To Whom It May Concern : On or about, XX/XX/2016, a friend of my daughter asked me to help her cash a cashiers check in the amount of {$2400.00} ( Exhibit 1 ). My daughters friends name is ( redacted ) After questioning ( redacted ) about how she came into possession of the check, and being satisfied that the check was authentic, and not obtained through fraudulent means, I consented to aid ( redacted ) to cash the cashiers check, as she was the payee of the check. 
( redacted ) and I drove to my bank, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( hereafter referred to as XXXX ) and I informed the teller that I desired to cash the cashiers check. The teller informed me that ( the payee ) should sign the back of the check, and print her drivers license number and date of the drivers license expiration on the back of the check. ( The payee ) signed the back of the check with her signature, and printed her drivers license number and date of expiration of the license on the back of the check. ( The payee ) also added her phone number, which was later crossed out by the teller. The teller also requested that ( the payee ) place her thumb print on the front of the check, which ( the payee ) did. ( The payee ) then handed the check to me and I handed it to the teller. The teller instructed me to sign the check on the back under the information and signature of ( the payee ), which I did ( Exhibit 1 ). I then handed the check to the teller. The teller  compared the information, and the signature, on the payee 's drivers license with the signature and information that ( the  payee ) had entered on the back of the check. The teller inspected my drivers license, and gave me {$2400.00} and I gave the {$2400.00} to ( the payee ), and in accordance with, U.C.C. Article 3 Sections 302, 305 and 306, I became a holder in due course of the cashiers check shown in ( Exhibit 1 ). 
Several days later, I received a phone call from my bank ( XXXX ) informing me that PNC Bank denied payment of the cashiers check, because of suspicion of fraud, and my bank ( XXXX ) was debiting my account for {$2400.00} ( Exhibit 2 ). I  went to my bank ( XXXX ) the day I received the phone call informing me that PNC refused to pay the cashiers check, and asked personnel at my bank ( XXXX ) to contact PNC Bank, and inquire as to why PNC Bank suspected fraud. The personnel at my bank ( XXXX ) informed me they would not contact PNC Bank, because PNC Bank would not tell them ( XXXX ) the reason PNC Bank suspected fraud. XXXX informed me I would have to contact PNC Bank to inquire as to why PNC Bank suspected fraud. 
Thus, began many frustrating phone conversations with PNC Bank personnel who were ignorant, or pretended to be ignorant, of the provisions of the U.C.C., as it relates to bank checks or cashiers checks. The PNC Bank personnel I communicated with were, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX. I was told XXXX XXXX is a branch manager of a PNC Bank. All of these individuals appeared to be ignorant, or pretended to be ignorant, of the contents of the U.C.C., as it pertains to banking. 
XXXX XXXX informed me that, The check was denied due to an endorsement issue. It was not endorsed properly. I informed XXXX XXXX that the check was endorsed exactly the way the teller at my bank ( XXXX  ) instructed. XXXX XXXX told me that the payee, XXXX XXXX, had to endorse the check as payable to me, in order for me to be a holder in due course. The U.C.C. in section 3-205 states that a blank endorsement by the payee of a check renders the check payable to bearer. XXXX XXXX made a blank endorsement on the check and handed it to me, so I became the bearer with the right to cash the check. Either XXXX or XXXX, told me they were suspicious of the check because it was issued by PNC Bank on, XX/XX/2016, and was presented for payment in XXXX XXXX, Nevada, XX/XX/2016. I explained that the check was mailed from a payroll department in XXXX, Ohio to XXXX XXXX, Nevada by Express 1-Day mail ( Exhibit 3 ). They ignored my explanation. XXXX XXXX or XXXX XXXX told me that she could not decipher the signature, and that was another reason they considered fraud. If not being able to decipher a signature were a reason to suspect fraud, the majority of negotiable instruments would be suspected of fraud. This cashiers check was presented to PNC Bank for payment by my bank ( XXXX ), and XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX should have been aware of that fact. They should know that the bank submitting the check for payment would have verified the signatures on the check before cashing it. XXXX XXXX told me I should seek reimbursement from the payee on the check. The payee is not responsible for paying me the proceeds of the check, she did not do anything wrong, to my knowledge, and if XXXX knows of any wrongdoing by the payee, she should tell me. When I asked to speak to someone in their legal department they refused to do so. When I asked to speak to a supervisor or someone higher in their hierarchy, they directed me to XXXX XXXX, who I was told, is a branch manager of a PNC Bank. XXXX XXXX informed me I would have to initiate a conference call between XXXX XXXX XXXX, who I assume is the remitter for the cashiers check, herself ( XXXX XXXX ), and myself. There is no reason for me to talk to XXXX XXXX XXXX, if he is the remitter or if he is the representative of XXXX XXXX, if XXXX XXXX is the remitter. No matter who the remitter is, the remitter does not have ownership of the cashiers check once it is issued by PNC Bank. The check is the obligation of PNC Bank to pay. The fact that XXXX XXXX is instructing me to talk to XXXX XXXX XXXX, is further evidence PNC Bank is asserting a defense of the remitter, which is a violation of the U.C.C., unless the bank has been indemnified or ordered by a court not to pay the check, and if that happened in this instance they would have to tell me. 
XXXX XXXX or XXXX XXXX never denied that PNC Bank issued the cashiers check to the payee. They never claimed the check was a counterfeit or was not a genuine PNC Bank cashiers check. I repeatedly told XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX that I was a holder in due course, and not subject to the remitters or PNC Banks defenses, except for real defenses, as defined in the U.C.C., and none of the listed real defenses applied in this case. They refused to acknowledge my status of a holder in due course. It is probable that XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX were directed to succumb, or they succumbed, to the request of a valued customer, and agreed to deny payment of the cashiers check in detriment to my rights as a holder in due course. XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX never suggested to me a method by which I could alleviate their assumptions of fraud. They were recalcitrant in their denial of payment, offering flimsy assertions of fraud, and never showing any desire to reconsider their decision.