12-1-2017
One thing that stands out as people continue to do their process is that people need to stop trying to settle their accounts themselves. That is where they are having the most trouble.
Let me explain this business with the original trusts. It is the birth certificate which sets up the first trust. It is a foreign situs trust. It is foreign to the US and American is an American National. Then by signing up for limited liability insurance, American subrogated the benefits of the foreign situs trust to the SS insurance by signing the SS-5 form…application for benefits. At the very least American became a co-business partner with AMERICAN/US. This is a constructive trust, perhaps a cestui que trust. American might be considered as a co-trustee on the AMERICAN trust, but American is not a trustee on the foreign situs trust. The IMF/licensed physician, agent, is the grantor on the foreign situs trust, the governor of the state or maybe the Sec of State has to be the trustee, and American is the beneficiary.
Because there are assets (hypothecated, but still held in reality in the CAFR accounts) in the foreign situs trust, American has right of set off against the account, not discharge. It is the set off that creates the quid pro quo. Discharge is not zero balance, it is a perpetual annuity bond (in the Old Testament law of sacrifice, the consequence of sin was not held against the man through the Levitical Law on the premise that a perfect sacrifice would be made to zero the account. The animal sacrifice didn’t take a way the Sin nor could it but it was the remedy until the true sacrifice was made which is the blood of Yehashue (Jesus). So in this commercial process, HJR 192 ch 48 48 service as our remedy until we have lawful money in place to pay our debts.
Key is for you to establish that you are not the bankrupt debtor –
American subrogated set off in favor of discharge by accepting the benefit privilege of limited liability insurance. So, the US/AMERICAN has all the rights and defenses of the previous foreign situs trust.
Hence, if you want to probate the SS insurance, you have to bring death to the account by withdrawal of the application for the benefit privilege, SSA 521 (subrogation under LL insurance). If US/AMERICAN cannot access any funds, the trust goes away…insolvent. Now, you see control of the benefits of the hypothecated and internationally traded birth certificate has turned back to American, and American can use to set off to settle his debts, not discharge, quid pro quo.
Now conspiring courts and cases, where most of us are getting things mixed up is where we volunteer to be the trustee on a court case. Not that you have to be the trustee, but if you make a general appearance into the court and guarantee the debt as surety, you are acting like a trustee and so the court concludes that you are. You can be a beneficiary on the foreign situs and still put on a new hat and be the trustee on the CR 12-345 trust. DO NOT CONFUSE THE THINGS THAT HAPPENED IN THE COURT THAT YOU SAW WITH THE THINGS WHICH HAPPENED IN COURT THAT YOU DID NOT SEE. INVISIBLE CONTRACTS!!!
Set off is in the foreign situs trust, and discharge is the cestui que trust but discharge is not settlement. What is the final outcome of the 1099OID? That is a trick question…there is no final outcome. Taxable issues are all centered in the limited liability insurance operating in the US/AMERICAN venue. Insurance is created to avoid the judgment. By insuring anything we are saying that we are in contempt of the judgments and the consequences of our own actions. HJR 192 is in the US trust as are all statutes and codes.
Remember, anytime there is a dispute of title or claim, what does the judge have to do? He has to order a counterclaim, and if he did not say it aloud, you are still presumed to know that he “said” it, as it is again, an “invisible” contract. What is the purpose of the counterclaim…offcourse, set off. The judge is trying to tell you to do the set off as trustee of…yep, American had better find the funds from somewhere (the only logical place would be his benefits from the foreign situs trust) or American is in breach of fiduciary/trustee, contempt of court (after all American came in and volunteered to be the surety). DID YOU DO A COUNTERCLAIM OR CROSS COMPLAINT ON YOUR CASE? IF NOT HOW CAN YOU DO THE SET OFF? NOW YOU ARE IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO SET OFF THE DEBT…NOW YOU HAVE TO PURGE THE CONTEMPT…do you see?,… it has nothing to do with the original action. You are in contempt, contempt, contempt, and you have to purge the contempt or the court will purge it for you, and keep you locked up until you have paid the uttermost farthing. Secretary of the Department of the Treasury of the commonwealth of Puerto Ricoholds the keys to the front door of the treasury. He can do an administrative set off against any US debt by going to the party that seized and is holding all of the assets of the foreign situs trust. The US Attorney General, d/b/a the ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN who has seized all of the property of all the citizens under the Trading With the Enemy Act, TWEA.
Counter claim is an “invisible” contract. It is there. The court takes silent judicial notice of it. As a law merchant you are presumed to know the law. “Invisible” contracts cannot be seen…they are noticed, judicially noticed. In the admiralty jurisdiction, we do not motion the court (only attorneys motion the court)…we NOTICE the court, just like the admiralty court notices the law merchant silently and also notices the invisible contracts, especially the counterclaim.
Admiralty court sanctions for civil contempt! You had the opportunity for set off by counterclaim. You did not do the set off. Admiralty court sanctioned you for civil contempt. All of the administrative process in the world will not remove the contempt! You have to purge the contempt by set off, and you have to go back and do the counterclaim by set off or you will go right back into contempt!!! When you do an injury in the public/US you have to make the public/US whole again. All the administrative process in the world will not make the public/US whole again.
Accepted for Value, an administrative remedy is a promise to pay…just like a FRN or other negotiable instrument. And again, AFV has never purged any contempt. AFV is for the purpose to stay away from dishonor of a presentment. Accepted for Value, Returned for Settlement is hollow. How can you expect the party you return it to for settlement stay out of contempt if you don’t give them the remedy…set off. It never makes the public whole again, where the Enemy to the State (TWEA) has injured the public. It appears historically that the 14th Amendment was the colorable remedy for the southern states who had walked out of Congress sine die.
*****Does that mean that when we surrenderbirth certificate, are we waiving benefits of the trust? Does this in fact “kill” the trust?
We don’t need to surrender the birth certificate. People have tried the surrendering of the Defendant and tendered the birth certificate for consideration and or set off. No, it will not kill the foreign situs trust (that can only happen when the man is actually dead and a Death Certificate has issued). After the clerk of the court has adjusted the account using the birth certificate as a bond, then the birth certificate /bond should be returned.
What should the trustee/surety have done? You should have settled it by set off before going into court, or at the very least have posted a bond/ birth certificate into the court as your guarantee that you would settle. Demur doesn’t exist in admiralty, it is a common law pleading. Non-assumpsit was a lie, if you were the trustee…you appeared generally, the court silently noticed the law merchant and the privilege of counterclaim, and openly noticed your contempt.
Let me cut to the end. We have been trying to go to the set off ourselves through a “private” account in the private side of the bank. It has not worked. We had to go to the Fed Reserve as “settler”, create settlement accounts, become a settlement agent, etc., and then the Fed will go to a domestic bank and create a set off account for us to do set off in the public.
The other way to do it is to send the AFV invoice or court case, or whatever, to Secretary of the Department of the Treasury of the commonwealth of Puerto Ricoand have him do it. Once we get the settlement account open we can do it faster that the Secretary and we can also watch the thing and control it. A key is the alien property custodian.
stop trying to settle your own accounts…it’s not working. The Secretary has the liability for SMITH, JONES and the US. Let him settle it. He can do set off. And once the set off is done…go to the Alien Property Custodian and demand release of the property!!! Your pledge against your body (surety for the trustee) is redeemed, and now you want the bailee/APC to release the property.
NOTES: For a major case, as dealing with the IRS, file the silver bond under the UCC-1, get the file number from that and put it into the document. If you send this registered mail insert the registered mail registration number on the silver bond as well. These numbers can then be used for commercial reference by the other parties in the case.
Insert the word “Seal” written in gold ink on the front right corner of each page and the back right hand corner of the last page. Insert the word “By:” in red below the Seal followed by your name written in red in each place. If your name is copyrighted, place the © symbol to the right of your strawman name.
To use a third party server, call the “Courier” section in your phone book and find the cheapest process server in your area.
The first silver bond is made for one man for another. The next silver bond is made for a man for himself (not another living soul).
The silver bond can be used in a variety of ways: It can be used to get a person out of jail, with one person doing the bond of another. In this case, serve the document to the bailiff via a third party server. You can find third party servers by looking under couriers in the phone book. Use the cheapest one. Another way to use it is for your strawman, where Bob Bondholder is the same as Jack Patriot Keepsrights. Observe the mixed case and full caps in the document accordingly. It can be used to pay off cars, discharge student loans, can be proof of financial responsibility in a legal case, etc.
CESTUY CESTUI
CESTUI, CESTUY, an Anglo-French word, meaning I am that person, which appears in the legal phrases cestui que trust, use, or vie. It is usually pronounced as cetty. Cestui que trust means literally the person for whose benefit the trust is created. The cestui que trust is the person entitled to the equitable, as opposed to the legal, estate. Thus, if land be granted unto, and to the use of A. in trust for B., B. is ccutui que trust, and A. trustee. The term, principally owing to its cumbersomeness, is being gradually superseded in modern law by that of beneficiary. Cestui que use (sometimes cestui a que use) means the person for whose benefit a use is created (see TRUST). Cestui que vie is the person for whose life lands are held by another (see REMAINDER).EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE - External evidence or evidence that is inadmissible or not properly before the court, jury, or other determining body.
Several factors are relevant to determining whether the alleged introduction of extrinsic evidence constitutes reversible error:
(1) whether the extrinsic material was actually received, and if so, how; (2) the length of time it was available to the jury; (3) the extent to which the jury discussed and considered it; (4) whether the material was introduced before a verdict was reached, and if so, at what point in the deliberations it was introduced; and (5) any other matters which may bear on the issue of . . . whether the introduction of extrinsic material [substantially and injuriously] affected the verdict. Bayramoglu v. Estelle, 806 F.2d 880, 887 (9th Cir.'86), quoted in Jeffries v. Blodgett, 5 F.3d 1180, 1190 (9th Cir.'93) (noting that "none of these factors should be considered dispositive"). When assessing prejudice claims in juror misconduct cases, this court also places great weight on the nature of the extrinsic evidence introduced. See Jeffries, 5 F.3d at 1190-91; Dickson, 849 F.2d at 406-07; Marino, 812 F.2d at 506.
'[R]eversible error commonly occurs where there is a direct and rational connection between the extrinsic material and a prejudicial jury conclusion, and where the misconduct relates directly to a material aspect of the case.' Marino, 812 F.2d at 506
Kevin's English law glossary: ultra vires / Last modified: Jan 02To act ultra vires is to act beyond one's powers. The term often appears in discussion of delegated legislation (see delegated legislation). Because a Statutory Instrument (SI) is issued under the authority of Parliament, a charge that one has behaved in contravention of an SI could not be refuted on the basis that the SI conflicted with some other point of common law. It may, however, be a defense to claim that the SI was issued ultra vires; that is, the Minister who issued it was acting beyond the powers conferred by the original Statute. In reality, SIs are rarely challenged this way, because very careful attention is paid to such matters when they are drafted. However, ultra vires need not be direct; a special kind of ultra vires defense is that a delegated order is oppressive; it could be argued that Parliament never intends to delegate power to anyone to make this kind of legislation.
A charge that an act is ultra vires may also be leveled against legal corporations (e.g., companies). Until quite recently it was assumed that if a company acted outside the terms of its memorandum (see memorandum of association) then it was ultra vires, and contracts formed in this way were void (see void contract). Recent changes to legislation have made this charge unsustainable; company directors may be liable for breach of contract even if the contract is strictly ultra vires.
res judicata
: (rayz judy-cot-ah) n. Latin for "the thing has been judged," meaning the issue before the court has already been decided by another court, between the same parties. Therefore, the court will dismiss the case before it as being useless. Example: an Ohio court determines that John is the father of Betty's child. John cannot raise the issue again in another state. Sometimes called res adjudicata.
Collateral Estoppel Defined
The federal courts have traditionally adhered to the related doctrines of res judicata [claim preclusion] and collateral estoppel [issue preclusion]. Under collateral estoppel, once a court has decided an issue of fact or law necessary to its judgment, that decision may preclude relitigation of the issue in a suit on a different cause of action involving a party to the first case.
The collateral estoppel bar is inapplicable when the claimant did not have a 'full and fair opportunity to litigate' the issue decided by the other court. Thus, a claimant can file a federal suit to challenge the adequacy of state procedures.
The Supreme Court has expressly rejected the idea that 'every person asserting a federal right is entitled to one unencumbered opportunity to litigate that right in a federal district court, regardless of the legal posture in which the federal claim arises.' Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 103 (1980) (holding that the state law of collateral estoppel applies in civil rights actions brought under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983). This is so even if 'the state court's decision may have been erroneous.' Id. at 101.
Ordinarily, collateral estoppel is an affirmative defense that must be raised by the party seeking to use it, or else it is waived. See, e.g., Kern Oil & Ref. Co. v. Tenneco Oil Co., 840 F.2d 730, 35 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 948 (1988).
The preclusive effect of a state court judgment in a federal proceeding is governed by state law. Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 12 F.3d 908, 914-15 (9th Cir.'93), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 2675 (1994); see also 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1738.
In California, there are four criteria for application of collateral estoppel: (1) the prior conviction must have been for a serious offense so that the defendant was motivated to fully litigate the charges; (2) there must have been a full and fair trial to prevent convictions of doubtful validity from being used; (3) the issue on which the prior conviction is offered must of necessity have been decided at the criminal trial; and (4) the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior trial. Ayers, 895 F.2d at 1271 (upholding use of collateral estoppel to prevent a defendant from bringing a S 1983 action alleging he had been illegally arrested). In Ayers, the court held that suppression rulings in the original criminal proceeding met these criteria. Id.