:37:12 |
|
|
|
Livefree
Advanced Member
USA
270 Posts |
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
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.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 02 Jan 2005 14:54:53 |
|
|
|
Livefree
Advanced Member
USA
270 Posts |
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
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
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
Advanced Member
USA
270 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Endorsing Checks
