Resistance and Refusal by Banks

[Chex]

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-does-pay-to-order-mean.htm

Former bank teller here...

(1) "Pay to the order of " means that you are signing the check over to the bank. Why would you want to give the bank your money? You wouldn't. I don't recommend this endorsement.

(2) You can endorse a check with only your signature. This is acceptable. However, if you lose it, someone else may attempt to endorse it below you and cash it.

(3) Adding "for deposit only" is designed to prevent the above situation, restricting the check for deposit. This is not required, but it is the safest endorsement, assuming you want to deposit your check.

(4) A bank can stamp an endorsement. If you want to deposit money into my account, just write a check to me, take it to my bank, and tell them that you want to put it in [b]Bearflag's checking account. The teller will stamp the back of the check "for deposit only" with my account number.

Adding your account number with your endorsement tells the bank where the money went or is supposed to go. If your deposit slip and check get separated at the bank, then the bank can still put the check where it's supposed to go by the account number on the back.

Every time you write a check to pay a bill or at a store, you give a stranger your account number, address, name, and signature. The risk of identity theft from an endorsement seems minimal.

Lastly, don't endorse checks until you are about to negotiate them. You don't want to lose endorsed checks. See (2) above.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-119108.html

SPECIAL DEPOSIT. A deposit made of a particular thing with the depositary: it is distinguished from an irregular deposit.

2. When a thing has been specially deposited with a depositary, the title to it remains with the depositor, and if it should be lost, the loss will fall upon him. When, on the contrary, the deposit is irregular, as where money is deposited in a bank, the title to which is transferred to the bank, if it be, lost, the loss will be borne by the bank. This will result from the same principle; the loss will fall, in both instances, on the owner of the thing, according to the rule res perit domino. See 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 1 054.

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

irregular deposit

Nobody taught me that in school.

[David Merrill]

Thank you Chex;


It is good to have such experience on the board.

Lastly, don't endorse checks until you are about to negotiate them.

The key to understanding your post in relation to non-endorsement (demand for lawful money) is in the word negotiate. Pay to... is intended as said, to pay. Pay to the Order of... in the context of lawful money opens the instrument up to be a negotiable instrument. That means it can be traded for a variety of various items as in US notes (in the form of FRNs since 1971) or for Federal Reserve notes.

This is probably something that you would never think about even as a bank teller unless you were discussing somebody's non-endorsement demand for lawful money.

Do you think the fellow ordering the checks will get them "Pay to..."?

[mikecz]

If not for anything else, just having "pay to" also more correctly stated pay to bearer, doesn't require the current holder of the check to produce identification. The check could be written to anyone, and anyone could cash it. If the check is lost, whoever may pick it up can cash/deposit it. If the check was a Pay to the order of, then the payee were to endorse it, it becomes "bearer paper" and acts similar to "pay to", as any person who picks up the check is now able to complete a transaction with it.

I have a few hired hands that don't have identification, lets say they are Canadians. They hate checks because of this reason, id needs to be shown. I will frequently write checks to a brother, or sister or closest of kin who has a valid id. The kin will cash and forward the money to the hired hand.

As I understand it, and my next check I will complete this process, I will cross out "pay to the order of" and change it with initials to "pay to bearer". The hired hand should have no problem. As I see it, the check with this statement becomes the same as cash. A good way to add anonymity to checks. (I could also write a check to myself, endorse it, and give it to him, the check has now become bearer paper, really as good as cash)

What I don't quite understand is where the lawful money angle comes into play? I understand the negotiation part of your description, but, pay to really means pay to bearer. It doesn't have to do with the execution as it only defines who may complete a transaction with the instrument. I believe that step comes with the endorsement or non-endorsement of said check. Thinking of it another way, having a Pay to bearer on the check, then a signature on the back is completed with an endorsement then allows the check to become used by the bank a a FRN correct? Did I mention this forum is awesome.

[mikecz]

Read this. It is incredibly enlightening.

http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/08/fractional-reserve-banking-contracts-of-deposit-and-the-title-transfer-theory-of-contract/

[David Merrill]

If not for anything else, just having "pay to" also more correctly stated pay to bearer, doesn't require the current holder of the check to produce identification. The check could be written to anyone, and anyone could cash it. If the check is lost, whoever may pick it up can cash/deposit it. If the check was a Pay to the order of, then the payee were to endorse it, it becomes "bearer paper" and acts similar to "pay to", as any person who picks up the check is now able to complete a transaction with it.

I have a few hired hands that don't have identification, lets say they are Canadians. They hate checks because of this reason, id needs to be shown. I will frequently write checks to a brother, or sister or closest of kin who has a valid id. The kin will cash and forward the money to the hired hand.

As I understand it, and my next check I will complete this process, I will cross out "pay to the order of" and change it with initials to "pay to bearer". The hired hand should have no problem. As I see it, the check with this statement becomes the same as cash. A good way to add anonymity to checks. (I could also write a check to myself, endorse it, and give it to him, the check has now become bearer paper, really as good as cash)

What I don't quite understand is where the lawful money angle comes into play? I understand the negotiation part of your description, but, pay to really means pay to bearer. It doesn't have to do with the execution as it only defines who may complete a transaction with the instrument. I believe that step comes with the endorsement or non-endorsement of said check. Thinking of it another way, having a Pay to bearer on the check, then a signature on the back is completed with an endorsement then allows the check to become used by the bank a a FRN correct? Did I mention this forum is awesome.

There is a thread going about David Wynn MILLER and he is completely into sytax and the power of words. Trying to follow his parsing give me a headache so I still say there is something terribly wrong with his technology but that might be me, not him. I wonder if he sees this Burning Bush like I do. I see it inverted, as though somebody punched a fist into soft clay. - Rather than the bush coming off the page toward me. We do math in our heads and interpret complex information in our own way, and sometimes in common too.

Pay to the Order of...

To me that means the person following has an option about ordering currencies. Currencies are negotiable instruments. The check is a negotiable instrument. Currencies are traded all the time - we just don't think about that at the grocery cash register. We trade one form for chicken tenders etc. But we shirk our fiduciary responsibility to our household (estate) finances when we trade down. We are obligated as trustees of our financial health (and this especially goes for our family as shareholders in and beneficiaries of our estate) to always trade up. We have a treatise by the Informer floating around here where the non-endorsement demand was:

Exchanged for Credit on Account or Non-Negotiable (sometimes it was Non-Redeemable) Federal Reserve Notes of Equal (Face) Value.

It is illegal to create stock that is designed to depreciate in value. That is against the fundamental nature of fiduciary responsibility. However Congress did exactly that in 1913 creating the Fed to furnish elastic currency. This is the basis for my assertion that endorsing Fed notes is completely voluntary. It is the American people being duped into making a charitable donation to save the Fed when the 20-year charter expired in 1933. If I was wrong I doubt I could get so many people to agree with me. So try to understand the irony I see in people complaining about the Fed while they endorse its private credit?

The Pay to Bearer works fine in theory. I believe most bank tellers will require ID anyway. I have tried this I seem to recall in one form or another. If the manager is called though, I am sure Loss Management will be satisfied with the video and audio of the Bearer. I have a $50 Lottery ticket setting on my desk for weeks now. It was a gift and I scratched it and it is a winner! All tickets, transactions and winners are subject to Lottery Rules and State Law. I am assured that I do not need to sign anything but I am figuring the fellow who gave it to me will cash it in for me... If I subject my agent to State Law I feel removed by not being on 7-11 video, even though notice to the agent is notice to the principal and vice versa.

What I don't quite understand is where the lawful money angle comes into play? I understand the negotiation part of your description, but, pay to really means pay to bearer.

My assertion is that due to not being in the criminal syndicalism (Congress - 1913) until you show evidence you are - Innocent Until Proven Guilty - Pay to... specifies that inelastic and the most valuable currency available is the topic. - US notes. Those come in the form of FRNs since January of 1971 as specified by the Treasury, NOT CONGRESS. If you find a US note and take it to the grocery you will only get the face value in groceries though. Ergo my current gripe.

I am saying that pegging the US note to the FRN, a depreciating stock certificate in circulation, Congress overstepped the line between honest and dishonest. It was not until then that it happened. To reenact Title 31 into positive law they had to commit this act of forgery. I really think I have arrived at this crux of American financial history with the truth intact. This is where the rubber meets the road. It is the fraud and forgery that causes the IRS attorneys to back down every time.

By the way I have inquired into the brain trust and we only have one actual FrivPen bill and that was a suitor who started integrating Ed RIVERA's patriot mythology (example attached) into his Refusal for Cause US clerk instructions. It is like an inadvertant Sting, or borderline entrapment. He told the IRS attorneys that he is on dog food and all over the map and they decided to indict themselves with a $10K bill (of indictment against themselves). Maybe it is time to file a Criminal Complaint?

[mikecz]

David,

Today I went to my credit union and deposited my checks as usual. But, I began to ask the teller a series of questions related to our discussion.

Have you ever had anyone in here demand lawful money, or to hold their account in US bank notes?

Do you have any special accounts that aren't interest bearing?

I by signing this personal check through an endorsement, am handing you title to my money and granting you the right to loan it through the reserve system, is that correct?

That is when she called the manager. Then things got a little more interesting. I sat down with the Adam for over 30 minutes. We discussed the negotiable aspects of a check, in theory the whole pay to bearer, pay to the order of is very clear, but at the end of the day, indeed it is a negotiable instrument, and the bank has the power to choose to cash it or not. ID could be required or not, it all up to them. Then we got into US Notes vs FRNs, and began talking about my request of non-endorsement (That is to not allow them title to my money and give them the ability to stretch it through fractional reserve banking). Keep in mind this is a VERY conservative credit union. Either way, I told him what if I didn't agree to loaning my money to them and receiving and interest bearing account, what if I just wanted them to hold my money. At the end of the day, I am taking a risk loaning my money to them, for what, .2%? All I want is for them to act as a custodian, a guard for my money. He said, well, what's in it for you? I said, well, in my small way, I feel it my patriotic duty not to increase the national debt, and don't want to bolster the Federal Reserve, as I don't trust that system with my money. You could feel the power shift in the room a bit, he sat back in his chair and said, "I've never heard this before, if it's true, I may want to open an account like this." That statement was awesome. Either way, he is going to the powers that be to ask more questions.

I told him the biggest thing here is not whether your credit union will do it or not (because they may), but if it's even possible. Are there any fees, is it their fiduciary duty to their shareholders (members own shares of the credit union) to offer this as remedy. Anyways, I left on a positive note, we scheduled another meeting as a followup. I will keep you up to date on my findings. Either way David, you have started something. It's now clear to me we are a lot more free then we think, more times then not, through ignorance, we choose to be slaves. This indeed is a truly depressing reality.

[David Merrill]

David,

Today I went to my credit union and deposited my checks as usual. But, I began to ask the teller a series of questions related to our discussion.

Have you ever had anyone in here demand lawful money, or to hold their account in US bank notes?

Do you have any special accounts that aren't interest bearing?

I by signing this personal check through an endorsement, am handing you title to my money and granting you the right to loan it through the reserve system, is that correct?

That is when she called the manager. Then things got a little more interesting. I sat down with the Adam for over 30 minutes. We discussed the negotiable aspects of a check, in theory the whole pay to bearer, pay to the order of is very clear, but at the end of the day, indeed it is a negotiable instrument, and the bank has the power to choose to cash it or not. ID could be required or not, it all up to them. Then we got into US Notes vs FRNs, and began talking about my request of non-endorsement (That is to not allow them title to my money and give them the ability to stretch it through fractional reserve banking). Keep in mind this is a VERY conservative credit union. Either way, I told him what if I didn't agree to loaning my money to them and receiving and interest bearing account, what if I just wanted them to hold my money. At the end of the day, I am taking a risk loaning my money to them, for what, .2%? All I want is for them to act as a custodian, a guard for my money. He said, well, what's in it for you? I said, well, in my small way, I feel it my patriotic duty not to increase the national debt, and don't want to bolster the Federal Reserve, as I don't trust that system with my money. You could feel the power shift in the room a bit, he sat back in his chair and said, "I've never heard this before, if it's true, I may want to open an account like this." That statement was awesome. Either way, he is going to the powers that be to ask more questions.

I told him the biggest thing here is not whether your credit union will do it or not (because they may), but if it's even possible. Are there any fees, is it their fiduciary duty to their shareholders (members own shares of the credit union) to offer this as remedy. Anyways, I left on a positive note, we scheduled another meeting as a followup. I will keep you up to date on my findings. Either way David, you have started something. It's now clear to me we are a lot more free then we think, more times then not, through ignorance, we choose to be slaves. This indeed is a truly depressing reality.

Thank you for bringing this up about credit unions. It is my impression (upon the experiences of suitors) that credit unions are much more easy going about non-endorsement.


P.S. When you speak to him again you might mention the terms - Regular Deposit and Special Deposit.

[itsmymoney]

Thanks to all for educating some of us uninitiated in these matters. I am intending to open a new modified-agreement bank account within the next 2 weeks (or credit union) and will attempt to get my checks as 'Pay To' instead of the typical 'Pay To the Order of'. Questions I have regarding a lawful money transaction via checks payable to merchants:

If my account is a modified-agreement (R4LM novation on the signature card): Is my debt obligation satisfied at the time of the check transfer (payment from my bank to payee) if the check reads 'Pay To the Order Of'? I'm thinking just always issue 'Pay To' to avoid any doubt.

If my account is NOT a modified-agreement but all my deposits into that account are with lawful money, must one issue a 'Pay To' check to satisfy ones debt obligation where the payment is not further extended/loaned as a result?

I guess the bottom line here is, when is issuing a check 'safe' where the debt is not further extended as credit beyond that transaction where the payer would otherwise in effect be loaning the money to the payee (and his bank) instead of just 'buying goods and services'?

[David Merrill]

Thanks to all for educating some of us uninitiated in these matters. I am intending to open a new modified-agreement bank account within the next 2 weeks (or credit union) and will attempt to get my checks as 'Pay To' instead of the typical 'Pay To the Order of'. Questions I have regarding a lawful money transaction via checks payable to merchants:

If my account is a modified-agreement (R4LM novation on the signature card): Is my debt obligation satisfied at the time of the check transfer (payment from my bank to payee) if the check reads 'Pay To the Order Of'? I'm thinking just always issue 'Pay To' to avoid any doubt.

If my account is NOT a modified-agreement but all my deposits into that account are with lawful money, must one issue a 'Pay To' check to satisfy ones debt obligation where the payment is not further extended/loaned as a result?

I guess the bottom line here is, when is issuing a check 'safe' where the debt is not further extended as credit beyond that transaction where the payer would otherwise in effect be loaning the money to the payee (and his bank) instead of just 'buying goods and services'?

Actually this came up in discussion with the suitors about seven years back. When you change the check from Pay to the Order of to Pay to you deprive the payee of choice whether or not to redeem lawful money. So we chose not to. Unless of course it is a public utility, then you can choose how that utility redeems or not. Say it is the lawn boy. You might tell him his options and let him decide.

I find your two questions difficult because of perspective I suppose. You are in control of your demand or not. That is the courtesy extended to the lawn boy.

I have not made sense yet how Congress can peg an inelastic currency (US notes) to elastic currency in value honestly. With that little bit of nonsense preceeding what goes on behind the teller window at the bank, I am finding it very difficult to get bearings. I was in charge of calibrating machinery and test equipment at a large manufacturing firm and I think that may be my difficulty. I need some kind of a standard and beyond that teller window they have lost their bearing.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[itsmymoney]

DM, I'm still a bit unclear here and my apologies if I am not interpreting your explanation.

In simpler terms (for my perspective) let's say one's account is a 'lawful money' account either by signature card novation and/or deposits were restricted endorsements. Let's say the account is $200 lawful money, redeemed via novation on the payers check and payee's deposit slip. Payee/individual now wants to buy something with the money in that account, so...

If individual wants to pay in $100 cash, I believe the suitors are in favor of novating the demand on a withdrawal slip, for cash withdrawals. That is a 'redeeming transaction' of money with intent to purchase something (goods and services), correct?. Similarly, I would think, when purchasing goods and services with a $100 check from that account, that would be a 'redeeming transaction' as well, correct? So if this is true, then how does one restrict/prove that the $100 check transaction was redeemed in lawful money from the PAYER's perspective (the suitor in this case)? Perhaps stamping the demand on the receipt from the payee?

As I see it, there are always two 'redeeming transactions' in this practical scenario. The deposit and the withdrawal. If I am correct, then my concern is the 'redeeming transaction' aspect when paying for goods and services with a check. I see the cash withdrawal aspect and even further, buying a postal money order with that cash to pay for goods and services. I am trying to get my head around the 'check' transaction and how to document and prove that I purchased those goods and services with lawful money. If the signature card on the account has the demand novation then I would think the proof is documented there, as 'all transactions are demanded in lawful money'. If there is no novation on the card but deposits are all in lawful money, then I would think the suitor still needs to restrict the withdrawing aspect of said money (either cash or check) with his demand for lawful money against his purchases. If true, then my 'paying with a check' transaction confusion as stated above.

All clarifications are welcome, as I am trying to learn this so it becomes second nature.

[David Merrill]

I enjoy how you think.

The difficulty I have in correcting you, which is only trying to pursuade you to see it my way is that you might not need any correcting. Furthermore if I correct you then I might not learn as much from your posts as I could. I think that I can work from these two sentences:

As I see it, there are always two 'redeeming transactions' in this practical scenario. The deposit and the withdrawal.

The Demand works immediately on the backside of a paycheck if you are cashing it; which is a simultaneous deposit and withdrawal if you will. Deposits are not taxable as they are credit on account. So if you deposit your paycheck then you only sign your Demand to be consistent with doctrine. That means that you will be withdrawing funds later on a different paycheck, written by you to yourself often called a withdrawal slip. Or you can just write a check to CASH. The custom of changing the Signature Card is for electronic deposit from your employer and when you pull paperless withdrawals like with an ATM, or maybe even when you are in a hurry, forgot your stamp etc.

Equivalently you are telling your bank by Notice and/or Demand that all deposits are special. Not general or regular deposits.

[itsmymoney]

I enjoy how you think.

Well, the above is certainly humbling, David. As a 'newbie' I am simply asking questions and posing theories and scenarios that may or may not have been contemplated. I appreciate that you consider my thinking on this subject to be beneficial to the conversation.

As to your reply regarding 'redeeming transactions', I have learned previously from you (quite awhile ago) and others that the signature card novation is sort of a 'catch all' of your intent and demand to redeem all transactions on that account as lawful money. I am in the process of converting my monetary transactions to a 'financial hygiene' approach as that term has been coined (ironic...i.e coined/coinage...lawful money?) by TDL as you may know from CB's, and is probably already being executed by the many suitors on this site. This would entail (IMO), no credit cards, no loans (at least if possible, not bearing any FRB private credit), no personal checks to merchants, and the like.

Speaking of personal checks issued by a suitor to parties OTHER than yourself, it was telling (assumed) from your response the omission of personal checks to a merchant/entity as an example. I'm getting that this could perhaps create a 'liability' associated with further extending the FRB private credit. This would be the 'withdrawal' portion of the 'redeeming transaction' that I was referring to. I'm thinking that redeeming lawful money in cash and the subsequent purchase of a postal money order to pay a merchant/other entity will eliminate any doubt of extending private credit.

[David Merrill]

[itsmymoney]

I think the breakthrough then is that if you make your demand, on your Signature Card and you get a copy into the Record (evidence repository) even if the bank subsequently gives you difficulty and maybe rejects it and you have to change the non-endorsement - you have accomplished all you need to accomplish. Additionally you might indict the bank by filing the current "corrected" Signature Card into your evidence repository. Or more accurately publish (PACER) the bank's indictment.

Regarding 'even if the bank subsequently gives you difficulty and maybe rejects it and you have to change the non-endorsement...', are you referring to being rejected after the 3-day binding agreement? (another suitor mentioned this 3-day window as learned here at STSC). I believe they can outright refuse your novation prior to this window, correct?

I need to read and research creating an 'evidence repository'. I take this to be filing public record documents, such as one suitor filed his demand at the County Clerks office so it was 'on the record'.

[gdude]

I filed at the County Clerks office....It is a public record. I was studying the Libel of review, but it is beyond my knowledge, so far.

I think I gained some more insight, as what I learned is there are four different actions you can take against the gov...Administrative, Civil, Criminal, Admiralty.

The way I understand it, Admiralty is what taxes are collected under.... I think the Libel of Review is filed under the admiralty side of court?....

Shikamaru posted:

Taxes have been under admiralty since before the Revolution.
This all has its roots in smuggling and avoiding the King's dues.

See it here: http://www.founding.com/the_declarat...50/default.asp

The King could not sustain any convictions in Common Law courts of the colonists, so he moved the cases and jurisdictions to Admiralty/Vice-Admiralty/Maritime courts.

This makes sense to me as I believe most early IRS districts were located in Ports.