Redemption of Lawful Money at US Bank

[David Merrill]

Don't write anything at all on it then. It is when you withdraw the cash that you would redeem the lawful money. Since you are sending it to a brokerage firm (as I understand it) it will remain credit on account and non-taxable until you withdraw it. Put your demand on the withdrawal slip.

You could strikethrough the Pay to the Order of: but that would not be conspicuous. It could be determined that the teller at the brokerage firm sees so many checks in a day that one with such a subtle claim might not be noticed.

[freedave]

Don't write anything at all on it then. It is when you withdraw the cash that you would redeem the lawful money. Since you are sending it to a brokerage firm (as I understand it) it will remain credit on account and non-taxable until you withdraw it. Put your demand on the withdrawal slip.

You could strikethrough the Pay to the Order of: but that would not be conspicuous. It could be determined that the teller at the brokerage firm sees so many checks in a day that one with such a subtle claim might not be noticed.

OK, what I normally do is sign my conventional (first and last) name on the back of the check plus put my brokerage firm account number and the name of my LLC all on the back of the check.

Then I mail it to the brokerage firm (out of state) along with a deposit slip.

Then, after it is OK'd at the brokerage firm, I use a debit card from the brokerage firm at a local ATM machine to get cash and deposit it into a local bank account.

Since the brokerage firm is out of state, I don't deal with any tellers there. Would it still be advisable to strike through the "Pay to the Order of" on the front of the check?

Considering this additional data, what would you suggest?

[freedave]

OK, what I normally do is sign my conventional (first and last) name on the back of the check plus put my brokerage firm account number and the name of my LLC all on the back of the check.

Then I mail it to the brokerage firm (out of state) along with a deposit slip.

Then, after it is OK'd at the brokerage firm, I use a debit card from the brokerage firm at a local ATM machine to get cash and deposit it into a local bank account.

Since the brokerage firm is out of state, I don't deal with any tellers there. Would it still be advisable to strike through the "Pay to the Order of" on the front of the check?

Considering this additional data, what would you suggest?

Before I send my check to the out-of-state brokerage firm, I would like to receive a response...

[David Merrill]

Never strike through the Order of: on somebody else's check. Look at the hypothetical example. The account-holder writing the check might choose whether it would be lawful money or not. The party with the authorizing signature on the check has the sole authority about the instrument.

Be careful!

Do not strike through the Pay to the Order of:

Here is an example.

[freedave]

Never strike through the Order of: on somebody else's check. Look at the hypothetical example. The account-holder writing the check might choose whether it would be lawful money or not. The party with the authorizing signature on the check has the sole authority about the instrument.

Be careful!

Do not strike through the Pay to the Order of:

Here is an example.

Thank you very much for clarifying that, David.

So I will not do anything to the front of the check.

Again, what I normally do is sign my conventional (first and last) name on the back of the check plus put my brokerage firm account number and the name of my LLC all on the back of the check.

Then I mail it to the brokerage firm (out of state) along with a deposit slip.

Then, after it is OK'd at the brokerage firm, I use a debit card from the brokerage firm at a local ATM machine to get cash and deposit it into a local bank account.

Considering this data, would you suggest anything that would be unlikely to cause a problem or raise any "red flags"?

[David Merrill]

It sounds as if you have foregone any Demand for lawful money in your description. Fine. Endorse private credit like everybody else if that is where you are at.

I break out the simplest scenarios so you might understand complex procedures simply. Fear certainly takes its toll and actually built the US Dollar into the Reserve Currency of the World.

[freedave]

It sounds as if you have foregone any Demand for lawful money in your description. Fine. Endorse private credit like everybody else if that is where you are at.

I break out the simplest scenarios so you might understand complex procedures simply. Fear certainly takes its toll and actually built the US Dollar into the Reserve Currency of the World.

What makes you think I have foregone any Demand for lawful money?

And is there something that makes you think I want to endorse private credit?

And what are you referring to when you write, "the simplest scenarios"?

I'm just trying to learn how this works.

[David Merrill]

What makes you think I have foregone any Demand for lawful money?

And is there something that makes you think I want to endorse private credit?

And what are you referring to when you write, "the simplest scenarios"?

I'm just trying to learn how this works.

I have made the presumption that you have watched my videos.

[JohnnyCash]

I am experienced at editing high-tech magazine articles for some large circulation publications, I know what it takes to make things understandable to most people, and I am having difficulty getting a workable understanding of this.

Is there anyone I could converse with by email or phone and get my questions answered?

One question I have is this:

Is it correct that the "income" tax is an excise tax on the use of FRN's?

I would say that's it in a nutshell. But also that fact is carefully hidden to the point that when shown evidence of it in law, some cannot see it, nor believe it. If you step back and think like a master criminal, trying to come up with the perfect scam, that would suck in nearly everyone, you might start to get a grasp. I should think a really good scam would operate in partnership with government actors.

Have any links to your work?

[freedave]

I have made the presumption that you have watched my videos.

I have watched at least one, I think two, of your videos -- they were really audios in a video format.

I have also listened to several interviews of you and looked through a number of threads on this forum..

As I wrote earlier, I have a very partial idea of how this works.

I have found getting a good understanding of this to be elusive.

If I did have a good understanding of it, and if I found it to be valid, I could put it into a format which many more people could understand -- and I suppose that there might then become enough people applying the remedy to rapidly shut down the Fed and the IRS (I have edited magazine articles which have reached large numbers of readers).

But, for now, I just want to find out whether or not there is any way I can demand lawful money regarding the check I have.

[David Merrill]

I have watched at least one, I think two, of your videos -- they were really audios in a video format.

I have also listened to several interviews of you and looked through a number of threads on this forum..

As I wrote earlier, I have a very partial idea of how this works.

I have found getting a good understanding of this to be elusive.

If I did have a good understanding of it, and if I found it to be valid, I could put it into a format which many more people could understand -- and I suppose that there might then become enough people applying the remedy to rapidly shut down the Fed and the IRS (I have edited magazine articles which have reached large numbers of readers).

But, for now, I just want to find out whether or not there is any way I can demand lawful money regarding the check I have.

Yes. Sign your demand instead of signing endorsement. Your question is whether there might be repurcussions as I understand you. Since it is written into the law I doubt it. The only repurcussions are troublesome tellers now and again, not very often but since you are mailing your check in it is likely you will never hear about any problems. Keep a copy and if you start redeeming lawful money consistently then you may be able to avoid taxes and get withholdings refunded etc.

Nobody has gotten into trouble for redeeming lawful money in itself. The only suitors who are getting flack were first customers of Peter HENDRICKSON (now in prison) and his Cracking the Code technique of Zero Income Returns. It is too early to make conclusions about it but so far the accusation of fraud by omission seems to keep the $5K frivolous penalties in limbo anyway:

If I had known in good faith that I could redeem lawful money I would have been doing so since my first paycheck ever!

[freedave]

Yes. Sign your demand instead of signing endorsement. Your question is whether there might be repurcussions as I understand you. Since it is written into the law I doubt it. The only repurcussions are troublesome tellers now and again, not very often but since you are mailing your check in it is likely you will never hear about any problems. Keep a copy and if you start redeeming lawful money consistently then you may be able to avoid taxes and get withholdings refunded etc.

Nobody has gotten into trouble for redeeming lawful money in itself. The only suitors who are getting flack were first customers of Peter HENDRICKSON (now in prison) and his Cracking the Code technique of Zero Income Returns. It is too early to make conclusions about it but so far the accusation of fraud by omission seems to keep the $5K frivolous penalties in limbo anyway:

If I had known in good faith that I could redeem lawful money I would have been doing so since my first paycheck ever!

[David Merrill]

The various gyrations I have been going about here are due to you depositing the check with a Brokerage Firm. I do not have any experience with a brokerage firm, even vicariously. When you make your withdrawals, distributions or collect dividends or whatever, that is when you should make your demand. I hesitate because thinking about it, what I have to compare this to is interest bearing accounts. If you are not going to allow your bank to capitalize on fractional lending with your paychecks then you do not have the right to demand interest off the money you are lending your bank. There is a kind of deposit (irregular?) where you have arranged for your bank to keep the exact same cash for your withdrawal - no mingling of funds. Redeeming lawful money is kind of like that but you do not get any interest. Often when somebody begins redeeming lawful money they find the bank has changed their account to interest-free.

I am thinking the brokerage firm considers your "investment" as interest-bearing. They may want the freedom to grow your money by conventional fractional lending too; I don't know.

If you are redeeming lawful money by demand then somebody like a boss or brokerage firm reporting you to the IRS is simply Notice that you would give anyway should you want to get a refund or withdraw money without the scope of the Fed. There are a lot of suitors who are self-employed and they do not send in withholdings. But they will send returns with evidence of redemption so that the IRS does not evaluate their tax liability in absence of a return.

I believe that you might want to treat your brokerage firm like a boss, not a bank. Do not involve them with your redemption of lawful money. While your money is with the brokerage firm I am presuming that your funds with them are tax free until you withdraw.

[freedave]

The various gyrations I have been going about here are due to you depositing the check with a Brokerage Firm. I do not have any experience with a brokerage firm, even vicariously. When you make your withdrawals, distributions or collect dividends or whatever, that is when you should make your demand. I hesitate because thinking about it, what I have to compare this to is interest bearing accounts. If you are not going to allow your bank to capitalize on fractional lending with your paychecks then you do not have the right to demand interest off the money you are lending your bank. There is a kind of deposit (irregular?) where you have arranged for your bank to keep the exact same cash for your withdrawal - no mingling of funds. Redeeming lawful money is kind of like that but you do not get any interest. Often when somebody begins redeeming lawful money they find the bank has changed their account to interest-free.

I am thinking the brokerage firm considers your "investment" as interest-bearing. They may want the freedom to grow your money by conventional fractional lending too; I don't know.

If you are redeeming lawful money by demand then somebody like a boss or brokerage firm reporting you to the IRS is simply Notice that you would give anyway should you want to get a refund or withdraw money without the scope of the Fed. There are a lot of suitors who are self-employed and they do not send in withholdings. But they will send returns with evidence of redemption so that the IRS does not evaluate their tax liability in absence of a return.

I believe that you might want to treat your brokerage firm like a boss, not a bank. Do not involve them with your redemption of lawful money. While your money is with the brokerage firm I am presuming that your funds with them are tax free until you withdraw.

Thank you for clarifying that, David.

My brokerage account does pay a very very small amount of interest to me.

I think they would function more like a bank than a boss, since they would not file a 1099 or a W-2 or other IRS form, except if I earned interest of over $10 per year, which I don't.

I don't see how I could apply the redemption of lawful money remedy regarding the check if I endorse the check to them in the usual way.

[David Merrill]

Thank you for clarifying that, David.

My brokerage account does pay a very very small amount of interest to me.

I think they would function more like a bank than a boss, since they would not file a 1099 or a W-2 or other IRS form, except if I earned interest of over $10 per year, which I don't.

I don't see how I could apply the redemption of lawful money remedy regarding the check if I endorse the check to them in the usual way.

You can make your demand. Because they are paying you some interest on your funds though, there may be some balking on their end. You seem more concerned about repurcussions than anything.

Sorry I don't know more about brokerage firms. I would make my demand for lawful money and sign that, rather than endorse private credit from the Fed. But then, until you came along I felt that I am pretty good at explaining this.