Some have asked what do you say in court when the issues of your discharge comes up?

Some principles: the more you try to answer about it the more questions they will come up with and the dialogue will degenerate into speculations by you and them that neither has any authority to speak definitively about what is suppose to happen from it and since you cant give all the answers with such authority you will be considered as loosing the argument. So say as little as possible about what you tendered and dwell on what they did with it. --What did you send?-- What was it? A check? We tendered full satisfaction of the debt in certified funds fully tenderable, negotiable and exchangeable in commerce in compliance with federal law and until the bank has negotiated it for settlement I dont think there is anymore anybody can say on the subject to the contrary that will decide anything. The legal question here is your honor, Is the tender or payment we have made legally sufficient to discharge the debt as a matter of prevailing federal law on the subject. We have proof tender of payment from us was received by the claimant in the amount of [$52,550] . We have received no notice of dishonor showing from any authority any causes for it to be dishonored, or for it not to have been recovered on, or anything to be legally insufficient about it. We have sought to know where it is, what they have done with it and whether settlement has been gained as it has never been returned, To date They have provided no evidence to support their right to refuse it, or that it has not in fact been recovered on. Their notice of default after payment was initially credited is only evidence one end of their business is choosing to ignore the fact this debt has been paid off and is not notice of dishonor showing payment on it has been turned down from any authority for it to be dishonored, or for it not to have been recovered on, or anything to be legally insufficient about it. --[[How did you tell them to settle it?]] or other questions on the instrument [[ Like many other federal obligations your honor, they could just deposit it in the bank and let the fed settle it. They could negotiate it in the Federal Reserve Bank Open Market Window, or the pass through account at the treasury window. I have

never known them all. Far be it from me to tell a bank how to negotiate an instrument for settlement.]] ----------------------------------------------------------------With respects to the Court your honor, if it had all the information it wanted today from both of us [which we do not have] and all the time it needed to research the law and documentation until it was finished and came to a conclusion, that would not make the payment good and recoverable, anymore than the Courts determination would make it not recoverable. The only authority who will decide that is the United States government on whom the obligation is made. There is ample protection in federal law for the banking industry and general commerce against specious, fraudulent and fictitious forms of payment to keep anyone from being had. All they had to do is negotiate it for recovery in any of the ways shown and recovery and settlement will resolve itself one way or the other without involvement of the Court. The only relevant question is, have they tried to do this? [exercising even a minimal degree of commercial responsibility under law to gain settlement?] Or what have they done with it? Where is it? And can they produce it to the Court to show they have not recovered on it and that the debt has not been paid? If they stop you interrupt to rant and rave over what you gave cut back to the chase: Your honor, if plaintiff cannot produce the tender in payment of this debt unmarked and unnegotiated showing it has not been converted or recovered on, or return it with markings of dishonor, or produce any authority supporting their right to refuse it, then the Court doesnt know the debt has not been paid, And If the Court knowingly grants jurisdiction to proceed without such proof it may be violating federally protected rights, or those under a higher jurisdiction of the sovereign electors , waiving its judicial immunity and becoming co- liable with the Claimant for any of their fraud or wrongdoing finally shown, and in the interests of the court and the protection of Debtors rights it must deny this claim. Simply to reject a lawful means of discharge of debt because it is foreign or unfamiliar to the creditor or his bank, or even to the Court, without

authoritative foundation for them to do so, is not evidence of dishonor to give the debtor acceptable in law. And the court can not deny him the credit that may be due for a valid tender of payment with the creditor or his bank offering little more than saying it is not.]]] Unless the Court is going to presume to know what is or is not legal obligation the United States has bound itself or presume to know all the obligations the United States government may have in law or in equity and how it may have made provision to meet those obligations then the Court will not have knowledge to decide the issue. And plaintiff has provided none. This case must be dismissed until plaintiff can produce the instrument showing it has not been recovered on and showing they have attempted negotiation of it for settlement and it has been rejected and we so move.