New Page 0

What is Bonding ?

All of the acts of an artificial person such as a corporation or municipal corporation are included in three general classes of action, namely legislation, judication and execution, that is, the creation of policies or statutes (legislation), the creation of processes designed to enforce the policies or statutes (judication), and the enforcement of the policies or statutes by a mercenary agent, officer or officers of the corporation (execution). Each of the acts of a corporation involve their own separate liabilities, so each act must be separately insured and that to the degree which each act is separately probable to create a damage. Each general class of actions is regulated by a set of insurance policies or bonds the character of which is peculiar to that class of actions.

Bonding is the insurance of a job against the damage which its performance might cause to persons or property.

Bonding is applied to the conception of the job, to the end product of the job and to every step or stage in between the first and last stages in law, bonding is applied to:

(1) the conception or legislation of the statute,

(2) to the enforcement of the statute, and

(3) to every process in between legislation and enforcement.

Bonding a municipal corporation is gambling on official behavior, and each application has its own odds for success and its own terms of payoff. In the mathematical theory of insurance and bonding, the bond on one statute, enforcement process or officer is no more transferable to another statute, enforcement process or officer, respectively, than the insurance policy on one motor vehicle is transferable to another motor vehicle, or the bet on one horse in a race is transferable to another horse in that race.

Bonding principles and maxims

In plain language

The purpose of bonding is to provide redress for accidental damage, and to prevent deliberate negligence (gross negligence), deliberate damage, and criminal malpractice, i.e., malfeasance.

Civil malpractice bonds are designed to protect an agency from its own officers. Civil malpractice bonds are designed to protect the public from official accidental malpractice. Civil malpractice and civil malpractice bonds are bonds against situations that might occur in statutory construction (legislative), in the enforcement process (judicative), or in the enforcement act of an enforcement officer (executive).

A misuse or misapplication of a statute or of a public office is deemed civil by a bonding company if it is accidental, and is deemed criminal by a bonding company if it is deliberate or the result of gross negligence.

A bonding company issues a bond on a statute or on an official process, act, or office only against accidental misuse or misapplication of the statute or official process, act, or office.

Why a uniform bonding code.

In reality a government rules first by force and only secondly by the consent of the people governed.

But, energy is the primary resource for all action, and money is its social symbol.

Consequently, the public method of bringing malfeasant officials of municipal corporations under control always has been, is, and always will be economic. Only that government which can be sued by the public, or whose officers can be sued by the public, can be made to answer to the public need for redress of grievances.

The authority of a government is purchased by the government for the government:

(1) with money called red, collected by force or by threat of force, for example, by taxation and fines.

(2) by threats of imprisonment,

(3) by selective prosecution in favor of the municipal corporation, and

(4) by the claims payoff of bonding companies.

Municipal bonding is intended for accidental misuse of power: bonding is not intended to protect officials in the deliberate misuse of power, that is, the commission of criminal acts.

Many officials think that they can do wrong and hide behind the limited liability and the bond of the municipal corporation for which they work. They forget the real basis of their authority.

Only when malfeasant officers have been drawn out into the open away from the veil of limited access to, and the limited liability of, the municipal corporation, can they be compelled to answer civilly for their antisocial behavior and be made to surrender their own personal property for their own unlawful acts.

The only suits which officers of a renegade government can be made to answer to are publicly filed criminal complaints with civil value noted per title 18 USC § 241, § 242 because failure of prosecution would reinstate the lawful remedies of dueling and civil war. Therefore all prosecutors and other supporting officials must be bonded. A prosecutor who does not prosecute a malfeasant official becomes a malfeasant prosecutor, and thrusts the public at the bonding company.

Bonding companies in order to survive, must cancel the bond on a malfeasant prosecutor for his lack of specific performance and make him dependent on his own personal resources for the seat of his own authority. Otherwise, the criminal offense reverts to a citizen's collection on the civil bond.

The public is getting better educated in commercial defense and offense. The time has come for bonding companies to get smart also, or be financially devastated by official malfeasance. The uniform bonding code is a first step toward better bonding.

The Uniform Bonding Code ‑ (UBC)

Modern bonding practice

With the advent of powerful computers has come the possibility of analyzing data much more quickly and thoroughly and in terms of the general economic principles of Leontief input‑output matrix analysis. (see studies in the structure of the American economy by Wassily Leontief ‑1953, and the world economy in the year 2000 by Wassily Leonitef, an article in the Scientific American of 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 by 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 a transfer of the power and authority of government over to the bonding companies where if 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 bite 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 by excluding persons of an antisocial disposition, the claims could be minimized, thus favoring solvency of the bonding company.

In the old aggregate bonding system, an antisocial enforcement officer operating on an judication statute using a judication 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 inevitability 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, more recently however, "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 corporation.

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 segregating, partitioning, and making more certain, their liabilities in the bonding marketplace.

The following excerpts from the uniform bonding code contain 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 title 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 (Title 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 only apply 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.

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, sex, or population group. The issue can be made even clearer by a second very appropriate example.

The legal professions' 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 the instruction of law in the public schools, 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 slave masters.

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 1871 and to title 42 USC § 1983, § 1985, and § 1986.

The bar associations 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 citizen 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, officers 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.

Natural law in the public

Were it not for elections, a constant infusion of new people into the political, legal, and economic systems, and the basic good character of enough people and their willingness to sacrifice for their cause and go public with their issues and complaints, the tendency of malfeasant government agents to crush all resistance to the official will would win.

The most powerful tools of the common citizen are the u.s. Constitutional first amendment rights of a ‑citizen including:

(1) the legislative right of freedom of religion,

(2) the judicative rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press, to publish criminal complaints and distribute them publicly throughout the court of public opinion by filing them in the county recorder's office and by distributing them on the street, and

(3) the executive right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances--

(a) to pierce the veil of corporate limited liability by bringing an unprosecuted criminal act before the court of public opinion by filing it in the county

recorder's office and by distributing it on the street, and by recording it with the county recorder in the form of an affidavit of obligation

(distress, distress infinite, lien, seizure).

(b) to declare the affidavit of obligation to be an accounts receivable in

the ordinary commercial sense ("a security" ‑ 15 USC), and

the debtor.

Bonding of governments in general conclusion

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 with malice or with deliberate contempt or rudeness toward its citizens.

1.0 legislative input

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.

Terms without definitions are daggars of law.

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 and intended to be used according to their common dictionary definition.

(2) all special terms in the stated principles are exhaustively (a) listed, and (b) 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.]

1.1 ‑ bonding and definitions

General concepts

‑commercial considerations-

(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)

Malfeasance ‑ unlawful or wrongful act

‑ wrongdoing in general

Malpractice ‑ improper or illegal treatment (med)

‑ improper or immoral conduct.

Crime ‑ (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.

(d) wickedness

(e) iniquity Synonym ‑ offense.

Criminal ‑ penal law v. Civil law (implying crime or heinous wickedness)

Civil ‑ citizen rather than ecclesiastical or military

Civil law ‑ legal relations between citizens or between citizen and state legal rights

Slander ‑ oral malicious falsehood

Libel ‑ written slander

1. 2 ‑ bonding and principles/maxims

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 serve 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.

(1) if a statute can be misused to get money or power, its misuse is likely.

(2) if a statute can easily be misused to get money or power, its misuse is virtually certain.

(3) defective statutes invite the deliberate misuse of the statutes,

(4) 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 pas discourages negligence.

The bonding of negligence encourages the commission of negligence on the part of those 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 statute.

Bonding a defective statute is an invitation to bankruptcy.

2.0 ‑ legislative control

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 principle, or condition known to be wholesome to 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 principle, 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.

2.1 ‑ bonding public education

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 in law 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 them.

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.

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 U. S. Constitution

(3) the method of writing an event log for a law 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 a citizen for securing their rights against,

and overthrowing the malfeasance of, public officials.

A public official, clerk, or servant shall loose 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 is familiar 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.

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

Title 42 USC § 1986, the brother's keeper statute of the United States code.

(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 others.

(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 or 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 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 type of business in which a government is supposed to be employed. ["Nor shall private property [taxes] be taken for public use without just compensation [valuable, publicly needed and publicly wanted service rendered by government"]. ‑‑ the U. S. Constitutional 5th amendment.

The 16th amendment of the U. S. Constitution does not base the assessment of taxes on services vices rendered by the government for the public. But rather upon the services rendered by public citizens for third parties, hence, the 16th amendment of the U. S. Constitution violates the 5th 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 opera operating the government by the number of emancipated citizens (or persons of majority age ‑eighteen years old or older).

[A U. S. Constitutional 5th amendment system of taxation based

on just compensation requires a per capita tax. ]

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 a U. S. Constitutional 16th amendment deduction system of taxation there are three economic industries,

(1) capital,

(2) goods, and

(3) services (labor).

Each has a one hundred percent (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. Constitutional 16th 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 ho household al although ugh it is 100 % deductible

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

(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.

Social security sham

The social security system of the IRS 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 of 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.

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, § 1994) 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 IRS 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 IRS the IRS 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‑Semitic, those patriots who point out the that the IRS, the federal reserve, and the FDIC., are all well known financial enterprises of the 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 shouts of anti‑ Semitism are not coming from common persons, but from the Rothschild banking system which detests having the burglar's mask ripped off of 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.]

2.3 ‑ bonding exigency statutes

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 statutes) creates a false problem for, or artificial or fraudulent need if, 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,

(2) has been pawned off on the public: ‑(a) by coercive suggestion,

(b) by lack of representation, or

(i) for the good of the many at the expense of individual liberty or property, or

(ii) 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/taxation without representation (e.g., the lottery).

Bonding vs. 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, 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 gambling it is wagering on official behavior. You might call it "responsible gambling" or "responsibility gambling". Bonding is gambling done by government, not gambling done by the public.

Bonding has the just purpose of regulating government, by making governments pay premiums (bets) for the misbehavior of its agents, and forcing antisocial agents to go to jail or pay out of their own pockets for the damage which they cause.

A government is not supposed to operate on an economic base of non‑responsibility "gambling" such as a lottery because that is a system of "taxation without representation". Money obtained by a government from "non‑responsibility gambling" is money that the government will spend as it sees fit to do so without accounting to the public for it.

It will give officials a sense of being able to act independently from representing the interests of the public.

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Having money from "non‑responsibility gambling" such as a lottery :also makes government's agents feel that they have enough money to work with, that they can ignore responsibility bonding and free themselves

From the restrictions which responsibility bonding imposes on their behavior.

Since a lottery gives money to the state, it gives power to the state. Since the state's control of that money is independent of public control or control by a bonding company, the state's use of that money becomes autocratic or absolute.

Again ‑‑ Power corrupts and Absolute Power corrupts absolutely

When citizens provide money to government by way of state wide gambling, such as the lottery, they are giving the government the power to enslave them with their own money. Gambling might make a very few persons free by making them wealthy, but only by enslaving all of the remainder of the people, little by little, day by day.

A public swept up into gambling on a state lottery delivers over to a state unlimited taxation without representation. The money which flows in such a system can become so great that the officers of the state become addicted to power, drunken with power, and corrupted to the degree known as organized crime.

Money is not substance, it is only the symbol of substance.

Real property (real estate) is substance. Mineral wealth is substance. Control of transportation routes waterways and ports conveys substance.

As soon as a state can establish a lottery, it will use the income to finance the seizure of substance and the means of conveying substance (real estate, mineral wealth, waterways, ports, and transportation routes, etc.)

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 the issuing letters of marques and reprisal (orders to march and seize) to mercenary law enforcement officers.

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 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.

(The Final Secret Of Pearl Harbor by Rear Admiral Robert A. Theobald; Pearl Harbor After A Quarter Of A Century by Harry Elmer Barns)

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.

Some of the exigency statutes of present day governments are designed by bag 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.

(A Report From Iron Mountain by Leonard C. Levin; Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars ‑available from America’s Promise Newsletter ‑ P.O. Box 30,000 Phoenix, AZ 85046)

2. 4 ‑ bonding insurance statutes

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) (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 Lord giveth, the 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, 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 holds 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.

(Research the case of February 10, year unknown), Tennessee department of revenue operations wherein 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 obvious reason:

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 quit 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 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 which they have compelled to buy insurance.

The voluntary purchasing of motor vehicle insurance is smart. It is a good investment. However, 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 irresolvable problems, and any officer or judge who enforces compulsory motor vehicle insurance statutes is laying themselves wide open to economic ruin.

3. Legislative Output

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 for criticism of its construction and/or effect,

(5) if the conclusion 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 it's construction and effect, and

(6) 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 judicable statute.

[A legislated conclusion becomes a valid and lawful statute only if it is legislatively bonded.]

4.Judicative Input, Generally

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:

(a) to harass or to oppress a citizen, or

(b) to create obstacles to prevent a citizen from exercising his remedies by the due course of the 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 u.s. Constitution, or guaranteed by the constitution of the state by which the officer is employed, or guaranteed by the constitution of the state into which the officer's work takes him.

(3) if he interferes in a citizen's U.S. Constitutional first amendment

(a) legislative rights of freedom of religion

(b) judicative rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press (the right to access the court of public opinion)

(c) 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) if he will not file or receive the filing of a criminal complaint (no filing fee is required) against a public official when such is necessary to curb the malfeasance of that official. (see also 5.2 ‑ bonding of district attorneys)

4.1 ‑ judicative input, specifically

The process of receipt of data 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 submitting or attempting to submit affidavits, allegations, arguments, claims, criminal complaints and/or demands for consideration, litigation or prosecution,

(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 the 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 damages out of municipal corporate property or his own personal property.

5.0 judicative control

The court rules, jurisdiction, and the processes of consideration of affidavits and other filings, litigation, and prosecution will 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 of 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, that

(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.

Jurisdiction

(3) 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 an) segregate into their own jurisdictional categories.

(4) a criminal case brought in behalf of the peace and dignity of the state:

(a) 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,

(b) has named the accuser in the setting of the case, and

Otherwise, the state would become the plaintiff/accuser, the case would become federal, and the bonding company would become potentially liable for an agents false accusation and false imprisonment of a party to the case.

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

(6) the U. S. Constitutional 6th amendment processes have been carried out before the U. S. Constitutional 7th amendment processes have proceeded, and these 6th amendment processes have proceeded without delay.

Consideration of affidavits

(7) all affidavits have been considered, answered. And affirmed or denied categorically

point‑for‑point in writing.

Litigation and prosecution

(8) all officials, officers, and clerks involved in the processes of litigation have obeyed the constitution of the united states and the constitution of the state wherein they are employed so that;

(a) the citizens involved have received equal protection under the laws and

(b) the citizens' remedies by the due course of law have been protected and guaranteed.

(9) 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 non‑ union lawyers, non‑union counsels, non‑ union paralegals, 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.

(10) the officials, officers, and clerks involved in the processes did not act in concord, union, or conspiracy to interfere with or minimize the citizens' creative access to discovery, evidence, counsel and/or remedy by the due course of law,

Service of legal process

(11) 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.

Attornment ‑ 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 t14e 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 of citizens acceptable to the common people. This does not mean that the common people liked the situation, 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), 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, attorney's still practice attornment.

Lawyer ‑ a person learned in the law. One who understands law and who loves law for it's 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 a 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 think the terms "lawyer" and "attorney" mean the same thing and would not 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.