Hi Salsero;
Please provide links and that makes it a lot easier to get started.
Printable View
Hi Salsero;
Please provide links and that makes it a lot easier to get started.
Here is the thread of my rather combative correspondence with Bank of America.
First, my Notice and Demand for Lawful Money, filed with the Registrar of Deeds for the county, found at this link: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/18/006dki.jpg/.
Second, my Demand Letter to BofA, found at this link: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/203/003spz.jpg/
Third, BofA First Denial Letter, found at this link: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/202/004ebl.jpg/
Fourth, my Reply to BofA Denial Letter, found at this link: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/4/002htj.jpg/
Fifth, BofA Second Denial Letter, found at this link: http://img802.imageshack.us/img802/6634/001yp.jpg
Similar chain occurs with E*Trade Financial (US equities brokerage account), with less resistance. I will post those links separately soon.
My strategy was to make notice of my demand at mid-year, so I would clearly have some income before and some after. I intend to file an income tax form 1040, and list income prior to demand, and not report income post demand. I will include this letter [at this link: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/10/007vozz.jpg/], putting the IRS on notice of my interpretation of current Internal Revenue Code treatment of lawful money. If the IRS responds, I will have something in writing. If the IRS fails to respond, I will have a rebuttable presumption record. I choose to proceed in this fashion specifically to create a paper trail I can use to prove to others that use of lawful money is a valid defense against paying income taxes. The test is barely valid, since I am retired and have only SS and some capital gains from stock trades as income; at my overall income level, none of SS is taxable, so I am not liable for any taxes due, whether I report all income as taxable or not, but the IRS will have to respond to my letter or let the rebuttable presumption stand...
ps to DM: I do not believe BofA is paying any interest on this acct. [I have two accts there, and cannot find any entries in the bank records to show when/where/to which acct I was credited with the $11 reported by BofA on a 1099.]
Oops - sorry
http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/103.34
But specifically here is what I was questioning:
§ 103.34
Additional records to be made and retained by banks.
(a) (1) With respect to each certificate of deposit sold or redeemed after May 31, 1978, and before October 1, 2003, or each deposit or share account opened with a bank after June 30, 1972, and before October 1, 2003, a bank shall, within 30 days from the date such a transaction occurs or an account is opened, secure and maintain a record of the taxpayer identification number of the customer involved; or where the account or certificate is in the names of two or more persons, the bank shall secure the taxpayer identification number of a person having a financial interest in the certificate or account. In the event that a bank has been unable to secure, within the 30-day period specified, the required identification, it shall nevertheless not be deemed to be in violation of this section if (i) it has made a reasonable effort to secure such identification, and (ii) it maintains a list containing the names, addresses, and account numbers of those persons from whom it has been unable to secure such identification, and makes the names, addresses, and account numbers of those persons available to the Secretary as directed by him. A bank acting as an agent for another person in the purchase or redemption of a certificate of deposit issued by another bank is responsible for obtaining and recording the required taxpayer identification, as well as for maintaining the records referred to in paragraphs (b) (11) and (12) of this section. The issuing bank can satisfy the recordkeeping requirement by recording the name and address of the agent together with a description of the instrument and the date of the transaction. Where a person is a non-resident alien, the bank shall also record the person's passport number or a description of some other government document used to verify his identity.
===================
This regulation has inserted the dates After June 1972 but before Oct 2003. My question is does this apply to 2013? OR does anyone know of a similiar regulation that is updated that is similiar to the bank REQUESTING the SSN as opposed to it is required by law under blah blah section. Does the bank have standing for the requirement? Also as a tid bit udner 5 USC 552a(e) - agency requirements http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552a - this further clarifies the issue that ANY agency is required to disclose the SSN is mandatory or voluntary, the purpose, the use of and what if I do not provide the SSN what are the consequences. In the past the bank would say - its the patriot act and it is required. This is not a satisfactory response.
Also for further clarification - REGARDLESS WHETHER THE SSN IS GIVEN OR NOT TO THE BANK DOES THIS PHRASE ON THE SIGNATURE CARD NEGATE ANY AND ALL CLAIMS, INCLUDING BY COURT ORDER FOR THE REMOVAL OF ANY MONIES FROM THE ACCOUNT WITH OUT THE PERMISSION OF SIGNATORY OR OWNER OF SAID ACCOUNT:
All transactions on account are intended by Demand to be Redeemed in Lawful Money pursudant to 12 USC 411. All transactions with this bank will be done by Special Deposit NUNC PRO TUNC.
It is my understanding that anything "deposited by special deposit" is in fact under "equity" and can not be "taken or removed" without said permission of owner. Can anyone help clarify this? Thanks Tony
Thank you Freed;
I collected and trimmed your images - click Here.
At first glance it looks like there is very little purpose to filing at all. The SSI is not taxable income and you only have minimal dividends. So yours is not a very good test at all! In fact it looks like a great way to get the IRS attorneys to build testimony against redeeming lawful money. By that I mean they might cut you off from your SSI benefits just to coerce you to recant and declare this remedy bogus.
You really have to reconsider and evaluate the risk here. I really do respond on a cursory glance but that is what I see here. Like found in the first video article (1984) the Social Security is a valid income tax according to the Supreme Court - 1939. I read that case and that is probably how you have to construe it if you are starting the redemption after retirement already on SSI.
Additionally you have accomplished what the Notice and Demand are intended to do. The letters acknowledge receipt of the Notice and Demand.
I have seen this before. If all you were doing were transactions with Social Security checks then the bank would consider that the notice and demand has no legal significance. One suitor could not cash his SSI checks at the bank. They sent him down the street to the check cashing place and called before he arrived. When he got his cash, minus their cut, the teller/cashier took a Sharpie and completely blacked over his Demand! He objected but she was behind the Plexiglass and just ignored him!
So unless you have something to gain by getting involved with this Demand beyond putting non-endorsement on the backside of your paychecks, you have nothing to gain and lots to lose, in my opinion. If you make your non-endorsements then you are doing your part to reduce the national debt for America. You are a fine patriot. There is really no need to go kicking at beehives if you get my drift.
These are really very productive posts and threads!
I think you might get some insight by searching for "special deposit" both here and on your favorite search engine. My impression from earlier discussion here is that indeed the bank just becomes a repository for your money.
Thanks for your prompt reply, David. And thanks for cleaning up the correspondence files, although I see that you did not include the letter to the IRS. As to my purposes, you suggest that I have little to gain and lots to lose. I perceive that I have lots to gain, as I expect to have capital gains from stock trading in the future and will likely have capital gains to avoid from conversion of other assets. Indeed, after this 1040 is filed, I would not expect that I will ever file another one. This is important to establish an income below the threshhold needed for forced compliance with Obamacare. And I have some associates that I would like to convince that they can use the 12USC411 redemption to their advantage, which will be very significant for them. So I guess I am confused as to your initial reaction. Do you expect the IRS to object to my claiming non-endorsement? Why would they? Do they not accept that redeeming lawful money is the law? Should I be afraid of my government? Certainly some people have chosen to be viewed as American Citizens rather than US Citizens on their SS-5, and they are listed by SS as Resident Aliens with Right to Work, and viewed by the IRS as non-taxpayers. Why can't I be a non-taxpayer? The tax is voluntary, so why can't I un-volunteer? And what does Social Security have to do with income taxes? Even if you redeem all your paychecks, and ask for a refund of all your income tax withholding, you will not get back your SS taxes. Can you elaborate on your concern? Thanks, Freed
I included the Letter to the IRS agent/attorney at the end of the file - Page 6 of 6.
If you have any evidence of that remedy being viable it is certainly worth taking a look at.Quote:
Certainly some people have chosen to be viewed as American Citizens rather than US Citizens on their SS-5, and they are listed by SS as Resident Aliens with Right to Work, and viewed by the IRS as non-taxpayers. Why can't I be a non-taxpayer?
Speaking for myself I am very annoying to skeptics because I stick to redeeming lawful money in the specific §16 of the Fed Act and Title 12 USC §411, in the context of the 'saving to suitors' clause of 1789.
You plead my point quite valid. When you have something to gain, then get on it with the law.Quote:
I perceive that I have lots to gain, as I expect to have capital gains from stock trading in the future and will likely have capital gains to avoid from conversion of other assets.
However I am recognizing your point too. - About preventing consent into ObamaCare etc. Now that you know of remedy you are expected to apply it? That is a good point. I do not want to lead an elderly man into a situation where you are begging government for your SSI "retirement" checks. If you are attempting to redeem lawful money on your SSI checks as typical paychecks, I have reason to believe that they are not regular paychecks like most paychecks where you toil for compensation.
Look at the article:
I feel your supporting "Certainly" argument about non-resident aliens applied to American nationals is quite uncertain. That sort of assertion just tells the IRS agent/attorney that you are a pushover. The only suitor to be billed a $5K FrivPen after redeeming lawful money is a student of Ed RIVERA and he began integrating those "Certainly" arguments about US v USA and "Of" and "For" on the Constitution etc. just before the IRS billed him. So go figure!Quote:
Two years after H.J.R. 192, Congress passed the Social Security Act, which the Supreme Court upheld as a valid act imposing a valid income tax: 'Charles C. Steward Mach. Co. v, Davis' 301 U.S. 548 (1937).
I don't buy into you being "Jay" - like insinuated by a member here. [Jay ADKISSON is a Texas attorney who founded "Q" and allegely has mastered proxy IP usage as a master of cyber-disguise.] But I recognize the potential that somebody might register here and pretend that remedy has failed in order to slur remedy. So I am making clear up front that until you pull your gains liquid, you have no real need to be taking the risk. If you pull your gains right now, you will not be filing until 2014.
Regards,
David Merrill.
"Speaking for myself I am very annoying to skeptics because I stick to redeeming lawful money in the specific §16 of the Fed Act and Title 12 USC §411, in the context of the 'saving to suitors' clause of 1789. "
1. You will note that I do not bring up any discussion of Social Security status or Resident Alien non-taxpayer issues in my letter to IRS; there I stick to redeeming lawful money under 12USC411. What I want to establish with this filing is that I am not a state bank, do not participate in the Federal credit scam, and do not use debt obligations at all, for any reason. Since most of my banking transactions are direct deposits such that I never get a check to endorse/redeem, I chose to prove my refusal of FRN's in a blanket fashion, thus the need for the letter to the IRS. If using Federal Reserve private money/credit is the step that creates the irrecusable obligation to file a return, I want to establish that I don't take that step. I am trying to establish that I am not 'in contract' with the Federal Reserve. Is this a position fraught with risk? I had assumed from other's successful use of 411 redemption that this is settled law/policy of the IRS. Also, 12USC411 is Federal law; where does 'saving to suitors' come into play in exercising the remedy provided there? Can't a 'US Citizen' redeem FRN's? In your conversation with Michael Joseph (see ps) you imply anyone can/should do it...
2. "You plead my point quite valid. When you have something to gain, then get on it with the law."
The IRS has been bleeding my substance for 40 years, and is presently doing the same to my son. If there is a valid way to escape the irrecusable obligation, I want to find it and demonstrate that it is accepted by the IRS. I realize that the IRS is not pleased with taxpayers figuring out how they have been scammed, and learning how to escape the banker's debt trap, so they may push back some, but my return is not frivolous. It is based on a reasonable interpretation of 411. The fact that I would not owe any tax with or without redemption makes it even less frivolous (ie, no attempt to evade), thus providing me with an opportunity to look into the mind of the beast with little at stake. e.g. I have a $450 capital gain paid after I noticed my banks to redeem; if it were reported, I would be required to file a Schedule B form, but I do not file a Sch B. If I like the IRS response to this filing, I will have documented evidence to convince my son to risk using this approach where more tax obligation is at stake.
3. "If you are attempting to redeem lawful money on your SSI checks as typical paychecks, I have reason to believe that they are not regular paychecks like most paychecks where you toil for compensation." Look at the article:
I had asked you previously about the link between SS and the income tax. I fail to see how they are related. (and the article you linked to does not discuss this issue at all). Further I fail to see how the source of income to me alters in any way the remedy of redeeming FRN's. The SS program involves paying into it at 6% of wages for 40 quarters (or did when I was paying in), and results in a calculated 'benefit' payment at retirement age. The payments are assumed to be in FRN's, but what I do with them is no concern of SSAdmin, or is it?
4. I don't buy into you being "Jay"
Thanks for that vote of confidence; I missed the implication when JC posted it, not knowing Jay. The pretend/apparent anonymous status of internet communication creates the possibility of many nefarious miscommunications, intentional, treacherous, or otherwise. I am not Jay, don't believe in deception as a positive policy, and have no intention of trying to 'make redemption fail' so I can slur it. I will be happy to have you contact the idiot at Bank of America if you think I made up the story of their 'resistance.'
5. you have no real need to be taking the risk.
I remain unclear on the risk involved here. Obviously the IRS is stepping up their bullying tactics to discourage taxpayers from using returns as fishing expeditions to unravel the basis for the tax 'duty' (see Irwin Schiff case). Since the redemption remedy is created in the Federal law, I doubt the IRS would risk a fraudulent mis-statement about the effect of the law. As JC noted, they don't want to go there... and SSAdmin's own rules show that benefits, once established, are not affected even by expatriation. So if there is some other link between SS and income tax, I am unaware of it, and would appreciate you pointing it out to me.
Thanks for your comments, and best regards,
Freed
ps your conversation with Michael Joseph posted on the Casey Research site was good, and thorough.
Is this a position fraught with risk?
I may be overcautious because the position has an unknown. The SSI paychecks are considered a valid income tax by the Supreme Court in 1937 and I checked the case and it is so stated. Therefore I want you to be aware that an angry IRS agent might cut off your SSI checks without ever addressing redemption of lawful money. I don't know that - like I say, it is an unknown.
I do not want to be the guy leading you into a mess.
You sound like you know what you are doing and I want to help you do what is right as far a correct and just balances and reducing the national debt, abolishing the Fed and so forth. If you want to do so on the knowledge presented on these forums and beyond then thank you for sharing the experience with us.
When you say that the IRS has been bleeding you for decades do you mean you have been paying income tax and filing returns for refunds? I suppose that is what puts me on edge more than anything - that you have been doing that through signature endorsement and ignorance of the lawful remedy. What I do not want to find is that you project anger into your process and therefore find an unjust and arbitrary, capricious and even angry response back from the Fed's IRS, rather than a kind and in kind remedy granted by the Treasury, willing to help you do the right thing; recognizing your position and character as the rightful heir to the truth and beauty that is waiting for you and your estate to claim.
Regards,
David Merrill.
1. The SSI paychecks are considered a valid income tax by the Supreme Court in 1937
Your syntax stopped me there; SSI checks are income, which may be taxed or not, depending upon other income. The SSI tax on wages is a valid income tax. OK, I paid it when I had wages. Now I don't have wages, so don't pay any SSI tax, but I do receive SSI monthly payments. Does the IRS run Social Security? I understand that they check with SSAdmin to confirm SS#'s, and 'US Citizen' status, but beyond that I don't know the relationship between SS and income tax. I believe SSAdmin is in the Dept of Labor, while the IRS is a corporation, not a division of the government, and the nexus of the two organizations is at the St Louis Fed.
2. an angry IRS agent might cut off your SSI checks
No one abuses power worse than a petty bureaucrat, and angry people often do rash things. So dealing with bureaucrats always involves a certain element of danger. I have attempted to structure this planned encounter so as to minimize the danger, but there is no way to tell the IRS I don't want to pay taxes without them taking a certain offense at this position. I perceive that the income tax is an excise tax either on being a state bank or obligating myself to the interest on any Federal credit I endorse. Either way, it appears reasonable to conclude that refusing to be a state bank, and/or refusing to endorse Federal Reserve credit eliminates the voluntary step that creates the irrecusable duty to file a return and pay a tax. Me knowing this and using it to reduce/eliminate my income tax obligation could be disappointing to the IRS, but I wouldn't imagine that it will make them furiously mad, particularly since I don't owe any taxes. Their only concern would be that I use this knowledge to help others avoid their duty to pay taxes. Hell, half the returns filed either don't pay any tax (get full refund) or get back more than they paid in. But I understand your concern there, and I appreciate it myself.
3. When you say that the IRS has been bleeding you for decades
What I mean is that the IRS has stolen almost $400,000 from me over my working career through fraud and deception, by my endorsing Fed credit and paying taxes, from which I did not get any refunds. In their defense, there was never any reason to expect honorable behavior from shyster lawyers, especially those working for the government. Like most folks who work for a living, my job kept me busy enough, and kept me focussed on chemistry, process equipment, and environmental law, so I never had time to investigate tax law. Now that I have time to study it, and helpful websites such as this one, I see that the 'voluntary' nature of the income tax can be detected, and the duty can be avoided. It is too late to help me, but not too late for my children. So I am willing to make the initial contact with the IRS and test this remedy. You may have concluded from my letters to BofA that I can be pretty snide when dealing with liars, but I thought I was careful to be neutral and animus-free in my letter to the IRS (and I do not intend to share the BofA letters with the IRS). Do you detect hostility in my syntax there? Certainly the Notice and Demand itself displays undertones that imply that I don't trust the people I am making the demand to, but it is merely covering the necessary legal ground, not trying to be hostile (and I mostly copied it from one posted on this site). It is hard to maintain any respect for people who have made a career out of fraud and deceit, but I can keep my feelings to myself long enough to conduct this step of the remedy. Redemption under 411 is the law, and I am just exercising my rights (rights that you don't exercise you don't actually have).
Thanks for your helpful comments and concerns. I have a pretty good idea of what I am doing, and am willing to share the experience.
Best Regards,
Freed
I could Reply with Quote to seal the record so to speak. You have expressed for us forethought and knowledge. Thank you.Quote:
What I mean is that the IRS has stolen almost $400,000 from me over my working career through fraud and deception, by my endorsing Fed credit and paying taxes, from which I did not get any refunds.
I might suggest then that you settle your heart in peace before you begin. Please examine the 834 Form. As you sign the 834 Form use the Stamp. I would get it notarized and have a Commission Certificate ($5) from the Secretary of State too. File it in a Miscellaneous Case with the USDC before or as you file it with the IRS. It will express either the amount they owe you in order for you to forgive, or that you have (hopefully) already forgiven the IRS and Federal Reserve for being part of your miscreation and misteachings that have injured you.
This has to come from your heart. I am assuring you that what you project out there will reflect upon you. You decide if this should be done before or as you file your tax return.
If I might (continue to) impose my understanding of American remedy on yours the Memorandum attached to the 843 Form might read something like:
Quote:
Dear IRS Agent;
I feel that all my career life I have been a victim of Fraud by Omission because nobody ever taught me the remedy was there in §16 of the Federal Reserve Act and codified at Title 12 USC §411. I estimate because of your collusion in this fraud that you owe me about $400K in back taxes. Notice on the 834 Form that I am claiming that amount to be $0 instead and hope that you can appreciate this act of forgiveness.
In return I am expecting that you will honor my demand to redeem lawful money as expressed on the attached 1040 Form and evidenced by my properly redeemed (copies) paychecks.
Thank you,
Thanks for your thoughtful insights, David. I have a few residual questions concerning the process, and the presumed (or feared) response of the IRS.
1. Redeeming lawful money, whether by stamp on a check, or by service of the recorded demand on the bank, creates the same result: demand has been made to refuse to deal in private credit/money substitutes, and this switch to public money puts the resulting transaction out of the reach of the IRS. I only use this method because I never see any checks; SSA has just forced everyone to use direct deposit. The same with my stock accounts; when I sell a stock they just credit my account; no check appears that I could non-endorse. I suspect this is to keep suitors from non-endorsing the checks (but maybe I am giving the IMF lawyers too much credit here). Thus the only way to make the demand is by changing the signature card, and the banks are being trained to refuse this request. Now they can't refuse the demand, as it exists in the federal law that created the Federal Reserve system. But most people will not know this, and will be intimidated by the banks' refusal. Because the account agreement is a private contract, can BofA say that 12USC411 attempts to interfere with a private contract, and thus is void? Alternately, their only option would be to close the account, which they could do, but they haven't. They are apparently claiming that the account was not changed to an irregular deposit account. I will go in tomorrow and try to open an irregular deposit account.
2. I get 1099's which show purported money movements, so I need to file a return. I am debating whether to not show the income received after July at all, and defer to the statement that after July it was all redeemed, or to show it all and then back it out on Line 21 and provide an addendum which lists all transactions after July.
3. Making the demand for lawful money converts the bank account from a Federal Reserve Account (insured by FDIC for $250k) to an irregular deposit account, which changes the relationship from one of debtor (bank) and unsecured creditor (me) to one of bailor (me) and bailee (bank). In the one case I make a loan to the bank (I pay an excise tax on the privilege of being a state bank), and in the other I keep title to the money and only use the bank for secure storage and bookkeeping functions. The Supreme Court ruled in 1894 that an income tax was repugnant to the Constitution, so when using Constitutional money (ie, any money issued by the Treasury), it can't be taxed. In fact, all these myriad taxes we now face are based on this private money scheme, as they are all* un-Constitutional otherwise. As you noted, Social Security is a benefit, and Congress can levy a tax to pay for a benefit, so SS* is a valid tax, but still an excise tax. As long as you are listed as a US Citizen (thus eligible for SS), you cannot get out of paying the SS tax, and it is extracted before you ever see it. Redeeming lawful money will not get you a refund of the SS tax; only opting out of SS will stop that tax. For young people, I would heartily recommend opting out. As Johnny Cash shows us, you can quit SS any time you want, and you will still get benefits when you retire, although less because it is based on how much you paid in...
But, if income tax is a valid tax, what is the benefit? Apparently, we all benefit from the Fed printing more worthless paper money. I wonder why the Articles expressly forbid this? To get around the Constitutional prohibition, the Fed banksters put the tax on private money. Ergo, don't use private money, and the whole problem goes away.
4. You suggested that I forgive the IRS for 40 years of fraud. Since money damages for fraud would be an equity claim, there is no statute of limitations: I could ask for a refund of all income taxes I ever paid. Is your concern that the IRS will recognize this in the Notice of Demand (now, ab initio, and nunc pro tunc), realize that they may have a $400,000 claim on their hands, and feel that they have to fight back? Your suggestion that I send a Form 834 would surely make them aware of this issue, in case they somehow missed it before, and since one has to file a separate Form 834 for every tax year, one might not put them at ease. Presuming that I state forgiveness of the entire amount and sign it, they would have some protection against later filings, so maybe that would set them at ease.
5. I have tried to learn a little about the Clerk of the Superior District Court here in Mecklenburg County, but there is damned little info available. The insider club of practicing attorneys no doubt know all these little tricks, but I haven't a clue how to proceed. Can I just go to the Clerk's office and ask to open a Miscellaneous Case file? What would they file it under, with no pending case or existing case number? And should I put my other records in it? Presumably this is to get evidence into the record in advance, and to let the IRS know that it is in the record (of the court that they would have to go through to get to me). Can you clarify this a little?
Finally, please note that I do not have any properly redeemed paychecks, as I am retired; all important money transfers occur by direct deposit; that is why I am using the blanket bank account route.
Thanks again for all your thoughtful comments. I appreciate your concern about not using the remedy until I need it even better now. But I have had the stamp for a year now and haven't used it yet...
I suggest you start calling it a special deposit account here, and not referring to it as anything irregular when dealing with Customer Service at your bank. It is a great deal of hardship to close down an account and has only happened to two suitors. One, as I showed somewhere here sets up accounts for others and that hardship hit the bank as several employees being fired. So there was a reason to exercise the "Close the Account for Any Reason" clause. But that happened again recently, I believe with a different bank.Quote:
an irregular deposit account
Just recently we have an instance where a single suitor - much like you and the average reader here reported:
Quote:
An update in regard to the bank which I refused to re-sign a signature card without the Demand for lawful money verbiage.
On Friday I received a letter from FSB along with a money order with the proceeds of the account which they closed. The letter reads:
Quote:
"Dear N,
This letter is to inform you that we are exercising our right to close your accounts as stated in your Deposit Account Agreement. I have enclosed a copy of the Deposit Account Agreement along with a money order for the funds in your account.
Sincerely,
Nickname
Branch Manager"
This is a significant validation because if the Demand was trivial, the bankers would just ignore it as a peculiarity of the customer's personality.
Item 1. You asked:
That may be well the case but the Signature Card Agreement has a clause that the Bank need not explain why they shut down the account. Deduction says you are correct in my opinion.Quote:
Because the account agreement is a private contract, can BofA say that 12USC411 attempts to interfere with a private contract, and thus is void?
Again deductions and presumptions. But intuition says you are correct again too. This is why it is helpful to defer perspective to you as the Patron (bailee as below) who just tracks whether proper Notice and Demand has been made or not.Quote:
They are apparently claiming that the account was not changed to an irregular deposit account.
Item 2. I am too removed from filing to be very good advice exactly how to fill out the forms. I have seen others do it both ways and get the appropriate refund. There has been only one suitor charged with the $5K FrivPen and that was shortly after he started adding pages of Ed RIVERA's lecture material to his R4C clerk instructions. So I consider that an inadvertant soft sting. The FrivPen is a bill of indictment (confession) against the IRS.
Item 3. You said:
It is delightful to come across a resource like you among the members here at StSC! Thank you for that insight.Quote:
Making the demand for lawful money converts the bank account from a Federal Reserve Account (insured by FDIC for $250k) to an irregular deposit account, which changes the relationship from one of debtor (bank) and unsecured creditor (me) to one of bailor (me) and bailee (bank).
This also discloses that you will be utilizing the bank for their vault for free. Mostly up until now (in the redemption timeline) we (you) have been accepting that the bank might well convert your account to non-interest bearing. Well that leaves the bank storing your money and cashing your checks for no consideration paid by you to the bank.
It is no wonder that the bank attorneys are figuring it best for the stockholders to just close down the accounts. They have no fee schedule for special deposit only accounts!
Item 4. That sort of thing. I do not like people getting hurt because they listen to my postings on the Internet. But more the truth in Ignorance of the Law is no excuse. The central banks, mainly the Fed have been banking on your endorsement signature and undoing that will cause... well, the damage we are doing. I have phrased it as carefully regulated release valves for a highly compressed information infrastructure (falsity that debt is money). You can blow the lid off the whole deal but don't be surprised what comes along with what you wish for. I for one like cell phones and flush toilets...
Item 5.
We are finding that the USDC clerks are tightening up about MC filing rules. We have found success though, by Applying for an Order and putting the Notice and Demand right there on the front page. So the Notice and Demand gets a FILED stamping in wet ink. The Application is fluff but the clerk of court files the Application and therefore the Notice and Demand gets published.
Bank of America continues to be the local distributor of propaganda against lawful money. Here is link to their latest letter: http://imageshack.us/content_round.p...285/001mdc.jpg In it they repeat their corporate position that my demand "has no legal relevance," then go on to cite the propaganda found at the Federal Reserve website: http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_15197.htm which cites the Milam case and then BofA uses this flimsy misdirection to state that they are under no obligation to provide gold or silver for my demand. The bank manager is feeling the squeeze, as he had not mailed the letter, dated Feb 26, but gave it to me personally when I went to see him today Mar 6. The letter also asks me to stop bothering their staff with this frivolous demand, as they do not want to discuss it further. I am reminded of the Air Force saying, "when you start getting heavy flack, you are definitely over the target." They have discovered that i am not easily misdirected.
My situation is a little different from most suitors because I am retired, have no wages, and am receiving SS benefits. I have investigated the link between SS and income tax, and conclude that SS is 'just another income tax', but cannot be the basis of the income tax, as it was passed 22 years after the income tax law. The key to both is the contract by which you agree to become a US citizen, and thus a taxpayer. But nowhere does either of these contracts (the SS-5 or the Form 1040) state that you have voluntarily surrendered your right to the remedy found at 12 USC §411. The SS contract specifies two conditions under which benefits can be withheld: 42USC§402 (t), which deals with aliens out of the country and (u), which deals with conviction for treason/espionage. I also read somewhere (but lost the link) that benefits could be withheld if the claimant changed status so as to become a non-taxpayer (presumably a non-resident alien class would do it, since such a person does not need or get a SS#). I do not see any obvious way to connect the two programs, although there is a claim in the Code which says that anyone who receives a govt benefit is a taxpayer. I could go the freeman route, but that would break the contract with SSA, which would likely cause the IRS to at least try to cut off my SS benefits. So I need to go the UCC route, or do I just ignore BofA? Anyone else reporting this issue?
I made a trip to the Clerk of Superior District Court today, but they provided as little help as possible. I could see a possible Claim against BofA based on their refusal to allow redemption under 12 USC §411, and while this seems like it would be pretty easy, based on a statement of my rights under the statute, and challenging them to rebut the statute, and provide a copy of any contract in which I had knowingly and voluntarily surrendered my right to access the statute, but I am not sure this would be valuable. The Clerk indicated that I would have to file a Claim to open a case file, cost $200. This would at least get some un-rebutted statements into the court record, as BofA cannot rebut the statute, and whenever UCC and statute conflict, the statute prevails, so they are unlikely to respond. There is also the claim that since many transactions now occur by direct deposit (SWIFT system, unless you are Iran), refusing to allow redemptions of the entire account deprives me of the right, granted in the statute, not to contract with the Federal Reserve (which is itself a crime defined in 18 USC ?). Suppose I get all this into an affidavit, and 30 days passes without rebuttal; a judge is unlikely to order the bank to provide the account, but at least I have established that use of redemption takes the transaction out of private law and thus out of IRS jurisdiction. It is my understanding that UCC affidavits are the only successful way to proceed in District Court, as they are not judges but administrators of the corporate bylaws (all contract law, no rights). So I am inclined at this point to ignore the BofA account this year, as it has no taxable income in it anyway, and just go with the two stock accounts, both of which took my demand gracefully. And I will begin inquiries at other banks to see if the Fed has gotten the word out everywhere to resist redemptions under 12 USC §411.
Can anyone comment on this apparently new push by the Fed to seal up the 'lawful money' issue with more mis-information? And can anyone provide me with some guidance on the approach and value of a UCC filing? I am studying the UCC, The Supreme Law Firm (Paul Andrew Mitchell's work), and the Freedom School (Nord Davis, Jr), and I find all of it fascinating, and it is beginning to become a coherent matrix in my mind, but there is a lot of material, and only rarely anything that is relevant to my situation.
PS and OT, but I filed my Demand with the Clerk of Deeds, which is a public record, but not in the District Court. Do I need to refile? If I apply for an Order, what would that look like? I understand contract law, and have a decent handle on how the UCC is organized, but am clueless on how to operate the machine...
Quote:
Can anyone comment on this apparently new push by the Fed to seal up the 'lawful money' issue with more mis-information?
I really don't know how that can be done. Congress might repeal Title 12 USC §411? I do not think that is possible while the Fed exists because §16 is so integral to the Fed Act itself.
Sorry to have misled you - I never intended to suggest that Congress could repeal 12 USC §411. Obviously they could not, as absent the remedy to redeem, the Federal Reserve Act itself would be a law which forced persons into contract, and such laws are not allowed. No, what I meant is that I suspect a blitz of new, stronger propaganda and mis-direction by the Fed's controlled media, including their web site, probably some new IRS 'guidance,' etc. It means that the IRS is seeing a lot of redemption, and they are pushing back.
There is some difficulty opening a Miscellaneous Case file or two. One suitor who has been trying will finally file Notice and Demand as a civil suit for $350. But it is worth it to him. Instead of $46 it costs $350 but here is a rough draft attached. I should add that a Commission Certificate ($5 typically from the SoS) should be added prior to filing at the USDC. One should also be familiar with filling out the Summons and Civil Cover Sheet.
You bring something to light in your quest.
This is me, but I do not believe there can be a formal or even covert information campaign against remedy. Well, covert implies that officials will be in trouble if they get caught at it so...
Plug "redeeming lawful money" into a search engine and give it a spin. That is probably the way to find information and of course any misinformation campaigns - look on the Internet. If you have other ways, I want to hear them - but newspapers and TV seem much less effective for shaping the global mindset to me. You will find one fellow has killed a once popular website with his slurs against American remedy from the Fed. You got me curious last night and he is still at it and there are still less than 10 guests when I looked. I don't mention it by name because I am tickled pink that he is destroying that chat board; and especially that he is just too stubborn to admit it is him and his hatred toward me that is the demise of a once popular haunt for attorney-types.
My theory is basically that almost everybody uses monakers so that others will not show up on their doorstep. It would not be wise since Wesley SERRA is a New York tort attorney but I could hurt StSC here by posting his private email address. Even if you dislike Wesley it just feels yuckey. I think what it is, is that you, being kind and sympathetic would put yourself in his shoes and imagine what that must feel like if you were him - me exposing him like that.
You might even feel a twinge of fear if you, like me have come into a huge case of cyber-terets and blurt everything about yourself. Or that anybody can track your monaker to your front door with only a few bucks and clicks.
Otherwise if you explore the thread and elsewhere you find infantile backpatting in a small cliche of diehards who just love to hate. They heavily moderated me throughout the thread and finally banished me for redacting examples! Well there is my point - they banished me for protecting peoples' privacy and Wesley is destroying the website by posting links to cases that reveal home addresses and SSNs. That feels like crap and the website is paying for it. A few children remain to carry on the task of making each other feel smart by reiterating over and over just how stupid people enjoying ourselves over here are.
My point being that obviously a lot of good people are guided by their gut while jockeying their mice in cyberspace. I am sure you are here because you enjoy it, or maybe even need this kind of information. This leads me to suggest that you (and any readers too) develop the discussion yourselves. Run the search engines and look for any campaigns against redeeming lawful money and post the links. I have been doing that for quite some time. I do that to find and encourage others out there (echo chambers) whenever I get blue.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. Do me a favor please. When you see the link to "Q" - please do not post any links there here! For that matter, please do not even go there. It will make you sick to your stomach.
P.P.S. Obviously you are expected to distinguish between slurs against remedy and slurs against my character. In America a man is innocent until proven guilty and I support that.
Let them repeal USCA12 section 411. Fine, have at it (if they even can). Below my signature on my checks will be the following "Redeem for U.S. Current Coin and deposit in account XXXX" Signed: Me
Pay to the order of: Me
My order is take this paper check and get current coin then deposit it in my account.
Current coin = Lawful Money of the U.S.
Bank: but but but its so heavy, cumbersome and a nuisance logistically to handle.
Me: Then quit devaluing the damn money, otherwise it's not my problem carry out my order good day.
@ Brian: I do not forsee any effort to actually repeal the remedy at 12 USC §411, only to darken its name. Notice how effectively the cartel has damaged the reputation of gold, the only true money. Their propaganda machine is truly amazing, because people are mentally lazy and do not want to do the mental work of understanding. I blame TV, which is a hypnotic device that encourages the viewer to just mindlessly accept whatever is presented. Whatever. check this article by JS Kim about the propaganda program against gold: http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed...ion-today-yo-0
@ David: I noticed a long string of ad hominem attacks against you by one particular fellow, who pretty clearly outed himself as either a raging egotist or a shill for the banksters. Most of the folks on this site are here because they want to be (freedom to associate), and because they want to learn. You are clearly an honest teacher, and the world needs more of those. As to the search for sites bashing remedy, I will admit that I never considered looking for them; there are lots of sites, and zillions of Utube videos about evading income taxes, and surely they are universally worthless or have definite negative value. This is the only site I have found that understands the value of tax avoidance. As to sharing on the net, I don't post anything I wouldn't want to see reported on the 6 o'clock news. Big Brother is watching, and there is no privacy on the net, but so what? Obama and his thugs can't drone the entire population, and there are lots and lots of much more visible targets than me. I put up quite a bit of personal info because my situation is different (I suspect, based on other's posted questions/issues), and I am trolling for insight from the rest of your brain trust. I like Treefarmer's approach the best: be exempt because you say you are exempt. After finally realizing that municipal laws, such as those promulgated by the US Federal government (a corporation) do not apply to live humans, I can appreciate his view a lot better. And this analysis of Roman Law as practiced by Article I courts by Mary Croft shows the clear path to avoiding municipal laws: http://musicians4freedom.com/wp-cont...HAT-TO-SAY.pdf. Beautiful information. and I have no interest in looking for the Q site, as the riff-raff from it is obnoxious...
ps many thanks for the form/substance of the generic demand filed as a civil suit; since the Fed has responsibility for supervising the banks, might as well go to the top. And a District Court summons will get a response. thanks
IMHO – this is what I would do. Edit as you see fit.
It is to be sent by registered mail ONLY
NOTICE OF BOA’S REFUSAL TO OPEN ACCOUNT WHEN DEMAND IS MADE FOR LAWFUL MONEY
Dear Mr. Bank President, CEO, or board of director [as appropriate]
On June 1, 1960, I began the process of …………… [tell your story and provide copies of letters from the PERSONS that corresponded to you]
I do not understand bank personnel’s refusal to follow the law? This is a simple, reasonable lawful request. 12 USC 411 is not my personal law; it is a law of the United States. Is it not anyone’s right to demand lawful money and bank personnel MUST comply? It appears it not optional for the bank to deny this demand. Please correct me, if I am mistaken on this matter.
The latest correspondence from BOA employee [name] dated [date] refers to the Milam Case. I do not know if [Name] is not too bright or if [Name] believes I am not too bright. The case is clear if you read it in its entirety: We no longer can demand gold or silver; this is clear; however, the words “Demand is made for Lawful Money. Redeemed in Lawful Money pursuant to 12 USC 411” acts in the equivalent as gold or silver. This phrasing is sufficient to meet my requirement as well as help society reduce the public debt. It is not necessary to have physical gold or silver.
Being a peaceful man, I do not wish to war against my brothers and sisters but I also know I must pursue this matter.
If you as bank president agree with bank personnel that [list all the statements like FRN are lawful money – whatever they wrote you], I am more than willing to accept the bank’s position on the matter IF you will provide me a sworn affidavit, under penalty of perjury with full commercial and personal liability so stating that I or any other person do/does not have the legal right to open an account with BOA and placing a legal notation: demand is made for lawful money …… on the BOA signature card.
I am sure you can appreciate the fact as to why I am a bit surprised at bank personnel’s responses. This is why I would like to give you, as president [whatever title] an opportunity to clear up the matter just in case there was a mistake.
I must insist that I receive a response within 30 days of receipt. Please do not provide me any bank polices or other internal rules some attorney wrote as I will consider this as an insufficient response. As stated previously, I must insist in your response and/or position against this demand for lawful money being placed physically on a BOA signature card to include a sworn affidavit, under penalties of perjury, with both commercial and personal liability attached stating BOA position of legal fact for its refusal of this demand for Lawful Money under 12 USC 411 as mandated by law and in conjunction with the bank’s fiduciary duty to the public to follow that law
Should I not receive a response under penalties of perjury, with full commercial and personal liability, signed by you as an officer of BOA that I am unable to legally and lawfully open an account as I have outlined here, I then will presume that BOA has willfully violated my rights to demand lawful money and will pursue the matter with the powers that be for relief.
If at anytime during the 30 days after receipt of this registered demand, BOA has a change of hear with regard to my demand to open the account, please call me at
Yours truly,
Very nice.
I am more toward getting the Fed notified correctly and then serving the bank. Then you forget about it but keep making your Demand whenever.
As for opening an account though - very nice.
It strikes me that instead of the letter the Response or Default from the Board would probably cover it and the bank would open the account. But I have not put that to the test.
I have been redeeming lawful money for several years. All of the bank accounts that I have opened recently have been with small state banks, not Wells Fargo or BofA, and have never heard the first peep of objection when I stamp the signature card "Demand is made for lawful money per 12USC411". The bank accounts were opened as non-interest bearing checking accounts. Time passes. Small state bank is now acquired by a little larger state bank, but still not a National Bank. Since accounts are now under new banks accounting system, I have been getting small interest amounts credited to my checking account each month, just a few cents.
Question: Should the fact that I'm now in receipt of interest make any difference on the fact that I've demanded lawful money on the original signature card? I did not request that these accounts be paid interest, and they never did receive interest prior to the merger. I'm wondering what impact this might have on the status of my accounts being lawful money accounts. Do I need to send my friendly personal banker a letter and point out that I'm now receiving interest and would prefer not to and reiterate that I am demanding lawful money for my accounts?
I agree. The Demand probably missed the new bank's attention during attornment. If somebody wants to give you free change as a gift so what?
I think the question is - do you have a copy of the Signature Card(s)?
If not then maybe the problems you suggest could arise. If you do then I imagine the worst that might happen is that they change your account to non-interest bearing.
There is likely a clause that they can close you account for no reason but I suppose that might be more likely to happen if you bring the new bank's attention to the Demand than not.
I really would not like to send the bank anything that might call their attention to my demands for lawful money. The personnel in the bank are the same ones I dealt with before the merger, I've been banking with them for 3 years or so. Unfortunately, I did not keep a copy of the signature card. Maybe it would be wise to open another account with a new signature card and demand lawful money on the new signature card and snap a picture of it with my iPhone, then close the old account and start using the new one. Or is that being overly paranoid?
Updated 7/6/13 About a month ago, I went into the bank and asked for a copy of the original signature card which they had in a 3 ring binder. It was the original, because my RLM stamp was in red ink and it was the original card, not a copy. The happily made a copy of it for me. End of story.
I agree with David. And I've had little trouble with Bank of America. In fact I setup my "person's" first lawful money account there. And they never seem to care about the endorsement. They have those ATM machines that scan-in checks - here's backside of the last one: just the stamp. I have even seen BOA accept non-endorsed checks; totally blank.
In fact I'm not sure what you're all hoping to accomplish with all that letter-writing. You have only to make your demand, and document it.
I don't keep much $ in banks though. I mean ... why would you keep your "money" in an insolvent institution called a BANK!?
http://src-fla.us/index.php/news2e62...riday-roadtrip
There is some anecdotal evidence that those with NO BANK ACCOUNT AT ALL (Woodone) have an easier time beating the Fed's IRS. Think about it, without some evidence, without some bank trail, of you endorsing private credit of the Fed, what will the DoJ/IRS rely on? You are someone Right Worshipful F.D.R. was unable to PERSUADE into depositing your salary into one of those new trust accounts:
Attachment 1180
I think that makes no sense unless I sympathize with your conditioning. Why not ask a teller to run a copy of your Signature Card? Remember the magic words; please and thank you!
P.S. Stonefree;
A suitor wrote recently that the letters to her ended almost immediately when she closed her bank accounts. Her husband still has an account and still gets the administrative letters.
From Who? Auntie Iris?Quote:
A suitor wrote recently that the letters to her ended almost immediately when she closed her bank accounts. Her husband still has an account and still gets the administrative letters.
Sorry, the letters badgering from the IRS. - From back a few years with CtC by Pete.
Yes David I agree with you - this is why I added the phrase ", I then will presume that BOA has willfully violated my rights to demand lawful money and will pursue the matter with the powers that be for relief." The PTB are the comptroller of the currency and the FRB. I did not want to "threaten too much" as a Peaceful Inhabitant, it is not about $$, but rather the compliance.
The key is to make them personallyliable for failing to follow THEIR laws. When it hits them in THEIR pocket, it sheds a different light
It should be noted the BANK will not respond - they really can not. Then after 35 days and no response you send a letter of "ACKNOWLDGEMENT AND DEFAULT" offering them once last time to resond within 10 days. I would add a little more threat to this letter - add the comptroller, FRB, AG, SOS, and a little tid bit of any further costs to me for the you mr. bank officer shall be held personally liable, including adminstration fees of $$$. Once again they will fail to respond. Then you must do a thrid letter "ACKNOWLDGEMENT AND FINAL NOTICE OF DEFAULT. And then you got them. YAY!!!
I am about to do this with wells fargo, I just have not gotten there yet. I went there about a month ago, and spoke with a rep. YOU CAN NOT SPEAK WITH A REP, you must speak with an officer of the bank. The rep is only doing his job by telling you NO. You can not get upset. Just know you are wasting your time. It was the first time, I went to a bank and wanted to open an account and put the disclaimer on the signature card. It is actually funny to see the reaction on their faces when they learn what it means. Its almost worth the entertainment.
This is what I am planning to do: go back to wells fargo and ask to speak with the president or officer, in hand I will have various laws - pertaining to redeeming lawful money and the ISSUE of the SSN. Talk real nice but explain it is not a request it is a demand. It is the banks required fiduciary duty to provide me with the laws that require me to provide them with a SSN and I can not do lawful money. A stupid repsonse from the officer is - oh its in the patriot act - you have to comply is not a response. It is BS. You specifically have the patriot act with you. I have not been able to find anywhere where it says a SSN is required. The officer must be specific as the law. Have no issue FOR THAT DAY, walking out of the bank with your tail between your legs if the officer says no way jose. Make sure you obtain the officer's business card and ensure that in fact, he is an officer of the bank. YOU THEM SEND HIM REGISTERED [ONLY] LETTERS. You go to the post office, and ask the clerk to stamp a copy or ask the clerk to make a copy with their red date stamp on your copy, thus making a "record". Records can not be rebutted easily. You do this three times as necessary when the bank officer fails to respond.
You are well on your well to getting the bank in trouble plus having mr. officer's no longer working in that position. Yes, do follow David's recommendation of signing the back of checks with the redeem for LM.... its not all that important to have the discalimer on the signature card as you are still redeeming LM regardless.
Tony
We all have to remember that it is our job to prove the "record" not theirs. I personally would not trust the bank to do the honorable thing - let's say if you were ever questioned by the IRS - that signature card can easily be "fixed".
Should I be successful with wells fargo [and at this time I am feelin good about the success because it is so using their system agains them for a change with the three letters as stated above], at the time the signature card is done, I would ask the bank notary to provide me a statement that the signature card is in fact and accurate and true copy of the original held by the bank and have the officer sign off on it. Will they do this? I do not know - but backing their asses in a corner with no wiggle room [particularly for the little money I will have in the account - lol] makes them think twice. But I do live in Florida and most people can not think here very well LOL. So I am often not suprised for stupidity.
I trust that you realize with their first response mentioning your demand for lawful money you have proof of service that they have received your Demand?
Beyond that I believe you are toying with your bank and risk reflecting back on you what you project.
I have no intention to toy with any bank or officer. It is simply, it is a demand, not a request. I can do this politely and in honor. THe officer has the option to accept or deny. And for me it is all good. Any presumption I MAY HAVE is solely based upon other's experiences in dealing with the PTB. I fully understand everything is consciousness and intention. But I also understand that we are tested and FOR A VERY GOOD REASON, may I ad - not that I particularly like it but I do understand. I see aboslutely no down side to what I have outlined.
If the banks are required to follow 12 USC 411, then there really is no issue. If not, then a grown up response would be "I am sorry the bank will not open the account with this request and I as an officer am willing to sign this under penalties of perjury with full commercial liabily. 12 USC 411 is optional and as a bank, we do not need to follow that law". The last reponse I got from wells fargo was good bye and good luck with a smirk.
I look at this as a test - I needed to go back and study more and ask questions. Am I prepared? Who really ever is 100%? But at this time, I feel confident to move foward in whatever manner is appropriate and it can be done in honor, integrity with any intention of "getting them". I consider myself a peaceful man who is here on this planet to experience all of God's glory as a living soul incarnate using the usufruct as ORIGINALLY INTENDED for all of us.
Sorry to use that term "toying". I still do not see the purpose though except some kind of patrolling.
I probably would have agreed with your approach two months ago. One suitor pointed out after explaining the trust structure that he has not been granted the authority to actually redeem in lawful money, only to demand it. This money is not his for any such execution of law.
Attached find the near final draft.
It appears a bigger question NOW must be asked? Do we have any right to redeem lawful money? If not, then there is no sense moving forward with any of this. Specficially what trust structure is being referred?
I would NOT be in favor of this type of lawsuit. It playing in their private sandbox and not a likely win. You only go into private court with the victory in hand before you enter the ship. This is why I recommend the 3 letters. its a done deal.
I do not know what you mean by "patrolling", so I can not answer this.
David, if you have a suggestion on what WE should do, please advise. I take it you are redeeeming lawful money as placed on your signature card with the bank. This is a presumption as I have no first hand knowledge of this.
Another intersting aspect to the comment "One suitor pointed out after explaining the trust structure that he has not been granted the authority to actually redeem in lawful money, only to demand it. This money is not his for any such execution of law." This is strongly suggesting that WE are not permitted then the exemption on the 1040 on line 21 for redeeming lawful money. If we can ONLY demand LM but not actually redeem it because we are not authorized or a party to THEIR private club, then this exemption would be for ONLY authorized persons. This appears not to be consistent with other suitor's opinions of the tax exemptoin for lawful money. So maybe this suitor has some bad info????
David can you please elaborate
thanks - Tony
HA! now we begin to see the real "salsero." And could you ask Freed G. to come back - I have a question for him.
It is nothing more than a proposed mental model. Speaking for myself, METRO = Districts, I am authorized and so is the brain trust. I mark the currency as redeemed any time it pleases me. It has the effect of teaching others who handle it because the CODE can be found on Cornell's website.
I think that by deferring the fraud back to Congress and not patroling the bank a suitor is completely justified to be making his demand as this was the remedy designed for state and national banks.
But mainly this is a decision to be decided by the courts or Congress. And it has already been voiced. Nobody will touch it otherwise.
The statute is quite clear that a person (natural or otherwise) could only demand redemption on the occasion that he had FRN's, which he would naturally obtain at a Federal Reserve bank (like by cashing or depositing a check, receiving a direct deposit, etc, for which the FRB has already determined that you have chosen, or not denied, that you want FRN's; note that under the legal tender law, the banks can assume this, and the choice clearly favors them doing so), so the clear meaning of the statute is that the remedy (avoidance of FRN's) must be with the purveyors of same. There is no trust issue here; whoever came up with that was propagating red herrings, or was mis-directed by same. The CQVT could hold LM as easily as FRN's.
As to the lawsuit vs patrolling the banks, I perceive David's advice is this: you have no duty to force the bank to comply with your demand; that duty lies with the FRB. The statute designates their duty to 'supervise' the banks chartered under 12 USC, so let them do it. The suit is the simplest way, and it avoids all the confrontations, lies, and mis-direction you will likely get from the bank. I like it.
PS to JohnnyCash: like the trust, I am always here. Ask me anything. Freed G
Sometimes I feel that the OCC (Office of the Comptroller of the Currency) may be more in charge of enforcement and imposed risk management.
Hi Freed, My question is about my parents and older folks generally. They have worked diligently for years and like yourself now receive SS benefits deposited directly into the bank. And I see we all agree that SS$ is tax-free. And despite all their hundred thousand$ earned and diverted to govt/banking cartel they did manage to put a little away – some in a fully qualified retirement plan and some just dollars. As you know, the Golden Years often arrive with more ailments and more health concerns. And some of that elder healthcare is very expensive and there's always a possibility one of them will require something very costly like a nursing home (although I would try to avoid it). I've heard several scare stories here like "they take all your money" or "well you know they cost 12 thousand a month?" etc.. So my question relates not to passing savings on to heirs but more ... how to preserve some of that savings for the healthier parent, so he/she isn't left destitute by the sicker one's medical costs? I've received differing advice from people. Some talk about "lookback period" and Special Needs trust, and so forth. Do you have any words of wisdom?