Resistance and Refusal by Banks

[salsero]

Hi Salsero;

Please provide links and that makes it a lot easier to get started.

Oops - sorry

http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/103.34

But specifically here is what I was questioning:

§ 103.34
Additional records to be made and retained by banks.
(a) (1) With respect to each certificate of deposit sold or redeemed after May 31, 1978, and before October 1, 2003, or each deposit or share account opened with a bank after June 30, 1972, and before October 1, 2003, a bank shall, within 30 days from the date such a transaction occurs or an account is opened, secure and maintain a record of the taxpayer identification number of the customer involved; or where the account or certificate is in the names of two or more persons, the bank shall secure the taxpayer identification number of a person having a financial interest in the certificate or account. In the event that a bank has been unable to secure, within the 30-day period specified, the required identification, it shall nevertheless not be deemed to be in violation of this section if (i) it has made a reasonable effort to secure such identification, and (ii) it maintains a list containing the names, addresses, and account numbers of those persons from whom it has been unable to secure such identification, and makes the names, addresses, and account numbers of those persons available to the Secretary as directed by him. A bank acting as an agent for another person in the purchase or redemption of a certificate of deposit issued by another bank is responsible for obtaining and recording the required taxpayer identification, as well as for maintaining the records referred to in paragraphs (b) (11) and (12) of this section. The issuing bank can satisfy the recordkeeping requirement by recording the name and address of the agent together with a description of the instrument and the date of the transaction. Where a person is a non-resident alien, the bank shall also record the person's passport number or a description of some other government document used to verify his identity.

===================

This regulation has inserted the dates After June 1972 but before Oct 2003. My question is does this apply to 2013? OR does anyone know of a similiar regulation that is updated that is similiar to the bank REQUESTING the SSN as opposed to it is required by law under blah blah section. Does the bank have standing for the requirement? Also as a tid bit udner 5 USC 552a(e) - agency requirements http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552a - this further clarifies the issue that ANY agency is required to disclose the SSN is mandatory or voluntary, the purpose, the use of and what if I do not provide the SSN what are the consequences. In the past the bank would say - its the patriot act and it is required. This is not a satisfactory response.

Also for further clarification - REGARDLESS WHETHER THE SSN IS GIVEN OR NOT TO THE BANK DOES THIS PHRASE ON THE SIGNATURE CARD NEGATE ANY AND ALL CLAIMS, INCLUDING BY COURT ORDER FOR THE REMOVAL OF ANY MONIES FROM THE ACCOUNT WITH OUT THE PERMISSION OF SIGNATORY OR OWNER OF SAID ACCOUNT:

All transactions on account are intended by Demand to be Redeemed in Lawful Money pursudant to 12 USC 411. All transactions with this bank will be done by Special Deposit NUNC PRO TUNC.

It is my understanding that anything "deposited by special deposit" is in fact under "equity" and can not be "taken or removed" without said permission of owner. Can anyone help clarify this? Thanks Tony

[David Merrill]

Here is the thread of my rather combative correspondence with Bank of America.
First, my Notice and Demand for Lawful Money, filed with the Registrar of Deeds for the county, found at this link: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/18/006dki.jpg/.
Second, my Demand Letter to BofA, found at this link: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/203/003spz.jpg/
Third, BofA First Denial Letter, found at this link: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/202/004ebl.jpg/
Fourth, my Reply to BofA Denial Letter, found at this link: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/4/002htj.jpg/
Fifth, BofA Second Denial Letter, found at this link: http://img802.imageshack.us/img802/6634/001yp.jpg

Similar chain occurs with E*Trade Financial (US equities brokerage account), with less resistance. I will post those links separately soon.

My strategy was to make notice of my demand at mid-year, so I would clearly have some income before and some after. I intend to file an income tax form 1040, and list income prior to demand, and not report income post demand. I will include this letter [at this link: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/10/007vozz.jpg/], putting the IRS on notice of my interpretation of current Internal Revenue Code treatment of lawful money. If the IRS responds, I will have something in writing. If the IRS fails to respond, I will have a rebuttable presumption record. I choose to proceed in this fashion specifically to create a paper trail I can use to prove to others that use of lawful money is a valid defense against paying income taxes. The test is barely valid, since I am retired and have only SS and some capital gains from stock trades as income; at my overall income level, none of SS is taxable, so I am not liable for any taxes due, whether I report all income as taxable or not, but the IRS will have to respond to my letter or let the rebuttable presumption stand...

ps to DM: I do not believe BofA is paying any interest on this acct. [I have two accts there, and cannot find any entries in the bank records to show when/where/to which acct I was credited with the $11 reported by BofA on a 1099.]

Thank you Freed;


I collected and trimmed your images - click Here.

At first glance it looks like there is very little purpose to filing at all. The SSI is not taxable income and you only have minimal dividends. So yours is not a very good test at all! In fact it looks like a great way to get the IRS attorneys to build testimony against redeeming lawful money. By that I mean they might cut you off from your SSI benefits just to coerce you to recant and declare this remedy bogus.

You really have to reconsider and evaluate the risk here. I really do respond on a cursory glance but that is what I see here. Like found in the first video article (1984) the Social Security is a valid income tax according to the Supreme Court - 1939. I read that case and that is probably how you have to construe it if you are starting the redemption after retirement already on SSI.

Additionally you have accomplished what the Notice and Demand are intended to do. The letters acknowledge receipt of the Notice and Demand.

I have seen this before. If all you were doing were transactions with Social Security checks then the bank would consider that the notice and demand has no legal significance. One suitor could not cash his SSI checks at the bank. They sent him down the street to the check cashing place and called before he arrived. When he got his cash, minus their cut, the teller/cashier took a Sharpie and completely blacked over his Demand! He objected but she was behind the Plexiglass and just ignored him!

So unless you have something to gain by getting involved with this Demand beyond putting non-endorsement on the backside of your paychecks, you have nothing to gain and lots to lose, in my opinion. If you make your non-endorsements then you are doing your part to reduce the national debt for America. You are a fine patriot. There is really no need to go kicking at beehives if you get my drift.

Oops - sorry

http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/103.34

But specifically here is what I was questioning:

§ 103.34
Additional records to be made and retained by banks.
(a) (1) With respect to each certificate of deposit sold or redeemed after May 31, 1978, and before October 1, 2003, or each deposit or share account opened with a bank after June 30, 1972, and before October 1, 2003, a bank shall, within 30 days from the date such a transaction occurs or an account is opened, secure and maintain a record of the taxpayer identification number of the customer involved; or where the account or certificate is in the names of two or more persons, the bank shall secure the taxpayer identification number of a person having a financial interest in the certificate or account. In the event that a bank has been unable to secure, within the 30-day period specified, the required identification, it shall nevertheless not be deemed to be in violation of this section if (i) it has made a reasonable effort to secure such identification, and (ii) it maintains a list containing the names, addresses, and account numbers of those persons from whom it has been unable to secure such identification, and makes the names, addresses, and account numbers of those persons available to the Secretary as directed by him. A bank acting as an agent for another person in the purchase or redemption of a certificate of deposit issued by another bank is responsible for obtaining and recording the required taxpayer identification, as well as for maintaining the records referred to in paragraphs (b) (11) and (12) of this section. The issuing bank can satisfy the recordkeeping requirement by recording the name and address of the agent together with a description of the instrument and the date of the transaction. Where a person is a non-resident alien, the bank shall also record the person's passport number or a description of some other government document used to verify his identity.

===================

This regulation has inserted the dates After June 1972 but before Oct 2003. My question is does this apply to 2013? OR does anyone know of a similiar regulation that is updated that is similiar to the bank REQUESTING the SSN as opposed to it is required by law under blah blah section. Does the bank have standing for the requirement? Also as a tid bit udner 5 USC 552a(e) - agency requirements http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552a - this further clarifies the issue that ANY agency is required to disclose the SSN is mandatory or voluntary, the purpose, the use of and what if I do not provide the SSN what are the consequences. In the past the bank would say - its the patriot act and it is required. This is not a satisfactory response.

Also for further clarification - REGARDLESS WHETHER THE SSN IS GIVEN OR NOT TO THE BANK DOES THIS PHRASE ON THE SIGNATURE CARD NEGATE ANY AND ALL CLAIMS, INCLUDING BY COURT ORDER FOR THE REMOVAL OF ANY MONIES FROM THE ACCOUNT WITH OUT THE PERMISSION OF SIGNATORY OR OWNER OF SAID ACCOUNT:

All transactions on account are intended by Demand to be Redeemed in Lawful Money pursudant to 12 USC 411. All transactions with this bank will be done by Special Deposit NUNC PRO TUNC.

It is my understanding that anything "deposited by special deposit" is in fact under "equity" and can not be "taken or removed" without said permission of owner. Can anyone help clarify this? Thanks Tony

These are really very productive posts and threads!

I think you might get some insight by searching for "special deposit" both here and on your favorite search engine. My impression from earlier discussion here is that indeed the bank just becomes a repository for your money.