Public Money by right - direct experiences please!

[Soldier of Truth]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

I agree completely with the somewhat subjective sentiments; but you say:

I beg to differ. The Legal Tender Cases, which I will likely upload with others into an article soon, support that under emergency - the War of Rebellion (Civil War), the printing of Notes is Constitutional. Of course in the actual theater of war, the Constitution is suspended. However some of the Executive Orders of the War Between the States are still in full force and effect. Anyway, the first sentence in your query quoted here is answered; the War of Rebellion established US Notes (greenbacks) are among the defined US currency.

As Raoul Berger (and others) would say: "Where is it enumerated in the Constitution?"

The Supremes, are just as capable of being incorrect as anyone else. Especially in light of the history of the "Legal Tender" cases, with FDR "stacking the courts." Also, the Federalists and the Anti-Federalist papers should dispel this notion that emitting bills of credit are "constitutional." War or no.

"Given the clarity of the framers’ intention, it is on settled principles as good as written into the text. To “interpret” the Amendment in diametrical opposition to that intention is to rewrite the Constitution. Whence does the Court derive authority to revise the Constitution? In a government of limited powers it needs always be asked: what is the source of the power claimed? “When a question arises with respect to the legality of any power,” said Lee in the Virginia Ratification Convention, the question will be, “ Is it enumerated in the Constitution? . . . It is otherwise arbitrary and unconstitutional. 3 Elliot 186."
Berger, Raoul Berger. Government By Judiciary: Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment. 1901. Ch. 23, p. 457, par. 2 (See Online edition <http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php% 3Ftitle=675&layout=html#c_lf0003_footnote_nt_2204> )

Also, Executive Orders were a stretch by the Judiciary to "purport" constitutional authority.

And lastly, "currency," in commerce, is short-term financial instruments convertible into money within twelve months. As ALL financial instruments (paper) are "credit" instruments, i.e. "promises" by "promise" or by "order."

Money is "coin" and ONLY "coin." The etymology of money calls any assertion to the contrary "fraud" on its face.


As far as the endorsement "DEPOSITED FOR CREDIT OR EXCHANGED. . . ." I have been using this endorsement for almost five years. I have had an occasional "question" or two, but I respond "it is apart of "my" endorsement. And I can endorse on the "endorsement" line as I see fit or appropriate. And it gets negotiated without further incident.



BTW: "Public money" (sic) is defined as "government income from taxes."

[Soldier of Truth]

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.. :-)

Classic!!! Unfortunately most of them probably didn't know what a "run on the bank" meant. Or it would have been TOO funny!

[David Merrill]

I might write more about this later. In a nutshell on March 28, 1861 Congress adjourned for the prosecution of the War. On July 4 President Lincoln convened Congress under the extraordinary occasions clause.

[Soldier of Truth]

"Bankruptcy is a legal status. A person is not a bankrupt unless he has been so declared ("adjudicated") in a bankruptcy court. Insolvency, on the other hand is a financial status. It has two meanings:

"Insolvency in the state or equity sense. Insolvency in the state or equity sense of the term means inability to meet one's debts as they mature. One may be "worth" a million dollars in frozen assets, yet be insolvent in the equity sense because of inability to meet a $100,000 note when it falls due.

"Insolvency in the bankruptcy sense. Under the Bankruptcy Act a person is insolvent if the aggregate value of his assets is not at fair valuation sufficient to pay his debts. Thus, if one's entire assets, liquid or otherwise, are worth $90,000 at a fair valuation , and his liabilities amount to $1000, 000, he is insolvent in the bankruptcy sense of the term." Levine, A. Lincoln. Manual On Commercial Law, National Edition. 1948. Chp. XVI, p. 645

[David Merrill]

Thank you. That is very informative. It explains Shoonra's assertion that the US is not bankrupt but for all intents and purposes I assert that insolvent - as in the context of Bretton Woods, is equivalently bankrupt.

[cdsea10]

i am trying to find the conversion of 12 united states code sect 411 into the public law? the public law is self authenticating and may be more powerful on the nonendorsement of checks since the USC is copyrighted.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by cdsea10

i am trying to find the conversion of 12 united states code sect 411 into the public law? the public law is self authenticating and may be more powerful on the nonendorsement of checks since the USC is copyrighted.

That would be §16 of the Fed Act (1913). Attached.

[Soldier of Truth]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Thank you. That is very informative. It explains Shoonra's assertion that the US is not bankrupt but for all intents and purposes I assert that insolvent - as in the context of Bretton Woods, is equivalently bankrupt.

This may be so, as bankruptcy status of int'l gubmint bodies may be by different establishment. I am not knowledgeable of such matters as of yet.

[wombat]

Great thread and info here.

Last year I have been handwriting on the back of all of my paychecks:

Deposited for credit on account or exchanged for nonredeemable not nonnegotiable federal reserve notes of face value as per an updated or corrected post I read here.

Which way is correct?

If a person has filed a 1040 and reported their endorsed (above) payroll checks as "income". Could he file an amended return asking for a refund for withheld taxes due to checks "public money" endorsement?

A large prospective employer that is considering me for a positon mandates all employees receive their payroll check via direct deposit. Any ideas on how to combat this.

Thank you,

Wombat

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by wombat

Great thread and info here.

Last year I have been handwriting on the back of all of my paychecks:

Deposited for credit on account or exchanged for nonredeemable not nonnegotiable federal reserve notes of face value as per an updated or corrected post I read here.

Which way is correct?

If a person has filed a 1040 and reported their endorsed (above) payroll checks as "income". Could he file an amended return asking for a refund for withheld taxes due to checks "public money" endorsement?

A large prospective employer that is considering me for a positon mandates all employees receive their payroll check via direct deposit. Any ideas on how to combat this.

Thank you,

Wombat

In a way you have been screwing up your non-endorsement - (not endorsement). But that you have been making an attempt at all is right as rain. I enjoy when I can quote another Suijuris member to make my points - (even Shoonra).

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/140091-post5.html

Originally Posted by powder

pay to the order of = negotiable

pay to = non-negotiable

Saying non-redeemable was the opposite of what you intended since FRNs shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand. But like Shoonra pointed out - non-negotiable means that the currency is in its highest form - US dollars = US notes, even if they are in the form of FRNs (since January 21, 1971).

So if you get called into an audit simply make it clear that your intention was to redeem lawful money instead of endorsing private credit from the Fed. The Box will be that they might actually admit that once you got the wording right, your tax liability ended and you owe a tax liability up until you corrected the verbiage... NOT!!

Can you imagine how much trouble any IRS agent or black-robed collection attorney would be in if you actually painted him into that corner?



Regards,

David Merrill.