PDA

View Full Version : Currently being denied my deposit with demand to redeem lawful money



karl nathan
07-29-11, 09:46 PM
My local bank, one of two banks with branches in my community, has been dragging its feet for two weeks after my initial demand to redeem lawful money on 7/18/11. The first meeting consisted of me attempting to explain the remedy to the branch manager, who had never heard of it, with her final conclusion being that this would have to be run past the bank’s internal legal department. Fine, I can live with that and understand the bank needs to educate itself with its legal obligations.

In this initial meeting I explained I wanted to negotiate my checks with "Redeemed in Lawful Money Pursuant to 12 USC 411" with my lawful name dba legal name as my signature below the verbiage. However, the bank said, based upon their internal policies, they could not alter the title of my account (title = legal name and social security number according to the SSA) or signature card to anything else. Since my only intention, at this point, is to utilize the lawful money made available to me, and to avoid endorsing the private credit of the Federal Reserve, I did not feel I will be 'losing' anything by signing my legal name after the demand instead of my lawful name. Please correct me if I am wrong in this assertion. I realize I am acting on behalf of the legal fiction, my legal name, created by the State.

Yesterday (7/28/11) I received a phone call from a representative of the bank related to their legal/compliance department. The person I spoke with, I will call her Bankster, who is not an attorney, asked me what my intention of doing this was and if my intention was to restrict the bank from loaning against my deposits. I simply replied that it is my intention to not endorse the private credit of the Federal Reserve. Whatever you can or cannot do with the money I deposit is your responsibility, not mine. After several more questions she stated that I could negotiate the checks with the demand for lawful money verbiage so long as I signed with my legal name instead of my lawful name dba legal name.

Today, as a courtesy, I met with the same branch manager I had initially met with to let her know that I was about to deposit my checks and to thank her for working with me on this issue. I live in a small community with a population of about 2,000 and therefore everybody knows everybody and I thought a ‘thank you’ was in order. I was good friends with her daughter in our high school years.

However, it quickly became apparent that she had reached, or had been told, a different understanding based upon the information from the Bankster and legal/compliance department. She said that the bank would not allow me to make a deposit with my demand for lawful money and legal name signature. So she called up Bankster and all three of us had a discussion.

Bankster continually said during yesterday and today’s telephone conversations that it was the banks preference that I do not negotiate a check with a restricted endorsement. I continually corrected her by saying that I am not endorsing the private credit of the Federal Reserve and that the bank's preference is different than what the banks legal obligations are.

Furthermore, she said that she is ‘leaving the door open’ for this to proceed but since ‘it is a gray area’ and there are many different opinions in the matter with very little statutory or case law support (don't know what she meant by this) they want me to respond to the Bankster’s letter and provide additional support of my position (statutes, court cases etc) which I’ve come across in my research.

How would you proceed if you found yourself in this situation? Thanks in advance.

Richard Earl
07-29-11, 11:58 PM
It's interesting that she knows she can't lend against the deposit and it seems they don't like that. :)

hvncb
07-30-11, 12:18 AM
What do you mean "dragging its feet?"....The banks operate under Title 12 so what is there to negotiate? Doesn't appear bank has a choice but deposit your check the way you endorse it. Of course the banks don't like it and when more and more people start doing this they will go and scream to congress. Scream back they refuse to give you lawful money...

David Merrill
07-30-11, 02:14 AM
Thank you for that Post Karl Nathan;



I will address the name thing and then pick through it carefully for everybody. There is a lot to be learned.

The legal name is irrelevant to redeeming lawful money. So long as you know your name, you are probably fine within the scope of redeeming lawful money. The bank may be obligated to convert you to a business account - think of that - the dba is doing business as. That is probably why they had to insist.

They are vacillating because they do have a legal obligation to accept your restricted (or non) endorsement. I will pick through the entire thing while posting a red Still Editing... notice at the bottom.



My local bank, one of two banks with branches in my community, has been dragging its feet for two weeks after my initial demand to redeem lawful money on 7/18/11. The first meeting consisted of me attempting to explain the remedy to the branch manager, who had never heard of it, with her final conclusion being that this would have to be run past the bank’s internal legal department. Fine, I can live with that and understand the bank needs to educate itself with its legal obligations.

How long have you had an account? Do not answer if too personal; Do you get Social Security through this bank account?

In this initial meeting I explained I wanted to negotiate my checks with "Redeemed in Lawful Money Pursuant to 12 USC 411" with my lawful name dba legal name as my signature below the verbiage. However, the bank said, based upon their internal policies, they could not alter the title of my account (title = legal name and social security number according to the SSA) or signature card to anything else. Since my only intention, at this point, is to utilize the lawful money made available to me, and to avoid endorsing the private credit of the Federal Reserve, I did not feel I will be 'losing' anything by signing my legal name after the demand instead of my lawful name. Please correct me if I am wrong in this assertion. I realize I am acting on behalf of the legal fiction, my legal name, created by the State.

Start signing your legal name: Karl Nathan SURNAME. Scribble your name followed by neatly printed SURNAME and followed by a period.

Yesterday (7/28/11) I received a phone call from a representative of the bank related to their legal/compliance department. The person I spoke with, I will call her Bankster, who is not an attorney, asked me what my intention of doing this was and if my intention was to restrict the bank from loaning against my deposits. I simply replied that it is my intention to not endorse the private credit of the Federal Reserve. Whatever you can or cannot do with the money I deposit is your responsibility, not mine. After several more questions she stated that I could negotiate the checks with the demand for lawful money verbiage so long as I signed with my legal name instead of my lawful name dba legal name.

Phone calls are bad. Try to avoid them unless you get them recorded. Google ROP Freeware - Record on Phone. They leave no record except of course the bank's recording - because of course This call may be recorded for training purposes.

Highlighted in red above; I am delighted that you have such a clear understanding of endorsement and non-endorsement of private credit. And that you handled that question so eloquently. It explains a lot right there, that the Bankster would ask directly if your intent was to keep the bank from lending your funds. That is a result of non-endorsement logically but you are wise to distinguish between a legal obligation of the bank and your intentions. Very good. I am impressed. I have not encountered this scenario, much less would I expect it answered so masterfully.


Today, as a courtesy, I met with the same branch manager I had initially met with to let her know that I was about to deposit my checks and to thank her for working with me on this issue. I live in a small community with a population of about 2,000 and therefore everybody knows everybody and I thought a ‘thank you’ was in order. I was good friends with her daughter in our high school years.

However, it quickly became apparent that she had reached, or had been told, a different understanding based upon the information from the Bankster and legal/compliance department. She said that the bank would not allow me to make a deposit with my demand for lawful money and legal name signature. So she called up Bankster and all three of us had a discussion.

I interject here that I may be missing something but I find it strange that you are extending such a courtesy as notifying your bank you are about to do something as routine as deposit paychecks. Strap on your recorder (http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/4646/covertaudiorecordertop.jpg), make sure it is on, and go about your business. [Remember that if you do not get consent first, if you ever try using the recording in court and Bankster objects, the judge will not let it in.]

Bankster continually said during yesterday and today’s telephone conversations that it was the banks preference that I do not negotiate a check with a restricted endorsement. I continually corrected her by saying that I am not endorsing the private credit of the Federal Reserve and that the bank's preference is different than what the banks legal obligations are.

Of course it is the bank's preference. Often, the bank will automatically convert your bank account to non-interest bearing. Think about that. If you are not giving them the benefit of fractional lending on your funds on account, why would they be giving you interest? You might even offer that up if you want to explain that you understand the situation. Bankster tipped her hand with the question about your intentions. So you might consider tipping yours; give them some intelligence that you know your stuff. Or keep close to the chest; counterintelligence - keep them wondering if you are just following Internet gurus like David Merrill.

At this point I am wondering if you are awaiting approval before you will actually tender the instrument for the transaction? Or is it there on the countertop with your non-endorsement on it? It seems to me that this has all gone down many times before you, within a half-hour tops simply because the suitor just initiates the transaction instead of applying for permission and guidelines.

There was one situation where the suitor felt he had to sign out the account to pick up the $30K on the countertop, so he did. But I can assure you that without legal grounds there is nothing the bank will do to close down your account. That is just bad business. If they do not have your signature closing out the account, there is almost nothing about non-endorsement that will cause them to close it without your agreement to.

I am hashing through something with PayPal refusing to transact business. I need to redact down some lengthy phone conversations - maybe tomorrow I will start a thread.

Furthermore, she said that she is ‘leaving the door open’ for this to proceed but since ‘it is a gray area’ and there are many different opinions in the matter with very little statutory or case law support (don't know what she meant by this) they want me to respond to the Bankster’s letter and provide additional support of my position (statutes, court cases etc) which I’ve come across in my research.

How would you proceed if you found yourself in this situation? Thanks in advance.

There is a lot of unnecessary conversation going on around a simple transaction. But the topic title seems off. They are not denying you your demand for lawful money. You seem to be looking to them for approval to perform what they are already legally obligated to do and instead of doing it, you are finding out a whole gob of great stuff and sharing it here. You are Tops!! Thanks for doing it this way.

Keep your cool, stay polite and professional about your customer relationship with your Banksters. This is very enlightening - the power plays. They seem to be trying to give you the impression they are in control and well, with the banking landscape today... that is just quite debatable. I got two receivership notices just today:

http://www.occ.treas.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/2011/nr-occ-2011-101.html
http://www.occ.treas.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/2011/nr-occ-2011-100.html

If you start to lose your temper, stay cool and remember your audio recorder is on. You don't want to share the file with us if you are being a hothead... So bring up the topic of these two banks going asunder and let us hear how fast that changes their tune, okay?



Regards,

David Merrill.

Chex
08-01-11, 02:25 AM
Receivership(s) (http://problembanklist.com/)

karl nathan
08-01-11, 10:37 PM
Thank you all for responding to my original post. Also, I must thank you, David Merrill, for taking the time to put together the "Federal Reserve Act -- Remedy" video which sparked my interest into researching lawful money, and also for the kind words above!

I will go through and answer the questions or address any statements which were made. All quotes are taken from David Merrill's response on 07-29-11 at 09:14 PM...


They are vacillating because they do have a legal obligation to accept your restricted (or non) endorsement.

I was researching my bank and looked them up on the FDIC website: http://www2.fdic.gov/idasp/main_bankfind.asp

If you search for the name "Bremen Bank and Trust Company" you will see the same disclosure which I found when I looked up my bank:

My Bank Name is a state-chartered bank that is not a member of the Federal Reserve. Therefore the primary federal regulator is the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

So just to clarify, even though my bank is a state-chartered bank, and according to the FDIC website, is not a member of the Federal Reserve, 12 USC 411 would still apply to them?


How long have you had an account? Do not answer if too personal; Do you get Social Security through this bank account?

I have had an account with this bank for about 15 out of the last 20 years. For five years, when I attended college out of state, I did not have any relationship with the bank. I do not receive Social Security through this bank account.


Scribble your name followed by neatly printed SURNAME and followed by a period.

What is the purpose of the period? Does it signify the end of the legal fiction created by the State?


I interject here that I may be missing something but I find it strange that you are extending such a courtesy...

Yes, in my opinion I omitted a few details which materially change the context of my situation and may help explain why I have taken the course of action I have.

I live and work in the same small community the bank branch is located in. Everyone in the bank knows me by my first name, knows my parents, knew my grandparents etc. I work directly with the bank when one of their loan officers require a tax return to renew a line of credit or loan a mutual client of ours some funny money. I am a CPA and have worked in public accounting, mainly preparing income tax returns, for five years.


If you are not giving them the benefit of fractional lending on your funds on account, why would they be giving you interest? You might even offer that up if you want to explain that you understand the situation.

I offered this in my initial meeting with the Branch Manager. I will offer again as that information may not have been passed along to the Bankster and the legal department.


At this point I am wondering if you are awaiting approval before you will actually tender the instrument for the transaction? Or is it there on the countertop with your non-endorsement on it?

I am not awaiting approval. I understand the bank has a legal obligation to accept my non-endorsement. I had all my checks properly negotiated and ready to be deposited when I walked into the bank to let the branch manager know that the Bankster gave the go-ahead for the non-endorsement.



However, I am awaiting the receipt of the letter from the bank outlining their position. I should receive it in the next few days and will sanitize it and post it here asap.

David Merrill
08-02-11, 03:03 AM
Thank you all for responding to my original post. Also, I must thank you, David Merrill, for taking the time to put together the "Federal Reserve Act -- Remedy" video which sparked my interest into researching lawful money, and also for the kind words above!

I will go through and answer the questions or address any statements which were made. All quotes are taken from David Merrill's response on 07-29-11 at 09:14 PM...



I was researching my bank and looked them up on the FDIC website: http://www2.fdic.gov/idasp/main_bankfind.asp

If you search for the name "Bremen Bank and Trust Company" you will see the same disclosure which I found when I looked up my bank:


My Bank Name is a state-chartered bank that is not a member of the Federal Reserve. Therefore the primary federal regulator is the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

So just to clarify, even though my bank is a state-chartered bank, and according to the FDIC website, is not a member of the Federal Reserve, 12 USC 411 would still apply to them?



I have had an account with this bank for about 15 out of the last 20 years. For five years, when I attended college out of state, I did not have any relationship with the bank. I do not receive Social Security through this bank account.



What is the purpose of the period? Does it signify the end of the legal fiction created by the State?



Yes, in my opinion I omitted a few details which materially change the context of my situation and may help explain why I have taken the course of action I have.

I live and work in the same small community the bank branch is located in. Everyone in the bank knows me by my first name, knows my parents, knew my grandparents etc. I work directly with the bank when one of their loan officers require a tax return to renew a line of credit or loan a mutual client of ours some funny money. I am a CPA and have worked in public accounting, mainly preparing income tax returns, for five years.



I offered this in my initial meeting with the Branch Manager. I will offer again as that information may not have been passed along to the Bankster and the legal department.



I am not awaiting approval. I understand the bank has a legal obligation to accept my non-endorsement. I had all my checks properly negotiated and ready to be deposited when I walked into the bank to let the branch manager know that the Bankster gave the go-ahead for the non-endorsement.



However, I am awaiting the receipt of the letter from the bank outlining their position. I should receive it in the next few days and will sanitize it and post it here asap.


Thank you for making that clear.


If you search for the name "Bremen Bank and Trust Company" you will see the same disclosure which I found when I looked up my bank:


My Bank Name is a state-chartered bank that is not a member of the Federal Reserve. Therefore the primary federal regulator is the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

So just to clarify, even though my bank is a state-chartered bank, and according to the FDIC website, is not a member of the Federal Reserve, 12 USC 411 would still apply to them?


I seem to be missing something here in my learning. Sorry - but I have always thought FDIC is the Fed insurance that if a bank is short on reserves FDIC will cover $100K/account if necessary.

Additionally the state banks are Fed banks - at least in many respects.


http://img709.imageshack.us/img709/3967/titlevq.jpg

What I am thinking though is that I need to read the verbiage, rather than your interpretation of it.


What is the purpose of the period? Does it signify the end of the legal fiction created by the State?


It means nothing following. However it is my own convention. Sorry it is nothing more. Thanks for pointing out I am pushing a self-invented convention.


Yes, in my opinion I omitted a few details which materially change the context of my situation and may help explain why I have taken the course of action I have.

I live and work in the same small community the bank branch is located in. Everyone in the bank knows me by my first name, knows my parents, knew my grandparents etc. I work directly with the bank when one of their loan officers require a tax return to renew a line of credit or loan a mutual client of ours some funny money. I am a CPA and have worked in public accounting, mainly preparing income tax returns, for five years.


I am linking a snippet (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImZDVjZDgyNmUtOGQyZi00MzMwLTg0N DktM2FhZDc5NWJmOWM2&hl=en_US) from this morning's BBC World News. It sounds like you know these people well enough to simply explain that you do not want to contribute to the rising national debt.

From the first video's 1984 Article (http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/convincing.html).


The process works like this. Suppose $1000 in Federal Reserve notes are presented for redemption in public money. To raise $1000 in public money the Fed must surrender U.S. Bonds in that amount to the Treasury in exchange for the public money demanded (assuming that the Fed had no public money on hand). In so doing $1000 of the National Debt would be paid off by the Fed and thus canceled.


However, I am awaiting the receipt of the letter from the bank outlining their position. I should receive it in the next few days and will sanitize it and post it here asap.

My guess is that letter will never arrive. No attorney worth his salt will sign a confession.

karl nathan
08-04-11, 07:18 PM
My bank's response which I received in the mail today: 606

The legal officer which signed the letter is not the Bankster which I spoke with on the telephone 7/29.

I will respond to the bank's letter with a letter of my own. Below are the general ideas I will use in my response to the bank's letter bullet point by bullet point:


1. I have already agreed and made my intentions clear that I would not need to change the title of my account to redeem lawful money.


2. I have already agreed and made my intentions clear that I would not need to change the signature card/account agreement to redeem lawful money.


3. My endorsement is NOT needed to negotiate a check.


4. I stated that with my demand for lawful money I would be receiving US Notes, which appear to be Federal Reserve Notes (appear that way to the bank anyway) but really I would be receiving lawful money or US Notes.

Please share any suggestions you may have in regard to my response, if I should even respond. Also, assuming I should respond, should I provide the bank with the different code sections/court cases which I've found in my research which support my position? The Bankster stated that it appeared I was ahead of them in researching these issues and they would appreciate the information.

Additionally, I have two identical letters which I dropped in the mail yesterday, one to the FDIC (primary regulator of my bank) and one to my State's Division of Banking: 607

Yesterday I redeemed lawful money for the first time by cashing my paycheck at the bank which the check was drawn (my boss's bank) with my demand for lawful money on the back of the check! Today I took my lawful money (US Notes which appear to be FRNs) and deposited them into my account at my bank.

Rock Anthony
08-04-11, 10:24 PM
Open an account at the boss' bank. That bank doesn't seem to be bothered by the "restrictive endorsement."

Or, if there is a Bank of America in your area, open an account there. BofA's legal department has already determined that they have no problem with the restrictive endorsement. Perhaps you've already seen this (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/dynamics/showentry.php?e=12&catid=3)image located in our downloads area. I recall here at StSC another member posted a BofA agreement with the verbiage written into the contract.

I could see why small banks would be reluctant to do business with those that demand lawful money. However, BofA is not small - infact, it's "too big to fail".

When I renewed the State's driver's license, I signed my true name - there is an image of my true-name signature on the DL. When I open an account at a bank, they'll insist for the account to be opened in the legal name that appears on the DL. However, the signature I put on any bank agreements merely must match the signature on the DL. No need for True Name dba LEGAL NAME. I simply sign True Name.

IMO, any other disclaimers such "all rights reserved", "without prejudice", etc., merely raise red flags with the banksters. I only include the demand for lawful money with true-name signature - nothing else.

Also, from reading the bank's response letter, it is my opinion that you offered too much "explaining" to the bank. From where did they get the terminology "non-endorsement" and "US Notes". Too much talking sometimes results in your words being used against you. Knowing what I now know, I will only offer, "I only want transactions on account to be in lawful money of the United States, per section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act, an act of United States Congress. That's all."

I will not mention "US Notes" - as far as banksters are concerned, they do not carry those in their vaults or registers. Think about it - why would a bank agree to provide something that it thinks it does not have?

I will not mention "non-endorsement". I can imagine this spooks the banksters - perhaps they think a non-endorsement will void the negotiability of the check.

I stay away from those terms.

David Merrill
08-04-11, 10:28 PM
My bank's response which I received in the mail today: 606

The legal officer which signed the letter is not the Bankster which I spoke with on the telephone 7/29.

I will respond to the bank's letter with a letter of my own. Below are the general ideas I will use in my response to the bank's letter bullet point by bullet point:


1. I have already agreed and made my intentions clear that I would not need to change the title of my account to redeem lawful money.


2. I have already agreed and made my intentions clear that I would not need to change the signature card/account agreement to redeem lawful money.


3. My endorsement is NOT needed to negotiate a check.


4. I stated that with my demand for lawful money I would be receiving US Notes, which appear to be Federal Reserve Notes (appear that way to the bank anyway) but really I would be receiving lawful money or US Notes.

Please share any suggestions you may have in regard to my response, if I should even respond. Also, assuming I should respond, should I provide the bank with the different code sections/court cases which I've found in my research which support my position? The Bankster stated that it appeared I was ahead of them in researching these issues and they would appreciate the information.

Additionally, I have two identical letters which I dropped in the mail yesterday, one to the FDIC (primary regulator of my bank) and one to my State's Division of Banking: 607

Yesterday I redeemed lawful money for the first time by cashing my paycheck at the bank which the check was drawn (my boss's bank) with my demand for lawful money on the back of the check! Today I took my lawful money (US Notes which appear to be FRNs) and deposited them into my account at my bank.

Thank you for sanitizing and showing us the documents Karl Nelson.

The key is in bullet 3 of the bank's response letter. First sentence. The term negotiate. They presume that you wish to negotiate currency. Negotiating currency technically means to be trading up, not trading down. You may trade up the Order for FRNs to US notes. It is irresponsible though to negotiate US notes for FRNs. This is getting difficult to wrap around and so therefore what has really happened is that they, being friends lured you into explaining yourself so clearly that they came back with the next sentence:


We are concerned that your refusal to endorse the items by using the phrase, "redeemed in lawful money pursuant to Title 12 USC Section 411," and considering this a non-endorsement may restrict our ability to carry out this request and ultimately collect funds that we have credited to your account for your benefit.

That is where they are pulling you into credit instead of sure funds. Lawful money in your account has nothing to do with credit. It is backed by the signatures of the US Treasurer and the Secretary - obligations of the US. This is why it would be good to go non-interest bearing. Then you are getting no benefit from the bank except that they hold your funds. They are concerned about benefits to you, or more that they will get burned by trying to use your funds for fractional lending.

Thank you. That is a very revealing letter.

So you deposited some funds? Take a withdrawal slip, and strike through the Order of; and write Redeemed in Lawful Money Pursuant to Title 12 USC §411 on it.


http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/4149/nonendorsementredemptio.jpg

When you get your cash, that is the same thing. They have wrapped you around the term negotiating. You are depositing funds. Not negotiating funds. You are not trading currencies, you are demanding lawful money instead of FRNs. They will give you US notes in the form of FRNs (since 1971). Fine.

All you needed to do was get your demand on the record. You have a right to make the demand. You are not getting any benefits - unless they continue to give you interest, which is at their option to quit. What really happened is you educated yourself so much you gave them enough to apply sophistry.

If you like the bank then don't close the account. Just stamp your demand on there and tell the cashier that you believe you have the right to make the demand. You know they will give you FRNs - fine. You just want to make your demand. You tried to explain it to them and they misconstrued the whole thing.

If they close down your account, which I doubt they will, then you already have found you can cash your paychecks at your boss's bank. If you really need a bank account then open one there. If your current bank is turning down business like that, their future is pretty grim. I believe that the metaphysics of defiling your character and right to lawful money by demand will hit them pretty hard, pretty soon.


Actually though, they will try to get you to close your account. Nothing more. They will not close it. It will look like they are closing it and then they will want you to sign for the funds there, by closing it yourself. Tell them how much you like them and you only want to withdraw part of the account funds, not all of it. You wish to continue doing business...

David Merrill
08-04-11, 10:48 PM
Open an account at the boss' bank. That bank doesn't seem to be bothered by the "restrictive endorsement."

Or, if there is a Bank of America in your area, open an account there. BofA's legal department has already determined that they have no problem with the restrictive endorsement. Perhaps you've already seen this (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/dynamics/showentry.php?e=12&catid=3)image located in our downloads area. I recall here at StSC another member posted a BofA agreement with the verbiage written into the contract.

I could see why small banks would be reluctant to do business with those that demand lawful money. However, BofA is not small - infact, it's "too big to fail".

When I renewed the State's driver's license, I signed my true name - there is an image of my true-name signature on the DL. When I open an account at a bank, they'll insist for the account to be opened in the legal name that appears on the DL. However, the signature I put on any bank agreements merely must match the signature on the DL. No need for True Name dba LEGAL NAME. I simply sign True Name.

IMO, any other disclaimers such "all rights reserved", "without prejudice", etc., merely raise red flags with the banksters. I only include the demand for lawful money with true-name signature - nothing else.

I am curious if there is a genre of small bank that is actually not part of the Fed, like credit unions?

Karl;

I am curious, Do you think the reply from your bank is in response to your letter linked there in the same post? I presume when reading that the reply was in response to inquiries made by your bank manager...

What I mean is to emphasize my point above. If they convinced you to write a letter to Legal and then listen to the Reply from Legal, you are going about this whole thing all wrong. They actually got you to do this to yourself. So if you like the coffee and your friends just say, I am sorry. I got all wrapped around the axle about explaining it to you. Congress says I have the right to redeem lawful money by demand so I am making my demand. That's all.

It seems like maybe they got you to write to Legal for legal advice! By handling this like it is as simple as it is, many people have cleared the hurdle your bank has convinced you to construct for yourself.

But I may be wrong. However there is a sentence in the Reply that seems responsive to the Letter you wrote.

Don't get me wrong, what you did reveals new milestones if that is what I am looking at. You have gotten us a long way and I thank you. But if the bank manager convinced you to write to Legal about this, then he was praying on your conditioning.

Rock Anthony
08-04-11, 11:09 PM
How rude of me not to mention...


Thanks, Karl, for sharing your very enlightening experience! :D



I am curious if there is a genre of small bank that is actually not part of the Fed, like credit unions?


Well, I'm thinking that since FRNs are only authorized to be used by Federal Reserve Banks, then credit unions that have in its vaults FRNS are indeed Federal Reserve Banks. However, a credit union (or any bank) may not necessarily be a Federal Reserve member bank, that is, not required to have deposits at the district FRB.

But then again, perhaps such a credit union does exist - one that never endorses Fed credit - a financial institution that only dabbles in lawful money of the United States. I'd imagine that it would be difficult for such an institution to be profitable - without the ability to fractionalize!

David Merrill
08-05-11, 10:49 AM
Yes. Thank you Rock. One cannot fractionalize without FDIC. That is the link. Until we redeem lawful money, we are Fed banks by endorsement.

Thank you again Karl Nathan;


That letter is very revealing. I am really quite excited to get it into my collection of testimony. The bank playing on your conditioning... I did not mean to make you sound naive or ignorant. This sort of thing happens. And I neglected the potential that you did it by way of counterintelligence, to gain the intelligence. - That it may have been intentional on your part - or guided by the Holy Spirit of God that you would bring this gift to the Forums. That I might be witnessing your obedience to God and mistaking it for being inexperienced and conditioned.




Thank you,

David Merrill.


P.S. Here are the docs linked:

http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/2387/fdicandstatebankingregu.pdf
http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/1774/banksposition.pdf

I guess what is throwing me is that they are both dated August 2nd, which is a very significant day for America, and for my lien process too (http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/9938/doc25bricsnolfull.pdf).

David Merrill
08-05-11, 11:28 AM
A careful reading of the letter says that they will still deposit and cash your checks with the non-endorsement.

karl nathan
08-05-11, 05:17 PM
Thanks to all of those who responded. I will address each response in separate posts.


Thank you for sanitizing and showing us the documents Karl Nelson.

The key is in bullet 3 of the bank's response letter. First sentence. The term negotiate. They presume that you wish to negotiate currency. Negotiating currency technically means to be trading up, not trading down. You may trade up the Order for FRNs to US notes.

Merriam-Webster definition: 'negotiate - to transfer (as a bill of exchange) to another by delivery or endorsement'

It is my understanding that I am negotiating my check (not negotiating currency), not by endorsement but by delivery, so that the bank can make the funds/currency available to me for deposit or withdrawal. When I deliver my check to the bank, the check being a bill of exchange which is a negotiable instrument, I negotiate the check or transfer the check to the bank so they can obtain the funds/currency which are required by the negotiable instrument/bill of exchange/check.


So you deposited some funds? Take a withdrawal slip, and strike through the Order of; and write Redeemed in Lawful Money Pursuant to Title 12 USC §411 on it.

Yes, I made a deposit in my bank account. I cashed my check in lawful money at my boss' bank, took the US Notes which appeared to be FRNs, and deposited them in my bank. I already have lawful money in my bank account.

Are you suggesting I take a withdrawal slip with the demand and redeem the amount of FRNs currency I had in the account prior to depositing lawful money? Say I had $10 of FRNs in my account and deposited $50 of lawful money. Should I withdrawal $10 with the demand on the withdrawal slip? I could then deposit the $10 of lawful money at the bank the next day and would therefore have $60 of lawful money in my account instead of having both lawful money and FRNs in my account as I do now.


They have wrapped you around the term negotiating. You are depositing funds. Not negotiating funds. You are not trading currencies, you are demanding lawful money instead of FRNs.

They have attempted to wrap me around the term negotiate. I do agree that I am depositing funds not negotiating funds. An example of a time some one would need to negotiate funds would be if they received FRNs for payment. They would then need to negotiate, or redeem, the FRNs into lawful money. However, I will never accept FRNs as I will make a demand to be paid in lawful money if I am to receive currency as payment.


What really happened is you educated yourself so much you gave them enough to apply sophistry.

Yes. Fortunately sophistry will be overcome by the Truth.

Karl Nathan

karl nathan
08-05-11, 08:09 PM
Open an account at the boss' bank. That bank doesn't seem to be bothered by the "restrictive endorsement."

In my opinion, my boss’ bank was not bothered by the non-endorsement simply because I was cashing the check instead of depositing the check in an account at their bank. Because I did not deposit the check at my boss’s bank they never had the lawful money in their possession. Therefore they were never faced with the question of whether or not they could fractionally lend against my funds. I believe if I did open an account there and wanted to deposit my checks with the non-endorsement demand for lawful money, they may take a similar course of action my bank is currently taking. However, I do not plan to investigate whether or not my boss’ bank would be bothered by the non-endorsement since I will obtain the remedy of redeeming lawful money with my bank, by whatever course of action is necessary to do so.


Or, if there is a Bank of America in your area, open an account there. BofA's legal department has already determined that they have no problem with the restrictive endorsement. Perhaps you've already seen this (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/dynamics/showentry.php?e=12&catid=3)image located in our downloads area. I recall here at StSC another member posted a BofA agreement with the verbiage written into the contract.

Unfortunately there is no BofA in my area but yes, I have seen this image. I must thank you for uploading the image as I used the idea as a basis for my initial request to amend my bank's account agreement. At the current time, however, I have abandoned that course of action. Only if my bank was as educated as BofA and their legal department, I would pursue this avenue to document my remedy. However, in the end I am confident, and after much education on both my and the bank’s part, both you and I will have the same type of money: lawful money.


Also, from reading the bank's response letter, it is my opinion that you offered too much "explaining" to the bank. From where did they get the terminology "non-endorsement" and "US Notes". Too much talking sometimes results in your words being used against you. Knowing what I now know, I will only offer, "I only want transactions on account to be in lawful money of the United States, per section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act, an act of United States Congress. That's all."
I will not mention "US Notes" - as far as banksters are concerned, they do not carry those in their vaults or registers. Think about it - why would a bank agree to provide something that it thinks it does not have?
I will not mention "non-endorsement". I can imagine this spooks the banksters - perhaps they think a non-endorsement will void the negotiability of the check.
I stay away from those terms.

I have done some explaining, more so than most people should, to the bank based on my profession, the community in which I live and work and also for both my bank's and my education. I have briefly addressed these issues here in previous posts on this thread.


How rude of me not to mention...
Thanks, Karl, for sharing your very enlightening experience! :D
Well, I'm thinking that since FRNs are only authorized to be used by Federal Reserve Banks, then credit unions that have in its vaults FRNS are indeed Federal Reserve Banks. However, a credit union (or any bank) may not necessarily be a Federal Reserve member bank, that is, not required to have deposits at the district FRB.

Thank you Rock Anthony for all the information, especially the comparison of Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) vs Federal Reserve member bank (FRMB)!

I had never made the distinction between a FRB and a FRMB. Good Stuff!

That seems to answer all of the questions I posed to the FDIC and my State’s Division of Banking! However, I still hope one or both organizations respond since it would be nice to have my bank’s regulators response in writing.

Karl Nathan

karl nathan
08-05-11, 10:56 PM
That letter is very revealing. I am really quite excited to get it into my collection of testimony. The bank playing on your conditioning...I did not mean to make you sound naive or ignorant. This sort of thing happens. And I neglected the potential that you did it by way of counterintelligence, to gain the intelligence. - That it may have been intentional on your part - or guided by the Holy Spirit of God that you would bring this gift to the Forums. That I might be witnessing your obedience to God and mistaking it for being inexperienced and conditioned.

Yes, you are correct in that my actions have been intentional. The bank did not play me on my conditioning; one could argue that I played the bank on its conditioning.

Even if I would have read into your comments as making me sound naïve or ignorant, which I did not, I knew the simple explanation which follows would make my intentions clear to you and everyone else who reads this.

When I verbally requested my bank’s position in writing on 7/29, in the form of a letter to be delivered by the USPS, I did so with the sole intention of obtaining a written record of the bank’s position so that I could read, dissect and respond accordingly to such position.

Here is my draft: 609

So far I’ve learned I must be much more careful with my words. Please play devils advocate to see how all of you would continue to apply sophistry in this situation if you were the Legal Officer. My goal is to slowly back the bank into the legal hole, which they are helping to dig themselves, all while leaving a pile of evidence.

I understand the legal statute is on my side and since I do have the time, energy and resources, I plan to continue this exchange with the bank for several reasons.

First, I am learning a lot of new information and would like to continue to learn.

Second, I see my bank as a partner, a more powerful partner to me when educated. Therefore I am taking the bank along this educational journey so they understand the full implications of the legal right I am exercising. Of course they can deny that this right exists up until the end. However, I hope they accept this legal right as fact for their own self-interest. Otherwise the future looks bleak for this bank.

Third, I feel I have been blessed with this Knowledge and therefore feel it is a duty to expand the Knowledge and to share it with others. One way I plan to accomplish this is by documenting the process here at STSC.

Since I am able to cash my paychecks at my boss’ bank and then deposit the lawful money at my bank, my access to currency is not an issue anymore. I will obtain my remedy to redeem lawful money at my current bank.



I guess what is throwing me is that they are both dated August 2nd, which is a very significant day for America, and for my lien process too (http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/9938/doc25bricsnolfull.pdf).

The bank’s position (dated 8/2) was a response to my verbal request from 7/29. I have not yet mailed any type of letter to the bank. I plan to finalize my draft response and mail it to the bank early next week.

The other letter which I have uploaded was written by me and mailed to my bank’s regulators, the FDIC and my State’s Division of Banking. I wrote the letter 8/2. My bank has no knowledge of the two letters I wrote to their regulators.

Karl Nathan

David Merrill
08-05-11, 11:41 PM
Thanks to all of those who responded. I will address each response in separate posts.



Merriam-Webster definition: 'negotiate - to transfer (as a bill of exchange) to another by delivery or endorsement'

It is my understanding that I am negotiating my check (not negotiating currency), not by endorsement but by delivery, so that the bank can make the funds/currency available to me for deposit or withdrawal. When I deliver my check to the bank, the check being a bill of exchange which is a negotiable instrument, I negotiate the check or transfer the check to the bank so they can obtain the funds/currency which are required by the negotiable instrument/bill of exchange/check.



Yes, I made a deposit in my bank account. I cashed my check in lawful money at my boss' bank, took the US Notes which appeared to be FRNs, and deposited them in my bank. I already have lawful money in my bank account.

Whenever you sign for cash though, that will be an endorsement.

Are you suggesting I take a withdrawal slip with the demand and redeem the amount of FRNs currency I had in the account prior to depositing lawful money? Say I had $10 of FRNs in my account and deposited $50 of lawful money. Should I withdrawal $10 with the demand on the withdrawal slip? I could then deposit the $10 of lawful money at the bank the next day and would therefore have $60 of lawful money in my account instead of having both lawful money and FRNs in my account as I do now.

You are looking at lawful money as a noun; not a verb. It gets kind of rediculous to consider FRNs US notes if you get too physical. What is really happening is you are making a demand, and you got your bank all wrapped around the axle about the legal details. What I must do then is show your bank's response letter and pick through it line-by-line. I am glad to do that but will have to find time. It is a real treasure at this particular juncture of American History (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImMWY0NDQ0Y2EtZGE5MS00NzlkLTk1O DctN2VmZjlmN2NkYWNl&hl=en_US). My advice is typically that you don't get into the law enforcement of the bank, that it has to keep your funds separate from what it has in reserve for loans (http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_Story_of_Money.zip). Don't worry though, this is good to explain clearly - for everybody. You being educated about redeeming lawful money, but not being a suitor, you have them looking at the crimes they would be committing by treating your funds like they are bonded by you, when you demanded that they carry only the obligations of the US government, and nothing by endorsement of private credit from you.



They have attempted to wrap me around the term negotiate. I do agree that I am depositing funds not negotiating funds. An example of a time some one would need to negotiate funds would be if they received FRNs for payment. They would then need to negotiate, or redeem, the FRNs into lawful money. However, I will never accept FRNs as I will make a demand to be paid in lawful money if I am to receive currency as payment.

Think about it. Negotiating is an act of trading. You are not there to trade. You are there either depositing into your account, or you are cashing the instrument for the value on its face - or depositing some, cashing some. You are not negotiating - except if you endorse. Then you are involving yourself in the creation of money like that graphic novel by the Fed - and you are reaping the benefits (national debt), having to pay the price (Return of Income - Income Tax). In that case - endorsement - you are turning the instrument over to your bank for negotiation.

This will be clearer when I dissect the letter.


Yes. Fortunately sophistry will be overcome by the Truth.

Karl Nathan


In my opinion, my boss’ bank was not bothered by the non-endorsement simply because I was cashing the check instead of depositing the check in an account at their bank. Because I did not deposit the check at my boss’s bank they never had the lawful money in their possession. Therefore they were never faced with the question of whether or not they could fractionally lend against my funds. I believe if I did open an account there and wanted to deposit my checks with the non-endorsement demand for lawful money, they may take a similar course of action my bank is currently taking. However, I do not plan to investigate whether or not my boss’ bank would be bothered by the non-endorsement since I will obtain the remedy of redeeming lawful money with my bank, by whatever course of action is necessary to do so.

Yes. That is showing a good understanding of the internal mechanism at your bank. They are having a problem with treating you and your funds differently than all the national debt-building endorsers.

Unfortunately there is no BofA in my area but yes, I have seen this image. I must thank you for uploading the image as I used the idea as a basis for my initial request to amend my bank's account agreement. At the current time, however, I have abandoned that course of action. Only if my bank was as educated as BofA and their legal department, I would pursue this avenue to document my remedy. However, in the end I am confident, and after much education on both my and the bank’s part, both you and I will have the same type of money: lawful money.



I have done some explaining, more so than most people should, to the bank based on my profession, the community in which I live and work and also for both my bank's and my education. I have briefly addressed these issues here in previous posts on this thread.



Thank you Rock Anthony for all the information, especially the comparison of Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) vs Federal Reserve member bank (FRMB)!

I had never made the distinction between a FRB and a FRMB. Good Stuff!

That seems to answer all of the questions I posed to the FDIC and my State’s Division of Banking! However, I still hope one or both organizations respond since it would be nice to have my bank’s regulators response in writing.

Karl Nathan

Hopefully I will get to dissecting your bank's response later this evening.

David Merrill
08-06-11, 09:25 AM
http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/3561/bankresponse.jpg

There are two reasons for the letter, like you pointed out. Titling the account, and "non-endorsement".

We have encountered the inability for banks to title personal accounts dba - Doing Business As. I believe that one bank client along the way was able to open a business account dba but two or three along the way were "corrected" that the legal or full name is their name. Like found in a Black's Law Dictionary - the word Name becomes "Name" meaning, For all intents and purposes of our law dictionary...


http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_NameDefinition.jpg

http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Name_legal.jpg

If you understand your name is Karl Nathan - fine. You are equipped to utilize the legal name in trust. It becomes a tool for your use.

Second bullet:

They cannot or are unwilling to keep your account funds separate from the funds in the vault. This has been an item that suitors never bother with. It is important that bankers follow law - granted. For whatever reasons though, you seem to be imposing enforcement. [You have projected some kind of introspection by your bank - to look into your legal rights and to try persuading you into waiving them.] Long ago a suitor deposited a rubber paycheck and when it was returned to him, the verbiage was torn off. That was a phone call but I described it:


http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/469/nonendorsementstamptorn.jpg

- Which leads into non-negotiable for the next bullet.

Third bullet:

Here it gets really edifying!

Your endorsement is needed on checks and drafts you wish to negotiate and transfer to us to collect on your behalf.

Your initial interpretation is to hear those words their way. Before electronic verification though, one bank would put good faith in another bank. The overdraft protection was a matter of good faith that the customer feared the law, and the fairly stiff penalties that gradually replaced punishment by law. Way back when I dealt with banks I recall a $25 charge per check that could quickly bury me if I wrote four or five checks within a few days time. The trust parameters were different and this is probably written into the tariff or your Signature Card.

There is something right there. The Tariff. I forgot about that over the years. I used to edit tariffs for long distance companies. If you want to know how your bank works, ask to read the tariff. After they figure out what is going on, they will bring you a three-ring binder with about a 125-page document in it. It will describe the bank operations thoroughly. If you are a proficient reader and allow for an hour to carefully read, then you will come away with a better understanding of non-endorsement/redemption for sure. It has been so many years that when I was doing some reasearch I called it The Treaty, and the lady at a small Compass Bank branch did not know what I meant. So maybe I will find time - but they don't extend the same courtesy to a prospective customer as an already established one. However I am the kind of guy who will get the entire meeting on audio (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImMDM5NTkzNmEtZjIxNC00ZTM0LWJhY zEtNWUzMjgzNGNmZGFm&hl=en_US), and when they get tired of watching me will pull out my camera (http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/1305/compassbanksignaturecar.jpg), starting with the most interesting pages and keep snapping until they get angry and kick me out... I really don't hold a lot of sympathy (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImNWFmNmE4ZTktNjdmMS00NmMxLTlkM TUtMjEwMjY5OThjZDBh&hl=en_US) - even for the most friendly bankers.

Then I will have something to show you here. That was me, just killing some time Downtown.

Basically though, the sentence does not apply to paychecks that you just wish to deposit or cash. If you want to deposit on account, they will wait for it to "clear" which will only take seconds if they want to just transfer the funds while you set in your car at the Drive-Thru. If the funds are there at your boss's bank, no problem about handing you the cash too. You did not endorse all that stuff (http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_Story_of_Money.zip) they are talking about - fractional lending, negotiating your instrument etc.

Simply put - you are not asking them to do all that in the first sentence. You are asking them not to. You are demanding they simply function as a repository for the safety of your lawful money cash. That is what makes the option of going interest-free available to them.

[I]We are concerned that by refusing to endorse the items by using the phrase, "Redeemed in lawful money pursuant to Title 12 USC Section 411," and considering this a "non-endorsement" may restrict our ability to carry out this request and ultimately collect funds that we have credited to your account for your benefit.

That is the sentence that reveals a lot about what endorsers approve.

Your non-endorsement simply allows your bank to keep your money safe. Being fair, they may choose non-interest bearing because they cannot use your funds to "collect funds that we have credited to your account for your benefit." That benefit is of course - the interest you would typically enjoy from having an interest-bearing checking or savings account.

The Fourth Bullet:

That is where we start getting too physical. Like I said, understand the metaphysics is more of a verb, a process, than a noun - the physical US notes.

It looks though, from the closing comment that your bank is willing to do away with you if you continue. They are not telling you they will shut you down. The key sentence is telling you that they are concerned about your demand for lawful money. Think about it. You are not giving them the benefit of fractional lending - all you are doing is making them liable for keeping your money safe. Then reconsider that since you are no longer getting or are deserving of the only benefit beside a safe repository for your cash, interest, that you might consider alternatives to banking (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2HXtdiytvA) at all. In other words start cashing your paychecks at your boss's bank. Buy a safe and a reliable gun (a safe for your gun too if you have children). Get used to not trusting in banks (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImMjMxOWFmYjMtYTBlNC00Zjc2LWFkN WItYzI5MmRiNmJjNTYy&hl=en_US).

Maybe offer to pay your bank for functioning as your home-safe. But remember that when the Emergency ended in 1976 the one item remaining of significant effect is the ability for the President or Secretary to declare another Bankers' Holiday.

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_PL94-412.jpg
http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_PL94-412_stipulation.jpg

Look at Title 12 USC §95 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/) (subsections too) for yourselves some time.

karl nathan
08-10-11, 08:55 PM
Thank you for your in-depth insights David Merrill! I appreciate the time you took to dissect the bank's letter.

I have made a few changes to my response which I'll be sending to the bank in the near future: 613.

The main changes were made to bullet point #3 clarifying what actions I am taking with the bank.

I also deleted the last and third to last paragraphs which I had initially included in my first draft: 614. I felt like they were not necessary at this point and would only be a distraction to the counterpoints I have made to the bank.

I realize the bank will most likely come back with more sophistry based on my response. I am pursuing this as a educational opportunity and nothing more. In the end, I believe I will need to serve the bank with a Notice of my demand for lawful money by way of a certified copy of the Notice, which I would have filed in the USDC, to resolve this matter.

Hescotoolz
08-12-11, 11:36 PM
I found a bank (sterling bank) that they have no problem with the verbiage on the checks for deposit or withdrawal, I just can't find a bank that will except verbiage other than my signature on the signature card. Can I get around this at all, or is the signature card a must do? Every bank same thing, they shut down when want to add to the sig card. I'm in Medford Oregon, if anyone has done this in Oregon please let me know. I'll move if that's what it takes thx.

Rock Anthony
08-13-11, 04:00 AM
Try Bank of America. I went to BofA's website and did a location search on postal code 97503 (Medford, Oregon) - found several branches in your area.

Brian
08-13-11, 04:38 AM
I found a bank (sterling bank) that they have no problem with the verbiage on the checks for deposit or withdrawal, I just can't find a bank that will except verbiage other than my signature on the signature card. Can I get around this at all, or is the signature card a must do? Every bank same thing, they shut down when want to add to the sig card. I'm in Medford Oregon, if anyone has done this in Oregon please let me know. I'll move if that's what it takes thx.

I opened an account with US bank up here in the PDX area and had no issues with a signing statement. They were a little confused by it but alas allowed it.

Hescotoolz
08-13-11, 07:39 AM
BofA was the second bank I tried a couple weeks ago. Same thing the guy wasn't familiar with title 12 so he called to make sure he didn't do something he shouldn't, first thing they told him nothing more than a signature on the signature card. It's getting frustrating

Hescotoolz
08-13-11, 07:45 AM
Today the assistant manager of sterling bank had my non interest baring account almost open, asked the manager if she should make a copy of the title 12 document manager told her to call and ask. She didn't even mention signature card to whoever she was talking to they told her nothing more than a signature on the signature card. It's like more people are requesting this and this is the way they are shutting people down

David Merrill
08-13-11, 10:22 AM
First item is get out of the conditioning that you walk away, after signing anything - anything! - without your exact copy of it. Ask yourselves how many of you already have a copy of your Signature Card?

Put your demand on the Signature Card, and then when they object, strike it through so that it can still be read. Now you Demand is clear on your copy. Your intent to Redeem lawful money with every transaction.

The Signature Card as I understand it is only important for electronic transactions, but with ATMs and compulsory electronic paycheck that is a big deal so we need to hash this out correctly. I am beginning to gather that the bankers consider the Signature Card their property; rather than a shared property called Agreement. That might be a good place to start. Begin with tasks (homework) like taking a copy of the Signature Agreement from the bank, take it home.

I walked into Compass Bank and grabbed an audio recording (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImMDM5NTkzNmEtZjIxNC00ZTM0LWJhY zEtNWUzMjgzNGNmZGFm&hl=en_US). You can see, that for the non-customer/prospective customer it is only to be viewed there, under supervision of Audrey watching me from her desk. Now, I had to shut down the audio to get the photo, but she complained, pulled it away from me and I believe she pretended that I had not snapped the photo. Even so, I did not give my auto-focus time or my battery may have been low. But that would have been precious! - That part of the audio.

http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/1305/compassbanksignaturecar.jpg


Speaking for myself though, I get by without a bank. I was just killing time as I recall, making change for my process server.

My point is to start chipping down that misperception that agreements are property of the bank. Agreements as I understand them are mutually owned by the participants. So at the least go get a copy of the current Signature Card if you don't already have one. Just ask for a copy of your Signature Card.

If you have an hour though, ask to see the bank's tariff.

Please take an audio recording of this. If you want, maybe you can sanitize it with an audio editor so you can amplify weak voices. Let's hear it here. The tariff is a three-ring notebook with about 100 pages in it. It describes in detail every operation of your bank. It is the bank manager/president's instruction manual. So if you don't mind looking a little wierd, talk to yourself - read to yourself. That way we get an idea of what is in the tariff. After a while ask the manager to please show you where you cannot add anything to the Signature Card signature? Then when you have a bunch of intel for us here, pull out your camera and start getting photos for us, until they kick you out.

That is how I would do it. In fact, next time I have the time...



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2HXtdiytvA

Rock Anthony
08-18-11, 06:45 AM
BofA was the second bank I tried a couple weeks ago. Same thing the guy wasn't familiar with title 12 so he called to make sure he didn't do something he shouldn't, first thing they told him nothing more than a signature on the signature card. It's getting frustrating

Call the BofA branch at which I opened an account. The phone number is 312-464-0701. Ask for La Joyce. She is the personal banker that was given the green light by BofA legal department to accept my amendment to the signature card. Request that she have whatever BofA attorney she consulted to contact the branch that you visited in your area.

I did the same at Cole Talyor bank. The 47th street branch, after accepting the paycheck with the verbiage for several weeks, suddenly refused. So I went to the downtown branch. At this branch the manager pulled me to the side and informed me that he will consult the legal department before honoring the check, and that I should follow up with him after several days. Well, I did, and the manager said (via voicemail and email) that the verbiage is okay. I asked this manager to inform the 47th street branch of this so that I may continue to cash the checks there. My subsequent visit to 47th proved to be successful, although the manager acted all "hoidy-toidy" - as if he was insulted that I "went over their heads."

As a matter of fact, when I presented the restricted check to the teller, she initially refused. Then I asked her to consult her manager as this matter had been resolved by Cole Taylor's legal department. She then replied, "Oh yeah. We had a meeting about this. Let me go get my manager." The manager returned, performed an "override" - and all the while wouldn't even look me in the eye.

My point is that one branch bank may help another branch to overcome ignorance.
Back to BofA. Well, all I can say is that I was clear to specify what I wanted - La Joyce took notes - and faxed the notes over to the legal folks.



I expressed the following to LaJoyce:
I want to open a non-interest bearing checking account.
It is my intention to only handle lawful money on this account.
It is my intent to NOT handle any form of credit on this account.
I absolutely do not and will not open a savings account (or any other type of interest bearing account).
On anything to which I put my signature, I want to express my intent.
When she asked just how I would express my intent, that's when I pulled out my ink stamper (http://www.merchantcircle.com/business/Quality.Rubber.Stamps.2.719-635-0943). I stamped the verbiage on a blank sheet of printer paper that she provided. It was on that same sheet of paper that she took notes on whatever I spoke.

I did explain to her reality of lawful money vs private credit, but I did that only because she was genuinely interested. But I did convince her to contact the legal department rather than relying on the ignorance of the branch manager.

I really appreciate La Joyce.

karl nathan
09-01-11, 10:09 PM
To recap...I was waiting to respond to the letter I received from my bank: 655. I was waiting for...

On 8/16 RThomas created a new thread "A regular deposit of lawful money." That evening I went to my public library and investigated the terminology used by RThomas. I must say thank you to RThomas for sharing the knowledge about regular vs irregular deposits!

On 8/19 I mailed my response to my bank: 656. I received the bank's response to my letter the following week:660

Also on 8/19 the FDIC mailed this letter to me which I received the following week: 657, which was in response to my initial inquiry: 658

I called and spoke with the FDIC case manager who was investigating my 'complaint' (their word not mine) and he stated that a bank can not refuse my cash to be redeemed in lawful money, but the bank can refuse to accept my negotiable instrument, my check with the demand verbiage instead of my indorsement, as it is not redeemable in lawful money on demand as it is not a FRN.

The bank is required to respond to the FDIC within several weeks. The FDIC will then write me a letter responding to my inquiry.

David Merrill
09-01-11, 11:27 PM
Thank you for your in-depth insights David Merrill! I appreciate the time you took to dissect the bank's letter.

I have made a few changes to my response which I'll be sending to the bank in the near future: 613.

The main changes were made to bullet point #3 clarifying what actions I am taking with the bank.

I also deleted the last and third to last paragraphs which I had initially included in my first draft: 614. I felt like they were not necessary at this point and would only be a distraction to the counterpoints I have made to the bank.

I realize the bank will most likely come back with more sophistry based on my response. I am pursuing this as a educational opportunity and nothing more. In the end, I believe I will need to serve the bank with a Notice of my demand for lawful money by way of a certified copy of the Notice, which I would have filed in the USDC, to resolve this matter.


Thank you for sharing this with us!

That letter looks great. Include the August 2nd letter from them so they can refresh point-by-point easily. Also if you want to bare some teeth about that last paragraph find some appropriate federal crimes to fill in with this Criminal Complaint Form (http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/1845/criminalcomplaintformfe.jpg) and open a $39 evidence repository with the local USDC. That way they know you have the Criminal Complaint form setting downtown at the federal courthouse ready for you to go sign.

It would seem conspiracy against rights - Title 18 USC §242 and maybe something about Diversion, them insisting you give consent for your funds in account to be used for repugnant purposes - raising the national debt to fund foreign wars etc.



Regards,

David Merrill.

Chex
09-30-11, 12:40 PM
Pete: I have an account officer asking why can't we just cross out the name of the individual that will no longer be on the account instead of re-doing the account signature card? If we have to re-do the signature card where in the regulation that states this is what is required?

Tilly: We require individual accounts and business accounts that remove a signer from an account to re-sign a "revised" account signature card with the current signers and a revised date. Can anyone help me with "we are only going to do this if it is a regulation" statement???

Pete: There is no regulation, but you might want to suggest that he get the OK from your attorney first. I can guarantee that your attorney will have either a "deer in the headlights" or a "you gotta be kidding me, right" look on his face once he presents his question - take your choice. How does someone - anyone - cross a name off a contract act to nullify a contract that has already been executed?

Tilly: Thanks that was what I was thinking - more of a contract situation instead of a regulation.

Burt: We have a procedure and policy for this type of situation; and we require new signature cards for any changes. Crossing names out or changing information on the initial or original signature card can appear to be an alteration, whereas a new signature card acts as an official amendment or update to the account titling.

Pete: Too many court cases involving account ownership have embarrassed bankers by revealing shortcuts like crossing out or adding names to old signatures cards. Not only does it appear sloppy; it also doesn't provide a court with any assurance that the bank is careful about contracts.

David Merrill
09-30-11, 09:23 PM
Pete: I have an account officer asking why can't we just cross out the name of the individual that will no longer be on the account instead of re-doing the account signature card? If we have to re-do the signature card where in the regulation that states this is what is required?

Tilly: We require individual accounts and business accounts that remove a signer from an account to re-sign a "revised" account signature card with the current signers and a revised date. Can anyone help me with "we are only going to do this if it is a regulation" statement???

Pete: There is no regulation, but you might want to suggest that he get the OK from your attorney first. I can guarantee that your attorney will have either a "deer in the headlights" or a "you gotta be kidding me, right" look on his face once he presents his question - take your choice. How does someone - anyone - cross a name off a contract act to nullify a contract that has already been executed?

Tilly: Thanks that was what I was thinking - more of a contract situation instead of a regulation.

Burt: We have a procedure and policy for this type of situation; and we require new signature cards for any changes. Crossing names out or changing information on the initial or original signature card can appear to be an alteration, whereas a new signature card acts as an official amendment or update to the account titling.

Pete: Too many court cases involving account ownership have embarrassed bankers by revealing shortcuts like crossing out or adding names to old signatures cards. Not only does it appear sloppy; it also doesn't provide a court with any assurance that the bank is careful about contracts.

Interesting conversation!!

Thank you.

karl nathan
10-06-11, 02:53 AM
First, thanks to all who have contributed to making this thread! It seems this chapter of the process has come to a close for me.

Yesterday, I finally had a check to deposit at my bank. The teller flipped the check over to see my endorsement on the back, assuming this is out of habit, and quickly flipped it back over. I did not endorse the check but rather stamped the check with the "Redeemed Lawful Money Pursuant to 12 USC 411" verbiage prior to going into the bank.

I did not sign my name, lawful or legal, below the stamp. Why would I have to sign a name if the check is already written out to my name?

The teller did not bat an eye after seeing that I had only stamped the check and continued to process my deposit. The teller was more than happy to help me and did not have say anything to say other than the usual small talk.

Today I went to my bank with my first check I earned from being self-employed. And no, my definition of "self-employed" is not the same definition the IRS uses. Again, the teller (not the same one as yesterday) looked at the back of the check with only my stamped demand and continued with my deposit. Immediately following my deposit I made a $2 withdraw to represent the first money I earned being self-employed. I asked and received 4 quarters and 1 redeemed FRN. I will have these framed with the quarters above the redeemed FRN in the frame.

I also have two other stamps which I use whenever I make a deposit or withdrawal from my bank which I stamp on the withdrawal or deposit slip:

"A withdrawal of lawful money pursuant to 12 USC 411" and
"A regular deposit of lawful money pursuant to 12 USC 411"

On the invoice to my clients I include the phrase: "Demand for payment in lawful money pursuant to 12 USC 411."

I've learned a lot through this process but am grateful I can put this back-and-forth with the bank behind me.

In other happenings, I also checked in with the FDIC today. I called and spoke with someone who said they received my bank's response on 9/19 in regard to their inquiry based upon my letter. They said I should receive a response from them in the next month or so, barring no additional clarification is needed from the bank. I do hope to get a response from the FDIC.

I still have not received any response from the Treasury Department in regard to the letter I sent them which included a $20 FRN I demanded to be redeemed in lawful money. I of course do hope for a response from the Treasury but do not expect one.

Richard Earl
10-06-11, 10:15 PM
Thank you for the update!

David Merrill
10-06-11, 11:56 PM
Thank you Karl Nathan;



I hope you the best in your business endeavor. Kudos! It is great to have you posting here.

OlyThoreau
10-17-11, 05:59 AM
I opened an account with US bank up here in the PDX area and had no issues with a signing statement. They were a little confused by it but alas allowed it.

Can you provide more information about the branch that allowed the signing statement? Branch number or location perhaps. This would be very helpful for me, my branch is putting up a fuss.

karl nathan
10-18-11, 04:07 PM
An interesting "response" from the FDIC:
706

Included with the letter from the FDIC was the original letter the FDIC received from my bank responding to the FDIC inquiry of said bank:
707

Initially, each of my inquiries (to my bank, the FDIC and the State Division of Banking) was based upon the verbal representation from the bank's legal department that the bank was not bound by 12 USC 411. I asked the bank to provide the factual basis for the representation. The bank attempted to provide me with that in their initial letter to me. However, this question has yet to be answered by the bank or its regulators.

I plan to write a letter to my bank with a yes/no question to determine if they admit they are bound by 12 USC 411. I'll let them know if I receive another non-responsive letter I will be taking the advice of my State's Banking Division and the FDIC...as the FDIC stated: "If you have additional questions regarding this act you may wish to contact the Federal Reserve."

ohiofoiarequest
12-29-14, 11:59 PM
I called and spoke with the FDIC case manager who was investigating my 'complaint' (their word not mine) and he stated that a bank can not refuse my cash to be redeemed in lawful money, but the bank can refuse to accept my negotiable instrument, my check with the demand verbiage instead of my indorsement, as it is not redeemable in lawful money on demand as it is not a FRN.



Not wholly true. See the following.

In re Richard & Marcia MAUK, Debtors.
Allan D. DOBNICKER, Trustee, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY LOAN & SAVINGS CO., et al., Defendants.
Bankruptcy No. 85–0259.Related Case No. 83–01129.
Dec. 17, 1985.

Federal reserve notes have been declared by Congress to be legal tender. See, 31 U.S.C. Section 5103, United States v. Rifen, 577 F.2d 1111 (8th Cir.1978). Since a check is an authorized means by which to transfer an amount of federal reserve notes (the medium of exchange adopted by the United States), see, Ohio Revised Code Sections 1301.01(x), 1303.06, and since the Debtors acknowledged that they were given a check to cover the purchase price of the property, it must be concluded that there was sufficient consideration given in exchange for the mortgages.

David Merrill
12-30-14, 12:55 AM
Not wholly true. See the following.

In re Richard & Marcia MAUK, Debtors.
Allan D. DOBNICKER, Trustee, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY LOAN & SAVINGS CO., et al., Defendants.
Bankruptcy No. 85–0259.Related Case No. 83–01129.
Dec. 17, 1985.

Federal reserve notes have been declared by Congress to be legal tender. See, 31 U.S.C. Section 5103, United States v. Rifen, 577 F.2d 1111 (8th Cir.1978). Since a check is an authorized means by which to transfer an amount of federal reserve notes (the medium of exchange adopted by the United States), see, Ohio Revised Code Sections 1301.01(x), 1303.06, and since the Debtors acknowledged that they were given a check to cover the purchase price of the property, it must be concluded that there was sufficient consideration given in exchange for the mortgages.


Welcome Ohiofoiarequest;


I am going to call you Ohio. Karl Nathan might still be on an email alert; you quoted a post from 2011.

ohiofoiarequest
12-30-14, 03:00 PM
David,

Thank you for providing a place we can build each other up with knowledge and understanding.

My above post was not necessarily directed towards Karl Nathan but rather those who read these topics.

Thanks again!

Ohio

JohnnyCash
01-24-15, 03:23 AM
I've been using the ATM to deposit my checks, usually with just the restricted 12 USC 411 rubber stamp, and it's been working great - no questioning tellers, no counter trolls, no denials.

What's even more convenient are these new smahtphone apps: https://www.bankofamerica.com/online-banking/android-banking-app.go
where they let you take a picture ... front & back of check with your cellphone camera, instant deposit, and then you have available lawful money next business day. Here's one I just submitted:

doug555
01-24-15, 04:47 PM
I've been using the ATM to deposit my checks, usually with just the restricted 12 USC 411 rubber stamp, and it's been working great - no questioning tellers, no counter trolls, no denials.


2189


Thanks for posting this stamp, which I know is what David has always recommended and used, and which is working, but sometimes is rejected as a "restrictive endorsement".

Here is WHY I do NOT use this stamp.

Technically, 12 USC 411 states that one may only demand lawful money, after which the system is presumed to have the duty to "redeem" it into lawful money.

12 USC 411 does not say that we actually do the redeeming. That is not our responsibility, IMO. That is the system's job.

Therefore, the wording in this stamp is presumptuous. It is stating something that may not have occurred yet.

We cannot technically state, at the time that we stamp our instrument, that it is, at that instant, "Redeemed Lawful Money".

Also, look at it this way.

If it already has been redeemed as it says on the stamp, then the system would then NOT have to redeem that amount on that instrument, and the person stating that it was already redeemed could be accused of fraud-in-the-factum.

So, this is an important technicality that IMO should be thoroughly discussed here, and resolved ASAP.

doug555
01-24-15, 04:50 PM
I've been using the ATM to deposit my checks, usually with just the restricted 12 USC 411 rubber stamp, and it's been working great - no questioning tellers, no counter trolls, no denials.


2189


Thanks for posting this stamp, which I know is what David has always recommended and used, and which is working, but sometimes is rejected as a "restrictive endorsement".

Here is WHY I do NOT use this stamp.

Technically, 12 USC 411 states that one may only demand lawful money, after which the system is presumed to have the duty to "redeem" it into lawful money.

12 USC 411 does not say that we actually do the redeeming. That is not our responsibility, IMO. That is the system's job.

Therefore, the wording in this stamp is presumptuous. It is stating something that may not have occurred yet.

We cannot technically state, at the time that we stamp our instrument, that it is, at that instant, "Redeemed Lawful Money".

Also, look at it this way.

If it already has been redeemed as it says on the stamp, then the system would then NOT have to redeem that amount on that instrument, and the person stating that it was already redeemed could be accused of fraud-in-the-factum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud_in_the_factum).

So, this is an important technicality that IMO should be thoroughly discussed here, and resolved ASAP.

This is why I use this handwritten demand below:

2190

BLBereans
01-24-15, 05:21 PM
While we are being "technical"...

Your view regarding who does the "redeeming" has merit in the context of 12USC411 - we make the demand and the obligatory/liable party "shall redeem" upon the express demand.

However, as regards 12USC95a(2) - I believe it reads that discharge is "required" when assignment has been executed.

(2) Any payment, conveyance, transfer, assignment, or delivery of property or interest therein, made to or for the account of the United States, or as otherwise directed, pursuant to this section or any rule, regulation, instruction, or direction issued hereunder shall to the extent thereof be a full acquittance and discharge for all purposes of the obligation of the person making the same; and no person shall be held liable in any court for or in respect to anything done or omitted in good faith in connection with the administration of, or in pursuance of and in reliance on, this section, or any rule, regulation, instruction, or direction issued hereunder.

So maybe the disclaimer should read:

"Lawful money demanded, and full discharge is required, for all transactions per 12USC411 & 12USC95a(2)"

Robert Henry
01-24-15, 07:40 PM
the system is presumed to have the duty to "redeem" it into lawful money.


What evidence do you have of this?

They shall be redeemed on demand

My interpretation is that it is the demand itself which executes the redemption. Nothing happens in "the system" - other than the supposed segregation of redeemed funds. To quote David Merrill; "Redemption is between the ears."

Therefore, I believe the "redeemed" verbiage removes all possibility for ambiguity of interpretation as to wether or not demand was made.

Michael Joseph
01-24-15, 07:44 PM
A beneficiary must issue forth a claim upon a board of trustees. For example, you may be eligible to receive social security benefits but if you don't issue your claim the benefits are not coming.

Likewise with 12USC411. You must stake your claim. I always use "demand is made for lawful money per 12USC411". It is simple stuff. I am moving their court.

I am motioning the court to move BUT I can not act for the court. The officers of the court carry out the orders of the court.

So my demand only PUSHES the court to act. I lack the capacity to redeem I can only make a claim upon the mercy seat.

here is another key. Stop and consider carefully what ALIENATION OF ESTATE means in reference to the typical endorsement. If you don't yet see then think what happens before a probate court. Is it not TRANSFER OF ESTATE?

What happens when the estate is transferred at Probate? There is an easy method to escape probate tax. A very easy method. And if you stop and carefully consider I have already told you herein how.

Shalom
MJ

Noah
01-24-15, 08:27 PM
It is simple. If I don't have the stamp handy I'll just handwrite "Redeemed Lawful Money per 12 U.S.C. 411" backside of the check. I use the Smartphone for deposits too - very handy.

It's not too hard to see whats going on here, even in the eyes of the unpottytrained observer. Seems doug555 has even given us a clue with his username (http://fakenumber.org).

doug555
01-24-15, 08:54 PM
It is simple. If I don't have the stamp handy I'll just handwrite "Redeemed Lawful Money per 12 U.S.C. 411" backside of the check. I use the Smartphone for deposits too - very handy.

It's not too hard to see whats going on here, even in the eyes of the unpottytrained observer. Seems doug555 has even given us a clue with his username (http://fakenumber.org).

Try Isaiah 55:5 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/esv/isaiah/55-5.html) and https://pentecostnation.wordpress.com/holyday-3-the-pentecost-nation/ (https://pentecostnation.wordpress.com/holyday-3-the-pentecost-nation/)

BLBereans
01-24-15, 09:13 PM
Is this any different than a store coupon, basically?

Store issues coupon.

Store outlines terms and conditions regarding use and redemption of coupon. (Usually coupons are NOT for resale or any other use NOT outlined... hint!)

Potential customer obtains coupon.

Customer presents coupon and makes demand for redemption.

Store redeems coupon, NOT customer.

Customer receives what store expressed would be the item(s) provided at redemption.

Customer cannot force redemption; customer can only present coupon and make demand.

Store is self-obligated to perform in trust/agreement outlined in terms and conditions.

Terms and conditions may also outline what recourse customer may seek for failure to perform by store and who has control over deciding the recourse.

Customer is NOT liable for store's failure to perform.

Robert Henry
01-24-15, 09:33 PM
Is this any different than a store coupon, basically?

You would have to be exchanging one type of coupon (FRN) for another (US Note) in this analogy.

US Notes are out of circulation and FRN's have been deemed their functional equivalent. Therefore, the transmutation from FRN to lawful money, on demand, is purely metaphysical.

itsmymoney
01-24-15, 09:41 PM
2189


Thanks for posting this stamp, which I know is what David has always recommended and used, and which is working, but sometimes is rejected as a "restrictive endorsement".

Here is WHY I do NOT use this stamp.

Technically, 12 USC 411 states that one may only demand lawful money, after which the system is presumed to have the duty to "redeem" it into lawful money.

12 USC 411 does not say that we actually do the redeeming. That is not our responsibility, IMO. That is the system's job.

Therefore, the wording in this stamp is presumptuous. It is stating something that may not have occurred yet.

We cannot technically state, at the time that we stamp our instrument, that it is, at that instant, "Redeemed Lawful Money".

Also, look at it this way.

If it already has been redeemed as it says on the stamp, then the system would then NOT have to redeem that amount on that instrument, and the person stating that it was already redeemed could be accused of fraud-in-the-factum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud_in_the_factum).

So, this is an important technicality that IMO should be thoroughly discussed here, and resolved ASAP.

This is why I use this handwritten demand below:

2190


Doug555,

I see where you are headed with this (and my actual job-for-pay is to analyze every possibility), but the negotiable instrument is the check in your hand. If the stated 'money' on that check were truly previously 'redeemed' (regardless of lawful money or FRN's), then that check itself is non-negotiable. Meaning, the person trying to deposit or cash it was ALREADY PAID that amount via lawful money AND via a DIFFERENT check, coin, or other instrument - NOT the check in hand. So why would the bank then deposit/cash the check in hand if it was presumed to be already deposited/cashed based on the novation on the back?

BLBereans
01-24-15, 09:50 PM
You would have to be exchanging one type of coupon (FRN) for another (US Note) in this analogy.

US Notes are out of circulation and FRN's have been deemed their functional equivalent. Therefore, the transmutation from FRN to lawful money, on demand, is purely metaphysical.

Show me where it is expressed that the FRN is exchanged for USN in the "terms and conditions" regarding redeeming.

I read that it is "gold", in the original "agreement circa 1913, and then changed to "lawful money" in the novation circa 1934.

Is there an express definition of "lawful money" in the novation which states it defined as 'USN' as it relates to the "new agreement"?

BTW, of course the "transmutation" is metaphysical for this matter; however, I believe the point is to clearly express one's demand to avoid "fees" (taxes) for use of the FRN in ways other than what is expressly permitted... "for no other purpose..."; is it not?

doug555
01-24-15, 09:59 PM
Doug555,

I see where you are headed with this (and my actual job-for-pay is to analyze every possibility), but the negotiable instrument is the check in your hand. If the stated 'money' on that check were truly previously 'redeemed' (regardless of lawful money or FRN's), then that check itself is non-negotiable. Meaning, the person trying to deposit or cash it was ALREADY PAID that amount via lawful money AND via a DIFFERENT check, coin, or other instrument - NOT the check in hand. So why would the bank then deposit/cash the check in hand if it was presumed to be already deposited/cashed based on the novation on the back?

But since the default currency for all transactions is private credit (FRNs), then one is not "ALREADY PAID that amount via lawful money"... right?

IMO, that presumption of using the default currency must always be rebutted.

doug555
01-24-15, 10:04 PM
Is this any different than a store coupon, basically?

Store issues coupon.

Store outlines terms and conditions regarding use and redemption of coupon. (Usually coupons are NOT for resale or any other use NOT outlined... hint!)

Potential customer obtains coupon.

Customer presents coupon and makes demand for redemption.

Store redeems coupon, NOT customer.

Customer receives what store expressed would be the item(s) provided at redemption.

Customer cannot force redemption; customer can only present coupon and make demand.

Store is self-obligated to perform in trust/agreement outlined in terms and conditions.

Terms and conditions may also outline what recourse customer may seek for failure to perform by store and who has control over deciding the recourse.

Customer is NOT liable for store's failure to perform.


Great analogy!

Notice that it is always "value" that is being exchanged - NOT the mediums of exchange.

Therefore, this analogy may also apply to using "bills" as "coupons"... as "credit vouchers (https://iuvdeposit.wordpress.com/2014/03/10/indorsed-bill-remedy/)".

Robert Henry
01-24-15, 10:19 PM
Show me where it is expressed that the FRN is exchanged for USN in the "terms and conditions" regarding redeeming.

[SNIP]

BTW, of course the "transmutation" is metaphysical for this matter; however, I believe the point is to clearly express one's demand to avoid "fees" (taxes) for use of the FRN in ways other than what is expressly permitted... "for no other purpose..."; is it not?

I don't have a cite for US Notes being deemed lawful money on hand but it has been discussed here and elsewhere. I believe the only "terms and conditions" are that they shall be redeemed on demand and the full text of the code seems very clear in that regard, at least to me.

It is worth noting that there is no specific direction in the code as to how to go about redeeming, only that it happens on demand. By that even a simple verbal demand should suffice. I believe our purpose here is to provide overwhelming evidence.

If one has served, posted and published one's demand and kept the records of redeemed checks how could it be proven that demand was not made?

BLBereans
01-24-15, 10:42 PM
I don't have a cite for US Notes being deemed lawful money on hand but it has been discussed here and elsewhere. I believe the only "terms and conditions" are that they shall be redeemed on demand and the full text of the code seems very clear in that regard, at least to me.

It is worth noting that there is no specific direction in the code as to how to go about redeeming, only that it happens on demand. By that even a simple verbal demand should suffice. I believe our purpose here is to provide overwhelming evidence.

If one has served, posted and published one's demand and kept the records of redeemed checks how could it be proven that demand was not made?

You won't find a cite. Just because "it has been discussed here and elsewhere" doesn't make it the express agreement terms and conditions for FRN redemption.

Of course there is no specific direction in the code as to how to go about redeeming; does Wal-Mart specifically spell out their private financials to you as regards to your coupon redemption with them?

"That's our business; you just bring the coupon in and we will take care of it "in-house".

Redemption doesn't happen on demand; ..."they shall be redeemed upon demand...". Shall is a future tense word. Whether or when "they" redeem or not is not our problem in this specific instance. Our demand is made expressly known and therefore we are NOT liable in any way either for "mis-use" or failure to perform. That is our purpose, to provide a lawful record of our "non-use" of FRNs for purposes other than expressly permitted in the agreement.

Robert Henry
01-24-15, 10:52 PM
You won't find a cite. Just because "it has been discussed here and elsewhere" doesn't make it the express agreement terms and conditions for FRN redemption.

Of course there is no specific direction in the code as to how to go about redeeming; does Wal-Mart specifically spell out their private financials to you as regards to your coupon redemption with them?

"That's our business; you just bring the coupon in and we will take care of it "in-house".

Redemption doesn't happen on demand; ..."they shall be redeemed upon demand...". Shall is a future tense word. Whether or when "they" redeem or not is not our problem in this specific instance. Our demand is made expressly known and therefore we are NOT liable in any way either for "mis-use" or failure to perform. That is our purpose, to provide a lawful record of our "non-use" of FRNs for purposes other than expressly permitted in the agreement.

I have no need to find a cite as I have not questioned the validity of US Notes as lawful money. I merely provided the reference as courtesy for you to further investigate, if you so desired.

I appreciate your interpretation but my first-hand experience expresses, for me, the validity of the use of the verbiage being discussed here.

BLBereans
01-24-15, 11:07 PM
I have no need to find a cite as I have not questioned the validity of US Notes as lawful money. I merely provided the reference as courtesy for you to further investigate, if you so desired.

I appreciate your interpretation but my first-hand experience expresses, for me, the validity of the use of the verbiage being discussed here.

The discussion is not whether US Notes are lawful money, it is whether the specific code (12USC411) expressly defines USNs to be the lawful money referred to in that citation.

My initial posting on this topic was directed at doug555 who was trying to be precise with the language used on checks. Whether or not your "first-hand experience" expresses validity for you is something only you can comment on. I am merely trying to follow doug555's lead in being precise so as to form a proper record which leaves no doubt as to one's intent.

The fact remains that Robert Henry has no authority to redeem FRNs precisely because Robert Henry did not issue them. Robert Henry can only make a record of the 'demand' so as to dismiss any assumed liability for use of FRNs.

I have no authority to go to Wal-Mart, take someone's coupon and give them a product on the shelf - it's not my coupon and I didn't issue it.

Language and definitions are critical if you wish to participate in the game.

Robert Henry
01-24-15, 11:19 PM
Language and definitions are critical if you wish to participate in the game.

Indeed, thank you.

What seems to be happening here is an unnecessary over-complication of a very simple matter - which has been shown to be effective, as I and others have repeatedly attested.

What can any of us truly offer other than our own personal experience?

I wish you luck in implementing your interpretation. Please let us know how it works out for you.

BLBereans
01-24-15, 11:59 PM
Indeed, thank you.

What seems to be happening here is an unnecessary over-complication of a very simple matter - which has been shown to be effective, as I and others have repeatedly attested.

What can any of us truly offer other than our own personal experience?

I wish you luck in implementing your interpretation. Please let us know how it works out for you.

Do you find a flaw in my interpretation?

Are you accusing me of purposeful "effective" unnecessary over-complication; as if my intents are less than honorable?

Here I thought I was helping doug555 hone his disclaimer.

Robert Henry
01-25-15, 12:21 AM
I believe all I have shared is personal experience.

I believe ALL of this is interpretation and opinion - the only way to know is by doing. I would encourage others to find what resonates and follow the heart, however, over-complication of a simple and proven process may lead to confusion - or worse - and perhaps dissuade others newly coming to this process.

If you have found anything in these posts to be accusatory, would you please forgive me?

doug555
01-25-15, 01:15 AM
Do you find a flaw in my interpretation?

Are you accusing me of purposeful "effective" unnecessary over-complication; as if my intents are less than honorable?

Here I thought I was helping doug555 hone his disclaimer.

The "over-complication" is the presumption that I am referring to in that stamp.

It complicates the issue, as previously explained.

Thanks for your interpretations.

BLBereans
01-25-15, 02:15 AM
The "over-complication" is the presumption that I am referring to in that stamp.

It complicates the issue, as previously explained.

Thanks for your interpretations.

You are welcome.

That is how I view it as well. The over-complication comes from anything more than forming an accurate record of the demand of lawful money.

If someone believes he/she can redeem something he/she did not issue in the first place, that is where complication may ensue. At the very least, it demonstrates a lack of understanding regarding who is authorized and or required to do what relating to 12USC411. This may prove to be the difference between being left alone and having to defend against false assumptions of liability to the point of interference of access to one's funds.

Glad that you see this as well.

itsmymoney
01-25-15, 02:46 AM
You are welcome.

That is how I view it as well. The over-complication comes from anything more than forming an accurate record of the demand of lawful money.

If someone believes he/she can redeem something he/she did not issue in the first place, that is where complication may ensue. At the very least, it demonstrates a lack of understanding regarding who is authorized and or required to do what relating to 12USC411. This may prove to be the difference between being left alone and having to defend against false assumptions of liability to the point of interference of access to one's funds.

Glad that you see this as well.

So what Doug555 and you appear to be saying, is that the 'redeemed' verbiage is open to interpretation as to WHOM and WHEN the 'redemption' occurred. I believe the INTENT is key here. It would seem that INTENT carries much weight in law. 'Willingness', i.e. INTENT. It's obvious to most that the INTENT of the language behind 'Redeemed in Lawful Money' MEANS, that 'I currently and in the future demand lawful money for this instrument WHENEVER the system (the bank/Treasury) must do so'. Unfortunately, this 'technicality' could bite us all in the ass if 'they' pull a Pete Hendrickson-style assault on those who RILM. For example, Johnny Cash has 8 years running. Who's to say they would not bust his 'chops' at some point? Johnny Cash, are you SO certain this could never happen to you? I think this is part of or most of Doug555's point. ANY 'fallacy' in our attempts/INTENT to execute our Rights will be take advantage of by 'them' if possible. Would anyone disagree?

I think the INTENT here is a huge factor in OUR favor. But 'they' appear to be able to rig any 'sure thing' in their favor.

Robert Henry
01-25-15, 02:46 AM
The "over-complication" is the presumption that I am referring to in that stamp.

It complicates the issue, as previously explained.

Thanks for your interpretations.

It would appear that the presumption, and hence over-complication, here is yours, Doug: "...after which the system is presumed to have the duty..."

Again, my question is; what evidence do you have of this?

What evidence do you have that anything happens in "the system", as you describe it, upon demand? What act does the teller in "the system" commit in performance of this duty you presume "them" to have, before handing me the FRN's due from the non-endorsed check I have provided them?

The redemption is IN the demand. Demand is made, therefore the notes are redeemed. Very simple. Unless one wishes to over-complicate the issue.

Robert Henry
01-25-15, 03:02 AM
I believe the INTENT is key here.

Well said. And if the proper method of serving, posting and publishing one's demand is used, along with the transactional record of redeemed checks, proving otherwise will be most difficult.

I believe that unless and until 12 USC 411 is somehow repealed or over-turned, this method properly executed will continue to yield success.

itsmymoney
01-25-15, 03:09 AM
It would appear that the presumption, and hence over-complication, here is yours, Doug: "...after which the system is presumed to have the duty..."

Again, my question is; what evidence do you have of this?

What evidence do you have that anything happens in "the system", as you describe it, upon demand? What act does the teller in "the system" commit in performance of this duty you presume "them" to have, before handing me the FRN's due from the non-endorsed check I have provided them?

The redemption is IN the demand. Demand is made, therefore the notes are redeemed. Very simple. Unless one wishes to over-complicate the issue.

RH, see my prior post above. All I think D555 is saying is, DO NOT leave any stone unturned for 'them' to un-turn for you, valid or not. His point is technically a valid one. The DEMAND is made at the time of redemption or at the proper time 'from this point forward', not presumed to be 'already executed'. It is certainly 'splitting hairs', but ANY crack in your language or execution will surely be 'used against you in a court of law' as 'they' like to say.

I don't think D555's intent is to over-complicate things, rather just to make people be more aware of WHAT they are doing and saying in a legal/lawful sense.

Robert Henry
01-25-15, 03:39 AM
RH, see my prior post above. All I think D555 is saying is, DO NOT leave any stone unturned for 'them' to un-turn for you, valid or not. His point is technically a valid one. The DEMAND is made at the time of redemption or at the proper time 'from this point forward', not presumed to be 'already executed'. It is certainly 'splitting hairs', but ANY crack in your language or execution will surely be 'used against you in a court of law' as 'they' like to say.

I don't think D555's intent is to over-complicate things, rather just to make people be more aware of WHAT they are doing and saying in a legal/lawful sense.

Thanks IMM. If I have led you, or others, to believe that I feel the issue is being deliberately and/or maliciously complicated, please forgive me.

I believe, however, and perhaps this is the root of it, that you have it backwards: the redemption occurs at the time of demand. As in the last post I made, my comprehension is that the redemption is IN the demand. It is self-executing.

itsmymoney
01-25-15, 03:56 AM
Well said. And if the proper method of serving, posting and publishing one's demand is used, along with the transactional record of redeemed checks, proving otherwise will be most difficult.

I believe that unless and until 12 USC 411 is somehow repealed or over-turned, this method properly executed will continue to yield success.

RH,

Well said as well. For example, in January 2013 I submitted an Affidavit of my INTENT to redeem lawful money for (perhaps ill-decided at that time) basically all 'NET pay' transactions, although not with that exact language. It was a flaw in my demand, thinking that I could not RILM any OTHER (besides NET pay) deductions/transactions from my GROSS pay (I since believe you can RILM 'ALL'). Regardless, the INTENT was there from the start to demand lawful money. So in my particular case, my checks and deposit slips for the past 2 years have the 'Redeemed' (past tense) language on those documents. But, if IRS/Treasury/Govco wants to bitch about that, then I believe I have GOOD standing of my INTENT (from January 2013 going forward) of redeeming 'present tense' pay in lawful money. All things being equal, I do not think there can be much debate about this - of course ANYTHING can be rigged.

doug555
01-25-15, 03:47 PM
It would appear that the presumption, and hence over-complication, here is yours, Doug: "...after which the system is presumed to have the duty..."

Again, my question is; what evidence do you have of this?

What evidence do you have that anything happens in "the system", as you describe it, upon demand? What act does the teller in "the system" commit in performance of this duty you presume "them" to have, before handing me the FRN's due from the non-endorsed check I have provided them?

The redemption is IN the demand. Demand is made, therefore the notes are redeemed. Very simple. Unless one wishes to over-complicate the issue.

I have no evidence. But then that is not my concern or domain.

The only thing I need to do is properly document my demands for lawful money for all transactions, and report same on the 1040 annually.

The evidence of the demands is all that matters to me, and that it is done without "overstatement", such as saying the FRNs are already redeemed.

It seems to me that one making such a claim is also required to provide evidence of same.

Someday, such a demand for evidence may be presented. Saying the evidence is "IN the demand" may not be enough.

BLBereans
01-25-15, 04:26 PM
The main objective is, I believe, to comprehend and understand what one decides to denote on instruments so as to avoid liability and/or interference of access to necessary funds.

Placing "redeemed in lawful money" on instruments is not a silver bullet impediment to those who work for the IRS (neither is the "demand is made..." verbiage for that matter).

However, if one's stance becomes, "Those FRNs are already redeemed" rather than "My demand is on the record" when faced with hard opposition, there is a potential for a "loophole" attack since one is presuming something that is NOT expressly written in the code being invoked. Remember it is NOT your language; it is legal code language.

That is why "lawful money demanded for all transactions" leaves less, if any, room for a "loophole" attack. That is all I am trying to convey which is why I also corrected doug555 regarding 12USC95a(2); there is NO demand language in that code, it is expressed that any conveyance, assignment, payment, etc. shall be a full acquittance and discharge.

Again, it is not we who acquit or discharge, yet that is what is expressly required when a conveyance, assignment, payment, etc. is made to and for the account of the United States.

Whether it is done or not again is not our concern; we only form the lawful record which dismisses any liability claim as relates to actions done pursuant to that section.

Michael Joseph
01-26-15, 12:04 AM
A demand for lawful money is a claim upon that which relief can be granted. It is the proper application of law. However don't think that the Bank Stores are stocked full of intelligent persons who understand all aspects of their business. That is why they have a legal department - just like any other business these days.

The law of course is a benefit to those who make its use. The trustees are tasked to carry out the lawful demands of the beneficiary - unless of course the beneficiary has suffered a CIVIL DEATH - come he is the heir let us kill him and the estate shall be ours - and the greedy trustees have SEIZED [by force] upon the inheritance.

Hi welcome to customer service, may I help you. Please give me the account name and number so we can address your concern. A covenant in death. A mark of a beast organization.

To say "its my money" is a falsehood. In fact it torts the entire system of death. You are presumed to be acting for an estate [the deceased infant] - therefore you act in and for another. To claim "its mine" is a tort against the triple crown and therefore its grantor the Pontiff. You may not like it but then again many play the game [myself included] without any idea of the rules. But we are learning to distinguish the subtle nature of the flaw in the original claim.

Seems a rigged game when one asks to know the rules and is told to purchase a mouthpiece or teacher. One responds - I cannot afford to know - nevertheless ignorance is no defense.

Shall I declare myself now in your presence?

Regards,
MJ

Robert Henry
01-26-15, 01:02 AM
I have no evidence. But then that is not my concern or domain.

The only thing I need to do is properly document my demands for lawful money for all transactions, and report same on the 1040 annually.

The evidence of the demands is all that matters to me, and that it is done without "overstatement", such as saying the FRNs are already redeemed.

It seems to me that one making such a claim is also required to provide evidence of same.

Someday, such a demand for evidence may be presented. Saying the evidence is "IN the demand" may not be enough.

Thanks for clarifying, Doug and we are in agreement, for the most part.

Perhaps I have failed to express my position clearly, please forgive me if that is so. The gist of it, for me, is that once the Notice and Demand has been properly served, posted and published the code is fulfilled and therefore all is redeemed by default. The Notice and Demand is your substantive evidence, already in the record, that demand has been made and the redeemed checks show that you have only been using lawful money. Overwhelming evidence, in my opinion.

I hope this is clarifying.

doug555
01-26-15, 01:19 AM
Thanks for clarifying, Doug and we are in agreement, for the most part.

Perhaps I have failed to express my position clearly, please forgive me if that is so. The gist of it, for me, is that once the Notice and Demand has been properly served, posted and published the code is fulfilled and therefore all is redeemed by default. The Notice and Demand is your substantive evidence, already in the record, that demand has been made and the redeemed checks show that you have only been using lawful money. Overwhelming evidence, in my opinion.

I hope this is clarifying.

Yes, thanks! I was unaware that you already had on record a "Notice and Demand".

Then that stamp "Redeemed Lawful Money" makes sense in that it indicates a STATUS rather than a DEMAND.

I was just concerned that one might be relying on a stamp that only established a STATUS NOTICE, instead of a stamp that expressly established a LAWFUL MONEY DEMAND record.

If only such Notices were recorded, eventually one would have to substantiate that Notice with the actual associated Demand record being on file somewhere in the public.

I do not rely on a separate "Notice and Demand". I rely on the handwritten Demand that I use on every deposit slip & check that I issue, and that such constitutes Non-Hearsay Evidence (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803) (FRE 803.6.B).

Thanks for providing that needed context.

Robert Henry
01-26-15, 01:37 AM
I am glad we comprehend each other, thank you.

The Notice and Demand in the record is the cornerstone, in my opinion, and I assumed this was known.

JohnnyCash
01-26-15, 02:50 AM
Thanks for posting this stamp, which I know is what David has always recommended and used, and which is working, but sometimes is rejected as a "restrictive endorsement".

If it's helpful to anyone - in all my years redeeming Lawful Money the bank has never denied or rejected a "restrictive endorsement" check. Each was accepted and I had available lawful money.

Robert Henry
01-26-15, 07:51 PM
If it's helpful to anyone - in all my years redeeming Lawful Money the bank has never denied or rejected a "restrictive endorsement" check. Each was accepted and I had available lawful money.

Same here, JC. The teller did ask "What's this?" when I added the verbiage to the bank signature card - I told her "Oh, that's just my restrictive endorsement." She left it alone and I have not had anything questioned since. I frequently cash checks as well as use the smartphone app to make deposits with no issues.

I will echo your thanks to David Merrill, and include a thanks to Michael Joseph, for sharing this remedy!

doug555
01-26-15, 10:07 PM
If it's helpful to anyone - in all my years redeeming Lawful Money the bank has never denied or rejected a "restrictive endorsement" check. Each was accepted and I had available lawful money.

Let me be clear.

Anyone using that stamp is going beyond the authority of 12 USC 411.

12 USC 411 only authorizes one to demand lawful money.

Perhaps it is "never denied or rejected" because it is being ignored, since it is NOT a demand, and therefore not restrictive at all.

BTW: Calling me "fakesuitor" is quite childish, don't you think? Grow up!

itsmymoney
01-26-15, 11:05 PM
Let me be clear.

Anyone using that stamp is going beyond the authority of 12 USC 411.

12 USC 411 only authorizes one to demand lawful money.

BTW: Calling me "fakesuitor" is quite childish, don't you think? Grow up!



All,

D555 is only pointing out a possible flaw in the logic behind 'Redeemed' (past tense) and the present tense 'Demand' for Lawful Money, AND, relative to legal/law. You MUST look at all the possibilities these evil 'lords' will utilize to bring us down. It is THEIR JOB to do so. How can you (and this includes you, JC) KNOW FOR CERTAIN that they will NEVER come after you? What if suddenly there is a directive at IRS to, 'hunt down any flaws in the RILM execution'? So you MIGHT be ok if you made some sort of Public Demand of your INTENT via an Affidavit at the County, and then 'redeemed' (past tense) those checks after such Demand was made public. However, if there was no Public Demand and you are executing a presumed 'past tense' operation (redeemed), can you be 100% sure that you are in the clear? These 'people' are ruthless monsters, and I know that more so than the average Joe.

The warning is a valid one, regardless of whether any of us ever become subject to any wrath as a result. It's simple logic, that's all. Why can't everyone see it that way? I don't think D555 has a 'troll' agenda. 'Just think about it' is what I think he is saying.

Michael Joseph
01-27-15, 12:41 AM
Same here, JC. The teller did ask "What's this?" when I added the verbiage to the bank signature card - I told her "Oh, that's just my restrictive endorsement." She left it alone and I have not had anything questioned since. I frequently cash checks as well as use the smartphone app to make deposits with no issues.

I will echo your thanks to David Merrill, and include a thanks to Michael Joseph, for sharing this remedy!

I started using the following years ago and it works every time because the conditioned mind is persuaded to a certain response: "I do this for tax purposes". At that point the conversation is over and you just pat them on the head and say "nitey nite sweet pea". This way you don't have to teach anybody something new or waste your time.

But I always advocate self liability so whatever works for you is what you should go with.

Shalom,
MJ

Robert Henry
01-27-15, 10:26 AM
I started using the following years ago and it works every time because the conditioned mind is persuaded to a certain response: "I do this for tax purposes". At that point the conversation is over and you just pat them on the head and say "nitey nite sweet pea". This way you don't have to teach anybody something new or waste your time.

But I always advocate self liability so whatever works for you is what you should go with.

Shalom,
MJ

That's good, MJ! I like it!

I think I recall you mentioning that before, perhaps when you and David Merrill were on Angela Stark's talkshoe call...

BLBereans
01-27-15, 11:54 AM
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?758-IRS-recognizes-Redeeming-Lawful-Money-Yes!!!&p=8956&viewfull=1#post8956

Here is a question for those who believe making the demand equates to "self-executing redemption"...

Why, in the above anecdote regarding a rubber check, would the bank tear off the 12USC411 verbiage? If the demanded funds resulted in "self-executed" redemption, tearing off (or attempting to hide) the non-endorsement makes no sense; the funds are already redeemed so tearing that check wouldn't hide a thing, would it?

Robert Henry
01-27-15, 06:04 PM
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?758-IRS-recognizes-Redeeming-Lawful-Money-Yes!!!&p=8956&viewfull=1#post8956

Here is a question for those who believe making the demand equates to "self-executing redemption"...

Why, in the above anecdote regarding a rubber check, would the bank tear off the 12USC411 verbiage? If the demanded funds resulted in "self-executed" redemption, tearing off (or attempting to hide) the non-endorsement makes no sense; the funds are already redeemed so tearing that check wouldn't hide a thing, would it?

It would certainly hide the record that said instrument was redeemed, would it not? At least on the bank's side. I'm led to believe people destroy evidence all the time.

One could speculate endlessly on the actions of one employee, possibly (probably?) ignorant of the implications of such verbiage and likely told, as the bank manager appears to have been in the preceding example in that post, that it was "against bank policy" by their higher-ups. I believe this board has several accounts from the early days when redeeming first started gaining popularity where bank employees were utterly befuddled by the concept and tried to deny it to suitors. Now they simply seem to ignore it, in my experience, with the one exception I noted here in my previous post.

I would re-direct you to my previous post in this thread asking what event it is you think might transpire behind the scenes in execution of redemption, if it is not self-executing?

Perhaps this article will help, if you have not read it previously: http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/convincing.html

It is certainly worth your time, in my opinion.

Thank you.

Robert Henry
01-27-15, 07:17 PM
All,

D555 is only pointing out a possible flaw in the logic behind 'Redeemed' (past tense) and the present tense 'Demand' for Lawful Money, AND, relative to legal/law. You MUST look at all the possibilities these evil 'lords' will utilize to bring us down. It is THEIR JOB to do so. How can you (and this includes you, JC) KNOW FOR CERTAIN that they will NEVER come after you? What if suddenly there is a directive at IRS to, 'hunt down any flaws in the RILM execution'? So you MIGHT be ok if you made some sort of Public Demand of your INTENT via an Affidavit at the County, and then 'redeemed' (past tense) those checks after such Demand was made public. However, if there was no Public Demand and you are executing a presumed 'past tense' operation (redeemed), can you be 100% sure that you are in the clear? These 'people' are ruthless monsters, and I know that more so than the average Joe.

The warning is a valid one, regardless of whether any of us ever become subject to any wrath as a result. It's simple logic, that's all. Why can't everyone see it that way? I don't think D555 has a 'troll' agenda. 'Just think about it' is what I think he is saying.

Perhaps I should further clarify as well, as it seems people may be inclined to jump in the water before first dipping a toe to test the temperature - not wise, in my opinion.

Do your homework on this process and fully comprehend the possible ramifications. I cannot stress enough the importance of the intrepid suitor having guidance and I would strongly recommend that people talk with David Merrill directly.

There is more to this than simply publishing something at the county, if you wish to provide overwhelming evidence and clearly demonstrate your intent.

For at least the third time in this thread I will advise that properly serving, posting and publishing your Notice and Demand for Lawful Money is critical. I would not proceed with IRS filings without having done such.

BLBereans
01-27-15, 10:18 PM
It would certainly hide the record that said instrument was redeemed, would it not? At least on the bank's side. I'm led to believe people destroy evidence all the time.

One could speculate endlessly on the actions of one employee, possibly (probably?) ignorant of the implications of such verbiage and likely told, as the bank manager appears to have been in the preceding example in that post, that it was "against bank policy" by their higher-ups. I believe this board has several accounts from the early days when redeeming first started gaining popularity where bank employees were utterly befuddled by the concept and tried to deny it to suitors. Now they simply seem to ignore it, in my experience, with the one exception I noted here in my previous post.

I would re-direct you to my previous post in this thread asking what event it is you think might transpire behind the scenes in execution of redemption, if it is not self-executing?

Perhaps this article will help, if you have not read it previously: http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/convincing.html

It is certainly worth your time, in my opinion.

Thank you.

It would certainly be an attempt to hide (wouldn't work anyway) the fact that the instrument was never going to be redeemed in the first place.

Had the check not bounced, what would have happened according to the anecdotal evidence we have? The supposed "redeemed" funds would have been fractionalized rather than taken out of the debt stream - no extinguishment. To redeem is to "buy back"; ask your self who "sells" and who "buys".

So the demand would go unheeded in that scenario, yet, that makes NO difference to the demander; the demander has no further liability. The redeemer failed to perform.

KnowLaw
01-28-15, 05:05 PM
I believe that unless and until 12 USC 411 is somehow repealed or over-turned, this method properly executed will continue to yield success.
It cannot be over-turned except by the Congress in which it was first passed, which opportunity has long since passed by, and to attempt to repeal it would be a fraud upon the public. Otherwise, one or the other of these two actions would already have been accomplished. So the Congress is not going to (i.e. cannot) take either of those two actions.

If you understand law, then you understand the following (taken from a post on another forum, in referring to a similar question):


Does the State of Michigan have a right to abolish laws of the Territory of Michigan? Does the 14th Congress have a right to abolish the laws of the 13th Congress? Can the Boy Scouts modify the Girl Scouts Handbook? The answer is[:] ... only the entity that created a law can abolish or modify it. That is not to say a newer entity [i.e., iteration of government] cannot adopt laws of its own but at no time can they modify the original law.

Nope. A law passed is a law passed. Now I agree that the 14th Congress can choose to enact a NEW law that affects how their OWN employees are going to approach a problem.

A new congress is a new government. The laws of the old government are still in effect until a new congress changes or abolishes them FOR THEIR OWN EMPLOYEES. A new congress cannot create ex post facto a law that an employee of the previous congress relied upon for his own actions.

itsmymoney
01-29-15, 12:28 AM
Regarding the recording of my Demand to RILM Affidavit at the County tomorrow, I have acquired on the Affidavit the Notary's printed name and signature, plus the signatures of two witnesses. I intend to record under a Miscellaneous Filing and get TWO certified copies of the recording (plus request the Notary's Certificate of Commission - of which I got her personal copy today at the bank - to verify against the County's copy). The Affidavit states a retro RILM to Jan 2, 2015 which is the first RILM check for 2015. I have all the evidence to back this info up.

Also, should I give them the ORIGINAL (signed in blue ink) or the COPY (black ink) of the Affidavit, to record?

Any other thoughts are most welcome.

Thank you.

Chex
01-29-15, 06:07 PM
2199
It cannot be over-turned except by the Congress in which it was first passed, which opportunity has long since passed by, and to attempt to repeal it would be a fraud upon the public. Otherwise, one or the other of these two actions would already have been accomplished. So the Congress is not going to (i.e. cannot) take either of those two actions. If you understand law, then you understand the following (taken from a post on another forum, in referring to a similar question):

That is a great statement something to keep an eye on.

Look the verbiage changed. LOL in all Cap letters by the way.

By the way the seller wants $2,149.00 for this bill (http://www.ebay.com/itm/AC-1934A-1000-New-York-ONE-THOUSAND-DOLLAR-BILL-PCGS-20-/191496221403)

mikecz
01-29-15, 08:03 PM
So we are pretty much all on board that the new notes are dual purpose notes correct?

I found it interesting, at the bottom of this posted note, it says "Will pay the the bearer on demand... ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS" thereby making a distinction between this note, and an actual dollar.

On a one dollar bill I have sitting in front of me (series 2009), it says... ONE DOLLAR, at the bottom. This would mean, well, that it is an actual dollar, but also fit as a federal reserve note, it's really just how you claim it.

Chex
01-29-15, 09:46 PM
So we are pretty much all on board that the new notes are dual purpose notes correct?

Yes we are mike.


I found it interesting, at the bottom of this posted note, it says "Will pay the the bearer on demand... ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS" thereby making a distinction between this note, and an actual dollar.

"Will pay the the bearer on demand"... Humm wonder what someone else thinks of that term?


On a one dollar bill I have sitting in front of me (series 2009), it says... ONE DOLLAR, at the bottom. This would mean, well, that it is an actual dollar, but also fit as a federal reserve note, it's really just how you claim it.

Will Pay To The Bearer On Demand (http://moneygold.info/2012/10/will-pay-to-the-bearer-on-demand/)

Will pay the the bearer on demand Search (http://www.bing.com/search?q=Will+pay+the+the+bearer+on+demand&src=IE-SearchBox&FORM=IESR02)

ohiofoiarequest
01-30-15, 03:26 AM
It is simple. If I don't have the stamp handy I'll just handwrite "Redeemed Lawful Money per 12 U.S.C. 411" backside of the check. I use the Smartphone for deposits too - very handy.

I have only ever run into a couple of issues when redeeming checks in lawful money of the United States. The very first time I tried doing so was back when I was still actively engaged in the labor force. I went to the employer's bank to cash a payroll check..at the bank the teller and then her manager both took up issue with the past tense use of "redeemed in lawful money" endorsement; to them it appeared to invalidate the check itself. A call to the bank's legal department got me the cash in hand but a strict admonishment to no longer endorse my checks in such a manner...which was avoided by simply going to another branch and writing the endorsement with present tense "redeem in lawful money 12 USC 411"...never another issue there.

I have since reduced the (non)endorsement on physically deposited checks to "12 USC 411 lawful money demand" or even simply "12 USC 411 demand". On the road a couple of months ago and deposited four checks featuring this verbiage into an out of state bank branch. The teller asked about the endorsement and expressed her concern that the checks appeared to be restrictively endorsed which somehow violated bank policy...I played dumb, shrugged and responded that at the request of my accountant I had been doing so without incident for years...after she looked up some policy on her computer and went for a quick consultation with her manager she came back to explain that the manager was fine with depositing the checks as they were and that she was sorry for the inconvenience of me having to wait on her to get an okay to do so.

While my past experience has been that nearly all the tellers have looked over my non-endorsement without so much as batting an eye..and therefore having met almost no resistance...I really do enjoy using the mobile banking app which allows me to RILM checks from the comfort of my home or anywhere on the road while being able to retain possession of the RILM checks for my records and not have to worry about the delay of inquiring teller minds.

When all else fails, play dumb or download a mobile banking app!

KnowLaw
01-30-15, 03:58 PM
I have only ever run into a couple of issues when redeeming checks in lawful money of the United States. The very first time I tried doing so was back when I was still actively engaged in the labor force. I went to the employer's bank to cash a payroll check..at the bank the teller and then her manager both took up issue with the past tense use of "redeemed in lawful money" endorsement; to them it appeared to invalidate the check itself.

A call to the bank's legal department got me the cash in hand but a strict admonishment to no longer endorse my checks in such a manner...which was avoided by simply going to another branch and writing the endorsement with present tense "redeem in lawful money 12 USC 411"...never another issue there.

You might want to try the following verbiage, also, as it states the matter in plain enough English that few, if any, will be able to argue with it:

"Deposited for credit on account in, or exchanged for, lawful money per Title 12 U.S.C. Sec. 411" Follow this up by printing underneath this verbiage your conditional endorsement as: True Name [e.g., John Alan] dba [doing business as] Fiduciary Trust Name [e.g., John A. Smith].

I've been using that verbiage since 2008 when I was first introduced to it in a similar law forum, and have never had any problem with using it. Tellers look at it, some do a double take, but then process the check as usual. I don't recall having anyone ever ask me what it meant.

ManOfTheStreet
02-02-15, 08:22 AM
I'm not sure if FRN are lawful money just because you redeemed a paycheck. Correct me if I'm wrong but you get a pay check from an employer. You go to employers back and non-endorse the check redeeming it for lawful money. The employers bank then gives you FRN in return. You merely deposited the check which was then redeemed in lawful money for the employers bank but not for you. you authorized the bank to go to the treasury bank to redeem the money. but they merely gave you FRN in exchange. the FRN are not really lawful money. wouldn't going to your back and depositing these FRN on a slip saying depositing lawful money be fraud as the FRN notes aren't lawful money? The FRN haven't been redeemed just the paycheck.

David Merrill
02-02-15, 11:50 AM
This confusion arises naturally from the 1933 gold seizure.

FRN's are legal tender and can be redeemed by law in lawful money. So few people want to do so that the Treasury is okay with not printing more lawful money, which is currency in the form of cash US notes or gold.


You go to employers back and non-endorse the check redeeming it for lawful money.

You cannot do that. What you CAN do is demand lawful money. This is why I say (we say around here) that you get US notes in the form of Federal Reserve notes.

The rest is legal mechanism behind closed doors in secret. We presume that the bankers are making your non-endorsed funds special deposit, whenever you choose to deposit your paycheck instead of cash it.

And the bookkeeper can be king if the public can be kept ignorant of the methodology of the bookkeeping. All science is a means to an end.

The means is knowledge. The end is control. Beyond this remains only one issue; who will be the beneficiary. - from Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars by Hartford VAN DYKE.

Vicariously through the brain trust I have seen a bank branch shut down shortly after making demand that the suitors/redeemed have to stop non-endorsement.