procure poa

[mikah2k]

I was reading in Esther where Mordecai and Esther were given the power of attorney for and by Ahasuerus the king of Persia and Media. Mordecai and Esther used that poa to write a law for the defense of the jews.

Suppose you are given the task by your intellect for the procurement the power of attorney(poa) for some bank with the legalname BANK-A.

Supposing you have the resources your disposal to carry out each scenario below, which ways are the surest ways to procure the lawful power of attorney(poa) for the BANK-A within this year?

1) Bribe1 officer: Take the VP of BANK-A out to lunch, write the VP a personal check made payable to the "legalname of the said VP and BANK-A" in the amount of 4.5 million in funny money upon an opened account with deposits presently exceeding 4.5 million in funny money, and offer the VP the unsigned power of attorney for the notarized signature of the VP upon the(poa).

2) Fraud: Have the BANK-A exercise fraud upon a PERSON: by the PERSON applying for some type of a loan (extension of credit) and meeting the risk management minimum requirements of the BANK-A, then spending "loan money", then making notice and demand for the exhibition of the original note for the inspection by the PERSON within some specified period of time at some specified BANK-A branch location, and the failure of making said exhibition as demanded stipulates a grant of power of attorney upon PERSON by BANK-A.

3) Bribe2 shareholders: Finding all shareholders of BANK-A, and bribing all such shareholders for their power of direction for BANK-A to be placed upon your PERSON's name; and with the power of direction you create your poa for BANK-A.

4) Coup: Have yourself declared Emperor and sole-successor to the throne of __(favorite developing nation which has upon its soil a Branch office of BANK-A)_NATION-A_, then making demand upon BANK-A (which has a Branch office in NATION-A) to unconditionally surrender its power of attorney to the Emperor of NATION-A.

5) Changing the codes: introducing to congress a draft for a bill for the modification of the codes of _(municipal corp name)_ pertaining to all banks of the class of charters of the charter of BANK-A, and which draft contains a power of attorney upon some fictitious office to which your PERSON's legalname is appointed,
getting support for your draft (bill), having congress vote and the president sign off.

Go get the poa.
-----
For the sake of any government attorney/trustee, all the above is theorectical rhetoric non-[standard-]sense mumbo-jumbo and is interpreted as without a level-geometric-plane.

[Notorial dissent]

Let’s see, the short and simple answer for your questions, is NONE OF THE ABOVE, the long answer is NONE OF THE ABOVE.

1. is bribery, a felony in most states, and a Federal felony since it involves a bank.

2. is a pointless exercise.

3. is pointless, since the shareholders a) don’t have that kind of power to begin with, and b) see 1. above.

4. pork in the treetops time.

5. see 4 above.

Finally, this is all a pointless exercise for two very simple reasons, ONE, a Power of Attorney would most likely have to be approved by the bank’s board of directors, and TWO, would have to be signed and sealed by two authorized officers of the bank, and the likelihood of that is equivalent to 4 above.

[mikah2k]

All embolden ideas in the immediate quote are responded to further below.

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

Let’s see, the short and simple answer for your questions, is NONE OF THE ABOVE, the long answer is NONE OF THE ABOVE.

1. is bribery, a felony in most states, and a Federal felony since it involves a bank.

2. is a pointless exercise.

3. is pointless, since the shareholders a) don’t have that kind of power to begin with, and b) see 1. above.

4. pork in the treetops time.

5. see 4 above.

Finally, this is all a pointless exercise for two very simple reasons, ONE, a Power of Attorney would most likely have to be approved by the bank’s board of directors, and TWO, would have to be signed and sealed by [two authorized officers of the bank, and the likelihood of that is equivalent to 4 above.

In re bribery:

Originally Posted by Black's Fifth

Bribery. The offering, giving, receiving, orsolicitiugn of any thing of value to influence action as an official or in dischrge of legal or public duty. Allen v. State, 63 Okl.Cr. 16,72 P.2d 516, 519. ...

If the check is backed by FRNs then the check has just as much value as the dept of treasury says:

Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in gold, silver or any other commodity, and receive no backing by anything This has been the case since 1933. The notes have no value for themselves, but for what they will buy.

In re "2. is a pointless exercise.": You, my friend, are too late. Said "pointless exercise" is complete as it already happened outside the world wide web. In my opinion "2." is a sure way to obtain power of attorney before the end of this year.

In re "ONE": so I would need power of attorney for the board of directors first. Ok that's understandable.

In re "TWO": agreement of the parties can modify any requirement for two signatures. Anyways, a way around that would be to have the one man/woman (agent with P.O.A.) make request for two different authorized-office-positions. I have seen trusts docs signed by the same man/woman twice yet in two capacities, first as trustor and second as trustee, or first as trustor and second as beneficiary. So signing "by mikah2k, President of xyz" and "by mikah2k, Secretary of xyz" on the self-same doc is entirely possible -- two authorized signatures.

[Notorial dissent]

A Board of Directors can not give a Power of Attorney for someone to act in their place. They are limited by law to conducting business only in and of themselves. All acts that are the responsibility of a board of directors must be done only by the duly elected and qualified directors.

There is a considerable difference between the way a trust operates, and the way a bank or corporation operates.

Documents of the type you are alluding to require a minimum of two separate signatures, not by the same person.

There is no such thing as a power of attorney by assumption or any other thing. A POA must be knowing and willingly created, signed and sealed by the principal, otherwise, it is null and void.

[mikah2k]

Thanks, I am learning much.

[mikah2k]

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

A Board of Directors can not give a Power of Attorney for someone to act in their place. They are limited by law to conducting business only in and of themselves. All acts that are the responsibility of a board of directors must be done only by the duly elected and qualified directors.

There is a considerable difference between the way a trust operates, and the way a bank or corporation operates.

Documents of the type you are alluding to require a minimum of two separate signatures, not by the same person.

There is no such thing as a power of attorney by assumption or any other thing. A POA must be knowing and willingly created, signed and sealed by the principal, otherwise, it is null and void.

Rhetorical: And there is no such thing as heaven or hell (because we have never experienced either one).

So the POA could be created by anyone, and when the principal (of the POA) is given knowledge, constructed as an "offer to contract", of a potential agent's desire for POA of the principal, and the principal can acquiesce willingly, with POA signed by estoppel, more precisely estoppel by acquiescence.

Question: Why does "Agency by estoppel" exist?

[Notorial dissent]

No rhetoric involved, just plain simple fact.

Is there some part of NO, YOU CAN NOT DO THAT that is too hard to understand.

Did you not read what I wrote??? NO, NO, and NO!!!!! There is NO such thing as POA by estoppel or wishful thinking or anything else. If the principal did not have capacity in the first place, and then knowingly, willingly, and consideredly, create, grant, subscribe, acknowledge, and publish the POA it isn’t a POA and what you are attempting or contemplating is felony fraud. There is not and never has been such a thing as agency by estoppel. Estoppel in the first place is primarily a term involving court matters, not private business matters.

[mikah2k]

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

No rhetoric involved, just plain simple fact.

Is there some part of NO, YOU CAN NOT DO THAT that is too hard to understand.

Did you not read what I wrote??? NO, NO, and NO!!!!! There is NO such thing as POA by estoppel or wishful thinking or anything else. If the principal did not have capacity in the first place, and then knowingly, willingly, and consideredly, create, grant, subscribe, acknowledge, and publish the POA it isn’t a POA and what you are attempting or contemplating is felony fraud. There is not and never has been such a thing as agency by estoppel. Estoppel in the first place is primarily a term involving court matters, not private business matters.

My rebuttal is from Black's Fifth Ed., page 58; under Agency, supra.

Originally Posted by Black's Fifth

Agency by estoppel. One created by operation of law and established by proof of such acts of the principal as reasonably lead to the conclusion of its existence. Arises where principal, by negligence in failing to supervise agent's affairs, allows agent to exercise powers not granted to him, thus justifying others in believing agent possesses requisite authority.

Question: Why does "Agency by estoppel" exist?
Answer: It (Agency by estoppel) is fictitious, i.e. it is "by operation of law", and as such can be lawfully (or legally) exercised.

Originally Posted by Black's Fifth

Fictitious. Founded on fiction; pretended; counterfeit. Feigned, imaginary, not real, false, not genuine, nonexistent. Arbitrarily invented and set up, to accomplish an ulterior object.

I allege "procuring a poa" is an arbitrary invention set up to accomplish an ulterior object.

[Notorial dissent]

That definition presumes that there was a pre-existing and legally established state of agency to begin with.

The other half of it is that all the other party has to do is say, "No he did it all on his own," and you are hung out to dry.

Definitions from a dictionary are just that, and have no legal standing or force, and it is ill adivised to depend on them as opposed to what the actual state statutes say.

[rentiap]

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

That definition presumes that there was a pre-existing and legally established state of agency to begin with.

The other half of it is that all the other party has to do is say, "No he did it all on his own," and you are hung out to dry.

Definitions from a dictionary are just that, and have no legal standing or force, and it is ill adivised to depend on them as opposed to what the actual state statutes say.

Actually definitions are not contained within a dictionary only commonly used diction.
If they were actually definitions it would be called a definitionary.
You will only find definitions within a statute as stated that "for purposes of this chapter or except as otherwise provided in this section the term" then they will give a definition.

ND;
maybe I am saying the same thing only in a different diction!