New Guy, CRA VOD Questions

[seeker]

rushpat;


thanks for your quick reply.& The docs are still here, but will be in the Notary's hands by Monday.& I am following her lead as to "content" -- she's done this before and I am a complete newbie.& She also said she counts days, period.& That works for me.& Unless I find something in the code or statutes that ssy differently, that's what I'm going to do!& Do you suggest using Priority mail to avoid the&certified mail conundrum?& That&is an option we are discussing.


&

[Jerseee]

Seeker,

I remember Jason Whitney mentioning that Notorial Protests are only used to try to collect on a debt. You may want to do some research before proceeding. Just my opinion.

Ricky,

The form you speak of is called a "Proof of Mailing" and it is a PS Form 55 (if I am not mistaken). It is what the sender gets to show that a piece of mail has been sent. I do not endorse the use of this form because it is not specific of what was mailed. You should always use an accountable number when mailing such docs. It is easier to reference to package sent, it can be used as a contract number, it can be tracked and someone has to sign for it.

have fun

How do I get an Icon by my name?

Since no one has brought it up and I have been wondering about this myself, should one use 'certified' mail or 'registered' mail?& It is my understanding that the green card is&only the 'return receipt' and does not certify anything; it is&solely proof that&the mail&was accepted.& I remember hearing that registered mail is more secure/reliable&because if the registered mail does not get to its destination, someone's job may be at stake (i.e., it carries greater liability than certified mail). Also the theory goes something like the 'certified' mail acts within the public sphere of commerce and the 'registered' mail works within the private sphere of commerce.& So, the theory goes that registered mail is the mail used by sovereigns. Either way, the return receipt is always used for both!


Thoughts?


-squirrels


&

the two cents i've learned on which method to use to "post" mail to someone:


1.& "certificate of mailing" or "mailing certificate":& simply states that a piece of mail was sent.& contains from/to information, and the post office must stamp it.& this is absolute proof a piece of mail was sent to an addressee.& upside:& "they" have to prove "they" didn't get the piece of mail and it is really, really cheap.& downside:& no signature showing the mail was received.& my thoughts:& "hey, i mailed it, at the post office no less, so i don't see any reason you didn't get it."& doesn't mean the courts wouldn't accept "their" denial of having received the mail.


2.& certified mail, RRR:& shows you mailed a piece, contains a tracking number (which can be put in your dox), and asks for a signature upon receipt, which is then returned to you.& upside:& the courts routinely accept this as proof of mailing, but, the intended party may not be the party that signed for the mail, and could backfire - "oh, so-and-so signed for it, i never got it" (although i haven't heard of this happening, but was given this as a reason not to use certified mail); and hey, BB uses this when sending us stuff, so it must be ok to do.& downside:& intended party may not be signing party, and, in the case of BB, may simply "stamp" the signature area (not signing for anything) - and i'm not sure that would count as a signature.& also, can cost a few buckos depending upon what's being sent - cost me $6.30 to mail a two-pager from here to ogden!& my thoughts:& bb uses this for most correspondance, so it must be the ok way to send things.


3.& registered mail:& similar to #2, but, uses an accounting-style recordation process to ensure a piece of mail can be tracked, etc.& the little red stickers can be obtained at the post office ahead of time (to type into your dox), although some postal clerks will act suspicious at your asking for them.& upside:& probably the best proof-positive that you mailed a piece of mail to an intended recipient - every crease, corner, etc., is stamped to show tampering, if any, and the entry is recorded in a hand-log as an accountant would keep a book.& so there is the computer entry & a hand-record of the event.& the delivery is restricted to the individual named on the piece, so there is proof positive that individual received that piece of mail as well.& downside:& expensive - minimum $14.00 i think.& also, the intended recipient may not be the signatory upon receipt - i've had this happen on several occasions.& lastly, it may be overkill.& my thoughts:& use this only for absolutely critical pieces, like the long VoD w/ CPN or an invoice, that will be sent to a specific individual, like a law firm or other debt collector.& bear in mind the postal clerk may not restrict the delivery to the recipient (like they are supposed to).& i think this the strongest evidence of a piece of mail being sent/received based upon the handwritten record - there must be something to that.


while i haven't personally needed to bring up the certified mailings/certificate of mailings/registered mailings, in court, i think certified mailing is acceptable as proof of mailing & receipt.& what's interesting is that with the certificate of mailing the intended party would have to demonstrate it didn't receive the mail posted to them, regardless of signatory, etc., whereas with the latter two, the signature could backfire.


i use any of the three depending upon the "level" of correspondance being sent.


jon

[rushpat]

Seeker: I used Registered mail with a return receipt, because that's by far the most secure method. Ask nralien about what happened when he used certified recently. For the extra $2 or $3, it is worth it. It also has $25000 insurance if they lose it.

Jersee, I think there was a concern by Jason that people would issue a type of payment remedy (like a BoE), and then would try to use a Notarial Protest against them for not accepting the payment. I saw this in his Reno 2003 video. He said that was a no-no.

In my case, I was demanded to perform an action and I conditionally agreed to do it, and they refused my performance offer, which I think a Notarial Protest was good for. I looked up the definition of Notarial Protest and the situations it could be used in, and I think this was okay, since I wasn't protested based on non-acceptance of payment.

I'm not sure 100% though, the Family Guardian website changed their title to Notice of Default by notary, but the process was the same. It seemed to shut them up for 6 months though.

Now they are attempted to get me to contract again through offer of $$$ settlement as can be seen over in my California FTB thread.

[Jerseee]

Okay,


sounds like you're on top of it--have fun and let us know of your successes

jon, Rushpat,


Thanks a lot for your insight.


-squirrels

[Bird]

seeker, Jersee:


It does seem to me that the NP has been misused.& It appears that it should be used primarily when the drawee of a bill of exchange refuses to pay, or possibly when&one is not able to collect on a note that has been presented for payment.&


A NP (from Black's Law) is : A notorial act, being a formal statement in writing made by a notary under seal of office, at the request of the holder of a bill or a note, in which it is declared that the bill or note described was on a certain day presented for payment, (or acceptance,) and that such payment or&acceptance was refused, and stating the reasons, if any , given for such refusal, whereupon the notary protests against all parties to such instrument, and declares that they will be held responsible for all loss or damage arising from its dishonor.& It denotes also all the steps or acts accompanying dishonor necessary to charge an indorser.


Acceptance, as it relates to BOE's is: The act by which the person on whom a bill of exchange is drawn (called the "drawee") assents to the request of the drawer to pay it, or, in other words, engages, or makes himself liable, to pay it when due.&


The above&acceptance&appears to be in contradistinction to the&matter whether or not a payee gleefully receives (commonly thought of as accepts), a note we may tender.& The latter scenario does not appear to warrant a NP.&

[rushpat]

I think what made the NP processes useful before was that they employed the 1-2-3-default method which proved that the entity making a demand wouldn't respond, thereby being in dishonor. The name was probably a poor choice though. I think that process should be called Certification of Default by Public Notary, or something like that.