Hon Jon, Davis.
Court recorder: Phoebe Adele French,
Deputy Director: Stephen Alexander Quensay
Card Payouts Contractor Center
Card Payouts Controller
Card Payouts Admin
This role is assigned to specific employees who will be responsible for performing these tasks.
Performs standard NetSuite Vendor Center functions and enables vendors to manage their own debit cards directly with the specified Token Service Provider. This role is assigned to vendors whom you want to pay using the Card Payouts application.
Performs or oversee the following Card Payouts activities:
Corporate/Government Bank Management.
Card Payouts Preference Payment Disbursement
Payment Reconciliation
This role is assigned to an employee who will be responsible for the above activities.
Functions as an executor for all the application- specific scripts and workflows related to the Card Payouts application.
J.D Vance: Special Masters
Prince Countmander Balance
Donald J Trump: Special Masters
Prince Countmander Balance
[Court of Record] Blacks 4th edition]
Verizon Wireless Executive Relations
cersSOExecutiveRelations@verizonwireless.com | Verizon Wireless Executive Relations |
walterraleigh897@gmail.com | donaldpaulneedham@thecountrybankofneedham.com | federaljudicialcenterearth@thecountrybankofneedham.com | phia@phia.co |
Donald Needham Vs Verizon Wireless 198 human Trafficking; with Nano-Technologies; extreme torture 551. Breech.
Verizon Wireless Executive: Walter L Hudson, Donald Paul Needham.
(b) Security procedure: Breech of Contract by Verizon Wireless.
Even if the order was not authorised under section 4A-202 (a) or the law of agency, if the bank has in place a “commercially reasonable security procedure” that had been accepted by the customer, and the bank complied with that procedure in good faith and in accordance with any instructions, the order is treated as having been authorised by the customer.
A bank handling a payment order is not liable for consequential damages due to delay or other error, unless the bank agreed to assume this risk.
Section 4A-201 defines “Security procedure” as follows:
“Security procedure” means a procedure established by agreement of a customer and a receiving bank for the purpose of (i) verifying that a payment order or communication
UCCS 4A-204; see, e.g., Schmidt v. Fleet Bank, 1998 WL 47827 (SD NY) (not reported in F. Supp.). This is similar to the rule regarding payment of items not properly payable under UCC Article 4 § 4-401.
Grabowski II, 997 F. Supp. at 130-31.
Ibid.Ibid.Ironically, the Grabowski II court then noted unique facts relating to the separate criminal prosecution of both the principal and agent which might benefit the bank under an agency analysis. U.C.C § 4A-202 (b). See generally U.C.C SS 4A-201, 4A-202, 4A-203, 4A-204, and 4A-504.
See also Gatoil (USA) Inc. v. Forest Hill State Bank, 1 UCC Rep. Serv. 2d 171 (D. Md. 1986), which was decided prior to Article 4A, relying on agency principles (and Article 4 by analogy) to determine that the bank used ordinary care in verifying the payment order.
The court also concluded that there was no loss because the funds-transfer paid a debt of the customer. The result would likely be the same under Article 4A, though the precise analysis would differ. See generally Miller & Harrell, supra note 1, at 10-30 to 10-32.
See U.C.C § 4A-305(d). See also Hadley v. Baxendale, 156 Eng. Rep. 145 (1854). As noted in Official Comment 2 to § 4A-305, the leading modern case on consequential damages before Article 4A was Evra Corp. v. Swiss Bank Corp., 673 F.2d 951 (7th Cir. 1982). In that case a valuable ship charter was lost because a bank failed to properly execute a payment order.
The lower court awarded damages of $2.1 million even though the amount of the payment order was only $27,000. The Seventh Circuit US Court of Appeals reversed, partly on the basis of Hadley v. Baxendale, and Article 4A confirms this result. See also Miller & Harrell, supra note 1, at ¶ 10.04[1][c]; infra Part VII.C.
LIABILITY FOR ERRORS AND UNAUTHORISED ORDERS
(a) Authority to originate
The authority of the originator and each sender to initiate or execute the payment order is governed by agency principles. Thus the first question raised by an allegation of unauthorised payment under Article 4A is whether the payment order was originated by an agent with real or apparent authority. This authority can be determined under the law of agency and/or by an agreement addressing that authority. For example, in Grabowski I the bank’s authority to execute payment orders originated by the account owners’ attorney-in-fact was governed by the power-of-attorney, which permitted only withdrawals accompanied by corresponding deposits. Therefore, the attorney-in-fact was not authorised to originate the payment orders in question. Article 4A imposes strict liability on a bank to refund a payment order wrongfully issued in the name of a customer without an effective authorisation
See Grabowski I, 997 F. Supp. at 123 (citing U.C.C § 4A-203, Official Comment). See Grabowski I, 997 F. Supp. at 128. See Piedmont, 999 F. Supp. at 47; supra Part II(b); infra Parts III-VII.
See U.C.C § 4A-103(a)(1)(i), and discussion supra; Grabowski I 997 F. Supp. at 121 (“Such conditions are anathema to Article 4A, which facilitates the low price, high speed, and mechanical nature of funds-transfers.”).
This conclusion was based on questions of material fact sufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion and was not a definitive judgment on the issues in this case. Piedmont, 999 F. Supp. at 48; the court also discussed breach on contract issues, ultimately denying the bank’s motion for summary judgment. See generally Miller & Harrell, supra note 1, at ¶ 10.04[8], [9]. See U.C.CS 4A-202(a). See also Abyaneh v. Merchants Bank, North, 670 F. Supp. 1298 (MD Pa. 1987).
[Donald Paul Needham], decided prior to Article 4A, involved an imposter who lacked authority to initiate the subject payment orders, illustrating the authorisation problems that can arise in a funds-transfer scenario. See generally Bradford Trust Co. of Boston v. Texas American Bank-Houston, 790 F.2d 407 (5th Cir. 1986); Miller & Harrell, supra note 1, ¶ 10-32 to 10-35.
See U.C.C § 4A-202 (a); Grabowski v. Bank of Boston, 997 F. Supp. 130 (D. Mass. 1998) (Grabowski II).
In Grabowski II
the court gave more detailed consideration to the bank’s argument that under Article 4A a payment order is authorised if it was originated by the person who purportedly sent it. On the facts of that case, the bank argued that the payment order was authorised because it was sent by the identified originator (the attorney-in-fact), not by someone else posing as that person.
In this view, whether a payment order was authorised would turn on this type of Article 4A analysis rather than agency principles; however, as the court noted, this view is inconsistent with the text and Official Comments to Article 4A.
| The Grabowski II |
reaffirmed that agency and contract principles determine the authority of an agent to send an Article 4A payment order.
-Each Count, 15 charges by lane at 20 right of ways and for charges x 972 with Investigations at 15 charges per lane at 20 right of ways to value dates by x 88: Prime Defendant Verizon Wireless & Staffs.
183.86 billion x 300 held by Officer Special District Polk County Seized held for Bankrupt.
Judgement Settlement Final act and by his Hon Jon, Davis and to the Plaintiff: Donald Paul Needham, &C
U.S.D: Remedy must be enforced and to all costs, damages, incurs with complete restoration of accounts.
Market capitalization……………………………………………………………………… Sheriff Grady Judd. & Deputy U.S. Marshals
…………………………………………………………………………………………… Employer at Contractor Total, and is annual due from also release of Enemy Hostile charges address and troop standby, movement, defended at Offense: 05/09/2025 at 5:53 PM Alexander Stephen Quesnay, Private War at Military Finance GOV LINK HERE
Final Judgment placed in last communications and except for last lie about not receiving items though its presumed she did still, and shows directly within the emails this in last correspondences.
Common Law provided no use to Discovery, there was evidence presented at assumption accurate placement of where bout’s of initial first proceeding and was there it accepted all placed in and without ever objecting to evidence, to that of its position and in face of the heavy principal that having been placed on the defendant/wrongdoers, despite no demure or plea this ever placed in except guilty and also matured at grounds actually objecting, defending andor liberating a wrong doing did by the company, individuals, others this also confirmed, proved and to every single alledged after and upon all prior accepted as breech of contract, and various other charges and amount of money concerning have been kept quite and due to the plaintiffs Secret Service, other achievements that demand him to have a low profile at current time, no objections ever made by Kathrine, Candace or the required power of attorney provided with the enactment of fair dealing and for all concerned, that on the first day and in no way can this from the events, the level of action taken by First In Store Seller, and intentional actions to sell a different package without the plaintiff knowing and at great loss to, this when caught and provoked after what the court recorders has timed at over ten minutes or right at 8 minutes the Verizon selling giving up and and admitting, then in slight fits of rage became aggressive and with violent impression and force hard enough to bring alarm snatched the contract from his hands and admitting that 2 phones never was 5 and therefore with has repeat reference to previously walking into the back room that of 5 phones and till upon returning with only two and then telling of lies to several and that the store was out of models to provide the three phones missing, and that Donald Paul Needham came in to the store a previous contract to thatof a business not consumer and at five phones, signed and ready for speedy completion and however becoming more aggressive at donald paul needham was demanded he come back back in two weeks, or days right under and upon doing this was told two from initial and same actual salesmen that he would not take them back because he would get the phones at the third week or month once credit had allowed for the rest, having known the contract was changed thereof donald did demand of such and was recorded by camera, on audio and being told it would not effect that because we had already agreed, after the time had elapsed he was informed and on required show that he had no intention to provide new phones, the credit did not allow and like was promised, having complaints that 3 workers having not phones now and worse the two being on a consumer line demanded for replacement, was then met with anger and repeat bad mouthed as if doing something wrong and having not then right at time to all refusal and as noted, feeling unsafe and in fear of his safety this by the Verizon employee he still demanding that return of the entire phones as such and as if waiting with committing that blurred all in ear shot and stern refusal to return the agreed and at time of agreement and was denied then mocked at such expense, after leaving the phone within two weeks unactivated and having still in use of it this unknown to later techs as there was no pin number, nor when chatting with tech support and confirmed every-time was suppose to this and be, having made first payment with complaint in attempt to remedy an instead learning that from identity guard calling him, someone else had the phone already with both numbers and in his own name this purchased a entire year previous and without doubt ever standing new he was setup unfair and intentional this happened from, then when after having to accept his own payment back days after it being removed from account and while them stating it was no good however, receipt and banking account both reflected, the ACH having entered with at first and showing, requiring that it be usable to pay bill and given normally a year at a time is covered, showing venue licenses, complete works, after making the payment then receiving it back this again, and also a check that was good, and as did none ever else complain, in fact billions of dollars came from the same routing/account and did senior attorney at law, who runs the Ohio tax department actually call and attempt to fix this because they where refusing him and knowing it could never be his payment actions this it was them, then out of no where, the phone deactivated and refused to work or come back on, in fact his wifi that he had used for two weeks was working when he received call that from a local store that never was the wifi used, this being impossible and now phones unactivated this within a few days of that call, went to three stores in the area each at different time and to exhausted fixes to it by all and without reason this besides someone else having both the same numbers and therefore as shown in evidences that also payment at the same time and to a law firm with the same bank, checks [routing number and account] to well over ten thousand dollars paid and her confirming and offering of support, at this time having been intimidated and being told by The Pentagon, and secret service that to law low as throwing the phones in the store and losing the money was uncalled for except they refused him every because of that and or repeat exposure was not wanted, stay low however while paying other banks, stores, various schools and other such and with same payment sources, finally in the last open admittance to final injury, damages, and so forth this and the facts and evidences was it completely understand that there was never fair contracting, that each action and not only by the sales guy but others did they repeat not make on even the regular would be agreement and regardless that it was complete breech from the start, that the continues lies and intimidation’s, with confusions and even know in the end no one could turn the phones back on or access to the chat or other options and due from the pin and that no support could fix, that the legal above was the route of such and therefore Donald Paul needham would be rewarded the remedy requested, and thatof returning of all costs, payments made and with return to items and complete recovery of credit history and any negative accounts, was all this decided and marked by the tribunal and plaintiff,, at last of end message, however Verizon repeating what they had been found guilty for did Kathrine attempt to extort and and rob him and this of the court and personal, the government and loss of to what was from these and seeing federal Verizon and came from this huge government waste and so forths, it is here now placed in clearest it could come, and with the legal actual provided about, case law provided for soundness and to rights of contractors, therefore demands all return of money and all prayed for, including any costs, damages or others being likely to known or show of known at the time of initial theft, and extortion this at Breech of contract by Verizon Wireless.
Donald Needham, 6:46 PM 05/09/2025. and with Dingir Law Groups, Phia Groups legal & Summary above anytime past 1:00 AM 05/10/2025.
Direct all inquires to https://government.thecountrybankofneedham.com Complaints to Jury andor Polls, all Appeals directed to https://associatetitleagency.thecountrybankofneedham.com/state-government-immediate-secured-contact-portals/
selecting for investigation all adjustments which,
after consideration of unit value,
volume of transactions, previous adjustments, and sensitive nature. of items, appear to be unreasonable.
Detailed investigation will be made to determine as far as possible whether such adjustments represent actual losses of Government furnished materials, and ,if so,
the cause of such losses.
If the adjustments are found to be due to record keeping errors,
the contractor will identify the error on the record.
If the number of adjustments is large,
consideration should be given to requiring the adjustments to be summarized according to similar items of property by the contractor’s personnel in a manner which
will indicate offsetting
Proof of and to ownership this at Verizon Wireless, with the least being placed at risks.