Now we must understand redemption and its process after u have done the steps and when you enter there court do not swear in and when the Judge start adressing you. "Sir. are you the defendant?" something like that or "What's your name? Okay? You say "Well sir, what is your name? Question number 1. We our trying to write an agreement. And the first thing you need in
an agreement is the name of the second party. So the first thing you do is get the name so the record is set there. going on this principle of
agreements -- the third type -- if somebody fails to respond in protest, you have in essence got a
default agreement with them. So the first thing he gets is the name. Now if the judge won't give his
name, then go ahead anyway with question number two because if somebody fails to
respond or is standing mute it literally means your in control and they're waving their rights. Question number 2: "Do you have a claim against me?" Now if the judge comes back and says
anything then you've got to adapt to what's going on.. But basically the judge is never going to
admit that he has a claim because then he becomes the prosecuting party and he doesn't want to be
in that position. So he'll either stand mute or he will decline to answer the question or most likely
he may come back and say "well this doesn't involve me"... or he's going to try to do a demur to
what's going on. So the second issue is: "Do you have a claim against me?" Getting no response or a
non-responsive response, he goes on to question number 3. "Do you know anyone who does have
a claim against me?" Now, he didn't say any "person" or "anybody that" -- it's anyone "who" has a claim against me. He is talking about a non-fiction, living human. Which is the difference between common law and the statutory world. In the statutory world, they're dealing entirely with fictions
and corporate entities. So what he's doing is he's living and breathing the real world here. he's not pleading into a fiction or a legislative venue which is the major legislative premise. Okay? Anyone who has a claim against me. Now if he gets a "No" answer or a non-responsive answer then he goes on. 1st question: "What is your name?" - 2nd question "Do you have a claim against me?" - Third
question - "Do you know anyone who does have a claim against me?" - NOW 4th position is a
statement: "I request the order of the court be released unto me immediately." Now, let me explain
what "order" is. These people are all acting under the major premise of a legislative venue. They MUST have delegation of orders that give them any authority to do anything they're doing. And obviously, once he's gone through the first 3 questions: The name, the claim, know anyone who has a claim. If
there's a non-response then nobody has come forward with a claim against the one asking the questions. so when your speaking of the "Order", that;s referring to a delegation of authority then? it is whatever anybody's attempting to move on. Okay? Now here's where your
commercial background comes in. Okay? The United States bifurcated military. The sale, the
motivating drive behind the military to protect. And in order to protect it must have funds to pay the
protectors. So it operates as a commercial enterprise. And it taxes commercial commerce to exact
the funds to sustain itself. The commercial enterprise is private banking behind that "democracy",
but the office of the Secretary of the Treasury runs the commercial aspects of the "democracy".
Consequently, each and every act and action of that military government has a corresponding
parallel on it's commercial side. In other words, if a security issues, i.e., a complaint, an
information, a warrent, a citation, an invoice, it's all got commercial value to it, right? OK, so when they issue a citation or an indictment, somebody's already established a
commercial value on that instrument. And although there might be a set of papers in the
administrative process, like the court documents, we know, and reason, logic and common sense
tells you -- there's also a banking or a commercial set of documents in a series of accounts
paralleling it. So that if an indictment goes out, let's say on tax evasion, there's got to be an appraisal
that says that the appraised value of this indictment is $100,000.00 . So, in the Treasury, whenever
an indictment goes out on that basis, they now claim an assett by way of the security instrument
of $100,000.00 . And then there is a corresponding side to the ledger sheet which is an accounts receivable of $100,000.00 to back up the assett. DOUBLE ENTRY BOOKKEEPING, right?
Now the problem is... if you don't address the commercial aspects of the indictment, then they've
got an assett on their books which remains on their books, and if it's not adjudicated then they've
got accounts receivable that;s aging. And if you come back and dishonor the assett --
the indictment -- then, in essence their books are out of whack because there's a dispute as to the
assett, but there's still an accounts receivable of $100,000.00 that they're looking for. So the books
are out of whack. suggesting that there is a parallel commercial world and universe in bookkeeping that
parallels the legal judicial bookkeeping. In other
words, what he is saying is "If we have no firsthand witnesses or claimants present -- what the hell
are you guys operating on? Give me your marching orders". That's what he's saying. "I'm
demanding to see the order of the court." Will finished part 2 tomorrow I am so tired
