Is a bank required to have adequate cash (FRN) on hand to cash out a large check?

Having no bank account and minimal ID (a state ID card I got merely for the purpose of being able to cash checks at banks and postal money orders without hassle) I will take checks that I receive in payment to a branch of the bank upon which the check is drawn and cash them there. Usually I have no problems, other than verification of the check with the issuer.

I have in my possession a check for a low five-figure amount (in the teens) drawn on a state-chartered bank. I went to a branch to cash it on the same day it was issued but they claimed they did not have the cash on hand and would have to order it. I expressed the fact that I was miffed at this but instructed them to go ahead and order the cash and have it delivered to my hometown branch, and I let them know I would be expecting to go there and cash it the next day, and that didn't seem to be a problem. I got the branch manager's business card and was instructed to call her the next day to confirm arrangements.

The next day (yesterday) I called the branch manager at the first location but she was out to lunch. Before I went over to the local branch, I called the Federal Reserve with the intent of asking what the regulations were regarding whether a bank was required to have the FRN on hand for a cashing a check of size, but all I got was a voicemail box, so I left a message. Being impatient, I went into the local branch to cash the check, but the branch manager said he had not heard anything about it from the other branch, then gave me the same line as at the other branch, that they don't have that amount of cash on hand and it would need to be ordered, and the soonest it would be was next Tuesday. At this point I expressed my displeasure with the bank's policy and accused them of check kiting. I told them that if I present a check for payment and they didn't have the funds then it was no different from if I had written a check for which funds were not available: it's fraud. The branch manager was unswayed.

I called their corporate office and asked to speak with the CEO. I was able to get a hold of his executive assistant, who told me he was in a meeting and unable to talk to me at the moment. I told her I just wanted to talk to someone with authority to get my check cashed without any further delay. She took notes about my complaint and got my contact information and told me she would have someone get back to me. I did not hear back from anyone by end of day.

When I went back to my office yesterday I did some research in California Jurisprudence and so far have only found information dealing with the criminal aspect of knowingly passing checks with insufficient funds. This does not cover the present situation, where the check is good (the drawing entity certainly has the funds) but the bank claims they don't have the FRN to cash it. I did get a call back later in the day from someone at the FR but she was unable to help, as the bank is FDIC regulated. She also was unable to cite off-hand any regulation regarding the amount of FRN a bank must have on hand for daily operations. I submitted a complaint to the FDIC via their website but the form said if they can answer the inquiry without having to call the bank in question then I would receive a response within 10 days, but if they had to consult with the bank then the reply would be within 60 days. Egads.

Now, this situation is not confined to banks. Would you believe the US Postal Service is one of the worst check-kiting offenders out there? TWICE now, once a couple weeks ago and again yesterday, I brought in a money order that the clerks admitted they could not honor because they didn't have the money in their tills. In the first instance it was a MO for $800, and yesterday's attempt was for $500. Apparently, the only FRN they have at their disposal is what they get from customers that day, and if there isn't enough in the tills to cover it then they basically tell you that you are SOL. Numerous calls to the local and regional and national Postmasters General resulted in getting NOWHERE. Absolute cluelessness seems to reign supreme at the USPS these days.

What is going on here? I thought that if I take a check--certainly a money order--into the institution upon which it is drawn, they have to give me the cash. With the banks, I can kind of see where they would get an out, because they are banks, and banks are apparently immune from the requirements of banking and contract law these days. But with the post office money order, which is supposed to be as good as cash, I don't see how them not having enough money to cash one on demand is anything but a fraud. In both cases, I was able to have the MO honored later on in the day, after the PO had done sufficient business to fill their tills with cash. However, I don't deem it acceptable to be told to "come back later". I don't want to come back later; my time is valuable and gas costs money, and you're supposed to honor these stupid pieces of paper on demand.

Does anyone have any insight on this matter that they can share with me?

Thank you.

I still don't have an answer to my question, but here's an update on my check:

In short, going to the top does result in action, and the branch manager learned something new today: one is not required to provide a social security number to cash a check over $10,000, despite what some newer regulations might say.

The CEO's office did have someone get back to me, and she was very friendly and extremely helpful. She said she was going to find the cash for me, and where would be the most convenient branch to pick it up? I told her my first and second preferences, and she said to give her a little bit of time but she would be back to me with the word. Sure enough, a couple hours later she told me the cash was waiting for me at my hometown branch.

When I first went in, the branch manager greeted me warmly and invited me over to his desk. We exchanged trivialities and then got down to business. He informed me that they would need me to provide them with additional information because the amount of the check was over $10,000, of which the CEO's assistant already informed me. He handed me a "Check Cashing Application" to fill out. I was slightly agitated by this because I did not know for what I as applying (begging). I filled out my full name, c/o address, and left the SSN, occupation and phone number fields blank. I handed it back to him and when he got around to looking at it he said he would need me to fill it out completely. I then asked him, why is this an application, what am I applying for? He replied that it's an application form for cashing a check over $10,000, which was an obvious answer, but I guess he didn't know how to answer such a stupid question. So I stated that I wasn't interested in applying for anything, and scratched out the words "Application" in two places, then proceeded to fill in my occupation as "Consultant" (I'm sure there's something better I can use in the future, like maybe prepending "Private" to some description of my craft) and my phone number (since they already had it). I put a line in the SSN area and handed it back to him. He then asked me, you don't have a "social"? To which I honestly replied, no (a "social"? don't got one). He then said the only thing he was capable of saying in such a situation, which was "We need to have a social to cash this check", to which I again replied with a very straight face, I don't have one.

Flustered, he excused himself and made a call and spoke to someone in a very quiet voice and explained the situation. He received some instruction, then hung up and told me someone was looking into this and he would have an answer shortly. I told him no problem. He sent off an e-mail with some information to his overseer and we waited. After several long moments, he began typing something on his computer. Being optimistic, I figured it was him replying by e-mail and confirming that everything was a go and he would cash the check. And that's exactly what it was, everything was fine and he just needed to go get the cash from the vault. A few minutes later after some note counting and I was walking out of there with an envelope stuffed with crisp 2006 series hundos in sequential serial number order.

So, no, you do not have to give a social security number to complete a transaction in excess of $10,000 if you are not an account holder of the bank, or you do not have a social security number. That myth is busted ;)

Same with the driver license.

Welcome to the furums Destroyer! If you had been around here any longer you would have demanded lawful money and added another victory lap!

Without endorsement of private credit, without your consent and collusion to having less funds in the vault than might be demanded - which FDIC is supposed to handle expeditiously by the way - you might have walked out with your funds within minutes instead of days.

Hopefully you handle large checks often and can tell us how that goes in the near future.

Magnus -- Would you be able to provide a link to a copy of the "Check Cashing Application" you were asked to fill out? (I have a theory that these "applications" may be mandatory for the bank to submit, but you are under no obligation to help them fill it out).

Indeed that brings up the question will they even give you a blank application?

David, au contraire, my unwitting mentor. I have followed your work casually for a couple years now, and I endorse EVERYTHING of a fiduciary nature with "REDEEMED IN LAWFUL MONEY PER 12 USC 411" and then my signature.

However, you just clued me in to something I obviously missed along the way: by demanding lawful money I am not subject to unspoken rules regarding availability of funds on hand? If this is the case, it is something I will definitely pursue the next time. I will be earning more 4&5 figure checks in the future, and will be happy to do some experimenting. A pointer to what I should be studying is welcome.

Of note was that the upper level fixer that rounded up the money for me volunteered some additional information that was interesting: she said when she spoke to my hometown branch she asked if they could handle cashing the check and she told me that they told her yes; she then said she asked them if it would impact their reserves at all and she told me they said no. So it would seem the only reason they gave me grief was not because they didn't have the cash but because (speculating) their policy did not allow the cashing of such a check to a non-customer without prior arrangements. Otherwise, their reserves can handle it.

Jethro, it didn't occur to me to get a copy of the application. It was the size of a deposit slip (which in this bank's case is a third of an 8.5x11 page, i.e. like the size of 1800s dollar bills) and was pretty basic. It asked for the usual information: name, address, city, state, zip, phone number, SSN, occupation. At the bottom it specified to write in the amount of the check, then write the numeric amount, then a line for a signature (dang it, just realized I did not qualify my signature, oh well) and date.

When I was relating the story to a colleague later on in the day it occurred to me that the bank was perhaps going to securitize the application, because I've heard say that things like loan or mortgage applications might be getting securitized without our knowledge.

As an aside, I had at the ready an executed alternate W-8BEN form that I had prepared for a customer I had done work for a few weeks ago. It is a form I prepared myself with simply my full name, country ("USA"), entity type ("Individual (Man)"), and domicile (qualified postal address without the US), plus a mandatory IRS disclaimer with which I did not have any problems. I figured at some point it may be necessary to produce it but as it turns out it was not required.

If anyone is interested in a copy just PM me and I'll provide it, or will post it publicly if there's a proper place for it. It's pretty basic, but I know how much nicer it is to start with something that is already developed :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Magnus the Destroyer

David, au contraire, my unwitting mentor. I have followed your work casually for a couple years now, and I endorse EVERYTHING of a fiduciary nature with "REDEEMED IN LAWFUL MONEY PER 12 USC 411" and then my signature.

However, you just clued me in to something I obviously missed along the way: by demanding lawful money I am not subject to unspoken rules regarding availability of funds on hand? If this is the case, it is something I will definitely pursue the next time. I will be earning more 4&5 figure checks in the future, and will be happy to do some experimenting. A pointer to what I should be studying is welcome.

Of note was that the upper level fixer that rounded up the money for me volunteered some additional information that was interesting: she said when she spoke to my hometown branch she asked if they could handle cashing the check and she told me that they told her yes; she then said she asked them if it would impact their reserves at all and she told me they said no. So it would seem the only reason they gave me grief was not because they didn't have the cash but because (speculating) their policy did not allow the cashing of such a check to a non-customer without prior arrangements. Otherwise, their reserves can handle it.

---

Adjusting to the new information then...

If you had been endorsing the FDIC would have had it covered. So the waiting and grief they gave you was probably because you were outside the scope of fractional lending with your Demand?

I love how very revealing this is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Magnus the Destroyer

Jethro, it didn't occur to me to get a copy of the application. It was the size of a deposit slip (which in this bank's case is a third of an 8.5x11 page, i.e. like the size of 1800s dollar bills) and was pretty basic. It asked for the usual information: name, address, city, state, zip, phone number, SSN, occupation. At the bottom it specified to write in the amount of the check, then write the numeric amount, then a line for a signature (dang it, just realized I did not qualify my signature, oh well) and date.

When I was relating the story to a colleague later on in the day it occurred to me that the bank was perhaps going to securitize the application, because I've heard say that things like loan or mortgage applications might be getting securitized without our knowledge.

As an aside, I had at the ready an executed alternate W-8BEN form that I had prepared for a customer I had done work for a few weeks ago. It is a form I prepared myself with simply my full name, country ("USA"), entity type ("Individual (Man)"), and domicile (qualified postal address without the US), plus a mandatory IRS disclaimer with which I did not have any problems. I figured at some point it may be necessary to produce it but as it turns out it was not required.

If anyone is interested in a copy just PM me and I'll provide it, or will post it publicly if there's a proper place for it. It's pretty basic, but I know how much nicer it is to start with something that is already developed :)

---

You can Go Advanced and have Attachments available. Please sanitize to your liking carefully including bleed thru ink stamping on the backside.

Here is some Crosstalk from the brain trust:

Quote:

---

On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 4:21 AM, David Merrill <> wrote:

I read your sentence a few times True Name, and still find it quite perplexing:



Yes. which prompted a recall about JP shorting the dollar that I heard a while ago, so present that…



There is something prophetic about your treatment of time.



Also in the second link we find the author inspired by an influenza-inspired fever! I like that.

Quote:

---

We are dealing with a system that is based on really big lies. I’m sure our leaders of government have a very appealing rationalization why we must pretend the mortgage bonds are real, why we must pretend the mortgages are real, why we must pretend the notes are real, and why we must pretend the debts and defaults…

---

This is quite interesting – maybe even an aspect of Wisdom as presented in the first chapters of Proverbs? It takes a lifetime of experience blundering along in the dark thinking by the same old conditioning that debt has value; then a 102° fever brings on the dreams and maybe a certain feeling of surety that a hallucinogenic communication was for real… Then something snaps and the wiser man breaks through to the obvious!



I have a couple phone-sized videos for you to enjoy.



A Rare Interview with Helen SCHUCMAN (A Course in Miracles).

A Cave Vision – interview and transcript.

A Cave Vision – reenactment.



-----Original Message-----
From: suitor
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 5:16 PM
To: David Merrill
Cc:
Subject: Re: FW: OCC News Release: Comptroller Statement Regarding Civil Money Penalty Against JPMorgan Chase, N.A.



Yes. which prompted a recall about JP shorting the dollar that I heard a while ago, so present that

Now see this
https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=cr&ei=...g+long+on+gold

And might as well add this
http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2013...own-with-them/





On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 9:18 PM, David Merrill <> wrote:

These three emails seem significant.

-----Original Message-----
From: OCC Public Affairs [mailto:occpublicaffairs@occ.treas.gov]
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 7:55 AM
To: sanitized
Subject: OCC News Release: Comptroller Statement Regarding Civil Money Penalty Against JPMorgan Chase, N.A.

Quote:

---

NR 2013-141

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 19, 2013
Contact: Bryan Hubbard
(202) 649-6870


Comptroller Statement Regarding Civil Money Penalty Against JPMorgan Chase, N.A.
WASHINGTON—Comptroller of the Currency Thomas J. Curry today issued the following statement regarding the civil money penalty issued by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency against JPMorgan Chase, N.A., for unsafe and unsound practices related to derivatives trading activities conducted on behalf of the bank by the Chief Investment Office (CIO):

Today’s actions by the OCC, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Financial Conduct Authority in the United Kingdom represent extraordinary work and international cooperation to help ensure our financial system operates in a safe and sound manner and in accordance with applicable laws domestically and abroad.

Banks are in the business of managing risk, and bank management must implement the appropriate governance, controls, risk management and audit functions to ensure the bank operates in a safe and sound manner. Bank management must also ensure open and effective communication with supervisors, so that we can effectively do our jobs. Anything less is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

The nearly $1 billion in combined penalties and the more than $6 billion in losses resulting from the failures in controls over derivatives trading serve as important reminders to all bankers of the importance of prudent controls, strong governance, and effective risk management. The OCC will continue to use the remedial measures at its disposal, including civil money penalties and cease and desist orders, to deter unsafe and unsound practices.

Related Link
NR 2013-140 "OCC Assesses $300,000,000 Civil Money Penalty Against JPMorgan Chase, N.A., Related to Derivatives Trading Activity"
# # #


The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) charters and oversees a nationwide system of national banks and federal savings associations and assures that these banking institutions are safe and sound, competitive, and capable of serving the banking needs of their customers in the best possible manner. OCC press releases and other information are available at http://www.occ.gov. To receive OCC press releases and issuances by e-mail, subscribe at http://www.occ.gov/tools-forms/subsc...t-service.html.

Subscribe / Unsubscribe to receive OCC press releases and issuances by e-mail.

---

---

Interestingly this penalty is the same amount backing the original US notes. A rare glimpse inside a Treasury vault on the SE Corner of the Golden Rectangle Survey reveals a lot about this. One might understand my emphasis better by remembering that the SW Corner is the 1861 Capital of the Territory where Governor GILPIN first issued the fiat that led to the US notes from Washington. GILPIN.

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/425...naccispira.jpg

Perhaps more interestingly the best comprehensive collection of history is on the NW Corner - at the Freemason library and museum.



P.S. Enjoy this!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60Fead0hihM&

Hello...

I'm new to this forum site and upon reading much of this thread I was just wondering what harm there would actually be in completing the aforementioned application (and the thumb print, and..whatever else the bank requires to get my cash) since it may indeed be part of bank policy? Don't get me wrong, I would love to avoid all the hassle and invasion of privacy junk I'd be subjected to, but I'm not yet at that level of feeling confidant enough to engage the banksters in the manner in which you gentleman (or women) have suggested. I would appreciate any advice or encouragement you can muster as I will be entering my local BofA (as a non-customer) on Monday morning to cash a $10,000+ check (Allstate auto claim settlement), drawn on their Atlanta, GA branch (I'm in CA) I am doing it this way as I am not interested (nor do I have the time) in having my own bank (BBVA Compass) place a 3-7 day hold on said funds request.

Secondly...would you recommend I take my check directly to the teller window, or, should I "sign in" and wait for a "desk jockey", or manager, to address my request with? I am willing to quote 12 U.S.C. § 411 : US Code - Section 411 on the endorsement line, though, I'm not sure what kind of look I'll receive upon doing that

Thanks in advance for any wisdom you may offer on this matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by allysman4evr

Hello...

I'm new to this forum site and upon reading much of this thread I was just wondering what harm there would actually be in completing the aforementioned application (and the thumb print, and..whatever else the bank requires to get my cash) since it may indeed be part of bank policy? Don't get me wrong, I would love to avoid all the hassle and invasion of privacy junk I'd be subjected to, but I'm not yet at that level of feeling confidant enough to engage the banksters in the manner in which you gentleman (or women) have suggested. I would appreciate any advice or encouragement you can muster as I will be entering my local BofA (as a non-customer) on Monday morning to cash a $10,000+ check (Allstate auto claim settlement), drawn on their Atlanta, GA branch (I'm in CA) I am doing it this way as I am not interested (nor do I have the time) in having my own bank (BBVA Compass) place a 3-7 day hold on said funds request.

Secondly...would you recommend I take my check directly to the teller window, or, should I "sign in" and wait for a "desk jockey", or manager, to address my request with? I am willing to quote 12 U.S.C. § 411 : US Code - Section 411 on the endorsement line, though, I'm not sure what kind of look I'll receive upon doing that

Thanks in advance for any wisdom you may offer on this matter.

---

Welcome to the forums!

I hear no gist about any looks Magnus got for redeeming lawful money. His point was that he did not need a SSN. Very true.

I do not have a SSN myself. And in the situation Magnus did not have a SSN. This probably requires a transform or paradigm shift about ownership. This is the Lesson Plan for new suitors.

1) identity
2) record forming
3) redeeming lawful money

Since Magnus has been studying for a while I presume his State ID card is signed True Name... First and Middle only. When he uses it he should explain that the State required he make up that trust name but it is better functionally than ID cards from other sources than government.

Quote:

---

Having no bank account and minimal ID (a state ID card I got merely for the purpose of being able to cash checks at banks and postal money orders without hassle) I will take checks that I receive in payment to a branch of the bank upon which the check is drawn and cash them there.

---

I sense a little conditioning but if you think it through, the State ID card is a much higher ID card than the State Driver License - at least it is designed for identification whereas there are actually state statutes I have seen specifying that the Driver License, quite like the SS Card is not to be used for identification purposes. The driver license is competency evidence but it has a photograph and is very handy because it tags the competency to the driver by likeness of the photograph and physical description. This takes a while to grasp too - like my having no SSN.

This is from a transcript that a suitor shared in the brain trust.

http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/1...eadmission.jpg

That snapshot is for the revenue cause admission but it also demonstrates that the ID Card is for identification and is purchased and remains in possession of the "owner".

If you Search for Crosstalk you may get some insight that there is a brain trust in the background and often it is much easier to just bring a brain trust broadcast Copy and Paste here than rewrite about a topic. Suitors in the brain trust have evidence repositories (2) record forming. Taking these actions and especially executing a default judgment help bring the new suitor through a series of revelations like about possession and ownership.

Magnus did not have a State ID card until he produced one at the bank.

It may be difficult to wrap your mind around that and then, maybe not.

Interesting subject on ID cards. Googled ID card looks like a driver license, but is used for identification purposes only.

Here is what some had to say

http://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,1607,7...668---,00.html

http://www.dds.ga.gov/drivers/DLdata...47740603&ty=dl

http://www.dds.ga.gov/secureid/accepteddocs.aspx

http://www.gathergoget.com/

There are two types of identification licenses which may be obtained for identification purposes only. No testing is required (LOL) Why thank you. http://tn.gov/safety/driverlicense/idonly.shtml

Identification (ID) cards. DMV issues ID cards to persons of any age. The ID card looks like a driver license, but is used for identification purposes only. A regular ID card is valid for six years, and a senior citizen ID card is valid for 10 years. To qualify for a senior citizen ID card, you must be age 62 or older. http://www.dmv.ca.gov/dl/dl_info.htm#idcard

Browsing one of the above links, I found this quote:

Any applicant who does not have a Social Security Number (SSN) shall complete an affidavit, under penalty of perjury, affirming that the applicant has never been issued a SSN,

If someone has been issued a SS, how does one get around this?

Or, if the SS is already on the drivers license application on file, how does one get around the clerk to correct it?

hello all,

iam new to this forum as of today, but with many years now of studying you all's hard work and research.
i was wondering if any could help with a question i have regarding SSN being required to cash paycheck as i have read in this thread
it would not be required. although this thread is of an older sort, could there have been changes to law that does now require such(SSN)?
i am having issues with getting my paycheck paid at a local institution for it being an amount over 3000$. i do not work for a foreign entity
and the owner of bank has known me all my life but still insists on the SSN to get my payment. i am posting a copy of email sent from one of his lackeys
as per his supposed regulation to ask for SSN. i cannot find where any legislation has been changed in the past year as to these purtaining to me.


Keith,



I have come up with the following information for you….



“Pursuant to the Federal Code of Regulations 31 CFR Chapter V, all banks (not just AimBank) are required to comply with regulation written and enforced by OFAC. This includes regular screening of bank transactions and customers in order to prove compliance with these rules. If AimBank (or any financial institution) did not prove compliance with OFAC and similar identification requirements, considerable penalties would most likely affect the bank’s ability to support its customers and community.”



This is one of the many rules/laws the banking industry has to follow as a result of 9-11-01 that we all have to live by.



Let me know if you have other questions on this.


am i wrong but would their customer need to be vetted for suspicious activity under these rules? and are they perhaps suggesting their customer is of some nefarious organization? this company i work for is one of the biggest in my small town, which no one is considering the company a bad group. im sure it is just more run around because banks are notorious for but why in just the past month have things changed? as i say i cannot find any chanes that would effect me in this . could any of you all help in this regard if you have any insight or experience dealing with this type of situation?

thank you for your consideration
keith

It probably falls into "identification requirements" of the bank.

Your post seems to lack an important piece of information. Do you have an account? Or are you cashing the check at your boss's bank? I think that either a trust account # or SSN is required to open an account. If you supply a trust account # the First Trustee must provide the SSN too.

I came across something when declined for a fishing license due to not providing a SSN.

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attac...5&d=1465875531

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attac...0&d=1310290853

Now if you look up that citation you find the Sporting Goods store is responsible to provide that information. Then you look even closer to find that the SSN is not for identification purposes but that the SSA has been allowed by Congress to share the number for "identification purposes".

So there you have it. At least this smacks of it. The OCC and Homeland Security have the bank manager, not you. "Your" SSN still remains private. But you need that paycheck and if your pal at the bank cannot help you through your privacy issues then I doubt the bank on the other corner will.

Learn trust law. I have found that I came to peace with these things and am much, much happier after doing so. Another approach is my Lesson Plan. We have developed novel process in central banking, outside the scope of central banking - Redemption. So far, so good. If you look at the Albany Remand keep in mind please that for these several "incidents" there are probably a thousand successful lawful money refunds of withholdings. Plus that we can find the mistake that any IRS attorney would have seen in the demand/return process for these "incidents".

The frivolous penalty stalls. We have only seen one 2645C Letter and that is always good news! It usually means full refunds are on the way. Even including penalties and interest for the delay after your claim was made.

Attachment 5154

Attachment 5155

forgive me for not putting those critical pieces of info in the post. no i do not have a bank account and it is boss's bank. i have been getting paid through this same bank now in the same process i've used for years now until recently (about a month ago) when i was refused payment. i did clearly ask them to provide what law made it compulsory for me to provide an SSN. if no recent changes to law then i am thinking i am dealing with an over zealous "patriot fool" or am i being foolish to not give in as my wife would call it? i do have reservations with doing so, in fact the owner of bank asked me
" what do you do when your doctor asks for your SSN?"
to which i replied "its none of his business", his surprised look was one for the ages. is this just conditioning on their part? or is this really lawful?

Cashed this one a week ago or so at a bank where I had no account. If I don't have the SS card on me ... then I can honestly say: I don't have a SSN. If the check is made out to LEGAL NAME then I can provide IT's SSN and still owe no tax on the income because I've redeemed lawful money. LEGAL NAME only used the Federal Reserve system as fiscal agent of the government to demand U.S. notes in the form of FRNs - lawful money. By law. See https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/411

Attachment 5156

ok thanks for the responses, so i am to go ahead and supply SSN since the name on check is to B_-_-_-_ Keith B_-_-_-_-_ lower case (if that means anything)? i am not too familiar with trust law so i will spend some time studying these topics in the future. i have read some of te posts in that area but they seem so cryptic for my shallow mind to comprehend but i will sure give it a look.
thanks again

The larger issue is ... will you endorse private credit (of the Federal Reserve)?

Attachment 5163

marcel, no i do not , i do not have a stamp i just write my demand. have been since mid year 2012 with no bank account. but as far as SSN goes and agencies asking for same, is it not a violation of privacy act ( 42 usc 408 (8) )

I know you are asking Marcel but I want to comment.

It is you who violates your own privacy. The Congress has approved that State agencies can use the SSN for ID purposes. So it is the State agents who have the burden of collecting it. But you will find the State agents will not grant a privilege or license if you refuse to give it over.

I was told once that you can reverse the metaphysics if you set the Driver License card on the dashboard where the officer can reach it and say, "You can TAKE it if you need to USE it."

But I have never tried this. And I drive very carefully so that I never am stopped.

i agree with you that state agencies are allowed to ask for SSN, are banks state agencies? i have renewed my driver license in the past couple of months and while filling out the paperwork in the SSN box i left it blank no questions were raised over that. although i more than likely have furnished SSN when i was 15yo when i originally got DL so thats probably why it wasn't an issue. if this bank is a quasi state agent should i ask for the agents proof of bonding and oath of office? if they dont have such then they are not the state agency required to be furnished a SSN, correct?

An easier paradigm is that the State is a member bank of the Fed.

I have shown many times that the regulation and requirements to be a state or member bank is very lax.

so if i am following you correctly since i have provided a DL for id, i am admitting to being a member bank? i do not endorse private credit, but since the bank in question provided “Pursuant to the Federal Code of Regulations 31 CFR Chapter V" as the "law" requiring such, which only deals with doing business with so called rogue nations how is it that i am under such regulations?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keith

so if i am following you correctly since i have provided a DL for id, i am admitting to being a member bank? i do not endorse private credit, but since the bank in question provided “Pursuant to the Federal Code of Regulations 31 CFR Chapter V" as the "law" requiring such, which only deals with doing business with so called rogue nations how is it that i am under such regulations?

---

I assume that you made a Demand above the "Endorsement" line. That is all that is required by law.

What I suspect is going on is that until you feel redeemed you are not. When you feel redeemed you are, or will be. But then that assumes the existence of time and redemption entails the collapse of time. Check into A Course in Miracles and you might get that part. However Albert was much more concise.

In other words I project into your question that Redemption is an inherent birthright (redundancy, I know).

thank you david, i did make my demand, but my reservations (providing SSN) are probably not worth the trouble i am giving them, i just dont know for sure what the bank is doing with the number. are my apprehensions unfounded? i have been reading the identity posts lately and on this journey there are some confusing aspects to identity, i know who i am, so does owner of bank. which is why i am reluctant to provide SSN for identification where in SSA says not to use it for such. and thank you again for your insight and i will look at a course in miracles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keith

thank you david, i did make my demand, but my reservations (providing SSN) are probably not worth the trouble i am giving them, i just dont know for sure what the bank is doing with the number. are my apprehensions unfounded? i have been reading the identity posts lately and on this journey there are some confusing aspects to identity, i know who i am, so does owner of bank. which is why i am reluctant to provide SSN for identification where in SSA says not to use it for such. and thank you again for your insight and i will look at a course in miracles

---

A Course in Miracles is a great work if understand William was dosing Helen with LSD. So you are looking at Helen's superconscious mind written in her customized shorthand, through her religious upbringing. My observation is that the reading groups develop into great group therapy though. Albeit I have never opened my book outside the group reading, I have never really sought anything but reverse engineering the work as MK-ULTRA/CIA work product.

Helen (the Voice of Jesus) makes many references to the "time collapse" and this makes sense with Einstein's Theory of Relativity. There is also reference to this "reality" being a dream, or maybe more an illusion. This makes sense to me in terms of Schroedinger's Wave Equations, probabilities and dead cats. But I view it more like various balances of sleep neurochemistry - dopamine, serotonin, melatonin and DMT, dimethyltryptomine. There are others but these are the ones I recall easily and can orchestrate to surmise that this waking reality state is a mutually agreed upon holographic construct creating a medium where time has a purpose about remembering, remedy and redemption. Which brings us back to states of mind playing together in the language we apply - numero-linguistics.

I do not think the bank is "doing" anything with the number except utilizing it as an identifier. That you "give" the number and "Date" of Birth - date being a gift, is the outward sign of trust. In other words if you do not trust banks, then you might be trusting your mattress and a good handy gun. Or you might have a private trust, with a trustee managing your wealth for your benefit.

With a failed judiciary you might notice the Albany Remand is purposeful:

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attac...4&d=1533466085

It was much more convincing to have the church there, an irrevocable trust. So I imagine the clerk of court took a look at the tiny url provided - lienglobal.

www.tinyurl.com/lienglobal

Attachment 5167

You can get on the OCC email bulletins to evaluate how safe your money is with the bank. I am not suggesting you trust the bank, just that a lot of people do without incident. When it comes right down to it, honor is the binding component for civilization and getting out of elastic currency might be the finish, not just a good start.

In all cases/trusts the good trustee is always looking out for the best interest of the beneficiary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keith

so if i am following you correctly since i have provided a DL for id, i am admitting to being a member bank? i do not endorse private credit, but since the bank in question provided “Pursuant to the Federal Code of Regulations 31 CFR Chapter V" as the "law" requiring such, which only deals with doing business with so called rogue nations how is it that i am under such regulations?

---

Becoming a Member Bank of the Federal Reserve System: Dallas Questions & Answers https://www.dallasfed.org/banking/applications.aspx

Administrative law is the body of law and legal work that deals with government agencies. Lawmakers create government agencies to carry out laws and administer the functions of government. These agencies create, implement and enforce regulations.

Administrative Law. Branch of law governing the creation and operation of administrative agencies. Of special importance are the powers granted to administrative agencies, the substantive rules that such agencies make, and the legal relationships between such agencies, other government bodies, and the public at large.

Legal systems are generally divided into common law and civil law systems. Common law systems are based on case law. These systems exist in countries that were once a part of the British Empire.

Common law is defined as a body of legal rules that have been made by judges as they issue rulings on cases, as opposed to rules and laws made by the legislature or in official statutes. An example of common law is a rule that a judge made that says that people have a duty to read contracts.

Administrative law is the body of law created by the agencies and departments of the government, which carry out the laws passed by Congress or a state legislature.

Congress or the state legislatures create administrative law. It encompasses the procedures under which government agencies operate as well as the external constraints upon them.

Administrative law is considered a branch of public law and is often referred to as regulatory law.

Common law (also known as judicial precedent or judge-made law, or case law) is that body of law derived from judicial decisions of courts and similar tribunals.
A police officer pulls you over, and you are given a citation for violating the speed limit. You have broken a vehicle and traffic law. This law is established by legislature as a statute, or a law that is formally written and enacted. As a result, the law you broke was a statutory law.

Administrative law is the body of law that governs the activities of administrative agencies of government. Government agency action can include rule making, adjudication, or the enforcement of a specific regulatory agenda. Administrative law is considered a branch of public law.

Public law is that part of law which governs relationships between individuals and the government, and those relationships between individuals which are of direct concern to society.

Public law comprises constitutional law, administrative law, tax law and criminal law, as well as all procedural law. In public law, mandatory rules prevail. The government must obey the law.

The main difference between public and private law is in the parties that each affects. Public law affects society as a whole and includes administrative law, constitutional law, criminal law, municipal law and international law.

Public international law refers to those laws, rules, and principles of general application that deal with the conduct of nation states and international organizations among themselves as well as the relationships between nation states and international organizations with natural and juridical persons. https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/pu...rnational-law/

Natural person is a real human being or an actual person as distinguished from a corporation which is often treated at law as a fictitious person.
A juridical person is a legal entity created by the law which is not a natural person, such as a corporation created under state statutes. It is a legal entity having a distinct identity and legal rights and obligations under the law.

Juridical act as used in civil law refers to a lawful act or expression of will intended to have legal consequences.

A "juridical relationship," often also called a "juridical link," refers to some type of legal relationship which relates all defendants in a way that would make single resolution of a dispute preferable to a multiplicity of similar actions.

A judicial accounting is a financial inventory of assets, debts, income, expenditures, and other items, which is submitted to the court.
Artificial person is an entity created by law and given certain legal rights and duties of a human being. It can be real or imaginary and for the purpose of legal reasoning is treated more or less as a human being. For example, corporation, company etc. An artificial person is also referred to as a fictitious person, juristic person, juridical person, legal person or moral person.

International law is the set of rules generally regarded and accepted as binding in relations between states and between nations. It serves as a framework for the practice of stable and organized international relations.

International law may be defined as a body of law formed as a result of international customs, treaties, and organizations that governs relations among or between nations.

Since most international law is governed by treaties, it's usually up to the individual nations to enforce the law. However, there are a few international organizations that enforce certain treaties. The most notable example is the United Nations, which has 192 member states.

Legal systems are generally divided into common law and civil law systems. Common law systems are based on case law. These systems exist in countries that were once a part of the British Empire

31 CFR Chapter V - OFFICE OF FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
International Law: an Overview https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/international_law

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Or you might have a private trust, with a trustee managing your wealth for your benefit.

---

Yes, that's what I did. Created a private trust with another trustee to do the banking. No need to provide SSN; in fact the bank didn't even ask me while I watched the banking Trustee make the deposit.

Attachment 5168

Fine then; I am just taking this where my interests lie.

Quote:

---

Becoming a Member Bank of the Federal Reserve System: Dallas Questions & Answers https://www.dallasfed.org/banking/applications.aspx

---

My experience tells me that the real hurdle here is getting insurance for yourself as a member bank. Not becoming one. I have shown many times here an image of how the requirements are very lax, becoming a member bank. I believe simply endorsement of private credit works. But you have to follow all sorts of guidelines from the OCC to be insured against a run on your cash in the mattress, or theft while you go to the grocery...

One hundred & forty thousand dollars, is that for real, Marcel? I think you set a record with that one. Most redeemed lawful money in a transaction - ever.

We have a much broader history of redemption Lorne:

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attac...1&d=1512836095

Millions of dollars transferred through multiple trust accounts shut the whole chain down. Likely the OCC was on them for not entering the non-endorsements as special deposits.

First they contacted the trustees and told them to quit making claim/demand. When the trustees said they would sign as they felt fit, they shut down the accounts just before closing shop for good.

Yes, my $140k lawful money deposit was "for real." But millions redeemed has me beat. I recall reading here about that closed credit union but cannot find the thread. That's great evidence!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Fine then; I am just taking this where my interests lie.



My experience tells me that the real hurdle here is getting insurance for yourself as a member bank. Not becoming one. I have shown many times here an image of how the requirements are very lax, becoming a member bank. I believe simply endorsement of private credit works. But you have to follow all sorts of guidelines from the OCC to be insured against a run on your cash in the mattress, or theft while you go to the grocery...

---

Here is an idea: why not combine insurance and banking into one entity as far as function?

In many ways this is already fractional and reserve banking.

By endorsement you insure that the bills in your wallet will remain without claim to lawful money. You will pass these insurance policies on unclaimed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

In many ways this is already fractional and reserve banking.

By endorsement you insure that the bills in your wallet will remain without claim to lawful money. You will pass these insurance policies on unclaimed.

---

Bills are notices of debt.

Fractional banking is one thing. Reserve banking is something different.

Fractional banking leads to boom and bust cycles of the money supply (and economy).

Reserve banking is 1-to-1. A dollar doesn't go out that isn't linked to some security. Obviously reserve banking is more secure and stable than fractional reserve banking. I'm glad you mentioned reserve banking, thank-you. Reserve banking is soon to go into personal practice ....

Insurance is about risk or rather the transfer and spreading of risk from an individual to a pool of insureds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shikamaru

Bills are notices of debt.

Fractional banking is one thing. Reserve banking is something different.

Fractional banking leads to boom and bust cycles of the money supply (and economy).

Reserve banking is 1-to-1. A dollar doesn't go out that isn't linked to some security. Obviously reserve banking is more secure and stable than fractional reserve banking. I'm glad you mentioned reserve banking, thank-you. Reserve banking is soon to go into personal practice ....

Insurance is about risk or rather the transfer and spreading of risk from an individual to a pool of insureds.

---

You have me thinking...

Thanks!

Fractional and Reserve banking are different? I would like you to use this comic book by the Fed if it is adequate in detail. I have equated them in my mind and would like to get correct definitions.

All United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor.

After visiting a doctor, I attempted to pay my co-payment with cash, as I’d done several times before. The receptionist told me, “We don’t accept cash anymore.” I was astounded. This was the first time anywhere that I attempted to make a payment in person and could not use cash. I read her the statement on a $20 bill: “This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private.” She said, “I’m sorry; we take only credit cards, debit cards, and checks.” What do you think of their decision to no longer accept cash? https://parade.com/433394/marilynvos...t-accept-cash/

12 U.S. Code § 411 - Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=ozTUqkYz8B0

Title 62 - Banks and Banking, Title 12 U.S.C. seventh, Title 18 U.S.C. §8.

PBNBA Private Bankers National Banking Association. https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=ozTUqkYz8B0

12 USC 411 of the federal reserve act states in no uncertain terms that federal reserve notes are for advances to federal reserve banks only, and no other purpose. That means you own a bank and are its authorized representative, principle, and owner of a federal reserve bank. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEj4Tq1wsYg

12 U.S. Code § 305 - Class C directors; selection; “Federal reserve agent”

After all, those Federal Reserve Notes serve as a medium of exchange for goods, services and in settlement of debt. And Section 411 of Title 31 of the U.S. Code establishes Federal Reserve Notes as obligations of the U.S. government. http://www.signoraggio.com/signoragg...wfulmoney.html

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB:US_$20_1929_Federal_Reser ve_Bank_Note.jpgv


https://www.google.com/search?q=the+...w=1366&bih=631

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chex

All United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor.

After visiting a doctor, I attempted to pay my co-payment with cash, as I’d done several times before. The receptionist told me, “We don’t accept cash anymore.” I was astounded. This was the first time anywhere that I attempted to make a payment in person and could not use cash. I read her the statement on a $20 bill: “This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private.” She said, “I’m sorry; we take only credit cards, debit cards, and checks.” What do you think of their decision to no longer accept cash? https://parade.com/433394/marilynvos...t-accept-cash/

12 U.S. Code § 411 - Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=ozTUqkYz8B0

Title 62 - Banks and Banking, Title 12 U.S.C. seventh, Title 18 U.S.C. §8.

PBNBA Private Bankers National Banking Association. https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=ozTUqkYz8B0

12 USC 411 of the federal reserve act states in no uncertain terms that federal reserve notes are for advances to federal reserve banks only, and no other purpose. That means you own a bank and are its authorized representative, principle, and owner of a federal reserve bank. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEj4Tq1wsYg

12 U.S. Code § 305 - Class C directors; selection; “Federal reserve agent”

After all, those Federal Reserve Notes serve as a medium of exchange for goods, services and in settlement of debt. And Section 411 of Title 31 of the U.S. Code establishes Federal Reserve Notes as obligations of the U.S. government. http://www.signoraggio.com/signoragg...wfulmoney.html

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB:US_$20_1929_Federal_Reser ve_Bank_Note.jpgv


https://www.google.com/search?q=the+...w=1366&bih=631

---

Very nice! Pay particular attention to Footnote 4 of this Treatise. I think the paper describes the distinctions between reserve banking and fractional lending. I had lumped them together by 1913. Thanks again for causing me to reconsider.

Now...

Do you consider there to be any distinctions between "member bank" and Federal Reserve Agent?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chex

All United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor.

After visiting a doctor, I attempted to pay my co-payment with cash, as I’d done several times before. The receptionist told me, “We don’t accept cash anymore.” I was astounded. This was the first time anywhere that I attempted to make a payment in person and could not use cash. I read her the statement on a $20 bill: “This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private.” She said, “I’m sorry; we take only credit cards, debit cards, and checks.” What do you think of their decision to no longer accept cash? https://parade.com/433394/marilynvos...t-accept-cash/

---

I think it is time to find a new doctor. As for the one mentioned hereinabove, I would say his services are free, at least to you. Else his firm is in breach of the public trust. A "can I have your business card" should do nicely for a judge to render judgment in your favor - should it come to that. What I mean is one who is registered to make a use of the State and, for that matter, is operating under a license issued by said State in capacity of a Professional Corporation, is naturally subject to the laws of the State. And that is why I relate there is a public trust concern.

A couple years back we were on a trip from North Carolina to Indiana. When I go on such trips I usually carry a minimum of 2500 in cash in case something happens that is unexpected. That year I forgot to change some of the 100's into 20's before I left. Finding that we were almost out of gas in Kentucky we stopped at a large gas station. I told my wife that I would pump the gas if she went in and paid the clerk so it was a deal. I was waiting and waiting and waiting in the cold until finally I got frustrated. I told the children to hang tight and I would be back shortly. So when I went inside, my wife was shaken and the clerk was adamantly demanding that he was not going to take a 100 for gas.

I tried to be humble and peaceful so I told him we were fueling up and most likely it would take around 60 so he should not have any concerns. He just dug in deep and would not move off his position. We had no choice as we don't have credit cards but to pay in the cash that we had. So that clerk got an unwanted education that most likely gave him diarrhea for the rest of the day. I wheeled on him and said so you are intent on breaking the law?, in that case the gas is free - the police will be here shortly to enforce the free gas. So I called the local police department and explained myself.

They got on the phone with the clerk, most likely annoyed, and just like that the clerk accepted the 100 for gas. It is a shame that one must go to such lengths but then again, if one does not stand for one's right, then one has no right. When we got back on the road, my wife asked me "how do you do that?" I responded because God allows me. There is not other answer. And experience has shown me that this is true.

I carry a mobile phone with me in case I need to record a conversation for evidence sake. Let's say that some corporation tried to push me with the argument that FRN's are not money of the United States or some other such non-sense, then that is easily defeated by LEGAL TENDER - therefore non-acceptance is breach of the public trust.

Said doctor-tator is your creditor if services were rendered without payment being first received.