Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Implementing Regulations of 316.130 have been Omitted @ 316.130 below

Oregon Statutes – Chapter 316 – Personal Income Tax – Section 316.130 –Determination of taxable income of full-year nonresident.

(1) The taxable income for a full-year nonresident individual is adjusted gross income attributable to sources within this state determined under ORS 316.127, with the modifications (except those provided under subsection (2) of this section) as otherwise provided under this chapter and other laws of this state applicable to personal income taxation, less the deductions allowed under subsection (2) of this section.

(2)(a) A full-year nonresident individual shall be allowed the deduction for a standard deduction or itemized deductions allowable to a resident under ORS 316.695 (1) in the proportion provided in ORS 316.117.

(b) A full-year nonresident individual shall be allowed to deduct the amount of any accrued federal income taxes and foreign country income taxes as provided in ORS 316.690 in the proportion provided in ORS 316.117.

(c)(A) A full-year nonresident individual shall be allowed to deduct the amount of any alimony or separate maintenance payments paid during such individual’s taxable year in the proportion provided in ORS 316.117 except that in determining the proportion the taxpayer’s adjusted gross income shall not include a deduction for alimony. For purposes of this paragraph, “alimony or separate maintenance payment” has the meaning given the phrase in section 215 of the Internal Revenue Code.

(B) No deduction shall be allowed under this paragraph if the alimony or separate maintenance payment is not includible in the gross income of the nonresident individual for federal income tax purposes under section 682 of the Internal Revenue Code.

(3)(a) A full-year nonresident who is a self-employed individual shall be allowed to deduct that individual’s contributions to a qualified plan, deductible on that individual’s federal income tax return pursuant to section 401 of the Internal Revenue Code, in the proportion that the individual’s earned income from Oregon sources bears to the individual’s earned income from all sources. “Earned income” has the meaning given in section 401(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code. If the numerator of the fraction described in this paragraph is greater than the denominator, the proration of 100 percent shall be used.

(b) A full-year nonresident shall be allowed to deduct that individual’s qualified retirement contributions, deductible on that individual’s federal income tax return pursuant to section 219 of the Internal Revenue Code, in the proportion that the individual’s compensation from Oregon sources bears to the individual’s compensation from all sources. “Compensation” has the meaning given in section 219(f)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code.

(c) A full-year nonresident individual shall be allowed to deduct the aggregate amounts paid in cash to a medical savings account, deductible on the individual’s federal income tax return pursuant to section 220 of the Internal Revenue Code, in the proportion that the individual’s compensation from Oregon sources bears to the individual’s compensation from all sources. Distributions from a medical savings account, if excluded from income for federal income tax purposes, shall be excluded for Oregon income tax purposes. Distributions from a medical savings account, if included in income for federal tax purposes, shall be included in income for Oregon tax purposes to the extent that an exclusion has been allowed for contributions to the medical savings account for Oregon tax purposes in a previous year. [1985 c.141 §4; 1987 c.293 §18; 1987 c.647 §12; 1989 c.626 §7; 1997 c.839 §11a; 1999 c.580 §8] Implementing Regulations Omitted!
If no substantive rebuttal is forthcoming, the answer is:YES!

Is it not true ?

The Implementing Regulations of 316.207 have been Omitted @ 316.207  Oregon Statutes – Chapter 316 – Personal Income Tax – Section 316.207 – Liability for tax; warrant for collection; conference; appeal.

(1) Every employer who deducts and retains any amount under ORS 316.162 to 316.221 shall hold the same in trust for the State of Oregon and for the payment thereof to the Department of Revenue in the manner and at the time provided in ORS 316.162 to 316.221.
(2) At any time the employer fails to remit any amount withheld, the department may enforce collection by the issuance of a distraint warrant for the collection of the delinquent amount and all penalties, interest and collection charges accrued thereon. Such warrant shall be issued, recorded and proceeded upon in the same manner and shall have the same force and effect as is prescribed with respect to warrants for the collection of delinquent income taxes.
(3)(a) In the case of an employer that is assessed pursuant to the provisions of ORS 305.265 (12) and 314.407 (1), the department may issue a notice of liability to any officer, employee or member described in ORS 316.162 (3)(b) of such employer within three years from the time of assessment. Within 30 days from the date the notice of liability is mailed to the officer, employee or member, such officer, employee or member shall pay the assessment, plus penalties and interest, or advise the department in writing of objections to the liability and, if desired, request a conference. Any conference shall be governed by the provisions of ORS 305.265 pertaining to a conference requested from a notice of deficiency.
(b) After a conference or, if no conference is requested, a determination of the issues considering the written objections, the department shall mail the officer, employee or member a conference letter affirming, canceling or adjusting the notice of liability. Within 90 days from the date the conference letter is mailed to the officer, employee or member, such officer, employee or member shall pay the assessment, plus penalties and interest, or appeal to the tax court in the manner provided for an appeal from a notice of assessment.
(c) If neither payment nor written objection to the notice of liability is received by the department within 30 days after the notice of liability has been mailed, the notice of liability becomes final. In such event, the officer, employee or member may appeal the notice of liability to the tax court within 90 days after it became final in the manner provided for an appeal from a notice of assessment.
(4)(a) In the case of a failure to file a withholding tax report on the due date, governed by the provisions of ORS 305.265 (10) and 314.400, the department, in addition to the provisions of ORS 305.265 (10) and 314.400, may send notices of determination and assessment to any officer, employee or member described in ORS 316.162 (3)(b) any time within three years after the assessment of an employer described in ORS 316.162 (3)(a). The time of assessment against such officer, employee or member shall be 30 days after the date the notice of determination and assessment is mailed. Within 30 days from the date the notice of determination and assessment is mailed to the officer, employee or member, such officer, employee or member shall pay the assessment, plus penalties and interest, or advise the department in writing of objections to the assessment, and if desired, request a conference. Any conference shall be governed by the provisions of ORS 305.265 pertaining to a conference requested from a notice of deficiency.
(b) After a conference or, if no conference is requested, a determination of the issues considering the written objections, the department shall mail the officer, employee or member a conference letter affirming, canceling or adjusting the notice of determination and assessment. Within 90 days from the date the conference letter is mailed to the officer, employee or member, such officer, employee or member shall pay the assessment, plus penalties and interest, or appeal in the manner provided for an appeal from a notice of assessment.
(c) If neither payment nor written objection to the notice of determination and assessment is received by the department within 30 days after the notice of determination and assessment has been mailed, the notice of determination and assessment becomes final. In such event, the officer, employee or member may appeal the notice of determination and assessment to the tax court within 90 days after it became final in the manner provided for an appeal from a notice of assessment.
(5)(a) More than one officer or employee of a corporation may be held jointly and severally liable for payment of withheld taxes.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 314.835, 314.840 or 314.991, if more than one officer or employee of a corporation may be held jointly and severally liable for payment of withheld taxes, the department may require any or all of the officers, members or employees who may be held liable to appear before the department for a joint determination of liability. The department shall notify each officer, member or employee of the time and place set for the determination of liability.
(c) Each person notified of a joint determination under this subsection shall appear and present such information as is necessary to establish that person’s liability or nonliability for payment of withheld taxes to the department. If any person notified fails to appear, the department shall make its determination on the basis of all the information and evidence presented. The department’s determination shall be binding on all persons notified and required to appear under this subsection.
(d)(A) If an appeal is taken to the Oregon Tax Court pursuant to ORS 305.404 to 305.560 by any person determined to be liable for unpaid withholding taxes under this subsection, each person required to appear before the department under this subsection shall be impleaded by the plaintiff. The department may implead any officer, employee or member who may be held jointly and severally liable for the payment of withheld taxes. Each person impleaded under this paragraph shall be made a party to the action before the tax court and shall make available to the tax court such information as was presented before the department, as well as such other information as may be presented to the court.
(B) The court may determine that one or more persons impleaded under this paragraph are liable for unpaid withholding taxes without regard to any earlier determination by the department that an impleaded person was not liable for unpaid withholding taxes.
(C) If any person required to appear before the court under this subsection fails or refuses to appear or bring such information in part or in whole, or is outside the jurisdiction of the tax court, the court shall make its determination on the basis of all the evidence introduced. All such evidence shall constitute a public record and shall be available to the parties and the court notwithstanding ORS 314.835, 314.840 or 314.991. The determination of the tax court shall be binding on all persons made parties to the action under this subsection.
(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to preclude a determination by the department or the Oregon Tax Court that more than one officer, employee or member are jointly and severally liable for unpaid withholding taxes. [1969 c.493 §33; 1985 c.406 §4; 1989 c.423 §3; 1993 c.593 §6; 1995 c.650 §38; 1997 c.839 §17; 2001 c.660 §42; 2005 c.688 §4] Implementing Regulations Omitted!
If no substantive rebuttal is forthcoming, the answer is: YES!

Is it not true ?

The Implementing Regulation of 316.267 have been Omitted @ 316.267 Oregon Statutes – Chapter 316 – Personal Income Tax – Section 316.267 –Application of chapter to estates and certain trusts.

The tax imposed by this chapter on individuals applies to the taxable income of estates and trusts, except for trusts taxed as corporations under ORS chapter 317 or 318. [1969 c.493 §39; 1973 c.115 §3] Implementing Regulations Omitted!

If no substantive rebuttal is forthcoming, the answer is: YES!

Is it not true ?

The Implementing Regulations of 316.362 have been Omitted @ 316.362 Oregon Statutes – Chapter 316 – Personal Income Tax Section 316.362 –Persons required to make returns.

 (1) An income tax return with respect to the tax imposed by this chapter shall be made by the following:

 (a) Every resident individual:

 (A) Who is required to file a federal income tax return for the taxable year; or

 (B) Who has gross income greater than the sum of:

 (i) The basic standard deduction allowed under ORS 316.695 (1)(c)(B);

 (ii) Any additional standard deduction allowed to the taxpayer under ORS 316.695 (7); and

 (iii) An amount equal to the income equivalent of one personal exemption credit under ORS 316.085 (3)(b) if unmarried, or equal to the income equivalent of two personal exemption credits under ORS 316.085 (3)(b) if married.

 (b) Every nonresident individual who has federal gross income from sources in this state of more than the basic standard deduction allowed under ORS 316.695 (1)(c)(B).

 (c) Every resident estate or trust that is required to file a federal income tax return.

 (d) Every nonresident estate that has federal gross income of $600 or more for the taxable year from sources within this state.

 (e) Every nonresident trust that for the taxable year has from sources within this state any taxable income, or gross income of $600 or more regardless of the amount of taxable income.

 (2) Nothing contained in this section shall preclude the Department of Revenue from requiring any individual, estate or trust to file a return when, in the judgment of the department, a return should be filed.

 (3) For purposes of this section, the income equivalent of a personal exemption credit under ORS 316.085 (3)(b) shall be determined as follows:

 (a) Divide the personal exemption credit amount by the rate applicable to the lowest income bracket under ORS 316.037.

 (b) If the resulting quotient is less than the maximum amount of income subject to the rate used in paragraph (a) of this subsection, the quotient is the income equivalent.

 (c) If the resulting quotient is more than the maximum amount of income subject to the rate used in paragraph (a) of this subsection:

(A) Multiply the maximum amount of income subject to the rate used in paragraph (a) of this subsection by the rate used in paragraph (a) of this subsection.

(B) Determine the difference between the product calculated under subparagraph (A) of this paragraph and the personal exemption credit amount.

(C) Divide the difference determined in subparagraph (B) of this paragraph by the rate applicable to the income bracket that is the next succeeding the lowest income bracket under ORS 316.037.
(D) Add the quotient determined in subparagraph (C) of this paragraph to the maximum amount of income subject to the rate used in paragraph (a) of this subsection. The sum is the income equivalent. [1969 c.493 §54; 1983 c.740 §90; 2001 c.77 §6; 2001 c.660 §15] Implementing Regulations Omitted . . . the statute cannot be unilaterally enforced!

If no substantive rebuttal is forthcoming, the answer is:YES!

Is it not true ?

 The Implementing Regulations of 316.457 have been Omitted @ 316.457 Oregon Statutes – Chapter 316 – Personal Income Tax – Section 316.457 – Department may require copy of federal return.

 If directed to do so by the Department of Revenue, through regulations or instructions upon the state income tax return form, every taxpayer required by this chapter to file an income tax return with the department shall also file with such return a true copy of the federal tax return filed by the taxpayer pursuant to the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code for the same taxable year. The department may, in its discretion, promulgate regulations or instructions that permit taxpayers to submit specified excerpts from federal returns in lieu of submitting copies of the entire federal return. The federal return or any part thereof required to be filed with the state income tax return is incorporated in and shall be a part of the state income tax return. [1969 c.493 §66; 1977 c.872 §6] Implementing Regulations Omitted . . .

If no substantive rebuttal is forthcoming, the answer is:YES!

Is it not true ?

Whereas: Consent makes the law {Consensus facit legem}; Right cannot die {Droit ne poet pas morier}; The law is so written {Ita lex scripta est}; Politics are to be adapted to the laws, and not the laws to politics {Politiæ legibus non leges politiis adaptandæ; Hob. 154}; The thing speaks for itself {Res ipsa loquitur}; If you depart from the law, you will go astray, and all things will be uncertain to everybody {Si a jure discedas, vagus eris, et erunt omnia omnibus incerta; Coke, Litt. 227}; One absurdity being allowed, an infinity follows {Uno absurdo dato, infinita sequuntur; 1 Coke, 102}; Damage suffered by consent is not a cause of action {Volenti non fit injuria}; and the following concomitants, infra:
If no substantive rebuttal is forthcoming, the answer is: YES!

Is it not true ?

Any agent, employee, commissioner etc. proceeding (in the name of “this state”, STATE OF THE COMMERCIAL FORUM” DEPARTMENT [OF THIS STATE] and as a FOR PROFIT PRIVATE CONTRACTOR / AGENT, presuming to enter into a contractual arrangement with myself in my natural capacity as [Frank] of Clann [England] upon the county land and the Jus Soli must have my voluntary and knowing consent. Whereas, the said “agent” Barbara A. Mitchell, while acting in the nature of a “Law Merchant” i.e. “transferor” “. . . fraud will not be entertained under the law merchant and thereby, the agent cannot contract the statute by use of Fraud in the Inducement: “… as such fraud is intended to and which does cause one to execute an instrument, or make an agreement [presuming knowing joinder with the offer] … The misrepresentation involved does not mislead one as the paper he [may]sign but rather misleads as to the true facts of a situation, and the false impression it causes is a basis of a decision to sign or [caused to permit a statute/law merchant tribunal] to render a judgment”[adverse to his understanding].Source: Steven H. Gifis, ‘Law Dictionary’, 5th Edition, Happauge: Barron’s Educational Series, Inc., 2003, s.v.: ‘Fraud’.

If no substantive rebuttal is forthcoming, the answer is: YES!

Is it not true ?

• “FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT… The hiding or suppression of a material fact or circumstance which the party is legally or morally bound to disclose…”.

• “The test of whether failure to disclose material facts constitutes fraud is the existence of a duty, legal or equitable, arising from the relation of the parties: failure to disclose a material fact with intent to mislead or defraud under such circumstances being equivalent to an actual ‘fraudulent concealment’…”.

• To suspend running of limitations, it means the employment of artifice, planned to prevent inquiry or escape investigation and mislead or hinder acquirement of information disclosing a right of action, and acts relied on must be of an affirmative character and fraudulent…”. Source: Black, Henry Campbell, M.A., ‘Black’s Law Dictionary’, Revised Fourth Edition, St Paul: West Publishing Company, 1968, s.v. ‘Fraudulent Concealment’. 
If no substantive rebuttal is forthcoming, the answer is:YES!

Is it not true ?

GOVERNMENT AGENT ACTING AS THE STATUTE MERCHANT

Whatever the form in which the Government functions, anyone entering into an arrangement with the Government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the Government stays within the bounds of his authority. The scope of this authority may be explicitly defined by Congress or be limited by delegated legislation, properly exercised through the rule-making power. And this is so even though, as here, the agent himself may have been unaware of the limitations upon his authority. See, e.g., Utah Power & Light Co. v. US, 243 U.S. 389. 409, 391; United States v. Stewart, 311 U.S. 60, 70, 108, and see, generally, In Re Floyd Acceptances,  7 Wall. 666);

If no substantive rebuttal is forthcoming, the answer is:YES!

Is it not true ?

NEITHER THE FOR PROFIT GOVERNMENT NOR THE STATUTE MERCHANT/AGENT HAS AS A MATTER OF DEPARTMENTAL RIGHT ACCESS TO SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY

As a member of a corporation, a government never exercises its sovereignty. It acts merely as a corporator, and exercises no other power in the management of the affairs of the corporation, than are expressly given by the incorporating act. Suits brought by or against it are not understood to be brought by or against the United States. The government, by becoming a corporator, lays down its sovereignty, so far as respects the transaction of the corporation, and exercises no power or privilege which is not derived from the charter.); United States of America v. Georgia-Pacific Co., 421 F.2d 92, 101 (9th Cir. 1970) (Government may also be bound by the doctrine of equitable estoppel if acting in proprietary [for profit nature ] rather than sovereign capacity); the “Savings to Suitor Clause” is also available for addressing mercantile and admiralty matters aka “civil process” at the common law.

If no substantive rebuttal is forthcoming, the answer is:YES!

Is it not true ?

THE SECURED NATURAL RIGHT IS ASSURED

Hale v. Hinkel,  201 U.S. 43, 74, 26 S.Ct. 370, 50 L.Ed. 652 (1906) (The individual may stand upon his constitutionally [secured] rights as a Citizen. He is entitled to carry on his own business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing there from, beyond the protection of his life and property.

His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights. On the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its power.);

If no substantive rebuttal is forthcoming, the answer is:YES!

Is it not true ?

GOVERNMENT PROCEEDING AS A PRIVATE PARTY

When Government is reduced to the Standing of a Private Party by their own election to proceed privately in commerce . . . and any presentment or offer of process and thereby commercial transaction becomes a taxable event and the presenter/transferor is required to execute an IRS Form W-9 surrendering his or her Social Security number so that the transaction may be reported to the IRS on Form 1099-OID as a tax liability assignable to the presenter of the instrument. (Particularly when the beneficiary does not permit the use of their exemption for the agent to avoid the tax).

Whereas, once the bill is assessed on the 1040-V, the agency is forced into a tax loss write-off and all of the agencies forward sales contracts / agreements (which includes all bonds & securities) are accelerated into time to maturity where the agency on down becomes null & void.  Does this not include the court itself?  Case in point:  HUD contracts (forward sales) with the property management company MC&B, which then contracts with the law firm (forward sales), which contracts with the Court (forward sales) and both appear to employ coercive policies to achieve their commercial scheme to intentionally extort the available credit.  The court and the agencies are themselves a private business and thereby, the forward sales includes said court and becomes just as much a moot point as all other forward sales since this process comes within the Clearfield doctrine to wit:
 
“As the use of private corporate commercial negotiable paper, debt currency or fiat [Federal Reserve notes] securities [checks] Bonds Vouchers and the like is concerned, said use, removes the sovereignty status of the government and reduces said government to doing business as a private entity, rather than a government in the area of finance and commerce. This circumstance causes the government to move in commerce the same as a corporation or person.  ” … Whereas, Governments descend to the level of a mere private corporation and take on the characteristics of a mere private citizen . . . And thereby; the “entity” cannot compel [unilateral] performance upon nor contract its insolvent statute or rules unless it, like any other corporation or person is the holder-in-due course of some (certifiable) contract or [known] commercial agreement between it and the party upon whom the payment and performance are made and thereby, willing to produce said documents and place the same in evidence before trying to enforce its demands called statutes”.  For purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as entities entirely separate from government.” Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 US. 363-371; Bank of United States v. Planter’s Bank of Georgia, 9 Wheaton (22 US) 904, 6 L. Ed. 24

NOTE: Any form of license is not a contract, but a mere unilateral waiver of a “natural right” to accept to be regulated in commerce and is usually achieved by fraud in the inducement on the part of the state of the forum aka “this state” through its law merchant commissioners masquerading as a judiciary. See the “Judiciary Act of 1789”.

If no substantive rebuttal is forthcoming, the answer is:YES!

Is it not true ?

LEGISLATURES CANNOT INFRINGE NATURAL RIGHT

Robin v. Hardaway, 1 Jefferson 109, 114, 1 Va. Reports Ann. 58, 61 (1772) aff’d. Gregory v. Baugh, 29 Va. 681, 29 Va. Rep. Ann. 466, 2 Leigh 665 (1831) (Now all acts of the legislature apparently contrary to “natural right” and justice, are, in our laws, and must be in the nature of things, considered as void. The laws of nature are the laws of God; whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth. A legislature must not obstruct our obedience to him from whose punishments they cannot protect us. All human constitutions which contradict his laws, we are in conscience bound to disobey. Such have been the adjudications of our courts of justice. And cited 8 Co. 118. a. Bonham’s case. Hob. 87; 7. Co. 14. a. Calvin’s case.);

Dr. Bonham’s Case,8 Coke’s Reports 107, at 118 (1610) ([I]n many cases, the common law will control acts of parliament, and sometimes adjudge them to be utterly void: for when an act of parliament is against common right and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the common law will control it, and adjudge such to be void.); aff’d. Robin v. Hardaway, 1 Jefferson 109, 114, 1 Va. Reports Ann. 58, 61 (1772); ; Cf. Tumey v. State of Ohio,  273 U.S. 510, 524 (1927)

Oregon Statutes – Chapter 174 – Construction of Statutes; General Definitions – Section 174.030 – Constructionfavoring “natural right to prevail”. Where a statute is equally susceptible of two interpretations, one in favor of natural right and the other against it, the former [natural right] is to prevail.

If no substantive rebuttal is forthcoming, the answer is:YES!

The thing speaks for itself {Res ipsa loquitur};

In conclusion:
Should you Barbara A. Mitchell while acting as a departmental agent for the Bend Field Office choose to rebut this negative averement in regard to your request on behalf of the Oregon DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE while at all times acting honorably in commerce and without questionable agenda, I will be glad to review your timely and of course, on point rebuttle going to specificity.

Please be apprised, first and foremost I reserve all of my rights, remedies and applicable treaties pursuant to UCC 1-308 and in particular my “Natural Rights” which demand substantive Due Process at Article III section 2 of the Organic Constitution of the united States of America and to the express exclusion of the “Administrative Procedures Act” under the diminished and unilateral procedure known as “Civil Process”.

Any offered rebuttal made must be with full disclosure going to particularity.

Consideration must be clearly noted and likewise going to particularity as regards “Public Policy” as Public Policy’s Prime Directive is to Discharge the public Debt Dollar for Dollar and subject to acceptance pursuant to supersedes Bond.

As any offer made must by its nature, ultimately go to contract, [and not presume a waiver of rights or remedy to be adversely regulated in commerce by profiteers and privateers] said offer is subject to a timely counter offer, acceptance or refusal for cause under the Uniform Commercial Code and without Recourse and in reliance to remedial rights arising out of operation of Law under Public Policy’s Prime Directive to Discharge the Public Debt Dollar for Dollar.

You are granted 15 days in which to respond, not counting weekends. Failure to respond is your admission that you agree with my understanding of this instant matter as presented and that you nor an assign have any further cause to pursue this issue as presented and for cause.

This man being one of the Sovereign American People, (See the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the Bond Case re the Sovereign people) does swear and affirm that Affiant has scribed and read the foregoing facts, and in accordance with the best of Affiant’s firsthand knowledge and conviction, such are true, correct, complete, and not misleading, are the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

With Reservation of All Rights, Remedies and Applicable Treaties without prejudice UCC 1-308 and particularly, ORSChapter 174 – Construction of Statutes; General Definitions – Section 174.030 favoring the Natural Right to prevail over the statute, UCC 1-308 reserves the right under Article III section 2 due process going to “Deprivation of Rights” and thereby judicial proceedings exercising and asserting the Natural Right.

“I declare under penalty of perjury and under the laws of the united States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.

UCADIA Time: E8:Y3210:A40:S3:M6:D3. [ _______________________________] SEAL 

By: [Frank] of Clann [England] 

AFFIDAVIT

Dated: August 8, 2003

This man being one of the Sovereign American People, does swear and affirm that Affiant has scribed and read the foregoing facts, and in accordance with the best of Affiant’s firsthand knowledge and conviction, such are true, correct, complete, and not misleading, are the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth

With Reservation of All Rights, Remedies and Applicable Treaties without prejudice UCC 1-308  “I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed: August , 2011.

[__________________] SEAL

[Frank Austin England, III]

STATE OF OREGON ……..)
                                      ) S.S.
COUNTY OF                         )

On this Day of August________, 2011, before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared [Frank-Austin: England, III,] personally known to me as the living soul whose name is subscribed to this instrument and acknowledged that he executed same.

___________________________________ My appointment expires: _______________ Notary SEAL

 

Advertisements