Update from JHD about CTC4

[rushpat]

Just received this by email. You might find it interesting:



-----------------





Hello,



We have been updating our subscriber email addresses and want to be sure everyone received this latest update. We apologize in advance for any duplicate mailings. The forum will be hopping this week so stay tuned.





About the Services Available at

John Henry Doe & Associates



John Henry Doe & Associates hereby announces the following private

contractual document preparation services:

"Debt Collector-Demand Letter Response

"Debt Collector-Lawsuit Response

"Demand-/Request-for-Performance Response



As you will discover, in case you do not already know it, in today's

modern

society there are not many demands or requests, if any, that fall

outside

the above three categories-including criminal charges.

The former recent practice of creating and offering specific manuals,

called Commercial Toolbox Releases, with instructions and sample

documents

for handling particular types of situations, is discontinued. John

Henry

Doe & Associates now offers only private contractual document

preparation

services for handling unwanted situations.

Based on results, John Henry Doe has apparently mastered the

Honor/Dishonor

philosophy of effectively dealing with demands and requests for

payment/performance, i.e. presentments-whether verified or not-and it

is

now time for the next edition of Cracking the Code.

The essence of the services that are now available appears to be what

many

people have been seeking for many years. It is simple in form and

substance and is not dependent on an attacker's cooperation for its

effectiveness. Whatever works is valid, however, and the workability

of

this approach does not invalidate any other method that produces

results.

Nobody has a corner on the market, including John Henry Doe &

Associates-but what we have is working, and it is working routinely.

Whereas the first three editions Cracking the Code were useful in their

time, the presentment-handling techniques and procedures contained

therein

are dated and no longer recommended, having been superseded by recent

breakthroughs as described here. Each book, however, contains valuable

foundational knowledge of "how the world goes 'round" and should not be

discounted. It is just that the current presentment-handling

techniques

far exceed anything else achieved before. FYI: Cracking the Code

Fourth

Edition will contain and reveal all aspects of the new breakthroughs.

Also, as explained elsewhere in this website, the claim of common-law

trademark is as valid as ever; we just do not need to tack on the part

about the "copyright of (the common-law trademark)." The "copyright

of"

part is superfluous; all that is needed is to claim the common-law

trademark.

Based on the events of the last few months, there have been

extraordinary

demands on JHD's time and energy, and there are still matters that

require

attention and resolution before the CTC4 can be commenced. Until that

time, the above services nevertheless need to be delivered, and are

being

delivered, despite the need for more trained personnel to deliver them

in

order to accommodate the enormous demand that such services presently

portend.

Basic Philosophy behind the New Services

An ancient maxim of law says, "The principal part of everything is the

beginning" (Cujusque rei potissima pars principium est.). This is a

most-senior concept to incorporate into one's consciousness and ongoing

efforts to survive the contemporary Western banking, legal, and

taxation

industries.

Even the most calamitous of final outcomes in non-criminal legal

proceedings begins with but a simple communication, usually in the form

of

a one-page letter; and from that little letter grows the voracious ogre

that eventually devours the targeted victim's wealth and peace of mind

and,

sometimes, even physical well being.

There is nothing wrong with the banking, legal, and taxation systems in

America; they are working exactly as they were designed to do. What is

"wrong" is that the victims of these deceitful schemes are catching on

and

withdrawing cooperation (as is always the case at this stage of the

economic/political game) and making a ruckus about the unfairness of it

all. It is an old story, repeated time and again down through history,

and

this particular civilization has merely arrived at that point once

again.

The very notion that one must surrender his/her autonomy and place

his/her

destiny in the hands of a stranger and, generally speaking, a

money-motivated, unprincipled, third-party initiate of a pirate

"profession," i.e. an attorney, is false and fatally flawed on its

face.

The Legal Masters of the World have artfully swindled you out of your

capacity to settle disputes privately-and then implemented a

"protection

service" whereby victim-customers must pay extortion-rate fees for a

judicial shill (one who acts as a decoy, as for a pitchman), i.e. an

attorney, to protect them from "the law" and other attorneys. The

services

available at John Henry Doe & Associates allow you to recapture and

exercise your right to settle disputes privately, a right so natural

that

it is actually more of an innate, personal responsibility, one that

comes

with ownership and operation of a human body.

Delightfully, based on the inherently fraudulent character of these

three

industries (each agenda of which is nearly always enforced by a member

of

the legal gang, i.e. an attorney) a proper response can expose a defect

that can be used to emasculate an attacker and get him/her to give

up/go

away.

In the case of the banking system-and make no mistake: the legal system

is

here strictly to enforce and ensure the policies and objectives of the

banking system, despite all illusions to the contrary-the flaw is that

neither the bank, nor the attorney for the bank, can produce evidence,

admissible as such in a court of law, that demonstrates that the bank

has

suffered harm as a result of the alleged loan transaction-a requirement

in

order for the bank to enforce its claim, but only if properly posed and

insisted upon, in proper form, and not inadvertently/unwittingly

conceded/verified by the alleged borrower. When debt collection

personnel

are put on the spot to prove up harm at the hands of an alleged

borrower,

said personnel are hamstrung by the obligation and inability to do so,

and

so cannot proceed without fear of serious and immediate legal

repercussions, or are legally estopped (a legal term that means,

essentially, barred from asserting a claim or right that contradicts

what

one has said or done before, or what has been legally established as

true)

from proceeding altogether.

Although there is a growing number of knowledgeable people (worldwide)

that

are aware of the true nature of the duplicitous modern banking scheme

and

so-called "loan" process, virtually all come up short in knowing

exactly

how to "present their case" and get debt collectors to acknowledge the

unsound nature of the claim and go away. The Fair Debt Collection

Practices Act (15 USC §1692) is a useful tool in dealing with debt

collectors, and can serve one if timely exploited, but is not necessary

in

order to get collection personnel to go away and permanently cease all

collection activity on a particular alleged account/debt.

What John Henry Doe & Associates has to offer is an effective way to

deal

with (1) debt-collector demands for payment, (2) debt-collector

lawsuits,

and (3) demands/requests for performance:

(1)In the case of debt-collector demands for payment, the collection

process is arrested at the very beginning, before it converts into a

legal

matter, and resolves matters privately either by (a) getting the

collection

personnel to go away and cease all collection activity, or (b)

establishing

documentary evidence that can be used to invalidate any subsequent

claim

should said debt-collection personnel, or any other debt-collection

personnel, ever attempt to collect on the same alleged account/debt

debt in

the future, or (c) both of the above.

(2) Debt-collector lawsuits are handled in a similar fashion as demands

for

payment, with even more profound results, but need to be addressed

within a

few days (two weeks is the limit) of service of summons and complaint

in

order to avoid burdensome entanglements and complications. Such can be

overcome, but can be avoided altogether via prompt response.

(3) Demands/requests for performance come in many shapes and sizes, and

each is addressed in accordance with its unique characteristics. As

with

(1) and (2) above, the earlier such are confronted the better.

The concepts of Honor and Dishonor (of demands and requests made by

debt

collectors and others) play heavily into the procedure of dealing with

a

attacker's written communication. "The devil is in the details,"

(proverb) and the above services flush out everything alleged by an

attacker in microscopic detail.

In terms of demands and requests for payment or performance, to honor

means, essentially, to accept and agree to come through with that which

is

demanded/requested, whether fully (unconditionally) or conditionally

(upon

successful completion of some condition, such as provision of proof of

claim).

Regarding handling debt collectors, the private settlement contract

documents produced by John Henry Doe & Associates are conditional

acceptances, and effectively put the ball back in the debt collector's

court to demonstrate the validity of the alleged claim or concede that

said

claim is bogus and unenforceable. Most, but not all, other

demands/requests for performance are also conditional acceptances, but

do

not necessarily appear in the form of a consensual contract, as is the

case

with debt collectors.



Regarding debt collectors (FYI: all attorneys, including government, as

well as IRS, attorneys, are legally classified as debt collectors),

"the

practice of law" never comes into play as long as one's initial

response is

timely/prompt-but even when not, there are ways to convert a public

proceeding back into a private contractual affair without engaging in

the

practice of law and get things settled before any such public

proceeding

gets out of hand. John Henry Doe & Associates does not engage in the

practice of law.



In the event one allows a potential legal situation to develop too

long,

unattended, one may be faced with the dilemma of how to quell the legal

repercussions of one's (dishonorable) omissions, an unfortunate state

of

affairs. That is why it is absolutely imperative that one tackle any

debt-collection attempt, whether letter or lawsuit (as well as any

other

type of demand/request for performance) on an immediate basis. The

procedure for killing off a debt-collection attempt on a debt that the

collector is unable to verify (as that term, i.e. verify, is defined in

law

dictionaries) is now a simple procedure and is essentially the same for

both debt-collector demand letter and lawsuit (with the end result that

the

former alleged debt is rendered invalid and permanently officially

labeled

as such). The method for handling demands/requests for performance is

not

dissimilar from that which is used to handle demands/requests for

payment.



Some timeless maxims of law:

"The contract makes the law (Le contrat fait la loi.).

"Consent makes the law (Consensus facit legem; i.e. a contract is the

law

between the parties, which can acquire force only by consent.).

"The agreement of the parties makes the law of the contract

(Contractus

legem ex conventione accipiunt.).

The trick is in how to do business with a debt collector by engaging

him/her in private consensual contract. Once any such contract is

established, the "law between the parties"-irrespective of any prior

agreement-is formalized. The Debt Collector-Demand Letter Response and

-Lawsuit Response services result in a contract between the parties

that

acts as an estoppel (a bar that prevents one from asserting a claim or

right that contradicts what one has said or done before, or what has

been

legally established as true) against the collector. The resulting

contract

is also effective as an estoppel against any other party that may

somehow

acquire the same former alleged account/debt and attempt collection

thereon

(what is rendered invalid in the initial debt-collection attempt cannot

be

made valid through sale/assignment/transfer thereafter).

Additionally, for those who are familiar with the proprietary,

copyrighted

"Notice of Common Law Trademark" available exclusively through John

Henry

Doe & Associates, all the above services make accommodation for its

use, if

desired. Notice of Common Law Trademark is an effective secondary

deterrent, setting up profound private consensual contractual financial

obligations that are virtually immediately privately enforceable

against

debt-collection personnel who cannot substantiate the debt they seek to

collect, yet insist on continuing anyway. It is noteworthy that there

are

very few, if any, attorneys that will continue with collection efforts

following receipt of a private settlement contract and Notice of Common

Law

Trademark prepared by John Henry Doe & Associates. The effectiveness

of

the above services, however, is not dependent on utilization/employment

of

said Notice of Common Law Trademark.

Further, there does not appear to be any reason that the techniques and

procedures described herein will not work in other so-called

"common-law

countries," e.g. England, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc., and

possibly even civil-law countries, such as France and Mexico.

In closing, it should be pointed out that none of the

hereinabove-described

services are designed to help anyone escape accountability for his/her

own

acts/omissions. Rather, said private contractual document-preparation

services are offered to assist potential victims of Big Brother's

wealth

and freedom confiscation and usurpation machinery to accept full

responsibility for any alleged debt/obligation; and, in the event a

particular alleged debt/obligation cannot be substantiated by the

alleging

party, to be able to establish conclusive evidence of that fact via

evidentiary documents prepared by John Henry Doe & Associates. The

route

out of the current financial/legal/taxation jungle can be negotiated

successfully only via acceptance of, as well as responsibility for, any

and

all extraneous demands for compliance that may cross one's path.

Responsibility is always the key, whether for oneself, one's family,

one's

group, or mankind in general. The modern Western banking, legal, and

taxation industries pose grave immediate and long-term consequences for

all

the aforementioned. The more responsibility one can assume in

reforming

these activities, the better one and those around one will do. The

services offered on this website are one such effort in that direction.



Disclaimer: The foregoing does not constitute legal advice and is not

intended as such. If the reader is in need of legal advice the reader

should consult a legal professional licensed to dispense such.

[Jerseee]

Basically,



"NEVER ARGUE". Make them prove their claim and whatever they say shall and will be used against them in a court of law.

[suijuris]

Not to belittle or criticize the authors of CTC4, as I have learned much from CTC3. But if they are the same guys who authored CTC3, then keep in mind the FTC vs. BBCOA case when taking any advice from them on court or something that may wind up there.



"Not arguing" is a good start, but you will need to know and follow courtroom procedure should you wind up in court. In FTC vs. BBCOA, my resources and research reveals that these guys did not follow court procedure, which is why they lost. And until I see evidence that they now do, I have no choice but to believe that they still do not.



With that information now in hand, pause and consider what CTC4 can possibly offer?



- The previous version already has the documents needed to request validation of the debt and tender a good faith payment. Why would this be dated, have the laws changed?



- Even though the "copyright of (the common-law trademark)" is now deemed superfluous, I see no reason to republish one's copyright notice with the new one being marketed.



- I see no promise of a method by which to collect one cent of unauthorized use charges from the new trade-name notice.



Am I missing anything - does anyone see anything new offered? Because all I see is some new titles for slightly reworded documents and a lengthy sales pitch.



Once again, no insult intended against the marketers of this book. But I am a critical reader and realize that these gentlemen are running a business - so why should I buy a new automobile if my old one does the job?

So the Name thing doesn't work when it comes right down to it, huh?



Is there a way to totally protect your name and enforce the protection?



Thanks



HB



ALSO: Got a link to the FTC vs. BBCOA case?

[suijuris]

Does the name issue work? It can make some people just go away, but that is up to them.



If not, and you invoice somebody and they default (they will), how do you propose to enforce payment? It can allegedly be done through strict forclosure, but that was promised a long time ago by the authors of CTC3, and to date that promise has not been kept.



Maybe we should be using the courts to enforce our contracts.



The BBCOA default is in the download section, and you can pull it up on Pacer with the info from the default.

I just wrote JHD, and asked if they could help with a strict foreclosure. He wrote back and said that I'd have to become a member to access their services.



I wrote back and said "You didn't answer my question. I need to know if you can help with strict foreclosure."



He wrote back and said " Each case will depend on the nature of the presentment. Becoming a member will give you access to the services we provide and if we can help you, we will."



In other words, their book says contact the publisher, and when you do, they don't have a clue.



But PLEASE fork over 100 FRN's to become a member.





<font color=red>Can you say PAYTRIOT?[/color]

[Ice]

Remember what we have been saying... if a "redemption process" fails it is always because it was "done improperly" or they "didn't know what they were doing" or something to that effect.



And that is what might possibly happen if you asked for help with Strict Foreclosure... they won't be able to help because you didn't do it right!



But, hey, thanks for the hundred bucks.



Maybe we should demand absolute positive proof that a redemption process works before even speaking about it. When I say proof I don't mean some story about someones brothers aunts cousin or some guy no one can find -- I mean bona fide documentation that can clearly demonstrate an absolute success (and that the process was the reason for the success).



Members, think about these things before jumping in with both feet.

[suijuris]

Way to do your homework Henry.



Now, here is a question. If the self-executing contract in the CN is indeed a valid contract once executed, why are we not going to court to obtain judgements, liens, etc, against the debtor when they default? Is that not the next logical step?



If strict forclosure can be used against the debtor and upheld in court if need be (you better be able to if you try!), then why would a court action against the debtor to enforce the contract not be a viable option?



I do not doubt there is somebody somewhere that knows the strict forclosure process. But I have not seen how that helps average Joe, as they are gaurding that information.



And I have seen no evidence that the party referenced in this thread is the one who knows how to enforce strict forclosure.

But I would welcome such evidence!

I have thought about this for some time. What about an End User License Agreement? (EULA)



I know it is used for software, but surely it could be used for a name as well.



You know, Grant them temporary license for the purpose of making you money, but not for making them money. By using your name adversely, blah blah blah...



Whatcha think?





I haven't had time to break open one of the EULA's, but everyone accepts them.



Or, we could just not respond until they agree to the contract we send them.

snickering to myself. look, a contract is a contract is a contract. the problem and im NOT gonna sidestep this issue any longer is STOP fooling with that name copyright garbage. i dont care how much common law you put behind it, its just another tool they can use to make you look silly in court. whats amazing is this. how many times im i gonna say that you can just delete the common law name garbage and base the same exact contract model on something thats grounded in law that a jury will not laugh at you about when the district attorney stands up there and makes a joke about you copyrighting your name. dont people read the newspapers? every few months theres a article about somebody getting laughed out of court using the name copyright stuff. have them try to laugh about the district attorney being mad about a contract he was offered and refused because he didnt wanna follow his oath of office or the law. now he has you in front of a jury (or one of his office associates) trying to hammer you and THEY are the ones looking like a fool.