Resistance and Refusal by Banks

[itsmymoney]

Greetings, all.

David, and all in general,

I and many others have been experiencing resistance or downright refusals to change our signature card or open new accounts as such with a declaration that the account be redeemable in lawful money. I have a theory but I do not have proof one way or the other why these 'member banks' have been rejecting us.

USC 411 states that 'The said notes shall be obligations of the Unites States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal Reserve Banks...They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, DC, or at any Federal Reserve Bank.'

Here goes my theory based on the language in USC 411...

1) 'The said notes...shall be receivable by all [banks]'.

To me, receivable means they can accept Federal Reserve notes (with no talk of lawful money redemption at this point). So they can receive FRN's into virtually all banks.

2) 'They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the [Treasury Dept, DC, or any Federal Reserve bank].

What strikes me is that 'member banks' are not included in the 'redeemable entity' list. The language could be interpreted in this manner by the 'member banks': any bank can receive FRN's into an account, but only the ones in the 'redeemable entity' list shall as obligated by law, redeem them in lawful money. So they are interpreting 'Federal Reserve bank' to mean the 12 known banks as such. Therefore, they (private, FDIC members, that ilk) interpret that they can receive your FRN's but are under no obligation to redeem in lawful money because they are not one of the '12 Federal Reserve banks'.

Although remedy exists via USC 411, the thinking is that if these 'member banks' are somehow excluded from the obligation, one would need to redeem in lawful money at one of the 12 Federal Reserve Banks or at the Treasury Department. Which for almost all of us would be incredibly impractical and frankly, incredibly unfair and not in good faith per USC 411.

Is there supporting law or documents for USC 411 that would clarify the above interpretation one way or another?

Thank you for any clarification or thoughts on this.

[David Merrill]

The signature card is an agreement. You make a novation (innovation) and that means they have three days to R4C your novation. Another method might be to put the demand on your payroll authorization for direct deposit. That involves your employer though and that is never wise.

I think you are right on about the specifications of which banks may be redeemed but you do not get to bank at the Federal Reserve banks. They do not open accounts for people like you. So you either have the right to redeem or not. According to MILAM you do.




Which presents the question - Where do I go, if not my bank?

If your banker says you have to go to the Fed or that this only applies to state banks and not you and if he were correct then it would not make any difference and he should allow you to sign as you please. If you have no such remedy then it is just a fanciful addition - meaningless. We have the suitor who found employees being fired though, for making general deposits when they were to be special deposits to it does indeed matter.

My experience (through the brain trust) tells me that if the suitor knows what he is doing he will get the novation in place mostly because the bank has fiduciary responsibility to do business with you. In other words they may try convincing you to close down your account and if you are conditioned to obey, you will. They will not close down your account unless you are costing them like with the suitor where the employees were fired. That cost a lot so they shut down the accounts.

[Rock Anthony]

Bank of America

Greetings, all.

David, and all in general,

I and many others have been experiencing resistance or downright refusals to change our signature card or open new accounts as such with a declaration that the account be redeemable in lawful money. I have a theory but I do not have proof one way or the other why these 'member banks' have been rejecting us...

I've had success opening a 'lawful money' checking account at Bank of America (see front and back of signature card, my novation is on the back). And it seems that I'm not the only one.

When I opened the account, I was initially met with resistance. The banker did not comprehend my demand for lawful money. I remember her assertively telling me, "You will not stamp that on my signature card!" I had to remind myself that, yeah, in her role as agent of BofA, it really is her signature card.

I requested that she not reject the application for a new checking account, but rather run this by the BofA legal department. I very graciously expressed concern for her well being, that I would not like to see her get in trouble for practicing law without a license. She agreed, and asked that I contact her the following Tuesday.

Well, upon contacting her the following Tuesday, she invited me to come in and open the account, demand for lawful money and all!!!

I type all of this to say, go to BofA. They seem to have better a better legal department than many other banks.

[David Merrill]

Thanks for that Rock. Bank of America seems to come highly recommended for this.

[Keith Alan]

Greetings, all.

David, and all in general,

I and many others have been experiencing resistance or downright refusals to change our signature card or open new accounts as such with a declaration that the account be redeemable in lawful money. I have a theory but I do not have proof one way or the other why these 'member banks' have been rejecting us.

USC 411 states that 'The said notes shall be obligations of the Unites States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal Reserve Banks...They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, DC, or at any Federal Reserve Bank.'

Here goes my theory based on the language in USC 411...

1) 'The said notes...shall be receivable by all [banks]'.

To me, receivable means they can accept Federal Reserve notes (with no talk of lawful money redemption at this point). So they can receive FRN's into virtually all banks.

2) 'They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the [Treasury Dept, DC, or any Federal Reserve bank].

What strikes me is that 'member banks' are not included in the 'redeemable entity' list. The language could be interpreted in this manner by the 'member banks': any bank can receive FRN's into an account, but only the ones in the 'redeemable entity' list shall as obligated by law, redeem them in lawful money. So they are interpreting 'Federal Reserve bank' to mean the 12 known banks as such. Therefore, they (private, FDIC members, that ilk) interpret that they can receive your FRN's but are under no obligation to redeem in lawful money because they are not one of the '12 Federal Reserve banks'.

Although remedy exists via USC 411, the thinking is that if these 'member banks' are somehow excluded from the obligation, one would need to redeem in lawful money at one of the 12 Federal Reserve Banks or at the Treasury Department. Which for almost all of us would be incredibly impractical and frankly, incredibly unfair and not in good faith per USC 411.

Is there supporting law or documents for USC 411 that would clarify the above interpretation one way or another?

Thank you for any clarification or thoughts on this.

I'm looking for an easier more direct way as well. I can't shake the question that, if I demand lawful money, what's in it for the bank? Near as I can tell, there is no benefit at all to them, except possibly better public relations.

It also raises another question: since I'm holding FRN's, and if by default that makes me a state Bank, why can't I simply exercise my own demand? As Beneficiary - True Name - I can demand my Trustee - LEGAL NAME - to make good the demand. The Trustor, Congress and the Federal Reserve System, has made this provision in the law.

Unless I'm wrong about the Trustor being the Congress and the Fed (persons of yet another trust).

All of this begs for documentation, which is why it appears necessary for a third party to keep a record, in the event of a controversy. All of tbhis is contingent on me having received a bank draft or check. What if I simply cash the check? What then? Haven't I avoided the entire controversy? Has anyone explored the idea of simply cashing checks with the restrictive endorsement on the back?

[David Merrill]

I'm looking for an easier more direct way as well. I can't shake the question that, if I demand lawful money, what's in it for the bank? Near as I can tell, there is no benefit at all to them, except possibly better public relations.

It also raises another question: since I'm holding FRN's, and if by default that makes me a state Bank, why can't I simply exercise my own demand? As Beneficiary - True Name - I can demand my Trustee - LEGAL NAME - to make good the demand. The Trustor, Congress and the Federal Reserve System, has made this provision in the law.

Unless I'm wrong about the Trustor being the Congress and the Fed (persons of yet another trust).

All of this begs for documentation, which is why it appears necessary for a third party to keep a record, in the event of a controversy. All of tbhis is contingent on me having received a bank draft or check. What if I simply cash the check? What then? Haven't I avoided the entire controversy? Has anyone explored the idea of simply cashing checks with the restrictive endorsement on the back?

That is the issue of the interest. There is really nothing in it for the bank. Except to adhere to responsibility to the public. If you are reducing the national debt then you are a minister of the Public Trust - Article VI of the Constitution.

Cashing checks with the restrictive endorsement on the back? What is the difference between a check and a withdrawal slip?

Strike through Pay to the order of...

[Keith Alan]

That is the issue of the interest. There is really nothing in it for the bank. Except to adhere to responsibility to the public. If you are reducing the national debt then you are a minister of the Public Trust - Article VI of the Constitution.

Cashing checks with the restrictive endorsement on the back? What is the difference between a check and a withdrawal slip?

Strike through Pay to the order of...

Yes, that looks very simple to me. Strike through, restrictively endorse, photocopy and cash. The difference is convenience. I get multiple checks from people, so it follows I would need to spend an afternoon every week going to each bank and cashing them. Here in California (I don't know about other states) it's a pain, since they want fingerprints, and there are restrictions on receiving too large of an amount. But this appeals to me more than notice and demand and evidence repositories, even though those are probably wise things to do.

[KnowLaw]

I type all of this to say, go to BofA. They seem to have better a better legal department than many other banks.

Wells Fargo has never given me any trouble about this matter, either. It seems the top or major five or six U.S. banks may be aware of this and will adjust their accounting to reflect the demand.

Within the past two years they (Wells Fargo) required different stipulations for their accounts which required my opening a personal savings account in connection with the checking account already opened in order to avoid incurring additional fees. I did so at that time, making the demand for lawful money on the signature application form. The "banker/clerk" helping me didn't seem to understand anything about the novation and let it pass without comment.

Well, for the first year or so there were interest payments being added to the account (pennies really, but an interest payment nonetheless). Then just within the past three months, those interest payments stopped showing up on my monthly statements for that account. I figured that someone at the bank must have finally noticed the demand and rearranged the bank's acknowledgement to reflect the demand.

[itsmymoney]

Resistance and Refusal by Banks

Thanks to all for the options out there. I am waiting word on my bank as to whether they will allow a change to the current account.

David, regarding your prior post below of 'where to go' if the banks refuse you, I believe a little moxy as you say in standing firm. If in fact lawful money can only be redeemed by a Federal Reserve Bank (if you read USC 411 that way), then I would think the member bank could simply pass on your demand to their neighborhood FRB as a credit to the member bank in that amount. If the bank is still resistant to the demand, then I would perhaps ask their legal department to provide me a remedy to their contention that they are not required to redeem in lawful money, as remedy to not honoring my demand is required by law, correct?

My experience (through the brain trust) tells me that if the suitor knows what he is doing he will get the novation in place mostly because the bank has fiduciary responsibility to do business with you. In other words they may try convincing you to close down your account and if you are conditioned to obey, you will. They will not close down your account unless you are costing them like with the suitor where the employees were fired. That cost a lot so they shut down the accounts.

David, as an aside to your above post, were the bank employees fired because they were not submitting the lawful money notes into their accounting properly?

Thank you.

[David Merrill]

Thanks to all for the options out there. I am waiting word on my bank as to whether they will allow a change to the current account.

David, regarding your prior post below of 'where to go' if the banks refuse you, I believe a little moxy as you say in standing firm. If in fact lawful money can only be redeemed by a Federal Reserve Bank (if you read USC 411 that way), then I would think the member bank could simply pass on your demand to their neighborhood FRB as a credit to the member bank in that amount. If the bank is still resistant to the demand, then I would perhaps ask their legal department to provide me a remedy to their contention that they are not required to redeem in lawful money, as remedy to not honoring my demand is required by law, correct?



David, as an aside to your above post, were the bank employees fired because they were not submitting the lawful money notes into their accounting properly?

Thank you.

First point;

That is probably going on anyway. There must be remedy.

Second point;

That is a vicarious experience by a suitor who reported it. So I don't know much about the details. The bank closed down accounts though.

[itsmymoney]

I think USC 411 could have been written better (IMHO) to include the member banks in the 'redeemable list' [1) at the Treasury Dept; 2) in the city of DC; 3 at a Federal Reserve bank]. As I stated in my original post, the member banks could interpret 'Federal Reserve Bank' to literally mean one of the big 12 (and not them).

But, as David aptly pointed out by the original Act, there must be remedy for redeeming in U.S. notes. I believe 'Federal Reserve bank' in the language implies that member banks are 'agents' of the Federal Reserve big 12 and therefore must honor the remedy associated as such with the big 12. But if I can read 411 it on its face and 'pick it apart', then we know they can. And, they will spin it in their favor if we are ignorant to the law and intent of that law.

[itsmymoney]

Ok, here's an update from my bank...

The liason person (very nice) forward the following to me in response to my request to change my sig card (in quotes):

'This is an urban myth and periodically circles the financial world. Due to regulatory approval and customer volume, we do not deviate from our standard account agreement upon individual customer requests. Therefore, we are not allowed to modify the terms and conditions of the contract (signature card) established with Marine Bank. [followed by the actual languge of USC 411]'.

Urban myth...really?
Customer volume...what does that mean?
What regulatory approval...bank, State or Fed and where can I find it to confirm/debunk?

As an aside, they won't let me open a new account either.

I sent back an email asking the following:

1) Please forward the following question to the person responsible for this matter:

Is the bank now intending to deny me redemption in lawful money currently being executed on my paper check deposits, as per the statute they have provided below (USC 411), which is the law I have been citing as the basis for this lawful money remedy-obligation in the first place?

2) I would like the name and number of the Treasury or Financial officer at Marine who would be able to respond to my inquiries in this matter.


The one I'd really be curious about is if they continue to let me deposit restricted paper checks. I currently have direct-deposit but I will need to change to restricted paper checks. I have only deposited a few paper checks but all were restricted w/o issue.

On that note (restricted paper checks), does anyone have an opinion on whether this would supercede or override a non-restricted sig card on the account? My thinking is, all restricted paper deposits, withdrawals and merchant checks written from a non-restricted sig card account are the actual transactions of redeeming that money, therefore you have avoided endorsing the "person" (statutory) on the sig card.

All thougths and clarifications are welcome.

[Michael Joseph]

its like my daddy used to say, if one girl says no, ask another.

furthermore, I am not in the business of asking anyone if I can place a restrictive endorsement in front of MY signature. And unless I asked for legal advise, I am not going to listen to some clerk dispense unwanted advise.

"Are you giving me legal advise / are you an attorney?"

Shalom,
MJ

[Ambientlght]

My issue with the bank

I opened an account at a local bank here in the Chicagoland area in June of 2012, I wrote on the signature card "All transactions on this account are intended by demand to be done in lawful money per 12 USC 411." I had the administrator make copies of it with no problem, she asked what it was about and I told her it was part of my constitutional rights to demand lawful currency in lieu of the existing fiat currency in place in our country, she said oh, okay and proceeded to make me a copy of the signature card.
A week later I walked into the bank and the same lady that processed the signature card walked up to me and said "I looked up the 12 USC 411 thing and it says something about lawful money being of gold and silver, well I am here to tell you our money is not backed by any gold or silver anymore!" I looked at her and smiled and said "My point exactly" ..... she walked away with a bewildered look on her face.
The bank refused to cash the checks I presented with my stamp "Deposit for credit on account or exchange for federal reserve notes of equal value" but they did let me deposit them and with drawl the funds after 2 or 3 days.
My dilemma, if you can call it a dilemma, is that every month since I opened the account they have sent a letter stating that there is no signature card on file and that I should come in to file one. I laughed because how is the account even opened and an account # issued without a signature card? Did they lose it? are they afraid to put that one on file?
I read somewhere in one of these threads about a 3 day rescission right of the bank to with drawl the signature card, is that true?
I have wrote a nasty letter and a nice letter but would like some input before I send one of them off to them, also curious if I should mail it certified w/proof of service?
I can post scrubbed copies of the signature card and the letter from hte bank if that will help in assessing my situation.

Thanks in advance for your input into these matters,
Tom

[Michael Joseph]

Well I suppose that might be confusing language to a bank teller, but i find the law says one needs to make a DEMAND for lawful money so why not make the DEMAND known on the instrument such as:

DEMAND IS MADE FOR LAWFUL MONEY PER 12USC411.


If some ignorant clerk asks why the language I used to say "its for tax purposes" - say goodnight Gracie....

Shalom,
MJ