Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 70

Thread: What I have learned so far.

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    45

    Talking What I have learned so far.

    Starting with checks.

    These are "NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS" per the Uniform Commercial Code. These instruments can be endorsed. From my understanding signing a check is not endorsing it as we all have been lead to believe. Signature is authorization, for something to happen or take place from that party who signs. It's permission to proceed as all terms are agreed upon. Endorsement of a check is creating a detail on how the check needs to be processed or known as a "Restrictive Endorsement". It is indeed explained in your bank agreement about restrictive endorsement or at least it is in mine. I collected the agreement from my bank and read it. In my account agreement, in order for a restrictive endorsement to be used, it must be agreed upon with the bank prior before it can be used. However, using lawful money demand is indeed in there title 12 banks and banking code that governs them. So isn't this already pre-accepted as a restrictive endorsement through there own code? Using lawful money restrictive endorsement limits there ability to use fractional banking on the instrument when deposited with the bank or cashed.

    Question: Banks are in the business of purchasing securities, is a check a security such as a promissory note? Seems to me all the features are there?

    Please inform me if any information here is incorrect so corrections can be made. There is enough misleading in the world today.
    Last edited by DTBA; 06-15-18 at 09:07 PM. Reason: Request for reformatting.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    45
    Direct Deposit

    Direct Deposit is a scheme used to not only hinder you as a human being to inter-vein and choose how you want your money to function, it is used to reduce paperwork. This is what most companies have gone to in order to pay there employee's. This instantly transfers funds to the bank of your choice which defaults to private credit from the FED. Which is an automatic loan to the bank from you each pay period for the bank to use those funds as they see fit. Now using the process of modifying the signature card for the bank account changes this as all transactions are demanded to be in lawful money regardless what type of transaction it is. This is attached to the account directly at that point and then can be acted upon. Which is a really nice work around.

    W-4 withholding agreement

    The W-4 from my understanding is indeed the original contract agreement to be paid in private credit script. This agreement is not mandatory as most believe. These are links to the eCFR Voluntary withholding agreements for title 26 Internal Revenue stating this fact:

    https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-id..._3_61&rgn=div8

    https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-20...31-3402p-1.pdf

    That said, if you still use private credit script or private credit in general, the fee's/liabilities generated are still owed.
    They were generated from a different manner and must be paid at the end of the year.

    Question: If the W-4 agreement was never entered into, yet lawful money demand was never put on record, is the fee still owed?

    The truth is in the details.

    Please inform me of any mistakes. This is my understanding of this subject.
    Last edited by DTBA; 06-15-18 at 09:11 PM. Reason: Request for reformatting and incorrect link to the ecfr

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by DTBA View Post
    Starting with checks.

    These are "NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS" per the Uniform Commercial Code.

    These instruments can be endorsed. From my understanding signing a check is not endorsing it as we all have been lead to believe.

    Signature is authorization...

    Could you please use the forum's formatting so not to break up your sentences?

    From my understanding signing a check is not endorsing it as we all have been lead to believe.
    When you sign the backside of the check above the line specifying to endorse above the line, that is endorsement. There might be some kind of attorney fine print in the security agreement that most people never read, like you imply. Ever since the misuse of the NESARA Bill, that never made it to the Floor BTW, I have always considered secret and private law as of no effect and unenforceable. If you know no different though, your confusion will be construed as consent.

    After all; you signed it.

    Be careful what you sign.

    My first instinct when somebody hands me something to sign is to fold it up and tuck it in my shirt pocket. Sometimes they object and tell me that I have to sign it and then the questions come out of my mouth... Sometimes they want the proposal back and I just say, "I will look it over later when I am not in such a hurry."

    In the last couple days I have been dealing with three good faith FOIA attempts to acquire the oath of office of a Mr. John Glover ROBERTS. Supposing that his oath does not exist, or that it says "SO HELP ME GOD." rather than the prescribed, "So help me God." then he is unbound and a fraud.

    Name:  FOIA online ROBERTS no records released by DoJ.jpg
Views: 570
Size:  151.5 KB

    Now consider that the President never signs an oath of office at all. His oath is such a public event that there is no need for an affirmation; the American people as witness negates any need for a signed written oath. But look here:


    It would take a lot of catching up to explain fully so it is redacted for now. The oath is a bond, and that is a financial instrument. You are on a great journey but mine has been explained in the first sentences of my career autobiography http://tinyurl.com/DMVPATROON. Very simple - explain remedy in a few sentences. So with that in mind you might get it that I have cancelled the inauguration and bond for fraud because the "minister" ROBERTS is a fraud. I cancelled it from the church - ecclesiastic - and a global condition of redemption.

    I feel like I relate to your journey though. And you are still trying to press some illusions; legend, myth, parable, hallucination and fable into nice round holes. When you see how elegantly I have proven out that there was never any inauguration of lawful effect that day, then you might better understand some of the extra baggage you try to pack into a simple understanding of natural right and divine heritage.

    Often somebody will put out a premise I disagree with and then build upon it. So here we have the proposal that when you endorse a check, it is not endorsing the check because there is some fine print in the agreement. Therefore if you want to scan that for us to read, then we can move forward if it is my commentary that you are looking for. I suggest that you take an hour to read the bank's Tariff. They will pretend there is no such thing for half an hour then bring it out and insist that you sit there in the lobby, or in a closed conference room reading it. That will open your eyes I should think.

    If you like being informed though, you might care to read the Tariff before you even open up an account. As I recall the tariff is the licensing agreement with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency before your bank can do business.
    Last edited by David Merrill; 04-14-18 at 10:13 PM.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    45
    I'm very sorry for the formatting. I never really blog or use forums a lot til now. I realized it was a mess after the fact. Haven't been back on in a while but I fixed it and made it more readable. Thank you for your help on the formatting.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    45
    SUCCESS!! I have processed two checks with the verbiage of non endorsement and am using the title 12 ss 411 certified copies as my defense if things go south or questions get asked. It seems to work. Also my bank is a registered federal reserve commercial bank as well!!! Plus one of the checks was from the Ky state treasury. I am interested in how this will turn out when they get processed. The treasury check however was first declined due to my bank usually following the 6 month rule I found out which is actually UCC 4-404. I had them accept it due to the fact of the KRS 41.370 statute and the fact I got the Ky treasury involved.

    quick link
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/4/4-404
    Last edited by DTBA; 06-15-18 at 11:45 PM. Reason: left out valuable information of my experiance.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    45
    Mr Merrill,

    Thank you for your inquiry and by all means dissect my posts, agree or disagree. Prove me right or wrong etc. I welcome it. It is how we learn and teach. From my understanding, when you sign a document, you have bonded your self to the words and agree with everything that is on that document. Such as in your video when you were talking about "bonding your substance" to a check signed with a blank endorsement to operate into default private credit script. A naked contract without full disclosure. As the signature, I was referring to the act of notary when you can notarize your own documents with stamp, signature, and thumbprint. (I believe that is the correct three... will verify and correct if not) I assume it functions the same way... signature is authorization, thumbprint is verification, and a stamp puts it into the federal realm of things via the post office. The post office is a very large entity I found out and they do more then just mail. They are responsible for all communications for the military and government. Isn't this the same thing the court clerk does to documents when she signs the stamp? But isn't the judge suppose to do that and not the clerk? Anyway off point. My bank agreement I have read and it did have the restrictive endorsement section in it but for the life of me can no longer find it. I have found every other piece of "research documents" except that. But when I find it or just get another one I will most definitely post it. I do like to be informed though. That way when I talk to someone about this stuff, I am able to enforce it with documentation. I'm still new to this anyways. You and the others hear are way more experienced and are more knowledgeable then me.

    a site I use sometimes to look up stuff quickly. May need a better more informed page.
    https://definitions.uslegal.com/r/re...e-endorsement/

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by DTBA View Post
    SUCCESS!! I have processed two checks with the verbiage of non endorsement and am using the title 12 ss 411 certified copies as my defense if things go south or questions get asked. It seems to work. Also my bank is a registered federal reserve commercial bank as well!!! Plus one of the checks was from the Ky state treasury. I am interested in how this will turn out when they get processed. The treasury check however was first declined due to my bank usually following the 6 month rule I found out which is actually UCC 4-404. I had them accept it due to the fact of the KRS 41.370 statute and the fact I got the Ky treasury involved.

    quick link
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/4/4-404

    Source links are always welcome and a great education online.

    Quote Originally Posted by DTBA View Post
    Mr Merrill,

    Thank you for your inquiry and by all means dissect my posts, agree or disagree. Prove me right or wrong etc. I welcome it. It is how we learn and teach. From my understanding, when you sign a document, you have bonded your self to the words and agree with everything that is on that document. Such as in your video when you were talking about "bonding your substance" to a check signed with a blank endorsement to operate into default private credit script. A naked contract without full disclosure. As the signature, I was referring to the act of notary when you can notarize your own documents with stamp, signature, and thumbprint. (I believe that is the correct three... will verify and correct if not) I assume it functions the same way... signature is authorization, thumbprint is verification, and a stamp puts it into the federal realm of things via the post office. The post office is a very large entity I found out and they do more then just mail. They are responsible for all communications for the military and government. Isn't this the same thing the court clerk does to documents when she signs the stamp? But isn't the judge suppose to do that and not the clerk? Anyway off point. My bank agreement I have read and it did have the restrictive endorsement section in it but for the life of me can no longer find it. I have found every other piece of "research documents" except that. But when I find it or just get another one I will most definitely post it. I do like to be informed though. That way when I talk to someone about this stuff, I am able to enforce it with documentation. I'm still new to this anyways. You and the others hear are way more experienced and are more knowledgeable then me.

    a site I use sometimes to look up stuff quickly. May need a better more informed page.
    https://definitions.uslegal.com/r/re...e-endorsement/
    Isn't this the same thing the court clerk does to documents when she signs the stamp? But isn't the judge suppose to do that and not the clerk?

    The clerk stamps the top of filed Docs. I should spend some more time going into the clerk's rules and oath.

    Attachment 5107

    The clerk of court is obviously in more authority than any judge. But then I suppose I will need to spend some effort to find out if certain clerks have signed deviant oaths of office.

    But isn't the judge suppose to do that and not the clerk?

    The judge is more an arbitrator of the rules and the clerk specializes in the rules of court. Everything is supposed to happen according to the rules. But as one suitor pointed out today:

    Aristotle if equity's role is to prevent the law from adhering too rigidly to its own rules and principles when those rules and principles produce injustice. Hence equity permits judges to depart from legal principle in order to promote justice. How do i preference redemption as equity?
    Possibly a little poetic for execution but I like the writing style.

    My bank agreement I have read and it did have the restrictive endorsement section in it but for the life of me can no longer find it. I have found every other piece of "research documents" except that.

    If you already have an account, go get another copy of it. Just say you have misplaced yours.

    While you are at it, ask to read the Tariff. It is the agreement between your bank and the OCC in order to operate. They will pretend that they do not know what you are asking about. Then the manager should finally let you read it in front of a security camera, not photos.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    45
    Indeed I will work on getting another copy. May be Friday cause I work before and after bank hours except on Fridays. The bank tariff is interesting to know about. Makes perfect sense as too the comptroller of the currency regulates all banking. Comparable to a state wanting to participate in the "National Driver Registrar" federal program to issue driver's license per title 49 Transportation.

    I was reading a scan on another topic "LAW states registration not required" which I found out comes from the 73rd congress 1st session document no. 43. However I seem to only find the text in non validated sites but they all read the same. It's titled "Contracts Payable in Gold".

    Links provided:
    http://pacinlaw.us/pdf/sup/Senate_Resolution_62.php

    https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-htyA...%2043_djvu.txt

    http://www.freedom-school.com/readin...le-in-gold.pdf

    They reference the document from GPO.gov but here is the link for the congress records. They reference it to be printed as a senate document but can't find the reading.

    link:
    https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pag...B-1933-pt2-v77

    Anyway, this congress session seems to show that ultimate ownership is vested in the State and only provides individual's user ship of there said property. Which is why a license is required to do anything now that is normally lawful. We do not own anything. However, being United States (Currency) Notes can function as minted coin, Isn't paying for property with lawful money make true ownership vested in the buyer? My mortgage promissory note states this on the very first line "for all payments to be in lawful money of the united states". Well, that is another argument I used with the bank as it's in there contracts and title 12 ss 411 says FRN's can't be lawful money. I stated am just trying to fulfill my debt/note.

    Thoughts?
    Last edited by DTBA; 06-17-18 at 03:30 AM. Reason: typo

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    45
    Expanding on my other statement "But isn't the judge suppose to do that and not the clerk?"

    I thought the documents that are in court and stamped must be signed by the parties that are trying the case as they are on the same plane or field. So the judge is suppose to have a true oath of office signed and under seal that matches the jurisdiction on the document that needs to be tried. Therefore, the judge has standing to try the case. If the oath does not match, then he cannot try the case. If the clerk signs, that makes the clerk the judge but as you stated, need to learn more about the clerk and there obligations. This would put meaning to someone demanding to see the judges oath to verify they have jurisdiction or "challenge jurisdiction" as they call it.

    p.s. I'm not sure if these responses are being put in order. I am clicking reply on the posts at the bottom.
    Last edited by DTBA; 06-17-18 at 03:21 AM. Reason: added another thought

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    45
    I have my account agreement now. I may have to retract my statement about indorsement. However it is listed as restrictive legend. Below are the attached images.

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]5142 [/ATTACH]

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]5141 [/ATTACH]

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]5140 [/ATTACH]

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]5143 [/ATTACH]
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Last edited by DTBA; 06-28-18 at 12:56 AM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •