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

Uncle Buck
Advanced Member

Australia
134 Posts

Posted - 12 Mar 2006 :  07:06:33  Show Profile  Visit Uncle Buck's Homepage
Greetings all. Peace be unto the house!
I know this topic was originally about an 'Interesting Experience at the Bank' however, it could be an interesting experience 'anywhere' or with 'anyone'!

It boils down to DO YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE - as Lewis pointed out!

The deception is amazing. As a policeman I never questioned the authority / honesty of the legislators or the courts, but I never challenged my own ignorance!

Brother Robert has been gently showing me how to challenge my unerstanding of man's law/statutes in relation to the bible. I did a search of the word PEOPLE in our Australian- MIGRATION ACT 1958 and found 22 references. The most amusing part is that many references are in the SECTION HEADING which has not any authority in a court of law. Although they do refer to people it is subtle!

MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 318
Power to refer people to mediation
If the Migration Agents Registration Authority is investigating a complaint about a person who is or was a registered migration agent, the Authority may refer the complainant and the person to a mediator to resolve the matter complained of.

Now is the complainant the PEOPLE or another person?


MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 128
Cancellation of visas of people outside Australia
If:
(a) the Minister is satisfied that:
(i) there is a ground for cancelling a visa under section 116; and
(ii) it is appropriate to cancel in accordance with this Subdivision; and
(b) the non-citizen is outside Australia;
the Minister may, without notice to the holder of the visa, cancel the visa.

MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 232A
Organising bringing groups of non-citizens into Australia
A person who:
(a) organises or facilitates the bringing or coming to Australia, or the entry or proposed entry into Australia, of a group of 5 or more people to whom subsection 42(1) applies; and
(b) does so reckless as to whether the people had, or have, a lawful right to come to Australia;
is guilty of an offence punishable, on conviction, by imprisonment for 20 years or 2,000 penalty units, or both.



*************************
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

Lewish
Advanced Member

uSA
496 Posts

Posted - 13 Mar 2006 :  14:18:58  Show Profile
Greetings Readers,

I was at a small bank on friday, march 10, 2006 A.D. talking to the bank manager about opening an account as a Man on the Land, and not as a UNITED STATES citizen. Here is what the manager said to me:

"If you can show me documentation of your Declaration of Citizenship, showing that you are no longer to be considered a US citizen, then I will be happy to open you an account without all the things required under the PATRIOT ACT." "The PATRIOT ACT does not apply to non-US citizens." "We open accounts for Canadian citizens all the time, without doing what we have to do with US citizens."

So, guess what I will be doing later this week.



Peace to you all,

Lewis
Go to Top of Page

Manuel
Advanced Member

USA
762 Posts

Posted - 13 Mar 2006 :  20:47:18  Show Profile
Greetings to you also Gregory-Thomas,
If you click HERE you will see why ATTORN-EYS hate to show their picture ID LIE-SENSE.

I am,
Manuel

Go to Top of Page

yardstick
Senior Member

USA
52 Posts

Posted - 14 Mar 2006 :  12:43:35  Show Profile
quote:
Originally posted by Jay Scott

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







Jay, If you read my post, dated November 24, you will find that the recourse you have for dishonor of the draft is against the account holder for non-payment. The account holder has recourse against the bank for dishonor in their fiduciary capacity.

Edited by - yardstick on 14 Mar 2006 13:10:27
Go to Top of Page

Greg
Advanced Member

uSA
76 Posts

Posted - 31 Mar 2006 :  02:52:00  Show Profile
Hello group, Just wanted to share that a large national bank chain has in their training material that if a check is autographed "without recourse" then one is absolved of all legal liabilities pertaining to that check. Just got access to the info and look forward to sharing it with you as it continues to become available. Peace and Blessings to the House. I am Greg
Go to Top of Page

Oneisraelite
Advanced Member

uSA
833 Posts

Posted - 08 Apr 2006 :  09:10:40  Show Profile
Greetings and salutations, brother Greg:
Peace be unto the house.
quote:
Originally posted by Greg

Hello group, Just wanted to share that a large national bank chain has in their training material that if a check is autographed "without recourse" then one is absolved of all legal liabilities pertaining to that check. Just got access to the info and look forward to sharing it with you as it continues to become available. Peace and Blessings to the House. I am Greg


We just want to let you know that some eyes have seen this and find it fascinating and would be interested in seeing more as it becomes available.
Sincerely,
brother Robert:


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.
Go to Top of Page

Walter
Advanced Member

USA
144 Posts

Posted - 17 Apr 2006 :  22:52:26  Show Profile  Visit Walter's Homepage
Well I don't know now where on this forum the question was asked, but here seems a good place to post this case quote. The question, as I remember it, was how to properly object to the frauds called Federal Reserve Notes. It says that FRN's must be "specifically objected to."

"Moreover, the money tendered was for the most part Federal Reserve Bank notes and other notes constituting a part of the common currency of the country, and ordinarily passed as money. Such notes have been invariably recognized as a good tender for money, unless specially objected to. U.S. Bank v. Bank of Ga., 22 U.S. 904, 9 Wheat. 904, 6 L. Ed. 244. See, also, Rose's Notes to the cited case, p. 248, printed in said 6 L. Ed. And, as heretofore stated, the tender made by plaintiff to defendant was not directly and specifically refused because it was not made in legal tender money."

MacLEOD v. HOOVER, 105 So. 305, 306 (La. 1925)
Go to Top of Page

Jay Scott
Advanced Member

uSA
181 Posts

Posted - 18 Apr 2006 :  09:09:29  Show Profile
Iesus and I bring peace!

I don't know the answer to your question, Walter (if there is ONE right answer). And I eagerly await more experience and insightful members to respond.

In the meantime, I have a question, would a "legal" announcement in the local paper, ran for a period of time qualify as "specially objected to"? If so, how long?

Or does the objection need to occur with each transaction involving "tendered toilet paper"?

Jay Scott

quote:
Originally posted by Walter

Well I don't know now where on this forum the question was asked, but here seems a good place to post this case quote. The question, as I remember it, was how to properly object to the frauds called Federal Reserve Notes. It says that FRN's must be "specifically objected to."

"Moreover, the money tendered was for the most part Federal Reserve Bank notes and other notes constituting a part of the common currency of the country, and ordinarily passed as money. Such notes have been invariably recognized as a good tender for money, unless specially objected to. U.S. Bank v. Bank of Ga., 22 U.S. 904, 9 Wheat. 904, 6 L. Ed. 244. See, also, Rose's Notes to the cited case, p. 248, printed in said 6 L. Ed. And, as heretofore stated, the tender made by plaintiff to defendant was not directly and specifically refused because it was not made in legal tender money."

MacLEOD v. HOOVER, 105 So. 305, 306 (La. 1925)

Go to Top of Page

Greg
Advanced Member

uSA
76 Posts

Posted - 19 Apr 2006 :  11:12:56  Show Profile
Greetings and bleesings unto my brethren and the House.
I have some more information to share regarding "National Banks" which I think you may find interesting. There are three recognized protocols for opening an account without a STATE issued ID, and one of which in particular is very, very interesting. First though let me say a few things, some of which are not directed towards the brethren ;). I do not give or sell legal or financial advice, or advice of any other kind or nature for that matter. I merely share information. The information I share is believed by me to be reasonably obtainable by anyone putting forth an effort to do the same. I have no reason to believe this information, or the sharing thereof, is damaging to any man, person, or entity and assume no liability through my sharing of the same, nor do I assume any liabilty for the actions of others. In my humble opinion I think one should be aware of all the aspects pertaining to holding an account with an FDIC insured corporation, and hence very leary in doing the same. I have heard there are still some small outfits which are not FDIC entangled, though I have been unable to locate any myself. O.K. so on to the goodies, anything in {brackets} is added by me the rest is not mine.
OPENING AND MAINTAINING PERSONAL CHECKING AND SAVINGS ACCOUNTS
...Known & Existing Customer- Based on a known and existing customer relationship, management may elect to override the requirement to obtain ID and therefore accept responsibility for any adverse activity that occurs on the account. ...{This may require a SS number which would make it less appealing, at least to me. It should be noted that when you open an account, it is an account which rezides in commerce, as all commerce here is operating under color of law fictions including the FRN's you will likely be using to adjust the ledgers. As such the account will be held under a fictional entity irregardless of how you present your name to them. This is done automatically by the computer systems and is not a teller or banker entry. ie if you present them with your lawfull christian appellation which is say Greg Gregory (sur name/family title not included) then as they progress through their screens the system will automatically change the name to GREG GREGORY. However you will have created the GREG GREGORY and not the STATE which holds the other ALL CAPS name we all know about. The minimum prerequisite here is that you be personally known by someone who works at the bank.}
{Next one}ACCOUNT OPENING BY PHONE
...customer may select to open a Checking, Savings, Certificate of Deposit, a debit card, or to sign up for overdraft protection. The following procedure outlines the process.....for new and existing customers.
{The Bank}..reviews and verifies the information provided from the customer by inquiring with ChexSystems, fraud checks, and by pulling a credit bureau. {Again likely requires a SS #}
...customer(s) are asked a series of AML {Anti Money Laundering}questions during the account opening process; {from there the account is assigned an AML score of either low, moderate, or high risk. If you score high risk they do not open the account and if you score moderate risk they forward the account to an AML group but will open the account. If the criteria is met to open the account (which is based on scoring) then they mail you a signature card, the account exists at this point but is restricted until you mail them back the signature card. Once they recieve the card back and an opening deposit, the restrictions are removed and you can conduct transactions.}
{Brethren I saved the best for last}
Exception ID- ...obtain approval for a specific type of ID that is appropriate for a defined market {could this be christians who do not wish to be surety or chattel? maybe sovereigns?} to accept for account opening. {in determining}...if the ID meets the necessary regulatory requirements to be used for account opening purposes...the following are minimum standards for an ID to be considered for approval:
>Includes a photo
>Must be in English
>Includes the name of the issuer, must be a verifiable source. {His ecclesia, or maybe Christendom}
>Includes the name of the individual to which ID has been issued
{The following are things they would like to see on the ID but are not absolutely necessary}
>An issue date
>An expiration date {maybe second Peter 3:10}
>A number
{Accounts opened this way are not approved by a branch manager, but by his boss.}

There is another post thread here (in ecclesia) that deals with issuing an ID from Christendom...having two or three brethren sign it and get it notorized etc. If you have not read it, you should do so and the gem hidden in this last method I've shared may become evident.

Well that's all for now, be deligent in your in your quest's brethren. A humble servant, Greg.
Go to Top of Page

Oneisraelite
Advanced Member

uSA
833 Posts

Posted - 20 Apr 2006 :  00:07:28  Show Profile
Thank you very much, brother Greg.

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.
Go to Top of Page

Linc
Advanced Member

Canada
111 Posts

Posted - 20 Apr 2006 :  03:24:04  Show Profile
At the bank today I brought in a cheque for a small amount. I said "I am presenting a draft against your bank for acceptance". The teller looked at it and said "that isn't a draft". He went and got his manager. The manager agreed, and said it is bank policy to charge $5 to non-clients for the service of cashing a cheque. They told me that drafts have a special form, which is different from a personal or business cheque.

Is this just a Canadian thing? Are they correct or do I have a cause of action? $5 seems like too small an amount to take to small claims court. Can I pad on claims for inconvenience?
Go to Top of Page

Jay Scott
Advanced Member

uSA
181 Posts

Posted - 20 Apr 2006 :  11:07:38  Show Profile
The Annointed One and I bring peace!

quote:
Originally posted by Linc

At the bank today I brought in a cheque for a small amount. I said "I am presenting a draft against your bank for acceptance". The teller looked at it and said "that isn't a draft". He went and got his manager. The manager agreed, and said it is bank policy to charge $5 to non-clients for the service of cashing a cheque. They told me that drafts have a special form, which is different from a personal or business cheque.

Is this just a Canadian thing? Are they correct or do I have a cause of action? $5 seems like too small an amount to take to small claims court. Can I pad on claims for inconvenience?



I am NO expert and I generally don't know what I'm talking about. So, proceed at your own risk. I also don't suggest you and I are subject to the UCC, but I'm guessing the bank employees are, maybe even in the Great White North. Also I have found this portion of the UCC enlightening as to what I should expect from these rascals when I choose to convert Lucifer's loose change to real money (...gold, silver, coffee beans...whatever's handy).

You stated your faithful servants at the bank wanted to charge you a fee for cashing a "cheque". Assuming "cheque" == "check", here's what the UCC I found says a check is:

quote:
UCC 1-304(f) http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/article3.htm#Check
(f)  "Check" means (i) a draft, other than a documentary draft, payable on demand and drawn on a bank or (ii) a cashier's check or teller's check.  An instrument may be a check even though it is described on its face by another term, such as "money order."


(FYI: http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/4/article4.htm#Documentarydraft)

Ah! A "check" is a "draft". Well, to be sure, let's take this a little further. What's a draft?

quote:
UCC 1-304(e) http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/article3.htm#Draft
(e)  An instrument is a "note" if it is a promise and is a "draft" if it is an order.  If an instrument falls within the definition of both "note" and "draft," a person entitled to enforce the instrument may treat it as either.


Does the (wall-)paper device you hold contain the statement "Pay to the order of..."? I would assume so. So far so good. Now then, what's an "instrument"?

quote:
UCC 1-304(b) http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/article3.htm#Instrument
(b) "Instrument" means a negotiable instrument.


An instrument, at least in this Article, is a "negotiable instrument". The rabbit hole continues...what's a "negotiable instrument", then?

quote:
UCC 1-304(a) http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/article3.htm#negotiableinstrument
(a)  Except as provided in subsections (c) and (d), "negotiable instrument" means an unconditional promise or order to pay a fixed amount of money, with or without interest or other charges described in the promise or order, if it:

(1) is payable to bearer or to order at the time it is issued or first comes into possession of a holder;

(2) is payable on demand or at a definite time; and

(3) does not state any other undertaking or instruction by the person promising or ordering payment to do any act in addition to the payment of money, but the promise or order may contain (i) an undertaking or power to give, maintain, or protect collateral to secure payment, (ii) an authorization or power to the holder to confess judgment or realize on or dispose of collateral, or (iii) a waiver of the benefit of any law intended for the advantage or protection of an obligor.


There we have it. A draft is:

1. An order to pay (a fixed amount of what some call money).
2. Is payable on demand.
3. And, blah, blah, blah.

That makes sense to me. You be the judge.

I think it's interesting they don't just say, "Yes, we'll accept your presentment. (Big smile.) We have a 5 dollar charge for accepting draft presentments and cashing cheques! Thank you for doing business with us. Have a great day!"

Jay Scott

Edited by - Jay Scott on 20 Apr 2006 11:22:58
Go to Top of Page

Jay Scott
Advanced Member

uSA
181 Posts

Posted - 20 Apr 2006 :  11:52:29  Show Profile
quote:
Originally posted by Linc

At the bank today I brought in a cheque for a small amount. I said "I am presenting a draft against your bank for acceptance". The teller looked at it and said "that isn't a draft". He went and got his manager. The manager agreed, and said it is bank policy to charge $5 to non-clients for the service of cashing a cheque. They told me that drafts have a special form, which is different from a personal or business cheque.

Is this just a Canadian thing? Are they correct or do I have a cause of action? $5 seems like too small an amount to take to small claims court. Can I pad on claims for inconvenience?



I'm trying to think how I would respond in that situation. I have not had much practice, and I sojourn deep in the woods near a smallish town. So I don't think the local bandits...er...bankers have heard of check cashing charges yet. But when they do, watch out!

Me: "(Big smile.) I have a draft against your bank I'm presenting for acceptance. (Present check.)"

Teller: "That's not a draft!"

Me: "You're telling me that's not a draft? (Take teller's business card from card holder and write date and the word 'dishonor'."

Teller: "Yes! A draft has a special form. What you got thar's what city-folks call a check!"

Me: "Oh, you're telling me I don't have a draft, I have a check. (Underline the word 'dishonor'.)"

Teller: "Yes, suh!"

Me: "Well, then, what special form does a draft have?"

Teller: "Glad you asked! Let me dig out my little black UCC and I'll tell ya! Let's see...draft, a draft is a check that is an order to pay a fixed amount on demand. There you have it."

Me: "Huh? What's the difference? (Write a big exclamation point after 'dishonor'.)"

Teller: "The difference is we can't charge a check cashing fee! Whoops. Did I say that out loud?"

That'll happen...right!

Be blessed!

Jay Scott

An added note: It's one thing to horse around behind the safety and privacy of the computer keyboard, and another to have to think on one's feet while facing opposition, and yet a third thing to have faced opposition, been injured, and returned to seek remedy. All joking aside, Linc, be encouraged in, what I believe is, your quest to learn, as Peter, how to "walk on the water". I am eager to read responses from experienced and knowledgeable people, which I desire will help put a little float in all our feets.

Two issues I am looking forward to reading more about under this topic:

1. Remedy for injuries at the "bank".
2. How to "specially object" to the use of FRNs.

Edited by - Jay Scott on 21 Apr 2006 14:58:20
Go to Top of Page

Greg
Advanced Member

uSA
76 Posts

Posted - 20 Apr 2006 :  12:41:26  Show Profile
Greetings, Blessings, and peace unto the house.
There are more people who do not have accounts than what you might think, and hence more charges of 5-8 monopoly dollars than you may realize. It is in that context that the enormity of the tort becomes apparent for example if there are 250,000 non-customers nationwide being charged that fee every couple of weeks then that mesely charge looks more like 1.25M every two weeks. If you happen to be of the mindset to use the courts, then "class action" should be more in line with approaching this I would think (but of course I do not give or sell legal advice). I am astonished no one has done it yet, or maybe they have and the Banks keep settling. They can put whatever title they want on it like "fee" but the truth is they take it, you don't pay it, and that bears a stark resemblance to a tax to me. At a minimum it's a penalty for not having an account. Is it lawfull or even legal to punish/penalize people for not having an account? If so where is it written that I must have an account? In my humble opinion I believe I see exactly why it's done though...well apart from just an extra grab at your earnings. Commerce is like a fish, if it doesn't move it dies. So without a suffecient constant movement back and forth on the ledgers (ie debit to credit and vice versa) the system would cease to function. For example if 1/2 the population pulled all their assets out of commerce, put all of it in a coffee cans and buried it in the back yards and refused to spend it what do you think would happen to the economy? The "dollar" would de-stabilize, and commerce would grind to a halt as the medium for the exchanging of goods & Services would evaporate. If the Fed tried to just print more "money" to compensate for what was withdrawn from the system, this wouldn't work either because more notes doesn't necessarily equate to more buying power. In fact once the system had enough time to balance its self back out the new "dollars" and the 1/2 which remained in the system would all still have exactly the same buying power which the system had retained...1/2 as much, as it was this buying power of the economy that was withdrawn from the system not just some funny green pieces of paper. Now if the 1/2 who were holding their assets came back into the system at this point then they would drive the buying power down to 1/3. This obviously takes time to play out as these fluctuations generally span over decades. Initially when the 1/2 came back in to commerce it would look like we were in a boom, there would be a surplus of expendable "cash", so productivity of goods would spike, jobs created, and so on and so forth. But it's all an illusion because all that's actually happened was we got back to where we started from by the other 1/2 being back in commerce now, except now we have more "dollars" representing that same buying power (population growth excluded). Forgive me group, I got off on a rant. The shorts of it is they want your earnings left on the table, not in your pockets because for right now it's serving their purpose. The other reason "everyone should have an account" is because there needs to be an acceptable percentage of the population on board to sucessfully usher in the cashless society, and they will...eventually, scripture says so Rev 13:16-17. The technology has been there for a while, but there's to many of us pesky God fearing Christians to impliment it, and they can't slaughter us just yet because that would only open the eyes of others. But they're undoubtedy setting the stage, all the bs about identity theft day after day after day on the "news", familiarizing (ie conditioning) the sheeple to RFID technologies enabling it's acceptance (WAL-MART here in Ohio had signs hanging above check out lanes for a few days informing the customers that certain products now had RFID tags on or in them for inventory tracking purposes and loss prevention measures. They either meet some Statutory notification requirement, were just doing a test run, or it was premature and caused the system to hickup because they were gone within about three days...did anybody else see them?), being penalized for not having an "account", the medium of exchange (FRN's) having lost over 90% of its buying power since being introduced, gradually allowing people access to the knowledge of what "debt notes" really are and are not, and so on and so on. I know it may appear that I have gone off on a tangent here and departed from the topic of Banks and the fee they charge, but I haven't. All this other stuff I have expressed was in an attempt to show how it (the fee) ties in to their setting the stage for the cashless society. The "fee" is but a plank in the walls which are being erected to usher the sheeple into the gates of hell and to accpet the mark of the beast. So if the good Lord has moved on anyone to kick this plank out from under the bankers... that one more soul may be saved by their being stalled or hindered, then I say kick more ferverently than you have ever kicked before my brethren. Concern yourself not with the monetary account of the action, If a "judge" merely gives you your $5 back he will only do so because it will have been found illegal or unlawfull for them to have taken it in the first place, and in rendering his/her judgement you may very well be setting a presidence whereby they will be unable to continue to do it once it's found on record to be illegal. In closing it appears that a "draft" and a "check" are not exactly synonomous. (why do you spell check different than me? Is there something I don't know? please share if so) I will post the exact nature of the difference here as soon as possible.
May the good Lords Love be in abundance in all of your lives. His humble servant, Greg.
Go to Top of Page

Greg
Advanced Member

uSA
76 Posts

Posted - 20 Apr 2006 :  16:27:21  Show Profile
I lend no validity to rather their (the Banks) definitions are an accurate portrayal of what something actually is. With that said here is how they describe the difference:

Draft/ A signed, written order {apparently an order and a demand are not the same thing} by which one party (the drawer) instructs another (the drawee) to make payment to a third (payee). In international banking a draft is often called a bill of exchange.

Check/ Demand draft drawn on a bank or other financial institution offering checking accounts.

Go to Top of Page

Linc
Advanced Member

Canada
111 Posts

Posted - 23 Apr 2006 :  21:03:47  Show Profile
quote:
Originally posted by Greg

I lend no validity to rather their (the Banks) definitions are an accurate portrayal of what something actually is. With that said here is how they describe the difference:

Draft/ A signed, written order {apparently an order and a demand are not the same thing} by which one party (the drawer) instructs another (the drawee) to make payment to a third (payee). In international banking a draft is often called a bill of exchange.

Check/ Demand draft drawn on a bank or other financial institution offering checking accounts.



Thanks Greg. Where did you get that bankers definition of draft and cheque?

I spell it cheque because that is how we in the British Commonwealth spell it. Check is something you do when you want to know if your teenage daughter is asleep in her bedroom.
Go to Top of Page

Linc
Advanced Member

Canada
111 Posts

Posted - 30 Apr 2006 :  21:09:19  Show Profile
Where do I go from now? Do I take the bank to small claims court, or do I go after the fellow who wrote the cheque?
Go to Top of Page

Greg
Advanced Member

uSA
76 Posts

Posted - 30 Jul 2006 :  12:58:04  Show Profile
Greetings and many blessings to the house.
I found something interesting I thought I would share. The financial Institutions operating under the guidelines of the FR and comptroller pay 5% for however much "cash" they need when they order it from the FED. Although it is not mandatory (yet) for Bank employees to have direct deposit they have structured the pay system so that...well everyone here is smart enough to know where that sentence was going. For one of the big banks to open a new branch it takes 2m and to open an in-store branch cost 200k. In the banking industry there is no such thing as "money" in a customers account. A deposit is a credit, and a withdraw is a debit. Credit and debit, thats it! Enjoy.
A humble servant by choice, not deception or coercion.
I am Greg.
Go to Top of Page

Jay Scott
Advanced Member

uSA
181 Posts

Posted - 05 Aug 2006 :  11:14:59  Show Profile
For your consideration...

I brought some checks to the bank I use. One was endorsed with "For deposit for credit only to account # 123456789". The other two were endorsed "No Liability Assumed No Value Assured <signature>". All 3 checks were drafted on banks other than the one I was attempting to deposit them.

The first one (For deposit for credit only....) was accepted. The other two were rejected. The whole ordeal took about an hour. At first the teller said they would have to put a 7 day hold on the last two checks. She suggested I request new checks. I said, "no, that's fine, I'll wait 7 days." She left for a while then returned and said the bank would not accept them at all. I asked her to put that in writing. She left again and returned to say she would not put it in writing.

At one point she referred to the endorsements as illegal. I blurted out, "they're not illegal!" Then I tried to recover and said, "I should ask, are these illegal? I was trying to smile and be pleasant the whole time. She did not confirm they were illegal endorsements.

At another point she said that since I wasn't taking responsibility for the checks that THEY would have to be responsible for them, and they were not going to do that. What is interesting is that the issue was not whether the checks were good or not. She indicated confidence that they were good (one was from the county treasury). Of course the 7 day hold would've revealed whether they were good or not, but they even refused to do that.

I asked for names of the people making these decisions. She would only give me first names. I asked for last names and she refused. She said they're the only ones with those first names. I asked for her name and she gave me her first name, but refused to give her last name. (That's funny because I noticed later her last name was on the deposit receipt she gave me.) She left for a while and returned (that's why this thing took so long...in and out, in and out). When she got back I told her that I've been a customer for about 10 years and always got good service and I didn't understand why she couldn't even tell me her last name. Then she told me her last name.

As I was leaving she almost pleaded with me to endorse the checks with only my signature. I thanked her for her service and expressed sympathy for her trouble.

So the next day I took the checks to the banks they were drafted against and had little to no trouble converting them to FRNs.

I have a question related to this experience. Is an unrestricted signature required for me to take on responsibility for the alleged value of the check? In other words, does the lack of signature on the first check (For deposit for credit only...) remove me from the chain of responsibility? Or is that endorsement no different than a plain signature endorsement?

The best that I can tell, the moral of the story is one should only endorse NLA/NVA when returning a check to the bank the check is drafted against. But none the less, a very interesting experience at the bank!

Be Blessed.

Jay Scott

Edited by - Jay Scott on 05 Aug 2006 11:17:54
Go to Top of Page

Jay Scott
Advanced Member

uSA
181 Posts

Posted - 05 Aug 2006 :  11:32:56  Show Profile
Okay, another interesting experience at the bank...a little older than the last one, so my memory may not be as clear. But here is goes...

I wrote a check out to "bearer" on my account at the bank I use and gave it to my wife to convert to FRNs. The bank employees refused the check. Shortly after this occured, I received a call from I think the bank VP. He asked if I wrote a check on my account to "bearer". I said "ya". He said that that was not acceptable and that it "screamed fraud". I told him that I believed it was perfectly legal and asked him to ask his legal counsel if it was indeed illegal. I suggesed that if it was legal, then the check was dishonored. Then he said that the signature on the check was in question. I said that if indeed the signature did not match the signature on file, I appreciate his refusing the check.

He asked why I wrote it out to "bearer" and I said so my wife would not have to endorse it. He said that if I write the check out to the name of the bank, then an endorsement is not necessary.

Be blessed.

Jay Scott
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 0.38 seconds. Snitz Forums 2000