A regular deposit of lawful money.

[RThomas]

A possible non-confrontational and non-endorsement for checks: ‘A regular deposit of lawful money.’

From Bouviers 1856 (online),

REGULAR DEPOSIT. One where the thing deposited must be returned. It is distinguished from an irregular deposit.


IRREGULAR DEPOSIT. This name is given to that kind of deposit, where the thing deposited need not be returned; as, where a man deposits, in the usual way, money in bank for safe keeping, for in this case the title to the identical money becomes vested in the bank, and he receives in its place other money.

Hence, a lawful (substantive) deposit cannot be replaced with a legal (form of law) interpretation of that deposit.

[Brian]

Good find!

[David Merrill]

Thanks! I agree - a good find. Non-endorsement of paychecks does not seem to be much of an issue. We have a thread and member Karl Nathan sharing his experience but I think it more that he is in a small community and friendly with the people at the bank. Being close and friendly, believe it or not, is the source of the confrontation! In other words, speaking openly in conversation and explaining things that need no explanation is what is causing the illusion that the bank can abstain from the non-endorsement transactions. Karl Nathan prefers to be polite than to just tell his friends - Just do it!

The confrontation I am concerned about is that The Memo seems to have circulated (from the OCC?) so that when a customer support manager calls the attorney about the Signature Card for electronic transfers, before any conversation can occur, the attorney is warning, Do not allow any extra verbiage on the Signature Card form! It is traditional to accept a scribbled signature, sometimes only a first letter scribble. So what would be the problem with changing my signature to "Lawful Money"?

[EZrhythm]

Yes, GREAT find RThomas!

Exactly, David! On certain documents I have changed my signature to, "Without Prejudice".

[shikamaru]

Do note:

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?332-Deposit-account

[RThomas]

David,

I agree that there is nothing wrong with your form of endorsement. It is my nature to always seek improvement in what I know and what I do.

Shikamaru,

The definitions in blacks 1 through 5 of regular and irregular deposits (and general vs. special (>sounds like jurisdiction<)) expound on what I posted above which conceptually says the same as your noted post but in different words. Blacks 6 and forward removed the definitions. There are two non-identical types of money being used but the sum is the same. The definitions in Blacks show how the conversion takes place. Your paycheck (with a blank endorsement) is a general irregular deposit and its identical money is that type with substance which is loaned to the bank (they get vested title). They take your substantive money and (without disclosure) give back debt money (not ‘identical,’ but ‘other money’). These two monies are 180 degrees the opposite (mirror images) with the same sum (Blacks uses the terms ‘not the same money’ along with ‘a like sum’).

RThomas

[shikamaru]

Shikamaru,

The definitions in blacks 1 through 5 of regular and irregular deposits (and general vs. special (>sounds like jurisdiction<)) expound on what I posted above which conceptually says the same as your noted post but in different words. Blacks 6 and forward removed the definitions. There are two non-identical types of money being used but the sum is the same. The definitions in Blacks show how the conversion takes place. Your paycheck (with a blank endorsement) is a general irregular deposit and its identical money is that type with substance which is loaned to the bank (they get vested title). They take your substantive money and (without disclosure) give back debt money (not ‘identical,’ but ‘other money’). These two monies are 180 degrees the opposite (mirror images) with the same sum (Blacks uses the terms ‘not the same money’ along with ‘a like sum’).

RThomas

I completely concur.

The attachment of the link by me was my sad attempt to get more traffic to the Lex Mercatoria area of the board ....LOL.

[David Merrill]

I am proposing that the signature is quite flexible and would solve things for Karl Nathan too.

If at my boss's bank, the full non-endorsement, since that goes over for cashing my paycheck. At my bank I could sign "Lawful Money" or "Regular Deposit of Lawful Money". The teller would say, this is not the signature on your Signature Card and I would say, Let me correct the Signature Card.

Planet Merrill can be fun!

[David Merrill]

P.S. Thinking this through a bit. You got that verbiage from 1856 (Bouvier's). So that was way before 1913 and 1933 when irregular deposits became the norm.

In other words you would be demanding that your deposit be regarded as a "regular" deposit - that you did not want the bankers to do anything "irregular" with it like holding it in reserve for loans and fractional lending.

Good find! Now you have me wondering if it might go over better than the, ? My guess is that the attorneys who gave it any thought at all would justify things by saying, Abnormal is the New Normal. By regular, he must mean Regular.

[RThomas]

David,

The definitions were in Blacks up till 1990 when the 6th edition came out. Your thoughts are the same as mine; few would question it up front. Only the most learned attorneys would catch it. You're reversing their projected confusion back to them. It could be slightly expanded to “A regular deposit of lawful money for credit of identical money.” With proper inquiry this may position them to have to admit that your prior deposits were not considered regular and that you were not credited with lawful money but given an equal sum of ‘other’ but ‘not the same’ ‘specie’ of money. This may be the way to force payment of gold and silver ‘specie’ by weight (dollars) as opposed to Federal Reserve Notes denominated as an equivalent ‘sum’ of dollars. In other words, your checks might have to be paid ‘dollar for dollar’ in specie and not an equivalent ‘sum’ of ‘other’ money.

A blank or general endorsement might be your oath spoken granting general jurisdiction to treat your deposit as they wish and repay you with any form of money they wish, thus your deposit would be considered irregular. A special endorsement might be the same as a special grant of jurisdiction for a specific purpose for your deposit that it be treated as a regular deposit (i.e. I deposit $100 dollars in gold and I want $100 dollars in gold paid back (same specie)). This is clearly a regular accounting of your deposit and what most people who are still confused over forms of money think they have today. We know that today’s normal bank practices with their treatment of deposits are irregular (a conversion is occurring).

A general irregular deposit is a loan to the bank. At least as early as 1937 all deposits were presumed to be general deposits. I’m still searching for earlier cases to see if a change took place and at what period of time.

See: Woolley v. City of Natchez, 89 F. 2d 937 - Circuit Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit 1937
89 F.2d 937 (1937)


The amounts deposited stood and remained as a credit to the city, and subject to its withdrawal until actually applied to the payment of the bonds and coupons. It is equally elementary that all deposits in a bank are general unless at the time of making there is a definite, special agreement to the contrary. It is therefore elementary law that the presumption with reference to a bank deposit is that it is general, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

[David Merrill]

Thank you.

[RThomas]

I want to add another thought to this thread. That thought is that demanding lawful money to be returned to you via a non-endorsement may not be the same as demanding via declaration or a ‘special’ (think of jurisdiction) endorsement that the fruits of your labor be recognized as equivalent to lawful (substantive) money and that it is not a loan with no repayment expected in kind (i.e. same ‘specie,’ not the same ‘sum’ in other money or currency (an irregular deposit)). If the presumption is that your deposit is ‘irregular’ and ‘general’ than a demand for lawful money may not rebut the presumption given to your purpose of ‘deposit.’ In other words one should demand what the purpose of their deposit is (safekeeping) where you retain title and then demand the same ‘money’ or specie in return. This would rebut any presumption of a loan being made with unspecified repayment terms, which would leave any bank the right to determine repayment and the form of money to repay with (other money). If you do not define your deposit than the presumption that your deposit is ‘general’ stands and a demand for lawful money to be repaid is without merit and results in other money (debt money), hence, one will still be given FRN’s. Conceptually one may need to separate a demand for lawful money to be returned on a deposit, from the demand that your deposit (the fruits of your ‘substantive’ labor) be recognized as the same (equivalent) to the agreement in ‘substantive’ ‘dollars’ on the front of your check and not an equivalent ‘sum’ of ‘other’ forms of money denominated in 'dollars'.

P.S. What I share above is merely what I see (my thoughts from my imagination). It is is not intended to say that you must see the same (accept my images).

[David Merrill]

I follow that clearly. To me, what you are saying is probably an accurate application. - All the way back to the Credit River Money Decision for example. The bank put up no consideration, so your credit was the only consideration.

The birth certificate goes a long way toward your Credit Rating - as it identifies you that way, in the legal name and often TO BE PART OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM WHICH IS A PROPER INCOME TAX.

This all, what you said, creates the illusion that there is an account. After all, they were never giving out these FRN/stock certificates in the Fed for free. Endorsement costs you a Return of Income. And therefore the stock certificates stay ready for redemption if you redeem them. Within the Federal Reserve System FRNs are money. But from without it, FRNs are stock certificates in the Fed.

My impression of Motla68's proposal about the 1099 C Form is that one is skirting about on a border, dancing dangerously on the top of a fence.

[RThomas]

David,

I am going to be busy over the next few days and will add more when life allows. Nobody has achieved the ‘holy grail,’ receiving actual money of substance for the substance of their labor. In short the results many are getting here may be just the Fed’s way of carrying on and using band aids to prevent any mortal bleeding. I am beginning to see that there may be one more step that need be taken. My thoughts are still in motion.

RThomas

[motla68]

My impression of Motla68's proposal about the 1099 C Form is that one is skirting about on a border, dancing dangerously on the top of a fence.

Here is a little more on how that works out, we are only keeping the state honorable by correctly reporting events. This is from the IRS instructions for form 1099-C:
"" When Is a Debt Canceled
A debt is deemed canceled on the date an identifiable event occurs
or, if earlier, the date of the actual discharge if you choose to file
Form 1099-C for the year of cancellation. An identifiable event is:
1. A discharge in bankruptcy under Title 11 of the U.S. Code.
For information on certain discharges in bankruptcy not required to
be reported, see Exceptions on this page. ""

I believe these FRNS to be promissory notes that discharges the debts since they are not backed by anything. Also how do I know they do not have any other bonds attached to this event (account with the court) worth thousands of dollars?

Here is the kicker though to why I think certain methods of taking care of tickets completely disappear from the public record, when it is revealed at certain names are " Property of the State" as shown on Psyop's parking ticket shown, starting out with another clip from IRS instructions form 1099-C:
"" CAUTION
Do not file Form 1099-C when fraudulent debt is canceled
due to identity theft. Form 1099-C is to be used only for
cancellations of debts for which the debtor actually incurred
the underlying debt. ""

When we reveal that we know the named account is " property of the state " after they tried to identify us as the name, it is identity theft they tried to take from us, so instead of suffering any liabilities for identity theft they get rid of that accounting from the public record as soon as possible just in case someone tries to file 1099-C for it.
But of course your not going to get them to admit to any of that on the record, they are not going to accuse themselves as we should not be accusing ourselves of being statutory employees that have an oath of office or appointment of duty. They will not stay honorable unless we operate honorable to ourselves.
This is another example of how we can be our own worst enemy sometimes.

Furthermore, can the state prove they actually incurred an underlying debt? I don't think so.