Jump to content

nuke em

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    567
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by nuke em

  1. MamaG1 , i have come along way since my first posts here in Oct 2007, for a start i now know that all Mortgages are fraud in factum, on the basis that the "lender" did not provide any consideration for the so-called mortgage CONtract. Basically you created the funds when you signed which they then "lent" you!!! ie they lent you your own credit!!!!.. straight up fraud!! my remedy revolve around commercial liens & estopple

  2. For ANY contract to be lawful it must comprise the following:

     

    A) FULL DISCLOSURE by both parties. Neither party can later claim 'you should have known' if it was not specifically declared at the time of making the contract. – Theevin Banks Plc bank did not provide full disclosure,

     

    B) A CONSIDERATION offered by both parties, this being the subject of the exchange. It must be a sum of money, or an item of value. Both parties agree that their CONSIDERATION is worth (to them) the other party's CONSIDERATION. As you now know, Theevin Banks Plc did not provide anything of value, I did!

     

    C) LAWFUL TERMS & CONDITIONS for the contract, to which both parties agree. These do not exist, as you are now well aware!

     

    D) 'Wet' SIGNATURES of both parties. This means hand-written SIGNATURES, as made by two human beings – A “wet” signature was never given by Theevin Banks Plc!

  3. Freedom can only come to those who educate themselves....

     

    The rest of us are bound hand and foot by Commercial/Admiralty/Contract Law.

     

    We all belong to the State....

     

    and money is a fiction.

     

    I keep on dropping hints here and there, I wonder how long it will be before I

    have placed a hint, a key on every thread in this entire forum.

     

    Keep it up Nuke 'em, you know the truth.... but don't forget challenges under the CCAct also work, thank goodness ;)

     

     

    I know Charlie, & i know you know, i have seen many of your dropped hints in other threads :D:D!, still i battle on, not so much on this forum anymore, just dont have the time nowadays. .. if you know where i'm at!

    I think during 2010 more people will wake up from their slumber, esp as we move into the mother all of ( planned) financial crashes most of will ever see .. February & March are going to be very interesting!

     

     

    & yes i know that challenges under the CCA also work as well

     

     

    ...Nuke em

  4. Hi Oilyrag...

     

     

     

    A lot of us have been at a stalemate point for some time, but that doesn't necessarily cause any problems. Problems only seem to arise for people when they try and push for closure because the difference between going forward as a Claimant and going forward as a Defendant is huge in terms of what it might cost at the end. The only other way of getting closure is through a F&F settlement, which doesn't suit everyone either. If you dont have closure, then the alleged debt is STILL Owed! now whther it is persued is entirely another (usually financial ) question

     

    I assumed that you were claiming to have already won a lump of compensation.... so apologies for that :).... but the fact that you haven't places you in a similar position to the majority of us; stalemate, accept for the fact that you've pushed forward with a claim. Most of us don't.... we ride it out until the "alleged" account becomes stat-barred instead. it is a stratergy that can work over time - 6 yrs

     

    For me personally, stalemate is fine.... I'm not willing to pay and they're not willing to sue. That's fine by me :D I have no interest in defaults, already own my own home and have no need for further credit.... so I'm happy...Your alleged debts must be very low otherwise they would come for your house ( Charging order) which they would discover has no mortgage on it , that info they could gain under an oral hearing at the court under oath-

    P1, my advice here, get your house put into trust ! then nothing can be touched!

    Like you, I've also uncovered unlawful activity with one lender re. the amalgamation of accounts prior to their sale to a DCA. This was uncovered through a SAR some time ago, but because I was more relieved to get shot of them than go through the aggravation of legal proceedings, I decided to let it go. They were well aware that they'd stuffed up and also well aware of what the SAR uncovered. Although I've kept everything, I (eventually) decided not to do anything with the info. because the outcome for me by doing nothing (unenforceability) was still greater; £800 in my favour.... This happens all the time

     

    Have the grounds changed so much? Other than battling CCA, 2006 instead of CCA, 1974.... I don't really think they have. The template letters on here are a great starting point, yes.... but I've still adapted many once I was confident of my position in the game.... because that's what it is... a game. ...and it was a great starting place for me back in the end of 2007

     

    Although the template letters have nearly always provoked a response of some kind, I've found that making a formal complaint to the company itself to be the most effective way of getting them off my back. Not immediately.... but it's always worked for me. It doesn't look good for a company to have 3-4 formal complaints following each other; unresolved and relating to failures raised in the previous ones ;). The OFT and other regulatory bodies are a waste of space, but formal complaints are definately worth doing in my experience, because (I assume), companies wouldn't want these dragged up as part of court proceedings.... not that many anyway.

     

    ===

    I think the reason experienced members jump in and become defensive is because many newbies often start talking about all kinds of ridiculous revenge-type behaviours re. DCAs and the like without any thought about what they're doing. Unfortunately, Nuke'em comes across as one of these characters.There are also newbies who are DCAs in disguise..... giving real newbies a number of really cack ideas about what to do next. - .For all your allegations implied or stated about me you should be careful P1 about what you write, Where is the Proof of your claim?, if you check back to my orig posts back in 2007 you would see my my alleged debts run high 6 figures and into 7 figures. I was a BTL investor with multiple Mortages & i needed very powerful remedies to back these "creditors" off. Remember you have a house which is all paid for, & if i know a way of placing a jucy fat commercial lien against you/your property... don't you think your creditors do as well ?

     

    You need t . This makes experienced CAG members a little suspicious to say the least and leads me & others to question their motivation for doing it. - and me to question why some CAG members try to gag & suppress methods other than the ones they preach/teach!

     

    There is no regulatory body out there to stand up for us.... even though they may claim to do so. Most are financed by the very industry that we're fighting and they're all in bed together, so to speak; banks, DCAs, CRAs, courts, regulatory bodies, MPs and even the DMP companies who're supposedly there to "help" us. It's very incestuous, for want of a better word. This i TOTALY agree with 100% !

     

    IMO, things won't improve for consumers until these relationships are exposed and broken. How to do it? Not impossible, but it would bring far more suffering in the short term before any long-term results are seen.... because I believe that examples will be made out of some of us in order to dissuade the rest from trying. That's what i have been trying to do, i get quite a few PM's from people who know the truth but wont say so on these boards due to the amount of flak they get from those who dont ( inc one or two V well known CAg'ers who post on these threads all the time!!!!!)

     

    Difficult... because no-one wants to be one of those people and end up with additional pressures on the back of those they already have. as i have stated before, what i do is NOT for newbies !!!!!!!!!!

     

    :cool:

     

    ...

  5. I'll tell you what. I'll let you get on with the miracle karma for debts, this elusive "strategy" that is going to be the panacea for all - and I will get on with helping people find real solutions to real debt problems. My strategy has worked - I am debt-free- and I haven't seen anything in this thread or anything in recent judgments to change my modus operandi. DCAs are still bullying liars and conmen and agreements which are non -existent or not properly executed are still unenforceable. Plus ca change, plus la meme chose.

     

     

    Pinky, when you say you are debt free, do you mean this:

     

    I Pinky had any or all of the following : -Credit Card(s), Personal Loan(s) , Mortgage(s), HP Finance and other debtor/creditor based loans etc, which due to a change(s) in my personal circumstance i was unable to, or due to information i subsequently found out about CCA stuff & other info, decided/choose not to pay.

     

    Then OC's started to try and reclaim those "monies" from me using various legal& illegal methods but due to my endeavors & strategies those debt have now been cleared & /or paid back a lesser amount in F&F settlement , in some way. So that all the account(s) previously held would under UKGAAP accounting rules be demonstrated to have zero balances. This is the understanding of both Pinky & all/any OC(s) in question

    and

    Subsequently, ****** DCA’s were passed some/all of my “accounts” and they attempted to extract using various legal& illegal methods, money out of me , however due to my endeavors & strategies those debt(s) have now been cleared in some way so that under UKGAAP accounting rules, all the DCA(s) in question regard those accounts are now also at zero balance. This is the understanding of both Pinky & all/any DCA(s) in question.

     

    -Pinky, Is this you?

  6. The MOJ' D&B credit report also says it was "incorporated for business" in the year 1600! (It's not a typo, that's 410 years ago)

     

     

     

    Why is John Harris not in a cell then? Take a look at the TPUC site.

     

    www.tpuc.org | News for positive people

     

     

    shinobi101 , dont go around bringing extra info/ facts to research/discuss on this thread, you will get hammered! lol

  7. Sarnie. At last someone tells us what's really going on. The peeps who dismiss it are the ones who believe everything they see on tv and read in the newspapers. Try researching it for yourselves, then come back and say it's not true.

     

    It's typical human nature to dissmiss anything you don't understand as being rubbish and best to ignore it. .

     

    Sarnie/Fuzzybobble, Re Above & Sarnie's post, that is all i ever get on this here, most just dismiss or try and make it out to be a big joke 'cos they just wont'/can't understand and they certainly wont do any research! they are very quick to post, never bothering to spend time to do their own research. If they did they would be SHOCKED as i was 18 months ago when i started to get into all of this. all i can say is that my methods work for me!

  8. Err, why would D & B carry a greater weight than Companies House? Cos it all to to do with the UCC ( uniform Commercial Code ) which is worldwide, and the UC number

     

    In any case 'business' can be carried out by sole traders, partnerships, charities and various other legal entities apart from companies. True, but all entities have to be registered, sole traders etc do not

     

    And as for 'honour' ... that is a long forgotten concept and, I would contend, no longer relevant. you might believe that , but the Courts don;t

     

     

    I'm not quite sure where all this is heading but I'll go along for the ride.:), OK but hows about doing some research then?

     

    Check out how many Business Entities have CCJ's against them, banks fair enough but if the rest were really Local Authorities/gov depts etc why would they have CCJ;s ?

     

    The Hall of Shame

     

    Hall of Shame | www.tpuc.org

  9. don't know how serious nuke em is about his diatribe re Admiralty Law, but he's a bit confused. I know I shouldn't encourage him by commenting, and I know we'll probably all regret this,[of course you will , you are talking hippo-speak] but to put the few minds to rest that might actually believe he might be right and that we shouldn't show our palms on court lest the Admiral, sorry Judge be offended by there dirty state, I thought I'd add some facts,-& the Proof of your Claim is ???? although its a shame to let the truth get in the way of a good yarn.

     

    Admiralty Law also covers things on land that are maritime related. Its also not: " not the law of the sea, ie admiralty." Law of the Sea is different, dealing with international aspects of the sea and coastal waters such as navigation and rights of passage and territorial boundaries between countries. Admiralty Law goes back way more than 1000 years and is a mix of private domestic, and international law concerning matters of ship borne trade. Its been developed from Roman law and been heavily influenced by other organised legal methods from the Mediterranean area, and from Islamic law (Muslims have had a well developed legal system for at least as long as the oldest European system), and from Northern European countries, all of whom had extensive maritime trade. It therefore did not originate in England, or Great Britain. Furthermore it is a civil commercial law, not military law as your analogy of the officer and deck hand suggests, although there were aspects of personal conduct and pay introduced by Islamic Law - Facinating history lesson, but irrelavent

     

    Far from County Courts operating Admiralty Law, the latter is now exercised from the High Court in London, all other Admiralty Courts having been closed some time ago. and the proof of your Claim is ??/?

    As i said the county courts were operating under Admiralty "law" NOT that they were Admiralty Courts ! a big difference,

     

    Oh, and as for all County Courts being "private-for profit companies doing business as trading names of the MOJ".... nonsense. Have a look at Companies House, no where will you find any Court registered as a Limited Company, not on their stationery will you see the words Ltd. No Directors will be mentioned, and there isn't any registration number. And the MOJ isn't mentioned along the lines as "Ministry of Justice Trading As Northampton County Court" or similar. - Is that all you have as "proof" ? Companies House?, Tut Tut, You've clearly done no research

     

    Best lay off the DVD of "Master and Commander " NUke Em, and if any Cagger has a screen name of "Hardy"... best keep well clear

     

     

    Hefty - i think you need to get out of your zoo cage once in a while,the exercise will do you good.!

     

    Of course you wont find them under Companies House 'cos they are not a Limited or Public Liability Company, doh , However if you look in Dun & Bradstreet for example, you will find under D_U_N_S number 22-549-8526 you see the entry:-

     

    Ministry of Justice

    Selbourne House

    54-60 Victoria Street

    London

    SW1E 6QE

     

    Line of BUSINESS ----- Government Department

     

    ( Note how i cleverly made the word Business big so you wouldnt miss it)

     

    It also states They are Trading as- Asylum Immigration Tribunal, Magistrates Courts, Public Trustee Office etc

     

    ONLY BUSINESSES have D & B numbers, whether they are a limited liability, public liability ( Plc), based in this Country & or anywhere in the world, or another type of business entity... BUT THEY ARE ALL for-profit businesses

     

    ALSO YOU WONT WANT TO BELIEVE THAT

    Alistair Darling is t/as the Labour Party !

     

     

    BR THE LABOUR PARTY

    Also Traded as DARLING,ALISTAIR, xxxxxxxx EDINBURGH, xxxxxxx , GB

     

    Or that the Department of Transport t/as Driver & Vehicle Licensing among many many others !

     

    Plus the United Kingdom is also Corporation, check it out !!!

    ( at d & B , NOT AT COMPANIES HOUSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

     

    Or that the M.O.D t/as the Bank for International Settlements ! ( BIS)

     

    Shocking!

    But it's all true!

     

     

    Whether you feel this is right or wrong is not relevant, but what is relevant is the fact that these businesses are very irresponsible with your money – so the question is – why are you still paying them?

     

    Company; an institution created to conduct business;

    Business; a commercial or industrial enterprise and the people who constitute it.

     

     

     

     

     

    plus

     

    Check out this link if you ever needed any more proof that the Court system is nothing more then a revenue generating business: Information About...

     

    If you are 'unsatisfied with the SERVICE you can complain to the CUSTOMER SERVICE UNIT

     

    BTW: When was the last time you were ordered into Asda to do business?

     

    This is their Home Page: Her Majesty's Courts Service - Home Have a good look at 'Justice' in this coporate country!

     

     

     

     

    EVERYTHING IS BUSINESSS & CORPORATE , Everything!, get used to it, research it yourself before you type the posts !, it makes you look silly!

     

    Its all about the money

     

    Master- OUT! :p

  10. This forum is about helping others who are having financial /legal problems

    and often don't know where to turn.

    It is not about members point scoring and insulting each other. What lessons does that pass on- to newcomers especially? lessons? well try ego & status, i guess. My methods/remedies work for me, that's all i can atest to

     

    Most of us have been harassed by DCAs or OCs which is why we ended up here in the first place. Nuke em some of your letter has merit and could be of help to those who are still afraid to fob off DCAs. But to include repealed legislation and doubtful tactics does not exhibit the mark of professionalism that would deter many DCAs-would it? I am pleased for you in situations where it has worked, but I don't feel it would put

    many DCAs off.

     

    What they don't like, from my experience, is having their breaches of the Law pointed out to them and threats of reporting them for those breaches should they contact again. Which is pertly what some of the others on this thread are trying to suggest.

     

    Unfortunately, the thread has now degenerated to a position where it seems unlikely that it can get back on track unless the protagonists can agree to differ perhaps on Nuke ems original post and try and cobble out

    a letter that comes closer to satisfying both sides.

     

     

     

    The other process they def don't like is the "commercial injury" route against them, which involves gaining estopple & the placing of a commercial lien against them. i will have the first of my liens against them maturing with a month. Then i become the creditor with my superior ( ie higher value) claim!

    .....Assuming of course that i wanted to take it into the Public ie a court which i will not be doing, it will all be kept in the Private...which is where it is now

     

     

    also check this out

     

    http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/242278-recd-summons-court-its.html#post2702036

     

    and this one

     

    http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/175668-how-credit-cards-bank-16.html#post2737419

  11. Northampton CCBC & all County Courts are private-for profit companies doing business as trading names of the MOJ.These defacto "courts" operate under admiralty law where under the honour & dishonor system, there is only one (honourable) way to plead when charged , that is to admit or plead "guilty", anything else is considered dishonourable.

    i thought this was the ordinary court just for bulk cases ,where does the admiralty come into it or is this a seperate division unbeknown to us ordinary folk ? one where its catch all and operates different from our local courts or can you write t them without admittance and ask for a refferal to a local court,would the local court then operate under admiralty law ?

     

    It is a fast track operation to get as much out of you as possible , in the quickest , most efficient time . just as any Business would do.

     

    All courts whether County, Magistrates or any court that does not have an jury operates as a defacto court under admiralty law, and its all about Honour & Dishonour.

    You can not plead not guilty/deny the charge in an Admiralty Court, if you do you are in dishonour , sols know this but they earn their money by dealing with controversy, so that is why they cause them many times by telling their "client" to plead NG/deny the charge. The correct way to plead under admiralty is Guilty TO THE FACTS, that way you stay in honour. You only plead guilty to the facts. therefore the facts must be established.

    Of course as you now know that these defacto courts are nothing but a private for profit operation, you might not want to CONTRACT with them in the first place, see my post here

     

    http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/175668-how-credit-cards-bank-16.html#post2737419

     

    Courts that have a jury are courts dejour and operate under Common law ( which are much better for the people, that's why Blair wanted to do away with them as much as possible when he was PM)

  12. Ive not paid two of my cards since the latter end of 2006 to begining 2007........Ive had the charges and ppi back and goaded them,........but they still wont take me to court??????

     

    I feel unloved

     

    Dave

     

     

     

    Notice of Unloved

     

    You, Davefirewalker are hereby Noticed that you are now unloved!

     

     

    By The System!

     

    If you fail to respond to this Notice within 7 days, you will be summoned to appear at the private for profit "Unloved Court" where we will administer justice by getting you to give us your money. Trickery abound!

  13. Just curious nuke em, have you successfully rebutted any "invitations" from the MOJ yet?

     

    I will listen to those podcasts in full, but do you use the statutory declaration of true name, or something else?

     

     

    listen to them, you will learn a lot,

    Yes i have rebutted a few invitations from "courts" ( which is only the MOJ are doing business as... xxxx Court )

     

    i have 2 methods that seem to work, One is simply to put a sticker over the address on the envelope rec'd saying

     

    No Contract

    Return to sender

     

    and pop it back into the post box

     

    after all a Summons is an offer to contract with a legal fiction ie not a human. if you answer their offer to contract you create the joinder they need between the you human and your legal fiction (name). A summons can only be served on a legal fiction not a human. A subpeona is used for a human

     

    So when they write to you as JOHN DOE all in caps, they are addressing the legal fiction. same if they address you as Mr, Mrs , Miss ?????, the fact they are using a title also means they are addressing the legal fiction

     

    the second method is to is make the Judge/Magistrate part of the litigation process, whereby as they are now part of the process you are entitlted to ask for the Justice's roll number, their oath of office etc

     

    listen to the audio in this link, Maurice explains it very well, although from the angle of the CSA ( another massive fraud) , his given court examples are a good shining light to more knowledge.

     

    He also explains the power in affidavits !, well worth a listen

     

    You will learn for example that the private for profit mag courts take 8% as "commission" on all liability & judgement "orders" , so it not really hard to see who benefits in this on-going [problem]

     

    Lawful Rebellion | Dead Beat Dad’s Says Affidavits Work

     

    listen to the audio !|

     

     

    ps do not use statutory declaration of true name, you are entering back into their world!, use affidavits!

  14. THe first para came from another thread from last year.....

     

    @legalpickle:

     

    "Whilst I sympathize with all who get CCJ's from Northampton CCBC - and indeed any court - I disagree that the CCBC is in any way biased to Claimants."-

     

    Incorrect, Northampton CCBC & all County Courts are private-for profit companies doing business as trading names of the MOJ.These defacto "courts" operate under admiralty law where under the honour & dishonor system, there is only one (honourable) way to plead when charged , that is to admit or plead "guilty", anything else is considered dishonourable.

     

    A Little history....

    Under Admiralty law, ( Think olden times & ships here, because nothing has changed) the Claimant is considered to be the "officer" and the defendant is the party considered to be the lowly "rating" upon whom a "charge" has been bought. NOW going back to olden times, when a Officer bought a charge against a rating on a ship, it was ( and still is) presumed that an "Officer" does not lie, therefore the rating ( defendant) MUST be guilty, therefore one must plead Guilty! in an Admiralty Court. There is no other pleading in a CC or a Magistrate Court that will keep you in honour for that matter, they all operate under the same Admiralty Law.

     

    So, regardless of what you think you know or have been told by a Lawyer (remember Lawyers need to work in or cause the controversy, otherwise they don’t work & don’t get paid. Hence they will often tell you to plead Not Guilty, as it them who quite often enters this plea knowing the Controversy it will cause, even if were never taught at law school the historical reasons behind it)

     

    So,defacto courts are biased for the Claimants,( Officers), they were set up that way. However just because we should plead guilty (or admit) doesn't mean we can’t have our day or win, how so?

     

    To stay in honour, a defendant should always plead Guilty, but Guilty to the facts!

     

    So, Mr. Nuke em, the Claimant ( Mr. bad bank Credit card Co) states that you owe them 3000 pounds. Do you admit or deny the claim?

    I write back, "I conditionally accept that I owe the alleged debt subject to the following proofs of claim.. and then i list the proofs required, something like this

    1. A legally enforceable original credit agreement signed in blue ink by the Authorised Representative for Nuke em.

    2. Verification of the balance due in the form of a true bill

    3. Validation of mr Bad Bank CC Co’s valuable consideration pertaining to the alleged debt, in the form of the actual accounting of its losses.

    4. Proof of claim that any and all previous credit agreements were not vitiated when mr Bad Bank CC Co failed to provide validation and verification of the alleged debt, or a legally enforceable credit agreement, pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and the House of Lords ruling in the case of Wilson v First County Trust Ltd - [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul)

    5. Proof of claim that mr Bad Bank CC Co is not in multiple breach of the Office of Fair Trading’s Final Guidance on Unfair Business Practices July 2003 (updated December 2006)

     

    and so on ...if req'd

    But the point is this,i have stayed in Honour, i have given (conditional) acceptance subject to proof of their claim. There are many other facets to this as well, for example if you are not ( choosing to ) contract with a private for profit Court in the first place. Remember a summons is really only offer to Contract...

    It helps if you look at a County Court & a "Judge", who is really just an administrator of the Company, (Bless their little egos, most of the lower level judges do not know they work for a private for profit Corporation, they think they work for the State) as a Company looking to offer you benefits/services

    So, do you want their benefits/service?, actually I would imagine most of the time, no you don’t, so you dont have to enter into a Contract with them, & dont get them involved with your private commercial affairs.

    So, a DCA says you owe them 3000 pounds, forgetting for a mo all the issues about Valid CCA, transfer of alleged debt from OC etc, what benefits/services to you are you going to get out of going to a private for profit Court? -where the only honourable way is to plead guilty? -err None, Not if you are the defendant!

     

    So here are my Golden Rules

    Firstly, I now don’t go to court, ( Unless I am the Plaintiff) I don’t enter into Contract with them, I reserve all my rights and I wave their benefit/privileges - I do this because I know what I am doing & yes it was scary the first time I decided not to Contract with a private for profit court. Now it's no problem. It’s only fear & your conditioning, which is part of their game

    Secondly ( Or Firstly if you agree to enter a contract with a private for profit Court), I would plead Guilty to the Facts, subject to proof(s) of the claim.i have done this many times in the past,i have not had a judgment entered against me nor to I have any CCJ's

     

    & Thirdly, although I am not legally trained, I would not use a lawyer in a defacto Court, I would not want to have the STANDING of an imbecilic Child in a Courtroom (which is what you are in Admiralty when you have a lawyer enter a plea on your? behalf. I am a sovereign man and I do everything under my own unlimited commercial liability. All lawyers, Judges, officers,etc have limited liability due to to the commercial nature of their employment/work, put simply my unlimited liability our ranks their limited liability. In a battle of the BONDS I win always! ( all Judges , Lawyers etc have to be BONDED, they are bonded in the private sector through commercial companies who issue these bonds upon payment), they all have a limit, although the limit varies from Judge to Judge, Law firm to law firm, lawyer to lawyer). Most Companies who issue these bonds will only allow 1 claim against that bond, after a claim then the bond won’t be renewed, or will get canceled on the spot (think of car insurance, not quite the same I know, I realize you can have multiple claims but a Judge for example can't..., you have 1 claim, then no one will insure you, then you can’t drive on the roads). No Bond = No Employment. A Judge, Lawyer, Law Firm without a Commercial Liability Policy (bond) in place cannot operate on the SEA of Commerce. & i have fun with BONDS!

     

    There is much more to all of this, it’s all out there in plain view, research is required....

     

    BTW, Courts with juries ( Court DeJour) operate under Common Law, i.e. the law of the Land & not the law of the sea, ie admiralty.

     

     

    "The ultimate ignorance is the rejection of something you know nothing about and refuse to investigate"

×
×
  • Create New...