Tweet
Originally posted by The Great Ag
Check this out.
Your post has had me going mad! Basically I knew something was wrong with the above non-indorsement but could not articulate it. Well, finally I know what was bugging me about it, and here it goes:
Your quoted indorsement goes like this right,
Deposited for credit on account or exchanged for non-negotiable federal reserve notes of face value
Well, here it is, you are not making a deposit. EVERYTHING IS BOOKKEEPING OR ACCOUNTING ENTRIES!!!!
You are submitting the check for credit on account, and if you want to cash the check, you are exchanging the check for Federal Reserve Notes equal to the face amount of the check!
I have made two stamps, one for submitting for credit on account, and the second for exchanging the check for cash, like so:
SUBMITTED FOR CREDIT ON ACCOUNT ONLY, Acct.#:XXXXXXXX
and
EXCHANGED FOR FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES EQUAL TO THE FACE DENOMINATION.
Cheers,
-Sapiens
106. [These are requirements within States of the Union. Today’s requirements “in this state” would be different. But if the original requirements were still in place, what do you suppose the odds are that the IRS and/or federal gov-co can produce a set of “books” that have been kept 1) daily; 2) honestly; and 3) fairly? The Inspector General has admitted that the IRS has lost track of BILLIONS of dollars. How accurate do you suppose their “book of accounts” might be?] If the books appear free from fraudulent practices, and proper to be laid before the jury, then, in many of the States, the party him*self is required to make oath, in open court, that they are the books in which the accounts of his ordinary business transactions are usually kept. See Taylor v. Tucker, 1 Kelly, 233; Hale v. Ard, 48 Penn. St. 22 ; Funk v. Ely, 45 id. 444 ; Frye v. Barker, 2 Pick. 65 ; Bassett v. Spofford, 11 N. H. 167 ; Rowland v. Bur*ton, 2 Harr. (Del.) 288; Fitzgibbon v. Kenny, 3 id. 317 ; Kitchen v. Tyson, 2 Murph. (N. C.) 314 ; Foster v. Sinkler, 1 Bay. (S. 03 40; Nickerson v. Morin, 3 Wis. 243. [Note that the “book of accounts” must be the “book” of THE real party in interest. Only HE can swear to the authenticity of his book of accounts. That’s easily understood in simpler times when most businesses were sole proprietorships owned by a single living man. Today, when businesses are almost all corporations, and usually so large that no single individual can be easily identified as both the real party in interest and “bookkeeper” for the “book of accounts,” WHO can swear to the legitimacy of any particular account or book of accounts? Without that OATH, the book of accounts is just a business record (hearsay) and inadmissible as evidence, but probably admissible as a premise in an argument. The argument would be moot if the “account-relationship” were effectively denied. Similarly, if the premise (accurate book of account) were controverted with evidence of systemic inaccuracy, the premise might also be defeated.] In New York the rule is, that to render books of account competent evidence, the party [real party in interest (“RPIN”) to the “account”] must prove that during the period that the charges were made, he had no clerk ; that some of the articles or work were deliv*ered or performed ; that the books are the account books of the party, and that he keeps correct accounts. Vosburgh v. Thayer, 12 Johns. 461 ; Tomlimon v. Borst, 30 Barb. 42 ; Stroud v. Mon, 3 Keyes, 139 ; S. C., 4 Abb. CL App. 326. [If those principles were still in effect, virtually no company or government with an in-house data entry clerk or “bookkeeper” could prove that the “book of accounts” was valid. In today’s business world, the books of accounts are almost certainly not admissible as competent evidence because the true RPIN can’t be identified as a single man and even he he could, he’s almost certainly not the guy who personally kept the “book of accounts”.] And it now seems to be the settled law of the State, that parties may intro*duce books of account in evidence, and a party may supply, if he can, the preliminary proof of the correctness of the books by his own oath, whenever it is made to appear that the party had no clerk; or, if he had one, that the clerk was dead. Burke v. Wolfe, 6 Jones & Spen. (N. Y.) 263. [What if the clerk was a decedent like “ADASK”? Would the clerk’s status as a legal fiction or account satisfy the old rule concerning the “party’s oath” when the “clerk was dead”? This is pure, improbable conjecture. But it is intriguing to speculate as to whether a business system (like “this state”) might overcome the requirement to prove the validity of “business records” (books of account) if all the data entry clerks were deemed to be legal fictions/decendents.]
Comment