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