| Author |
 Topic  |
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
 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.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 02 Jan 2005 20:25:56 |
 |
|
|
yardstick
Senior Member
USA
52 Posts |
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
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
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. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 05 Jan 2005 07:06:40 |
|
|
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
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.
|
|
|
|
berkano
Advanced Member
uSA
129 Posts |
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) |
|
|
|
Livefree
Advanced Member
USA
270 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jan 2005 : 21:42:54
|
Yep, that's all he's got down pat alright, i.e., patriot mythology. (snerk, snerk)
|
|
|
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
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 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
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. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 07 Jan 2005 11:10:52 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Endorsing Checks
