Lawful Money and the Bank

[David Merrill]

Updated Sample Demand Letter - V02

Note: Changed last line to: "... to said demand herein."

Doug

Thank you for sharing that.

I have a couple questions;

What are the Exigent Circumstances?

Where would this be published? Or who is notified?

[doug555]

The Exigent Circumstances is "national emergency" since 1861...

Upon non-response to this demand, I would do a Privacy Act request for the currently-effective signature card on file for the account, including all amendments thereto.

Upon receipt, would record a copy with affidavit in support in county, and get a certified copy back out.

Then mail copies of that to all pertinent parties as needed.

If allonge-amendment is missing from card, then file suit in a court of equity for breach of trust and violation of 12 USC 411, to get a declaratory judgment that the allonge-amendment is effective on the account, using Rod Class's Amended Complaint 2 as a template to start with...

[David Merrill]

The Exigent Circumstances is "national emergency" since 1861...

Upon non-response to this demand, I would do a Privacy Act request for the currently-effective signature card on file for the account, including all amendments thereto.

Upon receipt, would record a copy with affidavit in support in county, and get a certified copy back out.

Then mail copies of that to all pertinent parties as needed.

If allonge-amendment is missing from card, then file suit in a court of equity for breach of trust and violation of 12 USC 411, to get a declaratory judgment that the allonge-amendment is effective on the account, using Rod Class's Amended Complaint 2 as a template to start with...

Yes, a counterclaim. Suitors have been doing this last part for years now. The Certificate of Search functions as a standing judgment - Failure to State a Claim for which Relief may be Granted.

This is the first time I have seen the entire Emergency addressed so efficiently.

The Libel of Review focus is on the 1917 Trading With the Enemy Act.

The reason that I asked the questions I did is because of this efficiency, you may be opening up some innovations. My Comptroller Warrant to the IMFIRS (in accord with Are You Lost at C?), by the timing alone triggered the Montana Freeman Standoff by pressing for pre-1861 lawful money as I avoided citing the UCC with my "endorsement".

Ergo, if you were to sanitize the SSN and account #, publish this notice at the county clerk and recorder there today or Monday, and the Government were to shut down you might have some interesting synchronicity. You are actually making a lawful stand against the entire extraordinary occasion, are you not? I think if you published it locally and at the secretary of state too (postmarked today) - in lieu of UCC as common law - then you might very well be making history.

I recognize your asseveration as the kind of thing I would do and have often done. Therefore I am giving recognition namaste' - which is to say that I recognize the Holy Spirit of God guides you in your endeavor. It is obviously nothing more than an attached and fully incorporated demand for lawful money designed to be filed with any Signature Card on a non-interest bearing checking or savings account but I doubt you will have any luck getting it filed with a bank until you have the apostille of the SoS on it. - Maybe the Department of State.

Look at this Notice on the second page:

http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/6262/20mlien16.jpg
http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/9568/20mlien17.jpg

So you might just leave the SSN and account # blank to be filled in by hand when opening or proposing the novation to a current account. Likely, you will get a rejection from the SoS at first instructing you to utilize a UCC-1 Finance Statement but at that time, the SoS is recognizing the UCC will be binding law.

Ergo why I am saying you may move this into the larger "private" of Federal Reserve Banking and the entire scope of fiat currency.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[doug555]

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...d0907400%29%29

Abraham Lincoln, in his Proclamation on April 15, 1861 used the "extraordinary occasion" to summon [establish] a Congress under the Executive Branch of the "sine die" government of March 28. This is where the "dictatorship" started, destroying the Union it intended to preserve, IMHO. See above link, Lincoln's last paragraph.

[Rock Anthony]

The Exigent Circumstances is "national emergency" since 1861...

Upon non-response to this demand, I would do a Privacy Act request for the currently-effective signature card on file for the account, including all amendments thereto.

Upon receipt, would record a copy with affidavit in support in county, and get a certified copy back out.

Then mail copies of that to all pertinent parties as needed.

If allonge-amendment is missing from card, then file suit in a court of equity for breach of trust and violation of 12 USC 411, to get a declaratory judgment that the allonge-amendment is effective on the account, using Rod Class's Amended Complaint 2 as a template to start with...

It has been explained to me by two different banks that common banking practice is to micro-film the signature card (front and back) and then destroy the original. With that being said, there is no actual signature card to which your novation may be attached. Based on my own experience, the bank will reject your request without offering any recourse. But there is recourse!

I suggest that you go to the bank and submit a new signature card, and include any novations to the current agreement onto that new agreement. An ink stamper with your novations does the job nicely - just stamp the card. This way, your novations will be micro-filmed into their records. Any bank personnel that views the micro-film under a magnifier will see your novations.

If you get any flack from the low-level employees regarding the novation, speak something similar to these "magic" words:

"You're saying that I cannot make such a novation to the signature card? Well, may you please consult your legal department? I'm certain that such a novation is both lawful and legal, but I can understand that you may be unsure. I am entitled to this privilege, and would hate to be illegally denied this privilege because you've decided to make a legal determination on behalf of the bank. Are you an attorney? Only licensed attornies may practice law, and only licensed attornies hired by the bank to represent the bank in legal matters may make legal determinations for the bank."

I recently opened what I call a "lawful money checking account" at Bank of America. BoA's legal department verified for the low-level bank personnel that my amendment to the agreement is okay. Well, the personal banker didn't offer to run this by Legal (initially the application with amendment was flat out refused), but rather I had to insist! I find that these low-level employees operate off of 'gut feeling' rather than according to law and policy. I also find that reminding them that they can get in trouble for the unlicensed practice of law encourages them to work through the proper channels.

[doug-again]

If you get any flack from the low-level employees regarding the novation, speak something similar to these "magic" words:

"You're saying that I cannot make such a novation to the signature card? Well, may you please consult your legal department? I'm certain that such a novation is both lawful and legal, but I can understand that you may be unsure. I am entitled to this privilege, and would hate to be illegally denied this privilege because you've decided to make a legal determination on behalf of the bank. Are you an attorney? Only licensed attornies may practice law, and only licensed attornies hired by the bank to represent the bank in legal matters may make legal determinations for the bank."

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.

[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.

[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.

[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 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?