Poilce State: A viable recourse - The Dun & Bradstreet Bond Rating Service

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...