Uniform Bonding Code Part –

15 SundayAPR 2012
POSTED BY EOWYNDBH IN UNCATEGORIZED
≈ LEAVE A COMMENT
Tags
arresting a bond, attorneys, auto insurance bonds, bond arrest remedy, bonding companies, clerk bonds, court
bonds, definition of attorney, definition of lawyer, district attorney bonds, executive bonds, feudal law, glass house
doctrine, judge bonds, judicial consequence, lawyer, legislative bonds, police bonds, prosecutor bonds, RICO on
judges and police

(Blog Master’s Note: The added Emphasis; by making the text larger on 4.0 B was me, the
coloration was in the original. Court Clerks that refuse to file documents, or harass the filer, need
their Bonds arrested!! In part 3 that will be fully explained).

2.4 – BONDING INSURANCE STATUTES

Compulsory Insurance

The bonding of statutes which require natural persons (non-incorporated

persons) to purchase insurance, must be very carefully analyzed, and be
regarded with the utmost caution. As a general rule, it is against the law for any
entity to compel any citizen to pay any wager or premium for the privilege of not
being injured or for the privilege of not being threatened with injury (Protection
Insurance Racketeering). [Footnote: U.S. R.I.C.O. Laws]

Corporations may be required by the state in which they are incorporated, to

purchase public hazard insurance because the corporation, being an
artificial/paper person (a legal fiction), is regarded as having no conscience other
than the state, making the state as a silent partner of the corporation, financially
responsible for the acts of the corporation. (That which the liege-lord giveth, the
liege-lord taketh away.) When the benefit which the state gives to the corporation
is limited liability, which is a limited commercial responsibility to the commercial
public, to a reasonable extent, then the state must protect the commercial public
to a reasonable extent from a potential lack of commercial responsibility of the
corporation or from a tendency toward a potential lack of commercial
responsibility of the corporation, by requiring the corporation to purchase hazard
bonding. This requirement protects the public from some losses, and protects the
state from some civil liability, by a showing of commercial good faith action.

Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance

Citizens are required to surrender the ultimate title of ownership of their motor
vehicles (the manufacturer’s statement of origin/MSO) to their respective states
in exchange for a certificate of title of ownership and license plates. The state
owns the vehicle because it holds the ultimate title to the motor vehicle. The
citizen has the permission to use the vehicle. The permission can be revoked at
any time by the state.

[Tennessee Department of Revenue Operations Supervisor, Denise Rottero, before

Judge Greer. She explained Tennessee’s auto registration process.]

The vehicle can be seized and auctioned off to provide revenue for the state. For
example, the state of Oregon seizes and auctions citizens’ motor vehicles as a
penalty for soliciting a prostitute; proving that the auto belongs to the state.

Because the state has the ultimate ownership of all of the vehicles used by all of
its citizens, the state also has the ultimate liability for all accidents in which those
vehicles become involved. This is a potential reason for the state to compel
citizens to purchase motor vehicle insurance. Another reason is obvious. The state
is a silent partner in every insurance corporation incorporated in that state, and
so, many of the insurance companies within the state are mere alter egos or
“second selves” of the state. In this insurance scheme the state makes it
mandatory for the citizen to buy a product which the state is selling. The individual
state will get part of the insurance business; the interstate insurance companies,
regulated by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, will get the
remainder of the insurance business.

Also, states need civil malpractice insurance. This sort of insurance comes from
“above”, from interstate insurance companies and
international maritime insurance companies such as Rothschild, so, some states
prostitute their legislative power as an inducement to get insurance companies to
give them a better payment rate for their own malpractice insurance coverage
premiums for their own corporate activities, by compelling citizens to purchase
motor vehicle insurance.

In any compulsory motor vehicle insurance scheme, a citizen’s purchase of motor

vehicle insurance is guaranteed by a threat of injury in the form of a suspension of
the driver license, seizure of the vehicle, fines and imprisonment if the citizen does
not comply with the state’s mandate. This creates the basic fabric of a protection
insurance racket, hence a very real credibility problem for insurance and bonding
companies.

The bonding problem gets really nasty when a judge compels a citizen to either
buy auto insurance or to quite driving “his” (the “citizen’s”) car. Because a bond
or insurance is only a promise to pay and not a tangible product, a citizen can
lawfully and rightfully argue that, like a savings and loan or a bank, an insurance
bonding/bonding company might not be around when damage is done and it is
time for a claim payoff. Therefore the citizen can lawfully guarantee the auto
insurance policy by putting a common law lien on enough of the property of the
law enforcement officer and the judge to cover the face value of the insurance
policy.

“This commercial lien cannot be removed.”

“A federal R.I.C.O. action against the enforcement officer and the judge can also
compel them to pay all of the premiums for all of the persons whom they have
compelled to buy insurance.”

The voluntary purchasing of motor vehicle insurance is smart. It is a good

investment. But compulsory purchase of any sort of insurance in order to continue
the daily act of living is protection insurance racketeering. Any bonding company
which bonds compulsory motor vehicle insurance statutes is going to have big
unresolvable problems, and any officer or judge who enforces compulsory motor
vehicle insurance statutes is laying himself wide open to economic ruin.

3.0 – LEGISLATIVE OUTPUT

The Output Conclusion of legislation will be bonded and become a valid and lawful
statute thereby, only if the bonding company finds that:

1. the definitions of the terms used in the conclusion are bonded,

2. the principles used in the conclusion are bonded,
3. the logic used in the conclusion is bonded,
4. the conclusion has been presented to the public, has been negatively criticized
because of its construction or effect, then, the conclusion has been returned to the
analysis and logic stage to test and justify its construction and effect, and
5. the legislated conclusion, after it has been subjected to public scrutiny and
further analysis, is economically feasible for a wager on its public application. If it
survives this last step, the conclusion is said to be perfected for legislative
bonding, and becomes a judiciable statute [FN: “A legislative conclusion becomes
a valid and lawful statute only if it is legislatively bonded.”]

4.0 – JUDICATIVE INPUT, GENERALLY

An official, officer or clerk will not be bonded:

1. if he uses the power of his public office, or his position in that office, or his
power of enforcement

A. to harass or to oppress a citizen, or

B. to create, obstacles to prevent a citizen from exercising

his remedies by the due course/due process of law.

2. if he deprives or hinders a citizen in the free exercise of rights guaranteed or of

the equal protection of the law guaranteed by the constitution of the state by
which the officer is employed, or guaranteed by the National constitution or of the
state into which the officer’s work takes him.

3. if he interferes in a citizen’s U.S. constitutional first (so-called) amendment

A. legislative rights of freedom of religion,

B. Judicative rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press (the right to
access the court of public opinion), and/or

C. Executive rights to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a

redress of grievances (i.e., file civil and criminal complaints-especially against
malfeasant public officials).

4. FN “If he will not file or receive the filing of a criminal” complaint [no filing fee
is required] against a public official. Which such is necessary to curb the
malfeasance of that official.” (See also – Bonding of District Attorneys, infra.)

4.1 – Judicative Input, Specifically

The process of receipt of date input/allegations for judication by the government

will be bonded only if the bonding company finds that no act was committed by
any official, officer or clerk:

1. to ridicule, harass, oppress, injure or punish the citizen for submission or

attempting to submit affidavits, allegations, arguments, claims, criminal
complaints and/or damages for consideration, litigation or prosecution, or

2. hinder or prevent the composition (writing), receiving, filing or processing of

the citizen’s affidavits, allegations, arguments, considerations, claims, criminal
complaints and/or demands.

This rule also applies to the composition, receiving, filing and processing of
affidavits, allegations, arguments, claims, criminal complaints and demands of
prisoners. For example, the enforcement process of an enforcement officer will not
be bonded if the judicial process of receipt of data input/affidavits . . .
is not bonded, or is not bondable. Example:

Translation (If it is found that an accused person was not allowed by an official or
clerk to file a counter complaint with the prosecuting attorney, then the official
process of the complaint against the accused party, and all official processes
thereafter will not be bonded unless and until this defect of process is rectified
and the accused party has had adequate time and opportunity to recover from the
damage caused by being denied the opportunity to file the said counter
complaint.) An officer sued for false imprisonment for violation of the equal
protection of the law (here the prisoner’s right to counter complaint) because of
an unbondable judicial process of failing to receive data input, will pay for the
damage out of municipal. corporate property or his own personal property.

5.0 – JUDICATIVE CONTROL

The court rules, jurisdiction, and the processes of consideration of affidavits and
other filings, litigation, and prosecution will be bonded only if the bonding
company finds that:

Court Rules

1. The general rules or local rules of the court contain an explanation of the
purpose for existence of each and every rule so that the purpose of the rule will
take priority over the wording of the rule, and so that substance will
take priority over form.

2. The general rules or local rules of the court contain common terms
and plain wording and are of such simplicity that the common citizen can easily
understand and easily and quickly make use of the rules without the need of
a counselor.

Jurisdiction
3. The setting of the case is proper, the parties to the action are all truthfully
stated, and all civil and criminal elements are clearly identified and segregated
into their own jurisdictional categories.

4. A criminal case brought in behalf of the peace and dignity of the state:

A. has been brought ex rel accusers, that is, “on the telling or relation/story of the
accuser” with the accusation being related to the prosecuting attorney by the
accuser,

B. has named the accuser in the setting of the case, and

C. contains the signed and notarized affidavit of the accuser in the body of the
complaint. Otherwise, the state would become the plaintiff/accuser, the case
would become federal, and the bonding company would become potentially liable
for an agent’s false accusation and false imprisonment of a party to the case.

5. In the U.S. constitutional 7th (so-called) amendment, civil elements of

answering, discovery, deposition, interrogatories, etc., have been put on
temporary hold as a U.S. constitutional 6th (so-called) amendment protection
against self-incrimination pending a U.S. constitutional 6th (so-called) amendment
prosecution.

6. The U.S. constitutional 6th (so-called) amendment processes have been carried
out before the U.S. constitutional 7th (so called) amendment processes have
proceeded, and these 6th (so-called) amendment processes have proceeded
without delay.

Consideration of Affidavits

7. All affidavits have been considered, answered and affirmed or denied

categorically, point for-point in writing.

Litigation and Prosecution

8. All officials, officer and clerks involved in the processes of litigation have
obeyed the Constitution of the United States of the state wherein they are
employed, so that;

A. the citizens involved have receive equal protection under the laws, and

B. the citizens’ remedies by the due course of law have been protected and
guaranteed,

9. the officials, officers and clerks involved in the processes did not operate the
court and/or the judicial process as a closed union shop, that is, did not exclude or
hinder nonunion lawyers, non-union counsels, non-union para-legals, non-union
laborers or any other non-union citizens from exercising the equal profession, the
equal practice, the equal performance, the equal perfection and the equal
protection of the law,.

10. The officials, officers and clerks involved in the processes did not act in
concord, (agreement) union or conspiracy to interfere with or minimize the
citizens’ creative access to discovery, evidence, counsel and/or remedy by the due
process of the law.

Service of Legal Process

11. No party to the case, nor the court, has been allowed to use the U.S. mail to
“serve” papers which are required by law to be “served,” not “sent.” A U.S. postal
carrier is not employed and bonded as a witness, hence is not a lawful. legal
process server.

5.1 Bondability of Lawyers and Attorneys

(Lawyer and Attorney Are Not Synonymous)

Attorn – Law: – To agree to recognize a new owner of a property or estate and

promise payment of rent to him.
Feudal Law: – to consent to the transfer of land by the Lord of the fee, and to the
continuance of one’s own holding under the new Lord; also, to accord homage to a
Lord.

Attornment– Feudal Law: – The acknowledgment by the tenant of a new Lord

on the alienation of land; also, the acknowledgment by a bailee that he holds
property for a new party. Funk and Wagnall’s Practical Standard Dictionary

Attorn – Law: – To turn over; to transfer to another money or goods; to assign to

some particular use or service. To consent to the transfer of a rent or reversion. To
agree to become tenant to one as owner or landlord of an estate previously held of
another, or to agree to recognize a new owner of a property or estate and promise
payment of rent to him.

Attorn – Feudal Law: – To turn over; to transfer to another money or goods; to

assign to some particular use or service. Where a Lord aliened his seigniory, he
might, with the consent of the tenant, and in some cases without, attorn or
transfer the homage and service of the latter to the alienee or new Lord.

Attornment – In feudal and Old English Law – A turning over or transfer by a Lord
of the services of his tenant to the grantee of his seigniory. (Lordship title:
seignior, sir) The doctrine of attornment grew out of the peculiar relations existing
between the landlord and his tenant under the feudal law, and the reasons for the
rule never had any existence in this country, and is inconsistent with our laws,
customs and institutions.

Black’s Law Dictionary Revised Fourth Edition We need to take a

very close look at these words in order to understand the role of
an attorney. The setting is old England, the aristocracy held the land.
The lower class tilled the land as tenants. When the land changed
hands from one aristocratic Lord to another aristocratic Lord, a
treaty was made between the tenants and the new Lord lest civil
war break out between the tenants and the new Lord. This transfer
of power with treaty was called attornment.
Attornment was the method of peacefully passing land from one aristocrat to
another aristocrat without disturbing the class structure. It consisted of a peaceful
method of maintaining a noble class off citizens acceptable to the common people.
This does not mean that the common people liked the situation, but they suffered
evils while evils were sufferable, and made their treaties of attornment.

Therefore, in English Law attornment was a method of guaranteeing an

unequal protection of the Law for the rich and the poor, but one which was at least
tolerable for the poor. It was a “peaceful” maintenance of the class structure.

An attorney’s role in this system was to provide the ceremony of the acquiescence
of the poor, and to do so in such a manner (modus operandi – MO) as to preserve
and maintain the class structure. The peaceful unequal protection of the Law. It is
eminently clear that an attorney’s role has not changed. Attorneys practice
attornment.

Lawyer: - A person learned in the law. One who understands law and who loves
law for its capacity to rectify the evils of society. One who professes and practices
“Liberty and Justice for all,” and therefore the equal protection of
the Law. Lawyers “practice” law. The U.S. Constitution provides over thirty
guarantees of the equal protection of the law. A lawyer supports those provisions
of guarantee; an attorney opposes those provisions. In America, a lawyer obeys
the U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land. An attorney does not obey the
U.S. Constitution. Therefore, technically, a lawyer is bondable and an attorney is
not bondable. State bar associations, which deal with both extremes, must
therefore rely upon “self-bonding.”

Testing and Counsel

There are both good and bad counsels. In reality, many so-called “lawyers”
practice attornment, and many so-called “attorneys” practice law. Most persons
think the terms “lawyer” and “attorney” mean the same thing, and would not even
know how to distinguish one from another. Even the professionals call themselves,
“attorneys-at-law,” a contradiction of terms which shows the confusion which
prevails in law. For the present purposes of the Uniform Bonding Code, the
counsels will not be discriminated against because of the term they use to identify
their occupation. Only their behavior and “track record” will be used to determine
their bondability. “You know a tree by the fruit which it bears.” An apple tree does
not grow cherries, and a cherry tree does not grow apples. To cite an extreme
example: a lawyer will file criminal charges against a judge for failure to protect a
citizen’s U.S. constitutional rights; an attorney will not. There are many such tests,
and contracts of specific performance can be provided to would-be counsels to
find out what they are actually ready, willing and able to do.

When it is necessary, a lawyer will act as a substitute and go to jail for a cause in
which he believes, whereas an attorney will only dabble at “law,” will ask to be
removed from a case when the going gets rough and becomes a battle, will run in
the face of the enemy, and therefore deserves a summary court martial.

5.2 — Bonding of District Attorneys

A city, county, state or federal district attorney (including a U.S. district attorney
called a “U.S. Attorney’) shall lose his bonding and shall not be bonded:

1. if he refuses to properly identify himself to the citizen when asked to do so,

including giving the citizen the name and address (or telephone number) of his
bonding company and his bond policy number (bond number),

2. if he fails or refuses to receive, for filing, a criminal complaint from a citizen

against a citizen or an official,

3. if he refused to mark or stamp the citizen’s confirmed (compare with original)

copy of the citizen’s complaint with any of the following:

A. “Received”
B. name of receiving office
C. date
D. time
E. signature or initial of receiving clerk or official, so that the citizen can have an
official receipt for delivery of his complaint;
4. if he fails or refuses to make a reasonably diligent effort to process the citizen’s
complaint (42 USC 1986),

5. if he fails or refuses to see to it that the citizen’s complaint is placed in the right
hands for processing and/or answering, (return)

6. if he does not make every effort to make sure that the complaining party knows
of the status or location of the complaint in the legal system, and does not give the
complainant written notice of the same when it is possible.

5.3 – The Bonding of Prosecuting Attorneys

A prosecuting attorney shall lose his bonding, shall not be bonded, and
shall be deemed unbondable:

1. if he refuses to prosecute a complaint when it is possible to do so, regardless of

whom the complaint is against,

2. if he resorts to “selective prosecution,” i.e., any excuse of immunity for an

official in order to protect a malfeasant official from prosecution,

3. if he resorts to “selective prosecution “i.e., false or malicious prosecution of a

citizen, in order to punish or destroy a citizen for attempting to have a malfeasant
official prosecuted.

5.4 – Bonding of Judges

A judge shall lose his bonding, shall not be bonded, and shall be deemed
unbondable:

1. if he fails to protect the U.S, national constitutionally guaranteed remedies of

due process and the equal protection of the laws of any citizen appearing
in his court of law, or of any citizen appearing in any court of the county in which
he works whose case may come to his attention.

5.5 – Bonding of Attorneys

A lawyer or an attorney shall lose his bonding, shall not be bonded, and
shall be deemed unbondable,:

1. if he fails to protect the remedies of due process and the equal

protection of the law of either his client or of the adverse party in an action. In an
adversary system of law, each lawyer or attorney shall protect
the representation of fact not only for their own party, but shall protect
the legal process for both parties without, exception.

5.6 – Bonding an Amicus Curiae

(Friend of the Court – Especially under a Citizen’s Writ of

Mandamus Pursuant to 42 USC 1986)

It is not necessary for a non-incorporated lawyer or amicus curiae(friend of the

court) to be bonded. But a lawyer or an amicus curiae, if he chose to be bonded,
shall lose his bond and shall not be bonded:

1. if he uses his involuntary intervention to interfere with constitutional due

process,

2. if he does not speak and act openly for the best interests of both opposing
adverse parties, even if paid by one party and sits as counsel to that party.
An amicus curiae may favor the cause of one side of an action, but must serve the
due process of both sides of an action in order to be
of service to the system of law as a whole. If the judge is acting in insurrection
and rebellion against the U.S. Constitution, and the judge shows no signs of
amending his ways (correcting his court procedure), it is usually best for
the amicus curiae to file a notice of criminal malpractice (malfeasance) with
the court administrator, and with the bonding company in person, by fax, or by
telephone to immediately establish reversible error and. civil damage in the case.

6.0 – JUDICATIVE OUTPUT

The process of Judgment will be bonded only if the bonding company finds that:
1. the terms, definitions, principles (axioms), logic and conclusion underlying the
statutes being used in a judgment are all bonded, i.e., the statute used is
a valid and lawful statute, i.e., is a bonded statute;
2. the process of receipt of data input is bonded;
3. the Court rules, the jurisdiction and
the processes of consideration ofaffidavits, litigation and prosecution are all
bonded;
4. a jury trial was granted, if it was not. waived in writing by all parties to the suit;
5. a summary judgment hearing was not imposed in place of a jury trial as long as
there was so much as one genuine issue of material fact or one unprosecuted
element of criminal behavior, criminal malpractice, or official or clerical
malfeasance;
6. the jury was allowed to come to a verdict by ballot while sitting in the
courtroom without retiring to the jury room to arrive at a verdict; NOTE:
Retirement of a jury to a jury room for deliberating a verdict is internal
jury tampering, creates an homogenized verdict, constitutes conspiracy to convict
or to vindicate, and makes every member of the jury individually and personally
liable for the verdict, regardless of the content of the verdict. if a
summary accusation or complaint, Judgement, and execution of contempt has
been brought against a person appearing before the court because his behavior or
argument in favor of his rights in that court displeases the judge, or is held by that
judge to be contrary to the order and decorum of the court, and
i. then
i. the accusing judge has made out the complaint of contempt,
ii. the accused has been tried by a second judge yielding a judgment of
contempt, and
iii. a third judge has agreed in writing to accept the total liability for both
the accusation orcomplaint of contempt, and the judgment of contemptif either or
both of the first two judges hasacted with malfeasance in the contempt process,
and
iv. the third judge has yielded the order of execution of contempt.
If the contempt charge is later found to be improper or unlawful, the personal
liability of the third judge shall be proportional to the number of judges acting in
defect of the law. (i.e., treble damages (make triple).
This rate of damages corresponds to the treble damages of a U.S. R.I.C.O.
(Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organization) suit. The third judge will have to
sue the other two judges to recover remedy from them.
8. The order. of execution of the judgment has an attached check list containing a
signature verified entry for every step of the process which must be bonded in
order for the overall process to be perfected for judicial bonding. Each step must
have a space provided for reference to any attached comments on irregularities in
the process. “An order of judgment becomes a valid and
lawful order of execution only if it is judicially bonded.”

6.1. – Bonding of Judicial Consequence

A government official, officer or clerk shall lose their bond, shall not be bonded,
and shall be deemed unbondable:

1. if he fails to answer, or fails to require an answer to, a citizen’s

complaint, and affidavit of information categorically point for-point, except that,
where criminal accusations are made, he shall have the right to remain silent, or
allow silence (non-answer) as a protection against self incrimination. Otherwise,
the ordinary rule is, “An affidavit unrebutted stands as the truth.”

2. If he knowingly imprisons, or keeps as a prisoner, a citizen in violation of that

citizen’s U.S. constitutionally secured rights and equal protection of the law. The
offense shall repeat the application of pertinent remedy statutes each and every
twenty-four (24) hours.

3. if he refuses a prisoner the materials and information necessary for the prisoner
to defend, acquit or vindicate himself. The offense shall repeat the application of
the pertinent remedy statutes each and every twenty-four (24) hours.

NOTE: If an officer or clerk who has lost his bond, gives aid and comfort to a
citizen or to a prisoner deprived as described under this chapter, and shall prove
himself genuine, the same shall recover his bondability.

7.0 – EXECUTIVE INPUT

Principles of Executive Bonding

Qualifications for Bonding Enforcement Officers The input/qualifications of an
executive/enforcement officer shall be bonded.

Pursuant to state incorporation laws, any official, officer or clerk, of any municipal.
Corporation (city, county, state) engaged in any activity potentially dangerous or
hazardous to the public safety, health and welfare must be bonded and must carry
an identification card which declares his bonding status.

In a scientific system, the executive bond on a reasonable officer with a good

social attitude, a “good track record.” and a good education, is less expensive than
the bond on a rookie cop (constable or patrol) just as the automobile insurance on
an older, sensible, seasoned and proven driver is less than the auto insurance for a
younger, impulsive and unproven driver.

The Glass House Doctrine

It is the executive branch which ultimately commits the statutory injuries which
the legislative and judicative branches order up for the control and punishment of
citizens.

“A person who lives in a glass house should not throw rocks at others”. (sic)

Likewise a government infested with malfeasant officials, officers and clerks is in

no position to pursue felons in the public sphere. If it would be credible in the eyes
of the public and the bonding companies, then it must first eliminate its own
malfeasance with the same diligence that it would pursue the civilian felon.

Grace/Escape

In all complaints of a citizen against a public law enforcement officer, the

complaining citizen has the general responsibility of protecting the
general enforcement of the laws by giving every opportunity of grace and escape
to the officer complained about. The complainant must always remain sensitive to
the fact that a law enforcement officer is constantly subject to the most
psychologically demanding emergency situations and the most dangerous social
combinations, and must be given every benefit of the doubt so that he can survive
his daily work.

7.1 – No Criminal Bonding

Criminal acts may not be bonded against prosecution or litigation, or there would
be people who would become bonded as a license to commit criminal acts in
violation of the peace and dignity of the state.

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 it 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 debt with the intent to abscond (run away and hide) 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 liability. There is
no corporate limited liability for the commission of
crimes. Criminal acts committed by corporate officials, officers and clerks pierce
the limited liability veil of every type corporation and artificial (purely legal)
person. Also, criminal accusation always pierces the veil of corporate limited
liability.

No Criminal Bonding

An official, officer or clerk who commits a criminal act (a crime) or gross

negligence of duty against a citizen or against the public generally:
1. shall lose his bond,
2. shall not be protected by his official bond,
3. shall not be protected by the limited liability of the corporation, trust, or office
of public trust which employs him,
4. shall be personally liable (financially responsible) for the damage which that
crime or gross negligence causes,
5. must pay for the damage out of his own personal assets of real and personal
property.
A citizen’s recourse against official crimes is to file his claim in the form of
a criminal complaint/U.S. First (so-
called)Amendment petition forredress of grievances with a civil value noted on the
complaint, but with the U.S. Seventh Amendment process on hold as not
immediately answerable, and with the civil value pending the outcome of the U.S.
Sixth (so-called) Amendment criminal prosecution.

The criminal claim puts payment of the bond on hold and pierces the veil of
corporate limited liability, exposing the officer to unlimited attachment of personal
property unless he is prosecuted and vindicated by prosecution. If the prosecutor
does not agree to prosecute the case within thirty days, or such time as is
reasonable for investigation of the charges (not to exceed sixty days without
reasonable cause), then the matter reverts to a civil action standing half inside
and half outside of the corporate veil with the bonding company, the corporation
and the officer standing liable for the damages.

RELATED
Uniform Bonding Code - Part 1 In "5th Amendment"
Uniform Bonding Code - part 3 In "Affidavit of Obligation"
COURTS AND ARRAIGNMENTS (BONDING the CHARGES an ABSOLUTE NECESSITY for
the PROSECUTION In "Birth Certificate"