Private Notice For Proof of Claim To Third Party Debt Collector

Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent,
Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal,

Applicable to all Successors, Assigns, and Agents:
Silence, when there is a moral or legal Duty to respond, constitutes Fraud.
From: Gary-Douglas [Family: Holmes], suae potestate esse1,

One of the sovereign People living in Michigan – hereinafter “Demandant”
In care of: 160 NW F St Suite 34
Detroit, Michigan,
united States of America
Served by: USPS Certified Mail Number: 7009 4567 1234 5678 9876
To: All SHAPIRO & SUTHERLAND, LLC employees / agents, in esse, hereinafter “live agents”; and,
“LAW OFFICES OF SHAPIRO & SUTHERLAND, LLC” - hereinafter collectively “respondent”
c/o April Axe, in esse, d.b.a. “Legal Assistant”
5501 Northeast 109th Court, Suite N [near: 98662]
Vancouver (62), Washington,
United States of America
January 28, Anno Domini 2008
state: Michigan }
} solemnly subscribed and affirmed:
county: Wayne }
Gary-Douglas [Family: Holmes], in esse, the Affiant herein is a constituent Member of the
Sovereignty, and hereinafter referred to as “Demandant”, is one of the Beneficiaries of the Original
Jurisdiction, living upon the Soil in the de jure republic-state of Michigan, one of the united States of
America, the union of the fifty republic states, and does hereby declare under the Pains and Penalties of
the general Laws of Michigan for giving or making false testimony that Demandant is competent to be a
Fact Witness and that the Facts and Statements contained herein are true, correct, materially complete,
and are not intended to mislead; in plain English, are the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth, to the best of Demandant’s personal knowledge.
Private Notice and Lawful Demand for Proof of Claim of Debt Owed
In Re: Presentment Demand for Payment from respondent on behalf of “WASHINGTON
MUTUAL BANK, AS SUCCESSOR-IN INTEREST BY OPERATION OF LAW TO
LONG BEACH MORTGAGE COMPANY” dated “January 22, 2008”.
Dear Ms. Axe, et alia,
Thank you for your recent Presentment Demand for Payment (a true copy is annexed hereto for all
lawful Purposes), allegedly on behalf of “WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK”, dated “January 22,
2008”.
Please Take Notice: Demandant is not an expert in Money, Banking, Finance, Law, or Economics,
but Demandant does know the difference between Right and Wrong. This is not a refusal to pay a
lawful Debt. Demandant is disputing the validity of the entire amount of any alleged Debt
purportedly owed to “WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK”, as referenced in the aforesaid live agent’s
Presentment Demand for Payment, for the following reasons. If the respondent is not the Real Party-in-
Interest, please inform the Demandant, in writing, of the name and mailing address of the Real Party-in-
Interest or forward this Instrument to the Real Party-in-Interest.
1
suae potestate esse – having full Power and Authority over one’s own dominions
Page 1 of seven pages Private Notice and Lawful Demand for Proof of Claim of Debt Owed
After recent and extensive diligent study and research about our current money system, taken from
federal and state law, Federal Reserve Bank publications, and Economics and Finance college texts,
Demandant has discovered some very disturbing facts. In good faith, Demandant is making this
contractual Offer in Commerce to respondent, as alleged duly authorized agent for “WASHINGTON
MUTUAL BANK”, in order to privately resolve the question of the validity of this alleged debt. The
duly authorized corporate officer of respondent’s purported client “WASHINGTON MUTUAL
BANK”, may prove that Demandant is wrong, by signing the annexed Debt Collector Disclosure
Statement and returning it to Demandant, within ten (10) business days of receipt; so that your
principal and Demandant can resolve this commercial Matter quickly and privately. The duly
authorized corporate officer of the respondent’s purported client may place a red line thru any incorrect
statements in the annexed Debt Collector Disclosure Statement and properly initial the same.
From what Demandant has learned, it would appear that when a bank or financial institution accepts
cash, checks, negotiable instruments, promissory notes, etc., from a customer, and then deposits and
records the instruments as an asset, there is also an offsetting liability that matches the asset they
accepted from the customer. The liability shows they, the bank or financial institution, owe the
customer the amount of the asset they accepted from the customer. From the Federal Reserve Banks’
own publications, anyone familiar with “GAAP” would justifiably conclude that two loans were
exchanged according to the bookkeeping entries. The respondent’s private copyrighted “UNITED
STATES CODE” (USC) Title 12, Section 1831n (a) requires all Federally Insured (FDIC) banks to
follow the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).
Plain Statement of Material Facts
1. Demandant has discovered through study and research that “money” is an asset, and an asset is
“money” or at least the equivalent of “money”, and that “FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES” are
assets; and, that “checkbook money” or “demand deposits” are liabilities and therefore are the
opposite of money.
2. Demandant has discovered through study and research that, neither as included in its powers nor
incidental to them, is it a part of a bank’s or any other financial institution’s business to lend its
credit. Credit is the opposite of money and is a liability. Indeed, lending credit is the exact
opposite of lending money, which is the real business of a bank or other financial institution; for
while the latter creates a liability in favor of the bank or financial institution, the former gives rise
to a liability of the bank or financial institution to another [see: e.g., 1 Morse, Banks & Banking
(Fifth Edition), Sec. 65; Magee, Banks & Banking (Third Edition), Sec. 248; 1 Michle, Banks &
Banking, Sec. 99; also stated as Principle of Law in American Express Company vs. Citizens State
Bank, 181 Wis. 172; 194 N.W. 427].
3. Demandant has discovered through study and research that “promissory note” means an instrument
that evidences a promise to pay a monetary obligation, does not evidence an order to pay, and does
not contain an acknowledgment by a bank that the bank has received for deposit a sum of money or
funds, a definition which would clearly include the “promissory note” in the principal amount of
$719,607.25” referred to in the respondent’s “DUNNING LETTER” dated “October 24, 2007” [see:
e.g., definition of “promissory note” in this state’s private copyrighted “MICHIGAN” Uniform
Commercial Code - Secured Transactions].
4. Demandant has discovered through study and research that banks and other financial institutions
that issue “loans” cannot lend their own money assets or their depositors’ money to borrowers,
without the depositors’ written authorization [see: e.g., respondent’s private copyrighted “UNITED
STATES CODE”, Title 12, Section 1828].
5. Demandant has discovered through study and research that no bank or other financial institution that
purportedly makes “loans” ever lends its money assets or deposits [see: e.g., Money and Banking
by Professor David R. Kamerschen (Ninth Edition), at Page 164].
6. Demandant has discovered through study and research that “loan” transaction deposits are the
modern counter-part of bank notes. It was a small step from printing notes to making book entries
crediting deposits of borrowers, which the borrowers in turn could “spend” by writing checks,
thereby “printing” their own money [see: e.g., Modern Money Mechanics – a Federal Reserve
Bank of Chicago publication, at Page 3, “Who Creates Money”].
7. Demandant has discovered through study and research that banks and other financial institutions
that issue credit cards do not make “loans”, but instead they actually make exchanges while
claiming to make loans. In exchange for the promissory note or security, the lending or investing
institution credits the depositor’s account or gives a check that can be deposited at yet another
depository Institution [see: e.g., Two Faces of Debt – a Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
publication, at Page 19].
8. Demandant has discovered through study and research that a check is a commercial device intended
for use as a temporary expedient for actual money [stated as a Principle of Law in Kennedy vs.
Jones, 140 Ga. 302; 78 S. E. 1069, 1070].
9. Demandant has not been able to discover, despite extensive study and research, that banks or other
financial institutions actually lend their assets. However, the Demandant has discovered through
study and research that banks and other financial institutions deposit the borrower’s promissory note
or “obligation to pay” as an asset, then writes a bank check against said deposited asset and gives it
to the borrower as a loan, without disclosure to the borrower that the borrower is depositing the
promissory note and the bank or other financial institution returns the same as a loan, for which the
bank or other financial institution also charges interest [see: e.g., Money and Banking by David H.
Friedman, American Banking Association, at Page 86].
10. Demandant has discovered through study and research that all money in use today is “an obligation
to pay”, for example, “FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES”, and Negotiable Instruments, including
checks, certificates of deposit, drafts, and promissory notes [see: e.g., respondent’s private
copyrighted “UNITED STATES CODE”, Title 12, Section 8].
11. Demandant has discovered through study and research that the alleged borrower’s “obligation to
pay” is the cash value that funds the alleged lender’s loan check to or on behalf of the alleged
borrower, without disclosure of this Material Fact to the alleged borrower [see: e.g., Money and
Banking by David H. Friedman, American Banking Association, at Page 86]
12. Demandant knows that as a matter of equity both the borrower and the lender have equal
protection under the Law with regard to any loan Agreement.
13. Demandant knows that as a matter of equity “the one who provides the money or cash value to
fund the loan check, in a loan transaction, is the one who must be repaid the money.”
14. Demandant has discovered through study and research that any financial lending institution that
issues a loan check, or equivalent monetary instrument, must follow “generally accepted accounting
principles” and Federal Reserve Bank rules, regulations, policies and procedures [see: e.g.,
respondent’s private copyrighted “UNITED STATES CODE”, Title 12, Section 1831n(a)] requires
all Federally insured (FDIC) banks to follow GAAP).
15. Demandant has discovered through study and research that no financial institution can demand
payment in any particular kind of currency, and that a borrower has the right to repay a loan in the
same specie of currency used as a deposit to fund the loan check from a financial institution /
alleged lender [see: e.g., House Joint Resolution (H.J.R.) 192 of June 5, A. D.1933]
16. Demandant has discovered through study and research that the corporate charter of a financial
institution does not permit such institution to create money or lend its credit.
17. Demandant has discovered through study and research that “loan” means an “advance of money
with an absolute promise to repay” [stated as a Principle of Law in Bankers Mortgage Company v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 142 F. 2d 130, 131].
18. Demandant avers that the mere naked statement by the live agents of the respondent or by a live
agent of its alleged client / principal that a Thing (i.e., the alleged Agreement or proper written
assignment thereof) exists cannot be properly admissible Evidence the Thing actually exists, no
matter how cleverly it is worded or stated.
19. Demandant avers that Money “in usual and ordinary acceptation it means gold, silver, or paper
money used as a circulating medium of exchange, and does not embrace notes, bonds, evidences of
debt, or other personal or real estate.” [Stated as a Principle of Law in Lane v. Ralley, 133 S. W.
2d, 74, 79, 81.]
***Lawful Demand for Proof of Claim from Respondent***
1. Demandant lawfully requires Proof of Claim from the respondent that the live agents of “LONG
BEACH MORTGAGE COMPANY” disclosed to Demandant the true nature of the loan
Agreement, including the fact that Demandant provided the cash value, created by Demandant’s
signature, in the form of a “promissory note”, to fund any alleged loan check from said financial
institution to or on Demandant’s behalf. In the absence of Full Disclosure, Demandant’s signature
on any loan Application is void, and therefore any such alleged Agreement is void, from its
inception.
2. Demandant lawfully requires Proof of Claim from the respondent that “LONG BEACH
MORTGAGE COMPANY” did, in fact, lend Demandant its own money, or equivalent, or other
depositors’ money; as Demandant was induced to believe by live agent(s) of “LONG BEACH
MORTGAGE COMPANY”.
3. Demandant lawfully requires Proof of Claim from the respondent that Fair Consideration was
provided to Demandant to sustain a valid Contract or Agreement between Demandant and said
financial institution, as Demandant was induced to believe by the live agent(s) of “LONG BEACH
4. Demandant lawfully requires Proof of Claim from the respondent that said financial institution did
not breach the original loan Agreement through misrepresentation, lack of full disclosure, and lack
of consideration by failure to perform on the value of the loan Agreement.
5. Demandant lawfully requires Proof of Claim from the respondent that “WASHINGTON
MUTUAL BANK” is in possession of Demandant’s original, unmarked, unaltered loan / mortgage
Agreement signed by both Demandant and a duly authorized agent of “LONG BEACH
6. Demandant lawfully requires Proof of Claim from the respondent that its client / principal has a
lawful right, i.e., properly signed and dated Assignment, authorizing it to collect on said promissory
note, and that “WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK” possesses the original, unmarked, unaltered
promissory note. [Stated as a Principle of Law in Matter of Staff Mortgage Invest. Corp., 550 F. 2d
1228.)
***Actual Notice and Caveat Actor***
Demandant is hereby granting respondent, or its duly authorized live agent(s), ten (10) business
days to provide the foregoing six (6) Proof of Claim items / documentation / documents lawfully
requested by Demandant from the above-named respondent’s live agents and to complete, sign and
return the annexed Debt Collector Disclosure Statement to Demandant; thereby, showing that
Demandant is in error and no Fraud or criminal Conversion has been committed against Demandant in
the instant Matter.
If the respondent’s duly authorized live agent makes a written request affirmed under the Penalty of
Perjury to be true, correct and materially complete, prior to the expiration of the ten (10) business
days granted herein, stating proper reason(s) additional time is need to comply with Demandant’s
lawful request for claim of proof of the alleged Debt or to complete the annexed Debt Collector
Disclosure Statement, in good faith Demandant will grant additional time to comply.
The failure of the live agent(s) of the respondent allegedly acting on behalf of “WASHINGTON
MUTUAL BANK” to timely honor Demandant’s lawful request for proof of claim the alleged debt is
valid under the Law, by providing the foregoing six (6) Proof of Claim items / documentation /
documents, and signing and returning the annexed Debt Collector Disclosure Statement, will place
respondent and respondent’s alleged client / principal in commercial Dishonor, and such Dishonor will
be said alleged client’s / principal’s tacit stipulation to, and agreement with, all the Material Facts
Demandant has stated herein. Further, it will constitute the absolute and unqualified waiver by
respondent’s alleged client / principal “WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK” of any and all claims
against the legal fiction / misnomer: “Gary Holmes”, and stipulation to full Discharge of the purported
Debt which respondent’s live agents have filed an unvalidated and unsupported written allegation in the
Public Record claiming said purported Debt is allegedly owed by said legal fiction / misnomer, “Gary
Holmes”.
“WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK” duly authorized live agents’ commercial dishonor will be
further agreement that alleged Creditor and its agents will immediately cease and desist from any further
attempt at collecting this alleged Debt, as well as, the alleged Creditor’s tacit Agreement and Stipulation
that alleged Creditor will not attempt to litigate the aforementioned void promissory note any further.
Should alleged Creditor’s duly authorized live agent refuse to sign the annexed Debt Collector
Disclosure Statement, and instead attempt to continue litigation regarding the aforementioned void
promissory note using the “services” of respondent “SHAPIRO & SUTHERLAND, LLC”, alleged
Agent (and its live agents, joint and several) and “WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK”, alleged Creditor
(and its live agents, joint and several), contractually agree to compensate the Demandant in the amount
of the actual damages, compensatory damages, and exemplary damages specified in detail, infra.
Any attempt by the live agents of the respondent allegedly acting on behalf of “WASHINGTON
MUTUAL BANK”, in Default, to contact Demandant by phone, or by letter, should only be for the
purpose of informing Demandant that the alleged Debt is fully discharged and has been reported as
“paid-in-full” to the three major Credit Bureaus, i.e., Experion, TransUnion, and Equifax, or that a
private meeting to resolve this private commercial Matter is in order.
The live agents of respondent “SHAPIRO & SUTHERLAND, LLC” claiming lawful authority to
act for the alleged Creditor, “WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK”, are imputed to know or should know
that sending unsubstantiated demands for payment through the United States Mail system may be
considered as Mail Fraud under federal law (see: respondent’s 18 U.S.C., Sections 1341-1342).
“Deceitful statements of half-truths or the concealment of material facts is actual fraud
under the mail fraud statutes.” [Stated as a Principle of Law in United States v. Beecroft, 608
F. 2d 753,757. (9th Cir. 1979)]
If the duly authorized live agent(s) acting on behalf of the alleged creditor “WASHINGTON
MUTUAL BANK” should fail to sign and return the annexed Debt Collector Disclosure Statement to
Demandant; and, the live agent(s) of the respondent should fail to report the alleged Debt is fully
discharged and report said alleged Debt as “paid-in-full” to the three major Credit Bureaus, i.e.,
Experion, TransUnion and Equifax, and instead attempt to continue litigation regarding the
aforementioned void promissory note against the public vessels: “Gary Holmes”, including any
commercial variations or permutations thereof; the respondent and its live agent(s), joint and several,
hereby Agree, Stipulate, and openly Confess the Demandant is contractually entitled to the Sum
Certain Amount of 519,607 U.S.D. in actual damages, 2,078,428 U.S.D. in compensatory damages
(4x actual damages), and 103,921,400 U.S.D. in exemplary damages (200x actual damages, in accord
with Cleopatra Haslip, et al. vs. Pacific Mutual Life Insurance, Inc., 499 U.S. 1, 113 F.2d 1, 111 S. Ct.
1032 (1991)) for a total Sum Certain Amount of one-hundred-six-million-five-hundred-nineteen-
thousand-four-hundred-thirty-five United States Dollars (106,519,435 U.S.D.), i.e., actual damages
+ compensatory damages + exemplary damages, for the intentional Harassment, emotional Pain,
public Humiliation, and damage to Demandant’s good Reputation caused by the respondent’s live
agents knowingly attempting to collect an unlawful Debt in violation of Federal R.I.C.O. laws (see: e.g.,
respondent’s private copyrighted “UNITED STATES CODE”, Title 18, Section 1962, et seq.);
intentionally entering false and damaging information into public records systems routinely accessed by
banks, employers, and the public; and / or for respondent’s live agents refusal to immediately cease and
desist non-judicial foreclosure proceedings knowingly initiated on false and criminally fraudulent
grounds by respondent’s live agents.
Demandant looks forward to hearing from the live agent(s) of respondent allegedly acting on behalf
of “WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK” in a timely manner, with the return of the signed, annexed
Debt Collector Disclosure Statement; and Demandant thanks the aforesaid live agent, for the agent’s
kind cooperation in a prompt resolution this private commercial Matter.
Any response from an attorney in his or her public Capacity will be a public Offer that will be
conditionally accepted for value with a demand on said attorney for release of said value to Demandant
in the form of a verified personal check signed by said attorney, with said attorney’s State Bar number
clearly noted on said personal check. Any response from any Third Party Interloper, including any
attorney in his or her private Capacity, will be a trespass in a private commercial Matter and will be
dealt with as contractually agreed and specified in the following Waiver of Tort.
Notice of Waiver of Tort to All Trespassers / Interlopers
Trespass upon this contractual Presentment, i.e., Private Notice for Proof of Claim, dated January
28, Anno Domini 2008, after binding Default, will by Demandant’s election constitute a Waiver of
Tort and said Trespasser / Interloper will be added to the aforesaid implied Contract, dated January 28,
Anno Domini 2008, as a named Libelee within the Admiralty Administrative Remedy, and by this
Notice each Trespasser / Interloper agrees to be bound by the Terms and Conditions herein, and will be
added as a named Libelee in the Sum-Certain Amount of Two hundred fifty thousand United States
Dollars (250,000 U.S.D.) in compensatory damages for each Trespass per each individual Trespasser /
Interloper by Agreement of the Parties and by this Notice.
Further this Demandant says naught.

Subscribed and solemnly affirmed, under the Pains and Penalties of Punishment by God Almighty
for giving or making false Testimony, to be true, correct, and materially complete, on this
_________Day of the First Month, in the Year of our Lord Jesus, The Christ, Two thousand and
ten; and, of the Independence of these united States of America, the two hundred and thirty-first, under
restricted signature, that is to say, with all Demandant’s Rights reserved and Remedies preserved,
Gary-Douglas, in esse, Demandant
By: _______________________________
Two annexed documents: (one) Debt Collector Disclosure Statement (two pages); and, (one) true copy of
respondent’s Presentment Demand for Payment on behalf of “WASHINGTON
MUTUAL BANK” dated “January 22, 2008” (one page).
One true and complete copy of the foregoing and two annexed documents also sent by USPS Certified Mail
Number 7007 0710 0003 8072 3669
Notice*: The use of the following Notary Public is only for identification of Demandant’s natural body
(state), to witness Demandant’s affirmation to the truth of the statements made in the foregoing private
commercial Instrument and to witness of Demandant’s subscription to the foregoing private commercial
Instrument, and such use does not grant any undisclosed authority or jurisdiction to anyone or anything.
state: Michigan }
} solemnly subscribed and affirmed:
county: ____________ }
Before me, ________________________, a Notary Public for the State of Michigan, appears the
live Christian man personally known to me (or proved to be), Gary-Douglas [Family: Holmes], and
does solemnly attest and affirm the truth of the statements made in the foregoing private commercial
Instrument, and then I did witness him affix his subscription to said private commercial Instrument on
this _______ day of January, Anno Domini 2008.
Witness my hand and official stamp and notary seal: {notary stamp} {notary seal}
________________________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC for STATE OF MICHIGAN
My Commission expires: _______, A. D. 20____.

Private Notice For Proof of Claim To Third Party Debt Collector

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Private Notice For Proof of Claim To Third Party Debt Collector

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent,

Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal,

From: Gary-Douglas [Family: Holmes], suae potestate esse1,

Further this Demandant says naught.

You might also like