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 OwedIn 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

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 Facts1. 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 , “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

Page 3 of seven pages Private Notice and Lawful Demand for Proof of Claim of Debt Owed



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 MORTGAGE COMPANY”.

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 MORTGAGE COMPANY”.

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

Documents