Resistance and Refusal by Banks

[David Merrill]

I have read only a fraction of this site which has taken me on a roller coaster for nearly an entire week now and even still have several windows from different posts open going back and forth to reference. I have found its not so easy to "query" for particular pieces of information you seek. I would open a read a thread and move on to the next. Only problem is I discover that while on information overload, it is next to impossible to remember where I read this piece or that piece.

I have post 10099 bookmarked but it makes no reference on how one established a "court of records", at least not all in one place that I have seen yet. As this seems to be an important and integral part of the remedy..I thought it would have its own thread...yet a search for those specific words turns up all sorts of wild results...has anyone compiled a "wiki" on this or can anyone point me in the right direction as to where I can read more on the subject somewhere on the site?

Thanks!

I like the definition in the Colorado statutes:

P.S. Welcome! Your journey and mouse ventures sound interesting. I hope you will share your adventures here.



Lately I am venturing into oaths of office but here is a perfect example of Record-Forming as found in authority of law (attached). Notice that I even had the reference librarian at the federal repository verify it as a true and correct copy of the Congressional Records.

[Shylmysten]

I like the definition in the Colorado statutes:

P.S. Welcome! Your journey and mouse ventures sound interesting. I hope you will share your adventures here.



Lately I am venturing into oaths of office but here is a perfect example of Record-Forming as found in authority of law (attached). Notice that I even had the reference librarian at the federal repository verify it as a true and correct copy of the Congressional Records.

Thank you very much David!

[Keith Alan]

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?

[David Merrill]

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.

This 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.

[InTheCrease]

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.

[Anthony Joseph]

If you deem "Futurism" to mean that the fullness of the Kingdom of Heaven is not yet completely and entirely manifest in this present consciousness and that there is more to come, then call me a "Futurist".

However, do not lump me in with the "Rapture" crowd or those who see no manifestation of the Kingdom of Heaven in this present consciousness. I believe the majority of "Christians" you label as "Futurists" fall into that 'no manifestation' category.

You must see that there is a significant difference there and that the term "Futurism" should not be used as a broad brush to paint these two together.

[David Merrill]

Some Crosstalk:

With XX’s tag line I feel that you basically nullify your signature entirely. Ergo you make no commitment at all. Which is fine because the commitments are all made on the bills by the US Treasurer and Secretary. However this leaves your bank in a position where they are earning no money in any of your transactions. So you may encounter resistance, especially if you are earning any “interest” on any of the accounts.

[This suitor noticed on the website for issuing checks.]


I plan on utilizing my Credit Union's "Snap Deposit" smartphone app to take a picture of my checks and deposit them that way. Interestingly, I found this bit of apparent legal advice in the app's FAQ:

"Be sure your checks have no evidence of alteration or contain a restrictive endorsement."

On that Note:

I deal with Citibank in NYC. I have been using the non endorsement for 3 years now. They always hold part of the funds for 5 days or so. They send me a letter everytime. I get charged 15(service fee) and 8 (atm fee) dollars every month to have an account there that is 0% interest bearing. They even turned away the irs a few years back when they attempted to levy the account saying they did not have any of their property in that account! I really enjoy using lawful money. Thanks David for cracking that nut!

So it looks as though absolute protection costs a little less than $300/year.

[allodial]

Re: Citibank and IRS it might be helpful to know that the IRS is typically an account holder like any other account holder at a bank. The FRB/State Bank Charter system exists in a separate realm from the IRS and State Revenue systems. Thusly the bank's custodial roles are separate. Citibank could not in good faith transfer funds from one account holder (the attempted levy target) to another (IRS) without proper justification without Citibank incurring liability. AFAIK the bank simply within the same bank transfers from the target account to the IRS's account along with proper memoranda (particulars) and that is how the IRS gets its money--tax depositaries and such.

Re: $15 service fee. That sounds like a typical inter-institutional transfer fee. However, such is also a typical "service charge".

However this leaves your bank in a position where they are earning no money in any of your transactions.

Perhaps the banks can only issue or multiply clearinghouse credit rather than lawful money.

[David Merrill]

Perhaps the banks can only issue or multiply clearinghouse credit rather than lawful money.

Processing....


No, processing Deep.

[David Merrill]

thanks David for

Tony

I think I understand. We experience. God experiences.