Currently being denied my deposit with demand to redeem 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...

[BLBereans]

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?758-IRS-recognizes-Redeeming-Lawful-Money-Yes!!!&p=8956&viewfull=1#post8956

Here is a question for those who believe making the demand equates to "self-executing redemption"...

Why, in the above anecdote regarding a rubber check, would the bank tear off the 12USC411 verbiage? If the demanded funds resulted in "self-executed" redemption, tearing off (or attempting to hide) the non-endorsement makes no sense; the funds are already redeemed so tearing that check wouldn't hide a thing, would it?

[Robert Henry]

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showt...ull=1#post8956

Here is a question for those who believe making the demand equates to "self-executing redemption"...

Why, in the above anecdote regarding a rubber check, would the bank tear off the 12USC411 verbiage? If the demanded funds resulted in "self-executed" redemption, tearing off (or attempting to hide) the non-endorsement makes no sense; the funds are already redeemed so tearing that check wouldn't hide a thing, would it?

It would certainly hide the record that said instrument was redeemed, would it not? At least on the bank's side. I'm led to believe people destroy evidence all the time.

One could speculate endlessly on the actions of one employee, possibly (probably?) ignorant of the implications of such verbiage and likely told, as the bank manager appears to have been in the preceding example in that post, that it was "against bank policy" by their higher-ups. I believe this board has several accounts from the early days when redeeming first started gaining popularity where bank employees were utterly befuddled by the concept and tried to deny it to suitors. Now they simply seem to ignore it, in my experience, with the one exception I noted here in my previous post.

I would re-direct you to my previous post in this thread asking what event it is you think might transpire behind the scenes in execution of redemption, if it is not self-executing?

Perhaps this article will help, if you have not read it previously: http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/convincing.html

It is certainly worth your time, in my opinion.

Thank you.

[Robert Henry]

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.

Perhaps I should further clarify as well, as it seems people may be inclined to jump in the water before first dipping a toe to test the temperature - not wise, in my opinion.

Do your homework on this process and fully comprehend the possible ramifications. I cannot stress enough the importance of the intrepid suitor having guidance and I would strongly recommend that people talk with David Merrill directly.

There is more to this than simply publishing something at the county, if you wish to provide overwhelming evidence and clearly demonstrate your intent.

For at least the third time in this thread I will advise that properly serving, posting and publishing your Notice and Demand for Lawful Money is critical. I would not proceed with IRS filings without having done such.

[BLBereans]

It would certainly hide the record that said instrument was redeemed, would it not? At least on the bank's side. I'm led to believe people destroy evidence all the time.

One could speculate endlessly on the actions of one employee, possibly (probably?) ignorant of the implications of such verbiage and likely told, as the bank manager appears to have been in the preceding example in that post, that it was "against bank policy" by their higher-ups. I believe this board has several accounts from the early days when redeeming first started gaining popularity where bank employees were utterly befuddled by the concept and tried to deny it to suitors. Now they simply seem to ignore it, in my experience, with the one exception I noted here in my previous post.

I would re-direct you to my previous post in this thread asking what event it is you think might transpire behind the scenes in execution of redemption, if it is not self-executing?

Perhaps this article will help, if you have not read it previously: http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/convincing.html

It is certainly worth your time, in my opinion.

Thank you.

It would certainly be an attempt to hide (wouldn't work anyway) the fact that the instrument was never going to be redeemed in the first place.

Had the check not bounced, what would have happened according to the anecdotal evidence we have? The supposed "redeemed" funds would have been fractionalized rather than taken out of the debt stream - no extinguishment. To redeem is to "buy back"; ask your self who "sells" and who "buys".

So the demand would go unheeded in that scenario, yet, that makes NO difference to the demander; the demander has no further liability. The redeemer failed to perform.

[KnowLaw]

Currently being denied my deposit with demand to redeem lawful money

I believe that unless and until 12 USC 411 is somehow repealed or over-turned, this method properly executed will continue to yield success.

It cannot be over-turned except by the Congress in which it was first passed, which opportunity has long since passed by, and to attempt to repeal it would be a fraud upon the public. Otherwise, one or the other of these two actions would already have been accomplished. So the Congress is not going to (i.e. cannot) take either of those two actions.

If you understand law, then you understand the following (taken from a post on another forum, in referring to a similar question):

Does the State of Michigan have a right to abolish laws of the Territory of Michigan? Does the 14th Congress have a right to abolish the laws of the 13th Congress? Can the Boy Scouts modify the Girl Scouts Handbook? The answer is[:] ... only the entity that created a law can abolish or modify it. That is not to say a newer entity [i.e., iteration of government] cannot adopt laws of its own but at no time can they modify the original law.

Nope. A law passed is a law passed. Now I agree that the 14th Congress can choose to enact a NEW law that affects how their OWN employees are going to approach a problem.

A new congress is a new government. The laws of the old government are still in effect until a new congress changes or abolishes them FOR THEIR OWN EMPLOYEES. A new congress cannot create ex post facto a law that an employee of the previous congress relied upon for his own actions.

[itsmymoney]

Regarding the recording of my Demand to RILM Affidavit at the County tomorrow, I have acquired on the Affidavit the Notary's printed name and signature, plus the signatures of two witnesses. I intend to record under a Miscellaneous Filing and get TWO certified copies of the recording (plus request the Notary's Certificate of Commission - of which I got her personal copy today at the bank - to verify against the County's copy). The Affidavit states a retro RILM to Jan 2, 2015 which is the first RILM check for 2015. I have all the evidence to back this info up.

Also, should I give them the ORIGINAL (signed in blue ink) or the COPY (black ink) of the Affidavit, to record?

Any other thoughts are most welcome.

Thank you.

[Chex]

It cannot be over-turned except by the Congress in which it was first passed, which opportunity has long since passed by, and to attempt to repeal it would be a fraud upon the public. Otherwise, one or the other of these two actions would already have been accomplished. So the Congress is not going to (i.e. cannot) take either of those two actions. If you understand law, then you understand the following (taken from a post on another forum, in referring to a similar question):

That is a great statement something to keep an eye on.

Look the verbiage changed. LOL in all Cap letters by the way.

By the way the seller wants $2,149.00 for this bill

[mikecz]

So we are pretty much all on board that the new notes are dual purpose notes correct?

I found it interesting, at the bottom of this posted note, it says "Will pay the the bearer on demand... ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS" thereby making a distinction between this note, and an actual dollar.

On a one dollar bill I have sitting in front of me (series 2009), it says... ONE DOLLAR, at the bottom. This would mean, well, that it is an actual dollar, but also fit as a federal reserve note, it's really just how you claim it.

[Chex]

So we are pretty much all on board that the new notes are dual purpose notes correct?

Yes we are mike.

I found it interesting, at the bottom of this posted note, it says "Will pay the the bearer on demand... ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS" thereby making a distinction between this note, and an actual dollar.

"Will pay the the bearer on demand"... Humm wonder what someone else thinks of that term?

On a one dollar bill I have sitting in front of me (series 2009), it says... ONE DOLLAR, at the bottom. This would mean, well, that it is an actual dollar, but also fit as a federal reserve note, it's really just how you claim it.

Will Pay To The Bearer On Demand

Will pay the the bearer on demand Search

[ohiofoiarequest]

It is simple. If I don't have the stamp handy I'll just handwrite "Redeemed Lawful Money per 12 U.S.C. 411" backside of the check. I use the Smartphone for deposits too - very handy.

I have only ever run into a couple of issues when redeeming checks in lawful money of the United States. The very first time I tried doing so was back when I was still actively engaged in the labor force. I went to the employer's bank to cash a payroll check..at the bank the teller and then her manager both took up issue with the past tense use of "redeemed in lawful money" endorsement; to them it appeared to invalidate the check itself. A call to the bank's legal department got me the cash in hand but a strict admonishment to no longer endorse my checks in such a manner...which was avoided by simply going to another branch and writing the endorsement with present tense "redeem in lawful money 12 USC 411"...never another issue there.

I have since reduced the (non)endorsement on physically deposited checks to "12 USC 411 lawful money demand" or even simply "12 USC 411 demand". On the road a couple of months ago and deposited four checks featuring this verbiage into an out of state bank branch. The teller asked about the endorsement and expressed her concern that the checks appeared to be restrictively endorsed which somehow violated bank policy...I played dumb, shrugged and responded that at the request of my accountant I had been doing so without incident for years...after she looked up some policy on her computer and went for a quick consultation with her manager she came back to explain that the manager was fine with depositing the checks as they were and that she was sorry for the inconvenience of me having to wait on her to get an okay to do so.

While my past experience has been that nearly all the tellers have looked over my non-endorsement without so much as batting an eye..and therefore having met almost no resistance...I really do enjoy using the mobile banking app which allows me to RILM checks from the comfort of my home or anywhere on the road while being able to retain possession of the RILM checks for my records and not have to worry about the delay of inquiring teller minds.

When all else fails, play dumb or download a mobile banking app!