ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY
ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 The Roman World
 Statute Law
 Interesting experience at the bank
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 7

yardstick
Senior Member

USA
52 Posts

Posted - 24 Nov 2005 :  15:29:23  Show Profile
Hello friends,

I would like to relate my own "experience at the bank".

After reading Lewish's post, I was eager to try my own hand at the similar technique. However, I recalled reading oneisraelite's post with definitions related to "bearer" and wanted to try it out.

So, upon an offer of payment by check, I directed the offeror to make the check out to "bearer". (It should be noted that, when I did this with two different people, I got blank looks both times. A simple smile reassured them.)

This past week, I took one check and attempted to deposit it into a checking account (not mine) at a bank from which it was NOT drawn. After presenting the check with a deposit ticket, the teller did not ask for endorsement, or anything else. Then the teller, upon second thought, asked me to endorse the check. I wrote "bearer" in the endorsement area on the back of the check (matching the "pay to the order of" line on the front). The teller looked at the back of the check, thought for a moment, then asked me to sign my name. I did so (in an unintelligible scrawl.) No comments were made by the teller. Transaction completed.

The second check, also made out to "bearer", I took to the bank (main branch) from which it was drawn. Here (paraphrased) is what transpired:

Teller: May I help you?

Me: I have a draft against your bank which I am presenting for acceptance. (I hand her the check).

Teller: Do you have any ID?

Me: No.

Teller: No driver's license, or [state] ID?

Me: No.

Teller: I can't honor the check.

Me: You are going to dishonor the check?

Teller: Yes.

Me: Thank you.

I then leave the bank, and proceed directly to an outlying branch of the same bank:

Teller: May I help you?

Me: Yes, I have a draft against your bank which I am presenting for acceptance. (I hand the teller the check)

Teller: (looks at check) Will you endorse it please?

Me: Sure! (endorse check as follows: "No liability assumed. No value assured." below: scribbled signature. Text of endorsement was written rather small-- I did not know if I would have enough room--then I hand check back)

Teller: (looking at endoresement) What does this say?

Me: It says "No liability assumed. No value assured."

Teller: (makes computer entry) May I have your name?

Me: [first name, christian appellation] (not LEGAL NAME)

Teller: (enters my "name" into computer, then counts out cash to me)

Me: Thank you (smile and leave)



If the teller at the branch would have attempted to dishonor the check. I would have asked for her supervisor. If the supervisor would have dishonored the check, I would have attempted to negotiate it at yet a different branch, in the same manner. If the different branch dishonored the check, I would have returned the check with an invoice for an additional sum (dishonored check fee) to the writer of the check for repayment.

Notwithstanding Lewish's excellent idea regarding filing a complaint with the Comptroller, I see that as the responsibility of the account holder who has written the draft. The account holder is, after all the one who has been injured by the bank. (The bank dishonors the account holder by refusing to honor a promise made by the account holder, to which the bank has a fiduciary reponsibility.) I would have been injured by the account holder for non-payment; not the bank for dishonor of the draft.
Go to Top of Page

Lewish
Advanced Member

uSA
496 Posts

Posted - 24 Nov 2005 :  21:30:47  Show Profile
You make a good point, Yardstick. If we are ever going to make a difference in how we are treated, then we must attack them from both sides. Thru the Comptroller, and thru the Account holder.

Regards,

Lewis
Go to Top of Page

Oneisraelite
Advanced Member

uSA
833 Posts

Posted - 30 Nov 2005 :  02:20:06  Show Profile
Greetings and salutations brother Sean,

Peace be to you and yours.

We appreciate what you have stated here: "I would have been injured by the account holder for non-payment; not the bank for dishonor of the draft".

Perhaps if we held a few account holders liable for non-payment and charged them an additional and reasonable fee for the inconvenience of hunting them down and getting cash, the banks would soon respond to the pressure they would be getting from their account holders.

Bearer....When a check, note, or draft, etc., is payable to "bearer", it imparts that such shall be payable to any person who may present the instrument for payment. - Black's Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, page 105

Maybe they were asking for gubbermint ID to prove that you were indeed a PERSON...but we seriously doubt it. Most likely it was done out of complete ignorance.

Wonder if it would do any good to carry a Black's Law Dictionary in our Scripture bag? We could show them the definition of Bearer therein and ask something to the effect of, "Your law states that a check, note or draft made out to Bearer is payable to Anyone who may present the instrument for payment. Isn't that what this dictionary of your law says?". If he or she answers in the affirmative, say "Great, I am presenting this instrument for payment".

We recently took one which was made out to Bearer to the branch it was drawn on and the teller said she had never heard of such a thing but nevertheless did proceed to convert it.


fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.

Edited by - Oneisraelite on 30 Nov 2005 02:43:58
Go to Top of Page

mikah2k
Regular Member

USA
34 Posts

Posted - 16 Dec 2005 :  21:42:26  Show Profile

Me: I have a draft against your bank which I am presenting for acceptance. [endorsed "deposited for ... or exchanged for non-redeemable ... face value", thumbprint is in red ink on the face, hand 2 IDs and check to teller.]
Teller: Why do you write all of that? [Looking on the endorsement]
Me: It's called my endorsement.
Teller: Aren't you just here to cash the check?
Me: Actually, I'm here for an exchange.
Teller: Well our fee is N dollars.
Me: I do not accept your fee. Please read the endorsement and speak with your teller manager.

I grab an envelope and write teller's name, date, etc. on an envelope.

Teller Manager: Sir we usually charge a fee if a non-account holder is cashing a check.
Me: I'm here for an exchange. Please read the endorsement.
Teller Manager: [reads endorsement] Um [silence for some seconds] Let me see if the account holder will allow us to cash this without a fee. [Teller manager is obfuscating so that others in line do not understand what is going on.]

I am writing teller manager's name on an envelope in plain view of teller.

Teller manager: [gives commands to teller of keys to punch into keyboard of teller terminal, points to teller terminal and says] It looks like this account holder will allow this without a fee. But we usually charge a fee. [Says a few more unintelligible sentences/phrases, then mumbles and walks away]

Teller stares at my writing on the envelope.

Me: [still writing title of teller manager] What more is required of me?
Teller: Nothing. How would you like that back?

---------
I have found that tellers/teller supervisors resist/challenge more often than not when lines are near empty [about 3 or less people in line]. Challenge less often when lines are long [10+ people in line].
Additional findings:
More resistance to "No liability ..." endorsement than to "Deposited ... or exchanged ...".
More resistance when I am in shirt and tie, then T-shirt & jeans.
More resistance when I am unshaven, then when I am shaven.
More resistance from teller supervisors than from tellers.
Go to Top of Page

Jay Scott
Advanced Member

uSA
181 Posts

Posted - 06 Mar 2006 :  23:51:14  Show Profile
Greets,

Last week I received a check written out to my "True Name -- Family Name". Today I took it to the credit union it was drafted against. I walked up to the counter and told the lady teller, "I have a draft against your bank I am presenting for acceptance." She asked if I had ID, I said, "let's see". I reached in my pocket and pulled out my Sam's Club (discount shopping club) card, which has a black and white, computer printed photo of me on it and I said, "will this do?". She asked if I had a driver's license. I asked her, "is that required?" She said something like, "we'd kinda like to know who's cashing your check." I said, "I don't have one on me." She glanced between the Sam's Club card, the check and me, for a short while, then took the Sam's Club card and the check to the teller in the corral next to her and asked her about them. I couldn't hear what she said but the teller she consulted quickly and confidently indicated it was okay to give me cash and then mentioned to me my Sam's Club photo turned out better than hers did! As I responded to her, my teller returned to the counter I was at, placed my Sam's Club card on the counter and said, "how would you like that...are hundreds okay?" I said sure! I thanked her and turned and left.

Notice what's missing? I never endorsed the back. They didn't ask--I didn't offer. And I was all ready to endorse with "No Liability Assumed, No Value Assured". Was that an oversight on their part? Or is endorsement not required?

Even though all I got was worthless FRNs, I walked down the sidewalk as giddy as a schoolgirl.

Be blessed.

Jay

Go to Top of Page

Lewish
Advanced Member

uSA
496 Posts

Posted - 07 Mar 2006 :  21:17:43  Show Profile
Jay,

Endorsement is not required in this case. You "verbally" did an acceptance of the draft and that was sufficient under the code. You were "holder in due course" and it was your right to present the instrument for "their" acceptance and payment.

Now, if they hadn't accepted it, then you could have started an action against them. That is a whole 'nother subject.


Peace,

Lewis
Go to Top of Page

Jay Scott
Advanced Member

uSA
181 Posts

Posted - 08 Mar 2006 :  09:22:13  Show Profile
Greets, Lewis,

Thanks for the feedback.

As a "holder in due course", is it necessary for me to ID myself? In fact, is it necessary that my name be on the draft?

Be blessed.

Jay
Go to Top of Page

Lewish
Advanced Member

uSA
496 Posts

Posted - 08 Mar 2006 :  12:37:22  Show Profile
Greetings Jay,

It is reasonable and proper for the bank to ask for some sort of ID. How else would they know that you are truly holder in due course. They have a legitimate responsibility to not give funds to the wrong presenter. They need to know that you didn't steal the draft out of somebody's mailbox.

If your name is not on the draft, then you need an assignment of interests to be allowed to negotiate it.


Regards,

Lewis
Go to Top of Page

Jay Scott
Advanced Member

uSA
181 Posts

Posted - 09 Mar 2006 :  19:56:23  Show Profile
Greets All,

Another check, another "interesting experience at the bank".

I received another check, this time made out to Firstname Familyname (although I requested it made out to True Name -- Familyname). Encouraged by my last experience I went to the bank the check was drawn against, walked up to the counter and said "I have a draft against your bank I am presenting for acceptance." The teller asked for ID, I gave her my Sam's Club card (which includes a b&w photo). She asked if I had a Driver's License, I said no. She said she'd need to get approval, left for a couple minutes, returned and said I needed a Driver's License, Military ID or some sort of government ID. She handed me back my check and Sam's Club ID. I inquired further about what would satisfy their ID requirement, but it appeared to me I would need STATE ID. At this point I suggested she call the drawer of the check to verify my identification.

After a couple calls and the help of another teller, the drawer of the check satisfactorily identified me to the tellers. The (second) teller asked me to endorse the check, so I wrote "No Liability Assumed, No Value Assured" followed by my signature (Firstname Familyname) and I received a stack of practically worthless FRNs.

About six months ago I "cashed a check" at that same bank and they required I thumbprint the face of the check. This time, as I was waiting around I noticed they still had the little signs on the counters notifying customers that they'd be required to thumbprint the check when they were "cashing a check" and if they didn't have an account with the bank. Well, they did NOT ask me to thumbprint the check this time--and I didn't offer. Maybe they forgot that since I didn't fit their routine, or maybe they didn't require it because I wasn't "cashing a check".

Another odd thing was they asked ME for the telephone number of the person who drew the check. I said I didn't think that was very secure and they should get it out of their records. The teller said they didn't have that information in their records. Fortunately another employee knew the number. I have to surmise security must not be the reason for the STATE ID requirements. After all, how hard is it to forge a STATE ID? (I don't know, I haven't tried.)

I was reading up on the UCC last night and came across some relevant sections.

Presentment:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/3-501.html

Definitions:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/3-103.html

Negotiable Instruments:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/3-104.html

Person Entitled to Enforce:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/3-301.html

Acceptance of Draft:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/3-409.html

3 UCC 3-501 (a)(2)(ii) (Presentment) says one of the requirements for presentment is "give reasonable identification". What is reasonable identification that is not STATE ID?

Be blessed.

Jay
Go to Top of Page

Uncle Buck
Advanced Member

Australia
134 Posts

Posted - 09 Mar 2006 :  23:08:57  Show Profile  Visit Uncle Buck's Homepage
quote:
Originally posted by Jay Scott

Greets All,
3 UCC 3-501 (a)(2)(ii) (Presentment) says one of the requirements for presentment is "give reasonable identification". What is reasonable identification that is not STATE ID?
Jay



Greetings Jay
Out of morbid curiosity you may check the USA equivalent of the Australian Migration Act 1958. Ours refers to LAWFUL NON-CITIZEN status which I think would be a FRIENDLY ALIEN foreign to the USA jurisdiction. If a personal identifier is good enough for ALIEN CHECKS why not bank cheques!


[AUSTRALIAN] MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 188 Lawful non-citizen to give evidence of being so
(1)
An officer may require a person whom the officer knows or reasonably suspects is a non-citizen to:

(a) show the officer evidence of being a lawful non-citizen; or
(b) show the officer evidence of the person's identity.

(2)
The person must comply with the requirement within a period specified by the officer, being a prescribed period or such further period as the officer allows.

(3)
Regulations prescribing a period for compliance may prescribe different periods and the circumstances in which a particular prescribed period is to apply which may be:

(a) when the requirement is oral; or
(b) when the requirement is in writing.

(4)
If prescribed circumstances exist, the officer must require the person to provide one or more personal identifiers.

(4A)
An officer must not require, for the purposes of subsection (4), a person to provide a personal identifier other than any of the following (including any of the following in digital form):

(a) a photograph or other image of the person's face and shoulders;
(b) the person's signature;
(c) any other personal identifier contained in the person's passport or other travel document;
(d) any other personal identifier of a type prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph.

Note: Division 13AB sets out further restrictions on the personal identifiers that minors and incapable persons can be required to provide.

(5)
Subsection (4) does not limit the officer's power under subsection (1) to require the person to show the officer evidence (other than a personal identifier) of the person's identity or evidence of the person being a lawful non-citizen.

(6)
A person is taken not to have complied with a requirement referred to in subsection (4) unless the one or more personal identifiers are provided by way of one or more identification tests carried out by an authorised officer.

Note: If the types of identification tests that the authorised officer may carry out are specified under section 5D, then each identification test must be of a type so specified.

(7)
However, subsection (6) does not apply, in circumstances prescribed for the purposes of this subsection, if the personal identifier is of a prescribed type and the person:

(a) provides a personal identifier otherwise than by way of an identification test carried out by an authorised officer; and
(b) complies with any further requirements that are prescribed relating to the provision of the personal identifier.

MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 5A
Meaning of personal identifier (1)
In this Act:

"personal identifier" means any of the following (including any of the following in digital form):

(a) fingerprints or handprints of a person (including those taken using paper and ink or digital livescanning technologies);
(b) a measurement of a person's height and weight;
(c) a photograph or other image of a person's face and shoulders;
(d) an audio or a video recording of a person (other than a video recording under section 261AJ);
(e) an iris scan;
(f) a person's signature;
(g) any other identifier prescribed by the regulations, other than an identifier the obtaining of which would involve the carrying out of an intimate forensic procedure within the meaning of section 23WA of the Crimes Act 1914 .
(2)
Before the Governor-General makes regulations for the purposes of paragraph (1)(g) prescribing an identifier, the Minister must be satisfied that:

(a) obtaining the identifier would not involve the carrying out of an intimate forensic procedure within the meaning of section 23WA of the Crimes Act 1914 ; and
(b) the identifier is an image of, or a measurement or recording of, an external part of the body; and
(c) obtaining the identifier will promote one or more of the purposes referred to in subsection (3).

(3)
The purposes are:

(a) to assist in the identification of, and to authenticate the identity of, any non-citizen who can be required under this Act to provide a personal identifier; and
(b) to assist in identifying, in the future, any such non-citizen; and
(c) to improve the integrity of entry programs, including passenger processing at Australia's border; and
(d) to facilitate a visa-holder's access to his or her rights under this Act or the regulations; and
(e) to improve the procedures for determining visa applications; and
(f) to improve the procedures for determining claims for protection under the Refugees Convention as amended by the Refugees Protocol; and
(g) to enhance the Department's ability to identify non-citizens who have a criminal history, who are of character concern or who are of national security concern; and
(h) to combat document and identity fraud in immigration matters; and
(i) to detect forum shopping by applicants for visas; and
(j) to ascertain whether:
(i) an applicant for a protection visa; or
(ii) an offshore entry person who makes a claim for protection under the Refugees Convention as amended by the Refugees Protocol;
had sufficient opportunity to avail himself or herself of protection before arriving in Australia; and
(k) to complement anti-people smuggling measures; and
(l) to inform the governments of foreign countries of the identity of non-citizens who are, or are to be, removed or deported from Australia.

Rick

*************************
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty

Edited by - Uncle Buck on 11 Mar 2006 00:27:04
Go to Top of Page

Oneisraelite
Advanced Member

uSA
833 Posts

Posted - 10 Mar 2006 :  07:40:12  Show Profile
Greetings and salutations, brother Rick:

Peace be unto the house.

Just wondered if you had noticed that the word "person", in its various forms, shows up in that ACT no less that THIRTY-THREE times!

person n. ...now usually pluralized as people, which formerly was used only to indicate an indefinite number of persons - Webster's 1988 New World Dictionary of American English - Third College Edition, page 1088

We see this at the end of Subsection 4, "Note: Division 13AB sets out further restrictions on the personal identifiers that minors and incapable persons can be required to provide."

First, why did it not say "incabable people"?

people ...-n.pl. 1 the persons belonging to a certain...class (Ibid., pg. 1001)

The ACT uses the word "people" here near the end of its reported Purposes, "(k) to complement anti-people smuggling measures". To bring to perfection anti-people smuggling measures? Why not anti-person or anti-persons smuggling measures? Could it be that this is because one can only smuggle living, breathing beings, i.e. people, and that it is physically impossible to smuggle "persons created and devised by human laws" because they are fictions?

Second, why on earth are there "further restrictions" for "minors and incapable persons"? And, what is the LEGAL definition of "incapable persons" within the confines of this ACT and/or Division 13AB? Could it be that people who acknowledge as their own, and use, a SSN are destitute and therefore "incapable persons"?


fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA or STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.

Edited by - Oneisraelite on 10 Mar 2006 07:52:56
Go to Top of Page

Oneisraelite
Advanced Member

uSA
833 Posts

Posted - 10 Mar 2006 :  08:17:58  Show Profile
Greetings and salutations, brother Jay:

Peace be unto the house.

[quote]Originally posted by Jay Scott
3 UCC 3-501 (a)(2)(ii) (Presentment) says one of the requirements for presentment is "give reasonable identification". What is reasonable identification that is not STATE ID?

After going here "2A-103 DEFINITIONS AND INDEX OF DEFINITIONS" on the website you provided, we can only ascertain that there seems to be no specific LEGAL definition for "reasonable identification".

We surmise that in the witness of two or more the truth (of the matter) shall be established, even in their colorful law. Seems "reasonable", to us anyway.

Interestingly enough, they define person as...

(27) "Person" means an individual, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, joint venture, government, governmental subdivision, agency, or instrumentality, public corporation, or any other legal or commercial entity.

...but they apparently fail to define the word "individual"; what an unfortunate oversight.

But the following from Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, may help our understanding somewhat.

Individual. As a noun, this term denotes a single person as distinguished from a group or class, and also, very commonly, a private or natural person as distinguished from a partnership, corporation, or association; but it is said that this restrictive signification is not necessarily inherent in the word, and that it may, in proper cases, include artificial persons.

Let us not overlook the fact that in the above definition "a single person" and "a private or natural person" are listed specifically and separately, indicating quite concisely that they are different things in LEGALESE.

And may from this same source is defined, in part, thusly...

May. ...Regardless of the instrument, however, whether constitution, statute, deed, contract, or whatever, courts not infrequently [frequently] construe "may" as "shall" or "must" to the end that justice may [must] not be the slave of grammar.

Individual... must, in proper cases, include artificial persons.
Just what they may deem "proper cases", however, is probably anybody's guess.

2Peter 2:3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you...


fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA or STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.

Edited by - Oneisraelite on 10 Mar 2006 09:31:43
Go to Top of Page

Jay Scott
Advanced Member

uSA
181 Posts

Posted - 10 Mar 2006 :  11:22:39  Show Profile
Greets All,

Thanks for the feedback!

Here's a curious thought...

quote:
Uncle Buck pasted...

"personal identifier" means any of the following (including any of the following in digital form):

(a) fingerprints or handprints of a person (including those taken using paper and ink or digital livescanning technologies);

...among other things.


Do you (anyone who believes images of self are graven images) think fingerprints are graven images, as per Exodus 20:4?

quote:
Exodus XX. 4,5,6. 1611 KJV
Thou shalt not make vnto thee any grauen Image, or any likenesse of anything that is in heauen aboue, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water vnder the earth. Thou shalt not bow downe thy selfe to them, nor serue them: For I the Lord thy God am a iealous God, visiting the iniquitie of the fathers vpon the children, vnto the thirde and fourth generation of them that hate mee: And shewing mercy vnto thousands of them that loue mee, and keepe my Commandements.
quote:
[Strong's H6459] graven: pecel, peh'-sel; from 6458; an idol:--carved (graven) image.
[H6458] pacal, paw-sal'; a prim. root; to carve, whether wood or stone:--grave, hew.
quote:
http://www.answers.com/topic/idol
1. a. An image used as an object of worship.
b. A false god.
2. One that is adored, often blindly or excessively.
3. Something visible but without substance.

"Christians and Jews extend the term to include any deity other than their own; theologically, however, idol worship is generally applied to the adoration of what is seen and tangible as opposed to the worship of an unseen spiritual being."


Be blessed.

Jay

Edited by - Jay Scott on 10 Mar 2006 11:23:50
Go to Top of Page

Jay Scott
Advanced Member

uSA
181 Posts

Posted - 10 Mar 2006 :  11:58:02  Show Profile
Greets All,

quote:
Uncle Buck pasted...

"personal identifier" means any of the following (including any of the following in digital form):

(a) fingerprints or handprints of a person (including those taken using paper and ink or digital livescanning technologies);
(b) a measurement of a person's height and weight;
(c) a photograph or other image of a person's face and shoulders;
(d) an audio or a video recording of a person (other than a video recording under section 261AJ);
(e) an iris scan;
(f) a person's signature;
(g) any other identifier prescribed by the regulations, other than an identifier the obtaining of which would involve the carrying out of an intimate forensic procedure within the meaning of section 23WA of the Crimes Act 1914 . (2)

...among other things.


I'm thinking a better identification than my Sam's Club card (...although, isn't my Sam's Club card uninterested third party testimony? Anyway...) may be a small card that contains one or more of the above "personal identifiers" along with a witness (other than person acting as notary) and a notary stamp and signature (quasi-state?).

...maybe a name, a fingerprint (in blood?!), and a signature.

(If I ever need a little blood, all I have to do is try to fix the car or something--that should provide plenty.)

Do you (anyone with a little experience or insight) think a witnessed, notarized card should be "reasonable identification" for making a check presentment?

Maybe just a card with a couple witnesses--skip the notary? I'm brainstorming here...what do YOU think?

Be blessed.

Jay
Go to Top of Page

Jay Scott
Advanced Member

uSA
181 Posts

Posted - 10 Mar 2006 :  12:14:09  Show Profile
Greets All,

Another question...

I believe the check was dishonored when it was given back to me. Fortunately they took my suggestion and were able to reach the drawer. But if they had finally dishonored it, would I have a recourse against the bank? Or would their dishonor be against the drawer? And my only recourse would be against the drawer for non-payment?

Be blessed.

Jay
Go to Top of Page

Manuel
Advanced Member

USA
762 Posts

Posted - 10 Mar 2006 :  12:20:42  Show Profile
Greetings,
A few years ago discussing on getting a pass-port, it was said that two witnesses where enough to obtain such pass. On the topic of pass-port, the two witnesses where to admit the said "requester" was a "natural born citizen."

Jumping further... writting of "single person," then there is the well known way of how the term "single man" is placed so many times on LEGAL DOCUMENTS.

I am,
Manuel
Go to Top of Page

Uncle Buck
Advanced Member

Australia
134 Posts

Posted - 11 Mar 2006 :  01:01:51  Show Profile  Visit Uncle Buck's Homepage
quote:
Originally posted by oneisraelite

Greetings and salutations, brother Rick:

Peace be unto the house.

Just wondered if you had noticed that the word "person", in its various forms, shows up in that ACT no less that THIRTY-THREE times!

person n. ...now usually pluralized as people, which formerly was used only to indicate an indefinite number of persons - Webster's 1988 New World Dictionary of American English - Third College Edition, page 1088

We see this at the end of Subsection 4, "Note: Division 13AB sets out further restrictions on the personal identifiers that minors and incapable persons can be required to provide."

First, why did it not say "incabable people"?

people ...-n.pl. 1 the persons belonging to a certain...class (Ibid., pg. 1001)

The ACT uses the word "people" here near the end of its reported Purposes, "(k) to complement anti-people smuggling measures". To bring to perfection anti-people smuggling measures? Why not anti-person or anti-persons smuggling measures? Could it be that this is because one can only smuggle living, breathing beings, i.e. people, and that it is physically impossible to smuggle "persons created and devised by human laws" because they are fictions?

Second, why on earth are there "further restrictions" for "minors and incapable persons"? And, what is the LEGAL definition of "incapable persons" within the confines of this ACT and/or Division 13AB? Could it be that people who acknowledge as their own, and use, a SSN are destitute and therefore "incapable persons"?


fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA or STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.




Greetings brother Robert and sister Special-K!
You caught me out! Thankyou!

The term person was used 33 times not in that ACT but in only two sections of that Act!!!

I give the following definitions from the Act.

"incapable person" means a person who is incapable of understanding the general nature and effect of, and purposes of, a requirement to provide a personal identifier.

That to my understanding it indcates people who do not have the capacity to be persons by election, ie: idiots, imbeciles, under average intellect, mentally impaired and the like. This would include minors and adults.

You make some very interesting observations brother! I will think about them before putting my other foot in my mouth!

MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 261AM
Incapable persons
Incapable persons
(1)
A non-citizen who is an incapable person must not be required under this Act to provide a personal identifier other than a personal identifier consisting of:
(a) a measurement of the non-citizen's height and weight; or
(b) the non-citizen's photograph or other image of the non-citizen's face and shoulders.
Consent
(2)
A non-citizen (other than a minor) who is an incapable person must not be required under section 40, 46, 188 or 192 to provide a personal identifier by way of an identification test carried out by an authorised officer unless:
(a) a parent or guardian of the incapable person consents to the incapable person providing the personal identifier; or
(b) if no parent or guardian of the incapable person is readily available—an independent person consents to the incapable person providing the personal identifier.
(3)
Before obtaining the consent of a parent or guardian, or the independent person, an officer or authorised officer must inform the parent, guardian or independent person of the matters of which the incapable person must be informed under section 258B.
Persons present while identification test is carried out
(4)
If a non-citizen who is an incapable person provides a personal identifier, in accordance with a requirement under this Act, by way of an identification test carried out by an authorised officer, the test must be carried out in the presence of:
(a) a parent or guardian of the incapable person; or
(b) an independent person.
MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 261AL
Minors
Minors less than 15 years old
(1)
A non-citizen who is less than 15 years old must not be required under this Act to provide a personal identifier other than a personal identifier consisting of:
(a) a measurement of the non-citizen's height and weight; or
(b) the non-citizen's photograph or other image of the non-citizen's face and shoulders.
Consent
(2)
A non-citizen who is a minor must not be required under section 40, 46, 188 or 192 to provide a personal identifier by way of an identification test carried out by an authorised officer unless:
(a) subject to subsection (3), a parent or guardian of the minor consents to the minor providing the personal identifier; or
(b) if no parent or guardian of the minor is readily available, or the Minister is the minor's guardian—an independent person consents to the minor providing the personal identifier.
(3)
If the Minister is the minor's guardian, the Minister cannot consent to the minor providing the personal identifier.
(4)
Before obtaining the consent of a parent or guardian, or the independent person, an officer or authorised officer must inform the parent, guardian or independent person of the matters of which the minor must be informed under section 258B.
Persons present while identification test is carried out
(5)
If a non-citizen who is a minor provides a personal identifier, in accordance with a requirement under this Act, by way of an identification test carried out by an authorised officer, the test must be carried out in the presence of:
(a) a parent or guardian of the minor; or
(b) an independent person.
(6)
However, if the Minister is the minor's guardian, the test must be carried out in the presence of an independent person other than the Minister.


*************************
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty
Go to Top of Page

RevokeTheTrust
Senior Member

USA
57 Posts

Posted - 11 Mar 2006 :  22:19:00  Show Profile  Visit RevokeTheTrust's Homepage
Greetings and blessings brother Jay, Lewis, Rick, and Manuel!

I've been under some pressure recently and am now confortable to bring about His post and dispense the mindful matter for subjection.
quote:

Notice what's missing? I never endorsed the back. They didn't ask--I didn't offer. And I was all ready to endorse with "No Liability Assumed, No Value Assured". Was that an oversight on their part? Or is endorsement not required?

Even though all I got was worthless FRNs, I walked down the sidewalk as giddy as a schoolgirl.


Brother Jay,
It was negotiable in the cup of his hands, now it is traitored for a non-negotiable thing: insurance policies. The POLICY that UNITED STATES has with terrorists: "We don't *negotiate* with terrorists (foreign and domestic)." Perhaps they thought to give non-negotiable notes to terrorists. If it were a concern to domestic terrorists, then the natural man would create citizen*ships* to give their ships the name of the enemy, so retaliation between the terrorist and the ritual of their good name can be discerned; in other words, "John Quincy" didn't receive his pay, and JOHN QUINCY DOE gets all the credit and yet is indebted to "John Quincy". I wouldn't be surprised if someone at the bank is extracting twice the value of the CHECK given them, after purging FRN to the unsuspecting ab-original that likes the color of his drug (don't we all?). The check has value because someone acted as a bank to bring it good (sometimes not lawful) consideration, notwithstanding the false bank praised its value to debase it through their process of monetizing it as their domesticated (I-dollars) currency. The previous instrumet advertised as CHECK was negotiable to an extent, just endorse the negotiation to a corporation to later pull goods and services through it. Such a corporation would be, say WELLS FARTGO or King George III's SHAMOO. The purpose of this is so it is evidenced that the holder has incurred damages or deprivation of value for moving CHECK; value that is material to the storehouse such are consumables depreciating in value by the crypt-keeper's growing Interest in the deposit. Take heed that all corporate-improved CHECK(s) suppose on their borders a defacement of "security" or "safety" as advertised. To know you are a bank, why would your agent buy insurance policies for another You in the artificial Bank? The efficient use of an instrument is to not be the last one to hold it at end of the legislated Day, or when it is destroyed (for FRN). In my collection of antique checks, I've seen many drawn for products and biproducts that have no monetization other than witness at a storehouse. I say to endorse that CHECK as if it were a wager against someone collecting the securities attatched to it; build interest in it's value backed by a lawful consideration, to someone else (not some-body else, unless it is properly DEADicated to that CORPSE as credit). I've a book explaining a good stint on indorsements and endorsements; whereas where none appears for a correct sign to SPELL a ride(mount/stake) on the back(dorsal) of an instrument, I found it natural for the sign to be estopped and followed by the postal bank account. In good order, the postal account is of greater standing, and perfecting that account is a tedious day at the market. I thought someone would respond on the forum of my using glass to credit an agent of a corporation in return of a check on that first account, then to deposit that in an international postal account in UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, but none commented. The purpose of this is that there are receipts kept and detailing the movement of good consideration into lawful consideration, and therefrom none need to sign another check with their true name as debtor and can move the perpresture to the signature (naughtical); start signing with the postal account number, followed by the bank. This can fray the unfaithful and unlawful consideration created by the first Birth Certificate. It works well when someone asks for a sign (such as to a short-notice/early decay Ticket to a theatre, or circus) then wager with the bank's postal account number on who is counterfeiting securities. As I've said before, a friend of mine would draw pornography in the place of a sign; what would someone expect otherwise to come from a coerced congress (that's what congress is defined as: commercial intercourse). As I reason, the dorsal(backing) of the check is re-served for the check moving about the market, actualy increasing in value and decreasing in value; based on the speculation of collecting the check at maturity depending on what king is "in check" to draw (take) from: among the commercial advertisements on a fictitious Bank purging iridescently onto their supplied porno/toilette paper for eluding good and lawful deposits to FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM, the CHECK feigns to prevent endorsements below a certain watermark line (as though a red tide could return and sweep all the accorded and tact value into the sea).

Brother Lewis,

quote:
Endorsement is not required in this case. You "verbally" did an acceptance of the draft and that was sufficient under the code. You were "holder in due course" and it was your right to present the instrument for "their" acceptance and payment.

Now, if they hadn't accepted it, then you could have started an action against them. That is a whole 'nother subject.

~~~~~
~~~~~
quote:
It is reasonable and proper for the bank to ask for some sort of ID. How else would they know that you are truly holder in due course. They have a legitimate responsibility to not give funds to the wrong presenter. They need to know that you didn't steal the draft out of somebody's mailbox.

If your name is not on the draft, then you need an assignment of interests to be allowed to negotiate it.


Don't mind if I ram into this courier>:) Blank endorsements are favored to piracy; all they get is the credibility in the general appearance, without conditioning in the endorsement etc. To be correct on the face of CHECK, when somebody asks for a DRIVER LICENSE for a CHECK then the number used to open the account is supposed to be used (usually found on the informal face of the check near MEMO; a CHECK confers all necessary information of the account onto the Holder in due course (for proper movement of the value to its destination); none comprehend that wherever a check is drawn from, the value sits in the deposit box and a mere check isn't the value itself but a title to move it somewhere else. I wonder if this is the driving motive behind the license to move indorsements of credit. Perhaps the FRN are evidence of defacing/destroying or deceptive movement of credit, or a facade to hide a re-negotiation for insurance policies to prevent credit from moving out of the artificial Bank ('mind you, not defacing currency): done as a boycott to moving the inflationary credit to a foreign (piggy) bank in the country (diverted onto the postal roads whereby the credit has lost its charge for being taken out of circuit). By this, it could be determined that the artificial Bank creates double their CHECK in credit whenever someone walks off the starBoard of the Bank with somebody else's insurance policies (FRN).

By the way, read side 1 and side 2 of USPS Money Order Inquiry Form 6401; available on the guild's trusted webspace,
http://nradude.250free.com/articles/2006/img/NBCAUSPSMOIF6401-front-med.jpg
http://nradude.250free.com/articles/2006/img/NBCAUSPSMOIF6401-back-med.jpg

The people(bank) don't need any papers to inquire on their bank account, and just as the above example where is conferred all the accounting information to the Holder for the discharge of the artificial Bank CHECK, to assert somebody else's number and thereafter disqualify someone or somebody from their fiduciary standing by proving their lack of interest in the account. All I have is a little international cheque account at face value USD 20 evidenced by silver peices, and that is reasonable id-entification for somebody else to hold on my behalf. In constant vicarious duties, when someone asks for {ID} (id; desire that seeks satisfaction with the pleasure principle) I'll remind them Gregory is a postman [for Mundt] and can't speak with anyone that have not been introduced by the county commissioner and confirmed their I-dentification in a faithful manner (search the synaptic difference between I-dentification and id-entification); when someone remits they are an officer, then I'll trust them with a judicial complaint and oath to 'rest the creature in front that committed bank-fraud. None are aware that one of the people makes an accusation in the vacant garment of a POLICE OFFICER or COPS uniform. I've always wanted to share a picture with David Merrill, but I don't think the private messages from ECCLESIA.ORG are reaching his account here; anyways, the two pictures are from the French (a good reminder) and available on the guild's trusted webspace,
http://nradude.250free.com/articles/2006/0310/executive.html

Brother Jay and Manuel,
On thought of fingerprints, I suppose I can give some spirit on the manner; when somebody wants fingerprinting or handprinting then I just assert that none are for trade because I already tended Identification, whereis reserved a "living Seal of appearance Special" can't be libeled or slandered on its character as a "thumb-print"; further, I also have available four more Seals reserved for asserting the truth, strike, promise, and swearing to oaths or affirmation. If anyone tries to copy or trade them, they'll get a mouthfull of five reasonable testaments to unroot the most vulnerable of their 26 lies bordering their tongue. If that seems a bit harsh, there is always "gummi bear" logic,
http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,116573,pg,5,00.asp

Some think "Franklin Delano Roosevelt" needs to be mass-replicated with the above utilities, because he is the advocate of using his monkey-finger as the mindless-participant in a contract. Come to think of it, I think someone hasn't defaulted the FDR tombstone (given the difference between the man and the STRAWMAN).

quote:

Just wondered if you had noticed that the word "person", in its various forms, shows up in that ACT no less that THIRTY-THREE times!


Brother Rick,

Welcome to State of the State of the state; the lower the case, the nearer to the dispute. The use of "person" only applies in its definite form of where it incorporates its supporting material; manufactured disputes such as intellectual property, real estate, Credit Cards(TM), Passports(TM), and Immigration(TM), will have a pretended definition; while prior defenitions brought into colorful copulation with unrelated manufactured disputes are camouflaged as lucidly to the dispute thought in question and preposterous as a filing clerk for the courtship of COURT harbored inn a court-house. Truth is "person" began in old french, durring the 14th century; defined as a "mask" worn from time to time. To make use of person as originally intended, we'll compare Rick with a grapefruit; both are living, but only one has been blessed with a sound mind; therefore, the grapefruit will incorporate a mind known as "Rick", and will thenceforth be known as the grapefruit's mind or libeled on the record as GRAPEFRUIT. This can be repeated for remedy to disputes involving undead creatures such as a car; someone insurrected for Rick a corpse, his life entered the corpse/carriage (loaded), the undead is now married to the butt of helmsman Rick; when the car is devoid of any response through the transmitting utility (radio station) then it is obvious it has lost its mind. A person has always been a strawman argument, and the focus of it can be seen in various priniple and agent doctrines; what we all need to know is how Rick became debtor to RICK or GRAPEFRUIT. We haven't walked near postal vessels; does RICK have a mast(er), and if so then attach a post box to it for the people to make their prayer requests. I reasoned with many Torah Jews, Talmud Jews, Muslims, Seikhs, Christians, and Budhists that all the unlawful standing their scripture is to prohibit has always been STRAWMAN. STRAWMAN is the goy waiting to be out-jewed, beheaded, homed, guilded, and made one with the world; everyone else not sure of their standing have been (as brother Timothy would say) applied with switchcraft. It goes deeper... RICK is in the gas and energy and sewage business (bi-products and organelles of the flesh and blood man are often sold when departmental-ized). If you are wearing shoes and clothes, those are often counted as vessels of the team STRAWMAN: perhaps the church was always to care for the people ensnared in idolatry and can't take off their shoes for a while longer? (The Book of Joshua makes sense here; no shoes, no shirt, no service. Even the Amish are slandered as being members to a corporation, even though they wear no advertisements, make their clothes from their house, and dress all alike in plain clothing.)

I must say, the most original way to secure one's standing in law is on the back of a check and under a post office-sealed postage stamp; all it takes is two witness and a claim; think positive. Rick will be representing RICK for quite a while; it's like standing on one's own hand and trying to lift your self; did you read that correctly? Multiple-personality disorder: my eye departed from its socket, the position of all relative movement of information, and momentarily detached to looked at its host. The all-uppercase is the STRAWMAN; Rick is in the printing press and authoring and publishing business: RICK. I suppose RICK is to be used as Heraldry for a Spell. Be weary of the small craft advisory,

Sea everyone around later,
Gregory-Thomas

Edited by - RevokeTheTrust on 11 Mar 2006 22:49:09
Go to Top of Page

Oneisraelite
Advanced Member

uSA
833 Posts

Posted - 12 Mar 2006 :  04:33:49  Show Profile
Greetings and salutations, brother Rick:

Peace be unto the house.

You wrote:
I give the following definitions from the Act.
"incapable person" means a person who is incapable of understanding the general nature and effect of, and purposes of, a requirement to provide a personal identifier
.

To our understanding this would include almost everyone, down to a man! What we mean by that is, is there anyone in Australia who can truly understand "the general nature and effect of, and purposes of a requirement to provide a personal identifier"? There may be millions who think they do, but in your honest estimation, how many of them truly do understand the general nature, effects and purposes? We would venture to guess, not many!

However, if the Minister is the minor's guardian, the test must be carried out in the presence of an independent person other than the Minister.

And now we obviously must ask, what is this ACT's definition of an "independent person"?

According to our Black's Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, page 530 independent means...

Not dependent; not subject to control, restriciton, modification, or limitation from a given outside source.

That pretty much describes a free man, if we are not mistaken, so we are forced to ask, where (or perhaps "how" might be more appropriate) would they find such a man in Australia, England or even America, for that matter?


fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA or STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.

Edited by - Oneisraelite on 12 Mar 2006 04:56:24
Go to Top of Page

Uncle Buck
Advanced Member

Australia
134 Posts

Posted - 12 Mar 2006 :  06:36:29  Show Profile  Visit Uncle Buck's Homepage
quote:
Originally posted by oneisraelite

Greetings and salutations, brother Rick:

Peace be unto the house.

You wrote:
I give the following definitions from the Act.
"incapable person" means a person who is incapable of understanding the general nature and effect of, and purposes of, a requirement to provide a personal identifier
.

To our understanding this would include almost everyone, down to a man! What we mean by that is, is there anyone in Australia who can truly understand "the general nature and effect of, and purposes of a requirement to provide a personal identifier"? There may be millions who think they do, but in your honest estimation, how many of them truly do understand the general nature, effects and purposes? We would venture to guess, not many!

However, if the Minister is the minor's guardian, the test must be carried out in the presence of an independent person other than the Minister.

And now we obviously must ask, what is this ACT's definition of an "independent person"?

According to our Black's Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, page 530 independent means...

Not dependent; not subject to control, restriciton, modification, or limitation from a given outside source.

That pretty much describes a free man, if we are not mistaken, so we are forced to ask, where (or perhaps "how" might be more appropriate) would they find such a man in Australia, England or even America, for that matter?


fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA or STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.




Greetings brother Robert! (and special-K!)
I AM a grapefruit and I want to be a watermelon?

The Migration Act defines the following:
"independent person "means a person (other than an officer or an authorised officer) who:

(a) is capable of representing the interests of a non-citizen who is providing, or is to provide, a personal identifier; and (b) as far as practicable, is acceptable to the non-citizen who is providing, or is to provide, the personal identifier; and (c) if the non-citizen is a minor—is capable of representing the minor's best interests.

Yes sir. Sounds like a man on the land under Yahuwah's law or a statutory person from another State! Perhaps the sole intention of the Act is to place the presumption onto the living soul or alien person to proof if they know who they are? If they retaliate they are not demonstrating that they are believer's and peacemakers.

Officers are certain constitutional oath takers who 'act' as a person in their fictional State!


For the record :
"officer" means:
(a) an officer of the Department, other than an officer specified by the Minister in writing for the purposes of this paragraph; or
(b) a person who is an officer for the purposes of the Customs Act 1901 , other than such an officer specified by the Minister in writing for the purposes of this paragraph; or
(c) a person who is a protective service officer for the purposes of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 , other than such a person specified by the Minister in writing for the purposes of this paragraph; or
(d) a member of the Australian Federal Police or of the police force of a State or an internal Territory; or
(e) a member of the police force of an external Territory; or
(f) a person who is authorised in writing by the Minister to be an officer for the purposes of this Act; or
(g) any person who is included in a class of persons authorised in writing by the Minister to be officers for the purposes of this Act, including a person who becomes a member of the class after the authorisation is given.


"authorised officer", when used in a provision of this Act, means an officer authorised in writing by the Minister or the Secretary for the purposes of that provision.

Note: Section 5D can affect the meaning of this term for the purposes of carrying out identification tests.
SECTION 5D
Limiting the types of identification tests that authorised officers may carry out
(1)
The Minister or Secretary may, in an instrument authorising an officer as an authorised officer for the purposes of carrying out identification tests under this Act, specify the types of identification tests that the authorised officer may carry out.
(2)
Such an authorised officer is not an authorised officer in relation to carrying out an identification test that is not of a type so specified.



*************************
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 7 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY © MMXVII Ecclesiastic Commonwealth Community Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.23 seconds. Snitz Forums 2000