Resistance and Refusal by the Banks Part 2

Hello everyone,

Everything has been going great for almost 2 years now, and I've actually developed a very good relationship with the people at my bank. I'm a very specific person as far as how I like my checks cashed. I prefer to have a certain number of each denomination and even some dollar coins for saving. The past two years have been flawless for making my demand through a restricted endorsement on my checks. The tellers were all aware when I was to come in to immediately take my check and make a copy of the back for me with a bank stamp on the copy so I could have a date stamped on there for my records. After a year of this I even decided to open an account with this bank due to how well things were going. Before it was just the bank of where my paychecks were drafted. I was able to put my restricted endorsement on the signature card no problem "All transactions on this account are Intended by Demand to be Redeemed in Lawful Money Pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 411".

Everything was great until recently I went to make a deposit. I included my demand on the deposit slip as I have done before, but I was working with a teller I hadn't worked with much. This threw her for a loop and she said she had to run this by the branch manager. I'm thinking no big deal, the personal banker also had to run by the manager my signature card when I filled that out, and I was able to complete that no problem. Long story short apparently this branch manager in the two years I have been coming to this exact location and redeeming Lawful Money through a restricted endorsement was completely unaware I had been doing this. According to bank policy they cannot accept a restrictive endorsement. This baffled me because I remembered the personal banker specifically went to the managers office after I filled out my sig card. She even said to me she had to run it by her (branch manager), and she had no problems with it at that time.

So I opted not to deposit the money at that time and choose a different means to get done what I needed to. That Friday I walked in with my restricted endorsement on my check as I always had, and all of the tellers were informed that I had to see the manager if I came in again with a restrictive endorsement. I had a short meeting with the manager where she again explained to me they are not allowed to accept a restrictive endorsement, and then also said something to me on how my stamp and signature was in red and how that was a no-no and wouldn't be accepted, and then tried saying something to me about my signature in general True Name; DBA First LAST. I rebutted that with my drivers license being that is my signature on there, but in my head I'm thinking who are you to try and tell me what my signature is or is not. Due to the fact I had already stamped my check and put my restrictive endorsement on there I was able to get her to call the "auditor" to have them allow me to cash it that day if I struck a line through my demand. This was successful, but now I am contemplating my course of action from here.

The funny thing is they try to tell me there policy is they cannot accept a restrictive endorsement yet I see there own advertising trying to promote a mobile app that can deposit your check by taking pictures of it. They have demonstrations of the app they show on tv screens throughout the bank. They imply through animation that when one takes a picture of there check for deposit a restrictive endorsement is digitally placed on the check saying "For Deposit Only". Also I know for a fact businesses and humans have been able to put a "For Deposit Only" on checks to this particular bank with out an issue.

Has anyone else experienced issues with a bank saying they will not accept a restricted endorsement on a check?

To clarify, you have an account with this bank, and on the signature card that opened the account is a demand for Lawful Money, correct? If so, would that not cover all transactions with the bank such that specific verbage on each check would be unnecessary?

Ignoramus, Once a bank teller didn't like the restricted endorsement backside of the check. Told me they couldn't accept it "with that stamp on there". Very well, I took the check to the lobby ATM, deposited exactly as shown, and had available funds next day. The teller was wrong; the bank could accept a restricted check.

Thanks for that insight. I have already been told by BofA that I could not modify my signature card to add the non-endorsement. I have also been asking questions about how they segregate coins, lawful money, from Federal Reserve notes in their accounting. They were very evasive. I have requested that my employer mail me my check now with the intent of Demanding Lawful Money, but I did not want to endure the hassles that may arise at the teller window. Using the teller machine is a great idea. I have been doing my banking on the Internet/Credit Card for years so have forgotten about the wonders of ATM's.

I have some questions though, so that I understand the practice of Demanding Lawful Money. I do not see instructions for "Special Deposit". How is it that you do not pass title back to the bank on those deposits thereby converting them back to FRN's?

As far as what Ignatius was talking about, I believe the UCC states that a valid signature can be anything if that is what you indicate your signature is. It also states that it can be in the form of a rubber stamp. As far as color is concerned I cannot see where it makes a difference, though I have heard that signatures pertaining to your ESTATE should be signed in red and that this has a significance.

Your signature card for a standard bank account contains adhesion contracts which confirm that 'you' are a 'US citizen' (read: debt slave, who wants his income taxed), and that you prefer to deal in FRN's, which is what the bank is in the business of purveying. BofA is becoming obnoxious about changing their signature card, no doubt due to pushback from the IRS about people figuring out that US Notes are not taxable. The simple solution is to file your demand with the county public records department, and then serve a copy on your bank. The demand is specific, and thus trumps any non-specific adhesion (hidden) contract term. One and done. No special endorsement on your checks, although if you have actual physical checks, I would endorse them 'For Deposit Only', no signature. If the bank demands a signature, then sign 'Redeemed in Lawful Money per 12 USC 411, and sign below that "by John Doe, Agent". They will back off. Red ink is immaterial, connotes nothing, but may be hard for some copying machines to pick up...

Freed

HA! quatlosers are most entertaining! You have only to make your demand for lawful money, at time of deposit, and document it. A lawful money deposit is a special deposit. Winner. The red ink notion harkens back to your colleague JJ MacNab (Demothenes) and her redcrayons(dot)net webstie. Definitely an agent of the darkside.
http://jesse2012.com/endthefed.jpg

Thanks,
I will look into this

Thank you for the replies

Quote:

---

Once a bank teller didn't like the restricted endorsement backside of the check. Told me they couldn't accept it "with that stamp on there". Very well, I took the check to the lobby ATM, deposited exactly as shown, and had available funds next day. The teller was wrong; the bank could accept a restricted check.

---

That I hadn't thought of, but I think may be a workable solution. Would make things more convenient also.

Quote:

---

Your signature card for a standard bank account contains adhesion contracts which confirm that 'you' are a 'US citizen'

---

This was one of the reasons I always opted to continue the non-endorsement on the back of the checks even after I opened the account.

Quote:

---

The simple solution is to file your demand with the county public records department, and then serve a copy on your bank. The demand is specific, and thus trumps any non-specific adhesion (hidden) contract term. One and done. No special endorsement on your checks, although if you have actual physical checks, I would endorse them 'For Deposit Only', no signature. If the bank demands a signature, then sign 'Redeemed in Lawful Money per 12 USC 411, and sign below that "by John Doe, Agent".

---

I also like the simplicity of this option. I've already been working on a demand anyways.

Another approach I was exploring or pondering so to say was a solution through MILAM

Quote:

---

notwithstanding the fact that golden eagles, double eagles and silver dollars were lovely to look at and delightful to hold, holder of the note,although entitled to redeem the note, was not entiled to do so in precious metal.

---

This happened after the ceasing of circulation of United States Notes. Which leaves banks only able to negotiate financial instruments in FRN's, but the option is still mine to redeem those notes for LM. As was stated "although entitled to redeem the note". The bank can do whatever it pleases as far as there books go and listening to my demand or not, but again I'm entitled to redeem. Therefor I must be entitled to make my Demand for that is the only way of proving redemption.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Neil

Thanks for that insight. I have already been told by BofA that I could not modify my signature card to add the non-endorsement.

---

From California to Texas. We advised him verbally that our deposit agreement and signature card govern the account and that we do not honor individual requests such as this. Now he wants our response in writing. http://www.bankersonline.com/forum/u...Number=1695080

Quote:

---

http://www.bankersonline.com/forum/u...Number=1695080

---

Wow! lol these people are the other side of our coin. Interesting they really only come from a knowledge base of what their employers have taught them. Even if they did go to some sort of after high school education before working in the banking industry that wouldn't really matter either. The education system (Universities and all) is funded or partially funded by some of the same families who set up the federal reserve system. So therefor yet again there knowledge base is coming from the same source. Their boss's!

Their flippant attitude is disturbing. I find it interesting that Ken_Pegasus has the tag line "Yes, I am a pirate...born 200 years too late. Some of it's magic and some of it's tragic, but I've had a good life all the way. JB "

From the avatar Ken used I found this: Pegasus Educational services teaches bankers about bank regulation. and Ken's bio "
Ken (redacted) is a principal with Pegasus Educational Services, LLC. He is an experienced banker with a

unique ability to reduce complex legal concepts to plain English

. He has explained the “why” and “how” of regulations to thousands of financial institution personnel and examiners "


I wonder why he does not translate the the statute for this group of folks looking for mentoring, instead of deriding the issuer of the demand?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Neil

Their flippant attitude is disturbing. I wonder why he does not translate the the statute for this group of folks looking for mentoring, instead of deriding the issuer of the demand?

---

Yea must be nice to know that the private banking service by first lien that the Ukraine Corporation who will just happen to default just gained another country in its portfolio that these BOL Gurus have participated in the additional debt they have to pay back. A contract is a contract, Correct?

Mr. Brian J. Crow quotes , I can do all things through Him who gives me strength. (Phillipians 4:13). I am appalled that he uses God's word as an excuse.

It's hypocritical that in addition to fraud monitoring of debit cards, Mr. Crow monitors customer activity, both for fraud prevention, and for Anti-Money Laundering purposes.

How do you think his family is going to take all of this?

Update at 10:30 as of today: John Forbes Kerry (aka Herman Munster) the American politician the 68th United States Secretary of State just up the handout to 35 billion to Ukraine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chex

Mr. Brian J. Crow quotes , I can do all things through Him who gives me strength. (Phillipians 4:13). I am appalled that he uses God's word as an excuse.

---

Totally agree here. It's further evidence of why the country is in a state of spiritual darkness.