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.

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.
I'm looking for an easier more direct way as well. I can't shake the question that, if I demand lawful money, what's in it for the bank? Near as I can tell, there is no benefit at all to them, except possibly better public relations.

It also raises another question: since I'm holding FRN's, and if by default that makes me a state Bank, why can't I simply exercise my own demand? As Beneficiary - True Name - I can demand my Trustee - LEGAL NAME - to make good the demand. The Trustor, Congress and the Federal Reserve System, has made this provision in the law.

Unless I'm wrong about the Trustor being the Congress and the Fed (persons of yet another trust).

All of this begs for documentation, which is why it appears necessary for a third party to keep a record, in the event of a controversy. All of tbhis is contingent on me having received a bank draft or check. What if I simply cash the check? What then? Haven't I avoided the entire controversy? Has anyone explored the idea of simply cashing checks with the restrictive endorsement on the back?