Freedom Domain
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.......There were only about 5 or 6 other interactive people so they will be identified as Female or F1, F2 or male will be M1 or M2 etc
Call was in progress waiting for R and E in Japan talking while waiting for R to come on line.
E: Basically what he’s going to do is lay out the court procedures and give us an update on (couldn’t make out). The idea is to start with the foundation of what an authorized representative is and work from there. More conversation before R. came on line… People coming on an introducing.
E: While we’re waiting on line is there anybody in a court position or about to go to a court position?
F1: I’m having a problem understanding some of the comments that are being made. I’m trying to prepare to go to court. I’ve been trying to get people to put my name into bankruptcy so that I can just step back and conduct it is my ideal plan.
E: Technically speaking your already in bankruptcy. The situation people that people develop with the Authorized Representative, they put together a document. That document has on it 3 essential details which is picture, thumbprint, footprint and various deliberative means that are being listed. Like if your name is John Brown how many ways can they screw up John Brown. There is actually a couple available for that. It was done for a fellow out from Suskatchewan. So now each document will also have various other writings so we’ll make a court template sample. In each of the corners will have there will be a stamp. Those four corners will have the following four stamps. One from England, one from China, one from US of A, and one from Japan. Those are the four major players here. Those are the two islands controlling the two main lands of both the Cardinal and the Ordinal system which is western-eastern side of (sounds like fraud) accounting. Now when you have that you should get it notarized. It’s preferable to get a Consulates stamp put on it. Now if you put any additional stamps on both the inside and on the spin of the outside and have that cancelled by the post office of that particular providence stamp jurisdiction. Example: The US could take and additional stamp and put it on the inside corner near the original corner and have the post office, make sure it is far enough away so that the post office stamps it and preferably with the bullet stamp. Now that turns it in for all practical purposes a duel position document. Put your employer ID in the private and it’s been apostiled by the public through their cancellation of the stamp and you do that on the inside and on the outside cover that gives you more weight to play with.
F2: So that’s joinder but what’s the purpose of this?
E: The purpose of this is that the straw man, the voodoo doll, is bankrupt, therefore has no commercial solvency. You are an owner and senior preferred stockholder on one side of the fence. On the other side of the fence you’re not a voodoo doll. You’re flesh and bone physical. That flesh and bone physical is the owner of all things in creation and therefore is 100 percent commercial. The Authorized Representative also works as a position that you an attorney in fact for all of the derivative name placements that come from the physical being. The physical name has a grammatical position be it all lower case or a combination of upper and lower. Now they turn around and they bastardize it and turn it into a derivative name and those derivative names are the ones that are bankrupt. So the authorized representative is the master ticket here and works quite well in proceedings of court because it establishes right off the top who has commercial sovereignty and who does not have commercial sovereignty.
R: Okay!… This is Roger. I just come on.
Many greetings saying hello etc.
R: I was on here and it said press 1 for you to enter the room I was the first to call. I just hung on and hung on for about 7 minutes and nothing happened so I just hung up and dial again. This time I could hear you talking.
E: Well you’re ahead of us tonight.
R: Must have been. I don’t know… So where do we start of where do I start? I overheard a little bit of where you were.
E: I was just giving a basic breakdown that we’re going to go over court procedures tonight and it basically all stems from the root of the authorized representative is the foundation because that is physical flesh and bone that has the commercial sovereignty… can operate as the attorney in fact to perform the administrative activities surrounding this when you’re dealing with court. I’ll just let you take it from there on how we update the use of the assessment of the charges, the appearance bond, and the finding of facts and conclusion of law to go along with the 3 magic questions of What’s your name? Do you have a claim against me? And do you know anyone who has a claim against me? And we do have some people who are getting ready for court sessions and we got a good mix tonight. We got some Canadians, some Americans, etc.
R: Okay! Well! I think for one thing I’m just going to talk about a couple of things along that line. How you can use it when you get into some times surprising questions. Like when I was in the tax office and you get confronted with the statement: “You’re not the owner of this property.” Or “You’re claiming to be the owner,” you know. See they’re assuming like when you go in to do a name correction on an account, I just tell them, “No I’m not the owner, I’m just the representative of the owner. I’m the authorized representative for the owner.” Or I just tell them that I want the information so that we can finish the transaction for the owner. So actually what it does, it allows you to speak in the 3rd person. Of course the owner is the straw man, but you’re not going to say it… you’re going to let them do it.
F1: I’ve got a thought on that…
R: Go ahead…
F1: If you could get somebody else to put your straw man in bankruptcy then you just stand bank and orchestrate without even speaking.. .. or anything.
R: Well you probably could you see, but the problem is that whoever does that, they are going to confront them. Practicing law without a license… bla bla bla. You know you’re going to get confronted unless there is also a possibility of using an actual attorney. But if you ever do you give him instructions for every step he takes. If he takes any steps without …. Then you see he gets named as a creditor, to discover his personal assets. If he falters in the harness, see that’s what this whole thing is all about. Because we’re standing back here with the hammer now of the corporate filing for bankruptcy… in other words that’s a chapter 11. What you’re doing is you’re filing as a sole proprietor-- An individual sole proprietor. I would say that that is the corporate sole. So the corporate sole is still a fiction but it’s owned by a real living, breathing person. But you see you’re the representative of that particular straw man.
F2: R could we back up for a minute? This is R* speaking.
R: Yes!
F2: How are you tonight?
R: Good!
F2: I’ve been in the banking industry for 15 years as an independent principal. I’m not an agent to no one.
R: Okay… right!
F2: I work in treasury room in different banks by contract for my customers under my customer written instruction worldwide. The bank has ‘no say’ in the matter cause it’s a contract between I and the customer. When a bank has contracted with me to consent to use treasury in their name I am no longer a say in the matter except what I do with the customer as long as it meets what the financial systems methods regulation… not the banking dealerships. (R: okay) Understood requires ideas of what things are. I’ve been at this a long time from central banks on down. (R: Okay) There’s a few concepts in your explanations I’m trying to see here in black and white and the picture I have in my mind to ask the question is, when you have an entity, the straw man, the voodoo, the picture itself to me was, because … I’m going to back up a minute to go forward here is with what your thought of train is.
R: Yeah… okay!
F2: There’s a birth certificate, your certificate is your storage receipt to your actual title being held elsewhere and you’re taking claim back. (Roger: Yes) When you do that, when it was signed first of all it was a debtor of a creditor of last resort central bank as collateral. You are the collateral for the government.
R: Humhum… the straw man.
F2: No! The individual.
R: How do they do that?
F2: Through the birth certificate.
R: Yeah but see the birth certificate there is still the creation of a doll… a voodoo doll!
F2: Let me back up then more… You’re given name by civil right especially by the Quebec code article 5, it’s your civil right. You have the absolute right of your birth name. Your birth certificate signed by the government is a third party. (R: yep) To something that was already and agreement between you and your mother. Even though you were a child and you didn’t know about it, but it’s your given name between you and your mother. When the government steps in then the mother asked to contract with the government for and on behalf of ‘you’.
R: But…
F2: The individual through an entity name. That entity is what is collateralized as a debtor…
R: yes!
F2: You are the laborer to that entity I was owing to it. When it’s signed then it’s been set up for the creditor of last resort is the one that is the creditor to the actual debtor… okay which is the straw man and you’re the laborer always in debt to it. When you’ve taken back what is rightfully yours, I’ve understood that mechanism as social security lien and everything else in the agreement and all that. You have now turned yourself into the creditor and the straw man the debtor… to you! Once registered through Equifax as a secured claim then the secured claim is registered in the fact that you have done that and you’re the creditor individual of the straw man being the debtor to you. And you’re the creditor of last resort to it.
R: Well…. I’m not the creditor because a creditor would have to be somebody of the government or…
F2: Let me back up…. This is how the central bank would see it or how the government would see it. You’re turning it 180 degrees…
R: Yeah!
F2: By turning it 180 this other entity who is the government or central bank lets say—now debtor, your creditor with the straw man. The straw man is debtor to you not creditor to…
R: Well here’s the thing! With me the straw man is the debtor but I am the representative of the straw man …
F2: That’s clear but imagine the straw man trying to get a bank account. It needs an arm to sign for it. That’s where you’re representative comes in…
R: Right! I go in and I sign for him and open the bank account.
F2: Right. Usually because it’s corporate, this entity voodoo doll, there ?? corporate resolution. The resolution you will sign as individual because that entity needs a representation for it to be a mouthpiece and for it to be an existence because and entity has no existence without it having a representative.
R: Right!
F2: Okay. In the world of banking, yes. Also that party representative in regards to, lets say collection agency. Coming to collect on the entity. But you’re the creditor so it must go through you, the creditor!
R: No! No! No! No! I’m not the creditor. The straw man is still the creditor. The creditor is still some person in the bank or some bank that has issued the credit.
F2: Let me back up! Let me back up! Let me put it different. Let me put a different spin on it. You have secured claim according to Equifax, okay? According to Equifax there is an agreement between individual and a secured claim on the entity lets say for 90 billion. And it’s been registered that way…
R: Okay!
F2: Imagine how the machines and how this other entity sees it called Canada Inc. or Bank of Canada Inc. as to Straw Man Inc. as regards to individual who is authorized representative of the Inc, Straw man. Who is indebted to who in this picture, when the secured claim is registered under Equifax?
R: They are the creditor who are obligated to the debtor.
F2: Who is the creditor and who is the debtor?… in that picture.
R: Okay. Well for one thing my straw man is the debtor and all the others are the creditors that are delinquent.
F2: That’s true. But who is the creditor that’s delinquent?
R: The bank or anyone in the bank.
F2: Can you explain that?
R: It shouldn’t be any more difficult then just that. The bank … you see, who has the license here to create money? You see it’s against the law to create money without a license. When you’re in an international community, you see, HJR-192 is in effect there is no money. You can only traffic there in the red light district. You have to stay in the red light district…
F2: Lets back up a minute… Who said you need a license to create money?
R: Well… your statutes will. You start to…
F2: Okay… Lets back up a minute! This is good R. I’ve got Royal Bank. Royal Bank goes and gets on third party deposits, term deposits its on annual report. It’s annual report is created it can go to Dominion Bond rating service or Standard and Poores, get a credit rating and issue it’s own I.O.U. it’s own bond. That’s a form of money.
R: Yeah!
F2: That’s what the entity can do as well.
R: Okay but see you’re talking in general terms here. I don’t know how that applies to me. Because you see…
F2: … because Royal Bank is a corporation….
R: We don’t a commercial exchange of property that there is any money required yet.
F2: Bank of Canada sent you a bill… a bill for lets say $7,000. after an assumed assessment.
R: Okay! And I’m going to say, “I didn’t find your check enclosed. So now you see as a matter of fact and I am returning this to you for settlement.”
F2: Acceptance… Because the Bills of Exchange turn into a note which is a bond on their books.
R: Yeah!
F2: You reversed it. You reversed it 180,… according to law.
R: Yeah!
F2: Well actually to do that.
R: That’s a settlement. Nothing for nothing!
F2: Right! It’s called a debit credit everything zeros.
R: Right!
F2: That’s banking too…. That’s also accounting.
R: Yeah! Right but you see where we have to … See these are all fictions we’re talking about, but you see money can only represent something that can cast a shadow.
F2: Money is a note. Note is only good for who gives it credit and faith.
R: That’s right! But you see it has to be if your are going to get it into evidence, you’re going to have to identify the actual property that it represents otherwise you don’t have any need for money.
F2: The actual property that it represents??? Isn’t your straw man your property when you trade marked it? That’s property. Intellectual property….
R: Oh yeah but you see it still has to identify here why? The purpose of having a body or something that can cast a shadow.
F2: Okay! Let me give you an example. A note itself when exchanged between two parties is a simple contract. The existence of the entities is to formulate simple contracts to exchange… that’s the purpose.
R: Okay but to exchange what? See…
F2: Whatever the two parties decide to agree with.
R: Okay. Now I’m saying ….
F2: … there’s an assessment and the two parties agree…
R: Okay! Hang on now. So now when I say, “Okay I’ll accept this here, but I didn’t find your check, so I’m returning to you your offer in exchange and now I want you to release the property that was involved.” Because I have made settlement you see? When I’ve given that back to you I have now made settlement because I had returned the thing of value that you claimed was of value.
F2: Well if I’ve got a 90 billion dollar security lien that’s registered with Equifax…
R: No, no, no, no, no! 90 billion dollars of what?
F2: Credit!
R: Yeah but see what does that credit represent as far as the property because you see when I redeemed that particular credit, I want the property that it represents.
F2: What’s??… Define property in your words…
R: Okay lets say, instead of 90 billion lets say 90 thousand. Lets say I’m going to buy a 90 thousand dollar car. Okay? That $90,000 represents the car. You’ve given me credit for that so I used the credit to place against the car. So now you say, “Okay so now you pay me those debt notes.” And I say, “No we’re going to use the electronic funds transfer or EFT or the set-off.” So when I do that I have then returned to you the value and I want release and I want delivery of the car.
F2: I understood all that. That’s Bills of Exchange all over again.
R: No, no, no! Because Bills of Exchange goes into the public sector. We have an agreement.
F2: A bill of exchange goes into the public sector…
R: Is a public instrument!
F2: Where do you get the word public in the word fill?
R: Well those are what the banks use to carry on their public business.
F2: You’re talking notes from the government… what’s in an IOU also.
R: Yes I know! I know! But you see I’m talking about my personal account as opposed to all those other things. Those other terms are just terms.
F2: An account at the bank is just a trust. Closing escrow when two parties decide to exchange a check.
R: Well here’s the thing. We’re not going to get anywhere tonight talking in these terms. These terms are just to general and large numbers and there’s no identification of property.
F2: Isn’t the trademark, by the way you register it with a security lien a property and you’ve decided as an individual to give it an assessment value and when you have filed that and registered that…
R: Do you know what an assessment is?
F2: Yes! Evaluation.
R: No it’s not.
F2: What is it?
R: It’s an agreement! It’s an agreement between the moving party and the principal.
F2: Lets see… (as she looks it up) to have an agreement one must assess first before one can agree.
R: You bet! Because you see if you charge a claim before an assessment you’ve committed a felony.
F2: To charge a claim….??? Without an assessment… Assessed valuation is appraisal of real or personal property by taxing authorities…
R: No! Nope! No it’s not! It could be…
F2: It’s used to determine debt limit.
R: Well that can be used to determine debt limits but whose debt? See there are a lot of questions that have got to be answered…
F2: Every IOU is a form of debt.
R: Well sure it is.
F2: A bond is a note….
R: I’m going to have to get off the phone because this is going nowhere.
F2: No I’m just trying to follow….
R: No! You’re trying to lead everything!
E: The object tonight was to go over the court procedures.
F2: Well go ahead!
R: Yeah this isn’t going anywhere! It’s all general public stuff and that’s not identifying the property. When we get to that point we have to move into bankruptcy for discover of personal assets. See that’s what’s elusive through this whole conversation is trying to pin down where does the property and the money match, you see? Once we’ve determined that, you see, because we’re going to use a matter of fact to offset the assumed assessments. That’s where they’re running roughshod over everybody. These banks and these attorneys and one thing and another, they assume all of the assessments so that the minute they have you acquiesce to some of that down the line, the next thing they are using that assessment to criminally charge you. Otherwise you see, without that assessment they are committing a felony. See that’s why we now want to get into the use of and understand what the finding of fact and conclusion of law are. Because any time a judge or prosecutor would make an assessment, basically is what it is, it has to have your agreement. I’ll give you an example here: I had recently some US Marshals served a subpoena on me and when he served those papers on me he says, … well I had to go about a 1000 miles or something like that to another region to serve as a witness in a federal prosecution of somebody. He said, “You can turn in your claim and you’ll get your checks to pay for your lodging and your transportation and bla bla bla.” And I asked him, “Well where is your check? You don’t have a check with this.” He said, “No I don’t.” So I started to hand the subpoena back and he threw his hands back and I knew he was going to run and I jammed them into his body and dropped them and those two US Marshals went scootin’ out across the parking lot. We just let the papers scatter all over the side walk and I just walked over to my car and they spun out of the parking lot and I drove out right behind them. Well anyway that shows that they can’t assume the assessment. They were trying to get a civil assessment… so they could bring criminal charges, whether it was against me or someone else. So see, as a matter of fact, I returned the item to them and not only that the marshal had to carry the message back to them that it wasn’t a good service. Why? Because I asked them for the check and they didn’t have it. You see otherwise they would have assumed that would have been an agreement and that would of been the assessment. But that’s what I had to do to over come it. Otherwise you see, now they’re in possession of an assessment to criminally charge somebody. That’s why we can’t get at these kind of conclusions of speaking in generalities of the banking system. That’s for another time and place and probably not for me to participate, because I don’t get into that. And you see in these cases where a judge would issue an order, say like here you make a motion in a court for a dismissal or to drop the charges and the judge denies your motion for the order, then you ask the judge for his finding of fact and conclusions of law because he has an obligation as a judge to enter that into the action..… he is the finder of fact is he not?
F1: Agreed!
R: And so you see that means he has an obligation if the finding of fact and conclusion of law are not in the administrative record, or the judicial record or there isn’t any, then you see you give them notice of bankruptcy. Notice of the debtor filing chapter 11 reorganization in bankruptcy to discover the personal assets of the judge then. Because he’s now dishonored you and you are a party to the contract and so is he. See a lot of times here some of this stuff comes off before a person actually becomes a party so you can’t join issue. Or you can’t join into a binding contract. But at that point you see, the judge now, who has the obligation has been requested to settle the matter or the bankruptcy is taking his dishonor in the alternative and now you see you have the administrative means to discover his personal assets.
F1: Okay! I have a question about this. If I’m the one that files then I have to bring the assessment.
R: What do you mean?
F1: It sounds to me like if you are going to bring charges against somebody…
R: Yes!
F1: If they are going to bring charges against you they have got to have an assessment… Well if I’m bringing charges against someone don’t I need the assessment?
R: You already have it. He’s failed to settle with you so you now have his dishonor to charge the bankruptcy.
F1: Well if I … how does the discovery take place? How do you get that ball rolling?
R: That’s something that you’ll have to get into with the administrative procedures after or if you actually file the reorganization plan. But you see up to this point you probably aren’t going to need it unless these guys are dumb enough to fall into dishonor. If they fall into dishonor they’ve given you all their personal property. Because you see, they’re operating under rules of equity. Well you must come to equity with clean hands. In other words that means that you can’t owe anyone. You see, you can’t be delinquent in your accounts. Well we happen to know or I would happen to know he is delinquent on mine because I have a claim. I have a claim and I’ve asked him to make settlement… I’ve requested him to make settlement of this and if he refuses then you see I’m giving him notice that I now intend to reorganize in bankruptcy. That doesn’t mean that I’m declaring the debtor to be bankrupt because I’m coming as debtor in possession. And I’m saying I’m in possession of that account that you are holding. I remember I had a guy on the phone here recently who was trying to collect an account here from me that I’d already given him a check for. I asked him, I said who he was and what he was about, I said, “You are the holder of my account are you not?” and he said, “no!” and then he said, “Yes I guess I am.” He realized that it was fatal if he was going to say that he was not the holder of my account, because I’m the owner and he’s the holder of it. He’s the holder in due course and so I said, “Okay, for settlement now, what you’re asking for I want you to issue my check for my account that you are the holder of and pay the account.” And then I hung up on him. You see cause I know that he faltered when I hit him when I asked him, “You are the holder of my account are you not?” He was going to try and say no. See? And of course if he would of said, “No” then I would of said, “Then what the hell are you talking to me for?”
M1: The mechanics of doing that like it is obvious to me and you made a couple of stories in the United States about a collection agencies that seem to understand what to do and how to do it. I have a friend here who works in a collection agency here in Canada and he’s very interested in what we’re doing and everything but he doesn’t have a clue. He doesn’t know what to do.
R: Well if he doesn’t know what to do he better not call me. (chuckles) Cause I’ll tell you what, he’s going to forfeit his property if he isn’t careful because you see what we’re doing here is we’re dealing with evidence. That’s why it’s so hard for some people to pick up because the evidence has to be something that occurs as a matter of fact and it’s always after the fact. So that’s what we use to overcome the assumptions. Because now assumptions are non-existent. But people that come in and say, “Well I’m going to plead my rights” and stuff like that, well you don’t have any rights. For one thing you can’t get it into evidence. That’s why what you get in evidence is what the two parties agree to—the parties of interest see? So when we talk about interest, that’s what it means. It means interest that has not been brought back to the principal. Those are delinquent taxes! The reason we can do some of this is because the money, so called money that these banks are handling here they’re assumed to be tax exempt municipals. Why? Because they have gotten these through supervisors and attorneys who have been dealing with, say like mutual funds and municipals to where the certificates of origin have not been processed in the state because the state then would have a tax claim on them. You see, so the Certificates of Origin here do not rest with the state, and yet the state is the one that issues the search warrant. And what is a search warrant looking for? The search warrant is looking for the money order … or the purchase order that created and states the value of the claim. So it’s a money order or court order or purchase order and when the state issues a warrant, you see that’s actually a check. So that’s why an attorney comes and tells me he’s making an assessment or he’s serving a subpoena on me to require me to appear and I tell him, “Well where’s your check?” No check-- No subpoena!
M2: Okay they just seized my wife’s car. ?? I got a hold of the warrant, I accepted it and said, “I did not find your check enclosed.” And returned that and on the bottom of that I did a PS and said, “Please deliver the product of your offer, priority exempt to me immediately.”
R: Yeah!
M2: So now I should get the car back.
R: Well you should. They might try to hold stiff in the bit because you see there isn’t anything that says what it’s going to cost them if they don’t.
F1: I would hold firm on that. You might get it back.
R: What’s that?
F1: I would just hold firm on that because they are going to buffalo you and buffalo you but it’ll probably turn up.
M2: They’ve already got their Notice of Intent. That’s already been served on them.
R: Okay, then the next thing you see, you’ve got about 90 days or you can file anytime in between there. But you see if it slips past 90 days then they’re just going to take that as an empty threat.
F1: So what I’m understanding is then instead of me filing for a chapter 11 I want to take the dishonor in to the judge, and get finding of facts and conclusions of law…and use that.
R: You don’t have to take it to him, he’s got to have that already in the record. If he doesn’t, he’s delinquent and he’s now subject to being listed as a creditor in bankruptcy because creditors are the ones that are stating that you owe them.
F1: Okay! Well my initial move in that case is now truly to fill out the chapter 11 form. The initial case would be to bring the dishonor to the attention of a judge and then allow the court system to function as my employees to do it for me.
R: Sure! Yeah!
F1: Okay! Okay! All right! That was real important for me.
R: and make sure in there that you state on there you are looking for the findings of fact and conclusions of law because here’s what happens. If there is going to be an assessment, you see, your coming to an agreement, now the court is going to have an assessment and with the assessment, now a criminal charge will come against the straw man.
F1: Oh you just helped me so much you don’t even know!!!
R: Oh! Okay! The criminal charge comes against the straw man.
F2: All right!
R: But you have to have the finding of facts and the conclusions of law or you don’t know what you’re going to plead to…. Because you are not in dispute with any of the facts but you won’t know what those facts are until the judge lives up to his obligations If he fails to do it then you see he then is subject to the courts discovery of his personal assets and now you can tell them now that you can accelerate the chapter 11 reorganization on to this and turn that creditor to a chapter 7 for liquidation of the property and the rest of the story is that you are preceding as debtor in possession. And if you ever have to liquidate any of the property or have the US Trustee, which will probably be the US Marshal to liquidate the property you then reserve the right to reject any and all bids. When you do that, all the bids that come in and if you reject them then you’ve reserved them and who is the reserve? It’s your account. That property belongs to you.
F1: So that chapter 11 is not what I’m suppose to be filling out?… because I don’t have an assessment that takes me to the chapter 11.
E: You need to send that request to settle.
R: Yeah! You request that they settle and at the same time you give them notice that in the absence of the settlement this is your notice of intent to file chapter 11 reorganization in bankruptcy.
F2: Has this been tried in Canada?
M2: I’ve got several notices of intent out there already.
F1: The thing is you take your request to settle to a judge. That’s the whole key that I was missing.
R: Well it’s not that you take it to a judge. You take it to the individuals and if they want to get it into a formal court proceeding that’s fine as long as there is going to be a judge step in and oppose you then you see he’s got to have his find of fact and conclusion of law, but you don’t have to go to the judge. You just give the creditors notice. You’re going to be required to settle here Buddy or else your name is going on the bankruptcy as a delinquent creditor.
F1: I know but if I’m the one that takes that into bankruptcy and I have to file then I need the assessment… I have no way of obtaining that assessment.
R: It’s there refusal. They’ve made a claim on you already. Lets say you get a credit card and you got $20,000 on it. You try to spend the $20,000 and all of a sudden they hold your card up to question.
F1: Okay, this is what it was. I got a grant from the Dept. of Rehabilitation to be rehabilitated and go back to school. They offered included a car, books, tuition the supplies….
R: Okay..
F1: So I don’t have… well I have knowledge of the substance with no assessment of cost.
R: Okay but the thing is here that you had a grant…. You applied for a grant?
F1: I got a $100,000 grant, four people at the rehabilitation signed it, the same week I accepted everything for value, filed my UCC1 at the Sec of State I wrote over to the Dept of Rehab and only 1 of the people that signed there are still there. None of them have the same title.
R: Don’t make any difference. They inherited here all the liabilities.
F2: That’s for sure.
R: The ones that are there…
F2: They’re the holders…
R: Yes and not only that if those people get injured as a result of some of their forerunners they are going to go after them.
F1: Correct, but you see what they do is they change the titles. For instance if they called them a manager or a senior manager there is no longer a manager or a senior manager there.
R: Well they’ve got a proper name.
F1: They retired or they quite.
R: Yeah but it doesn’t make any difference. The entire business is subject to discovery of the personal assets. That business organization. Every person who is an employee in there is subject to discovery of personal assets for liquidation for settlement in the account.
F1: Okay well this is what I discovered when I went down to the County Recorders office… the woman that is still there is Jane Doe. She owns hundreds of straw men and underneath them she’s got hundreds of properties. One of her reconveyance the trust has 15,000 people.
R: Yeah well see what you do… she is one of the employees of that business organization that has dishonored you. So you see you’re entitled to the discovery of all those assets and you can do those with the vantage point of bankruptcy. But here’s the thing, if you file chapter 11 and you file and you just go in and say, “I’m filing bankruptcy and I’m going to do it myself” you aren’t going to get anywhere.
F1: Laughing… I’m with you R, I’m with you!
R: Okay but when you go in there you’re going to have to sign it as Attorney in Fact. And when you name the firm, which is the law firm. For me, if I go in there and I’m going to sign as the attorney for the debtor. Why? Because that’s what the Authorized Representative is, is the attorney in fact.
F2: Power of Attorney in fact.
R: Yeah! Also the firm name is going to be R* N. E* and I’m going to put that in there in all caps because that is the firm name under which I operate a sole proprietorship. It’s my personal business. That’s the way you sign it. That’s the way you have to be the authority or the authorized representative of that debtor AND that’s the way you have to go into that chapter 11.
F2: Okay R the way I’m seeing things and the way you’re picturing things is anybody trying to make claims to you is creditor and the voodoo person or entity is the debtor and you’re the representative of the fact.
R: Yeah.
F2: Okay. It’s been clear from the moment you started speaking to me anyway. It all makes sense what you’re telling me.
R: Yeah and you don’t need to go beyond that because it’s this simplicity that they can’t get over.
F2: Just the fact they are putting out a claim they are trying to create joiner therefore create simple contract.
R: Right! But you depose them immediately with the 3 questions.
F2: And the 3 questions again?
R: What is your name? Do you have a claim against me? Do you know anyone that has a claim against me?
F2: And your are asking the creditor this?
R: Any body that confronts you. Anybody that is trying to get you to testify or give information. If you’re going to give information to a court and they threaten you or (??couldn’t understand word). Information is still you’re personal property and it is exempt from levy. You own that.
F2: Okay! Okay!
R: So that’s what they try to do just recently here with me. That was a federal summons that came on me and they tried to contract with me for information. I said, “Well where is you check? No check – no subpoena!” and I handed it back to him.
F2: Got it! By creating joinder they try to create contract information.
R: Yeah but see I still have a contract with them. If they would proceed with the assessment and try to charge the account, you see, then I can take them into bankruptcy and he’d have to surrender all his personal assets.
F2: Why is that?
R: Why is that?… It’s because he is an unjust Steward. He works for me and when I’ve told him what to do and he refuses to do it, and I’ve done it in a gentlemanly manner, asking him for settlement or surrender of his personal assets.
F2: You created no dispute in that process.
R: That’s right. Also I just tell them that I’m not in dispute of any of the facts. So if you people want to bring criminal charges against my straw man you just go right ahead and bring them but I need the finding of fact and conclusions of law so that I know what I’m pleading to. Because if I’m going to enter a guilty plea I know they can’t hold me in custody here and take the plea. That’s why they always have to enter a not guilty plea on somebody. Okay?
F2: Yeah!
R: But you see with this mechanism we have just described, now you see you can explore all of those other ideas that we’ve talked about, but you have to arrive back at this foundation and use that to make your decisions.
F2: Based on everything that is the basic simple exchange of every contract. That’s a simple contract. You got to have that to create settlement or else forget about it. But for every settlement there has to be an assessment.
R: Yeah!
F2: And the creditor is creating the assessment, and the bankruptcy trustee in that picture between debtor and creditors straw man, who is the bankruptcy trustee?
R: Give me that slow again…
F2: Sure. In a creditor debtor relationship there is usually a bankruptcy trustee, if you’re trying to file for chapter 11. Who would be the bankruptcy trustee?
R: Well it’s going to probably be the judge of the bankruptcy court.
F2: Got it. So he’s the power of attorney in fact for the entity thereof of the creditor while you are the power of attorney for the debtor.
R: Yep! Okay now if the judge denies a motion and an order for some remedy that I might use. Of the bankruptcy trustee lets say, then I’m also going to require of him the finding of fact and conclusion of law.
F2: Now I can understand the net picture that the bankruptcy trustee is working for you….
R: Yes!
F2: That picture makes since when you put in the way everyone around the planet does everything with everyone.
R: Yeah, it’s simple. At that point you see…. Lets just say that the judge will move against me on the last ditch effort to stop this. So the judge will deny my motion, and I request then that he provide me with the finding of fact and conclusion of law and he fails to do it, then I’ll just list him as a delinquent creditor in the action and now you see I’m going to put the paper into the moving papers of the US Marshal and the Marshal now is going to be the trustee in fact because I’m going to tell him, “Sell this property and make settlement.” In other words sell all this property that you discover here in this persons name.
F2: Well you have right as holder in terms of who you desire. Somebody refuses to be settling.
R: Yeah!
F2: That I know. The problem is in Canada and Quebec we have some very bizarre situations going on that I’ve never seen anywhere. I’m an American, been in American courts, been in Canadian courts but in Quebec these people are insane.
R: Well that might be good. Because there ‘in’ and they’re ‘sane’. They’re insiders. Well you’re dealing with an insider as opposed to outsiders.
F2: Right.
R: So when they say you’re insane, then they liken to someone who is licking his wounds in the public but you see on the inside I just smile because he’s telling me I’m sane and I’m in. (laughter)
F2: For sure!
R: Sure and I’ll agree. You said it Buddy and I’ll agree! You created the evidence.
F1: I have another one.
F2: Okay creating of evidence… all right that makes since. I just got that. When he said that he’s creating evidence?
R: Sure when I accept it. See that’s the beauty of acceptance. Now you do away with the assumptions.
F2: Right! Right!
F1: If you’re going to open a can of worms such as the Dept of Rehab just a simplification matter. Lets say there are four people on the one contract itself, how can I compile that whole mess? Do I have to go after each individual? In other words go to bankruptcy settlement for each person that did it or can I compile them?
E: They’re all creditors so they’re compiled.
R: Right. But you see the thing here too is that the bankruptcy rules probably relate or that you need three creditors to justify a reorganization.
F1: I know! I have hundreds…
R: But the thing is --- each one of the employees in one of those organizations is a creditor too. They are joint and several…. Liable.
F2: This complexes this a little more then. That would be one contract of that going on. Now I’m in there and I went through a horrible scenario where I got cut off of disability 9 times while I was invalid. I want to call them contracts or bond notes on my social security by changing the extension to it. Each one…
R: … What do you mean extension? Extension to what?
R1: My social security number. Because they were cutting me off I’d have to go to the congressman. The congressman would call them and say this woman’s in bed give her back her social security. I didn’t meet the social security guidelines for being disabled, otherwise totally invalid in bed. It’s a long story. It was a nightmare! I was completely invalid.
R: Well see a lot of those they consider only apply to the public entity and of course the public entity, a piece of paper, but you having employed those particulars and you having fulfilled the terms and conditions by which disability is paid, then you see the first person that denies you… you see that’s when you give them the notice. Because what have they done? You see what they’ve done is they have resigned their office.
F1: Oh R, you wouldn’t believe what happened….
R: Now, now, don’t get into that now. You need to discover… I’ve heard these stories a jillion times. The person who has the responsibility to process your claim and get you your disability, because that disability money belongs to you.
F1: Correct.
R: Now they’re making a claim on it which means they now being they’re operating in equity… They got to come to equity with clean hands. They can’t have a claim against you and still hold and equitable claim on any property that they have.
F1: He even claims to be a judge. He’s not bonded, no oath, no license….
R: That doesn’t make any difference. You see he’s still subject to discovery of his personal assets if he doesn’t make settlement with you. So what you have to do: You have to give him in writing the request for settlement, or you’re giving him notice that you intend to file for chapter 11 reorganization in bankruptcy. The reason I’m saying that is it’s not a personal bankruptcy… it’s a corporate bankruptcy or a sole bankruptcy.
F2: I can see this working only in states on US Code. It’s very clear with US Regs (regulations) In Canada…
R: Canada is bound to it.
F2: Agreed 100 percent. Every country is…
E: On that note… this is E in Japan I gotta skip out. I’ve got to leave the call right now. I got to head down to the airport and pick up my shipment from So. Africa which I got with a closed account check. R you’re doing a wonderful job explaining this. I’ll catch the rest on a transcript.
R: Okay! Catch you on the next trip.
M1: Hey R I got a question with all of these officers with the corporation. I’m in trial tomorrow morning. They walked over my motion. Denied it and ignored everything I said….
R: Okay, but did you ask him for the finding of facts and conclusions of law.
M1: I gave him my notice of intent and he said, “Do whatever you think you got to do.”
R: Okay! Yep! Yep!
M1: My question is this. The current prosecutor has dishonored. He’s been requested to settle. He’s got his Notice of Intent already. He’s still moving forward. He represents the Attorney Gen’l. He represents her Majesty the Queen. On discovery, you’re talking about the entire Canadian judicial system.
R: You betcha!
F1: That’s what mine is too. You’re right on target there.
R: Yep! Yep! You name every last one of them. So you just go ahead and name their boss. Whoever is up on top of the line being they’re bankrupt. Because they can’t hold any equitable claim. You see, when they dishonor you, what they’ve done is they have resigned their official office. Well the word ‘resigned’ means re-signed. They re-signed somewhere else. Okay? So now they’re acting ex-offico. Which basically means in their own person or privately. So you see when you give them notice you give them notice that you will seek discovery of all the property and assets that they hold and control in their official capacity, individual capacity, and their ex-offico capacity.
F2: How do you do that on the Queen?
R: On the Queen? Well whoever the Queens employees are. She’s got lots of them employed.
M1: On that Notice of Intent now to the Attorney General of Canada.
R: Yep that’s right. His name has got to go on it personally.
M1: The Attny Gen’l is her Majesty’s representative in Canada.
R: Right! That’s what you do, you take them into bankruptcy. But I’d file chapter 11 US. I’ll tell you what. If you all have trouble figuring how you’re going to proceed using a US filing. Why don’t you come down to the states and open a bank account because that’ll be a straw man and now you’ll be a straw man in the states and you’ll be eligible directly there without any other …. You see? Because they always open the bank account in the straw mans’ name.
R: Okay now maybe we should talk about how to get the filing fee paid. The filing fee on a chapter 11 down here is $830.00 US. So when you file your reorganization plan is to pay all your creditors, both secured creditors and unsecured creditors, 100 percent. So what you do is in your reorganization plan you’re going to state and instruct the US Trustee to take from one or more of your credit accounts to pay the fee. Because those are your properties and the trustee can take from any of those accounts…. And if they’re claiming a balance, just instruct the trustee to take from the balance claimed by the creditor in that credit account. Take that for the fee. I know, well lets say that the judge jumps in and he wants to dishonor, just like you were telling me what they were doing with you. Okay if the judge does that then you see he’s given notice to make settlement for that particular order that he’s issued and if he fails to make the settlement requested this is your Notice of Intent to file chapter 11 reorganization in bankruptcy to discovery his personal assets.
F2: Right!
R: That’s how you do it.
M1: Either he didn’t know what that was or he was just ….
R: Who cares! You just need to give it to him… you’ve given it to him in writing right? Okay you put the request and the remedy you request in writing now and dump it on him and tell it to him that simple.
M2: R, on that note, I’ve got a little comment to make. I’ve been subpoena almost before the court for three weeks now on E* account. I’ve been sitting in on them on I don’t know how many court cases, but everyday I’ve been through every court in Edmonton Alberta. In the last couple days, I was with G* in court yesterday. He saw what happened. The entire court judges do not have a concept of bankruptcy. I went back before a bankruptcy court judge this morning and one other gentlemen was having a bit of problem with foreclose. We went before a master in chambers, he’s the only one understood what the hell was going on.
R: Okay! But that’s okay.
M2: Okay but I’ll tell you what… going before some of these judges making reference, they do not understand the concept. Either they’re brain dead or …
R: That’s okay! Who cares!
M2: Well I’ll tell you what when you got a motion going before them to dismiss and they dismiss it… by the time you can get a chapter 11 going….
R: … No! No! No! No! You’re thinking, ‘Oh I’ve got to hurry up and get this filed’. No you don’t. You just have to make the request for the remedy so that you can take possession of the dishonor. See you’re missing the concept! You see I have an idea that if you do this Notice of Intent to File you’re never going to have to file.
M3: That’s worked on a couple of occasions. I’ve cleared about 4 issues with about 24 hours of the Notice of Intent. … But those other ones they are going to put their brain in reverse and don’t deal with it they’re going to force you to take them there.
R: Yes! Here’s the thing…
M3: They’re going to keep proceeding ahead on their claim…
R: No! No! No! No! Don’t come with that. What they’re doing is they’re taking that position to buy them a little time to figure out how to get their ass out of the hot seat. But see you’re jumping to the conclusion that they’re going to do what they say. All they are is liars!
M3: Well I’ll tell you what, they’ve moved ahead on every step… they ain’t lying. I mean…
R: Well I’m not going to comment then any more!
M3: What I’m saying is that’s part of the position that we’re running into is what I’m saying…
R: Yes and what I’m telling you is don’t bring it up with this conversation like they’re going to do this and they’re going to do that. They’re probably doing what you say. I don’t dispute that. But the thing is … Do not leave us hanging that this is the result because you just need to get that particular request for settlement in writing to them or tell them you’re going to do the discovery of their personal assets. Now you see if they don’t understand, like you’re saying, I think they’re just trying to lead you to believe that they don’t. But if they don’t, guess where they go. They go to somebody that can tell them.
M3: Okay! I understand that and we did that. Where we went to discover the assets. We filed the notices to do discovery… served them with the consideration. They went into court and got a stay on all of our proceedings.
R: Okay but how did you file the original action?
M3: It was actions that were filed against us.
R: Oh well then that’s why. Okay you see but they don’t have the authority in fact to do it because what they were doing was committing a felony to move after you. They were charging a claim without an assessment.
M3: We understand that…
R: And an assessment means that they have to have a legitimate agreement in fact with the principal. They don’t have that!
M3: We agree with that!
R: Okay. So you see… don’t bring stuff like that into these conversations because until I pressed you, you didn’t even disclose that they were the ones that brought the bankruptcy.
M3: (couldn’t make out too much noise of somebody on line.)
R: Yeah but that has nothing to do with what I’m saying. What you’re doing is you’re reacting to everything they’re doing rather then picking up and going after them. There is your problem.
M3: Well we went after them. If we would of filed a notice of discovery we’d be done. We went to discover their assets and all that. They run into court and get a stay on it.
R: Let them have the stay. Now you go and file the chapter 11 reorganization. Yes that’s what you’ve got to do.
M3: Okay!
R: See when you bring it up the way you did you almost mislead everyone that is on phone, even me. It all has to do with who is doing the filing. See?
M3: Obviously we’ve had the judges done on the bankruptcy…
R: Yeah but listen here… who filed the bankruptcy?
M2: We did.
R: Okay but how did you do it?
M3: Through our bankruptcy proceeding here in Canada.
R: Yeah but did you just go in there and sign and say I’m filing for bankruptcy.
M2: No that’s not the way it’s done up here.
R: How did you do it?
M3: Our forms are all laid out here. (some over talking couldn’t distinguish)
R: Then there is probably a problem in there you’re probably going to have to file US. Because they’re trying to pre-qualify you so that you file as a pro se. See they’re not letting you file as a representative or attorney in fact. You have to file that as an attorney in fact or you see it’s going to work in reverse on you.
M2: Okay!
R: Okay, that’s why I say in the US it provides for an attorney in fact for the debtor and I’ve done things, like over the counter stuff when I’ve been confronted with, “you can’t state that you’re the owner.” And I say, “I’m not!… I’m just the representative of the owner.”
M2: Are your trustees down in the US do they have to be licensed attorneys?… to be a trustee?
R: Oh I don’t know.
F3: No they’re not.
R: I don’t think so.
M2: Our trustees in Canada are not licensed here.
F2: Let me ask you something when you were processing this bankruptcy process were you following using industry Canada’s process?
M2: We (couldn’t make out)
F2: Did you see and analyst and ask these questions?
M2: I’m down (can’t make out)
F2: The question didn’t get answered… Did you talk to a bankruptcy analyst?
M2: Yes! I work out of a bankruptcy trustees office. I think I know the bankruptcy trustee laws for a ??? every second week.
M3: I know the bankruptcy analyst. I know the trustee! …
R: Okay if the bankruptcy trustee should end in dishonor. In other words if he issues an order he’s got to have his finding of fact and conclusion of law with it. He has to have that because somebody is going to be charged as a result of that assessment.
M3: The only time they’ll do that is if it goes to a trial. That’s if it proceeds to a trial. Everything else is done on paper. The trustee will walk in with 200 files …
R: Well, yeah I know. But you see, if he issues an order and if you make a motion, say like motion to dismiss and he denies the motion, okay at that point it is going to trial right at that point because you do not have an agreement.
M2: Obviously he’s creating controversy.
R: Yes! So what you have to do is you have to give him written request to settle the claim, you see? Otherwise he is to be listed as a creditor in the action to discover his personal assets because he has just now forfeited his property in equity.
F2: He’s refusing settlement so therefore this happens. That’s true.
R: Yes! So you see now the judge not only thinks he can recuse himself and run, he’s surrendering his assets.
F2: He’s talking about the bankruptcy judge here.
R: That’s exactly who I’m talking about. Now you see who is going to be the trustee?… it’s going to be bailiff! And the bailiff here is given order to take from these accounts or to take that particular property and sell it because the debtor is proceeding as debtor in possession. It’s the debtor’s personal property and being the trustee is an employee of the principal. He now is asked and contracted in the alternative, you see because that is still an agreement. It’s an agreement that he’s going to act in the alternative, involuntarily surrender his assets. The reason some of this wouldn’t work for you in other occasions is because there was failure to make one person a party to the action. You were probably asking for something and you were not a party to it, your straw man was. See? So the judge moved the other way without any danger. But in this case when you come back and you request settlement of him or you’re intent to include him as the delinquent creditor for discovery of his personal assets. Now you have an agreement and now the parties here are defined as a matter of fact.
F2: Yes that’s the key. I think that’s where a lot of illogical legal haywire and we got to get back to that simple analytical very simple statement of fact.
R: Yeah! See what your doing is you’re trying to supply your own assumptions and your assumptions can not overcome a prior assumption.
M2: That’s why a judge will ask a lot of personal questions from the bench are to try to get you to state a fact, or to answer his questions. If you don’t answer his questions…now he’s entering that as a fact.
R: Oh yeah! Let me describe to you one of their methods of deception, one of their basic methods in every court that they operate in. The prosecutor will be in court trying to assume some assessments that he can use to bring criminal charges or to bring civil action any way. Doesn’t make any difference, they’re both charges. So if you ask the judge, “Do you have the charges in front of you?” and he’ll say, “Yeah I have them right here in front of me.” And even the prosecutor might ask him that. So then the prosecutor will make some claim whether he’s reading the charges or not. Probably not. But what you want to do is make sure that you go to the judge and ask, “If you have the charges in front of you would you read them please?” He isn’t going to, he’s going to banter with you to try to escape from that because if he in fact has the charges in front of him, what he has likely done is turn the pages face down and he’s looking at the blank side of the page. And he says, “Yes I have them in front of me and I’m looking at them.” Well yeah! From the back side. So it’s a deceptive practice. See those are some of the things you do and you have to keep on these guys until they bring up what you need and that includes the finding of facts and conclusion of law. We did this in bankruptcy court in Texas recently and finally the judge got so exasperated that he ordered the debtor out to make settlement and make a plea agreement with the prosecutor before they come back to court and then they settle another date for appearance. The judge kicked it out rather then issue a finding of fact and conclusion of law because it was asked for. The reason they won’t issue it is because he condemns the attorney for practicing law without a license if they do because he’s trying to obtain an assessment without a license. Why? Because he is a foreigner in the local community. So you see any time these attorneys make a claim and say, “This is the assessment.” Or “I have an assessor who has made an assessment.” Well I just ask them then, “Where’s the check?” The check would have to have the amount of the assessment as a matter of fact. Otherwise it is just an assumption and he fails in the rules of evidence.
F2: Guys us Canadians here…. Just a second R you said something very valuable. D*.. he’s not there…
M4: Yes I’m here… I was just on mute.
F2: Revenue Canada comes out with an arbitrary assessment. Why are we asking, “Where’s the check?”
R: Ask them for the check.
F2: Hello D*!
M4: Yes!
F2: Why hasn’t anybody done that in Canada after listening to R all this time?
M4: Because they’ve already deposited that within there general revenue. The assessment is already…. If you look at our budgetary reports and our CAFR reports … they’ve already deposited that as an uncollectable at this point.
R: But it’s not in my account.
F2: What’s that got to do with our straw man or me personally?
R: It doesn’t have anything to do with the straw man unless they actually make settlement with the straw man because the straw man is the principal in which the interest is returning to. If they do not return the interest that is requested in settlement, that is a delinquent tax.
F2: Yes principal is vertical and interest is horizontal.
R: Yep.
M4: All we can do there is ask for the set off to set it off into our account.
R: Yes! But if they fail to do it then we go to discover their personal assets. The persons who are responsible for that.
F2: Amazing!
M4: The key thing is that Revenue Canada does not send names along with their assessments…
R: We don’t care. Just go to the head of their department.
F2: It doesn’t matter. You know what I did? I wasn’t getting any reaction so I went and wrote a letter. You’re the client PERIOD. Especially when you don’t get satisfaction go see their boss and their bosses boss…. I ended up going right to my member of parliament because no body was paying attention and I went right to my Minister of National Revenue and he personally got my file because my representative… See Canada they don’t take you seriously until a member of parliament, that’s how it works in avoiding the court system and they have to settle directly with you … the minister does. ??? and it’s settled.
M4: Those guys have been sending us back letters that most of these issues are either court issues or whatever they want to …
F2: Are you talking your Minister of National Revenue, member of Parliament?
M4: Yeah!
F2: Funny! Mine is …
R: Well I’ll tell you what if that legislator would dishonor me, I’d tell him, “ Okay Buddy, I’m going to discover your personal assets. You’re going to be listed here as a delinquent creditor in bankruptcy.”
F1: Mine are. What I’m wondering though is if I list them as delinquent creditor in bankruptcy, then I’m the one bringing forth the charges and as you just said on the opposite side…
R: … NO! Wait a minute! I’m not bringing the charges here… My straw man is! I’m only the representative.
F1: Okay… what if they say to me, “Where’s the check?”
R: Okay so they’re asking you for the check?
F1: Yes!
R: Who is going to be asking you?
F1: The people … okay… my creditor… the people I’m making the claims against … ??? I’m doing it against me. Never mind… Never mind. You just cleared it up.
R: Okay.
F1: When you’re saying to get the assets. So you want to know the creditors information?
R: Yes! Just like I had a creditor … or a collector for a creditor called me recently and … no it was the actual account, it wasn’t a collection agency it was just a collecting agent for this particular entity and he calls me and gives me his name and tells me what he is about and tells me, “You’re account is delinquent and you owe this money.” I agree with him. I say, “Okay, yep! You’re the holder of my account are you not and he said, “No, oh” he said, “Yes I am.” He stumbled. He was going to try to deny it and he realized it was fatal, so he quickly said yes I am. And I said, “Okay, then you issue my check from my account that you are the holder of and pay the indebtedness.” I just hung up on him. Because it was all in evidence there. He admitted to being the holder therefore he’s an employee and if he doesn’t do it he’s delinquent.
F1: You need to get them to admit to being the holder therefore that…
R: Oh I don’t know if we have to get them to admit it cause they are as a matter of fact when they are coming with that kind of a claim.
M4: Soon as they’re making that call….
R: Sure! It isn’t a matter that I have to prove it in public cause I’ve got him in his conscience. That’s the court I just took him into.
F1: You know what ? These people don’t have a conscience… that’s the problem.
R: Chuckles… right! Cause they gave it to me.
F2: That’s why you’re using paper.
R: Well there’s other ways of doing it. Because what it is… It’s through one or more of the 5 senses that you condemn them…. Or that they’ve condemned themselves. We’ve given them the opportunity to clean up their conscience and if they don’t want to do it then they’ve committed suicide.
F2: What about the blindfold on Madame Justice?
M4: We’ve been talking a lot here and I don’t know about the rest of you but I’ve had a pretty good grasp on this whole bankruptcy idea and I think I got it right away but my question is: One morning I’m back in court again for supposed trial again so I’m going to go after them exactly the same way as I did before. Walk in there an tell the judge, “There has been no assessment, the prosecutor is in dishonor with regards to the assessment and I move to dismiss. I do not dispute any of the facts.”
R: Right!
M5: Then after whether he’s going to affirm or deny the motion and he denies or affirms it then ask him for his finding of fact and conclusion of law.
R: Right whether he affirms or denies.
M5: I need to know what facts I’m going to plead to here.
R: You see if he affirms your motion that is the finding of fact and conclusion of law. Why? Because it’s an agreement. It’s an assessment. Okay? And if he refuses then you have to go into the alternative and then you take it involuntarily.
F2: That’s the dishonor part.
R: He has given you a dishonor then and now you take the dishonor and discover his personal assets.
M5: I understand that, now he’s denying my motion so I give him my Notice of Intent and then they just going ahead with the trial…
R: Well you give it to them in writing now and request his settlement or he’s agreed to the discovery of his personal assets.
M5: Well they just keep ignoring me. Not saying anything…
R: Don’t bring that in here! You see you’re speculating!
M5: I know!
R: I’m not going to comment on that. If we do that condition is going to occur.
F2: Right. Whatever you contemplate … releases it in the air… I’m going to go. I will be back and thank you R very much.
R: Okay! It’s nice to have you ladies on the circuit.
M5: I’m just curious as to what my steps should be tomorrow after I’ve given them my notice and I set there and I watch them do whatever they do. I know they give me an instrument they want me to sign. Like a conviction….
R: Accept and return the papers and be sure you touch their body with it. Do it quick enough so they won’t get away from you. They’ll try to throw their hands away and say, “Well we didn’t touch it.” But you just touch their body with it and drop it. You’ve returned it.
M5: Okay! It’ll be interesting tomorrow.
R: Yep! Yep!
M5: I feel really good about it. I’m not worried about going to jail. I’ve got 22 years total of charges they’ve been trying to bring me up on. So…
R: Okay then tell them you want the finding of fact and conclusion of law on those charges. See and you want the judge to sign them and if the judge doesn’t want to sign them, cause see what you want to do is you want to narrow this down to a single individual so you don’t have to chase every body. If he’s going to be the bond on that thing, then you see he’s going to have to give his finding of fact and conclusion of law if he denies your motion for whatever the remedy you want. If you want them to just dismiss or if you want them to dismiss and return property or whatever it is and if he fails on it then you accept his dishonor and give him notice in writing and tell him that he has now agreed for discovery of his personal assets.
M6: R… Where was the appearance bond? With this information we have now concerning requesting the fact and conclusion of law. Where would the appearance bond fit into this whole thing?
R: Okay. You need to have the finding of fact and conclusion of law to enable you to plead to the charge because otherwise you don’t know what you are pleading to.
M6: So if he dismisses then he agrees with you then he is giving his finding of fact and conclusion of law then?
R: Yeah!
M6: If he doesn’t dismiss…
R: Then you see he has agreed to discover of his personal assets.
M6: Does the appearance bond have as much relevance with this new method?
R: Well here’s the thing…. Lets just say that he produces a finding of fact and conclusion of law and he stated some facts in there where he is going to require and press you with charges so once they’ve given you that and now that you know what they’re going to charge you with so they’re going to charge you assuming there is an assessment. Okay? But you see for an attorney to charge a claim without an assessment that’s a felony so in this case I can conceive pressing them that the claim would be stated… would be stated in the finding of fact and conclusion of law to where you can plea to that charge. Now you’re still the representative and you’re going to plead for the straw man.
M6: Okay!
R: So you see you can then, with those facts plea to the charge and/or if they issue those facts then you can ask, “where’s the check?”
M5: Right!
R: Okay. In other words that’s going to be the appearance bond. Where is the check? Well there isn’t any. Well then you see this information is my personal property and it’s exempt from levy. They can’t make you testify because that’s personal property. It’s your intellectual property. They’re trying to solicit the information which is practicing law without a license. Why? Because they can’t prove that they’re registered to do business in the local community. Why? Because they’re foreigners and their position is based on foreign aid. So it’s pre-paid.
M5: Right! From your account?
R: Yeah. So you just keep these in mind when you have to stack up against them.
M5: Yeah I got that Tuesday with them. They want to charge me for writing checks, you know?
R: Okay but you see you need to nail them individually. Each one of them gets a notice that first of all… The reason I’m stating it the way I am is because you all have different situations on your hands and I just got to keep it where you can draw from the scenario to fit your own needs. We get to going into each one of these that’s not good for the rest.
M5: Right!
F3: Couldn’t he just ask them who is holding the bond?… the bond that bonds this claim, is that the same as asking where’s the check?
R: No. Because if they haven’t produced it right here and they don’t have it to give to you … they don’t have one.
F3: Yeah but wouldn’t that bring that to the forefront?
R: Well yeah but what is the bond? Where’s the check?
F3: The bond and the check I was thinking was the same because they always play dumb on the appearance bond.
R: You’re asking for a check which means I’m checking to see if the bond is any good. Even if you got a check, I’d still want to recess the court to go down to the bank to see if it was any good.
F3: Make sure they’re not insolvent… right!
R: Right or trying to right a bogus check.
M5: My thought was R, what you’re showing us, with the finding of fact and conclusion of law at if he proceeds like you say and steam rolls forward then you give him your notice of intent, it seems like the appearance bond wouldn’t have any relevance anymore using that.
R: Well yeah but the thing is, the check is the appearance bond. See he’s refused to give it, we’re going to make him give it or we’re going to discover his personal assets. The check is not his personal asset. The check is something written on the business organization that he represents.
M5: What I was thinking of is if he refuses the finding of fact and conclusions of law, now he’s created a controversy.
R: Yes. But you see what we’re going to do is accept that controversy. That controversy is a dishonor.
M5: Right.
R: Well we’re accepting his dishonor and we’re going to use the dishonor to charge the bankruptcy.
M5: Okay. All right. Yeah!
R: Okay it’s that simple.
M5: All right! I accept your refusal as a dishonor and charge the contract in bankruptcy …
R: To charge the contract in bankruptcy to discover his personal assets. You are proceeding as debtor in possession, because you’re reorganizing. Under the reorganizing you’re the debtor in possession whereas the creditors have been in possession before.
M5: Right! So now that becomes the appearance bond and then I can plead to the facts because that affidavit of surety is the bond.
R: Yeah!
M5: Okay so I can just move forward and say I can plead to that because we already have it in place. The affidavit of surety is now in place.
R: Mumhum… Okay.
M5: Well I’m just asking.
R: Well yeah but the affidavit of surety. What is that?
M5: That would be his dishonor.
R: Oh … okay. As long as you and he are there because you have to have the parties to the action.
M3: Yeah but you can’t use his dishonor as your bond. That’s what I’m hearing you say.
R: Oh yes you can! You betcha! That dishonor is his personal endorsement. That is an agreement in the alternative.
M5: He’s given his personal guarantee to bond the case now.
R: Yep! Yep!
M3: Our judicial records don’t show that.
R: Well that’s okay. You just try operating around it and you’ll find yourself in the grips of the dishonor which is the discovery of your personal assets. The reason for it is if you ever do it you’re operating under the rules of equity. You surrender all your equity when you dishonor someone cause you can’t come to equity with unclean hands.
M3: I knew that. I agree. But what I’m attempting to say is their dishonor as my bond…
R: That’s right! I’m contracting with them. You betcha and I’m accepting it here. I’m not denying it.
M3: That one is over my head…
R: Well yeah but it goes into evidence because he has to testify or he already is.
M3: I’ve seen the bonds within our Canadian Judicial record. I’ve seen our bonds…
R: Those bonds are worthless…
M3: Yeah but our bonds for our surety are different then his dishonor…
R: Yeah. You’re publicly speaking, but we’re coming from a private account.
M3: I’m coming from a private account…
R: Oh No! Oh No you’re not!
M3: I’ve got a dishonor against them for dishonoring. I’ve registered a dishonor against them. That’s separate then my bond or the bond that the straw man issue takes.
R: Okay but then you’re going to use that dishonor to charge the bankruptcy.
M3: His bankruptcy… Not the bankruptcy for the charge to the straw man?
R: Well it just depends on which steps you’ve taken. I don’t want to get into that with the other people on here. See what you’re doing, that is another reverse negative.
M3: Well I understand that R, but I mean to continually ask those guys to produce the bond?
R: Yeah!
M3: I mean the person doing the dishonor or the judge doing the dishonor on his commitment does not create our bond?
R: Oh yes it does!
M3: Okay! Well I’ll have to take a look at that.
R: I’ll tell you what… you’re running the danger of not joining a party. You may be talking of somebody who is not a party to the action. That could be maybe you’re straw man or maybe his. Or you yourself personally, see? That’s the risk you run because the reason these bankruptcies haven’t worked for a lot of people before is because they have signed it in their own person and said, “I’m filing bankruptcy.” I’m doing it and they recognize you as doing it as a pro se. In your own person and you’re not doing it in the representative. Therefore the whole thing is reversed on you and the reason is, is because you were not a party to the action, it was your straw man.
M3: I understand that and they do that.
R: See right there it’s a misjoinder as a matter of evidence. That’s why you have to take the dishonor and under the methods that I’ve described to make sure that you keep the two parties on the single contract to allow the redemption to occur. If you have to rely on a discharge in bankruptcy, the other party is actually absent because the straw man is still loose and you stepped into the position yourself. Now I’ve done that myself. That’s when you get the discharge. You don’t need discharge… what we need is settlement. That’s what we’re going to do. We’re going to sell the judges’ property here if we have to and we’ll order the marshal or the bailiff to do it if the judge proves to be dishonorable.
M5: I don’t think it’ll go that far.
R: I don’t think so.
M5: I don’t think so either. …. (Can’t understand)… something save face and give you remedy. I’ll never go that far. Can you imagine that in the property… Judge looses his property. They would never let it go that far.
R: Well they may not put it in the paper if he does. (laughter) They don’t print private matters.
F1: My judge is on my bankruptcy, he was the one I’m going against. He’s in the bottom line of what I’m going against already. So he’s already there.
R: Okay well then you just process your reorganization plan. Because the reorganization means the debtor is in possession and not the creditors. So you’re divesting them of all their property. You can read right through the packet we get from the bankruptcy court that we get down here and it refers to position of the debtor proceeding with the debtor in possession.
F3: Right and that little Notice doesn’t have to be that much, that extensive… and do all kind of other threats. That notice can be just real simple.
R: Right! Real simple. The simpler the more effective you’re going to be.
M5: B* and I just noticed the prosecuting attorney with that notice. It’ll be interesting Tues when we show up there if he’s squirming or not. (chuckles)
R: Oh… umhum… okay. (chuckling)
M5: He might be a little uncomfortable.
R: Well we’ll see. This is the only way we have of getting ourselves educated as to how to proceed in this. They hide everything else in this.
M4: They’re good actors too.
R: Yeah! Yeah! They’ve put on …a…
M4: That and like I said that guy yesterday if he knew anything that I was talking about he sure didn’t show it, but I did tell him I’m ready to plead… I’m guilty… I’m …
R: Well yeah but see what you’re going to do… you’re going to enter a guilty plea as authorized representative for the debtor. You’re going to enter a guilty plea for the debtor. That’s the way you put it.
M4: Okay. I told him when I was ready to enter a plea, are you bonded? He said, “oh I can’t take no pleas here.
R: Oh yeah! Right!
F1: My set includes… I’ve already got congressman, senators, and district attorneys, police dept. (chuckling) I’ve got everybody. Everybody! Going on mine. I’ve got hundreds.
M4: If they don’t back off on mine tomorrow, I’ll have hundreds too.
F1: Mine is all of California and all of the federal government. I’ve got two of them, that’s where mine is going.
F3: Well see reorganization can be extended over a period of time. Once you give them the notices you don’t have to kill thousands of birds with one stone.
R: No! No! Because if you had one particular transaction, I think you could move that into chapter 7 liquidation just on that particular creditor.
F1: See if I did that it would simplify my life so much.
R: Well sure. You’re reorganization plan is that the debtor is in possession and that the creditors are delinquent and if the creditors fail to issue checks to take up the short falls then they are subject to surrender their personal assets to where you can liquidate them as a chapter 7.
F1: Right! I’ve got the DOT for the electronic funds transfer, I’ve got them all.
R: Well now what you need to do is request discovery of the personal assets of the entire bunch and you go to the head honcho and you request that information under the bankruptcy heading,…if you actually file. See when you give them notice that this is what’s going to happen and it’s going to include the head of the office and all the employees under them.
F1: The Sec of State in Calif., Sec. of State Federal, I’ve got everybody in this. I even wrote the President and Vice Pres. They’re even involved.
R: Okay…
M3: Do you see any problems arriving out of these criminal charges and complaints against them in conjunction with them….
R: Well the criminal charges like what?
M3: For instances fraud and so on and so forth…
R: I wouldn’t even bring it up now. The only jurisdiction you’re talking about is contract. If you’re going to try to bring the statutes on here, you’re going into the law that you’re doing away with. You’re contradicting yourself.
F1: When I went over and talked to the FBI about my stuff they even locked me in a room and lost the key.
R: Who did?
F1: The FBI did.
R: Did you get his name?
F1: Her name… I didn’t write it down. No.
R: Well then take the head of the office and name them on down.
F1: They all know who I am though.
R: So! See here’s the thing. If I were you, it sounds to me like you’re taking on too many places with claims. What kind of remedy are you asking each one of those individuals you’re telling me here that you’re after? What is the specific remedy you’re asking for?
F1: Surrender of their personal assets.
R: Why?
F1: Uhmmm… because … because they damaged me.
R: No!…. No! No! No! No! You got to ask them to remedy whatever you say is the damage. You’ve got to ask them for that first. That’s why we talked about this all night that these people that owe you, and you write to them and tell them that this is the remedy that I want from you. I want settlement and in the even that you refuse the settlement then I am giving you my notice of intent to file chapter 11 reorganization in bankruptcy to discover your personal assets. Once that’s done… Lets go back to what I said. You’ve written to each and every one and asked the specifically for a remedy that they are directly responsible for…
F1: Correct.
R: Okay… so what is that on some of these? You’ve listed an awful lot of people.
F1: My disability, return of my disability and my grant from Dept of Rehab to go back to school.
R: Okay! Just keep it that simple with that other.. the request for remedy and notice of intent to file…
F1: I realize that this is wrong of me, but at this point I am to the point that I want blood for what they did. That’s not right and I realize that….
R: No, No, No, Hey vengeance is mine sayeth the landlord!
M5: That’s right! (laughter)
R: That’s right! The thing is we want to get even. You see when I got out of prison, you know, the probation officer asked me, “Well what are you going to do when you get out now? Now that you’re home?” and I said, “I’m going to get even.” (more laughter)
F1: But what is even?
R: Zero! When the account is zero now they have to hand over the property cause there is no debt on it.
M5: Restore me in other words.
F1: The thing that I’ve come to realize is that the property has been put back in to trustees for real estate and the rents have been paid to the individuals that stole the remedy.
R: Yeah but who cares? Who cares? You just tell them what remedy you want. Don’t get into that.
M3: The thing they’ve took that is most important to all and unrecoverable is time.
R: Yeah but … well you can get into that… Just tell them I want to be reimbursed for my time and this is how much it is. Well those are compensatory damages here or you can call it actual damages, but you’re going to have to keep realistic figures on there that are in relation to your other financial accounts.
M3: But those figures are intangible again that’s not identifying the molecules of the property.
R: Well, in that respect it is. You’re keeping it consistent with your other moneys of the time that they robbed you of.
F1: It even went so far as to… after that because I had no source of income or way of feeding myself or my child or taking care of myself as an invalid, my Mom quite her job as a nurse, lost her pension, and my family and friends… everybody got drug into it.
R: Well make them cough up with it then. See that’s the substance of the claim. But don’t inflate these things to where it’s way beyond the comprehension of everybody but people when they get angry they do that.
F1: It was a threat on my life….
R: You don’t have to justify. You don’t have to explain that to me… I understand that. The reason that we don’t have to be going after all this stuff is because we have the closed check.
M2: Amen!
F3: Lets talk about a little protocol about who we’re going to pay what with. Sometimes these closed checks can be a menace and a nuisance and sometimes they are going to the wrong people for the wrong reasons.
R: Yes! These things are not smoothly working yet. We’re using them basically with corporation offers. But when you have people, for instance somebody has given Barbara some checks and she can not take the time to process these. Although we probably could. But you see that there is not the protocol that she needs to get clarified here tonight.
M5: That would be a dishonor to Barbara.
R: Yes, in one respect because we know that these things are not working and whoever is giving them to her is trying to get her to do it for them.
M5: R can I ask you one last thought I had concerning we get the finding of fact and conclusion of law, the judge dishonors, we take and notify him of chapter 11 and then we accept his dishonor…
R: Yeah, yeah but see! Don’t think that you have to formally accept or anything. You see what you do is you request the remedy from him so that he’s… let’s say that you had a motion to dismiss and he denied it. So now you give him notice and request and say, “Judge this is the remedy that I want. I want a dismissal of this matter.” Now sometimes a dismissal might not be remedy because there might be debts that legitimately need to be redeemed and a dismissal will not do that. So you see sometimes there are these kind of things in there that the judges operating like he is, is not to go against you but you’ve asked him something that is really an impossibility. Debt still continues to circulate if you don’t redeem it and they have to have a redeemer and in my estimation, the only redemption that can occur is by electronic funds transfer. See even a discharge in bankruptcy will not redeem or dispose of the debt. The debt still exists somewhere.
M5: In other words the debt is still on the account. The account is still unsettled.
R: Yeah! It’s held somewhere else.
M3: I was going to put on my over lay on my stamps when I accept my bill of exchange I put on that now, for electronic funds transfer only.
R: Yeah! Because that’s the only way the debt can actually be redeemed. You see when you redeem some of the debt on an item for instance, a lot of time what happens here is the property is free of debt. Now you see they come on you with claims that look like the old claim but they’re brand new ones and they are trying to run a parallel on the same property.
M2: Like they did on my Dad on that car? When I paid it with a closed check, they sent in for a month and a half saying the account was paid in full then they came back on the phone and start screaming … and sent him a brand new contract.
R: Yeah but see that is a felony because they are charging a claim without an assessment.
F1: What’s a real kick in the pants is when you get all these claims that are all parallel and you write them all checks and they go through the electronic funds transfer and now you have the settlement.
R: Give me that again.
F1: If they are running a bunch of parallel claims on you… one
R: Yeah but they don’t run them until after they do the electronic funds transfer and do away with the debt on the original property. Then is when they come and manufacture claims that look like the old one.
F1: Okay…?
R: So you won’t be able to run them all at the same time.
F1: Hypothetically if there are five people that come after you for the same debt claiming that they own it. You make out five checks and send them off to every collection agency that’s lying about it. … Oh I see because they are all original …. ??? (couldn’t make out) anyway.
R: Well sure. See if a collection agency comes after you they’ve bought the claim from somebody else. So guess what? The claim is paid. (chuckles)
F1: Well not just that, but you see how can they possibly sell it five times? If you make out the checks to five different people, then who really had the claim?… and why did I get all these other ones.
R: The thing is if there are five of them then there are five different claims. You give them the EFT and I’ll tell you what, you’re binding the conscience of whoever uses it because they have to use the EFT to take the exemption.
F3: Aren’t they all a bunch of drug dealers?
R: Yeah! Yep! That’s who they are…
F1: You know what would mess up there books pretty good is if 5 of them came back and then they had to satisfy the original claim and it’s already been satisfied with one and 4 more hit it.
R: Chances are they are just going to collect the checks and drop them in a file and hang on to them. I don’t think they dare to hit the EFT cause they’re going to find there self in deep trouble.
F3: The latest trick is that they do… They don’t even use man power anymore they just put a recording device to ask you to please call such and such and leave a number. They don’t even use people ….
R: Oh the moment I hear that just hang up.
F3: Me too I’m just commenting that they don’t even waste manpower on collecting.
R: Well they haven’t got any way of getting to you then.
M5: Unless they write.
F3: Well I think I’m about to check off here too.
M5: Before you go B*, let me ask R one more question. So R you were saying that if the county has an imbalance with their account and we hold the judge to the finding of facts and conclusion of law and he refuses to dismiss then it’s really our obligation to get the appearance bond so they can discharge the claim for closure in exchange for settlement…. Or do I have it wrong?
R: Well I don’t know if that’s right or not cause you’re using the foreclosure for one thing and it’s simpler then what you laid out because the judge has the obligation to issue finding of fact and conclusion of law. So you see if he … which way did you say he was going to rule?
M5: If he denied the motion…
R: Okay then he needs to have the finding of fact and the conclusion of law and he doesn’t want to do that. That’s when he’ll order you out to make settlement with the attorney who is bringing the charge.
M5: And I’ll say, “I’ve tried to settle with the attorney and he refused to settle.” I’ve already got that in writing.
R: Well then what you do then you request the finding of fact and conclusion of law so you can plead to the charge because this is what they’re doing. They’re trying to charge you for an assessment. So what you do is you just let the judge know that you need the finding of fact and conclusion of law to enable me to plea to the charge. I have to know what I’m pleading to…. And what is the settlement if the prosecutor is failing to settle with me because you can give him the written request for settlement. If he fails then you can ask the judge to sanction him. Sanction the attorney. Charge him with the assessment.
M5: (laughing) That’s and idea.
R: That’s what it is. He’s practicing law without a license unless he gets charged and pays up, you see? He doesn’t have a license to practice in the local community because he’s a foreigner.
M5: He’s a foreigner, right!
F3: Actually E* could do the same thing on the attorneys that are coming on her on the quiet title.
R: Yep! Sure she can.
F3: I had an interesting situation, this guy that works for the US Treasury they told him he must file income tax forms. He asked to be assessed and they said that it has to be voluntary assessment. So then he said okay if it’s up to me then it’s zero. So now they’re telling him that he either does an assessment on himself or his job is in jeopardy.
R: For how much? Then he can ask them then “For how much do you want me to do it for?”
F3: Okay good! He had to get somebody to help him because he is about to loose his job over it. I though that would be a cute one on the US Bankruptcy organization is the US Treasury! (chuckles)
F1: This is another thing that I’ve done and I don’t know if I’m looking for trouble with this. I’ve written drafts out for Diane Miller from the Dept of Rehab and sent to numerous people for different debts. It is payable through Diane Miller at the Dept of Rehab, what if I were to purchase a house, payable through her would that be a problem prior to bankruptcy?
R: The thing is, is how come you’re drawing a draft on her?
F1: Because she has an outstanding settlement that she’s refused to pay.
R: Well… Well I suppose when you’re giving … I don’t know. I wasn’t prepared to get into the drafts because we’re getting away from them and we’re just using the checks for EFT only and I’m … that can get to have some different implications using the draft like that. Now I’ve done it myself, you see, but man it takes so damn much time and focusing your mind away from everything that I don’t think we need to get into that tonight with everybody else on the phone. Even myself, it blanks out a lot of the …
F1: Just to kick it around… The purpose of doing that would be in hope they would put my straw man into bankruptcy to liquidate my straw man and I could point that that’s where the funds are to come from…
R: Well I don’t think you’re going to benefit them going into bankruptcy and prompt them into doing that. That’s not going to do anything. You’ll just have to use the methods that we’ve just described here tonight to get remedy from them. The thing is if you’re going to buy a house and go to closing, you’re better off just to use a check on a closed account. But you see the people that are using them are still using them improperly because you don’t give anybody a check until after they’ve shown that they can deliver you good title and possession. You have to have good title and possession before you’re obligated to pay them one dime.
M5: Can anybody do that?
R: Well sure! When they make an offer, you see, they’re telling you that we can deliver to you good title and possession of this property. Okay, I’ll accept it now go ahead and make up the paperwork. So when they come, say like on an automobile, for instance, why you’ve got the agreement and he wants a check and you say, “No, no, no, no, you guys have not proven that you can pass title and possession to me. I have to have this vehicle registered in my name and all of the moneys that it is going to cost has got to be on that contract. That means the registration of the vehicle at the DMV, everything.” So they’re going to have to put the license on the car and give you the keys and if you’re going to drive away from the lot you better have an insurance number. If you don’t have an insurance number you better have a truck that can take it off the lot and haul it away.
M5: Right.
R: There are some of these practical things that you need to do to make these things work that you’re talking about, but then by the time those people come and hand you the keys and say you can drive away, they are going to also have an invoice for you to sign. What that is, is an acknowledgement that they have now completed all terms of the contract. That’s an acknowledgement. When you sign that acknowledgement that is basically signing the check. Because now you have signed off on the lien and now they’re exempt. Now it’s made all their checks good that are listed here on what they’ve had to pay on that. They’ve had to pay their salesman commission, they had to pay for the manufacture, see but the manufacture gives them rebates that you don’t know anything about. So what you’re doing is you give them your exemption to make all their checks good.
M5: So would you even write the check then?
R: No! Because all you need to do is just sign the acknowledgement and leave because that’s the equivalent of the check. Why should you give them a check when they’ve admitted you already own? It’s pre-paid. What you’re doing is you’re giving them an exemption for full retail so that’s going to make their profits good too. But they have to show where they’ve made these payments on the face of the contract to justify where all the dollars are. Some of that has to be paid to the Dept of Motor Vehicles, and some to their salesmen for commission, some of it to the manufacturer and all the other services they’ve done to the car. Okay? When you sign off on that acknowledgment that makes their checks good because they have now fulfilled their corporate purpose and have delivered the item to the owner. Now you can give them a check if you want that is EFT only. That means that now the liabilities can be passed into the US Treasury by via your private account. Cause they don’t have any other way of doing away with the debt. That is what you would call burnt offering. A burnt offering means now that it’s the burning of the debt. Electronically. That’s what has to happen to get rid of the corporate liabilities and that’s all they need. Their account will balance the books. They aren’t going to let these peons up front know because they’ve been extorting too long.
M5: So what they do is they balance their books and they send their peons out front to make life miserable for you then?
R: Well they balance the books because they’ve gotten rid of their liabilities and all the checks that they’ve written now are good. Why? Because they’re exempt. Exempt priority. Why is it a priority? Because the account is prepaid.
F1: I was thinking that if I increased the debt of my straw man when I went into bankruptcy it would behoove me in the future ….
R: Naw don’t think of those. You’re trying to juggle an account sheet. Don’t even think of that. I don’t even think that you’re going to have to file.
F1: Oh Okay! All right.
M5: I don’t think we’ll ever have to file on these.
R: I don’t think so. But you’re going to have to let them know you’re serious though. They know that I am because two US Marshals were standing at the bankruptcy desk when I went in to pick up my petition.
F1: I already notified everybody and everybody didn’t take me too seriously.
R: Okay but you see.
F1: I’m going to have to do it.
F3: When you put everything in there and put all your cards on the table they aren’t going to take you serious. You need to keep it really short and too the point instead of everything that you know.
R: Yep! Yep!
M5: Hey B*… did you tell R about the fun you had today at the bank… would that be valuable.. thanks
Silence
M5: Okay… I’m going to check off and as usual R you’ve been a wonderful source of information.
R: Well you have too. We all learn from each other! And we’ll be in touch because your situation at the bank isn’t over…
M5: R I’ve never had an opportunity to talk to you I’ve listened to or read B* transcripts of you and have known of you since 1999 and I got that first original transcript that J*K* did with you and I’m sure you’ve heard this a thousand times etc. etc. It goes noticed.. I hope you know you’re going to be held accountable for all those people’s lives you’ve blessed. (chuckling)
F1: You have saved my life. You have saved my life. Without you I would have been executed for sure.
R: chuckling… yeah! Yeah! Yeah!.. . Well good luck! We just know we do enough at this time.
M5: I think it’ll be. This is enough to hold these guys off until they all go to Reno and get caught up on what we’re doing and figure out ways to do their games.
R: Well that’s all we can do and we’ve had a lot of stress here because of the harvest. Whenever you’re fooling with the beets you don’t have one minute of your own….