Currently being denied my deposit with demand to redeem lawful money

[David Merrill]

Pete: I have an account officer asking why can't we just cross out the name of the individual that will no longer be on the account instead of re-doing the account signature card? If we have to re-do the signature card where in the regulation that states this is what is required?

Tilly: We require individual accounts and business accounts that remove a signer from an account to re-sign a "revised" account signature card with the current signers and a revised date. Can anyone help me with "we are only going to do this if it is a regulation" statement???

Pete: There is no regulation, but you might want to suggest that he get the OK from your attorney first. I can guarantee that your attorney will have either a "deer in the headlights" or a "you gotta be kidding me, right" look on his face once he presents his question - take your choice. How does someone - anyone - cross a name off a contract act to nullify a contract that has already been executed?

Tilly: Thanks that was what I was thinking - more of a contract situation instead of a regulation.

Burt: We have a procedure and policy for this type of situation; and we require new signature cards for any changes. Crossing names out or changing information on the initial or original signature card can appear to be an alteration, whereas a new signature card acts as an official amendment or update to the account titling.

Pete: Too many court cases involving account ownership have embarrassed bankers by revealing shortcuts like crossing out or adding names to old signatures cards. Not only does it appear sloppy; it also doesn't provide a court with any assurance that the bank is careful about contracts.

Interesting conversation!!

Thank you.

[karl nathan]

Redeemed lawful money

First, thanks to all who have contributed to making this thread! It seems this chapter of the process has come to a close for me.

Yesterday, I finally had a check to deposit at my bank. The teller flipped the check over to see my endorsement on the back, assuming this is out of habit, and quickly flipped it back over. I did not endorse the check but rather stamped the check with the "Redeemed Lawful Money Pursuant to 12 USC 411" verbiage prior to going into the bank.

I did not sign my name, lawful or legal, below the stamp. Why would I have to sign a name if the check is already written out to my name?

The teller did not bat an eye after seeing that I had only stamped the check and continued to process my deposit. The teller was more than happy to help me and did not have say anything to say other than the usual small talk.

Today I went to my bank with my first check I earned from being self-employed. And no, my definition of "self-employed" is not the same definition the IRS uses. Again, the teller (not the same one as yesterday) looked at the back of the check with only my stamped demand and continued with my deposit. Immediately following my deposit I made a $2 withdraw to represent the first money I earned being self-employed. I asked and received 4 quarters and 1 redeemed FRN. I will have these framed with the quarters above the redeemed FRN in the frame.

I also have two other stamps which I use whenever I make a deposit or withdrawal from my bank which I stamp on the withdrawal or deposit slip:

"A withdrawal of lawful money pursuant to 12 USC 411" and
"A regular deposit of lawful money pursuant to 12 USC 411"

On the invoice to my clients I include the phrase: "Demand for payment in lawful money pursuant to 12 USC 411."

I've learned a lot through this process but am grateful I can put this back-and-forth with the bank behind me.

In other happenings, I also checked in with the FDIC today. I called and spoke with someone who said they received my bank's response on 9/19 in regard to their inquiry based upon my letter. They said I should receive a response from them in the next month or so, barring no additional clarification is needed from the bank. I do hope to get a response from the FDIC.

I still have not received any response from the Treasury Department in regard to the letter I sent them which included a $20 FRN I demanded to be redeemed in lawful money. I of course do hope for a response from the Treasury but do not expect one.

[Richard Earl]

Thank you for the update!

[David Merrill]

Thank you Karl Nathan;



I hope you the best in your business endeavor. Kudos! It is great to have you posting here.

[OlyThoreau]

Branch Info?

I opened an account with US bank up here in the PDX area and had no issues with a signing statement. They were a little confused by it but alas allowed it.

Can you provide more information about the branch that allowed the signing statement? Branch number or location perhaps. This would be very helpful for me, my branch is putting up a fuss.

[karl nathan]

An interesting "response" from the FDIC:


Included with the letter from the FDIC was the original letter the FDIC received from my bank responding to the FDIC inquiry of said bank:


Initially, each of my inquiries (to my bank, the FDIC and the State Division of Banking) was based upon the verbal representation from the bank's legal department that the bank was not bound by 12 USC 411. I asked the bank to provide the factual basis for the representation. The bank attempted to provide me with that in their initial letter to me. However, this question has yet to be answered by the bank or its regulators.

I plan to write a letter to my bank with a yes/no question to determine if they admit they are bound by 12 USC 411. I'll let them know if I receive another non-responsive letter I will be taking the advice of my State's Banking Division and the FDIC...as the FDIC stated: "If you have additional questions regarding this act you may wish to contact the Federal Reserve."

[ohiofoiarequest]

I called and spoke with the FDIC case manager who was investigating my 'complaint' (their word not mine) and he stated that a bank can not refuse my cash to be redeemed in lawful money, but the bank can refuse to accept my negotiable instrument, my check with the demand verbiage instead of my indorsement, as it is not redeemable in lawful money on demand as it is not a FRN.

Since a check is an authorized means by which to transfer an amount of federal reserve notes (the medium of exchange adopted by the United States), see, Ohio Revised Code Sections 1301.01(x), 1303.06, and since the Debtors acknowledged that they were given a check to cover the purchase price of the property, it must be concluded that there was sufficient consideration given in exchange for the mortgages.

[David Merrill]

Since a check is an authorized means by which to transfer an amount of federal reserve notes (the medium of exchange adopted by the United States), see, Ohio Revised Code Sections 1301.01(x), 1303.06, and since the Debtors acknowledged that they were given a check to cover the purchase price of the property, it must be concluded that there was sufficient consideration given in exchange for the mortgages.

Welcome Ohiofoiarequest;


I am going to call you Ohio. Karl Nathan might still be on an email alert; you quoted a post from 2011.

[ohiofoiarequest]

David,

Thank you for providing a place we can build each other up with knowledge and understanding.

My above post was not necessarily directed towards Karl Nathan but rather those who read these topics.

Thanks again!

Ohio

[JohnnyCash]

I've been using the ATM to deposit my checks, usually with just the restricted 12 USC 411 rubber stamp, and it's been working great - no questioning tellers, no counter trolls, no denials.

What's even more convenient are these new smahtphone apps: https://www.bankofamerica.com/online...banking-app.go
where they let you take a picture ... front & back of check with your cellphone camera, instant deposit, and then you have available lawful money next business day. Here's one I just submitted:

[doug555]

I've been using the ATM to deposit my checks, usually with just the restricted 12 USC 411 rubber stamp, and it's been working great - no questioning tellers, no counter trolls, no denials.

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.

[doug555]

I've been using the ATM to deposit my checks, usually with just the restricted 12 USC 411 rubber stamp, and it's been working great - no questioning tellers, no counter trolls, no denials.

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:

[BLBereans]

While we are being "technical"...

Your view regarding who does the "redeeming" has merit in the context of 12USC411 - we make the demand and the obligatory/liable party "shall redeem" upon the express demand.

However, as regards 12USC95a(2) - I believe it reads that discharge is "required" when assignment has been executed.

(2) Any payment, conveyance, transfer, assignment, or delivery of property or interest therein, made to or for the account of the United States, or as otherwise directed, pursuant to this section or any rule, regulation, instruction, or direction issued hereunder shall to the extent thereof be a full acquittance and discharge for all purposes of the obligation of the person making the same; and no person shall be held liable in any court for or in respect to anything done or omitted in good faith in connection with the administration of, or in pursuance of and in reliance on, this section, or any rule, regulation, instruction, or direction issued hereunder.

So maybe the disclaimer should read:

"Lawful money demanded, and full discharge is required, for all transactions per 12USC411 & 12USC95a(2)"

[Robert Henry]

the system is presumed to have the duty to "redeem" it into lawful money.

What evidence do you have of this?

They shall be redeemed on demand

My interpretation is that it is the demand itself which executes the redemption. Nothing happens in "the system" - other than the supposed segregation of redeemed funds. To quote David Merrill; "Redemption is between the ears."

Therefore, I believe the "redeemed" verbiage removes all possibility for ambiguity of interpretation as to wether or not demand was made.

[Michael Joseph]

A beneficiary must issue forth a claim upon a board of trustees. For example, you may be eligible to receive social security benefits but if you don't issue your claim the benefits are not coming.

Likewise with 12USC411. You must stake your claim. I always use "demand is made for lawful money per 12USC411". It is simple stuff. I am moving their court.

I am motioning the court to move BUT I can not act for the court. The officers of the court carry out the orders of the court.

So my demand only PUSHES the court to act. I lack the capacity to redeem I can only make a claim upon the mercy seat.

here is another key. Stop and consider carefully what ALIENATION OF ESTATE means in reference to the typical endorsement. If you don't yet see then think what happens before a probate court. Is it not TRANSFER OF ESTATE?

What happens when the estate is transferred at Probate? There is an easy method to escape probate tax. A very easy method. And if you stop and carefully consider I have already told you herein how.

Shalom
MJ