Post # 1840 – By Bill - Courts and Securities

May 23 • Legal

I have been sent this today and thought it might be interesting to some, maybe thinking of going to Court, to 'have their day' and to face them.

Not advice, just learning together!

Did you know that an arrest warrant and a summons are vouchers seeking a bank's consent to transfer Estate (private) funds to the Court's depository account to pay for the Case Bond?

Let's examine a standard check deposit at a bank.

The bank endorses the check PAY TO THE ORDER OF XYZ BANK, which is a banker's acceptance by the Payee's bank that monetizes the instrument (converts it to money of account).

The bank then steals title to the funds by issuing credits to the depositor's account (a general account). It places a hold on the credits and forwards the check to the Payer's bank for authorization to release the hold.

If funds are available, the Payer's bank will endorse the check (yet another banker's acceptance) and return it to its customer, the Payer (at least they used to).

If funds are insufficient, the bank will cancel it's endorsement and RETURN THE CHECK TO THE DEPOSITOR / PAYEE.

Notice that the credits move to the Payee and the security moves back to the issuer who issued the security. You can always return to this transaction to understand most any event in the world around you.

For instance, a case in an incorporated Court. The Court (JUDGE ROSE WILLIAMS) deposits the Indictment by endorsing it "FILED IN CASE NO. 1:10-CR-123456." THE STAMP IS A BANKER'S ACCEPTANCE.

Doesn't it signify acceptance, opening of an account, issuance of a number, and a deposit?

Doesn't the indictment have a Payer (strawman), Payee (Plaintiff), implied amount (penal sum on the charges), a date, signature, and place of payment (the Court)?

Doesn't the Court maintain securities accounts in its normal course of business, making it a securities intermediary per s. 1 of the Securities Transfer Act (Canada provinces) / UCC 8-102(a)?

What else could it be if not a banker's acceptance?

By the way, the Clerk is a pimp (to quote Vito Corleone).

The Clerk is a bank teller acting for the Court.

The concept that the Clerk is the Court is one of our legendary misconceptions.

After depositing "the check", the Court then issues credits to a general account, meaning it steals title to the deposit ON THE PRESUMPTION that the funds will eventually be made available by the Payer.

They ALWAYS presume the funds will be available until proven otherwise by an NSF (insufficient funds) notice from the Payer's bank.

Then, just like XYZ BANK, the Court issues a voucher to the Payer's bank to certify the existence of the book-entry credits - the funds.

Regarding Court, THE VOUCHER IS THE BENCH WARRANT OR SUMMONS. These are nothing more than securities issued to secure acceptance by the Payer's bank - indorsement. That's all that's going on.

It's well disguised of course. For the masses (messes) at large, the transaction is disguised as law.

For lawyers, it's disguised as equity - a violation of a presumed contract to comply with statutes.

To patriots, it's disguised as an admiralty arrest of the vessel to get the creditor to appear and post bond.

But the core issue - the real issue at work - the underlying issue that controls your life is that they are seeking authorization by the Payer's bank (you) to establish the Payer as surety on the account.

Who's the Payer? THE ESTATE of course.

They are seeking your consent to ESTABLISH THE ESTATE AS SURETY for the funds credited to the account represented by the Case Number... It is the same thing going on across the board; courts, banking/financing, government. This is why we must secure this security, take control of it. STOPS THEM. You can also go for your check. Adam

Meaning, AS SURETY FOR THE CASE BOND they already issued.

I repeat...FOR THE CASE BOND which they already issued on the PRESUMPTION that the funds WOULD BE MADE AVAILABLE when you appeared physically, hired a lawyer to appear, gave your name, sent in a motion (which creates a general appearance even if you protest jurisdiction), or just entered the Courtroom and said "I'm here on that matter."

Read the definition of Bond in 48 CFR 28.001. A bond is a two party pledge to the Government in which a principal (the strawman) and a surety (the Estate) guarantee an obligation to perform. All they want is the Estate to step forward and ACCEPT liability as SURETY to fund the securities account identified by the Case Number.

The concept that they just reach into the Estate any time they want and take the funds is more misconception.

Yes, THE birth certificate (BC) IS A PRESUMPTION OF THE ESTATE'S AGREEMENT TO ACT AS SURETY. But just like a bank check, they MUST go back to the source and have the security approved.

They MUST get your SPECIFIC consent to have the Estate act as surety on the Bond (the Case Bond).

They MUST get YOUR banker's acceptance. Any time you want to understand the public system, JUST DIAGRAM HOW THEY PROCESS A SIMPLE BANK CHECK.

SO what you have is the Court issuing CREDITS TO A GENERAL ACCOUNT (stealing title), a securities account represented by the Case Number under the PRESUMPTION that the Payer's bank will authorize the funding on behalf of its client, the Estate, the presumed surety.

How do they secure the Estate's consent?

THE APPEARANCE BOND. The appearance bond is your BANKER'S ACCEPTANCE of the arrest warrant voucher.

Make no mistake about it - YOU ARE THE BANKER. They are seeking YOUR INDORSEMENT - your BANKER'S ACCEPTANCE - the authorization to presume the Estate is the surety on the Case Bond.

If you decline, if you tell them "the Estate does not consent to act as surety on the bond," then they have a huge problem.

Like any depository institution, they can either: [This is the sort of thing you can do with the understanding. Stop them dead in their tracks, or redirect this and other types of claims to the true debtor/trustee once you control the highest claim to the Estate. Adam

Recall the Case Bond, cancel their endorsement on the Indictment/Complaint security, and return it to the prosecutor/plaintiff's attorney marked NSF (insufficient funds), or

They can ACCEPT LIABILITY AS SURETY FOR THE CASE BOND. Meaning, the public trust known as JUDGE ROSE WILLIAMS, the gambler that issued the Case Bond on the presumption that the Payer (the Estate) would agree to convey its credit, is the only possible source of the funds. [To decline on behalf of the Estate as mentioned above: You must have standing/change of status to be assured of effectiveness. I can help you with that. Adam]

This is why they will resort to shameless incivility to get the appearance bond. They don't want to be stuck with the liability. Because when they steal the Estate's equity by depositing the Indictment security generally, they have terminated your interest in it and they become liable for the income and capital gains taxes on the taxable termination (26 USC 2612, 2603).

When you sign the Appearance Bond in admiralty, the creditor is agreeing to provide the real property (your body) as security.

The desired relationship Trustee (them) / Beneficiary (us) where we can hold them accountable for breach of trust.

There are three types of appearances, every one of which, constitutes a banker acceptance.

When you sign the Appearance Bond in equity, you are agreeing to MAKE A GENERAL APPEARANCE as the Defendant in a corporate Court of inferior statutory law.

Which means, you have also CONSENTED TO THE ORIGINAL GENERAL DEPOSIT. You have consented to the transfer of private funds to the public side of the ledger for deposit to a general account under their control (legal title), rather than a special deposit under your control. THIS IS HOW THEY TAP THE ESTATE, not by some backroom grab.

The Arrest Warrant is the voucher to secure that acceptance.

Nothing more.

Bill

4 comments

Post # 1840 – By Bill - Courts and Securities