5th Amendment, BAR association, bonding, bonding axioms, bonding maxims, bonding of clerks, bonding of statutes, fraudulent taxation, government bonding, I.R.S fraudulent bonding scheme, legislator bonds, malfeasance, malpractice, misapplication of statute, public education bonding, public official bonds, Rothschild, Rothschild war loans, Sovereign document, taxation without representation
UNIFORM BONDING CODE
Modern Bonding Practice
With the advent of powerful computers has come the responsibility of analyzing data much more quickly and thoroughly and in terms of the general economic principles of Leontief Input-Output Matrix Analysis.(See Wassily Leontief, Studies in the Structure of the American Economy, and Wassily Leontief, “The World Economy in the Year 2000,” in Scientific American, September 1980. Wassily Leontief was the 1973 Nobel Prize winner in Economics.)
In the modern system of wagering, as applied to insurance and malpractice bonding, several political-legal-economic factors including Legislation, Judication, Execution (enforcement) and the behavior of the general public are treated mathematically as separate industries within the legal system, with the result that these industries can be interrelated b a system of feedback equations and computations, the individual workings and behavior of each industry can be much more closely monitored, and the behavior of the government and public can be predicted and manipulated.
This amounts to the application of feedback computing to reliable gambling on the economic success or outcome of any given statute or legal process. It results in a scientific bonding system, and results in the transfer of the power and authority of government over to the bonding companies where it belongs if governments do not want to behave themselves. (Money talks, bonding controls.)
The Bonding Problem
As human population increases and mutual human tolerance decreases, municipal corporations tend to become less sensitive to individual human needs and especiallysecured rights, and tend to become more antisocial, even arrogant toward the public. It has been put crudely that municipal corporations become slaughterhouse operations with law enforcement officers running the sledgehammer department. Judges ignore the rights of the people and legislators generate heaps of laws, without perfecting the ones already existing to make them fit for bonding. Defective statutes and defective legal processes become an invitation for every sort of official malpractice and malfeasance including economic oppression, and the public, in retaliation, begins suing for every injury, putting the heat on the bonding companies.
In order to survive in the commercial marketplace, the smaller bonding companies have had to become more selective and scientific in their bonding practice.
In the past, bonding was based on marketing a bond which covered a broad aggregate of “bondable” objects, acts and persons.
When a large claim was made against a small bonding company, the claim could bankrupt the small company, especially if the company could not collect its corresponding funds from the parent bonding underwriter.
By partitioning the coverage better, and be excluding persons of an antisocial disposition, the claims could be minimized, thus favoring solvency of the bonding company.
In the old aggregate system, an antisocial enforcement officer operating on an unbounded statute using an unbonded enforcement process could create a monstrous civil rights or constitutional claim against the bonding company which was underwriting the general bond on the municipal corporation for which the officer worked. In order to maintain credibility in the bonding marketplace, the bonding company would have to pay off the claim against the bond even though the official act was criminal instead of civil. (Birds of one feather.) If in addition, the municipal corporation was operated by an antisocial office staff, it would tend to support, and retain in employment, the antisocial enforcement officer rather than the more civilized officers on the staff, if for no other reason than because an antisocial officer was more likely to bully the public into dropping malpractice suits and paying revenue into the corporate coffers, and thereby keep the corporate paychecks coming.
When such an antisocial corporation would be sued for such presumptive arrogance and obvious bullying, as inevitably would happen, the bonding company working under the old system of aggregate bonding, would get ripped to shreds, perhaps even bankrupted. Of course, the injured bonding company would tell the municipal corporation to take its business elsewhere, and the next bonding company, being somewhat more cautious, might refuse to bond the corporation, or ask a larger premium to cover the gambling risk. Ultimately the municipal corporation would not be able to buy a bond due to its “track record” and the consequent high cost of bonding, with the result that the municipal corporation would resort to what is called “self-bonding,” which by its nature is a bluff . . .
In the past, the state incorporation laws have required all corporations engaged in business potentially hazardous to the public safety, health and welfare, to be bonded against public accident and the malpractice of their officers, but more recently “self-bonding” has become a state-condoned option extended to municipal corporations to insulate them against prosecution for violation of the general state incorporation laws which demand public hazard licensing and bonding for all corporations. A corporation that is “self-bonded” is a limited corporation (ltd.) with a low ceiling of limited liability. The term, “self-bonded,” is a fraudulent misrepresentation of the corporate liability status. What is said in effect, is that the payment of the commercial debts of the corporation will take second place to the payment of the malpractice obligations of the corporations. Furthermore, “self-bonding” cannot possibly be expected to cover the anti-civil rights and anti-constitutional malpractice potential of today’s modern antisocial municipal corporations. Simply put, “self-bonding” is “no-bonding;” it is corporate limited liability misrepresentation and fraud.
(Bonding is valid only when it is provided by an independent third party money wagering pool with no conflict of interest and no possibility of the bonded party dipping into the till.) In order to pull out of the municipal corporate bonding rat race, the smaller bonding companies have had to adopt a set of bonding policies aimed at segregation, partitioning, and making more certain, their liabilities in the bonding marketplace. The following excerpts from the Uniform Bonding Code contains a presentation of those policies.
Claims Access Pursuant to Civil Rights Law
CIVIL RIGHTS (Title 42 USC) DO NOT AFFORD ARTICLE III PROTECTIONS GOING TO SECURED RIGHTS UNDER CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS. SEE THE COURT CASE AT THE END OF THIS TREATIS EMPLOYING 28 U.S.C. 1746(1) also (Title 18 USC 24.
Improper enforcements which run counter to the U.S. Constitution can involve as many as thirty-five (35) violations of the provisions of the United States Constitution valued per 18 USC 241 at $10,000 per constitutional violation, per offense, per officer, per injured party when the officer is acting as a part of a law enforcement agency effort.
The civil value is therefore approximately $350,000 per enforcement offense, per enforcement officer, per injured party.
The statutes enabling the suit and civil claim are part of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1871. (42 USC 1983, 1985, 1986 . . .) (This is the same year the District of Columbia came into being as the de facto commercial government.) These statutes guarantee, among other things, the equal protection of the law for racial minority groups. Although the argument is commonly raised that these statutes apply only to racial minority population groups, they actually apply to racial discrimination regardless of the race and regardless of the population of the group.
The application of these equal protection statutes to only racial minority population groups would create a racial discrimination against racial majority population groups, and hence impose a “justice minority” situation upon the racial majority population groups. But this would make the racial minority statutes applicable to a majority race, because the intended purpose of the statute is to eliminate the prejudicial discrimination of the law and its enforcement, not to favor any specific race, color, creed, religious faith, sec or population group (be it small or large).
The issue can be made even clearer by a second very appropriate example. The legal profession’s labor union, the Bar Association, was established immediately after the Civil War to substitute a system of general [commercial] slavery to replace the old system of black slavery, by guaranteeing a monopoly of the [prize courts of commerce] for attorneys, judges and municipal corporations (city, county, state). This labor union, the Bar Association, has forbidden anyone but union (Bar) attorneys to give legal advice, and has prevented anyone from being assisted in court by a non-union lawyer or by a non-lawyer, thus converting the courts into closed union shops. This corresponds to pre-Civil War United States wherein blacks were not taught to read and were not allowed to get a public education lest they become strong enough persons to speak out against their repression and overthrow their slavemasters.
The unionization of the legal system by the Bar Association makes the people individually, and the public as a whole, a legal justice minority group with access to the Civil Rights Act of 1871and to 42 USC 1983, 1985 and 1986.
The bar association act being in violation of anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws of the U.S.
Organized Crime in Government
Government officials maintain control of the courts by “licensing lawyers” and by forbidding the common citizens to “practice law” or give “legal advice,” three phrases which have never been adequately defined for any statute. To protect government dominance, “law schools” are the only schools allowed to teach law, and specifically “safe law” (atonement). To protect malfeasance, attorneys are forbidden to file criminal complaints against malfeasance officials, officer and clerks and against officers of other corporations. If they disobey, they lose their “license to practice law.” Similarly, when the citizen files a criminal complaint against a public official, the prosecutor is expected to protect the public official from prosecution for official malfeasance by exercising some mystical doctrine of “selective prosecution” (an act of misprision of crime) which is nothing more or less than an excuse for legal prejudice to issue from the prosecutor’s office calculated to overthrow the public’s legal redress against official malfeasance.
Bonding of Governments in General
A government (its officials, its officers, and its clerks) will not be bonded:
1. if it does not eliminate its own internal malfeasance with the same diligence that it pursues civilian felons i.e. malum in se. (In other words, a government shall clean its own nest thoroughly),
2. if it rules by force without reason and/or without the consent of the people which it governs. In such a case it shall be deemed a criminal government and its officials, officers, and clerks shall be deemed criminally malfeasant,
3. if it behaves with malice or with deliberate contempt or rudeness towards its citizens.
“Let us contemplate our forefathers, and posterity and resolve to maintain the rights bequeathed to us from the former, for the sake of the latter. The necessity of the times, more than ever, calls for our outmost circumspection, deliberation, fortitude and perseverance. Let us remember that ‘if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involves others in our doom.’ It is a very serious consideration . . . that millions yet unborn may be the miserable shares of the event.” Samuel Adams – Speech (1771)
1.0 LEGISLATIVE INPUT
Input Definitions and Principles
Words called terms are used to construct the ships of state called statutes. When the terms are not properly defined, the statutes become like ships without rudders. They move easily in any direction and do all manner of damage on the rivers of life.
TERMS WITHOUT DEFINITIONS
ARE THE DAGGERS OF LAW
The Input/Definitions and Principles of Legislation will be bonded only if the bonding company finds that:
1. all “common terms” in the stated principles are used according to their common dictionary definition,
2. all special terms in the states principles are exhaustively
A. listed, and
B. defined using “common terms.”
3. The “Principles” are universally accepted as true—also called “Axioms of Law.” Or “Maxims of Law.”
A simple example of an Axiom or Maxim of Law would be: (Definition: “Hire” = a wage or reward for work.) (Axiom/Maxim: [A workman is worthy of his hire.)
1.1 BONDING AND DEFINITIONS
— COMMERCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
(Definitions, Principles, Axioms, Maxims)
The bondability of a statute. (Legislative), the bondability of the process created and used to enforce a statute (Judicative), and the bondability of the act of enforcement and of the enforcement officer (Executive) all rest primarily and absolutely upon the ability to write a binding contract in very definite terms between the bonding company and the bonded party or parties. No bonding company will enter into a bonding agreement unless the definitive terms of the bonding contract are laid out to the precision that is likely to be tested by public claims against the bond.
The Legislative Bond: A statute, in order to be bondable, must satisfactorily define the terms and concepts used or involved in the construction of the statute.
(A statute shall not be bonded if the terms and concepts of the subject matter of the statute are not both exhaustively listed and clearly defined.)
– Unlawful or wrongful act.
– Wrongdoing in general.
– Improper or illegal treatment (Med).
– Improper or immoral conduct.
-(A) An act that subjects the doer to
-(B) The commission or omission of an act
specifically forbidden or enjoined by public law.
-(C) Any grave offense against morality or social order.
– Penal law vs. criminal law.
– Implying crime or heinous wickedness.
– Citizen rather than ecclesiastical or military.
– Legal relations between citizens or between citizen and state
– legal rights.
– Oral malicious falsehood.
– Written slander.
1.2 BONDING AND PRINCIPLES/MAXIMS
Statutes are the motor vehicles of government. They are used to collect revenue, to collect power and to provide public service.
Properly constructed statutes serve the public properly, poorly constructed statutes poorly, or destructively.
A defective statute is easily misused.
The easy misuse of a statute is an invitation to a rampant misuse of the statute.
If a statute can be misused to get money or power, its misuse is likely.
If a statute can easily be misused to get money or power, its misuse is virtually certain.
Defective statutes invite the deliberate misuse of the statutes.
Deliberate misuse (misapplication) of a statute is a criminal act.
The lack of job insurance/bonding makes people personally more cautious, causing a decrease in accidents, negligence, malfeasance and crime. The cost of bonding premiums discourages negligence.
The bonding of negligence encourages the commission of negligence on the part of the people who do not pay the premium.
A bonding company shall not bond negligence.
No statutes are bonded against deliberate misuse, i.e., criminal use.
If malfeasance (criminal malpractice) were to be bonded, that bonding would encourage malfeasance.
Malfeasance if unchecked will multiply.
Therefore, a bonding company shall not bond malfeasance or criminal malpractice.
Criminal acts include acts committed in violation of a citizen’s constitutional rights and in violation of guarantees of equal protection of the law (civil rights). And in particular Article III sec. 2 substantive Constitutionally secured Rights.
Statutes which encourage criminal acts in order to enforce the statutes are not bondable statutes.
The bonding of criminal acts would encourage the commission of criminal acts, hence criminal acts (crimes) cannot be bonded.
Bonding companies are not required to bond what they do not want to bond.
A bonding company only pays claims for damages against a bond which it sells/issues. A bonding company must pay a claim on a bond which it has sold if the condition of the bond claim is satisfied.
A bonding company will not bond a defective statute because it does not want to pay the claim on the misuse of the statute.
Bonding a defective statute is an invitation to bankruptcy.
2.0 LEGISLATIVE CONTROL
The control/logic of legislation will be bonded only if the bonding company finds to its satisfaction that:
1. the definitions of the terms used in the logic are bonded.
2. the principles used in the logic are bonded.
3. the logic being used to design the statute tests, and the conclusions obtained represent, all of the possible combinations of principles and applications (situations) for which the specific statute is being designed, and
4. none of the conclusions derived from the cited tested combination of principles and applications contradicts any condition. or condition known to be wholesome to the civilization.
5. if a conclusion logically derived from the cited tested combination of principles and applications contradicts any condition known to be wholesome to civilization, then the reason for the contradiction has been pursued relentlessly until the cause of the contradiction has been understood perfectly, lest the definition, the principles, the logic or the understanding of the application be faulty.
6. a complete record has been kept of the definitions, principles and logic underlying the design of the statute and that record is publicly available.
2.1 – BONDING PUBLIC EDUCATION
RE: Right vs. Wrong
It is said that ignorance of the law is no excuse for wrong action; that all persons are presumed to know the difference between right and wrong, hence know the law. If that is true:
1. there would be no reason for public education and the practice of law,
2. then there would be no reason to have law schools,
3. Then there would be no reason why citizens could not “practice law without a license,”
4. then there would be no reason why a citizen should not or could not sit beside a friend in court and counsel him or her.
Thomas Jefferson put it well when he said, “I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves: and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a( wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion.” Thomas Jefferson’s Letter, September 28, 1820. (Source??)
What he said was that the common public should be able to “practice law without a license” and to be able to do so, they should be given a public education in law.
The public and the bonding companies would both benefit from such a situation. It would eliminate the professional law conspiracy which preserves the malfeasance of public officials, injures the public, and precipitates most of the claims against bonding companies.
Therefore, bonding companies shall engage the policy that they shall not bond (insure) public schools which do not teach their student body law and “the practice of law,” and specifically shall not bond public schools which do not teach:
1. the Declaration of Independence,
2. the United States Constitution,
3. the method of writing an event log for a court case,
4. the method of compiling a document log,
5. the method of compiling a document analysis log,
6. the method of analyzing legal briefs, civil complaints and criminal charges,
7. the method of writing affidavits,
8. the method of writing and filing U. S. criminal complaints,
9. the method of writing a quality contract,
10. the method of composing expository information for distribution on the street,
11. the method of distressing and liening property, and
12. several other processes valuable to citizens for securing their rights against, and overthrowing the malfeasance of public officials.
A public official, clerk or servant shall lose his bond:
1. if he interferes with the education of the public in matters of law and the “practice of law,”
2. if he refuses to give to a citizen legal advice about a process with which he is familiar or if he refuses to give to a citizen legal advice which he is qualified to give because of his familiarity with and pertaining to the normal course of his public service. But no public servant or citizen shall be held legally liable for any information which he shall give when it is given upon demand, pursuant to a citizen’s written or spoken writ of mandamus (an order to come to one’s aid), pursuant to 42 USC 1986, the brother’s keeper statute of the United States.
3. If he injures or oppresses any citizen who is acting in good faith and good behavior with a genuine and honest intent to practice law and/or to give legal counsel or assistance to other,
4. if he tries to get a citizen prosecuted for “practice of law without a license” where there is no clear evidence of false advertising, fraud or injury to the party being counseled,
5. if he tries to get a citizen prosecuted for “practice of law without a license” in order to eliminate competition in a litigation, a legal process or the legal industry generally,
6. if he operates a court of the legal system as a facility of a legal labor union (bar association) reserved for state licensed attorneys only, that is as a closed union shop.
2.2 – Bonding Taxation Statutes
Just Compensation vs. Fraudulent Taxation
A government/public trust is supposed to operate on taxes, and if a government operates commercial enterprises using tax money in competition with a free enterprise public, then the money of the citizens is being used in competition with the citizens, and that will discourage the payment and collection of taxes. It will cause tax rebellion. (Conflict of interest) Therefore, all revenue raised by a government’s offices of public trust must be obtained by the performance of public service not provided by ordinary free enterprise businesses. Public service is the only sort of business in which a government is supposed to be employed.
(“Nor shall private property [taxes] be taken for public use without -Lust compensation [valuable, publicly needed and publicly wanted service rendered by government]”). – The 16th so-called amendment of the U.S. Constitution does not base the assessment of taxes on services rendered by the government for the public but rather upon the services rendered by public citizens for third parties, hence, the 16th so-called amendment of the U.S. Constitution violates the 5th socalled amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Essentially, the only lawful personal tax assessable for operating a government is a per capita_ tax determined by dividing the cost of operating the government by the number of emancipated citizens (or persons of majority age-eighteen years old or older).
(A U.S. constitutional 5th so-called Amendment system of taxation based on just compensation requires a per capita tax.) (uniform)
A legislator will not be bonded if he legislates or attempts to legislate a law to create a source of revenue without providing an equally valuable public service which the public needs and wants. (Just compensation)
In the U.S. constitutional 16th so-called amendment deduction system of taxation there are three economic industries:
2. goods, and services
Each has a one hundred per cent (100%) deductibility of overhead. Therefore, the common man who works to support his family can deduct all of his household expenses for his part of providing the labor force of the nation. There would be nothing left to tax. Originally, the U.S. 16th so-called amendment applied only to corporate income. Since its beginning, its wording, “Taxation on income from whatever source derived.” has been applied by the I.R.S.:
1. to the common laboring household although it is 100% deductible,
2. to gifts and inheritance to which the government has contributed no valuable, service,– which funds are, therefore, being taxed twice,
3. to collecting taxes on crime, namely, bank robbery, organized crime and hard drug sales (25% excise tax), making the government a beneficiary of, hence favorable toward, the commission of paying crime.
Furthermore, the Social Security System of the I.R.S. operates a fraudulent insurance/bonding scheme in competition with honest free enterprise insurance/bonding companies, as follows.
If a husband and wife both pay into the Social Security insurance system out of their common social and commercial conjugal relationship, and if one dies, the other gets the payment of the Social Security benefit on only one person. This is a mutual financial sacrifice of two people joined as one social commercial unit, paid back only partially to the surviving person. That is blatant insurance fraud on the part of the Social Security insurance system, and the Social Security system finances so many social service programs which it was never intended for, that it is in constant financial trouble.
A sales tax is no better. Federal Law (Title 42 of the U.S. Code) includes an anti-peonage law which declares that no natural person (citizen) can be compelled to work for free (not even to collect taxes or do bookkeeping for the I.R.S. or the state sales tax commissions). Even if the government agrees to pay for the collection of the taxes, the law allows that a citizen can refuse to work for any specific person or organization.
Also, many persons do not believe it to be patriotic to pay taxes to the I.R.S. The I.R.S. is a Rothschild enterprise, not a part of the U.S. government, and there has been a movement in government to brand as right wing anti-Semites, those Patriots who point out the fact that the I.R.S., the Federal Reserve, and the FDIC are all well known financial enterprises of the Jewish Rothschild family of Europe. In fact, much of the tax protest movement, and much of the civil rights violations heaped on citizens by the legal establishment because of tax rebellion, arise out of the now common knowledge that the “national debt” has been created by a sequence of wars financed on both sides by the Rothschild family to force the U.S. to borrow money from Rothschild banks, creating an attachment of all U.S. property as collateral to pay off Rothschild war loans. The vociferates of anti-Semitism are not coming from common Jews, but from the Rothschild banking system which detests having the burglar’s mask ripped off its face, and which uses anti-Semitism as a decoy.
(It should be clear that it is pure financial insanity to bond any statutes, processes or enforcements connected with any form of tax collection other than those based upon a per capita tax.)
2.3 – BONDING EXIGENCY STATUTES
(Emotional Urgent Necessity Statutes)
A legislator is said to be engaging in the confidence game of statutory fraud when he by the legislation of statute(s) creates a false problem for, or artificial or fraudulent need in, any citizen or group of citizens in order:
1. to justify the creation of the capacity to offer a solution for the false problem created, or
2. to justify the collection of taxes or revenue to finance the solution of the problem created.
A fraudulent need or want is a need or want which:
1. has not been solicited by the public, or
2. has been pawned off on the public
A. by coercive suggestion
B. by lack of representation, or
C. by misrepresentation of its consequences
i. for the good of the many at the expense of individual liberty or property, or
ii. for the good of any one at the expense of the freedom of many (lottery), and
3. which is not a valuable service to the public generally.
A legislator is said to be engaging in statutory fraud when he creates a false source or apparent source of supply (a false solution) for any citizen or group of citizens in order
1. to create, for the government, the capacity to create problems for the public, or
2. to create, for the government, a source of revenue (e.g., the lottery).
BONDING vs. LOTTERY
Responsible Wagering versus Non-Responsible Wagering
Taxation Without Representation
An Example of the creation of a fraudulent need or want or an apparent source of supply is the operation of a state lottery. Such a system is solicited by the public, because a large portion of the public likes to, hence wants to, gamble. However, the consequences of a state lottery are not honestly represented to the public by the state, and the lottery does not render a valuable service for the public. Money from the lottery gives state high officials a sense of independence which makes them feel that they can do without bonding and can risk malfeasance because they have adequate funds with which to manipulate inferior officers, clerks and the public.
Although bonding is wagering-you might call it insurance- set free from the behavioral restrictions of bonding by its monetary wealth, the state will degenerate to an organized crime syndicate and resort to the seizure of substance (real estate, etc.) and the means of the conveyance of substance (waterways, etc.), by condemnation (eminent domain), and by issuing letters of marque and reprisal (orders to march and seize) to mercenary law enforcement officers/UN troops.
Legislators who legislate a potentially publicly hazardous statute, must themselves be bonded against the possibility of being sued for any misuse of that statute which could arise as a consequence of the defective construction of the statute.
A legislator will not be bonded if he legislates or attempts to legislate a law to create a source of revenue without providing an equally valuable public service which the public needs and wants (just compensation).
A Solution in Need of Problems – Environmentalism
Governments create causes and problems in order to justify taxation and political domination. They always need a credible enemy to create the urgent necessity to ask for more money and to make more laws for “the good of the public” and “in the interest of national security.”
To obtain the “consent of the public,” governments create problems, or scenarios of problems, so that they will be able to offer solutions which an ignorant and somewhat gullible and self-serving public will buy.
The classic political example is the now publicly known strategy by which President F. D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill maneuvered the Japanese into attacking the U. S. fleet at Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941. [footnote: Theobald, Rear Admiral Robert A., The Final Secret of Pearl Harbor, Publisher, date. and Barnes, Harry Elmer, Pearl Harbor After A Quarter of A Century, Publisher, Date.]
Although there are many very real environmental problems, environmentalism as a political lever is the latest trick to obtain the “consent of the public.” It is legally known as The New World Order; it is economically known as Globalism. “Environmental” statutes must be closely examined for exigency fraud.
Some of the exigency statutes of present day governments are designed by banking and military war games computers. The economic war games computers are the new guns of governments, firing statutes and economic and social situations as bullets. [Footnote: Lewin, Leonard C., A Report From Iron Mountain, Pub? Date? and William Cooper “Silent Weapons For Quiet Wars.]