Public Money by right - direct experiences please!

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by antjraf

I'm trying to get a handle on what verbiage should be written above one's signature on the back of a check, "DEPOSITED FOR CREDIT ON ACCOUNT OR EXCHANGED FOR NON-NEGOTIABLE FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES OF FACE VALUE" or "Redeemed in lawful money pursuant to Title 12 U.S.C. §411". If a bank accepts either one, do the tellers give you FRNs in the amount written on the check or are we receiving actual par value dollars? I understand the concept that we are accepting FRNs in exchange for US notes, but when you leave the bank no one else knows this but you. In other words, how do we receive the "$42.2222/oz of gold value" in the real world? Has anyone tried this with success?

thanks.
I have been reading the posts of this site as well as: Family Guardian, Ecclesia, Barefootsworld etc. for about 4 months now and this is my first post. There is so much info to absorb and understand, however it is well worth the effort, and time well spent.

I'm on Barefootsworld?

You should think in more terms of US notes in the form of FRNs. You have lawful money = US notes = US dollars and true, it is only good for tax reporting purposes - if you want a full Refund of Withholdings.

However there are intrepid people making headway when the bank goes into dishonor. However I should not report what is going down as it happens and things are happening in the arena. So please be patient. Maybe soon.

I want to tell you about an event real bad - - but what I will disclose is that the banks are indeed fudging the books when they fail to record a non-endorsement as anything but a lawful money transaction. And it would seem that somebody somewhere is saying that cannot continue.

A while back for instance, one suitor got a rubber paycheck from his boss. He deposited it and when it bounced the bank was obligated to return the instrument to him - and they tore the end with the non-endorsement off of it. Without private credit there is no bond and the FRNs created off the credit through fractional lending become counterfeiting.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[antjraf]

Yes, US notes in the form of FRNs. Again, I am trying to learn and get a stranglehold on these concepts so it becomes second nature to me. You David, and others are doing a great service to those of us who are just starting to awake to the truth. I am grateful for your response and the knowledge you impart. As to the first part of my question in my first post, Which verbiage is regarded as better to use the "DEPOSITED...." or "Redeemed for....." or does it depend on the situation as to which one to use?

thanks again,

BTW, I meant that I have been reading posts on this site as well as others, not that you posted on all of them, ie "Barefootsworld"

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by antjraf

Yes, US notes in the form of FRNs. Again, I am trying to learn and get a stranglehold on these concepts so it becomes second nature to me. You David, and others are doing a great service to those of us who are just starting to awake to the truth. I am grateful for your response and the knowledge you impart. As to the first part of my question in my first post, Which verbiage is regarded as better to use the "DEPOSITED...." or "Redeemed for....." or does it depend on the situation as to which one to use?

thanks again,

BTW, I meant that I have been reading posts on this site as well as others, not that you posted on all of them, ie "Barefootsworld"

The DEPOSITED verbiage came from an internet report by a fellow who took that verbiage through audit. We have his article linked early in this thread I bet. I found the article in my video on GoldisMoney and realized that both items were in essence true to life and probably factual. So I have been promoting it among the suitors and for the most part that verbiage smooths things over with bank tellers and attorneys too.

The Redeeming lawful money is much more direct and forthright. However one lady in the East at a small bank is having to strikethrough before she can get her pay. She is not a suitor - yet. She may save up for a Libel of Review but sometimes it is hard to do so. For scientific experimentation suitors were about to pitch in and get her on board but something is going down with a longtime suitor deep in R4C with the Treasury for about ten years and non-endorsement with the Treasury itself so she is likely not going to be useful. Having a bank that has been honoring redemption for years, fall into dishonor with a Treasury check - from the Treasury is much more, sparks flying if you know what I mean. I like watching events that show up carefully veiled in the Headlines.

Like with her though, the point is that you understand:

They [FRNs] shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand...

is still current law on the books.

So you are to document your attempt to do so. Use your boss's notary - that would be the highest testimony. So this woman has it all documented True and Correct Copy by her boss's banks supervisor/notary. She can prove when she began redeeming lawful money with her paychecks and of course, if she is saying it wrong or doing it incorrectly, it would be incumbent on the expert bankers and their attorneys to correct her, wouldn't it?

So are you getting that yet? If the IRS wants to drag her through any troubles about it, the first black robed attorney is going to have to explain why the Code does not apply to her, or ask the IRS and bankers why they were not letting her redeem lawful money - US notes in the form of FRNs.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[antjraf]

Yes, I am getting it. The Judge is in a catch-22. For now, this technique is used to document that we are redeeming lawful money. I anxiously (albeit patiently)await the news about actually getting $42.22/oz. value from this technique as well.

thanks again for your time and knowledge

[antjraf]

I just thought of some more questions regarding non-endorsment.


Does it matter if a check is not a payroll check? For instance, one receives a check for $50,000 from a sale or a closing on property or sale of a business, is this method still valid? I assume that it is because we are still documenting the fact that we are redeeming lawful money.


Can we just use "DEPOSITED FOR CREDIT ON ACCOUNT" if we are depositing a check into our accounts, or do we still need to add "OR EXCHANGED FOR NON-NEGOTIABLE FED NOTES OF FACE VALUE" even if we are not requesting cash at the time of the transaction?


If we have an account at a bank without a social security number attached to it, can we just sign our real name only under the verbiage or do we still use the "True Name d.b.a. LEGAL NAME" technique?


thanks in advance

[psholtz]

Here are two large denomination Fed Notes from 1934 that include the language from Title 12, Sec 411 ("Redeemable in lawful money at the U.S. Treasury, or at any Federal Reserve Bank"):

http://usrarecurrency.com/1934A$100FederalReserveNoteCGACU63SnJ00036709A.htm
http://usrarecurrency.com/1934A$500FederalReserveNoteCGACU64SnB00389410A.htm

[psholtz]

So on Saturday morning I walked into the BofA branch in sheesy-sheesy, foo-foo Palo Alto to try and cash (in lawful money) a (roughly) $2700 check. I was (somewhat politely) informed that the bank would not honor the check, and that they are incapable of honoring any checks payable to non-customers over $2500.

I'll save you the details of all the screaming and shouting that soon ensued (LOL) .. the general trend of the conversations was something like:

Me: Why won't you honor the check?
Teller: b/c your not a customer.
Me: You're lying.. it's b/c you don't have any $$
Teller: (laughing, sneering) Sir, we are Bank of America.. of course we have money.
Me: No you don't.
Teller: Yes we do.
Me: Then show it to me.
Teller: (laughing, sneering) Have you ever heard of any bank anywhere showing people what's inside their vault?
Me: I dunno.. I've never done business w/ a bankrupt, financially insolvent bank before.
Teller: We're not bankrupt!
Me: Yes you are.
Teller: No we're not!
Me: Then pay me the $2700 that you're legally obligated to give me.
Teller: We can't. It's our new policy.
Me: Your new policy b/c you ran out of $$

And on and on and on... increasing shouts, increasing chaos.

Eventually the bank manager came out and assured me that this was a new "policy" that had come down from HQ back in January (now I KNEW this was BS, since I had been routinely cashing far larger checks at BofA since January), and that he apologized but that he couldn't help me.

I told him that's right he couldn't help me, b/c (in a voice loud enough to turn nervous heads in the teller line) there was a run happening on his bank right now.

I screamed and shouted some more, and then stormed off, to try and figure what to do next.

I tended to some other errands, and then .. just for shizzles .. figured I would go to the BofA down the street in Mountain View and see if they would cash the check. I walked in expecting to get shut down (remember the PA branch manager had claimed this order had come down from "HQ"), but I didn't. w/ a warm friendly smile and a "have a good day, Sir" they cashed the check w/o a problem.

Well.. now I was really curious.

So I went back to the bank in Palo Alto and demanded to know why everyone up and down the line, from the tellers to the loan officers to the bank manager had lied to me, telling me that BofA had some policy against cashing $2,500+ checks.

After some more screaming and shouting (and stressing out the people standing in line w/ the "bank run" bit), the bank manager again came out. This time he explained that "I make policy in this bank" and that he had to make a policy not to honor any checks over $2,500 "because I don't have enough money in my vault to pay your check to you."

For all those tellers and loan officers w/ the ****-eating grins on their face, about "we're Bank of America and we have all the $$ in the world and we're just not paying you b/c you're not a member of the country club.." You should have seen their jaws drop.. LOL..

"Oh," I said.. "so I was right the first time: there's a run on your bank happening right now."

Manager: No, you see.. at a bank, we like to keep all the money "in house" so to speak, so we really prefer to pay it out only to customers.
Me: It's not your money to keep, twit!! Look, the check is payable to me, not you!! Not Bank of America!!
Manager: (sheepishly) well, yes ... but God forbid that the check should bounce (<-- strawman argument, the check was drawn on an account at BofA and it had checked out good, albeit it being "over' the $2500 limit, earlier in the day).
Me: Damn right God forbid if it should bounce! Why the hell should I underwrite the liability for your bad checks! If the money is payable to me, you're going to pay it to me! I don't care if your checks bounce.. that sounds like your problem, not mine. Are you trying to ask me to take on the risk of liability for your bad checks for free? If you pay me a $250 upfront processing fee and pay 10,000% interest on the time I'm waiting for your (potentially bad) check to clear, then we can talk.... but otherwise..
Manager: Look, next time.. we could help you, but you'd have to open an account w/ us herel, which we'd be happy to do. If you open an account today, we'll even give you $25 free to...
Me: What!? Are you offering to open an account for me at a bank that you just 2 minutes ago admitted to me was financially insolvent and incapable of meeting its fiduciary obligations! Sir!! That's fraud! You can be sent to prison for that!

At that point, he broke from the counter and went running/scrambling back into his back office, like a little girl, never to be seen again (that day). I left, partly laughing, partly yelling loud invectives about a "bank run at BofA" to sheepish, nervous-looking customers standing in line.

What had began as a source of anger and frustration ended, in my estimation, quite well.. :-)

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

wow! brilliant...sounds like monty python to me.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by antjraf

I just thought of some more questions regarding non-endorsment.


Does it matter if a check is not a payroll check? For instance, one receives a check for $50,000 from a sale or a closing on property or sale of a business, is this method still valid? I assume that it is because we are still documenting the fact that we are redeeming lawful money.

When I say paycheck I mean any funds intended for you - in your true or legal name - no matter.


Can we just use "DEPOSITED FOR CREDIT ON ACCOUNT" if we are depositing a check into our accounts, or do we still need to add "OR EXCHANGED FOR NON-NEGOTIABLE FED NOTES OF FACE VALUE" even if we are not requesting cash at the time of the transaction?

Yes. That works. But only to keep you from being fooled into thinking Credit on Account is taxable as it is. It is not taxable until you pull it from your account as endorsed private credit.

If we have an account at a bank without a social security number attached to it, can we just sign our real name only under the verbiage or do we still use the "True Name d.b.a. LEGAL NAME" technique?

I doubt that is a possible scenario. Unless maybe you have a TIN instead - which is to say that you have a SSN as a TIN which supports the idea that any legal or full name even like Shoe Repair Inc. or whatever is not your true name. So I am just restating my assertion that the name on your birth certificate is nothing more than the business name suggested at birth by a general social compact.


thanks in advance

You are welcome!! Sorry for the delay... I responded and apparently did not get it posted.

Originally Posted by psholtz

So on Saturday morning I walked into the BofA branch in sheesy-sheesy, foo-foo Palo Alto to try and cash (in lawful money) a (roughly) $2700 check. I was (somewhat politely) informed that the bank would not honor the check, and that they are incapable of honoring any checks payable to non-customers over $2500.

I'll save you the details of all the screaming and shouting that soon ensued (LOL) .. the general trend of the conversations was something like:

Me: Why won't you honor the check?
Teller: b/c your not a customer.
Me: You're lying.. it's b/c you don't have any $$
Teller: (laughing, sneering) Sir, we are Bank of America.. of course we have money.
Me: No you don't.
Teller: Yes we do.
Me: Then show it to me.
Teller: (laughing, sneering) Have you ever heard of any bank anywhere showing people what's inside their vault?
Me: I dunno.. I've never done business w/ a bankrupt, financially insolvent bank before.
Teller: We're not bankrupt!
Me: Yes you are.
Teller: No we're not!
Me: Then pay me the $2700 that you're legally obligated to give me.
Teller: We can't. It's our new policy.
Me: Your new policy b/c you ran out of $$

And on and on and on... increasing shouts, increasing chaos.

Eventually the bank manager came out and assured me that this was a new "policy" that had come down from HQ back in January (now I KNEW this was BS, since I had been routinely cashing far larger checks at BofA since January), and that he apologized but that he couldn't help me.

I told him that's right he couldn't help me, b/c (in a voice loud enough to turn nervous heads in the teller line) there was a run happening on his bank right now.

I screamed and shouted some more, and then stormed off, to try and figure what to do next.

I tended to some other errands, and then .. just for shizzles .. figured I would go to the BofA down the street in Mountain View and see if they would cash the check. I walked in expecting to get shut down (remember the PA branch manager had claimed this order had come down from "HQ"), but I didn't. w/ a warm friendly smile and a "have a good day, Sir" they cashed the check w/o a problem.

Well.. now I was really curious.

So I went back to the bank in Palo Alto and demanded to know why everyone up and down the line, from the tellers to the loan officers to the bank manager had lied to me, telling me that BofA had some policy against cashing $2,500+ checks.

After some more screaming and shouting (and stressing out the people standing in line w/ the "bank run" bit), the bank manager again came out. This time he explained that "I make policy in this bank" and that he had to make a policy not to honor any checks over $2,500 "because I don't have enough money in my vault to pay your check to you."

For all those tellers and loan officers w/ the ****-eating grins on their face, about "we're Bank of America and we have all the $$ in the world and we're just not paying you b/c you're not a member of the country club.." You should have seen their jaws drop.. LOL..

"Oh," I said.. "so I was right the first time: there's a run on your bank happening right now."

Manager: No, you see.. at a bank, we like to keep all the money "in house" so to speak, so we really prefer to pay it out only to customers.
Me: It's not your money to keep, twit!! Look, the check is payable to me, not you!! Not Bank of America!!
Manager: (sheepishly) well, yes ... but God forbid that the check should bounce (<-- strawman argument, the check was drawn on an account at BofA and it had checked out good, albeit it being "over' the $2500 limit, earlier in the day).
Me: Damn right God forbid if it should bounce! Why the hell should I underwrite the liability for your bad checks! If the money is payable to me, you're going to pay it to me! I don't care if your checks bounce.. that sounds like your problem, not mine. Are you trying to ask me to take on the risk of liability for your bad checks for free? If you pay me a $250 upfront processing fee and pay 10,000% interest on the time I'm waiting for your (potentially bad) check to clear, then we can talk.... but otherwise..
Manager: Look, next time.. we could help you, but you'd have to open an account w/ us herel, which we'd be happy to do. If you open an account today, we'll even give you $25 free to...
Me: What!? Are you offering to open an account for me at a bank that you just 2 minutes ago admitted to me was financially insolvent and incapable of meeting its fiduciary obligations! Sir!! That's fraud! You can be sent to prison for that!

At that point, he broke from the counter and went running/scrambling back into his back office, like a little girl, never to be seen again (that day). I left, partly laughing, partly yelling loud invectives about a "bank run at BofA" to sheepish, nervous-looking customers standing in line.

What had began as a source of anger and frustration ended, in my estimation, quite well.. :-)

That is interesting indeed. I think you could forward a asseveration of these facts to the OCC. Dugan might be interested in how close this bank manager might have come to a Panic in that lobby - by creating micro-bank run policy on a whim like that?

http://www.occ.gov/altlst08.htm
http://www.occ.gov/occ_current.htm

You might even get to read about OCC correction on BoA.

Of course my question is Are you still using non-endorsement? I have presumed you are not endorsing private credit from the Fed. And so that gets me wondering if you think non-endorsement might have any effect on the manager's behavior?




Regards,

David Merrill.

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

That is interesting indeed. I think you could forward a asseveration of these facts to the OCC. Dugan might be interested in how close this bank manager might have come to a Panic in that lobby - by creating micro-bank run policy on a whim like that?

http://www.occ.gov/altlst08.htm
http://www.occ.gov/occ_current.htm

You might even get to read about OCC correction on BoA.

Interesting idea... yes, indeed.. I might just do that!

Of course my question is Are you still using non-endorsement?

Of course! It's the only way to go.. :-)

I have presumed you are not endorsing private credit from the Fed. And so that gets me wondering if you think non-endorsement might have any effect on the manager's behavior?

I don't think so... I think he was just freaked out about the amount of the check's face value.

I've been non-endorsing for about 8 months (or so?) now, and I've only ever even been asked about it once. It was a teller who wanted to know what it meant. I said "well, you're about to give me some Federal Reserve notes, right?" I asked, pointing at the stash next to her. She said "Yes..." and I said "and all this says is 'exchanged for non-redeemable Federal Reserve Notes of face value'".. I kinda looked at her for a minute, and then asked (smiling charmingly): "Does that make sense?"

She thought about it for a minute, and then smiled and laughed and giggled and said "Ooohhh... I get it!" and then handed me the cash.

It was this ditzy blonde bimbo teller down in Hollywood.. I guess you had to have been there.. LOL..

But no, that non-endorsement has never been a problem for me.

BofA has a "new" policy (it began maybe in about Jan of this year, and maybe this was the "policy" that the Palo Alto BofA manager had in the back of his mind, when he was groping for reasons why he had lowered (or instituted) a limit on the size of checks he would honor) where you have to have a loan officer (or one of those middle-manager guys, of middle rank between the tellers and the bank manager) to check the check, make sure funds are available, and sign off on it, validate the signature, etc. So those guys always look at the non-endorsement, squint at it, etc.. so do tellers. But it's never been a problem and it's only even been mentioned once..