Resistance and Refusal by Banks

[Freed Gerdes]

Not all Bank of America branches are cooperative. I filed my demand with the Registrar of Deeds for the county, then sent the bank a certified copy by certified mail. The bank returned it, stating that it 'had no legal significance.' I resent it, with a letter stating that if they refused to redeem FRN's, then the income tax was unconstitutional. The bank sent this response: "We are in receipt of the purported Notice and Demand for Lawful Money. We have also received a second request Dated July 15, 2012, based on our reply. Please be advised that this document also has no legal relevance and therefore, no action has been taken or is required by the bank. We are therefore returning this document to you as well, and still consider the matter closed." signed by Anthony Petrella, Banking Center Manager II, etc.

I am preparing my 1040A form now, and will include a letter stating the particulars of the Notice filed with the county (including a certified copy), and the dates of the letters sent to the three banks that I use. The letter states that since lawful money is 'income from a non-taxable source, such transactions should not be reported on Form 1040, as it is specifically for reporting of taxable income.' So we will see if the IRS takes the same view as Bank of America...

Bank of America also states in their Account Agreement (available only online) that their policy is to ignore any special conditions written on the back of the check. But their Account Agreement does not say that the account must be held in FRN's, only in dollars.

[David Merrill]

Not all Bank of America branches are cooperative. I filed my demand with the Registrar of Deeds for the county, then sent the bank a certified copy by certified mail. The bank returned it, stating that it 'had no legal significance.' I resent it, with a letter stating that if they refused to redeem FRN's, then the income tax was unconstitutional. The bank sent this response: "We are in receipt of the purported Notice and Demand for Lawful Money. We have also received a second request Dated July 15, 2012, based on our reply. Please be advised that this document also has no legal relevance and therefore, no action has been taken or is required by the bank. We are therefore returning this document to you as well, and still consider the matter closed." signed by Anthony Petrella, Banking Center Manager II, etc.

I am preparing my 1040A form now, and will include a letter stating the particulars of the Notice filed with the county (including a certified copy), and the dates of the letters sent to the three banks that I use. The letter states that since lawful money is 'income from a non-taxable source, such transactions should not be reported on Form 1040, as it is specifically for reporting of taxable income.' So we will see if the IRS takes the same view as Bank of America...

Bank of America also states in their Account Agreement (available only online) that their policy is to ignore any special conditions written on the back of the check. But their Account Agreement does not say that the account must be held in FRN's, only in dollars.

It would be great if you could scan and sanitize those letters and attach them please?

What you have is Proof of Service. I think that Registered Mailing or better yet professional process server to the local Federal Reserve Bank would finish that process.

We have a verbal report from a suitor that accounts were closed and employees fired over not giving "special" treatment to the funds demanded redeemed in lawful money. Also, we have a few reports about a suitor doing nothing and the account being closed.

Yours has a different flavor. The attorneys (presuming this is signed by legal counsel) are trying to convince you that your demand has no legal relevance? That is a new tact if memory serves me. To go through the trouble of informing you that your demand has no legal relevance and return your papers to you. The letter in itself is proof of service and they even refer to your demand. Therefore if they lump your funds into reserve funds for fractional lending they have composed their own confession for counterfeiting money and filed that confession in a court of competent jurisdiction - you.

This does beg the question however; are you accepting and receiving interest from any of these accounts?


Regards,

David Merrill.

[mikecz]

Not all Bank of America branches are cooperative. I filed my demand with the Registrar of Deeds for the county, then sent the bank a certified copy by certified mail. The bank returned it, stating that it 'had no legal significance.' I resent it, with a letter stating that if they refused to redeem FRN's, then the income tax was unconstitutional. The bank sent this response: "We are in receipt of the purported Notice and Demand for Lawful Money. We have also received a second request Dated July 15, 2012, based on our reply. Please be advised that this document also has no legal relevance and therefore, no action has been taken or is required by the bank. We are therefore returning this document to you as well, and still consider the matter closed." signed by Anthony Petrella, Banking Center Manager II, etc.

I am preparing my 1040A form now, and will include a letter stating the particulars of the Notice filed with the county (including a certified copy), and the dates of the letters sent to the three banks that I use. The letter states that since lawful money is 'income from a non-taxable source, such transactions should not be reported on Form 1040, as it is specifically for reporting of taxable income.' So we will see if the IRS takes the same view as Bank of America...

Bank of America also states in their Account Agreement (available only online) that their policy is to ignore any special conditions written on the back of the check. But their Account Agreement does not say that the account must be held in FRN's, only in dollars.

Yes, please sanitize and post your letters as well the letters from the bank. I just read the Miracle on Main Street, and just didn't realize this one man, F. Tupper Saussy, for a short period put the banksters in the back seat. He started a small revolution with the law. As David repeatedly states, a remedy must exist for those competent to give it. I feel a technique to prove this out through correspondence with banks/IRS/gov't officials is needed for it to take hold. Freed, you seem to be on to something. IMO, in your letters, lawful money must be recognized and separated from other currency. It also needs to be certified by the IRS as non taxable, in letter form. We have a few on this site showing suitors receiving full return of with holdings, suitors not obliged to pay back taxes because "some" of the income was in lawful money. But a correspondence from the IRS with the words "lawful money" in them, although might be a dream, is necessary.

Freed, I wanted to see on the letter where the bank states "since lawful money is income from a non-taxable source, such transaction should not be reported on Form 1040..." Excellent work, and your diligence is not only appreciated, but necessary.

Changing the law 31 USC 371 only kicked the can further down the road. It just set up another barrier, the remedy still exists. David, your work is admirable, and of the same revolutionary path as Saussy. Money has no meaning to date, at least last I checked. It's been changed a great many times over the years and now the clear definition does not exist.