Originally Posted by DTBA
Could you please use the forum's formatting so not to break up your sentences?
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.From my understanding signing a check is not endorsing it as we all have been lead to believe.
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
