What happens when you can't find the note?

[ArthurWankspittle]

Let's say the borrower is trying the "show the note" tactic and the lender can't produce it, what happens? Please correct me where I'm wrong but I see this a leaving a limbo situation where everyone loses. The lender doesn't get paid (OK they still could be getting paid but the usual reason we get to this situation is foreclosure so they aren't getting paid.). The borrower stays in the house, but they will both be running up a huge bill with the lender and presumably be unable to sell as they can't give "free and clear" title and no one will lend on that property until someone does. Does it get to point where there is like a statue of limitations and the lender accepts that they can't find the note? Does the lender issue a 1099? What are the implications down the line from here?

[dee_are]

IANAL, but...

I would think at that point it would devolve into a slightly less clean case in which the lender is trying to prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence that the money was lent and hadn't been repaid. A "note" isn't necessary for the obligation to exist - it's just the easiest way to prove it. At the end of the day, the bank wrote a check to the homeowner (and that should be legally easily verifiable), the homeowner bought a house with a similar amount of money (already public record), and the homeowner has a record of having paid some amount on the mortgage.

There really isn't any dispute here, legally - the homeowner is just tossing up procedural roadblocks. That can slow things down, but at the end of the day, it shouldn't end it. It's just a lot more expensive and slower (for the banks and the courts) for this to turn into, "I testify that I was Bob Smith's mortgage agent and I got him a mortgage"; "I testify that these internal records show we paid him $350,000"; "I testify that we've received $75,000 in payments". The lack of a note doesn't mean the debt doesn't exist, though - for example, it could've been done on an oral contract, that doesn't mean the debt is forgiven.

Now, in that eventuality, I think the banks get a lot of bad press, and maybe get fined (since I'm sure they're violating a lot of accounting practices if they've lost a lot of notes), but at the end of the day I think on the vast majority of these they prevail, even without a "note", because there's so much evidence the loans are real.

[Prof]

IANAL, but...

I would think at that point it would devolve into a slightly less clean case in which the lender is trying to prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence that the money was lent and hadn't been repaid. A "note" isn't necessary for the obligation to exist - it's just the easiest way to prove it. At the end of the day, the bank wrote a check to the homeowner (and that should be legally easily verifiable), the homeowner bought a house with a similar amount of money (already public record), and the homeowner has a record of having paid some amount on the mortgage.

There really isn't any dispute here, legally - the homeowner is just tossing up procedural roadblocks. That can slow things down, but at the end of the day, it shouldn't end it. It's just a lot more expensive and slower (for the banks and the courts) for this to turn into, "I testify that I was Bob Smith's mortgage agent and I got him a mortgage"; "I testify that these internal records show we paid him $350,000"; "I testify that we've received $75,000 in payments". The lack of a note doesn't mean the debt doesn't exist, though - for example, it could've been done on an oral contract, that doesn't mean the debt is forgiven.

Now, in that eventuality, I think the banks get a lot of bad press, and maybe get fined (since I'm sure they're violating a lot of accounting practices if they've lost a lot of notes), but at the end of the day I think on the vast majority of these they prevail, even without a "note", because there's so much evidence the loans are real.

In the lost note cases, the issue is not the existence of an obligation; it is the very existence of the note. If the note cannot be located, a holder or transferee can show that the note has been lost, stolen or destroyed and still enforce the note. Without the note, however, it may be impossible to show who might be a holder or transferee, since the original note -- a copy of which, for example, may exit -- was made payable to "Joe's Mortgage and Body Shop," which then sold the note,which was eventually securitized into a larger package called a Mortgage Backed Security." In other words, proof of ownership may be impossible, since the record of transfers (e.g., endorsements) may well be missing.

Finally, even with all of the evidence available, absent a note or qualification to show rights even though the note has been lost or destroyed, the Statute of Frauds, Best Evidence Rule, and Art. 3 of the UCC would prevent introduction of evidence of the obligation. Even if "everyone" agrees that the obligation exists, the person seeking to enforce the obligation has to show that he, she or it is the holder or transferee under Art. 3 of the UCC. If a copy cannot be located, no one can show the terms of the obligation because the Statute of Frauds prevents introduction of testimony to show the terms of the note, which includes the balance due. The Best Evidence Rule can also be asserted, but Art. 3 -- where the lost or stolen or destroyed note issue is raised -- gives some leeway to use a copy to show that the party asserting enforcement rights is the holder or transferee.

So, unfortunately for the ultimate owners, the bond holders in securitized transactions, most of your statements are wrong or mistaken.

If you want to read an article on the problem, I'll be happy to give you a "site" to an article written for the Texas State Bar Advanced Real Estate Course and Advanced Consumer Bankruptcy Course in 2009 (e.g., the article is available on line at http://www.langleybanack.com/news/index ... 9&navsec=2 ) . You will find the a reference to the article and a link to the article.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Let's say the borrower is trying the "show the note" tactic and the lender can't produce it, what happens? Please correct me where I'm wrong but I see this a leaving a limbo situation where everyone loses. The lender doesn't get paid (OK they still could be getting paid but the usual reason we get to this situation is foreclosure so they aren't getting paid.). The borrower stays in the house, but they will both be running up a huge bill with the lender and presumably be unable to sell as they can't give "free and clear" title and no one will lend on that property until someone does. Does it get to point where there is like a statue of limitations and the lender accepts that they can't find the note? Does the lender issue a 1099? What are the implications down the line from here?

If it were only that simple. As Prof points out, the issue boils down to who has standing to foreclose.

To get a good reading on all of this, start at minute 110 in this video and listen to Professor Levitin's answer to Senator Bennett:

http://banking.senate.gov/public/index. ... 9d5173873a

And if you really believe foreclosure is a "last resort" for servicers, go to the 150 minute mark in the same video and listen for several minutes - granted, it's almost annoying to listen to Senators, but Professor Levitin's answer to Senator Bennett and especially the later answer to Senator Johnson demonstrates a grasp that few others have.

The one Senator that seems to grasp the problem is Senator Testor and he begins in the latter part of minute 162.

The most disappointing thing about these kinds of hearings is that nothing comes out of them.

[Judge Roy Bean]

IANAL, but...

I would think at that point it would devolve into a slightly less clean case in which the lender is trying to prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence that the money was lent and hadn't been repaid.

Actually, that's two commonly-held misunderstandings.

The first question is not whether money was lent - the lender is no longer a party in a foreclosure unless for some highly-unusual reason they held on to the loan and serviced it themselves.

The second question is often not whether the loan wasn't being paid but were payments being applied correctly and were inappropriate fees and charges being added that created the alleged deficiency.

A "note" isn't necessary for the obligation to exist - it's just the easiest way to prove it. At the end of the day, the bank wrote a check to the homeowner (and that should be legally easily verifiable), the homeowner bought a house with a similar amount of money (already public record), and the homeowner has a record of having paid some amount on the mortgage.

There really isn't any dispute here, legally . . .

Again, a misunderstanding based on a flawed assumption (see above). And there is definitely a legal dispute here. The legal maxim, "Duo non possunt in solido unam rem possidere" (basically, one thing cannot be wholly owned by more than one entity) applies and the actual owner with standing is the only one who is allowed to sue.

. . . - the homeowner is just tossing up procedural roadblocks. That can slow things down, but at the end of the day, it shouldn't end it. It's just a lot more expensive and slower (for the banks and the courts) for this to turn into, "I testify that I was Bob Smith's mortgage agent and I got him a mortgage"; "I testify that these internal records show we paid him $350,000"; "I testify that we've received $75,000 in payments". The lack of a note doesn't mean the debt doesn't exist, though - for example, it could've been done on an oral contract, that doesn't mean the debt is forgiven.

That's a nice assumption. But it still ignores the need to have the proper party file the foreclosure and wind up recovering the proceeds of the foreclosure sale.

. . . Now, in that eventuality, I think the banks get a lot of bad press, and maybe get fined (since I'm sure they're violating a lot of accounting practices if they've lost a lot of notes), but at the end of the day I think on the vast majority of these they prevail, even without a "note", because there's so much evidence the loans are real.

Again, it's not that simple. It's the servicers, acting under their contractual obligation to the Trustees, that determine when a loan is in default and begin the process of foreclosure and then hand off the actual filing to a law firm that hands it off to a local (foreclosures are state actions) law firm. The "banks" hold relatively few mortgages and most of the ones they still hold are simply second lien loans.

Granted, some servicers are owned and operated by banks, i.e., BofA has Countrywide's servicing platform and still services many of the loans they originated but most of those are on behalf of third-party REMIC trustees.

[Prof]

As always, JRB, thanks for elaborating and adding the information about foreclosures.

For those of you interested, you might want to look at the numerous cases in which servicing companies cannot show even the balance due given improper record keeping or account statements which are simply undecipherable.

Have a good weekend, folks. Turkey day is almost upon us and this is one year in which I find I have much to be thankful for. Blessings of liberty, life and love to all of you and yours.

[ArthurWankspittle]

It's getting like I wish I hadn't asked. I watched various parts of that video and, although the professor gave an explanation of the situation (and I kept get distracted by the fabulously elegant woman to his right) he didn't give any suggested ways forward, but then that wasn't his brief. The only conclusions I came to were that these situations can't be resolved without an intimate, intensive audit to track where the note went, and allowing retrospective documentation to be created, which might not be legal or create a massive precedent. Otherwise, I still only see a stalemate as I described previously, scarily, on a bigger scale than I thought.

[KarmaCarburetor]

Quote: The man who does not know what it means to be under psychic hypnosis, is already under it - Vernon Howard

The real answer to the problem is not popular, or very easy to stomach once it lands upon the consciousness of the masses of slave worker bees for the queen. They might be just a little bit upset to say the least. Like for instance, finding out about having to work for 20 or 30 years to pay for something that was already paid for - the minute they decided they wanted it, whatever 'IT' might be.

Quote: The elementary principle of all deception is to attract the enemy’s attention to what you wish him to see and to distract his attention from what you so not wish him to see - General Sir Archibald Wavell - (in this case the enemy is the American people)

Your life is a contract with yourself - "Commerce" was set up to "Contract" with YOU in order to keep you busy enough from fulfilling that individual contract with yourself for any enlightenment - with the use of something there is nothing of – Money -

You will never see the Original Instrument of Indebtedness in its Original Form with all Endorsements Front and Back to 'The Property' - because the Promissory Note is a Negotiable Instrument, A Bill of Exchange, A Promise to Pay, A Promissory Note - shipped off to China somewhere and they gave you a copy of something else.

News Flash: There was no loan from any bank or anyone else - you can easily prove this to yourself by looking on your mortgage documents and find anywhere - where anyone signed saying they loaned you any money - because a bank loan NEVER happened - that is a fact. Banks are prohibited from loaning depositors money - it is against the law - Banks do not
loan money - they loaned you your very own credit out of the treasury department.

You are the creditor not the debtor - You hold the Estate, you have a "Prepaid Account". EVERYTHING was already paid for in the very beginning!. The definition of a mortgage is a "Death Pledge" you are not suppose to engage in those things. Big Daddy and Company have adopted the mafias tactics (because they work so well) and made them legal - Just because a thing is LEGAL does not make it LAWFUL!

QUESTION - if a cop knew he was not doing anything wrong, why do you think he has to come to your door with GUNS?

There is absolutely no money of account to pay our debts at law - dollar bills are "Legal Tender - it is not money - there is only credit and YOU personally - are "The Creditor of this Nation" - (ref. HJR 192 - June 5, 1933) YOU are the Creditor of this Nation, and "They" are "Borrowing Your Credit" with "Your Authorization” and NEVER returning it, under a Grand Illusion - making you be-lie-ve it was YOU who was the debtor, when you are “Absolutely Not” the debtor.

Absolutely ALL of the Monthly Statements / Bills that you receive in the mail, all tax that you are made to pay, and absolutely everything else that you ever purchase - is simply the fiction government >> passing along their Tax Bill from the Interest they made from raiding and pillaging Your Personal Unlimited Credit sitting in the treasury department in YOUR Strawman's Dead Trust Account.

Ask yourself the question - why are you "made" to need good credit, if YOU are the creditor of this nation?

You got into the fiction contract by default at the time of your birth - by default, because you were not made aware of it - you were a new born baby. You get out of any fiction contract the same way - by default. BECAUSE FICTION CANNOT ANSWER REAL PEOPLE –

It was Fraud on the Inducement and Fraud on the Execution with the Bank - ("The Bench") anything else is not relevant.

You need to go back to the very beginning at the start of the false contract if you want to resolve the "Subject Matter" - whatever the subject matter is – they are all false fiction contracts – Every Fiction Contract Is Without "Full Disclosure" of the Facts of what you are actually getting yourself involved in through deceptive practices.

No one ever bothered to sit you down and explain it all to you in GOOD FAITH, because they know you would not agree if you knew what they were doing with YOUR credit - They don't have time to explain, because they are too busy Raiding Millions from your personal unlimited treasury account in the background, because they know you are good and distracted and excited that they APPROVED your "Alleged Loan".

Big daddy and company is doing the Identity Theft through the mail (mail fraud) "Using Fiction Language with Scary Black Ink on White Sheets of Paper" - when it is not actually YOU personally they are talking to - the one reading this message – Until YOU personally act as the Competent Authority and Rebut the Presumption that you are NOT the Strawman - you get to live in Dreamland - Alice in Wonderland - take the Blue Pill and have a nice nap. - Game over.

The fiction bankrupt corporation owns your "Social Security Number" not YOU personally. Queen Lizzy of London owns YOU personally! YOU are the "Chattel Property" of that bankruptcy. THE UNITED STATES IS STILL A BRITISH COLONY EXTORTING TAXES FOR THE CROWN! -

"ALL" federal income tax goes to pay the 'Interest Only' on the debt of the bankruptcy of 1933 - CHATTEL PROPERTY = belligerents in the field and are "subject to its jurisdiction" - YOUR LIVE BODY IS THE SUBJECT MATTER they are referring to.

They are Holding your Physical Body Hostage with the Liability for the tax, sent to the address where YOUR BODY lives in the form of "Monthly Statements" you receive in the mail. ALL purchases you make are simply a tax. YOU HAVE A PREPAID ACCOUNT! You are paying for "everything" TWICE OVER.

Your Strawman is the "Transmitting Utility" and they need YOUR PERMISSION to continually contract with you to keep you CHARGED UP, (your physical body) like the "Energizer Bunny" to get you all 'Hot and Bothered', because there is NO MONEY and they are only Ghosts talking about "Invisible Things", like "Electricity"!

That is why you go to the "Circuit" court for example, where they set up several accounts under your Strawman’s name and they CHARGE YOU UP. They can do No-thing without your Busy Body all Charged Up! The Strawman is nothing more than the "Ghost" that has "Arisen" from the "Grave" of the "Self".

We are considered "Incompetent Subjects" - YOUR BODY is the BATTERY that drives the commerce of "The Queens Subjects" of the bankruptcy. Your "Live Flesh and Blood Body" - IS - the "Indentured Slave" - the "Battery" in the Grand Illusion that actually drives the Commerce to pay back the debt of the bankruptcy of 1933. THAT IS ALL THAT IS GOING ON!

What do you suppose the "Subject Matter" is in a Court Case? And just exactly WHO are THEY talking to anyway? Do you think the Judge is actually speaking to YOU? Why do you think they get over on you 'every single time you go into the courtroom? You can never win a court case - you lose every single time just by entering the building. You can never win - you don't ever win playing with fiction - you lose because they are stealing your valuable TIME –

Maxim of Law - The presence of the body cures the error for the name. The truth of the name cures the error of the description.

Do you know anyone who can just "Appear" out of nowhere in a courtroom? You are dealing with "Ghosts who Appear" out of No-where! You cannot speak to ghosts out of your mouth and expect a fiction to "hear" what you are actually saying - so they keep making the stuff up, because you keep playing with them! You just happen to call it your life.

YOU ARE MADE TO TAKE EVERYTHING PERSONAL, BECAUSE YOU THINK YOU OWE THEM MONEY! - Something there is nothing of - THEY GAVE YOU NOTHING OF VALUE! - BUT YOU ACT AND BEHAVE AS IF THEY DID! And they love you for not talking back to them with your blind obedience to be a good and considerate slave to the bankruptcy.

YOU CANNOT PAY FOR THE CHARGE OF THE MATTER OUT OF YOUR POCKET WITH DEBT INSTRUMENTS - YOU CAN ONLY DISCHARGE THE OBLIGATION, BECAUSE YOU ARE THE CREDITOR OF THIS NATION AND THERE IS NO MONEY OF ACCOUNT TO PAY FOR YOUR DEBTS AT LAW, DOING COMMERCE CONTRACTING WITH A GHOST.

A DEAD FICTION CORPORATION CANNOT HEAR WHATEVER YOU ARE SAYING OUT OF YOUR MOUTH, BECAUSE THEY ARE FICTION GHOSTS AND YOUR "LIVE PRESENCE" IN THE COURTROOM IS SCARING THE CRAP OUT OF THEM, BECAUSE YOU ARE A LIVING BREATHING FLESH AND BLOOD MAN ON THE LAND.

THEY ARE ONLY PLAY ACTOR PRETENDERS DRESSED UP IN COSTUME UNIFORMS - WHO HAVE NO EARS TO HEAR YOU WITH. All to make you think and be-lie-ve something is happening, when there is NO-THING happening. They just need you to do something, anything, to get you "All Charged Up", because either way, YOU LOSE because YOU contracted with them - IT is a NO-MATTER - NO-THING IS GOING ON WITH A DEAD FICTION CORPORATION - BECAUSE REAL PEOPLE CANNOT DEAL WITH DEAD THINGS - and they absolutely know it - that is why they have to threaten you to do it.

They have "Jurisdiction" over "The Property", Your Strawman ALL CAPITAL LETTER NAME IS the PROPERTY of the bankruptcy and they need YOU personally to answer for IT - because "Some-One" HAS to go to JAIL and it is not going to be them! – It is YOUR "Live Body" that goes to Jail for the FICTION NAME listed on a Piece of Paper - The Strawman CAN'T go to Jail, because he is already a Deadman in Commerce.

You are "Tricked with Language" to think that the property the court is referring to is the actual house, or car, and it is not - what they are referring to as the Property is in Admiralty Maritime Fiction Law and YOU personally cannot own anything - you can only "Rent It" for its temporary use. THAT IS WHY THEY CAN COME AND TAKE THE PROPERTY FROM YOU AND
YOU CAN'T DO A THING ABOUT IT - You sign on behalf of the Strawman - HE IS THE OWNER of whatever the Property is that you are only RENTING - You can own no-thing.

Everyone is trying to hang on to property that was NEVER theirs in the first place, by the "Bailment Agreement" that Bailed the Property into the Strawman’s Dead Trust Account. This comes out of the Prison System. Why do you think there is a "Bailiff" in the courtroom, or the "Bail Bondsman"? Your Strawman lives in Puerto Rico at the IRS office in a file drawer!

Now you can go back to sleep my little pretties . zzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Gregg]

And just as one village idiot goes into remission, another one appears.

Add 1 to ignore list...

[Funkalicious]

It's a wonderful crash blossom of every ridiculous argument ever used in a post on Quatloos!

[wserra]

Hmm. I think a spider spun a web in KarmaCarburetor's venturi. The mix seems a little rich.

[KarmaCarburetor]

The attorney is the 'Medium' to speak with the 'Spirit' of the “Deadman in Commerce”. The Strawman. "The Court" (who is The Court? – NO-BODY) needs "A Live Body" to step into the courtroom and speak for the Dead Strawman. That is why the attorney was "Appointed" to represent the name of a fiction bank listed on a piece of paper, a fiction name on the outside of a building cannot walk into the courtroom and speak to YOU personally. They are all ghosts having a party for the dead. A bunch of necrophiliacs having a party with your live body - at your expense in more ways than one!

The fiction can only speak to what it is - fiction. Without you, the government can do "No-Thing". The government only exist in your mind. If you believe there is a government, your "Be-lie-ving" and your faith is in vain and totally devoid in sound judgment, in which, you have only spoken to "Actors Occupying Offices of the Government".

While there are real people occupying the office of "PERSON" within the government to whom you speak to, they are controlled by the rules of the office, and the laws that govern that office of that person.

The office, is the office of the "PERSON", not Men and Woman. The PERSON is the "duplication" of the office of the government created in the imagine-NATION or, IMAGE-Nation of men and woman who themselves, occupy the offices of BANKERS and LAWYERS.

If the office of the PERSON exist only in the imagination and does not exist in reality, then how could it ever tell the truth? The only real Nation is you. Only "People" can have babies and reproduce themselves. Fiction can only duplicate itself. Governments operating in the fiction, is FICTION.

Fiction can only speak to what it is, FICTION. Remember, that all things are governed by maxims of law - maxims of law are immutable and unchangeable. They were the same yesterday, they will be the same today and they will be the same forever.

The maxim that you find yourself dealing with is the Maxim that says; "All things similar are not identical and a thing similar, is not exactly the same". The next time that you get a letter from the IRS signed by the "department of collections", remember, IT is NOT speaking to you, but only speaking to what IT IS, FICTION.

Example, remember Bill Clinton in the impeachment hearings when he responded to the question imposed to him when he replied, "IT depends on what IS" - "IS"? - This is the maxim that asks the question, "to whom are you are speaking to"?

One must understand that there can be no "meeting of the minds" if the TINMAN has a mind and a brain, and the STRAWMAN is both brainless and mindless and needs the TINMAN to do its thinking for a mindless and brainless FICTION.

The TINMAN gave the STRAWMAN ITS life. Thus, the STRAWMAN can do nothing without you. The STRAWMAN is the government, the government is the STRAWMAN. Therefore, a lie can only speak to what it is, a lie. That is all it can ever produce, a lie, because it is a lie itself. It comes out of the maxim of law, all things after its own kind. Without you, "IT" can do nothing. "IT" needs your energy to work.

Quote: Individual humans are now helplessly inarticulate in the face of the present crisis. They consider their political representation to be completely corrupted, therefore, they feel almost utterly helpless - R. Buckminster Fuller (Critical Path)

[Nikki]

Did someone invent a sovereignoramus genuine gibberish generator?

It was bad enough when SFBFKADMVP unholstered his word salad shooter, but this tops it all.

Even when Heidi was here, there wasn't such a dense concentration of all of the inane theories in a single post.

KC HAS to be bogus. It's almost impossible for a single sovereignoramus paytriot to espouse and consolidate so many different theories without carefully studying years of similar rants.

[bmielke]

And just as one village idiot goes into remission, another one appears.

Add 1 to ignore list...

Amen

I tried I really did but I couldn't make it all the way through that crap.

[bmielke]

-Snip-

Please explain what this has to do with this topic. Do it in ONE (1) sentence only please.

[KarmaCarburetor]

THE JUDGE AND CLERK FOR THE COURT ARE COMMERCIALLY SOLICITING YOUR SOVEREIGN
PERMISSION, THROUGH PRACTICES OF DECEPTION, AND ARE ASKING FOR YOUR PERMISSION FOR CONTRACTING RIGHTS TO REQUEST FOR RELEASE AND CONTROL OVER THE “SUBJECT MATTER” WHICH IS, “THE INTER VIVOS, OR LIVING WILL ESTATE OF: NIKKI THAT IS BEING HELD IN THE “COLLATERIALIZED TRUST ESTATE AND JURISDICTION” OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICES LOCATED IN PUERTO RICO. A POSSESSION OF THE UNITED STATES LIKE IE., (QUAM, PUERTO RICO AND WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA).

LOOK ON A UNITED STATES POSTAL “MONEY ORDER” AND SEE WHERE IT IS “NEGOTIABLE”? THEY ARE ASKING PERMISSION TO LOOT YOUR PROPERTY HELD IN THE INDIVIDUAL TRUST ESTATE OF: NIKKI.

THIS IS DONE ALL IN THE NAME OF COMMERCE, FOR THE PROMOTION OF COMMERCE, TO FILL-UP TO OVER-FLOWING OF THEIR OWN “RETIREMENT” ACCOUNTS, THAT THEY MIGHT FIND FREEDOM OF CONTROL OVER THEIR OWN “INDIVIDUAL TRUST ESTATES”.

Quote: Freedom is the last thing he wants. He functions, as we shall see, according to the principle of pleasure in non freedom. To be sentenced to life long freedom is a worse fate then life long slavery. To put it another way, a man is always searching for someone or something to enslave him, for only as a slave does he feel secure - Esther Vilar (The Manipulated Man)

[KarmaCarburetor]

-Snip-

Please explain what this has to do with this topic. Do it in ONE (1) sentence only please.

It has everything to do with why you can't and won't find the note - too much information for the indoctrinated simple mind living in the matrix of illusion - though you just happen to call it your life -

Sorry 3 sentences - please forgive me

[bmielke]

Who the hell does personal business with Postal Money Orders? I have a check book, I haven't needed a money order since I was 16. If I don;t use them how am I going to see where they are negotiable and why would I care when I have a check book?

[Nikki]

Who the hell does personal business with Postal Money Orders? I have a check book, I haven't needed a money order since I was 16. If I don;t use them how am I going to see where they are negotiable and why would I care when I have a check book?

A check book I'll bet you balance your account with an abacus

Between electronic payments and credit/debit cards, I don't think I've written a check in over a year.

[bmielke]

Who the hell does personal business with Postal Money Orders? I have a check book, I haven't needed a money order since I was 16. If I don;t use them how am I going to see where they are negotiable and why would I care when I have a check book?

A check book I'll bet you balance your account with an abacus

Between electronic payments and credit/debit cards, I don't think I've written a check in over a year.

I write them to my church, Charities, the NRA-ILA, and when I give money to family members. Oh and some stores around here prefer checks to debit cards. I might right four or five a month. otherwise I use debit cards and electronic payments.