Judge Roy Bean's deceptive BLOG

[Shoonra]

Poor Mr Shinnick got flimflammed with someone's funny money and spent an ugly half-day in a police station. The story is given in:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...type=printable
and in:
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.ph...0-020853-3397r

Googling him came up with a dozen other accounts of his ordeal, including from WIRED:
http://blog.wired.com/27BStroke6/ind...try_id=1548026

What is meant by "US Notes that looked just like FRNs"?? The Treasury has not issued USNs in more than 30 years and when they did the USNs did not (IMO)look "just like" FRNs. I'd be surprised if even a major bank could scrape up any USNs at this late date. While USNs remain legal tender (along with FRNs), they're mostly collectors' items.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Poor Mr Shinnick got flimflammed with someone's funny money and spent an ugly half-day in a police station. The story is given in:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...type=printable
and in:
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.ph...0-020853-3397r

Googling him came up with a dozen other accounts of his ordeal, including from WIRED:
http://blog.wired.com/27BStroke6/ind...try_id=1548026

What is meant by "US Notes that looked just like FRNs"?? The Treasury has not issued USNs in more than 30 years and when they did the USNs did not (IMO)look "just like" FRNs. I'd be surprised if even a major bank could scrape up any USNs at this late date. While USNs remain legal tender (along with FRNs), they're mostly collectors' items.

You said yourself that FRNs are non-negotiable because they cannot be exchanged for any superior currency of legal tender. That superior form of legal tender is US Notes. So FRNs that are acquired by private credit are negotiable. That is what the author is saying when he correctly interpretes the law to read that somebody can go into a Federal Reserve Bank and still today exchange FRNs for USNs. That is the law and it is correct...

However people who try find that the clerk at the counter will only give back FRNs. However the FRNs are USNs in the form of FRNs. This is tricky to understand because it makes no sense to do this because you will admit you are carrying FRNs, not USNs in the form of FRNs. The trick is to acquire USNs in the form of FRNs at the bank by writing or stamping above your signature:

Deposited for credit on account or exchanged for non-negotiable Federal Reserve Notes of equal value.

I thought it all had to do with not joindering the confidence game by fooling people into thinking FRNs are money. It does not come together in that model because USNs are notes too but they represent substance so they are more money than FRNs. USNs are domestic emergency currency while FRNs are foreign (IMF/UN) emergency currency. But that did not come together in my mind until you provided the definition of negotiable. Negotiable means they can be exchanged for a superior form of money, like this Federal Reserve Note in 1928, before the Bankers' Holiday and other events:

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...ot_dollars.jpg

That is a negotiable instrument because it can be negotiated for superior dollars and gold.

So by specifying the bank provide non-negotiable Federal Reserve Notes you are actually receiving United States Notes, just in the form of Federal Reserve Notes. See the bottom paragraph of the US Treasury's webpage:

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/faq...al-tender.html

It really would seem not to be a big difference but when you deal with finances in public money - there is no taxable event because you are not accepting the privilege of private credit from the Federal Reserve. The bankers find it a bit annoying because they have to supply the USNs (FRNs) from the banks assets, actually drawing it out of the check-writer's account like you would expect with all legal tender. The difference is that with FRNs the bank is allowed to draw upon that private credit and fractionalize at your expense (Human Capital/chattel you become says Yoda).

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/attach...g?d=1154817615

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...y_of_Money.zip

Anyway, I have described this much more fully on more appropriately title threads.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Judge Roy Bean]

More meaningless drivel, Van Pelt. You've not only concocted an utterly meaningless response to a non-issue, you've completely hijacked the original poster's situation in a failed attempt to discredit me.

Unlike my blog, you are the one attempting to deceive and put reader's at risk. And since it costs you nothing to send them into jeopardy at their own peril, you can sit back at your keyboard and keep cutting and pasting nonsense.

This has been illustrative. Good thing you can't change the title of the thread nor delete what I've posted.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Judge Roy Bean

More meaningless drivel, Van Pelt. You've not only concocted an utterly meaningless response to a non-issue, you've completely hijacked the original poster's situation in a failed attempt to discredit me.

Unlike my blog, you are the one attempting to deceive and put reader's at risk. And since it costs you nothing to send them into jeopardy at their own peril, you can sit back at your keyboard and keep cutting and pasting nonsense.

This has been illustrative. Good thing you can't change the title of the thread nor delete what I've posted.

I think you must be projecting your own posture upon me JRB. I cannot imagine how your twisting and spinning a proper arrest into a false one in order to convince people that banks are all powerful to make false arrests with immunity can possibly embarrass me.

I quoted your article here just to make sure the Readers understand my point.

Since I got you talking, why don't you explain to the Readers why you like to call me Van Pelt? Same invite to you Shoonra!


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Banks aren't all-powerful, David. But people who take advice from people like you need to be aware of the consequences and risks.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Judge Roy Bean

Banks aren't all-powerful, David. But people who take advice from people like you need to be aware of the consequences and risks.

So it effectively is about the California suitor who had a terrific half-hour in Bank of America while they figured out they could not interfere with his right to deal financially in public money. He said it was quite fun. I will try finding that email and crosstalk it here!

So you spin a proper arrest to look like a false arrest and that Shinnock has no recourse for the false false arrest so that people will be scared to try exercising their right to public money as non-taxable events. Real slick Judge Roy Bean.

I think you may be the most amoral attorney yet. The attorney joke of attorney jokes.



Regards,

David Merrill.



P.S. I am delighted Shoonra appeared here. Together, instead of explaining away Human Capital, you eloquently explain it. She compliments your campaign JRB, your campaign to spread fear of banking policy; saying that BoA is able to falsely arrest whoever they please with immunity like that.

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/attach...g?d=1154817615

[Judge Roy Bean]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

So it effectively is about the California suitor who had a terrific half-hour in Bank of America while they figured out they could not interfere with his right to deal financially in public money.

No, it's still not. It never was and it won't ever be.

And no matter how you try to twist your gibberish and lie into something someone might believe, you've been exposed yet again.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Judge Roy Bean

No, it's still not. It never was and it won't ever be.

And no matter how you try to twist your gibberish and lie into something someone might believe, you've been exposed yet again.

I am starting to think you actually believe that. I bet you are a disbarred judge! You have such a dissociation with reality I bet you aren't allowed to practice law at all, much less from a bench.

You announced the intent of the article...

David. But people who take advice from people like you need to be aware of the consequences and risks.

Albeit I may concede you that you may not have had the California suitor's experience I recently shared in mind when you twisted Shinnick's legit arrest into a false arrest for which he has no recourse. You are intentionally trying to scare people away from trying the non-endorsement technique when they cash their paychecks. You plainly admit as much.

Just to see if you will shut up finally in defeat about this, here is the article again...

Thursday, August 31, 2006

Bank of America’s “Higher Standards”

Before you walk in to your “friendly neighborhood” BofA branch to deposit a check, you better beware that at least in California, if they decide to have you falsely arrested and jailed, you can’t sue them for what they did.

A San Fransisco man found that out the hard way when he went into a BofA with a check made out to him – a check that turned out to be written by an unauthorized party on a company account. Matthew Shinnick thought he had sold his bicycles on Craigslist and didn’t want to deposit the check in his own account just in case it might bounce and hit his account with yet another creative bank fee. So he asked the teller to verify that it would clear and after a few moments, she told him it would.

Shinnick’s primary mistake was deciding to cash it instead of just depositing it. Maybe he thought having the cash in hand was better than risking a stop-payment some days in the future (and yet another bank fee). Maybe he thought that because the bank said the check wouldn’t bounce that it was good.

Either way, what he didn’t know was what the bank knew. Yes, there was money in the account to cover the check, but the check itself was bogus. The account the check was drawn on was actually flagged for potential fraudulent use. He endorsed it and the teller took it to her manager.

Four police officers soon had him in handcuffs and later led him away to jail where he spent twelve hours as a guest of the City of San Francisco crowded into a tiny holding cell with way too many other men.

And of course the charges were eventually dropped and a Judge has taken the steps to expunge all records of the case, but Shinnick and anyone else who raises the eyebrows of BofA branch employees and gets arrested for it can’t sue for false arrest. Turns out the California Supreme Court decided that criminal reports are privileged communication. Basically, institutions aren’t liable for reporting suspected crimes. (Hagberg v. California Federal Bank.)

With all the check-scamming going on, especially the typical Nigerian 419-style tricks, any time you get a check from someone you don’t know very well, don’t take it into a California bank, especially a BofA.

And even if you do just endorse it and deposit it, don’t assume that just because the money shows up as being in your account that they can’t come back and take it if it turns out to be bogus some days down the road. You might find yourself in the hole. That's still a better hole than the one the Police will put you in, though!

The Honorable Judge Roy Bean

That is a bit astounding that you wont remove or edit that article from your BLOG. Also that you and Shoonra will not explain why when you are annoyed with me you call me Van Pelt. I think you should tell us who you are so we can check into some of your "real life" decisions and legislation from the bench. What jurisdiction do you preside in?

Maybe you should direct your comments to the article:

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...rve_System.mp3
http://www.suijuris.net/forum/articl...lic-money.html

I for one am interested to hear why exercising right to public money is such a lamebrain and even dangerous idea in you opinion.



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. Of course Shinnock could sue them for what they did. Ed, the Bowling Alley Lawyer says that Anybody can sue anybody for anything; the question is Will they win? Since Shinnock's arrest was a proper arrest, he will almost certainly lose the suit. JRB is trying to make it out that you cannot even file a complaint against big banking! Wow!

...if they decide to have you falsely arrested and jailed, you can’t sue them for what they did.

[David Merrill]

Here it is. I already posted this on page 4 of the Private Credit v. Public Money article:

Wow... we went to the BoA today to personaly cash a few checks. We had stamped the back with our new: "Deposited for credit on account or exchanged for non-negotiable Federal Reserve Notes of equal value." rubber stamp. WOW, we have cashed checks with the Deposited and so on hand written, no problem... Today after being told "they" could not cash the checks with them being "sramped this way", which I must say I questioned why, as they had cashed checks with the handwriiten version several times. The answer was "I can't say why they did cash them, I was told we cannot do so now!"

Hmmm, (me putting my thinking cap on!) My first question was: "You mean I'm making a presentment for acquring FRN's and you are refusing to honor it?" Then: "Can I have the name and phone number of the person saying we can't exchange for FRN's?" Then: "May I have a letter saying we can't exchange for FRN's?" The most peculal part of this whole scenario? They would deposit on account of but not exchange for???? Back to the "STORY"... I insisted the lady call for further info. She called the BoA legal department. After about 20-30 minutes we got the OK to "cash" the checks... Talk about some stunned looks on the bank employee faces... IT WAS FUN!

So I wonder rhetorically if JRB would prefer this guy have been arrested so that he could not sue BoA for false arrest?



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Judge Roy Bean]

David, your alleged "story" (which of course can't be authenticated) still has nothing to do with the Shinnick case, nor is there anything at all deceptive about what's on the blog, so you are clearly still simply making even more stuff up to cover your lying a**.

Keep trying though. You're providing some amusement on a slow holiday.