Currently being denied my deposit with demand to redeem lawful money

[karl nathan]

Open an account at the boss' bank. That bank doesn't seem to be bothered by the "restrictive endorsement."

In my opinion, my boss’ bank was not bothered by the non-endorsement simply because I was cashing the check instead of depositing the check in an account at their bank. Because I did not deposit the check at my boss’s bank they never had the lawful money in their possession. Therefore they were never faced with the question of whether or not they could fractionally lend against my funds. I believe if I did open an account there and wanted to deposit my checks with the non-endorsement demand for lawful money, they may take a similar course of action my bank is currently taking. However, I do not plan to investigate whether or not my boss’ bank would be bothered by the non-endorsement since I will obtain the remedy of redeeming lawful money with my bank, by whatever course of action is necessary to do so.

Or, if there is a Bank of America in your area, open an account there. BofA's legal department has already determined that they have no problem with the restrictive endorsement. Perhaps you've already seen this image located in our downloads area. I recall here at StSC another member posted a BofA agreement with the verbiage written into the contract.

Unfortunately there is no BofA in my area but yes, I have seen this image. I must thank you for uploading the image as I used the idea as a basis for my initial request to amend my bank's account agreement. At the current time, however, I have abandoned that course of action. Only if my bank was as educated as BofA and their legal department, I would pursue this avenue to document my remedy. However, in the end I am confident, and after much education on both my and the bank’s part, both you and I will have the same type of money: lawful money.

Also, from reading the bank's response letter, it is my opinion that you offered too much "explaining" to the bank. From where did they get the terminology "non-endorsement" and "US Notes". Too much talking sometimes results in your words being used against you. Knowing what I now know, I will only offer, "I only want transactions on account to be in lawful money of the United States, per section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act, an act of United States Congress. That's all."
I will not mention "US Notes" - as far as banksters are concerned, they do not carry those in their vaults or registers. Think about it - why would a bank agree to provide something that it thinks it does not have?
I will not mention "non-endorsement". I can imagine this spooks the banksters - perhaps they think a non-endorsement will void the negotiability of the check.
I stay away from those terms.

I have done some explaining, more so than most people should, to the bank based on my profession, the community in which I live and work and also for both my bank's and my education. I have briefly addressed these issues here in previous posts on this thread.

How rude of me not to mention...
Thanks, Karl, for sharing your very enlightening experience!
Well, I'm thinking that since FRNs are only authorized to be used by Federal Reserve Banks, then credit unions that have in its vaults FRNS are indeed Federal Reserve Banks. However, a credit union (or any bank) may not necessarily be a Federal Reserve member bank, that is, not required to have deposits at the district FRB.

Thank you Rock Anthony for all the information, especially the comparison of Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) vs Federal Reserve member bank (FRMB)!

I had never made the distinction between a FRB and a FRMB. Good Stuff!

That seems to answer all of the questions I posed to the FDIC and my State’s Division of Banking! However, I still hope one or both organizations respond since it would be nice to have my bank’s regulators response in writing.

Karl Nathan

[karl nathan]

That letter is very revealing. I am really quite excited to get it into my collection of testimony. The bank playing on your conditioning...I did not mean to make you sound naive or ignorant. This sort of thing happens. And I neglected the potential that you did it by way of counterintelligence, to gain the intelligence. - That it may have been intentional on your part - or guided by the Holy Spirit of God that you would bring this gift to the Forums. That I might be witnessing your obedience to God and mistaking it for being inexperienced and conditioned.

Yes, you are correct in that my actions have been intentional. The bank did not play me on my conditioning; one could argue that I played the bank on its conditioning.

Even if I would have read into your comments as making me sound naïve or ignorant, which I did not, I knew the simple explanation which follows would make my intentions clear to you and everyone else who reads this.

When I verbally requested my bank’s position in writing on 7/29, in the form of a letter to be delivered by the USPS, I did so with the sole intention of obtaining a written record of the bank’s position so that I could read, dissect and respond accordingly to such position.

Here is my draft: Karl Nathan response to bank position.pdf

So far I’ve learned I must be much more careful with my words. Please play devils advocate to see how all of you would continue to apply sophistry in this situation if you were the Legal Officer. My goal is to slowly back the bank into the legal hole, which they are helping to dig themselves, all while leaving a pile of evidence.

I understand the legal statute is on my side and since I do have the time, energy and resources, I plan to continue this exchange with the bank for several reasons.

First, I am learning a lot of new information and would like to continue to learn.

Second, I see my bank as a partner, a more powerful partner to me when educated. Therefore I am taking the bank along this educational journey so they understand the full implications of the legal right I am exercising. Of course they can deny that this right exists up until the end. However, I hope they accept this legal right as fact for their own self-interest. Otherwise the future looks bleak for this bank.

Third, I feel I have been blessed with this Knowledge and therefore feel it is a duty to expand the Knowledge and to share it with others. One way I plan to accomplish this is by documenting the process here at STSC.

Since I am able to cash my paychecks at my boss’ bank and then deposit the lawful money at my bank, my access to currency is not an issue anymore. I will obtain my remedy to redeem lawful money at my current bank.

I guess what is throwing me is that they are both dated August 2nd, which is a very significant day for America, and for my lien process too.

The bank’s position (dated 8/2) was a response to my verbal request from 7/29. I have not yet mailed any type of letter to the bank. I plan to finalize my draft response and mail it to the bank early next week.

The other letter which I have uploaded was written by me and mailed to my bank’s regulators, the FDIC and my State’s Division of Banking. I wrote the letter 8/2. My bank has no knowledge of the two letters I wrote to their regulators.

Karl Nathan

[David Merrill]

Thanks to all of those who responded. I will address each response in separate posts.



Merriam-Webster definition: 'negotiate - to transfer (as a bill of exchange) to another by delivery or endorsement'

It is my understanding that I am negotiating my check (not negotiating currency), not by endorsement but by delivery, so that the bank can make the funds/currency available to me for deposit or withdrawal. When I deliver my check to the bank, the check being a bill of exchange which is a negotiable instrument, I negotiate the check or transfer the check to the bank so they can obtain the funds/currency which are required by the negotiable instrument/bill of exchange/check.



Yes, I made a deposit in my bank account. I cashed my check in lawful money at my boss' bank, took the US Notes which appeared to be FRNs, and deposited them in my bank. I already have lawful money in my bank account.

Whenever you sign for cash though, that will be an endorsement.

Are you suggesting I take a withdrawal slip with the demand and redeem the amount of FRNs currency I had in the account prior to depositing lawful money? Say I had $10 of FRNs in my account and deposited $50 of lawful money. Should I withdrawal $10 with the demand on the withdrawal slip? I could then deposit the $10 of lawful money at the bank the next day and would therefore have $60 of lawful money in my account instead of having both lawful money and FRNs in my account as I do now.

You are looking at lawful money as a noun; not a verb. It gets kind of rediculous to consider FRNs US notes if you get too physical. What is really happening is you are making a demand, and you got your bank all wrapped around the axle about the legal details. What I must do then is show your bank's response letter and pick through it line-by-line. I am glad to do that but will have to find time. It is a real treasure at this particular juncture of American History. My advice is typically that you don't get into the law enforcement of the bank, that it has to keep your funds separate from what it has in reserve for loans. Don't worry though, this is good to explain clearly - for everybody. You being educated about redeeming lawful money, but not being a suitor, you have them looking at the crimes they would be committing by treating your funds like they are bonded by you, when you demanded that they carry only the obligations of the US government, and nothing by endorsement of private credit from you.



They have attempted to wrap me around the term negotiate. I do agree that I am depositing funds not negotiating funds. An example of a time some one would need to negotiate funds would be if they received FRNs for payment. They would then need to negotiate, or redeem, the FRNs into lawful money. However, I will never accept FRNs as I will make a demand to be paid in lawful money if I am to receive currency as payment.

Think about it. Negotiating is an act of trading. You are not there to trade. You are there either depositing into your account, or you are cashing the instrument for the value on its face - or depositing some, cashing some. You are not negotiating - except if you endorse. Then you are involving yourself in the creation of money like that graphic novel by the Fed - and you are reaping the benefits (national debt), having to pay the price (Return of Income - Income Tax). In that case - endorsement - you are turning the instrument over to your bank for negotiation.

This will be clearer when I dissect the letter.


Yes. Fortunately sophistry will be overcome by the Truth.

Karl Nathan

In my opinion, my boss’ bank was not bothered by the non-endorsement simply because I was cashing the check instead of depositing the check in an account at their bank. Because I did not deposit the check at my boss’s bank they never had the lawful money in their possession. Therefore they were never faced with the question of whether or not they could fractionally lend against my funds. I believe if I did open an account there and wanted to deposit my checks with the non-endorsement demand for lawful money, they may take a similar course of action my bank is currently taking. However, I do not plan to investigate whether or not my boss’ bank would be bothered by the non-endorsement since I will obtain the remedy of redeeming lawful money with my bank, by whatever course of action is necessary to do so.

Yes. That is showing a good understanding of the internal mechanism at your bank. They are having a problem with treating you and your funds differently than all the national debt-building endorsers.

Unfortunately there is no BofA in my area but yes, I have seen this image. I must thank you for uploading the image as I used the idea as a basis for my initial request to amend my bank's account agreement. At the current time, however, I have abandoned that course of action. Only if my bank was as educated as BofA and their legal department, I would pursue this avenue to document my remedy. However, in the end I am confident, and after much education on both my and the bank’s part, both you and I will have the same type of money: lawful money.



I have done some explaining, more so than most people should, to the bank based on my profession, the community in which I live and work and also for both my bank's and my education. I have briefly addressed these issues here in previous posts on this thread.



Thank you Rock Anthony for all the information, especially the comparison of Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) vs Federal Reserve member bank (FRMB)!

I had never made the distinction between a FRB and a FRMB. Good Stuff!

That seems to answer all of the questions I posed to the FDIC and my State’s Division of Banking! However, I still hope one or both organizations respond since it would be nice to have my bank’s regulators response in writing.

Karl Nathan

Hopefully I will get to dissecting your bank's response later this evening.