Currently being denied my deposit with demand to redeem lawful money

[karl nathan]

[Richard Earl]

It's interesting that she knows she can't lend against the deposit and it seems they don't like that.

[hvncb]

What do you mean "dragging its feet?"....The banks operate under Title 12 so what is there to negotiate? Doesn't appear bank has a choice but deposit your check the way you endorse it. Of course the banks don't like it and when more and more people start doing this they will go and scream to congress. Scream back they refuse to give you lawful money...

[David Merrill]

Thank you for that Post Karl Nathan;



I will address the name thing and then pick through it carefully for everybody. There is a lot to be learned.

The legal name is irrelevant to redeeming lawful money. So long as you know your name, you are probably fine within the scope of redeeming lawful money. The bank may be obligated to convert you to a business account - think of that - the dba is doing business as. That is probably why they had to insist.

They are vacillating because they do have a legal obligation to accept your restricted (or non) endorsement. I will pick through the entire thing while posting a red Still Editing... notice at the bottom.

My local bank, one of two banks with branches in my community, has been dragging its feet for two weeks after my initial demand to redeem lawful money on 7/18/11. The first meeting consisted of me attempting to explain the remedy to the branch manager, who had never heard of it, with her final conclusion being that this would have to be run past the bank’s internal legal department. Fine, I can live with that and understand the bank needs to educate itself with its legal obligations.

How long have you had an account? Do not answer if too personal; Do you get Social Security through this bank account?

In this initial meeting I explained I wanted to negotiate my checks with "Redeemed in Lawful Money Pursuant to 12 USC 411" with my lawful name dba legal name as my signature below the verbiage. However, the bank said, based upon their internal policies, they could not alter the title of my account (title = legal name and social security number according to the SSA) or signature card to anything else. Since my only intention, at this point, is to utilize the lawful money made available to me, and to avoid endorsing the private credit of the Federal Reserve, I did not feel I will be 'losing' anything by signing my legal name after the demand instead of my lawful name. Please correct me if I am wrong in this assertion. I realize I am acting on behalf of the legal fiction, my legal name, created by the State.

Start signing your legal name: Karl Nathan SURNAME. Scribble your name followed by neatly printed SURNAME and followed by a period.

Yesterday (7/28/11) I received a phone call from a representative of the bank related to their legal/compliance department. The person I spoke with, I will call her Bankster, who is not an attorney, asked me what my intention of doing this was and if my intention was to restrict the bank from loaning against my deposits. I simply replied that it is my intention to not endorse the private credit of the Federal Reserve. Whatever you can or cannot do with the money I deposit is your responsibility, not mine. After several more questions she stated that I could negotiate the checks with the demand for lawful money verbiage so long as I signed with my legal name instead of my lawful name dba legal name.

Phone calls are bad. Try to avoid them unless you get them recorded. Google ROP Freeware - Record on Phone. They leave no record except of course the bank's recording - because of course This call may be recorded for training purposes.

Highlighted in red above; I am delighted that you have such a clear understanding of endorsement and non-endorsement of private credit. And that you handled that question so eloquently. It explains a lot right there, that the Bankster would ask directly if your intent was to keep the bank from lending your funds. That is a result of non-endorsement logically but you are wise to distinguish between a legal obligation of the bank and your intentions. Very good. I am impressed. I have not encountered this scenario, much less would I expect it answered so masterfully.


Today, as a courtesy, I met with the same branch manager I had initially met with to let her know that I was about to deposit my checks and to thank her for working with me on this issue. I live in a small community with a population of about 2,000 and therefore everybody knows everybody and I thought a ‘thank you’ was in order. I was good friends with her daughter in our high school years.

However, it quickly became apparent that she had reached, or had been told, a different understanding based upon the information from the Bankster and legal/compliance department. She said that the bank would not allow me to make a deposit with my demand for lawful money and legal name signature. So she called up Bankster and all three of us had a discussion.

I interject here that I may be missing something but I find it strange that you are extending such a courtesy as notifying your bank you are about to do something as routine as deposit paychecks. Strap on your recorder, make sure it is on, and go about your business. [Remember that if you do not get consent first, if you ever try using the recording in court and Bankster objects, the judge will not let it in.]

Bankster continually said during yesterday and today’s telephone conversations that it was the banks preference that I do not negotiate a check with a restricted endorsement. I continually corrected her by saying that I am not endorsing the private credit of the Federal Reserve and that the bank's preference is different than what the banks legal obligations are.

Of course it is the bank's preference. Often, the bank will automatically convert your bank account to non-interest bearing. Think about that. If you are not giving them the benefit of fractional lending on your funds on account, why would they be giving you interest? You might even offer that up if you want to explain that you understand the situation. Bankster tipped her hand with the question about your intentions. So you might consider tipping yours; give them some intelligence that you know your stuff. Or keep close to the chest; counterintelligence - keep them wondering if you are just following Internet gurus like David Merrill.

At this point I am wondering if you are awaiting approval before you will actually tender the instrument for the transaction? Or is it there on the countertop with your non-endorsement on it? It seems to me that this has all gone down many times before you, within a half-hour tops simply because the suitor just initiates the transaction instead of applying for permission and guidelines.

There was one situation where the suitor felt he had to sign out the account to pick up the $30K on the countertop, so he did. But I can assure you that without legal grounds there is nothing the bank will do to close down your account. That is just bad business. If they do not have your signature closing out the account, there is almost nothing about non-endorsement that will cause them to close it without your agreement to.

I am hashing through something with PayPal refusing to transact business. I need to redact down some lengthy phone conversations - maybe tomorrow I will start a thread.

Furthermore, she said that she is ‘leaving the door open’ for this to proceed but since ‘it is a gray area’ and there are many different opinions in the matter with very little statutory or case law support (don't know what she meant by this) they want me to respond to the Bankster’s letter and provide additional support of my position (statutes, court cases etc) which I’ve come across in my research.

How would you proceed if you found yourself in this situation? Thanks in advance.

There is a lot of unnecessary conversation going on around a simple transaction. But the topic title seems off. They are not denying you your demand for lawful money. You seem to be looking to them for approval to perform what they are already legally obligated to do and instead of doing it, you are finding out a whole gob of great stuff and sharing it here. You are Tops!! Thanks for doing it this way.

Keep your cool, stay polite and professional about your customer relationship with your Banksters. This is very enlightening - the power plays. They seem to be trying to give you the impression they are in control and well, with the banking landscape today... that is just quite debatable. I got two receivership notices just today:

http://www.occ.treas.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/2011/nr-occ-2011-101.html

http://www.occ.treas.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/2011/nr-occ-2011-100.html

If you start to lose your temper, stay cool and remember your audio recorder is on. You don't want to share the file with us if you are being a hothead... So bring up the topic of these two banks going asunder and let us hear how fast that changes their tune, okay?



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Chex]

Receivership(s)

[karl nathan]

Thank you all for responding to my original post. Also, I must thank you, David Merrill, for taking the time to put together the "Federal Reserve Act -- Remedy" video which sparked my interest into researching lawful money, and also for the kind words above!

I will go through and answer the questions or address any statements which were made. All quotes are taken from David Merrill's response on 07-29-11 at 09:14 PM...

They are vacillating because they do have a legal obligation to accept your restricted (or non) endorsement.

I was researching my bank and looked them up on the FDIC website: http://www2.fdic.gov/idasp/main_bankfind.asp

If you search for the name "Bremen Bank and Trust Company" you will see the same disclosure which I found when I looked up my bank:

My Bank Name is a state-chartered bank that is not a member of the Federal Reserve. Therefore the primary federal regulator is the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

So just to clarify, even though my bank is a state-chartered bank, and according to the FDIC website, is not a member of the Federal Reserve, 12 USC 411 would still apply to them?

How long have you had an account? Do not answer if too personal; Do you get Social Security through this bank account?

I have had an account with this bank for about 15 out of the last 20 years. For five years, when I attended college out of state, I did not have any relationship with the bank. I do not receive Social Security through this bank account.

Scribble your name followed by neatly printed SURNAME and followed by a period.

What is the purpose of the period? Does it signify the end of the legal fiction created by the State?

I interject here that I may be missing something but I find it strange that you are extending such a courtesy...

Yes, in my opinion I omitted a few details which materially change the context of my situation and may help explain why I have taken the course of action I have.

I live and work in the same small community the bank branch is located in. Everyone in the bank knows me by my first name, knows my parents, knew my grandparents etc. I work directly with the bank when one of their loan officers require a tax return to renew a line of credit or loan a mutual client of ours some funny money. I am a CPA and have worked in public accounting, mainly preparing income tax returns, for five years.

If you are not giving them the benefit of fractional lending on your funds on account, why would they be giving you interest? You might even offer that up if you want to explain that you understand the situation.

I offered this in my initial meeting with the Branch Manager. I will offer again as that information may not have been passed along to the Bankster and the legal department.

At this point I am wondering if you are awaiting approval before you will actually tender the instrument for the transaction? Or is it there on the countertop with your non-endorsement on it?

I am not awaiting approval. I understand the bank has a legal obligation to accept my non-endorsement. I had all my checks properly negotiated and ready to be deposited when I walked into the bank to let the branch manager know that the Bankster gave the go-ahead for the non-endorsement.



However, I am awaiting the receipt of the letter from the bank outlining their position. I should receive it in the next few days and will sanitize it and post it here asap.

[David Merrill]

Thank you all for responding to my original post. Also, I must thank you, David Merrill, for taking the time to put together the "Federal Reserve Act -- Remedy" video which sparked my interest into researching lawful money, and also for the kind words above!

I will go through and answer the questions or address any statements which were made. All quotes are taken from David Merrill's response on 07-29-11 at 09:14 PM...



I was researching my bank and looked them up on the FDIC website: http://www2.fdic.gov/idasp/main_bankfind.asp

If you search for the name "Bremen Bank and Trust Company" you will see the same disclosure which I found when I looked up my bank:

My Bank Name is a state-chartered bank that is not a member of the Federal Reserve. Therefore the primary federal regulator is the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

So just to clarify, even though my bank is a state-chartered bank, and according to the FDIC website, is not a member of the Federal Reserve, 12 USC 411 would still apply to them?



I have had an account with this bank for about 15 out of the last 20 years. For five years, when I attended college out of state, I did not have any relationship with the bank. I do not receive Social Security through this bank account.



What is the purpose of the period? Does it signify the end of the legal fiction created by the State?



Yes, in my opinion I omitted a few details which materially change the context of my situation and may help explain why I have taken the course of action I have.

I live and work in the same small community the bank branch is located in. Everyone in the bank knows me by my first name, knows my parents, knew my grandparents etc. I work directly with the bank when one of their loan officers require a tax return to renew a line of credit or loan a mutual client of ours some funny money. I am a CPA and have worked in public accounting, mainly preparing income tax returns, for five years.



I offered this in my initial meeting with the Branch Manager. I will offer again as that information may not have been passed along to the Bankster and the legal department.



I am not awaiting approval. I understand the bank has a legal obligation to accept my non-endorsement. I had all my checks properly negotiated and ready to be deposited when I walked into the bank to let the branch manager know that the Bankster gave the go-ahead for the non-endorsement.



However, I am awaiting the receipt of the letter from the bank outlining their position. I should receive it in the next few days and will sanitize it and post it here asap.

Thank you for making that clear.

If you search for the name "Bremen Bank and Trust Company" you will see the same disclosure which I found when I looked up my bank:

My Bank Name is a state-chartered bank that is not a member of the Federal Reserve. Therefore the primary federal regulator is the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

So just to clarify, even though my bank is a state-chartered bank, and according to the FDIC website, is not a member of the Federal Reserve, 12 USC 411 would still apply to them?

I seem to be missing something here in my learning. Sorry - but I have always thought FDIC is the Fed insurance that if a bank is short on reserves FDIC will cover $100K/account if necessary.

Additionally the state banks are Fed banks - at least in many respects.

What I am thinking though is that I need to read the verbiage, rather than your interpretation of it.

What is the purpose of the period? Does it signify the end of the legal fiction created by the State?

It means nothing following. However it is my own convention. Sorry it is nothing more. Thanks for pointing out I am pushing a self-invented convention.

Yes, in my opinion I omitted a few details which materially change the context of my situation and may help explain why I have taken the course of action I have.

I live and work in the same small community the bank branch is located in. Everyone in the bank knows me by my first name, knows my parents, knew my grandparents etc. I work directly with the bank when one of their loan officers require a tax return to renew a line of credit or loan a mutual client of ours some funny money. I am a CPA and have worked in public accounting, mainly preparing income tax returns, for five years.

I am linking a snippet from this morning's BBC World News. It sounds like you know these people well enough to simply explain that you do not want to contribute to the rising national debt.

From the first video's 1984 Article.

The process works like this. Suppose $1000 in Federal Reserve notes are presented for redemption in public money. To raise $1000 in public money the Fed must surrender U.S. Bonds in that amount to the Treasury in exchange for the public money demanded (assuming that the Fed had no public money on hand). In so doing $1000 of the National Debt would be paid off by the Fed and thus canceled.

However, I am awaiting the receipt of the letter from the bank outlining their position. I should receive it in the next few days and will sanitize it and post it here asap.

My guess is that letter will never arrive. No attorney worth his salt will sign a confession.

[karl nathan]

My bank's response which I received in the mail today: Bank's position.pdf

The legal officer which signed the letter is not the Bankster which I spoke with on the telephone 7/29.

I will respond to the bank's letter with a letter of my own. Below are the general ideas I will use in my response to the bank's letter bullet point by bullet point:

1. I have already agreed and made my intentions clear that I would not need to change the title of my account to redeem lawful money.

2. I have already agreed and made my intentions clear that I would not need to change the signature card/account agreement to redeem lawful money.

3. My endorsement is NOT needed to negotiate a check.

4. I stated that with my demand for lawful money I would be receiving US Notes, which appear to be Federal Reserve Notes (appear that way to the bank anyway) but really I would be receiving lawful money or US Notes.

Please share any suggestions you may have in regard to my response, if I should even respond. Also, assuming I should respond, should I provide the bank with the different code sections/court cases which I've found in my research which support my position? The Bankster stated that it appeared I was ahead of them in researching these issues and they would appreciate the information.

Additionally, I have two identical letters which I dropped in the mail yesterday, one to the FDIC (primary regulator of my bank) and one to my State's Division of Banking: FDIC and State banking regulator letter.pdf

Yesterday I redeemed lawful money for the first time by cashing my paycheck at the bank which the check was drawn (my boss's bank) with my demand for lawful money on the back of the check! Today I took my lawful money (US Notes which appear to be FRNs) and deposited them into my account at my bank.

[Guest]

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

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.

I could see why small banks would be reluctant to do business with those that demand lawful money. However, BofA is not small - infact, it's "too big to fail".

When I renewed the State's driver's license, I signed my true name - there is an image of my true-name signature on the DL. When I open an account at a bank, they'll insist for the account to be opened in the legal name that appears on the DL. However, the signature I put on any bank agreements merely must match the signature on the DL. No need for True Name dba LEGAL NAME. I simply sign True Name.

IMO, any other disclaimers such "all rights reserved", "without prejudice", etc., merely raise red flags with the banksters. I only include the demand for lawful money with true-name signature - nothing else.

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.

[David Merrill]

My bank's response which I received in the mail today: [ATTACH]606[/ATTACH]

The legal officer which signed the letter is not the Bankster which I spoke with on the telephone 7/29.

I will respond to the bank's letter with a letter of my own. Below are the general ideas I will use in my response to the bank's letter bullet point by bullet point:

1. I have already agreed and made my intentions clear that I would not need to change the title of my account to redeem lawful money.

2. I have already agreed and made my intentions clear that I would not need to change the signature card/account agreement to redeem lawful money.

3. My endorsement is NOT needed to negotiate a check.

4. I stated that with my demand for lawful money I would be receiving US Notes, which appear to be Federal Reserve Notes (appear that way to the bank anyway) but really I would be receiving lawful money or US Notes.

Please share any suggestions you may have in regard to my response, if I should even respond. Also, assuming I should respond, should I provide the bank with the different code sections/court cases which I've found in my research which support my position? The Bankster stated that it appeared I was ahead of them in researching these issues and they would appreciate the information.

Additionally, I have two identical letters which I dropped in the mail yesterday, one to the FDIC (primary regulator of my bank) and one to my State's Division of Banking: [ATTACH]607[/ATTACH]

Yesterday I redeemed lawful money for the first time by cashing my paycheck at the bank which the check was drawn (my boss's bank) with my demand for lawful money on the back of the check! Today I took my lawful money (US Notes which appear to be FRNs) and deposited them into my account at my bank.

Thank you for sanitizing and showing us the documents Karl Nelson.

The key is in bullet 3 of the bank's response letter. First sentence. The term negotiate. They presume that you wish to negotiate currency. Negotiating currency technically means to be trading up, not trading down. You may trade up the Order for FRNs to US notes. It is irresponsible though to negotiate US notes for FRNs. This is getting difficult to wrap around and so therefore what has really happened is that they, being friends lured you into explaining yourself so clearly that they came back with the next sentence:

We are concerned that your refusal to endorse the items by using the phrase, "redeemed in lawful money pursuant to Title 12 USC Section 411," and considering this a non-endorsement may restrict our ability to carry out this request and ultimately collect funds that we have credited to your account for your benefit.

That is where they are pulling you into credit instead of sure funds. Lawful money in your account has nothing to do with credit. It is backed by the signatures of the US Treasurer and the Secretary - obligations of the US. This is why it would be good to go non-interest bearing. Then you are getting no benefit from the bank except that they hold your funds. They are concerned about benefits to you, or more that they will get burned by trying to use your funds for fractional lending.

Thank you. That is a very revealing letter.

So you deposited some funds? Take a withdrawal slip, and strike through the Order of; and write on it.

When you get your cash, that is the same thing. They have wrapped you around the term negotiating. You are depositing funds. Not negotiating funds. You are not trading currencies, you are demanding lawful money instead of FRNs. They will give you US notes in the form of FRNs (since 1971). Fine.

All you needed to do was get your demand on the record. You have a right to make the demand. You are not getting any benefits - unless they continue to give you interest, which is at their option to quit. What really happened is you educated yourself so much you gave them enough to apply sophistry.

If you like the bank then don't close the account. Just stamp your demand on there and tell the cashier that you believe you have the right to make the demand. You know they will give you FRNs - fine. You just want to make your demand. You tried to explain it to them and they misconstrued the whole thing.

If they close down your account, which I doubt they will, then you already have found you can cash your paychecks at your boss's bank. If you really need a bank account then open one there. If your current bank is turning down business like that, their future is pretty grim. I believe that the metaphysics of defiling your character and right to lawful money by demand will hit them pretty hard, pretty soon.


Actually though, they will try to get you to close your account. Nothing more. They will not close it. It will look like they are closing it and then they will want you to sign for the funds there, by closing it yourself. Tell them how much you like them and you only want to withdraw part of the account funds, not all of it. You wish to continue doing business...

[David Merrill]

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

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.

I could see why small banks would be reluctant to do business with those that demand lawful money. However, BofA is not small - infact, it's "too big to fail".

When I renewed the State's driver's license, I signed my true name - there is an image of my true-name signature on the DL. When I open an account at a bank, they'll insist for the account to be opened in the legal name that appears on the DL. However, the signature I put on any bank agreements merely must match the signature on the DL. No need for True Name dba LEGAL NAME. I simply sign True Name.

IMO, any other disclaimers such "all rights reserved", "without prejudice", etc., merely raise red flags with the banksters. I only include the demand for lawful money with true-name signature - nothing else.

I am curious if there is a genre of small bank that is actually not part of the Fed, like credit unions?

Karl;

I am curious, Do you think the reply from your bank is in response to your letter linked there in the same post? I presume when reading that the reply was in response to inquiries made by your bank manager...

What I mean is to emphasize my point above. If they convinced you to write a letter to Legal and then listen to the Reply from Legal, you are going about this whole thing all wrong. They actually got you to do this to yourself. So if you like the coffee and your friends just say, I am sorry. I got all wrapped around the axle about explaining it to you. Congress says I have the right to redeem lawful money by demand so I am making my demand. That's all.

It seems like maybe they got you to write to Legal for legal advice! By handling this like it is as simple as it is, many people have cleared the hurdle your bank has convinced you to construct for yourself.

But I may be wrong. However there is a sentence in the Reply that seems responsive to the Letter you wrote.

Don't get me wrong, what you did reveals new milestones if that is what I am looking at. You have gotten us a long way and I thank you. But if the bank manager convinced you to write to Legal about this, then he was praying on your conditioning.

[Guest]

How rude of me not to mention...


Thanks, Karl, for sharing your very enlightening experience!

I am curious if there is a genre of small bank that is actually not part of the Fed, like credit unions?

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.

But then again, perhaps such a credit union does exist - one that never endorses Fed credit - a financial institution that only dabbles in lawful money of the United States. I'd imagine that it would be difficult for such an institution to be profitable - without the ability to fractionalize!

[David Merrill]

Yes. Thank you Rock. One cannot fractionalize without FDIC. That is the link. Until we redeem lawful money, we are Fed banks by endorsement.

Thank you again 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.




Thank you,

David Merrill.


P.S. Here are the docs linked:

http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/2387/fdicandstatebankingregu.pdf

http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/1774/banksposition.pdf

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.

[David Merrill]

A careful reading of the letter says that they will still deposit and cash your checks with the non-endorsement.

[karl nathan]

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

Thank you for sanitizing and showing us the documents Karl Nelson.

The key is in bullet 3 of the bank's response letter. First sentence. The term negotiate. They presume that you wish to negotiate currency. Negotiating currency technically means to be trading up, not trading down. You may trade up the Order for FRNs to US notes.

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.

So you deposited some funds? Take a withdrawal slip, and strike through the Order of; and write on it.

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.

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.

They have wrapped you around the term negotiating. You are depositing funds. Not negotiating funds. You are not trading currencies, you are demanding lawful money instead of FRNs.

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.

What really happened is you educated yourself so much you gave them enough to apply sophistry.

Yes. Fortunately sophistry will be overcome by the Truth.

Karl Nathan