Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 93

Thread: Currently being denied my deposit with demand to redeem lawful money

  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Rock Anthony View Post
    Open an account at the boss' bank. That bank doesn't seem to be bothered by the "restrictive endorsement."

    Or, if there is a Bank of America in your area, open an account there. BofA's legal department has already determined that they have no problem with the restrictive endorsement. Perhaps you've already seen this image located in our downloads area. I recall here at StSC another member posted a BofA agreement with the verbiage written into the contract.

    I could see why small banks would be reluctant to do business with those that demand lawful money. However, BofA is not small - infact, it's "too big to fail".

    When I renewed the State's driver's license, I signed my true name - there is an image of my true-name signature on the DL. When I open an account at a bank, they'll insist for the account to be opened in the legal name that appears on the DL. However, the signature I put on any bank agreements merely must match the signature on the DL. No need for True Name dba LEGAL NAME. I simply sign True Name.

    IMO, any other disclaimers such "all rights reserved", "without prejudice", etc., merely raise red flags with the banksters. I only include the demand for lawful money with true-name signature - nothing else.
    I am curious if there is a genre of small bank that is actually not part of the Fed, like credit unions?

    Karl;

    I am curious, Do you think the reply from your bank is in response to your letter linked there in the same post? I presume when reading that the reply was in response to inquiries made by your bank manager...

    What I mean is to emphasize my point above. If they convinced you to write a letter to Legal and then listen to the Reply from Legal, you are going about this whole thing all wrong. They actually got you to do this to yourself. So if you like the coffee and your friends just say, I am sorry. I got all wrapped around the axle about explaining it to you. Congress says I have the right to redeem lawful money by demand so I am making my demand. That's all.

    It seems like maybe they got you to write to Legal for legal advice! By handling this like it is as simple as it is, many people have cleared the hurdle your bank has convinced you to construct for yourself.

    But I may be wrong. However there is a sentence in the Reply that seems responsive to the Letter you wrote.

    Don't get me wrong, what you did reveals new milestones if that is what I am looking at. You have gotten us a long way and I thank you. But if the bank manager convinced you to write to Legal about this, then he was praying on your conditioning.

  2. #12
    How rude of me not to mention...


    Thanks, Karl, for sharing your very enlightening experience!

    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    I am curious if there is a genre of small bank that is actually not part of the Fed, like credit unions?
    Well, I'm thinking that since FRNs are only authorized to be used by Federal Reserve Banks, then credit unions that have in its vaults FRNS are indeed Federal Reserve Banks. However, a credit union (or any bank) may not necessarily be a Federal Reserve member bank, that is, not required to have deposits at the district FRB.

    But then again, perhaps such a credit union does exist - one that never endorses Fed credit - a financial institution that only dabbles in lawful money of the United States. I'd imagine that it would be difficult for such an institution to be profitable - without the ability to fractionalize!
    Last edited by Rock Anthony; 08-04-11 at 11:12 PM.

  3. #13
    Yes. Thank you Rock. One cannot fractionalize without FDIC. That is the link. Until we redeem lawful money, we are Fed banks by endorsement.

    Thank you again Karl Nathan;


    That letter is very revealing. I am really quite excited to get it into my collection of testimony. The bank playing on your conditioning... I did not mean to make you sound naive or ignorant. This sort of thing happens. And I neglected the potential that you did it by way of counterintelligence, to gain the intelligence. - That it may have been intentional on your part - or guided by the Holy Spirit of God that you would bring this gift to the Forums. That I might be witnessing your obedience to God and mistaking it for being inexperienced and conditioned.




    Thank you,

    David Merrill.


    P.S. Here are the docs linked:

    http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/2...ankingregu.pdf
    http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/1...ksposition.pdf

    I guess what is throwing me is that they are both dated August 2nd, which is a very significant day for America, and for my lien process too.
    Last edited by David Merrill; 08-05-11 at 11:00 AM.

  4. #14
    A careful reading of the letter says that they will still deposit and cash your checks with the non-endorsement.

  5. #15
    Thanks to all of those who responded. I will address each response in separate posts.

    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    Thank you for sanitizing and showing us the documents Karl Nelson.

    The key is in bullet 3 of the bank's response letter. First sentence. The term negotiate. They presume that you wish to negotiate currency. Negotiating currency technically means to be trading up, not trading down. You may trade up the Order for FRNs to US notes.
    Merriam-Webster definition: 'negotiate - to transfer (as a bill of exchange) to another by delivery or endorsement'

    It is my understanding that I am negotiating my check (not negotiating currency), not by endorsement but by delivery, so that the bank can make the funds/currency available to me for deposit or withdrawal. When I deliver my check to the bank, the check being a bill of exchange which is a negotiable instrument, I negotiate the check or transfer the check to the bank so they can obtain the funds/currency which are required by the negotiable instrument/bill of exchange/check.

    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    So you deposited some funds? Take a withdrawal slip, and strike through the Order of; and write Redeemed in Lawful Money Pursuant to Title 12 USC §411 on it.
    Yes, I made a deposit in my bank account. I cashed my check in lawful money at my boss' bank, took the US Notes which appeared to be FRNs, and deposited them in my bank. I already have lawful money in my bank account.

    Are you suggesting I take a withdrawal slip with the demand and redeem the amount of FRNs currency I had in the account prior to depositing lawful money? Say I had $10 of FRNs in my account and deposited $50 of lawful money. Should I withdrawal $10 with the demand on the withdrawal slip? I could then deposit the $10 of lawful money at the bank the next day and would therefore have $60 of lawful money in my account instead of having both lawful money and FRNs in my account as I do now.

    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    They have wrapped you around the term negotiating. You are depositing funds. Not negotiating funds. You are not trading currencies, you are demanding lawful money instead of FRNs.
    They have attempted to wrap me around the term negotiate. I do agree that I am depositing funds not negotiating funds. An example of a time some one would need to negotiate funds would be if they received FRNs for payment. They would then need to negotiate, or redeem, the FRNs into lawful money. However, I will never accept FRNs as I will make a demand to be paid in lawful money if I am to receive currency as payment.

    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    What really happened is you educated yourself so much you gave them enough to apply sophistry.
    Yes. Fortunately sophistry will be overcome by the Truth.

    Karl Nathan

  6. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Rock Anthony View Post
    Open an account at the boss' bank. That bank doesn't seem to be bothered by the "restrictive endorsement."
    In my opinion, my boss’ bank was not bothered by the non-endorsement simply because I was cashing the check instead of depositing the check in an account at their bank. Because I did not deposit the check at my boss’s bank they never had the lawful money in their possession. Therefore they were never faced with the question of whether or not they could fractionally lend against my funds. I believe if I did open an account there and wanted to deposit my checks with the non-endorsement demand for lawful money, they may take a similar course of action my bank is currently taking. However, I do not plan to investigate whether or not my boss’ bank would be bothered by the non-endorsement since I will obtain the remedy of redeeming lawful money with my bank, by whatever course of action is necessary to do so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rock Anthony View Post
    Or, if there is a Bank of America in your area, open an account there. BofA's legal department has already determined that they have no problem with the restrictive endorsement. Perhaps you've already seen this image located in our downloads area. I recall here at StSC another member posted a BofA agreement with the verbiage written into the contract.
    Unfortunately there is no BofA in my area but yes, I have seen this image. I must thank you for uploading the image as I used the idea as a basis for my initial request to amend my bank's account agreement. At the current time, however, I have abandoned that course of action. Only if my bank was as educated as BofA and their legal department, I would pursue this avenue to document my remedy. However, in the end I am confident, and after much education on both my and the bank’s part, both you and I will have the same type of money: lawful money.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rock Anthony View Post
    Also, from reading the bank's response letter, it is my opinion that you offered too much "explaining" to the bank. From where did they get the terminology "non-endorsement" and "US Notes". Too much talking sometimes results in your words being used against you. Knowing what I now know, I will only offer, "I only want transactions on account to be in lawful money of the United States, per section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act, an act of United States Congress. That's all."
    I will not mention "US Notes" - as far as banksters are concerned, they do not carry those in their vaults or registers. Think about it - why would a bank agree to provide something that it thinks it does not have?
    I will not mention "non-endorsement". I can imagine this spooks the banksters - perhaps they think a non-endorsement will void the negotiability of the check.
    I stay away from those terms.
    I have done some explaining, more so than most people should, to the bank based on my profession, the community in which I live and work and also for both my bank's and my education. I have briefly addressed these issues here in previous posts on this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rock Anthony View Post
    How rude of me not to mention...
    Thanks, Karl, for sharing your very enlightening experience!
    Well, I'm thinking that since FRNs are only authorized to be used by Federal Reserve Banks, then credit unions that have in its vaults FRNS are indeed Federal Reserve Banks. However, a credit union (or any bank) may not necessarily be a Federal Reserve member bank, that is, not required to have deposits at the district FRB.
    Thank you Rock Anthony for all the information, especially the comparison of Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) vs Federal Reserve member bank (FRMB)!

    I had never made the distinction between a FRB and a FRMB. Good Stuff!

    That seems to answer all of the questions I posed to the FDIC and my State’s Division of Banking! However, I still hope one or both organizations respond since it would be nice to have my bank’s regulators response in writing.

    Karl Nathan

  7. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    That letter is very revealing. I am really quite excited to get it into my collection of testimony. The bank playing on your conditioning...I did not mean to make you sound naive or ignorant. This sort of thing happens. And I neglected the potential that you did it by way of counterintelligence, to gain the intelligence. - That it may have been intentional on your part - or guided by the Holy Spirit of God that you would bring this gift to the Forums. That I might be witnessing your obedience to God and mistaking it for being inexperienced and conditioned.
    Yes, you are correct in that my actions have been intentional. The bank did not play me on my conditioning; one could argue that I played the bank on its conditioning.

    Even if I would have read into your comments as making me sound naïve or ignorant, which I did not, I knew the simple explanation which follows would make my intentions clear to you and everyone else who reads this.

    When I verbally requested my bank’s position in writing on 7/29, in the form of a letter to be delivered by the USPS, I did so with the sole intention of obtaining a written record of the bank’s position so that I could read, dissect and respond accordingly to such position.

    Here is my draft: Karl Nathan response to bank position.pdf

    So far I’ve learned I must be much more careful with my words. Please play devils advocate to see how all of you would continue to apply sophistry in this situation if you were the Legal Officer. My goal is to slowly back the bank into the legal hole, which they are helping to dig themselves, all while leaving a pile of evidence.

    I understand the legal statute is on my side and since I do have the time, energy and resources, I plan to continue this exchange with the bank for several reasons.

    First, I am learning a lot of new information and would like to continue to learn.

    Second, I see my bank as a partner, a more powerful partner to me when educated. Therefore I am taking the bank along this educational journey so they understand the full implications of the legal right I am exercising. Of course they can deny that this right exists up until the end. However, I hope they accept this legal right as fact for their own self-interest. Otherwise the future looks bleak for this bank.

    Third, I feel I have been blessed with this Knowledge and therefore feel it is a duty to expand the Knowledge and to share it with others. One way I plan to accomplish this is by documenting the process here at STSC.

    Since I am able to cash my paychecks at my boss’ bank and then deposit the lawful money at my bank, my access to currency is not an issue anymore. I will obtain my remedy to redeem lawful money at my current bank.


    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    I guess what is throwing me is that they are both dated August 2nd, which is a very significant day for America, and for my lien process too.
    The bank’s position (dated 8/2) was a response to my verbal request from 7/29. I have not yet mailed any type of letter to the bank. I plan to finalize my draft response and mail it to the bank early next week.

    The other letter which I have uploaded was written by me and mailed to my bank’s regulators, the FDIC and my State’s Division of Banking. I wrote the letter 8/2. My bank has no knowledge of the two letters I wrote to their regulators.

    Karl Nathan
    Last edited by karl nathan; 08-05-11 at 10:57 PM. Reason: forgot name

  8. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by karl nathan View Post
    Thanks to all of those who responded. I will address each response in separate posts.



    Merriam-Webster definition: 'negotiate - to transfer (as a bill of exchange) to another by delivery or endorsement'

    It is my understanding that I am negotiating my check (not negotiating currency), not by endorsement but by delivery, so that the bank can make the funds/currency available to me for deposit or withdrawal. When I deliver my check to the bank, the check being a bill of exchange which is a negotiable instrument, I negotiate the check or transfer the check to the bank so they can obtain the funds/currency which are required by the negotiable instrument/bill of exchange/check.



    Yes, I made a deposit in my bank account. I cashed my check in lawful money at my boss' bank, took the US Notes which appeared to be FRNs, and deposited them in my bank. I already have lawful money in my bank account.

    Whenever you sign for cash though, that will be an endorsement.

    Are you suggesting I take a withdrawal slip with the demand and redeem the amount of FRNs currency I had in the account prior to depositing lawful money? Say I had $10 of FRNs in my account and deposited $50 of lawful money. Should I withdrawal $10 with the demand on the withdrawal slip? I could then deposit the $10 of lawful money at the bank the next day and would therefore have $60 of lawful money in my account instead of having both lawful money and FRNs in my account as I do now.

    You are looking at lawful money as a noun; not a verb. It gets kind of rediculous to consider FRNs US notes if you get too physical. What is really happening is you are making a demand, and you got your bank all wrapped around the axle about the legal details. What I must do then is show your bank's response letter and pick through it line-by-line. I am glad to do that but will have to find time. It is a real treasure at this particular juncture of American History. My advice is typically that you don't get into the law enforcement of the bank, that it has to keep your funds separate from what it has in reserve for loans. Don't worry though, this is good to explain clearly - for everybody. You being educated about redeeming lawful money, but not being a suitor, you have them looking at the crimes they would be committing by treating your funds like they are bonded by you, when you demanded that they carry only the obligations of the US government, and nothing by endorsement of private credit from you.



    They have attempted to wrap me around the term negotiate. I do agree that I am depositing funds not negotiating funds. An example of a time some one would need to negotiate funds would be if they received FRNs for payment. They would then need to negotiate, or redeem, the FRNs into lawful money. However, I will never accept FRNs as I will make a demand to be paid in lawful money if I am to receive currency as payment.

    Think about it. Negotiating is an act of trading. You are not there to trade. You are there either depositing into your account, or you are cashing the instrument for the value on its face - or depositing some, cashing some. You are not negotiating - except if you endorse. Then you are involving yourself in the creation of money like that graphic novel by the Fed - and you are reaping the benefits (national debt), having to pay the price (Return of Income - Income Tax). In that case - endorsement - you are turning the instrument over to your bank for negotiation.

    This will be clearer when I dissect the letter.



    Yes. Fortunately sophistry will be overcome by the Truth.

    Karl Nathan
    Quote Originally Posted by karl nathan View Post
    In my opinion, my boss’ bank was not bothered by the non-endorsement simply because I was cashing the check instead of depositing the check in an account at their bank. Because I did not deposit the check at my boss’s bank they never had the lawful money in their possession. Therefore they were never faced with the question of whether or not they could fractionally lend against my funds. I believe if I did open an account there and wanted to deposit my checks with the non-endorsement demand for lawful money, they may take a similar course of action my bank is currently taking. However, I do not plan to investigate whether or not my boss’ bank would be bothered by the non-endorsement since I will obtain the remedy of redeeming lawful money with my bank, by whatever course of action is necessary to do so.

    Yes. That is showing a good understanding of the internal mechanism at your bank. They are having a problem with treating you and your funds differently than all the national debt-building endorsers.

    Unfortunately there is no BofA in my area but yes, I have seen this image. I must thank you for uploading the image as I used the idea as a basis for my initial request to amend my bank's account agreement. At the current time, however, I have abandoned that course of action. Only if my bank was as educated as BofA and their legal department, I would pursue this avenue to document my remedy. However, in the end I am confident, and after much education on both my and the bank’s part, both you and I will have the same type of money: lawful money.



    I have done some explaining, more so than most people should, to the bank based on my profession, the community in which I live and work and also for both my bank's and my education. I have briefly addressed these issues here in previous posts on this thread.



    Thank you Rock Anthony for all the information, especially the comparison of Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) vs Federal Reserve member bank (FRMB)!

    I had never made the distinction between a FRB and a FRMB. Good Stuff!

    That seems to answer all of the questions I posed to the FDIC and my State’s Division of Banking! However, I still hope one or both organizations respond since it would be nice to have my bank’s regulators response in writing.

    Karl Nathan
    Hopefully I will get to dissecting your bank's response later this evening.

  9. #19

    There are two reasons for the letter, like you pointed out. Titling the account, and "non-endorsement".

    We have encountered the inability for banks to title personal accounts dba - Doing Business As. I believe that one bank client along the way was able to open a business account dba but two or three along the way were "corrected" that the legal or full name is their name. Like found in a Black's Law Dictionary - the word Name becomes "Name" meaning, For all intents and purposes of our law dictionary...


    If you understand your name is Karl Nathan - fine. You are equipped to utilize the legal name in trust. It becomes a tool for your use.

    Second bullet:

    They cannot or are unwilling to keep your account funds separate from the funds in the vault. This has been an item that suitors never bother with. It is important that bankers follow law - granted. For whatever reasons though, you seem to be imposing enforcement. [You have projected some kind of introspection by your bank - to look into your legal rights and to try persuading you into waiving them.] Long ago a suitor deposited a rubber paycheck and when it was returned to him, the verbiage was torn off. That was a phone call but I described it:


    - Which leads into non-negotiable for the next bullet.

    Third bullet:

    Here it gets really edifying!

    Your endorsement is needed on checks and drafts you wish to negotiate and transfer to us to collect on your behalf.

    Your initial interpretation is to hear those words their way. Before electronic verification though, one bank would put good faith in another bank. The overdraft protection was a matter of good faith that the customer feared the law, and the fairly stiff penalties that gradually replaced punishment by law. Way back when I dealt with banks I recall a $25 charge per check that could quickly bury me if I wrote four or five checks within a few days time. The trust parameters were different and this is probably written into the tariff or your Signature Card.

    There is something right there. The Tariff. I forgot about that over the years. I used to edit tariffs for long distance companies. If you want to know how your bank works, ask to read the tariff. After they figure out what is going on, they will bring you a three-ring binder with about a 125-page document in it. It will describe the bank operations thoroughly. If you are a proficient reader and allow for an hour to carefully read, then you will come away with a better understanding of non-endorsement/redemption for sure. It has been so many years that when I was doing some reasearch I called it The Treaty, and the lady at a small Compass Bank branch did not know what I meant. So maybe I will find time - but they don't extend the same courtesy to a prospective customer as an already established one. However I am the kind of guy who will get the entire meeting on audio, and when they get tired of watching me will pull out my camera, starting with the most interesting pages and keep snapping until they get angry and kick me out... [In this linked example I was setting across the desk and my camera battery was low so the auto-focus did not function properly.] I really don't hold a lot of sympathy - even for the most friendly bankers.

    Then I will have something to show you here. That was me, just killing some time Downtown.

    Basically though, the sentence does not apply to paychecks that you just wish to deposit or cash. If you want to deposit on account, they will wait for it to "clear" which will only take seconds if they want to just transfer the funds while you set in your car at the Drive-Thru. If the funds are there at your boss's bank, no problem about handing you the cash too. You did not endorse all that stuff they are talking about - fractional lending, negotiating your instrument etc.

    Simply put - you are not asking them to do all that in the first sentence. You are asking them not to. You are demanding they simply function as a repository for the safety of your lawful money cash. That is what makes the option of going interest-free available to them.

    We are concerned that by refusing to endorse the items by using the phrase, "Redeemed in lawful money pursuant to Title 12 USC Section 411," and considering this a "non-endorsement" may restrict our ability to carry out this request and ultimately collect funds that we have credited to your account for your benefit.


    That is the sentence that reveals a lot about what endorsers approve.

    Your non-endorsement simply allows your bank to keep your money safe. Being fair, they may choose non-interest bearing because they cannot use your funds to "collect funds that we have credited to your account for your benefit." That benefit is of course - the interest you would typically enjoy from having an interest-bearing checking or savings account.

    The Fourth Bullet:

    That is where we start getting too physical. Like I said, understand the metaphysics is more of a verb, a process, than a noun - the physical US notes.

    It looks though, from the closing comment that your bank is willing to do away with you if you continue. They are not telling you they will shut you down. The key sentence is telling you that they are concerned about your demand for lawful money. Think about it. You are not giving them the benefit of fractional lending - all you are doing is making them liable for keeping your money safe. Then reconsider that since you are no longer getting or are deserving of the only benefit beside a safe repository for your cash, interest, that you might consider alternatives to banking at all. In other words start cashing your paychecks at your boss's bank. Buy a safe and a reliable gun (a safe for your gun too if you have children). Get used to not trusting in banks.

    Maybe offer to pay your bank for functioning as your home-safe. But remember that when the Emergency ended in 1976 the one item remaining of significant effect is the ability for the President or Secretary to declare another Bankers' Holiday.

    http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...l_PL94-412.jpg
    http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...tipulation.jpg

    Look at Title 12 USC §95 (subsections too) for yourselves some time.
    Last edited by David Merrill; 08-06-11 at 01:33 PM.

  10. #20
    Thank you for your in-depth insights David Merrill! I appreciate the time you took to dissect the bank's letter.

    I have made a few changes to my response which I'll be sending to the bank in the near future: Karl Nathan response to bank position - UPDATED.pdf.

    The main changes were made to bullet point #3 clarifying what actions I am taking with the bank.

    I also deleted the last and third to last paragraphs which I had initially included in my first draft: Karl Nathan response to bank DRAFT.pdf. I felt like they were not necessary at this point and would only be a distraction to the counterpoints I have made to the bank.

    I realize the bank will most likely come back with more sophistry based on my response. I am pursuing this as a educational opportunity and nothing more. In the end, I believe I will need to serve the bank with a Notice of my demand for lawful money by way of a certified copy of the Notice, which I would have filed in the USDC, to resolve this matter.

Posting Permissions

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