Thumbprints at Banks

Originally Posted by jmunson

thank you HB.


btw, i too would love to take from the banks at least a fraction of what they've gleaned from me.


however, i know the utter futility of pursuing that goal.


i also know it is not spiritually right.


while i'm no biblical expert by any stretch, i don't recall christ attacking the devil outright, other than to dispel him.


"money is the root of all evil." that is more true today than yesterday. those are good words to ponder.


one last thing i'll leave you with - i believe, that, in theory, CTC3 is a good starting point for all of this process. you can never have enough information. however, it is only that. DO NOT expect to have, within that book, EVERYTHING you'd need to know to exercise all of this properly.


i know from personal experience. i've been hither & thither in the last few years reading, researching, and learning regarding mostly the banks & how all this integrates, and what i continue to find is that there is even more to learn as i go.


i can tell you that CTC3, while a good starting point, is NOT a one-stop-shop.


i applaud your efforts to stop the banks in their tracks. however, your dispute (ahem, there's that word!), would be with the policy makers over rights violations. their pockets, unfortunately, are deeper than yours, and the courts are in their beds. it is an uphill battle.


nonetheless valiant.


imho, there are better pursuits.


jon

Not quite sure how it would be spiritually unsound any differently than the TM Notice which asks for payment for the use pr private property.

Also, The Bible says" the LOVE of money is the root of all evil," not "money is the root of all evil."

While Money is not bad, stealing it and lying to get it (which is what THEY have done) is equal to the LOVE of money, which the bible says is the root of all evil.

Also, The one time Christ went off was on a group of "moneychangers". He sure 'nuff ran their butts out of the temple. and told them that they had made his Father's house a den of thieves. Which is what I was reffering to above. Stealing money (usury) stealing private property (names, fingerprints) It all points to the LOVE of money.

thank you for the corrections.& however, you have underscored my point.& by pursuing the issue, "it can pay off BIG," (in your words).& is this not, then, for the LOVE of money?


yes, they LOVE money - that's obvious.


and yes, christ threw out the moneychangers - from his father's temple where they had set up shop.& and rightfully so.


where did i question the use of the trademark notice?


jon

Jon, I guess we could beat this horse till they show the pictures on drudgereport.

I am using TM notice instead of Copyright Notice. (thus the reference)

I guess we just see it differently. or you are not using a CN to protect your name.

Nevertheless, I appreciate your take on it.

HB

i do have a copyright notice in place.& however, such instrument's true effectiveness is now in a bit of doubt considering some recent postings made here and vague references elsewhere.


i think we do see things a little differently.


but that isn't necessarily a bad thing...





jon

[Ice]

I don't see any problem with the Copyright.& It has proven to be very effective.& And when it comes right down to it -- you should be able to use the court to collect.& I'm assisting a friend with that very thing at the moment.& We'll let ya'll know how it turns out.


The one thing to remember about the CN is that you offer a contract and a way to avoid contracting -- if they use the property they have agreed to contract.& And that BINDS THEM.& The law upholds that.& But it's another thing to get a judge to uphold the law.


&

Is it feasible to do a combined Copyright/TM Notice?

Or if fault was found in one would it negate the whole istrument?

Thanks

I plan on doing this in the next few weeks, so I want to know which way to go.

I'd really like jersee's take on this one.

[planetmark]

Dug up this old post, as I'm now dealing with the same issue.

I stumbled across "Presentments" at UCC 3-501. Section (2) there says there are three requirements for presentment: i) exhibit the instrument ii) give reasonable identification (driver's license is good enough for everything else in this world... should be "reasonable"!) iii) surrender the instrument.

They can't dishonor the instrument because of their fingerprint policy, can they? If they do, you give them Notice of Dishonor, identifying the instrument, and you have grounds for action against them. I'm going to go wrestle with them tomorrow, and see how far they will take their arguments. It should be a fun exercise, and cheap lunch-time entertainment. Maybe I could go back every day with a new argument, and see how long they can put up with me? lol. They are basically committing a crime by dishonoring the instrument without a legal basis.

Any other insight on this subject out there? This is an old thread, so surely someone has found a good way of dealing with this by now?

[idknow]

Originally Posted by planetmark

Dug up this old post, as I'm now dealing with the same issue.

I stumbled across "Presentments" at UCC 3-501. Section (2) there says there are three requirements for presentment:

i) exhibit the instrument

ii) give reasonable identification (driver's license is good enough for everything else in this world... should be "reasonable"!)

iii) surrender the instrument.

They can't dishonor the instrument because of their fingerprint policy, can they? If they do, you give them Notice of Dishonor, identifying the instrument, and you have grounds for action against them. I'm going to go wrestle with them tomorrow, and see how far they will take their arguments. It should be a fun exercise, and cheap lunch-time entertainment. Maybe I could go back every day with a new argument, and see how long they can put up with me? lol. They are basically committing a crime by dishonoring the instrument without a legal basis.

Any other insight on this subject out there? This is an old thread, so surely someone has found a good way of dealing with this by now?

I'm reminded that on RandyLee's site and within other pages around that I've read, a tumbprint is used
to absolutely establish identity. From what i've read, its use isn't limited to negotiable instruments
only.

I'm in the process of changing my thinking concerning that - upon which and where would I put my print.

so, there is a time and place for it but only upon my will and not by coercion.

[Shoonra]

Look at it this way. You're talking about a bank (or any bank) where you don't have an account. Such a bank doesn't have to cash your checks no matter what sort of ID you have or that they normally would accept. If a bank is willing to cash the checks of strangers, it can attach whatever safeguards it pleases to the transactions. If they require a thumbprint and you refuse, they don't cash your check; end of story.

The thumbprint, incidentally, is on the check itself. If the check bounces, then the bank has your thumbprint to pass on to law enforcement, but if your check is good, then the cancelled check - with your thumbprint on it - eventually gets sent back to you.

No, fingerprints cannot be copyrighted. Nor can making an impression of someone's fingerprints be considered a theft.