Graphic One (1) 

Uniform Commercial Code › U.C.C. - ARTICLE 3 - NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS (2002) › PART 2. NEGOTIATION, TRANSFER, AND INDORSEMENT › UCC §3-205 (a) If an indorsement is made by the holder of an instrument, whether payable to an identified person or payable to bearer, and the indorsement identifies a person to whom it makes the instrument payable, it is a "special indorsement." When specially indorsed, an instrument becomes payable to the identified person and may be negotiated only by the indorsement of that person. The principles stated in Section 3-110 apply to special indorsements. (b) If an indorsement is made by the holder of an instrument and it is not a special indorsement, it is a "blank indorsement." When indorsed in blank, an instrument becomes payable to bearer and may be negotiated by transfer of possession alone until specially indorsed. (c) The holder may convert a blank indorsement that consists only of a signature into a special indorsement by writing, above the signature of the indorser, words identifying the person to whom the instrument is made payable. (d) "Anomalous indorsement" means an indorsement made by a person who is not the holder of the instrument. An anomalous indorsement does not affect the manner in which the instrument may be negotiated.

This writer notes to the readers that many wrongly apply interpretation of “(b) If an indorsement is made by the holder of an instrument and it is not a special indorsement, it is a "blank indorsement."” Cleary the first graphic displayed reflects a “Special Indorsement” instrument wherein the subsequent “Payee” has yet been defined. Maybe the lacking of temporary of identity would not be fatal to the negotiable instrument, other areas of law require proper continuous identity of an agent to allow rights not govern under UCC or a states adopted equivalence. The second graphic illustration where negotiation has not occurred defines the UCC statutory law that denotes the stamping is an incomplete indorsement stamping under UCC 3-115. One has to look at the agents for the investors who claim they are the investors are nothing but money managers hired for profit by investors, mom and pop businesses, public employee retirement as financial money investors.

  Graphic Two (2) 

When one picks and chooses individual components of law and applies only a portion of law, just as in math, anything can be made to equal what one desires and where one present this partial fact to a legal tribunal should be considered as contempt.

Without Recourse being raised by a maker of the instrument to this writer has no legal bearing upon what attached rights exist to the instrument. Where a party has no rights to the instrument under current law as far back as Carpenter versus Longam (United States Supreme Court,) no party can claim a right exists where existence has been destroyed by failure to comply with law. For a party to step up to a court podium and claim there is a lawful right to what no longer exists is to this writer protecting their hide from biting alligators. As these writings are not intended to entry into a court, this writer tries to avoid using analogies and profanity but sometimes a mouse is left with nothing but a course of absolute defiance. Many are claiming that words are failing to return law to the people, however this writer still believes in the power of the “PEN”.

In this writer’s opinion what would change and direct people to a better understanding is to stipulate that the stamping called an indorsement upon an instrument is a “Special Indorsement” that is incomplete negotiation in accordance to UCC 3-115. Once it is accepted that the stamping is an incomplete stamping then for someone to claim it is a stamping that creates a “Bearer” instrument is most likely a liar or a fool most likely attempting to protect a Friday paycheck. To prove extrinsic is not the same as proving intrinsic fraud. Think not “Civil” but think “Criminal” and how many laws have been violated without the use of lubricant. Pun intended…

  Graphic Three (3) 

Graphic 3 represent in accordance to the UCC the chain of indorsement required to convert a “Special Instrument” into a “Bearer Instrument.” In accordance to the Uniform Commercial Code Article 3, a subsequent identified “Payee” must be identified for two reasons: 1. To make it possible for a subsequent special indorsed instrument to become a bearer instrument. 2. Subsequent Payee must be named so law of agency can be applicable. Where MERS is involved, MERS acts maybe as agent/nominee for an unidentified Payee, how could this be under law? Again, without recourse is not a matter the maker of the instrument would necessarily be concerned with.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful