Page 3 of 17 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 168

Thread: Resistance and Refusal by Banks

  1. #21
    I apologize in advance for posting yet another odd question, but can banks use money that is on deposit in non-interest bearing accounts as reserve currency?

    - Update - I believe the answer is no. My thinking is, since the funds are in a non-interest bearing account, and since a person would make his demand upon depositing a check, then the funds in the account would already be lawful money, and no signature card novation is necessary.
    Last edited by Keith Alan; 01-15-13 at 08:59 PM.

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by itsmymoney View Post
    They actually forwarded me the very law (USC 411) of which I am citing as my right for lawful money, as THEIR reason for NOT meeting that obligation.
    I am curious what they said in their response, can you explain that.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by itsmymoney View Post
    Point well taken. I may end up going elsewhere. However, I want to gain some experience in how these officers respond (not the clerk) to legal matters of which may be denying me Constitutional rights. They actually forwarded me the very law (USC 411) of which I am citing as my right for lawful money, as THEIR reason for NOT meeting that obligation. Now, unless they are (as this thread implies may be happening) spinning the definition of 'Federal Reserve bank' to mean only the big 12, then I do not see how they can defend their argument.

    The officer (or lackey subordinate to) will supposedly call me to discuss this.
    For what it's worth, the way I understood what you wrote was, they denied your signature card novation, not your demand to receive lawful money.

  4. #24
    Perhaps it might be simpler to view things in a different light. All you are doing is making a demand. You can demand anything you want all day long. It is up to law and maybe more principles of metaphysics, including your mastery of natural law that obligates the bank or the other party, spouse, child or preacher, plumber etc. to perform.

    Why does the bank care one way or the other about your demand? If there is nothing to Title 12 USC ยง411 then why would the bank give a hoot about your demand?

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    in an intended free America
    Posts
    100
    Chex,

    This is what the bank agent forwarded from the person (officer I suppose) responsible for denying me, verbatim...

    'This is an urban myth and periodically circles the financial world. Due to regulatory approval and customer volume, we do not deviate from our standard account agreement upon individual customer requests. Therefore, we are not allowed to modify the terms and conditions of the contract (signature card) established with Marine Bank. The actual ACT is below

    Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.'


    Now obviously (as David M pointed out) they are deterring me, obfuscating, and bascally lying to me becase they and I know what's going on here. I find it laugable that she cited the very language (USC 411) that rebuts her position. Or, she has misinterpreted USC 411 incorrectly (that would be a shame considering her title). The agent said the officer was going to call me but I'm sure I'll wait until the end of time to hear from her. Also, has anyone seen Title 12 USC 342? Clear distinction between currency: lawful money, Federal Reserve notes.

    I will try another bank for the sig card novation, but I am thinking of writing the officer and providing her with the laws she supposedly knows already. Maybe she thought it was ME who did not understand USC 411 and was trying to bet on my ignorance of the statute.

    Keith Alan, you are correct. They have not actually said I could NOT deposit or redeem in lawful money. Which leads to my next question to David and everyone else...

    If I deposit restricted checks (or notes) into that non-restricted account, and withdrawal all monies as lawful money from that account (novation on withdrawal slips) and subsequently purchase money orders with those withdrawals to pay merchants for goods and services, will this execution override the 'generic' signature card language and the future debt obligation of those transactions?

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by itsmymoney View Post
    Keith Alan, you are correct. They have not actually said I could NOT deposit or redeem in lawful money. Which leads to my next question to David and everyone else...

    If I deposit restricted checks (or notes) into that non-restricted account, and withdrawal all monies as lawful money from that account (novation on withdrawal slips) and subsequently purchase money orders with those withdrawals to pay merchants for goods and services, will this execution override the 'generic' signature card language and the future debt obligation of those transactions?
    Why purchase money orders? The cash works better than the money orders in my opinion.

    By making your demand you simply presume the cash you get is lawful money. The objective is that the cash does not hold a silent first lien on anything that you buy with it being private credit (in part) from the Fed.



  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    in an intended free America
    Posts
    100
    David,

    Thank you for the court cite. It takes a bit to adopt yourself to all the legal-speak there. I think you (and the cite) is saying that once the lawful notes are withdrawn as such from your account and then transferred to another party, the debt is paid at that instance and no lien or obligation remains. If I'm off here, please set me straight.

    As for cash and money orders:

    I'm trying to avoid sending for example, $100 in cash via mail to pay my cable bill. A money order eliminates that (other than the fee). What am I missing here?

  8. #28
    I am sorry. For mailed funds postal money orders are fully lawful money. Look for "Pay to" rather than "Pay to the Order of".

    I do not feel that you are off. The cite is basically to make the point that there is a residual first lien on credit. You cannot truly buy anything with credit. You only discharge the obligation. It is like both you and the Fed have bought it together if you use the Fed's credit.

    That is another way to say the same thing you said.

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    in an intended free America
    Posts
    100
    DM, no apologies necessary. Grateful for the education and clarification.

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by itsmymoney View Post
    DM, no apologies necessary. Grateful for the education and clarification.

    Somebody mentioned to me the other day that they are waiting for some checks to come in with lawful money verbiage and the Pay to: rather than Pay to the Order of:


    That will be interesting.

Posting Permissions

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