Resistance and Refusal by Banks

[Darkmagus]

I have been trying to have the "Redemption" novation added to my accounts or even a plainly stated denial of my request. Here is what has transpired thus far;

This my original letter to M & T bank. M&T Bank-redemptionRev.pdf
In addition I called the headquarters in Buffalo, NY and spoke with the customer care manager. Here is the reply I got. Attachment 1212
In reply I sent the following; M&T Bank-redemption2ndrequestRev.pdf and as a response I got this; Attachment 1211

They are clearly trying to avoid being on record either allowing a lawful money acct., or denying my request for one.

I shall be attempting to open accts at BoA and or Wells Fargo next week.

[Darkmagus]

I've had success opening a 'lawful money' checking account at Bank of America (see front and back of signature card, my novation is on the back). And it seems that I'm not the only one.

When I opened the account, I was initially met with resistance. The banker did not comprehend my demand for lawful money. I remember her assertively telling me, "You will not stamp that on my signature card!" I had to remind myself that, yeah, in her role as agent of BofA, it really is her signature card.

I requested that she not reject the application for a new checking account, but rather run this by the BofA legal department. I very graciously expressed concern for her well being, that I would not like to see her get in trouble for practicing law without a license. She agreed, and asked that I contact her the following Tuesday.

Well, upon contacting her the following Tuesday, she invited me to come in and open the account, demand for lawful money and all!!!

I type all of this to say, go to BofA. They seem to have better a better legal department than many other banks.

Just for general info, what state are you located in? I tried to open an acct. in MD to no avail.

Darkmagus

[doug555]

Just for general info, what state are you located in? I tried to open an acct. in MD to no avail.

Darkmagus

See Thread 10099 if you are doing this for 1040 reasons, which does NOT require what you are attempting.

Also see http://iuvdeposit.wordpress.com/

[David Merrill]

Thanks for that Rock. Bank of America seems to come highly recommended for this.

[Keith Alan]

Greetings, all.

David, and all in general,

I and many others have been experiencing resistance or downright refusals to change our signature card or open new accounts as such with a declaration that the account be redeemable in lawful money. I have a theory but I do not have proof one way or the other why these 'member banks' have been rejecting us.

USC 411 states that 'The said notes shall be obligations of the Unites States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal Reserve Banks...They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, DC, or at any Federal Reserve Bank.'

Here goes my theory based on the language in USC 411...

1) 'The said notes...shall be receivable by all [banks]'.

To me, receivable means they can accept Federal Reserve notes (with no talk of lawful money redemption at this point). So they can receive FRN's into virtually all banks.

2) 'They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the [Treasury Dept, DC, or any Federal Reserve bank].

What strikes me is that 'member banks' are not included in the 'redeemable entity' list. The language could be interpreted in this manner by the 'member banks': any bank can receive FRN's into an account, but only the ones in the 'redeemable entity' list shall as obligated by law, redeem them in lawful money. So they are interpreting 'Federal Reserve bank' to mean the 12 known banks as such. Therefore, they (private, FDIC members, that ilk) interpret that they can receive your FRN's but are under no obligation to redeem in lawful money because they are not one of the '12 Federal Reserve banks'.

Although remedy exists via USC 411, the thinking is that if these 'member banks' are somehow excluded from the obligation, one would need to redeem in lawful money at one of the 12 Federal Reserve Banks or at the Treasury Department. Which for almost all of us would be incredibly impractical and frankly, incredibly unfair and not in good faith per USC 411.

Is there supporting law or documents for USC 411 that would clarify the above interpretation one way or another?

Thank you for any clarification or thoughts on this.

I'm looking for an easier more direct way as well. I can't shake the question that, if I demand lawful money, what's in it for the bank? Near as I can tell, there is no benefit at all to them, except possibly better public relations.

It also raises another question: since I'm holding FRN's, and if by default that makes me a state Bank, why can't I simply exercise my own demand? As Beneficiary - True Name - I can demand my Trustee - LEGAL NAME - to make good the demand. The Trustor, Congress and the Federal Reserve System, has made this provision in the law.

Unless I'm wrong about the Trustor being the Congress and the Fed (persons of yet another trust).

All of this begs for documentation, which is why it appears necessary for a third party to keep a record, in the event of a controversy. All of tbhis is contingent on me having received a bank draft or check. What if I simply cash the check? What then? Haven't I avoided the entire controversy? Has anyone explored the idea of simply cashing checks with the restrictive endorsement on the back?

[David Merrill]

I'm looking for an easier more direct way as well. I can't shake the question that, if I demand lawful money, what's in it for the bank? Near as I can tell, there is no benefit at all to them, except possibly better public relations.

It also raises another question: since I'm holding FRN's, and if by default that makes me a state Bank, why can't I simply exercise my own demand? As Beneficiary - True Name - I can demand my Trustee - LEGAL NAME - to make good the demand. The Trustor, Congress and the Federal Reserve System, has made this provision in the law.

Unless I'm wrong about the Trustor being the Congress and the Fed (persons of yet another trust).

All of this begs for documentation, which is why it appears necessary for a third party to keep a record, in the event of a controversy. All of tbhis is contingent on me having received a bank draft or check. What if I simply cash the check? What then? Haven't I avoided the entire controversy? Has anyone explored the idea of simply cashing checks with the restrictive endorsement on the back?

That is the issue of the interest. There is really nothing in it for the bank. Except to adhere to responsibility to the public. If you are reducing the national debt then you are a minister of the Public Trust - Article VI of the Constitution.

Cashing checks with the restrictive endorsement on the back? What is the difference between a check and a withdrawal slip?

Strike through Pay to the order of...

[Keith Alan]

That is the issue of the interest. There is really nothing in it for the bank. Except to adhere to responsibility to the public. If you are reducing the national debt then you are a minister of the Public Trust - Article VI of the Constitution.

Cashing checks with the restrictive endorsement on the back? What is the difference between a check and a withdrawal slip?

Strike through Pay to the order of...

Yes, that looks very simple to me. Strike through, restrictively endorse, photocopy and cash. The difference is convenience. I get multiple checks from people, so it follows I would need to spend an afternoon every week going to each bank and cashing them. Here in California (I don't know about other states) it's a pain, since they want fingerprints, and there are restrictions on receiving too large of an amount. But this appeals to me more than notice and demand and evidence repositories, even though those are probably wise things to do.

[Inhisimage]

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

[itsmymoney]

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.

[David Merrill]

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.