Doug, a check is a bill of exchange, and the demand for lawful money is not part of the bill. In fact, the bill will be purchased by the bank (second party), or executed by the bank (third party), in their preferred currency, FRN's, based on the legal tender laws (it is understood that FRN's are tendered as payment) unless you demand otherwise. Putting your demand on the front of the bill would not seem to damage it, so there appears to be nothing wrong with that approach. B or A for instance, states in their standard account agreement that they will ignore restrictive endorsements written on the back, so this may be a good approach. But for many of us, the problem is in wire and interbank transfers, for which we never see any paper to non-endorse. So the general solution is to publish your demand in an official venue (court record misc case file, County Clerk, Secretary of State?, newspaper, etc) and then serve that now in the public record notice on the bank. This covers the account, rebutting their presumption that you want to deal in FR debt securities, and thus it covers all transactions. It is a unilateral change demanded of the bank on your account agreement. If they do not deny it (and they can't actually deny it, as they are chartered under 12 USC), and do not cancel your account, then it supercedes your signature on their account card. One document one time covers all your financial transactions for all time. Keep it simple. This demand will also work for the bank account related to your stock trading account, for which you never see any paper. Served on the regional Federal Reserve Bank for your region, it also serves to take the liens off your property held in YOUR NAME at the Treasury Trust account, ie, it takes your property out of the federal bankruptcy usufructuary trust, returning legal title to YOUR NAME. In effect, this fires the Trustee and collapses the trust, thus ending your status as a 'federal employee.'

Freed