Is Non-Endorsement the same as Demanding Lawful Money?

[American_National]

You suggest an Postal Service form too where when the Demand is made on the instrument instead of endorsement that is blatant and express trust outside the scope of the federal reserve and national debt.

You lost me on the above comment???

. . . If you do a notary witnessed contents/certificate of service included in the correspondence package, and have the notary act as a disinterested 3rd party witness to your composing the mailing package and sealing it in their presence; Then mail the Notice and Demand package via a United States Postal Service certified mailing to a federal reserve branch office, with return receipt requested (the return reciept is the green form PS form 3811) showing the name and signature of the human+being signing for/receiving the Notice and Demand at the Federal Reserve branch. . . you have perfected the chain of custody regarding the contents of your notice and demand being successfully delivered, and perfected the process of service regarding your notice and demand being served upon the federal reserve district via it's branch office.

1. The notary is a state/court witness certifying exactly what the contents of the Notice and Demand Package were when it was mailed, as well as being the witness who identified who actually mailed those contents. (they prove that we did not mail an empty envelope to the fed. reserve.)
2. The sealed Notice/Demand package was placed in the custody of the postal service, who is the the custodian responsible for delivering the intact sealed Notice and Demand package to the intended physical address, as well as responsible for obtaining the signature on their return receipt form.
3. The return receipt form bearing the name and signature of the recipient is mailed back to you and is placed with your local copy of the notary certified notice and demand package . . .and functions as proof of your successfully completed process of service of your intact notice/demand package to the federal reserve.

The chain of custody from preparing the notice and demand package - to the contents of that package being successfully delivered to the Federal Reserve Branch office is thereby confirmed and proven to have remained intact. The service of process is also perfected in this regard as well. That is what I had meant in writing along these lines earlier . . .

Did I miss something else you were trying to point out in your reply above regarding the significance of using this notary witnessed certified mail/return receipt approach, please?

If so, could you please provide us with a further explanation regarding what I had missed in your earlier comment above in this regard?

Thanks

American_National

[David Merrill]

I blinked on an interesting post again!

Looking over that post though, I believe that it is aggrandizing the notary function. Notaries are allowed to give oaths and it would seem that every notary act is acceptance of an oath about identity at least. But seldom does a notary do anything more than that; verify that a person is known to them as.

One interesting supplement to a notary is the Commission Certificate generally available for $5 from the Secretary of State. This, I am told completes proof.

[EZrhythm]

Yes, obtaining a notary's certificate provides full proof; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eX28dslTu38

[David Merrill]

Yes, obtaining a notary's certificate provides full proof; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eX28dslTu38

Thank you EZ! I wish though, that somebody would be proud enough of the resulting ownership to post the documentation before and after including the search where the old deed is dissappeared.

[Freed Gerdes]

Proposed Modification of Notice and Demand

Notwithstanding.

That is a tricky word in that Notice and Demand.



I am just mentioning it because it might be clearer that only contracts outside the scope of the fraud by omission are spoken of here. Otherwise it might seem contradictory that all contracts are void nunc pro tunc, but those by provision of law or contract are still good.

Might I suggest this wording instead:

"Not withstanding any other provision of law or contractual obligations; NO{delete this, and substitute]
As the above demand is my explicit choice under the option provided in 12 USCode 411, the highest law of the land, to eschew any and all use of
Federal Reserve credit, no provision of any contract for private credit with any lesser entity shall be construed to act or operate in any way or manner to eliminate, diminish, supersede, or otherwise modify any provision contained within this Notice and demand. This Notice and Demand is
now on and for the lawful record and is within the cognizance of the United States. Any and all parties
claiming to preside, act or operate from within that realm are duly advised."

Please advise whether this suggested form is preferable, especially whether "law of the land" invites difficulties with regard to admiralty law.

Freed

[Edited several weeks later:] After giving this some more thought, I perceive that the 'notwithstanding' issue can be resolved by emphasizing the explicit, which always takes precedence over the implicit. Since the Fed Reserve and its bankster minions want to create a record which proves that you are a taxpayer, but do not want to mention lawful money, their contracts always use inference and assumpsit to achieve their purpose, but this is implied agreement, which can be trumped by explicit demand. So the Notice should say:
This Notice and Demand is now on, and for, the lawful record and is within the cognizance of the United States. This Demand is Explicit for the Redemption of Lawful Money. No term of any other contract, which term seeks to establish, through inference, assumpsit, or words of art, that an implicit request has been made to use Federal Reserve credit, shall supercede this explicit Demand, or impair such Demand in any way. Any and all parties claiming to preside, act or operate from within that realm are duly advised.

It would seem that with this Notice and Demand on record, you would be free to contract for a bank credit card, using lawful money... the contract specifies a debtor/creditor relationship, but it does not specify the notes in which the credit balances would be kept. Seems to me that the bank would now be in the position of having to rebut your presumption.

Freed