Unrebutted Affidavits, Commercial Maxims and Discharge Bonds

Where the unrebutted affidavit idea comes from

This page is for education, information and intellectual discussion. It explains what each authority says and what each court decided. It does not tell anyone to use these arguments, and it is not legal advice.

Winsett v. Donaldson, 69 Mich. App. 36, 244 N.W.2d 355 (1976)

Statements of fact contained in affidavits which are not rebutted by the opposing party’s affidavit or pleadings may be accepted as true by the trial court.

Winsett v. Donaldson, 244 N.W.2d 355 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976)

What the case was about: A man sued under Michigan’s Paternity Act to establish that he was a child’s father. The court dismissed the case because the mother was married to someone else at the time, and the appeals court affirmed.

How it applies: The rule is real and is quoted accurately. It applies to affidavits filed in a pending lawsuit on a motion, and it says the court “may” accept them. Courts use the same idea in summary judgment.

The “commerce” maxims

The maxims usually listed — “in commerce truth is sovereign,” “truth is expressed in the form of an affidavit,” “an unrebutted affidavit stands as truth in commerce,” “an unrebutted affidavit becomes the judgment in commerce” — are drawn from scripture and older legal maxims. They are not statutes or court rules.

Courts that have been asked to treat these maxims as law have declined. In Bryant v. Washington Mutual Bank, 524 F. Supp. 2d 753 (W.D. Va. 2007), the court said: “Plaintiff offers no authority for the proposition that any of them have the force of binding law.” In Adkins v. Kentucky (W.D. Ky. 2018), the court dismissed a filing based on an affidavit served on a judge and officials. In In re Walters (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2015), notes saying “Failure to deny and return constitutes acceptance” did not discharge any debt.

• Bryant v. Washington Mutual Bank (W.D. Va. 2007)
• Adkins v. Kentucky (W.D. Ky. 2018)
• In re Walters (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2015)

Discharge and indemnity bonds

Some affidavits name a Treasury official as “holder” of a large private “discharge and indemnity bond” and claim that it satisfies every debt and tax of the signer. The Treasury’s Bureau of the Fiscal Service warns that “Drawing such drafts on the U.S. Treasury is fraudulent and a violation of federal law,” and that the so-called exemption accounts “are fictitious and do not exist in the Treasury system.”

In Price v. Lakeview Loan Servicing (11th Cir. 2022, unpublished), the court said the theory behind a self-issued “credit agreement” “is nonsensical and fundamentally misunderstands how negotiable instruments work.” See also “accepted for value” and bills of exchange and birth-certificate bonds.

• TreasuryDirect: Bogus Sight Drafts
• TreasuryDirect: Birth Certificate Bonds
• Price v. Lakeview Loan Servicing (11th Cir. 2022)

The criminal statutes cited in these affidavits

• 18 U.S.C. § 242 makes it a federal crime to willfully deprive a person of constitutional rights under color of law. The current penalty is a fine under Title 18 or up to one year, rising to ten years with bodily injury and up to life when death results. Affidavits quote an older “$1,000” fine that Congress replaced in 1994. The statute is enforced by federal prosecutors; it does not let private persons sue.
• 18 U.S.C. § 112 protects foreign officials, official guests and internationally protected persons. The terms take their meanings from § 1116(b), and a U.S. national is not a foreign official under that definition.
• 15 U.S.C. § 2 (Sherman Act) is quoted accurately. It prohibits monopolizing interstate or foreign trade.
• 18 U.S.C. § 1025 covers fraud “upon any waters or vessel within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States.” It is not a general fraud statute. Affidavits leave out its lower penalty for amounts of $1,000 or less.
• 18 U.S.C. § 1521 makes it a felony, punishable by up to ten years, to file a false lien against a federal officer or employee because of the officer’s official duties.

Signing “without the United States”

If executed without the United States: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.”

28 U.S.C. § 1746(1)

Section 1746 lets an unsworn declaration under penalty of perjury replace a sworn affidavit in federal matters. Form (1) is for declarations signed outside the United States. Form (2) is for those signed within the United States, its territories, possessions or commonwealths. The choice of form records where the paper was signed; it does not change anyone’s status.

How to check the unrebutted affidavit claim yourself

The best test of unrebutted affidavit is simple: look for a court that accepted it. We have not found one in the reported decisions. Next, read the actual law the claim points to. For example, check the statute, the UCC section or the constitutional text it cites. Then compare that text with what the claim says it means. For a real problem with a debt, a court case or a tax bill, a licensed attorney can explain your actual options. Our directory is a good place to start.

Sources and further reading

Official sources used on this page:

• static.case.law
• static.case.law
• law.cornell.edu
• treasurydirect.gov
• law.cornell.edu

Related reading on Lawtopolis:

• Judicial and Official Immunity: What Bradley, Pierson, Stump and Pulliam Hold
• "Accepted for Value," Bills of Exchange and Debt Discharge
• The "Right to Travel" Affidavit: Every Authority Reviewed