Check Non-Endorsement Verbiage

[Stephen]

I have listened to the YouTube video at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uGn-G5tbE8

which is a discussion about Lawful Money with David Merrill, Keith Edward, and Michael Joseph.

In the video, which is an audio recording, there are three different non-endorsements of the Fed verbiages given. These are:

"Redeemed in Lawful money pursuant to 12 USC 411",

"Redeemed lawful money per title 12 section 411",

and

"Demand for lawful money, per Title 12 section 411"

These are to be followed by a signature in this format:

<first name> <middle name> , dba <first name> <middle name> <last name>

Are each of these as good as the other? Are there circumstances where one would use one and not the other?

There is mention that only lawyers should use the word "pursuant", and everyone else should use "per" instead. I use "per". But my question is about the word "in". How important is it that the word "in" be there?

I have been using a semicolon instead of a comma before the dba. How important is this difference?

In the discussion it is also stated that what is to follow the dba is exactly what is on the driver's license. What I see in block letters on my California License is

LN <my last name>
FN <my first name> <my last name>

Then on the lower left hand corner I see where I have written my signature in script writing only my first name and my last name. So there is an inconsistency here between the block lettering and my signature in that in my signature my middle name is missing. Does that mean it should also be missing where I write the name of the trust (<first name> <middle name> <last name>) after the dba in the non-endorsement? Or should it be the entire name of the trust (<first name> <middle name> <last name>) ? I have the same question for my credit union account's signature card. I intend that on my next visit to my credit union to ask to sign a replacement signature card and put the non-endorsement there.

Not every check I deposit has my middle name. I have heard in the video to use in the trust name part of the non-endorsement exactly the name on the front part of the check. Is that also true if that excludes my middle name? Or should I include my middle name in the trust name part regardless?

Would there be any reason for me to go to DMV and get a replacement license that includes in my signature my middle name?

I have seen advice elsewhere about not using script for the names on the non-endorsement, that instead it is best to use block lettering instead of a signature in script for the names. Is correct? Is there really any advantage in doing that?

[Michael Joseph]

I have listened to the YouTube video at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uGn-G5tbE8

which is a discussion about Lawful Money with David Merrill, Keith Edward, and Michael Joseph.

Read the verbage in 12USC411. A claim whereupon relief may be granted - "They shall be redeemed on demand....."

Therefore in my simplistic mind - "Demand is made [present tense] for Lawful Money per 12USC411" contemplates a claim upon which relief may be granted to make a use of PUBLIC MONEY subject to the terms of use established in Statute. Therefore, in my opinion, there remains a trustee to stand surety for the existing notes and there is no need for me to stand as accommodation party for new "book entries".

I suppose the word "per" could be changed to "in accord with"....my intent is my own.

[EZrhythm]

I have used or have seen others use a Notice sent to the financial institution that states- "All transactions are deemed to be performed in lawful money persuant to 12 USC, SEction 411"
In this way it is not necessary to endorse each check with the lawful money verbage. It is also not necessary to be relatively too picky about the particular words used because in commerce it is the intent of the writing that counts.

[allodial]

I concur with that general notice. I also am convinced that the language should stick with "Redeemed" rather than demanded because it keeps with the wording of statute. This is to avoid p*ssing contests should any controversy arise.

[Michael Joseph]

I concur with that general notice. I also am convinced that the language should stick with "Redeemed" rather than demanded because it keeps with the wording of statute. This is to avoid p*ssing contests should any controversy arise.

allodial. I like the fact that you understand your deeds. I myself see no need to notice a bank of anything. The bank is simply a "store" just like Walmart or any other "department store". My notice is my demand upon the signature card. I express my will upon my signature.

Nevertheless, if one thinks he/she should notice another, let that one follow his own conscious thought. Who am I to say it is wrong. I would that each man think for himself. I used to notice everyone but then I realized that was a waste of my time. I understand my deeds by my own intent. I sit in my court at the common law under YHVH.

Remember that FDR said "If we can persuade people to deposit their salary checks into our newly formed Trust Accounts....." The prefix DE means to abandon claim, right, title...etc. But when I make a demand I am claiming. But again to each his own according to his/her conscience.

[BLBereans]

This is all about the intent of the writer of the law and the subsequent code. Who here has first hand knowledge of such intent and/or is certified to interpret either?

Is the "demander" also the "redeemer"?

Does "They shall be redeemed upon demand" mean that redemption of notes is an automatic function/effect of a demand made?

Does it mean that someone who is authorized to redeem "shall" redeem when a demand is made? When? Isn't "shall" a future tense verb?

Unless someone here can say with 100% certainty that he/she has first hand knowledge of the intent of the writers, I would suggest that our only concern is to make the demand for lawful money known through the vessel used for such activity.

My opinion is that if it is not we that are the trustees, then we have no business declaring that something has been redeemed; is it we who are buying something back?

Our only obligation, if we wish to be outside the scope of the Federal Reserve's jurisdiction when handling their issued notes, is to make the appropriate demand and keep a lawful record of our transactions.

Whether the obligatory party chooses to fulfill the duty of redemption or not ("shall") has no effect upon our affairs.

[xparte]

. The prefix DE [defendant legally at law]means to abandon claim, right, title...etc. But when I give notice[lawful]I am claiming only common sense in law be redeemed and restored with me as claimant or complainant, giving notice as it effects a financial trust why support state claims the defendants abandonment .My claim is giving respondents discovery as Me a claimant complainant or Plaintiff the term used in some jurisdictions as state vs the party who initiates a lawsuit can also be known as an defendant .counter claim has a respondent in any civil action .My claim no piss no bucket or court window to throw a no standing respondent out off. I stand or i don't .

[Chex]

...... I stand or i don't.

[Michael Joseph]

Is the "demander" also the "redeemer"?

I maintain that the claimant issues forth demands whereof he/she seeks relief. In my humble opinion, They shall be redeemed on demand is a requirement upon those who hold an oath of office. The one who demands does so without duty. The trustee must keep the ledger/accounting.

I keep it as simple as possible. I make my demand for Lawful Money and what is given to me is of little accord. I have fulfilled the law what is left is for the trustee to perform his/her duty to the public.

Therefore it is my opinion that the "demander" is not the "redeemer".

[Chex]

There you go.........

I maintain that the claimant issues forth demands whereof he/she seeks relief. In my humble opinion, They shall be redeemed on demand is a requirement upon those who hold an oath of office. The one who demands does so without duty. The trustee must keep the ledger/accounting. I keep it as simple as possible. I make my demand for Lawful Money and what is given to me is of little accord. I have fulfilled the law what is left is for the trustee to perform his/her duty to the public. Therefore it is my opinion that the "demander" is not the "redeemer".

[xparte]

Demand [its my wish as "demander" bringing forth a true remittance ] Christ truth within .redeemer savior friend In God we trust ,well under his Law redeem restore all contracts redeem my standing faith and trust in this office. authorized as "demander" Authority as redeemer. The claimant is assigned remedy by default [chexkmate ]cant pawn the lawful King. [MJ] final decrements know who p*ssing straight ] should any controversy arise avoid 3rd person sudden bladder relaxation that can produce a deemed defendant. "demander" a sympathetic nervous activity yet discrete reduction in (a numerical quantity).the instruction decrements the accumulator by one.

[allodial]

It might be that redemption is an actual ministerial or governmental act (think Minister of Finance or Minister of Agriculture kind of ministerial) whereas demand can be in any capacity.

Notice timely given establishes intent rather than allowing presumption to take hold--its that simple. Giving notice to the bank and cc-ing the attorney general or states attorney for the respective county or the Secretary of the Treasury should be enough rather than 'papering' the universe.

[Stephen]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode

I no longer bank at the first bank above. All the banks I do business with now accept this one beginning with "Redeemed" above without question. I believe this is due to the ignorance of the teller. In an ignorant teller's mind what money that we are dealing with here wouldn't be lawful?

It is a sad state of affairs that a fast one has been pulled on the public which has been tricked into using an instrument of exchange that represents a debt liability instead of a value. That is the way the real world works. There are lot of people who want what's yours, and so work out ingenious ways to get it. That includes the banks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aH9OIIJcQM8

I still need to know:

If the absence of my middle name where my cursive signature is on my driver's license has relevance regarding whether I should include my middle name in the trust name portion of the non-endorsement. Currently I am including it on the reasoning that including it makes a complete trust name.

If there is any benefit to using block lettering for the names instead of a cursive script. Currently I am using block lettering.

Whether it makes a difference whether I use a comma or semicolon between my family name and my trust's name. Currently I am using a semicolon.

The question whether to use the one beginning with "Redeemed" or "Demand" has stimulated an in depth debate among senior members. Although I appreciate seeing the different viewpoints, I was hoping for a simple answer.

[xparte]

[xparte]