A4v

Now, I am among the first to state that A4V, is not a valid Pleading, but here is what I was looking at ..

Your comments, please on this investigation

A4Vs were
authorized by Title 3 of the US Code.
Title 3 deals with the Office of the President. I found
the attached document at www.lulu.com and it is from The American
Connection copyright 2007.

Specifically the aspect of Title 3 that pertains to A4Vs is the President's
Oath.
His oath is different from those in Congress specified in Title 5.
The Title 3 oath makes the President the Trustee for the United States for
the benefit of us the beneficiaries.
Title 5 oaths make no one a trustee.
Without the President's oath there would be no trustee and therefore no
trust or beneficiaries and A4Vs would not be legal. Perhaps there is a partial justification
about Title 3, but there is more enabling the use of A4Vs.
If you want to read this, I would advise you to read it in sections and let each
section percolate before you go on.
It is a string of legal arguments, and
we can now see why all the district and circuit court judges were heavily
involved with defining processes for debt set asides in 1987, 2000 and
2003.
It is a bit confusing, but follow each legal thread and you will
get perhaps some idea of what I am asking

Pay attention to Title 3, UCC 201 (44), UCC 3-303, UCC 3-415.

The acceptance of an oath of office and the acceptance of a bill of exchange or a draft are two distinct and separate topics.

I think you have a very important point BY;


Accept for Value is only applicable to a bond under a valid security agreement. Either it pertains to commercial instruments or Oaths of Office. The wayward Patriot Movement has tried to apply it to Oaths jammed down the official's throat by negative averment. Dan PETERSEN was released briefly under close supervision and landed himself back in prison quickly under the 2007 Court Security laws prohibiting bogus liens against officials.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

I think you have a very important point BY;


Accept for Value is only applicable to a bond under a valid security agreement. Either it pertains to commercial instruments or Oaths of Office. The wayward Patriot Movement has tried to apply it to Oaths jammed down the official's throat by negative averment. Dan PETERSEN was released briefly under close supervision and landed himself back in prison quickly under the 2007 Court Security laws prohibiting bogus liens against officials.

---

The kind of lien might also be important. If one is underwriting the office/person one might have to a bailor-bailee type of interest rather than a debtor-creditor type interest. In other words, seems one has to know what one is doing. That a "Dan PETERSEN" was filling liens is telling. Residents and persons might have to tread carefully.

Acceptance of an oath of office is not the same as acceptance of an oath of office for value. Acceptance of an oath of office is something that a king might do with respect to, say, a man taking office as a Governor-General or as a Registrar. "Acceptance for value" has to do with drafts or demands for money being made against the acceptor.