Quote Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph View Post
It was this I was referring to:

That response by the attorney could be construed as another presentment/offer for you to agree with his interpretation or opinion. This is why most people have doubts about the R4C process; they think that a letter like that means "it didn't work" and not what it really is - A NEW OFFER to continue arguing the "controversy". Of course, unless there is proper and certified proof of service of such an offer, there is no evidence you received it unless it is you that acknowledges receipt or argues what is contained in it.
Now this interpretation begins to sound like the AFV process, of which I am also familiar. And you might be correct if we were playing on an even playing field, where one fiction at law was corresponding with anther fiction at law.

But the truth and fact is: There is more to what I was describing than what I am willing to admit to on a Public forum, which is why I didn't respond to or acknowledge that correspondence from the county attorney.

There is also the fact that the wording of his correspondence ("...having been advised by the Anywhere County Treasurer that the property taxes on the above parcel have not been paid...") indicates that he is not providing a legal determination but rather is just mimicking the response of the county treasurer, as though the county treasurer knows the law and he (the county attorney) does not.

At any rate, that response came before I had thought to provide a notarized Letter of Credit upon which to draw the suggested relief on the Coupon. It also was before I revised and sent the new format for the Notice of Memorandum of Law that I originally sent which comprised the first notice that was sent to the county treasurer. The first one was printed on both sides of one sheet along with an additional sheet. It was two pages, when it should have been three pages. The county attorney was indicating that he ignored the back side of one of those pages in the photocopied example he provided in his correspondence. So, I had to correct that mistake. This was one of the two additional mailings to the county treasurer that were required before I was able to get the process of my first mailing corrected. Each one was served with a Certificate of Mailing, which I have read is sufficient in their court to serve as evidence of service. Both the Letter of Credit and the original Coupon for redemption at the FED contained canceled stamps on their face, indicating that this matter was out of the jurisdiction of the statutory court. This last is another reason why I did not respond in any way to the county attorney's letter.

While I see what you are suggesting, I don't think that it necessarily relates to my specific case in this instance. The county treasurer now has a valid instrument in his hands if he wishes to take advantage of the relief it offers. At the time that the county attorney sent his correspondence, he was responding to the first presentment of tender of payment, which it turned out was a faulty presentment on my part. The subsequent two mailings to the county treasurer were meant to correct the faulty nature of the first.

I haven't heard back from either of these two public officials since having corrected my process. A happenstance that is not totally unexpected on my part in this case.