Currently being denied my deposit with demand to redeem lawful money

[itsmymoney]

Attachment 2189


Thanks for posting this stamp, which I know is what David has always recommended and used, and which is working, but sometimes is rejected as a "restrictive endorsement".

Here is WHY I do NOT use this stamp.

Technically, 12 USC 411 states that one may only demand lawful money, after which the system is presumed to have the duty to "redeem" it into lawful money.

12 USC 411 does not say that we actually do the redeeming. That is not our responsibility, IMO. That is the system's job.

Therefore, the wording in this stamp is presumptuous. It is stating something that may not have occurred yet.

We cannot technically state, at the time that we stamp our instrument, that it is, at that instant, "Redeemed Lawful Money".

Also, look at it this way.

If it already has been redeemed as it says on the stamp, then the system would then NOT have to redeem that amount on that instrument, and the person stating that it was already redeemed could be accused of fraud-in-the-factum.

So, this is an important technicality that IMO should be thoroughly discussed here, and resolved ASAP.

This is why I use this handwritten demand below:

Doug555,

I see where you are headed with this (and my actual job-for-pay is to analyze every possibility), but the negotiable instrument is the check in your hand. If the stated 'money' on that check were truly previously 'redeemed' (regardless of lawful money or FRN's), then that check itself is non-negotiable. Meaning, the person trying to deposit or cash it was ALREADY PAID that amount via lawful money AND via a DIFFERENT check, coin, or other instrument - NOT the check in hand. So why would the bank then deposit/cash the check in hand if it was presumed to be already deposited/cashed based on the novation on the back?