Banks, Collectors, and CRAsDiscuss the elimationa of secured and unsecured "debt", as well as tactics for dealing with debt collectors and credit reporting agencies.
I was reading the thread here and and thought to myself what is the difference? I suppose there has to be one so I am Googleing. If anyone would like to help me out with some explanations post here.
This is from the USPS Domestic Mail Manual
Quote:
Pay to Bearer Checks
Updated January 2005
PS-026 (243.2)
In this Customer Support Ruling a determination will be made as to whether a “check” is “personal” information and mailable only at First-Class Mail or Express Mail rates.
This ruling concerns the classification of “Bearer” checks that are often found in mailpieces that serve as purchase incentives or after-purchase rebates, e.g., a check issued by a retailer styled as “Pay to John Doe or Bearer” in the amount of $5.00.
Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) 243.2.1* provides that mailable matter that is neither mailed or required to be mailed as First-Class Mail or Periodicals may be eligible for Standard Mail rates. DMM 233.2.3* prescribes that matter containing personal information must be mailed as First-Class Mail or as Express Mail. Personal information is any information specific to the addressee.
A check which is made payable only to the addressee or only to a specific individual, i.e., “Pay to the order of John Doe,” “Pay to Jane Doe or order,” is considered “personal” information and generally is mailable only at the First-Class rates of postage.
A printed (computer-generated) bearer check, that may be negotiated by anyone who presents it for payment would be acceptable at the Standard Mail rates. Examples include those styled to "Pay to John Doe or Bearer," "Pay to Bearer," "Pay to Addressee or Bearer," “Pay to Cash,” “Pay to the Order of John Doe or Bearer,” “Pay to the Order of Bearer” or “Pay to the Order of Bearer or John Doe Addressee.”
Since the $5.00 rebate check in the example is a “bearer” check that can be negotiated by anyone, it does not have the characteristics of “personal information” and is therefore, not required to be mailed as First-Class Mail. The bearer check may be mailed at the Standard Mail rates.
*See also DMM 133.3, 333.2, 433.2, 343.2, and 443.2.
(Signed)
Sherry Suggs
Manager
Mailing Standards
United States Postal Service
Washington DC 20260-3436
1. The Uniform Commercial Code requires that a check which is drawn "Pay to the Order of" must be properly endorsed by the named payee to be negotiable.
2. A restrictive endorsement that precedes the endorsement required by the named payee on a check drawn "Pay to the Order of" prevents the commercial instrument from being negotiable pursuant to the provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code. To preserve negotiability a restrictive endorsement can only follow the endorsement intended by the check's drawer.
3. It is commercially unjustifiable for a bank, in reliance on a preprinted corporate resolution form, to treat checks drawn "Pay to the Order of" as bearer paper rather than order instruments.
4. A bank cannot, through the use of a preprinted corporate resolution form, negate its Uniform Commercial Code responsibilities to exercise good faith and ordinary care with respect to its customers.
so off I go to find out what "bearer" "order" instruments are.
The DMM applies the principles of "endorsement guaranteed" to the special money orders mentioned in the opening post? Are those the same instruments, or am I confusing another special PO money order into things?
It seems that we are looking at the linking between "endorsement guaranteed" and Pay to v. Pay to the order of...
Additionally signing under a "Deposited for credit on account or exchanged for non-negotiable Federal Reserve Notes of face value.", declaration stamp rendering the transaction a non-taxable event.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Last edited by David Merrill : 05-03-2006 at 01:20 PM.
The DMM applies the principles of "endorsement guaranteed" to the special money orders mentioned in the opening post? Are those the same instruments, or am I confusing another special PO money order into things?
It seems that we are looking at the linking between "endorsement guaranteed" and Pay to v. Pay to the order of...
Additionally signing under a "Deposited for credit on account or exchanged for non-negotiable Federal Reserve Notes of face value.", declaration stamp rendering the transaction a non-taxable event.
Regards,
David Merrill.
The special money orders are issued by the USPS and are for their obligations. (vendors, and the like)
Thus they want to have the Pay to the order of on them.
I diudn't understand your last statment about the endorsement. I understand how it makes the event non-taxable, but not how it tied into the rest of your post.
Yeah. Sometimes my grammar is lacking on the Pocket PC - tiny screen. Plus I was really inquiring more than explaining anyway.
I am crosstalking a little with the Private Debt - Public Money thread. It seems this thread is spinoff from that thread so I am not sure which thread the topic in-between should be expounded upon.
The opening article on that thread talks about the taxation only being constitutional on events, not money, funds or legal tender - whatever. However it may have been on a different thread - a much better and thorough explanation. The event of receiving the benefit of treating private debt like public money is called endorsement. That is the taxable event in broadswipe. More like the cumulation of such events during the year.
I returned something the other day for a refund. After tendering the cash the lady required I sign for it. I wrote "N/A" on the signature line. She looked at it curiously so I explained that the FRNs I had just put in my wallet were the non-negotiable kind. She had people in line so that is as far as that went.
See? The non-negotiable FRNs are the public money because there are no US Notes in the Federal Reserve Banks. I have heard it several times and I believe it true that if you take the FRNs in and demand public money they will only give you back FRNs, and likely the same ones you just handed them. But some intrepid member should go give it a try and come back with a report. The negotiable FRNs are evidence of private debt. Period.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. I purchased the wrong battery the other day. When I took it back for a replacement/refund they had no replacement of the correct type. They needed my Information (look that up in a law dictionary; they needed for me to incriminate myself) and I had none they simply cancelled out the transaction as though it never happened. He gave me back the cash and said, "This never happened, okay?" I agreed.
Last edited by David Merrill : 05-04-2006 at 08:28 AM.
AndyK, in his persona on Quatloos (which is much more open than here) says:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quatloser AndyK
You are quoting, and claiming to make sense of, the work of a man who lives at ninety degrees to reality.
Think of advanced-resonance as being a Fourier Transform. It may not be efficient to listen to all the radio stations on the FM band at once. That would be gibberish but you can turn the single radio stations, which make sense and get a look at all the stations at once, which is like turning reality 90º (similar to calling up that degree symbol).
Or the audio spectrum. My voice is a complex waveform, composed of many different frequencies. Mine is not as pleasant as Stevie Nicks' voice but hers has several very low component frequencies that give her voice that husky quality while the primary or loudest frequency is trained to be right on the mark (A at 440 Hz). See attachments.
So even roundabout as AndyK's compliment was; I was led there by a prompt to defend somebody elses' thread, it is a compliment just the same. Thinking in various FFT functions is great for dispelling conditioning. Like thinking the radio station you are listening to is the only one in the world until it becomes a little boring, so then you reach for the dial with a mental spectrum analyzer knowing there are other stations of different character above and below that one on the spectrum (radio dial).
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. I suppose my main point is why would anyone actually capture a sample of Stevie Nicks' voice just because he thought about doing it?
Last edited by David Merrill : 05-06-2006 at 07:43 PM.
