Quote Originally Posted by salsero View Post
It appears a bigger question NOW must be asked? Do we have any right to redeem lawful money? If not, then there is no sense moving forward with any of this. Specficially what trust structure is being referred?

I would NOT be in favor of this type of lawsuit. It playing in their private sandbox and not a likely win. You only go into private court with the victory in hand before you enter the ship. This is why I recommend the 3 letters. its a done deal.

I do not know what you mean by "patrolling", so I can not answer this.

David, if you have a suggestion on what WE should do, please advise. I take it you are redeeeming lawful money as placed on your signature card with the bank. This is a presumption as I have no first hand knowledge of this.

Another intersting aspect to the comment "One suitor pointed out after explaining the trust structure that he has not been granted the authority to actually redeem in lawful money, only to demand it. This money is not his for any such execution of law." This is strongly suggesting that WE are not permitted then the exemption on the 1040 on line 21 for redeeming lawful money. If we can ONLY demand LM but not actually redeem it because we are not authorized or a party to THEIR private club, then this exemption would be for ONLY authorized persons. This appears not to be consistent with other suitor's opinions of the tax exemptoin for lawful money. So maybe this suitor has some bad info????

David can you please elaborate

thanks - Tony
The statute is quite clear that a person (natural or otherwise) could only demand redemption on the occasion that he had FRN's, which he would naturally obtain at a Federal Reserve bank (like by cashing or depositing a check, receiving a direct deposit, etc, for which the FRB has already determined that you have chosen, or not denied, that you want FRN's; note that under the legal tender law, the banks can assume this, and the choice clearly favors them doing so), so the clear meaning of the statute is that the remedy (avoidance of FRN's) must be with the purveyors of same. There is no trust issue here; whoever came up with that was propagating red herrings, or was mis-directed by same. The CQVT could hold LM as easily as FRN's.

As to the lawsuit vs patrolling the banks, I perceive David's advice is this: you have no duty to force the bank to comply with your demand; that duty lies with the FRB. The statute designates their duty to 'supervise' the banks chartered under 12 USC, so let them do it. The suit is the simplest way, and it avoids all the confrontations, lies, and mis-direction you will likely get from the bank. I like it.

PS to JohnnyCash: like the trust, I am always here. Ask me anything. Freed G