Discharging Debt with Bonds

[ThomPaine]

For now, let us say this is a hypothetical situation and there is a piece or two of the puzzle missing in order to complete the entire process. Step One has been completed already:

A man using his legal persona, has created a Private Indemnity Bond and a Private Offset Bond and lodged them with the US Treasury. Neither has been returned as defective, so by default and backed up by public documents, they are accepted as valid and ready for use. The account (ssn) is funded by these bonds.

There are two options available to make use of the lodged bonds; these are the two missing links, one or both of which are step two, bringing the process to fruition.

Normally, these bonds are used for discharge of debt like mortgages, credit cards, etc., and there is a process that is used for this. Now that the bonds have been created and lodged, how would one go about discharging a debt where a creditor is willing to cooperate with this process? What documents are sent to the Treasury? What is needed from the creditor and the debtor, etc.?

The second option, is simpler and actually a better choice IMO. If the lodging and value of the bond can be verified, a private investor may be willing to provide a loan, which will be used to offset or discharge other debt. This investor would be someone who has good connections in the banking and finance world but may be a bit leary of working in unfamiliar territory.

Both bonds have identifying numbers and it seems that one could correspond with the Treasury somehow to verify their acceptance and lodging of this instrument, but the Treasury is a big place, so who would handle this after lodging is complete? A banking/securities screen is also an option to view these bonds.

Any thoughts are appreciated, but dont waste your time typing to tell me this cant be done, bc I know it has been done, I just dont have all the details yet. Hopefully, someone who has experience will chime in and share their experience. If this works, I may be able to share the wealth a little bit for those who are interested.

Thanks

Thom

[phreeman2003]

I'm posting this here because it sorta relates to discharge process. As the downloads are long defunct, I've never seen the wording of the VOD. Also, back in 2001, when my issues first started, I did not know of this site, I found educational banking material by Tom Shauf and attempted to force the fraud into the open using FDCPA defense by seeking verification, as defined in Black's sixth, at the time, I believed the statutes to be authority.

To make a long story short, my question is would a written phrase offering to pay/discharge in the same species of money, as the original promissory note, contained in the body of the communication to cease and decest the debt collecting, without verification, constitute a valid offer. This offer being capable of triggering dishonor, in the sense of payment offered and denied is equal to payment?

[David Merrill]

Here is one for a hospital bill.


The principle is that when somebody refuses to tender the LoC to the Treasury for setoff, then the debt is waived. Trebilcock v. Wilson.

If you find a Treasury account - what some Strawman buffs call Treasury Direct - let us know. I do not think there are any specific accounts with specific amounts. It is just that Shoonra thinks the US government stole the gold fair and square in 1933 and I disagree. It is setting in trust to this day.

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ollections.jpg


Regards,

David Merrill.

[ThomPaine]

I believe there is a Treasury account already in existence (SSN) and by creating and lodging a private indemnity bond, you are funding this account, where some say that the account is already funded, based on various premises. If i create and lodge a bond based on that acct, i know there is value there. I know people who have successfully used these bonds to discharge debt of various types. I do not know anyone who has successfully used them for anything else and that is what I am exploring, along with the discharge process.

If a Letter of Credit was tendered to the Treasury, based upon the private indemnity bond and private offset bond, would the Treasury provide funds to the creditor holding the letter of credit to discharge that debt? In the example of a mortgage company or CC company, it seems to me, they would want to receive something to balance the books so to speak, as opposed to just cancelling the debt out somehow.

Regards,

Thom

[trooper2ls]

John H. Smith
c/o 123 Main
Anytown, Missouri [?????]
Ref: JOHN H. SMITH123 45 6789
Date: _______________, 2007 Letter 1058 (DO) 4/23/2007


Internal Revenue Service
Attn.: JAMES JONES
BOX 123
KANSAS CITY, MO 54321

Bond to discharge attachment for debt
Via Pass-through Account JOHN H. SMITH 123 45 6789

Credit to: __Henry M. Paulsen, Jr., the Secretary of the US Treasury and to JAMES JONES, Revenue Agent for the Internal Revenue Service the amount of One-million ($1,000,000.00) dollars .


I, John H. Smith, principal, surety, owner is held and bound to effect payment to Henry M. Paulsen, Jr., the Secretary of the US Treasury and to JAMES JONES, Revenue Agent for the Internal Revenue Service the amount of One-million ($1,000,000.00) dollars, unless the “Pass Through Account”, JOHN H. SMITH 123 45 6789 shall satisfy any judgment which may be recovered against said pass through account by Henry M. Paulsen, Jr., the Secretary of the US Treasury and JAMES JONES, Revenue agent for the Internal Revenue Service in attachment, against the said JOHN H. SMITH 123 45 6789 for One-million ($1,000,000.00) dollars, for discharge of said Claim stated in Letter 1058 (DO) of 04/23/07. This bond is returned on the 27th day of April 2007.

Bond Order

Negotiate this item through the back office for settlement via the pass through account, JOHN H. SMITH 123 45 6789, at the treasury window, Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington DC 20220, for the settlement and adjustment of Letter 1058 (DO) of 4/23/07.

A dishonor of the above bond is violation of the national bankruptcy.

__________________________________________________ _______ ________
By John H. Smith, authorized representative for JOHN H. SMITH date





____________
rt. Thumb print

[trooper2ls]

Bonds

A bond creates a future event, similar to an insurance policy. One of the outcomes of insurance is subrogation, taking something from you to myself. The party who writes the insurance policy subrogates he rights and defenses of the party that they wrote the insurance for. Puts you into a like creditor/debtor relationship with the insurance company. The creditor has liability to settle accounts, not the debtor. The creditor took the risk, the gamble, the wager that he will receive profit far above what he risked.

This can work two ways. Maybe you want to become the insurance company so that yo can be in charge of the situation. Self authenticating insurance policies. I am capable of writing an insurance policy for any public official or for any statute. You can bond the statue thru self authenticating contracts.

In admiralty jurisdiction, failure to respond is fatal – don’t play stupid, everyone in admiralty is presumed to be a law merchant and are presumed to know the law. So, self authentication – fictions can not talk, so easy to get them into contracts.

State of MO, can I go out and do such and such. No answer. Fatal. Evidence is affidavit of notary certification. The easiest way is to have a notary that you can work with. Notary can say that you did not receive confirmation or response on such and such a date. That gives you judgment in estoppel. Created by non response of the other party certified by notary who works for sec of state, who works for condoliza rice who works for the UN. Notary attached to the one world government. The estoppel is my remedy. I am relying on the estoppel for what happens next.

Write self authenticating bond for the fiction and send it to the treas. You have subrogated the fiction to you. You are now the insurance holder of the party. Lodge it into treas and send a copy to the party you bonded. On the insurance policy subrogate rights and defenses of up to $100Mil in the accrual. Now, if there is any injury committed by the fiction, you have a remedy in place. All commercial energy created in the public is by bonds. Only thing that can bring closure in the public.

An attorney can handle a blank promissory note because an attorney can handle it. So, of you appoint an attorney as a fiduciary, they know how to put a promissory note through the treas account.

Typical court case.

Court docs are negotiable instruments. The attorney is the maker (drawer). The drawer takes the negotiable instrument to the clerk for acceptance. The clerk says that the bank will accept the negotiable instrument and then the attorney goes to try and collect on the instrument. The drawee is??. The payee is the court. The beneficiary. Because the court has subrogate the rights on the negotiable instrument because the attorney’s bond was written by the state. Payor (surety) is undetermined. But because this is a wagering scheme, the attorney is the surety unless the clerk finds someone to step forward of their own free choice to become the surety.

Establish truth by affidavit. Transfer title (money) away from the attorney’s bond to you. Lien transfers title of money. You can use the lien as your remedy by taking your lien into the court for judicial review. Tell the court that the matter is already settled. You have exhausted your administrative remedy – need you to do judicial review to make sure my procedure is correct and then get a judgment. Trial not needed.

Back to the court case… you will be come surety when you answer the summons. If you don’t want to become surety, go down under limited or have bonds in place.

Admiralty court can sanction for contempt (put you in jail). Contempt means that you have violated an order of the court. Lien the court.

In the public everything is an offer. They are trying to give it to you. So go ahead and take it. Surety is the guarantee of payment.

[trooper2ls]

There’s The Freedom We’ve Been Looking For

See attached 95 page document.

..J

[David Merrill]

Negotiate this item through the back office for settlement via the pass through account...

That conjures up a whole mural. Where was that from? Say hello to the boys in back? Does anybody remember that?


Regards,

David Merrill.

[trooper2ls]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

That conjures up a whole mural. Where was that from? Say hello to the boys in back? Does anybody remember that?

There are hundreds of references to the "treasury window" at 1500 Pennsylvania Ave, NW in grandpa Ross's notes. Apparently there were many different types of transactions that go on that way. I'm still digging through this in my free time.. which is going to be drying up as the weather warms up. Got to work on the house restoration in the good weather..

..J

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by trooper2ls

Bonds
Court docs are negotiable instruments.

This is hilarious proof that you have no idea how negotiable instruments are defined in the UCC.

Here, I'll lay it out for you. You need to be educated.

UCC section 3-104, Negotiable Instrument:

(a) Except as provided in subsections (c) and (d), "negotiable instrument" means an unconditional promise or order to pay a fixed amount of money, with or without interest or other charges described in the promise or order, if it:
(1) is payable to bearer or to order at the time it is issued or first comes into possession of a holder;
(2) is payable on demand or at a definite time; and
(3) does not state any other undertaking or instruction by the person promising or ordering payment to do any act in addition to the payment of money, but the promise or order may contain (i) an undertaking or power to give, maintain, or protect collateral to secure payment, (ii) an authorization or power to the holder to confess judgment or realize on or dispose of collateral, or (iii) a waiver of the benefit of any law intended for the advantage or protection of an obligor.
(b) "Instrument" means a negotiable instrument.
(c) An order that meets all of the requirements of subsection (a), except paragraph (1), and otherwise falls within the definition of "check" in subsection (f) is a negotiable instrument and a check.
(d) A promise or order other than a check is not an instrument if, at the time it is issued or first comes into possession of a holder, it contains a conspicuous statement, however expressed, to the effect that the promise or order is not negotiable or is not an instrument governed by this Article.
(e) An instrument is a "note" if it is a promise and is a "draft" if it is an order. If an instrument falls within the definition of both "note" and "draft," a person entitled to enforce the instrument may treat it as either.
(f) "Check" means (i) a draft, other than a documentary draft, payable on demand and drawn on a bank or (ii) a cashier's check or teller's check. An instrument may be a check even though it is described on its face by another term, such as "money order."
(g) "Cashier's check" means a draft with respect to which the drawer and drawee are the same bank or branches of the same bank.
(h) "Teller's check" means a draft drawn by a bank (i) on another bank, or (ii) payable at or through a bank.
(i) "Traveler's check" means an instrument that (i) is payable on demand, (ii) is drawn on or payable at or through a bank, (iii) is designated by the term "traveler's check" or by a substantially similar term, and (iv) requires, as a condition to payment, a countersignature by a person whose specimen signature appears on the instrument.
(j) "Certificate of deposit" means an instrument containing an acknowledgment by a bank that a sum of money has been received by the bank and a promise by the bank to repay the sum of money. A certificate of deposit is a note of the bank.

Court papers clearly do not qualify under this definition. As the U.S. District Court for Idaho said in U.S. v. Andra, 923 F.Supp. 157 (1996):

Third, the defendants' "refusal for cause" is meaningless. The defendants claim they can refuse "presentment" of the plaintiff's complaint pursuant to U.C.C. 3-501. Apparently, the defendants are arguing that § 3-501(2)(c)(ii) is a defense which provides for the defendants' "refusal of payment or acceptance for failure of the presentment to comply with the terms of the instrument, an agreement of the parties, or other applicable law or rule." The defendants reliance on Chapter 3 of the U.C.C. is misplaced; Chapter 3 of the U.C.C. by its own definitions is only applicable to "negotiable instruments". The complaint filed by the plaintiff is not a negotiable instrument and the Uniform Commercial Code is inapplicable. The defendants do not have the choice of whether or not to be defendants. If properly served, as this court has determined the defendants were, the Andras became parties to this lawsuit whether they wanted to be or not.

Next silly theory?