Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
CitiBank Branch Refuses To Honor Series E U.S. Saving Bond Without
2,894 views
Skip to first unread message
Jay F. Shachter
Mar 7, 2012, 6:00:18 PM3/7/12
to
Moderator comments
Names and phone numbers of non-public individuals have been
redacted for reasons that you should find obvious upon reading.
In the future, submissions greater than 10KB will be rejected
without reading.
=====
I brought a $500 United States Savings Bond, Series E,
made out to me, issued on May 1, 1972, to a bank teller
at a branch of CitiBank, at 2801 West Devon Avenue (on
the Southwest corner of Devon Avenue and California
Avenue), in Chicago, where I have a personal checking
account, and several business accounts. The teller
told me that the present value of this U.S. Savings
Bond was $2523,80. I told her to take the bond and
cash it,deposit $2500 into my checking account, and to
give me $23.80 in cash.
This is my neighborhood branch, where all the tellers
know me by name, which is all that the law requires,
and they greet me by name when they see me, but I
nonetheless brought a current and valid passport as
photo ID.
The teller told me to swipe my CitiCard in her card
reader, which I did, and I entered my 4-digit personal
identification number when the card reader demanded it.
The teller gave me back my bond, which she had been
holding, and told me to fill in the information
requested on the back, so she could cash it. The
reverse side of the bond instructed me to "sign in ink
in presence of paying agent or certifying officer", and
I signed my name, in ink, in the indicated area, in the
teller's presence. The reverse side also asked me for
my address, and I wrote that in. The teller then asked
me for my social security number. I informed her that
the law did not require me to give her my social
security number. I read to her the relevant paragraph
from the reverse side of the bond, which I shall present
here as well:
PAYMENT INSTRUCTIONS
TO RECEIVE PAYMENT, THE REGISTERED OWNER OR COOWNER MAY PERSONALLY
PRESENT THIS BOND AT ANY TIME AFTER TWO MONTHS FROM ISSUE DATE, TO
ANY BANK OR OTHER INSTITUTION WHICH IS QUALIFIED AS A PAYING AGENT
UNDER TREASURY DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS, AND ON PROPER
IDENTIFICATION AND SIGNING THE REQUEST FOR PAYMENT, MAY RECEIVE
IMMEDIATE PAYMENT. PAYMENT MAY ALSO BE OBTAINED UPON A PROPERLY
CERTIFIED REQUEST THROUGH A FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OR BRANCH OF THE
OFFICE OF THE TREASURER OF THE UNITED STATES, WASHINGTON, D.C.,
20220. PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO CERTIFY REQUESTS INCLUDE OFFICERS OF
BANKS AND TRUST COMPANIES, POST OFFICE OFFICIALS AND OFFICERS OF
ANY AGENT AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE SAVINGS BONDS.
I do not know whether bonds issued today carry these
instructions. I am reading from a bond that was issued
on May 1972. Nowhere on the front or back is there any
request for a social security number, nor any indication
in the payment instructions that you must provide one to
get it cashed.
The teller nevertheless refused to cash my bond. She
called over the assistant branch manager, xxxxx xxxx.
xxxxx xxxxx's telephone number is xxx/xxxxxxx, if you
want to get his version of the story, or ask him for
any additional information. If you cannot reach him
at xxx/xxxxxxx, you can ask for him at xxx/xxxxxxx.
xxxxx xxxxx said that I had to give the bank my social
security number so that the bank could report that I
had received the money. I told him that that was not
the law. I told him that a bank may be encouraged to
ask for a social security number, but that if the bank
does not get one, all it means is that sometimes
certain funds are subject to backup withholding taxes
the same argument that I used with CitiBank,
successfully, when I opened my checking account there
to begin with, coupled with the argument that the
checking account didn't pay interest, so it was
irrelevant). I read him the payment instructions from
the back side of the bond, and showed it to him. He
said that there was nothing in that passage that stated
that I didn't have to give him my social security number.
I pointed out that there was also nothing in that passage
that stated that I didn't have to give him my shoe size,
or my blood type. I had satisfied all the terms that
entitled me to "receive immediate payment". I asked him,
what about people who present U.S. savings bonds who don't
have social security numbers? He had no answer to that
question, but he still refused to cash my bond unless I
told him my social security number. He said I would have
to go to a United States Treasury Department office and
get my bond cashed there. I told him that I could not do
that, because the bond had to be signed in the presence
of the payment agent -- I had already signed the bond in
the presence of his teller, when his teller told me to
do so, so the bank had to cash it now, because I couldn't
cash it anywhere else. To that, xxxxx xxxxxx said that
I could sign it again, next to the first signature. (He's
probably right about that. But I don't know. It's easy
to forge a signature if you're signing something right
next to the authentic signature that you're trying to
forge. So another payment officer might not want to accept
a second signature signed in his presence, for that reason.)
Aside from the problem of re-signing something that was
already signed, I do expect that I would be able to cash
this bond at a United States Treasury Department office
(but where would I find one in Chicago? would I have to
go to Washington DC to cash my bond?) without providing my
social security number, even if the law has changed since
1972. A law that requires me to supply my social security
number in order to cash my 1972 bond would be a law
impairing the obligation of contracts, but Article 1
Section 10 of the Constitution, which prohibits such laws,
only limits the powers of the states, it does not limit
the Federal government. The Federal government is
prohibited from making an ex post facto law, pursuant to
Article 1 Section 9, but I don't know whether repudiating
your own contracts is considered an ex post facto law.
Even if it is, that fact might not help me if I run into
a xxxxx-xxxxx-like swine at the Treasury Department, who
does what he's programmed to do no matter what some
stranger tells him is in Article 1 Section 9 of some obscure
document that doesn't interest him and that he's never read.
But the question of greater interest is whether an entity,
like CitiBank, that is authorized to cash U.S. Savings
Bonds, can make up its own rules limiting how it goes about
doing that, or whether it is required to adhere strictly to
the rules of the U.S. government. If an entity doesn't want
to be in the business of cashing U.S. Savings Bonds, that's
perfectly acceptable, there are plenty of entities that
don't cash U.S. Savings Bonds. But if it does go into the
business of cashing U.S. Savings Bonds, is it allowed to
refuse its services to customers who don't supply them with
a social security number, even if the law itself imposes no
such restriction? And can it do so even after entering into
the transaction, by telling the customer to sign the back
side of the bond? My interest in this question is entirely
practical. I want to cash my bond, and don't want to have
to go to Washington, D.C., to do so. How do I go about
doing so, without capitulating to the ever-increasing demands,
in wholly inappropriate contexts, for my private information?
Jay F. Shachter
jay at m5 dot chicago dot il dot us
+1 773 7613784 landline
+1 410 9964737 GoogleVoice
Names and phone numbers of non-public individuals have been
redacted for reasons that you should find obvious upon reading.
In the future, submissions greater than 10KB will be rejected
without reading.
=====
I brought a $500 United States Savings Bond, Series E,
made out to me, issued on May 1, 1972, to a bank teller
at a branch of CitiBank, at 2801 West Devon Avenue (on
the Southwest corner of Devon Avenue and California
Avenue), in Chicago, where I have a personal checking
account, and several business accounts. The teller
told me that the present value of this U.S. Savings
Bond was $2523,80. I told her to take the bond and
cash it,deposit $2500 into my checking account, and to
give me $23.80 in cash.
This is my neighborhood branch, where all the tellers
know me by name, which is all that the law requires,
and they greet me by name when they see me, but I
nonetheless brought a current and valid passport as
photo ID.
The teller told me to swipe my CitiCard in her card
reader, which I did, and I entered my 4-digit personal
identification number when the card reader demanded it.
The teller gave me back my bond, which she had been
holding, and told me to fill in the information
requested on the back, so she could cash it. The
reverse side of the bond instructed me to "sign in ink
in presence of paying agent or certifying officer", and
I signed my name, in ink, in the indicated area, in the
teller's presence. The reverse side also asked me for
my address, and I wrote that in. The teller then asked
me for my social security number. I informed her that
the law did not require me to give her my social
security number. I read to her the relevant paragraph
from the reverse side of the bond, which I shall present
here as well:
PAYMENT INSTRUCTIONS
TO RECEIVE PAYMENT, THE REGISTERED OWNER OR COOWNER MAY PERSONALLY
PRESENT THIS BOND AT ANY TIME AFTER TWO MONTHS FROM ISSUE DATE, TO
ANY BANK OR OTHER INSTITUTION WHICH IS QUALIFIED AS A PAYING AGENT
UNDER TREASURY DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS, AND ON PROPER
IDENTIFICATION AND SIGNING THE REQUEST FOR PAYMENT, MAY RECEIVE
IMMEDIATE PAYMENT. PAYMENT MAY ALSO BE OBTAINED UPON A PROPERLY
CERTIFIED REQUEST THROUGH A FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OR BRANCH OF THE
OFFICE OF THE TREASURER OF THE UNITED STATES, WASHINGTON, D.C.,
20220. PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO CERTIFY REQUESTS INCLUDE OFFICERS OF
BANKS AND TRUST COMPANIES, POST OFFICE OFFICIALS AND OFFICERS OF
ANY AGENT AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE SAVINGS BONDS.
I do not know whether bonds issued today carry these
instructions. I am reading from a bond that was issued
on May 1972. Nowhere on the front or back is there any
request for a social security number, nor any indication
in the payment instructions that you must provide one to
get it cashed.
The teller nevertheless refused to cash my bond. She
called over the assistant branch manager, xxxxx xxxx.
xxxxx xxxxx's telephone number is xxx/xxxxxxx, if you
want to get his version of the story, or ask him for
any additional information. If you cannot reach him
at xxx/xxxxxxx, you can ask for him at xxx/xxxxxxx.
xxxxx xxxxx said that I had to give the bank my social
security number so that the bank could report that I
had received the money. I told him that that was not
the law. I told him that a bank may be encouraged to
ask for a social security number, but that if the bank
does not get one, all it means is that sometimes
certain funds are subject to backup withholding taxes
the same argument that I used with CitiBank,
successfully, when I opened my checking account there
to begin with, coupled with the argument that the
checking account didn't pay interest, so it was
irrelevant). I read him the payment instructions from
the back side of the bond, and showed it to him. He
said that there was nothing in that passage that stated
that I didn't have to give him my social security number.
I pointed out that there was also nothing in that passage
that stated that I didn't have to give him my shoe size,
or my blood type. I had satisfied all the terms that
entitled me to "receive immediate payment". I asked him,
what about people who present U.S. savings bonds who don't
have social security numbers? He had no answer to that
question, but he still refused to cash my bond unless I
told him my social security number. He said I would have
to go to a United States Treasury Department office and
get my bond cashed there. I told him that I could not do
that, because the bond had to be signed in the presence
of the payment agent -- I had already signed the bond in
the presence of his teller, when his teller told me to
do so, so the bank had to cash it now, because I couldn't
cash it anywhere else. To that, xxxxx xxxxxx said that
I could sign it again, next to the first signature. (He's
probably right about that. But I don't know. It's easy
to forge a signature if you're signing something right
next to the authentic signature that you're trying to
forge. So another payment officer might not want to accept
a second signature signed in his presence, for that reason.)
Aside from the problem of re-signing something that was
already signed, I do expect that I would be able to cash
this bond at a United States Treasury Department office
(but where would I find one in Chicago? would I have to
go to Washington DC to cash my bond?) without providing my
social security number, even if the law has changed since
1972. A law that requires me to supply my social security
number in order to cash my 1972 bond would be a law
impairing the obligation of contracts, but Article 1
Section 10 of the Constitution, which prohibits such laws,
only limits the powers of the states, it does not limit
the Federal government. The Federal government is
prohibited from making an ex post facto law, pursuant to
Article 1 Section 9, but I don't know whether repudiating
your own contracts is considered an ex post facto law.
Even if it is, that fact might not help me if I run into
a xxxxx-xxxxx-like swine at the Treasury Department, who
does what he's programmed to do no matter what some
stranger tells him is in Article 1 Section 9 of some obscure
document that doesn't interest him and that he's never read.
But the question of greater interest is whether an entity,
like CitiBank, that is authorized to cash U.S. Savings
Bonds, can make up its own rules limiting how it goes about
doing that, or whether it is required to adhere strictly to
the rules of the U.S. government. If an entity doesn't want
to be in the business of cashing U.S. Savings Bonds, that's
perfectly acceptable, there are plenty of entities that
don't cash U.S. Savings Bonds. But if it does go into the
business of cashing U.S. Savings Bonds, is it allowed to
refuse its services to customers who don't supply them with
a social security number, even if the law itself imposes no
such restriction? And can it do so even after entering into
the transaction, by telling the customer to sign the back
side of the bond? My interest in this question is entirely
practical. I want to cash my bond, and don't want to have
to go to Washington, D.C., to do so. How do I go about
doing so, without capitulating to the ever-increasing demands,
in wholly inappropriate contexts, for my private information?
Jay F. Shachter
jay at m5 dot chicago dot il dot us
+1 773 7613784 landline
+1 410 9964737 GoogleVoice
John Levine
Mar 7, 2012, 6:45:27 PM3/7/12
to
The treasury quite clearly says that you must
provide an SSN when you cash a bond. What
matters is what the law is, not the 40 year
old boilerplate on the back of the bond.
www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/research/indepth/ebonds/res_e_bonds_eeredeem.htm
--
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
provide an SSN when you cash a bond. What
matters is what the law is, not the 40 year
old boilerplate on the back of the bond.
www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/research/indepth/ebonds/res_e_bonds_eeredeem.htm
--
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
Rich Carreiro
Mar 9, 2012, 10:08:25 PM3/9/12
to
"Jay F. Shachter" <shac...@gmail.com> writes:
> the Federal government. The Federal government is
> prohibited from making an ex post facto law, pursuant to
> Article 1 Section 9, but I don't know whether repudiating
> your own contracts is considered an ex post facto law.
SCOTUS has held that the prohibition on "ex post facto"
> the Federal government. The Federal government is
> prohibited from making an ex post facto law, pursuant to
> Article 1 Section 9, but I don't know whether repudiating
> your own contracts is considered an ex post facto law.
laws only applies to criminal statutes, IIRC.
--
Rich Carreiro rlc-...@rlcarr.com
Seth
Mar 9, 2012, 10:10:19 PM3/9/12
to
Jay F. Shachter <shac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I brought a $500 United States Savings Bond, Series E,
> made out to me, issued on May 1, 1972, to a bank teller
> at a branch of CitiBank, at 2801 West Devon Avenue (on
> the Southwest corner of Devon Avenue and California
> Avenue), in Chicago, where I have a personal checking
> account, and several business accounts.
> ...
> I brought a $500 United States Savings Bond, Series E,
> made out to me, issued on May 1, 1972, to a bank teller
> at a branch of CitiBank, at 2801 West Devon Avenue (on
> the Southwest corner of Devon Avenue and California
> Avenue), in Chicago, where I have a personal checking
> account, and several business accounts.
> The teller then asked me for my social security number.
> I informed her that the law did not require me to give
> her my social security number.
Are you prepared to have the bank withhold 20% (I think)
> I informed her that the law did not require me to give
> her my social security number.
of the interest, since it can't file a 1099-INT without
your social security number?
Seth
Stuart A. Bronstein
Mar 9, 2012, 11:22:45 PM3/9/12
to
impairing the obligation of contracts. By implication
it allows the federal government to impair the obligation
of contracts. And it does so in, for example, bankruptcy
laws.
In any case, OP's case is not a contract issue. The bond
doesn't say that he can cash it without disclosing his
social security number.
It just gives instructions on cashing it that doesn't
include his SS#. The law has since changed, so that tax
evasion can be reduced. Those instructions are now
incorrect. OP did not negotiate an agreement that he
could cash his bond without disclosure of his SS#, not
did he get one.
___
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
Mike
Mar 13, 2012, 10:27:11 PM3/13/12
to
Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:
> In any case, OP's case is not a contract issue. The bond
> doesn't say that he can cash it without disclosing his
> social security number.
>
> It just gives instructions on cashing it that doesn't
> include his SS#. The law has since changed, so that tax
> evasion can be reduced. Those instructions are now
> incorrect. OP did not negotiate an agreement that he
> could cash his bond without disclosure of his SS#, not
> did he get one.
Just to play devil's advocate a bit: He bought a
> In any case, OP's case is not a contract issue. The bond
> doesn't say that he can cash it without disclosing his
> social security number.
>
> It just gives instructions on cashing it that doesn't
> include his SS#. The law has since changed, so that tax
> evasion can be reduced. Those instructions are now
> incorrect. OP did not negotiate an agreement that he
> could cash his bond without disclosure of his SS#, not
> did he get one.
bond. The bond (and the then current laws) said
"you can cash this bond by following these steps..."
How is that different from you buying a car from
me and the contract saying "you can receive
delivery of the car by following these steps..."
or contracting a loan with me that says "and
after so many years, I will pay you back $X and
you can collect by following these steps..."?
If we had a contract for a loan where you loaned
me money, I couldn't then say at a later time "But
I won't pay you unless you do these other things
that weren't in the original contract but that
I'm now imposing." The purchase of the bond WAS
simply a loan to the government to be paid back
after so many years on specified terms. So why
does the government get to change the contract
when I couldn't?
(I do agree with the reason as to WHY they've
changed it, although it would seem that
money-launderers would not want to have their
money turn over so slowly. I'm simply questioning
HOW they claim the authority to do so.)
Gordon Burditt
Mar 14, 2012, 12:33:39 PM3/14/12
to
> PAYMENT INSTRUCTIONS
>
> TO RECEIVE PAYMENT, THE REGISTERED OWNER OR COOWNER MAY PERSONALLY
> PRESENT THIS BOND AT ANY TIME AFTER TWO MONTHS FROM ISSUE DATE, TO
> ANY BANK OR OTHER INSTITUTION WHICH IS QUALIFIED AS A PAYING AGENT
> UNDER TREASURY DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS, AND ON PROPER
> IDENTIFICATION AND SIGNING THE REQUEST FOR PAYMENT, MAY RECEIVE
> IMMEDIATE PAYMENT. PAYMENT MAY ALSO BE OBTAINED UPON A PROPERLY
> CERTIFIED REQUEST THROUGH A FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OR BRANCH OF THE
> OFFICE OF THE TREASURER OF THE UNITED STATES, WASHINGTON, D.C.,
> 20220. PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO CERTIFY REQUESTS INCLUDE OFFICERS OF
> BANKS AND TRUST COMPANIES, POST OFFICE OFFICIALS AND OFFICERS OF
> ANY AGENT AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE SAVINGS BONDS.
This is not part of a contract. It does not require the government
>
> TO RECEIVE PAYMENT, THE REGISTERED OWNER OR COOWNER MAY PERSONALLY
> PRESENT THIS BOND AT ANY TIME AFTER TWO MONTHS FROM ISSUE DATE, TO
> ANY BANK OR OTHER INSTITUTION WHICH IS QUALIFIED AS A PAYING AGENT
> UNDER TREASURY DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS, AND ON PROPER
> IDENTIFICATION AND SIGNING THE REQUEST FOR PAYMENT, MAY RECEIVE
> IMMEDIATE PAYMENT. PAYMENT MAY ALSO BE OBTAINED UPON A PROPERLY
> CERTIFIED REQUEST THROUGH A FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OR BRANCH OF THE
> OFFICE OF THE TREASURER OF THE UNITED STATES, WASHINGTON, D.C.,
> 20220. PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO CERTIFY REQUESTS INCLUDE OFFICERS OF
> BANKS AND TRUST COMPANIES, POST OFFICE OFFICIALS AND OFFICERS OF
> ANY AGENT AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE SAVINGS BONDS.
to ensure that the zip code of the Treasurer of the United States
does not change, nor does it prevent changing the name "Federal
Reserve Bank" to something else.
And even if it is, it's not part of a contract binding on *CITIBANK*.
They are free to require, for example, thumbprints from anyone
cashing a check drawn on another bank, and some banks actually do
this for people with no account there. I think you'll find that the
banks have purchased enough Congresscritters that they can refuse
just about any transaction for any reason but specifically prohibited
ones (like race, sex, and age). Banks really don't want to be in the
position of cashing a bond, then discovering that the signature was
phony and they are out the money, and can't get hold of you.
Phrases such as "ON PROPER IDENTIFICATION", "PROPERLY CERTIFIED
REQUEST", and "UNDER TREASURY DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS" suggest that
if the government passes laws after 1972 that require a particular
form of identification from people to whom the bank pays taxable
income, that can apply to cashing a savings bond. I also note that
there is no requirement that when you present your bond in person,
you have to be wearing clothes, but I'd expect most banks would
throw you out if you show up without them.
> xxxxx xxxxx said that I had to give the bank my social
> security number so that the bank could report that I
> had received the money. I told him that that was not
> the law.
US Patriot Act, which are much more anti-money-laundering than
anti-tax-cheat. There were also plenty of tax-reporting laws even
before 1972 that require reporting taxable payments of interest and
dividends.
> I told him that a bank may be encouraged to
> ask for a social security number, but that if the bank
> does not get one, all it means is that sometimes
> certain funds are subject to backup withholding taxes
> the same argument that I used with CitiBank,
> successfully, when I opened my checking account there
> to begin with, coupled with the argument that the
> checking account didn't pay interest, so it was
> irrelevant).
doesn't pay interest is an excuse any more. It might have worked
in the 1980's. They want an id on every account now that they can
match against terrorists (who obviously have SSNs and give them
out freely).
> I pointed out that there was also nothing in that passage
> that stated that I didn't have to give him my shoe size,
> or my blood type.
not obvious that they can't require this. However, there are
no laws requiring reporting of shoe sizes to the IRS, and there
are laws requiring reporting of taxable income to the IRS which
include SSNs.
Sooner or later they'll get around to passing the Universal Urine
Testing Act (they want to test *all* of it), which means you'll
need to supply your SSN and the 666 identification of that chip
implanted by the Antichrist in your hand to use a restroom (and
have to remove the one in your house).
> what about people who present U.S. savings bonds who don't
> have social security numbers?
security number in order to open an interest-bearing savings or
checking account. Those who didn't have one were told to get one.
Lots of parents who didn't have SSNs for their children now had to
get them to start "college accounts" for them.
The question does remain, though, what about those who *CAN'T* get
one (foreigners will have trouble).
> 1972. A law that requires me to supply my social security
> number in order to cash my 1972 bond would be a law
> impairing the obligation of contracts, but Article 1
security number *and they won't give it back* so you cannot use it
on your tax return.. Remember the phrase "PROPER IDENTIFICATION"
in the payment instructions above? Those payment instructions are
not part of a contract.
Stuart A. Bronstein
Mar 14, 2012, 12:34:13 PM3/14/12
to
Mike <prabb...@phx1-ss-2-lb.cnet.com> wrote:
> Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:
>> In any case, OP's case is not a contract issue. The bond
>> doesn't say that he can cash it without disclosing his
>> social security number.
>>
>> It just gives instructions on cashing it that doesn't
>> include his SS#. The law has since changed, so that tax
>> evasion can be reduced. Those instructions are now
>> incorrect. OP did not negotiate an agreement that he
>> could cash his bond without disclosure of his SS#, not
>> did he get one.
> Just to play devil's advocate a bit: He bought a
> bond. The bond (and the then current laws) said
> "you can cash this bond by following these steps..."
>
> How is that different from you buying a car from
> me and the contract saying "you can receive
> delivery of the car by following these steps..."
> or contracting a loan with me that says "and
> after so many years, I will pay you back $X and
> you can collect by following these steps..."?
In the case of a bond, there are other ways to cash it. The terms
> Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:
>> In any case, OP's case is not a contract issue. The bond
>> doesn't say that he can cash it without disclosing his
>> social security number.
>>
>> It just gives instructions on cashing it that doesn't
>> include his SS#. The law has since changed, so that tax
>> evasion can be reduced. Those instructions are now
>> incorrect. OP did not negotiate an agreement that he
>> could cash his bond without disclosure of his SS#, not
>> did he get one.
> Just to play devil's advocate a bit: He bought a
> bond. The bond (and the then current laws) said
> "you can cash this bond by following these steps..."
>
> How is that different from you buying a car from
> me and the contract saying "you can receive
> delivery of the car by following these steps..."
> or contracting a loan with me that says "and
> after so many years, I will pay you back $X and
> you can collect by following these steps..."?
only give an example. It's not something that is bargained for or
is part of the essence of the contract. In the other situations
you mention, the terms are essential to the contract.
And besides, as I said before, the federal government (unlike state
governments) can pass a law that changes contracts.
> If we had a contract for a loan where you loaned
> me money, I couldn't then say at a later time "But
> I won't pay you unless you do these other things
> that weren't in the original contract but that
> I'm now imposing." The purchase of the bond WAS
> simply a loan to the government to be paid back
> after so many years on specified terms. So why
> does the government get to change the contract
> when I couldn't?
___
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
A Michigan Attorney
Mar 14, 2012, 12:35:09 PM3/14/12
to
Mike wrote:
> Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:
> > In any case, OP's case is not a contract issue. The bond
> > doesn't say that he can cash it without disclosing his
> > social security number.
> >
> > It just gives instructions on cashing it that doesn't
> > include his SS#. The law has since changed, so that tax
> > evasion can be reduced. Those instructions are now
> > incorrect. OP did not negotiate an agreement that he
> > could cash his bond without disclosure of his SS#, not
> > did he get one.
> Just to play devil's advocate a bit: He bought a
> bond. The bond (and the then current laws) said
> "you can cash this bond by following these steps..."
>
> How is that different from you buying a car from
> me and the contract saying "you can receive
> delivery of the car by following these steps..."
> or contracting a loan with me that says "and
> after so many years, I will pay you back $X and
> you can collect by following these steps..."?
The main difference is that in your hypo, the obligor is
> Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:
> > In any case, OP's case is not a contract issue. The bond
> > doesn't say that he can cash it without disclosing his
> > social security number.
> >
> > It just gives instructions on cashing it that doesn't
> > include his SS#. The law has since changed, so that tax
> > evasion can be reduced. Those instructions are now
> > incorrect. OP did not negotiate an agreement that he
> > could cash his bond without disclosure of his SS#, not
> > did he get one.
> Just to play devil's advocate a bit: He bought a
> bond. The bond (and the then current laws) said
> "you can cash this bond by following these steps..."
>
> How is that different from you buying a car from
> me and the contract saying "you can receive
> delivery of the car by following these steps..."
> or contracting a loan with me that says "and
> after so many years, I will pay you back $X and
> you can collect by following these steps..."?
not the federal government.
> If we had a contract for a loan where you loaned
> me money, I couldn't then say at a later time "But
> I won't pay you unless you do these other things
> that weren't in the original contract but that
> I'm now imposing." The purchase of the bond WAS
> simply a loan to the government to be paid back
> after so many years on specified terms. So why
> does the government get to change the contract
> when I couldn't?
but you do not.
Mike
Mar 14, 2012, 8:27:38 PM3/14/12
to
and the other is. I.e. the loan contract said "you can (may)
collect by following these steps..." and the bond said "TO RECEIVE
PAYMENT, THE REGISTERED OWNER OR COOWNER MAY PERSONALLY PRESENT..."
> And besides, as I said before, the federal government (unlike state
> governments) can pass a law that changes contracts.
>> If we had a contract for a loan where you loaned
>> me money, I couldn't then say at a later time "But
>> I won't pay you unless you do these other things
>> that weren't in the original contract but that
>> I'm now imposing." The purchase of the bond WAS
>> simply a loan to the government to be paid back
>> after so many years on specified terms. So why
>> does the government get to change the contract
>> when I couldn't?
>
> Because it's the government.
go home, eh? *rolling eyes*....NOT at you, Stuart,
rolling them at the government. They DO have a tendency
to try and change the rules in midstream.
Robert Bonomi
Mar 14, 2012, 8:28:53 PM3/14/12
to
Mike <prabb...@phx1-ss-2-lb.cnet.com> wrote:
[[ sneck ]]
>If we had a contract for a loan where you loaned
>me money, I couldn't then say at a later time "But
>I won't pay you unless you do these other things
>that weren't in the original contract but that
>I'm now imposing."
Sorry, but such things _do_ happen. A change in
_law_ trumps terms in a contract.
Note well, that contrary to the OP's assertation,
it was not the bank where the instrument was presented
that was imposing this requirement, rather it was the
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT that did so.
> The purchase of the bond WAS
>simply a loan to the government to be paid back
>after so many years on specified terms. So why
>does the government get to change the contract
>when I couldn't?
"Because they say so." <wry grin>
They _are_ the Federal Government. This gives
them 'effective' privileges that the 'average
joe' doesn't have.
I will also note that *IF* the bondholder had
exercised his redemption rights 'in a timely
manner', the issue he is bitching about would
_not_ have arisen.
There _was_ "notice by publication" of the changes
in the redemption requirements -- no notification
of actual bond-holders was possible since there is
no registration of who, how, and _where_, the bond-
holder could be contacted.
Bond-holders _did_ have a 'reasonable' period to
"exercise their rights" under the 'old' rules,
before the 'new rules' took effect.
[[ sneck ]]
>If we had a contract for a loan where you loaned
>me money, I couldn't then say at a later time "But
>I won't pay you unless you do these other things
>that weren't in the original contract but that
>I'm now imposing."
_law_ trumps terms in a contract.
Note well, that contrary to the OP's assertation,
it was not the bank where the instrument was presented
that was imposing this requirement, rather it was the
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT that did so.
> The purchase of the bond WAS
>simply a loan to the government to be paid back
>after so many years on specified terms. So why
>does the government get to change the contract
>when I couldn't?
They _are_ the Federal Government. This gives
them 'effective' privileges that the 'average
joe' doesn't have.
I will also note that *IF* the bondholder had
exercised his redemption rights 'in a timely
manner', the issue he is bitching about would
_not_ have arisen.
There _was_ "notice by publication" of the changes
in the redemption requirements -- no notification
of actual bond-holders was possible since there is
no registration of who, how, and _where_, the bond-
holder could be contacted.
Bond-holders _did_ have a 'reasonable' period to
"exercise their rights" under the 'old' rules,
before the 'new rules' took effect.
A Michigan Attorney
Mar 15, 2012, 9:04:32 PM3/15/12
to
Mike wrote:
> I'm not seeing why one is seen as not essential to the contract
> and the other is. I.e. the loan contract said "you can (may)
> collect by following these steps..." and the bond said "TO RECEIVE
> I'm not seeing why one is seen as not essential to the contract
> and the other is. I.e. the loan contract said "you can (may)
> PAYMENT, THE REGISTERED OWNER OR COOWNER MAY PERSONALLY PRESENT..."
You omitted the part requiring presentation of proper
identification. Is it not possible that a social
security number is now an element of such "proper"
identification?
Robert Bonomi
Mar 16, 2012, 3:54:57 PM3/16/12
to
Fed requirements for redeeming bonds require
providing SSN only if the value of the bond being
redeemed exceeds $1,000.
The OP ran into a 'problem' because he let the
bond lie idle for multiple decades past the
maturity date, and the accumulated value
exceeded that threshold.
Mike
Mar 16, 2012, 3:57:46 PM3/16/12
to
constitute "proper ID." But.......I haven't looked at my
SS card lately but I do know they USED to say "not to
be used as ID" (or words to that effect.) Now they
might no longer say that and if the law says "proper
ID includes a SS number" then you have an extremely
valid point.
And remember, I did say in my initial post in this
thread that I agreed with the reasoning behind
requiring the SS number, etc. I was simply
questioning the validity of (apparently) changing
the rules in the middle of the game as opposed to
grandfathering in the old bonds.
0 new messages