Currently being denied my deposit with demand to redeem lawful money

[Robert Henry]

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showt...ull=1#post8956

Here is a question for those who believe making the demand equates to "self-executing redemption"...

Why, in the above anecdote regarding a rubber check, would the bank tear off the 12USC411 verbiage? If the demanded funds resulted in "self-executed" redemption, tearing off (or attempting to hide) the non-endorsement makes no sense; the funds are already redeemed so tearing that check wouldn't hide a thing, would it?

It would certainly hide the record that said instrument was redeemed, would it not? At least on the bank's side. I'm led to believe people destroy evidence all the time.

One could speculate endlessly on the actions of one employee, possibly (probably?) ignorant of the implications of such verbiage and likely told, as the bank manager appears to have been in the preceding example in that post, that it was "against bank policy" by their higher-ups. I believe this board has several accounts from the early days when redeeming first started gaining popularity where bank employees were utterly befuddled by the concept and tried to deny it to suitors. Now they simply seem to ignore it, in my experience, with the one exception I noted here in my previous post.

I would re-direct you to my previous post in this thread asking what event it is you think might transpire behind the scenes in execution of redemption, if it is not self-executing?

Perhaps this article will help, if you have not read it previously: http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/convincing.html

It is certainly worth your time, in my opinion.

Thank you.

[BLBereans]

It would certainly hide the record that said instrument was redeemed, would it not? At least on the bank's side. I'm led to believe people destroy evidence all the time.

One could speculate endlessly on the actions of one employee, possibly (probably?) ignorant of the implications of such verbiage and likely told, as the bank manager appears to have been in the preceding example in that post, that it was "against bank policy" by their higher-ups. I believe this board has several accounts from the early days when redeeming first started gaining popularity where bank employees were utterly befuddled by the concept and tried to deny it to suitors. Now they simply seem to ignore it, in my experience, with the one exception I noted here in my previous post.

I would re-direct you to my previous post in this thread asking what event it is you think might transpire behind the scenes in execution of redemption, if it is not self-executing?

Perhaps this article will help, if you have not read it previously: http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/convincing.html

It is certainly worth your time, in my opinion.

Thank you.

It would certainly be an attempt to hide (wouldn't work anyway) the fact that the instrument was never going to be redeemed in the first place.

Had the check not bounced, what would have happened according to the anecdotal evidence we have? The supposed "redeemed" funds would have been fractionalized rather than taken out of the debt stream - no extinguishment. To redeem is to "buy back"; ask your self who "sells" and who "buys".

So the demand would go unheeded in that scenario, yet, that makes NO difference to the demander; the demander has no further liability. The redeemer failed to perform.