http://think.mtv.com/profile/Tanner316/User/MyFavorites.aspx

Why I’m Here
Please help us, you have the ability to help make positive change in Central Louisiana and your area, here is how you can do it. Remember it is your responsibility to see to it that no one is impersonating an officer of the law in your area.

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

(1) If it hires an enforcement officer and sends him out into the public to do official enforcement duties without bonding his enforcement processes and actions. The officer must be provided with a written notarized declaration of his job description.
(2) If it fails to tell an officer or clerk that he is not adequately bonded. The officer must be provided with a written notarized declaration of his bonding status.
(3) If it fails to issue an identification card to an enforcement officer declaring:

(a) That the officer is bonded,
(b) The name of the officer,
(c) The officer’s enforcement classification,
(d) The name of the municipal corporation for which he works,
(e) The name of the bonding company which is bonding his enforcement,
(f) The bond (policy) number of the officer,

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

(1) the bond on the acts and actors (insurance on an official act or person),
(2) the sacrifice, forfeiture, or pledge of the government/corporate property, real or movable, or
(3) The sacrifice, forfeiture, or pledge of the personal property, real or movable, of the official, officer, or clerk who is using, acting upon, or enforcing the statue. The total value in property or money extractable from these three sources must be sufficient to sustain a suit at law and pay for the damages caused as a consequence of using, acting upon, or enforcing the statutes, that is, in defense of each specific performance of the jobs or of the persons, the said performance of said jobs being the product of the government known as public service.

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

Bonding of attitude
(1) The principles of economics are more and more being used to establish scientific bonding practices which eliminate the bonding, hence employment, of anti-social enforcement officers.
(2) The bond on an enforcement officer is based on the officer’s social attitude and past performance, that is, his track record.
(3) An antisocial officer is generally defined as a person who:
  (a) Has a bad social attitude.
  (b) Thinks he is bonded- for any sort of social behavior whatsoever.
  (c) Thinks he has to prove himself by being socially abusive toward members of the general public.
(4) Antisocial officers create bad enforcement situations which cause citizens to file malpractice claims with bonding companies.
(5) Therefore a credible bonding company will not bond a known antisocial enforcement officer.

Bonding of education Principle
Ignorance of the law is not an allowable excuse for a law enforcement officer to use when exercising the power to enforce the law. An officer must know and understand all of the processes which must be bonded before he can act on an execution of judgment. An officer, although presumably acting in his official capacity, has no commercial escape or grace through a bonding company when the statute he enforces is not bonded against accidental misuse.

When an officer commits an accidental misuse of his office or of a statue, or accidentally acts on an adjudication statute, the bonding company will pay on the bond only to the extent of a reasonable degree of error or accident.

Likewise, corporations may not be established by a person to hide the criminal acts of that person behind corporate limited liability, or there would be people who would incorporate their activities in order to secure for themselves a license to commit criminal acts behind the corporate limited liability veil in violation of the peace and dignity of the state. Corporate limited liability, as it pertains to civil commercial obligations, is a delicate enough creation without the criminal aspect, and is only because business people accept the idea that they are gambling in commerce when they deal with a corporation that there is any honesty at all in the limited liability concept of a corporation.

For if a person uses a corporation to run up a commercial dept with the intent to abscond at some future time, then that corporation becomes simply an instrumentality called an alter ego, for the commission of crime. It is for this reason that the state is a silent partner in every state incorporated artificial person, and has the responsibility of policing the use or misuse of corporate limited liability. There is no corporate limited liability for the commission of crimes.

Criminal acts code by corporate officials, and clerks pierce the limited liability veil of every type of corporation and artificial (purely legal) person.

Also criminal accusation always pierces the veil of corporate limited liability.

Remember the only fear you will receive from the Holy Spirit is fear of the Lord or the Spirit of Reverence. So if you are now afraid to call your District Attorney and asked to be shown proof that all the Police officers in your area have proper, independent, verified public hazard insurance bonds where does that fear come from. I know give unto Caesar what is Caesars. There is no Caesar ruling now and I assure you God the Father at the beginning of time set up plans for the United States to be independent and with a strong Constitution giving you every right that you need to stand up and be counted. That way when you are judged you will not have any excuse for not making a difference. The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. I pray that it is in the will of the Lord to bring to your home many blessing and much love. I ask you to please pray about this matter and if you find it to be a cause that you can help I ask that you right to or call:

-Rapides Parish District Attorney
701 Murray Street, 3rd Floor
Alexandria, Louisiana 71301

Main Office:
Phone number: (318) 473-6650
Fax number: (318) 442-9276

Governor of Louisiana Bobby Jindal
P.O. Box 94004Baton Rouge, LA 70804
Toll free: (866)366-1121
(225)342-7015

-Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20520
202-647-4000
TTY:1-800-877-8339

Let them know that there are more concerned citizens than just me that care about the Sheriff of Rapides Parish leading law enforcement officers of Rapides Parish to break the Law and compromising their sworn oath. Ask the Governor how this could have happened. This can make a true change for the better.

Thank you.
Robert C. Tanner

DUN & BRADSTREET: 'RATING SERVICE' FOR ALL CORPORATE ENTITIES'_VOID FOR LEGAL CAUSE_FRAUD_ "BRUTUM FULMEN"? by 'S'

There are a few more things worth noting regarding the DUN & BRADSTREET listing service:

D-B is a financial rating service for both ‘public’ and ‘private’ corporations.  Utilities and municipal bond ratings would come under D-B perview for certain.  It just really never occurred to me years ago when doing litigation discovery, research and analysis, and ‘structured settlements’ that there was seemingly anything incoherent with that fact that municipal and utility bonds are integral to D-B rating services.  I never ever stopped to think about or scrutinize that fact, yet alone allow my deliberation and research skills to ‘wander’ or ‘wonder’ into research that would have disclosed what we recently found.  Part of the ease of discovering the complex web of inter-related inter-locking CORPORATIONS had to do with ease of electronic research over the internet.  Years ago, if one wanted to search anything within any of the rating services, including “Moody’s”, Standard & Poors, and Dun &  Bradstreet, + others, one would have to either have to be a subscriber to the service in order to manually expedite their search-rating results, or, one would have to pay a fee and cause a search to arise.

D & B ‘ratings’ are effected everytime a ‘public hazard bond’, or ‘surety performance bond’, or ‘indemnity bond’ is complained against.  An ‘administrative complaint’ is usually all that it takes to cause a ‘tag’ or book entry to be made on any particular bond.  Any particular bond, once complained against three or more times, causes a change in underwriting bond ‘risk’.

For bonded Bar attorneys, who in many cases may also be appointed, commissioned, or elected to ‘public office’ as ‘Judge’, ‘Clerk of Court’, etc. when/if their bond is complained against for good and reasonable cause, their bond may be ‘pulled’, and due to loss of effective bond or ‘suretyship’, they cannot ‘practice’ or ‘discharge’ the duty of the office held, or occupied.  In short, the bond maker-issuer is the bonding party for the benefit or on behalf of the ‘bondee’, ie. the purported ‘public officer’, ‘employee’, or ‘official’.  This would extend as well to all other ‘public employees’ and ‘agents’-‘agencies’, etc.

Every ‘person’ being bonded has a Dun & Bradstreet ‘bond rating’.  At least it is reasonable to assume such.  Once three complaints are filed against any bond, assuming they are with merit and well supported by fact and ‘law’ of the ‘breach’ of fiduciary duty, the bond is most always pulled or revoked.  The ‘servant’ at ‘risk’ by assuming the responsibilities of operating in any ‘official capacity’ or by ‘employment’, can no longer be underwritten as a ‘no risk’ or ‘low risk’ contract.  One incident of ‘breach’ or operating ‘ultra vires’, or ‘without the law’, causes the ‘immunity’ provisions of the written ‘law’ to cease to be effective, because when one violates the law as a ‘public servant’, one’s immunity blanket ceases to apply, thereby leaving the insurer or bondsman or bond issuer exposed to the liability arising from the servant’s acts, which under any ‘breach of law authority’ causes or gives rise to an ‘injury’ which is a civil or criminal commercial liability. 

Everything, whether civil or criminal or martial, is a matter of ‘commerce’, and admiralty law is the venue and jurisdiction by which disputes in/of commercial nature are resolved in truth and fact. 

All writings of the United States of America and of the UNITED STATES, or any other ‘government unit’ are forms of making an ‘offer to contract’.  There is no written matter of material fact or issue of fact that is ‘law’ which is not bonded.  There is no ‘office’ or function of ‘civil service’ or ‘public’ function that is not bonded.  If the bond is not in existence, the bondee is ‘exposed’ and without ‘coverage’ by any ‘surety’.  Therefore, there is no ‘guarantor’ behind the agent, officer, official, or employee having ‘exposure’, by ‘assumption of risk’, of a material breach or injury in fact by the bondee [person being bonded or insured].  This leaves the person under taint or cloud of operating ‘in the public interest’ without the constitutionally and statutorily required bond, and therefore, in tacit violation of the constitutions and statutes under the scheme of ‘law’.  “Law” applies first and foremost to government, its employees, officers, and agents.

In today’s rogue ‘doctrine of necessity’ ‘de facto’ environment, research has proven and documented that no person, performing as an ‘officer of the court’, being an alleged ‘judge’, being a ‘Bar attorney’ of the ABA or the Federal or State Bars, has a bona fide Constitutional Oath.  The Bond that is supposed to be in existence sits atop the Oath.  The Oath is not merely ‘incidental’ to the ‘office’ as has been ruled in some States by their corrupt court “officers”.  The Oath is what imparts lawful and legal authority to the man/woman coming into ‘holding’ a ‘public office’ and becoming a ‘public official’.

A public servant having no proper Oath cannot have a proper Bond to encompass or include those risks associated with the ‘office’, ‘discharge of fiduciary duty’ of the office, and the various levels or elements of ‘law authority’ underlying the office.  Hence, one may take an Oath to any office of the incorporated State, or the UNITED STATES, and not take a preceding Oath to the unincorporated de jure state or United States of America, and operate non/un constitutionally, which is all that has been going on for years, but which was not known or understood as being a material breach to the People of the State/state, causing or giving rise to material injuries in fact as a consequence of operating ‘ultra vires’, ie. outside the corporate charters and ‘trust indentures’ which create the office in the first place.

In the STATE OF NORTH CAOLINA, not one judge has taken the necessary Oaths of office, which include the organic ‘state’ de jure republic oath for “North Carolina”, and the subsequent and inferior or ‘lesser’ oath for the STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA.  The latter ‘public entity’ has federal character, a Federal Employer Identification Number, a Federal Tax Identification Number, and is a federal ‘instrumentality’ of the CORPORATE ‘UNITED STATES’, and the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, under definition of 28 U.S.C. §3002(15), AND 26 U.S.C. §§7701 (a)(9) and (10).  This documented fact pertains to every judge in every State court, but also applies to most every other ‘public official’ or ‘law enforcement officer’. 

I cannot address what other State public pretenders and ‘District Attorneys’ or “Prosecutors” do when bringing a criminal complaint against any “natural person”, which includes CORPORATIONS [YES, they are both the class of ‘person’ under statute ‘law’ definition], but in the STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, when it is the bringer of the action, the People of the State are never brought in as ‘party to the action’.  Only the CORPORATION name is found on the Criminal Complaint or Information form.  Only the corporate State is present in the courtroom, trying a case before a CORPORATE JUDGE.  There exists a complete breach and break from the Constitution of North Carolina, because the People of the North Carolina republic, and their ‘law’, are not present in the action nor party to it.  They are not in the courtroom, nor are they acting through any ‘officer’ of the People, as ‘District Attorney’, which Office alleges to be a ‘servant of the People’.  It is NOT.  Event the DA does not have the mandatory and proper Constitutional Oath as condition precedent under NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL STATUTES, which clearly state at Chapter 11, Section 11, there shall be two Constitutional Oaths taken.

Absent performance according to that bonded STATUTE regarding bonded Oaths, leaves a clear and certain risk-liability issue for the Bond maker-issuer.  Some bonding agent has bonded the Statutes and other writings of the law of the State.  Some bond issuer has bonded State ‘employees’, ‘officers’, and ‘public officials’.  Some bond issuer has, therefore, “underwritten” risk on the basis of having full knowledge that there exist no Constitutional Oaths beneath the CORPORATE OATH.   One cannot but presume that the bond issuer-maker has full disclosure; afterall, ‘they’ have been registered within each State Department of Corporations, do business in all ‘States’ and DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, and are presumed to know the “LAW”….including the “law of the land”, which under their “UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE” and all secondary ‘Civil’ or ‘Criminal’ Codes, would find itself to be in harmony with their legislative jurisdictional ‘statutes and implementing regulations’ at U.C.C. 1-308, 1-207, and 1-103, wherein All Rights are Reserved, and the U.C.C. states that it is harmonious with ‘all jurisdictions’, which would include the jurisdiction of the “law of the land”, ‘common law’, and the various common law Constitutions of the underlying several de jure republic ‘states’ of the American union, aka, United States of America.

Why would any bond underwriter knowingly underwrite these CORPORATE STATES, UNITED STATES, all of their ‘sub-corporations’, agents-agencies, instrumentalities, and their ‘law authority’ found in their various ‘writings’, private ‘laws’ etc., to operate a ‘public’ or ‘municipal’ construct as if it were ‘lawful government’, but knowing that it really is not?  The underwriters of bonds, therefore, could not allege any defense against a massive intake of related claims by private inhabitants of any of the States or UNITED STATES who have been “compelled” under duress, extreme duress, or risk of extreme duress and prejudice of ‘seizure’, ‘confiscation’ ‘impound’, ‘occupation’, ‘detainment’, or injury or termination by any means of potentially lethal force?

Everyone who has ever been inside a State of North Carolina administrative or judicial ‘law’ proceeding, or been before any ‘clerk’ or ‘judge’ of same, or been prosecuted by any County District Attorney within said State/STATE, has been within a “brutum fulmen”:

                        Black’s Law Dictionary, 4t Edition:  “brutum fulmen”:  “An empty noise; an empty threat.  A judgment void upon its face which is in legal effect no judgment at all, and bywhich no rights are divested, and from which none can be obtained; and neither binds nor bars anyone.  Dollert v. Pratt-Hewitt Oil Corporation, Tex.Civ.Appl, 179 S.W.2d 346, 348.  Also, see Corpus Juris Secundum, “Judgments” §§ 499, 512 546, 549.

The “Office of Sheriff” is a most important link between the People of any de jure republic ‘state’ and the Courts, and Offices of the State.  However, it has been discovered that many Sheriffs do not, as Chief Law Enforcement Officer of any local ‘county’ or County, have a bona fide prior or ‘precedent’ Constitutional Oath to their respective republic state.  Or, they may have taken a bona fide Constitutional Oath, and then disclaimed or disavowed it immediately henceforth by taking a CORPORATE Constitutional Oath.  “A man cannot serve two masters”. 

This same “axiomatic” principal applies to ‘officers’ of the United States as well.  How can the newly ‘sworn’ Attorney General of the UNITED STATES, OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL [a federal corporation] take a Constitutional Oath to the United States, or UNITED STATES, and be held to such an Oath as ‘liable’ for his/her breach of fiduciary duty to the people of the United States of America, or to the franchise corporate trust estate ‘citizens of the UNITED STATES’, when the office ‘holder’ enjoins by contract to the ‘international purposes of INTERPOL’, under its Constitution [charter-contract] at Article 30  shortly after taking said Oath?  Article 30 is quite explicit in meaning and intent.  If one understands the “international purposes of INTERPOL” and all other ‘international agencies’ was and is to ‘establish a financial dictatorship within the United States/United States of America’ for the benefit of undisclosed third parties, under jurisdiction and authority of the IMF-U.N, then all of the lower level ‘breach of duty’ by lack of proper Bond and Oath issues would begin to make clear sense. 

In short, all alleged ‘public servants’ are serving ‘public policy’ and ‘public administration’ of the ‘laws’ and enforcing those laws to protect the CORPORATION, to the disinterest and detriment of the People, whom have been ‘captured’, ‘searched’, ‘seized’, ‘boarded’ as with a ‘vessel’, and which People have been placed into ‘warehouse storeage’ as ‘human capital’ and ‘property’ of the de facto King or “Sovereign”, which/who has conquered and occupied the Office of the People, and subverted and subordinated it into an Office of Inquisition for YOU KNOW WHO!!

Lacking mandatory Oath, creates liability against the bond of the STATE, and every officer-agent-employee who has come to be ‘employed’ thereby.  Breach of any underlying writing of the STATE, or State, or state, as an offer to contract in admiralty venue, is a certain “injury in fact” giving rise to a “material injustice” and resultant ‘liability’.  There is no longer any question about ‘risk analysis’ or ‘damage assessment’.  The only real issue is “HOW MUCH IS THE INJURY WORTH”?  WHAT PENALTIES should be compelled above the mere “pecuniary” or monetary ‘relief’ to be sought?    Treble damages?  Punitive damages?  Civil or Criminal or BOTH?

If Oaths and Bonds have not yet been ascertained for all relevant federal and State officers, agents, and employees, they should be compelled by FOIA request or subpoena duces tecum immediately so that the elements of contract and breach of duty by these ‘public servants’ under mandate of relevant Constitutions, statutes, regulations, etc., including the U.C.C. in Admiralty venue can be comprehensively determined; then, a resultant ‘cause of action’ constructed accordingly.  

It is further axiomatic that:  “Where a liability in equity arises due to injury by any party, and that party does not also provide a “remedy” for said liability, the injured party has the right and standing to create his own remedy”

Persons without proper Oaths do not and cannot have proper Bonds OR satisfy the necessary requirements to “hold” a bona fide “Office”, by ‘commission’, “election”, or “appointment”.  In short, an ‘Officer’ or “Office Holder” cannot but ‘occupy’ the office under false and misleading pretense, misrepresentation, and FRAUD, which strips the ‘individual’ of ‘law authority’ and ‘immunity’ under well-seasoned law of the land and sea.  Brutum fulmen!!   Bonds that are attached to such juristic ‘persons’ are subject to claim and lien, after “adequate assurance of due performance” has been found lacking pursuant to U.C.C. 2-619.   A proper Oath and Bond are but two of the three primary “poles” of “Office” [Oath, Bond, Commission].  One cannot act upon being ‘duly appointed’ or ‘duly elected’ or ‘duly commissioned’ simply by INCORPORATION and CORPORATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS.   

CORPORATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS lacking bona fide Constitutional nexus is without “law authority”, and therefore has no nexus to the Constitutionally protected ‘Right’ of “due process”.  Hence, any act or action taken against any one by any alleged ‘official’, ‘officer’, agent’ or ‘employee’ lacking such nexus is subject to CLAIM and/or COUNTER-CLAIM in Admiralty venue and proceeding.   The claim, once perfected after ‘exhausting administrative remedy’ is brought against the Bond and the DUN & BRADSTREET rating of that CORPORATE PERSON will be effected as a consequence.  The idea is not to seek an illegitimate claim for merely punitive or monetary purposes, but to seek claim on the basis of protest, dispute, redress, relief, and ‘remedy’!!!

S 

http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/government/corporate_u_s/news.php?q=1...