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, 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.