next question for david merrill

[mikah2k]

Imported from this link

Important! You signed it. The process goes like this; you are given notice and maybe or maybe not the administrator wrote, Refused to Sign on the signature line. This is evidence you were given the notice and acquiesced to the terms of the contract.

If the Administrator writes "Refused to Sign" and such writing is evidence that whomever was given the notice and acquiesced to the terms of the contract,

Q1 Then does the same reasoning (notice and acquiescence) apply for mikah2k's appointment as agent of JOE DOE, if my agent, Fred, were to serve an unsigned power of attorney (appointing mikah2k as agent for JOE DOE the principal) on JOE DOE and JOE DOE refuses to sign it, so Fred writes the date and "Refused to sign" on the signature line, and Fred records Fred's affidavit of service and the power of attorney (containing "Refused to sign")?

Q2 And does the same reasoning (notice and acquiescence) apply if service of process is made on an agent of JOE DOE, call that agent Pam, and Pam refuses to sign?)

Q3 Does the same reasoning (notice and acquiescence) apply if the number of parties to be served is greater than one?

Q4 Could another union (contract/treaty) of the fifty "the state of __"s plus Washington,DC be created through notice and acquiescence?

Perfecting service or notice seems to be the crux of all matters. Thus you harp on Refusal for Cause, correct?

[Notorial dissent]

A lot depends on what the Privacy Act notice actually says, but the administrator putting "Refused to Sign" on the form is only them covering themselves so that at some point someone else can’t come back and say they didn’t present the form. It still doesn’t give them any other permission to do anything. No one has “acquiesced” to anything there, in fact, not having it signed might severely limit some of the things they could do.

To answer your numeric questions in order, No, No, No, and No.

An unsigned Power of Attorney is an unsigned Power of Attorney, and as such is worthless. If the principal didn’t sign it, it has no validity what so ever. Power of Attorney can only be created and signed by the person granting it.

Above and beyond this, you cannot serve a Power of Attorney, this is not a reality.

Q4 would requires a positive legislative action from both parties, the one side has to request union, and Congress would have to approve the union.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by mikah2k

Imported from this link


If the Administrator writes "Refused to Sign" and such writing is evidence that whomever was given the notice and acquiesced to the terms of the contract,

Q1 Then does the same reasoning (notice and acquiescence) apply for mikah2k's appointment as agent of JOE DOE, if my agent, Fred, were to serve an unsigned power of attorney (appointing mikah2k as agent for JOE DOE the principal) on JOE DOE and JOE DOE refuses to sign it, so Fred writes the date and "Refused to sign" on the signature line, and Fred records Fred's affidavit of service and the power of attorney (containing "Refused to sign")?

Q2 And does the same reasoning (notice and acquiescence) apply if service of process is made on an agent of JOE DOE, call that agent Pam, and Pam refuses to sign?)

Q3 Does the same reasoning (notice and acquiescence) apply if the number of parties to be served is greater than one?

Q4 Could another union (contract/treaty) of the fifty "the state of __"s plus Washington,DC be created through notice and acquiescence?

Perfecting service or notice seems to be the crux of all matters. Thus you harp on Refusal for Cause, correct?

Since the courts operate in the executive and the liaison is provost marshal, the only party obligated to accept an appointment is Donald Burnham ENSENAT; the Chief of Protocol at the State Department.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/densenat-bio.html

Note that Condaleeza is the federal Provost Marshal. http://www.suijuris.net/forum/attach...g?d=1154817459 [Not the highlight in her academic history but the first sentence of the description of her post.]

So you have some good process but the only times the account will be adjusted correctly is if you appoint somebody obligated to accept the appointment - a responsible fiduciary of the trust.

Donald Burnham ENSENAT
Louisiana State Bar #05358
SSN 435-68-9318
DOB 2/4/46
2650 Virginia Avenue NW
city of Washington, District of Columbia. [20037-1935]

Similarly government employees refusing to accept Registered Mail in that capacity admit they are not government employees.




Regards,

David Merrill.

[mikah2k]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

So you have some good process but the only times the account will be adjusted correctly is if you appoint somebody obligated to accept the appointment - a responsible fiduciary of the trust.

David,
Q1 So a somebody obligated to accept the appointment is always available (able to be located and served with process)?

Q2 If Donald is served with an appointment, and Donald accepts, thereafter would the Principal (of the appointment) send/forward all data related to unsettled accounts (billing statements, etc.) for Donald to handle and adjust?


Notorial dissent,
Thank you for responding. If your answers are correct, then that is the end of these matters.

[Notorial dissent]

Why would you think someone would be obligated to accept any kind of appointment, particularly one of this type?

It doesn't happen.

There is no legal or moral obligation for anyone to ever accept any kind of appointment, and they cannot be forced to accept it.

In the second place, as a government official, any governmental official, they are barred by law from doing anything of the sort.

You could have just as much legal effect by appointing your dog Grand High PooBah and giving them your Power of Attorney, which is to say absolutley none.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by mikah2k

David,
Q1 So a somebody obligated to accept the appointment is always available (able to be located and served with process)?

Yes.

Q2 If Donald is served with an appointment, and Donald accepts, thereafter would the Principal (of the appointment) send/forward all data related to unsettled accounts (billing statements, etc.) for Donald to handle and adjust?

I suppose that is a good way to say Donald is responsible to correct the record.


Notorial dissent,
Thank you for responding. If your answers are correct, then that is the end of these matters.

Like I said; I think he is basically correct but is not considering that there is a liaison in the State Department for the Executive (basically the general Provost Marshal).



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S.

There is no legal or moral obligation for anyone to ever accept any kind of appointment, and they cannot be forced to accept it.

Except people who are in government; a/k/a US citizens. If you are carrying a government-issued ID (including driver license) then you are a government employee. Consider this: If you are hanging around the Honeywell or Hewlett Packard plant you are expected to be wearing a badge issued by that corporation. The United States has been a municipal corporation since 1871.

If you direct the appointment to somebody whose job it is to do that and they acquiesce, they have accepted the appointment unless they of course resign.

P.P.S.

Someone said in a PM an interesting comment about this thread. It was the obligation is done through oath and bond. That is what holds the fiduciary responsibility intact. All government employees are obligated fiduciary responsible for the trust - the TRUSTEE.

[David Merrill]

The oath is the bond. The bond is registered at the county clerk and recorder except where the office extends over all counties like the attorney general. [But notice that the DAs have to file statewide too. They operate in districts, not counties.]

Section 9. Oaths - where filed. Officers of the executive department and judges of the supreme and district courts, and district attorneys, shall file their oaths of office with the secretary of state; every other officer shall file his oath of office with the county clerk of the county wherein he shall have been elected.

Section 10. Refusal to qualify - vacancy. If any person elected or appointed to any office shall refuse or neglect to qualify therein within the time prescribed by law, such office shall be deemed vacant.

All the DAs in the State of Colorado are operating vacant offices because the principle failed to qualify the office of Attorney General within thirty (30) days:

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...9;_AG_oath.jpg

He operates without bonding. That means for most of the masses with driver licenses and Social Security Numbers etc. they have agreed to arbitration when going into the contract assumpsit - they have unwittingly agreed that John Suthers will be arbitrating like they hired him. Since they are bonded government employees too (birth certificates hypothecated upon their futures) that makes sense as an irrecusable obligation. By being a citizen of the US/federal employee you already agree to a certain fiduciary responsibility to uphold productivity of the trust according to the rules of the general public trust formed under Article VI of the federal Constitution.



Regards,

David Merrill.

P.S. The most important aspect of all this is that the struggle is over the county clerk and recorder, the clerk of the common law. I am talking with a suitor having trouble in California with the county clerk now. That is where the struggle over the common law is happening folks. If you don't have time just skip around on this audio file:

http://www.wegous.com/rod/tape/OhioS...onferenceA.wav

[mikah2k]

Now, for trust renderings:

Q1 Can an revocable trust be rendered irrevocable?

Q2 Can an irrevocable trust be rendered revocable?

[Notorial dissent]

1. Yes, depending on the circumstances and the way the trust is structured. If the trust survives the trustor, then it essentialy becomes irrevocable.

2. No, that is why they are called irrevocable.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by mikah2k

Now, for trust renderings:

Q1 Can an revocable trust be rendered irrevocable?

Q2 Can an irrevocable trust be rendered revocable?

I doubt that Notorial Dissent is correct based on his answers to the last post about appointment.

At the moment I am learning about Resulting Trusts. That is fascinating right there. I think a poster here is probably going to share some on that...

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/citize...powerful.html?


Regards,

David Merrill.