Page 13 of 17 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 168

Thread: Resistance and Refusal by Banks

  1. #121

  2. #122
    This is AMAZING that I am reading this! I just, an hour ago, came from my bank asking to change/amend my signature card with the "Lawful Money" statement and the person I talked to said exactly what you have stated here. Thankfully she didn't make a decision based on her statement. She called "Legal" who said I must submit to them in writing why I want to add the statement to my accounts, which they will review and decide whether to approve the addition of said statement.
    Any ideas what I should include as my "why"?

    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.

  3. #123
    First off - get the request in writing.

    As banks persist in exercising this option we might consider notifying the Fed about our demand, getting that into an evidence repository and just serving that same marked up Notice on the bank and forgetting about Signature Cards altogether. This is tiring.

  4. #124
    Amen David!

    *Make the demand by NOTICE.
    *Use proper record forming.

    Now where do the benefits of making the demand occur?
    "...for all taxes, customs, and other public dues." [FRA Section 16 Note Issues; http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/section16.htm ]

    CC a copy of one's demand to any tax agency of perceived detriment and again don't forget proper record forming.
    Last edited by EZrhythm; 03-26-13 at 06:11 AM.

  5. #125

    M & T Bank Attempt at Lawful money request

    I have been trying to have the "Redemption" novation added to my accounts or even a plainly stated denial of my request. Here is what has transpired thus far;

    This my original letter to M & T bank. M&T Bank-redemptionRev.pdf
    In addition I called the headquarters in Buffalo, NY and spoke with the customer care manager. Here is the reply I got. M&T-10001.pdf
    In reply I sent the following; M&T Bank-redemption2ndrequestRev.pdf and as a response I got this; M&T-20001.pdf

    They are clearly trying to avoid being on record either allowing a lawful money acct., or denying my request for one.

    I shall be attempting to open accts at BoA and or Wells Fargo next week.

  6. #126
    Quote Originally Posted by Darkmagus View Post
    I have been trying to have the "Redemption" novation added to my accounts or even a plainly stated denial of my request. Here is what has transpired thus far;

    This my original letter to M & T bank. M&T Bank-redemptionRev.pdf

    In addition I called the headquarters in Buffalo, NY and spoke with the customer care manager. Here is the reply I got. M&T-10001.pdf
    In reply I sent the following; M&T Bank-redemption2ndrequestRev.pdf and as a response I got this; M&T-20001.pdf

    They are clearly trying to avoid being on record either allowing a lawful money acct., or denying my request for one.

    I shall be attempting to open accts at BoA and or Wells Fargo next week.
    What a terrific post! Thanks a lot.

  7. #127
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    What a terrific post! Thanks a lot.
    Yes , Thanks for the post!

    Interesting that both of the banks replies stated that if you had any questions about FRN's contact the U.S.Treasury......the first entity listed in 12 ยง 411!
    This is my contention, screw the banks....send your Demand to the U.S. Treasury.

    FWIW DARKMAGUS, you left your name showing on one of the docs.....make sure you redact your name on all posted docs!
    Last edited by gdude; 04-22-13 at 03:18 AM.

  8. #128
    Thanks gdude, I overlooked that. Actually my first posting had to be deleted because I left my ACCOUNT NUMBER on one of the docs! LOL Sheesh!
    Oh well, won't be my account for long anyway.

  9. #129
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    north carolina
    Posts
    8
    Freed: You have gone to a great degree of trouble in your quest with BofA. I appreciate your adventurous spirit and willingness to share the details of your quest. However, I'm wondering if you are "tilting at windmills" like Don Quixote. I'm not being critical here, please don't interpret my comments in any personal manner. I'm just trying to clarify what your objectives are. Maybe the quest is your objective, I'm grateful that you would do that. However, if your objective is to actually get an account opened with "Redeemed in Lawful Money" (RLM) and associated verbiage on the signature card and have your direct deposit transactions deposited into it, then I'd make the following suggestion. Find a local state chartered bank and open an account there. I did that 3 or 4 years ago, and have been redeeming lawful money both with non-endorsed checks and like you with Social Security direct deposits. I have not tried to open an account for RLM in the last 12 months, but I have 3 accounts with the same bank all with RLM on the signature cards and have never heard a peep from them. Just my $.02 worth.

  10. #130

    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.

Posting Permissions

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