If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. If you would like to post in these forums please send a PM directly to David Merrill.
All transactions on PayPal and elsewhere are demanded to be redeemed in lawful money as found in Section 16 of the Fed Act and at Title 12 USC 411.
Thank you so much for enjoying StSC! If you are getting popups please try clearing your browser cache.
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
Point well taken. I may end up going elsewhere. However, I want to gain some experience in how these officers respond (not the clerk) to legal matters of which may be denying me Constitutional rights. They actually forwarded me the very law (USC 411) of which I am citing as my right for lawful money, as THEIR reason for NOT meeting that obligation. Now, unless they are (as this thread implies may be happening) spinning the definition of 'Federal Reserve bank' to mean only the big 12, then I do not see how they can defend their argument.
The officer (or lackey subordinate to) will supposedly call me to discuss this.
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
Did you mean to say if you (customer) stated the novation was for 'tax purposes' then no way would they honor it?
I think the language wording in the law says, "shall" and in a legal sense, shall means MUST.
MY SS check is direct deposit as well as my retirement and my salary! Now I want to, as nice as is possible, use the word "demand", as is required by the law, that -ALL- transactions of my account be in lawful money.
Should I file a "Libel of Review" before I start this?
I want to understand How to force the bank to comply
I think the language wording in the law says, "shall" and in a legal sense, shall means MUST.
MY SS check is direct deposit as well as my retirement and my salary! Now I want to, as nice as is possible, use the word "demand", as is required by the law, that -ALL- transactions of my account be in lawful money.
Should I file a "Libel of Review" before I start this?
I want to understand How to force the bank to comply
Yes, 'shall' means MUST. USC 411 states that they shall receive and they shall redeem. However, as noted, the 'redeeming' sentence in the statute does not include 'member banks' as obligators unless the they are to be implied in the same class as a big 12 'Federal Reserve bank' as it is listed. David Merrill points out that there must be a remedy for redeeming in U.S. Notes (previously gold, silver) outside the Federal Reserve private Banksters, therefore 'Federal Reserve bank' would by law include 'member banks', UNLESS there is another law providing remedy for lawful money other than USC 411. If there is neither remedy in 411 or an otherwise law we are not aware of, then it would be repugnant to the Constitution I believe because it would be illegal to force us into a private contract in that regard.
As for the demand on your account. If you cannot change the sig card then in my opinion, you would need to open a new account with the novation on the sig card, or if they (or any bank) won't allow it, you might ask all the debtors (SS, salary) to issue checks instead of direct-deposit and then stamp the novation on the checks. This gives you control and ownership of the money and how you would like to redeem it into your account.
Did you mean to say if you (customer) stated the novation was for 'tax purposes' then no way would they honor it?
I don't know anything about anybody honoring anything I say. All I am saying is that these days men and women are D U M B as stumps. And if you even mention it is FOR tax purposes that is enough to overload the hamster wheel powering the few brain cells that they are actually using. And that is a shame. But the public fool system gets what it pays for and these days that is a source of cheap labor that is very skilled at parroting orders and getting them filled within the scope of their OJT.
"It's for tax purposes" works BECAUSE taxes are Voluntary and my taxes are MY business. And how I might pay my taxes is my business ONLY. And if some clown will not accept my signature including my restrictions, then I will find someone who will. There is no shortage of banks.
The blessing is in the hand of the doer. Faith absent deeds is dead.
I apologize in advance for posting yet another odd question, but can banks use money that is on deposit in non-interest bearing accounts as reserve currency?
- Update - I believe the answer is no. My thinking is, since the funds are in a non-interest bearing account, and since a person would make his demand upon depositing a check, then the funds in the account would already be lawful money, and no signature card novation is necessary.
Point well taken. I may end up going elsewhere. However, I want to gain some experience in how these officers respond (not the clerk) to legal matters of which may be denying me Constitutional rights. They actually forwarded me the very law (USC 411) of which I am citing as my right for lawful money, as THEIR reason for NOT meeting that obligation. Now, unless they are (as this thread implies may be happening) spinning the definition of 'Federal Reserve bank' to mean only the big 12, then I do not see how they can defend their argument.
The officer (or lackey subordinate to) will supposedly call me to discuss this.
For what it's worth, the way I understood what you wrote was, they denied your signature card novation, not your demand to receive lawful money.
This is what the bank agent forwarded from the person (officer I suppose) responsible for denying me, verbatim...
'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. The actual ACT is below
Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.'
Now obviously (as David M pointed out) they are deterring me, obfuscating, and bascally lying to me becase they and I know what's going on here. I find it laugable that she cited the very language (USC 411) that rebuts her position. Or, she has misinterpreted USC 411 incorrectly (that would be a shame considering her title). The agent said the officer was going to call me but I'm sure I'll wait until the end of time to hear from her. Also, has anyone seen Title 12 USC 342? Clear distinction between currency: lawful money, Federal Reserve notes.
I will try another bank for the sig card novation, but I am thinking of writing the officer and providing her with the laws she supposedly knows already. Maybe she thought it was ME who did not understand USC 411 and was trying to bet on my ignorance of the statute.
Keith Alan, you are correct. They have not actually said I could NOT deposit or redeem in lawful money. Which leads to my next question to David and everyone else...
If I deposit restricted checks (or notes) into that non-restricted account, and withdrawal all monies as lawful money from that account (novation on withdrawal slips) and subsequently purchase money orders with those withdrawals to pay merchants for goods and services, will this execution override the 'generic' signature card language and the future debt obligation of those transactions?
Keith Alan, you are correct. They have not actually said I could NOT deposit or redeem in lawful money. Which leads to my next question to David and everyone else...
If I deposit restricted checks (or notes) into that non-restricted account, and withdrawal all monies as lawful money from that account (novation on withdrawal slips) and subsequently purchase money orders with those withdrawals to pay merchants for goods and services, will this execution override the 'generic' signature card language and the future debt obligation of those transactions?
Why purchase money orders? The cash works better than the money orders in my opinion.
By making your demand you simply presume the cash you get is lawful money. The objective is that the cash does not hold a silent first lien on anything that you buy with it being private credit (in part) from the Fed.
Thank you for the court cite. It takes a bit to adopt yourself to all the legal-speak there. I think you (and the cite) is saying that once the lawful notes are withdrawn as such from your account and then transferred to another party, the debt is paid at that instance and no lien or obligation remains. If I'm off here, please set me straight.
As for cash and money orders:
I'm trying to avoid sending for example, $100 in cash via mail to pay my cable bill. A money order eliminates that (other than the fee). What am I missing here?
I am sorry. For mailed funds postal money orders are fully lawful money. Look for "Pay to" rather than "Pay to the Order of".
I do not feel that you are off. The cite is basically to make the point that there is a residual first lien on credit. You cannot truly buy anything with credit. You only discharge the obligation. It is like both you and the Fed have bought it together if you use the Fed's credit.
That is another way to say the same thing you said.
DM, no apologies necessary. Grateful for the education and clarification.
Somebody mentioned to me the other day that they are waiting for some checks to come in with lawful money verbiage and the Pay to: rather than Pay to the Order of:
Tweet
Comment