Lawful Money and the Bank

[Michael Joseph]

The manager at the bank called me within 24 hours of opening an (interest free checking) account, and claimed to have talked with a lawyer already. She wanted me to come and close the account, or fill out new paper work absent the redemption stamp on the sig. card, and absent the rights reservations i made on other docs.
To be clear, i did not include any reservation of rights in the sig. card. i just used the standard phrase you see around here.

She wouldn't even tell me its name. i asked her on the phone to have the attorner call me (since i obviously couldn't call it) and she said it wasn't any use. He'd just tell me the same thing she was. He's on contract with them after all, and can't really talk to me. [You know, like, i'm guessing he'd bill them for having to deal with me? They're already losing money having to ask him to review my stuff.]
"It's against bank policy. The stamp restricts the bank. We don't allow restricted endorsements. The reservation of rights alters the agreement. "

Anyway, i expressed my desire to her, to have the attorner prove his claim that the stamp is restrictive, or is included by me with intent to restrict the bank. i haven't heard from him. i thoroughly questioned her assumptions and nominalizations, and got no responsive answers; just subject changes.

If you know of a law that they might be violating, could charges be pressed against them? But, i'd like to find a way to gently persuade them to cash my checks for me, and maintain the account. i kinda like the place: small bank, free coffee, farm fresh eggs are sold there by a teller's daughter, nice people, convenient locations.

This call may be recorded for training purposes.

[allodial]

if you know of a law that they might be violating, could charges be pressed against them? But, i'd like to find a way to gently persuade them to cash my checks for me, and maintain the account. I kinda like the place: Small bank, free coffee, farm fresh eggs are sold there by a teller's daughter, nice people, convenient locations.

18 USC 241.

Perhaps you can ask them if their policy is greater than Title 18 of the United States Code (ask as in don't tell anything...just ask)? Perhaps fax them a copy of 18 USC 241 with your simple one-question cover letter? Perhaps you could also ask them if they are licensed by a State of the United States or by the United States?

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

The option to use restrictive endorsements rather than blank is part of the 'game'. To tell you that you cannot use a restrictive endorsement is to say that you cannot enjoy applicable rights, privileges or immunities, isn't it? Isn't 12 USC 411 a law of the United States?

[Chex]

Coinkeepers:

In a peculiar series of events, it would appear that some of the various United States are pondering the re-introduction of precious metals as a means and method of paying State government fees and other fees related to matters arising in an intrastate context. It would appear as though the Commonwealth of Virginia is taking the lead in this matter by proposing measures which could eventually lead to the State government adopting precious metals as the means of payment for State government services.

[doug-again]

To save space, i didn't wanna quote that whole paypal thing David. Suffice it to say that i am having a difficult time interpreting your interpretation, and discerning whatever idea you're trying to get across to me, exactly. i think i read over the other thread that you posted that on, and the whole thing just goes right over my head man. No offense - just saying.

Buy some eggs and enjoy the coffee. Compliment them all and let them know how much you like them and that particular bank.

You have a way with language that's so, ah, fresh sometimes; yet not without a little salt.

Let them know that even though you will be using them only as a repository for safely storing your funds, that you are suggesting they do so interest-free.

Slow down speed reader. You missed the parenthetical. No suggestions to be made now on those lines, the interest free account is set up already.

Tell them you never really wanted any legal advice, and thinking about it, you never got any. The lady only relayed hearsay to you from what I hear (punny). Politely let them know that it is now time you advised the attorneys not to shut down your business with them. [Point being that you like them and you will not put them asunder by doing it yourself. Do not sign anything but your non-endorsement and tender your business. Keep a recorder, or bring a witness might be wise but if that does not feel right...]

David Merrill.

Point taken on the hearsay. i threw that word around a few times. It's nice to be on the same page with you. To save time, lemme just type out a part of the agreement i signed,

ACCOUNT TERMINATION. You and we agree that either of us may close your account and terminate this agreement at any time with or without cause.

If you want me to scan it to prove this, say so. Really though, you're right. All i think i can do is sweet talk them. After all, another "MISCELLANEOUS PROVISION" says,

You agree to be liable to us, to the extent permitted by law, for any loss, costs, or expenses from your account without prior notice to you or to bill you separately. This obligation includes disputes between you and us involving your account.... It also includes situations where any action taken on your account by you .... causes us to seek advice of an attorney, whether or not we actually become involved in a dispute.

So with this i segue to alloidial's 18 USC 241.
They're holding several hundred deposited dollars (that i worked long and hard for) which could quickly, without notice, be gobbled up by their attorner - should they interpret this matter as a dispute related to "my account." (i hope not to be lectured on how the account is not mine. Please, whoever's rarrin' to digress on this, spare me. i know, ok?)

There IS great wisdom in questioning. Coupled with mj's idea about recording it all; what a way to make the record! Really awesome rhetorical questions you posed there 'loid; o man i'm so glad yer still around.

For now, to those here, i ask:
Do i have a right to cash a check at their bank? Do i have a right to an equitable interest in an account at the same? Could i prove to a jury that i was intimidated by the bank manager? i venture the defensible answer to all 3 is no. Is there palpable damage here, in being told to redo the forms or close the account? Yes, time lost working, but that's small claims stuff.

If a bank refuses to redeem lawful money, is there a penalty?
Is not the shall in "they shall be redeemed..." the commercial nexus?
If so, what or where is the penalty, and who doles it out?

Thanks for your time folks,
regards,
d.

[doug-again]

This call may be recorded for training purposes.

Gotta way to do that on a cell phone, out in the field? Thank ya.

[David Merrill]

My point was basically that they have fiduciary responsibility to stockholders. Shutting down even an interest-free account is unwise. For example you have the right to go buy a picketing license and walk back and forth in front of their bank with a big sign tied on - front and back. They may go asunder anyway, just out of poor risk management.

One thing new though - Congress raised the Debt Ceiling. This may embolden your bank to violate your right.

You have a right to do business there so long as you are within the constraints of the law. My explorations on Quatloos are showing up even here. One Quatlude is bringing to light that PayPal and your bank may be extraterritorial nations with their own internal policies acting for the law. The idea that you can sign on for a law where they can freeze your funds from you during a dispute is foreign to this constitutional republic called America. It smacks of law by agreement, not constitution.

Mostly my point was that it is not them shutting down your account. They have not violated you yet. Only distracted you into feeling violated.



http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/9...ormfederal.pdf

[shikamaru]

Gotta way to do that on a cell phone, out in the field? Thank ya.

I'm sure there is. Do you have a smartphone and Android Market?

[allodial]

If they are holding funds beloning to you, notify them in writing of your intent to file a UCC Financing Statement showing that your person as bailor and them as bailee--and that the FS is to be effective as long as the dispute or until your money has been returned to an account. I concur that: as the Taxman may have a fiduciary duty to collect the tax bank staff have a fiduciary duty to bank stockholders to quit turning business away.

Anymore, I'm into filing criminal complaints under 18 USC 241. To stop the sh--shenanigans.

A cop amidst a group of about 7 cuffed me one nights for a few minutes for not having a social security number or a last name. AFTER the State had already been notified and had agreed me to be free from culpability to any U.S. person or legal entity. By cuffing me they all potentially committed a host of crimes and conspired to violate numerous treaties. Once I advised the duty boss as to My rights as a sovereign, they all disappeared. But wait--cuffing me was a crime regardless of whatever. There was no reason for the stop whatsoever--I was on foot near a busy 24/7 restaurant. But yet 8 or so cops single me out? Knowing full well that I already do not have an SSN. They were hell-bent on getting me to confess to having an SSN and being a U.S citizen knowing me to be otherwise. As for laws they transgressed or violated:

* Hague Regulation 45 (can't force people to swear allegiance--forcing confession to being a citizen of a State is akin to a forced allegiance);
* Can't handcuff me for not having an SSN --its kidnapping/manstealing.
* Reducing men or filii dei to chattel is against the law.
* Peonage is against the law.
* They violated numerous treaties
* Rebellion/sedition
* Opposing/resisting the laws of the United States (war crime potentially)
* Racketeering
* Stopping someone threatening deadly force to obtain information about financial accounts is a crime

They also ALL exposed themselves to civil liability as well as criminal. The moment they cuffed me they all violated 18 USC 241 as a group. Though My rights do not come from the US Constitution they are guaranteed implicitly.

[doug-again]

i've read more about the UCC, than i have of the actual code itself. i lack the continuity of experience to apply any of it to my life. i know better than to ask you, 'loid, or anyone, to hold my hand in the use thereof. But that stuff is still so way over my head, that i require no less than a tutor at this point, to move in that direction. Experiential learning in a DIY format or lesson plan, is practical for a single guy without kids, but i have too much to lose now.
Rent needs to be paid today, and they got the bread i worked so hard for. My receipt thereof MAY hinge on my decision to either move forward on their terms or close the account and try again elsewhere. While i have paid PLENTY tuition in traffic courts, those were the days when i had excess to spend on learning, being courageous and trying to take a stand, or whatever.

The matter needs to be resolved today. i beg any readers to refrain from judging me as having waited to the last minute to seek counsel or prepare at all for this. i am always preparing, and am just not competent yet, to deal with matters like this. This thing happened suddenly, and within 24 hours i logged in to share what's happening.

Nara, ya, the droid/ smartphone is the obvious, high dollar answer. Thanks.

[Anthony Joseph]

If they are holding funds beloning to you, notify them in writing of your intent to file a UCC Financing Statement showing that your person as bailor and them as bailee--and that the FS is to be effective as long as the dispute or until your money has been returned to an account. I concur that: as the Taxman may have a fiduciary duty to collect the tax bank staff have a fiduciary duty to bank stockholders to quit turning business away.

Anymore, I'm into filing criminal complaints under 18 USC 241. To stop the sh--shenanigans.

A cop amidst a group of about 7 cuffed me one nights for a few minutes for not having a social security number or a last name. AFTER the State had already been notified and had agreed me to be free from culpability to any U.S. person or legal entity. By cuffing me they all potentially committed a host of crimes and conspired to violate numerous treaties. Once I advised the duty boss as to My rights as a sovereign, they all disappeared. But wait--cuffing me was a crime regardless of whatever. There was no reason for the stop whatsoever--I was on foot near a busy 24/7 restaurant. But yet 8 or so cops single me out? Knowing full well that I already do not have an SSN. They were hell-bent on getting me to confess to having an SSN and being a U.S citizen knowing me to be otherwise. As for laws they transgressed or violated:

* Hague Regulation 45 (can't force people to swear allegiance--forcing confession to being a citizen of a State is akin to a forced allegiance);
* Can't handcuff me for not having an SSN --its kidnapping/manstealing.
* Reducing men or filii dei to chattel is against the law.
* Peonage is against the law.
* They violated numerous treaties
* Rebellion/sedition
* Opposing/resisting the laws of the United States (war crime potentially)
* Racketeering
* Stopping someone threatening deadly force to obtain information about financial accounts is a crime

They also ALL exposed themselves to civil liability as well as criminal. The moment they cuffed me they all violated 18 USC 241 as a group. Though My rights do not come from the US Constitution they are guaranteed implicitly.

Allodial - I like your style and your unique angles on issues and dealings with the "PTB".

I have a question for you regarding your use of criminal complaints under 18 USC 241:

Are you a "person" in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District of the United States?

It seems to me that one would also have to openly accept the validly formed and recorded oath of offices sworn by men and women - "so help me God" - in order to NOT have his/her unalienable rights violated by such an oath taker. The "USC" is private code which invokes NO appeal to a higher power as a punishing authority. It is agreement and law by contract if one fits the character of a "person" in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District of the United States.

Just my thoughts on the subject.