First Success At Bank For Redemption

Hi All...

I'm very new to all of this and my head feels like it is still spinning with all that I've read here at S2SC. However, I wholeheartedly agree that the remedy found at 12 USC Sub-chapter 411 is the correct way to go.

So, to give my initial success story here, let me briefly set the stage:

I have worked with the "bank" in my local community for over 10 years now...very nice people when I started and with turn-over still nice folks there. Because of this, I went in to meet with one of the Asst. Mgrs. to inquire about my "demand" for lawful money pursuant to Title 12. I didn't feel I needed to ambush the tellers!

I said that I have been doing some research and have found that there are TWO different currency "notes" being used...FRN's and US Notes. However, there wasn't really enough USN's in circulation for me to receive when I cashed my check at his bank. He looked puzzled and said he didn't know about any US Code allowing this and asked if I could bring in a copy for him to review or to send to the bank's legal rep. to look over. I said "fine, will do"! That was last week.

So today, I went in to cash about 6 checks from my clients at the bank and I was armed with 2 copies of Title 12 USC Sub-chapter 411. I met with a different Asst. Mgr. and as I began to describe the process to him, he interrupted and said that he was aware of this type of "Restrictive Endorsement" and said that he would gladly approve this for my check cashing, he would alert and train his tellers in the lobby on how to handle my checks...AND.....wait for it, wait for it...!!! He would be happy to have me "re-sign" my Account Application with words to the effect of..."All Withdrawals and/or Deposits are to be deemed Redeemable In Lawful Money Pursuant to 12 USC, Sub-chapter 411". He was very happy to assist me!!!

Now, I was of course a tad bit nervous because of some to the related stories here of folks being visited by Sheriffs and G-Men wanting to know what they were doing in their bank asking such absurd things...!!! I didn't want any of this type of attention needless to say!

I need some advice from those of you with more experience:

1. I haven't yet signed my new bank Account Application/Signature Card...what EXACT wording should be used on this document?
2. Should I also include "All Rights Reserved"?

Thanks in advance to any responses and constructive thoughts/advice.

Hbert

Not sure about the wording, but I do know if you don't 'reserve your rights' you don't have any....

Hbert997,

I'm pleased to learn of your success at the bank.

To answer your question, a suitor had framed the following verbiage to ammend or novate bank signature cards, which I've since codified on an ink stamper:

Any deposits or withdrawals, herinafter "Events", are made with the intent to receive or handle lawful money. Events include, but are not limited to, any use of the various types of bank cards for cash withdrawals or for payments. Said events are subject to a superceding DEMAND FOR LAWFUL MONEY with the express intent to redeem any private credit instrument into lawful money pursuant to, albeit absent any benefit from, Title 12 Section 411 of the United States Code.

[Your True Name Signature]

I've also codified the following verbiage on an ink stamper for the handling of cheques:

DEMAND IS MADE FOR LAWFUL MONEY. Any private credit instruments that are supplied in order to meet this demand are redeemed in lawful money pursuant to, albeit absent any benefit from, Title 12 Section 411 of the United States Code.

[Your True Name Signature]

Each stamper has a marking of my signature. I bought the stampers from http://www.thestampmaker.com. This site allows you to design the stamper with preview. You may upload a scanned image of your signature to include on the stamper.

I strongly recommend you buy a stamper. Imagine writing by hand the above verbiage on each document for which the verbiage is appropriate.

Cheers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hbert997

Hi All...

I'm very new to all of this and my head feels like it is still spinning with all that I've read here at S2SC. However, I wholeheartedly agree that the remedy found at 12 USC Sub-chapter 411 is the correct way to go.

So, to give my initial success story here, let me briefly set the stage:

I have worked with the "bank" in my local community for over 10 years now...very nice people when I started and with turn-over still nice folks there. Because of this, I went in to meet with one of the Asst. Mgrs. to inquire about my "demand" for lawful money pursuant to Title 12. I didn't feel I needed to ambush the tellers!

I said that I have been doing some research and have found that there are TWO different currency "notes" being used...FRN's and US Notes. However, there wasn't really enough USN's in circulation for me to receive when I cashed my check at his bank. He looked puzzled and said he didn't know about any US Code allowing this and asked if I could bring in a copy for him to review or to send to the bank's legal rep. to look over. I said "fine, will do"! That was last week.

So today, I went in to cash about 6 checks from my clients at the bank and I was armed with 2 copies of Title 12 USC Sub-chapter 411. I met with a different Asst. Mgr. and as I began to describe the process to him, he interrupted and said that he was aware of this type of "Restrictive Endorsement" and said that he would gladly approve this for my check cashing, he would alert and train his tellers in the lobby on how to handle my checks...AND.....wait for it, wait for it...!!! He would be happy to have me "re-sign" my Account Application with words to the effect of..."All Withdrawals and/or Deposits are to be deemed Redeemable In Lawful Money Pursuant to 12 USC, Sub-chapter 411". He was very happy to assist me!!!

Now, I was of course a tad bit nervous because of some to the related stories here of folks being visited by Sheriffs and G-Men wanting to know what they were doing in their bank asking such absurd things...!!! I didn't want any of this type of attention needless to say!

I need some advice from those of you with more experience:

1. I haven't yet signed my new bank Account Application/Signature Card...what EXACT wording should be used on this document?
2. Should I also include "All Rights Reserved"?

Thanks in advance to any responses and constructive thoughts/advice.

Hbert

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sovereignty

Not sure about the wording, but I do know if you don't 'reserve your rights' you don't have any....

---

I disagree. The reason Congress had to write the remedy into §16 of the Fed Act and codify it at Title 12 U.S.C. §411 is because your right to lawful money is a God-given unalienable right expressed with fiat (emergency) currency IN GOD WE TRUST - 1863. You have had this right all along and you have no need to retain or reserve it expressly. There are no circumstances where 'you don't have any...' unless you have convinced yourself as such.

There is a member here who has worked out some stamper verbiage for the Authorized Signature Card and I hope he will share. I would stay simple:

All transactions on this Account are Intended by Demand to be Redeemed in Lawful Money Pursuant to Title 12 U.S.C. §411.

A stamp like mine will work on the backside of checks. I like my rendition because people can look up the Code on the Internet and it will get them thinking. Sometimes I will even grab $100 - $1's and stamp them all!

Maybe you would share an image of your blank Signature Card? Or even sanitize it for us after you get it filled in?

Interestingly, with me being in the middle or reviving this remedy, I have not heard any of the bad stories. But I know the feeling, I call it conditioning. Sometimes a suitor will sit and wait for a half-hour for the news that everything is good. No, wait! A woman in NY, not a suitor had to strikethrough her paychecks; a single mom working at a pizza shop. - So you can guess how scary that must have been for her!

For people redeeming lawful money or who are thinking of it;

Thanks for this success story!!

It will encourage people that the demand is not the scary part. It is waiting for a Refund on your Withholdings that is the scary part.

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/8...terefundny.png

This fellow is a banker too.* His story is a little complex, but so is everybody's. This fellow began redeeming lawful money mid-year (2009) and worked back and forth on the Brooklyn Bridge so he had equal state refunds from NY and NJ. He got all three (including federal) but NJ wanted some $1800 back after assessing him themselves based on his employer's reports.

They billed and he opened his LoR and began R4C. As all the LoR's it was dismissed and the billing from the State - actually a quasi-state collection agency continued. So he was waiting to see what would be up - about diverting this year's Refunds. NJ has not reported yet but NY has - first they said:

http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/6...report2010.png

But then they said:

http://img864.imageshack.us/img864/4...eport20102.png

http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/5...t2010statu.png







* By the way. With your experience have you ever had somebody request the bank's treatise? That is the agreement with the OCC and banking authorities. Like a detailed corporate charter to stay approved. Try asking for that sometime! It is about 100 pages in a three-ring binder and allegedly available for any customer to read in the lobby - after about three administrative pow-wows!

Congratulations Hbert997.
That's encouraging news.

I've recently gone through a banking experience where I tried to get my demand for lawful money on the signature card, but utterly failed.

I hope it works out for you.
If it does, please let us know.
Bright blessings

Now what about Signature? (regarding the agreement card) I am having an issue where the current account I am trying to do this to has the SSN attached to it. The Bank will not take just my name without some form of ID and I dont want to use the approved govt ID as I have not got a new one yet.
I like the E(8) Restricted Appearance.
An appearance to defend against an admiralty and maritime claim with respect to which there has issued process in rem, or process of attachment and garnishment, may be expressly restricted to the defense of such claim, and in that event is not an appearance for the purposes of any other claim with respect to which such process is not available or has not been served.
So It would be John Henry, Fed. Rule E(8) specially as JOHN DOE or maybe just specially as would be fine.

Hi treefarmer

I simply walked into the bank with my written demand that all transactions involving my account be done in/with lawful money. Had the clerk date stamp it and asked that it be sent along to the law department. So far I have received nothing back from them. It really doesn't matter what they do at this point as I have made my demand for all trans. to done in lawful money. period. You do not need their permission. Frederick Burrell

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark Christopher

Now what about Signature? (regarding the agreement card) I am having an issue where the current account I am trying to do this to has the SSN attached to it. The Bank will not take just my name without some form of ID and I dont want to use the approved govt ID as I have not got a new one yet.
I like the E(8) Restricted Appearance.
An appearance to defend against an admiralty and maritime claim with respect to which there has issued process in rem, or process of attachment and garnishment, may be expressly restricted to the defense of such claim, and in that event is not an appearance for the purposes of any other claim with respect to which such process is not available or has not been served.
So It would be John Henry, Fed. Rule E(8) specially as JOHN DOE or maybe just specially as would be fine.

---

Click for this post.

That is clever - citing Rule E(8). I am not sure if it is effective because redeeming lawful money is for Fed banks. There are no limitations on who can avoid a certain contract, within the scope of banking or I suppose in general too. It seems that would be universal. Redemption of lawful money is avoidance of contracting with the Fed. It expressly conveys the demurrer to the obligations of the US on the signatures on each bill exclusively. As opposed to a silent demurrer. It is not a matter of your character and it involves no Refusal for Cause. [Hollywood has its uses.]

What I mean is that John Henry, Fed. Rule E(8) specially as JOHN DOE is a good innovation, provided there is enough room on the Form.

I like signing John Henry. That's the truth. Then you just add on whatever the bank requires by their advisements and restrictions. If they don't like the truth, then ask them what the minimum amount of lies they require you add on to make it work. Maybe John Henry dba JOHN H. DOE will mean you have to open a business account? Maybe you can sign John Henry for an interest-free checking account only?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frederick Burrell

Hi treefarmer

I simply walked into the bank with my written demand that all transactions involving my account be done in/with lawful money. Had the clerk date stamp it and asked that it be sent along to the law department. So far I have received nothing back from them. It really doesn't matter what they do at this point as I have made my demand for all trans. to done in lawful money. period. You do not need their permission. Frederick Burrell

---

Exactly.

The only item I see there is to be sure they have an accurate mailing address for the timely R4C. If you have heard nothing, then they are engaged in the new agreement (acquiescence). The only other thing I am thinking is that you got a date stamp Received/Filed on your copy too? Hope so.


Thanks for sharing;

David Merrill.

Yes I did get a stamped copy also, the bank teller made a copy, didn't even have to ask. They were so helpful. lol. In regards the address they have it on file as I have an account with them.
Frederick Burrell.

I redid my Signature card for my LLC. The guy at the desk looked at it, had to go make sure it was "okay", and then came back and told me they had to make sure it was in my "best interest"??
I had them make a copy of it for me.

Great job, hughg. Your best interests. lol. fB

My experience was that without an account, the Signature Card is a secret. It took 15 minutes on hold for the attorney to get back to Elisha. I made the mistake of using my camera for the audio so that when it came time to snap the photo, the audio ended. Otherwise I would have gotten her admonishing me about photographing the Agreement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6yorZgAUC0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6yorZgAUC0

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hughg

.... told me they had to make sure it was in my "best interest"??
I had them make a copy of it for me.

---

Ah .... the wonders of powers of attorney!!

I like to tell them, "Thank-you for your concern, but you can save your concern".
"Tell you what ... save the concern you give to me and give it to the next person. He can have double your concern".

Thanks for the chuckle!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hughg

I redid my Signature card for my LLC. The guy at the desk looked at it, had to go make sure it was "okay", and then came back and told me they had to make sure it was in my "best interest"??
I had them make a copy of it for me.

---

Interesting, US Bank refused to make me a copy of the new signature card. Never the less I will receive paper checks then restrict & copy each and everyone of those bad boys. PS...good to see you over here hughg. Apparently some refuse to open there minds to new info that compliments "other" info/history. When I came across this material a HUGE piece of the puzzle was suddenly revealed!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian

Interesting, US Bank refused to make me a copy of the new signature card. Never the less I will receive paper checks then restrict & copy each and everyone of those bad boys. PS...good to see you over here hughg. Apparently some refuse to open there minds to new info that compliments "other" info/history. When I came across this material a HUGE piece of the puzzle was suddenly revealed!

---

Asking for copies of or requesting to novate existing bank agreements may be more trouble than it's worth.

Please see this post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rock Anthony

Each stamper has a marking of my signature.

---

Is it really your name if someone can dictate which name you can have to use?

link to the story:
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn....rd-baby-names/

Not that Rock needs anybody speaking for him but I believe it is his name because his parents named him Rock Anthony.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Not that Rock needs anybody speaking for him but I believe it is his name because his parents named him Rock Anthony.

---

Were you there when they did that, Where is the proof that you know this to be true?

That still does not change the fact that I believe his name is Rock Anthony, and that because his parents named him so.

Not to detract from this great thread, but the question I have is this.

In the past, notes were redeemed for specie. Specie was the reserve currency for the production of notes by banks.
Is lawful money serving the purpose that specie served years ago?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shikamaru

Not to detract from this great thread, but the question I have is this.

In the past, notes were redeemed for specie. Specie was the reserve currency for the production of notes by banks.
Is lawful money serving the purpose that specie served years ago?

---

To me specie means different forms of tender. If people get into trading milk for eggs, then dairy becomes the specie. - That specie was the reserve currency for the production of notes by banks.

What I am saying is that I would prefer to have confidence what you said in the question is true before addressing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

To me specie means different forms of tender. If people get into trading milk for eggs, then dairy becomes the specie. - That specie was the reserve currency for the production of notes by banks.

What I am saying is that I would prefer to have confidence what you said in the question is true before addressing it.

---

Specie is coin. That coin was traditionally composed of gold, silver, or copper.
Banks offer to hold peoples' specie for safe keeping. Banks then offer notes backed by this specie to be redeemed for this specie.

The specie is the reserve currency. The notes the circulating currency.
Does lawful money act as a reserve currency for the banking system or the US Treasury?

I'm feeling that it may be the case. An example may be US Treasury Notes and Bonds for FRNs?

Okay. Now the confusion arises out of the term reserve currency.

Traditionally bankers cannot use the coin (metal) in the vault for fractional reserve lending. By law US notes (now called US currency notes) cannot be used for a reserve currency.

US notes are lawful money because they are theoretically redeemable in gold - Milan/Legal Tender Cases. It is that word "currency" Congress slipped in that defies reality.

Quote:

---

In the section, the words “United States currency notes” are substituted for “United States notes” for clarity and consistency in the revised title.

---

US notes would be the specie then, since 1863 or so. According to your description. But the parity of US notes to FRNs has been coerced by that word "currency" seeming to create something new of US notes. They are still the same US notes physically. Now though, a broader range of currency notes is included and allows Congress to adjust the value of the "reserve" - the specie, as you put it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by motla68

Is it really your name if someone can dictate which name you can have to use?

link to the story:
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn....rd-baby-names/

---

I'm convinced that if one looks to reap the benefits of the State, then one has to follow the State's rules. For example, if I want to hold a DL, I have to use the State's legal name, ROCK JOHNSON, on the application.

However, I sign my name, Rock Anthony, to the signature line. Same thing for bank agreements.

It doesn't matter what name someone endorses with. One is still endorsing AS the FIRST MIDDLE LAST trust name unless adding "By:" or "Agent", etc.

I'm thinking that with or without "By:" or "Agent", the point in signing in true-name rather than LEGAL NAME is to make obvious that there is a trust relationship - that is, "I am NOT ROCK JOHNSON".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rock Anthony

I'm thinking that with or without "By:" or "Agent", the point in signing in true-name rather than LEGAL NAME is to make obvious that there is a trust relationship - that is, "I am NOT ROCK JOHNSON".

---

"I am NOT ROCK JOHNSON".

prove it.

not being cheeky, just want to see how one proves [for once] a negative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Booth

"I am NOT ROCK JOHNSON".

prove it.

not being cheeky, just want to see how one proves [for once] a negative.

---

I like your style.

I would never stand within a position where I had to prove the negative of NOT being ROCK JOHNSON. For one thing, the State already knows that I am not ROCK JOHNSON - after all, the State is the creator/owner of ROCK JOHNSON.

I simply have a choice of when and when not to be the fiduciary of ROCK JOHNSON.

I'm convinced that trust law makes the world go 'round.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rock Anthony

I'm thinking that with or without "By:" or "Agent", the point in signing in true-name rather than LEGAL NAME is to make obvious that there is a trust relationship - that is, "I am NOT ROCK JOHNSON".

---

In my days of reading Anderson's on the U.C.C., it was made clear that one signing an instrument in the capacity of an agent was severed from personal liability on that instrument by his inserting "By," ("By," is what I recall, and I suggest its investigation before using it) before his signature.
As a matter of illustrating this practice, I tell you that I often receive letters from lawyers and find that they use this method. Their name appears in the letterhead as "JUMPEM & BLUDGEON, P.C. " I take that to be the corporation or artificial Person. Their name appears in the list of attorneys in the firm as " WHALEN N. BLUDGEON" I take that to be the statutory person ( in this case one acting under privilege of title of "attorney" or the like) and their name appears in the signature closing as follows:
Very truly yours,
JUMPEM & BLUDGEON, P.C.
( here is found the scribbled wet signature)
By: Whalen N. Bludgeon

So, to me it seems that a letter formatted in this manner is indicating that it was written by a living being acting in the capacity for the named statutory character Person as their agent and that th being is severed from personal liability by the use of the signature modifier "By:" It seems to me to be a sort of qualified endorsement of the letter, as one's signature on a check reverse would be with the use of "By:"

I qualifiedly endorse ( or "non-endorse") all checks with the use of "By," or "By:" preceding my wet signature. My wet signature is three fully spelled out names in upper and lower case and absent punctuation marks. All checks which I sing in that manner are stamped "Deposited for credit on account or exchanged for non-negotiable FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES of face value" above my signature. If that stamp phraseology has been updated, I certainly would like to be informed of it.

Using the same approach for a qualified endorsement on redemption of a check as is represented above relative to the lawyer's letters, if my determination is correct, would have the signer acting in the capacity of agent for the named statutory person payee ( JOHN DOE, as might appear on a paycheck) or other statutory person payee ( John Doe, as might appear on a "personal" check), "John Doe" being presumed as a statutory person since all payees on commercial instruments are fictions / statutory persons, but, by the use of "By:" the endorser is severed (saved) from liability.

Comment? I hope I'm on the right thread with this.

Hey everyone.

I just endorsed a check today with "Demand for Lawful Money Pursuant 12 411 to Federal Reserve Act 1913". Can remember exactly, but found that earlier today on the site somewhere.

What I found interesting is that I have the usual signature on the Bank Account, and have not modified it as of yet. They still cashed it. I did not put my signature on the endorsement side either. Just the demand.

I had gone into the bank a few months earlier asking them a way around the SSN attachment to the account, etc, with no luck of remedy.

The asking is what gets the denial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bear Eagle

Hey everyone.

I just endorsed a check today with "Demand for Lawful Money Pursuant 12 411 to Federal Reserve Act 1913". Can remember exactly, but found that earlier today on the site somewhere.

What I found interesting is that I have the usual signature on the Bank Account, and have not modified it as of yet. They still cashed it. I did not put my signature on the endorsement side either. Just the demand.

I had gone into the bank a few months earlier asking them a way around the SSN attachment to the account, etc, with no luck of remedy.

The asking is what gets the denial.

---

I am pleased that redeeming lawful money went well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bear Eagle

Hey everyone.


The asking is what gets the denial.

---

yeppers, your action of asking shows you are unsure of who you are.

non-precatory language and action show you know.

congrats

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Booth

yeppers, your action of asking shows you are unsure of who you are.

non-precatory language and action show you know.

congrats

---

There is only one proper use of judgment according to A Course in Miracles.