Explanation Letter and Admiralty Article

[motla68]

Good post allodial, yes a trustee of sorts. Pretty obvious when they give you a right to self assessment and then take away that right with a frivolous filing penalty. Also for the fact when you sign that form it is under penalties of perjury.

Signature, can a signature come from natural law in accord with statutes? nope
Take the "g" out, what do you get?

[allodial]

I think you are right on with that. It also explains why there is no resistance lately to properly filing and publishing the Default Judgments (foreign judgments) resulting from the Libels of Review.

And no surprise, Federal judgments are paid out pretty much like tax refunds through FMS Treasury. The flip-side is, if they harm you they could become liable to pay as if it were a tax. Its a two-edged sword for them. If an assessment is made against them per a judgment, for them to argue is to argue tax matters and to question the public debt--that is probably why they were served a can of "Shut up and do your job, clerks."--risk management, actuaries, inn sewer ants, etc. Consider that the typical traffic court case is like "rate-limited" (think network traffic) by the fact that the 'judges' have to give a criminal burden of proof before they can collect on their assessment. THE WAY THEY HAVE TO HANDLE THE CASE IS THAT THEY MUST PROVE THAT THEY CAN JUSTIFY THE TAX!!!!! The requirement of giving an alleged breach of contract a criminal burden of proof is designed to STOP THEM MAKING FRIVOLOUS ASSESSMENTS!

I drafted a bond that successfully covered *a person* for IRS tax obligations but a stipulation was that the bond didn't cover frivolous or hostile claims made by the IRS. That kept the IRS from getting wide, greedy, google-eyes over the notion that they could just send the person a bill for $500K and get paid out of the bond. Maximum assessments were sent out in the initial phase of settlement of accounts, but the IRS folks eventually wound up owing once the examination was through--they didn't make a stink just made a few delays here and there. Overall, the folks I've met that work for the IRS have been very friendly and interesting-to-know--coming at them without hostility makes a big difference. The IRS folks knew I was enforcing and doing things according to the IRM as a sovereign intervening and seeing to it that proper and adequate settlement of accounting for a seven-year period was performed per the extant rules or regulations. To at least some extent they are my servants. And for those Christians, remember being a bad master wasn't smiled upon by Y'shua ( / Jesus)--it works two ways people. Shouting and screaming at the IRS agents like an arse when oneself, one's dad or one's great grand pappy set the system to begin with might be a good way to get a free psychological evaluation--thus I avoid complaining. If you collect tax as a federal judge, you can't kvetch about paying it without expecting some negative reverberations. David Merrill, also consider that the tax filing requirements are far more stringent for attorneys. Members of the bar appear to be REQUIRED to have an SSN or tax ID. So there is some "cross talk" and "metaphysical improvement in resolution" going on here in the sense that attorney at bar is always a taxpayer.

In that time frame too, a suitor treated me to a weekend in Montana. Listening to the 4:00 Mark hear me inquiring what I could about Refusal for Cause - even back in 1995! Later though I sat and witnessed Leroy Michael's confidence in the law as he chuckled writing in International Monetary Fund Internal Revenue Service upon a $15K Comptroller Warrant; rather than the typical IRS. UN instead of Puerto Rico. SCHWIETZER knew what I was doing but did not expect that I held (and still have) no trust in the UCC for my common law. So instead of citing the UCC I just wrote in Without Recourse below my True Name, Family signature. I suppose I had an inkling that would be compelling a post 1976 End to the Financial Emergency too...

I suspect the IMF only comes into play when it comes to general payments to the U.S. Treasury. Consider the Secretary of Treasury to be like a transistor, gate or router. If the money is destined for overseas, he has to deal with IMF/BIS. Like you, I take hype with a grain or two of salt. The idea that the IRS is the IMF is a bit sketchy. That there is overlap--no doubt. I have a few texts on the UCC and one of them makes it clear that the UCC is a "State law". Consider however that the District of Columbia is in a sense a "State".

P.S. No doubt, there are times when the servants get out of line.. perhaps an understatement in view of past experience. However perhaps "dulocracy" describes what happens when the masters behave too stupidly, drunken or indifferent to stop their servants from clowning around.

[Chex]

And no surprise, Federal judgments are paid out pretty much like tax refunds through FMS Treasury. The flip-side is, if they harm you they could become liable to pay as if it were a tax. Its a two-edged sword for them. If an assessment is made against them per a judgment, for them to argue is to argue tax matters and to question the public debt--that is probably why they were served a can of "Shut up and do your job, clerks."--risk management, actuaries, inn sewer ants, etc. Consider that the typical traffic court case is like "rate-limited" (think network traffic) by the fact that the 'judges' have to give a criminal burden of proof before they can collect on their assessment. THE WAY THEY HAVE TO HANDLE THE CASE IS THAT THEY MUST PROVE THAT THEY CAN JUSTIFY THE TAX!!!!! The requirement of giving an alleged breach of contract a criminal burden of proof is designed to STOP THEM MAKING FRIVOLOUS ASSESSMENTS!

If you collect tax as a federal judge, you can't kvetch about paying it without expecting some negative reverberations. David Merrill, also consider that the tax filing requirements are far more stringent for attorneys. Members of the bar appear to be REQUIRED to have an SSN or tax ID. So there is some "cross talk" and "metaphysical improvement in resolution" going on here in the sense that attorney at bar is always a taxpayer.

I suspect the IMF only comes into play when it comes to general payments to the U.S. Treasury. Consider the Secretary of Treasury to be like a transistor, gate or router. If the money is destined for overseas, he has to deal with IMF/BIS. Like you, I take hype with a grain or two of salt. The idea that the IRS is the IMF is a bit sketchy. That there is overlap--no doubt. I have a few texts on the UCC and one of them makes it clear that the UCC is a "State law". Consider however that the District of Columbia is in a sense a "State".

P.S. the masters behave too stupidly, drunken or indifferent to stop their servants from clowning around.

Collecting Federal Revenue: FMS administers the world's largest government funds collections systems through a network of more than 10,000 financial institutions. In fiscal year 2011 the bureau collected $3.06 trillion in federal revenues, such as individual and corporate income tax deposits, customs duties, fees for government services, fines, and loan repayments. Of that amount, $2.94 trillion, or 96 percent, was collected electronically. https://www.fms.treas.gov/aboutfms/i...ml#collections

[David Merrill]

I like the way you think. Examine this first redemption on USA soil:

[motla68]

I like the way you think. Examine this first redemption on USA soil:

This is an excellent find into history, there is a couple other pieces of information found that tie into this:

UCC 8-407
(2) Upon surrender of a certificated security with all necessary indorsements and presentation of a written request by the person surrendering the security, the issuer, if he has no duty as to adverse claims or has discharged the duty (Section 8-403), shall issue to the person or a person designated by him an equivalent uncertificated security subject to all liens, restrictions, and claims that were noted on the certificated security.

Some similar language found in each states UCC as well, the kicker is that the wording was exactly the same in each state:

Authenticating Trustee, Transfer Agent, Registrar, or Other Agent; Obligation to Holder or Owner of Certificate - Mich. Comp. Laws Section 440.8407

Legal Research Home > Michigan Laws > Uniform Commercial Code > Authenticating Trustee, Transfer Agent, Registrar, or Other Agent; Obligation to Holder or Owner of Certificate - Mich. Comp. Laws Section 440.8407
440.8407 Authenticating trustee, transfer agent, registrar, or other agent; obligation to holder or owner of certificate.

Sec. 8407.

A person acting as authenticating trustee, transfer agent, registrar, or other agent for an issuer in the registration of a transfer of its securities, in the issue of new security certificates or uncertificated securities, or in the cancellation of surrendered security certificates has the same obligation to the holder or owner of a certificated or uncertificated security with regard to the particular functions performed as the issuer has in regard to those functions.


History: Add. 1987, Act 16, Imd. Eff. Apr. 24, 1987 ;-- Am. 1998, Act 278, Imd. Eff. July 27, 1998

[george]

I like the way you think. Examine this first redemption on USA soil:

hi David,

this link is 404 (broken, not found on server) if possible, would you re-upload it please?

thanks

[allodial]

Fascinating. For some reason, the word "canceled" stands out.

[David Merrill]

Yes indeed; quite a Find!