Page 14 of 17 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 168

Thread: Resistance and Refusal by Banks

  1. #131
    The banks' refusal of demands for lawful money are a stall tactic, designed to infuse doubt into the claim. The bank service agreement contains a lot of opportunities to create implied contracts, making you admit to being a 'US citizen' (read: debt slave), and stating that the bank will ignore anything written on the back of your check besides your endorsement. If you file your notice and demand in the public record, and then serve it on the bank, the demand will supercede the implied contracts on the bank signature page. But what if the bank denies your demand, as Bank of America did to me (thrice)? Can the bank refuse a demand for lawful money? Can they pretend that their refusal of your demand (notice: they did not refuse for cause; they claim the demand "has no legal significance") maintains the legal validity of your signature card on file? They can. Will it matter? I doubt it. Here is why: you make your demand, which takes your deposits out of the Federal Reserve fractional reserve lending system. These deposits of lawful money cannot be used for reserves. What it really means is that the bank cannot lend using your credit, because you refused to accept responsibility for the debt the bank wants to create in your name. By refusing to endorse new debt in your name, you avoid 'dealing in Federal Reserve debt securities,' which is the step which creates the irreccusable obligation to file a return and pay taxes on the private money you used. So you have no obligation to pay income taxes on these deposits. So you go to the IRS and file for a refund of all taxes withheld. The IRS says prove you redeemed. You produce (a copy of) your demand and the letter serving the demand on the bank. You have met the requirements of 12 USC 411: you made your demand. The bank, by pretending that your demand is meaningless, is just trying to plant that element of fear/doubt that maybe you can't believe everything you read on the internet. The banking cartel has been using lies, fraud, and misdirection since 1692, don't let it bother you; press on.

    ps. I believe my bank wants to deny the demand because they do not want to have agreed in writing that my deposits are now special deposits, which must be returned in kind, rather than general deposits, which become unsecured loans to the bank. Bank of America has been planning for some time to go bankrupt, and the current plan is that when they do, they will confiscate the depositors accounts, which they can do because the account agreement they make you sign makes you an unsecured creditor, ie, you will stand at the end of a long line of secured creditors during a bankruptcy. Special deposits would be at the front of that bankruptcy line, as their confiscation would constitute theft by bailee...

    Freed

  2. #132
    I am not sure I got it when the suitor explained this to me. Look on the last page at the email he sent me. What he said is that by not being in the Table there are no set guidelines or forms for making your demand proper. I get that much easily.

    What he said though is that you only have to prove that you have made your demand one time and one time only, and that is good for life.

  3. #133
    Am I wrong to understand that unless a check (or similar instrument) is endorsed, it is non-negotiable? And that banks can accept deposits even endorsed in blank? I'm sorry to go over ground that I'm sure has been covered most exhaustively on this site, but unless there is an endorsement, then the instrument remains non-negotiable.

    So "non-endorsing" is an attempt to enter an instrument into the banking system without liability. Great! This seems to be (to me) the source of all the problems with banks. They're just not set up to deal with demands for lawful money. I think that's why the statute says demand must be made at Treasury or at one of the 12 Federal Reserve Banks.

    Now lately I've been wondering about sending notice of demand to the Treasurer (Rosie Rios), maybe even asking her to provide an identifying number of some sort identifying my particular demand (or asking her to agree to one I provide); and then continuing to make deposits at my normal bank by writing down on the back the account number only. When the checks clear, write a check made out to "Lawful Money" and use the cash. After all, the people from whom I accept a check are dealing in banking credit. It only seems fair to follow their request.

    At that point - since I never actually receive anything but cash - I can't imagine why I would need to file a return.

    Thoughts?

  4. #134
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    I am not sure I got it when the suitor explained this to me. Look on the last page at the email he sent me. What he said is that by not being in the Table there are no set guidelines or forms for making your demand proper. I get that much easily.

    What he said though is that you only have to prove that you have made your demand one time and one time only, and that is good for life.
    Below is the rest of the email... It does NOT say one only needs to do it ONCE. In fact ever since 9/15/2011, I have handwritten my exact specific declaration on the FACE of every check and deposit slip I issue.... just to make it CLEAR by a PREPONDERENCE of substantive evidence under their FRE Exception to Hearsay Rule 803(6)(B) that from that date onward "lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411, 95a(2)" applies to ALL transactions even if it is missing thereafter on transactions like direct deposits, debit/credit cards, EFTs, etc, where it is hard to make a record of one's demand. Remember, by making one's demand TRANSACTION-BASED, it does not matter what the signature card has on it or not. The account does not matter - BECAUSE YOU MADE YOUR DEMAND TRANSACTION-BASED - Please get this point! It is CRITICAL! One does NOT have to send letters to the bank, IRS, FRS, IMF, Treasury or Employer and thereby stir up needless trouble! Okay? IMHO - K.I.S.S.

    ....

    The Parallel Table of Authorities has no entry for 12 USC 411. This table's entries go in sequence from 12 USC section 391 to section 418. Section 411 is missing. This is confirmed at http://www.gpo.gov/help/parallel_table.txt, excerpted below:

    [Code of Federal Regulations]
    [Parallel Table]
    [Revised as of January 1, 2011]
    [From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
    PARALLEL TABLE OF AUTHORITIES AND RULES

    12 U.S.C. <---------------------------> Corresponding C.F.R.
    ================================================== =====
    378............................................... ...........12 Part 303

    391....31 Parts 202, 203, 209, 210, 225, 240, 306, 317, 321, 341, 346,
    ..............351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 363, 375, 380

    418.................................................. ......31 Part 601

    461........................................12 Parts 201, 204, 208, 217


    "Therefore it is legitimate and preferable to make one's demand TRANSACTION-BASED, to wit:

    "lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411 and 95a(2)"

    Using this exact wording above enables one to provide probable cause and justification for listing all transactions on a custom-made 1040 SUPPORTING SCHEDULE that have been presumed to be using FRNs!!!

    Who can rebut that demand? And by what authority? 12 USC 411 does NOT specify any wording requirement or transaction frequency, and there is no corresponding CFR regulation that requires anything.

    One does NOT need to put it on any bank signature card, or on any contract!

    Just decide on the date one wants to begin the demand and then start hand-writing it on the face of one's checks and deposit slips, just under one's name and address in the upper left-hand corner of the document. This then stands nunc pro tunc (now for then), thereafter and forever, as substantive evidence per FRCP 803(6) governing exceptions to hearsay evidence, and is unrebuttable.

    This is the starting date of one's FREEDOM. Make it memorable!!

    I believe making a clear public record that creates substantive evidence of all transactions demanding lawful money is the key, all done in good faith reliance on 12 USC 411 and 12 USC 95a(2), AND on the Father and His Son, who evidently have commanded this as a red line in the sand to be observed by all parties (including Satan) in this issue, namely Mt 22:21.

    Beware of becoming an unwitting tool of the Adversary by undermining and doubting the remedy provided by the Creator that He promised to provide to His People in 1 Cor 10:13.

    Remember the words given to Joshua in Joshua 1:9, and to Peter by the Messiah in Mt 14:31.

    So claim this promise of remedy. Be courageous. Have faith!

    Peace."


    And I add now: Beware of adding regulations WHERE THERE ARE NONE, and thereby making the road more difficult for those that follow us who have successfully gotten refunds!

    SUGGESTION: As a second witness, one might also record a Declaration in the public record about this starting date of lawful money demands, and attach as Exhibits the first several checks and deposit slips... and several more throughout that year for good measure.

    NOTICE: Lawful Money Demand (12 USC 411) is only 1/3 of the remedy - Full Discharge (12 USC 95a(2)) is second 1/3 - and Claim for Harm by a man in his court of record at a public court building using his record declared at the county recorder is the last 1/3. More info on this is available at iuvdeposit.wordpress.com

    It looks to be an interesting year in 2014... 14 means "DELIVERANCE" in the Bible. The Passover, as you know, was on the 14th.
    Last edited by doug555; 12-23-14 at 07:54 PM.

  5. #135
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Alan View Post
    Am I wrong to understand that unless a check (or similar instrument) is endorsed, it is non-negotiable? And that banks can accept deposits even endorsed in blank? I'm sorry to go over ground that I'm sure has been covered most exhaustively on this site, but unless there is an endorsement, then the instrument remains non-negotiable.

    So "non-endorsing" is an attempt to enter an instrument into the banking system without liability. Great! This seems to be (to me) the source of all the problems with banks. They're just not set up to deal with demands for lawful money. I think that's why the statute says demand must be made at Treasury or at one of the 12 Federal Reserve Banks.

    Now lately I've been wondering about sending notice of demand to the Treasurer (Rosie Rios), maybe even asking her to provide an identifying number of some sort identifying my particular demand (or asking her to agree to one I provide); and then continuing to make deposits at my normal bank by writing down on the back the account number only. When the checks clear, write a check made out to "Lawful Money" and use the cash. After all, the people from whom I accept a check are dealing in banking credit. It only seems fair to follow their request.

    At that point - since I never actually receive anything but cash - I can't imagine why I would need to file a return.

    Thoughts?
    That sounds genius! Open an account with the US Treasurer, by number and use that.

    Negotiable and Non-Negotiable take on an atypical meaning in terms of endorsement and non-endorsement.

    Name:  nonendorsementstamptorn.jpg
Views: 1117
Size:  41.7 KBThis particular image was a bounced paycheck.
    The bank returned it but with the non-endorsement torn off.

    Negotiating instruments involves fiduciary responsibility. What I mean in this context is that it is illegal in the corporate sense to trade down currencies. Except in the case of the Federal Reserve note (the Fed is only an instrumentality of the US because it has been sanctioned for its notes [stock certificates] to depreciate over time, by Congress] all stock certificates, even unit shares of a private trust are ALWAYS intended to increase in value over time.

    Therefore the only legitimate trade for FRN's is to trade up, and the only currency available upward is US notes, a non-reserve currency.

  6. #136
    Quote Originally Posted by doug555 View Post
    Below is the rest of the email... It does NOT say one only needs to do it ONCE. In fact ever since 9/15/2011, I have handwritten my exact specific declaration on the FACE of every check and deposit slip I issue.... just to make it CLEAR by a PREPONDERENCE of substantive evidence under their FRE Exception to Hearsay Rule 803(6)(B) that from that date onward "lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411, 95a(2)" applies to ALL transactions even if it is missing thereafter on transactions like direct deposits, debit/credit cards, EFTs, etc, where it is hard to make a record of one's demand. Remember, by making one's demand TRANSACTION-BASED, it does not matter what the signature card has on it or not. The account does not matter - BECAUSE YOU MADE YOUR DEMAND TRANSACTION-BASED - Please get this point! It is CRITICAL! One does NOT have to send letters to the bank, IRS, FRS, IMF, Treasury or Employer and thereby stir up needless trouble! Okay? IMHO - K.I.S.S.

    ....

    The Parallel Table of Authorities has no entry for 12 USC 411. This table's entries go in sequence from 12 USC section 391 to section 418. Section 411 is missing. This is confirmed at http://www.gpo.gov/help/parallel_table.txt, excerpted below:

    [Code of Federal Regulations]
    [Parallel Table]
    [Revised as of January 1, 2011]
    [From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
    PARALLEL TABLE OF AUTHORITIES AND RULES

    12 U.S.C. <---------------------------> Corresponding C.F.R.
    ================================================== =====
    378............................................... ...........12 Part 303

    391....31 Parts 202, 203, 209, 210, 225, 240, 306, 317, 321, 341, 346,
    ..............351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 363, 375, 380

    418.................................................. ......31 Part 601

    461........................................12 Parts 201, 204, 208, 217


    "Therefore it is legitimate and preferable to make one's demand TRANSACTION-BASED, to wit:

    "lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411 and 95a(2)"

    Using this exact wording above enables one to provide probable cause and justification for listing all transactions on a custom-made 1040 SUPPORTING SCHEDULE that have been presumed to be using FRNs!!!

    Who can rebut that demand? And by what authority? 12 USC 411 does NOT specify any wording requirement or transaction frequency, and there is no corresponding CFR regulation that requires anything.

    One does NOT need to put it on any bank signature card, or on any contract!

    Just decide on the date one wants to begin the demand and then start hand-writing it on the face of one's checks and deposit slips, just under one's name and address in the upper left-hand corner of the document. This then stands nunc pro tunc (now for then), thereafter and forever, as substantive evidence per FRCP 803(6) governing exceptions to hearsay evidence, and is unrebuttable.

    This is the starting date of one's FREEDOM. Make it memorable!!

    I believe making a clear public record that creates substantive evidence of all transactions demanding lawful money is the key, all done in good faith reliance on 12 USC 411 and 12 USC 95a(2), AND on the Father and His Son, who evidently have commanded this as a red line in the sand to be observed by all parties (including Satan) in this issue, namely Mt 22:21.

    Beware of becoming an unwitting tool of the Adversary by undermining and doubting the remedy provided by the Creator that He promised to provide to His People in 1 Cor 10:13.

    Remember the words given to Joshua in Joshua 1:9, and to Peter by the Messiah in Mt 14:31.

    So claim this promise of remedy. Be courageous. Have faith!

    Peace."[/I]

    And I add now: Beware of adding regulations WHERE THERE ARE NONE, and thereby making the road more difficult for those that follow us who have successfully gotten refunds!

    SUGGESTION: As a second witness, one might also record a Declaration in the public record about this starting date of lawful money demands, and attach as Exhibits the first several checks and deposit slips... and several more throughout that year for good measure.

    NOTICE: Lawful Money Demand (12 USC 411) is only 1/3 of the remedy - Full Discharge (12 USC 95a(2)) is second 1/3 - and Claim for Harm by a man in his court of record at a public court building using his record declared at the county recorder is the last 1/3. More info on this is available at iuvdeposit.wordpress.com When a county Grand Jury becomes seated nearby, perhaps that may also be a venue for said Claim. The Sheriffs may by then be organized enough to enforce Judgments obtained by same.

    It looks to be an interesting year in 2014... 14 means "DELIVERANCE" in the Bible. The Passover, as you know, was on the 14th.

    Thank you! That is why I did not get your point - I misunderstood. Transaction-based redemption. That sinks in.

    Indeed that 100th Anniversary of the Fed Act is coming up in a couple weeks. 2014 is going to be marvelous!

  7. #137

    Refusal To Cash Check by KeyBank

    I thought that those here should know about the following, and am open to reactions, thoughts, and ideas on what the next move is:

    So …. for about a year now I have been outright cashing lawful money-demanded checks drafted upon my customer's KeyBank account, pay to order of my business. I am not a customer or account holder at Key Bank. Again, I just straight cash the checks. At times the tellers noticed the stamp, but no one ever said boo. [My stamp reads: "Demand: paper shall be redeemed in lawful money on account, 12 USC 411"]

    Then, on November 22 a teller all-of-the-sudden said that she could not cash the check with the stamp on it since she wasn't sure about the endorsement on the back (even though she had just cashed one the week prior). She called her "Operations Leader" and left a message for that person, and then told me to come back with another check without the stamp and she could cash it. I left her my VM and asked her to get back to me with an answer from her leader, which she later did and confirmed in a VM . Meanwhile, that day I went to a different Key Bank branch and cashed the check.

    Then today I went to back to that second branch and the guy there told me that he had been called by the teller at the first branch and told that the bank can't/won't cash the checks … something about them not being able to get the money back if the checks are bad … or some other such non-sense that the confused teller tried to verbalize but couldn't really other than 'we can't take it with this stamp'. He ended up giving me the "Operations Leader" number and told me to call her if I wanted an explanation, that the best he could do for me in terms of cashing the check is to get one without the "restrictive endorsement stamp"

    So what is my next move? I believe it is to contact the Operations Leader and ask her if she and her tellers are giving me legal advice as to how to endorse my checks. And ask her to send me a letter formally stating the bank's position with respect to my demand for lawful money pursuant to 12 USC 411.

    Any other thoughts or ideas here? Cheers.

  8. #138
    Quote Originally Posted by InTheCrease View Post
    I thought that those here should know about the following, and am open to reactions, thoughts, and ideas on what the next move is:

    So …. for about a year now I have been outright cashing lawful money-demanded checks drafted upon my customer's KeyBank account, pay to order of my business. I am not a customer or account holder at Key Bank. Again, I just straight cash the checks. At times the tellers noticed the stamp, but no one ever said boo. [My stamp reads: "Demand: paper shall be redeemed in lawful money on account, 12 USC 411"]

    Then, on November 22 a teller all-of-the-sudden said that she could not cash the check with the stamp on it since she wasn't sure about the endorsement on the back (even though she had just cashed one the week prior). She called her "Operations Leader" and left a message for that person, and then told me to come back with another check without the stamp and she could cash it. I left her my VM and asked her to get back to me with an answer from her leader, which she later did and confirmed in a VM . Meanwhile, that day I went to a different Key Bank branch and cashed the check.

    Then today I went to back to that second branch and the guy there told me that he had been called by the teller at the first branch and told that the bank can't/won't cash the checks … something about them not being able to get the money back if the checks are bad … or some other such non-sense that the confused teller tried to verbalize but couldn't really other than 'we can't take it with this stamp'. He ended up giving me the "Operations Leader" number and told me to call her if I wanted an explanation, that the best he could do for me in terms of cashing the check is to get one without the "restrictive endorsement stamp"

    So what is my next move? I believe it is to contact the Operations Leader and ask her if she and her tellers are giving me legal advice as to how to endorse my checks. And ask her to send me a letter formally stating the bank's position with respect to my demand for lawful money pursuant to 12 USC 411.

    Any other thoughts or ideas here? Cheers.
    Here are some examples of Notice and Demand:

    http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/3...eanddemand.jpg
    http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/2...demand2012.pdf
    http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/8...ndboacorre.pdf
    http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/8...andmay2013.pdf

    Due to the above post about transaction-based non-endorsement I suggest that you go back to the first bank branch and try to cash the paycheck. Keep an audio recording of the event. When they refuse the non-endorsement single-strike-through the Demand. You already have a copy of the demand and when they cash it ask for a copy of both sides of the check, with the strike-through.

    You have evidence that you made your demand.

    When you make your demand then the bank has to (theoretically) keep your funds a special deposit - in your boss' account. Therefore the banking party is getting nothing in return for doing business.

    There is another option that I hesitate to suggest. Your boss accepts your goods and services for pay. Does you boss know that his bank is being stubborn about paying an employee? Maybe your boss would like to change banks to one that freely pays his employees and does not give them grief about exercising rights?

    Maybe next time your boss' bank refuses to cash a paycheck offer to call the CFO and report that behavior?

  9. #139
    Quote Originally Posted by InTheCrease View Post
    I thought that those here should know about the following, and am open to reactions, thoughts, and ideas on what the next move is:

    So …. for about a year now I have been outright cashing lawful money-demanded checks drafted upon my customer's KeyBank account, pay to order of my business. I am not a customer or account holder at Key Bank. Again, I just straight cash the checks. At times the tellers noticed the stamp, but no one ever said boo. [My stamp reads: "Demand: paper shall be redeemed in lawful money on account, 12 USC 411"]

    Then, on November 22 a teller all-of-the-sudden said that she could not cash the check with the stamp on it since she wasn't sure about the endorsement on the back (even though she had just cashed one the week prior). She called her "Operations Leader" and left a message for that person, and then told me to come back with another check without the stamp and she could cash it. I left her my VM and asked her to get back to me with an answer from her leader, which she later did and confirmed in a VM . Meanwhile, that day I went to a different Key Bank branch and cashed the check.

    Then today I went to back to that second branch and the guy there told me that he had been called by the teller at the first branch and told that the bank can't/won't cash the checks … something about them not being able to get the money back if the checks are bad … or some other such non-sense that the confused teller tried to verbalize but couldn't really other than 'we can't take it with this stamp'. He ended up giving me the "Operations Leader" number and told me to call her if I wanted an explanation, that the best he could do for me in terms of cashing the check is to get one without the "restrictive endorsement stamp"

    So what is my next move? I believe it is to contact the Operations Leader and ask her if she and her tellers are giving me legal advice as to how to endorse my checks. And ask her to send me a letter formally stating the bank's position with respect to my demand for lawful money pursuant to 12 USC 411.

    Any other thoughts or ideas here? Cheers.
    OK, here are my thoughts...

    Let's try this PARADIGM shift:

    The FRONT of a check is PUBLIC (people). We can place our demand there and it is being honored by the IRS as a lawful reduction. Isn't this all we need?

    The BACK of a check is PRIVATE (Federal Reserve). In order for their private system to work,

    ALL TRANSACTIONS are initially presumed to be private credit by their system. The is the "default" currency of their system.

    However, this PRESUMPTION can be rebutted (by lawful money demands), and thereby make all of these transactions LAWFUL MONEY, per 12 USC 411.

    NOTICE that 12 USC 411, by its very wording ("they shall be redeemed"), implies that private credit is initially presumed, and therefore needs "redeeming", but only "on demand". If the FRN's were NOT the default currency, then 12 USC 411 would not have been needed.

    I believe this choice of which currency is to be used stems from Mt 22.21, and is DIRECTLY RELATED to TAXES.

    There are two images on the FRNs. The LEFT side is Caesar's (Fed Reserve seal); the RIGHT side is God's (The Dept of Treasury seal). Look at the One Dollar Bill. Also notice the 2 different signatures.

    I also believe that once this Mt 22.21 "red line" is crossed (by LM demand reductions no longer being honored by IRS on 1040), then involuntary servitude/slavery begins through compelled use of liability instruments, which can never truly "pay"/discharge obligations.

    We have not yet reached that point... on a significant scale...

    But when it does begin, then it will set in motion a prophesied chain of events that lead to the fulfillment of the archetype set by our ancient Israelite ancestors, with us formally petitioning (Ex 3:7-9, 16-17) our Creator for deliverance from FINANCIAL ECONOMIC SLAVERY, and those petitions, if we indeed wake up enough of His People to realize that this archetype is for US TODAY, will be answered by the Creator with a miraculous deliverance, as planned for and revealed by the Creator's Second Annual Holyday.

    So until that day comes, I believe we need to heed the Messiah's warning in Mt 13:30 to let both the tares and wheat grow together, "until the Harvest" (the Spring Harvest typified by Holyday 3 - the Feast of Firstfruits - Pentecost).

    This means, I believe, in practical terms regarding how we make lawful money demands, to NOT TRESPASS onto the BACK/PRIVATE SIDE of a check, or LEFT SIDE of a FRN. Let them monetize the checks, by keeping restrictive endorsements off of the back of a check. Let them continue to "grow" their debt by presuming it to be the default currency. God tells us the keep our hands off their system.

    But, likewise, they must also let us "grow" in the use of lawful money, by letting us make our demand for same on the FRONT/PUBLIC/PEOPLE side of a check, and redeeming FRNs, and letting us claim tax reductions for doing so, because that money is God's!

    Hope this make sense... It has been a long day, and I am getting pretty tired...

    Peace.
    Last edited by doug555; 12-19-13 at 01:41 AM.

  10. #140
    Thanks for the replies, Dave and Doug.

    By way of update … I went to a third branch about 25 miles north of town (was already there) and cashed the check.

    @ DM. I thought about striking out the stamp and photographing it with the strikethrough. I would then have a photo of the back of the check without the strikethrough and then with, which would evidence that I had made the demand.

    A couple other ideas I have had:
    -in light of the earlier post in this thread about the demand relating to transactions, the idea was to to make one final deposit at the bank with the transaction language and then call it good going forward based on that transactional demand.
    - I may also just try writing in the demand as "lawful money demanded and redeemed, 12 USC 411" and avoiding the stamp and seeing what they say about that.

    @Doug. Can you show proof that the IRS accepts the lawful money reduction for demands on the front of checks? I am glad to know this, however, I do not believe that writing under the signature is a 'trespass' as long as the writing is done above the line. Restrictive endorsements like "deposit only" are made all the time, and I feel that the non-endoresement should be underneath the signature so that the check cannot be negotiated further.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •