Lawful Money and the Bank

[allodial]

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.

(Above from a dictionary by an Alexander M. Burrill)



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

[doug-again]

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]

Stunning, i'm bookmarking this.

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]

'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.

[shikamaru]

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

Droid does .

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]

Droid does .

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.