Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Credit Union told me they will not accept my checks with a “restrictive endorsement”

  1. #1

    Credit Union told me they will not accept my checks with a “restrictive endorsement”

    Anymore. Been banking with this credit union since I was a kid and been redeeming my checks with them for about a year. Wife usually takes my redeemed check for deposit. This time, they denied it. My account must have been flagged. Teller said it came down from compliance and we should call them. I did and the nice lady said they will not accept my “restrictive endorsement on my checks anymore. By accepting it, they are obligated to abide by federal banking laws that govern the Federal Reserve. They will gladly accept my checks without the stamp on them.”

    Since this incident, I have been going back to my employer’s bank (it’s their check) and redeeming with restrictive endorsement on the back and cashing the check. So far, no push back. I assume they have to cash it bc it’s their check.

    No big news here for any of you guys. I just found it interesting, especially when it happened to me instead of reading about someone else. This also further cements in my mind that what I’m doing with redeeming means something.

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by ADBrooks11 View Post
    ...Been banking with this credit union since I was a kid ... the nice lady said they will not accept my “restrictive endorsement on my checks anymore. By accepting it, they are obligated to abide by federal banking laws that govern the Federal Reserve. They will gladly accept my checks without the stamp on them.”
    Thank you for that. I have not had a credit union account for decades now. I appreciate picking up details about the distinctions between credit unions and banks without having to pick through OCC Regulations.

    It would only be in admiralty that by accepting a US Code for banks, that you appear and attach security to the broad-swipe law boundary. I was making comment on something similar today broadcasting to the brain trust:

    Recently a suitor had a magistrate chime in offering an order to notify MNUCHIN that his 90 Days were coming due, for default. It turned out to be a play to regain authority after R4C on the "judge" for the deviant oath.

    Waiting for another publication on PACER (life is very interesting with the new technology) I discovered a recent filing (attached).

    3. The Community submitted a contract proposal to the Department of the Interior (“Department”) requesting law enforcement funding under the ISDEAA in the amount of $8.1 million for fiscal year (“FY”) 2017. The Secretary failed to respond within the 90-day limitation or to seek an extension, and the proposal is therefore deemed approved under the law.

    Furthermore because of the deviant bonding/oaths the suitor Refused the Order for Cause and the "magistrate" behaved like a child, reporting and recommending that the case be closed. - Like temperament affects the rules. Well! It turns out that the Secretary was notified anyway, because of the R4C that was sent...

    Then the corrected income tax returns were redacted from publication, but the magistrate included the Addresses page in the redaction! The entire process, you see, the Order recognizes the process is Proof of Service according to the Rules. This may be a little complicated to follow so review the Rule:

    Rule B(1) (c) If the plaintiff or the plaintiff's attorney certifies that exigent circumstances make court review impracticable, the clerk must issue the summons and process of attachment and garnishment. The plaintiff has the burden in any post-attachment hearing under Rule E(4)(f) to show that exigent circumstances existed.

    In the state USDC the clerk was supposed to issue both process of garnishment and the summons. The $47 Miscellaneous Case was rejected, but he filed a civil suit and the clerk issued a Summons. The clerk issued two summonses in two names, then mailed the summons but it came back to the clerk for either an absent address or a bogus address; hard to tell with a sticker over it!


    Name:  Doc 25 Order to Serve MNUCHIN_Page_1 s.jpg
Views: 167
Size:  354.7 KB

    Name:  Doc 33 Report and Recommendation by Magistrate SCHULTZ_Page_1 s.jpg
Views: 166
Size:  346.8 KB




    So at the last look, the magistrate is trying to obfuscate the Proof of Service process he first recognized with the Order! The new proof of service process is to file the R4C with the USDC Clerk and when it shows on PACER as a pdf file - send that out Certificate of Mailing with copy of the Receipt and Tracking #'s marked up with the Recipient NAME - TRUMP, MNUCHIN, TIGTA etc. Then that receipt, with the Proof of Service from FedEx, UPS or USPS is filed into the USDC evidence repository. This has been recognized as Proof of Service, because there never was a Summons. Get it? The magistrate was offering to recognize the Proof of Service process, but only if the suitor would take back the "judge" recusal by recognizing the magistrate's offer of authority. The suitor left the Rule of Law as the authority and rejected the magistrate's offer.



    Name:  Doc 31 R4C on magistrate Order_Page_5 s.jpg
Views: 163
Size:  346.7 KB





    But to summarize, the cases in the US USDC are going quite well. All that is between MNUCHIN and garnishment of his paycheck, according to the rule is for the suitor to be heard. For the corrected tax return(s) to be reassessed according to law and the principle of redemption. The spine of voluntary compliance for the American taxation system is the right to be heard. So this is very encouraging, this new technology.

    Of course, the about-face from the magistrate - the Report and Recommendation was Refused for Cause too. Interesting though, the attorney for the Native American sees the rule a default by the Secretary (Interior) while the magistrate sees the rule cause to dismiss the case! Without the scope of redemption and without a record of the redemption (monument), it is quite arbitrary and capricious.

    One might say that the law of contract (insurance) is the law of surety. Who is securing the trust? Who is the beneficiary? Who settled the trust?


    Regards,
    David Merrill.
    Mind you that both of these are distortions about law. But that kind of distortion is why Eleanor of Aquitaine adopted the Laws of Oleron for the law of the land, to justify the theft of the Treasure of Jerusalem to be wreck, or jettison. Found lost floating around at sea. In my example the magistrate was willing to announce default - if the Defendant fails to answer then that is a default, not an excuse to dismiss the case. The magistrate was after an excuse to say, "Look, the Plaintiff will admit "judges" have authority if we offer to rule in his favor."

    This actually gets more interesting yet. I know this takes some careful attention to follow, but remember that the breach of trust means an opportunity to become the trustee of the resulting trust. This is quite honorable being the new Government. To compliment your understanding though, remember that the record is the authority with the Court of Record.

    Name:  Doc 33 Report and Recommendation by Magistrate SCHULTZ_Page_2 s.jpg
Views: 159
Size:  264.9 KB

    The magistrate seals his own indictment by mentioning the Circuit Court of Appeals. The suitor Refused for Cause the Circuit Chief "Justice" oath of office in the opening Garnishment Order!

    Name:  Doc 1 Garnishment_Page_10 s.jpg
Views: 157
Size:  419.0 KB
    Last edited by David Merrill; 10-18-17 at 11:04 PM.

  3. #3
    Write:

    "Lawful Money Demanded [per 12USC411]" on the front of the check in the note area.

    Then Sign back - "By: (however you choose to scribble name)"

    Demand is still made and the back of the check still looks "normal" to them.

  4. #4
    The front side of the Note (instrument) is the domain of the issuer. Therefore I agree if you are the account holder writing the check.

    This may inconvenience some people but if your bank is not interested in upholding your rights, then you should find a bank that is.

  5. #5
    I agree. A simple signature backside of check equals endorsement of the FEDs private credit; unconditional acceptance, naked contract.

    Reminds me of the one time I had an issue with a lawful money check. Bank teller looked it over, brought it over and conferred with the head teller (I guess), came back and said they cannot accept my check with that restrictive endorsement "stamp" on it. Went over to the lobby and fed the same check into the ATM and had the money next day with no problem. Teller was wrong. The bank would accept "restrictive endorsement" checks all day long.


    Name:  lawful_money_BackImage.jpg
Views: 109
Size:  71.9 KB

  6. #6
    That is the conveyance for Canada. Some suitors have been redeeming up there but and using it applied to the Crown operating illegally in the Provincial territory. It is well like if the FBI was doing police operations in a State. Well, the clerks there are corrupted, albeit two appeals are properly filed the clerks will not docket any hearings.

    Name:  achieve uniform system.jpg
Views: 98
Size:  184.8 KB

    Name:  Crown has no Standing_Page_8.jpg
Views: 98
Size:  410.8 KB
    Last edited by David Merrill; 11-05-17 at 03:09 AM.

  7. #7
    So, I've been going to my boss's bank to cash my check with the stamp on the back. Been doing this since the original date of this thread. This past Monday, 12/4/17, I sat in the drive through for 30 minutes while the teller (who'd never seen my check stamp) obviously asked a superior about the stamp.

    Teller: Sorry it's taking so long. We're checking on the endorsement on the back. "They" want me to ask you if your employer has asked you to use the stamp.
    Me: No
    Teller: Why are you using the stamp?
    Me: It has to do with Federal Reserve and filing taxes
    Teller: OK

    She cashed it.

    I have a question. I assume the bank has a legal obligation to cash my check that came from them (stamp or not). Does anyone know for sure on their legal obligation on cashing their own checks? I do not have an account with them

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by ADBrooks11 View Post
    I have a question. I assume the bank has a legal obligation to cash my check that came from them (stamp or not). Does anyone know for sure on their legal obligation on cashing their own checks? I do not have an account with them
    And so does the Credit Union, but they have a clause in the Agreement I am sure that they can close down any account, whenever they please.

    This credit union - the whole chain closed down due to redemption practices.

    Name:  closed credit union s.jpg
Views: 43
Size:  489.1 KB

    That was with a large number of trust accounts going for some time. And the trustees choosing to "non-endorse", to redeem.

    Let me tell you what I read in this thread. The Credit Union is telling the truth, just like your assumption quoted in this post. Things fall into perfect order and the Credit Union does not like being subject to FDIC regulation. Within itself maybe, I speculate about the differences between banks and credit unions, it could offer remedy to private credit securitization - but only within itself. You deteriorate the law boundary that might allow that by citing the Bankers' Code outside the credit union's charter.

    My point is also that while you have the account open at the credit union they must operate within the contract. The choice is to close the account and the attorneys know it will go a lot better if they can convince you to do so.

    The last thing is that you answered to the boss' bank jurisdiction by answering the question. The correct answer is that they need to ask your boss, what your boss thinks. Do not speak for your boss. Peter did this in his impetuous way and the very next breath is denied entry into the House. Read Matthew 17:24-27.

    No need to give testimony that fails to meet Rules of Evidence. I speculate though, that you will be fielding ever-more clever questions for a few weeks.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    The last thing is that you answered to the boss' bank jurisdiction by answering the question. The correct answer is that they need to ask your boss, what your boss thinks. Do not speak for your boss. Peter did this in his impetuous way and the very next breath is denied entry into the House. Read Matthew 17:24-27.

    No need to give testimony that fails to meet Rules of Evidence. I speculate though, that you will be fielding ever-more clever questions for a few weeks.
    Forgive me if I'm misreading the above quote. I didn't feel I was speaking for my boss. I felt I was speaking for myself when they asked me "if my employer asked me to stamp the check". My answer was "no" b/c my employer hadn't asked and knows nothing of the stamp.

    Thank you for the reply

  10. #10

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •