Judge Roy Bean's deceptive BLOG

[David Merrill]

Some of you may have noted JRB's link within his signature line: Creditoris Squaliformus. I clicked on that link and got a looksee.

http://www.loansharks.blogspot.com/

First I will tell you a suitor in California spent a half hour recently in a Bank of America insisting they honor a check he had non-endorsed "Deposited for credit on account or exchanged for non-negotiable Federal Reserve Notes of equal value." He says it was real fun, mostly because in the end, after long discussion with attorneys for the Bank they capitulated and gave him the cash in United States Notes that looked just like Federal Reserve Notes.


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

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/faq...al-tender.html
last paragraph of page


The reason the Bank of America was reluctant to tender the USNs to the suitor was that it was public money, not private credit of the Federal Reserve. That meant that it came out of Bank assets not as a product of the fractionalizing they can do with FRNs:

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

Now read this deceitful sophistry in a recent article by the "honorable" Judge Roy Bean:

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

Upon the first glimpse, (assuming JRB based this article on a real event) what really happened here was a legitimate arrest on a bogus check at the counter. The check was not signed by an authorized signature. Furthermore JRB tries to make it out to the Reader that Shinnick was being deceptive for not wanting to deposit the suspicious check where he usually does business - that like us all Shinnick would like to avoid fines and loss of reputation where he is known. And furthermore that he chose not to deposit the check at a bank (BoA) where he has no account anyway! - that he is suspect of foulplay for cashing the check instead of opening an account with BoA and depositing it. JRB makes Shinnick sound suspect because he went to BoA and inquired if the funds were there to cover the check, all because Shinnick suspected maybe the funds were short?

All Kinnick did was assume that the signer was authorized on the Signature Card at BoA. The check was bogus and the worse journalistic offense is of course trying to make it out that the arrest was false, just because it was a misunderstanding. The offense is making the Bank of America seem to have immunity if they want to arrest you falsely, for instance like the California suitor who was non-endorsing his paycheck for the simple purpose of a non-taxable event.

I may not be reading too much into this to say JRB is trying to make Readers here think that the Bank of America has authority to arrest you, or have you arrested on a whim and you have absolutely no recourse in law about it - simply because the magistrate recognizes it was an honest mistake to allow some underling to sign a check. For instance if BoA arrests somebody for exercising their right to public money instead of the traditional and taxable private credit of the Federal Reserve, that would be an obvious false arrest and I hope that the man or woman arrested can still have lawful recourse about that. Don't you JRB?

This kind of sophistry and spin on an event depicts a much bigger problem with Judge Roy Bean and attorneys in general.




Regards,

David Merrill.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Some of you may have noted JRB's link within his signature line: Creditoris Squaliformus. I clicked on that link and got a looksee.

http://www.loansharks.blogspot.com/

First I will tell you a suitor in California spent a half hour recently in a Bank of America insisting they honor a check he had non-endorsed "Deposited for credit on account or exchanged for non-negotiable Federal Reserve Notes of equal value." He says it was real fun, mostly because in the end, after long discussion with attorneys for the Bank they capitulated and gave him the cash in United States Notes that looked just like Federal Reserve Notes.

Utter BS, David. Nothing like that happened at all to Mr. Shinnick. His story is in the news and Van Pelt is simply making more stuff up in an effort to make his odd view of reality seem authoritative.

Originally Posted by David Merrill Van Pelt

This kind of sophistry and spin on an event depicts a much bigger problem with Judge Roy Bean and attorneys in general.

Regards,

David Merrill.

You're caught in an outright lie and deliberate fabrication, David. Let's see you worm your way out of this one!

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...UGTGKRHSF1.DTL

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Judge Roy Bean

Utter BS, David. Nothing like that happened at all to Mr. Shinnick. His story is in the news and Van Pelt is simply making more stuff up in an effort to make his odd view of reality seem authoritative.


You're caught in an outright lie and deliberate fabrication, David. Let's see you worm your way out of this one!

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...UGTGKRHSF1.DTL

Good thing I quoted your article here and linked the Readers to your BLOG Judge Roy Bean. If they are able to read what you said above, then they are able to read this opening paragraph...

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.

I recall saying:

Upon the first glimpse, (assuming JRB based this article on a real event) what really happened here was a legitimate arrest on a bogus check at the counter.

Maybe what you are telling us is that you made that article up on a fictitious event? That this Shinnick fellow was not really arrested? That he is just something you made up to try convincing us that we are not safe from false arrests over at the Bank of America (in California)?

...David. Let's see you worm your way out of this one!

This just gets better and better!


What did you do? Erase the article? Are you disclaiming that you wrote it? What?


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. I am starting to think you skim my posts more than I skim yours JRB.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

.....
This just gets better and better!

It indeed does - check the SF Chronicle article link and keep trying to dig yourself into a deeper hole. You're still making stuff up, David and instead of dropping the shovel you just keep babbling.

People who read your nonsense need to be aware of what you may lead them into. I realize it's a huge ego-boost to be "read" on the Internet, but when people take your advice and find themselves deeper in trouble, you can still sit there and post more and more rubbish until someone calls you out on it. Then you have to make all kinds of things up. Sometimes, you get ahead of your own headlights and here you are. Again.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Judge Roy Bean

It indeed does - check the SF Chronicle article link and keep trying to dig yourself into a deeper hole. You're still making stuff up, David and instead of dropping the shovel you just keep babbling.

People who read your nonsense need to be aware of what you may lead them into. I realize it's a huge ego-boost to be "read" on the Internet, but when people take your advice and find themselves deeper in trouble, you can still sit there and post more and more rubbish until someone calls you out on it. Then you have to make all kinds of things up. Sometimes, you get ahead of your own headlights and here you are. Again.

You seem to be denying that you wrote the article I quoted saying, The Honorable Judge Roy Bean at the bottom.

I suppose you are telling me that the original article you wrote about says something completely different than what you were making point of in your article - that I have mistaken what you meant by:

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.

I made the assumption from your article that Shinnick was arrested for tendering a faulty check for cash at a Bank of America somewhere in California and it sounds to me like you are tying to say something else happened.

But above all that I hear you trying to discredit me for saying that the only reason the Federal Reserve Act establishing a central bank for the United States is legal is that we have inherently had a right to public money all the while. I am simply alerting people about that myth Federal Reserve Notes are the only currency when US Notes (public money) has simply taken that same form of legal tender since early 1971. One suitor got his entire withholdings Refunded from the State after even a blanket affidavit as a signature form, and he is a State employee:

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...blic_money.jpg

With your reputation around here and now on Quatloos as well, I am surprised you think this silly spin you are fabricating, that I am the one who is making a fool of myself would have a chance of functioning to discredit me.


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. Looking a little more carefully...

People who read your nonsense need to be aware of what you may lead them into.

This authenticates that you had my California suitor's half-hour Bank of America experience in mind when you spun the Shinnick incident to dissuade people from non-endorsing their paychecks. It was a gut feeling based largely on the timing of my recent posts JRB. You are actually saying that if you write or stamp, "Deposited for credit on account or exchanged for non-negotiable Federal Reserve Notes of equal value", you might be put in jail and have no recourse for false arrest.

You are actually saying that.

Well, that tells me I am on the right track and that you are getting downright upset about that too.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Keep digging, David. Unlike you, I haven't had to deny or fabricate anything.

You'd be much better off ignoring me rather than making yourself appear more foolish.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Judge Roy Bean

Keep digging, David. Unlike you, I haven't had to deny or fabricate anything.

You'd be much better off ignoring me rather than making yourself appear more foolish.

I am not calling you a fool JRB. I think your deceit is much more akin to a twisted moral fiber, however clever.

What you fabricated is that Shinnick was under a false arrest while he tried to cash a check that was signed with a different signature than the Signature Card, an unauthorized check effectively. While I think it would have been prudent to simply detain him until the authorizing party could okay the check, the arrest was just the same a proper arrest.

Also by the timing I don't think you got a chance to read my P.S. above; repeated here.


Regards,

David Merrill.



P.S. Looking a little more carefully...

People who read your nonsense need to be aware of what you may lead them into.

This authenticates that you had my California suitor's half-hour Bank of America experience in mind when you spun the Shinnick incident to dissuade people from non-endorsing their paychecks. It was a gut feeling based largely on the timing of my recent posts JRB. You are actually saying that if you write or stamp, "Deposited for credit on account or exchanged for non-negotiable Federal Reserve Notes of equal value", you might be put in jail and have no recourse for false arrest.

You are actually saying that.

Well, that tells me I am on the right track and that you are getting downright upset about that too.

[David Merrill]

Continued...

Well, that tells me I am on the right track and that you are getting downright upset about that too.

And I should add that there are no circumstances in which one stamping non-endorsement on a paycheck would ever lead to an arrest or even detention of any kind. I think many Readers here, when leaving the bank with their cash, will find a certain joy in that they just cashed their paycheck non-taxable event.* The attorneys at the bank are wise enough not to interfere with your right to public money. Watching them try though, is quite a thrill I imagine. So say the intrepid courts of competent jurisdiction who have gone there.

And Judge Roy Bean is smart enough to be trying veiled threats about me digging (my own grave?). Well that's a fine day when Internet Yarn gets me into trouble!



Regards,

David Merrill.



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

[Judge Roy Bean]

Still weaving the thread of lies, eh, David?

You had nothing to do with why I posted the Shinnick story. It was in response to a thread where people were "experimenting" with presenting things to a bank, and the fact is, ignorance may not keep you out of jail and in California, you can't go back after them for false arrest.

You decided to concoct a complete fabrication and got exposed for lying and you just can't seem to stop trying to post your way out of it.

Want another news item on the Shinnick case? Or are all of these other news items simply something I made up?

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Judge Roy Bean

Still weaving the thread of lies, eh, David?

You had nothing to do with why I posted the Shinnick story. It was in response to a thread where people were "experimenting" with presenting things to a bank, and the fact is, ignorance may not keep you out of jail and in California, you can't go back after them for false arrest.

You decided to concoct a complete fabrication and got exposed for lying and you just can't seem to stop trying to post your way out of it.

Want another news item on the Shinnick case? Or are all of these other news items simply something I made up?

See? There you go again! You are inferring that Shinnick was falsely arrested when he entered the Bank of America and tried to cash a check that had another than the authorizing signature on it. And you are trying to teach people here that one can be falsely arrested without recourse with Shinnick's proper arrest for an example.

Somebody wrote me saying I am having too much fun with this. Maybe that is wise to consider.

Want another news item on the Shinnick case?

No. I believe your depiction of the basic events to be correct. You are tying to say Shinnick was falsely arrested for... well like I have been saying...

You spin the Shinnick arrest eloquently JRB - http://www.loansharks.blogspot.com

You are trying to convince people not to experiment around with things like public money non-endorsement because banks have become more powerful than the Montecito - the casino in Las Vegas, the TV show.

I recall somebody telling me their mother was in Las Vegas and somebody at a casino took a Treasury pen (I call them that. They show black on regular paper but brown on Treasury paper) to her $100 bill and it didn't look right. So they took her $100 away!

So I bought a couple Treasury pens to avoid that ever happening to me. That just burns me up, these illusions (color) of authority attorneys generate. However since that report about somebody's mother I inquire of cashiers and they inform me the instruction is to simply refuse and give the suspect $100 back and ask for the customer to go fish for more, less suspicious FRNs.



Regards,

David Merrill.