Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
under the provision of the Universal Postal Union...

I am just saying that if it was a provision of the UPU then you would be able to find and link that provision.

Attributing stamp cancellation's successful effects to the UPU is nonsense. But the method works because it is a method of expressing your authority by cancelling value, as you must have redeemed it first to legally do so. Otherwise you might be arrested for defacing the Fed's private credit.
By "redeemed" you mean to say "to buy back" or "to pay off." In other words, to have purchased it "first to legally do so"?

Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
It serves me to keep it even more simple. Click Here. The postal clerk delivers a Certification for a fee and once he has[,] he defaces the currency in that amount, cancelling the value.

You may not care much about me defacing currency of the US but a judge should. So I confess by handing a document to the bench that has valuable stamps defaced and basically dare him to arrest me for it. Instead being studied in law he acknowledges my character and nature outside the scope of contract with the Federal Reserve.
Why would this be so (the last sentence)? Aren't they looking for every last little bit of statutory law they can prosecute?

Bottom line: Does a person need to be concerned about cancelled stamps on the back of documents submitted to a court?