EXCELLENT! You may also ask them if they are attempting to give you legal advice or represent you. ;-) You may advise them about "practicing law without a license". LOLOriginally Posted by gdude
EXCELLENT! You may also ask them if they are attempting to give you legal advice or represent you. ;-) You may advise them about "practicing law without a license". LOL
don't go,
what can they do?
Well today I logged on to my account..it was still open.
So I called my contact at the bank and she apologized and said she would close it today...I told her I changed my mind and leave it open. She asked if I was going to come in and resign the sig card, I said "no, your legal department could not cite any legal authority to prevent me from annotating the card.... because it is the law...I also pointed out that what we have is a valid contract.
She said they may have to close the account without a resigned card. I replied that they would have to be the ones to close the account and I am not going to resign a valid contract.
Thanks! The only problem I see is that you called her. Technically I feel that you made an appearance. Now she has notified you that she might close the account without your consent and that notice is verbal so it is difficult for you to R4C. There are plenty of banks though and kind of a shame on that bank if you have to go through this again down the street.
Did you inquire of the papers about interest?
Also there is some freeware called ROP (for Record on Phone - obviously Chinese). If you use a landline it records well through the modem connector.
Well, I will see how it plays out, I informed her that I had informed my bosses CPA that I had changed banks and they direct deposit on the 15 and 30....the 15th falls on Tuesday...she said she would wait until the deposit comes through.
I could call the CPA Monday and revert back to my old account.
Do you think a general Demand, notarized and registered with the County Recorder, and send copies to the local FED branch and my old bank would suffice?
This is probably a case of "next time". You can likely wait until the deposit is rejected because it never will be rejected. Following the brain trust shows that one bank fired employees because they were making general deposits instead of special deposits in a similar situation. They closed down several accounts but they had lost a lot of money after ignoring the non-endorsements. This bank administrator has an obligation to stockholders not to be shutting down accounts when you are doing nothing wrong - for just demanding lawful money.
You might freshen up on a Notice and Demand of some sort. I think in the future we might have to settle for affidavits of due diligence. One suitor tried a Fed branch and then a Major 12 and they are rejecting process from the professional server. That may be a trend. But you see we have them concerned when they have shut down receiving process. The Fed is not a governmental agency. They are behaving like the UN Campus on Manhattan, like they are international soil too.
It is amazing to me that they can reject a demand that they are obligated to receive and process. What a lawless bunch to even to go as far as rejecting service!
As best I can tell the only basis would be interest. If you change your standing Signature Card on an interest-bearing account be sure to specify that you want it adjusted to a non-interest bearing account.
Too all Suitors,
I may be wrong with my thinking below, so please feel free to correct me if I am.
They have told you that you MUST sign the signature card relinquishing your UNALIENABLE RIGHTS and succumb to being a 14th amendment statutory debt slave in order to open a bank account.
Further more they are demanding that you enter into a contract with the Federal Reserve and endorse private credit.
Basically, you are being COERCED into surrendering your 13th amendment rights into INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE, then DECEIVED into contract with the IMF and forced to participate in a HIDDEN BANKRUPTCY and FRAUD against the people of the united states for america.
I have to wonder how the banks legal dept would feel about their employees committing such atrocities against their customers.
================================================== ================================================== ================
R.I.C.O.
“racketeering activity” means (A) any act or threat involving murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act), which is chargeable under State law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year; (B) any act which is indictable under any of the following provisions of title 18, United States Code: Section 201 (relating to bribery), section 224 (relating to sports bribery), sections 471, 472, and 473 (relating to counterfeiting), section 659 (relating to theft from interstate shipment) if the act indictable under section 659 is felonious, section 664 (relating to embezzlement from pension and welfare funds), sections 891–894 (relating to extortionate credit transactions), section 1028 (relating to fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents)
finish reading here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1961
================================================== ================================================== ===============
31 CFR §202.2: All banks that are FDIC insured are considered to be part of the U.S. government! --- Use this regulation in combination with the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. §552a) to request information from banks! Also force the banks to follow the Constitution when they try to force you to incriminate yourself by providing an SSN to open an account!
202.2
Designations.
(a) Financial institutions of the following classes are designated as Depositaries and Financial Agents of the Government if they meet the eligibility requirements stated in paragraph (b) of this section:
(1) Financial institutions insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
(2) Credit unions insured by the National Credit Union Administration.
(3) Banks, savings banks, savings and loan, building and loan, and homestead associations, credit unions created under the laws of any State, the deposits or accounts of which are insured by a State or agency thereof or by a corporation chartered by a State for the sole purpose of insuring deposits or accounts of such financial institutions, United States branches of foreign banking corporations authorized by the State in which they are located to transact commercial banking business, and Federal branches of foreign banking corporations, the establishment of which has been approved by the Comptroller of the Currency.
(b) In order to be eligible for designation, a financial institution is required to possess, under its charter and the regulations issued by its chartering authority, either general or specific authority to perform the services outlined in § 202.3(b). A financial institution is required also to possess the authority to pledge collateral to secure public funds.
[44 FR 53066, Sept. 11, 1979, as amended at 46 FR 28152, May 26, 1981; 62 FR 45521, Aug. 27, 1997]
Going out on a limb here with some Crosstalk:
Dear Suitors;
I have been considering the report of being vexed by suitors being charged frivolous penalties after redeeming lawful money. I have a fairly clear memory and also filter even suitor testimony through loose rules of evidence.
It seems to me that there are to date no instances of a suitor filing a redeemed lawful money Income Tax Return and actually being fined a frivolous filing penalty. We have one suitor who a couple years ago received inappropriate threats about frivolous correspondence and interpreted that to mean there would be a $5K bill coming if the R4C’s continued. In another case a suitor resorted to a tax attorney who reported the IRS agent was threatening the $5K FrivPen by phone. The most credible evidence that somebody has been charged a frivpen on a fully executed Lawful Money Return (2011) has only received the Notice that there will be a $5K FrivPen coming some time – not an actual bill for the $5K.
The two suitors who have been dealing with FrivPens from HENDRICKSON’s Cracking the Code Zero-Returns do not come into the same category as Redeemed Lawful Money tax returns. I believe those suitors have inadvertently attracted a slur on our process because the IRS agents are looking for ways to boil HENDRICKSON’s conviction and prison stay onto redeeming lawful money process.
I would like to be kept up on any of these developments so that I may respond to such skepticism on the brain trust broadcasts with accurate information for everyone. I do not like to have one “researcher” (suitors technically have default judgments published) among us with the impression that many suitors are being charged FrivPens and casting aspersions on process, when I am under the impression that there has been no such billing infractions against Title 12 USC §411 by any IRS agents to date. Remember an actual bill is a bill of indictment against the IRS/Treasury and we can use that if it exists.
Please email to me, or us, if you have an actual bill for a FrivPen resulting from a tax return based entirely on redeeming lawful money accounting. Please consider and be willing to discuss prosecuting the IRS agent if you have an actual $5K bill of indictment.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Last edited by David Merrill; 01-13-13 at 10:24 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote