Second time I’m reading “indorsement” from these morons, are they all just illiterate or is there some deeper idiocy to it?
No that’s actually correct in a legal context like this. I mean what they’re trying to do is nonsense obviously, but an indorsement, as defined in UCC s. 3-204(a) for example, means “means a signature, other than that of a signer as maker, drawer, or acceptor, that alone or accompanied by other words is made on an instrument for the purpose of (i) negotiating the instrument, (ii) restricting payment of the instrument, or (iii) incurring indorser’s liability on the instrument, but regardless of the intent of the signer, a signature and its accompanying words is an indorsement unless the accompanying words, terms of the instrument, place of the signature, or other circumstances unambiguously indicate that the signature was made for a purpose other than indorsement. For the purpose of determining whether a signature is made on an instrument, a paper affixed to the instrument is a part of the instrument.”
Maybe they’re all copying the same text they bought from the same huckster.
That reminds me of that monk joke…
A new monk joins an abbey and dedicates his life to copying ancient books by hand.
After the first day though, he reports to the head priest. He’s concerned that all the monks have been copying copies made from still more copies.
“If someone made a mistake,” he points out. “It would be impossible to detect. Even worse, the error would continue to be made.”
A bit startled, the priest decides he better check their latest effort against the original which is kept in a vault beneath the abbey. A place only he has access to.
Well two days, then three days pass without the priest resurfacing. Finally, the new monk decides to see if the guy is alright. When he gets down there though, he discovers the priest hunched over both a copy and the original text. He is sobbing and by the looks of it has been sobbing for quite some time.
“Father?” the monk whispers.
“Oh my goodness,” the priest wails. "The word is ‘celebrate.’ "
That’s hilarious.
It’s from Latin in- (meaning “in” or “on”) and dorsum (meaning “back”). Indorse comes to English through medieval Latin, and changed forms in the 15th century to endorse, around the time the roots of our modern court system took roots in Florence during the Inquisition.
The Florentine republic relied heavily on maritime trade, and so the court system was generally modeled around adjudication of Maritime law. Using the older Latin form lets creditors and courts know that the Sovereign is asserting Commerce law, the Law of the Land.
Am I making this up? Maybe.
Had me in the first half. Not gunna lie
I think that’s the part they made up
It’s the old timey spelling of “endorse”, but really only for the definition of signing a legal document, like “endorse a check” is the same as “indorse a check”,.which is already a pretty ancient thing to say.
So maybe they found it in some old law dictionary or archaic rule somewhere?
some old law dictionary
They treat Black’s Law Dictionary like it was the word from on high.
The Moorish sovcit branch, who are black, have some weird lingo. I don’t know why but they say other things too, like sun in place of sun. I think it has roots in Rastafarian culture looking online but I honestly don’t know more.
I also say sun in place of sun
Ack I meant son.
Well that’s preposterous. I only say son in place of son.
My understanding is that there is special magic in spelling the word in this manner
I was honestly coming to ask the same question
I like your funny words magic man.
Actually, I think there’s only one mistake here. It’s just a really big one.
Lowercase ‘u’ in full. That means something completely different. They will be signed up for more marketing mail now. Shucks.
Word is indeed bond, yo.
What do you think is on all of the other pages?
Probably a lot more pound signs instead of actual information.
That’s only being consistentl with the rest.
