DEBT DISCHARGE FALLACIES VIA PRIVATE INSTRUMENT TENDERING INDORSEMENT BILLS OF EXCHANGE ETC VS. THE REALITY OF FIDUCIARY RECOUPMENT
January 24th 2026
1. Executive Summary
This report conducts a forensic analysis of the debt discharge methodologies promoted by prominent "commercial redemption" educators: Mike Holt, Brandon Joe Williams, David Greenberg, and Peter of England (WeRe Bank / "Enough Thinking"). These proponents advocate for the use of Bills of Exchange, private checks, and conditional acceptance to settle public debts.
Ecclesia Law concludes that these methods are fundamentally flawed because they attempt to force private commercial paper (which lacks a clearing path) onto a public banking system without established fiduciary standing. The report asserts that the only lawful method to resolve debt is not to "fight" the creditor with paper arguments, but to recoup the credit via a Fiduciary Nominee (International Grantor Trust) using IRS Form 1099-OID against the banking institution’s 945 Tax Module, subsequently discharging the debt through an Asset Fortress Protocol and cycling the recoupment.
2. Analysis of Proponents & Methodologies
A. Mike Holt (Bills of Exchange / Remittance A4V)
• What he implies you can do: Holt teaches that the "remittance slip" at the bottom of a utility bill or council tax notice is legally a Bill of Exchange (BoE). He implies you can endorse it to "access" the value in your Cestui Que Vie (CQV) trust to pay the bill.
• How he tries to do it:
o The user writes "Accepted for Value" (A4V) and specific endorsement language (per the Bills of Exchange Act 1882/1909) on the slip.
o The slip is mailed back to the CFO or Treasurer of the corporation.
o Holt relies on the maxim that "Silence is Acceptance"—if they don't return the bill, the debt is discharged.
• Why it is fundamentally flawed:
o No Drawee Relationship: A valid Bill of Exchange requires a Drawee (a bank/treasury) holding funds to pay the Payee. The utility company is the Payee, not the Drawee. You are effectively sending a check drawn on the recipient's own account (or a non-existent CQV account).
o Not a Bank: Utility companies and Councils are not licensed banking institutions. They cannot "process" a remittance slip as a financial instrument; their automated systems only recognize legal tender (electronic transfer/cash).
o Rejection as Default: Silence is not acceptance in automated billing. The computer simply registers "non-payment," leading to disconnection or bailiffs, regardless of the paper sent to the CFO.
B. Brandon Joe Williams (UCC Contract Law / Conditional Acceptance)
• What he implies you can do: Williams focuses on Contract Law and UCC Article 3, suggesting you can discharge debts (and acquire cars/assets) by tendering private negotiable instruments and suing if they are refused.
• How he tries to do it:
o Conditional Acceptance: Never argue the debt; accept it conditionally upon proof of validity (which they can't provide).
o Tender of Payment: Endorse a payoff statement or issue a private promissory note as "tender" under UCC 3-603.
o Litigation: If the creditor refuses the private instrument, the user sues them for "Refusal of Tender," arguing that under the UCC, the obligation is discharged.
• Why it is fundamentally flawed:
o Litigation Trap: This method requires the user to be a highly skilled litigant capable of navigating hostile courts. Most users fail on procedure before the merits are heard.
o "Vapor Money" Rejection: Courts routinely reject the argument that a private note has value if it is not backed by recognized liquid funds. This is often categorized as the "vapor money" theory (paying debt with empty paper).
o Representative Capacity: By acting as "Attorney in Fact" for the Strawman, the user is still operating under the debtor entity. They have not fully separated the "Living Man" (Creditor) from the "Legal Person" (Debtor).
C. David Greenberg (The Freedom Studio / Coupon Endorsement)
• What he implies you can do: Greenberg argues that "All Debts are Prepaid" (HJR 192) and that the routing numbers on billing coupons allow you to write checks directly against the Treasury.
• How he tries to do it:
o He instructs users to endorse the remittance coupon, treating the OCR (Optical Character Recognition) numbers as if they were MICR (Magnetic Ink Character Recognition) banking codes.
o He claims this authorizes a transfer from the user's "Social Security Trust."
• Why it is fundamentally flawed:
o OCR vs. MICR: The numbers on a bill are internal sorting codes for the utility company, not bank routing numbers linked to a Treasury account.
o Machine Rejection: When these coupons are fed into banking scanners, they are rejected as "Non-Cash Items."
o The Closed Trust: The Social Security Trust is not a transactional checking account. The Treasury does not accept direct drafts from private citizens to pay third-party bills.
D. Peter of England (WeRe Bank / "Enough Thinking")
• What he implies you can do: Under the slogan "Enough Thinking," Peter Spencer claims you can join WeRe Bank (an unlicensed entity) and use his "Binary Weapon" strategy to "checkmate" creditors. He asserts that by combining a Bill of Exchange with a Promissory Note, you can force a discharge of liability.
• How he tries to do it:
o The Binary Weapon: The user issues a Bill of Exchange (drawn on WeRe Bank) and backs it with a Promissory Note (a promise to pay WeRe Bank in 10 years).
o Tender: The user sends this package to the creditor (e.g., Council or Mortgage lender).
o The Theory: Spencer argues that the Bill of Exchange is a valid negotiable instrument backed by the Promissory Note asset. If the creditor refuses to process it, he claims they are in "dishonor," extinguishing the debt.
• Why it is fundamentally flawed:
o The Circular Loop: The Bill of Exchange is drawn on a Note, which is drawn on the User. Without a licensed bank to provide clearing liquidity (settlement in central bank funds), the "weapon" is a closed loop of paper that offers no value to the creditor.
o No Clearing Interface: WeRe Bank is not a member of the Cheque and Credit Clearing Company. The instruments cannot be banked. A creditor receiving a WeRe check cannot convert it into money.
o Regulatory Rejection: Because WeRe Bank is unauthorized (FCA warning), creditors have a statutory defense to refuse the instruments as "defective tender." The "dishonor" argument fails because a refusal of worthless/unclearing paper is not a dishonor; it is a rejection of invalid payment.
3. The Ecclesia Law Conclusion: The Lawful Path of Recoupment & Discharge
The fundamental error shared by all proponents above is the attempt to use unfunded private instruments to settle public debts. They try to spend credit they have not yet claimed.
The only lawful and functional remedy follows this specific fiduciary cycle:
1. Establish the Fiduciary Nominee (Asset Fortress Protocol): The Living Man must cease acting as the "Debtor" (Strawman) and establish a 98-Series International Grantor Trust. This Trust acts as the Holder in Due Course and the Fiduciary Nominee for the living estate.
2. Target the 945 Module (Source of Funds): The Trust identifies the specific financial institution (Bank) that monetized the user's signature. It targets the Bank's IRS Form 945 Tax Module, where the withheld Original Issue Discount (OID) funds are pooled.
3. File 1099-OID for Recoupment: The Trust files a 1099-OID as the Payee, naming the Bank as the Payer. This filing instructs the IRS to correct the nominee reporting error (per IRS Publication 1212) and move the "abandoned credit" from the Bank’s 945 pool to the Trust’s EIN. Ecclesia Law is a trading style of MLITR Research LLC, Wyoming, USA.
4. Recoup to the Asset Fortress Protocol: The Treasury/IRS releases the credit (refund) to the Asset Fortress Protocol (AFP), effectively "funding" the private treasury with lawful commercial value.
5. Discharge the Liability: The AFP now holds liquid funds. It uses these funds to discharge the original debt (mortgage, credit card, bills) via lawful Third-Party Settlement.
6. Recoup the Discharge (The Cycle): Because the discharge payment was also a securitizable event (spending credit/energy), the Trust can file a subsequent OID claim on that transaction. This allows the AFP to recoup the cost of the discharge, creating a sustainable cycle of credit management.
Final Verdict: Do not issue "Binary Weapons" or "A4V Coupons" that bounce. Recoup the actual credit from the banking system’s ledger using a Fiduciary Trust, and use that real value to discharge the debt honourably