Is Non-Endorsement the same as Demanding Lawful Money?

[Unknown]

This is one of many questions that I have because this is confusing me as I have gotten different answers.

When I first heard about this remedy, it was advised to make a stamp to put on the back of your checks that says:

DEPOSIT FOR CREDIT ON ACCOUNT OR
EXCHANGE FOR NON-NEGOTIABLE FEDERAL
RESERVE NOTES OF FACE VALUE
ACC#:________________________

And I just got the stamp in the mail

However, now that I found this site, I am hearing that it should've been:

REDEEMED LAWFUL MONEY
PURSUANT TO 12 U.S.C. SS 411

My question: is there a specific/appropriate time to use each one, is one better than the other, or do they both serve the same purpose?

One answer that I have received is that I would want to have TWO stamps, the former being to stamp on the back of the check, and the
latter to stamp on the memo/signature line on withdrawal slips.

Personally, I really don't care what they do with my money on the back end, whether they lend it out or not. I just want my demand for
lawful money to be on record. So would it make sense to just get the latter stamp and use it for withdrawal slips?

For example:

Scenario 1:

Instead of depositing the whole check, I cash part of it and deposit the rest and fill out the form like this:



Scenario 2:

When depositing the check, I stamp on the back the "instructions/endorsement":



Scenario 3:

Any time after I deposit the check, and I make a withdrawal, to do it like this:



Should I just do all three, or would one cover the others?

[David Merrill]

There are some different approaches.

That is terrific that you redeem lawful money. One fellow, who is not a suitor (yet) shared with me that he has notified the Fed bank closest to him and carries a card to the bank. Every transaction for cash the tellers make a big ceremony about getting the lawful money for him. It is fun notice.

[Unknown]

I haven't actually done this yet, though image manipulation software can make it easy to retroactively go back and "stamp" your records of deposit, but that is done privately and only YOU know about your demand. Is it therefore necessary that your "demand" needs to be on public record, or at least witnessed by your financial institution?

Haha, I might just be cynical, but that almost sounds like the bank tellers are mocking him in a way.

[American_National]

Actually, it is me who makes it a pleasant experience for the tellers involved in these transactions. I either show my green card concurrent with my transactions, or lay it flat at the teller window in plain view between me and the teller so they know it is there. Initially they will read both sides of the laminated card (the back side contains 12 USC 411 for reference), but after that - they know what it's about and what I am doing - and we have some fun with the transactions.

I would recommend keeping the burden of documenting the "Lawful Money only" character of the transaction where it belongs, which is upon the financial institution conducting the transaction, though . . . . you will avoid a lot of future conflict in sticking with this approach.

We can only control our actions, and not the actions of any other party in this regard.

We do not have any influence or control over what federal reserve or treasury regulations apply to the financial institution's operations.

We do not have any influence or control over what internal policies or procedures they have implemented to document such transactions.

We do not have any influence or control over the Department of the Treasury in how such transactions are to be handled or reported.

We do not have any influence or control over the State Attorney General's Office in their investigations regarding the settling of various types of commercial transactions.

We do not have any influence or control over the State's Banking regulatory commission and any policies that may govern how such transactions are to be conducted.

We do not have any influence or control over the Federal Reserve District's policies or procedures established to segregate such transactions as being outside their system.

By regulation (12 USC 411) we DO have control over making our demand for Lawful (Public) Money of Exchange, [United States currency Notes], a.k.a. "the emergency currency of the United States of America" known.

We are required to do nothing beyond making our demand known. . . so how can we make our demand well known? Let me give you a practical example of how this could be accomplished.

I make my demand known in the public records repository via the Clerk of Court, public records section - and they remain a trustee/custodian of my Notice and Demand for my benefit. The local financial institutions fall under the direction and control of this county court system, and are subordinate to it's orders.

I make my demand known within the Federal Reserve System via this District's branch office that services financial institutions within this area where I live via a notary witnessed 3rd party certificate of service mailing, via certified mail, return receipt via PS Form 3811 as proof of delivery. This Federal Reserve District, and it's branch offices interface with the Department of the Treasury as well as the local member institutions who handle their private credit FRN's. They remain a federal reserve system trustee/custodian of my Notice and Demand for my benefit until such time as I choose to replace the existing notice and demand with another one, or withdraw the existing one - at my discression.

Federal Reserve System District offices are established to support the operations of financial institutions in their service area who handle their private credit FRN's. Therefore these district offices maintain an authoritative/controlling relationship to the area institutions who handle their private commercial paper notes. They serve as a document repository custodian that establishes my demand within the federal reserve system for the benefit of their sister districts, the Department of the Treasury, and the local financial institutions within their service area. Through a simple one page letter, we inform our local financial institution of our Notice/Demand being in the public record at the county courthouse as well as on record at their local Federal Reserve District branch office, and recommend that they review the public record Notice/Demand and take whatever actions are necessary in accordance with applicable regulations and their local policies/procedures to annotate their account records to reflect the "lawful money only" character of our transactions at their financial institution.

My 3rd layer of demand is covered locally with a hand-held laminated GREEN card which accompanies me in every transaction performed at any financial institution.

This demand is handled via the following language on a laminated GREEN card:

Any transactions, deposits, or withdrawals, hereinafter called
"Events", are made at this financial institution with the intent
to handle or receive lawful money only. Events include, but are
not limited to, deposits, cash withdrawals, payments, or any
other type of transactions conducted with your financial institution
including the use of various types of bank cards. Said events are
subject to our superseding NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR LAWFUL MONEY
as is historically recorded in the public record within the cognizance
of the United States, and was placed in record with the express intent
to redeem any private credit instrument into lawful money pursuant to,
albeit absent any benefit from, Title 12 Section 411 of the United
States Code.

Please make whatever annotations are currently required by regulations
and/or current policies relating to your financial institution to
document the “lawful money only” character of this transaction at
this time.
THANK YOU!!!

It is the teller's job to properly annotate the "lawful money only" character of the current transaction in such a manner as to not interfere with their internal policies and procedures established to streamline the prompt settlement of these promise to pay transaction instruments between banking institutions.

For an optional/enhanced level of transaction documentation - Your deposit slips and/or receipts could be stamped with your "A regular deposit of Lawful Money as credit of like money to account" for the deposit slip, or "This is a 12 USC 411 Lawful Money Transaction" for the deposit receipts via a stamper at the teller window immediately upon the teller giving it to you upon completion of their part of the current transaction. Currently, the banks don't favor using deposit slips in such transactions, but they always give back deposit receipts to confirm the transactions which can be stamped at the teller window prior to concluding your business with the teller. Your business with the teller is not complete until such time as you depart from their teller window.

I do not do anything to potentially interfere with their internal operations previously established to handle and process such transactions.

Isn't it the Dept. of the Treasury's/Attorney General's/Federal Reserve District's job to ensure financial institution compliance to procedures in this regard?

Through using the above approach, who must the Treasury/FED/Atty General/etc. hold accountable for any failure to properly document the nature of the transaction . . . You, or the financial institutions given the lawful money transaction notices as is written about above?

Which party actively engages in pooling funds to support fractional reserve banking practices . . . You, or the financial institution?

Who is obligated by positive law to segregate lawful money amounts from funds that can be allocated/accumulated for fractional reserve banking practices i.a.w. 31 USC 5115(b)(2) . . . You, or the financial institution?

Do we remain free of any potential conflict occurring between ourselves and the financial institutions through the use of this approach and method?

"This is a lawful money transaction. We do not want any of that fake unlawful money or illegal money in this transaction. We especially do not want any of that counterfeit legal tender mixed up with our lawful money today . . . You do test for counterfeit legal tender, don't you? Could you ensure that we only get the good lawful money stuff given to us in this transaction today, please? Thanks! " :-)

Matthew 10:16 Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

[David Merrill]

Thank you for sharing - American National!

This is a newer rendition of the Notice to the Federal Reserve Bank.


Notice to Teller.
Notice to Teller Backside.


That said, here is an interesting excursion about admiralty jurisdiction:

1928 Federal Reserve Note.
1928 United States Note.

Notice the limitations on the US Note for INTEREST ON THE PUBLIC DEBT and for paying DUTIES ON IMPORTS!

That says a lot.

[Jethro]

That said, here is an interesting excursion about admiralty jurisdiction:

1928 Federal Reserve Note.
1928 United States Note.

Notice the limitations on the US Note for INTEREST ON THE PUBLIC DEBT and for paying DUTIES ON IMPORTS!

That says a lot.

David, could you please explain the admiralty jurisdiction connection in relation to FRN's and/or commercial paper?

[David Merrill]

David, could you please explain the admiralty jurisdiction connection in relation to FRN's and/or commercial paper?

Gladly! It is so simple though, that you might find it difficult to follow unless you have made the excursion in your true name, into the admiralty to exercise your remedy from the same in the name of the (state) districts.

Libel of Review.

The Constitution is elementary and admiralty document. Thirteen different nations looked outside themselves for an international unification - the United States of America. That may not be so obvious until you look at the Judiciary Act of 1789 specifically at Chapter 20 forming the Article III judiciary. It is in this Act that we find the districts are created in the States and we find our website namesake for the remedy 'saving to suitors' from automatic default into admiralty jurisdiction.

Look what happened in 1790, nearly a year later:

Note the summary notation for the bottom paragraph - duties on imports.

That is the distinction between the 1928 bills. Look at what the FRN is good for but the limitations on the US note:

The US note cannot be used for a reserve currency. Check out Title 31 USC §5115. It may be coming clear to you by now. Another way of saying it is that the obligations of the US cannot be used to pay off the obligations of the US.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[David Merrill]

Thank you for sharing - American National!

This is a newer rendition of the Notice to the Federal Reserve Bank.


Notice to Teller.
Notice to Teller Backside.


That said, here is an interesting excursion about admiralty jurisdiction:

1928 Federal Reserve Note.
1928 United States Note.

Notice the limitations on the US Note for INTEREST ON THE PUBLIC DEBT and for paying DUTIES ON IMPORTS!

That says a lot.

Notwithstanding.

That is a tricky word in that Notice and Demand.

Not withstanding any other provision of law or contractual obligations; NO contract, nor shall...

I am just mentioning it because it might be clearer that only contracts outside the scope of the fraud by omission are spoken of here. Otherwise it might seem contradictory that all contracts are void nunc pro tunc, but those by provision of law or contract are still good.

[American_National]

Not withstanding any other provision of law or contractual obligations; NO contract, nor shall...

Agreed.

That is why this unique dual-clause semicolon link structure was employed within this part of the Notice and Demand document. Semicolons are used to link two independent clauses to connect closely related ideas. The ?not withstanding? clause in this regard must play second fiddle to the clear and unambiguous prohibition clause that follows it. The "NO contract, nor shall any provision thereof, act or operate in any way or manner, to eliminate, diminish, or conflict with any provision contained within this Notice and Demand" part would remain in effect if the first clause was somehow shown to be inapplicable or invalid. The resultant effect would be like that of a severability clause that does not change the fundamental nature of the Notice and Demand.

Think about how many account agreements and/or signature cards the banks have required us to sign without allowing us to read or modify/annotate what is written on the contract. Present day, they require us to sign an electronic signature capture pad - and offer the account holder NOTHING showing what documents or contracts the financial institution has placed the electronic signature on. The above Notice and Demand provisions were specifically included in this document to offset and nullify such abusive financial institution practices.

How would others here on this forum suggest rewording the paragraph below to be more concise in this regard and possibly work in the fraud by omission language David was referring to in his previous post?

This Notice and Demand is now on, and for, the lawful record and is within the cognizance of the

United States. Notwithstanding any other contractual obligation or any provision of law; NO contract, nor

shall any provision thereof, act or operate in any way or manner, to eliminate, diminish, or conflict with

any provision contained within this Notice and demand. Any and all parties claiming to preside, act or

operate from within that realm are duly advised.

[Freed Gerdes]

Notwithstanding.

That is a tricky word in that Notice and Demand.



I am just mentioning it because it might be clearer that only contracts outside the scope of the fraud by omission are spoken of here. Otherwise it might seem contradictory that all contracts are void nunc pro tunc, but those by provision of law or contract are still good.

Might I suggest this wording instead:

"Not withstanding any other provision of law or contractual obligations; NO{delete this, and substitute]
As the above demand is my explicit choice under the option provided in 12 USCode 411, the highest law of the land, to eschew any and all use of
Federal Reserve credit, no provision of any contract for private credit with any lesser entity shall be construed to act or operate in any way or manner to eliminate, diminish, supersede, or otherwise modify any provision contained within this Notice and demand. This Notice and Demand is
now on and for the lawful record and is within the cognizance of the United States. Any and all parties
claiming to preside, act or operate from within that realm are duly advised."

Please advise whether this suggested form is preferable, especially whether "law of the land" invites difficulties with regard to admiralty law.

Freed

[Edited several weeks later:] After giving this some more thought, I perceive that the 'notwithstanding' issue can be resolved by emphasizing the explicit, which always takes precedence over the implicit. Since the Fed Reserve and its bankster minions want to create a record which proves that you are a taxpayer, but do not want to mention lawful money, their contracts always use inference and assumpsit to achieve their purpose, but this is implied agreement, which can be trumped by explicit demand. So the Notice should say:
This Notice and Demand is now on, and for, the lawful record and is within the cognizance of the United States. This Demand is Explicit for the Redemption of Lawful Money. No term of any other contract, which term seeks to establish, through inference, assumpsit, or words of art, that an implicit request has been made to use Federal Reserve credit, shall supercede this explicit Demand, or impair such Demand in any way. Any and all parties claiming to preside, act or operate from within that realm are duly advised.

It would seem that with this Notice and Demand on record, you would be free to contract for a bank credit card, using lawful money... the contract specifies a debtor/creditor relationship, but it does not specify the notes in which the credit balances would be kept. Seems to me that the bank would now be in the position of having to rebut your presumption.

Freed