When you work for a living (or work for a life; I don't care) and you are paid wages for your time and skills and production, etc., who owns your wages?

(I'm not getting off on a tax rant here; this has nothing to do with taxes.)

Suppose some third party not contracted in the employment relationship comes along and says, "Hey, you can't have your wages unless you belong to certain institutions on my list of approved institutions."  What are you going to do about that?

Or suppose they say, "We have no probable cause that you have committed a crime, but we want your fingerprint before you can have your wages."  What are you going to do about it?

Or suppose they say, "We will sell you your wages for a fee of three dollars," or how about "Being a gun-owner is not on our list of approved endeavours and it is terribly costly to society (in someone's opinion) and therefore we have to deduct ten percent (Twenty percent?  Fifty percent?  Whatever...) to cover the social costs of your selfish insistence on owning lethal weapons."  What are you going to do about it?

(Yeah, it's happening right here and now, folks.  That's why I am starting a discussion about it.)

Comments, anyone?

You get paid to do what the employer wants you to do.  If you didn't do what they asked, then you don't deserve the money.  If you don't want to do what they ask, you leave.  If you did what they asked, then it's your money.  If not, then it's not yours.  It's simple.


Already had to do that and much more to get my $6 per hour job.  It was the best I could find locally, and I was happy to find it.  I had to submit to a state police investigation, and they required a full physical.  I got-out of having to see a doctor out of sheer luck, because they misplaced the paperwork.  Lot's of people have to submit to much worse than fingerprints to make ends meet.


Been there, done that.  One large manufacturing company I worked for required all employees to sign a form stating that you wouldn't do certain "dangerous" activities like sky dive, hang-glide, ride on a motorcycle, commercial fish, mine for coal (I'm not kidding), hunt from a tree stand, etc..  They didn't mention anything else about guns.  If you wanted your full pay, you signed it.  Otherwise, you dealt with the dock, or you found another job.z

Or "if you want to work here, you have to contribute to the United Way." [puke]

Then your final answer is that if you earned wages by doing what the employer wanted you to do, then it's your money, right?  (Just narrowing the focus to the issue of property:  It's your property of time and skill, etc., you gave to the employer; it is therefore your property that the employer owes you in wages.  Right?)

I'm not talking about an employer who requires you take a background check from government; I'm talking about an employer who has already hired you but refuses to pay you unless you waive your rights to a commercial third party not a party to the employment contract.

Not acceptable, and grounds for wrongful termination if fired for failure to do so.  I will cite the labor code statute that says so, if you wish.  However, that is still not what I am talking about.  (Next message should be more specific.)

Ok, some of the items brought up thus far are interesting ... however, are we talking about an actual problem here?  If so, I would be truly interested in the situation - there probably is a way to descripbe the situation without actually naming names, if that's a concern (especially if in litigation)

No, as far as I know there isn't any reason why your employer should be able to "hold your check" based on the input of some third party - not privvy to the employment contract - unles that party has a court order for garnishment of wages.  And even then the amount they can take is dependent on various rules in the various jurisdictions.

However, if as a part of your employment - right upfront the employer states, we want you to join thus and such an organization, unless you can show religious reasons why that would be contrary to your beliefs, I think you're SOL.

I might be wrong (I'm no lawyer), so take what I say with a grain of salt... also, without the particulars, I find it difficult to say if it's right or not.

Gnerally speaking though, I can't see how any employer can hold a check up simply because you failed to join the Brady campaign... or donate to UNESCO...

Oh, and it is an interesting topic - don't think it's not because of lack of response.

I've been running similar thoughts through my head when considering my employment situation.

The only product I have to sell my employer (cause let's face it, in the final analysis, we're all contractors) is my time.

If I contract to sell 40 hours a week to my employer for $xxx dollars, and then he wants 45 or 50 hours, am I not entitled to compensation of some kind for that time?  If he fails to compensate me for that time (comp time, OT pay, what have you) isn't he guilty of theft? - not necessarally in the legal sense, mut in the moral sense?

No.

Bingo.  But when the bank cashes a payroll check, it doesn't do it for me.  It does it for the employer.  It's his bank; it is there for his convenience, not mine.

None of whom have any obligation to pay your wages.

No.


You are making a $9 an hour teller who doesn't know or care about anything except when she can go home "think about it"?  I tend to doubt that.  And it doesn't matter anyway, because the bank upon which the check is written has no obligation to cash the check for you.  I will cite the commercial code section that says so, if you wish.

I live in Arizona, and I have run out of places to cash my check without having to waive my right to my property, my right to be secure from prior restraint on my right to due process of law, my right to contract, and my right to be secure from having to pay a ransom to receive my own property.  So I did a little research and discovered that every relevant statute, every single one, supports the idea that the employer owes the wages; if the bank fails to cash the check for any reason or no reason the employer still owes the wages and is still required to pay them; if the employee wants to be paid in legal tender he has a right to be paid in legal tender, and if the employer fails to pay the wages in a timely manner he may be sued for treble wages; and if he fires the employee for refusing to pay a fee to his bank he is leaving himself wide open to a wrongful termination lawsuit and criminal charges of a class 2 misdemeanor.

The last calculation I heard was about 71%.

Yes.

It is in litigation, and it is scaring the hell out of the employer and the wannabe paralegals they call Administrative Law Judges in this state, and it can be discussed fully without naming names.

The employer is not "holding the check".  The employer is claiming my wages are paid when I receive my payroll check whether his bank will cash the check or not.

He's not saying it.  His bank is saying it.

I think there would have to be a rational connection to the work, like a professional society for your occupation, for example.  But that isn't what we are talking about.  We are talking about his bank, who won't cash his payroll check for me unless I waive my right to the privacy of my fingerprints, waive my right to contract, waive my right to be secure from impairment of my right to due process of law, waive my right to my property, and so forth.

He can't.  Neither can his bank.  But you have no standing to legally force his bank to cash his check.  I will cite the commercial code statute that says so if you wish.

AimSmall; You dont Understand unions...look at it this way. I work for the international assoc. of Machinists and aerospace workers. NOT FOR AN AIRLINE! The company i work for, the IAMAAW know as the IAM, has a contract with the company, usairways, to provide maintenance on ther aircraft. As we are providing a service To USairways for our company we are obligated to stay within the letter of our agreement. And also USairways is obligated to honor the contract that they signed with my company , the IAMAAW.
I do not work for usair... i work for a union that has a contract with usair.
This is the way it is with all union companies.  
The airline signed the contract... so they will honor it.
The union signed the contract so we will honor it.
If either the union or the airline didnt think they could make money with the contract they would not have signed it.
If you  dont think you are in  a union of some sort you may be mistaken,,, are you in the NRA? This may be the largest nonprofit union in the U.S., .....pat

AimSmall.  

I understand.  I really do.  I've often brushed up against that item.

I think I may be again soon, but so far no problems.  My employer really wants to get me onto direct deposit.  So far it's still an option, but I really don't wish to.  I like having at least the check in my hands.  Even though it's not 'greenbacks' it has a 'money' feel to it.  consider it a visual aid to me in knowing how much I have.

I suppose that one could bypass the problems you are having through direct deposit, but methinks this defeats certain other actions you don't wish to participate it - such as maintaining an account?

And yes, it only makes sense that you have only been paind when you have actual spendable cash money in your hands... or in your account.

I can see how this would scare the life out of some... perhaps not the employer - because if the check were good, what does he care, as long as the bank cashes it - but the bank!  Think of all the fees they'd have to forgo!  just for dealing with a simple transaction like cashing a check!

And then, the gov't without that fingerprint, they'll loose some control...

I'd be interested to know how this turns out. Keep me posted, if you would - thanks.

Edited to add the following question (rhetorical in nature mostly)

I wonder what the situation is if one is employed by a larger company and the check is drawn on an out of state bank?  How would one go about cashing the check [b]at the employers bank?[/b]  I'd hate to have to travel to Texas to cash my paycheck (that's where mine is drawn)

Be very careful with that.  You can't give them permission to only add money to your account.  You have to give them permission to also take it out.  I don't know what your state laws are like, but in South Carolina writing a NSF check is a criminal offense.  A guy in Columbia, SC recently lost a case.  He had the right to own firearms taken away, because his employer (NCR, I think it was) made a mistake with his direct deposit.  They took-out the amount of his pay check rather than adding to it.  So, he wrote a few bad checks.  Later, he applied for a CCW, was denied, then appealed it.  The judge handling the case threatened jail time, and said that the precedent of Dayse vs. SLED (the state police) clearly stated that because of his offense, he lost many rights, including the privilege (that's the word it uses) to carry a concealed weapon.

The solution the judge suggested to use to stay out of jail and/or keep your rights if you use a direct deposit, is to open a separate account that you only use to have your wages deposited to.  Then after each pay day, you go by the bank and do a transfer to get it into your checking account.  This is what I do.  I don't want to play around with jail time for a mistake my company's accountant might make.z

Yes, it's your money.  There's no question to it, unless you agreed to something else beforehand.

The issue gets a little grayer when you sign an agreement giving the employer permission to pay you with a check.  The contract my employer uses states that you will be paid with a check, and you can not demand any other form of payment.  That statement in an employee contract screwed several people in the Savings & Load fiasco when their employers didn't honor checks that were written off of accounts that were closed.  As I remember it, the courts considered the employment debt as paid by the company, even if it was written with a bad check.  Then the employee had to go through normal means to try to collect the wages just as if they were a generic payment rather than as wages.  I've been screwed-out of wages many, many different ways over the past 30 years.  I've done a lot of technical contract work, and this state (South Carolina) basically doesn't help employees collect wages.  I've since given-up on the idea of contract work.  It's better to get $6/hour guaranteed than to have to fight for months to not get paid on a $70/hour job.z

Aim...

Why not just use a bank checking account? Deposits don't cost anything, except for monthly fees for the "service" the bank provides.  Your money is accessible.

I don't understand the issue:  you want to avoid a paper trail?  Maybe you could be a little more concrete in your description of the problem?

You don't understand that what I am talking about has nothing to do with unions -- and union contracts with airlines cannot violate the commercial code or the labor code as regards the payment of wages.

That depends upon whether your employment contract is "salaried" or "hourly".  If it is "salaried", then you did not contract for 40 hours a week:  You contracted to do whatever it takes to get the job done on the theory that there are other benefits available which make it up to you -- such as occasionally taking time off for a Doctor's appointment without being docked.  I have always considered the issue of "salaried" versus "hourly" to be a rip-off used by corporations to minimize their overhead and maximize their production -- exploiting the worker, in other words -- but, again, that is not the main theme of this thread.

The main theme here is that the employer's bank is demanding I waive my rights as a condition of cashing the employer's payroll check to me, and the employer's attitude is that my wages are "in escrow" until I manage to "negotiate" the best terms I can to receive my wages.  This is bulldust (to invoke an Australian expletive) and I am suing him for it.

Not to answer for AimSmall, but there is a bit of a misunderstanding in your statement.  First there [i]are[/i] the fees, which are tantamount to charging you to get at your own money - however small they may be, secondly, the availability of funds is dependent on the mood of the teller at the moment you deposit the check, if you know her/him very well, etc... unless you keep a large balance in the account (enough to cover the check).  That's again tantamount to charging you for access to your money - or holding it hostage until the time period is over.

Third, that's the other part of the argument - the part about :


You have to "be a member" of the Credit Union or Savings Bank (if that's what it is), or have an account at the employers bank to avoid other items, like the fingerprint...

Let me guess AimSmall - your employers bank is Union Bank of California?

I don't think it has to do with not wanting a paper trail, I think it has to do with just how much info should the bank, and by extension the Feds, have about your finances...?

Shud-d-d-d-der!

It's not money, and it is worthless to you if his bank won't cash it.  The new requirements for cashing a business check over the counter are a matter of contract between the employer and his bank; the employee is not liable for them.  If you have an account, then whether you have direct deposit or not, you are liable for those rules too.

It creates an incredibly worse situation.

It not only "makes sense", it is the doctrine of legal tender:  "No one may be compelled to accept anything other than legal tender in payment of debt."  Almost the entire commercial code is based on that doctrine.  If we lose that doctrine, we no longer have any rights at all, because we can't economically survive unless we get with whatever political agenda is the current fad.

They have not collected those fees ever, until recently -- July of this year.  They aren't scared because of missing out on those fees; they are scared because I am going to knock their entire cashless society into a cocked hat.

They will lose their objective of a totally cashless society in which taxes may be confiscated at will and without permission and without paperwork and without recourse, and if you engage in some unapproved activity, you don't eat.

I don't give legal advice -- everything I say is what I have researched myself, and my standard disclaimer is "Consult your own lawdog or legal beagle before taking or omitting any action based on what I say" but if there is one thing the commercial code says unequivocally, it is this:  A creditor is not required to accept anything but legal tender in payment of debt.  The employee is the creditor of the employer when it comes to wages owed.  I can even demand payment in legal tender, and as long as I give the debtor time to get the cash together, he is required to get it together.  (But don't do anything like that until I win my case and set a precedent on appeal!)

Besides that, in most states there is a law that prohibits any fee for making at least one withdrawal from a direct deposit account -- but it doesn't prohibit the fingerprint requirement or any other intrusions, and it doesn't prohibit government from examining or freezing or confiscating your account at any time, without a warrant and without your knowledge, under the Bank Secrecy Act.  The Bank Secrecy Act is why I haven't had a bank account of any kind for over 25 years.

The [size=4][b]g[/b][/size=4]overnment owns your wages.

The way I read the labor code, that contract is invalid for violating the statutes pertaining to the payment of wages.  A contract cannot supersede statute unless the statute specifically permits it.  The statute says the employee can be paid in "lawful money of the United States" OR in "negotiable bank checks".  If the bank checks are not negotiable, then the employer still owes the money under the commercial code:  "...payment by check is conditional and is defeated as between the parties by dishonor of the check on due presentment."

That's what can happen when you trust the shadow government (banks).

If you are doing contract work, you are not receiving wages and the labor code does not apply.

Y'know, I never really thought of it that way.  I don't recall the check ever saying "this check is legal tender for all debts, public and private".

What rules?  Are the banking rules that are state or Fed?

The way I read the labor code, that contract is invalid for violating the statutes pertaining to the payment of wages.  A contract cannot supersede statute unless the statute specifically permits it.  The statute says the employee can be paid in "lawful money of the United States" OR in "negotiable bank checks".  If the bank checks are not negotiable, then the employer still owes the money under the commercial code:  "...payment by check is conditional and is defeated as between the parties by dishonor of the check on due presentment."

That's what can happen when you trust the shadow government (banks).

If you are doing contract work, you are not receiving wages and the labor code does not apply.

No offense, but I have to say "spoken like a true sheeple".  Question:  Why do I have to pay a "service fee" to receive that which is already mine by right?  Is that not called "extortion"?

Many, many legal rulings have said that if you put your private records into the hands of a third party, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy -- and therefore government can look at your private matters without even a warrant or probable cause of wrongdoing.  Furthermore, once you deposit your funds, if the bank or financial institution goes belly up you have no right to your property -- it has been "co-mingled" with everyone else's funds, and therefore you have only the rights of a general creditor, not the rights of a depositor.

I haven't had a bank account since The Bank Secrecy Act.

(snip)

No.  Bank of America.  But it doesn't matter, because practically, if not actually, every bank in Arizona is doing it.

Not only how much info, but whether they can access the funds or not.  Under the RICO Act they can confiscate any cash on your person in excess of some arbitrary amount, and eventually they will be able to do the same thing via your bank account.

Bull.  The government does not own my labor and the government does not own my wages.

(snip - trying to save space)

If I had to guess that would have been my second choice.


If you haven't had an account in so long, how do you pay the bills (ya can't mail cash to the phone company) - do you use money orders?

I'm just curious, I've heard of people doing what you're doing, but never met anyone actually doing it.

Thanks for the info again.

It doesn't, does it?

I am working exclusively with the State Labor Code (which I think is a uniform labor code), and the State Commercial Code which is the Uniform Commercial Code.  They consistently, every single one of them, support the contentions I am making here.


If they do that, they will wind up with the same problems that led to the Convention that dropped the Articles of Confederation and wrote the U.S. Constitution, the specific purpose of which was to establish a stable monetary system.  Besides which, if they make payroll checks legal tender, then that is the same thing as doing away with payroll checks and paying everyone is cash, isn't it?  (And they do that in Australia, by the way -- they have no payroll check fraud because they have no payroll checks:  Management personnel are paid by direct deposit as a matter of law; workers are paid in cash as a matter of law.)

Well, some of us have batted an eye.  Some of us have raised holy hell about it.  And are still doing so.

(snip)


You are welcome.  How long do you suppose it will be before you see a bar code on paper money?  Then where will your "black market" be?

Money orders are 20 cents apiece, and I figure that is a lot cheaper than a bank account anyway.  Unfortunately, new legislation is (or was) going to bring money orders under the Bank Secrecy Act sometime this year -- I think it might have been October, but I don't know if it was actually passed or not.  Their objective is to tighten up the system until no transaction can escape their notice, and they can stop a transaction in mid-process, causing the most financial harm to whomever they don't like.

You're welcome.

None taken, really, I expected that.  Service fees suck, and always will- but, it's the cost of doing business in the main stream (one of many, apparently).  If you're willing to forego various benefits of living within the system, I guess your position has merit.  Good on you!

As long as you are aware that "the system" is designed and is continually being redesigned for the specific purpose of extracting service fees from a captive audience for the illusion of "the various benefits of living within the system".  Frankly, within the context we are discussing, I see no such benefits.

Well, the convenience of not having to run down to the local stop-n-rob to get a money order for every bill is one such benefit my $1/month bank fee provides.  That's no illusion.

What if you want to buy a house?  Take out a small business loan?   Besides, banking is a business.  Don't they deserve to make money doing it?

Obviously, I walked into somebody else's party here, so maybe I'm missing something.  What would be the motive for "causing the most financial harm to whomever they don't like"?  Is there some kind of conspiracy here?

D Scott, I can't but help to reply on this. Maybe the bank deserves to make money, but do they have the right to control you? I've ran across this issue several times also. Tried to cash check recieved for payment of services rendered. Bank didn't want to cash it because it was a large amount. I called the person who wrote the check who happens to be a large extremly wealthy commercial multiple account as to what I had ran into. The hardheadedness of the bank caused them to lose this customers business (my customers). They wanted to give me a certified check for the check written to me. I wasn't near my home town and asked how this would help me. They said it was policy. My customer came down and got me cash and removed all his and companies commercial and personal accounts. Bank president asked to speak to us, tried to tell us we were hardheaded! Kept asking me for a credit card to cash the check I had recieved, I've never had a credit card, and am not going to start now this late in life.
And if I want to buy a business or home without the bankers benefit, have you ever heard of owner contract?

Do you buy groceries on a weekly schedule?  I buy money orders when I buy groceries.  And the $1/month is not the only price:  What is your financial privacy and right to property worth?  Under The Bank Secrecy Act, if you have an account at a financial institution, you have neither.

Because of the banks, buying a house used to be a two-year proposition.  Now it is a 30-year proposition.  As for businesses who take out small business loans, the main theme of this thread is the right to one's own property.  You have no right to own property if you bought it with a loan; you don't own it; you merely manage it for someone else's benefit.  And yes, like any other business, banks deserve to make money doing it -- they have no right to infringe upon my rights doing it.  For example, they have no right to criminally conspire with employers to force employees to waive their right to their privacy, their right to contract, their right to due process, their right to property, etc., to make money doing it.  They specifically have no right to form a contract with an employer that says an employee has no right to receive his wages in legal tender unless some twerp in a bank gives permission.  They have no right to do that and they are hoping and praying that employees will simply act like serfs and villeins instead of like sovereign citizens possessed of their rights.


Not a problem.  You are most welcome to the discussion.  It helps develop the issues we are discussing.

Hoo-yah!  Neither government nor the background shadows that run government (mostly high-ranking financial dynasties we fought off in the American Revolution) like individual rights getting in the way of their profits and accrual of authority over "the masses" (aka "the sheeple").  You have to realize that we didn't merely fight off "the British" in the American Revolution; we fought off Fleet Street financial dynasties that had run the world, and skimmed their percentage off the top, for five hundred years.

What do you think it would be worth to them to recover their absolute one hundred percent lock-down control over every financial transaction that ever takes place?  They not only want total economic control, they want total political control, and when they get it they intend to slap us down hard enough that (in their opinion) we will never again have the temerity to think we can be self-governing.

Have you read "1984" by George Orwell?  Our (for want of a better moniker) "Nazi Occupation Government" has already established the "Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace" that was the theme of that book, and is working on the national biometric I.D. card and constant surveillance that are required to perpetuate it.

If we allow the banks to decide who gets paid and who doesn't, then what liberty has anyone?

Yes, but you can pay with cash at one of their payment centers.  That's how I've always done it.  How else would the large portion of the population that doesn't have a checking account have phone service?  I worked as a property manager/maintainence guy for an apartment complex about ten years ago, and I found-out that way over half of the renters we had didn't have a checking account.  Most people paid their rent with cash, and they had no trouble getting power, cable or phone service.[s]z[/s]

Correct me if I'm wrong, we're discussing "freedom" here?

Give that man a cigar! [:D]

OK, then allow me to ask a stupid question.  What makes you think there is such a thing as the kind of freedom you're striving for?

Now, understand, I certainly haven't spent the kind of time or effort reading and thinking about this that you have. Your question here prompted this, as a matter of fact.  But, how can such total freedom exist?  I can't imagine ANY human situation that even approximates what you seem to want to achieve, short of some Jeremiah Johnson scenario, but even that is next to impossible.  How can it be any other way?  What's the goal?

The goal, at least to me, is the re-establushment of those things we hold dear.  Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  If the Gov't (shadow or otherwise) can control your finances, what makes you think you have any of these?  After about a month of no food, you'll be dead - if allowed food, you will not be capable of paying other debt, so they'll deprive you of your liberty, and at the very least, they would hold in their grasp the power to severely limit your ability to pursue happiness.

In our original form of government, the individual was the supreme ruler - the one granted the "Divine Right of Kings" if you will, slowly but surely these rights are being eroded, and one of the surest ways to do so is to erode the individual right to property ownership.  At some point the property that is you - your body - you no longer have a right to, and the gov't will be able to do with it what it pleases.

How close am I AmSmall?

Except for a slight problem of perspective or semantics, I think you are real close.  If there is a problem, it is because we have been conditioned for so long to think in terms of government control that we fail to use accurate language in describing our problem and actually tend to get ourselves in deeper.

Specifically, we were not "granted" as individuals the "Divine Right of Kings to Govern".  Government does not grant rights.  Government grants privileges, and when it does, government may also rescind the grant at any time.  That is why when you apply for a permit to carry a concealed weapon, you are waiving the right you already have in exchange for a boon from your lord and master -- which he does not have to grant in the first place, and may rescind at his whim in the second place -- and may sanction you legally if you try to exercise the right anyway after you have already waived it.

It boils down to the fact that the Bill of Rights does not grant the people any rights.  The Bill of Rights unnecessarily prohibits government from interfering with the fundamental natural rights we have had since time immemorial.  I say "unnecessarily" because no power is delegated by the people to government in their "Consent of the Governed" (The Constitution, State or federal) to interfere with those fundamental rights in the first place, and -- as pointed out by Hamilton in the Federalist Papers -- the mere fact that we list certain rights would give (and has given) succeeding generations of elitists the idea that these are the only rights we have, and even then government may abrogate them when "government has a compelling interest".  And, of course, only government may determine when it has a compelling interest, so that process destroys all rights.

Here is a tagline I use often which I think is a far better way of expressing our rights and our status as sovereign citizens:

_____________________________
A free citizenry does not ask its governments' permission to exercise a right.  It does not register its exercise of a right.  It does not waive any other right, such as the right to privacy, in exchange for permission to exercise a right such as the right to keep and bear arms.  It does not permit government to claim the exercise of a right is probable cause, or prima facie evidence, or even a suspicion, of a crime having been committed.  It does not discuss, or negotiate, what rights it will or will not exercise with government or with any government functionary.  In short, a free citizenry, founded in principles of liberty, does not give up its right to determine what kind of government will receive its Consent to Govern.
            --Donald L. Cline
_____________________________

So these "Divine Right of Kings to Govern" are "natural" and absolute rights?  Do I have that correct? Interesting concept, and clearly an ideal to strive for...

If it isn't present here, does this form of government you describe exist anywhere?  Has it *ever* existed anywhere?  Did our founding fathers have it?

Well, to make things less confusing, let's look at it the way the founding fathers looked at it:  Before the American Revolution (and everywhere else in the world today) the [i]de facto[/i] governing principle is that [b]governments[/b] had/have the "Divine Right of Kings to Govern".  The founding fathers postulated in the Declaration of Independence that in reality, governments govern only so long as they have the [b]Consent of the Governed[/b] -- and, in addition, that the singular, exclusive, absolutely [i]only[/i] purpose of government is to protect the rights of the people.  They engaged the British and British allies in combat and through the Grace of God (because they had no chance otherwise!) won the day.

Ten years after the U.S. Constitution was ratified, Thomas Jefferson pointed out that we already needed another revolution to put government back in line, and probably needed one about every ten years to keep it in line.

So they did have it for awhile -- an admittedly short while -- but what they didn't have adequately was the "eternal vigilance" necessary to keep it.  As Jefferson said (paraphrased) "people are disposed to endure oppression rather than change the forms and procedures of government that causes it."

Today we have a [i]de facto[/i] "Divine Right of Kings to Govern" (feudal) government, in which those who govern refuse to be held accountable to those they govern.  Yet the only lawful authority government has -- i.e., the only lawful subject matter jurisdiction government has -- is derived from the "Consent of the Governed" as conveyed by the U.S. Constitution and the constitutions of the various States.  If the subject matter jurisdiction isn't there, government doesn't have it, and the only authority government has in the matter is the authority that emanates from the muzzle of its guns.

The United States abdicated its lawful authority to govern under the U.S. Constitution in 1913 when it fraudulently and illegally deprived the States of their suffrage in the Senate and thereby (by definition) became an "occupation government".  To the extent the form of that occupation government is "nationalist" and "socialist", it is a "NAZI Occupation Government" -- and while I don't go much for "proof by coincidence", the number of events that have occurred on the same date as events in Hitler's Third Reich is remarkable.

Thanks for indulging me. What you said about Jefferson's observations interests me here... "people are disposed to endure oppression rather than change the forms and procedures of government that causes it."

While I can't pretend to understand the subtleties of all you described (well said, BTW), I do recognize the inherent difficulties in human nature that prevents adherence to such an idealized regime.  I would suggest that it's not possible for people to do what you describe not because of their tolerance for oppression, but because of their basic nature.  Who, really, is capable of the kind of responsibility such citizens are required to possess?

Anyone who believes principle is more essential to their moral survival than wealth and comfort.

(That works out to about 3% of the population, by the way:  That the same number that fought in the American Revolution (the rest were Tories or didn't care) and it is about the same number as are fighting the destruction of our free country today.)

Yep, you are correct - the difference is actaully semantic - I might have phrased it better as the Divine "Right to Govern"  or the Divine "Right of Kings"  (placing the 'Devine' outside the quotes for certain clarity)

Is was not my intent to imply that 'rights' were granted by the govnerment (or the kings), but rather that rights were bestowed by the Almighty on the individual, and only enumerated in the constitution and bill of rights - none of which confer rights, but rather are a list of them that are already ours.

Roger.  And not a complete list, by any stretch.

On a more general note, is everyone clear on why I am suing the employer instead of his bank?  The bank is protected by statute from non-account-holders, and is not required to accept any check for cashing in any event, and is not liable if it doesn't.  The employer, on the other hand, is required to pay the wages regardless.  His bank is for his convenience, and no one else's.

AimSmall,

I am reluctant to bring this thread back to the top, just for this reason, but I can think of no other topic that makes sense.

Avobe, I make mention that I am probably going to bump into the "direct deposit" monster soon... well, it's happened.

If you would be so kind, I would like to have you email me what information you have.  If it is based off the UCC I think I should be able to find it in my state's code.  

I've attempted a search today, and just can't seem to find the proper definitions, etc...

Your input would be greatly appreciated.

BTW, you can get my email address from my profile here.

Thanks.

Roger, roger.  On the way.

I don't mean to get off on a tangent, but just tonight our local news station aired a segment where their consumer lawyer started poking around in the dumpsters for Regions Bank.  He found documents containing info including names, addresses, SSNs, Account numbers, deposit/withdrawal records, etc.  Started me thinking about this whole 'privacy' issue.

I'm not what you would call a Bible thumper, but the first thing I thought of when I read your post was "That's why God invented document shredders -- but then, I guess we know how Godless bankers are anyway."