Resistance and Refusal by Banks

[David Merrill]

I really would not like to send the bank anything that might call their attention to my demands for lawful money. The personnel in the bank are the same ones I dealt with before the merger, I've been banking with them for 3 years or so. Unfortunately, I did not keep a copy of the signature card. Maybe it would be wise to open another account with a new signature card and demand lawful money on the new signature card and snap a picture of it with my iPhone, then close the old account and start using the new one. Or is that being overly paranoid?

I think that makes no sense unless I sympathize with your conditioning. Why not ask a teller to run a copy of your Signature Card? Remember the magic words; please and thank you!


P.S. Stonefree;


A suitor wrote recently that the letters to her ended almost immediately when she closed her bank accounts. Her husband still has an account and still gets the administrative letters.

[gdude]

A suitor wrote recently that the letters to her ended almost immediately when she closed her bank accounts. Her husband still has an account and still gets the administrative letters.

From Who? Auntie Iris?

[David Merrill]

Sorry, the letters badgering from the IRS. - From back a few years with CtC by Pete.

[salsero]

Very nice.

I am more toward getting the Fed notified correctly and then serving the bank. Then you forget about it but keep making your Demand whenever.

As for opening an account though - very nice.

It strikes me that instead of the letter the Response or Default from the Board would probably cover it and the bank would open the account. But I have not put that to the test.

Yes David I agree with you - this is why I added the phrase ", I then will presume that BOA has willfully violated my rights to demand lawful money and will pursue the matter with the powers that be for relief." The PTB are the comptroller of the currency and the FRB. I did not want to "threaten too much" as a Peaceful Inhabitant, it is not about $$, but rather the compliance.

The key is to make them personallyliable for failing to follow THEIR laws. When it hits them in THEIR pocket, it sheds a different light

It should be noted the BANK will not respond - they really can not. Then after 35 days and no response you send a letter of "ACKNOWLDGEMENT AND DEFAULT" offering them once last time to resond within 10 days. I would add a little more threat to this letter - add the comptroller, FRB, AG, SOS, and a little tid bit of any further costs to me for the you mr. bank officer shall be held personally liable, including adminstration fees of $$$. Once again they will fail to respond. Then you must do a thrid letter "ACKNOWLDGEMENT AND FINAL NOTICE OF DEFAULT. And then you got them. YAY!!!

I am about to do this with wells fargo, I just have not gotten there yet. I went there about a month ago, and spoke with a rep. YOU CAN NOT SPEAK WITH A REP, you must speak with an officer of the bank. The rep is only doing his job by telling you NO. You can not get upset. Just know you are wasting your time. It was the first time, I went to a bank and wanted to open an account and put the disclaimer on the signature card. It is actually funny to see the reaction on their faces when they learn what it means. Its almost worth the entertainment.

This is what I am planning to do: go back to wells fargo and ask to speak with the president or officer, in hand I will have various laws - pertaining to redeeming lawful money and the ISSUE of the SSN. Talk real nice but explain it is not a request it is a demand. It is the banks required fiduciary duty to provide me with the laws that require me to provide them with a SSN and I can not do lawful money. A stupid repsonse from the officer is - oh its in the patriot act - you have to comply is not a response. It is BS. You specifically have the patriot act with you. I have not been able to find anywhere where it says a SSN is required. The officer must be specific as the law. Have no issue FOR THAT DAY, walking out of the bank with your tail between your legs if the officer says no way jose. Make sure you obtain the officer's business card and ensure that in fact, he is an officer of the bank. YOU THEM SEND HIM REGISTERED [ONLY] LETTERS. You go to the post office, and ask the clerk to stamp a copy or ask the clerk to make a copy with their red date stamp on your copy, thus making a "record". Records can not be rebutted easily. You do this three times as necessary when the bank officer fails to respond.

You are well on your well to getting the bank in trouble plus having mr. officer's no longer working in that position. Yes, do follow David's recommendation of signing the back of checks with the redeem for LM.... its not all that important to have the discalimer on the signature card as you are still redeeming LM regardless.

Tony

[salsero]

I really would not like to send the bank anything that might call their attention to my demands for lawful money. The personnel in the bank are the same ones I dealt with before the merger, I've been banking with them for 3 years or so. Unfortunately, I did not keep a copy of the signature card. Maybe it would be wise to open another account with a new signature card and demand lawful money on the new signature card and snap a picture of it with my iPhone, then close the old account and start using the new one. Or is that being overly paranoid?

We all have to remember that it is our job to prove the "record" not theirs. I personally would not trust the bank to do the honorable thing - let's say if you were ever questioned by the IRS - that signature card can easily be "fixed".

Should I be successful with wells fargo [and at this time I am feelin good about the success because it is so using their system agains them for a change with the three letters as stated above], at the time the signature card is done, I would ask the bank notary to provide me a statement that the signature card is in fact and accurate and true copy of the original held by the bank and have the officer sign off on it. Will they do this? I do not know - but backing their asses in a corner with no wiggle room [particularly for the little money I will have in the account - lol] makes them think twice. But I do live in Florida and most people can not think here very well LOL. So I am often not suprised for stupidity.

[David Merrill]

I trust that you realize with their first response mentioning your demand for lawful money you have proof of service that they have received your Demand?


Beyond that I believe you are toying with your bank and risk reflecting back on you what you project.

[salsero]

I trust that you realize with their first response mentioning your demand for lawful money you have proof of service that they have received your Demand?

Maybe I was not clear previously. I am not out to get the bank. I am not out to get anyone, for that matter. We all know the banks like how they do business and really have no interest in changing it. After I speak with an officer of the bank - man to man - in a non threatening though not backing down mode either, the officer has an option comply or not. I may get lucky to speak to someone who gets it and will simply reply - no problem let's do it. However, my experience, living in Florida for 22 years is "they ain't too bright down here" lol. A likely scenario is the officer will do nothing. This then is the beginning of the registered letters, similiar to what I posted. Will the officer respond, again being Florida, he will turn it over to legal and legal - not being too bright as well, will send a response something like was sent to Freed. Per my first letter, this is a non-response and it goes into default. Most fraudsters do not answer anything under penalties of perjury with full commercial and personal liabiliy - and really how could they? Accordingly, the three registered letters UNANSWERED [at the bank's discretion], now goes into damages. As I said earlier, it is not about $$ but rather to obtain remedy. But THEY do not see it that way. Just remember how many times WE HAVE all signed something swearing to abide, do or be held liable. I really do not see this as anything but normal business in the world of commerce.

Beyond that I believe you are toying with your bank and risk reflecting back on you what you project.

I have no intention to toy with any bank or officer. It is simply, it is a demand, not a request. I can do this politely and in honor. THe officer has the option to accept or deny. And for me it is all good. Any presumption I MAY HAVE is solely based upon other's experiences in dealing with the PTB. I fully understand everything is consciousness and intention. But I also understand that we are tested and FOR A VERY GOOD REASON, may I ad - not that I particularly like it but I do understand. I see aboslutely no down side to what I have outlined.

If the banks are required to follow 12 USC 411, then there really is no issue. If not, then a grown up response would be "I am sorry the bank will not open the account with this request and I as an officer am willing to sign this under penalties of perjury with full commercial liabily. 12 USC 411 is optional and as a bank, we do not need to follow that law". The last reponse I got from wells fargo was good bye and good luck with a smirk.

I look at this as a test - I needed to go back and study more and ask questions. Am I prepared? Who really ever is 100%? But at this time, I feel confident to move foward in whatever manner is appropriate and it can be done in honor, integrity with any intention of "getting them". I consider myself a peaceful man who is here on this planet to experience all of God's glory as a living soul incarnate using the usufruct as ORIGINALLY INTENDED for all of us.

[David Merrill]

Sorry to use that term "toying". I still do not see the purpose though except some kind of patrolling.

I probably would have agreed with your approach two months ago. One suitor pointed out after explaining the trust structure that he has not been granted the authority to actually redeem in lawful money, only to demand it. This money is not his for any such execution of law.

Attached find the near final draft.

[salsero]

It appears a bigger question NOW must be asked? Do we have any right to redeem lawful money? If not, then there is no sense moving forward with any of this. Specficially what trust structure is being referred?

I would NOT be in favor of this type of lawsuit. It playing in their private sandbox and not a likely win. You only go into private court with the victory in hand before you enter the ship. This is why I recommend the 3 letters. its a done deal.

I do not know what you mean by "patrolling", so I can not answer this.

David, if you have a suggestion on what WE should do, please advise. I take it you are redeeeming lawful money as placed on your signature card with the bank. This is a presumption as I have no first hand knowledge of this.

Another intersting aspect to the comment "One suitor pointed out after explaining the trust structure that he has not been granted the authority to actually redeem in lawful money, only to demand it. This money is not his for any such execution of law." This is strongly suggesting that WE are not permitted then the exemption on the 1040 on line 21 for redeeming lawful money. If we can ONLY demand LM but not actually redeem it because we are not authorized or a party to THEIR private club, then this exemption would be for ONLY authorized persons. This appears not to be consistent with other suitor's opinions of the tax exemptoin for lawful money. So maybe this suitor has some bad info????

David can you please elaborate

thanks - Tony

[JohnnyCash]

HA! now we begin to see the real "salsero." And could you ask Freed G. to come back - I have a question for him.

[David Merrill]

It appears a bigger question NOW must be asked? Do we have any right to redeem lawful money? If not, then there is no sense moving forward with any of this. Specficially what trust structure is being referred?

I would NOT be in favor of this type of lawsuit. It playing in their private sandbox and not a likely win. You only go into private court with the victory in hand before you enter the ship. This is why I recommend the 3 letters. its a done deal.

I do not know what you mean by "patrolling", so I can not answer this.

David, if you have a suggestion on what WE should do, please advise. I take it you are redeeeming lawful money as placed on your signature card with the bank. This is a presumption as I have no first hand knowledge of this.

Another intersting aspect to the comment "One suitor pointed out after explaining the trust structure that he has not been granted the authority to actually redeem in lawful money, only to demand it. This money is not his for any such execution of law." This is strongly suggesting that WE are not permitted then the exemption on the 1040 on line 21 for redeeming lawful money. If we can ONLY demand LM but not actually redeem it because we are not authorized or a party to THEIR private club, then this exemption would be for ONLY authorized persons. This appears not to be consistent with other suitor's opinions of the tax exemptoin for lawful money. So maybe this suitor has some bad info????

David can you please elaborate

thanks - Tony

It is nothing more than a proposed mental model. Speaking for myself, METRO = Districts, I am authorized and so is the brain trust. I mark the currency as redeemed any time it pleases me. It has the effect of teaching others who handle it because the CODE can be found on Cornell's website.

I think that by deferring the fraud back to Congress and not patroling the bank a suitor is completely justified to be making his demand as this was the remedy designed for state and national banks.

But mainly this is a decision to be decided by the courts or Congress. And it has already been voiced. Nobody will touch it otherwise.

[Freed Gerdes]

It appears a bigger question NOW must be asked? Do we have any right to redeem lawful money? If not, then there is no sense moving forward with any of this. Specficially what trust structure is being referred?

I would NOT be in favor of this type of lawsuit. It playing in their private sandbox and not a likely win. You only go into private court with the victory in hand before you enter the ship. This is why I recommend the 3 letters. its a done deal.

I do not know what you mean by "patrolling", so I can not answer this.

David, if you have a suggestion on what WE should do, please advise. I take it you are redeeeming lawful money as placed on your signature card with the bank. This is a presumption as I have no first hand knowledge of this.

Another intersting aspect to the comment "One suitor pointed out after explaining the trust structure that he has not been granted the authority to actually redeem in lawful money, only to demand it. This money is not his for any such execution of law." This is strongly suggesting that WE are not permitted then the exemption on the 1040 on line 21 for redeeming lawful money. If we can ONLY demand LM but not actually redeem it because we are not authorized or a party to THEIR private club, then this exemption would be for ONLY authorized persons. This appears not to be consistent with other suitor's opinions of the tax exemptoin for lawful money. So maybe this suitor has some bad info????

David can you please elaborate

thanks - Tony

The statute is quite clear that a person (natural or otherwise) could only demand redemption on the occasion that he had FRN's, which he would naturally obtain at a Federal Reserve bank (like by cashing or depositing a check, receiving a direct deposit, etc, for which the FRB has already determined that you have chosen, or not denied, that you want FRN's; note that under the legal tender law, the banks can assume this, and the choice clearly favors them doing so), so the clear meaning of the statute is that the remedy (avoidance of FRN's) must be with the purveyors of same. There is no trust issue here; whoever came up with that was propagating red herrings, or was mis-directed by same. The CQVT could hold LM as easily as FRN's.

As to the lawsuit vs patrolling the banks, I perceive David's advice is this: you have no duty to force the bank to comply with your demand; that duty lies with the FRB. The statute designates their duty to 'supervise' the banks chartered under 12 USC, so let them do it. The suit is the simplest way, and it avoids all the confrontations, lies, and mis-direction you will likely get from the bank. I like it.

PS to JohnnyCash: like the trust, I am always here. Ask me anything. Freed G

[David Merrill]

Sometimes I feel that the OCC (Office of the Comptroller of the Currency) may be more in charge of enforcement and imposed risk management.

[JohnnyCash]

they take all your money" or "well you know they cost 12 thousand a month?" etc.. So my question relates not to passing savings on to heirs but more ... how to preserve some of that savings for the healthier parent, so he/she isn't left destitute by the sicker one's medical costs? I've received differing advice from people. Some talk about "lookback period" and Special Needs trust, and so forth. Do you have any words of wisdom?

[David Merrill]

I too have questions about this. It is a very puzzling topic!

Could you please repost your comment as an opening post for a new thread?

they take all your money" or "well you know they cost 12 thousand a month?" etc.. So my question relates not to passing savings on to heirs but more ... how to preserve some of that savings for the healthier parent, so he/she isn't left destitute by the sicker one's medical costs? I've received differing advice from people. Some talk about "lookback period" and Special Needs trust, and so forth. Do you have any words of wisdom?