Direct depost coming my way in January...2 credit unions decline to open accounts

[motla68]

Update as of 10/27...

Decided to try my luck with another bank. This time, I did not tell them of my intentions... just listened politely as the Bank officer told me all about the features, overdraft protection, etc.
It was for a non-interest bearing checking account. I handed her the state-issued DL, and a $50FRN to open the account with.
After her tap tap tapping on her keyboard for quite a while, she finally handed me the "signature card" which is actually an 8.5x11 piece of paper. She indicated where I was to sign. I thoroughly read it through, then did some changes.
First, I crossed through U.S. Citizen, and wrote "man" in its place. Then in the section called "Other Terms/Information", I wrote "On all transactions, demand is made for lawful money per 12USC411", and signed with Without Prejudice above my name.

Great I thought! They didn't even question it.

About 15 minutes later and 12 miles down the road I get a call from the branch manager telling me that he checked with "Legal" and this is not allowed. I asked him if he was aware that Title 12 is US law, but he didn't want to hear it. He said to come in and change it, or they will have to cancel the account.

Can they do this once they've accepted a cash deposit?

What other recourse do we have? It seems banks are catching on to this, and want no part of it. If this is written into the US code and pertains to Federal Reserve Banks and branches, how can they ignore this law?

Anyone?

Thanks.

Hey logjam, just my 2 cents based upon experience, they do not like restrictive endorsements because certain ones limit their ability on the fractional reserve banking side to negotiate transactions at different rates.
If you can get a hold of a regular bank check from an account if you have an old one laying around, use a high powered magnifying glass on the signature line, it will say something like " Authorized Signature " . amazing how small it can be and still be legal. The other thing is that you do not need to be so elaborate in the lawful money statement, just simply put " 12 usc 411 - lawful money " and do it real small right below your signature, not just on the signature card but for all checks deposited, that way they cannot try to weasel out of a transaction and yet gets stream lined past most tellers, have had lots of success doing it this way. The only time i had a problem is before i started doing that was writing it real big to make it very obvious and in that case all i did was go to a different branch of the same bank and it was accepted.

good luck in your journey.

[logjam]

Thanks Motla.

I actually mused how it would be nice to have a stamp that is so microscopic, they wouldn't see it once it was stamped on their paperwork. Turn their trickery back on themselves!

It just really pisses me off how their "legal" dept. always deny changes to their precious signature card.

What stuck me was that the only sigNATURE on it was mine. No bank officer signature, none.

So then, can this still be considered to be a contract? What do you think would have happened if I asked the bank officer to sign it as well? hmmmm....

It looks like the banks and corporations are in collusion with one another, quietly corralling people into a direct deposit system, thereby removing the ability of one to non-endorse. They are a crafty bunch!

I have yet to use my trump card against my employer (pointing out the state law to them) and am reluctant to do so, but that may be my only recourse.

grrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!

[shikamaru]

What stuck me was that the only sigNATURE on it was mine. No bank officer signature, none.

So then, can this still be considered to be a contract? What do you think would have happened if I asked the bank officer to sign it as well? hmmmm....

It's called an adhesion contract or contract of adhesion.

A standard form contract (sometimes referred to as an adhesion or boilerplate contract) is a contract between two parties where the terms and conditions of the contract are set by one of the parties, and the other party is placed in a "take it or leave it" position with little or no ability to negotiate terms more favorable to it.

Examples of standard form contracts are insurance policies (where the insurer decides what it will and will not insure, and the language of the contract) and contracts with government agencies (where certain clauses must be included by law or regulation).

While these types of contracts, in and of themselves, are not illegal per se, there exists a very real possibility for unconscionability.

Courtesy of Roman Civil Law. Isn't that special?
Perfectly legal or not illegal. That's why corporations present them to customers.

You may want to read Ancient Law by Henry James Sumner Maine.

According to Maine, society has been a progression from "status to contract".

What I want to draw attention to here is your right to contract.
We want to wield this power without injuring ourselves or agreeing to terms and conditions which are prejudicial against our rights or position.

[motla68]

Thanks Motla.

I actually mused how it would be nice to have a stamp that is so microscopic, they wouldn't see it once it was stamped on their paperwork. Turn their trickery back on themselves!

It just really pisses me off how their "legal" dept. always deny changes to their precious signature card.

What stuck me was that the only sigNATURE on it was mine. No bank officer signature, none.

So then, can this still be considered to be a contract? What do you think would have happened if I asked the bank officer to sign it as well? hmmmm....

It looks like the banks and corporations are in collusion with one another, quietly corralling people into a direct deposit system, thereby removing the ability of one to non-endorse. They are a crafty bunch!

I have yet to use my trump card against my employer (pointing out the state law to them) and am reluctant to do so, but that may be my only recourse.

grrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!

If you use some thinking here on approach it is a negotiable contract thing, not a us is against them thing, got to get that patriot indoctrination out of your head so you can go in with a clear mind. One bank that had refused I had requested to speak with the bank manager, politely asked according to their banking policy what qualifies as a restrictive endorsement from what the teller told me, he explained and the way he did is about how some of you all out there are so wordy when doing these things so this is how the simplification came about. You do not have to be a historical genius of banking transactions to get the job done, each situation has it's own unique experience it does not accomplish anything for bringing prejudice to all banks for what one or two does.

Please do not consider this as me singling you out or me being some kind of hard ass, but you wrote " without prejudice " on the signature card, the first sign of adversity then the thought was of prejudice... frustration, the bank officer could have been new or any other reasons, please do correct me if i am wrong here, but this is what I mean by approaching things with a clear mind, attract more positive energy by correcting the mistake and gain more probability of things going in your favor in the end. Save yourself from countless hours of historical research on the 101 ways of banking contracts unless that really interests you.

[dmk]

Wow very good discussion.
logjam: did you get a response on what to do on your signature card?
I am not with a big 4 bank but next tier and they are not listening either.
What to do? checks with statement still okay and are they being excepted? My fear though is with wire transfers: business to business or personal accounts; keep to small amounts?
Are smaller regional banks better? or keep looking until I find one that will accept?
Thanks everyone.
D

[Binbokusai Yagyuu]

Banks are instrumentalities of the Federal Gov ...

why do you think that "citizen" question is such a big deal ...???

They ... are forming a Record

[David Merrill]

Banks are instrumentalities of the Federal Gov ...

why do you think that "citizen" question is such a big deal ...???

They ... are forming a Record

I am not clear about your point BY but I do have a link that supports your comment.

http://img863.imageshack.us/img863/3...reimprovem.pdf

[Binbokusai Yagyuu]

good case, I have others showing that "national" banks are such also

the Record they are forming by the Citizen question, and SSN ...
is the presumption that you are a Taxpayer

[Binbokusai Yagyuu]

Re: Banks

Davis v. Elmira Savings Bank - 161 U.S. 275 (1896)

[David Merrill]

Thank you BY!