Page 10 of 17 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 163

Thread: Redemption of Lawful Money at US Bank

  1. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    You can make your demand. Because they are paying you some interest on your funds though, there may be some balking on their end. You seem more concerned about repurcussions than anything.

    Sorry I don't know more about brokerage firms. I would make my demand for lawful money and sign that, rather than endorse private credit from the Fed. But then, until you came along I felt that I am pretty good at explaining this.
    OK, I understand.

    I also have checks from the brokerage firm that I can write which I could cash at a bank if I decide not to try to apply the redemption of lawful money remedy to the brokerage firm.

    The brokerage firm could also send me checks which I could cash at a bank if I decide not to try to apply the redemption of lawful money remedy to the brokerage firm.

    Yes, I am concerned about potential repercussions -- I had determined that I do not owe taxes on the money that I have received -- I have also arranged things so that the money I have is relatively untraceable, and I don't want to compromise that.

    You had advised me not to make a demand to the brokerage firm and now you state that I can make a demand -- I grant that this is an unusually complex situation, but I would prefer a bit more certainty before I go ahead.

    I'm sure that you are pretty good at explaining this to a select group of people, but there is always room for improvement.

    Perhaps if you and others were better at explaining it, the Fed and the IRS would now be out of business.

  2. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    You can make your demand. Because they are paying you some interest on your funds though, there may be some balking on their end. You seem more concerned about repurcussions than anything.

    Sorry I don't know more about brokerage firms. I would make my demand for lawful money and sign that, rather than endorse private credit from the Fed. But then, until you came along I felt that I am pretty good at explaining this.
    Brokerage firms specialize in brokering deals.
    Brokers bring together buyers and sellers in order to effect an exchange. Brokers are agents.

  3. #93
    Would this serve the purpose?

    Deposited for credit on account #XXXXXXXXXX
    to be redeemed in lawful money
    Title 12 USC §411
    John Joseph dba John Joseph Doe dba LLC name

    And would John Joseph Doe need to be in all capital letters and be in block letters?

  4. #94
    stoneFree
    Guest
    Maybe this will help. You just received a check, and here is the backside with your choice:


  5. #95
    That is a great visual. I created an ImageShack link.

  6. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by stoneFree View Post
    Maybe this will help. You just received a check, and here is the backside with your choice:

    Thank you for that, stoneFree.

    Does the signature on the "FREE" image indicate a first name and a last name or a first name and a middle name?

    And is the URL (website address) necessary?

  7. #97
    My opinion. Correction is requested. Okay, stay with me here, it's a little long.

    Since many of us are stamping variably worded demands or directives on the backs of checks, I suggest that the precise wording might be considered since a precise outcome is desired.
    For example: At 12 USC CHAPTER 3 SUBCHAPTER I Sect. 411 (addended below) We read that Federal reserve notes (a misnomer, since on the notes they are found named only as "FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES" and I will now refer to them as FRNs for the balance of this writing) may be redeemed for lawful money.
    Now I ask. . . . where do we read that a check may be redeemed for lawful money ? I have not seen legislation which indicates that checks may be redeemed for lawful money. Neither have I seen a check denominated in FRNs as the unit to be used to satisfy the "Pay" directive.
    I also do not have evidence that a check is equivalent to or exchangeable for FRNs. Even so, they are regularly "cashed" for lawful money (FRNs) but not cashed for redeemed lawful money.
    Most of the checks I receive use the dollar sign preceding the space where the drawer writes in the numbers for the amount of the draft. So, one might then believe a check to be exchangeable for "dollars", or actually requiring "dollars" to be paid out upon presentment of the check. Not long ago, checks indicated the word "dollars" as the unit to be paid, but I don't see much of that any more. Some checks have neither and only have the words "CHECK AMOUNT" or "AMOUNT" present above a numeric entry which also does not include a dollar sign.
    The concept of the constitutional "dollar" is repugnant to a healthy Federal Reserve banking system and the credit/debt mongers and so, the word "dollars" is scorned and disappeared. I also have never seen a check "paid" or "cashed" for "dollars".
    I am too young to have withessed any check paid out in silver dollars.
    I have only seen checks processed for credit (aka"deposit") as a bookkeeping entry of numbers or exchanged for FRN's. I have never seen a check "Paid", since payment would be by way of tendering wealth money (U.S. Notes, gold, silver, commodity money).
    It is when one hands a check to the teller that the that a negotiation is made next. If not deposited for credit, the teller tenders FRNs. Since the draft is not limited by the words "Pay to" (as a non-negotiable sight draft) the teller is not bound to pay out the substance indicated (not bound to pay "dollars") and the check functions as an instrument for the discharge (transfer) of debt. Were the check written "Pay to", the teller would be bound to pay out the substance indicated, that being "dollars". However, since banks do not deal in "dollars" they also do not produce "Pay to" checks for use within their system. The checks are written otherwise as follows: "Pay to the order of". It is the open and negitiable nature of the phrase "to the order of" which leaves the descretion to the payee as to what constitutes satisfaction of the draft, it not thereby limited to "dollars". So, the teller, operating under the bank's order, offers FRNs to the presenter (the payee or third party payee) as an alternative and because the bank is not bound to pay out "dollars". The payee accepts the FRNs, in lieu of "dollars" because nothing else is available, or so he thinks. You and I know that redeemed lawful money is available as a release of FRNs against a qualified endorsement negotiated check.

    The question is, how do we properly memorialize the occurrence of the negotiation as having been made for redeemed lawful money rather than lawful money (FRNs in bondage) ?
    If one provides an unqualified endorsement (one w/o a stamp or demand), hasn't he has accepted all of the conditions adherent to the processing of that check?
    Those conditions are precisely what we prefer to be severed from by seeking to obtain "redeemed lawful money" (not just "lawful money", since the FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE is also considered to be "lawful money") in exchange for the check presented.
    So, might the endorsement qualifying statement more precisely address the result sought if worded thus:
    "Exchanged for redeemed lawful
    money in the amount of $______
    or deposited for credit on account
    in same money amount herein stated" You fill in the amount to match the amount for which the check is drawn.
    The qualifying statement, above, provides a clear indication of how the check is to be negotiated, not in "lawful money", but in "redeemed lawful money".
    It also presents the words in the case (upper/lower) as is found in the legislation, it reiterates the dollar sign and the amount.
    It also indicates that the deposit is to be in "redeemed lawful money", though I doubt such a function is possible in today's "banks".

    I suppose it could be streamlined to: Exchanged for redeemed lawful money
    or deposited for credit on account in
    same money herein stated"

    I feel that the stamp which indicates: Redeemed in Lawful Money
    Pursuant to 12 USC § 411
    http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/12C3.txt is a beauty. However, it might be most appropriate for stamping the redeemed FRNs and not for use as an endorsement qualifier unless one can show that a check can be redeemed for lawful money.


    Here is the legislation:
    Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the
    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of
    making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal
    reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose,
    are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United
    States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and
    Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public
    dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the
    Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of
    Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.

  8. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by Publius View Post
    My opinion. Correction is requested. Okay, stay with me here, it's a little long.

    Since many of us are stamping variably worded demands or directives on the backs of checks, I suggest that the precise wording might be considered since a precise outcome is desired.
    For example: At 12 USC CHAPTER 3 SUBCHAPTER I Sect. 411 (addended below) We read that Federal reserve notes (a misnomer, since on the notes they are found named only as "FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES" and I will now refer to them as FRNs for the balance of this writing) may be redeemed for lawful money.
    Now I ask. . . . where do we read that a check may be redeemed for lawful money ? I have not seen legislation which indicates that checks may be redeemed for lawful money. Neither have I seen a check denominated in FRNs as the unit to be used to satisfy the "Pay" directive.
    I also do not have evidence that a check is equivalent to or exchangeable for FRNs. Even so, they are regularly "cashed" for lawful money (FRNs) but not cashed for redeemed lawful money.
    Most of the checks I receive use the dollar sign preceding the space where the drawer writes in the numbers for the amount of the draft. So, one might then believe a check to be exchangeable for "dollars", or actually requiring "dollars" to be paid out upon presentment of the check. Not long ago, checks indicated the word "dollars" as the unit to be paid, but I don't see much of that any more. Some checks have neither and only have the words "CHECK AMOUNT" or "AMOUNT" present above a numeric entry which also does not include a dollar sign.
    The concept of the constitutional "dollar" is repugnant to a healthy Federal Reserve banking system and the credit/debt mongers and so, the word "dollars" is scorned and disappeared. I also have never seen a check "paid" or "cashed" for "dollars".
    I am too young to have withessed any check paid out in silver dollars.
    I have only seen checks processed for credit (aka"deposit") as a bookkeeping entry of numbers or exchanged for FRN's. I have never seen a check "Paid", since payment would be by way of tendering wealth money (U.S. Notes, gold, silver, commodity money).
    It is when one hands a check to the teller that the that a negotiation is made next. If not deposited for credit, the teller tenders FRNs. Since the draft is not limited by the words "Pay to" (as a non-negotiable sight draft) the teller is not bound to pay out the substance indicated (not bound to pay "dollars") and the check functions as an instrument for the discharge (transfer) of debt. Were the check written "Pay to", the teller would be bound to pay out the substance indicated, that being "dollars". However, since banks do not deal in "dollars" they also do not produce "Pay to" checks for use within their system. The checks are written otherwise as follows: "Pay to the order of". It is the open and negitiable nature of the phrase "to the order of" which leaves the descretion to the payee as to what constitutes satisfaction of the draft, it not thereby limited to "dollars". So, the teller, operating under the bank's order, offers FRNs to the presenter (the payee or third party payee) as an alternative and because the bank is not bound to pay out "dollars". The payee accepts the FRNs, in lieu of "dollars" because nothing else is available, or so he thinks. You and I know that redeemed lawful money is available as a release of FRNs against a qualified endorsement negotiated check.

    The question is, how do we properly memorialize the occurrence of the negotiation as having been made for redeemed lawful money rather than lawful money (FRNs in bondage) ?
    If one provides an unqualified endorsement (one w/o a stamp or demand), hasn't he has accepted all of the conditions adherent to the processing of that check?
    Those conditions are precisely what we prefer to be severed from by seeking to obtain "redeemed lawful money" (not just "lawful money", since the FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE is also considered to be "lawful money") in exchange for the check presented.
    So, might the endorsement qualifying statement more precisely address the result sought if worded thus:
    "Exchanged for redeemed lawful
    money in the amount of $______
    or deposited for credit on account
    in same money amount herein stated" You fill in the amount to match the amount for which the check is drawn.
    The qualifying statement, above, provides a clear indication of how the check is to be negotiated, not in "lawful money", but in "redeemed lawful money".
    It also presents the words in the case (upper/lower) as is found in the legislation, it reiterates the dollar sign and the amount.
    It also indicates that the deposit is to be in "redeemed lawful money", though I doubt such a function is possible in today's "banks".

    I suppose it could be streamlined to: Exchanged for redeemed lawful money
    or deposited for credit on account in
    same money herein stated"

    I feel that the stamp which indicates: Redeemed in Lawful Money
    Pursuant to 12 USC § 411
    http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/12C3.txt is a beauty. However, it might be most appropriate for stamping the redeemed FRNs and not for use as an endorsement qualifier unless one can show that a check can be redeemed for lawful money.


    Here is the legislation:
    Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the
    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of
    making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal
    reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose,
    are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United
    States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and
    Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public
    dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the
    Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of
    Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.
    Thank you for this, Publius.

    The check I have does use the word "DOLLARS."

    Since I will be depositing the check by mail and receiving the money via an ATM machine, would the following be appropriate?

    Deposited for credit on account #XXXXXXXXXX
    in the same money herein stated
    to be redeemed in lawful money
    Title 12 USC §411

  9. #99
    Freedave, thanks for taking the time to read through my post. I thought it to be a little dense and hope that my statements were concise.

    Depositing by mail. Well, I am no authority on this topic. I do hope that we can work together to develop the right approach for the challenges we face. I and am really hoping to stimulate a little thought and refinement on the specific wording for endorsement qualifiers (modifiers, limiters, demands). It was Dave Merrill who first opened my eyes to this function a few years back. Thanks Dave. We put our faith in the possibility that we are not without remedy, and I hope that we are successful at properly exercizing and enjoying that remedy.

    I have the convenience of ATM deposit for checks. I stamp and sign the checks and photocopy both sides, I then deposit them via ATM and the machine provides a photocopy of the face of the checks I deposited. The documentation of the qualified endorsement, I think is important. And if that qualified endorsement does do what we believe it to do, having proof that you used it may be an important defense should one be faced with defending against a claim for liability.

    Regarding a check mailed for deposit: I might offer that hand printing the first one is a good idea. I suspect I might use the following qualifier for a check submitted by mail for deposit: For deposit on account # xxxxx
    as redeemed lawful money

    I do not see the need to also insert the cite of USC since the operative phrase "redeemed lawful money" makes it clear that the deposit substance is limited to "redeemed lawful money".
    Last edited by Publius; 02-03-12 at 02:33 AM. Reason: Sphellink vas erer ridden.

  10. #100
    Quote Originally Posted by Publius View Post
    Freedave, thanks for taking the time to read through my post. I thought it to be a little dense and hope that my statements were concise.

    Depositing by mail. Well, I am no authority on this topic. I do hope that we can work together to develop the right approach for the challenges we face. I and am really hoping to stimulate a little thought and refinement on the specific wording for endorsement qualifiers (modifiers, limiters, demands). It was Dave Merrill who first opened my eyes to this function a few years back. Thanks Dave. We put our faith in the possibility that we are not without remedy, and I hope that we are successful at properly exercizing and enjoying that remedy.

    I have the convenience of ATM deposit for checks. I stamp and sign the checks and photocopy both sides, I then deposit them via ATM and the machine provides a photocopy of the face of the checks I deposited. The documentation of the qualified endorsement, I think is important. And if that qualified endorsement does do what we believe it to do, having proof that you used it may be an important defense should one be faced with defending against a claim for liability.

    Regarding a check mailed for deposit: I might offer that hand printing the first one is a good idea. I suspect I might use the following qualifier for a check submitted by mail for deposit: For deposit on account # xxxxx
    as redeemed lawful money

    I do not see the need to also insert the cite of USC since the operative phrase "redeemed lawful money" makes it clear that the deposit substance is limited to "redeemed lawful money".
    You're welcome, Publius, and thank you for your additional ideas.

    It is not clear to me why "as redeemed lawful money" would be used since I thought that the redemption would happen when I actually receive the currency (in my case via an ATM machine. That's why I had earlier asked about the possibility of using "Deposited for credit on account #XXXXXXXXXX to be redeemed in lawful money."

    Would "For deposit on account # xxxxx to be redeemed in lawful money" serve the purpose?

    And then there is the question of whether or not the deposit would be accepted without the first and last name signed in longhand on the back of the check.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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