Endorsement Guaranteed

In my due diligence to ensure my Lawful Money demand is documented, I went to the bank to get a copy of one of my demands. My methodology for negotiating my checks is to place the lawful money demand, "Special Deposit", no signature of any kind. I normally deposit in the ATM to avoid questions but have used this same method with the teller face to face without issue.

Anyway when I received my check copy, it had been routed through the system and I see this stamped under my non-endorsement:
"Credited To The Account Of The Within Named Payee Endorsement Guaranteed Bank of America, N.A."

Can anyone deduce why the bank is guaranteeing an endorsement? My understanding is that I did not endorse private credit and that my deposit was made as "Special" and therefore the funds deposited have to be made in lawful money and returnable to me as lawful money
Attachment 1918

Attachment 1919

I prefer hand-writing “lawful money and full disclosure is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411, 95a(2)” on the FRONT of one’s checks and deposit slips, underneath one’s name and address in the upper left-hand corner of these documents (see example above).

IMO:
The BACK of the checks is in the private, meaning in the private FRS domain, since all currency is initially and legitimately presumed to private FRN script, and they monetize these instruments based on the endorsement on the BACK of the checks. This is why they can and do object to any "restrictive endorsements" on the BACK.

(It appears an endorsement is required by someone in their private jurisdiction, and perhaps this is why you see that endorsement on your check by BoA.)

The FRONT of the check is in the public, meaning in the people's domain. I have never had any objection whatsoever to my approach shown above, using the FRONT of "my" instruments.

In this way, it is a WIN-WIN scenario.

They can use plausible deniability to assume FRN endorsement initially, and monetize these instruments, and yet upon the annual filing our 1040's with evidence of demanding lawful money for same, we can subtract the usage fee associated with the use of these presumed FRNs, and also thereby enable them to reduce the national debt by the same, along with all FRN-presumed derivative transactions. A WIN-WIN status quo. IMO.

For more info on this, see:
http://1040relief.blogspot.com/p/getting-started.html
http://lawfulmoney.blogspot.com/p/on...wo-images.html

Doug555,
As you can probably tell by the format of my demand, I have been following your writings regarding lawful money and have found them to be the most easy to read and prescriptive of all the information I find on StoSC and elsewhere. I have noted your opinion on the public/private side of Negotiable Instruments. This example of BofA's guarantee of endorsement may add credence for your argument, however, I have chosen the reverse of the check for my non-endorsement based on reading I have done of Frank O'Collins work. While I cannot independently verify, I have no reason to doubt his research, in the Canons of Positive law #1540 he states:

"All Documents, whether valid or invalid have at least one Obverse and Reverse with the primary and most ancient purpose of the front or Obverse as the window transmitting the purpose and message of the Document, whilst the Reverse provides the window transmitting any formal reply, or rebuttal"

I take this to mean my reply and rebuttal to endorsing private credit, should be made on the reverse of the instrument. I would further think that since the Negotiable Instrument is a contract for the promise to pay, any alteration to the contract (The Obverse) would subject the contract to dismissal re:

"The intentional and material alteration of a written instrument by one party to a contract without the consent of the others, releases those parties not consenting to the alteration from any liability on such instrument to the party making the alteration.14

12 Twenty-ninth Subject. Volume IX. 1313 Benjamin on Contracts, Sec. 96;

Butler vs. Miller, 1 Denio, 407,

410; Banorges vs. Hovey, 5 Mass., 11, 40; Baker vs. Baker, 25 N. J. L., 13, 18.


Read more: http://chestofbooks.com/society/law/Popular-Law-3-Contracts/Section-81-Discharge-By-Alteration-Of-A-Written-Instrument.html#.VBY05sctCUk#ixzz3DL9wAP8N"

Thank you for your teaching and insight, in our struggles to comprehend

Quote:

---

Can anyone deduce why the bank is guaranteeing an endorsement? My understanding is that I did not endorse private credit and that my deposit was made as "Special" and therefore the funds deposited have to be made in lawful money and returnable to me as lawful money.

---

I like your stamp but wonder why you demand full discharge? Until I comprehend why you would not demand payment, or even just let that ride inherent with the demand for lawful money, I cannot really discern whether the Bank is obligated to endorse the funds.

I think though, that by demanding discharge you obligated the Bank to carry the endorsement for you, or rather instead of you.

I haven't read quite, but a bank's guarantee or acceptance might be the value given per the request for discharge. I believe David Merrill is alluding to the same.

Discharge is a term used for the termination of all bankruptcy proceedings.

Attachment 1920
Attachment 1921

This causes me to wonder where I might have found this commentary?

Attachment 1922

I titled the caption; Monetization of Sin. So the inclusion of Title 12 USC §95a(2) is declaration of the peace treaty? I might wish to include some verbiage about this refining the old Coupon Redemption process for Payoff on Credit Card Debt!!

Quote:

---

(2) Any payment, conveyance, transfer, assignment, or delivery of property or interest therein, made to or for the account of the United States, or as otherwise directed, pursuant to this section or any rule, regulation, instruction, or direction issued hereunder shall to the extent thereof be a full acquittance and discharge for all purposes of the obligation of the person making the same; and no person shall be held liable in any court for or in respect to anything done or omitted in good faith in connection with the administration of, or in pursuance of and in reliance on, this section, or any rule, regulation, instruction, or direction issued hereunder.

---

It might also be worth noting the relevance of Article 4, Section 1 of the Articles of Confederation (Organic Laws of the United States of America).

Quote:

---

"The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall have free ingress and redress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of [*52] trade and commerce, subject to the same duties impositions and restrictions, as the inhabitants thereof respectively."

---

Taking gold out of circulation probably was done with that Article in mind. That said, a bankrupt person is likely deemed 'in debt'. A soldier discharged from duty was likely deemed to be 'encumbered' and civilly dead during his term of service.

That commentary is from page 831 of Ed Vieira's PIECES OF EIGHT.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Neil

..., I went to the bank to get a copy of one of my demands.

---

Apparently David Neil is trying to pay himself lawful money with his own checks, otherwise I don't see how the bank is letting him view other people's checks.

This check is my paycheck and by rights does not belong to me. I was surprised to see the routing information as well, but normally I have access to see the image when I deposit and that is what I was expecting when I requested the image

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Neil

This check is my paycheck and by rights does not belong to me. I was surprised to see the routing information as well, but normally I have access to see the image when I deposit and that is what I was expecting when I requested the image

---

I have not read all the posts in this thread but I offer the following for contemplation. A checking account is most times a GENERAL account according to the Agreement [which nobody ever reads] and is subject to the U.C.C. Turns out the one making a DE-posit is making a loan to the Trust Company termed a bank. The loan is not secured but is rather unsecured - which means there is no Property standing as surety for the loan.

Effectively the BANK STORE is selling its services to a customer whereby said customer loans his/her/its interest in notes to the bank. Notice I said interest in the notes. I cannot find my name on those notes - try as I may - I have yet to see my name on those notes. As such, that property is not mine - but I may Enjoy the Usufruct of that Property according to Established Uses. Or rather according to certain Restrictions.

Therefore a Check is a private demand. And therefore a check is not money within the strict meaning of money. Someone herein mentioned a SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP. A trust is a THREE PARTY relationship and banks have Trust Departments for those who desire a Special Relationship. As an Engineer I have had to work with these Trust Departments many times especially in light of an institutional trustee holding the Real Estate in Trust on behalf of some class of beneficiary[ies]. By the way Engineer is a trust organ. Next time you go over a bridge - or take a drink of water - remember that some Engineer designed and oversaw the implementation of the Benefit you now enjoy. Specifically Engineer is a Title of an OFFICE OF TRUST.

Just like BANKER.

So then in General account - you are a customer as depositor/customer; and, in Special account - you are a grantor/beneficiary. As a customer you pay for the service [fees]. If you are a customer, then those transactions are subject to the U.C.C. The rules of the road have been lodged and it is only peoples games you have to dodge.

I think the reader struggles with the private side of the check demand "TO THE ORDER OF". I myself like that language for it allows me to pass the same instrument to many different vendors by and thru assignment - without that instrument ever being DE-posited into a bank. Assignment is a very useful tool. With assignment - the local grocery - is a bank. Of course there may have to first be established a SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP with said grocery prior to its acceptance of a private instrument.

Act 19:15 And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?

Act 19:16 And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.


Now if I have made a loan as an unsecured creditor - then the Uses of the money are no longer in my Possession - therefore whilst the money is within the Possession of the Bank, the money is not mine. I can only regain Use by and thru the Terms of the Agreement established when I choose to become a customer of The STORE.

If I was with a Special Relationship then, for instance if I Granted five 20's bearing Serial Number [xxxxxxxx] then when I issued a direct order upon the trustee, the trustee would have to produce those specific notes - minus of course his fee to hold that property on my behalf. When the notes are conveyed back to the Grantor the Special Relationship is complete. The titles merge in One as I am possessor of the Use. Again so that confusion does not abound, my name and image is not on the notes - so I have an interest in the Property. And money is intangible property.

I have a friend who uses a local farmers credit union to perform all of his banking activities. Like I said this is a community organization setup in TRUST to its Grantors. Each Grantor, grants his or her interest in Trust to this Union and the Union undertakes as Trustee to perform certain functions on the behalf of its Beneficiaries. At the end of the year if the Bank has wisely used the money's entrusted to its care, then the Bank issues profits back to the grantors as a percentage of the funds in its possession. An accounting is made to each of the Shareholders [Grantors] of the Bank. This is a double edged sword - one must Trust [verb] one's Trustee. This is a true marriage. Husbands [Trustee] love your wives [Beneficiary] and wives [Beneficiary] submit to your husbands [Trustee]. The two become one in trust.

A workman is worthy of his hire. A trustee is FOR HIRE position - appointed to duty by the one who has that Power under the Agreement. Has anyone noticed that FRACTAL nature of Legal. It is the same Pattern over and over and over again - no matter how high up the ladder or if one is at the bottom - the same pattern exists.

It's like Bon Jovi sang: "Its all the same, only the names have changed"....

If I make a DEMAND FOR LAWFUL MONEY PER 12 USC 411, then by that deed, I recognize the existing Trustees and I refuse to ORDER UP new credit. I recognize that there ALREADY exists a surety for the notes - secured in Property - why should I become a surety for the expansion of the money supply? And not only I but in my mis-deed I make you too a surety. Thus by my Order I bind you too. Or I could demand the existing Trustees perform in recognition of the existing surety [GUARANTEE].

Why should I continue to sell myself and you too for no consideration in return? 0.1% interest on my loan does not make sense in light of fractional reserve banking practices which reflect in expansion of the money supply and is the TRUE CAUSE of Inflation. We did it to ourselves. We are each other's keeper. We are connected in the Public Trust.

When you begin to comprehend how a Kingdom or State is built then you will see - it is the ESTATES that are pledged as surety. Look around friend. You may have noticed that foreigners own many of the Estates already.

What was will be again: Where is your trust friend?

Isa 36:4 And Rabshakeh said unto them, Say ye now to Hezekiah, Thus saith the great king, the king of Assyria, What confidence is this wherein thou trustest?

Isa 36:5 I say, sayest thou, (but they are but vain words) I have counsel and strength for war: now on whom dost thou trust, that thou rebellest against me?

Isa 36:6 Lo, thou trustest in the staff of this broken reed, on Egypt; whereon if a man lean, it will go into his hand, and pierce it: so is Pharaoh king of Egypt to all that trust in him.

Isa 36:7 But if thou say to me, We trust in the LORD our God: is it not he, whose high places and whose altars Hezekiah hath taken away, and said to Judah and to Jerusalem, Ye shall worship before this altar?

Isa 36:8 Now therefore give pledges, I pray thee, to my master the king of Assyria, and I will give thee two thousand horses, if thou be able on thy part to set riders upon them.

Isa 36:9 How then wilt thou turn away the face of one captain of the least of my master's servants, and put thy trust on Egypt for chariots and for horsemen?


Rabshakeh is prepared for war and he wants payment of the debt. What pledge does he desire? An INTEREST in the Claim established which is to say the Ownership of the Estates. Look around today, do you trust in the Air Craft carriers, the tanks, the weapons of war for your protection and safety. These are as nothing friend. These too shall come to nothing for already SCALAR weaponry makes these seem as children's toys.

Isn't it high time we realize WE ARE OUR BROTHER's KEEPER? Yet day in and day out WE EAT UP OUR FLESH - which is to say we sell our strength to the enemy - all for the sake of PROFIT.

Rev 3:17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:

Rev 3:18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.

Rev 3:19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

I have written to the physical desires, yet I see many living in fancy houses yet their Spiritual House is yet to begin construction. The spiritual lessons always play out right before our very eyes. Awaken thou that sleepeth.

Hag 1:2 Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, This people say, The time is not come, the time that the LORD'S house should be built.

Hag 1:3 Then came the word of the LORD by Haggai the prophet, saying,

Hag 1:4 Is it time for you, O ye, to dwell in your cieled houses, and this house lie waste?

Hag 1:5 Now therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts; Consider your ways.



Regards,
MJ

Taking gold out of circulation probably was done with that Article in mind.

This has also crossed my mind, but again, it is only a presumption. I would include within any claim or record, that you are NOT a debtor concerning the matters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Neil

This check is my paycheck and by rights does not belong to me. I was surprised to see the routing information as well, but normally I have access to see the image when I deposit and that is what I was expecting when I requested the image

---

I'm just questioning how the bank is allowing David Neil to view/get a copy of the backside of company paycheck after processing. You can get a deposit image of the face of check, but not backside. That seems highly unusual. The check was written by someone else; why should he have any right to view the backside of it after bank processing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnnyCash

I'm just questioning how the bank is allowing David Neil to view/get a copy of the backside of company paycheck after processing. You can get a deposit image of the face of check, but not backside. That seems highly unusual. The check was written by someone else; why should he have any right to view the backside of it after bank processing?

---

Agreed. In my experience when there is a problem with the processing of the check the bank will sometimes send me copies of the front and back of the check. I chalk it up the fact we are working with people who have varying levels of intelligence. Such is life, I suppose. When I was new to this path, I used to hold a view concerning all lawyers. But as experience has shown, just because someone qualifies to hold a title does not mean one is with the knowledge required of its practice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Neil

In my due diligence to ensure my Lawful Money demand is documented, I went to the bank to get a copy of one of my demands. My methodology for negotiating my checks is to place the lawful money demand, "Special Deposit", no signature of any kind. I normally deposit in the ATM to avoid questions but have used this same method with the teller face to face without issue.

Anyway when I received my check copy, it had been routed through the system and I see this stamped under my non-endorsement:
"Credited To The Account Of The Within Named Payee Endorsement Guaranteed Bank of America, N.A."

Can anyone deduce why the bank is guaranteeing an endorsement? My understanding is that I did not endorse private credit and that my deposit was made as "Special" and therefore the funds deposited have to be made in lawful money and returnable to me as lawful money
Attachment 1918

---

STANDARD OF REVIEW.

We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard as the district court.

Turner v. Baylor Richardson Med. Ctr., 476 F.3d 337, 343 (5th Cir.2007).

Summary judgment is proper only if “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a).

When reviewing a summary judgment motion, we draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.

Turner, 476 F.3d at 343; see also Ford Motor Co. v. Tex. Dep't of Transp., 264 F.3d 493, 498 (5th Cir.2001) (“On cross-motions for summary judgment, we review each party's motion independently, viewing the evidence and inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”). -

See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-5th-ci....kk9QwPbh.dpuf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Neil

In my due diligence to ensure my Lawful Money demand is documented, I went to the bank to get a copy of one of my demands. My methodology for negotiating my checks is to place the lawful money demand, "Special Deposit", no signature of any kind. I normally deposit in the ATM to avoid questions but have used this same method with the teller face to face without issue.

Anyway when I received my check copy, it had been routed through the system and I see this stamped under my non-endorsement:
"Credited To The Account Of The Within Named Payee Endorsement Guaranteed Bank of America, N.A."

Can anyone deduce why the bank is guaranteeing an endorsement? My understanding is that I did not endorse private credit and that my deposit was made as "Special" and therefore the funds deposited have to be made in lawful money and returnable to me as lawful money
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attac...tid=1918&stc=1

---

Just caught this one a few minutes ago in doing a search for additional background information relating to Title 12 U.S.C. §95a(2) and Title 50 U.S.C. §4307(e) . . . .

Here is the "REAL DEAL" behind the bank's stamp wherein they have acted in place of the endorser to guarantee the check/draft "medium of exchange" was actually paid/credited before subsequently presented to the collecting/payor bank, or other such payor . . .

First: “The entire taxing and monetary system are hereby, placed under the UCC.” 80 Stat. 1125, Pub. L. 89-719, Nov. 2, 1966 - Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966

Second: Uniform Commercial Code › U.C.C. - ARTICLE 4 - BANK DEPOSITS AND COLLECTIONS (2002) › PART 2. COLLECTION OF ITEMS: DEPOSITARY AND COLLECTING BANKS

§ 4-205. DEPOSITARY BANK HOLDER OF UNINDORSED ITEM.

If a customer delivers an item to a depositary bank for collection:

(1) the depositary bank becomes a holder of the item at the time it receives the item for collection if the customer at the time of delivery was a holder of the item, whether or not the customer indorses the item, and, if the bank satisfies the other requirements of Section 3-302, it is a holder in due course; and
(2) the depositary bank warrants to collecting banks, the payor bank or other payor, and the drawer that the amount of the item was paid to the customer or deposited to the customer's account.

So, under The U.C.C. Section 4-205 shown above, when the depositary bank submits an un-i/endorsed item for payment, it warrants to the payor bank or other payor, and to the drawer that the amount of the item was paid to the Payee customer or deposited to the customer's account. This is a statutory warranty. It does not need to be stamped upon the check; it applies automatically.

If it is later discovered that the funds were not paid to the payee customer or deposited to the customer's account, a breach of warranty action can be mounted against the depositary bank.

I hope this helps to clear up why the above stamp was placed on the back of the un-e/indorsed deposited check . . .

If it was me, I would make the above check/draft along with a copy of U.C.C. 4-205 into an exhibit and parade them both around as confirmation of my notice and demand already being properly made.

Notice to acting Fiscal Agent member bank is also notice to Federal Reserve System district principal(s)/U.S. Treasury, etc. and vice-versa . . .

Given that we've now learned about UCC 4-205 and how it works - it can now be employed to our own advantage when transacting such non-i/endorsed checks/drafts like so:

lawful money and full acquittance/discharge is demanded for all

transactions, Title 12 USC §411, §95a(2) and Title 50 U.S.C. §4307(e)

(transacting absent accommodation authorized per U.C.C. 4-205)

Etymology and meaning for the words "acquit", "discharge" and "demand":
acquit (v.) early 13c., "to satisfy a debt" (either for oneself or on behalf of another), from Old French aquiter "pay, pay up, settle a claim" (12c.), from a "to" (see ad-) + quite "free, clear" (see quit (adj.)). Meanings "set free from charges" and "to discharge one's duty" both recorded from late 14c. Related: Acquitted; acquitting; acquittance.

Note: An acquittance is a discharge of a party from an engagement to pay a sum of money.

discharge (v.) early 14c., "to exempt, exonerate, release," from Old French deschargier (12c., Modern French décharger) "to unload, discharge," from Late Latin discarricare, from dis- "do the opposite of" (see dis-) + carricare "load" (see charge (v.)).

demand (v.) late 14c., "ask, make inquiry," from Old French demander (12c.) "to request; to demand," from Latin demandare "entrust, charge with a commission" (in Vulgar Latin, "to ask, request, demand"), from de- "completely" (see de-) + mandare "to order" (see mandate). Meaning "to ask for as a right" is early 15c., from Anglo-French legal use. Related: Demanded; demanding.

Attachment 4253

Attachment 4254


I gave the clerk of court the opportunity to endorse the backside. See how it bled through?

Sorry about the 12 or so edits to my last post David. . . I keep seeing places where additional words and rephrasing would make the post clearer for others to read. :-)

Yep, it can just be made out on the last image associated with your post above.

Did she ever post-facto endorse it, or did she persist in choosing to not be an accommodation party to the instrument?

David, this U.C.C. section may be helpful to you in relation to the images of your U.C.C. 3-104(b) instrument that the clerk of the court did not act to endorse . . .

Please take note of section (a)(3) below related to an undertaking or power to give, maintain, or protect "collaterial" to secure payment + the authorization or power part to the holder to "CONFESS" judgment or realize on or dispose of collateral . . . .


U.C.C. Section § 3-104. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT.

(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.

(b) "Instrument" means a negotiable instrument.

(c) An order that meets all of the requirements of subsection (a), except paragraph (1), and otherwise falls within the definition of "check" in subsection (f) is a negotiable instrument and a check.

(d) A promise or order other than a check is not an instrument if, at the time it is issued or first comes into possession of a holder, it contains a conspicuous statement, however expressed, to the effect that the promise or order is not negotiable or is not an instrument governed by this Article.

(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.

(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."

(g) "Cashier's check" means a draft with respect to which the drawer and drawee are the same bank or branches of the same bank.

(h) "Teller's check" means a draft drawn by a bank (i) on another bank, or (ii) payable at or through a bank.

(i) "Traveler's check" means an instrument that (i) is payable on demand, (ii) is drawn on or payable at or through a bank, (iii) is designated by the term "traveler's check" or by a substantially similar term, and (iv) requires, as a condition to payment, a countersignature by a person whose specimen signature appears on the instrument.

(j) "Certificate of deposit" means an instrument containing an acknowledgment by a bank that a sum of money has been received by the bank and a promise by the bank to repay the sum of money. A certificate of deposit is a note of the bank.

In another thread a couple of days back, we were discussing with doug555 about the addition of words on the face of the check/draft to evidence the maker's non-accommodation status and demand for lawful money use in all transactions.

The highlighted parts of Section (a) above may also impact what can actually be placed on the face of such checks/drafts and subsequently accepted by the banks as them still being an "unconditional" promise to pay . . .

From the above, it appears to me that through this UCC, the financial institutions have secured their right to presumptively require accommodation/surety status from the party transacting the check/draft. . .

Interesting . . . . eh?