PDA

View Full Version : Lawful Money and the Bank



Mark Christopher
03-09-11, 02:54 PM
Hi Everyone,
I have started this thread for experiences of getting your bank account set up to do all transactions in lawful money. With that said here is mine.

So on March 4th I go to my bank to get a copy of my agreement. From the get go I am told, "no we don't give copies of that". WOW, really? The woman begins asking me, why do you want this? I reply I have been redeeming lawful money and I want to make sure all of my transactions are handled in Lawful Money. After a long and dragged out confrontation on why she wont give me the agreement, I finally managed to get a blank agreement and a copy of the Client Manual for consumer accounts. (just wanted to note, after saying lawful money several times she admitted she does not know what it was or what the difference was and she would ask her super to talk to me) so I was to meet with the next person in the chain to discuss my concerns. After another 30 min of waiting I left and figured I should read the manual so I can be a little more sure of what I am saying next time.

After reading the manual 2 things I would like to point out. 1. It says on page 8 "You can always request a copy of our current Agreement at any branch. (well Son of a .....) I blew alomost 45 min argue over this and all I had to do was read the book (lesson learned). 2. All withdraws done by check must be written out in U.S. Dollars. Hmmm...now this one made me think. However, I think that is in there so people aren't writing checks in Euros or something like that. Can credit be given in U.S. Dollars? FRN's aren't they are just in dollars.

Next visit will be this week to get my account signing line changed to Demand is made for Lawful Money for all transactions as per 12 USC 411. I will update then.
Be Well
Mark Christopher

KnowLaw
03-09-11, 08:49 PM
Way to go, Mark.

We'll all be waiting with bated breath to see what the result is when next you report back. It'll be interesting to see what the bank's official position is on this point.

Metheist
03-10-11, 12:21 AM
Okay, let me chip in here.

When you want to get a copy of a document that you KNOW is controversial, the most efficient way I have found is to request it in REGISTERED MAIL.

Just sayin. Cuts down on the "why do you want it," and all that crap.

Rock Anthony
03-11-11, 11:47 PM
Okay, let me chip in here.

When you want to get a copy of a document that you KNOW is controversial, the most efficient way I have found is to request it in REGISTERED MAIL.

Just sayin. Cuts down on the "why do you want it," and all that crap.

Now, there you go again giving really good practical advice. Gee wiz!

It's just like when you reminded me to have a stamper made rather that writing by hand all of my disclaimers.

:)

Mark Christopher
03-22-11, 11:52 AM
ok quick update, So I finally go back to Citi to ask for my Agreement, which by their own booklet says I can get a copy of anytime. I get the same woman again who once again tells me No you can't get a copy. I pull out the book and show her where it says that I can. (not please one bit about it) she goes to the files to pull the agreement. After 20 mins or so she comes back and lets me know that they do not have it. She claims it may be misfiled. No problem I have filled out a new agreement and will be taking it in to replace the old one, of course with lawful money verbiage on it. I want all transactions redeemed for lawful money. Will they accept it...stay tuned.

David Merrill
03-22-11, 01:10 PM
So on March 4th I go to my bank to get a copy of my agreement. From the get go I am told, "no we don't give copies of that". WOW, really? The woman begins asking me, why do you want this?

The simplest answer would be, Because it is our agreement and it presumably bears my signature.

So one wonders how in the world conditioning about finances has gotten so terrific that one could ever sign such an agreement and then walk out of the bank without a copy? There it was right in the manual! And it still rendered no copy - only your right to request a copy. Well, at least they didn't say, You have no right to request a copy. They just couldn't find it to copy it for you.


I want all transactions redeemed for lawful money. Will they accept it...stay tuned.

Stay tuned to see if they accept it? - Stay tuned for the next piece of conditioning!

It sounds as though they have already accepted it Mark Christopher. You tendered it, they accepted it - now they have three days or so to Refuse it for Cause (R4C). You have tendered a novation presentment. Remember that they would not produce the copy of the former agreement? Maybe that was because they were afraid you would revoke it; I don't know. But of all the agreements that they keep careful track of because agreements are important, they lose yours?

My suspicion is that they intend to lose your novation and hope you quit coming in asking about agreements. So that the traditional endorsing agreement will stand. My suggestion is that after four or five days you go get a copy of your agreement and get a look. Paint is a good program to sanitize so that we can see too; hint, hint.


Thanks for sharing!

David Merrill.

Mark Christopher
03-24-11, 12:06 PM
Stay tuned to see if they accept it? - Stay tuned for the next piece of conditioning!

David very true. I plan on seeing if they have found it yet. I plan today to take a letter to them as an adendum to my file with the lawful money verbiage for all transactions. I will scan what I submit and upload.

Oh BTW thanks Rock I see you did it already. I am inspired to get mine finished now too. Nice thing with the network it pushes one to keep moving forward.

Cheers
Mark Christopher.

Mark Christopher
03-24-11, 08:36 PM
OK I just lost a full page of writing, so I will keep it short. Went into today with the addendum. The bank will not accept any addendum to an account.

Then I said just give me copy of agreement. They have 3 old ones of mine but the most recent is missing. Weird. (After we were friendly to each other the banker told me she thinks what I did with lawful money had something to do with it!)

So the woman who I have been dealing with says to me just fill out a new agreement card. OK i will. But she would not accept the specially as signature. Nor would their legal department without ID (Rock had it right!). Anyway I walked out with ALL transactions happening in Lawful Money!!!! WOOHOO!!

BTW the woman I was dealing with who I was ready to strangle at one point ended up talking for 20 mins on lawful money and other things. She actually is a very nice person. Weird God does work in mysterious ways. Amen

Be well All
Mark Christopher.

David Merrill
03-24-11, 09:43 PM
OK I just lost a full page of writing, so I will keep it short. Went into today with the addendum. The bank will not accept any addendum to an account.

Then I said just give me copy of agreement. They have 3 old ones of mine but the most recent is missing. Weird. (After we were friendly to each other the banker told me she thinks what I did with lawful money had something to do with it!)

So the woman who I have been dealing with says to me just fill out a new agreement card. OK i will. But she would not accept the specially as signature. Nor would their legal department without ID (Rock had it right!). Anyway I walked out with ALL transactions happening in Lawful Money!!!! WOOHOO!!

BTW the woman I was dealing with who I was ready to strangle at one point ended up talking for 20 mins on lawful money and other things. She actually is a very nice person. Weird God does work in mysterious ways. Amen

Be well All
Mark Christopher.

Yes!

It is literally awesome and astounding how God will support us if only we will have faith and move forward onto new ground fearlessly. Also your success story is a testimony that redemption of lawful money is not a specific of private remedy. It is for men and women and that would be in the full or legal name as well.

Go get a new DL card and sign it Mark Christopher clearly printed. Your Signature Card says you are doing business as Mark HOWARD (or Smith, whatever) so sign everything else Mark Christopher. If it causes problems show your DL card identifying yourself as Mark Christopher. If they say you have to sign Mark Howard then they are obviously asking you to commit perjury or criminal impersonation, unless you are willing to dawn that mantle in trust - which is likely. So finish your signature:

Mark Christopher dba Mark HOWARD.

A notary will typically notarize your signature Mark Christopher if you show her (sorry, all the notaries I know are female) your DL card signature.

That gives me an idea. Go get a Certificate of Search ($25) from your USDC for Mark Christopher. Take that to a notary and have your signature and seal (thumbprint) notarized on it then publish it at your county clerk and recorder. Now you can give away certified copies for $1.25.


Regards,

David Merrill.

Mark Christopher
03-28-11, 12:20 PM
Yes!

It is literally awesome and astounding how God will support us if only we will have faith and move forward onto new ground fearlessly. Also your success story is a testimony that redemption of lawful money is not a specific of private remedy. It is for men and women and that would be in the full or legal name as well.

David,
Great point, however I must interject that it was not a fearless act for me. I was quite nervous and only after several trips and meeting with the same person did the fear lessen. Getting this in at the bank made the fear diminish even more. The TRUST I have developed in the suitors group has helped calm the fears also. A way of de-conditioning by example (for example Rock had done his sig card right before me and gave me the fortitude to do mine).

I must admit that it is a constant battle for me (fighting the fear) I was actually on my way to the USDC on friday to get my Certificate of search. I made it to where the building is and could not find parking. I drove around for 30 mins. The whole time playing in my head the questions that were likely to come. "where's your last name?, show me ID?, I don't understand what you are doing?" Unforunately, fear did get the better of me and I kept driving (still didnt find parking) but I did find a place to park on the way out and I do know where the building is now. (that's 2 anxieties out of the way!!)

My point is no matter how bad the fear, still try and do something with the effort even if it is not the full monty. I know and believe I am going back and I will get the search, however my next step may be just getting in the courthouse and walking around, getting familiar with the place, ask a few questoins. The whole key is that you take action towards that goal and ask for God's help. That is what is important. He helps those that help themselves.

Be well
Mark Christoper

Frederick Burrell
03-28-11, 01:12 PM
congrats Mark Christoper. Frederick Burrell

David Merrill
03-28-11, 01:31 PM
David,
Great point, however I must interject that it was not a fearless act for me. I was quite nervous and only after several trips and meeting with the same person did the fear lessen...

Be well
Mark Christoper

Fearless was the wrong word. You overcame your fear though, and learned that what you fear dissolves if you proceed in faith. I once said in the company of the Inner Master of the Eckankar, Overcoming our fears is the noblest cause. He gave me a look.

martin earl
03-29-11, 02:28 AM
Courage Is Being Scared To Death But Saddling Up Anyway – John Wayne.

Nobody can convince me that David was not Scared when he took 5 stones and faced a Giant, nor Daniel when facing the Lions.

We each face our own fears and come out of them better for it, there is nothing gained where nothing is ventured.

Frederick Burrell
03-29-11, 02:49 AM
Hi Martin nice to see you posting on the boards. You have so much to offer.

Speaking of facing your fears. you should really try walking on a bed of red hot coals for about 50ft. Fear becomes palpable, like a wall at the entry into the fire pit. But once you take the first step there is a tremendous release. Some would say bliss. Its just fear and it can't hurt you. FB

doug555
04-05-11, 01:35 AM
I am new to this group, but not to David's material. Does anyone already have a copy of 31 USC 452 that is mentioned in US v. WARE? Both GPO and Cornell do not include chapter 4 at all! I want to have it for my trip to the bank!

David Merrill
04-05-11, 03:34 AM
I am new to this group, but not to David's material. Does anyone already have a copy of 31 USC 452 that is mentioned in US v. WARE? Both GPO and Cornell do not include chapter 4 at all! I want to have it for my trip to the bank!


Nice Catch!!

Please quote that from Ware will you? I want some context. If it looks important I will go grab it from the federal repository or the old courthouse law library, now at the public library downtown.

Treefarmer
04-05-11, 04:24 PM
David, ...
I must admit that it is a constant battle for me (fighting the fear) I was actually on my way to the USDC on friday to get my Certificate of search.
...
Mark Christoper

I got my CoS by mail. That was easier and cheaper than driving 150 miles round trip to the USDC 'near' me.

doug555
04-05-11, 08:42 PM
Nice Catch!!

Please quote that from Ware will you? I want some context. If it looks important I will go grab it from the federal repository or the old courthouse law library, now at the public library downtown.

OK... here is the excerpt:

It is also to be noted that Congress Has already come to grips with the question whether United States notes are legal tender in 31 U.S.C. s 452, which provides:

United States notes shall be lawful money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt.

Thanks David!

Dioug

doug555
04-05-11, 10:44 PM
Sample Letter (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B8BdR0w2oZY_YjBiMzBjZTctNzM4Ni00NThiLWJhY WUtYWM1ZTYzNjA5NjQx&hl=en&authkey=CPLPqPgL) to bank demanding lawful money.

This is a first draft I made today and am planning to use soon on a test account.

I am "packaging" it in "Trust" in the Header... for use later if I need to ask for it back, and to invoke Equity.

Any constructive comments are appreciated...

Doug

Treefarmer
04-06-11, 04:57 PM
Sample Letter (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B8BdR0w2oZY_YjBiMzBjZTctNzM4Ni00NThiLWJhY WUtYWM1ZTYzNjA5NjQx&hl=en&authkey=CPLPqPgL) to bank demanding lawful money.

This is a first draft I made today and am planning to use soon on a test account.

I am "packaging" it in "Trust" in the Header... for use later if I need to ask for it back, and to invoke Equity.

Any constructive comments are appreciated...

Doug

Whether or not the bank will allow it's signature card to be amended thus would be interesting to find out.

doug555
04-06-11, 08:39 PM
Updated Sample Demand Letter - V02 (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B8BdR0w2oZY_ZjQyM2E0ZDUtMzRlMi00NDY1LWI0Z WMtNjRhZTFlNWIyY2U0&hl=en&authkey=CKvyuOAM)

Note: Changed last line to: "... to said demand herein."

Doug

David Merrill
04-08-11, 04:32 AM
Updated Sample Demand Letter - V02 (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B8BdR0w2oZY_ZjQyM2E0ZDUtMzRlMi00NDY1LWI0Z WMtNjRhZTFlNWIyY2U0&hl=en&authkey=CKvyuOAM)

Note: Changed last line to: "... to said demand herein."

Doug


Thank you for sharing that.

I have a couple questions;

What are the Exigent Circumstances?

Where would this be published? Or who is notified?

doug555
04-08-11, 09:27 AM
The Exigent Circumstances is "national emergency" since 1861...

Upon non-response to this demand, I would do a Privacy Act request for the currently-effective signature card on file for the account, including all amendments thereto.

Upon receipt, would record a copy with affidavit in support in county, and get a certified copy back out.

Then mail copies of that to all pertinent parties as needed.

If allonge-amendment is missing from card, then file suit in a court of equity for breach of trust and violation of 12 USC 411, to get a declaratory judgment that the allonge-amendment is effective on the account, using Rod Class's Amended Complaint 2 as a template to start with...

David Merrill
04-08-11, 11:10 AM
The Exigent Circumstances is "national emergency" since 1861...

Upon non-response to this demand, I would do a Privacy Act request for the currently-effective signature card on file for the account, including all amendments thereto.

Upon receipt, would record a copy with affidavit in support in county, and get a certified copy back out.

Then mail copies of that to all pertinent parties as needed.

If allonge-amendment is missing from card, then file suit in a court of equity for breach of trust and violation of 12 USC 411, to get a declaratory judgment that the allonge-amendment is effective on the account, using Rod Class's Amended Complaint 2 as a template to start with...

Yes, a counterclaim. Suitors have been doing this (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImNWY1MzE0YWYtNWIzYy00NzYzLWI1M TQtNDdjNDczNWE4MzJh&hl=en) last part for years now. The Certificate of Search (http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_certificate_corrected.jpg) functions as a standing judgment - Failure to State a Claim for which Relief may be Granted.

This is the first time I have seen the entire Emergency addressed so efficiently.


http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/5135/adjournsinedie.jpg

The Libel of Review focus is on the 1917 Trading With the Enemy Act.

The reason that I asked the questions I did is because of this efficiency, you may be opening up some innovations. My Comptroller Warrant to the IMFIRS (in accord with Are You Lost at C?), by the timing alone triggered the Montana Freeman Standoff by pressing for pre-1861 lawful money as I avoided citing the UCC with my "endorsement".

Ergo, if you were to sanitize the SSN and account #, publish this notice at the county clerk and recorder there today or Monday, and the Government were to shut down you might have some interesting synchronicity. You are actually making a lawful stand against the entire extraordinary occasion (http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/6479/conventionextraordinary.jpg), are you not? I think if you published it locally and at the secretary of state too (postmarked today) - in lieu of UCC as common law (http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/8576/20mlien11.jpg) - then you might very well be making history.

I recognize your asseveration as the kind of thing I would do and have often done. Therefore I am giving recognition namaste' - which is to say that I recognize the Holy Spirit of God guides you in your endeavor. It is obviously nothing more than an attached and fully incorporated demand for lawful money designed to be filed with any Signature Card on a non-interest bearing checking or savings account but I doubt you will have any luck getting it filed with a bank until you have the apostille of the SoS on it. - Maybe the Department of State.

Look at this Notice on the second page:

http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/6262/20mlien16.jpg
http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/9568/20mlien17.jpg

So you might just leave the SSN and account # blank to be filled in by hand when opening or proposing the novation to a current account. Likely, you will get a rejection from the SoS at first instructing you to utilize a UCC-1 Finance Statement but at that time, the SoS is recognizing the UCC will be binding law.

Ergo why I am saying you may move this into the larger "private" of Federal Reserve Banking and the entire scope of fiat currency.



Regards,

David Merrill.

Rock Anthony
04-08-11, 07:31 PM
The Exigent Circumstances is "national emergency" since 1861...

Upon non-response to this demand, I would do a Privacy Act request for the currently-effective signature card on file for the account, including all amendments thereto.

Upon receipt, would record a copy with affidavit in support in county, and get a certified copy back out.

Then mail copies of that to all pertinent parties as needed.

If allonge-amendment is missing from card, then file suit in a court of equity for breach of trust and violation of 12 USC 411, to get a declaratory judgment that the allonge-amendment is effective on the account, using Rod Class's Amended Complaint 2 as a template to start with...

It has been explained to me by two different banks that common banking practice is to micro-film the signature card (front and back) and then destroy the original. With that being said, there is no actual signature card to which your novation may be attached. Based on my own experience, the bank will reject your request without offering any recourse. But there is recourse!

I suggest that you go to the bank and submit a new signature card, and include any novations to the current agreement onto that new agreement. An ink stamper with your novations does the job nicely - just stamp the card. This way, your novations will be micro-filmed into their records. Any bank personnel that views the micro-film under a magnifier will see your novations.

If you get any flack from the low-level employees regarding the novation, speak something similar to these "magic" words:


"You're saying that I cannot make such a novation to the signature card? Well, may you please consult your legal department? I'm certain that such a novation is both lawful and legal, but I can understand that you may be unsure. I am entitled to this privilege, and would hate to be illegally denied this privilege because you've decided to make a legal determination on behalf of the bank. Are you an attorney? Only licensed attornies may practice law, and only licensed attornies hired by the bank to represent the bank in legal matters may make legal determinations for the bank."

I recently opened what I call a "lawful money checking account" at Bank of America. BoA's legal department verified for the low-level bank personnel that my amendment to the agreement is okay. Well, the personal banker didn't offer to run this by Legal (initially the application with amendment was flat out refused), but rather I had to insist! I find that these low-level employees operate off of 'gut feeling' rather than according to law and policy. I also find that reminding them that they can get in trouble for the unlicensed practice of law encourages them to work through the proper channels.

Axe
04-08-11, 09:21 PM
Nicely done.

David Merrill
04-10-11, 04:50 AM
Thanks Rock;


That is why I am saying to publish your general demand through the state and maybe even the US. Possibly a $39 evidence repository (miscellaneous case jacket) in the USDC. Then serve that on your bank and if they want to ignore the Notice they do so at their peril. Remember, if they lend fractionally and create currency without your endorsement bonding, that is counterfeiting!

doug555
04-13-11, 10:57 PM
Perhaps "Lawful Money" is what Mack Ott is referring to in his article entitled "Money, Credit and Velocity (https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B8BdR0w2oZY_YjhhNjk0NjctZjdhNC00ZmZhLWExMmE tYTg5YjMzZjhjM2E0&hl=en&authkey=CM_usaEM)" in the May, 1982 Federal Reserve "Money" publication when he stated in a footnote (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B8BdR0w2oZY_Nzg3ZDY0YWItYmFhOC00MTVkLWI0M jQtMjQ0NGQyMWVmMTkw&hl=en&authkey=CPi5nvEG) that "exchange contracts could easily be composed to thwart its use in everyday commerce"... [referring to FRNs].

In fact, Patrick Devine is right now exchanging certified copies of his "Certificate of Live Birth" (Banking Note) for "lawful money" using a "Copyhold Estate Licensing Document of Exchange of Assets" to (I think) his birth State Treasurer located in that State's Capital Building. He expects the funds this Friday or Monday. See his latest files here (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WethePeople_Shareholders/files/0%20-%20What%20is%20A%20LICENSE/), or this ZIP file (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B8BdR0w2oZY_M2NhMmViMGYtNDU2YS00NWIxLThlO TItOTE4MjA5ODkzNDMw&hl=en&authkey=CIuozL4N).

I will report any feedback ASAP...

David Merrill
04-13-11, 11:35 PM
Perhaps "Lawful Money" is what Mack Ott is referring to in his article entitled "Money, Credit and Velocity (https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B8BdR0w2oZY_YjhhNjk0NjctZjdhNC00ZmZhLWExMmE tYTg5YjMzZjhjM2E0&hl=en&authkey=CM_usaEM)" in the May, 1982 Federal Reserve "Money" publication when he stated in a footnote (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B8BdR0w2oZY_Nzg3ZDY0YWItYmFhOC00MTVkLWI0M jQtMjQ0NGQyMWVmMTkw&hl=en&authkey=CPi5nvEG) that "exchange contracts could easily be composed to thwart its use in everyday commerce"... [referring to FRNs].

In fact, Patrick Devine is right now exchanging certified copies of his "Certificate of Live Birth" (Banking Note) for "lawful money" using a "Copyhold Estate Licensing Document of Exchange of Assets" to (I think) his birth State Treasurer located in that State's Capital Building. He expects the funds this Friday or Monday. See his latest files here (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WethePeople_Shareholders/files/0%20-%20What%20is%20A%20LICENSE/), or this ZIP file (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B8BdR0w2oZY_M2NhMmViMGYtNDU2YS00NWIxLThlO TItOTE4MjA5ODkzNDMw&hl=en&authkey=CIuozL4N).

I will report any feedback ASAP...

That's amazing! Thanks!!

Axe
04-21-11, 09:49 PM
Perhaps "Lawful Money" is what Mack Ott is referring to in his article entitled "Money, Credit and Velocity (https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B8BdR0w2oZY_YjhhNjk0NjctZjdhNC00ZmZhLWExMmE tYTg5YjMzZjhjM2E0&hl=en&authkey=CM_usaEM)" in the May, 1982 Federal Reserve "Money" publication when he stated in a footnote (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B8BdR0w2oZY_Nzg3ZDY0YWItYmFhOC00MTVkLWI0M jQtMjQ0NGQyMWVmMTkw&hl=en&authkey=CPi5nvEG) that "exchange contracts could easily be composed to thwart its use in everyday commerce"... [referring to FRNs].

In fact, Patrick Devine is right now exchanging certified copies of his "Certificate of Live Birth" (Banking Note) for "lawful money" using a "Copyhold Estate Licensing Document of Exchange of Assets" to (I think) his birth State Treasurer located in that State's Capital Building. He expects the funds this Friday or Monday. See his latest files here (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WethePeople_Shareholders/files/0%20-%20What%20is%20A%20LICENSE/), or this ZIP file (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B8BdR0w2oZY_M2NhMmViMGYtNDU2YS00NWIxLThlO TItOTE4MjA5ODkzNDMw&hl=en&authkey=CIuozL4N).

I will report any feedback ASAP...

Doug, Did you ever follow up to find out if Patrick Devine got his money?

stoneFree
04-22-11, 05:08 PM
Just opened a lawful money account at Bank of America by adding a simple demand clause to the signature card/agreement. The rep didn't appear to know what I was talking about and asked the higher up. He looked at it and had no problem with it "Sounds good to me, you wouldn't unlawful money, would you?" Not sure if he was truly clueless or just playing the part. They even made a copy of the agreement for me!

Brian
04-22-11, 06:21 PM
Just opened a lawful money account at Bank of America by adding a simple demand clause to the signature card/agreement. The rep didn't appear to know what I was talking about and asked the higher up. He looked at it and had no problem with it "Sounds good to me, you wouldn't unlawful money, would you?" Not sure if he was truly clueless or just playing the part. They even made a copy of the agreement for me!

Excellent! I got the same confused looks from the asst. mang who was directly doing the paperwork for me and the lady he was training. If there is anyone in a branch who has a clue. It would be the head manager..but even that is doubtful

Richard Earl
04-23-11, 02:52 PM
Incidently, my landlord was nice enough to show me his mortgage. It does say that payments to be made in lawful money.

Michael Joseph
04-24-11, 04:14 AM
Federal Reserve Notes are lawful to use. Thus the confusion.

Yet, FRN's shall be redeemed in Lawful Money on demand at any FRB.

Brian
04-24-11, 06:11 AM
Federal Reserve Notes are lawful to use. Thus the confusion.

Yet, FRN's shall be redeemed in Lawful Money on demand at any FRB.

Legal Tender vs. Lawful Money = Legal vs. Lawful
FRN's should not be considered "lawful money" otherwise why would they need to be redeemed for such? FRN's redeeming FRN's....?? I have a page on just that...will post when I get my scanner working

David Merrill
04-24-11, 12:46 PM
Legal Tender vs. Lawful Money = Legal vs. Lawful
FRN's should not be considered "lawful money" otherwise why would they need to be redeemed for such? FRN's redeeming FRN's....?? I have a page on just that...will post when I get my scanner working

Cool!

Meanwhile;




In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money.

and




United States notes shall be lawful money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt.


But finding that, I made note:


The instruction PAY TO THE ORDER OF on the face of a check evidently has a reason for this wording (and for not using the much older working of simply PAY TO). After spending some time chasing down some UCC textbooks, I believe I have an explanation (not necessarily the only one).

The issue os the endorsement of checks over to third parties. This may not have been very common before the 20th century, but the current wording facilitates such endorsements.

If a check is made payable to Joe Blough, and Joe Blough is the person who will take the check to the bank, then it really doesn't matter whether the check uses the expression PAY TO Joe Blough or PAY TO THE ORDER OF Joe Blough, because either way it's Joe Blough and he's the one depositing or cashing the check.

But suppose Joe Blough endorses the check over to you. He signs the back of the check as an endorsement and now it's cashable by whoever is holding it, which, for the moment, is you.
If you take the check to the bank, there is a problem; yes, it's true that Joe Blough, the named payee, signed the back but if the check says PAY TO Joe Blough then the banker cannot pay you because the phrasing is such that the money has to be handed to Joe Blough, regardless of his endorsement over to you.

On the other hand, if the check said PAY TO THE ORDER OF Joe Blough, then you can cash or deposit the check. Joe Blough already "ordered" the check paid by endorsing the back of the check, so the check will be paid by Joe Blough's order, even though the money won't be put into Joe Blough's hands.

I hope this clarifies it.

Brian
04-27-11, 04:42 PM
Legal Tender vs. Lawful Money = Legal vs. Lawful
FRN's should not be considered "lawful money" otherwise why would they need to be redeemed for such? FRN's redeeming FRN's....?? I have a page on just that...will post when I get my scanner working Here are those letters obtained via "Pieces of eight"413414

Brian
04-27-11, 04:47 PM
I find this quote extremely telling...what might those thorny problems be???
415

David Merrill
04-27-11, 11:28 PM
I find this quote extremely telling...what might those thorny problems be???
415


To me, we find the monetizing of sin (debt). There are no FRNs extant that did not arise from a loan.



http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=414&d=1303922495


This letter is thinly veiled sophistry. If it were true, what the Treasury spokesman says, then Congress could just change the verbiage and stump me and everybody else from the true meaning...


They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand...

David Merrill
04-27-11, 11:35 PM
Just opened a lawful money account at Bank of America by adding a simple demand clause to the signature card/agreement. The rep didn't appear to know what I was talking about and asked the higher up. He looked at it and had no problem with it "Sounds good to me, you wouldn't unlawful money, would you?" Not sure if he was truly clueless or just playing the part. They even made a copy of the agreement for me!

Can you snap a photo or scan that? Sanitize it in Paint before you show us...


I wish a free covert audio recorder came with each membership here!



http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/4646/covertaudiorecordertop.jpg

stoneFree
04-29-11, 02:53 AM
Here you go.

EDIT: that attachment is about unreadable (Now I understand what you were talking about). The forum reduced my attachment to a 600-pixel high image. Here's the full image: http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/9007/bofasc.jpg

should I be concerned with Item 3. "U.S. Citizen/ U.S. Person" ?

David Merrill
04-29-11, 04:06 AM
Admin is looking into that problem.

Steve
04-29-11, 03:32 PM
[QUOTE=
should I be concerned with Item 3. "U.S. Citizen/ U.S. Person" ?[/QUOTE]

I would think you could (must) cross out that item as per ie instruction about item 2

David Merrill
04-29-11, 03:53 PM
I would think you could (must) cross out that item as per ie instruction about item 2

The remedy is for US Persons/citizens too. I would be uncomfortable saying I am. I might insert a down arrow and write in that space below signing for. So that it clearly reads;

I am signing for a US citizen...

Mark Christopher
04-29-11, 06:11 PM
To me, we find the monetizing of sin (debt). There are no FRNs extant that did not arise from a loan.



http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=414&d=1303922495




This letter is thinly veiled sophistry. If it were true, what the Treasury spokesman says, then Congress could just change the verbiage and stump me and everybody else from the true meaning...


They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand...

I love letters like this. David hits it on the head with saying this is sophistry. If you ask me the letter makes the term 'lawful' an adjective for money. The code 12usc411 seems to use it as a noun 'lawful money' like it is a thing. I guess we go back to what CLINTON said, "it depends what the definition of is, is." But at the end of the day the note carries the term legal tender. Maybe anyone more familiar in the UCC can answer this. Since it is legal tender can I refuse it for a debt (that someone owes me) and still retain my claim to it because of that refusal? The reason I ask is that the coin that was just made legal tender in UTAH does not have to be accepted. I thought that went for all legal tender.

From Webster's dictionary: Lawful may apply to conformity with law of any sort (as natural, divine, common, or canon) <the lawful sovereign>. legal applies to what is sanctioned by law or in conformity with the law, especially as it is written or administered by the courts <legal residents of the state>

Mark Christopher
04-29-11, 06:16 PM
Here you go.

EDIT: that attachment is about unreadable (Now I understand what you were talking about). The forum reduced my attachment to a 600-pixel high image. Here's the full image: http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/9007/bofasc.jpg

should I be concerned with Item 3. "U.S. Citizen/ U.S. Person" ?

You can't use your SSN if you cross that out. And also Citi would not let me sign unless I had "proper" ID that the sigs match. That was the biggest stipulation that they had with me. They said I can call myself whatever as long as government issued ID showed it.

martin earl
04-29-11, 08:50 PM
You can't use your SSN if you cross that out. And also Citi would not let me sign unless I had "proper" ID that the sigs match. That was the biggest stipulation that they had with me. They said I can call myself whatever as long as government issued ID showed it.

Crossing out "US Citizen" and putting "citizen/national of the United States" then using your passport for confirmation should be enough.

There is not a requirement for anyone to have a SSN, so that is a non-issue. YOU do not have an SSN, it is their number. Living men and women are not eligible for an SSN. Maybe putting "ineligible" and 000-00-0000 in the space for the SSN (I have been told it is in the Federal regulations allow putting all zeros if you have no SSN.

Of course, if you are going to file for 1040 return, the SSN is needed.

Nearly every form I have read gives you the right to cross out anything that does not "apply" to you. I am sure to put "reported" or "alleged" on all vital stats, since I cannot attest or affirm them being true or not.

Also, I never sign anything "under penalty of perjury" I ALWAYS cross that out, also, the word "understand" gets crossed out.

I sign "without prejudice" above my autograph (it.s not a SIG-NATURE).

So far, I have not had anyone give me too many issues, when they do, I simply point out the forms reference to crossing out what is not relevant.

shikamaru
04-29-11, 10:02 PM
Crossing out "US Citizen" and putting "citizen/national of the United States" then using your passport for confirmation should be enough.

There is not a requirement for anyone to have a SSN, so that is a non-issue. YOU do not have an SSN, it is their number. Living men and women are not eligible for an SSN. Maybe putting "ineligible" and 000-00-0000 in the space for the SSN (I have been told it is in the Federal regulations allow putting all zeros if you have no SSN.

Of course, if you are going to file for 1040 return, the SSN is needed.

Nearly every form I have read gives you the right to cross out anything that does not "apply" to you. I am sure to put "reported" or "alleged" on all vital stats, since I cannot attest or affirm them being true or not.

Also, I never sign anything "under penalty of perjury" I ALWAYS cross that out, also, the word "understand" gets crossed out.

I sign "without prejudice" above my autograph (it.s not a SIG-NATURE).

So far, I have not had anyone give me too many issues, when they do, I simply point out the forms reference to crossing out what is not relevant.

This is ... awesome :)
Will be adding this to the toolbox. Thanks for this.

doug555
05-11-11, 01:20 AM
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mal:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28d0907400%29%29

Abraham Lincoln, in his Proclamation on April 15, 1861 used the "extraordinary occasion" to summon [establish] a Congress under the Executive Branch of the "sine die" government of March 28. This is where the "dictatorship" started, destroying the Union it intended to preserve, IMHO. See above link, Lincoln's last paragraph.

Rock Anthony
07-02-11, 03:23 AM
I am new to this group, but not to David's material. Does anyone already have a copy of 31 USC 452 that is mentioned in US v. WARE? Both GPO and Cornell do not include chapter 4 at all! I want to have it for my trip to the bank!

If you look through the TABLE II—REVISED STATUTES 1878 (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/dynamics/attachment.php?attachmentid=47&d=1309575473), you'll learn that 31 USC 452-454 is the codification of Sec. 3588-3590 of the Revised Statutes.

Now if you follow this link (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=018/llsl018.db&recNum=1)to the Library of Congress website, and then navigate to page 708 of the Revised Statues, you'll find the same text that is codifed in the ever elusive 31 USC 452-454.


United States notes shall be lawful money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt.

David Merrill
07-02-11, 01:48 PM
If you look through the TABLE II—REVISED STATUTES 1878 (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/dynamics/attachment.php?attachmentid=47&d=1309575473), you'll learn that 31 USC 452-454 is the codification of Sec. 3588-3590 of the Revised Statutes.

Now if you follow this link (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=018/llsl018.db&recNum=1)to the Library of Congress website, and then navigate to page 708 of the Revised Statues, you'll find the same text that is codifed in the ever elusive 31 USC 452-454.

Thank you for that very helpful explanation Rock.

allodial
07-03-11, 06:10 PM
So one wonders how in the world conditioning about finances has gotten so terrific that one could ever sign such an agreement and then walk out of the bank without a copy?

See also: "Over here the people are too well informed and there is therefore little opportunity to do anything." (May 1836, James ROTHSCHILD at Paris to Nathan/Nat ROTSCHILD at London. Source: The World of Private Banking, pp 27.)


United States notes shall be lawful money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt.

A lot can be gleaned from really meditating on a piece of code like this. The part that reads"except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt" is telling. How can you pay interest with the principal? How can one pay the principal with the interest? It seems fair and equitable to pay principal in silver/gold and have the interest be in the form of credit.

Regarding redemption of FRNs. Could not one simply go to a notary, list the serial numbers of each FRNs that you wish to redeem and issue a "Bill of Redemption".


Bill of Redemption.
Redemption value: one thousand dollars in the lawful money of the United States in lawful Gold and Silver coin.
This regards notes # A12345678 and ... of the Federal Reserve System of the United States which shall hereinafter be referred to as "the Notes". I have the notes in my possession without prejudice to any of my rights. To avoid aiding or abetting any criminal conspiracy and to see to promote the stability, honesty and integrity of transactions associated with myself or the Notes, pursuant to 12 USC 411, I, ______________________________, hereby redeem each of the Notes for their face or apparent value in lawful money of the United States in lawful Gold and/or Silver coin.

...


Could not one record the original Bill of Remption and then send the original to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors or to a nearby federal reserve executive and appoint them fiduciary for the redemption. Get it? The following is of a US$1 Gold coin:

http://www.jasondunn.com/objects/US-1-Dollar-Coin-Back.png

Its gold in color. The following is of a silver-colored or Silver one....
http://coins.thefuntimesguide.com/images/blogs/1999-Susan-B.-Anthony-dollar-Obv-P-photo-public-domain-on-Wikikpedia.png

Pay close attention:

563


"The immediate bank deposit of $1 coins ordered through this program does not result in their introduction into circulation and, therefore, does not comply with the intended purpose of the program." U.S. Mint.

564.


To encourage robust national circulation of $1 Coins (non-numismatic, circulation-grade coins), the United States Mint has introduced the Circulating $1 Coin Direct Ship Program. This program makes it easy for retailers, financial institutions, and other interested parties to obtain smaller quantities of $1 coins. The $1 Coin Direct Ship Program will only accept web orders.

The intended purpose of the Circulating $1 Coin Direct Ship Program is to make $1 Coins readily available to the public, at no additional cost, so they can be easily introduced into circulation—particularly by using them for retail transactions, vending, and mass transit. Increased circulation of $1 Coins saves the Nation money.

The immediate bank deposit of $1 Coins ordered through this Program does not result in their introduction into circulation and, therefore, does not comply with the intended purpose of the Program.

One Midwestern transit system gives out change only in the form of Gold/Silver dollar coins rather than paper dollars. Wonder why? They have done thusly for decades AFAIK.

allodial
07-03-11, 08:08 PM
Now imagine if we had instead of fractionalizing banks, "Coin Keepers" that served as places for us to store lots of Silver/Gold coin..Quarters and Dimes too in bulk without any authorization for lending. Only transactional fees. That it was prohibited to actually lend out the coins or to do anything but to store and protect. That the facilities were managed by honest folk. That we could get receipts for storing coins and that our coins would be back there. And that we could assign the rights to the boxes back and forth. Gee this might be do-able without a banking license. A notary can be kept on hand to certify the contents of storage bin. :) That we could issue notes payable against the contents of the boxes. :)


Notaries Public in Florida have the authority to take acknowledgments, administer oaths, solemnize marriage, certify the contents of a safe-deposit box, certify the Vehicle Identification Number of a motor vehicle, and certify copies of non-recordable documents.


Certifying the Contents of a Safe-Deposit Box

....The law authorizing notaries to perform this function became effective on July 3, 1992, and is found in section 655.94(1), Florida Statutes.

Procedure for the Notary Public
The notary must be present at the time the safe-deposit box is opened and may not be a director, officer, employee, or stockholder of the financial institution. An officer of the institution must also be present with the notary at the opening of the safe-deposit box.

When the safe-deposit box is opened, the notary should inventory the contents of the box and should complete a certificate reciting the name of the lessee, the date of the opening, and a list of the contents. Florida law does not provide a form certificate.

Once the certificate is completed, copies should be made. The notary should place the original certificate in a package with the contents of the safe-deposit box and seal the package. The notary must then write on the outside of the package the name of the lessee and the date of the opening.

The notary should leave the sealed package and a copy of the certificate with the financial institution.

Imagine.

powder
07-04-11, 03:31 AM
I like the coin keeper idea.

On the original post of the thread - getting a bank agreement with 'lawful money' - so what was the point? statues/rules stipulate they (bank/otherwise) can substitute FRNs...

Rock Anthony
07-04-11, 05:20 PM
I like the coin keeper idea.

On the original post of the thread - getting a bank agreement with 'lawful money' - so what was the point? statues/rules stipulate they (bank/otherwise) can substitute FRNs...

Funds that are born from fractional reserve lending are a form of intangible credit - it exists only as electronic book entries into the banks' computers. However, when John Doe withdraws $100 from an ATM, he has in his hand tangible Federal Resrve notes, not intangible credit.

Federal Reserve notes are already bonded by the the United States. Therefore said notes are obligations of the United States - the US is responsible for paying the principal and interest on the debt money.

However, that intangible Fed credit that is born from fractional reserve lending is not bonded by the United States. It's bonded by whomever gives signature endoresement to that credit. Therefore those that endorse this intangible Fed credit are responsible for paying the principal and interest on that debt money - not the US.

The point of amending a bank agreement, such that only lawful money of the United States is handled within whatever bank accounts, is to avoid using Fed credit altogether. If John Doe has such an agreement with Bank of America, then no funds created via fractional reserve lending (aka Fed credit) are ever bonded by John. John never obligates himself to the debt.

If John Doe never has a need or desire for Fed credit, then why should he bond himself to it? Well, he shouldn't! When John pulls $100 from an ATM, he receives FRNs that are obligations of the US. John is fine with not sharing in that obligation.

Christopher David
07-05-11, 03:34 AM
However, that intangible Fed credit that is born from fractional reserve lending is not bonded by the United States. [/B]It's bonded by whomever gives signature endoresement to that credit. Therefore those that endorse this intangible Fed credit are responsible for paying the principal and interest on that debt money - not the US.


What if this man (acting as beneficiary for trustee) signed for each check issued in full LEGAL NAME for cash? What would make the green bills in hand a bond? How would this man (with rights of use as holder) be responsible for paying the principal and interest on that debt money absent an acount (not eligible for lending upon)? Who has signed the notes away as bondage? Not this man. The signature, two forms of govt ID, and thumbprint serves as proof of "to the order of", no? The "value-less" green linen paper can still be exchanged for meat, milk, bread, gas, etc. - the time may come to the contrary.

IMHO: The demand for lawful money prevents fractional reserve lending. One absent an account who deducts from employee's acount in exchange for green bills is doing the nation a favor. Banks can't lend from the bills stuffed under the mattress. What if every "person" with an account were to close/cancel/stop doing business with bank and demand cash all at once? This would surely make the news. The other day, the bank didn't have enough $100 bills for exchange due to the "holiday" - had to settle for 50s - perhaps more green linen is being stuffed under the mattress these days.

Sad that the paper has come to replace the metal of yesteryear. The linen paper will burn, but is remarkably endurable and will stand the test of time if used in its original intent. Ever been to one of those bars with the green stuff stapled to the walls and ceiling for 20s of years? Try that with newspaper.

Rock Anthony
07-05-11, 05:11 AM
Good questions. I shall attempt to provide good answers based upon my comprehension of matters:


What if this man (acting as beneficiary for trustee) signed for each check issued in full LEGAL NAME for cash?

What is "cash"? That could be interpreted as lawful money of the United States or legal tender of the Federal Reserve districts. I would demand lawful money per 12 USC 411 as this would clear up any ambiguity. If not, surely they will use the interpretation that results in you sharing in the debt.

What would make the green bills in hand a bond?

The "green bills in hand" are not the bonds. Securities of the US Treasury are the bonds (in the case of Federal Reserve notes). This is why Federal reserve notes can be used as lawful money - they are bonded to lawful money (US Treasuries).

How would this man (with rights of use as holder) be responsible for paying the principal and interest on that debt money absent an acount (not eligible for lending upon)?

If there is an undisputed and prevailing presumption that you've bonded yourself to the debt via signature endorsement, you are responsible for the debt. Even if the presumption is false, it'll stand as truth if not properly rebutted. This presumption can exist absent you having any bank account. For example, perhaps someone filed 1099 or W2 information returns against you - from there the presumption is born.

Who has signed the notes away as bondage?

The Treasurer of the United States and the Secretary of the Treasury

Not this man. The signature, two forms of govt ID, and thumbprint serves as proof of "to the order of", no? The "value-less" green linen paper can still be exchanged for meat, milk, bread, gas, etc. - the time may come to the contrary.

Even still, the verbiage that I suggest includes the "demand for lawful money" and not simply "cash". You want to have good enough record to defeat presumption. I agree, however, that no matter the restrictive endorsement you use, the "green bills" are exchangeble for many things.

IMHO: The demand for lawful money prevents fractional reserve lending. One absent an account who deducts from employee's acount in exchange for green bills is doing the nation a favor. Banks can't lend from the bills stuffed under the mattress. What if every "person" with an account were to close/cancel/stop doing business with bank and demand cash all at once? This would surely make the news. The other day, the bank didn't have enough $100 bills for exchange due to the "holiday" - had to settle for 50s - perhaps more green linen is being stuffed under the mattress these days.

Sad that the paper has come to replace the metal of yesteryear. The linen paper will burn, but is remarkably endurable and will stand the test of time if used in its original intent. Ever been to one of those bars with the green stuff stapled to the walls and ceiling for 20s of years? Try that with newspaper.

Christopher David
07-06-11, 01:06 AM
Thanks Rock. I was blowing smoke last night. I agree with your replies. Lawful money when demanded has no bond. Unfortunately, the currency is loosing steam. The price of everything is increasing while wages are not.

doug-again
07-31-11, 07:54 AM
If you get any flack from the low-level employees regarding the novation, speak something similar to these "magic" words:


"You're saying that I cannot make such a novation to the signature card? Well, may you please consult your legal department? I'm certain that such a novation is both lawful and legal, but I can understand that you may be unsure. I am entitled to this privilege, and would hate to be illegally denied this privilege because you've decided to make a legal determination on behalf of the bank. Are you an attorney? Only licensed attornies may practice law, and only licensed attornies hired by the bank to represent the bank in legal matters may make legal determinations for the bank."

The manager at the bank called me within 24 hours of opening an (interest free checking) account, and claimed to have talked with a lawyer already. She wanted me to come and close the account, or fill out new paper work absent the redemption stamp on the sig. card, and absent the rights reservations i made on other docs.
To be clear, i did not include any reservation of rights in the sig. card. i just used the standard phrase you see around here.

She wouldn't even tell me its name. i asked her on the phone to have the attorner call me (since i obviously couldn't call it) and she said it wasn't any use. He'd just tell me the same thing she was. He's on contract with them after all, and can't really talk to me. [You know, like, i'm guessing he'd bill them for having to deal with me? They're already losing money having to ask him to review my stuff.]
"It's against bank policy. The stamp restricts the bank. We don't allow restricted endorsements. The reservation of rights alters the agreement. "

Anyway, i expressed my desire to her, to have the attorner prove his claim that the stamp is restrictive, or is included by me with intent to restrict the bank. i haven't heard from him. i thoroughly questioned her assumptions and nominalizations, and got no responsive answers; just subject changes.

If you know of a law that they might be violating, could charges be pressed against them? But, i'd like to find a way to gently persuade them to cash my checks for me, and maintain the account. i kinda like the place: small bank, free coffee, farm fresh eggs are sold there by a teller's daughter, nice people, convenient locations.

David Merrill
07-31-11, 09:25 AM
Continue to enjoy your banking relationship. You are rather a patron, not a customer. You are serving American in these troubled time by reducing the national debt.


She wanted me to come and close the account...

Is not it all right there?

Look at the post above yours!




Thanks Rock. I was blowing smoke last night. I agree with your replies. Lawful money when demanded has no bond. Unfortunately, the currency is loosing steam. The price of everything is increasing while wages are not.


I have been managing release systems on the confidence and security building measures of the highly compressed information infrastructures most people think of as "money". To put that bluntly the US Dollar is not by definition the Federal Reserve note. The bond is there, in the signatures but like I showed everybody yesterday PayPal will not put any confidence in the $23.80 (https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B1EaV_bU7VImZTE1Njk2MGItZDI0Yy00MTk5LTkyZmU tYjBiNjgyY2QxM2Fi&hl=en_US) on account until I put confidence in the Fed (https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B1EaV_bU7VImYmU2N2YyMDEtM2QxYS00OTYwLWEwMTg tOGU0M2Q0Y2ZhNGQ5&hl=en_US).


http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/7784/paypallimit1.jpg

http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/8611/paypallimit1balance.jpg

There is the evidence before you. Judge for yourself. You do not have to accept my interpretation but if you judge, please listen to the conversations. That is why I recorded them and am sharing them. What you think is helping to create the universe in my rendition of superstring theory I call advanced-resonance inductive plasma physics - where terrorist attacks (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImZDJjM2M2M2QtMmFmNi00MWY1LWEwM 2EtY2FmYzU1ZjZmNjQ5&hl=en_US) in Afghanistan and Beijing in one day, hold equal weight with Congress voting today, on a Sunday (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImMTc1MTdlMjEtNDI1Yi00MWNjLWFjY TQtYzBmODM5NGZkZjMz&hl=en_US).

America is in the painful process of delivering Iran to China (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImNzQ1ZTIwNjUtNTE5MS00MjU5LTlkN TctNmYxMTI2MmM0YzZm&hl=en_US).


So there it is.

Buy some eggs and enjoy the coffee. Compliment them all and let them know how much you like them and that particular bank. Explain about these two recent foreclosures.

Integra Bank NA (http://www.occ.treas.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/2011/nr-occ-2011-101.html).
BankMeridian (http://www.occ.treas.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/2011/nr-occ-2011-100.html).

Let them know that even though you will be using them only as a repository for safely storing your funds, that you are suggesting they do so interest-free. You are not getting anything from them for nothing. You are done contributing to a national debt and if they think about that, well, just let it sink in on its own...

Tell them you never really wanted any legal advice, and thinking about it, you never got any. The lady only relayed hearsay to you from what I hear (punny). Politely let them know that it is now time you advised the attorneys not to shut down your business with them. [Point being that you like them and you will not put them asunder by doing it yourself. Do not sign anything but your non-endorsement and tender your business. Keep a recorder, or bring a witness might be wise but if that does not feel right...]


Regards,

David Merrill.

Michael Joseph
07-31-11, 07:43 PM
The manager at the bank called me within 24 hours of opening an (interest free checking) account, and claimed to have talked with a lawyer already. She wanted me to come and close the account, or fill out new paper work absent the redemption stamp on the sig. card, and absent the rights reservations i made on other docs.
To be clear, i did not include any reservation of rights in the sig. card. i just used the standard phrase you see around here.

She wouldn't even tell me its name. i asked her on the phone to have the attorner call me (since i obviously couldn't call it) and she said it wasn't any use. He'd just tell me the same thing she was. He's on contract with them after all, and can't really talk to me. [You know, like, i'm guessing he'd bill them for having to deal with me? They're already losing money having to ask him to review my stuff.]
"It's against bank policy. The stamp restricts the bank. We don't allow restricted endorsements. The reservation of rights alters the agreement. "

Anyway, i expressed my desire to her, to have the attorner prove his claim that the stamp is restrictive, or is included by me with intent to restrict the bank. i haven't heard from him. i thoroughly questioned her assumptions and nominalizations, and got no responsive answers; just subject changes.

If you know of a law that they might be violating, could charges be pressed against them? But, i'd like to find a way to gently persuade them to cash my checks for me, and maintain the account. i kinda like the place: small bank, free coffee, farm fresh eggs are sold there by a teller's daughter, nice people, convenient locations.

This call may be recorded for training purposes.

allodial
08-01-11, 02:01 AM
if you know of a law that they might be violating, could charges be pressed against them? But, i'd like to find a way to gently persuade them to cash my checks for me, and maintain the account. I kinda like the place: Small bank, free coffee, farm fresh eggs are sold there by a teller's daughter, nice people, convenient locations.

18 USC 241 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/241.html).

Perhaps you can ask them if their policy is greater than Title 18 of the United States Code (ask as in don't tell anything...just ask)? Perhaps fax them a copy of 18 USC 241 with your simple one-question cover letter? Perhaps you could also ask them if they are licensed by a State of the United States or by the United States?


If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

The option to use restrictive endorsements rather than blank is part of the 'game'. To tell you that you cannot use a restrictive endorsement is to say that you cannot enjoy applicable rights, privileges or immunities, isn't it? Isn't 12 USC 411 a law of the United States? :)

Chex
08-01-11, 03:10 AM
Coinkeepers:

In a peculiar series of events, it would appear that some of the various United States are pondering the re-introduction of precious metals (http://ecclesia.org/truth/fiat.html)as a means and method of paying State government fees and other fees related to matters arising in an intrastate context. It would appear as though the Commonwealth of Virginia (http://integrity-legal.com/legal-blog/tag/lane-county-v-oregon/)is taking the lead in this matter by proposing measures which could eventually lead to the State government (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Lane_County_v._Oregon)adopting precious metals as the means of payment for State government services.

doug-again
08-01-11, 06:01 AM
To save space, i didn't wanna quote that whole paypal thing David. Suffice it to say that i am having a difficult time interpreting your interpretation, and discerning whatever idea you're trying to get across to me, exactly. i think i read over the other thread that you posted that on, and the whole thing just goes right over my head man. No offense - just saying.



Buy some eggs and enjoy the coffee. Compliment them all and let them know how much you like them and that particular bank.You have a way with language that's so, ah, fresh sometimes; yet not without a little salt.


Let them know that even though you will be using them only as a repository for safely storing your funds, that you are suggesting they do so interest-free. Slow down speed reader. You missed the parenthetical. No suggestions to be made now on those lines, the interest free account is set up already.


Tell them you never really wanted any legal advice, and thinking about it, you never got any. The lady only relayed hearsay to you from what I hear (punny). Politely let them know that it is now time you advised the attorneys not to shut down your business with them. [Point being that you like them and you will not put them asunder by doing it yourself. Do not sign anything but your non-endorsement and tender your business. Keep a recorder, or bring a witness might be wise but if that does not feel right...]

David Merrill.Point taken on the hearsay. i threw that word around a few times. It's nice to be on the same page with you. :) To save time, lemme just type out a part of the agreement i signed,
ACCOUNT TERMINATION. You and we agree that either of us may close your account and terminate this agreement at any time with or without cause. If you want me to scan it to prove this, say so. Really though, you're right. All i think i can do is sweet talk them. After all, another "MISCELLANEOUS PROVISION" says,
You agree to be liable to us, to the extent permitted by law, for any loss, costs, or expenses from your account without prior notice to you or to bill you separately. This obligation includes disputes between you and us involving your account.... It also includes situations where any action taken on your account by you .... causes us to seek advice of an attorney, whether or not we actually become involved in a dispute.
So with this i segue to alloidial's 18 USC 241.
They're holding several hundred deposited dollars (that i worked long and hard for) which could quickly, without notice, be gobbled up by their attorner - should they interpret this matter as a dispute related to "my account." (i hope not to be lectured on how the account is not mine. Please, whoever's rarrin' to digress on this, spare me. i know, ok?)

There IS great wisdom in questioning. Coupled with mj's idea about recording it all; what a way to make the record! Really awesome rhetorical questions you posed there 'loid; o man i'm so glad yer still around.

For now, to those here, i ask:
Do i have a right to cash a check at their bank? Do i have a right to an equitable interest in an account at the same? Could i prove to a jury that i was intimidated by the bank manager? i venture the defensible answer to all 3 is no. Is there palpable damage here, in being told to redo the forms or close the account? Yes, time lost working, but that's small claims stuff.

If a bank refuses to redeem lawful money, is there a penalty?
Is not the shall in "they shall be redeemed..." the commercial nexus?
If so, what or where is the penalty, and who doles it out?

Thanks for your time folks,
regards,
d.

doug-again
08-01-11, 06:02 AM
This call may be recorded for training purposes.Gotta way to do that on a cell phone, out in the field? Thank ya.

David Merrill
08-01-11, 10:00 AM
My point was basically that they have fiduciary responsibility to stockholders. Shutting down even an interest-free account is unwise. For example you have the right to go buy a picketing license and walk back and forth in front of their bank with a big sign tied on - front and back. They may go asunder anyway, just out of poor risk management.

One thing new though - Congress raised the Debt Ceiling (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImZDVjZDgyNmUtOGQyZi00MzMwLTg0N DktM2FhZDc5NWJmOWM2&hl=en_US). This may embolden your bank to violate your right.

You have a right to do business there so long as you are within the constraints of the law. My explorations on Quatloos are showing up even here. One Quatlude is bringing to light that PayPal and your bank may be extraterritorial nations with their own internal policies acting for the law. The idea that you can sign on for a law where they can freeze your funds from you during a dispute is foreign to this constitutional republic called America. It smacks of law by agreement, not constitution.

Mostly my point was that it is not them shutting down your account. They have not violated you yet. Only distracted you into feeling violated.



http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/9098/complaintformfederal.pdf



http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/1845/criminalcomplaintformfe.jpg

shikamaru
08-01-11, 02:06 PM
Gotta way to do that on a cell phone, out in the field? Thank ya.

I'm sure there is. Do you have a smartphone and Android Market?

allodial
08-01-11, 02:19 PM
If they are holding funds beloning to you, notify them in writing of your intent to file a UCC Financing Statement showing that your person as bailor and them as bailee--and that the FS is to be effective as long as the dispute or until your money has been returned to an account. I concur that: as the Taxman may have a fiduciary duty to collect the tax bank staff have a fiduciary duty to bank stockholders to quit turning business away.

Anymore, I'm into filing criminal complaints under 18 USC 241. To stop the sh--shenanigans (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shenanigans).

A cop amidst a group of about 7 cuffed me one nights for a few minutes for not having a social security number or a last name. AFTER the State had already been notified and had agreed me to be free from culpability to any U.S. person or legal entity. By cuffing me they all potentially committed a host of crimes and conspired to violate numerous treaties. Once I advised the duty boss as to My rights as a sovereign, they all disappeared. But wait--cuffing me was a crime regardless of whatever. There was no reason for the stop whatsoever--I was on foot near a busy 24/7 restaurant. But yet 8 or so cops single me out? Knowing full well that I already do not have an SSN. They were hell-bent on getting me to confess to having an SSN and being a U.S citizen knowing me to be otherwise. As for laws they transgressed or violated:

* Hague Regulation 45 (can't force people to swear allegiance--forcing confession to being a citizen of a State is akin to a forced allegiance);
* Can't handcuff me for not having an SSN --its kidnapping/manstealing.
* Reducing men or filii dei to chattel is against the law.
* Peonage is against the law.
* They violated numerous treaties
* Rebellion/sedition
* Opposing/resisting the laws of the United States (war crime potentially)
* Racketeering
* Stopping someone threatening deadly force to obtain information about financial accounts is a crime

They also ALL exposed themselves to civil liability as well as criminal. The moment they cuffed me they all violated 18 USC 241 as a group. Though My rights do not come from the US Constitution they are guaranteed implicitly.

doug-again
08-01-11, 06:30 PM
i've read more about the UCC, than i have of the actual code itself. i lack the continuity of experience to apply any of it to my life. i know better than to ask you, 'loid, or anyone, to hold my hand in the use thereof. But that stuff is still so way over my head, that i require no less than a tutor at this point, to move in that direction. Experiential learning in a DIY format or lesson plan, is practical for a single guy without kids, but i have too much to lose now.
Rent needs to be paid today, and they got the bread i worked so hard for. My receipt thereof MAY hinge on my decision to either move forward on their terms or close the account and try again elsewhere. While i have paid PLENTY tuition in traffic courts, those were the days when i had excess to spend on learning, being courageous and trying to take a stand, or whatever.

The matter needs to be resolved today. i beg any readers to refrain from judging me as having waited to the last minute to seek counsel or prepare at all for this. i am always preparing, and am just not competent yet, to deal with matters like this. This thing happened suddenly, and within 24 hours i logged in to share what's happening.

Nara, ya, the droid/ smartphone is the obvious, high dollar answer. Thanks.

Anthony Joseph
08-01-11, 06:47 PM
If they are holding funds beloning to you, notify them in writing of your intent to file a UCC Financing Statement showing that your person as bailor and them as bailee--and that the FS is to be effective as long as the dispute or until your money has been returned to an account. I concur that: as the Taxman may have a fiduciary duty to collect the tax bank staff have a fiduciary duty to bank stockholders to quit turning business away.

Anymore, I'm into filing criminal complaints under 18 USC 241. To stop the sh--shenanigans (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shenanigans).

A cop amidst a group of about 7 cuffed me one nights for a few minutes for not having a social security number or a last name. AFTER the State had already been notified and had agreed me to be free from culpability to any U.S. person or legal entity. By cuffing me they all potentially committed a host of crimes and conspired to violate numerous treaties. Once I advised the duty boss as to My rights as a sovereign, they all disappeared. But wait--cuffing me was a crime regardless of whatever. There was no reason for the stop whatsoever--I was on foot near a busy 24/7 restaurant. But yet 8 or so cops single me out? Knowing full well that I already do not have an SSN. They were hell-bent on getting me to confess to having an SSN and being a U.S citizen knowing me to be otherwise. As for laws they transgressed or violated:

* Hague Regulation 45 (can't force people to swear allegiance--forcing confession to being a citizen of a State is akin to a forced allegiance);
* Can't handcuff me for not having an SSN --its kidnapping/manstealing.
* Reducing men or filii dei to chattel is against the law.
* Peonage is against the law.
* They violated numerous treaties
* Rebellion/sedition
* Opposing/resisting the laws of the United States (war crime potentially)
* Racketeering
* Stopping someone threatening deadly force to obtain information about financial accounts is a crime

They also ALL exposed themselves to civil liability as well as criminal. The moment they cuffed me they all violated 18 USC 241 as a group. Though My rights do not come from the US Constitution they are guaranteed implicitly.

Allodial - I like your style and your unique angles on issues and dealings with the "PTB".

I have a question for you regarding your use of criminal complaints under 18 USC 241:

Are you a "person" in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District of the United States?

It seems to me that one would also have to openly accept the validly formed and recorded oath of offices sworn by men and women - "so help me God" - in order to NOT have his/her unalienable rights violated by such an oath taker. The "USC" is private code which invokes NO appeal to a higher power as a punishing authority. It is agreement and law by contract if one fits the character of a "person" in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District of the United States.

Just my thoughts on the subject.

allodial
08-01-11, 06:54 PM
Are you a "person" in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District of the United States?

The 'court' session they held was to force me into 'defendant' in a trial they were holding on the roadside. In the role of a 'victim' or 'plaintiff' --those are persons. However, I am unaware of generally a 'person' in such venues. Perhaps being as an 'itinerant' with guaranteed right of transit--as in *that* kind of 'person'?

Anthony Joseph
08-01-11, 07:17 PM
The 'court' session they held was to force me into 'defendant' in a trial they were holding on the roadside. In the role of a 'victim' or 'plaintiff' --those are persons. However, I am unaware of generally a 'person' in such venues. Perhaps being as an 'itinerant' with guaranteed right of transit--as in *that* kind of 'person'?

We are living men and women, as peaceful inhabitants on the land, with an inherent God-given right of movement along the common right of ways in the manner and conveyance of our choice.

Does 18 USC 241 address and guarantee that protection against violation alone for men and women or does it require also the acceptance of a valid and sworn oath before the ever-living God of an officer who prayed for assistance to NOT violate those fundamental and natural rights of living beings/souls?

Michael Joseph
08-01-11, 08:49 PM
We are living men and women, as peaceful inhabitants on the land, with an inherent God-given right of movement along the common right of ways in the manner and conveyance of our choice.

Does 18 USC 241 address and guarantee that protection against violation alone for men and women or does it require also the acceptance of a valid and sworn oath before the ever-living God of an officer who prayed for assistance to NOT violate those fundamental and natural rights of living beings/souls?

DEFENDANT is just another word for Trustee. PLAINTIFF is just another word for Beneficiary.

For example lets explore - UNDERTAKING

1. You apply for the benefit of a DL - in Legal Name, no less
2. You Pay for the Privilege to Undertake for the State
3. State as Grantor
4. You Undertake, as Trustee in Possession with Legal Title, but the State has Remainderman interests to revoke the Grant



UNDERTAKING, contracts. An engagement by one of the parties to a contract to the other, and not the mutual engagement of the parties to each other; a promise. 5 East, R. 17; 2 Leon. 224, 5; 4 B, & A. 595.

UNDERTOOK. Assumed; promised.

2. This is a technical word which ought to be inserted in every declaration of assumpsit, charging that the defendant undertook to perform the promise which is the foundation of the suit; and this though the promise be founded on a legal liability, or would be implied in evidence. Bac. Ab Assumpsit, F; 1 Chit. Pl. 88, note p.


Therefore the Settlors Undertook for the king of Britain. (http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/nchist-colonial/1666#comment-276)

As they paid the king of Britain for the headrights to Undertake in the new Settlements. A settlement begs a Settlor, yes? See the Grant by the king to the Proprietors/Settlors.

-----------------------------------------------------

In commerce whoever claims the DL is Liable. As such, surrender the DL so that the OFFICER may TAKE in POSSESSION and thereby become Trustee. See the double-talk, "May I see YOUR ID?" The OWNER is IN SEIZIN and IN POSSESSION, as Trustee with the LEGAL TITLE and therefore the duty as fiduciary. See RESULTING TRUST

shalom,
mj

allodial
08-01-11, 11:21 PM
We are living men and women, as peaceful inhabitants on the land, with an inherent God-given right of movement along the common right of ways in the manner and conveyance of our choice.

Does 18 USC 241 address and guarantee that protection against violation alone for men and women or does it require also the acceptance of a valid and sworn oath before the ever-living God of an officer who prayed for assistance to NOT violate those fundamental and natural rights of living beings/souls?

The word 'man' can mean vasal (see Black's 2nd).

Michael Joseph
08-01-11, 11:49 PM
The word 'man' can mean vasal (see Black's 2nd).

ish eth Yehovah

allodial
08-02-11, 01:55 AM
18 USC 241 does not necessarily guarantee anything. The US Constitution provides implicit and explicit guaranties that are binding upon State actors. That is the point. If they deem you to be a 'suspect' then you are regarded as a 'person' and if you are immune then you are immune then any obligation to honor such immunity applies. Clouding the simplicity to the point of obscuring remedy doesn't necessarily help. It does not mean that you are a 'legal entity' created by the United States. 18 USC 241 does not restrict itself to U.S. persons.

If you file a complaint as a plaintiff then the plaintiff-ness you might take upon yourself might be a 'personage'--it does not necessarily mean "U.S. person". During transit I might temporarily be regarded as-if an itinerant and therefore that would be the only time I might be construed to be "in" a "State, Territory or Commonwealth of the United States". Being kidnapped and if you are the kidnapee (a person) then ...its pretty clear.

If you open a bank account or are a 'customer of the bank' (a person) then what else is there to it? Regardless, 18 USC 241 can be used to one's advantage.
592
(Above from a dictionary by an Alexander M. Burrill)

593

[1 Spence, Ch. 37 -> 1 Spence's Chancery 37]

doug-again
08-02-11, 03:21 AM
My point was basically that they have fiduciary responsibility to stockholders. Shutting down even an interest-free account is unwise. For example you have the right to go buy a picketing license and walk back and forth in front of their bank with a big sign tied on - front and back. They may go asunder anyway, just out of poor risk management.
No way man, i'm not gonna picket the bank, nor would i threaten to. i work with my hands. That's like, so psycho. i hope yer kidding.
i asked today whether it was in the interest of the bank's shareholders for her to be turning away business. answer was to the tune of, 'no, but our policy does not permit constrictive endorsements." Yes, she said constrictive.
An account may be terminated by them for any reason, and visa versa.
i did not get an audience with the attorner.
i gave verbal consent to close the account.
i did not have to sign anything. It's done.

None of the sweet talk discussed earlier, moved her.
The idea of me holding a possible, future inheritance, didn't move her.
Per chance i follow Nara into the public side of commerce, getting a loan from her bank someday, didn't interest her.
It was how i imagine it would be like to reason with a robot.


(K) Check Legends. We may disregard information on any check or item other than the signature of the drawer, the identification of the drawee financial institution and payee, the amount, the endorsements, and any other information that appears on the MICR line. In addition, we are not responsible to take any action on, or for failure to notify you of restrictive language placed on checks or other items, including but not limited to terms such as, "Void after 90 days," "Paid in Full," "Two Signatures Required," "Void Over $100," or similar statements. In accordance with reasonable banking standards, most checks and other items are processed through automated processing and, except in limited circumstances and in our discration, most items are not individually examined. .... We may agree to adhere to extraneous legends if you notify us of such legends and we have agreed in writing to such legends." The above part of the agreement i signed, was claimed as the notice to me of the bank's policy. i read this prior to contracting with them, and did not, nor do i interpret it either as bolstering her claim that only a signature is allowed on the signature card, or that All Rights Reserved and the title 12 stamp somehow restrict her bank. i hate express contracts; Beelzebubian froth, i say. & i hate how legal beagles say you can just novate them; as if the systemites haven't dealt with enough wackos like us, to be on the lookout for it by now.

Right there in the agreement, was a clause allowing them to snatch my funds.
i'm sorry this wasn't more entertaining. i really want to learn what 'loid knows, and how he applies it, but i'm not gonna accuse them of violating the law, and NOT file criminal charges; and i am incompetent to see that through alone right now.

There was really no use arguing with, or entreating her. i tried the latter first, and gently attempted the former. She had her orders from the higher ups, and stated her belief that there was no advantage to either of us in continuing the relationship.

'loid, i would have enjoyed pesenting a copy of 18 USC 241, but i don't know how to use a financing statement to protect funds on account. On SJC, Nara turned me onto some obscure treatise that explained all that bailor/ bailee crapola, but for me, it was like trying to apply trigonometry to running a day care center. Sorry:(

i mentioned 'continuity of experience' earlier, and that was a reference to what Robert Persig writes about in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, and some later in Lila. As an example, one could compare the accessibility of the volkswagon factory repair manual for a '67 bug, to that of John Muir's How to Keep Your Volkswagon Alive...for the Compleat Idiot. The former presents information with the experience presumed to be in the mind of the reader. The later is opposite: folks who hate grease and oil - and don't even own a vw - are storied to read the tome for entertainment. That is, the continuity in the writer's mind is conveyed to that of the reader, who may: enter the word picture and see the the position of the generator in relation to that of the piston sleeve, feel the eyes & nose sting in the face of a lean exhaust, hear the sound of a rod ready to pull free.

alloidial, i beg you to continue to share your experiences, and your unique angles.
It's really helpful to me.
thanks,
d./

doug-again
08-02-11, 03:44 AM
If you file a complaint as a plaintiff then the plaintiff-ness you might take upon yourself might be a 'personage'--it does not necessarily mean "U.S. person". 'loid, you're the first person (ha ha) that i've ever read, whom so artfully avoided getting stuffed into the 'person box.' i'm guessing some later reply will dote on the definition of personage, or the word of art 'person' itself, to further attempt to force you and your paradigm, into the person box. Repent. Recant your heresy. **chuckles**

allodial
08-02-11, 06:12 AM
'loid, you're the first person (ha ha) that i've ever read, whom so artfully avoided getting stuffed into the 'person box.' i'm guessing some later reply will dote on the definition of personage, or the word of art 'person' itself, to further attempt to force you and your paradigm, into the person box. Repent. Recant your heresy. **chuckles**

Key point is there are so many articles and theories floating around to the point that one could be blown around by every wind or about paralyzed to the point of doing nothing. A "Person" can refer to a "role". The role might be artificial but you playing the role are not necessarily artificial. The point is if you are going on about not being a person but not realizing that the role called "plaintiff" is a person (a role/relation associated with a political entity called a 'court') you might be missing something important. Criminal complaints are filed by..'informants' or 'plaintiffs'--those are 'persons'/'roles', no?

As for the UCC its as simple as: if the bank is holding $5,000 of yours over some silly matter and the bank shuts down tomorrow. If you do not file a UCC FS or some public notice as to a claim on $5K, you will probably be out of that $5K. The UCC FS in that situation would be to say "Hey you are holding something of value of mine and until you get it back to me I'm going to notoriously stake my claim so that if you fold up I can collect my $5K." The bank will not likely want a UCC FS filed. The point is to encourage return of your funds. If you borrow their stuff, they are likely going to file a UCC Financing Statement evidencing such. You can do the same. K? Thx.

P.S. There are those who got the tongue-and-cheek phraseology for what it is.


Querant: Are you a fisherman?
Queried: No but I work as a fisherman on Thursdays.

If you are a sovereign then why do you have a driver license? If you are a sovereign then why do you have trappings of a serf? Elizabeth II of the House & Family of Winsdor when she worked as an ambulance driver was not being a sovereign at the time with respect to that role and at that time she was held to have a 'last name'. If you are working as a construction worker, with respect to that role are you a sovereign in that capacity? With respect to a customer at a bank, are you a sovereign in that capacity? Point: the skill of finely and rightly discerning and making the right distinctions at the right time with respect to the capacity in you might acting at any given time might be of great importance.


New South Wales Consolidated Acts
CRIMES ACT 1900 - SECT 11
Provisions of 36 Geo III, c 7, and 57 Geo III, c 6, repealed except as to offences against the person of the Sovereign
11 Provisions of 36 Geo III, c 7, and 57 Geo III, c 6, repealed except as to offences against the person of the Sovereign

The provisions of the Act of the Parliament of Great Britain, thirty-sixth George the Third chapter seven, made perpetual by the Act of the Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland fifty-seventh George the Third chapter six, and all the provisions of the last mentioned Act in relation thereto, save such of the same respectively as relate to the compassing, imagining, inventing, devising, or intending death or destruction, or any bodily harm tending to death or destruction, maim, or wounding, imprisonment, or restraint of the person of the heirs and successors of His said Majesty King George the Third, and the expressing, uttering, or declaring of such compassings, imaginations, inventions, devices, or intentions, or any of them, shall be and the same are hereby repealed.

Michael Anthony has brought a good point. Since in say the laws of New South Wales, there were regarded as being: (i) offenses against the person of the Sovereign (Treason, sedition, etc.) and also (ii) offenses against the person. "manslaughter" is regarded to be an offense against 'the person' (murder, rape, kidnapping are too). The protections afforded a sovereign are perhaps per the likes of: treason, sedition, rebellion. Those have been covered.

Possibly related: Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents. (http://www.uia.be/crimes-against-internationally-protected-persons)

shikamaru
08-02-11, 01:52 PM
Nara, ya, the droid/ smartphone is the obvious, high dollar answer. Thanks.

Droid does :D.

There are other ways. I believe they have electronic recorders disguised as USB sticks and pens. Can record quite a bit in terms of time.

allodial
08-02-11, 07:05 PM
Droid does :D.

There are other ways. I believe they have electronic recorders disguised as USB sticks and pens. Can record quite a bit in terms of time.

Many digital cams have video/audio capture mode.