unalienable rights and bank account withdrawal slips

What most call one’s bank account checks!!!! 10-23-09

There is an informal group who carry on a conference phone meeting on Sunday evenings. A couple of weeks ago one of the folks pointed out that the line on what most folks call a bank check to withdraw money from their account was not a solid line but was small print writing. He sounded concerned about the writing and its effect on the signature and the signors lawful obligation. I looked at one I had handy and could see there was something there and not a solid line. I ordered in a cheap ($4) 10x or 20x magnifying lens. When it arrived I could just barely make out using 20x magnification, the line indicates that “authorized signatures” was what the words were. I checked two different banks. One repeated for the length of the line, the words “authorized signature only” the other bank went with “authorized signature” only over and over for the length of the so called line one signs on. It didn’t give me any reason for alarm.

Since I believe and so live my life (hence conduct) with the Declaration of Independence as the supreme contract between we the people and the US Constitution as the subordinate contract, I view things in a way many don’t.

In the early 1980s when the patriots were saying that the use of bank accounts made one libel unless the bank cards were signed in a certain way, I didn’t buy the verbiage, but did not have my present understanding of our contract form of government and hence our status (rank) with respect to our form of government.

I suspect the present signature line on the bank account paper is concerning the banks responsibility from days past. In theory once one signed the bank card, a draw was not suppose to be done against that account until the signature had been verified against that signature card by the bank as the payee. If not done, the liability of the bank was probably close to 100% for any fraudulent draws against an account. The customs of business evolve over time and change is always in the wind. I further suspect that our present forms of banking makes the signature card semi-moot. Each bank is a separate business, even though they advertise as branch banks. The ownership of the branch bank may or may not be by the parent bank. Regardless, the original signature card can only be kept in one place (generally the bank where you signed it). I have run into this situation in trying to get funds on a Saturday when the bank where the signature card (which I had not signed) was kept but bank not open with any staff. I got my funds, but had to fuss with the branch bank persons.

Please note the following info. In the past, it use to say on most bank account withdrawal slips, checks --- one does not see that now-a-days. Reason being is probably because that bank account withdrawal slip is either a check or negotiable instrument. The difference being, it is fraud to give a check for funds not on deposit; while for a negotiable instrument the funds only need to be there when the instrument is presented for payment. By the rules of commerce, the accepting of a negotiable instrument is an extension of credit, and considered apart (separate transaction) from the good/s obtained. If one notices, pay instruments use to and most probably still do have payroll indicated on them. That was done by code mandate, because the workers were not after the fact extending credit to the boss.
Given my view of the contracts of this land which I claim as a making writer by adoption, it is not possible to override the boss’s determination of my (or your) status. But how one uses the bank account determines whether one has a checking account or a negotiable instrument account or whether the account holder is mixing the use of the account as a part time checking and the other part a negotiable instrument account. I stay with checking account.

Please note: I know of no contract logic which makes ss, drivers license , license of any type, HJR 192, or any other code condition binding on you, me or our contract standing and status. Part of my reasoning being is the hired help, corporations, banks, etc are bound by contract they were created under and that is the subordinate US Constitution ((a contract which I (we) wrote and hence gave)). To all persons, or entities created pursuant to that contract, it is an adhesion contract –means created have no say in the contract and can not change it, but must accept it as a matter of law as the makers intended and have written. I and the other writers do not write a contract which has parts that are not for our benefit and use.

Please note: the created persons and corporation having “limited liability” – I am discussing only the corps’s. The US Constitution makes all the corps’s assets losable but not ones personal asset that are not used to buy shares in the corps’s or loan funds to the corps’s.

Since, if you finance a menace with your funds, then it is possible to have at risk that which you gave the menace on credit. This is especially true as you probably have deeper pockets. I think you will find this was the original use of the car titling system. By code the hired hands were making the selling on credit of cars, free of liability to the manufacture for putting cars in the hands of drunks and other menaces for their damages to others. It stands to reason that ford or gm has deeper pockets than a drunk who has to pay for car by the month. By code they tried to separate the credit sell from the responsibility of the common law rules.