Page 8 of 17 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 168

Thread: Resistance and Refusal by Banks

  1. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by gdude View Post
    Huh? I don't understand your post......I only signed once.

    The Banks terms of agreement had the clause, not the signature card.
    I was talking about the two signatures on the Freedom Security Bank agreement above.

    Here is a new verification that has shown up on the backside of paychecks!



  2. #72
    Not all Bank of America branches are cooperative. I filed my demand with the Registrar of Deeds for the county, then sent the bank a certified copy by certified mail. The bank returned it, stating that it 'had no legal significance.' I resent it, with a letter stating that if they refused to redeem FRN's, then the income tax was unconstitutional. The bank sent this response: "We are in receipt of the purported Notice and Demand for Lawful Money. We have also received a second request Dated July 15, 2012, based on our reply. Please be advised that this document also has no legal relevance and therefore, no action has been taken or is required by the bank. We are therefore returning this document to you as well, and still consider the matter closed." signed by Anthony Petrella, Banking Center Manager II, etc.

    I am preparing my 1040A form now, and will include a letter stating the particulars of the Notice filed with the county (including a certified copy), and the dates of the letters sent to the three banks that I use. The letter states that since lawful money is 'income from a non-taxable source, such transactions should not be reported on Form 1040, as it is specifically for reporting of taxable income.' So we will see if the IRS takes the same view as Bank of America...

    Bank of America also states in their Account Agreement (available only online) that their policy is to ignore any special conditions written on the back of the check. But their Account Agreement does not say that the account must be held in FRN's, only in dollars.
    Last edited by Freed Gerdes; 02-15-13 at 06:44 AM. Reason: punctuation, add Acct Agmt note

  3. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by Freed Gerdes View Post
    Not all Bank of America branches are cooperative. I filed my demand with the Registrar of Deeds for the county, then sent the bank a certified copy by certified mail. The bank returned it, stating that it 'had no legal significance.' I resent it, with a letter stating that if they refused to redeem FRN's, then the income tax was unconstitutional. The bank sent this response: "We are in receipt of the purported Notice and Demand for Lawful Money. We have also received a second request Dated July 15, 2012, based on our reply. Please be advised that this document also has no legal relevance and therefore, no action has been taken or is required by the bank. We are therefore returning this document to you as well, and still consider the matter closed." signed by Anthony Petrella, Banking Center Manager II, etc.

    I am preparing my 1040A form now, and will include a letter stating the particulars of the Notice filed with the county (including a certified copy), and the dates of the letters sent to the three banks that I use. The letter states that since lawful money is 'income from a non-taxable source, such transactions should not be reported on Form 1040, as it is specifically for reporting of taxable income.' So we will see if the IRS takes the same view as Bank of America...

    Bank of America also states in their Account Agreement (available only online) that their policy is to ignore any special conditions written on the back of the check. But their Account Agreement does not say that the account must be held in FRN's, only in dollars.
    It would be great if you could scan and sanitize those letters and attach them please?

    What you have is Proof of Service. I think that Registered Mailing or better yet professional process server to the local Federal Reserve Bank would finish that process.

    We have a verbal report from a suitor that accounts were closed and employees fired over not giving "special" treatment to the funds demanded redeemed in lawful money. Also, we have a few reports about a suitor doing nothing and the account being closed.

    Yours has a different flavor. The attorneys (presuming this is signed by legal counsel) are trying to convince you that your demand has no legal relevance? That is a new tact if memory serves me. To go through the trouble of informing you that your demand has no legal relevance and return your papers to you. The letter in itself is proof of service and they even refer to your demand. Therefore if they lump your funds into reserve funds for fractional lending they have composed their own confession for counterfeiting money and filed that confession in a court of competent jurisdiction - you.

    This does beg the question however; are you accepting and receiving interest from any of these accounts?


    Regards,

    David Merrill.

  4. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by Freed Gerdes View Post
    Not all Bank of America branches are cooperative. I filed my demand with the Registrar of Deeds for the county, then sent the bank a certified copy by certified mail. The bank returned it, stating that it 'had no legal significance.' I resent it, with a letter stating that if they refused to redeem FRN's, then the income tax was unconstitutional. The bank sent this response: "We are in receipt of the purported Notice and Demand for Lawful Money. We have also received a second request Dated July 15, 2012, based on our reply. Please be advised that this document also has no legal relevance and therefore, no action has been taken or is required by the bank. We are therefore returning this document to you as well, and still consider the matter closed." signed by Anthony Petrella, Banking Center Manager II, etc.

    I am preparing my 1040A form now, and will include a letter stating the particulars of the Notice filed with the county (including a certified copy), and the dates of the letters sent to the three banks that I use. The letter states that since lawful money is 'income from a non-taxable source, such transactions should not be reported on Form 1040, as it is specifically for reporting of taxable income.' So we will see if the IRS takes the same view as Bank of America...

    Bank of America also states in their Account Agreement (available only online) that their policy is to ignore any special conditions written on the back of the check. But their Account Agreement does not say that the account must be held in FRN's, only in dollars.

    Yes, please sanitize and post your letters as well the letters from the bank. I just read the Miracle on Main Street, and just didn't realize this one man, F. Tupper Saussy, for a short period put the banksters in the back seat. He started a small revolution with the law. As David repeatedly states, a remedy must exist for those competent to give it. I feel a technique to prove this out through correspondence with banks/IRS/gov't officials is needed for it to take hold. Freed, you seem to be on to something. IMO, in your letters, lawful money must be recognized and separated from other currency. It also needs to be certified by the IRS as non taxable, in letter form. We have a few on this site showing suitors receiving full return of with holdings, suitors not obliged to pay back taxes because "some" of the income was in lawful money. But a correspondence from the IRS with the words "lawful money" in them, although might be a dream, is necessary.

    Freed, I wanted to see on the letter where the bank states "since lawful money is income from a non-taxable source, such transaction should not be reported on Form 1040..." Excellent work, and your diligence is not only appreciated, but necessary.

    Changing the law 31 USC 371 only kicked the can further down the road. It just set up another barrier, the remedy still exists. David, your work is admirable, and of the same revolutionary path as Saussy. Money has no meaning to date, at least last I checked. It's been changed a great many times over the years and now the clear definition does not exist.

  5. #75
    We are changing the history of mankind.

  6. #76
    David, I did NOT get that part of the check modified.
    The "Payable in Lawful Money 12USC411", (minus quotation marks) did get printed onto the checks.

    I have in some cases been hand altering these new checks prior to their issue, crossing out the "the Order of" verbiage.

    But the suitors here raise an interesting point.
    It was my mind set at the time of placing the check order I wanted to leave no doubt about my application of Remedy, first establishing my modified signature cards, but then switching back & return to utilizing checks much more, again, believing (niavely I suspect) that with the issuance of each check I was further documenting my demand to use lawful money.

    With my use of checks stating [B]Payable in Lawful Money 12USC411 [/B ](& somewhat inconsistent Payable to clause), the payee has been deprived the choice whether to use FRN's in that particular transaction.

    While striving to ensure my own insistence, it never dawned on me I denied another a valid choice.

    But on second thought, until my recent learning of remedy, my ignorance about a choice to use FRN versus lawful money was my own. By placing the notice of payment in lawful money, not only do I establish my persistent preference but maybe I introduce this new reality to another.


    Finally; as I observe my slow steps toward understanding when compared to the keen, sharp, insights presented amongst these gathered here maybe I shouldn't try to expound on these matters. :-)

  7. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Allan View Post
    David, I did NOT get that part of the check modified.
    The "Payable in Lawful Money 12USC411", (minus quotation marks) did get printed onto the checks.

    I have in some cases been hand altering these new checks prior to their issue, crossing out the "the Order of" verbiage.

    But the suitors here raise an interesting point.
    It was my mind set at the time of placing the check order I wanted to leave no doubt about my application of Remedy, first establishing my modified signature cards, but then switching back & return to utilizing checks much more, again, believing (niavely I suspect) that with the issuance of each check I was further documenting my demand to use lawful money.

    With my use of checks stating [B]Payable in Lawful Money 12USC411 [/B ](& somewhat inconsistent Payable to clause), the payee has been deprived the choice whether to use FRN's in that particular transaction.

    While striving to ensure my own insistence, it never dawned on me I denied another a valid choice.

    But on second thought, until my recent learning of remedy, my ignorance about a choice to use FRN versus lawful money was my own. By placing the notice of payment in lawful money, not only do I establish my persistent preference but maybe I introduce this new reality to another.


    Finally; as I observe my slow steps toward understanding when compared to the keen, sharp, insights presented amongst these gathered here maybe I shouldn't try to expound on these matters. :-)
    That is all pretty complicated all right.

    That example at the top of the page is how somebody's boss/client is giving him his paycheck lately.

  8. #78
    Freed, I wanted to see on the letter where the bank states "since lawful money is income from a non-taxable source, such transaction should not be reported on Form 1040..."
    Sorry to disappoint, mikecz, but that non-taxable source wording is in my letter to the IRS, in an effort to establish a rebuttable presumption.
    I have the letters shot down to jpeg files, but they will not attach. Can anyone tell me how to attach a file or insert a pix here?
    Last edited by Freed Gerdes; 02-16-13 at 08:04 AM.

  9. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by Freed Gerdes View Post
    Freed, I wanted to see on the letter where the bank states "since lawful money is income from a non-taxable source, such transaction should not be reported on Form 1040..."
    Sorry to disappoint, mikecz, but that non-taxable source wording is in my letter to the IRS, in an effort to establish a rebuttable presumption.
    I have the letters shot down to jpeg files, but they will not attach. Can anyone tell me how to attach a file or insert a pix here?
    I process my images and pdf's through ImageShack. They had a limit of 500 and I had to delete several images and then they opened up 5 gig to me!

    Keep an Link Library in Word though. Searching for your images on ImageShack seems a bit problematic. That is how I do it - have all these images available. I have a link library doc open and can search for key words to find them.

    I also utilize Google Docs, Box, Megacloud, YouTube etc.

  10. #80
    31 CFR 103.34

    WIth regard to banks requiring a SSN on a non-interest bearing account, I had come accross this statute but it appears it is valid from June 1972 thru Oct 2003. Does anyone know if there is a similiar statute that is current for 2013 that requires the bank TO REQUEST the SSN but nothing more?

Posting Permissions

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