What is a Negotiable Instrument?

The Oath of Office is a Negotiable Security Instrument. When the Bill of Rights was created, it cited a list of Requirements to be employed in the Government. Public Servants are Bound by Oath or Affirmation to Support and Defend the Supreme Laws of the Land which are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness and the first 10 Amendments of the Bill of Rights.

Today’s Public Servants have no clue regarding the Law OR the Oath of Office. First you have to understand a Contract is an Agreement between 2 or more Party’s. both Parties have to be an Equal Party to the Contract or it is Null and Void.

With the Terms and Conditions set forth to be upheld, the means to Uphold the Oath was Determined next. It’s what is known as a Bill of Exchange. Redeemable upon Presentation as Accepted for Value at a Bank by Endorsing the backside of the Oath and writing a “Bill” Due and Payable upon Presentation. In the past a Public Servant was required by Law to carry their Oath and Bond upon their Person as the means to enforce their Honor and Integrity in the Performance of their Duties. (Performance of their end of the Employment Contract in which YOU are the Employer and THEY are the Employee.) [Not termed *Sovereign.] The proper Term is “DeJure Status”.)

Brackets [ ] in a Contract mean they do not apply to the Contract they are for informational reference only.

[The Oath of office is a quid pro quo contract cf [U.S. Const. Art. 6, Clauses 2 and 3, Davis Vs. Lawyers Surety Corporation., 459 S.W. 2nd. 655, 657., Tex. Civ. App.] in which clerks, officials, or officers of the government pledge to perform (Support and uphold the United States and state Constitutions) in return for substance (wages, perks, benefits). Proponents are subjected to the penalties and remedies for Breach of Contract, Conspiracy cf [Title 18 U.S.C., Sections 241, 242]. Treason under the Constitution at Article 3, Section 3., and Intrinsic Fraud cf [Auerbach v Samuels, 10 Utah 2nd. 152, 349 P. 2nd. 1112,1114. Alleghany Corp v Kirby., D.C.N.Y. 218 F. Supp. 164, 183., and Keeton Packing Co. v State., 437 S.W. 20, 28]. Refusing to live by their oath places them in direct violation of their oath, in every case. Violating their oath is not just cause for immediate dismissal and removal from office, it is a federal crime. Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an executive order which further defines the law for purposes of enforcement. 5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office. 5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law, 5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress) to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”]

By completing a Commercial Affidavit of Fact and it remaining Unrebutted for more than 30 days, it stands as Factual Evidence for Trial by Jury. By attaching a Negotiable Security Instrument combined with your Fee Schedule to this Affidavit, establishes your Claim in Equity. (Equitable Claim upon which Relief can be granted.)

Using the U.S. Mail for Service of Process is the best way to maintain your Due Process Chain of Evidence. By Mailing your Documents Certified, Return Receipt Requested, the other Party must sign and date a Signature Card which is mailed back to you for your Records. The “Clock” on any given package begins when the Date of Delivery is signed for or posted visibly on the U.S. Post Office Online Tracking URL. (tools.usps.com/go/TrackConfirmAction!input.action)

Fraud negates ANY Contract rendering it Null and Void of Force or Authority.

[Fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents and even judgments;" [U.S. vs. Throckmorton, 9B us 61, atpg.6sl."It is not necessary for rescission of a contract that the party making the misrepresentation should have known that it was false, but recovery is allowed even though misrepresentation is innocently made, because it would be unjust to allow one who made false representations, even innocently, to retain the fruits of a bargain induced by such representations." [Whipp v. Iverson. 43 Wis Zd L66]. "Any false representation of material facts made with knowledge of falsity and with intent that it shall be acted on by another in entering into contract, and which is so acted upon, constitutes 'fraud,' and entitles party deceived to avoid contract or recover damages." Barnsdall Refining Corn. v. Birnam Wood Oil Co. 92 F 26 BL7]

Fraud upon the court
In the United States, when an officer of the court is found to have fraudulently presented facts to court so that the court is impaired in the impartial performance of its legal task, the act, known as "fraud upon the court", is a crime deemed so severe and fundamentally opposed to the operation of justice it is not subject to any statute of limitation.
Officers of the court include: lawyers, judges, referees and those appointed; guardian ad litem, parenting time expeditors, mediators, rule 114 neutrals, evaluators, administrators, special appointees and any others whose influence are part of the judicial mechanism.
"Fraud upon the court" has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to "embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication".[10]
In Bulloch v. United States,[11] the court stated "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury.... It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function—thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted."
Heinous crimes in the United States.]

In the modern day today you Mail the other Party your Contract/Invoice with a proper Claim by Affidavit which has been Lawfully Served. These are the Basics on Negotiable Instruments and their uses.

UCC 1-201. General definitions

44. “Value”. Except as otherwise provided with respect to negotiable

instruments and bank collections (sections 3-303, 4-210 and 4-211) a person

gives “value” for rights if he acquires them:

(b) As security for or in total or partial satisfaction of a preexisting claim;

Usually a person gives value when he is exchanging them for rights he is

acquiring as security for that one transaction. Those rights might be in the title to real

property, or capacity to sue, or for performance. According to subsection (b), a

person (United States) can give value (benefits) for rights (pledge) he (United States)

is acquiring from a U.S. citizen, as security for satisfaction of a claim that already

exists (national debt). The rights the United States gets from the U.S. citizen secure

payment or performance on that preexisting claim the international bankers have

against the United States and its sureties. The person giving the value (United States)

has supposedly already received a promise of some sort from the U.S. citizen