The decline and fall of the English system of finance by Thomas Paine

[allodial]

My point in the link is that even when the judge is real, one would reverse the transaction...

That gets the the purpose of true, organic government: [1] to protect the innocent; [2] to keep the poor and the widow safe from oppression; [3] to promote or uphold equity; [4] to protect the upright from the base, low, and degenerate (same as #1). Anything too far from that and you might just be dealing with organized crime posing as lawful government (relevantly: The Dangers of Municipal Trading; Racketeering).

...not just declare a proper sale to have never happened.

Reversing the transaction would at the least promote equity and restore parties to their original condition. To declare a proper sale to never have transpired: more robbery under the guise of officialdom. If a judge is using the court to enrich his revenue base, whether in collusion with others or not, he is biased and should be recused.

[David Merrill]

If a judge is using the court to enrich his revenue base, whether in collusion with others or not, he is biased and should be recused.

Mr. WOLSKI has been recused and unable to mention anything since February. So he just says it is Unregistered and stipulates that his Order is NOT TO BE PUBLISHED!

Docket Report 8/29/16
Order to Dismiss/Close Case - NOT TO BE PUBLISHED



P.S. I will specify on the R4C clerk instruction - TO BE PUBLISHED. That will learn them good!

[allodial]

Mr. WOLSKI has been recused and unable to mention anything since February. So he just says it is Unregistered and stipulates that his Order is NOT TO BE PUBLISHED!

Docket Report 8/29/16
Order to Dismiss/Close Case - NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

P.S. I will specify on the R4C clerk instruction - TO BE PUBLISHED. That will learn them good!

Hopefully they are capable of learning and coming to a proper understanding. Maybe one day they will perceive the connection between the Christ's lawful assembly and the house of Judah.

[David Merrill]

Hopefully they are capable of learning and coming to a proper understanding. Maybe one day they will perceive the connection between the Christ's lawful assembly and the house of Judah.

This gets better and better! Funny how a little sleep sheds a lot of light. Look at the back side of the Supreme Court document - Page 2. The clerk put the "RECEIVED" stamp there where it might not be noticed!

So this tells me that they understand the Connection you speak of. Or something very similar.

[allodial]

This gets better and better! Funny how a little sleep sheds a lot of light. Look at the back side of the Supreme Court document - Page 2. The clerk put the "RECEIVED" stamp there where it might not be noticed!

So this tells me that they understand the Connection you speak of. Or something very similar.

The term "separate sovereign" is a very interesting piece of art. That verbiage ("separate sovereign") tells me that Comrade WOLSKI may have taken a refresher look at United States v. Cruikshank (1875) in drafting his ORDER. And guess what? That case is a post-Civil War case that is very much pertinent to characteristics of the 'new' post-Civil War Union (stranger container) which seems highly modeled after the Canadian style of federation (in Canada each of the provinces are regarded to be sovereign, each has a Lt. Governor General and there also is a Governor-General).

This does not, however, necessarily imply that the two governments possess powers in common, or bring them into conflict with each other. It is the natural consequence of a citizenship which owes allegiance to two sovereignties, and claims protection from both. The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government. He owes allegiance to the two departments, so to speak, and within their respective spheres must pay the penalties which each exacts for disobedience to its laws. In return, he can demand protection from each within its own jurisdiction. United States v. Cruikshank (1875)

In my assessment, even with lack of a principal-agent relationship, if the United States, is facilitating a disturbance or the like, then the matter tends to come under tort law.

Attachment 4417

He mentions torts later on. If you look closely, he refers to:

1. Colorado ("Colorado is, however, a separate sovereign"--does not specifically refer to "the State of Colorado" there);
2. the State of Colorado;
3. the state of Colorado ("The United States does not have an agency relationship with the state of Colorado or the Colorado judiciary"). {He speaks truth because officers of the Crown aren't necessarily State officers.}

What about District of Colorado?

So this tells me that they understand the Connection you speak of. Or something very similar.

Very likely they do.