The bonding of statutes which require natural persons (non-incorporated persons) to purchase insurance, must be very carefully analyzed, and be regarded with the utmost caution. As a general rule, it is against the law for any entity to compel any citizen to pay any wager or premium for the privilege of not being injured or for the privilege of not being threatened with injury (Protection Insurance Racketeering). [Footnote: U.S. R.I.C.O. Laws]
Corporations may be required by the state in which they are incorporated, to purchase public hazard insurance because the corporation, being an artificial/paper person (a legal fiction), is regarded as having no conscience other than the state, making the state as a silent partner of the corporation, financially responsible for the acts of the corporation. (That which the liege-lord giveth, the liege-lord taketh away.) When the benefit which the state gives to the corporation is limited liability, which is a limited commercial responsibility to the commercial public, to a reasonable extent, then the state must protect the commercial public to a reasonable extent from a potential lack of commercial responsibility of the corporation or from a tendency toward a potential lack of commercial responsibility of the corporation, by requiring the corporation to purchase hazard bonding. This requirement protects the public from some losses, and protects the state from some civil liability, by a showing of commercial good faith action.
Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance
Citizens are required to surrender the ultimate title of ownership of their motor vehicles (the manufacturer’s statement of origin/MSO) to their respective states in exchange for a certificate of title of ownership and license plates. The state owns the vehicle because it holds the ultimate title to the motor vehicle. The citizen has the permission to use the vehicle. The permission can be revoked at any time by the state.
[Tennessee Department of Revenue Operations Supervisor, Denise Rottero, before Judge Greer. She explained Tennessee's auto registration process.]
The vehicle can be seized and auctioned off to provide revenue for the state. For example, the state of Oregon seizes and auctions citizens’ motor vehicles as a penalty for soliciting a prostitute; proving that the auto belongs to the state.
Because the state has the ultimate ownership of all of the vehicles used by all of its citizens, the state also has the ultimate liability for all accidents in which those vehicles become involved. This is a potentialreason for the state to compel citizens to purchase motor vehicle insurance. Another reason is obvious. The state is a silent partner in every insurance corporation incorporated in that state, and so, many of the insurance companies within the state are mere alter egos or “second selves” of the state. In this insurance scheme the state makes it mandatory for the citizen to buy a product which the state is selling. The individual state will get part of the insurance business; the interstate insurance companies, regulated by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, will get the remainder of the insurance business.
Also, states need civil malpractice insurance. This sort of insurance comes from “above”, from interstate insurance companies andinternational maritime insurance companies such as Rothschild, so, some states prostitute their legislative power as an inducement to get insurance companies to give them a better payment rate for their own malpractice insurance coverage premiums for their own corporate activities, by compelling citizens to purchase motor vehicle insurance.
In any compulsory motor vehicle insurance scheme, a citizen’s purchase of motor vehicle insurance is guaranteed by a threat of injury in the form of a suspension of the driver license, seizure of the vehicle, fines and imprisonment if the citizen does not comply with the state’s mandate.This creates the basic fabric of a protection insurance racket, hence a very real credibility problem for insurance and bonding companies.
The bonding problem gets really nasty when a judge compels a citizen to either buy auto insurance or to quite driving “his” (the “citizen’s”) car. Because a bond or insurance is only a promise to pay and not a tangible product, a citizen can lawfully and rightfully argue that, like a savings and loan or a bank, an insurance bonding/bonding company might not be around when damage is done and it is time for a claim payoff. Therefore the citizen can lawfully guarantee the auto insurance policy by putting a common law lien on enough of the property of the law enforcement officer and the judge to cover the face value of the insurance policy.
“This commercial lien cannot be removed.”
“A federal R.I.C.O. action against the enforcement officer and the judge can also compel them to pay all of the premiums for all of the persons whom they have compelled to buy insurance.”
The voluntary purchasing of motor vehicle insurance is smart. It is a good investment. But compulsory purchase of any sort of insurance in order to continue the daily act of living is protection insurance racketeering. Any bonding company which bonds compulsory motor vehicle insurance statutes is going to have big unresolvable problems, and any officer or judge who enforces compulsory motor vehicle insurance statutes is laying himself wide open to economic ruin.
3.0 – LEGISLATIVE OUTPUT
The Output Conclusion of legislation will be bonded and become a valid and lawful statute thereby, only if the bonding company finds that:
1. the definitions of the terms used in the conclusion are bonded,
2. the principles used in the conclusion are bonded,
3. the logic used in the conclusion is bonded,
4. the conclusion has been presented to the public, has been negatively criticized because of its construction or effect, then, the conclusion has been returned to the analysis and logic stage to test and justify its construction and effect, and
5. the legislated conclusion, after it has been subjected to public scrutiny and further analysis, is economically feasible for a wager on its public application. If it survives this last step, the conclusion is said to be perfected for legislative bonding, and becomes a judiciable statute [FN: "A legislative conclusion becomes a valid and lawful statute only if it is legislatively bonded."]
4.0 – JUDICATIVE INPUT, GENERALLY
An official, officer or clerk will not be bonded:
1. if he uses the power of his public office, or his position in that office, or his power of enforcement
A. to harass or to oppress a citizen, or
B. to create, obstacles to prevent a citizen from exercisinghis remedies by the due course/due process of law.
2. if he deprives or hinders a citizen in the free exercise of rights guaranteed or of the equal protection of the law guaranteed by the constitution of the state by which the officer is employed, or guaranteed by the National constitution or of the state into which the officer’s work takes him.
3. if he interferes in a citizen’s U.S. constitutional first (so-called) amendment
A. legislative rights of freedom of religion,
B. Judicative rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press (the right to access the court of public opinion), and/or
C. Executive rights to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances (i.e., file civil and criminal complaints-especially against malfeasant public officials).
4. FN “If he will not file or receive the filing of a criminal” complaint [no filing fee is required] against a public official. which such is necessary to curb the malfeasance of that official.” (See also – Bonding of District Attorneys, infra.)
4.1 – Judicative Input, Specifically
The process of receipt of date input/allegations for judication by the government will be bonded only if the bonding company finds that no act was committed by any official, officer or clerk:
1. to ridicule, harass, oppress, injure or punish the citizen for submission or attempting to submit affidavits, allegations, arguments, claims, criminal complaints and/or damages for consideration, litigation or prosecution, or
2. hinder or prevent the composition (writing), receiving, filing or processing of the citizen’s affidavits, allegations, arguments, considerations, claims, criminal complaints and/or demands.
This rule also applies to the composition, receiving, filing and processing of affidavits, allegations, arguments, claims, criminal complaints and demands of prisoners. For example, the enforcement process of an enforcement officer will not be bonded if the judicial process of receipt ofdata input/affidavits . . . is not bonded, or is not bondable. Example:
Translation (If it is found that an accused person was not allowed by an official or clerk to file a counter complaint with the prosecuting attorney, then the official process of the complaint against the accused party, and all official processes thereafter will not be bonded unless and until this defect of process is rectified and the accused party has had adequate time and opportunity to recover from the damage caused by being denied the opportunity to file the said counter complaint.) An officer sued for false imprisonment for violation of the equal protection of the law (here the prisoner’s right to counter complaint) because of an unbondable judicial process of failing to receive data input, will pay for the damage out of municipal. corporate property or his own personalproperty.
5.0 – JUDICATIVE CONTROL
The court rules, jurisdiction, and the processes of consideration of affidavits and other filings, litigation, and prosecution will be bonded only if the bonding company finds that:
1. The general rules or local rules of the court contain an explanation of the purpose for existence of each and every rule so that the purpose of the rule will take priority over the wording of the rule, and so thatsubstance will take priority over form.
2. The general rules or local rules of the court contain common terms andplain wording and are of such simplicity that the common citizen can easily understand and easily and quickly make use of the rules without the need of a counselor.
3. The setting of the case is proper, the parties to the action are all truthfully stated, and all civil and criminal elements are clearly identified and segregated into their own jurisdictional categories.
4. A criminal case brought in behalf of the peace and dignity of the state:
A. has been brought ex rel accusers, that is, “on the telling or relation/story of the accuser” with the accusation being related to the prosecuting attorney by the accuser,
B. has named the accuser in the setting of the case, and
C. contains the signed and notarized affidavit of the accuser in the body of the complaint. Otherwise, the state would become the plaintiff/accuser, the case would become federal, and the bonding company would become potentially liable for an agent’s false accusation and false imprisonment of a party to the case.
5. In the U.S. constitutional 7th (so-called)amendment, civil elements of answering, discovery, deposition, interrogatories, etc., have been put ontemporary hold as a U.S. constitutional 6th (so-called) amendment protection against self-incrimination pending a U.5. constitutional 6th (so-called) amendment prosecution.
6. The U.S. constitutional 6th (so-called) amendment processes have been carried out before the U.S. constitutional 7th (socalled) amendment processes have proceeded, and these 6th (so-called) amendment processes have proceeded without delay.
Consideration of Affidavits
7. All affidavits have been considered, answered and affirmed or denied categorically, point for-point in writing.
Litigation and Prosecution
8. All officials, officer and clerks involved in the processes of litigation have obeyed the Constitution of the United States of the state wherein they are employed, so that;
A. the citizens involved have receive equal protection under the laws, and
B. the citizens’ remedies by the due course of law have been protected and guaranteed,
9. the officials, officers and clerks involved in the processes did not operate the court and/or the judicial process as a closed union shop, that is, did not exclude or hinder nonunion lawyers, non-union counsels, non-union para-legals, non-union laborers or any other non-union citizens from exercising the equal profession, the equal practice, the equal performance, the equal perfection and the equal protection of the law,.
10. The officials, officers and clerks involved in the processes did not act in concord, (agreement) union or conspiracy to interfere with or minimize the citizens’ creative access to discovery, evidence, counsel and/or remedy by the due process of the law.
Service of Legal Process
11. No party to the case, nor the court, has been allowed to use the U.S. mail to “serve” papers which are required by law to be “served,” not “sent.” A U.S. postal carrier is not employed and bonded as a witness, hence is not a lawful. legal process server.
5.1 Bondability of Lawyers and Attorneys
(Lawyer and Attorney Are Not Synonymous)
Attorn- Law:- To agree to recognize a new owner of a property or estate and promise payment of rent to him.
Feudal Law:- to consent to the transfer of land by the Lord of the fee, and to the continuance of one’s own holding under the new Lord; also, to accord homage to a Lord.
Attornment- Feudal Law:- The acknowledgment by the tenant of a new Lord on the alienation of land; also, the acknowledgment by a bailee that he holds property for a new party. Funk and Wagnall’s PracticalStandard Dictionary
Attorn- Law:- To turn over; to transfer to another money or goods; to assign to some particular use or service. To consent to the transfer of a rent or reversion. To agree to become tenant to one as owner or landlord of an estate previously held of another, or to agree to recognize a new owner of a property or estate and promise payment of rent to him.
Attorn- Feudal Law:- To turn over; to transfer to another money or goods; to assign to some particular use or service. Where a Lord aliened his seigniory, he might, with the consent of the tenant, and in some cases without, attorn or transfer the homage and service of the latter to the alienee or new Lord.
Attornment – In feudal and Old English Law – A turning over or transfer by a Lord of the services of his tenant to the grantee of his seigniory. (Lordship title: seignior, sir) The doctrine of attornment grew out of the peculiar relations existing between the landlord and his tenant under the feudal law, and the reasons for the rule never had any existence in this country, and is inconsistent with our laws, customs and institutions.
Black’s Law Dictionary Revised Fourth Edition We need to take a very close look at these words in order to understand the role of an attorney. The setting is old England, the aristocracy held the land. The lower class tilled the land as tenants. When the land changed hands from one aristocratic Lord to another aristocratic Lord, a treaty was made between the tenants and the new Lord lest civil war break out between the tenants and the new Lord. This transfer of power with treaty was called attornment.
Attornment was the method of peacefully passing land from one aristocrat to another aristocrat without disturbing the class structure. It consisted of a peaceful method of maintaining a noble class off citizens acceptable to the common people. This does not mean that the common people liked the situation, but they suffered evils while evils were sufferable, and made their treaties of attornment.
Therefore, in English Law attornment was a method of guaranteeing anunequal protection of the Law for the rich and the poor, but one which was at least tolerable for the poor. It was a “peaceful” maintenance of the class structure.
An attorney’s role in this system was to provide the ceremony of the acquiescence of the poor, and to do so in such a manner (modus operandi – MO) as to preserve and maintain the class structure. The peaceful unequal protection of the Law. It is eminently clear that an attorney’s role has not changed. Attorneys practice attornment.
Lawyer:- A person learned in the law. One who understands law and who loves law for its capacity to rectify the evils of society. One who professes and practices “Liberty and Justice for all,” and therefore theequal protection of the Law. Lawyers “practice” law. The U.S. Constitution provides over thirty guarantees of the equal protection of the law. A lawyer supports those provisions of guarantee; an attorney opposes those provisions. In America, a lawyer obeys the U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land. An attorney does not obey the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, technically, a lawyer is bondable and an attorney is not bondable. State bar associations, which deal with both extremes, must therefore rely upon “self-bonding.”
Testing and Counsel
There are both good and bad counsels. In reality, many so-called “lawyers” practice attornment, and many so-called “attorneys” practice law. Most persons think the terms “lawyer” and “attorney” mean the same thing, and would not even know how to distinguish one from another. Even the professionals call themselves, “attorneys-at-law,” a contradiction of terms which shows the confusion which prevails in law. For the present purposes of the Uniform Bonding Code, the counsels will not be discriminated against because of the term they use to identify their occupation. Only their behavior and “track record” will be used to determine their bondability. “You know a tree by the fruit which it bears.” An apple tree does not grow cherries, and a cherry tree does not grow apples. To cite an extreme example: a lawyer will file criminal charges against a judge for failure to protect a citizen’s U.S. constitutional rights; an attorney will not. There are many such tests, and contracts of specific performance can be provided to would-be counsels to find out what they are actually ready, willing and able to do.
When it is necessary, a lawyer will act as a substitute and go to jail for a cause in which he believes, whereas an attorney will only dabble at “law,” will ask to be removed from a case when the going gets rough and becomes a battle, will run in the face of the enemy, and therefore deserves a summary court martial.
5.2 — Bonding of District Attorneys
A city, county, state or federal district attorney (including a U.S. district attorney called a “U.S. Attorney’) shall lose his bonding and shall not be bonded:
1. if he refuses to properly identify himself to the citizen when asked to do so, including giving the citizen the name and address (or telephone number) of his bonding company and his bond policy number (bond number),
2. if he fails or refuses to receive, for filing, a criminal complaint from a citizen against a citizen or an official,
3. if he refused to mark or stamp the citizen’s confirmed (compare with original) copy of the citizen’s complaint with any of the following:
B. name of receiving office
E. signature or initial of receiving clerk or official, so that the citizen can have an official receipt for delivery of his complaint;
4. if he fails or refuses to make a reasonably diligent effort to process the citizen’s complaint (42 USC 1986),
5. if he fails or refuses to see to it that the citizen’s complaint is placed in the right hands for processing and/or answering, (return)
6. if he does not make every effort to make sure that the complaining party knows of the status or location of the complaint in the legal system, and does not give the complainant written notice of the same when it is possible.
5.3 – The Bonding of Prosecuting Attorneys
A prosecuting attorney shall lose his bonding, shall not be bonded, andshall be deemed unbondable:
1. if he refuses to prosecute a complaint when it is possible to do so, regardless of whom the complaint is against,
2. if he resorts to “selective prosecution,” i.e., any excuse of immunityfor an official in order to protect a malfeasant official from prosecution,
3. if he resorts to “selective prosecution “i.e., false or maliciousprosecution of a citizen, in order to punish or destroy a citizen for attempting to have a malfeasant official prosecuted.
5.4 – Bonding of Judges
A judge shall lose his bonding, shall not be bonded, and shall be deemedunbondable:
1. if he fails to protect the U.S, national constitutionally guaranteed remedies of due process and the equal protection of the laws of any citizen appearing in his court of law, or of any citizen appearing in anycourt of the county in which he works whose case may come to his attention.
5.5 – Bonding of Attorneys
A lawyer or an attorney shall lose his bonding, shall not be bonded, andshall be deemed unbondable,:
1. if he fails to protect the remedies of due process and the equalprotection of the law of either his client or of the adverse party in anaction. In an adversary system of law, each lawyer or attorney shall protect the representation of fact not only for their own party, but shall protect the legal process for both parties without, exception.
5.6 – Bonding an Amicus Curiae
(Friend of the Court – Especially under a Citizen’s Writ of Mandamus Pursuant to 42 USC 1986)
It is not necessary for a non-incorporated lawyer or amicus curiae(friend of the court) to be bonded. But a lawyer or an amicus curiae, if he chose to be bonded, shall lose his bond and shall not be bonded:
1. if he uses his involuntary intervention to interfere with constitutional due process,
2. if he does not speak and act openly for the best interests of bothopposing adverse parties, even if paid by one party and sits as counsel to that party. An amicus curiae may favor the cause of one side of an action, but must serve the due process of both sides of an action in order to be of service to the system of law as a whole. If the judge is acting in insurrection and rebellion against the U.S. Constitution, and the judge shows no signs of amending his ways (correcting his court procedure), it is usually best for the amicus curiae to file a notice of criminal malpractice (malfeasance) with the court administrator, and with the bonding company in person, by fax, or by telephone to immediately establish reversible error and. civil damage in the case.
6.0 – JUDICATIVE OUTPUT
The process of Judgment will be bonded only if the bonding company finds that:
1. the terms, definitions, principles (axioms), logic and conclusion underlying the statutes being used in a judgment are all bonded, i.e., the statute used is a valid and lawful statute, i.e., is a bonded statute;
2. the process of receipt of data input is bonded;
3. the Court rules, the jurisdiction and the processes of consideration ofaffidavits, litigation and prosecution are all bonded;
4. a jury trial was granted, if it was not. waived in writing by all parties to the suit;
5. a summary judgment hearing was not imposed in place of a jury trial as long as there was so much as one genuine issue of material fact or one unprosecuted element of criminal behavior, criminal malpractice, or official or clerical malfeasance;
6. the jury was allowed to come to a verdict by ballot while sitting in the courtroom without retiring to the jury room to arrive at a verdict; NOTE: Retirement of a jury to a jury room for deliberating a verdict is internaljury tampering, creates an homogenized verdict, constitutes conspiracy to convict or to vindicate, and makes every member of the jury individually and personally liable for the verdict, regardless of the content of the verdict. if a summary accusation or complaint, Judgment.and execution of contempt has been brought against a person appearing before the court because his behavior or argument in favor of his rights in that court displeases the judge, or is held by that judge to be contrary to the order and decorum of the court, and
i. the accusing judge has made out the complaint of contempt,
ii. the accused has been tried by a second judge yielding a judgment ofcontempt,_, and
iii. a third judge has agreed in writing to accept the total liability for both the accusation orcomplaint of contempt, and the judgment of contemptif either or both of the first two judges hasacted with malfeasance in the contempt process, and
iv. the third judge has yielded the order of execution of contempt.
If the contempt charge is later found to be improper or unlawful, the personal liability of the third judge shall be proportional to the number of judges acting in defect of the law. (i.e., treble damages (make triple).
This rate of damages corresponds to the treble damages of a U.S. R.I.C.O. (Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organization) suit. The third judge will have to sue the other two judges to recover remedy from them.
8. The order. of execution of the judgment has an attached check list containing a signature verified entry for every step of the process which must be bonded in order for the overall process to be perfected for judicial bonding. Each step must have a space provided for reference to any attached comments on irregularities in the process. “An order ofjudgment becomes a valid and lawful order of execution only if it isjudicially bonded.”
6.1. – Bonding of Judicial Consequence
A government official, officer or clerk shall lose their bond, shall not be bonded, and shall be deemed unbondable:
1. if he fails to answer, or fails to require an answer to, a citizen’scomplaint, and affidavit of information categorically point for-point,except that, where criminal accusations are made, he shall have the right to remain silent, or allow silence (non-answer) as a protection against selfincrimination. Otherwise, the ordinary rule is, “An affidavit unrebutted stands as the truth.”
2. If he knowingly imprisons, or keeps as a prisoner, a citizen in violation of that citizen’s U.S. constitutionally secured rights and equal protection of the law. The offense shall repeat the application of pertinent remedy statutes each and every twenty-four(24) hours.
3. if he refuses a prisoner the materials and information necessary for the prisoner to defend, acquit or vindicate himself. The offense shall repeat the application of the pertinent remedy statutes each and every twenty-four (24) hours.
NOTE: If an officer or clerk who has lost his bond, gives aid and comfort to a citizen or to a prisoner deprived as described under this chapter, and shall prove himself genuine, the same shall recover his bondability.
7.0 – EXECUTIVE INPUT
Principles of Executive Bonding
Qualifications For Bonding Enforcement Officers The input/qualifications of an executive/enforcement officer shall be bonded.
Pursuant to state incorporation laws, any official, officer or clerk, of any municipal. corporation (city, county, state) engaged in any activity potentially dangerous or hazardous to the public safety, health and welfare must be bonded and must carry an identification card which declares his bonding status.
In a scientific system, the executive bond on a reasonable officer with a good social attitude, a “good track record.” and a good education, is less expensive than the bond on a rookie cop (constable or patrol) just as the automobile insurance on an older, sensible, seasoned and proven driver is less than the auto insurance for a younger, impulsive and unproven driver.
The Glass House Doctrine
It is the executive branch which ultimately commits the statutory injuries which the legislative and judicative branches order up for the control and punishment of citizens.
“A person who lives in a glass house should not throw rocks at others.” (sic)
Likewise a government infested with malfeasant officials, officers and clerks is in no position to pursue felons in the public sphere. If it would be credible in the eyes of the public and the bonding companies, then it must first eliminate its own malfeasance with the same diligence that it would pursue the civilian felon.
In all complaints of a citizen against a public law enforcement officer, the complaining citizen has the general responsibility of protecting thegeneral enforcement of the laws by giving every opportunity of grace and escape to the officer complained about. The complainant must always remain sensitive to the fact that a law enforcement officer is constantly subject to the most psychologically demanding emergency situations and the most dangerous social combinations, and must be given every benefit of the doubt so that he can survive his daily work.
7.1 – No Criminal Bonding
Criminal acts may not be bonded against prosecution or litigation, or there would be people who would become bonded as a license to commit criminal acts in violation of the peace and dignity of the state.
Likewise, corporations may not be established by a person to hide the criminal acts of that person behind corporate limited liability, or there would be people who would incorporate their activities in order to secure for themselves a license to commit criminal acts behind the corporate limited liability veil in violation of the peace and dignity of the state. Corporate limited liability, as it pertains to civil commercial obligations, is a delicate enough creation without the criminal aspect, and it is only because business people accept the idea that they are gambling in commerce when they deal with a corporation that there is any honesty at all in the limited liability concept of a corporation. For if a person uses a corporation to run up a commercial debt with the intent to abscond (run away and hide) at some future time, then that corporation becomes simply an instrumentality, called an alter ego, for the commission of crime. It is for this reason that the state is a silent partner in every state incorporated artificial person, and has the liability. There is no corporate limited liability for the commission of crimes. Criminal acts committed by corporate officials, officers and clerks pierce the limited liability veil of every type corporation and artificial (purely legal) person. Also, criminal accusation always pierces the veil of corporate limited liability.
No Criminal Bonding
An official, officer or clerk who commits a criminal act (a crime) or gross negligence of duty against a citizen or against the public generally:
1. shall lose his bond,
2. shall not be protected by his official bond,
3. shall not be protected by the limited liability of the corporation, trust, or office of public trust which employs him,
4. shall be personally liable (financially responsible) for the damage which that crime or gross negligence causes,
5. must pay for the damage out of his own personal assets of real and personal property.
A citizen’s recourse against official crimes is to file his claim in the form of a criminal complaint/U.S. First (so-called)Amendment petition for redress of grievances with a civil value noted on the complaint, but with the U.S. Seventh Amendment process on hold as not immediately answerable, and with the civil value pending the outcome of the U.S. Sixth (so-called) Amendment criminal prosecution.
The criminal claim puts payment of the bond on hold and pierces the veil of corporate limited liability, exposing the officer to unlimited attachment of personal property unless he is prosecuted and vindicated by prosecution. If the prosecutor does not agree to prosecute the case within thirty days, or such time as is reasonable for investigation of the charges (not to exceed sixty days without reasonable cause), then the matter reverts to a civil action standing half inside and half outside of the corporate veil with the bonding company, the corporation and the officer standing liable for the damages.