BILLS OF EXCHANGE are lawful Tender of Payment

BILLS OF EXCHANGE can Lawfully Be Used to Setoff, Discharge, and/or Tender Payment for Contract to Buy Vehicle

While many Americans struggle to make car payments and/or struggle to save up to buy their dream cars, they are hugely misinformed about banking as a whole. Since 1933 the United States has been operating on a fake money scheme, where all money is backed by a “promise to pay” and One’s future labor. Many Americans don’t understand that when ANYONE that states they only accept a specific currency as payment (omitting BILLS OF EXCHANGE, ACCEPTANCES, SETOFFS, ETC..) are guilty of fraud, treason, extortion, coercion, embezzlement, larceny, and more. 

Screen Shot 2024 04 18 at 4.31.28 AM

Extortion, Coercion, Dereliction of Fiduciary Duties, Treason:

House Joint Resolution 192, of 1933 Public Law 73-10 explicitly states:

every provision contained in or made with respect to any obligation which purports to give the obligee a right to require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency, or in an amount in money of the United States measured thereby, is declared to be against public policy; and no such provision shall be contained in or made with respect to any obligation hereafter incurred. Every obligation, heretofore of hereafter incurred, whether or not any such provision is contained therein or made with respect thereto, shall be discharged upon payment, dollar for dollar, in any coin or currency which at the time of payment is legal tender for public and private debts”

 

That means when a Car Dealership provides you with a “BUYERS ORDER” (which is defined as an “informal BILL OF EXCHANGE”) One can Lawfully do an “Acceptance” and provide a BILL OF EXCHANGE as tender of payment…. <-You read that correctly

Screen Shot 2024 04 18 at 3.53.27 AM

 

 

 

Screen Shot 2024 04 08 at 8.46.14 PM

it is a common misconception that you must pay bills out of pocket. The united States of America operate on a pledge system.

 

MEMORANDUM OF LAW POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF INTERNATIONAL BILL OF EXCHANGE

MEMORANDUM OF LAW POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF INTERNATIONAL BILL OF EXCHANGE 2

All obligations are those of the United States (corporation) as stipulated by 18 U.S. Code § 8 Obligation or other security of the United States defined:

The term “obligation or other security of the United Statesincludes all bonds, certificates of indebtedness, national bank currency, Federal Reserve notes, Federal Reserve bank notes, coupons, United States notes, Treasury notes, gold certificates, silver certificates, fractional notes, certificates of deposit (promissory notes), bills, checks, or drafts for money, drawn by or upon authorized officers of the United States, stamps and other representatives of value, of whatever denomination, issued under any Act of Congress, and canceled United.

 

Furthermore, Article 1 section of the Constitution states:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

 

Finally, if you “Tender Payment” to the person responsible for enforcing the setoff and/or discharge of the obligation and they refuse payment or dishonor it, there is discharge to the amount of the tender of payment. To summarize: if they don’t honor your payment the balance is zeroed out.

 

UCC § 3-603. TENDER OF PAYMENT.

(a) If tender of payment of an obligation to pay an instrument is made to a person entitled to enforce the instrument, the effect of tender is governed by principles of law applicable to tender of payment under a simple contract.

(b) If tender of payment of an obligation to pay an instrument is made to a person entitled to enforce the instrument and the tender is refused, there is discharge, to the extent of the amount of the tender, of the obligation of an indorser or accommodation party having a right of recourse with respect to the obligation to which the tender relates.

(c) If tender of payment of an amount due on an instrument is made to a person entitled to enforce the instrument, the obligation of the obligor to pay interest after the due date on the amount tendered is discharged. If presentment is required with respect to an instrument and the obligor is able and ready to pay on the due date at every place of payment stated in the instrument, the obligor is deemed to have made tender of payment on the due date to the person entitled to enforce the instrument.

 

Anytime an American mentions this to a car dealership, they just go silent. That’s when the competent initiate their Administrative Process.

Let’s end the fraud!

 

Leave your vote

846733 points
More

Don’t Stop Here

More To Explore

PHH Mortgage Corporation's Motion to Dismiss in Kevin Walker Estate, et al. v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, et al. is a glaring example of procedural misconduct, constitutional violations, and a deliberate attempt to obstruct justice. The Plaintiffs have conditionally accepted PHH Mortgage’s non-compliant filing, thereby tendering a binding counteroffer that PHH must now rebut. PHH’s continued silence and failure to rebut the conditional acceptance further compounds their non-performance and dishonor. Additionally, the Defendants’ filing violates multiple-defendant court rules, misrepresents the law, displays incompetence and a war against the Constitution, and constitutes blatant obstruction of justice.

KEVIN WALKER ESTATE’S Conditional Acceptance Exposes PHH Mortgage’s Motion as Procedurally Defective, Deceitful and Dishonest, Unconstitutional, and Legally Void

PHH Mortgage Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss in Kevin Walker Estate, et al. v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, et al. is a glaring example of procedural misconduct, constitutional violations, and a deliberate attempt to obstruct justice. The Plaintiffs have conditionally accepted PHH Mortgage’s non-compliant filing, thereby tendering a binding counteroffer that PHH must now rebut. PHH’s continued silence and failure to rebut the conditional acceptance further compounds their non-performance and dishonor. Additionally, the Defendants’ filing, prepared by Neil J. Cooper of HOUSER LLP, violates multiple-defendant court rules, misrepresents the law, displays incompetence and a war against the Constitution, and constitutes blatant obstruction of justice.

Further exacerbating this obstruction, critical documents remain missing from the court docket and record, preventing a full and fair adjudication of the Plaintiffs’ claims. This deliberate suppression of filings by the court and Defendants undermines due process, conceals key evidence, and constitutes judicial misconduct. The failure to properly record and acknowledge Plaintiffs’ filings further demonstrates systematic efforts to manipulate the proceedings in PHH Mortgage’s favor, reinforcing the need for immediate judicial correction, sanctions, and enforcement of Plaintiffs’ default judgment demands.

Judicial Misconduct in Riverside, California: Defendant PHH Mortgage's ("loan servicer") Baseless Motion and the Court’s Obstruction of Justice

Judicial Misconduct in Riverside, California: Defendant PHH Mortgage’s (“loan servicer”) Baseless Motion and the Court’s Obstruction of Justice

PHH Mortgage’s Motion to Dismiss in Kevin Walker Estate, et al. v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, et al. exemplifies judicial overreach, procedural abuse, and a blatant disregard for constitutional rights. The motion falsely asserts that a trust cannot be represented by an attorney-in-fact, denying individuals their right to self-representation and claiming that only "attorneys at law" can act in court. This contradicts established legal principles, including the American Bar Association’s recognition of power of attorney as a legitimate instrument granting broad authority. Additionally, the court has obstructed the record by refusing to file Plaintiffs’ documents, prompting a writ of mandamus to expose the Riverside Federal Court’s misconduct. This case underscores a broader pattern of legal corruption, defamation, and deprivation of rights under the color of law.

Screen Shot 2025 02 19 at 1.22.22 PM

KEVIN WALKER Estate Demands Writ of Mandamus as Riverside Federal Court Engages in Corruption, Record Tampering, and Obstruction of Justice

The United States District Court, Central District of California (Riverside), stands accused of obstructing justice, tampering with records, and violating due process by unlawfully refusing to file and docket legitimate pleadings. Plaintiffs KEVIN WALKER ESTATE, et al., hav presented irrefutable evidence of judicial misconduct, calling for criminal prosecution, sanctions, and immediate enforcement. Despite proof of receipt, court officials have concealed filings, manipulated records, and obstructed legal proceedings, in direct violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1505, 1512, 1519, and 2071. With Pam Bondi CC’d on the correspondence, high-level authorities have been alerted to this grave constitutional violation that threatens judicial integrity and fundamental rights.

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.

error: Content is protected !!