Pay to - Pay to the Order of...

[David Merrill]

This post by Shoonra came to mind in context of the man on the land acting as trustee for the artifice.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

The instruction PAY TO THE ORDER OF on the face of a check evidently has a reason for this wording (and for not using the much older working of simply PAY TO). After spending some time chasing down some UCC textbooks, I believe I have an explanation (not necessarily the only one).

The issue os the endorsement of checks over to third parties. This may not have been very common before the 20th century, but the current wording facilitates such endorsements.

If a check is made payable to Joe Blough, and Joe Blough is the person who will take the check to the bank, then it really doesn't matter whether the check uses the expression PAY TO Joe Blough or PAY TO THE ORDER OF Joe Blough, because either way it's Joe Blough and he's the one depositing or cashing the check.

But suppose Joe Blough endorses the check over to you. He signs the back of the check as an endorsement and now it's cashable by whoever is holding it, which, for the moment, is you.
If you take the check to the bank, there is a problem; yes, it's true that Joe Blough, the named payee, signed the back but if the check says PAY TO Joe Blough then the banker cannot pay you because the phrasing is such that the money has to be handed to Joe Blough, regardless of his endorsement over to you.

On the other hand, if the check said PAY TO THE ORDER OF Joe Blough, then you can cash or deposit the check. Joe Blough already "ordered" the check paid by endorsing the back of the check, so the check will be paid by Joe Blough's order, even though the money won't be put into Joe Blough's hands.

I hope this clarifies it.

The item being ordered is private credit from the Fed. Whereas the man on the land is capable of redeeming lawful money instead.

For you Strawman Redemptionists - Shoonra is correct; There is no alchemy between the full and legal name in upper and lower case letters, and the ALL UPPER CASE version. It is the difference between the man and the suggested trust on the birth certificate that designates the man to be the secured third party - the Trustee in the arrangement. But when one is fooled into thinking these two identities are the same thing, that stumps the redemption.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[fulltitle]

Without Prejudice.
That conference of those post-Reconstruction Governors has been said to have some interesting significance.

For you Strawman Redemptionists - Shoonra is correct; There is no alchemy between the full and legal name in upper and lower case letters, and the ALL UPPER CASE version. It is the difference between the man and the suggested trust on the birth certificate that designates the man to be the secured third party - the Trustee in the arrangement. But when one is fooled into thinking these two identities are the same thing, that stumps the redemption.

When I had mentioned the notion the 'true name' acting as agent, that wasn't to rule out the notion of 'true name' also having a security interest in the person.

[amenmesse]

In reply to Shoonras quote I found this:

GERARD v. LA COSTE, 1 U.S. 194 (1787)

The drawer is the lawgiver, and directs the payment as he pleases; the receiver knows the terms, acquiesces in them, and must conform. There have doubtless been many draughts made payable to the party himself, without more, generally perhaps to prevent their negotiability: Whether these draughts can properly be called Bills of Exchange, even between the parties themselves, seems to have been left in some doubt by the modern Judges. Certainly there are draughts, in the nature of Bills of Exchange, which are not strictly such, as those issuing out of a contingent fund; these, (say the Judges in 2 Black. Rep. 1140.) do not operate as Bills of Exchange, but, when accepted, are binding between the parties. The question, however, here, is not whether this would be a good Bill of Exchange between the drawer, payee, and acceptor, but whether it is indorsable. Marius's Advice is an old book of good authority; in page 141 he mentions expresly such a Bill of Exchange as the present, and the effect of it, and he says, that the Bill not being payable to a man or his Assigns, or Order, an assignment of it will not avail, but the money must be paid to the man himself. In 1 Salkeld 125, it is said, that it is by force of the words, 'or order' in the Bill itself, that authority is given to the party to assign it by indorsement. In 3 Salk. 67 it is ruled, that where a Bill is drawn payable to a man, 'or order,' it is within the custom of merchants; and such a Bill may be negotiated and assigned by custom and the Contract of the Parties. And in 1 Salk. 133 it is expressly said by the Court, that the words 'or to his order,' give the authority to assign the Bill by indorsement, and that without those words the Drawer was not answerable to the indorsee, although the Indorser might.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by amenmesse

In reply to Shoonras quote I found this:

GERARD v. LA COSTE, 1 U.S. 194 (1787)

The drawer is the lawgiver, and directs the payment as he pleases; the receiver knows the terms, acquiesces in them, and must conform. There have doubtless been many draughts made payable to the party himself, without more, generally perhaps to prevent their negotiability: Whether these draughts can properly be called Bills of Exchange, even between the parties themselves, seems to have been left in some doubt by the modern Judges. Certainly there are draughts, in the nature of Bills of Exchange, which are not strictly such, as those issuing out of a contingent fund; these, (say the Judges in 2 Black. Rep. 1140.) do not operate as Bills of Exchange, but, when accepted, are binding between the parties. The question, however, here, is not whether this would be a good Bill of Exchange between the drawer, payee, and acceptor, but whether it is indorsable. Marius's Advice is an old book of good authority; in page 141 he mentions expresly such a Bill of Exchange as the present, and the effect of it, and he says, that the Bill not being payable to a man or his Assigns, or Order, an assignment of it will not avail, but the money must be paid to the man himself. In 1 Salkeld 125, it is said, that it is by force of the words, 'or order' in the Bill itself, that authority is given to the party to assign it by indorsement. In 3 Salk. 67 it is ruled, that where a Bill is drawn payable to a man, 'or order,' it is within the custom of merchants; and such a Bill may be negotiated and assigned by custom and the Contract of the Parties. And in 1 Salk. 133 it is expressly said by the Court, that the words 'or to his order,' give the authority to assign the Bill by indorsement, and that without those words the Drawer was not answerable to the indorsee, although the Indorser might.

Thank you for that insightful citation. I was told by a macroeconomics author - The artificial names are to accomodate the artificial money.

My point was basically that without knowing one's true identity, one will be drawing to the order of... to the order of a party they think is themself. And the order is for private credit from the Fed through endorsement. Rather than redeeming lawful money, which is right retained to the man or woman on the land.

To support that point read the remedy written into the Fed Act. The title or position assumed by the man or woman is Fed reserve bank. But one may get out of that position and elastic currency at any time.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[powder]

pay to the order of = negotiable

pay to = non-negotiable

[ThomPaine]

David,

was that last attachment (or the book) printed after the Federal Reserve Act??

The description says pre-1934, sorry if i missed it..

[palani]

Leads one to question why an endorser might be different than an indorser.

Originally Posted by Bouvier 1856

INDORSER, contracts. The person who makes an indorsement.

2. The indorser of a bill of exchange, or other negotiable paper, by his indorsement undertakes to be responsible to the holder for the amount of the bill or note, if the latter shall make a legal demand from the payer, and, in default of payment, give proper notice thereof to the indorser. But the indorser may make his indorsement conditional, which will operate as a transfer of the bill, if the condition be performed; or he may make it qualified, so that he shall not be responsible on non-payment by the payer. Chitty on Bills, 179,180.

3. To make an indorser liable on his indorsement, the instrument must be commercial paper, for the indorsement of a bond or single bill.will not, per se, create a responsibility. 13 Serg. & Rawle, 311. But see Treval v. Fitch, 5 Whart. 325; Hopkins v. Cumberland Valley R. R. Co., 3 Watts & Serg. 410.

4. When there are several indorsers, the. first in point of time is generally, but not always, first-responsible; there may be circumstances which may cast the responsibility, in the first place, as between them, on a subsequent indorsee. 5 Munf. R. 252.

Originally Posted by Etymology Online

endorse 1381, from O.Fr. endosser, lit. "to put on back," from en- "put on" + dos "back," from L. dossum, var. of dorsum. Sense of "confirm, approve" (by signing on the back) is first recorded in Eng. 1847. Assimilated in form to M.L. indorsare.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by ThomPaine

David,

was that last attachment (or the book) printed after the Federal Reserve Act??

The description says pre-1934, sorry if i missed it..

That is §16 of the Fed Act (1913). It is codified at Title 12 USC §411 which was modified to accomodate FDR's 1933 gold seizure.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[indio007]

The last paragraph is the best part. How the bankers became King.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by palani

Leads one to question why an endorser might be different than an indorser.

I checked it out once and found the difference so subtle that it could be ignored.


Regards,

David Merrill.