The Uniform Bonding Code – (UBC)




Modern Bonding Practice



    With the advent of powerful computers has come the responsibility of analyzing data much more quickly and thoroughly and in terms of the general economic principles of Leontief Input-Output Matrix Analysis.  (See Wassily Leontief, Studies in the Structure of the American Economy, and Wassily Leontief, “The World Economy in the Year 2000,” in Scientific American, September 1980.  Wassily Leontief was the 1973 Nobel Prize winner in Economics.)


    In the modern system of wagering, as applied to insurance and malpractice bonding, several political-legal-economic factors including Legislation, Judication, Execution (enforcement) and the behavior of the general public are treated mathematically as separate industries within the legal system, with the result that these industries can be interrelated b a system of feedback equations and computations, the individual workings and behavior of each industry can be much more closely monitored, and the behavior of the government and public can be predicted and manipulated.


    This amounts to the application of feedback computing to reliable gambling on the economic success or outcome of any given statute or legal process.  It results in a scientific bonding system, and results in the transfer of the power and authority of government over to the bonding companies where it belongs if governments do not want to behave themselves.  (Money talks, bonding controls.)



The Bonding Problem


    As human population increases and mutual human tolerance decreases, municipal corporations tend to become less sensitive to individual human needs and tend to become more antisocial toward the public.  It has been put crudely that municipal corporations become slaughterhouse operations with law enforcement officers running the sledgehammer department.  Judges ignore the rights of the people and legislators generate heaps of laws, without perfecting the ones already existing to make them fit for bonding.  Defective statutes and defective legal processes become an invitation for every sort of official malpractice and malfeasance including economic oppression, and the public, in retaliation, begins suing for every injury, putting the heat on the bonding companies.



The Solution


     In order to survive in the commercial marketplace, the smaller bonding companies have had to become more selective and scientific in their bonding practice.


     In the past, bonding was based on marketing a bond which covered a broad aggregate of  “bondable” objects, acts and persons.


     When a large claim was made against a small bonding company, the claim could bankrupt the small company, especially if the company could not collect its corresponding funds from the parent bonding underwriter.


     By partitioning the coverage better, and be excluding persons of an antisocial disposition, the claims could be minimized, thus favoring solvency of the bonding company.


     In the old aggregate system, an antisocial enforcement officer operating on an unbounded statute using an unbonded enforcement process could create a monstrous civil rights or constitutional claim against the bonding company which was underwriting the general bond on the municipal corporation for which the officer worked.  In order to maintain credibility in the bonding marketplace, the bonding company would have to pay off the claim against the bond even though the official act was criminal instead of civil.  (Birds of one feather.)  If in addition, the municipal corporation was operated by an antisocial office staff, it would tend to support, and retain in employment, the antisocial enforcement officer rather than the more civilized officers on the staff, if for no other reason than because an antisocial officer was more likely to bully the public into dropping malpractice suits and paying revenue into the corporate coffers, and thereby keep the corporate paychecks coming.


     When such an antisocial corporation would get sued, as inevitably would happen, the bonding company working under the old system of aggregate bonding, would get ripped to shreds, perhaps even bankrupted.  Of course, the injured bonding company would tell the municipal corporation to take its business elsewhere, and the next bonding company, being somewhat more cautious, might refuse to bond the corporation, or ask a larger premium to cover the gambling risk.  Ultimately the municipal corporation would not be able to buy a bond due to its “track record” and the consequent high cost of bonding, with the result that the municipal corporation would resort to what is called “self-bonding.”


     In the past, the state incorporation laws have required all corporations engaged in business potentially hazardous to the public safety, health and welfare, to be bonded against public accident and the malpractice of their officers, but more recently “self-bonding” has become a state-condoned option extended to municipal corporations to insulate them against prosecution for violation of the general state incorporation laws which demand public hazard licensing and bonding for all corporations.  A corporation that is “self-bonded” is a limited corporation (ltd.) with a low ceiling of limited liability.  The term, “self-bonded,” is a fraudulent misrepresentation of the corporate liability status.  It says in effect that the payment of the commercial debts of the corporation will take second place to the payment of the malpractice obligations of the corporations.  Furthermore, “self-bonding” cannot possibly be expected to cover the anti-civil rights and anti-constitutional malpractice potential of today’s modern antisocial municipal corporations.  Simply put, “self-bonding” is “no-bonding;” it is corporate limited liability misrepresentation and fraud.


(Bonding is valid only when it is provided by an independent third party money wagering pool with no conflict of interest and no possibility of the bonded party dipping into the till.)


     In order to pull out of the municipal corporate bonding rat race, the smaller bonding companies have had to adopt a set of bonding policies aimed at segregation, partitioning, and making more certain, their liabilities in the bonding marketplace.  The following excerpts from the Uniform Bonding Code contains a presentation of those policies.



Claims Access Pursuant to Civil Rights Law


     Improper enforcements which run counter to the U.S. Constitution can involve as many as thirty-five (35) violations of the provisions of the United States Constitution valued per 18 USC 241 at $10,000 per constitutional violation, per offense, per officer, per injured party when the officer is acting as a part of a law enforcement agency effort.


     The civil value is therefore approximately $350,000 per enforcement offense, per enforcement officer, per injured party.


     The statutes enabling the suit and civil claim are part of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1871.  (42 USC 1983, 1985, 1986 . . .)  These statutes guarantee, among other things, the equal protection of the law for racial minority groups.  Although the argument is commonly raised that these statutes apply only to racial minority population groups, they actually apply to racial discrimination regardless of the race and regardless of the population of the group.


     The application of these equal protection statutes to only racial minority population groups would create a racial discrimination against racial majority population groups, and hence impose a “justice minority” situation upon the racial majority population groups.  But this would make the racial minority statutes applicable to a majority race, because the intended purpose of the statute is to eliminate the prejudicial discrimination of the law and its enforcement, not to favor any specific race, color, creed, religious faith, sec or population group (be it small or large).


     The issue can be made even clearer by a second very appropriate example.  The legal profession’s labor union, the Bar Association, was established immediately after the Civil War to substitute a system of general slavery to replace the old system of black slavery, by guaranteeing a monopoly of the courts for attorneys, judges and municipal corporations (city, county, state).  This labor union, the Bar Association, has forbidden anyone but union (Bar) attorneys to give legal advice, and has prevented anyone from being assisted in court by a non-union lawyer or by a non-lawyer, thus converting the courts into closed union shops.  This corresponds to pre-Civil War United States wherein blacks were not taught to read and were not allowed to get a public education lest they become strong enough persons to speak out against their repression and overthrow their slavemasters. 


     The unionization of the legal system by the Bar Association makes the people individually, and the public as a whole, a legal justice minority group with access to the Civil Rights Act of 1871and to 42 USC 1983, 1985 and 1986.


     The bar association act in violation of anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws of the U.S.



Organized Crime in Government


     Government officials maintain control of the courts by “licensing lawyers” and by forbidding the common citizens to “practice law” or give “legal advice,” three phrases which have never been adequately defined for any statute.  To protect government dominance, “law schools” are the only schools allowed to teach law, and specifically “safe law” (attornment).  To protect malfeasance, attorneys are forbidden to file criminal complaints against malfeasance officials, officer and clerks and against officers of other corporations.  If they disobey, they lose their “license to practice law.”  Similarly, when the citizen files a criminal complaint against a public official, the prosecutor is expected to protect the public official from prosecution for official malfeasance by exercising some mystical doctrine of “selective prosecution” (an act of misprision of crime) which is nothing more or less than an excuse for legal prejudice to issue from the prosecutor’s office calculated to overthrow the public’s legal redress against official malfeasance.



Bonding of Governments in General



            A government (its officials, its officers, and its clerks) will not be bonded:


  1. if it does not eliminate its own internal malfeasance with the same diligence that it pursues civilian felons.  (In other words, a government shall clean its own nest thoroughly),

  2. if it rules by force without reason and/or without the consent of the people which it governs.  In such a case it shall be deemed a criminal government and its officials, officers, and clerks shall be deemed criminally malfeasant,

  3. if it behaves wirh malice or with deliberate contempt or rudeness towards its citizens.


    “Let us contemplate our forefathers, and posterity and resolve to maintain the rights bequeathed to us from the former, for the sake of the latter.  The necessity of the times, more than ever, calls for our outmost circumspection, deliberation, fortitude and perseverance.   Let us remember that ‘if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involves others in our doom.’  It is a very serious consideration . . . that millions yet unborn may be the miserable shares of the event.”


Samuel Adams

Speech (1771)





Input Definitions and Principles


     Words called terms are used to construct the ships of state called statutes.  When the terms are not properly defined, the statutes become like ships without rudders.  They move easily in any direction and do all manner of damage on the rivers of life.





     The Input/Definitions and Principles of Legislation will be bonded only if the bonding company finds that:


  1. all “common terms” in the stated principles are used according to their common dictionary definition,

  2. all special terms in the states principles are exhaustively

    1. listed, and

    2. defined using “common terms.”

  3. The “Principles” are universally accepted as true---also called “Axioms of Law.” Or “Maxims of Law.”


A simple example of an Axiom or Maxim of Law would be:

(Definition: “Hire” = a wage or reward for work.)

(Axiom/Maxim: [A workman is worthy of his hire.)






(Definitions, Principles, Axioms, Maxims)


    The bondability of a statute. (Legislative), the bondability of the process created and used to enforce a statute (Judicative), and the bondability of the act of enforcement and of the enforcement officer (Executive) all rest primarily and absolutely upon the ability to write a binding contract in very definite terms between the bonding company and the bonded party or parties.  No bonding company will enter into a bonding agreement unless the definitive terms of the bonding contract are laid out to the precision that is likely to be tested by public claims against the bond.


The Legislative Bond:  A statute, in order to be bondable, must satisfactorily define the terms and concepts used or involved in the construction of the statute.


(A statute shall not be bonded if the terms and concepts of the subject matter of the statute are not both exhaustively listed and clearly defined.)


Definitions (ordinary)



- Unlawful or wrongful act.

- Wrongdoing in general.



- Improper or illegal treatment (Med).

- Improper or immoral conduct.



-(A) An act that subjects the doer to

legal punishment.

-(B) The commission or omission of an act

specifically forbidden or enjoined by public law.

-(C) Any grave offense against morality or social order.



- Penal law vs. criminal law.

- Implying crime or heinous wickedness.



- Citizen rather than ecclesiastical or military.


Civil Law:

- Legal relations between citizens or between citizen and state

- legal rights.



- Oral malicious falsehood.



- Written slander.





    Statutes are the motor vehicles of government. They are used to collect revenue, to collect power and to provide public service.


    Properly constructed statutes serve the public properly, poorly constructed statutes poorly, or destructively.


    A defective statute is easily misused.


    The easy misuse of a statute is an invitation to a rampant misuse of the statute.


    If a statute can be misused to get money or power, its misuse is likely.


    If a statute can easily be misused to get money or power, its misuse is virtually certain.


    Defective statutes invite the deliberate misuse of the statutes.


    Deliberate misuse (misapplication) of a statute is a criminal act.


    The lack of job insurance/bonding makes people personally more cautious, causing a decrease in accidents, negligence, malfeasance and crime. The cost of bonding premiums discourages negligence.


    The bonding of negligence encourages the commission of negligence on the part of the people who do not pay the premium.


    A bonding company shall not bond negligence.


    No statutes are bonded against deliberate misuse, i.e., criminal use.


    If malfeasance (criminal malpractice) were to be bonded, that bonding would encourage malfeasance.


    Malfeasance if unchecked will multiply.


    Therefore, a bonding company shall not bond malfeasance or criminal malpractice.


    Criminal acts include acts committed in violation of a citizen's constitutional rights and in violation of guarantees of equal protection of the law (civil rights).


    Statutes which encourage criminal acts in order to enforce the statutes are not bondable statutes.


    The bonding of criminal acts would encourage the commission of criminal acts, hence criminal acts (crimes) cannot be bonded.


    Bonding companies are not required to bond what they do not want to bond.


    A bonding company only pays claims for damages against a bond which it sells/issues. A bonding company must pay a claim on a bond which it has sold if the condition of the bond claim is satisfied.


    A bonding company will not bond a defective statute because it does not want to pay the claim on the misuse of the statute.


    Bonding a defective statute is an invitation to bankruptcy.





    The control/logic of legislation will be bonded only if the bonding company finds to its satisfaction that:


  1. the definitions of the terms used in the logic are bonded.

  2. the principles used in the logic are bonded.

  3. the logic being used to design the statute tests, and the conclusions obtained represent, all of the possible combinations of principles and applications (situations) for which the specific statute is being designed, and

  4. none of the conclusions derived from the cited tested combination of principles and applications contradicts any condition. or condition known to be wholesome to the  civilization.

  5. if a conclusion logically derived from the cited tested combination of principles and applications contradicts any condition known to be wholesome to civilization, then the reason for the contradiction has been pursued relentlessly until the cause of the contradiction has been understood perfectly, lest the definition, the principles, the logic or the understanding of the application be faulty.

  6. a complete record has been kept of the definitions, principles and logic underlying the design of the statute and that record is publicly available.




RE: Right vs. Wrong


    It is said that ignorance of the law is no excuse for wrong action; that all persons are presumed to know the difference between right and wrong, hence know the law. If that is true:


  1. there would be no reason for public education and the practice of law,

  2. then there would be no reason to have law schools,

  3. Then there would be no reason why citizens could not "practice law without a license,"

  4. then there would be no reason why a citizen should not or could not sit beside a friend in court and counsel him or her.


    Thomas Jefferson put it well when he said, "I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves: and if we think them

not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a( wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion." Thomas Jefferson's Letter, September 28, 1820. (Source??)


    What he said was that the common public should be able to "practice law without a license" and to be able to do so, they should be given a public education in law.


    The public and the bonding companies would both benefit from such a situation. It would eliminate the professional law conspiracy which preserves the malfeasance of public officials, injures the public, and precipitates most of the claims against bonding companies.


    Therefore, bonding companies shall engage the policy that they shall not bond (insure) public schools which do not teach their student body law and "the practice of law," and specifically shall not bond public schools which do not teach:


  1. the Declaration of Independence,

  2. the United States Constitution,

  3. the method of writing an event log for a court case,

  4. the method of compiling a document log,

  5. the method of compiling a document analysis log,

  6. the method of analyzing legal briefs, civil complaints and criminal charges,

  7. the method of writing affidavits,

  8. the method of writing and filing U. S. criminal complaints,

  9. the method of writing a quality contract,

  10. the method of composing expository information for distribution on the street,

  11. the method of distressing and liening property, and

  12. several other processes valuable to citizens for securing their rights against, and overthrowing the malfeasance of public officials.


    A public official, clerk or servant shall lose his bond:


  1. if he interferes with the education of the public in matters of law and the "practice of law,"

  2. if he refuses to give to a citizen legal advice about a process with which he isfamiliar or if he refuses to give to a citizen legal advice which he is qualified to give because of his familiarity with and pertaining to the normal course of his public service. But no public servant or citizen shall be held legally liable for any information which he shall give when it is given upon demand, pursuant to a citizen's written or spoken writ of mandamus (an order to come to one's aid), pursuant to 42 USC 1986, the brother's keeper statute of the United States.

  3. if he injures or oppresses any citizen who is acting in good faith and good behavior with a genuine and honest intent to practice law and/or to give legal counsel or assistance to other,

  4. if he tries to get a citizen prosecuted for "practice of law without a license" where there is no clear evidence of false advertising, fraud or injury to the party being counseled,

  5. if he tries to get a citizen prosecuted for "practice of law without a license" in order to eliminate competition in a litigation, a legal process or the legal industry generally,

  6. if he operates a court of the legal system as a facility of a legal labor union (bar association) reserved for state licensed attorneys only, that is as a closed union shop.



2.2 - Bonding Taxation Statutes

Just Compensation vs. Fraudulent Taxation


    A government/public trust is supposed to operate on taxes, and if a government operates commercial enterprises using tax money in competition with a free enterprise public, then the money of the citizens is being used in competition with the citizens, and that will discourage the payment and collection of taxes. It will cause tax rebellion. (Conflict of interest) Therefore, all revenue raised by a government's offices of public trust must be obtained by the performance of public service not provided by ordinary free enterprise businesses. Public service is the only sort of business in which a government is supposed to be employed.


    ("Nor shall private property [taxes] be taken for public use without -Lust compensation [valuable, publicly needed and publicly wanted service rendered by government]"). - The 16th so-called amendment of the U.S. Constitution does not base the assessment of taxes on services rendered by the government for the public but rather upon the services rendered by public citizens for third parties, hence, the 16th so-called amendment of the U.S. Constitution violates the 5th so­called amendment of the U.S. Constitution.


    Essentially, the only lawful personal tax assessable for operating a government is a per capita_ tax determined by dividing the cost of operating the government by the number of emancipated citizens (or persons of majority age-eighteen years old or older).


(A U.S. constitutional 5th so-called Amendment system of taxation based on just compensation requires a per capita tax.) (uniform)


    A legislator will not be bonded if he legislates or attempts to legislate a law to create a source of revenue without providing an equally valuable public service which the public needs and wants. (Just compensation)


    In the U.S. constitutional 16th so-called amendment deduction system of taxation there are three economic industries:


  1. capital,

  2. goods, and services

  3. (labor).


    Each has a one hundred per cent (100%) deductibility of overhead. Therefore, the common man who works to support his family can deduct all of his household expenses for his part of providing the labor force of the nation. There would be nothing left to tax.  Originally, the U.S. 16th so-called amendment applied only to corporate income. Since its beginning, its wording, "Taxation on income from whatever source derived." has been applied by the I.R.S.:


  1. to the common laboring household although it is 100% deductible,

  2. to gifts and inheritance to which the government has contributed no valuable, service,- which funds are, therefore, being taxed twice,

  3. to collecting taxes on crime, namely, bank robbery, organized crime and hard drug sales (25% excise tax), making the government a beneficiary of, hence favorable toward, the commission of paying crime.


    Furthermore, the Social Security System of the I.R.S. operates a fraudulent insurance/bonding scheme in competition with honest free enterprise insurance/bonding companies, as follows.


    If a husband and wife both pay into the Social Security insurance system out of their common social and commercial conjugal relationship, and if one dies, the other gets the payment of the Social Security benefit on only one person. This is a mutual financial sacrifice of two people joined as one social commercial unit, paid back only partially to the surviving person. That is blatant insurance fraud on the part of the Social Security insurance system, and the Social Security system finances so many social service programs which it was never intended for, that it is in constant financial trouble.


    A sales tax is no better. Federal Law (Title 42 of the U.S. Code) includes an anti-peonage law which declares that no natural person (citizen) can be compelled to work for free (not even to collect taxes or do bookkeeping for the I.R.S. or the state sales tax commissions). Even if the government agrees to pay for the collection of the taxes, the law allows that a citizen can refuse to work for any specific person or organization.


    Also, many persons do not believe it to be patriotic to pay taxes to the I.R.S. The I.R.S. is a Rothschild enterprise, not a part of the U.S. government, and there has been a movement in government to brand as right wing anti-Semites, those Patriots who point out the fact that the I.R.S., the Federal Reserve, and the FDIC are all well known financial enterprises of the Jewish Rothschild family of Europe. In fact, much of the tax protest movement, and much of the civil rights violations heaped on citizens by the legal establishment because of tax rebellion, arise out of the now common knowledge that the "national debt" has been created by a sequence of wars financed on both   sides by the Rothschild family to force the U.S. to borrow money from Rothschild banks, creating an attachment of all U.S. property as collateral to pay off Rothschild war loans. The vociferates of anti­-Semitism are not coming from common Jews, but from the Rothschild banking system which detests having the burglar's mask ripped off its face, and which uses anti-Semitism as a decoy.


(It should be clear that it is pure financial insanity to bond any statutes, processes or enforcements connected with any form of tax collection other than those based upon a per capita tax.)


Statutory Fraud
(Emotional Urgent Necessity Statutes)


    A legislator is said to be engaging in the confidence game of statutory fraud when he by the legislation of statute(s) creates a false problem for, or artificial or fraudulent need in, any citizen or group of citizens in order:


  1. to justify the creation of the capacity to offer a solution for the false problem created, or

  2. to justify the collection of taxes or revenue to finance the solution of the problem created.


A fraudulent need or want is a need or want which:


  1. has not been solicited by the public, or

  2. has been pawned off on the public

    1. by coercive suggestion

    2. by lack of representation, or

    3. by misrepresentation of its consequences

      1. for the good of the many at the expense of individual liberty or property, or

      2. for the good of any one at the expense of the freedom of many (lottery), and

  3. which is not a valuable service to the public generally.


A legislator is said to be engaging in statutory fraud when he creates a false source or apparent source of supply (a false solution) for any citizen or group of citizens in order


  1. to create, for the government, the capacity to create problems for the public, or

  2. to create, for the government, a source of revenue (e.g., the lottery).




Responsible Wagering versus Non-Responsible Wagering

Taxation Without Representation


    An Example of the creation of a fraudulent need or want or an apparent source of supply is the operation of a state lottery. Such a system is solicited by the public, because a large portion of the public likes to, hence wants to, gamble. However, the consequences of a state lottery are not honestly represented to the public by the state, and the lottery does not render a valuable service for the public. Money from the lottery gives state high officials a sense of independence which makes them feel that they can do without bonding and can risk malfeasance because they have adequate funds with which to manipulate inferior officers, clerks and the public.


    Although bonding is wagering-you might call it insurance- set free from the behavioral restrictions of bonding by its monetary wealth, the state will degenerate to an organized crime syndicate and resort to the seizure of substance (real estate, etc.) and the means of the conveyance of substance (waterways, etc.), by condemnation (eminent domain), and by issuing letters of marque and reprisal (orders to march and seize) to mercenary law enforcement officers/UN troops.


    Legislators who legislate a potentially publicly hazardous statute, must themselves be bonded against the possibility of being sued for any misuse of that statute which could arise as a consequence of the defective construction of the statute.


    A legislator will not be bonded if he legislates or attempts to legislate a law to create a source of revenue without providing an equally valuable public service which the public needs and wants (just compensation).



A Solution in Need of Problems - Environmentalism


    Governments create causes and problems in order to justify taxation and political domination. They always need a credible enemy to create the urgent necessity to ask for more money and to make more laws for "the good of the public" and "in the interest of national security."


    To obtain the "consent of the public," governments create problems, or scenarios of problems, so that they will be able to offer solutions which an ignorant and somewhat gullible and self-serving public will buy.


    The classic political example is the now publicly known strategy by which President F. D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill maneuvered the Japanese into attacking the U. S. fleet at Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941. [footnote: Theobald, Rear Admiral Robert A., The Final Secret of Pearl Harbor, Publisher, date. and Barnes, Harry Elmer, Pearl Harbor After A Quarter of A Century, Publisher, Date.]


    Although there are many very real environmental problems, environmentalism as a political lever is the latest trick to obtain the "consent of the public." It is legally known as The New World Order;it is economically known as Globalism. "Environmental" statutes must be closely examined for exigency fraud. [Footnote: Hage, Wayne, Storm Over Rangelands, P.O. Box 1085, Tonopah NV 89049. $15.]


    Some of the exigency statutes of present day governments are designed by banking and military war games computers. The economic war games computers are the new guns of governments, firing statutes and economic and social situations as bullets. [Footnote: Lewin, Leonard C., A Report From Iron Mountain, Pub? Date? and "Silent Weapons For Quiet Wars, America's Promise Newsletter, P.O. Box 30,000, Phoenix AZ 85046]



Compulsory Insurance


    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 hold 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 potential reason 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 and international 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's 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.






    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."]





    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

    1. to harass or to oppress a citizen, or

    2. to create, obstacles to prevent a citizen from exercising his remedies by the due course 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

    1. legislative rights of freedom of religion,

    2. Judicative rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press (the right to access the court of public opinion), and/or

    3. 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 of data 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 personal property.





    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:



Court Rules


  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 that substance will take priority over form.

  2. The general rules or local rules of the court contain common terms and plain 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.





  1. 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.

  2. A criminal case brought in behalf of the peace and dignity of the state:

    1. 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,

    2. has named the accuser in the setting of the case, and

    3. 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.

  3. In the U.S. constitutional 7th (so-called)amendment, civil elements of answering, discovery, deposition, interrogatories, etc., have been put on temporary hold as a U.S. constitutional 6th (so-called) amendment protection against self-incrimination pending a U.5. constitutional 6th (so-called) amendment prosecution.

  4. 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


  1. All affidavits have been considered, answered and affirmed or denied categorically, point­for-point in writing.


Litigation and Prosecution


  1. 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;

    1. the citizens involved have receive equal protection under the laws, and

    2. the citizens' remedies by the due course of law have been protected and guaranteed,

  2. 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,.

  3. 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


  1. 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 Practical Standard 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.



- 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 an unequal 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.



- 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 the equal 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 thing 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

    1. "Received"

    2. name of receiving office

    3. date

    4. time

    5. 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, and shall 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 immunity for an official in order to protect a malfeasant official from prosecution,

  3. if he resorts to "selectiveprosecution,"i.e., false or malicious prosecution 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 deemed unbondable:


  1. if he fails toprotect 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 any court of the county in which he works whose case may come to his attention 12y a means.



5.5 - Bonding of Attorneys


    A lawyer or an attorney shall lose his bonding, shall not be bonded, and shall be deemed unbondable,:


  1. if he fails to protect the remedies of due process and the equal protection of the law of either his client or of the adverse party in an action. 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 both opposing 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.





    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 of affidavits, 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 internal jury 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

    1. then

      1. the accusing judge has made out thecomplaint of contempt,

      2. the accused has been tried by a second judge yielding a judgment of contempt,_, and

      3. a third judge has agreed in writing to accept the total liability for both the accusation orcomplaint of contempt, and the judgment of contempt if either or both of the first two judges hasacted with malfeasance in the contempt process, and

      4. 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.


  1. The order. of execution of the judgment has an attached check list containing a signature­verified 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 of judgment becomes a valid and lawful order of execution only if it is judicially 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's complaint, 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. constitutional 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.




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 the general 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.



If the Bonding Company Compels the Prosecution


    If the bonding company compels the prosecution and the acts of the officer are clearly criminal, then the bonding company can argue for release of the liability of the bonding company for the officer's actions, provided the bond was written to dissuade (discourage)_ criminal acts.


    Since the prosecutor must have a bond in order to be a prosecutor in fulfillment of his job description, it follows that the bonding companies collectively have the power to compel the prosecutor to prosecute on the criminal charges to attempt to vindicate the officer and to protect the relevant (directly affected) bonding company from a claim, or to minimize the claim against the bonding company.



If the Bonding Company Does Not Compel Prosecution


    If the bonding company does not compel prosecution, then the first claim of liability is against the bonding company up to the face value of the bond, and the remaining claim of liability is against the corporation and against the officer for the unpaid balance of the claim. The officer against whom the complaint and accusation has been made also has the right to defend his interests by demanding that he be prosecuted and vindicated. Both the complaining party and the prosecutor have the obligation to serve notice on the accused officer if the prosecutor will not prosecute, thereby giving the officer a chance to protect his interests by demanding a prosecution.


7.2 - Bonding of Attitude


  1. The principles of economics are more and more being used to establish scientific bonding practices which eliminate the bonding, hence employment, of antisocial enforcement officers.

  2. The bond on an enforcement officer is based on the officer's social attitude and past performance, that is, his "track record."

  3. An antisocial officer is generally defined as a person who:

    1. has a bad social attitude,

    2. thinks he is bonded for any sort of social behavior whatsoever,

    3. thinks he has to prove himself by being socially abusive or "macho" towards members of the general public.

  4. Antisocial officers create bad enforcement situations which cause citizens to file malpractice claims with bonding companies.

  5. Therefore, a credible bonding company will not bond a known antisocial enforcement officer.



7.3 - Bonding of Education


    Principle--Ignorance of the law is not an allowable excuse for a law enforcement officer to use when exercising the power to enforce the law.


    An officer must know and understand all of the processes which must be bonded before he can act on an execution of judgment.


    An officer, although presumably acting in his official capacity, has no commercial escape or grace through a bonding company when the statute he enforces is not bonded against accidental misuse. When an officer commits an accidental misuse of his office or of a statute, or accidentally acts on an unbonded statute, the bonding company will pay on the bond only to the extent of a reasonable degree of error or accident; but nothing in the agreement between the bonding company and the bonded party shall be construed to free the official or officer from investigating and knowing whether or not his own actions or the statute acted upon or enforced were adequately bonded; and whatever portion of the damage claim remains after the bonding company has paid its reasonable obligation to the bonded party, shall be paid out of the assets of the municipal corporation and/or out of the real and personal property of the official or officer who misacted.


   An enforcement officer of a municipal corporation (city, county, state), who operates without a bond or who enforces an unbonded statute, is acting outside of the public hazard licensing and bonding statutes governing municipal corporations. A bonding company has no financial responsibility for such an officer. Such an officer is regarded to be out of uniform, outside the shield or veil of his official capacity, and is a common citizen operating upon his own personal liability and risk.


    If an officer was deceived by the government (municipal corporation) for which he works, into performing his "duties," namely, of accepting statutes, carrying out Judgments of execution, or exerting enforcement beyond limits of his bonding, then, the officer shall not have a claim on the bonding company, and his personal property shall become attachable for the satisfaction of claims of damages, and he will have to make his claim against his employer. In the case of an unbonded statute, the employer will have to make its claim against the state legislature and the state of these factors are:


  1. the psychological stability and sociability of the officer (is he antisocial, does he have a good social attitude, is he reasonable?),

  2. the "track record" of his daily performance (past performance),

  3. how much legal education the officer has and what kind of legal education the officer has and what kind of legal education does he have relevant to the laws that he will be required to enforce,

  4. the specific performance (job description) of the officer being bonded, generally for the construction and advertisement of an unbonded statute. If a citizen knows how to enforce his civil remedies under the laws of commerce, and if the claim of the citizen for civil damages exceeds the face value of the bond, then the officer who victimizes that citizen can easily be bankrupted.



7.4 - Bonding of Specific Performance


    Modern scientific bonding is based on a number of factors which mathematically determine the price of the wager (premium) charged by the bonding company. Some


  1. the types of unbonded statutes he will enforce,

  2. the types of bonded statutes he will enforce,

  3. the types of paper enforcement processes he will use, and,

  4. the types of enforcement acts he will engage in (especially the violent ones).


    An officer is acting without the protection of a municipal bond, is acting on the municipal corporate assets, or is acting "out of uniform" and on his own personal liability if he:


  1. behaves in a clearly antisocial manner,

  2. does not have an education in law adequate for his specific performance ia a law enforcement officer,

  3. is not adequately bonded for law enforcement, i.e., to enforce the law,

  4. does not have an adequate identification card or does not show his identification card when necessary,

  5. acts on an unbonded statute, and/or

  6. violates a citizen's U.S. or state constitutional rights or equal protection of the laws.


    The identification card of a law enforcement officer declares the authority of the officer to act by:


  1. stating the specific performance of his job for which he is bonded, such as the class of statutes he is bonded to enforce.

  2. stating that he is licensed and bonded,

  3. stating the name of the bonding company which is bonding the executive acts of the officer, and

  4. stating the bond (policy) number of the officer's bond (insurance).


    An officer who cannot or does not display his official identification card is deemed out of uniform and acting as an ordinary citizen on his own personal liability. His personal property is then the true pledge underwriting his authority.



Liability by Association


    An officer can be sued for the injury caused by the act(s) of another officer, if the act(s) was committed and the injury was caused while the two officers worked together. The assessment of the transfer of liability rests upon such concepts as reasonable diligence, accident, neglect and conspiracy.



7.5 - Authority


  1. A statute has no social authority or the capacity to be enforced without an author, and has no author without the assumption of social, liability or financial responsibility for the statute authored.

  2. Any attempt to exercise social authority by enforcing a statute without assuming a corresponding measure of social liability for the enforcement of the statute constitutes fraud.


    The only authority which an official, officer or clerk of a government (e.g., municipal corporation) has to use, act upon, or enforce a statute resides in or arises out of the financial responsibility for the acts and actors as follows:


  1. the legislation-construction of the statute,

  2. the content of the statute itself,

  3. the judication--the exercise of the judicative power,

  4. the judicative process itself,

  5. the execution-the enforcement paper process which is used as a reason to enforce the statute,

  6. the enforcement act of the enforcement officer, and

  7. the enforcement officer.


    This financial responsibility for the acts and actors will usually be provided from one or more the following three sources:


  1. the bonds on the acts and the actors (insurance on an official act or person),

  2. the sacrifice, forfeiture or pledge of the personal property, real or movable, of the government corporate property, real or movable, or,

  3. the sacrifice, forfeiture or pledge of the personal property, real or movable, of the official, officer or clerk who is using, acting upon or enforcing the statute.

total value in property or money extractable from these three sources must be sufficient to sustain a suit at law and pay for the damages caused as a consequence of using, acting upon or enforcing the statutes; that is, in defense of each specific performance of the jobs or of the persons, the said performance of said jobs being the product of the government known as public service.


    A government official, officer or clerk who is not bonded or who loses his bond, shall be held financially responsible for his own actions. He shall have, as the only support for his own authority, the pledge of his own personal property, real and movable, to satisfy the damages which he causes to citizens by the exercise of that authority.



7.6 - Bonding Municipal Corporations


    Many municipal corporations (city, county, state) have quietly chosen to operate without malpractice bonding in violation of state corporate public hazard bonding laws because their bonding is expensive. Often municipal corporations claim to be "self bonded," but because civil rights suit claims are often, and properly, astronomically large, such in-house bonding is actually fraud, and passes liability on to the officials, officers and clerks of the municipal corporation. Municipal corporations have had to resort to lies and deceptions concerning the bonding of their officers in order to get their officers to put on a uniform and go out to fight for the corporation. The officers are not told that their public hazard bond is not adequate, and they are not told that if their on­the-job activities involve them in a situation where the face value of the bond is not sufficient to cover an injury (physical, mental, emotional, legal, etc.) to a public citizen, that then the citizen will have the right to sue the officer for a sufficient amount of the officer's personal property (real and/or movable) in order to be paid the difference between the amount of the damage claim and the face value of the bond.


    A municipal corporation will lose its executive enforcement bond or be rendered unbondable:


  1. if it hires an enforcement officer and sends him out into the public to do official enforcement duties without bonding his enforcement processes and actions. The officer must be provided with a written notarized declaration of his job description;

  2. if it fails to tell an officer or clerk that he is not adequately bonded, the officer must be provided with a written notarized declaration of his bonding status;

  3. if it fails to issue an identification card to an enforcement officer declaring:

    1. that the officer is bonded,

    2. the name of the officer,

    3. the officer's enforcement classification,

    4. the name of the municipal corporation for which he works,

    5. the name of the bonding company which is bonding his enforcement,

    6. the bond (policy) number of the officer,

    7. the address and/or telephone number of the bonding company (bonding companies may want to know who is cheating them. Many municipal corporations are not adequately bonded and never tell their employees about it),

    8. a picture of the officer.

  4. if it does not provide a law enforcement officer with a sufficient education in law and process so that the officer can properly carry out his law enforcement duties as agreed to in his job description,

  5. if it engages an enforcement officer to enforce an unbonded "statute" which by its hazardous nature must be bonded, or

  6. if it engages an enforcement officer to violate a citizen's U.S. constitutional rights or equal protection of the laws.



control/enforcement process of an executive/enforcement officer will be bonded only if the bonding company finds that:


  1. before executing an order of execution the officer had in his possession:

    1. a faithful recap (recapitulation) of the case representing both sides of the argument, hand-signed by the author of the recap (who is liable for his recap),

    2. an original hand-signed verified bonding check list of the complete court process,

    3. an original hand-signed copy of the judgment and the order of execution of judgment,

    4. a proper personal identification card including:

      1. that the officer is bonded,

      2. the name of the officer,

      3. the officer's enforcement classification,

      4. the name of the municipal corporation for which he works,

      5. the name of the bonding company which is bonding his enforcement,

      6. the bond (policy) number of the officer,

      7. the address and/or telephone number of the bonding company, and

      8. a picture of the officer,

    5. a proper personal business card which the officer could hand out to the public and to the person(s) arrested, containing all of the same information as given in Part (1) (D) except for the picture, because of the expense of picture cards.





    The output/enforcement act of an executive/enforcement officer will be bonded only if the bonding company finds to its satisfaction that, taking into consideration the urgency and hazard of the situation, the officer while enforcing the paper process acted in a reasonable manner as regards:


  1. the reading and understanding of the recap,

  2. the reading and understanding of the verified bonding list,

  3. the reading and understanding of the judgement, and

  4. the reading and understanding of the order of execution of judgment, And when enforcing­

  5. properly identifying himself,

  6. properly serving necessary papers, and

  7. properly notifying people of their rights.



9.1 - Bonding Jail. Procedure


    A government, or an official, officer or clerk of a government, will lose its/his bond, will not be bonded and will not be bondable if a person, hereinafter referred to as the "prisoner," which it/he handles, who has been charged and arrested but who has not been convicted:


  1. has been denied or delayed anything, or any right, or the equal protection of the law necessary for the prisoner's defense which an uncharged and unarrested citizen would have at his use, service and disposal,

  2. has been denied or delayed legal paperwork in the prisoner's case, including but not limited to affidavits of accusation, police reports, arrest warrants, mailing addresses for the delivery of all leg paperwork, etc.,

  3. has been denied or delayed. the assistant counsel of, or communication with any lawyer, attorney, spouse, relative, friend, non-union paralegal, non-union lawyer, etc., needed for his personal safety and legal defense,

  4. has been denied or delayed necessary appearances and opportunity to speak before a judge in court and on the court record ("necessary" as defined by the prisoner, not as defined by the jail. Ear, the judge or the court), and/or consideration from the jailer, the judge of the court, and/or a hand-signed record of the proceedings before the judge and the court,

  5. has been denied or delayed a copy of anything:

    1.  (A) the prisoner has signed while enteringor dwelling in the jail, or

    2.  (B) the prisoner has been required to sign while entering or dwelling in the jail ("It is best not to sign anything."),

  6. has been denied or delayed the physical basics; namely, light, heat, simple comforts, rest, writing materials or any other obvious physical means necessary to compose, write and perfect the prisoner's defense, said basics to be provided at no cost to the prisoner,

  7. has been denied or delayed the opportunity to effectively file counter complaints against the prisoner's accusers, and those who have handled and processed the prisoner's case (see also 4.0 Judicative Input,_specifically),

  8. has been denied or delayed a readable copy of the Holy Bible printed in a language in which the prisoner is educated or fluent,

  9. has been denied or delayed access to law books of the prisoner's choice,

  10. has been denied or delayed medical needs. NOTE: The county shall provide all of the above services immediately to the unconvicted prisoner at no cost to the prisoner. Any county which fails to meet the above criteria will itself be totally liable for its own acts. It is not inconceivable that a county violating the above criteria could accumulate over one hundred million dollars worth of civil damages in one day's time involving only one prisoner, and no credible bonding company wants anything to do with that kind of obligation.



- In Conclusion -

    According to the equitable authorities at law in regard to state-created marriages, any property sought after belongs to both parties/spousal, therefore, both are responsible for their spouse's action(s). Thereby, criminal complaints jointly affect in regard to liens. In short, bring the civil rights violators, wife/husband, into the court action also. Remember, all liens cannot be removed until the declaration is adjudicated and/or the claimant is satisfied.


    In the wording of the published rules of the Ninth Circuit Court, "Go for the jugular vein."



9.2 - Escalation




    A law enforcement officer will lose his bond if he oppresses a citizen to the point of civil. rebellion when that citizen attempts to obtain redress of grievances (U.S. constitutional 1st so-called amendment).


    When a state, by and through its officials and

agents, deprives a citizen of all of his remedies by the due process of law and deprives the citizen of the equal protection of the law, the state commits an act of mixed war against the citizen, and, by its behavior, the state declares war on the citizen. The citizen has the right to recognize this act by the publication of a solemn recognition of mixed war. This writing has the same force as the Declaration of Independence. It invokes the citizen's U.S. constitutional 9th and 10th so-called amend guarantees of the right to create an effective remedy where otherwise none exists.


    "I found this insight on the UBC to be very perspicuous and most useful to the Patriot movement, but like all laws, it is useful only to the one(s) who use it and enforce it."


    Remember the etymon at the tine of law's creation and The Federalist Papers. (Read and discern until it's perspicuous.)


    "Prior law governs always." "Prior etymons govern always."


    "To act in pro se fashion in a court of law or equity is to profess in law, thus, casting yourself to drift away from logic and into the arms of a fool."


    Study the UBC, file your "criminal complaints" in timely fashion, take their money or their hides for future parchment.

MAXIM; (Universal Axiom of Law)


    All persons know that the foundation of law and the legal system exists in the telling of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, generally by testimony, deposition, and/or by affidavit. Therefore, every honorable judge requires those who appear before him to be sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and is compelled by the high principles of his profession to protect that truth and do nothing to tamper with that truth, either directly or indirectly, either in person or by proxy, or by subornation of the affiant or other person (subornation/extortion of perjury).


    This instrument is an Affidavit of Obligation, also known as a Claim of Lien. This affidavit of obligation is a commercial instrument arising from a private or public contract, either express, constructive, and/or implied, which exists by the express, constructive, and/or implied consent of the Lien Debtor. Therefore, this Affidavit of obligation is a consensual commercial lien. This lien arises from the necessity to guarantee specific performance (oath) of the Lien Debtor. Therefore, this Affidavit of obligation is also a z-just compensation commercial lien.


    The Lien Claimant's Claim of Lien is expressed as this Affidavit. A mere unsworn declaration is not sufficient grounds for a Claim of Lien because it does not attach commercial liability to the person making the claim of obligation upon a debtor. The person making the claim (the Lien Claimant) must assume the commercial liability for making a claim against the debtor (the Lien debtor) by issuing a sworn statement known as an Affidavit of Obligation which is given to the best of the claimant's knowledge and belief to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, for which the claimant stands personally commercially responsible.


    A declaration of obligation does not become a lien unless it is sworn to, in which case it is known by the stronger term, "Affidavit of Obligation." A mere declaration of obligation is not a lien.

A "distress," which essentially compels instant specific performance, being severe because of its instant effect, must be bonded. On the other hand, a lien, having a traditional three month grace period, allows ample time for a response, hence is regarded as commercially moderate, and, therefore, does not have to be bonded beyond the personal liability which it automatically imposes upon the Lien Claimant/Affiant. (The three day, three week, three month, and three year grace periods in American Law arise from the traditional numerology of ancient Hebrew and Jewish law. See Holy Bible, Old Testament.)


    As would be the case with any other affidavit, deposition, or testimony, an Affidavit of Obligation (commercial/contract lien) may not be tampered with by any judge, other public official, or other person, and generally may be removed by only one or more of four means:


  1. A satisfaction of the lien by the Lien Debtor.

  2. A categorical point-for-point rebuttal (affirmation, denial, or explanation) of every element of the Lien Claimant's claim, said rebuttal being also in the form of a commercial affidavit for which the Lien Debtor accepts full personal. commercial responsibility. If the lien claimant can rebut the lien debtor's rebuttal, the lien stays in force.

  3. A voluntary (unextorted) removal of the lien by the Lien Claimant (or his heirs and assigns, if such has been provided for). 

  4. A decision by an impartial jury duly convened and properly conducted (not tampered with by a judge, other public official, or other person).


    The suspension of an Affidavit of Obligation is the suspension of the right to give testimony in one's own behalf and is, therefore, in the nature of a suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, a thing done only under the conditions of martial law, civil war, or mixed war.


    A judge cannot interfere with, tamper with, or in any way modify testimony without rendering incredible the truth seeking process in his sacred profession and destroying the fabric of his own occupation, thereby committing professional suicide. Any judge who tampers with testimony, deposition, or affidavit, is a threat to the commercial peace and dignity of the State and of the United States, is in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land, is acting in the nature of a foreign enemy, and is justifiably subject to the penalties of treason; God's speed.


    A lien implies impoundment of property. A breach of the said impoundment, also known as poundbreach, is a felony.

A bill in commerce is a private declaration of obligation. A lien in commerce is the same bill made public with a commercial affidavit attached in support  of the bill. When a lien instrument is composed and made public, either by filing in the Office of the County Recorder or by any other method of open and wide publicity, a copy of the Claim of Lien must be provided for the Lien Debtor so that the Lien Debtor will thus be enabled to defend against the lien. To guarantee that the Lien Debtor has an ample grace period of three months to defend against the lien, the grace period does not begin until a copy of the Claim of Lien or a Notice of Lien is in the possession of the Lien Debtor. If only a Notice of Lien is supplied to the Lien Debtor then the Claim of Lien must be filed in a place of public access such as the County Recorder's Office, or other such public place clearly specified in the Notice of Lien/Affidavit of Obligation, and therefore cannot be lawfully entered by the County Recorder on a County, State or Federal Lien Index.


    A Claim of Lien exists upon the property of a Lien Debtor even if a copy of that lien is only witnessed and in the possession of the Lien Debtor. However, if the Lien Debtor commits poundbreach by a sale, transfer, or assignment of the liened property to some third party, the Claim of Lien does not travel along with that property and attach commercial liability to the said third party, unless the Claim of Lien has been filed in the County Recorder's Office of the county affected by the lien, or said Claim of Lien has  otherwise been satisfactorily publicized. If any attempt is made by any public official to impair the lien process by compelling the county recorder to refuse to file the Lien Claimant's Claim of Lien, then any alternate publicity of the Claim of Lien with reasonable diligence is to be considered adequate publication of the lien for the purpose of passing the obligation of lien forward to the new third party owner of the property, the property seized by the original Claim of Lien against the original Lien Debtor.


Note: From the author of the Quill and the Sword, in closing. "An affidavit unrebutted stands as the truth." Also: "Ignorance of the Law excuses, not, any person." (sic) "Seek the etymon and ye shall find the truth." Amen


By a Freeman held captive in dawn's early light.





--Back to Webster's Ruse-ter--