I am currently working on my lawsuit against a municipality. I first have to send them a claim form within 6 months. Does anyone have a copy of one to use as a sample? Also how long after sending the claim form did you file the lawsuit?

The gentleman continued to very artfully (very similar to how Marshall Applewhite convinced the Heaven's Gate Cult to take their own lives; I will make a post on that as it is something we are all vulnerable to) present a theory of law without any caselaw supporting his theory of law. Proving with caselaw is one of our rules and I try not to be ultra-strict about it, but this was too much. All of us need to focus and do what the winners do and avoid what the losers did. I've completed verification research on the theories being promoted. EVERY SINGLE FEDERAL CIRCUIT has explicitly rejected these theories as "patently frivolous." VERIFIED FACTS: - United States v. Benabe (7th Cir.): "These theories should be rejected summarily" - United States v. Mundt (6th Cir.): "completely without merit and patently frivolous" - Henry v. Fernandez Rundle (11th Cir.): "no arguable legal basis" REAL CONSEQUENCES: - Court sanctions: $5,000+ penalties - Criminal prosecution for tax theories - Destruction of legitimate legal cases - Contempt of court charges NO FEDERAL COURT has EVER accepted: - "Strawman" theories - Article IV § 3 "status correction" - "Equity citizenship" claims - "Dual jurisdiction" theories These theories have a documented 100% FAILURE RATE. If someone cannot provide a published federal court decision (or state court) supporting their claims, DO NOT FOLLOW THEIR ADVICE. DO NOT FOLLOW MY ADVICE, as I am not an attorney; I only try to educate so you can make decisions for yourself like an adult. Caselaw trailing gift: US v Mundt (29 F.3d 233) On the merits, defendant argues that the District Court lacked jurisdiction over him because he is solely a resident of the state of Michigan and not a resident of any “federal zone” and is therefore not subject to federal income tax laws. This argument is completely without merit and patently frivolous. To put the argument to rest, we quote the following from a Tenth Circuit opinion in which the court was responding to an identical tax-protester argument.

That the United States form, for many, and for most important purposes, a single nation, has not yet been denied. In war, we are one people. In making peace, we are one people. In all commercial regulations, we are one and the same people. In *414 many other respects, the American people are one, and the government which is alone capable of controlling and managing their interests in all these respects, is the government of the Union. It is their government, and in that character they have no other. America has chosen to be, in many respects, and to many purposes, a nation, and for all these purposes, her government is complete; to all these objects, it is competent. The people have declared, that in the exercise of all powers given for these objects, it is supreme. It can, then, in effecting these objects, legitimately control all individuals or governments within the American territory. Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 ___________________________________________ The power of the State over the public property, is, at least, equal to that of an individual over his own; and particularly so, as to the navigable rivers in the State, which are, emphatically, the property of the people of the State, and subject to their authority, acting through the local Legislature.

I am here to learn. I do not have a case before me yet. It is so refreshing to see so many people willing to help one another and be kind. I am very grateful for everyone here!

I have been doing more research on our prison system via the internet and have found out some interesting things, regarding what is really going on in the courtroom. The court is looking for an acceptance and acceptor under 3-410 of the U.C.C. as the Principal has the primary obligation to pay or discharge any instrument presented for acceptance. Since they are presenting a Bill of Exchange [indictment] for acceptance. This is called an acceptance for honor, which involves a negotiable instrument especially a bill of exchange [indictment] that has been accepted for payment. The complaint, information, or indictment is a three party Draft, Commercial paper, or Bill of Exchange under Article 3 of the U.C.C. The Grand Jury Foreman is the Drawer or Maker of the Indictment by his signature, the Defendant/Debtor or Straw man is the Drawee and the State is the Payee and the live man is the Payor. What they are doing in the courtroom is all commercial, this is in conformity to 27 CFR 72.11, where it says all crimes are commercial. What the judge and prosecutor are doing in the courtroom is making a commercial presentment under section 3-501 (1) "Unless excused (section 3-511) presentment is necessary to charge secondary parties as follows": (a) Presentment for acceptance is necessary to charge the drawer and endorsers of a draft where the draft so provides, or is payable elsewhere than at the residence or place of business of the Drawee, or its date of payment depends upon such presentment. The holder may at his option present for acceptance any other draft payable at a stated date; (b) Presentment for payment is necessary to charge any endorser; (c) in the case of any drawer, the acceptor of a draft payable at a bank or the maker of a note payable at a bank, presentment for payment is necessary, but failure to make presentment discharges such drawer, acceptor or maker only as stated in section 3-502 (1)(B). If you don't accept the charge or presentment you are in dishonor for non acceptance under 3-505 of the U.C.C. (c) and 3-501 (2) (a), (b). Acceptance is the drawer's signed engagement to honor the draft as presented. It must be written on the draft, and may consist of his signature alone. It becomes operative when completed by delivery or notification 3-410 of the U.C.C. You are the fiduciary trustee of the straw man which is a Cesti Que Trust; in this capacity you have the responsibility to discharge all his debts, by operation of law.