Reply – Re: CR(tm) "process"
Your Name
Subject
Message
or Cancel
In Reply To
Re: CR(tm) "process"
— by iamsomedude iamsomedude
Which means, you can put into the CR(tm) that the plaintiff's refusal to answer or provide proof of claim shall be considered "judgment by confession" and that you are given right to sign on behalf of the plaintiff by way of accommodation for all legal proceedings/procedures with respect to this matter to facilitate settlement.

Do you all remember Treas. Reg. ยง 1.674(b) mentioned in the Articles: Operation of a Claim in a Nutshell AND Stopping the Insanity?

26 CFR 1.674(b)-1 - Excepted powers exercisable by any person.

(a) Paragraph (b) (1) through (8) of this section sets forth a number of powers which may be exercisable by any person without causing the grantor to be treated as an owner of a trust under section 674(a).Further, with the exception of powers described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, it is immaterial whether these powers are held in the capacity of trustee. It makes no difference under section 674(b) that the person holding the power is the grantor, or a related or subordinate party (with the qualifications noted in paragraph (b) (1) and (3) of this section).


Once the CR(tm) "process" is completed and you have your "judgment by confession," you also now have ACCOMMODATION rights to sign on behalf of the plaintiff in the matter to administrate the resulting trust according to how you constructed the CR(tm) without being treated as the "owner" in order the beneficiaries (ie: nakd owner and usufructuary) receive their "benefits":

IE: You, thru the NAME, receive "acquittanace and discharge from further obligation" and the United States Treasury would receive the WORKS: in this case, all the USUFRUCTUARY DUTIES the plaintiff is holding from the exercise of the right of usufruct because failure to provide proof of claim = acceptance of duty as usufructuary: the claim itself is the exercise of the right to profit off property and the failure to provide proof of claim demonstrates that one is not entitled to receive and usufructuary interest is created upon the mere EXERCISE of the right to profit off that property and by the mere "pernancy of the usufruct" (ie: taking or receiving), a VALID international contract and duty is created (ie: Article 43 and 55 of the Hague).

Therefore, the Plaintiff (ie: one initially bringing claim), without proof of claim, now has a DEBT OBLIGATION to the United States to:

1. To make an inventory of the things subject to the usufruct, in the presence of those having an interest in them. (ie: now plaintiff and/or counsel thereof MUST answer to the Court and/or Treasury with the claim: TIS THEIR DUTY NOW else they be in breach of contract and admitted to piracy)

2. To give security for their restitution; when the usufruct shall be at an end.

3. To take good care of the things subject to the usufruct.

4. To pay all taxes, and claims which arise while the thing is in his possession, as a ground-rent.

5. To keep the thing in repair at his own expense.


And seeing as how all these guys have oaths of office and/or "acts as an agent of a foreign principal required to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 or a lobbyist required to register under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 in connection with the representation of a foreign entity" (see fara.gov) and/or act AS IF they have the cloak of authority of the State, then this Public Debt Obligation can not be denied pursuant to the 14th Amendment and if these guys seek to deny this obligation, they engage in insurrection and rebellion against the United States and thus lose their immunities and protections.


~ Boris

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.