Resistance and Refusal by Banks

[David Merrill]

If I might (continue to) impose my understanding of American remedy on yours the Memorandum attached to the 843 Form might read something like:

[Freed Gerdes]

Thanks for your thoughtful insights, David. I have a few residual questions concerning the process, and the presumed (or feared) response of the IRS.

1. Redeeming lawful money, whether by stamp on a check, or by service of the recorded demand on the bank, creates the same result: demand has been made to refuse to deal in private credit/money substitutes, and this switch to public money puts the resulting transaction out of the reach of the IRS. I only use this method because I never see any checks; SSA has just forced everyone to use direct deposit. The same with my stock accounts; when I sell a stock they just credit my account; no check appears that I could non-endorse. I suspect this is to keep suitors from non-endorsing the checks (but maybe I am giving the IMF lawyers too much credit here). Thus the only way to make the demand is by changing the signature card, and the banks are being trained to refuse this request. Now they can't refuse the demand, as it exists in the federal law that created the Federal Reserve system. But most people will not know this, and will be intimidated by the banks' refusal. Because the account agreement is a private contract, can BofA say that 12USC411 attempts to interfere with a private contract, and thus is void? Alternately, their only option would be to close the account, which they could do, but they haven't. They are apparently claiming that the account was not changed to an irregular deposit account. I will go in tomorrow and try to open an irregular deposit account.

2. I get 1099's which show purported money movements, so I need to file a return. I am debating whether to not show the income received after July at all, and defer to the statement that after July it was all redeemed, or to show it all and then back it out on Line 21 and provide an addendum which lists all transactions after July.

3. Making the demand for lawful money converts the bank account from a Federal Reserve Account (insured by FDIC for $250k) to an irregular deposit account, which changes the relationship from one of debtor (bank) and unsecured creditor (me) to one of bailor (me) and bailee (bank). In the one case I make a loan to the bank (I pay an excise tax on the privilege of being a state bank), and in the other I keep title to the money and only use the bank for secure storage and bookkeeping functions. The Supreme Court ruled in 1894 that an income tax was repugnant to the Constitution, so when using Constitutional money (ie, any money issued by the Treasury), it can't be taxed. In fact, all these myriad taxes we now face are based on this private money scheme, as they are all* un-Constitutional otherwise. As you noted, Social Security is a benefit, and Congress can levy a tax to pay for a benefit, so SS* is a valid tax, but still an excise tax. As long as you are listed as a US Citizen (thus eligible for SS), you cannot get out of paying the SS tax, and it is extracted before you ever see it. Redeeming lawful money will not get you a refund of the SS tax; only opting out of SS will stop that tax. For young people, I would heartily recommend opting out. As Johnny Cash shows us, you can quit SS any time you want, and you will still get benefits when you retire, although less because it is based on how much you paid in...
But, if income tax is a valid tax, what is the benefit? Apparently, we all benefit from the Fed printing more worthless paper money. I wonder why the Articles expressly forbid this? To get around the Constitutional prohibition, the Fed banksters put the tax on private money. Ergo, don't use private money, and the whole problem goes away.

4. You suggested that I forgive the IRS for 40 years of fraud. Since money damages for fraud would be an equity claim, there is no statute of limitations: I could ask for a refund of all income taxes I ever paid. Is your concern that the IRS will recognize this in the Notice of Demand (now, ab initio, and nunc pro tunc), realize that they may have a $400,000 claim on their hands, and feel that they have to fight back? Your suggestion that I send a Form 834 would surely make them aware of this issue, in case they somehow missed it before, and since one has to file a separate Form 834 for every tax year, one might not put them at ease. Presuming that I state forgiveness of the entire amount and sign it, they would have some protection against later filings, so maybe that would set them at ease.

5. I have tried to learn a little about the Clerk of the Superior District Court here in Mecklenburg County, but there is damned little info available. The insider club of practicing attorneys no doubt know all these little tricks, but I haven't a clue how to proceed. Can I just go to the Clerk's office and ask to open a Miscellaneous Case file? What would they file it under, with no pending case or existing case number? And should I put my other records in it? Presumably this is to get evidence into the record in advance, and to let the IRS know that it is in the record (of the court that they would have to go through to get to me). Can you clarify this a little?

Finally, please note that I do not have any properly redeemed paychecks, as I am retired; all important money transfers occur by direct deposit; that is why I am using the blanket bank account route.

Thanks again for all your thoughtful comments. I appreciate your concern about not using the remedy until I need it even better now. But I have had the stamp for a year now and haven't used it yet...

[David Merrill]

Thanks for your thoughtful insights, David. I have a few residual questions concerning the process, and the presumed (or feared) response of the IRS.

1. Redeeming lawful money, whether by stamp on a check, or by service of the recorded demand on the bank, creates the same result: demand has been made to refuse to deal in private credit/money substitutes, and this switch to public money puts the resulting transaction out of the reach of the IRS. I only use this method because I never see any checks; SSA has just...

2. I get 1099's which show purported money movements, so I need to file a return. I am debating whether to not show the income received after July at all, and defer to the statement that after July it was all redeemed, or to show it all and then back it out on Line 21 and provide an addendum which lists all transactions after July.

3. Making the demand for lawful money converts the bank account from a Federal Reserve Account (insured by FDIC for $250k) to an irregular deposit account, which changes the relationship from one of debtor (bank) and unsecured creditor (me) to one of bailor (me) and bailee (bank). In the one case I make a loan to the bank (I pay an excise tax on the privilege of being a state bank), and in the other...

4. You suggested that I forgive the IRS for 40 years of fraud. Since money damages for fraud would be an equity claim, there is no statute of limitations: I could ask for a refund of all income taxes I ever paid. Is your concern that the IRS will recognize this in the Notice of Demand (now, ab initio, and nunc pro tunc), realize that they may have a $400,000 claim on their hands, and feel that they have to fight back? Your suggestion that I send a Form 834 would surely make them aware of this issue, in case they somehow missed it before, and since one has to file a separate Form 834 for every tax year, one might not put them at ease. Presuming that I state forgiveness of the entire amount and sign it, they would have some protection against later filings, so maybe that would set them at ease.

5. I have tried to learn a little about the Clerk of the Superior District Court here in Mecklenburg County, but there is damned little info available. The insider club of practicing attorneys no doubt know all these little tricks, but I haven't a clue how to proceed. Can I just go to the Clerk's office and ask to open a Miscellaneous Case file? What would they file it under, with no pending case or existing case number? And should I put my other records in it? Presumably this is to get evidence into the record in advance, and to let the IRS know that it is in the record (of the court that they would have to go through to get to me). Can you clarify this a little?

Finally, please note that I do not have any properly redeemed paychecks, as I am retired; all important money transfers occur by direct deposit; that is why I am using the blanket bank account route.

Thanks again for all your thoughtful comments. I appreciate your concern about not using the remedy until I need it even better now. But I have had the stamp for a year now and haven't used it yet...

an irregular deposit account

I suggest you start calling it a special deposit account here, and not referring to it as anything irregular when dealing with Customer Service at your bank. It is a great deal of hardship to close down an account and has only happened to two suitors. One, as I showed somewhere here sets up accounts for others and that hardship hit the bank as several employees being fired. So there was a reason to exercise the "Close the Account for Any Reason" clause. But that happened again recently, I believe with a different bank.

Just recently we have an instance where a single suitor - much like you and the average reader here reported:

An update in regard to the bank which I refused to re-sign a signature card without the Demand for lawful money verbiage.

On Friday I received a letter from FSB along with a money order with the proceeds of the account which they closed. The letter reads:

"Dear N,

This letter is to inform you that we are exercising our right to close your accounts as stated in your Deposit Account Agreement. I have enclosed a copy of the Deposit Account Agreement along with a money order for the funds in your account.

Sincerely,
Nickname
Branch Manager"

This is a significant validation because if the Demand was trivial, the bankers would just ignore it as a peculiarity of the customer's personality.


Item 1. You asked:

Because the account agreement is a private contract, can BofA say that 12USC411 attempts to interfere with a private contract, and thus is void?

That may be well the case but the Signature Card Agreement has a clause that the Bank need not explain why they shut down the account. Deduction says you are correct in my opinion.

They are apparently claiming that the account was not changed to an irregular deposit account.

Again deductions and presumptions. But intuition says you are correct again too. This is why it is helpful to defer perspective to you as the Patron (bailee as below) who just tracks whether proper Notice and Demand has been made or not.

Item 2. I am too removed from filing to be very good advice exactly how to fill out the forms. I have seen others do it both ways and get the appropriate refund. There has been only one suitor charged with the $5K FrivPen and that was shortly after he started adding pages of Ed RIVERA's lecture material to his R4C clerk instructions. So I consider that an inadvertant soft sting. The FrivPen is a bill of indictment (confession) against the IRS.

Item 3. You said:

Making the demand for lawful money converts the bank account from a Federal Reserve Account (insured by FDIC for $250k) to an irregular deposit account, which changes the relationship from one of debtor (bank) and unsecured creditor (me) to one of bailor (me) and bailee (bank).

It is delightful to come across a resource like you among the members here at StSC! Thank you for that insight.

This also discloses that you will be utilizing the bank for their vault for free. Mostly up until now (in the redemption timeline) we (you) have been accepting that the bank might well convert your account to non-interest bearing. Well that leaves the bank storing your money and cashing your checks for no consideration paid by you to the bank.

It is no wonder that the bank attorneys are figuring it best for the stockholders to just close down the accounts. They have no fee schedule for special deposit only accounts!

Item 4. That sort of thing. I do not like people getting hurt because they listen to my postings on the Internet. But more the truth in Ignorance of the Law is no excuse. The central banks, mainly the Fed have been banking on your endorsement signature and undoing that will cause... well, the damage we are doing. I have phrased it as carefully regulated release valves for a highly compressed information infrastructure (falsity that debt is money). You can blow the lid off the whole deal but don't be surprised what comes along with what you wish for. I for one like cell phones and flush toilets...


Item 5.

We are finding that the USDC clerks are tightening up about MC filing rules. We have found success though, by Applying for an Order and putting the Notice and Demand right there on the front page. So the Notice and Demand gets a FILED stamping in wet ink. The Application is fluff but the clerk of court files the Application and therefore the Notice and Demand gets published.

[Freed Gerdes]

Bank of America continues to be the local distributor of propaganda against lawful money. Here is link to their latest letter: http://imageshack.us/content_round.p...285/001mdc.jpg In it they repeat their corporate position that my demand "has no legal relevance," then go on to cite the propaganda found at the Federal Reserve website: http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_15197.htm

[David Merrill]

Can anyone comment on this apparently new push by the Fed to seal up the 'lawful money' issue with more mis-information?

[Freed Gerdes]

[David Merrill]

There is some difficulty opening a Miscellaneous Case file or two. One suitor who has been trying will finally file Notice and Demand as a civil suit for $350. But it is worth it to him. Instead of $46 it costs $350 but here is a rough draft attached. I should add that a Commission Certificate ($5 typically from the SoS) should be added prior to filing at the USDC. One should also be familiar with filling out the Summons and Civil Cover Sheet.

You bring something to light in your quest.

This is me, but I do not believe there can be a formal or even covert information campaign against remedy. Well, covert implies that officials will be in trouble if they get caught at it so...

Plug "redeeming lawful money" into a search engine and give it a spin. That is probably the way to find information and of course any misinformation campaigns - look on the Internet. If you have other ways, I want to hear them - but newspapers and TV seem much less effective for shaping the global mindset to me. You will find one fellow has killed a once popular website with his slurs against American remedy from the Fed. You got me curious last night and he is still at it and there are still less than 10 guests when I looked. I don't mention it by name because I am tickled pink that he is destroying that chat board; and especially that he is just too stubborn to admit it is him and his hatred toward me that is the demise of a once popular haunt for attorney-types.

My theory is basically that almost everybody uses monakers so that others will not show up on their doorstep. It would not be wise since Wesley SERRA is a New York tort attorney but I could hurt StSC here by posting his private email address. Even if you dislike Wesley it just feels yuckey. I think what it is, is that you, being kind and sympathetic would put yourself in his shoes and imagine what that must feel like if you were him - me exposing him like that.

You might even feel a twinge of fear if you, like me have come into a huge case of cyber-terets and blurt everything about yourself. Or that anybody can track your monaker to your front door with only a few bucks and clicks.

Otherwise if you explore the thread and elsewhere you find infantile backpatting in a small cliche of diehards who just love to hate. They heavily moderated me throughout the thread and finally banished me for redacting examples! Well there is my point - they banished me for protecting peoples' privacy and Wesley is destroying the website by posting links to cases that reveal home addresses and SSNs. That feels like crap and the website is paying for it. A few children remain to carry on the task of making each other feel smart by reiterating over and over just how stupid people enjoying ourselves over here are.

My point being that obviously a lot of good people are guided by their gut while jockeying their mice in cyberspace. I am sure you are here because you enjoy it, or maybe even need this kind of information. This leads me to suggest that you (and any readers too) develop the discussion yourselves. Run the search engines and look for any campaigns against redeeming lawful money and post the links. I have been doing that for quite some time. I do that to find and encourage others out there (echo chambers) whenever I get blue.



Regards,

David Merrill.



P.S. Do me a favor please. When you see the link to "Q" - please do not post any links there here! For that matter, please do not even go there. It will make you sick to your stomach.

P.P.S. Obviously you are expected to distinguish between slurs against remedy and slurs against my character. In America a man is innocent until proven guilty and I support that.

[Brian]

Let them repeal USCA12 section 411. Fine, have at it (if they even can). Below my signature on my checks will be the following "Redeem for U.S. Current Coin and deposit in account XXXX" Signed: Me

Pay to the order of: Me

My order is take this paper check and get current coin then deposit it in my account.

Current coin = Lawful Money of the U.S.

Bank: but but but its so heavy, cumbersome and a nuisance logistically to handle.

Me: Then quit devaluing the damn money, otherwise it's not my problem carry out my order good day.

[Freed Gerdes]

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed...ion-today-yo-0

@ David: I noticed a long string of ad hominem attacks against you by one particular fellow, who pretty clearly outed himself as either a raging egotist or a shill for the banksters. Most of the folks on this site are here because they want to be (freedom to associate), and because they want to learn. You are clearly an honest teacher, and the world needs more of those. As to the search for sites bashing remedy, I will admit that I never considered looking for them; there are lots of sites, and zillions of Utube videos about evading income taxes, and surely they are universally worthless or have definite negative value. This is the only site I have found that understands the value of tax avoidance. As to sharing on the net, I don't post anything I wouldn't want to see reported on the 6 o'clock news. Big Brother is watching, and there is no privacy on the net, but so what? Obama and his thugs can't drone the entire population, and there are lots and lots of much more visible targets than me. I put up quite a bit of personal info because my situation is different (I suspect, based on other's posted questions/issues), and I am trolling for insight from the rest of your brain trust. I like Treefarmer's approach the best: be exempt because you say you are exempt. After finally realizing that municipal laws, such as those promulgated by the US Federal government (a corporation) do not apply to live humans, I can appreciate his view a lot better. And this analysis of Roman Law as practiced by Article I courts by Mary Croft shows the clear path to avoiding municipal laws: http://musicians4freedom.com/wp-cont...HAT-TO-SAY.pdf. Beautiful information. and I have no interest in looking for the Q site, as the riff-raff from it is obnoxious...

ps many thanks for the form/substance of the generic demand filed as a civil suit; since the Fed has responsibility for supervising the banks, might as well go to the top. And a District Court summons will get a response. thanks

[salsero]

[David Merrill]

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.

[bigred]

I have been redeeming lawful money for several years. All of the bank accounts that I have opened recently have been with small state banks, not Wells Fargo or BofA, and have never heard the first peep of objection when I stamp the signature card "Demand is made for lawful money per 12USC411". The bank accounts were opened as non-interest bearing checking accounts. Time passes. Small state bank is now acquired by a little larger state bank, but still not a National Bank. Since accounts are now under new banks accounting system, I have been getting small interest amounts credited to my checking account each month, just a few cents.

Question: Should the fact that I'm now in receipt of interest make any difference on the fact that I've demanded lawful money on the original signature card? I did not request that these accounts be paid interest, and they never did receive interest prior to the merger. I'm wondering what impact this might have on the status of my accounts being lawful money accounts. Do I need to send my friendly personal banker a letter and point out that I'm now receiving interest and would prefer not to and reiterate that I am demanding lawful money for my accounts?

[David Merrill]

I have been redeeming lawful money for several years. All of the bank accounts that I have opened recently have been with small state banks, not Wells Fargo or BofA, and have never heard the first peep of objection when I stamp the signature card "Demand is made for lawful money per 12USC411". The bank accounts were opened as non-interest bearing checking accounts. Time passes. Small state bank is now acquired by a little larger state bank, but still not a National Bank. Since accounts are now under new banks accounting system, I have been getting small interest amounts credited to my checking account each month, just a few cents.

Question: Should the fact that I'm now in receipt of interest make any difference on the fact that I've demanded lawful money on the original signature card? I did not request that these accounts be paid interest, and they never did receive interest prior to the merger. I'm wondering what impact this might have on the status of my accounts being lawful money accounts. Do I need to send my friendly personal banker a letter and point out that I'm now receiving interest and would prefer not to and reiterate that I am demanding lawful money for my accounts?

I agree. The Demand probably missed the new bank's attention during attornment. If somebody wants to give you free change as a gift so what?

I think the question is - do you have a copy of the Signature Card(s)?

If not then maybe the problems you suggest could arise. If you do then I imagine the worst that might happen is that they change your account to non-interest bearing.

There is likely a clause that they can close you account for no reason but I suppose that might be more likely to happen if you bring the new bank's attention to the Demand than not.

[bigred]

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?

Updated 7/6/13 About a month ago, I went into the bank and asked for a copy of the original signature card which they had in a 3 ring binder. It was the original, because my RLM stamp was in red ink and it was the original card, not a copy. The happily made a copy of it for me. End of story.

[stoneFree]

I agree with David. And I've had little trouble with Bank of America. In fact I setup my "person's" first lawful money account there. And they never seem to care about the endorsement. They have those ATM machines that scan-in checks - here's backside of the last one: just the stamp. I have even seen BOA accept non-endorsed checks; totally blank.

In fact I'm not sure what you're all hoping to accomplish with all that letter-writing. You have only to make your demand, and document it.

I don't keep much $ in banks though. I mean ... why would you keep your "money" in an insolvent institution called a BANK!?

http://src-fla.us/index.php/news2e629/78-news-articles/143-bix-weir-friday-roadtrip

There is some anecdotal evidence that those with NO BANK ACCOUNT AT ALL (Woodone) have an easier time beating the Fed's IRS. Think about it, without some evidence, without some bank trail, of you endorsing private credit of the Fed, what will the DoJ/IRS rely on? You are someone Right Worshipful F.D.R. was unable to PERSUADE into depositing your salary into one of those new trust accounts: