[lambskin]

Hey Admin,

O.K., sounds good, but you'll hafta accept it'll take a bit; ya know… being as I gotta work 'n' all.

Also, as a gesture of due respect to FG and its staff, and in effort to at least minimize any risk to anybody, I'll move any further response other than is included here to a section of the “Members Helping Members” forums. So…

First off:

Quote:

This site does not endorse or condone:

1. The use of bills of exchange.

I was neither trying to endorse nor to condemn the use of these items; as is evidenced by my parenthetical statement.

Quote:

(try to ignore the fact that this article is related directly to a piece of paper called a “bill of exchange”. There are lotsa

forms of paper out there that accomplish the same kinda thing. Some ya can still actually get “paid” on these days.)

Do I condone their use? Absolutely. There's nothing prescriptively wrong with using a B.O.E. It's merely a piece of paper that's used for the settlement of accounts between three separate parties. People use 'em every day – most just call 'em “checks” instead. A bill-of-exchange is simply an “Order to Pay”; in which the first party (someone who owes some money to somebody else) writes an order to the second party (someone who's holding some of his money in an account somewhere) which instructs them to pay a specified amount of money, at, or within, a specific time, to a third party (somebody he bought something from). These were common “trade instruments” used between trading partners of yore to alleviate the burdens and perils of transporting metal money back-n-forth, and are still used today in the exchange of goods and services. You can use a check, a B.O.E., money order, or any other form of paper money, or you can send (or personally hand over) some metal money or some goods; it really doesn't matter as long as the parties involved are in agreement as to how to accomplish the procedure. It's basically all the same and it's perfectly legal.

Secondly:

I was addressing bonds as a form of monetary paper. What is a bond? It's a contract (written agreement) evidencing obligations between two or more parties. They usually require one party to pay another party for some form of service or goods that said other party is to provide to the former party. Obviously a bond can entail a variety of other nuances, but they're usually pretty straight forward and amount to what is called a “simple contract”.

Third:

If ya read a 1099 form (there's over a dozen – pick one) and its accompanying instructions you should be able to deduce that the form is to be used to identify a “taxpayer”. Therefore, if yer the one who's using the form to identify whom you believe to be the “taxpayer”, then you are (by your actions) stating that you're definitely not the “taxpayer”; and that the person who's named on form has t'be either the “taxpayer” or somebody who's required to act on behalf of the “taxpayer”, who, as per the second paragraph of the “Instructions for Recipient”, is designated a “nominee”. Great! Ya can nominate somebody.

Ya might also notice that somebody is required to use a 1096 form along with the 1099. Form 1096 is the form that you (the non-taxpayer) use to indicate to somebody who/what the “taxpayer” is. Notice too, in the instructions for form 1096, a paragraph captioned “Who must file”. In that paragraph it says “The name, address, and TIN of the filer on this form must be the same as those you enter in the upper left area of forms 1099…”. Then if ya go back 'n' look in the upper left area of form 1099 you'll see the name of the person or entity to be entered there is designated as the “payer”. Ergo, you, as the non-taxpayer, have “nominated” somebody else as the “taxpayer”; and you can do so without actually “filing” anything with the I.R.S.

If ya know what yer doin' and ya know the law, then ya oughta know what just transpired in the foregoing hypothesis. A lien has just been created. A lien, or rather the power to lien, is a Right which every man possesses. The power to lien arises, or rather is created, by operation of law, or rather through the application of the law to the actions taken by the separate parties to a transaction. A lien is automatically put in place thusly: If Party A sells some thing to Party B and Party B doesn't settle-up on the spot, then Party A automatically acquires a lien on the thing he just sold to Party B. However, to enforce a lien, or rather in order to have it executed, usually requires a lien to be written; which is simply a statement describing who Party B is, what the “thing” was to which the lien attaches, and/or the value thereof.

Is the money ya earn yer property or does it belong t'somebody else, or does anybody else have a right to it? Okay – so if you know somebody is holding property that belongs to you, then why wouldn't you wanna claim it, especially if there's a way t'do so that's perfectly lawful?

Fourth:

Ya gotta remember who/what yer talkin' about. You repeatedly called these people to whom you refer – the government.

Quote:

3. Making a “claim” with the government…

…the government self-servingly tries…

Why the Government Can't Lawfully Assess Natural Persons…

…and especially goverment “benefit”.

If they're the government, then they're certainly not my government. You, my neighbor, and I, your neighbor are still the government of this Union despite the fact that we send no representatives to the Capitol. They may be men and women who were born amongst our numbers, but once they take their Office and discover what's really transpired (many are informed by superiors sooner or later) they've effectively renounced any ties to me, and I to them.

When the U.S. Corp. set-up shop they created an entity that can be sued just like McD's or any other amalgamation; it even says so in the 7th line, 1st paragraph of their charter, starting in the middle of the page found here:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collI…amp;recNum=0454

They may call themselves a “government”, but as far as I see it, they're strictly the governing body of a municipal corporation – a board of directors. That D.C. Corp. cannot hide behind its corporate veil. It's as liable for its actions as any other man. If it breaches an obligation to which it is a party, then it must honor its commitment to the full value; and, if the party to which it has obligated itself should require, it must pay damages.

Fifth:

Quote:

We strongly disagree with those who intend to use the straw man to procure any “benefit”, and especially goverment “benefit”.

Do you not hear what yer saying? We are compelled to use a benefit of the U. S. Corp. straw man every day! The more we continue to use the FRNs the more they will continue to be produced. The longer the money continues to remain in the “Fund” the more they will continue t'print the bonds to swap for the FRN's. The longer we leave money in the “Fund” the more they will continue t'spend it on their agendas.

FG's approach is to compromise their Social Security/Income Tax agenda by educating people about the hidden attributes and then teach them how to get themselves out of it – a boycott – if you will. What I espouse is to simply take it to the next level – complete withdrawal – not only in participation but the credit already extended and any future accrual as well.

Sixth:

Quote:

Two wrongs do NOT make a right.

I have no idea as to how a man protecting his property can be considered a wrong.

Seventh:

Quote:

The straw man is a creation of the government …

I wholeheartedly agree with you on this point, but…

Eighth:

Quote:

and therefore can only be used for the “benefit” of the government and not any private person…

I cannot entirely concur with you here, because I see a different “benefit” to be derived; which, of course will be divulged in the forthcoming response.

Ninth:

Quote:

or member of this ministry.

I don't know why you'd wanna deprive the members of their property.

And lastly:

Quote:

Lambskin, who is a suspected government mole.

Do you have any evidence to substantiate that or are ya just in the habit of casting aspersions upon unfounded beliefs? I recall reading somewhere at FG that just such a thing is a huge problem with the present judicial system. Ya'll wouldn't be hypocrites would ya? Ya know… 'cause two wrongs don't make a right.

G&P,

Lambskin

P.S. Excellent job on the redesign.

[lambskin]

Thanks Admin. Ya gotta love it when people start comin? t'grips. Praise the Lord!

Yes people? Yes – Yes – YES! It?s all about “paper” – bonds, bills, notes, certificates, vouchers, tickets, checks, statements, receipts, and on, and on it goes! It's all 'monetary paper' and every single piece of it has got a number printed on it that leads back to an account somewhere. What are ya carryin? around in your pockets? Federal Reserve Notes. What are the FRNs drawn off of? Treasury paper – again, with a buncha numbers on it. What does the Treasury write its checks off of? The 'General Fund' – the 'Transportation Fund' – 'Social Security Fund' – all kinds of funds; gift funds, deposit funds, trust funds – they've got a ton of 'em. Those 'Funds' are the accounts, as in 'bank account'. 'Fund' means the 'account' – not the money in the account.

What kinda paper is yer birth certificate printed on? The kind with 'water marks' on it? That's 'Bond' paper folks and it's got numbers on it. Read the 'birth number' and see if ya don't notice a slight resemblance to your SSN. Where do ya suppose they put the bonds (money) being sent in every year? They put 'em in the Treasury. They put 'em in the General Fund and then dole the 'credits' out to the rest of the funds from there. Its gotta go in the General Fund first; then they can write the T-Bills, Savings Bonds, TIPS, etc. out of that 'Fund' in order to fund or supplement the rest of the funds.

If the BC is a bond, and a bond is money, then whose money is it? Right – and if the boys in D.C. take yer money and put it in a fund and then write more bills and bonds off of it and then the Federal Reserve Bank prints a buncha FRNs off of those, then who owes who? Right.

Go to the Bureau of Public Debt and look for a link to a publication called the Treasury Bulletin. Once you find it, then go to the end of the bulletin and you'll find a section called the Glossary and look for the description of a FRN. It'll tell ya that they're 'obligations? of the U.S. government. Who's the government 'obligated' to pay? Right – their 'creditor'. Who's their creditor? Right – the one who gives them the money (bond) to put in the fund to write their bills, bonds and checks off of.

If yer the creditor, then do you hafta pay the tax? Right – your exempt. The guys who gotta pay the tax are the ones who have the 'privilege' of using yer money to produce the morass of securities floatin? around in the 'Securities Markets'.

Those are the schemes which are being used to squeeze the 'interest' outta those markets. They gotta 'pay' for the privilege of 'gambling' with yer 'money'. So, if it's your money, then how do ya get it back' Ya gotta let 'em know ya want it back. D'ya ever do that? D'ya ever put in yer 'claim'? D'ya ever wonder why your state Treasurer puts out a list of names every year for 'unclaimed' property. Right? so now comes the 1099 form. A 1099 is a 'lien' folks, and a lien is a type of a claim. What type of a lien are we talkin? about anyway? Right – a 'labor' lien, and a labor lien is superior to every other type of lien known t'man.

Makes ya wonder what Obama meant in his speech last night when he mentioned government reform and creating 2.5 million jobs.

Now,

1. Read this again:

http://freedom-school.com/bonds/internatio…of-exchange.pdf

(try to ignore the fact that this article is related directly to a piece of paper called a 'bill of exchange'. There are lotsa forms of paper out there that accomplish the same kinda thing. Some ya can still actually get 'paid' on these days.)

2. Read some of the other stuff presented on the same site.

3. Compare it to what ya read at FG and the linked sites.

4. Make sure ya know what yer doin' first (know the law); and then,

5. Go put in your claim and start gettin? some of yer money back.

G&P,

Lambskin

[lambskin]

And thanks again… I'd always wondered about that one but could never locate anything on it (in my often harried attempts), so that's a BIG thank you.

G&P

Lambskin

[lambskin]

Hey Admin,

Thanks for the warning. Great find.

Makes ya wonder, due to the recent banking crises, if the revelation of the discovery of this “crimeware” hasn't been strategically developed and timely tied to said industry crises.

G&P,

Lambskin

[lambskin]

Hey Admin,

What are the candidates supposed to say? What should they say?

How about – “We're going to dump the Federal Reserve and invest in the knowledge and integrity of the American people. We're going to remove all Federal Reserve Notes from circulation and infuse the whole economic system with United States Notes. If any body of men, any group of people, don't like it, then let 'em do whatever it is they believe they must do; but if any of their actions even slightly resembles an afront to the American People, then we will meet their assault with everything we've got, and that includes bringing every troop and every piece of equipment home from abroad, to do the job.”

G&P,

Lambskin

[lambskin]

Hey Kokomojo,

The Professor (that?s another affectionate moniker used for the wise-guy? um? I mean the ?learned gentleman? known as Bing in these forums) is right, you should do some diggin? around before ya ?pop one? on us. These things take time and it?d make it easier if you sought some answers via the written material first.

The response you?re requesting may be well deserved, but it?s gonna take a lil? doin?. Not that the subject matter is overly complex, but because the judges answer is loaded. I?ll give ya the following for now, but the rest of the dissection will hafta wait, unless somebody else has got the time to tackle it sooner.

This decision is very sound in its presentation, but despite its gravity, you can see how the justice circumvented the underlying issue;

Quote:

Any of the twenty-nine issues raised and not discussed in any of the five categories can be deemed to lack sufficient merit or importance to warrant individual attention.? (m.e.a. [m.e.a. means – my emphasis added])

and:

Quote:

As did Justice Hansen and the unanimous court in Waste Management, this court also declines to address every tune played on this appeal? We therefore limit our discussion to consideration of his theory and, upon doing so, affirm the judgments. (m.e.a.)

See how he did it? He?s basically using this prior decision to show how these ?almighty judges? can, by the simple pronouncements of their own words, ?deem? what is ?meritorious? and what ain?t. Possibly because of the defendants? legal ignorance, and possibly not, but nobody can say for certain because we weren?t there. What I do know for sure is that somehow this guy granted this court jurisdiction, no doubt, because the defendant didn?t have a clue as to the foundational issues. Also, you can often glean as much from what is not said, as you can from what is said.

Again, right-off-the-bat this justice pulls their #1 clich? – a defendants

Quote:

erroneous understanding of the law.

They seem to love to put themselves on this ?superior knowledge? pedestal; but as I said, this guy probably had a very limited knowledge in the law, otherwise he?da never granted ?em jurisdiction from the git-go. The ?law? really isn?t that difficult of a subject to comprehend. In fact, I wonder how many of the law school graduates can differentiate between ?the law? and the ?political science? that?s constantly being commingled with it every day.

Notice too, that Derksens? arguments are said to be ?his theory?. Well just what exactly is it that this judge finds theoretical about a mans? sovereignty and freedom? Could it be that this judge has a different bent about this country and the premises on which it was founded? In order to determine if he does, his wording, and the manner, or rather the ?way?, in which it is constructed has to be carefully deconstructed so as to reveal what is and what is not being said; for it is no secret that these decisions are not composed in a snap, but the subject matter is taken back to chambers and ?groomed? ever-so cautiously.

For now, G&P,

Lambskin

P.S.

Quote:

Imagine if a couple thousand people from the state had lost licenses and all showed up on the return call list of the secretary of transportation? I think that would raise some eyebrows especially if followed up by petition to the legislature!

Not a bad idea 't'all.

[lambskin]

Hey Admin,

You're the best.

G&P,

Lambskin

[lambskin]

Hey A#2,

Thank you, very sound wisdom lies in this piece. We should send this type of info to D.C. as well.

G&P,

Lambskin

[lambskin]

Hey Admin,

Thank you for the ?heads up?.

There are a number of people who?ve been aware of, and following, the ?oil issues? in this country and across the globe very closely; and I know you?re as aware of many of these issues as well, but one of the real solutions to these energy ?crises?, and the pricing, is good ol? H2O.

One such man is Dennis Lee. He?s a ?behind the scenes? kinda guy and he?s got a number of solutions for the ?fossil fuel addicts? and the info on a couple of 'em are available for anyone?s interest at:

http://www.bwanetwork.com/home_f.htm?RepID=

I didn?t take the time to search the FG site, so I don?t know if there?s a link for this organization, but if not, then perhaps one could be added if the FG staff approve of these men and their efforts.

So, perhaps, we could include a mention of Browns Gas, HHO Fuel Cell systems, and other cleaner and less expensive alternatives while we?re writing the P.R.I.C.?s (people running invisible corporations) in D.C. or elsewhere.

G&P

Lambskin

[lambskin]

Hey Admin,

Excellent post. Everybody should send brother James a warm “Thank you.”

G&P

Lambskin

[lambskin]

Hey snw,

First, you should concentrate on the foreclosure and leave the legal premises of the breach of the Joint Venture agreement to be ironed out later. The reason I say this is because the ramifications of the breach can be consolidated into the same case or action as the proceedings progress, especially if the financing for the project was initiated through the same lender as your mortgage (They?re actually all the same ?BANK?.). If you don?t have your home to work out of, you will find the burden of defending yourself nearly impossible to sustain in the midst of having to move, keep your responsibilities at work or on the job in focus, and salvage the project to boot. The added burdens will only increase the chances of error occurring, such as missing a deadline to file a motion, etc.

Secondly, if you had trouble with the FLA download, report that immediately to the administration team down in the ?Family Guardian Website? boards. Choose the ?Family Legal Assistance? – ?Bad Links? or the ?Errata? forums; but report it, or else the problem can?t be addressed properly (If it?s actually due to the FG technology.).

Thirdly, Don?t file the bankruptcy just yet. The court can?t make a move on the foreclosure until the lender has completed certain procedures and it doesn?t sound like they?ve accomplished that yet. Besides, they?ll just roll right past any ?stay? the bankruptcy court might grant anyway. Always have, and always will. The reason behind the ?perceived? procedural circumvention is because of the ?confessed judgment? clause contained in many of these ?suits in equity?. Now, the thing to ask yourself is this – ?If they (the lender) can get a confessed judgment out of me, can I get one out of them?? The answer is ?Yes.?, and I suggest you get it out of them a.s.a.p. The reason I say this is because you need to get the proper paperwork into the hands of the Sheriff before the court does anything to confirm a sale (If the lender gets an order in their favor.). The affidavits are an excellent tool to accomplish this with and are actually very easy to write up. Once you send them off and the lender doesn?t respond, you?ve got documented proof to support the basis for your Order for summary judgment.

You don?t need to cite any statutes or Court decisions in the body of the affidavit, just ask the questions and get them to default. It?s not up to you to point out the law to them and an affidavit has never been inadmissible because it didn?t contain any cites. Remember, you?re not an attorney and cannot be held to any of their performance standards. Any man who presents his own cause is to be judged on the merits, not the form of the action. Do the cites help? In some respects yes, and in others no. The courts like to have you point everything out to them. They like to make you think that this is so as not to take your adversary by surprise, or rather that you?d be acting in ?good faith? and be letting them make discovery, but it?s actually devised to give them an opportunity to manufacture things while advancing their cause. My point is, they can?t hold it against you and even if they tried, the jury would see right through it.

Fourth, Make sure you demand a jury trial from the git-go. They?re going to try and tell you that there are no jury trials in civil actions. Don?t believe ?em. What they?re going to try to get you to believe, or rather what they?re actually trying to mask, is the fact that they?re trying to have this ?heard? in Equity. The only problem with that, is that it doesn?t have to be, or rather doesn?t need to be, adjudicated in Equity because the Law is competent to hear the matters pertaining to foreclosures without reverting to Equity. I?m not going to delve any further on these things at this time without more detail as that would be fruitless.

Lastly, you don?t have to use ?Official? forms to defend yourself. Anything that bears the standard titles, headings, and format will suffice, but if you prefer to have them, then most are available for download on the various Court websites or you can walk in and pick ?em up at the Clerk?s Office.

Again, I can?t help you any more than this without further detail. Hope you?re able to respond, or if you?d prefer, you?re more than welcome to PM me.

Grace and peace,

Lambskin

[lambskin]

Answer = compact.

G&P,

Lambskin

[lambskin]

Hey Franklin,

You?re welcome. You?re doin? fine bud, hang in there and you can nail this thing shut.

1. You asked:

Quote:

Without being able to see the name of the court and the case number or even the names of the parties to the case, how could a reader verify that it was even a real case?

You don?t need to worry about reading the actual cases because, as it should be apparent to anyone who?s ever read any cases, you?d only discover that they simply follow the basic layout for any case that has ever been decided. Besides, why would you be suspect of a guy who puts this stuff ?out there? and ain?t even asking for payola? His assertions are obviously correct, for if they weren?t, the site wouldn?t even exist because it?s highly improbable that he could maintain it from a cell or a grave. I can assure you that I?ve used the process and it works. Stick to your guns – they?re biggin?s and are heard and acknowledged the world over.

2. You stated:

Quote:

I just want to be careful not to make my response so simplistic that it lacks merit and amounts to no response; or to say anything that I cannot explain with my usual brilliant eloquence.

Why would you worry about the content of your response? If this thing ever got out of hand – such as if they were to arrest you and drag you in front of one of their tribunals – wouldn?t you have the ?Jury? approach to back you up? Yes you would, and that would afford you the opportunity to study whatever it is you feel you?re lacking and need to comprehend and then you could put your newfound knowledge to work. That, in conjunction with your eloquence, would surely result in a positive outcome. Everything takes time my friend; we cannot escape that, we have to go through these things before we get any answers, but if you use yours wisely it should prove to be time well spent. All I can tell you is that I?ve been through it. This process worked for me and I ain?t writin? this from a cell.

3. You claim:

Quote:

1. Your suggestion?. is problematic for me. Because, while I understand the idea behind the words ?Refused for cause without dishonor and without recourse to Me.?, if I were challenged on that statement I would not be able to give the challenger a knowledgeable lecture on what it means, including the legal principles which the statement summarizes.

Again, it?s rudimentary. If you like the idea of havin? Norma Jeans? cheeks in yer grip, then imagine she?s now sayin? ?K.I.S.S. me.? (Keep It Simple Stupid). That ol? adage applies to the principles thusly:

Refused – I deny your allegations.

for cause – I have a ?cause? also,

without dishonor – but I?m willing to hear you out before resorting to arms. I will not embarrass you in the face of your constituency nor allow you to embarrass me in front of mine (diplomacy), because, as soon as this has been presented to all involved, they will see (based on the facts that have been introduced by both you and I) the truth behind my cause, and then (because my evidence trumped yours') you will lack any

recourse – means of binding me to your jurisdiction and applying your laws and their attributes (invasion, seizure, fines, hard labor, life imprisonment, firing squad, hanging, etc.)

to me. – a man who abides in a different jurisdiction, with different people, under different laws.

Now, those are only my words; you need to look these things up, in whatever publications you choose, and decide for yourself what you wanna do. Choose the ones which people claim to be the best or use a bunch, but whatever you decide, start with the basics – the definitions for law and jurisdiction – and you should do fine from there.

G&P,

Lambskin

[lambskin]

Hey Franklin,

Stick to your guns bud. They failed to respond properly and you?ve got ?em in default. Don?t respond with anything other than a judgment from your court in your favor. Their default on your process stands as ?res judica? and there?s nothing they can do about it now unless they get you to ?re-contract? with them.

I?ll take this up from the point in which you stated you ?opted out? of their system.

Quote:

In 2003 I wrote SSA a letter, which I do not have in front of me, [but I think it might have been modelled on Skinner's letter before I knew about FG], and did not contain either form 521 or 56, which I did not know about then.

I?m not familiar with Skinner (or the ?letter?) but if it contained the proper language and satisfied the lawful requisite elements necessary to annul your participation in the system, then you?re no longer liable. What elements should it have contained, or rather, what should the letter you sent have actually accomplished? Well, not having actually read it, you should?ve tendered your resignation or terminated the employee. Essentially you shoulda either quit or fired somebody. Let ?em try to prove that ain?t ?voluntarily? permissible under the law! 😆 Besides, isn?t that who they believed they were dealing with:

Quote:

either the employer or the employee

either of which they believed was:

Quote:

working in the United States

plus, they admitted that somebody could possibly be:

Quote:

exempt by law

and if they had not contacted you in:

Quote:

nearly a decade

then they?ve consented to your nonparticipation by acquiescence.

Are you ?exempt? by law Franklin? Sure you are. The record stands perfectly clear on that point – only federal employees or employers are required to pay or withhold. They?re testing you to see if you know what yer doin? and if they can get ya to take the bait. To sum it up, they?re just tryin? to rope ya back in. Don?t let ?em. Forget about using the 521 and 56 forms. Those are statutory forms created for the use of an individual bound to the statute from which they emerged (Title 26) and the statute doesn?t apply to you. Don?t get bogged down in all the meaningless minutia of wrangling over which section says what or what title applies to whom; just stick to the basics of the law and make ?em ?prove up? with hard ?evidence?, which they?ll never be able to do without exposing the fraudulent means by which they operate, and which they?ve failed to do up to this point. You ain?t gotta supply them nothin? – no titles – no sections – no regs. – no cases – no cites – no statutory forms – nothin?.

Your ?Conclusions? are correct, but off point.

Quote:

Conclusion:

1. They have failed to document facts which makes a case, to which I can respond, that I, either as a natural person, or an artificial entity, am involved in some activity regulated by the Secretary and required to document that activity for his inspection per 7602. Therefore, they have not demonstrated Standing because they have asserted no documented facts to make a case and therefore cannot state a claim for which neither I, a natural person, nor a federal court can grant relief.

2 By the legal authorities enclosed with the summons, the agent and the group manager, have shown they acted outside of their territorial jurisdiction (they admitted that by failing to provide their authority to operate on non-federal land. I'll attach the default letter as an Exhibit showing what they admitted to).

3. They have shown that they have not acted for a legitimate purpose insofar as they did not state what tax was  the subject of their summons and for which I as a natural person, or some entity in which I participate, was notified of the requirement to keep relevant records. And the statutes they did provide for their authority related , by the language of 27CFR Sec.70.11, only to firearms and alcohol.

They defaulted, why would you want to send them anything other than an order? It?s over, ab initio, they?re done. Finish it. Issue your judgment and perfect your ?order?.

Make a copy of the summons and a copy of the face of the envelope it came in. (This is so you?ll have a copy, as it was sent, for your record.) If there?s anything printed on the back of either of these items, then copy that too, even if it?s just some kind of instruction, or a bar-code, or anything else you might consider irrelevant; copy it, it?s ?evidence?.

Write – ?Refused for cause without dishonor and without recourse to Me.? across the front of the original (Meaning the summons you took out of the envelope). Write it angularly, or skewed, in relation to the direction of the text on the summons. This only needs to be written on the front of the summons.

Then make a copy of the face of the summons with your ?Refusal? on it (Again, just for your record.).

Send the ?refused? original and the envelope it came in back to them with your ?order?.

If you need to know more about this, how t?do a judgment and perfect the res judica, go here:

http://www.usa-the-republic.com/abatements/Index.html

G&P,

Lambskin

[lambskin]

Hey Franklin,

Excellent work. Thank you.

The mainstream media may not get this out, but I'm sure it'll be all over the alternative media sites. Maybe Stanley Hilton will take/make this case. Check this out to see what I mean by that.

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=8964

G&P,

Lambskin