Currently being denied my deposit with demand to redeem lawful money

[Michael Joseph]

A demand for lawful money is a claim upon that which relief can be granted. It is the proper application of law. However don't think that the Bank Stores are stocked full of intelligent persons who understand all aspects of their business. That is why they have a legal department - just like any other business these days.

The law of course is a benefit to those who make its use. The trustees are tasked to carry out the lawful demands of the beneficiary - unless of course the beneficiary has suffered a CIVIL DEATH - come he is the heir let us kill him and the estate shall be ours - and the greedy trustees have SEIZED [by force] upon the inheritance.

Hi welcome to customer service, may I help you. Please give me the account name and number so we can address your concern. A covenant in death. A mark of a beast organization.

To say "its my money" is a falsehood. In fact it torts the entire system of death. You are presumed to be acting for an estate [the deceased infant] - therefore you act in and for another. To claim "its mine" is a tort against the triple crown and therefore its grantor the Pontiff. You may not like it but then again many play the game [myself included] without any idea of the rules. But we are learning to distinguish the subtle nature of the flaw in the original claim.

Seems a rigged game when one asks to know the rules and is told to purchase a mouthpiece or teacher. One responds - I cannot afford to know - nevertheless ignorance is no defense.

Shall I declare myself now in your presence?

Regards,
MJ

[Robert Henry]

I have no evidence. But then that is not my concern or domain.

The only thing I need to do is properly document my demands for lawful money for all transactions, and report same on the 1040 annually.

The evidence of the demands is all that matters to me, and that it is done without "overstatement", such as saying the FRNs are already redeemed.

It seems to me that one making such a claim is also required to provide evidence of same.

Someday, such a demand for evidence may be presented. Saying the evidence is "IN the demand" may not be enough.

Thanks for clarifying, Doug and we are in agreement, for the most part.

Perhaps I have failed to express my position clearly, please forgive me if that is so. The gist of it, for me, is that once the Notice and Demand has been properly served, posted and published the code is fulfilled and therefore all is redeemed by default. The Notice and Demand is your substantive evidence, already in the record, that demand has been made and the redeemed checks show that you have only been using lawful money. Overwhelming evidence, in my opinion.

I hope this is clarifying.

[doug555]

Thanks for clarifying, Doug and we are in agreement, for the most part.

Perhaps I have failed to express my position clearly, please forgive me if that is so. The gist of it, for me, is that once the Notice and Demand has been properly served, posted and published the code is fulfilled and therefore all is redeemed by default. The Notice and Demand is your substantive evidence, already in the record, that demand has been made and the redeemed checks show that you have only been using lawful money. Overwhelming evidence, in my opinion.

I hope this is clarifying.

Yes, thanks! I was unaware that you already had on record a "Notice and Demand".

Then that stamp "Redeemed Lawful Money" makes sense in that it indicates a STATUS rather than a DEMAND.

I was just concerned that one might be relying on a stamp that only established a STATUS NOTICE, instead of a stamp that expressly established a LAWFUL MONEY DEMAND record.

If only such Notices were recorded, eventually one would have to substantiate that Notice with the actual associated Demand record being on file somewhere in the public.

I do not rely on a separate "Notice and Demand". I rely on the handwritten Demand that I use on every deposit slip & check that I issue, and that such constitutes Non-Hearsay Evidence (FRE 803.6.B).

Thanks for providing that needed context.

[Robert Henry]

I am glad we comprehend each other, thank you.

The Notice and Demand in the record is the cornerstone, in my opinion, and I assumed this was known.

[JohnnyCash]

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".

If it's helpful to anyone - in all my years redeeming Lawful Money the bank has never denied or rejected a "restrictive endorsement" check. Each was accepted and I had available lawful money.

[Robert Henry]

If it's helpful to anyone - in all my years redeeming Lawful Money the bank has never denied or rejected a "restrictive endorsement" check. Each was accepted and I had available lawful money.

Same here, JC. The teller did ask "What's this?" when I added the verbiage to the bank signature card - I told her "Oh, that's just my restrictive endorsement." She left it alone and I have not had anything questioned since. I frequently cash checks as well as use the smartphone app to make deposits with no issues.

I will echo your thanks to David Merrill, and include a thanks to Michael Joseph, for sharing this remedy!

[doug555]

If it's helpful to anyone - in all my years redeeming Lawful Money the bank has never denied or rejected a "restrictive endorsement" check. Each was accepted and I had available lawful money.

Let me be clear.

Anyone using that stamp is going beyond the authority of 12 USC 411.

12 USC 411 only authorizes one to demand lawful money.

Perhaps it is "never denied or rejected" because it is being ignored, since it is NOT a demand, and therefore not restrictive at all.

BTW: Calling me "fakesuitor" is quite childish, don't you think? Grow up!

[itsmymoney]

Let me be clear.

Anyone using that stamp is going beyond the authority of 12 USC 411.

12 USC 411 only authorizes one to demand lawful money.

BTW: Calling me "fakesuitor" is quite childish, don't you think? Grow up!

All,

D555 is only pointing out a possible flaw in the logic behind 'Redeemed' (past tense) and the present tense 'Demand' for Lawful Money, AND, relative to legal/law. You MUST look at all the possibilities these evil 'lords' will utilize to bring us down. It is THEIR JOB to do so. How can you (and this includes you, JC) KNOW FOR CERTAIN that they will NEVER come after you? What if suddenly there is a directive at IRS to, 'hunt down any flaws in the RILM execution'? So you MIGHT be ok if you made some sort of Public Demand of your INTENT via an Affidavit at the County, and then 'redeemed' (past tense) those checks after such Demand was made public. However, if there was no Public Demand and you are executing a presumed 'past tense' operation (redeemed), can you be 100% sure that you are in the clear? These 'people' are ruthless monsters, and I know that more so than the average Joe.

The warning is a valid one, regardless of whether any of us ever become subject to any wrath as a result. It's simple logic, that's all. Why can't everyone see it that way? I don't think D555 has a 'troll' agenda. 'Just think about it' is what I think he is saying.

[Michael Joseph]

Same here, JC. The teller did ask "What's this?" when I added the verbiage to the bank signature card - I told her "Oh, that's just my restrictive endorsement." She left it alone and I have not had anything questioned since. I frequently cash checks as well as use the smartphone app to make deposits with no issues.

I will echo your thanks to David Merrill, and include a thanks to Michael Joseph, for sharing this remedy!

I started using the following years ago and it works every time because the conditioned mind is persuaded to a certain response: "I do this for tax purposes". At that point the conversation is over and you just pat them on the head and say "nitey nite sweet pea". This way you don't have to teach anybody something new or waste your time.

But I always advocate self liability so whatever works for you is what you should go with.

Shalom,
MJ

[Robert Henry]

I started using the following years ago and it works every time because the conditioned mind is persuaded to a certain response: "I do this for tax purposes". At that point the conversation is over and you just pat them on the head and say "nitey nite sweet pea". This way you don't have to teach anybody something new or waste your time.

But I always advocate self liability so whatever works for you is what you should go with.

Shalom,
MJ

That's good, MJ! I like it!

I think I recall you mentioning that before, perhaps when you and David Merrill were on Angela Stark's talkshoe call...