Lawful Money and the Bank

[stoneFree]

Just opened a lawful money account at Bank of America by adding a simple demand clause to the signature card/agreement. The rep didn't appear to know what I was talking about and asked the higher up. He looked at it and had no problem with it "Sounds good to me, you wouldn't unlawful money, would you?" Not sure if he was truly clueless or just playing the part. They even made a copy of the agreement for me!

[Brian]

Just opened a lawful money account at Bank of America by adding a simple demand clause to the signature card/agreement. The rep didn't appear to know what I was talking about and asked the higher up. He looked at it and had no problem with it "Sounds good to me, you wouldn't unlawful money, would you?" Not sure if he was truly clueless or just playing the part. They even made a copy of the agreement for me!

Excellent! I got the same confused looks from the asst. mang who was directly doing the paperwork for me and the lady he was training. If there is anyone in a branch who has a clue. It would be the head manager..but even that is doubtful

[Richard Earl]

Incidently, my landlord was nice enough to show me his mortgage. It does say that payments to be made in lawful money.

[Michael Joseph]

Federal Reserve Notes are lawful to use. Thus the confusion.

Yet, FRN's shall be redeemed in Lawful Money on demand at any FRB.

[Brian]

Federal Reserve Notes are lawful to use. Thus the confusion.

Yet, FRN's shall be redeemed in Lawful Money on demand at any FRB.

Legal Tender vs. Lawful Money = Legal vs. Lawful
FRN's should not be considered "lawful money" otherwise why would they need to be redeemed for such? FRN's redeeming FRN's....?? I have a page on just that...will post when I get my scanner working

[David Merrill]

Legal Tender vs. Lawful Money = Legal vs. Lawful
FRN's should not be considered "lawful money" otherwise why would they need to be redeemed for such? FRN's redeeming FRN's....?? I have a page on just that...will post when I get my scanner working

Cool!

Meanwhile;

In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money.

and

United States notes shall be lawful money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt.

But finding that, I made note:

The instruction PAY TO THE ORDER OF on the face of a check evidently has a reason for this wording (and for not using the much older working of simply PAY TO). After spending some time chasing down some UCC textbooks, I believe I have an explanation (not necessarily the only one).

The issue os the endorsement of checks over to third parties. This may not have been very common before the 20th century, but the current wording facilitates such endorsements.

If a check is made payable to Joe Blough, and Joe Blough is the person who will take the check to the bank, then it really doesn't matter whether the check uses the expression PAY TO Joe Blough or PAY TO THE ORDER OF Joe Blough, because either way it's Joe Blough and he's the one depositing or cashing the check.

But suppose Joe Blough endorses the check over to you. He signs the back of the check as an endorsement and now it's cashable by whoever is holding it, which, for the moment, is you.
If you take the check to the bank, there is a problem; yes, it's true that Joe Blough, the named payee, signed the back but if the check says PAY TO Joe Blough then the banker cannot pay you because the phrasing is such that the money has to be handed to Joe Blough, regardless of his endorsement over to you.

On the other hand, if the check said PAY TO THE ORDER OF Joe Blough, then you can cash or deposit the check. Joe Blough already "ordered" the check paid by endorsing the back of the check, so the check will be paid by Joe Blough's order, even though the money won't be put into Joe Blough's hands.

I hope this clarifies it.

[Brian]

Legal Tender vs. Lawful Money = Legal vs. Lawful
FRN's should not be considered "lawful money" otherwise why would they need to be redeemed for such? FRN's redeeming FRN's....?? I have a page on just that...will post when I get my scanner working

Here are those letters obtained via "Pieces of eight"

[Brian]

I find this quote extremely telling...what might those thorny problems be???

[David Merrill]

I find this quote extremely telling...what might those thorny problems be???
[ATTACH]415[/ATTACH]

To me, we find the monetizing of sin (debt). There are no FRNs extant that did not arise from a loan.

This letter is thinly veiled sophistry. If it were true, what the Treasury spokesman says, then Congress could just change the verbiage and stump me and everybody else from the true meaning...


They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand...

[David Merrill]

Just opened a lawful money account at Bank of America by adding a simple demand clause to the signature card/agreement. The rep didn't appear to know what I was talking about and asked the higher up. He looked at it and had no problem with it "Sounds good to me, you wouldn't unlawful money, would you?" Not sure if he was truly clueless or just playing the part. They even made a copy of the agreement for me!

Can you snap a photo or scan that? Sanitize it in Paint before you show us...


I wish a free covert audio recorder came with each membership here!

[stoneFree]

Here you go.

EDIT: that attachment is about unreadable (Now I understand what you were talking about). The forum reduced my attachment to a 600-pixel high image. Here's the full image: http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/9007/bofasc.jpg

should I be concerned with Item 3. "U.S. Citizen/ U.S. Person" ?

[David Merrill]

Admin is looking into that problem.

[Steve]

Item 3. "U.S. Citizen/ U.S. Person"

[QUOTE=
should I be concerned with Item 3. "U.S. Citizen/ U.S. Person" ?[/QUOTE]

I would think you could (must) cross out that item as per ie instruction about item 2

[David Merrill]

I would think you could (must) cross out that item as per ie instruction about item 2

The remedy is for US Persons/citizens too. I would be uncomfortable saying I am. I might insert a down arrow and write in that space below signing for. So that it clearly reads;

I am signing for a US citizen...

[Mark Christopher]

To me, we find the monetizing of sin (debt). There are no FRNs extant that did not arise from a loan.

This letter is thinly veiled sophistry. If it were true, what the Treasury spokesman says, then Congress could just change the verbiage and stump me and everybody else from the true meaning...


They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand...

I love letters like this. David hits it on the head with saying this is sophistry. If you ask me the letter makes the term 'lawful' an adjective for money. The code 12usc411 seems to use it as a noun 'lawful money' like it is a thing. I guess we go back to what CLINTON said, "it depends what the definition of is, is." But at the end of the day the note carries the term legal tender. Maybe anyone more familiar in the UCC can answer this. Since it is legal tender can I refuse it for a debt (that someone owes me) and still retain my claim to it because of that refusal? The reason I ask is that the coin that was just made legal tender in UTAH does not have to be accepted. I thought that went for all legal tender.

From Webster's dictionary: Lawful may apply to conformity with law of any sort (as natural, divine, common, or canon) <the lawful sovereign>. legal applies to what is sanctioned by law or in conformity with the law, especially as it is written or administered by the courts <legal residents of the state>