Currently being denied my deposit with demand to redeem lawful money

[doug555]

I've been using the ATM to deposit my checks, usually with just the restricted 12 USC 411 rubber stamp, and it's been working great - no questioning tellers, no counter trolls, no denials.

Attachment 2189


Thanks for posting this stamp, which I know is what David has always recommended and used, and which is working, but sometimes is rejected as a "restrictive endorsement".

Here is WHY I do NOT use this stamp.

Technically, 12 USC 411 states that one may only demand lawful money, after which the system is presumed to have the duty to "redeem" it into lawful money.

12 USC 411 does not say that we actually do the redeeming. That is not our responsibility, IMO. That is the system's job.

Therefore, the wording in this stamp is presumptuous. It is stating something that may not have occurred yet.

We cannot technically state, at the time that we stamp our instrument, that it is, at that instant, "Redeemed Lawful Money".

Also, look at it this way.

If it already has been redeemed as it says on the stamp, then the system would then NOT have to redeem that amount on that instrument, and the person stating that it was already redeemed could be accused of fraud-in-the-factum.

So, this is an important technicality that IMO should be thoroughly discussed here, and resolved ASAP.

[doug555]

I've been using the ATM to deposit my checks, usually with just the restricted 12 USC 411 rubber stamp, and it's been working great - no questioning tellers, no counter trolls, no denials.

Attachment 2189


Thanks for posting this stamp, which I know is what David has always recommended and used, and which is working, but sometimes is rejected as a "restrictive endorsement".

Here is WHY I do NOT use this stamp.

Technically, 12 USC 411 states that one may only demand lawful money, after which the system is presumed to have the duty to "redeem" it into lawful money.

12 USC 411 does not say that we actually do the redeeming. That is not our responsibility, IMO. That is the system's job.

Therefore, the wording in this stamp is presumptuous. It is stating something that may not have occurred yet.

We cannot technically state, at the time that we stamp our instrument, that it is, at that instant, "Redeemed Lawful Money".

Also, look at it this way.

If it already has been redeemed as it says on the stamp, then the system would then NOT have to redeem that amount on that instrument, and the person stating that it was already redeemed could be accused of fraud-in-the-factum.

So, this is an important technicality that IMO should be thoroughly discussed here, and resolved ASAP.

This is why I use this handwritten demand below:

[BLBereans]

While we are being "technical"...

Your view regarding who does the "redeeming" has merit in the context of 12USC411 - we make the demand and the obligatory/liable party "shall redeem" upon the express demand.

However, as regards 12USC95a(2) - I believe it reads that discharge is "required" when assignment has been executed.

(2) Any payment, conveyance, transfer, assignment, or delivery of property or interest therein, made to or for the account of the United States, or as otherwise directed, pursuant to this section or any rule, regulation, instruction, or direction issued hereunder shall to the extent thereof be a full acquittance and discharge for all purposes of the obligation of the person making the same; and no person shall be held liable in any court for or in respect to anything done or omitted in good faith in connection with the administration of, or in pursuance of and in reliance on, this section, or any rule, regulation, instruction, or direction issued hereunder.

So maybe the disclaimer should read:

"Lawful money demanded, and full discharge is required, for all transactions per 12USC411 & 12USC95a(2)"

[Robert Henry]

the system is presumed to have the duty to "redeem" it into lawful money.

What evidence do you have of this?

They shall be redeemed on demand

My interpretation is that it is the demand itself which executes the redemption. Nothing happens in "the system" - other than the supposed segregation of redeemed funds. To quote David Merrill; "Redemption is between the ears."

Therefore, I believe the "redeemed" verbiage removes all possibility for ambiguity of interpretation as to wether or not demand was made.

[Michael Joseph]

A beneficiary must issue forth a claim upon a board of trustees. For example, you may be eligible to receive social security benefits but if you don't issue your claim the benefits are not coming.

Likewise with 12USC411. You must stake your claim. I always use "demand is made for lawful money per 12USC411". It is simple stuff. I am moving their court.

I am motioning the court to move BUT I can not act for the court. The officers of the court carry out the orders of the court.

So my demand only PUSHES the court to act. I lack the capacity to redeem I can only make a claim upon the mercy seat.

here is another key. Stop and consider carefully what ALIENATION OF ESTATE means in reference to the typical endorsement. If you don't yet see then think what happens before a probate court. Is it not TRANSFER OF ESTATE?

What happens when the estate is transferred at Probate? There is an easy method to escape probate tax. A very easy method. And if you stop and carefully consider I have already told you herein how.

Shalom
MJ

[Noah]

It is simple. If I don't have the stamp handy I'll just handwrite "Redeemed Lawful Money per 12 U.S.C. 411" backside of the check. I use the Smartphone for deposits too - very handy.

It's not too hard to see whats going on here, even in the eyes of the unpottytrained observer. Seems doug555 has even given us a clue with his username.

[doug555]

It is simple. If I don't have the stamp handy I'll just handwrite "Redeemed Lawful Money per 12 U.S.C. 411" backside of the check. I use the Smartphone for deposits too - very handy.

It's not too hard to see whats going on here, even in the eyes of the unpottytrained observer. Seems doug555 has even given us a clue with his username.

Try Isaiah 55:5 and https://pentecostnation.wordpress.co...tecost-nation/

[BLBereans]

Is this any different than a store coupon, basically?

Store issues coupon.

Store outlines terms and conditions regarding use and redemption of coupon. (Usually coupons are NOT for resale or any other use NOT outlined... hint!)

Potential customer obtains coupon.

Customer presents coupon and makes demand for redemption.

Store redeems coupon, NOT customer.

Customer receives what store expressed would be the item(s) provided at redemption.

Customer cannot force redemption; customer can only present coupon and make demand.

Store is self-obligated to perform in trust/agreement outlined in terms and conditions.

Terms and conditions may also outline what recourse customer may seek for failure to perform by store and who has control over deciding the recourse.

Customer is NOT liable for store's failure to perform.

[Robert Henry]

Is this any different than a store coupon, basically?

You would have to be exchanging one type of coupon (FRN) for another (US Note) in this analogy.

US Notes are out of circulation and FRN's have been deemed their functional equivalent. Therefore, the transmutation from FRN to lawful money, on demand, is purely metaphysical.

[itsmymoney]

Attachment 2189


Thanks for posting this stamp, which I know is what David has always recommended and used, and which is working, but sometimes is rejected as a "restrictive endorsement".

Here is WHY I do NOT use this stamp.

Technically, 12 USC 411 states that one may only demand lawful money, after which the system is presumed to have the duty to "redeem" it into lawful money.

12 USC 411 does not say that we actually do the redeeming. That is not our responsibility, IMO. That is the system's job.

Therefore, the wording in this stamp is presumptuous. It is stating something that may not have occurred yet.

We cannot technically state, at the time that we stamp our instrument, that it is, at that instant, "Redeemed Lawful Money".

Also, look at it this way.

If it already has been redeemed as it says on the stamp, then the system would then NOT have to redeem that amount on that instrument, and the person stating that it was already redeemed could be accused of fraud-in-the-factum.

So, this is an important technicality that IMO should be thoroughly discussed here, and resolved ASAP.

This is why I use this handwritten demand below:

Doug555,

I see where you are headed with this (and my actual job-for-pay is to analyze every possibility), but the negotiable instrument is the check in your hand. If the stated 'money' on that check were truly previously 'redeemed' (regardless of lawful money or FRN's), then that check itself is non-negotiable. Meaning, the person trying to deposit or cash it was ALREADY PAID that amount via lawful money AND via a DIFFERENT check, coin, or other instrument - NOT the check in hand. So why would the bank then deposit/cash the check in hand if it was presumed to be already deposited/cashed based on the novation on the back?