Page 1 of 15 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 168

Thread: Resistance and Refusal by Banks

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    in an intended free America
    Posts
    100

    Resistance and Refusal by Banks

    Greetings, all.

    David, and all in general,

    I and many others have been experiencing resistance or downright refusals to change our signature card or open new accounts as such with a declaration that the account be redeemable in lawful money. I have a theory but I do not have proof one way or the other why these 'member banks' have been rejecting us.

    USC 411 states that 'The said notes shall be obligations of the Unites States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal Reserve Banks...They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, DC, or at any Federal Reserve Bank.'

    Here goes my theory based on the language in USC 411...

    1) 'The said notes...shall be receivable by all [banks]'.

    To me, receivable means they can accept Federal Reserve notes (with no talk of lawful money redemption at this point). So they can receive FRN's into virtually all banks.

    2) 'They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the [Treasury Dept, DC, or any Federal Reserve bank].

    What strikes me is that 'member banks' are not included in the 'redeemable entity' list. The language could be interpreted in this manner by the 'member banks': any bank can receive FRN's into an account, but only the ones in the 'redeemable entity' list shall as obligated by law, redeem them in lawful money. So they are interpreting 'Federal Reserve bank' to mean the 12 known banks as such. Therefore, they (private, FDIC members, that ilk) interpret that they can receive your FRN's but are under no obligation to redeem in lawful money because they are not one of the '12 Federal Reserve banks'.

    Although remedy exists via USC 411, the thinking is that if these 'member banks' are somehow excluded from the obligation, one would need to redeem in lawful money at one of the 12 Federal Reserve Banks or at the Treasury Department. Which for almost all of us would be incredibly impractical and frankly, incredibly unfair and not in good faith per USC 411.

    Is there supporting law or documents for USC 411 that would clarify the above interpretation one way or another?

    Thank you for any clarification or thoughts on this.

  2. #2
    The signature card is an agreement. You make a novation (innovation) and that means they have three days to R4C your novation. Another method might be to put the demand on your payroll authorization for direct deposit. That involves your employer though and that is never wise.

    I think you are right on about the specifications of which banks may be redeemed but you do not get to bank at the Federal Reserve banks. They do not open accounts for people like you. So you either have the right to redeem or not. According to MILAM you do.




    Which presents the question - Where do I go, if not my bank?

    If your banker says you have to go to the Fed or that this only applies to state banks and not you and if he were correct then it would not make any difference and he should allow you to sign as you please. If you have no such remedy then it is just a fanciful addition - meaningless. We have the suitor who found employees being fired though, for making general deposits when they were to be special deposits to it does indeed matter.

    My experience (through the brain trust) tells me that if the suitor knows what he is doing he will get the novation in place mostly because the bank has fiduciary responsibility to do business with you. In other words they may try convincing you to close down your account and if you are conditioned to obey, you will. They will not close down your account unless you are costing them like with the suitor where the employees were fired. That cost a lot so they shut down the accounts.
    Last edited by David Merrill; 01-12-13 at 08:37 PM.

  3. #3

    Got the signature card changed - now the bank wants me to change it back

    I was going through the responses and did not find exactly my case. I opened a bank account in 1996. Later on I changed it to a revocable living trust account. A few weeks ago, the bank rep said the bank needed an update signature card. I said no problem. I signed By: John Doe, trustee, authorized signature. Underneath there was plenty of space to write: All transactions on this account are intended by demand to be redeemed in Lawful Money per 12 USC 411. Nunc pro tunc. This new signature card was done on 11-29-2013.

    I decided to go back to the bank rep who is also a notary and asked her to do a notarized affidavit with the following verbiage:

    On this 9th day of December 2013, I attest that the proceeding and attached document is a true, exact complete unaltered photocopy made by me of the ABC Bank signature card for JOHN DOE, as individual and trustee for the account 1XXXXX123 with the original opening of the account of December 13, 1996 and revised on November 29, 2013. The following was added to the bottom of the signature card: All transactions on this account are intended by demand to be redeemed in Lawful Money per 12 USC 411. Nunc pro tunc.

    The rep signed this and notarized this AND the actual signature card.

    Today, 12-13, I got a call from the rep and was told I need to come back and change the signature card as the bank does not accept the verbiage. I said to the rep, please have the bank send me a letter. And the conversation ended.

    So this is my question: I am way past the 3 days - RFC. In reading different posts, I see the bank CAN close the account AND in other posts, the bank will try and trick you to close the account. The fact remains that I do have a notarized statement and signature card. Does the bank have the right to close the account without my acceptance? Does the bank have the right to ignore the demand for lawful money? What type of deceptive tricks can the bank really do?

    My first thoughts were if the bank sent a threatening letter, I would send a response "something like" - I am under the impression that ABC Bank is part of the national banking system and must provide service to the public. The entity I use, John Doe is public property and therefore you must provide service. I am deeply concerned for the well-being of the public and the use of FRN increases the public debt; therefore causing a serious harm to the public. I believe the bank has had ample opportunity to reject the signature card but has NOW since waived its right. Therefore, if ABC Bank refuses to follow the laws of the US, including but not limited to accepting the demand for lawful money per 12 USC 411, I am left little choice but to forward this information for review and investigation by the OCC, FRB and SOT. Yours truly, Nice Guy

    Oh I should also tell you I have been banking not only personally for about 3 years but also business depositing business check "redeemed in lawful money" for about a year. On the business, I probably deposited $800k in checks LOL. I can not answer for certain but I can suspect the tellers may have not done any special processing on those checks. I do not want anyone fired.

    Any suggestions would be appreciated. Tony


    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    The signature card is an agreement. You make a novation (innovation) and that means they have three days to R4C your novation. Another method might be to put the demand on your payroll authorization for direct deposit. That involves your employer though and that is never wise.

    I think you are right on about the specifications of which banks may be redeemed but you do not get to bank at the Federal Reserve banks. They do not open accounts for people like you. So you either have the right to redeem or not. According to MILAM you do.




    Which presents the question - Where do I go, if not my bank?

    If your banker says you have to go to the Fed or that this only applies to state banks and not you and if he were correct then it would not make any difference and he should allow you to sign as you please. If you have no such remedy then it is just a fanciful addition - meaningless. We have the suitor who found employees being fired though, for making general deposits when they were to be special deposits to it does indeed matter.

    My experience (through the brain trust) tells me that if the suitor knows what he is doing he will get the novation in place mostly because the bank has fiduciary responsibility to do business with you. In other words they may try convincing you to close down your account and if you are conditioned to obey, you will. They will not close down your account unless you are costing them like with the suitor where the employees were fired. That cost a lot so they shut down the accounts.

  4. #4

    Bank of America

    Quote Originally Posted by itsmymoney View Post
    Greetings, all.

    David, and all in general,

    I and many others have been experiencing resistance or downright refusals to change our signature card or open new accounts as such with a declaration that the account be redeemable in lawful money. I have a theory but I do not have proof one way or the other why these 'member banks' have been rejecting us...
    I've had success opening a 'lawful money' checking account at Bank of America (see front and back of signature card, my novation is on the back). And it seems that I'm not the only one.

    When I opened the account, I was initially met with resistance. The banker did not comprehend my demand for lawful money. I remember her assertively telling me, "You will not stamp that on my signature card!" I had to remind myself that, yeah, in her role as agent of BofA, it really is her signature card.

    I requested that she not reject the application for a new checking account, but rather run this by the BofA legal department. I very graciously expressed concern for her well being, that I would not like to see her get in trouble for practicing law without a license. She agreed, and asked that I contact her the following Tuesday.

    Well, upon contacting her the following Tuesday, she invited me to come in and open the account, demand for lawful money and all!!!

    I type all of this to say, go to BofA. They seem to have better a better legal department than many other banks.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Rock Anthony View Post
    I type all of this to say, go to BofA. They seem to have better a better legal department than many other banks.
    Wells Fargo has never given me any trouble about this matter, either. It seems the top or major five or six U.S. banks may be aware of this and will adjust their accounting to reflect the demand.

    Within the past two years they (Wells Fargo) required different stipulations for their accounts which required my opening a personal savings account in connection with the checking account already opened in order to avoid incurring additional fees. I did so at that time, making the demand for lawful money on the signature application form. The "banker/clerk" helping me didn't seem to understand anything about the novation and let it pass without comment.

    Well, for the first year or so there were interest payments being added to the account (pennies really, but an interest payment nonetheless). Then just within the past three months, those interest payments stopped showing up on my monthly statements for that account. I figured that someone at the bank must have finally noticed the demand and rearranged the bank's acknowledgement to reflect the demand.
    Last edited by KnowLaw; 01-13-13 at 04:28 PM.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    in an intended free America
    Posts
    100

    Resistance and Refusal by Banks

    Thanks to all for the options out there. I am waiting word on my bank as to whether they will allow a change to the current account.

    David, regarding your prior post below of 'where to go' if the banks refuse you, I believe a little moxy as you say in standing firm. If in fact lawful money can only be redeemed by a Federal Reserve Bank (if you read USC 411 that way), then I would think the member bank could simply pass on your demand to their neighborhood FRB as a credit to the member bank in that amount. If the bank is still resistant to the demand, then I would perhaps ask their legal department to provide me a remedy to their contention that they are not required to redeem in lawful money, as remedy to not honoring my demand is required by law, correct?

    My experience (through the brain trust) tells me that if the suitor knows what he is doing he will get the novation in place mostly because the bank has fiduciary responsibility to do business with you. In other words they may try convincing you to close down your account and if you are conditioned to obey, you will. They will not close down your account unless you are costing them like with the suitor where the employees were fired. That cost a lot so they shut down the accounts.
    David, as an aside to your above post, were the bank employees fired because they were not submitting the lawful money notes into their accounting properly?

    Thank you.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by itsmymoney View Post
    Thanks to all for the options out there. I am waiting word on my bank as to whether they will allow a change to the current account.

    David, regarding your prior post below of 'where to go' if the banks refuse you, I believe a little moxy as you say in standing firm. If in fact lawful money can only be redeemed by a Federal Reserve Bank (if you read USC 411 that way), then I would think the member bank could simply pass on your demand to their neighborhood FRB as a credit to the member bank in that amount. If the bank is still resistant to the demand, then I would perhaps ask their legal department to provide me a remedy to their contention that they are not required to redeem in lawful money, as remedy to not honoring my demand is required by law, correct?



    David, as an aside to your above post, were the bank employees fired because they were not submitting the lawful money notes into their accounting properly?

    Thank you.
    First point;

    That is probably going on anyway. There must be remedy.

    Second point;

    That is a vicarious experience by a suitor who reported it. So I don't know much about the details. The bank closed down accounts though.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    in an intended free America
    Posts
    100
    I think USC 411 could have been written better (IMHO) to include the member banks in the 'redeemable list' [1) at the Treasury Dept; 2) in the city of DC; 3 at a Federal Reserve bank]. As I stated in my original post, the member banks could interpret 'Federal Reserve Bank' to literally mean one of the big 12 (and not them).

    But, as David aptly pointed out by the original Act, there must be remedy for redeeming in U.S. notes. I believe 'Federal Reserve bank' in the language implies that member banks are 'agents' of the Federal Reserve big 12 and therefore must honor the remedy associated as such with the big 12. But if I can read 411 it on its face and 'pick it apart', then we know they can. And, they will spin it in their favor if we are ignorant to the law and intent of that law.

  9. #9

    My issue with the bank

    I opened an account at a local bank here in the Chicagoland area in June of 2012, I wrote on the signature card "All transactions on this account are intended by demand to be done in lawful money per 12 USC 411." I had the administrator make copies of it with no problem, she asked what it was about and I told her it was part of my constitutional rights to demand lawful currency in lieu of the existing fiat currency in place in our country, she said oh, okay and proceeded to make me a copy of the signature card.
    A week later I walked into the bank and the same lady that processed the signature card walked up to me and said "I looked up the 12 USC 411 thing and it says something about lawful money being of gold and silver, well I am here to tell you our money is not backed by any gold or silver anymore!" I looked at her and smiled and said "My point exactly" ..... she walked away with a bewildered look on her face.
    The bank refused to cash the checks I presented with my stamp "Deposit for credit on account or exchange for federal reserve notes of equal value" but they did let me deposit them and with drawl the funds after 2 or 3 days.
    My dilemma, if you can call it a dilemma, is that every month since I opened the account they have sent a letter stating that there is no signature card on file and that I should come in to file one. I laughed because how is the account even opened and an account # issued without a signature card? Did they lose it? are they afraid to put that one on file?
    I read somewhere in one of these threads about a 3 day rescission right of the bank to with drawl the signature card, is that true?
    I have wrote a nasty letter and a nice letter but would like some input before I send one of them off to them, also curious if I should mail it certified w/proof of service?
    I can post scrubbed copies of the signature card and the letter from hte bank if that will help in assessing my situation.

    Thanks in advance for your input into these matters,
    Tom

  10. #10

    What to do next when bank refuses to open account

    Thank you all for all your input - it is well appreciated.

    I went to Well Fargo on January 22 with my mom to open a non-interet bearing checking account. I had asked the rep to add the following to the signature card - "All transactions on this account are intended by demand to be redeemed in Lawful Money pursuant to Title 12 USC 411. All transactions with this bank will be done by Special Deposit. Nunc Pro Tunc". Needless to say the manager had no clue what this all meant. He called legal and a panic look came over his face and told us the bank would not open the account. I see KnowLaw opened this type of account in March 2011 with Wells Fargo and had no issue. So there is precedence.

    Is it recommended that if the bank refuses to open the account with this verbiage that one files a complaint with the Office of the Comtroller of the Currency [OCC] - along with sending copies of this complaint to the federal and state representatives? Will the OCC bother to do anything? Tony

Posting Permissions

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