To:

Address:

Account No.

(If this document needs to go to other parties you are to indicate their names here)

From:

March 1, 2019

CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE FOR VALUE AND COUNTER OFFER/CLAIM FOR PROOF OF CLAIM and TENDER OF
PAYMENT OFFERING:
Please understand that according to the terms of our agreement (the agreement with the original lender placed lender’s name here), and you’re presenting us
with your- place name of creditor here new terms, we conditionally accept your offer under the following terms and conditions. You are to provide a complete
accounting, signed under penalty of perjury attesting to the amount of expenditures and cost so that I may redeem my property. You must also provide proof of
claim of the following:

a. That we are not currently under a national emergency whereby all banking business have been suspended similar to that indicated by presidential
proclamation 2039?
b. That as a result of the current emergency, book entry credit is not an acceptable form of business transaction within the borders of the United
States?
c. That you have not charged off this account and or that the account itself has never been charged off whereby an internal credit has been applied,
bringing the account balance to zero, and then the creation of a new account where the previous unapplied credit remained outstanding (in other
words that there is an outstanding balance after the internal credit application)?
d. That your attempt to seize and/or take my property is not a violation of my right to due process, right to property? And that:
The Fifth Amendment does not command that property be not taken without making just compensation? That Valid contracts are not property,
whether the obligor be a private individual, a municipality, a State or the United States?

e. That the Rights against the United States and or any other party arising out of a contract with it are protected by the Fifth Amendment? United
States v. Central P. R. Co., 118 US 235, 238; United States v. Northern P. R. Co., 256 US 51, 64.
f. That when the United States and or any other party enters into contract relations, its rights and duties therein are governed generally by the law
applicable to contracts between private individuals?
g. That in Perry v. United States, 294 US 330, 352-353 (1935) it was held that:-
When the United States, with constitutional authority, makes contracts, it has rights and incurs responsibilities similar to those of individuals who
are parties to such instruments. There is no difference, said the Court in United States v. Bank of Metropolis, 15 Pet. 977, 392, except that the
United States cannot be sued without its consent. See, also, The Floyd Acceptances (Pierce v. United States) 7 Wall. 666, 675; Cooke v. United
States, 91 US 389, 396. In Lynch v. United States, 292 US 571, 580, with respect to an attempted abrogation by the Act of March 20, 1933 (48 Stat.
at L. 8, 11, chap. 3, U.S.C. title 38, section 701) contracts of the United States, the Court quoted with approval the statement in the Sinking Fund
Cases, 99 US 70, supra, and said: "Punctilious fulfillment of contractual obligations is essential to the maintenance of the credit of public as well as
private debtors. No doubt there was in March, 1933, great need of economy. (This is in direct reference to the March 9, 1933 act and presidential
proclamation 2039, where a NATIONAL ECONOMIC BANKING EMERGENCY was declared, facilitating the serious emergency that Congress has
stated is still extant)?
h. In the administration of all government business economy had become urgent because of lessened revenues and the heavy obligations to be
issued in the hope of relieving widespread distress. Congress was without power to reduce expenditures by abrogating contractual obligations of
the United States. To abrogate contracts, in the attempt to lessen government expenditure, would be not the practice of economy, but an act of
repudiation." And that any attempt on your part to invalidate this contract would amount to the same repudiation?
i. That the United States treasury, as authorized under the presidential proclamation 2039, has not declared legal tender to be valueless? Backed by
nothing? [- An official website of the United States Government-
Legal Tender Status - Treasury Department --- U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender.aspx
Jan 4, 2011 - The pertinent portion of law that applies is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which
states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks)
are legal tender ... Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in any commodity, and receive no backing by anything This has been the case since
1933. The notes have no value for themselves.”]

1|Page
In a unanimous decision on January 8, 2019 in Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc. (Henry Schein), the US Supreme Court confirmed that
the United States is a pro-arbitration jurisdiction that will honor parties’ agreements to arbitrate. Specifically, where an arbitration clause clearly delegates
the decision of arbitrability to the arbitrators, courts should have no say in the matter–even if they perceive the argument in favor of arbitration as “wholly
groundless.” This decision provides clarity for potential disputants and is in line with prior Court precedent prohibiting courts from reviewing the merits of
a dispute when properly delegated to an arbitrator.
 j. That The Federal Emergency Relief Act of 1933 AN ACT, was not to provide for cooperation by the Federal Government with the several States and
Territories and the District of Columbia in relieving the hardship and suffering caused by (Sec. 4. (a)) Out of the funds … to provide the necessities of
life to persons in need as a result of the present emergency, and/or to their dependents, whether resident, transient, or homeless. - The Federal
Emergency Relief Act of 1933 Approved, May 12, 1933 (Sec. 4. (a))?
k. That "The ownership of all property is not in the state”?
l. That "Under the new law government obligations, is not backed by the credit of the nation. It does not represent a mortgage on all the homes,
and other property of all the people of the nation."? Senate Document No. 43, 73rd Congress, 1st Session, Congressional Record, March 9, 1933 on
HR 1491 p. 83.
m. That Obligations of the United States shall not be receivable for all public dues? That they shall not be redeemed at the Treasury Department of
the United States or at any Federal Reserve bank? 12 U.S. Code § 411 - Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption (Dec. 23, 1913,
ch. 6, § 16 (par.), 38 Stat. 265; Jan. 30, 1934, ch. 6, § 2(b)(1), 48 Stat. 337; Aug. 23, 1935, ch. 614, title II, § 203(a), 49 Stat. 704.)

You are hereby notified that I do hereby tender payment for the referenced obligation of debt, and because this debt concerns property of the United
States it is deemed by law and operation of statute to be a “government obligations” and must be handled in accord with the dictates of statute. I accept the
obligation on and in behalf of the United States of America and hereby make assignment of the obligation[s] to the United States Treasury Department creating a
special relationship on and in behalf of the United States of America as authorized by statute and trust law. You are to present the item (remittance coupon) to
the United States Treasury Department or at any Federal Reserve bank to include any Federal Reserve member banks to redeem the value of the obligation. 12
USC 411, directing an immediate credit for value to my account.

As per the terms of this contract this shall serve as my notice of change in terms of contract, cancelling and or suspending any acceleration and or associated
penalties in paying the US ‘government [debt Instrument] obligations’ for value through acceptance, pledging an assignment in full. And shall act as my
redemption under statute and in equity.

Re: AK 08553548-14-BS

FGTN: 10-00452-5446CL

Da Da, a nontaxpayer as defined by statute COU1QG-72345ETDHA62GHJKC-K23459671 – IYW3504©

ABC Avenue 3-01-19
DEF, XYZ EQUITABLE REMITTANCE COUPON

“Pay and Pledged

$ 80,000.00 xx
To the Order of: PENNYMAC SAVINGS. WITHOUT RECOURSE”
Amount of
Obligation: EIGHTY THOUSAND DOLLARS IN CERTIFIED CREDIT BY A NONTAXPAYER AT PAR
INTENTIONS: The above United States government obligations is hereby accepted and acknowledged and I do assign and pledge
the total value of the obligation to the United States of America through the United States Department of the Treasury
to be redeemed for value and receivable at the Federal Reserve, the Federal Reserve Bank, and/or any member bank and/or
National Association as prescribed by statute (the act of March 9, 1933; the act of May 12, 1933; 12 USC 411; 18 USC 8; UCC 1-308; 3-419
and the intentions of the United States Congress concerning THE CURRENT SERIOUS NATIONAL EMERGENCY), and credited to grantors account.

Memo: Discharging of Government Obligations #--------------------------------- x___________________________________________________________

Settlor and Interest Holder and Citizen of the United States of America

So the remedy provided by government for discharging government obligations is 12 USC 411, and I elect to use such a remedy.

I. CAVEAT

23130. Please understand that while the Undersigned wants, wishes and desires to resolve this matter as
promptly as possible, the Undersigned can only do so upon Respondent(’s) ‘official response’ to this Conditional
Acceptance for Value and counter offer/claim for Proof of Claim by Respondent(’s) providing the Undersigned
with the requested and necessary Proof of Claims raised herein above.

23131. Therefore, as the Undersigned is not a signatory; NOR a party, to your “social compact” (contract) known
as the Constitution (Charter) of the UNITED STATES; NOR noticed NOR cognizant, of any agreement/contract
between the UNITED STATES, and the Undersigned and specifically any obtained through FULL DISCLOSURE and

2|Page
In a unanimous decision on January 8, 2019 in Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc. (Henry Schein), the US Supreme Court confirmed that
the United States is a pro-arbitration jurisdiction that will honor parties’ agreements to arbitrate. Specifically, where an arbitration clause clearly delegates
the decision of arbitrability to the arbitrators, courts should have no say in the matter–even if they perceive the argument in favor of arbitration as “wholly
groundless.” This decision provides clarity for potential disputants and is in line with prior Court precedent prohibiting courts from reviewing the merits of
a dispute when properly delegated to an arbitrator.
 containing any FAIR/VALUABLE CONSIDERATION therein, to include the setting up of trust accounts, and or
insurance policies, and or contracts, which would act/operate to create and establish a “relationship” (nexus) and
thereby; and therein, bind the Undersigned to the specific “source of authority” for the creation and existence of
the alleged statute(s)/law(s) as contained and allegedly promulgated within the “Code” known as the United
States Code; which, with the privity of contract or contract itself would thereby; and therein, create and establish
legal force and or effect of said statute(s)/law(s) over and upon the Undersigned; and, would also act/operate to
subject the Undersigned to the “statutory jurisdiction” of the UNITED STATES, its laws, venue, jurisdiction, and the
like of its commercial courts/administrative tribunals/units and thereby; and therein, bind the Undersigned to said
courts/administrative tribunal’s/unit’s decisions, orders, judgments, and the like; and specifically as within the
above referenced alleged Commercial/Civil/Cause; and, which would act/operate to establish and confer upon
said court/administrative tribunal/unit the necessary requirement/essential of “subject-matter jurisdiction”
without which it is powerless to move in any action other than to dismiss. It is to be noted that the use of any
statute and/or code and or regulation and/or law other than those expressed by the Constitution, or for reference
purposes only and not an acknowledgment and or proof of such engagement with knowing intent, and as a result
thereof the parties agree that any statute and/or code introduced by the United States Congress and or state
legislature under its non-governmental capacity i.e. it’s “corporate business commercial transacting capacity”, are
not binding on any of the parties, and cannot be introduced and or used as any justification for any proceeding,
and/or procedure, and or remedy respecting this matter. That the arbitration process is binding on all parties and
is the sole and exclusive remedy for redressing any and all issue associated with this trust agreement. That this
agreement supersedes and predates as well as replaces any and all prior agreements between the parties, and is
binding on all parties and irrevocable, and the parties agreed to the terms and conditions of this agreement upon
default of the defaulting party as of the date of the default, that the value of this agreement is (enter the dollar
amount here- example is $8,000 (EIGHT THOUSAND DOLLARS), the amount demanded is (indicate that amount
here, three times the value of the original contract is deemed reasonable unless other circumstances for a higher
amount exist). The Undersigned humbly and respectfully requests the Respondent(s) provide said necessary Proof
of Claims so as to resolve the Undersigned’s confusion and concerns within this/these matter(s), otherwise, the
Undersigned must ask, “What is the Undersigned’s remedy?”

23132. THEREFORE, as Respondent(s) have superior knowledge of the law, and as custodian of record has access
to the requested and necessary Proof of Claims, and otherwise being in a ‘catbird’s seat’ to provide the requested
and necessary Proof of Claims raised herein above, Respondent(s) is able, capable, and most qualified to inform
the Undersigned on those matters relating to and bearing upon the above referenced alleged
CIVIL/COMMERCIAL/Cause and thereby; that there is a duty on the part of the parties to communicate and/or
respond to the aforementioned proof of claim and/or demand associated with this self-executing binding
irrevocable contractual agreement coupled with interests and therein, has an obligation to clear-up all confusion
and concerns in said matter(s) for the Undersigned as to the nature and cause of said process(s), proceeding(s),
and the like as well as the lawfulness and validity of such to include; inter ali, all decisions, orders, and the like
within; and arising from, all such within said Commercial/Civil/Cause.

23133. The Undersigned herein; and hereby, provides the Respondent(s) ten (10) Calendar days; to commence
the day after receipt of this CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE FOR VALUE BINDING SELF-EXECUTING CONTRACTUAL
AGREEMENT COUPLED WITH INTERESTS AND COUNTER OFFER/CLAIM FOR PROOF OF CLAIM, in which to gather
and provide the Undersigned with the requested and necessary Proof of Claims raised herein above, with the
instruction, to transmit said Proof of Claims to the Undersigned and/or the below named Notary/Third Party and
or their representative as stipulated and attached hereto by reference, for the sole purpose of certifying
3|Page
In a unanimous decision on January 8, 2019 in Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc. (Henry Schein), the US Supreme Court confirmed that
the United States is a pro-arbitration jurisdiction that will honor parties’ agreements to arbitrate. Specifically, where an arbitration clause clearly delegates
the decision of arbitrability to the arbitrators, courts should have no say in the matter–even if they perceive the argument in favor of arbitration as “wholly
groundless.” This decision provides clarity for potential disputants and is in line with prior Court precedent prohibiting courts from reviewing the merits of
a dispute when properly delegated to an arbitrator.
 RESPONSE or want thereof from Respondent(s). Furthermore, the Undersigned herein; and hereby, extends to
the Respondent(s) the offer for an additional ten (10) Calendar days in which to provide the requested and
necessary Proof of Claims raised herein above. If Respondent(s) desires the additional ten (10) Calendar days,
Respondent must cause to be transmitted to the Undersigned and the below named Notary/Third Party etc. al; a
signed written REQUEST. Upon receipt thereof, the extension is automatic; however, the Undersigned strongly
recommends the Respondent(s) make request for the additional ten (10) Calendar days well before the initial ten
(10) Calendar days have elapse and to allow for mailing and delivery time. NOTICE: Should Respondent(s) make
request for the additional ten (10) Calendar days, said request will be deemed “good faith” on the part of
Respondent(s) to perform to this offer and provide the requested and necessary Proof of Claims. Should
Respondent(s) upon making request for the additional ten (10) Calendar days, of which there will not be, cannot
be, and shall not be any extension as the aforementioned requested information is required to be readily available
for inspection and review upon demand, then fail or otherwise refuse to provide the requested and necessary
Proof of Claims, and/or fails to provide the specific information in full detail as specified according to the terms of
this agreement, and or shall cause to have presented a nonresponse, and or a general response, and or a
nonspecific response, which shall only constitute as an attempt to evade, to avoid, to delay, said act(s) on the part
of Respondent(s) shall be deemed and evidenced as an attempted constructive fraud, deception, bad faith, and
the like upon Respondent’s (s’) part and further attempts to cause an inflict injury upon the Undersigned. Further,
the Undersigned herein strongly recommends to Respondent(s) that any Proof of Claims and request for the
additional ten (10) Calendar days be transmitted “Certified” Mail, Return Receipt Requested, and the contents
therein under Proof of Mailing for the good of all concerned.

23134. Should the Respondent(s) fail or otherwise refuse to provide the requested and necessary Proof of Claims
raised herein above within the expressed period of time established and set herein above, Respondent(s) agree
that they will have failed to State any claim upon which relief can be granted. Further, Respondent(s) will have
agreed and consented through “tacit acquiescence” to ALL the facts in relation to the above referenced alleged
Commercial/Civil/Cause, as raised herein above as Proof of Claims herein; and ALL facts necessarily and of
consequence arising there from, are true as they operate in favor of the Undersigned, and that said facts shall
stand as prima facie and ultimate (un-refutable) between the parties to this Conditional Acceptance binding
contractual agreement coupled with interests for Value and counter offer/claim for Proof of Claim, the corporate
Government juridical construct(s) Respondent(s) represents/serves, and ALL officers, agents, employees, assigns,
and the like in service to Respondent(s), as being undisputed. Further, failure and/or refusal by Respondent(s) to
provide the requested and necessary Proof of Claims raised herein above shall act/operate as ratification by
Respondent(s) that ALL facts as set, established, and agreed upon between the parties to this Conditional
Acceptance for Value and counter offer/claim for Proof of Claim, are true, correct, complete, and NOT misleading.
The parties further agree that any contracting in the future between the parties shall not invalidate and/or
supersede this contract, and if any portion of this contract shall be deemed or held to be invalid, it shall not
invalidate any other portion and/or section of this contract. That this contract shall be taken contextually, and
read, construed, and reviewed under the strict guise of the reasonable common man or woman position, without
respect legalese and/or legal terminology. That the common law referred to herein and throughout, is not the
English common law, but the common law ascribed within the meaning of “due to your fellow as you would have
him do to you”, and the equitable principle “make peace (settle matters quickly) with your adversary while he is
on his way to the magistrate, do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over
to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. Truly I tell you,
you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.” This shall and is construed as an attempt to settle matters
quickly, so that we may be at peace, it is our hope to maintain the peace within the community, and with our

4|Page
In a unanimous decision on January 8, 2019 in Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc. (Henry Schein), the US Supreme Court confirmed that
the United States is a pro-arbitration jurisdiction that will honor parties’ agreements to arbitrate. Specifically, where an arbitration clause clearly delegates
the decision of arbitrability to the arbitrators, courts should have no say in the matter–even if they perceive the argument in favor of arbitration as “wholly
groundless.” This decision provides clarity for potential disputants and is in line with prior Court precedent prohibiting courts from reviewing the merits of
a dispute when properly delegated to an arbitrator.
 neighbors. This contract shall remain in force until all terms and conditions have been met and fulfilled to their
completion, and at such time the special relationship, trustee, grantor, beneficiary, properties, assets, value, and
consideration shall cease their obligation beyond the terms and conditions stated herein.

I. ARBITRATION- AN ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY COGNIZABLE AT COMMON-LAW

23135. ADDITIONALLY it is exigent and of consequence for the Undersigned to inform Respondent(s), in
accordance with and pursuant to the principles and doctrines of “clean hands” and “good faith,” that by
Respondents(s) failure and or refusal to respond and provide the requested and necessary Proof of Claims raised
herein above and thereby; and it shall be held and noted and agreed to by all parties, that a general response, a
nonspecific response, or a failure to respond with specificities and facts and conclusions of common law, and or
to provide the requested information and documentation that is necessary and in support of the agreement shall
constitute a failure and a deliberate and intentional refusal to respond and as a result thereby and or therein,
expressing the defaulting party’s consent and agreement to said facts and as a result of the self-executing
agreement coupled with interests, conferring upon the undersigned/grantor full general power of attorney
coupled with interests, and that the following is contingent upon their failure to respond in good faith, with
specificity, with facts and conclusions of common-law to each and every averment/proof of claim, condition,
and/or other/additional claims raised; as they operate in favor of the Undersigned, through “tacit acquiescence,”
Respondent(s) NOT ONLY expressly affirm the truth and validity of said facts set, established, and agreed upon
between the parties to this Conditional Acceptance for Value and counter offer/claim for Proof of Claim, but
Respondent(s); having agreed and consented to Respondent(s) having a duty and obligation to provide the
requested and necessary Proof of Claims raised herein above, will create and establish for Respondent(s) an
estoppel in this matter(s), and ALL matters relating hereto; and arising necessarily therefrom, and/or thereto, and
or therein;

and,

23136. In accordance with and pursuant to this agreement; a contractually (consensual) irrevocable binding
agreement coupled with interests between the parties to this Conditional Acceptance for Value and counter
offer/claim for Proof of Claim to include the corporate Government Agency/Department construct(s) whom
Respondent(s) represents/serves; as well as, ALL officers, agents, employees, assigns, and the like in service to
Respondent(s) agree and affirm under penalty of contempt that they will not argue, controvert, oppose, or
otherwise protest ANY of the facts already agreed upon by the parties set and established herein; and necessarily
and of consequence arising therefrom, in ANY future remedial proceeding(s)/action(s), including binding
arbitration and confirmation of the award in the District Court of the United States at any competent court under
original jurisdiction, in accordance with the general principles of non-statutory Arbitration, wherein this
Conditional Acceptance Irrevocable Binding Self-Executing Contractual Agreement for the
Value/Agreement/Contract no. COU1QG-72345ETDHA62GHJKC-K23459671 – IYW3504© constitutes an
agreement of all interested parties in the event of a default and acceptance through silence/failure to respond
when a request for summary disposition of any claims or particular issue may be requested and decided by the
arbitrator, and the parties agree that the policies and procedures of SAA (THE SITCOMM ARBITRATION
ASSOCIATION) whereas a designated arbitrator shall be chosen at random, who is duly authorized, and in the
event of any physical or mental incapacity to act as arbitrator, the Undersigned shall retain the authority to select
any neutral(s)/arbitrator(s) that qualify pursuant to the common law right to arbitration, as the arbitration process
is a private remedy decided upon between the parties, and with respects this agreement, the defaulting party

5|Page
In a unanimous decision on January 8, 2019 in Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc. (Henry Schein), the US Supreme Court confirmed that
the United States is a pro-arbitration jurisdiction that will honor parties’ agreements to arbitrate. Specifically, where an arbitration clause clearly delegates
the decision of arbitrability to the arbitrators, courts should have no say in the matter–even if they perceive the argument in favor of arbitration as “wholly
groundless.” This decision provides clarity for potential disputants and is in line with prior Court precedent prohibiting courts from reviewing the merits of
a dispute when properly delegated to an arbitrator.
 waives any and all rights, services, notices, and consents to the undersigned and or the undersigned’s
representative selection of the arbitrator thereby constituting agreement, and any controversy or claim arising
out of or relating in any way to this Agreement or with regard to its formation, interpretation or breach, and any
issues of substantive or procedural arbitrability shall be settled by arbitration, and the arbitrator may hear and
decide the controversy upon evidence produced, and not based on personal opinion, legalese, legal terminology,
legal technicalities, statutes, codes, ordinances, regulations, but within the scope of this herein agreement
according to its terms and conditions, and must do so even if and or although a party who was duly notified of the
arbitration proceeding did not appear; that the Undersigned deems necessary to enforce the “good faith” of ALL
parties hereto within without respect to venue, jurisdiction, law, and forum the Undersigned deems appropriate.

23137. Further, Respondent(s) agrees the Undersigned can secure damages via financial lien on assets, properties
held by them or on their behalf for ALL injuries sustained and inflicted upon the Undersigned for the moral wrongs
committed against the Undersigned as set, established, agreed and consented to herein by the parties hereto;
and authorizes the undersigned to attach, leech, affix such a lien/claim on the aforementioned properties/assets
without objection, and this is to include but not limited to: constitutional impermissible misapplication of
statute(s)/law(s) in the above referenced alleged Commercial/Civil/Cause; fraud, conspiracy (two or more
involved); trespass of title, property, and the like; and, ALL other known and unknown trespasses and moral
wrongs committed through ultra vires act(s) of ALL involved herein; whether by commission or omission. Final
amount of damages to be calculated prior to submission of Tort Claim and/or the filing of lien and the perfection
of a security interest via a Uniform Commercial Code financing 1 Statement; estimated in excess of TEN (10) Million
dollars (USD- or other lawful money or currency generally accepted with or by the financial markets in America),
and notice to Respondent(‘s) by invoice. The respondents are further notified that as per the United States
Supreme Court, contracts are property, and as such Per Respondent(’s) failure and or refusal to provide the
requested and necessary Proof of Claims and thereby; and therein consenting and agreeing to ALL the facts set,
established, and agreed upon between the parties hereto, shall constitute a self-executing binding irrevocable
durable general power of attorney coupled with interests; of this Conditional Acceptance for Value and counter
offer/claim for Proof of Claim, conferring all rights, equitable and/or otherwise upon the undersigned/grantor,
and such becomes the security agreement under commercial law whereby only the nondefaulting party becomes
the secured party, the holder in due course, the creditor in and at commerce. It is deemed and shall always and
forever be held that the undersigned and any and all property, interest, assets, estates, trusts commercial or
otherwise shall be deemed consumer and household goods not-for-profit and or gain, private property, and
exempt, not for commercial use, nontaxable as defined by the Uniform Commercial Code article 9 section 102 and
article 9 section 109 and shall not in any point and/or manner, past, present and/or future be construed otherwise-
see the Uniform Commercial Code article 3, 8, and 9; that the properties associated with this agreement shall
never be deemed and/or construed as income, profit but for redemption and bringing about equitable wholeness
and wellness.

23138. Should Respondent(s) allow the ten (10) Calendar days or twenty (20) Calendar days total if request was
made by signed written application for the additional ten (10) Calendar days to elapse without providing the
requested and necessary Proof of Claims, Respondent(s) will go into fault and the Undersigned will cause to be
transmitted a Notice of Fault and Opportunity to Cure and Contest Acceptance to the Respondent(s); wherein,
Respondent(s) will be given an additional three (3) days (72 hours) to cure Respondent’s (s’) fault. Should
Respondent(s) fail or otherwise refuse to cure Respondent’s(s’) fault, Respondent will be found in default and
thereby; and therein, Respondent will have established Respondent’s(s’) consent and agreement to the facts
contained within this Conditional Acceptance for Value and counter offer/claim for Proof of Claim as said facts

6|Page
In a unanimous decision on January 8, 2019 in Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc. (Henry Schein), the US Supreme Court confirmed that
the United States is a pro-arbitration jurisdiction that will honor parties’ agreements to arbitrate. Specifically, where an arbitration clause clearly delegates
the decision of arbitrability to the arbitrators, courts should have no say in the matter–even if they perceive the argument in favor of arbitration as “wholly
groundless.” This decision provides clarity for potential disputants and is in line with prior Court precedent prohibiting courts from reviewing the merits of
a dispute when properly delegated to an arbitrator.
 operate in favor of the Undersigned; e.g., that the judgment of alleged “court of record” within the above
referenced alleged Commercial/Civil/Cause is VOID AB INITIO for want of subject-matter jurisdiction of said
venue; insufficient document (Information) and affidavits in support thereof for want of establishing a claim of
debt; want of Relationship with the “source of authority” for said statute(s)/law(s) for want of privity of contract,
or contract itself; improperly identified parties to said judgment, as well as said dispute/matter; and,
Respondent(s) agrees and consents that Respondent(s) does have a duty and obligation to Undersigned; as well
as the corporate Government Department/agency construct(s) Respondent(s) represents/serves, to correct the
record in the above referenced alleged Commercial/Civil/Cause and thereby; and therein, release the indenture
(however termed/styled) upon the Undersigned and cause the Undersigned to be restored to liberty, and
releasing the Undersigned’s property rights, as well as ALL property held under a storage contract in the “name”
of the all-capital-letter “named” defendant within the above referenced alleged Commercial/Civil/Cause within
the alleged commercially “bonded” warehousing agency d.b.a., for the commercial corporate Government
construct d.b.a. the United States. That this presentment is to be construed contextually and not otherwise, and
that if any portion and/or provision contained within this presentment, this self-executing binding irrevocable
contractual agreement coupled with interests, is deemed non-binding it shall in no way affect any other portion
of this presentment. That the arbitrator is permitted and allowed to adjust the arbitration award to no less than
two times the original value of the properties associated with this agreement, plus the addition of fines, penalties,
and other assessments that are deemed reasonable to the arbitrator upon presentment of such claim, supported
by prima facie evidence of the claim.

23139. The defaulting party will be estopped from maintaining or enforcing the original offer/presentment; i.e.,
the above referenced alleged Commercial/Civil/Cause as well as ALL commercial paper (negotiable
instruments) therein, within any court or administrative tribunal/unit within any venue, jurisdiction, and forum
the Undersigned may deem appropriate to proceed within in the event of ANY and ALL breach(s) of this agreement
by Respondent(s) to compel specific performance and or damages arising from injuries there from. The defaulting
party will be foreclosed by laches and or estoppel from maintaining or enforcing the original offer/presentment
in any mode or manner whatsoever, at any time, within any proceeding/action. Furthermore, the respondents
are foreclosed against the enforcement, retaliation, assault, infringement, imprisonment, trespass upon the
rights, properties, estate, person whether legal, natural or otherwise of the presenter/petitioner and/or his
interest and/or his estate retroactively, at present, post-actively, forever under any circumstances, guise, and or
presumption!

II. NOTICE OF COMMON-LAW ARBITRATION:

23140. Please be advised that in-as-much as the Undersigned has “secured” the “interest” in the “name” of the
all-capital-letter “named” defendant as employed/used upon the face; and within, ALL
documents/instruments/records within the above referenced alleged Commercial/Civil/Cause, to include any and
all derivatives and variations in the spelling of said “name” except the “true name” of the Undersigned as
appearing within the Undersigned’s signature block herein below, through a Common-Law Copyright, filed for
record within the Office of the Secretary of State, Las Vegas State of Nevada, and, having “perfected said interest”
in same through incorporation within a Financing (and all amendments and transcending filings thereto), by
reference therein, the Undersigned hereby; and herein, waives the Undersigned’s rights as set, established, and
the like therein, and as “perfected” within said Financing Statement acting/operating to “register” said Copyright,

7|Page
In a unanimous decision on January 8, 2019 in Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc. (Henry Schein), the US Supreme Court confirmed that
the United States is a pro-arbitration jurisdiction that will honor parties’ agreements to arbitrate. Specifically, where an arbitration clause clearly delegates
the decision of arbitrability to the arbitrators, courts should have no say in the matter–even if they perceive the argument in favor of arbitration as “wholly
groundless.” This decision provides clarity for potential disputants and is in line with prior Court precedent prohibiting courts from reviewing the merits of
a dispute when properly delegated to an arbitrator.
 to allow for the Respondent(s) to enter the record of the alleged “court of record” within the above referenced
alleged Commercial/Civil/Cause for the SOLE purpose to correct said record and comply with Respondent’s(s’)
agreed upon duty/obligation to write the “order” and cause same to be transmitted to restore and release the
Undersigned, the Undersigned’s corpus, and ALL property currently under a “storage contract” under the
Undersigned’s Common-Law Copyrighted trade-name; i.e., the all-capital-letter “named” defendant within the
above referenced alleged Commercial/Civil/Cause, within the alleged commercially “bonded” warehousing
agency d.b.a. the commercial corporate Government juridical construct d.b.a. the United States. Please take
special note, that the copyright is with reference to the name and its direct association and/or correlation to the
presenter.

23141. NOTICE: That the arbitrators "must not necessarily judge according to the strict law but as a general rule
ought chiefly to consider the principles of practical business" Norske Atlas Insurance Co v London General Insurance Co (1927) 28 Lloyds List
Rep 104


"internationally accepted principles of law governing contractual relations"[ Deutsche Schachtbau v R'As al-Khaimah National Oil
Co [1990] 1 AC 295]


If the contract (valid or otherwise) contains an arbitration clause, then the proper forum to determine whether
the contract is void or not, is the arbitration tribunal.[ For example, see Heyman v Darwins Ltd. [1942] AC 356]
 That any determination by the arbitrator is binding upon all parties, and that all parties agree to abide by the decision of the arbitrator, that the arbitrator is to render a decision
based upon the facts and conclusions as presented within the terms and conditions of the contract. Any default by any party must be supported by proof and evidence of said
default, that default shall serve as tacit acquiescence on behalf of the party who default it as having agreed to the terms and conditions associated with the self-executing binding
irrevocable contract coupled with interests. That the arbitrator is prohibited from considering and/or relying on statutory law, as it has been held that any time any party relies on
or enforces a statute, they possess no judicial power
 “A judge ceases to set as a judicial officer because the governing principals of administrative law provides that courts are prohibited from substituting their evidence, testimony,
record, arguments and rationale for that of the agency. Additionally, courts are prohibited from their substituting their judgments for that of the agency." AISI v US, 568 F2d 284.

 "...judges who become involved in enforcement of mere statutes (civil or criminal in nature and otherwise), act as mere "clerks" of the involved agency..." K.C. Davis, ADMIN. LAW,
Ch. 1 (CTP. West's 1965 Ed.)

 ",...their supposed 'court' becoming thus a court of limited jurisdiction' as a mere extension of the involved agency for mere superior reviewing purposes." K.C. Davis, ADMIN.
LAW, P. 95, (CTP, 6 Ed. West's 1977) FRC v G.E. 28I US 464; Keller v PE, 261 US 428.

 "When acting to enforce a statute, the judge of the municipal court is acting an administrative officer and not as a judicial capacity; courts in administrating or enforcing statutes
do not act judicially. but, merely administerially." Thompson v Smith. 155 Va. 376. l54 SE 583, 7l ALR 604.

 "It is basic in our law that an administrative agency may act only within the area of jurisdiction marked out for it by law. If an individual does not come within the coverage of the
particular agency's enabling legislation the agency is without power to take any action which affects him." Endicott v Perkins, 317 US 501

 "It is not every act, legislative in form, that is law. Law is something more than mere will exerted as an act of power...Arbitrary power, enforcing its edicts to the injury of the person
and property of its subjects is not law." Hurtado v. California (1884) 110 US 515 (1984).

 Some of the aforementioned cases are not published, however, these are still fundamental principles of law, and one of the fundamental principles of arbitration is that the
arbitrator sits as judge over the facts, and as such to preserve the sanctity of the process and arbitrator receives the same immunity as a judge and is exempt from prosecution
and or review, unless they can be proved that the arbitrator intentionally ignored the evidence and acted in conspiracy to defraud the parties.

23142. As the Undersigned has no desire NOR wish to tie the hands of Respondent(s) in performing
Respondent’s(s’) agreed upon duty/obligation as set, established, and agreed upon within this Conditional
Acceptance for Value and counter offer/claim for Proof of Claim and thereby create/cause a “breach” of said

8|Page
In a unanimous decision on January 8, 2019 in Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc. (Henry Schein), the US Supreme Court confirmed that
the United States is a pro-arbitration jurisdiction that will honor parties’ agreements to arbitrate. Specifically, where an arbitration clause clearly delegates
the decision of arbitrability to the arbitrators, courts should have no say in the matter–even if they perceive the argument in favor of arbitration as “wholly
groundless.” This decision provides clarity for potential disputants and is in line with prior Court precedent prohibiting courts from reviewing the merits of
a dispute when properly delegated to an arbitrator.
 contractually binding agreement on the part of the Respondent(s), Respondent(s) is hereby; and herein, NOTICED
that if this waiver of said Copyright is not liberal, NOR extensive enough, to allow for the Respondent(s) to
specifically perform all duties/obligations as set, established, and agreed upon within the Conditional Acceptance
for Value and counter offer/claim for Proof of Claim: Respondent(s) may; in “good faith” and NOT in fraud of the
Undersigned, take all needed and required liberties with said Copyright and this waiver in order to fulfill and
accomplish Respondent’s(s’) duties/obligations set, established, and agreed upon between the parties to this
agreement.

23143. If Respondent(s) has any questions and or concerns regarding said Copyright and or the waiver,
Respondent(s) is invited to address such questions and or concerns to the Undersigned in writing, and causing
said communiqués to be transmitted to the Undersigned and below named Notary/Third Party. The respondents
have acted as if the contract quasi-or otherwise does not place a binding obligation upon their persons, upon their
organizations, upon their institutions, upon their job qualifications, and breaching that obligation breaches the
contract, for which they cannot address due to the direct conflict of interest. It is as a result of that conflict of
interest that binding arbitration shall be instituted

23144. Your failure to respond, and this would include each of the respondents by their representative, and if
represented by the Atty. Gen., such representation must be responsive for each State and/or State
organization/department/agency, separately and severally to each of the points of averment, failure to respond
to a single point of averment will constitute acquiescence, forfeiture, and a waiver of all rights with respects all of
the points raised in this presentment.

III. NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPLE AND VICE VERSA

23145. NOTICE: In this Conditional Acceptance for Value and counter offer/claim for Proof of Claim(a) the words
“include,” “includes,” and “including,” are not limiting; (b) the word “all” includes “any” and the word “any”
includes “all”; (c) the word “or” is not exclusive except when used in conjunction with the word “and”; as in,
“and/or”; and (d) words and terms (i) in the singular number include the plural, and in the plural, the singular; (ii)
in the masculine gender include both feminine and neuter.

23146. This presentment shall constitute a CLAIM against the assets of your institution and is valid upon your
failure to comply with the requirement of this agreement and to VALIDATE NOT VERIFY THE COMPREHENSIVE
ACCOUNTING!

23147. NOTICE: All titles/names/appellations of corporate Government juridical constructs, and branches,
departments, agencies, bureaus, offices, sub-whatever’s, and the like thereof, include any and all derivatives and
variations in the spelling of said titles/names/appellations.

23148. NOTICE: Any and all attempts at providing the requested and necessary Proof of Claims raised herein
above; and, requesting the additional ten (10) Calendar days in which to provide same; and, to address any and
all questions and concerns to the Undersigned in regards to the Stated Copyright and waiver herein expressed, in
any manner other than that provided for herein will be deemed non-responsive.

9|Page
In a unanimous decision on January 8, 2019 in Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc. (Henry Schein), the US Supreme Court confirmed that
the United States is a pro-arbitration jurisdiction that will honor parties’ agreements to arbitrate. Specifically, where an arbitration clause clearly delegates
the decision of arbitrability to the arbitrators, courts should have no say in the matter–even if they perceive the argument in favor of arbitration as “wholly
groundless.” This decision provides clarity for potential disputants and is in line with prior Court precedent prohibiting courts from reviewing the merits of
a dispute when properly delegated to an arbitrator.
The Undersigned extends to the Respondent(s) the Undersigned’s appreciations and thanks for Respondent’s(s) prompt
attention, response, production of above Proof(s) of Claim and assistance in this/these matter(s). This presentment is not
to be construed as an acceptance and/or application and/or subscription and/or request for license, admittance to any
jurisdiction quasi-or otherwise. But shall remain as a direct objection to any and all claims to the contrary.

Sincerely,

Without Recourse

_______________________________________

YOUR NAME a Natural Man

COU1QG-72345ETDHA62GHJKC-K23459671 – IYW3504© is secured and reserved with all rights retained, Private Property no trespass permitted or allowed under common law restrictions
and prohibitions.

(THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)

10 | P a g e
In a unanimous decision on January 8, 2019 in Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc. (Henry Schein), the US Supreme Court confirmed that
the United States is a pro-arbitration jurisdiction that will honor parties’ agreements to arbitrate. Specifically, where an arbitration clause clearly delegates
the decision of arbitrability to the arbitrators, courts should have no say in the matter–even if they perceive the argument in favor of arbitration as “wholly
groundless.” This decision provides clarity for potential disputants and is in line with prior Court precedent prohibiting courts from reviewing the merits of
a dispute when properly delegated to an arbitrator.