Results 1 to 10 of 93

Thread: Currently being denied my deposit with demand to redeem lawful money

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #9
    Open an account at the boss' bank. That bank doesn't seem to be bothered by the "restrictive endorsement."

    Or, if there is a Bank of America in your area, open an account there. BofA's legal department has already determined that they have no problem with the restrictive endorsement. Perhaps you've already seen this image located in our downloads area. I recall here at StSC another member posted a BofA agreement with the verbiage written into the contract.

    I could see why small banks would be reluctant to do business with those that demand lawful money. However, BofA is not small - infact, it's "too big to fail".

    When I renewed the State's driver's license, I signed my true name - there is an image of my true-name signature on the DL. When I open an account at a bank, they'll insist for the account to be opened in the legal name that appears on the DL. However, the signature I put on any bank agreements merely must match the signature on the DL. No need for True Name dba LEGAL NAME. I simply sign True Name.

    IMO, any other disclaimers such "all rights reserved", "without prejudice", etc., merely raise red flags with the banksters. I only include the demand for lawful money with true-name signature - nothing else.

    Also, from reading the bank's response letter, it is my opinion that you offered too much "explaining" to the bank. From where did they get the terminology "non-endorsement" and "US Notes". Too much talking sometimes results in your words being used against you. Knowing what I now know, I will only offer, "I only want transactions on account to be in lawful money of the United States, per section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act, an act of United States Congress. That's all."

    I will not mention "US Notes" - as far as banksters are concerned, they do not carry those in their vaults or registers. Think about it - why would a bank agree to provide something that it thinks it does not have?

    I will not mention "non-endorsement". I can imagine this spooks the banksters - perhaps they think a non-endorsement will void the negotiability of the check.

    I stay away from those terms.
    Last edited by Rock Anthony; 08-04-11 at 10:41 PM.

Posting Permissions

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