Supreme Court is contacted to force a public official (re: attorney by way of oath) to either show proof of claim as per the CR(tm) or act in accordance with their public office and correct a mistake because that is the PUBLIC DEBT OBLIGATION for the exercise of the use of the PUBLIC ESTATE because one the surrender occurs via the CR(tm), the instrument takes effect according to its purport and tenor, which means the instrument tender to the curt via the Verification of Complaint is for negotiation with the court as conservator of the peace for the peace and the public official is now usufructuary;
The "public official" subrogates the claims and defenses of the State by way of bond of surety and oath of office with the State in order the State be able to "bring claim" to the "conservators of the peace" in the NAME of the STATE (ie: AS IF they we "STATE OF") because "the occupier is regarded as administrator and usufruct over the public estates" and the first duty is the "restoration of public order and safety"
If one is going to act AS IF one is cloaked with the authority of the State; then one is BOUND with the burdens of such as administrator and usufructuary by oath of office and bond of surety for public office and if those items are missing, then that "public official" has full personal liability for such.
We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.
If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.
the supreme court is not used to compel the attorney, it is used to reprimand and punish them.