First Success At Bank For Redemption

[Rock Anthony]

Interesting, US Bank refused to make me a copy of the new signature card. Never the less I will receive paper checks then restrict & copy each and everyone of those bad boys. PS...good to see you over here hughg. Apparently some refuse to open there minds to new info that compliments "other" info/history. When I came across this material a HUGE piece of the puzzle was suddenly revealed!

Asking for copies of or requesting to novate existing bank agreements may be more trouble than it's worth.

Please see this post.

[motla68]

Each stamper has a marking of my signature.

Is it really your name if someone can dictate which name you can have to use?

link to the story:

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/20/new-zealand-bans-weird-baby-names/

[David Merrill]

Not that Rock needs anybody speaking for him but I believe it is his name because his parents named him Rock Anthony.

[motla68]

Not that Rock needs anybody speaking for him but I believe it is his name because his parents named him Rock Anthony.

Were you there when they did that, Where is the proof that you know this to be true?

[David Merrill]

That still does not change the fact that I believe his name is Rock Anthony, and that because his parents named him so.

[shikamaru]

Not to detract from this great thread, but the question I have is this.

In the past, notes were redeemed for specie. Specie was the reserve currency for the production of notes by banks.
Is lawful money serving the purpose that specie served years ago?

[David Merrill]

Not to detract from this great thread, but the question I have is this.

In the past, notes were redeemed for specie. Specie was the reserve currency for the production of notes by banks.
Is lawful money serving the purpose that specie served years ago?

To me specie means different forms of tender. If people get into trading milk for eggs, then dairy becomes the specie. - That specie was the reserve currency for the production of notes by banks.

What I am saying is that I would prefer to have confidence what you said in the question is true before addressing it.

[shikamaru]

To me specie means different forms of tender. If people get into trading milk for eggs, then dairy becomes the specie. - That specie was the reserve currency for the production of notes by banks.

What I am saying is that I would prefer to have confidence what you said in the question is true before addressing it.

Specie is coin. That coin was traditionally composed of gold, silver, or copper.
Banks offer to hold peoples' specie for safe keeping. Banks then offer notes backed by this specie to be redeemed for this specie.

The specie is the reserve currency. The notes the circulating currency.
Does lawful money act as a reserve currency for the banking system or the US Treasury?

I'm feeling that it may be the case. An example may be US Treasury Notes and Bonds for FRNs?

[David Merrill]

Okay. Now the confusion arises out of the term reserve currency.

Traditionally bankers cannot use the coin (metal) in the vault for fractional reserve lending. By law US notes (now called US currency notes) cannot be used for a reserve currency.

US notes are lawful money because they are theoretically redeemable in gold - Milan/Legal Tender Cases. It is that word "currency" Congress slipped in that defies reality.

In the section, the words “United States currency notes” are substituted for “United States notes” for clarity and consistency in the revised title.

US notes would be the specie then, since 1863 or so. According to your description. But the parity of US notes to FRNs has been coerced by that word "currency" seeming to create something new of US notes. They are still the same US notes physically. Now though, a broader range of currency notes is included and allows Congress to adjust the value of the "reserve" - the specie, as you put it.

[Rock Anthony]

Is it really your name if someone can dictate which name you can have to use?

link to the story:
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn....rd-baby-names/

I'm convinced that if one looks to reap the benefits of the State, then one has to follow the State's rules. For example, if I want to hold a DL, I have to use the State's legal name, ROCK JOHNSON, on the application.

However, I sign my name, Rock Anthony, to the signature line. Same thing for bank agreements.

[EZrhythm]

It doesn't matter what name someone endorses with. One is still endorsing AS the FIRST MIDDLE LAST trust name unless adding "By:" or "Agent", etc.

[Rock Anthony]

I'm thinking that with or without "By:" or "Agent", the point in signing in true-name rather than LEGAL NAME is to make obvious that there is a trust relationship - that is, "I am NOT ROCK JOHNSON".

[John Booth]

I'm thinking that with or without "By:" or "Agent", the point in signing in true-name rather than LEGAL NAME is to make obvious that there is a trust relationship - that is, "I am NOT ROCK JOHNSON".

"I am NOT ROCK JOHNSON".

prove it.

not being cheeky, just want to see how one proves [for once] a negative.

[Rock Anthony]

"I am NOT ROCK JOHNSON".

prove it.

not being cheeky, just want to see how one proves [for once] a negative.

I like your style.

I would never stand within a position where I had to prove the negative of NOT being ROCK JOHNSON. For one thing, the State already knows that I am not ROCK JOHNSON - after all, the State is the creator/owner of ROCK JOHNSON.

I simply have a choice of when and when not to be the fiduciary of ROCK JOHNSON.

I'm convinced that trust law makes the world go 'round.

[Publius]

I'm thinking that with or without "By:" or "Agent", the point in signing in true-name rather than LEGAL NAME is to make obvious that there is a trust relationship - that is, "I am NOT ROCK JOHNSON".

In my days of reading Anderson's on the U.C.C., it was made clear that one signing an instrument in the capacity of an agent was severed from personal liability on that instrument by his inserting "By," ("By," is what I recall, and I suggest its investigation before using it) before his signature.
As a matter of illustrating this practice, I tell you that I often receive letters from lawyers and find that they use this method. Their name appears in the letterhead as "JUMPEM & BLUDGEON, P.C. " I take that to be the corporation or artificial Person. Their name appears in the list of attorneys in the firm as " WHALEN N. BLUDGEON" I take that to be the statutory person ( in this case one acting under privilege of title of "attorney" or the like) and their name appears in the signature closing as follows:
Very truly yours,
JUMPEM & BLUDGEON, P.C.
( here is found the scribbled wet signature)
By: Whalen N. Bludgeon

So, to me it seems that a letter formatted in this manner is indicating that it was written by a living being acting in the capacity for the named statutory character Person as their agent and that th being is severed from personal liability by the use of the signature modifier "By:" It seems to me to be a sort of qualified endorsement of the letter, as one's signature on a check reverse would be with the use of "By:"

I qualifiedly endorse ( or "non-endorse") all checks with the use of "By," or "By:" preceding my wet signature. My wet signature is three fully spelled out names in upper and lower case and absent punctuation marks. All checks which I sing in that manner are stamped "Deposited for credit on account or exchanged for non-negotiable FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES of face value" above my signature. If that stamp phraseology has been updated, I certainly would like to be informed of it.

Using the same approach for a qualified endorsement on redemption of a check as is represented above relative to the lawyer's letters, if my determination is correct, would have the signer acting in the capacity of agent for the named statutory person payee ( JOHN DOE, as might appear on a paycheck) or other statutory person payee ( John Doe, as might appear on a "personal" check), "John Doe" being presumed as a statutory person since all payees on commercial instruments are fictions / statutory persons, but, by the use of "By:" the endorser is severed (saved) from liability.

Comment? I hope I'm on the right thread with this.