Redemption of Lawful Money at US Bank

[freedave]

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.

OK, I understand.

I also have checks from the brokerage firm that I can write which I could cash at a bank if I decide not to try to apply the redemption of lawful money remedy to the brokerage firm.

The brokerage firm could also send me checks which I could cash at a bank if I decide not to try to apply the redemption of lawful money remedy to the brokerage firm.

Yes, I am concerned about potential repercussions -- I had determined that I do not owe taxes on the money that I have received -- I have also arranged things so that the money I have is relatively untraceable, and I don't want to compromise that.

You had advised me not to make a demand to the brokerage firm and now you state that I can make a demand -- I grant that this is an unusually complex situation, but I would prefer a bit more certainty before I go ahead.

I'm sure that you are pretty good at explaining this to a select group of people, but there is always room for improvement.

Perhaps if you and others were better at explaining it, the Fed and the IRS would now be out of business.

[shikamaru]

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.

Brokerage firms specialize in brokering deals.
Brokers bring together buyers and sellers in order to effect an exchange. Brokers are agents.

[freedave]

[stoneFree]

Maybe this will help. You just received a check, and here is the backside with your choice:

[David Merrill]

That is a great visual. I created an ImageShack link.

[freedave]

Maybe this will help. You just received a check, and here is the backside with your choice:

Thank you for that, stoneFree.

Does the signature on the "FREE" image indicate a first name and a last name or a first name and a middle name?

And is the URL (website address) necessary?

[Publius]

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/12C3.txt is a beauty. However, it might be most appropriate for stamping the redeemed FRNs and not for use as an endorsement qualifier unless one can show that a check can be redeemed for lawful money.


Here is the legislation:
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.

[freedave]

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/12C3.txt is a beauty. However, it might be most appropriate for stamping the redeemed FRNs and not for use as an endorsement qualifier unless one can show that a check can be redeemed for lawful money.


Here is the legislation:
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.

[Publius]

Freedave, thanks for taking the time to read through my post. I thought it to be a little dense and hope that my statements were concise.

Depositing by mail. Well, I am no authority on this topic. I do hope that we can work together to develop the right approach for the challenges we face. I and am really hoping to stimulate a little thought and refinement on the specific wording for endorsement qualifiers (modifiers, limiters, demands). It was Dave Merrill who first opened my eyes to this function a few years back. Thanks Dave. We put our faith in the possibility that we are not without remedy, and I hope that we are successful at properly exercizing and enjoying that remedy.

I have the convenience of ATM deposit for checks. I stamp and sign the checks and photocopy both sides, I then deposit them via ATM and the machine provides a photocopy of the face of the checks I deposited. The documentation of the qualified endorsement, I think is important. And if that qualified endorsement does do what we believe it to do, having proof that you used it may be an important defense should one be faced with defending against a claim for liability.

Regarding a check mailed for deposit: I might offer that hand printing the first one is a good idea. I suspect I might use the following qualifier for a check submitted by mail for deposit: For deposit on account # xxxxx
as redeemed lawful money

I do not see the need to also insert the cite of USC since the operative phrase "redeemed lawful money" makes it clear that the deposit substance is limited to "redeemed lawful money".

[freedave]

Freedave, thanks for taking the time to read through my post. I thought it to be a little dense and hope that my statements were concise.

Depositing by mail. Well, I am no authority on this topic. I do hope that we can work together to develop the right approach for the challenges we face. I and am really hoping to stimulate a little thought and refinement on the specific wording for endorsement qualifiers (modifiers, limiters, demands). It was Dave Merrill who first opened my eyes to this function a few years back. Thanks Dave. We put our faith in the possibility that we are not without remedy, and I hope that we are successful at properly exercizing and enjoying that remedy.

I have the convenience of ATM deposit for checks. I stamp and sign the checks and photocopy both sides, I then deposit them via ATM and the machine provides a photocopy of the face of the checks I deposited. The documentation of the qualified endorsement, I think is important. And if that qualified endorsement does do what we believe it to do, having proof that you used it may be an important defense should one be faced with defending against a claim for liability.

Regarding a check mailed for deposit: I might offer that hand printing the first one is a good idea. I suspect I might use the following qualifier for a check submitted by mail for deposit: For deposit on account # xxxxx
as redeemed lawful money

I do not see the need to also insert the cite of USC since the operative phrase "redeemed lawful money" makes it clear that the deposit substance is limited to "redeemed lawful money".

You're welcome, Publius, and thank you for your additional ideas.

It is not clear to me why "as redeemed lawful money" would be used since I thought that the redemption would happen when I actually receive the currency (in my case via an ATM machine. That's why I had earlier asked about the possibility of using "Deposited for credit on account #XXXXXXXXXX to be redeemed in lawful money."

Would "For deposit on account # xxxxx to be redeemed in lawful money" serve the purpose?

And then there is the question of whether or not the deposit would be accepted without the first and last name signed in longhand on the back of the check.

[Brian]

I Personally do this: "Redeem for non-elastic lawful money by demand pursuant USCA12 section 411, signature"

[freedave]

I Personally do this: "Redeem for non-elastic lawful money by demand pursuant USCA12 section 411, signature"

Thank you for this, Brian.

Do you use this for depositing checks and/or cashing checks?

How do you sign the check?

Have you had any problems with it?

Have you had any positive results?

[Sabo]

I Personally do this: "Redeem for non-elastic lawful money by demand pursuant USCA12 section 411, signature"

Does the bank where you cash your checks not require SS# or account number (if you have one at that bank)? I've noticed that often with examples people have posted here.

I haven't done any check cashing recently, but I always remembered banks requiring some sort of numeric identification when handling checks. I know my bank does for deposits, I think it would require it for cashing, too. Am I just remembering incorrectly?

[Publius]

You're welcome, Publius, and thank you for your additional ideas.

It is not clear to me why "as redeemed lawful money" would be used since I thought that the redemption would happen when I actually receive the currency (in my case via an ATM machine. That's why I had earlier asked about the possibility of using "Deposited for credit on account #XXXXXXXXXX to be redeemed in lawful money."

Would "For deposit on account # xxxxx to be redeemed in lawful money" serve the purpose?

And then there is the question of whether or not the deposit would be accepted without the first and last name signed in longhand on the back of the check.

Freedave, I used the phrase "redeemed lawful money" because it seems to me that your intent is that the check be credited on account as, or in the spirit of it's satisfaction having been made in "redeemed lawful money" and not simply in "lawful money" which can be construed as FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES or date entries presumed to be denominated as FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES. I felt that consistency and continuity is preserved by indicating ""redeemed lawful money" which ia a concept taken directly from the language of the legislation upon which you are depending for the purpose of effecting the libaration of the debt from "lawful money" to "redeemed lawful money". One could use the suggested phrase "non-elastic lawful money" as another suggested, but I then have to ask where that phrase is found in the subject statute. Why just shoot at the village when you have a clear scope sight line directly at the target ?

The "redemption" is effected, and somebody correct me if I am off base, by virtue of your having limited (negotiated) the terms of the check and the manner by which it is to be honored/processed under the terms of the endorsement qualifier (demand). The NOTES you receive from the ATM will be no different than any others in circulation, but the limitation is believed to be i,mposed on the bank's ability to use the fiat debt/credit capacity of the check to further their commerce of "fractional reserve banking" and debt mongering.

Now, since I believe that the banks take no notice of the stamps for the most part, and in particular when the deposit is made via ATM, I do not believe anything other than business as usual occurs in the bank when one of these qualified checks is deposited. This is why I make a photocopy of both sides of the check so to have evidence of how the check was negotiated. I am hoping that the photocopy evidence will be useful should an audit occur. We need evidence from experiences suitors relative to this supposition.

Maybe I am just off my rocker, but this matter is precisely what I hope can be cleared up by discussion and supporting facts, and that process is what I think we are engaged in presently. I also see no need for large type font or boistrous colors relative to the stamps which are being used. Everything the banks do is found as acceptable in typical fonts (some in microprinting, of which the signature line of checks is formed) and in black ink. Why come in with trumpets blaring regarding an endorsement modifier which ought to go through without a peep ?

As to the question posed about positive results, or any results for that matter; I sure would like to hear about that. Most times, we all go about doing a thing in faith without seeing proofs from those who are holding proof, or proofs against the process. Oftentimes we all go figuratively wandering in the desert and many "perish" for having used a process we thought right. So, I earnestly ask those who have had true and demonstrable benefit or damage arise as a result of using this process to please speak up and offer your proofs for our mutual benefit.

As it stands right now, it seems to me that we are acting on faith alone. I hope some suitor can prove me wrong. Please speak up and show your cards.

As for the signature; I first write "By:" and then sign it as I sign everything else; upper and lower case name as my Mom and Dad gave it to me; First, Middle and Last (as they are commonly referred to as). That is how I do it and I can give no good reason to do it that way or to do it otherwise.

[freedave]

Freedave, I used the phrase "redeemed lawful money" because it seems to me that your intent is that the check be credited on account as, or in the spirit of it's satisfaction having been made in "redeemed lawful money" and not simply in "lawful money" which can be construed as FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES or date entries presumed to be denominated as FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES. I felt that consistency and continuity is preserved by indicating ""redeemed lawful money" which ia a concept taken directly from the language of the legislation upon which you are depending for the purpose of effecting the libaration of the debt from "lawful money" to "redeemed lawful money". One could use the suggested phrase "non-elastic lawful money" as another suggested, but I then have to ask where that phrase is found in the subject statute. Why just shoot at the village when you have a clear scope sight line directly at the target ?

The "redemption" is effected, and somebody correct me if I am off base, by virtue of your having limited (negotiated) the terms of the check and the manner by which it is to be honored/processed under the terms of the endorsement qualifier (demand). The NOTES you receive from the ATM will be no different than any others in circulation, but the limitation is believed to be i,mposed on the bank's ability to use the fiat debt/credit capacity of the check to further their commerce of "fractional reserve banking" and debt mongering.

Now, since I believe that the banks take no notice of the stamps for the most part, and in particular when the deposit is made via ATM, I do not believe anything other than business as usual occurs in the bank when one of these qualified checks is deposited. This is why I make a photocopy of both sides of the check so to have evidence of how the check was negotiated. I am hoping that the photocopy evidence will be useful should an audit occur. We need evidence from experiences suitors relative to this supposition.

Maybe I am just off my rocker, but this matter is precisely what I hope can be cleared up by discussion and supporting facts, and that process is what I think we are engaged in presently. I also see no need for large type font or boistrous colors relative to the stamps which are being used. Everything the banks do is found as acceptable in typical fonts (some in microprinting, of which the signature line of checks is formed) and in black ink. Why come in with trumpets blaring regarding an endorsement modifier which ought to go through without a peep ?

As to the question posed about positive results, or any results for that matter; I sure would like to hear about that. Most times, we all go about doing a thing in faith without seeing proofs from those who are holding proof, or proofs against the process. Oftentimes we all go figuratively wandering in the desert and many "perish" for having used a process we thought right. So, I earnestly ask those who have had true and demonstrable benefit or damage arise as a result of using this process to please speak up and offer your proofs for our mutual benefit.

As it stands right now, it seems to me that we are acting on faith alone. I hope some suitor can prove me wrong. Please speak up and show your cards.

As for the signature; I first write "By:" and then sign it as I sign everything else; upper and lower case name as my Mom and Dad gave it to me; First, Middle and Last (as they are commonly referred to as). That is how I do it and I can give no good reason to do it that way or to do it otherwise.

Thank you again, Publius, for your willingness to address these issues.

You make some interesting points.

According to my understanding of the theory, it might be correct that the "redemption" is effected by virtue of having limited the terms of the check, but my question is, "When does the 'redemption' happen -- when the check is deposited or when currency is received by the depositor?"

Thank you also for the data on how you sign -- does anyone have any reason to do it otherwise?

The point about whether or not "we are acting on faith alone" seems to me to be very important -- have you, yourself, experienced any problems with doing this?

I join you in earnestly asking those who have had true and demonstrable benefit or damage arise as a result of using this process to please speak up and offer your proofs for our mutual benefit.