Affidavit of Obligation, Article 3 Sec 2 remedy, bonding company, bonding jail procedure, bonding of enforcement officers, brutum fulmen definition, consequences of losing bond, counter complaints, Dun and Bradstreet, lacking mandatory oath, liability of enforcement officers, Lien Claimant, municipal bond, rights in jail, Sovereign document, three complaints ends bond, UCC 1 -308, UCC 1-103, UCC 1-207, unbonded statutes, when enforcer losing bond
If the Bonding Company Compels the Prosecution
If the bonding company compels the prosecution and the acts of the officer are clearly criminal, then the bonding company can argue for release of the liability of the bonding company for the officer’s actions, provided the bond was written to dissuade (discourage)_ criminal acts.
Since the prosecutor must have a bond in order to be a prosecutor in fulfillment of his job description, it follows that the bonding companies collectively have the power to compel the prosecutor to prosecute on the criminal charges to attempt to vindicate the officer and to protect the relevant (directly affected) bonding company from a claim, or to minimize the claim against the bonding company.
If the Bonding Company Does Not Compel Prosecution
If the bonding company does not compel prosecution, then the first claim of liability is against the bonding company up to the face value of the bond, and the remaining claim of liability is against the corporation and against the officer for the unpaid balance of the claim. The officer against whom the complaint and accusation has been made also has the right to defend his interests by demanding that he be prosecuted and vindicated. Both the complaining party and the prosecutor have the obligation to serve notice on the accused officer if the prosecutor will not prosecute, thereby giving the officer a chance to protect his interests by demanding a prosecution.
7.2 – Bonding of Attitude
1.The principles of economics are more and more being used to establish scientific bonding practices which eliminate the bonding, hence employment, of antisocial enforcement officers.
2. The bond on an enforcement officer is based on the officer’s social attitude and past performance, that is, his “track record.”
3. An antisocial officer is generally defined as a person who:
A. has a bad social attitude,
B. thinks he is bonded for any sort of social behavior whatsoever,
C. thinks he has to prove himself by being socially abusive or “macho” towards members of the general public.
4. Antisocial officers create bad enforcement situations which cause citizens to file malpractice claims with bonding companies.
5. Therefore, a credible bonding company will not bond a known antisocial enforcement officer.
7.3 – Bonding of Education
Principle–Ignorance of the law is not an allowable excuse for a law enforcement officer to use when exercising the power to enforce the law.
An officer must know and understand all of the processes which must be bonded before he can act on an execution of judgment.
An officer, although presumably acting in his official capacity, has no commercial escape or grace through a bonding company when the statute he enforces is not bonded against accidental misuse. When an officer commits an accidental misuse of his office or of a statute, or accidentally acts on an unbonded statute, the bonding company will pay on the bond only to the extent of a reasonable degree of error or accident; but nothing in the agreement between the bonding company and the bonded party shall be construed to free the official or officer from investigating and knowing whether or not his own actions or the statute acted upon or enforced were adequately bonded; and whatever portion of the damage claim remains after the bonding company has paid its reasonable obligation to the bonded party, shall be paid out of the assets of the municipal corporation and/or out of the real and personal property of the official or officer who mis-acted.
An enforcement officer of a municipal corporation (city, county, state), who operates without a bond or who enforces an unbonded statute, is acting outside of the public hazard licensing and bonding statutes governing municipal corporations. A bonding company has no financial responsibility for such an officer. Such an officer is regarded to be out of uniform, outside the shield or veil of his official capacity, and is a common citizen operating upon his own personal liability and risk.
If an officer was deceived by the government (municipal corporation) for which he works, into performing his “duties,” namely, of accepting statutes, carrying out Judgments of execution, or exerting enforcement beyond limits of his bonding, then, the officer shall not have a claim on the bonding company, and his personal property shall become attachable for the satisfaction of claims of damages, and he will have to make his claim against his employer. In the case of an unbonded statute, the employer will have to make its claim against the state legislature and the state of these factors are:
1. The psychological stability and sociability of the officer (is he antisocial, does he have a good social attitude, is he reasonable?),
2. the “track record” of his daily performance (past performance),
3. how much legal education the officer has and what kind of legal education the officer has and what kind of legal education does he have relevant to the laws that he will be required to enforce,
4.the specific performance (job description) of the officer being bonded, generally for the construction and advertisement of an unbonded statute. If a citizen knows how to enforce his civil remedies under the laws of commerce, and if the claim of the citizen for civil damages exceeds the face value of the bond, then the officer who victimizes that citizen can easily be bankrupted.
7.4 – Bonding of Specific Performance
Modern scientific bonding is based on a number of factors which mathematically determine the price of the wager (premium) charged by the bonding company. Some
5. the types of unbonded statutes he will enforce,
6. the types of bonded statutes he will enforce,
7. the types of paper enforcement processes he will use, and,
8. the types of enforcement acts he will engage in (especially the violent ones).
An officer is acting without the protection of a municipal bond, is acting on the municipal corporate assets, or is acting “out of uniform” and on his own personal liability if he:
1. behaves in a clearly antisocial manner,
2. does not have an education in law adequate for his specific performance ia a law enforcement officer,
3. is not adequately bonded for law enforcement, i.e., to enforce the law,
4. does not have an adequate identification card or does not show his identification card when necessary,
5. acts on an unbonded statute, and/or
6. violates a citizen’s U.S. or state constitutional rights or equal protection of the laws.
The identification card of a law enforcement officer declares the authority of the officer to act by:
1. stating the specific performance of his job for which he is bonded, such as the class of statutes he is bonded to enforce.
2. stating that he is licensed and bonded,
3. stating the name of the bonding company which is bonding the executive acts of the officer, and
4. stating the bond (policy) number of the officer’s bond (insurance).
An officer who cannot or does not display his official identification card is deemed out of uniform and acting as an ordinary citizen on his own personal liability. His personal property is then the true pledge underwriting his authority.
Liability by Association
An officer can be sued for the injury caused by the act(s) of another officer, if the act(s) was committed and the injury was caused while the two officers worked together. The assessment of the transfer of liability rests upon such concepts as reasonable diligence, accident, neglect and conspiracy.
7.5 – Authority
1. A statute has no social authority or the capacity to be enforced without an author, and has no author without the assumption of social, liability or financial responsibility for the statute authored.
2. Any attempt to exercise social authority by enforcing a statute without assuming a corresponding measure of social liability for the enforcement of the statute constitutes fraud.
The only authority which an official, officer or clerk of a government (e.g., municipal corporation) has to use, act upon, or enforce a statute resides in or arises out of the financial responsibility for the acts and actors as follows:
1. the legislation-construction of the statute,
2. the content of the statute itself,
3. the judication–the exercise of the judicative power,
4. the judicative process itself,
5. the execution-the enforcement paper process which is used as a reason to enforce the statute,
6. the enforcement act of the enforcement officer, and
7. the enforcement officer.
This financial responsibility for the acts and actors will usually be provided from one or more the following three sources:
1. the bonds on the acts and the actors (insurance on an official act or person),
2. the sacrifice, forfeiture or pledge of the personal property, real or movable, of the government corporate property, real or movable, or,
3. the sacrifice, forfeiture or pledge of the personal property, real or movable, of the official, officer or clerk who is using, acting upon or enforcing the statute.
The total value in property or money extractable from these three sources must be sufficient to sustain a suit at law and pay for the damages caused as a consequence of using, acting upon or enforcing the statutes; that is, in defense of each specific performance of the jobs or of the persons, the said performance of said jobs being the product of the government known as public service.
A government official, officer or clerk who is not bonded or who loses his bond, shall be held financially responsible for his own actions. He shall have, as the only support for his own authority, the pledge of his own personal property, real and movable, to satisfy the damages which he causes to citizens by the exercise of that authority.
7.6 – Bonding Municipal Corporations
Many municipal corporations (city, county, state) have quietly chosen to operate without malpractice bonding in violation of state corporate public hazard bonding laws because their bonding is expensive. Often municipal corporations claim to be “self bonded,” but because civil rights suit claims are often, and properly, astronomically large, such in-house bonding is actually fraud, and passes liability on to the officials, officers and clerks of the municipal corporation. Municipal corporations have had to resort to lies and deceptions concerning the bonding of their officers in order to get their officers to put on a uniform and go out to fight for the corporation. The officers are not told that their public hazard bond is not adequate, and they are not told that if their onthe-job activities involve them in a situation where the face value of the bond is not sufficient to cover an injury (physical, mental, emotional, legal, etc.) to a public citizen, that then the citizen will have the right to sue the officer for a sufficient amount of the officer’s personal property (real and/or movable) in order to be paid the difference between the amount of the damage claim and the face value of the bond.
A municipal corporation will lose its executive enforcement bond or be rendered unbondable:
1. if it hires an enforcement officer and sends him out into the public to do official enforcement duties without bonding his enforcement processes and actions. The officer must be provided with a written notarized declaration of his job description;
2. if it fails to tell an officer or clerk that he is not adequately bonded, the officer must be provided with a written notarized declaration of his bonding status;
3. if it fails to issue an identification card to an enforcement officer declaring:
A. that the officer is bonded,
B. the name of the officer,
C. the officer’s enforcement classification,
D. the name of the municipal corporation for which he works,
E. the name of the bonding company which is bonding his enforcement,
F. the bond (policy) number of the officer,
G. the address and/or telephone number of the bonding company (bonding companies may want to know who is cheating them. Many municipal corporations are not adequately bonded and never tell their employees about it),
H. a picture of the officer.
4. if it does not provide a law enforcement officer with a sufficient education in law and process so that the officer can properly carry out his law enforcement duties as agreed to in his job description,
5. if it engages an enforcement officer to enforce an unbonded “statute” which by its hazardous nature must be bonded, or
6. if it engages an enforcement officer to violate a citizen’s U.S. constitutional[ly secured] rights or equal protection of the laws.
8.0 – EXECUTIVE CONTROL
The control/enforcement process of an executive/enforcement officer will be bonded only if the bonding company finds that:
1. before executing an order of execution the officer had in his possession:
A. a faithful recap (recapitulation) of the case representing both sides of the argument, hand-signed by the author of the recap (who is liable for his recap),
B. an original hand-signed verified bonding check list of the complete court process,
C. an original hand-signed copy of the judgment and the order of execution of judgment,
D. a proper personal identification card including:
i that the officer is bonded,
i. the name of the officer,
ii. the officer’s enforcement classification,
iii. the name of the municipal corporation for which he works,
iv. the name of the bonding company which is bonding his enforcement,
v. the bond (policy) number of the officer,
vi. the address and/or telephone number of the bonding company, and
vii. a picture of the officer,
E. a proper personal business card which the officer could hand out to the public and to the person(s) arrested, containing all of the same information as given in Part (1) (D) except for the picture, because of the expense of picture cards.
9.0 – EXECUTIVE OUTPUT
The output/enforcement act of an executive/enforcement officer will be bonded only if the bonding company finds to its satisfaction that, taking into consideration the urgency and hazard of the situation, the officer while enforcing the paper process acted in a reasonable manner as regards:
1. the reading and understanding of the recap,
2. the reading and understanding of the verified bonding list,
3. the reading and understanding of the judgement, and
4. the reading and understanding of the order of execution of judgment, And when enforcing
5. properly identifying himself,
6. properly serving necessary papers, and
7. properly notifying people of their rights.
9.1 – Bonding Jail. Procedure
A government, or an official, officer or clerk of a government, will lose its/his bond, will not be bonded and will not be bondable if a person, hereinafter referred to as the “prisoner,” which it/he handles, who has been charged and arrested but who has not been convicted:
1. has been denied or delayed anything, or any right, or the equal protection of the law necessary for the prisoner’s defense which an uncharged and unarrested citizen would have at his use, service and disposal,
2. has been denied or delayed legal paperwork in the prisoner’s case, including but not limited to affidavits of accusation, police reports, arrest warrants, mailing addresses for the delivery of all leg paperwork, etc.,
3. has been denied or delayed. the assistant counsel of, or communication with any lawyer, attorney, spouse, relative, friend, non-union paralegal, non-union lawyer, etc., needed for his personal safety and legal defense,
4. has been denied or delayed necessary appearances and opportunity to speak before a judge in court and on the court record (“necessary” as defined by the prisoner, not as defined by the jail. Ear, the judge or the court), and/or consideration from the jailer, the judge of the court, and/or a hand-signed record of the proceedings before the judge and the court,
5. has been denied or delayed a copy of anything:
(A) the prisoner has signed while entering or dwelling in the jail, or
(B) the prisoner has been required to sign while entering or dwelling in the jail (“It is best not to sign anything.”),
6. has been denied or delayed the physical basics; namely, light, heat, simple comforts, rest, writing materials or any other obvious physical means necessary to compose, write and perfect the prisoner’s defense, said basics to be provided at no cost to the prisoner,
7. has been denied or delayed the opportunity to effectively file counter complaints against the prisoner’s accusers, and those who have handled and processed the prisoner’s case (see also 4.0 Judicative Input,_specifically),
8. has been denied or delayed a readable copy of the Holy Bible printed in a language in which the prisoner is educated or fluent,
9. has been denied or delayed access to law books of the prisoner’s choice,
10. has been denied or delayed medical needs. NOTE: The county shall provide all of the above services immediately to the un-convicted prisoner at no cost to the prisoner. Any county which fails to meet the above criteria will itself be totally liable for its own acts. It is not inconceivable that a county violating the above criteria could accumulate over one hundred million dollars worth of civil damages in one day’s time involving only one prisoner, and no credible bonding company wants anything to do with that kind of obligation.
– In Conclusion –
According to the equitable authorities at law in regard to state-created marriages, any property sought after belongs to both parties/spousal, therefore, both are responsible for their spouse’s action(s). Thereby, criminal complaints jointly affect in regard to liens. In short, bring the civil rights violators, wife/husband, into the court action also. Remember, all liens cannot be removed until the declaration is adjudicated and/or the claimant is satisfied.
In the wording of the published rules of the Ninth Circuit Court, “Go for the jugular vein.”
9.2 – Escalation
Further: A law enforcement officer will lose his bond if he oppresses a citizen to the point of civil. rebellion when that citizen attempts to obtain redress of grievances (U.S. constitutional 1st so-called amendment).
When a state, by and through its officials and agents, deprives a citizen of all of his remedies by the due process of law and deprives the citizen of the equal protection of the law, the state commits an act of mixed war against the citizen, and, by its behavior, the state declares war on the citizen. The citizen has the right to recognize this act by the publication of a solemn recognition of mixed war. This writing has the same force as the Declaration of Independence. It invokes the citizen’s U.S. constitutional 9th and 10th so-called amend guarantees of the right to create an effective remedy where otherwise none exists.
“I found this insight on the UBC to be very perspicuous and most useful to the Patriot movement, but like all laws, it is useful only to the one(s) who use it and enforce it.”
Remember the etymon at the time of law’s creation and The Federalist Papers. (Read and discern until it’s perspicuous.)
“Prior law governs always.” “Prior etymons govern always.”
“To act in pro se fashion in a court of law or equity is to profess in law, thus, casting yourself to drift away from logic and into the arms of a fool.”
Study the UBC, file your “criminal complaints” in timely fashion, take their money or their hides for future parchment. MAXIM; (Universal Axiom of Law)
All people know that the foundation of law and the legal system exists in the telling of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, generally by testimony, deposition, and/or by affidavit. Therefore, every honorable judge requires those who appear before him to be sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and is compelled by the high principles of his profession to protect that truth and do nothing to tamper with that truth, either directly or indirectly, either in person or by proxy, or by subornation of the affiant or other person (subornation/extortion of perjury).
This instrument is an Affidavit of Obligation, also known as a Claim of Lien. This affidavit of obligation is a commercial instrument arising from a private or public contract, either express, constructive, and/or implied, which exists by the express, constructive, and/or implied consent of the Lien Debtor. Therefore, this Affidavit of obligation is a consensual commercial lien. This lien arises from the necessity to guarantee specific performance (oath) of the Lien Debtor. Therefore, this Affidavit of obligation is also a just compensation commercial lien.
The Lien Claimant’s Claim of Lien is expressed as this Affidavit. A mere unsworn declaration is not sufficient grounds for a Claim of Lien because it does not attach commercial liability to the person making the claim of obligation upon a debtor. The person making the claim (the Lien Claimant) must assume the commercial liability for making a claim against the debtor (the Lien debtor) by issuing a sworn statement known as an Affidavit of Obligation which is given to the best of the claimant’s knowledge and belief to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, for which the claimant stands personally commercially responsible.
A declaration of obligation does not become a lien unless it is sworn to, in which case it is known by the stronger term, “Affidavit of Obligation.” A mere declaration of obligation is not a lien.
A “distress,” which essentially compels instant specific performance, being severe because of its instant effect, must be bonded. On the other hand, a lien, having a traditional three month grace period, allows ample time for a response, hence is regarded as commercially moderate, and, therefore, does not have to be bonded beyond the personal liability which it automatically imposes upon the Lien Claimant/Affiant. (The three day, three week, three month, and three year grace periods in American Law arise from the traditional numerology of ancient Hebrew and Jewish law. See Holy Bible, Old Testament.)
As would be the case with any other affidavit, deposition, or testimony, an Affidavit of Obligation (commercial/contract lien) may not be tampered with by any judge, other public official, or other person, and generally may be removed by only one or more of four means:
1. A satisfaction of the lien by the Lien Debtor.
2. A categorical point-for-point rebuttal (affirmation, denial, or explanation) of every element of the Lien Claimant’s claim, said rebuttal being also in the form of a commercial affidavit for which the Lien Debtor accepts full personal. commercial responsibility. If the lien claimant can rebut the lien debtor’s rebuttal, the lien stays in force.
3. A voluntary (unextorted) removal of the lien by the Lien Claimant (or his heirs and assigns, if such has been provided for).
4. A decision by an impartial jury duly convened and properly conducted (not tampered with by a judge, other public official, or other person).
The suspension of an Affidavit of Obligation is the suspension of the right to give testimony in one’s own behalf and is, therefore, in the nature of a suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, a thing done only under the conditions of martial law, civil war, or mixed war.
A judge cannot interfere with, tamper with, or in any way modify testimony without rendering incredible the truth seeking process in his sacred profession and destroying the fabric of his own occupation, thereby committing professional suicide. Any judge who tampers with testimony, deposition, or affidavit, is a threat to the commercial peace and dignity of the State and of the United States, is in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land, is acting in the nature of a foreign enemy, and is justifiably subject to the penalties of treason; God’s speed.
A lien implies impoundment of property. A breach of the said impoundment, also known as pound breach, and is a felony.
A bill in commerce is a private declaration of obligation. A lien in commerce is the same bill made public with a commercial affidavit attached in support of the bill. When a lien instrument is composed and made public, either by filing in the Office of the County Recorder or by any other method of open and wide publicity, a copy of the Claim of Lien must be provided for the Lien Debtor so that the Lien Debtor will thus be enabled to defend against the lien. To guarantee that the Lien Debtor has an ample grace period of three months to defend against the lien, the grace period does not begin until a copy of the Claim of Lien or a Notice of Lien is in the possession of the Lien Debtor. If only a Notice of Lien is supplied to the Lien Debtor then the Claim of Lien must be filed in a place of public access such as the County Recorder’s Office, or other such public place clearly specified in the Notice of Lien/Affidavit of Obligation, and therefore cannot be lawfully entered by the County Recorder on a County, State or Federal Lien Index.
A Claim of Lien exists upon the property of a Lien Debtor even if a copy of that lien is only witnessed and in the possession of the Lien Debtor. However, if the Lien Debtor commits poundbreach by a sale, transfer, or assignment of the liened property to some third party, the Claim of Lien does not travel along with that property and attach commercial liability to the said third party, unless the Claim of Lien has been filed in the County Recorder’s Office of the county affected by the lien, or said Claim of Lien has otherwise been satisfactorily publicized. If any attempt is made by any public official to impair the lien process by compelling the county recorder to refuse to file the Lien Claimant’s Claim of Lien, then any alternate publicity of the Claim of Lien with reasonable diligence is to be considered adequate publication of the lien for the purpose of passing the obligation of lien forward to the new third party owner of the property, the property seized by the original Claim of Lien against the original Lien Debtor.
DUN AND BRADSTREET re DEFACTO GOVERNMENT
There are a few more things worth noting regarding the DUN & BRADSTREET listing service:
D-B is a financial rating service for both ‘public’ and ‘private’ corporations. Utilities and municipal bond ratings would come under D-B perview for certain. It just really never occurred to me years ago when doing litigation discovery, research and analysis, and ‘structured settlements’ that there was seemingly anything incoherent with that fact that municipal and utility bonds are integral to D-B rating services. I never ever stopped to think about or scrutinize that fact, yet alone allow my deliberation and research skills to ‘wander’ or ‘wonder’ into research that would have disclosed what we recently found. Part of the ease of discovering the complex web of inter-related inter-locking CORPORATIONS had to do with ease of electronic research over the internet. Years ago, if one wanted to search anything within any of the rating services, including “Moody’s”, Standard & Poors, and Dun & Bradstreet, + others, one would have to either have to be a subscriber to the service in order to manually expedite their search-rating results, or, one would have to pay a fee and cause a search to arise.
D & B ‘ratings’ are effected everytime a ‘public hazard bond’, or ‘surety performance bond’, or ‘indemnity bond’ is complained against. An ‘administrative complaint’ is usually all that it takes to cause a ‘tag’ or book entry to be made on any particular bond. Any particular bond, once complained against three or more times, causes a change in underwriting bond ‘risk’.
For bonded Bar attorneys, who in many cases may also be appointed, commissioned, or elected to ‘public office’ as ‘Judge’, ‘Clerk of Court’, etc. when/if their bond is complained against for good and reasonable cause, their bond may be ‘pulled’, and due to loss of effective bond or ‘suretyship’, they cannot ‘practice’ or ‘discharge’ the duty of the office held, or occupied. In short, the bond maker-issuer is the bonding party for the benefit or on behald of the ‘bondee’, ie. the purported ‘public officer’, ‘employee’, or ‘official’. This would extend as well to all other ‘public employees’ and ‘agents’-‘agencies’, etc.
Every ‘person’ being bonded has a Dun & Bradstreet ‘bond rating’. At least it is reasonable to assume such. Once three complaints are filed against any bond, assuming they are with merit and well supported by fact and ‘law’ of the ‘breach’ of fiduciary duty, the bond is most always pulled or revoked. The ‘servant’ at ‘risk’ by assuming the responsibilities of operating in any ‘official capacity’ or by ‘employment’, can no longer be underwritten as a ‘no risk’ or ‘low risk’ contract.
One incident of ‘breach’ or operating ‘ultra vires’, or ‘without the law’, causes the ‘immunity’ provisions of the written ‘law’ to cease to be effective, because when one violates the law as a ‘public servant’, one’s immunity blanket ceases to apply, thereby leaving the insurer or bondsman or bond issuer exposed to the liability arising from the servant’s acts, which under any ‘breach of law authority’ causes or gives rise to an ‘injury’ which is a civil or criminal commercial liability.
Everything, whether civil or criminal or martial, is a matter of ‘commerce’, and admiralty law is the venue and jurisdiction by which disputes in/of commercial nature are resolved in truth and fact.
All writings of the United States of America and of the UNITED STATES, or any other ‘government unit’ are forms of making an ‘offer to contract’.
There is no written matter of material fact or issue of fact that is ‘law’ which is not bonded. There is no ‘office’ or function of ‘civil service’ or ‘public’ function that is not bonded. If the bond is not in existence, the bondee is ‘exposed’ and without ‘coverage’ by any ‘surety’.
Therefore, there is no ‘guarantor’ behind the agent, officer, official, or employee having ‘exposure’, by ‘assumption of risk’, of a material breach or injury in fact by the bondee [person being bonded or insured]. This leaves the person under taint or cloud of operating ‘in the public interest’ without the constitutionally and statutorily required bond, and therefore, in tacit violation of the constitutions and statutes under the scheme of ‘law’. “Law” applies first and foremost to government, its employees, officers, and agents.
In today’s rogue ‘doctrine of necessity’ ‘de facto’ environment, research has proven and documented that no person, performing as an ‘officer of the court’, being an alleged ‘judge’, being a ‘Bar attorney’ of the ABA or the Federal or State Bars, has a bona fide Constitutional Oath. The Bond that is supposed to be in existence sits atop the Oath. The Oath is not merely ‘incidental’ to the ‘office’ as has been ruled in some States by their corrupt court “officers”. The Oath is what imparts lawful and legal authority to the man/woman coming into ‘holding’ a ‘public office’ and becoming a ‘public official’.
A public servant having no proper Oath cannot have a proper Bond to encompass or include those risks associated with the ‘office’, ‘discharge of fiduciary duty’ of the office, and the various levels or elements of ‘law authority’ underlying the office. Hence, one may take an Oath to any office of the incorporated State, or the UNITED STATES, and not take a preceding Oath to the unincorporated de jure state or United States of America, and operate non/un constitutionally, which is all that has been going on for years, but which was not known or understood as being a material breach to the People of the State/state, causing or giving rise to material injuries in fact as a consequence of operating ‘ultra vires’, ie. outside the corporate charters and ‘trust indentures’ which create the office in the first place.
In the STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, not one judge has taken the necessary Oaths of office, which include the organic ‘state’ de jure republic oath for “North Carolina”, and the subsequent and inferior or ‘lesser’ oath for the STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA. The latter ‘public entity’ has federal character, a Federal Employer Identification Number, a Federal Tax Identification Number, and is a federal ‘instrumentality’ of the CORPORATE ‘UNITED STATES’, and the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, under definition of 28 U.S.C. §3002(15), AND 26 U.S.C. §§7701 (a)(9) and (10). This documented fact pertains to every judge in every State court, but also applies to most every other ‘public official’ or ‘law enforcement officer’.
I cannot address what other State public pretenders and ‘District Attorneys’ or “Prosecutors” do when bringing a criminal complaint against any “natural Man or Woman”, which includes CORPORATIONS [YES, they are both the class of ‘person’ under statute ‘law’ definition], but in the STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, when it is the bringer of the action, the People of the State are never brought in as ‘party to the action’. Only the CORPORATION/DEBTOR name is found on the Criminal Complaint or Information form. Only the corporate State is present in the courtroom, trying a case before a CORPORATE JUDGE. There exists a complete breach and break from the Constitution of North Carolina, because the People of the republic North Carolina and their ‘law’ are not present in the action nor party to it. They are not in the courtroom, nor are they acting through any ‘officer’ of the People, as ‘District Attorney’, which Office alleges to be a ‘servant of the People’. It is NOT. Event the DA does not have the mandatory and proper Constitutional Oath as condition precedent under NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL STATUTES, which clearly state at Chapter 11, Section 11, there shall be two Constitutional Oaths taken.
Absent performance according to that bonded STATUTE regarding bonded Oaths, leaves a clear and certain risk-liability issue for the Bond maker-issuer. Some bonding agent has bonded the Statutes and other writings of the law of the State. Some bond issuer has bonded State ‘employees’, ‘officers’, and ‘public officials’.
Some bond issuer has, therefore, “underwritten” risk on the basis of having full knowledge that there exist no Constitutional Oaths beneath the CORPORATE OATH. One cannot but presume that the bond issuer-maker has full disclosure; after all, ‘they’ have been registered within each State Department of Corporations, do business in all ‘States’ and DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, and are presumed to know the “LAW”….including the “law of the land “, which under their “UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE” and all secondary ‘Civil’ or ‘Criminal’ Codes, would find itself to be in harmony with their legislative jurisdictional ‘statutes and implementing regulations’ at U.C.C. 1-308, 1-207, and 1-103, wherein All Rights are Reserved, and the U.C.C. states that it is harmonious with ‘all jurisdictions’, which would include the jurisdiction of the “law of the land”, ‘common law’, and the various common law Constitutions of the underlying several de jure republic ‘states’ of the American union, aka, United States of America.
Why would any bond underwriter knowingly underwrite these CORPORATE STATES, UNITED STATES, all of their ‘sub-corporations’, agents-agencies, instrumentalities, and their ‘law authority’ found in their various ‘writings’, private ‘laws’ etc., to operate a ‘public’ or ‘municipal’ construct as if it were ‘lawful government’, but knowing that it really is not? The underwriters of bonds, therefore, could not allege any defense against a massive intake of related claims by private inhabitants of any of the States or UNITED STATES who have been “compelled” under duress, extreme duress, or risk of extreme duress and prejudice of ‘seizure’, ‘confiscation’ ‘impound’, ‘occupation’, ‘detainment’, or injury or termination by any means of potentially lethal force?
Everyone who has ever been inside a State of North Carolina administrative or judicial ‘law’ proceeding, or been before any ‘clerk’ or ‘judge’ of same, or been prosecuted by any County District Attorney within said State/STATE, has been within a “brutum fulmen“:
Black’s Law Dictionary, 4t Edition: “brutum fulmen“: “An empty noise; an empty threat. A judgment void upon its face which is in legal effect no judgment at all, and by which no rights are divested, and from which none can be obtained; and neither binds nor bars anyone. Dollert v. Pratt-Hewitt Oil Corporation, Tex.Civ.Appl, 179 S.W.2d 346, 348. Also, see Corpus Juris Secundum, “Judgments” §§ 499, 512 546, 549.
The “Office of Sheriff” is a most important link between the People of any de jure republic ‘state’ and the Courts, and Offices of the State. However, it has been discovered that many Sheriffs do not, as Chief Law Enforcement Officer of any local ‘county’ or County, have a bona fide prior or ‘precedent’ Constitutional Oath to their respective republic state. Or, they may have taken a bona fide Constitutional Oath, and then disclaimed or disavowed it immediately henceforth by taking a CORPORATE Constitutional Oath. “A man cannot serve two masters”.
This same “axiomatic” principal applies to ‘officers’ of the United States as well. How can the newly ‘sworn’ Attorney General of the UNITED STATES, OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL [a federal corporation] take a Constitutional Oath to the United States, or UNITED STATES, and be held to such an Oath as ‘liable’ for his/her breach of fiduciary duty to the people of the United States of America, or to the franchise corporate trust estate ‘citizens of the UNITED STATES’, when the office ‘holder’ enjoins by contract to the ‘international purposes of INTERPOL’, under its Constitution [charter-contract] at Article 30 shortly after taking said Oath? Article 30 is quite explicit in meaning and intent. If one understands the “international purposes of INTERPOL” and all other ‘international agencies’ was and is to ‘establish a financial dictatorship within the United States/United States of America’ for the benefit of undisclosed third parties, under jurisdiction and authority of the IMF-U.N, then all of the lower level ‘breach of duty’ by lack of proper Bond and Oath issues would begin to make clear sense.
In short, all alleged ‘public servants’ are serving ‘public policy’ and ‘public administration’ of the ‘laws’ and enforcing those laws to protect the CORPORATION, to the disinterest and detriment of the People, whom have been ‘captured’, ‘searched’, ‘seized’, ‘boarded’ as with a ‘vessel’, and which People have been placed into ‘warehouse storeage’ as ‘human capital’ and ‘property’ of the de facto King or “Sovereign”, which/who has conquered and occupied the Office of the People, and subverted and subordinated it into an Office of Inquisition for YOU KNOW WHO!!
Lacking mandatory Oath, creates liability against the bond of the STATE, and every officer-agent-employee who has come to be ‘employed’ thereby.Breach of any underlying writing of the STATE, or State, or state, as an offer to contract in admiralty venue, is a certain “injury in fact” giving rise to a “material injustice” and resultant ‘liability’. There is no longer any question about ‘risk analysis’ or ‘damage assessment’. The only real issue is “HOW MUCH IS THE INJURY WORTH”? WHAT PENALTIES should be compelled above the mere “pecuniary” or monetary ‘relief’ to be sought? Treble damages? Punitive damages? Civil or Criminal or BOTH?
If Oaths and Bonds have not yet been ascertained for all relevant federal and State officers, agents, and employees, they should be compelled by FOIA request or subpoena duces tecum immediately so that the elements of contract and breach of duty by these ‘public servants’ under mandate of relevant Constitutions, statutes, regulations, etc., including the U.C.C. in Admiralty venue can be comprehensively determined; then, a resultant ‘cause of action’ constructed accordingly.
It is further axiomatic that: “Where a liability in equity arises due to injury by any party, and that party does not also provide a “remedy” for said liability, the injured party has the right and standing to create his own remedy”(Which would provide the secured right to seek Article III sec. 2 remedy for the deprivation of Natural Rights by way of a Title 18 USC sec 241 in the United States Court of Federal Claims.) This would n0t be a Title 42 USC proceeding for the U.S. citizen or person of diminished corporate status.
Persons without proper Oaths do not and cannot have proper Bonds OR satisfy the necessary requirements to “hold” a bona fide “Office”, by ‘commission’, “election”, or “appointment”. In short, an ‘Officer’ or “Office Holder” cannot but ‘occupy’ the office under false and misleading pretense, misrepresentation, and FRAUD, which strips the ‘individual’ of ‘law authority’ and ‘immunity’ under well-seasoned law of the land and sea. Brutum fulmen!! Bonds that are attached to such juristic ‘persons’ are subject to claim and lien, after “adequate assurance of due performance” has been found lacking pursuant to U.C.C. 2-619. A proper Oath and Bond are but two of the three primary “poles” of “Office” [Oath, Bond, Commission]. One cannot act upon being ‘duly appointed’ or ‘duly elected’ or ‘duly commissioned’ simply by INCORPORATION and CORPORATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS.
NOTICE: CORPORATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS aka “Administrative Procedures Act” lacks any bona fide Constitutional nexus and is without “lawful authority”, and thereby, has no nexus to the Constitutionally protected ‘Right’ of substantive “Due process” for the natural Man or Woman. Hence, any presumptive act or action taken against any natural Man or Woman by any oath sworn corporate ‘official’, ‘officer’, agent’ or ‘employee’ lacking such nexus is subject to CLAIM and/or COUNTER-CLAIM in a Chancery venue and proceeding. The claim, once perfected after ‘exhausting administrative remedy’ is brought against the Bond and the DUN & BRADSTREET rating of that CORPORATE PERSON will be affected as a consequence. The idea is not to seek an illegitimate claim for merely punitive or monetary purposes, but to seek claim on the basis of protest, dispute, redress, relief, and ‘remedy’ to restore you as to being made whole once again from the damage that has been maliciously exercised for the purpose to profit off your commercial value in total disregard and summary denial of the pre-existing accessible remedy provided out of necessity and thereby operation of law to avoid the circumstance of unjust enrichment of private and public parties, both natural and fictional.