New Promissory note

[Anthony Joseph]

the bankers will ultimately be held to account for their actions; usury and false balances are the abominations, not presenting my signature as something of value

the point is to become aware that you do not 'owe' any debt after 'closing costs', so do not agree to a dead-pledge (mortgage) which reads that you do

God did not put a money price tag on anything created in this world; we have dominion and inheritance in covenant; so, the 'money' is just an illusion and a scheme created by man

come out of her and render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's; it's 'their' game and 'they' will ultimately be responsible for what 'they' do

[mikecz]

Quick question,

Why is it written on a receipt or at least a carbon on my check "Not Negotiable". Can someone expand on this. What benefit would there be to negotiating a receipt?

Also, assuming the check is negotiable with a blank endorsement, that check can be bought and sold by whoever, basically the bearer at that point can negotiate it. You have given title to your funds, or at least a type of promissory note to pay at some point in the future, to the bank. What we are trying to do is make the bearer limited correct? We want that deposited check or cash or whatever, to not be traded openly, and only have a specific payee. We want it to not be negotiated further. Those funds can only exist in one place, the bank vault, and cannot be traded elsewhere. The remedy clause is well described here, but, in essence, isn't this what the stamp is accomplishing?

[Michael Joseph]

Quick question,

Why is it written on a receipt or at least a carbon on my check "Not Negotiable". Can someone expand on this. What benefit would there be to negotiating a receipt?

Also, assuming the check is negotiable with a blank endorsement, that check can be bought and sold by whoever, basically the bearer at that point can negotiate it. You have given title to your funds, or at least a type of promissory note to pay at some point in the future, to the bank. What we are trying to do is make the bearer limited correct? We want that deposited check or cash or whatever, to not be traded openly, and only have a specific payee. We want it to not be negotiated further. Those funds can only exist in one place, the bank vault, and cannot be traded elsewhere. The remedy clause is well described here, but, in essence, isn't this what the stamp is accomplishing?

A receipt is evidence of Title and therefore it has value...

[Keith Alan]

A receipt is evidence of Title and therefore it has value...

True, but I suppose someone could sell the non negotiable instrument.

[Michael Joseph]

I suppose you are right - but it cannot be assigned. Many times when I don't feel like visiting a bank, I just take the check made out to me and assign it to another party. An Allonge comes in handy to show chain of title.

Look it up. You will be pleased with what you find.

Shalom,
MJ

[mikecz]

I suppose you are right - but it cannot be assigned. Many times when I don't feel like visiting a bank, I just take the check made out to me and assign it to another party. An Allonge comes in handy to show chain of title.

Look it up. You will be pleased with what you find.

Shalom,
MJ

So a check is basically transferring title to money from one individual to another. When you endorse it, you are agreeing to the terms of the title transfer. Unless you cash it, really, it still is just a contract. The bank, after it is endorsed in blank, "cashes" it from the drawing bank, and now holds title to it. You loan them the check the second you give it to the teller. Really, outside special circumstances, the payee is the only one that can agree or endorse it. When it is endorsed, the "contract" is enacted, correct?

You can sign over a check to someone else by just putting "pay to the order of... "name"" then signing it below. One assignment can fit on the back of a check, other further assignments may require an allonge. The receiving party, the one you signed it over to, has to provide an endorsement in order to cash/deposit it.

I'm actually dealing with a chain of title on my property now, so it's interesting to think of checks in this context. I can't trace my property assignments yet back to the original Land patent, I'm actually working on this now. It's also interesting to think of a receipt as proof of a transfer of title. At a homestore, you may purchase a hammer. The title sits with "Lowe's", the retailer. You give them money or credit card, whatever, and they give you a receipt, or proof of title transfer. You now have the hammer, and have a receipt to prove a legal transfer of title happened.

How can one endorse a check as to accept the terms of the contract, but not sign legal title over to the bank. I think this is why the signature card makes sense. You can endorse all day, and put cash into your account, but, any "money" deposited in that account is construed to transfer title to the bank. Correct?

[Michael Joseph]

A check is NOT legal tender. It is a private issue. But it is evidence of title transfer. Therefore, you can write one check and assign it an unlimited number of times before any bank receives the deposit. An alonge is just evidence of chain of title. So then an Alonge is a Trust Indenture - passing title from a Grantor to a Grantee.

Each party will either make a demand for lawful money or not.


Demand is made for Lawful Money per 12 USC 411 by: Signature
PAY TO THE ORDER OF : Name of Business Entity or Person


Shalom,
MJ

[Anthony Joseph]

back to promissory notes...

here is an interesting in-depth explanation as to what transpires when one goes to the bank for a "loan"

Attachment 1558

i do not agree with the "court approach" toward the end as it invokes a jurisdiction other than common law

however, the bank mechanics explained is spot on in my opinion and it nearly parrots the oath-sworn testimony of the man (banker rep); Lawrence V. Morgan [Morgan... hmmm] in the Credit River case (i read the actual transcript testimony once but i can't find it anywhere now if anyone has a source to that transcript i would be much appreciative to receive the info)

which goes back to what i wrote earlier; the only amount rightfully due to the bank at a "closing" are the "closing costs"; to prepare and submit the paperwork for the transaction to go through

the bank does not risk a penny of its own assets when a "loan" process is done

no lawful consideration, no valid contract

no voice, no claim

[mikecz]

Ok so let me get this straight.

1. I create a new for of currency with my mortgage. Basically I sign a mortgage for 150,000, and boom, that is now currency. (Do they deposit the mortgage or the promissory note, because these are 2 separate things.)

2. The bank recognizes the 150,000 as currency, and opens a checking account in my name, and puts 150,000 into that account. The exchange from mortgage currency to real money occurs here.

3. The bank then cuts a 150,000 check to me, which in most cases are forwarded to the seller. Lets just say for this case I own my home free and clear. So they get the equity in my home by changing the mortgage to a check which they cut.

4. They now have equity, and I owe them lawful money. For this money changing service, they charge an interest rate.

This is where I'm stuck. What gives the mortgage value as "legal tender", or the ability of the bank to simply place it in a deposit account is the collateral in the house PLUS the ability to pay it back. Basically I'm creating money out of thin air by writing up the mortgage and giving it to the bank. What this is saying is the bank shouldn't be able to place it in a deposit account. They should figuratively pull money out of their bank vaults, deplete their cash, and wait for repayment on their note they bought. I get that. But they don't do this. They take the mortgage, and issue you a bullshit bank check, or promise to pay, and keep the mortgage as real cash in a deposit account. The liability, or "balancing" transaction is a liability to pay the check they just cut you. They can sell the mortgage, whatever..

What happens when that 150k bullshit check given to you by the bank is placed in the sellers bank. What does that entry look like.


***Edit Really the correct way to look at this would be if I wanted to buy someone's house. I would issue them a mortgage note, assume legal tender, and they would take it as payment for their house. The seller would then go to the bank, and sell the mortgage for CASH. A direct conversion of legal tender for legal tender.

With the mortgage you gave them a promise to pay with interest and collateral, which is cash in their vaults, a sellable item. For it they gave you a promise to pay, a liability in the form of a bullshit bank check. Thats a pretty good deal for the bank. I gave them an asset/cash or legal tender with interest backed by collateral, they gave a negotiable promise to pay. By the way, they refuse your promise to pay "bank checks" back. You have to give them lawful money.

[Anthony Joseph]

fancy bookkeeping is the nature of "banking"

the point is that the source of the credit "loaned" is the man who put pen to paper

the "bank" did not risk $150,000 from its own assets

the "bank" gained the equity (value of $150,000 by converting/deposting the signed note); and, a lien on property through processing of paper and fancy bookkeeping

the man lost the value of the note; and, owes a debt plus interest with a lien on property if debt is not paid