[rtw711]

Further to this in the BOE L of A of F (CBA example) template it states in the 2nd paragraph “so
that both the lender and the estate of the Administrator derive substantial
financial benefits”.

Can anyone explain the omission of the word “Executor” in the above statement i.e. omitted from “Administrator-Executor” which appears in the same statement in the Promissory Note L of A of F template? Notwithstanding this, at the bottom of the BOE L of A of F, where you sign, it includes “Executor” in “Administrator-Executor” i.e.

By

Administrator-Executor Jane Doe. In own right.

[rtw711]

Do you know anyone employed in SA government who could look up the CEO and the CFO in the SA Direct directory on the SA gov intranet which contains employees name, position and contact details, or could look up Revenue SA employees in the SA gov email (Outlook) directory? The general email may be listed as DL:RevenueSA (RevenueSA@sa.gov.au) but would contain all emails and phone numbers of employees of RevenueSA.

[rtw711]

In 1, Is “Drawer” no longer required?

[rtw711]

Thanks for your reply, that is very helpful and confirms my understanding of “Drawer” that it would not be required for the PN process. I have checked in the promissory note (PN) module D & LC & N template and it just has the words “Maker/Indorser” whilst the D & LC & N template included in the BOE module has “Maker/Drawer/Indorser”.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 8 months ago by  rtw711.

[rtw711]

Yes, that’s correct, I have noticed that too. It’s not in the instructions. However, in the module 8 example for the ANZ loan contract, it is included in the 1 ANZ contract.pdf on page 3. Given this, I assume you need to include it with your Account Statement despite their being no instructions. I also noticed that are a couple of additional clauses in the ANZ example than what’s included in the Redraft conditions document.
I would send copies of all documents to everyone involved in the matter. That’s what Mark told me to do in a Q&A recently.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 8 months ago by  rtw711.

[rtw711]

Yes, I had not thought of that either. Very good point. Yes, it certainly would set a precedent and the elite certainly wouldn’t want that to happen.

[rtw711]

Hi Shaunm,

I am interested in purchasing a sheet asap. Please contact me at prof8901@protonmail.com.

Thanks

[rtw711]

Yes, absolutely true. No Covid anywhere. I recall reading a post on Facebook reportedly from a researcher at a Californian university in or around November 2021, who conducted an experiment and tested 2,000 Covid samples from people who had tested positive for Covid from a PCR test (which can’t be used to diagnose any disease, including infectious diseases – videos exist of Dr Kary Mullis, the inventor of PCR test speaking about this publicly). The researcher found all they had was Influenza type A and B. They sent the Covid samples to a few other Californian universities for confirmation and they all obtained the same results proving Covid didn’t exist. The researcher was silenced after this.

My friend has been researching viruses for many years and has old books supporting the fact that ‘viruses’ (plural) don’t exist. I also agree from the research I have done.

Virus
– latin meaning is ‘poisonous fluid’

– inside host cell which is excreted from the body
– singular for viral infection
– a virus is a ‘singular dead cell’
– the virus is dead because the host cell has been killed by the exosomes; what is left is the poisonous or toxic fluid which is excreted from the body through the bowel
– cold and flu (Influenza type A) -> viral
– Influenza type B, pleurisy, tuberculosis, pneumonia -> bacterial

[rtw711]

Thanks for your reply. This is very helpful.

[rtw711]

Thanks for your very detailed replies. Much appreciated and very helpful in increasing my understanding of the Promissory Note process. In responding to your paragraphs, I will respond to your paragraphs using the same numbering assuming that the 1st two of your paragraphs in your reply can be numbered as 1).

1) I agree that for an earlier issued Statement of Account and promissory note (PN), the wording could say “to an earlier issued Statement of Account and promissory note and the requirement for same…”.

I will have to update my modules as my Money Order A4V module doesn’t contain a Certificate of Protest (C of P).

I will try and clarify the certification (and dishonour) issue with Mark in tomorrow’s Q&A but I already have a few questions for him so he may not answer this.

2) I was thinking that the dishonour occurred because the Payee didn’t show up given that it states on the 2^nd line of both ANZ and CBA C of P examples i.e. “at the place of dishonour”.

Yes, I agree it is conflicting and confusing and a Q&A session question.

I will have to update my BOE module also as mine doesn’t contain a Certificate of Protest (C of P). This is only included in my Promissory Note module, not the other payment modules. Mark has obviously updated them since I purchased them.

3) If you use the C of P CBA template as is, on the line “WHEREFORE I now, in the presence of three good people from the community, namely”, what is the correct format for the names of the witnesses i.e. “John Henry Doe”, “John Henry Doe” or “John Henry “ with them obviously signing with their usual signature at the bottom of the C of P on the line allocated for this?

4) I just copied what was in the C of P template. However, the ANZ C of P example indicates that the Town needs to be entered before the State on the 1^st line.

Yes, I noticed the typo in the word “Commonwealth” too. Also, in my Affidavit (of payer ) template in the same PN module, in paragraphs 22 &23 there are typos where ‘non exists’ should be ‘none exists’.

Yes, my Notary has a PO Box too which is good. I will have to consider getting one too.

Also, a few issues I overlooked in clarifying, is that in the “WHEREFORE I now, in the presence of” paragraph, about 4 lines from the bottom it has for both ANZ and CBA examples:

ANZ – “in being the legitimate; acceptor, bearer, drawer, maker, holder and / or indorser [CD] of the aforesaid instrument, which may be converted into a bill”

CBA – “in being the legitimate; acceptor, bearer, drawee, maker, holder and / or indorser [CD] of the aforesaid instrument, which may be converted into a contract”

Q4.1… Where it says “may be converted into” a “bill/contract”, for the ANZ loan example with a Statement of Account and promissory note having been issued, would it be valid to write or say “converted into a contract or bill” or exclude the word “bill” from this statement?

Q4.2… What do you consider the “aforesaid instrument” to include for the ANZ example? i.e. includes the Statement of Account and the promissory note or does it also include the Contract?

Q4.3… I note that you would have to remove the words “drawer” and drawee” if using a PN. My understanding is you would only include these terms if issuing a Bill of Exchange. Is my understanding correct?

[rtw711]

Thanks for your reply.

Good luck with your council rates matter which is on my to do list. I think when I tackle this, if they went ahead and filed an application in the Court, I would be trying to get a meeting with them asap and ask them setup questions. Hopefully, this would get the parasites committing treason to back off.

[rtw711]

Yes, I was aware of that as Mark has spoken about that in the module video and at other times in the Q&A sessions. However, thanks for pointing that out.

[rtw711]

Also, I sort of understand what it means to indorse something. However, could you please explain in layman terms your understanding of “Accepted As Indorsed” which you stamp (or write) in red on each page of D & LC & N and the contract.

[rtw711]

I agree with everything you have said and very much appreciate your assistance with helping me understand the process. I have purchased a number of modules previously, including all the different methods of payment modules, and looking at the BOE module documents has helped increase my understanding of the promissory note process. I have watched and rewatched relevant parts of the videos which has been helpful. Unfortunately, many of my questions have been quite specific in nature and not answered in Mark’s videos which as you noted, not everything is covered in them due to time constraints.

[rtw711]

Here is the paragraph from ANZ C of P example. I had to remove all bold text due to formatting issues here. The phrase “supra protest” appears about 6 lines from the bottom:

NO FURTHER ANSWER nor COLLECTION OF PAYMENT REQUESTED was received, by the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (ANZ) [EF1], (or any other of their warranted agent/s, assign/s, officer/s, nominee/s, representative/s, employee/s or successor/s) (“<i style=””>Payee”) [EF]) when demanded other than RECEIPT, ACQUIESCENCE AND ACCEPTANCE AS TO EVIDENCE OF PAYMENT TENDERED BEING SUFFICIENT who by their own notification on earlier delivered (inchoate) accounting instruments intended to be executed in technical form were personating as : finance officers and agents [EF], who in/directly through their oath of office are statutorily bound under every public and municipal law including: the notice to principal is notice to agent and notice to agent is notice to principal, which as the makers, drawer’s and or signers of ANZ’s [EF] earlier presented (inchoate) statement of a transaction giving rise to payment being sought / executed in technical form, and Payee of the issued bill of exchange, being in a timely manner; accepted, answered completed and returned as indorsed by John Henry Doe [CD] as the acceptor (by supra protest), indorser and or holder in due course. Aforementioned officers holding respected public office being without; lawful excuse, due process inability and / or ignorance of The Law to not know what is required to properly hold, dispense and fairly administer their proper official lawful duties or answer the earlier accepted by notice and delivery instrument/s, and in good faith not permit any other inequitable, illegal and / or unlawful act to occur when such a duty exists, and any actions contrary to what they are bound, would otherwise be tantamount to fraud.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 8 months ago by  rtw711.
• This reply was modified 1 year, 8 months ago by  rtw711.
• This reply was modified 1 year, 8 months ago by  rtw711.

[rtw711]

Thanks. Your response confirms my understanding.

[rtw711]

Yes, agree. Thanks for the clarification.

[rtw711]

Also further to the differences between the ANZ loan example and the CBA C of P template document, are you able to explain the following statement (in bold) which is included in the ANZ C of P example (not in CBA template) which appears in the 1st paragraph of the C of P:

“affirm and protest certain events relating to an earlier issued promissory note and
the requirement for same to either be accepted, paid and / or honoured by certain
parties as expressed in the underwritten, issued promissory note and earlier certification confirming payment was discharged, to which I did witness
that:”?

Also, in the above statement, is the text “<b style=”font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; color: var(–bb-body-text-color);”>earlier certification confirming payment was discharged” implying that the bank has already accepted the promissory note as payment and discharged the liability for the amount owing? Is my interpretation correct?

[rtw711]

Yes, I agree. However, my understanding is that in some instances the parentheses can just be deleted e.g. successor/s“) (“Payee”) [EF], default of any Dishonourable Party/ies [EF]. In these examples, I assume you would just delete the parentheses as nothing needs to be entered here. Would you agree?

• This reply was modified 1 year, 8 months ago by  rtw711.

[rtw711]

Are you saying in this instance when the payee didn’t show up at meeting it is still applicable and should be include in the C of P?

• This reply was modified 1 year, 8 months ago by  rtw711.

[rtw711]

No, I didn’t include it originally. However, it appears in the ANZ Certificate of Protest example in the promissory note module before the sentence “Aforementioned officers…” in the top section of the certificate as follows:

“…answered completed and returned as indorsed by John Henry Doe [CD] as the acceptor (by supra protest), indorser and or holder in due course.”

• This reply was modified 1 year, 8 months ago by  rtw711.
• This reply was modified 1 year, 8 months ago by  rtw711.

[rtw711]

Acceptance supra protest is defined as an acceptance that is made after the protest has been made. It is a type of acceptance that is made by the drawer or the endorser of a bill of exchange or promissory note. This type of acceptance is made when the drawee refuses to accept the bill or note, and the holder of the bill or note decides to protest it.

My understanding was that the terms drawer and drawee applies to Bills of Exchange, not Promissory Notes. However, the above suggests they do apply. Is this correct?

[rtw711]

Thanks for your reply. that is very helpful. You have made some valid points.

Yes, they did accept it by holding on to it for more than 72 hours so the statement “noting the same was not dishonoured by the absent Payee” may be correct. As to whether this is referring to the PN or the fact they didn’t turn up at the meeting, I note that on the 2nd line it refers to the “place of dishonour”, so this seems to indicate that they were in dishonour for not showing up for the meeting to present the PNs for payment?

Also, my understanding is that the wording “supra protest” (a few lines above the Wherefore paragraph) would be removed from the statement “as indorsed by John Henry Doe as the acceptor (by supra protest), indorser and or holder in due course.” Your thoughts?

Also, where you have parentheses e.g. [EF] after the bank’s name e.g. ANZ or their agent/s [EF], commercial default of any Dishonourable Party/ies etc, I assume you just delete these. You don’t need to add the names of the Accounts Manager or Chief Financial Officer (whose names appear in the Notice of Payment) to the C of P. Is this correct?

[rtw711]

Actually, I was mistaken. The defaulting party/ies seems to have to pay 4x the amount stated on the promissory note, not 4x the amount of the debt.

[rtw711]

If you have time before this Wednesday’s Q&A, could you please respond to my Certificate of Protest post. It again concerns differences between the ANZ and CBA Certificate of Protest examples. It’s titled “Promissory Notes – Clarification of Certificate of Protest-Default-Dishonour”. Thanks. Your help is much appreciated.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 8 months ago by  rtw711.

[rtw711]

Should the back of all pages of contract (i.e. back of Statement of Account, back of Redraft conditions etc) be marked with “Z INTENTIONALLY BLANK”? Note in the ANZ example, only the back of the 2nd page of the D &LC & N was marked with “Z INTENTIONALLY BLANK”.

[rtw711]

Thanks for reply, that is very helpful.

I also noticed “John Doe” was written at bottom of page next to the numbering e.g. [Page 1 of 5] John Doe.

On the last page of contract with the 5c stamp, in the 2 places where you need to sign, is this just your usual signature e.g. J.Doe or John Doe (in cursive writing) just as shown in the ANZ example (e.g. on page 2 of contract underneath $790,000)?

[rtw711]

Thanks for your response, that is very helpful.

Also, my understanding is the defaulting party/ies has to pay 4x the amount of the loan if the promissory note was issued to pay off a loan for example but not pay 4x the amount stated on the promissory note. Is this correct?

Yes, I will ask Mark about when to add clauses 13 & 14 of ANZ contract example to the redraft notice and hope he will answer. I have asked him many questions about the promissory note process recently in the Q&A sessions and he has not answered all of my questions as he feels I am taking up too much time. I will have to try and shorten my questions where possible. I will post here if I find out.

[rtw711]

Yes, I was going to ask Mark in the next Q&A if no one had replied to clarify this. My understanding is that you apply the laws of the State/Country where the event occurs, in this case for the ANZ contract example, it would be the laws of NSW. In the CBA example, the laws of Queensland.

Also, are you able to explain the omission of paragraphs (or clauses) 13 & 14 included in the ANZ Redraft example from the PN Redraft template document (CBA example)?

[rtw711]

Thanks for your reply, that is very helpful. I had forgotten about if something is not expressed, then it is included (not excluded).

Yes, I agree with everything you have said and after watching the PN module video again, using an ally, friend, family member, or neighbour is okay. Yes, I have friends who are on the same page and wide awake to the elite/globalists agenda.

[rtw711]

I think you would just write “EIN 123 456 789”. No need to include “No.” as it is a number, your TFN.

[rtw711]

Yes, you are correct. It is a 5c stamp. I should have enlarged the pdf to check the stamp value. For the EIN which is your Tax file Number (TFN), I am not sure if we should include the word “EIN” or just write the TFN number on the stamp? There is probably an example somewhere. Your thoughts?

[rtw711]

I haven’t done the two day workshop. However, for the ANZ example, in the instructions does it tell you what to write on the Statement of Account as shown in the ANZ example?

Also, on the back page of the ANZ contract, what is the amount of the stamp? I’ve seen Mark mention this in another video but have forgotten?

[rtw711]

That’s the impression I had formed too from Mark’s module video but when I read Section 100 of BOE Act that seemed to exclude asking a family member to be a notary in the situation where they don’t live with the payer because it states “any householder or substantial resident of the place where the bill is dishonoured may, in the presence of two witnesses, give a certificate.”

My interpretation of this was if the payer doesn’t have a family member from their household (e.g. if they live on their own), then the only other option would be for them to ask someone at the coffee shop (e.g. business owner or employer 18+ years old) to act as a notary. From the wording, Section 100 seems to exclude friends, relatives, or even family members if they are not part of the household (i.e. living with the payer). But maybe the most important thing is that the notary must know the payer. If they do, then it fulfils the requirements of a notary where one is not available.

[rtw711]

Just to clarify what it says on the last page for reply to question 1) in the A4V-process.pdf. The member responding is saying that it doesn’t matter how many digits there are for the Trust Certificate Number and says that their TCN is less than 9 digits.
Given this, for the Promissory Note (PN) registration number (9 digits YYYY+5 digit Birth Certificate Registration No.), if I use my 8 digit Birth Certificate registration number and the 4 digit Year of Birth, I end up with a 12 digit PN registration number (YYYY+8 digit BC no.), or a 10 digit PN registration number (YY+8 digit BC no.), or if using my Passport number, a 9 digit PN registration number (YY+last 7 digits of Passport no.). Given given what that member’s reply was in that A4V-process document, I assume the 10 or 12 digit PN registration number is okay to use.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 9 months ago by  rtw711.

[rtw711]

Thanks MJ. Very helpful.

[rtw711]

My understanding is that the CQV trust is created when a birth is registered, that we are the beneficiary of that trust and the bonds are traded. I’m not sure what happens when we die. However, you may be correct in them balancing the books after your passing.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 9 months ago by  rtw711.
• This reply was modified 1 year, 9 months ago by  rtw711.

[rtw711]

So what is written on the front of that utility bill you would write on the back, or would you write something different? Is this explained in one of the modules? If yes, which one?

Yes, True. If they accept the BC to create accounts, then we should be able to also.

[rtw711]

I have not used that process shown in the photo yet. However, it is another method I have come across called the Express Trust Contract (ETC) method, that people are using to successfully pay utility bills for any government corporation. However, with all of these methods of discharging liabilities, you have to hold your position with honour (i.e. without arguing) because the corporates don’t like people using them because they don’t get paid twice; only get paid once from your CQV trust and not from your bank account. If you use this method, the corporates in most cases (especially the Councils) are not acknowledging payment and zeroing the individual’s account. However, I am aware of someone who is successfully using it to pay their Optus phone bill where Optus is doing the right thing and zeroing the account which is appearing on their monthly statement.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 9 months ago by  rtw711.

[rtw711]

1. The attached photo is an example for a utility bill. However, is this wording written on the utility bill suitable to be written on your Birth Certificate? If not, what would you write on Birth Certificate? Would you also write at the top (e.g. to the side of the legal name) “Amount due: $50, 000” (if this was the amount owing on a loan say) and point an arrow from the written Endorsement to the amount due as shown in the attached photo?

2. Where you said “you will have to sign for it”, I assume you meant you sign your name on the Birth Certificate using “By: ” and “All rights reserved”?

3. What is a cheque receipt? Just like a normal receipt? Do you have an example?

4. If they are not willing to take the Birth Certificate and turn it into a Promissory Note for you, then have they refused payment?

[rtw711]

Yes, it does.

[rtw711]

You wrote “My suggestion would be to satisfy your obligation to ‘pay’ by giving them another PN.”

In the event they show up on the day of scheduled meeting for presentment of the P.N. and to collect payment from you, what excuse would you use for wanting to give them another P.N. when they present your P.N. for payment? They may think that you don’t have the funds to pay them. I know that in the P.N. module instructions it states the following:

“If anyone attends, it is EITHER to return your
P.N.s (that discharges the liability against the maker and the company) or to
present the P.N.s for payment. You are permitted up to 3 days to deliver to the
Payee another P.N. for each of the presented P.N.s as payment.”

Given this, what is the purpose of issuing another P.N.? If they agree to this, then you send them a 2nd P.N. within 72 hours and they present the 2nd P.N. at the 2nd scheduled meeting with them showing up again. If you don’t pay them in cash on the spot or via a cheque or band transfer (EFT), then they will think you are not going to pay at all. If they refuse the 2nd P.N., then you win because they have refused a lawful method of payment and you don’t have to give them cash/money from your bank account.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 9 months ago by  rtw711.

[rtw711]

Yes, that’s what I am going to do. Only include “The Trustee” if I have any private trusts, otherwise I will exclude it but still include derivatives of strawman name e.g. JOHN HENRY DOE, JOHN DOE, JOHN H DOE, J H DOE, John Henry Doe, John Doe, John H Doe & J H Doe.

[rtw711]

In this notice, is “The Trustee” only referring to any private trusts of the payer i.e. e.g. property trusts? My understanding is it is. Is this correct? So, you don’t need to include “The Trustee” if no private trusts are involved, or are they also able to act as Trustee of the Strawman named trusts of payer in this situation?

[rtw711]

No, obviously they wouldn’t want you asking for the gold they owe us if they showed up to present the promissory note(s). However, to clarify my understanding about doing this, are you saying that where you have a loan (from a bank or private lending instituion) and have previously made loan repayments on that loan (e.g. personal/home loan) and you send the Lender/Manager of the loan a Promissory Note to clear the liability of the loan, you could ask them in the hypothetical situation of them showing up and presenting the PN for payment, to pay to you the gold for the previous repayments made on the loan (debt) because they (payee) know the debt cannot ever be paid because there is no gold/silver in circulation, only notes (promissory) and so no money was actually loaned at all? Is my understanding correct and this is the reason behind asking them for the gold if they showed up?

[rtw711]

What is the purpose of sending the payee another promissory note (PN) in the hypothetical situation of them showing up and presenting the PN(s) for payment? As I posted above, Mark puts this in his instructions “You are permitted up to 3 days to deliver to the Payee another PN for each of the presented PNs as payment”. However, what is the reasoning behind this and telling the payee you will tender payment again in the next 72 hours and send another PN?

However, this is pushing the limits of Australia Post Express Post delivery service as this service could possibly take upto 96 hours (4 days). The payee would be nice and peaved off if they travelled from another state as in my situation where my loan lender is in another state to my residence and be told you will send them another PN within 3 days. I know this won’t happen as they won’t show up. Just trying to understand the process.

[rtw711]

Yes, I was going to ask them in that Q & A webinar if noone had answered them. Thanks.

[rtw711]

1. If using a Passport number on a PN, where it is in the format “PA1234567”
For PN Registration number (9-digit number), would the following format “YY1234567” be correct where YY is the last 2 digits of your Year of Birth, and the 7 digits is the last 7 digits of Passport number?
2. If using a Tax File Number (TFN)(9 digits e.g. 123 456 789), would you use the full 9-digit TFN and not use the last 2 digits of Year of Birth?

[rtw711]

Actually, I have previously thought of including the question you included above i.e. “Where is your evidence that the sars cov-2 virus has been isolated and proven to exist?” in a Demand/Default/Final Notice. However, I think it is too risky putting it in because if I had to take the matter to Court to get a judgement order made against my adversary because the matter was not able to be settled beforehand, the judge may be reluctant to make such an order where that question appears in the affidavit or anything else related to the existence of the coronavirus strains. That question is a good setup question to ask in a meeting with an adversary, but a bit risky putting it in a Demand/Default/Final Notice.

[rtw711]

Thanks MJ, that is very helpful.