Treating the FBI like a commercial presenter is technically correct. All "law enforcement" can be traced to "Division of Enforcement" for the "Department of Revenue" in one form or another. For instance the FBI is easily proven under the US Attorney General and one can find this a registered attorney. Therefore agent of a foreign principal. The Secret Service is Treasury and that is a foreign principal too.
Therefore a simple refusal for cause is technically adaquate in theory. That works as a simple order to show cause (why you are subject to debt action in assumpsit of the national debt [1933]). When the other party of the contract fails to show cause you simply utilize whatever court the FBI proceeds in for the record (your proof of service).
You seem to imply that some form of explanation (affidavit) will be in order. Appearance cures all defects in jurisdiction. You have to be very careful and understand the seriousness to which War and Emergency Powers and bankruptcy proceedings are taken with the central bankers. So it is a gamble.
1) simply refuse for cause timely and get evidence into a repository in the US Courthouse or
2) refuse for cause with an explanation for the US Attorney which may be construed as an appearance.
That is the function of Rule E(8). One takes note of the 2" Admiralty fringes and appears restricted if you are going to open your mouth. That way the appearance is restricted to the face of any contract for which notice has been properly formed. However you were taught about the 1933 Bankers' Holiday in high school civics so you may get mowed just the same.
Quote:
(8) Restricted Appearance.
An appearance to defend against an admiralty and maritime claim with respect to which there has issued process in rem, or process of attachment and garnishment, may be expressly restricted to the defense of such claim, and in that event is not an appearance for the purposes of any other claim with respect to which such process is not available or has not been served.
|
Cutting to the quick; so many people marvel at the Patriot Act and Patriot Act II without reading it. It extends into nothing unlawful. First understand the extent of territorial jurisdiction of the United States. Then you are left only with extraterritorial jurisdiction if you are out in the states. So no need to read what applies to the citizens of the United States.
I am not saying this will work. I am telling you that in the current macroeconomic landscape it is the only proper way to handle a summons from the FBI unless you are willing to be subject to their non-judicial court. You have a court too. Order to show cause. Their attorneys will understand that. But how far will they go with their bluff. They know that within 48 hours in concrete boxes most folks will be happy to submit to their jurisdiction.
Regards,
David Merrill.