The Occult Matrix
Recently Updated as of 2017 - This Website is Completely AD FREE - Please Support Me Via Paypal, Promoted Products and Bitcoin, Etherium Or Ripple

Welcome Page About Me Announcements Personal Writings Knowledge Base News Articles
Video Links Digital Downloads Shop Store Suggested Reading Links Page Contact Me

Credo Mutwa Reptilians

 

January 4, 2003
CIVIL ACTION ON DIVERSITY

 

 

**        Happy New Year!  Just got back and got your messages.

R:        Yeah to you too!!  After I talked to R* and K* I remembered you were going to be gone. 

**        Right I talked to K* and he told me about getting the $2,500 from the insurance company as a result of him trying to buy a car…  nice way to start the year! 

R:        Yeah this is a sign that the evidence is starting to take hold.

**        Right.  I’m so frustrated that we still haven’t got the bankruptcy books.  I figured by the time I got back they would be here but they weren’t and we’re all so anxious to get the year started with vigor.

R:        Well maybe we can short circuit.   Even now we can look at the bankruptcy as the certification of the evidence. … Summing it up and certifying it as the evidence of the case.  But the ultimate action I think, is the removal into the civil court as diversity of citizenship because we’ve been giving the rules of evidence real hard scrutiny.  Once you remove that into that form then you disqualify your oppositions witnesses.

**        Okay now you’re saying diversity of citizenship meaning that we’re not the citizen…

R:        No it just means that one party is diverse to the other.

**        Oh coming back from Wyo we watched some videos that Charlton Heston did on the bible and one of them was Genesis.   If you know what you’re listening for you’ll hear how they talk about when man is born of man or ego or born of God the spirit.    It was interesting because they brought out the division.

R:        The division?

**        Yeah!

R:        Yeah… okay.  Well diverse then.  See that’s where you get the zero balance.

**        Right they also brought out ‘ground zero’. 

R:        Yes and that’s what it is.  So they can’t get or reach that point in equity unless the parties agree.   You see what they’re doing is they’re coming out of the criminal side.  In other words the criminal side has to be addressed in the negative.  That’s why I’m sure that the bible has been written in versus or inverted…. Inside out!    That’s what inverse would be.   So when you address these things, now mind we have to invert them that way.

**        See it backwards?

R:        Well not exactly backwards… but inside out.   Because we’re coming from….  Well look at it like outsiders and insiders. 

**        Oh like when you were explaining to us before about the bag of groceries.

R:        Right and if you turn the bag inside out, now we’re inside and they’re out. 

**        Okay.  Yeah K* was telling me some of the notes he took from your conversation with him the other day about Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure…?

R:        Well some of that was but you see some of those were rules of evidence.   They were taken from those particular books.  The Federal Rules of Evidence were in there and there were only two rules that I referred to.   One was 501 and the other one was 601.

**        That was for removal of witness?  Section 32 thru 35?

R:        Ohmmm  lets see…   Was it 1332? 

**        I think what he told me was 32?  But he wanted me to ask you again because he didn’t have it recorded.

R:        Let me see here.  I think it was 1332, 1335 and 1441.  Those are having to do with the removals. 

**        Okay that’s what he said in his notes they were for removal of witness.   Now I’ve got an evidence code book would that be the same?

R:        Then just look up 501 and 601 in there.   Those are the federal rules that cover these removals.  Now I think its Title 28 section 1332.  See title 28 is the Civil Code and the Code of Federal Regulations but it’s civil and Title 18 is Criminal. 

**        Okay got it.  Now are we suppose to be trying to take this civil or make it criminal?

R:        We want to remove it into the federal forum which is civil.   You see by diversity of citizenship.  That is a civil action. 

**        A lot of my memory is still in a fog, but when I did my title 42 action it seems like I used 1331 saying I was a citizen that gave me the right to be able to bring this action….  Now I could be way off cause that was like 9 or 10 years ago.

R:        Well let me see if I can find it.  See I’m using 1441 but I’ll see what 1331 has to say. 

**        Seems like it says you’re a U.S. Citizen.

R:        Okay 1332 is diversity of citizenship, amount in controversy.  1331 is a federal question.  But you see on diversity of citizenship, if you take a look at the rule of evidence that applies to these diversity cases there which are discussed in the Federal Rule of Evidence 501 and 601 it has to do with the dead man act. 

**        The dead man act?…  humm

R:        The dead man acts are basically corporate life insurance policies.  In other words when they are referring to a dead man they’re referring to an execution.  See they use to refer to the state laws regarding evidence here as the Dead Man Acts. 

**        Okay.

R:        But you see they’re saying naw it doesn’t apply here, but it doesn’t apply generally.  They leave the door open for exceptions.  The exceptions are that it has to be brought by a person like you or I who is real.

**        Oh so a corporation couldn’t bring this kind of action.

R:        Everything that is working against us is coming out of equity.  You see in Equity Courts you can’t use or get an execution.   You have to have an agreement. 

**        Right and they’re using it as if everyone was real.

R:        Yeah and they’re using it and they’re assuming the evidence.  Well see those evidence rules when we move into that forum, now you see the evidence is determined by state law…  not federal.  In other words it’s direct.   When you look up the definition of slander.  To prosecute a tort claim you’re prosecuting slander and libel.   Okay so you have to have the evidence in there for slander before libel can be prosecuted. 

**        Oh when I did the transcripts before I spelled libel wrong.  I spelled it liable… thinking lie able.  (chuckling)  Guess there aren’t that many people reading them are spell bound.

R:        Yeah! Yeah! Yeah!…   so anyway you need to read the committee advisor notes on 501 and 601.  Because that then gives you the foundation of how the evidence is going to be determined.

**        Now will we be using this more in a federal court or will we be using this in a bankruptcy court?

R:        Well no you see the bankruptcy is basically just to sum up the evidence.  You may not even have to use it.   In other words I can see where they’re starting to run into trouble with the clerk and one thing and another with the filing fees…. And/or they’ll dismiss and close the case without anything being done.   Well you see the judge closing the case, all these people, they’re still devoid of any accountability because they’re assuming the probably cause and the evidence and they’re not coming up with their check with the security to secure the injured party. 

**        I think what we’re fighting is the position or the title.  Like you’ve been telling us that we have to address the person instead of the title to try to get to the conscience.

R:        Humhum… 

**        They can’t see us and we can’t see them.

R:        Yeah.  Well what I’m saying is when you landed in that civil forum, diversity of Citizenship.  One party is diverse of the other now.  Now we still might have to go through some extra steps here to be sure we’ve got the right things in there that identify one party being diverse to the other.  One of them is real and the other one is fiction.

**        An entity… yeah.

R:        Once you bring in the diversity action, now you see what you do is you disqualify their witnesses. 

**        Okay…  Is this something you have to do or does this make it automatic?

R:        They’re disqualified because they can’t assume the conclusion of law.

**        So you are displacing them with facts since they are only there by presumption?

R:        Right.  That’s why I say if we did have a bankruptcy action going, and the judge dismisses it or closes it or something, we just move everything there into the exhibit and the exhibit is annexed to the notice of removal.  In that exhibit it needs to show offer, acceptance, return, and dishonor

**        Okay.  So it doesn’t have to even be filed with the UCC to help produce evidence or strengthen it?

R:        You may want to use the UCC 11 but lets forget that for now.   So now you’ve got the evidence in the exhibit that is annexed to the removal notice.  At the same time then once this is in, based upon that exhibit you are now requesting immediate remedy--in other words immediate settlement.  Now you give them your request for what you want for settlement.  Right now they’ve got (7) seven days.  Because the 7 days is the difference between a fiscal and a calendar year. 

**        Oh okay.   I was thinking 5 because of the 360 versus calendar is 365 so I guess that would be 7 calendar days. 

R:        Yeah well see the 7 days… they use to have 5 and 3 and that kind of oscillated back and forth and some of the requirements in the older codes.  I could see they were having difficulty in what they were going to settle on. 

**        So we could safely say 7 calendar days that would make 5 business and the weekend. 

R:        Okay that’s what it is.  That would make the civil extend into the calendar year.  So now what that means is the corporation is the calendar and now they have the real principal to redeem their liabilities.  Once you move this in you have the evidence.  See if you just attach the evidence to a complaint, then they consider all the evidence and the complaint a negotiable instrument.

**        So you could basically just attach your evidence to the complaint and file it on the diversity and take it to the Federal Court?

R:        Well what you do is you just sum up everything, put it into your exhibit and make your notice of removal and annex the exhibit to the notice of removal and present it to the clerk of court for filing number removing those actions into the federal forum. 

**        So you would remove it from the bankruptcy court to the federal court?

R:        Sure!  Because even if the bankruptcy court or those other courts claim to be federal courts they don’t become that until they’re in the civil foundation.    That civil court is where the assessment is determined.  (any conclusions and determinations will be done in the civil court where you put your removal)

**        Okay!  The civil court is where the assessment is determined.

R:        Right there.  That’s a civil court you’re moving into because when you look through rules of evidence you’re going to see they name the District of Columbia is treated as a state.  The District of Columbia has a superior court under which these determinations will be made I think. 

**        Okay!  Also on your message you mentioned you were doing some other paperwork regarding some paperwork for people being threatened with jail for writing “bad checks” is that what this is?

R:        Well once this gets focused in your mind and you can do the removal, you see everything is instant at that point.  Everything is displaced as a matter of fact.  So you see anybody that is imprisoned is now eligible with the evidence for immediate release. 

**        Okay, lets say for example that you file this in bankruptcy and you have the offer and acceptance and return and the dishonor.  Now the bankruptcy court wants to throw it out.  Then you can file a removal and take it into Federal Court and ask for something almost like an exparte’? 

R:        Yeah!  Because if the judge dismisses or closes the bankruptcy case he’s subject to the finding of fact and conclusion of law.  Now he’s incompetent cause if he actually files the finding of fact and conclusion of law he has to find the fact that they don’t have an assessment and the attorney is practicing law without a license…. The guy that brought the claims against you.

**        Okay so you could basically just take your letters or all your correspondence and just call that to his attention.

R:        Yeah… and use them as exhibits.

**        See like with E* going through court on the Quiet Title and them doing the railroad job on her by not allowing her in court without paying her fee since she paid with a closed account.  She did send them the letter you assisted but I don’t recall what has taken place since then if anything.

R:        She needs to request they give her an acknowledgement of settlementIf they haven’t done that then she needs to tell them that she is going to bring a civil action by diversity of citizenship to provide the foundation to prosecute a tort claim against them.

**        Oh good that’s a good answer.    This will be good information for her.  I know she’s frustrated and anxious about doing the bankruptcy since we haven’t got the darn books yet.

R:        Because once you bring in the exhibit and you’ve done the removal, now you make another request.

**        Now she has not done anything with the bankruptcy.

R:        I know but I’m talking about when you take and sum this whole thing up.  All of her cases, she doesn’t need to go into bankruptcy to do it.  (bankruptcy and civil court are two different courts)

**        But how would she do a removal?  Removal of her case at the state level I guess, right?

R:        Just do a sum up, attach a notice of removal, put it into a clerk of the court and announce that you removed these actions for civil action on diversity of citizenship and…

**        Is there a form on that or do you make up a letter?

R:        You just make up a letter…  It would be like filing a complaint.  You’d want to state the jurisdiction, the code under the section which you’re making the removal, and that kind of thing.  It would be just like a summons and complaint, but it’s simple.  You don’t want to get it too wordy.  Then you’re just going to show the exhibits that are annexed to the Notice of Removal.  You just give it a Notice of Removal.   See because the complaints and the issues are IN the Exhibit

**        Now J* could do this also because they moved hers into a Circuit court.  She could do a Notice of Removal even though it’s in process…

R:        Yeah.

**        They’re coming at her criminally…

R:        Yes I know.  Well you take those too.   That’s what its for is to take those criminal actions in.  Why?  Because they don’t have a civil assessment.  They’re trying to charge a claim without an assessment and that’s a felony.  She can sum it up and put that statement in there if she wants.  Now I got a call from a lady who is being threatened by a rogue cop who is trying to get her to come down and confess to this, that, and the other.  Well I told her, “You go call 9 1 1 right away”.  She did.  The 911 operator told her, we can’t take the complaint here and keep the emergency phone line tied up but I’ll give you a case worker that can.  So that’s what she did.  She got the case worker going on it and she told the case worker that he made threats and nasty insinuations and what she wrote in her letter was:  I would never feel comfortable in your company.   Well I’ll read you the one little paragraph:  Your behavior has identified you as a rogue cop.  Your threats and nasty insulations indicate that you are not who you say you are.  Because of your nasty insinuations regarding what you were going to do to me, I would never feel comfortable in your company.   See when that kind of language got to the caseworker she took offense to that too.  Oh now it looks like a sexual predator on their hands.   Now that rogue cop is under investigation by the human services. 

**        Oh Good!  These damn cops have got way too much power. 

R:        See that’s what the 9 1 1 did.    She did a nice job on the letter.  Some of these letters they take every bit of information they have an put it all in there…  chuckling.

**        chuckling… yes I know.  Some of the patriots use to do that in their cases and the complaint would be like 50 pages long… 

R:        I think she was an attorney and she surrendered her bar card. 

**        Oh okay.  There are a lot of attorneys that are on the transcript list that study your concepts through the transcripts.   It’s exciting…  definitely turning the bag inside out if they are doing it for the purpose of wanting the truth.

R:        Yeah you see when these prosecutors look at all of this they can tell that the person is grappling and they come along and blind side them and then they don’t have anything left… they’ve totally given away all their strategy. 

**        You know when I send out the transcripts sometimes I do include letters for samples because I think it helps people understand the simplicity of your concepts and many of them have a very good understanding and then there are others, mostly coming in new, and they want the steps.  Just tell me how do I pay my credit card or how do I go buy a car or something like that.  They don’t want to know all the concepts and integrate them they just want you to tell them do this and then tell me the next step when I get there.   Some get discouraged because they are looking for the quick fix or an easy remedy because some people get out there and sell this as the way to pay off your mortgage or to pay off their credit cards and get out of debt.

R:        But you see even if you do, lets say don’t get yourself a ‘slam-dunk’ settlement with the removal and at the same time you do the removal you also put your request to them again.  You want to do that after the exhibit is in evidence by diversity of citizenship.  Because you see now you’re making a claim based upon a whole different set of circumstances.  You know the word Nisi… you know what that means?

**        Unless a better offer or something like that…

R:        Nisi Prius…  but that’s also the underlying word Jehovah.

**        Nisi is the underlying word of Jehovah?

R:        Yes!  Because Jehovah is one that means that is the name of the Lord.  What it really means is you didn’t know the name of the Lord the first time but see now the 2nd time his name is in evidence.   (Nisi=unless Prius=Prior.  They offer and then we respond with acceptance and return with a prior event=prepaid account)  So now you know the name of the Lord and now I’m requesting settlement because this is the name of the Lord who is doing it.   But you see it’s not the Lord who is doing it, it’s the attorney or the representative.

**        Okay so the attorney in fact or the representative that are doing it is because they didn’t know you were the land Lord?

R:        Right.  Well here’s the thing.  I’m talking about you being the …  Let me put it to you this way:  I had a guy call me up and when he comes on the line I ask, “Who is calling?” and he gives me kind of a flimsy name.  And I said, “What is your name please?” and I think he gave it to me.  And I said, “I’m Roger E*’s Authorized Representative what can I do for you?”  Well he starts mumbling some things.  He’s trying to formulate something cause he wasn’t quite prepared for this.  Then I said, “Well just a minute and I’ll look at Mr. E*’s list to see if your name is on it.”  He doesn’t know what I’m doing yet.  Then I come back and say, “Do you know anyone who Mr. E* knows personally that can vouch for you?”  (Refer to E* research on the word voucher) and he’s starting to stumble in his words.  I don’t remember what he was saying.  Then I said, “If you will give me your fax number I will fax to you the agreement for you to apply for the privilege to use this phone.  It’s only $400 each use.”    (laughter)  Boy I’ll tell you he was stumbling over his words and couldn’t wait to end the conversation…

**        Oh how fun!

R:        Usually they come on with sophisticated ones.  Usually when they ask about R* E* then I say do you have anyone who knows Mr. E* who can vouch for you…

**        Sometimes I’ve had them say to me, “Well she gave us this number for us to call.”   Lots of times I will ask, “Is she expecting your call?”  and they stumble around.

R:        Which ‘she’ are you referring to?

**        Well if they say is Barbara B* there?  Then I’ll ask who is calling and then they’ll start out with if I am Barbara etc. or sometimes they’ll give me some bill collector name from some alphabet company.  They don’t even use names of companies anymore they are all XYZ Services or ABC Systems… 

R:        Oh yeah.  See that’s good because that’s what they do to me then I ask them, “No name?  Sorry we don’t know who you are.”   Even if they do give you a name… you don’t know who that is.   You can’t see them.  You didn’t have anybody tell you they were going to call.

**        Okay…  that’s true. 

R:        I also tell them let me see if your name is on the list…  I have a list of people that he knows and will have to vouch for him otherwise I can’t give any information over the phone.  We don’t know who you are.

**        “We” don’t…  chuckling…  great.  I’ve been doing that because of my alias names, I feel like a crowd…

R:        humhum…  yeah ‘we’ tell them we’re speaking French…  wee

**        Oh guess what I got a nice letter from R* C*.  I sent J* a bunch of transcripts that she can send him to keep him involved with the information and keep his spirits up. 

R:        Good.  Well J* just fired some stuff in yesterday by mail a very short and sweet Notice of Removal, also along with the request for settlement.  Of course copies of this are going to the prosecutor, the public defender and one is going to the clerk of court for filing.   See it’s probably the public defender that’s got his investment portfolio in his hot little hands.  And of course now he’s being pushed to the wall that this is now going to be determined on diversity of citizenship and it disqualifies all of their presumptions.   See now they’re going to have to deal with the fact and the fact of the matter is that they don’t have an assessment. 

**        Yeah that’s going to expose them.

R:        Once you start reading those rules.  You’ll look at it and bear down real hard on the area of where it talks about disqualification of witness.  Because it gets a little difficult to grasp… that’s why I say it isn’t a reversal it’s an inside out.  Taking their name on the outside of the sack and you write yours on the inside.  Or vise-versa.  They’ve always been on the inside and we’ve been out now you just turn the sack inside out… inverse and now the roll is reversed. 

**        Yeah it’s like we’ve been working for the government instead of the government working for us.

R:        Humhum…

**        I was listening to some politician and he was talking about how Ronald Reagon used the term a lot about the government is too big and has too many people working to support the government instead of the government working for the people. 

R:        The other thing is J* used quite a few UCC 11’s.  Not on this initial one but from before.  Then one day she got a whole slew of checks from the Sec of State.  Some like for $120, $20, $150 and $40 etc

**        Really?  What were they for?… 

R:        She hasn’t figured out exactly what she got them for but I’m pretty sure that what happened is they just accumulated on her because she was giving them closed checks to file all this stuff and just kept on going.  We just kept firing the stuff in so that we could use the item immediately, we didn’t care what we got back from them. 

**        Humhum… okay!

R:        Well lo and behold she gets these checks so I think when it comes to the end of the billing cycle.  In that respect they had to write the check to a living principal.  In other words whenever a corporation, say for instance had to charge the check for electronic funds transfer, they have to make a corresponding check too.  That’s where the voucher goes so instead of the voucher going to the artificial people I think the Sec of State had to write it to her.   That’s the same thing that happened to K* with the insurance.

**        You know C* does a tremendous amount of shopping and she gets a lot of little checks for example if they don’t have a certain product in an order with several other items they’ll send her a check for that amount. 

R:        Yeah….

**        This could get the guys out of jail.  I got a nice letter also from M* and then of course I do talk to PJ.  They’re making headway.

R:        Yeah I talked to PJ this morning.  He’s on to it now and they’re probably going to accelerate now and probably not even use the bankruptcy.  They’re just going to bring the evidence in and remove the case, the action that’s been started against them. 

**        That’s great that there are several of them together to have a study buddy.

R:        Once they get that removed then of course they can request their remedy which is release immediately and return all their property because if they fail… but see you have to make that request after the evidence is brought to bear.  That’s why you need to bring in that exhibit.  The conditions that are in that exhibit that’s the remedy you’re going to ask for. 

**        Okay. 

R:        They dishonored you once and you tell them, “You dishonor me this time you will be dishonor in fact.” 

**        You know I keep getting this stuff from the Franchise Tax Board.  Now I’ve paid them twice with closed account checks.  Once as a summary of all the years for $41,303 and now they have sent me new statements (assessments) by the year.  Okay then I paid them separately and added that statement on it as a check rider telling them to Negotiate this item through the back office for settlement via the pass through account at the treasury window.    I also accepted all sides of the paperwork and on the back of the check I also put Pay to the Order of: their name and signed my name with gold ink.   Now I’m back from vacation with 7 letters from them threatening me with all these penalties etc. 

R:        Okay you take that dishonor, attach it to a draft and deposit it in the bank or else send it back to them and tell them you want the check or the voucher to prove the claim, otherwise they are in possession of contraband because the debt has been redeemed in the electronic transfer.  What they have is an interoffice delinquency and failing to bring the accruals up in the account and bring the remedy.  See probably they don’t consider themselves technically in dishonor because you have to request the remedy now after you have gotten this account this far. 

**        Okay because what they did is they broke it down and put each one by the year so with each year I sent them another check.   All these are, are form letters because they never really acknowledge anything you write to them.  Why can’t I just take this in and also do a removal?  Otherwise I’ll just be going back and forth and back and forth. 

R:        Well you can.  See these things never go away.  Not ever.

**        With the way the tax structure is set up and them having to put that redeemed tax money in the incinerator is not something I see them doing.

R:        Yeah well W* P* told me he had an acquaintance that had a case and the judgment was 42 years old and he moved on that and it was just as good as anything going on today or yesterday.

**        That would be like yours and you getting your property back and I’m sure there are plenty others that have that same goal in mind. 

R:        Humhum… that’s what we’re going to do, but you see I’ve got it summed up now with that action that they took on me up in my home county.  The states attorney has got it all under that judgment that was discharged.  See all I have to do now is challenge the judge and the states attorney on the discharge.   He charged me with the checks he wrote!  Because why?  Because the checks he writes are warrants.  They are state warrants.  He’s a States Attorney so when he writes a check he’s writing on the state or on behalf of the state.  Those are warrants.  So he confessed right in the damn pleading when he said he was charging me for writing a check or draft without an account.  And he was charging me under the statute a $2000 fine bla bla bla.  Go back and review this.  He’s charging me for writing a check without an account. 

**        Right!

R:        But I had an account—he doesn’t have an account!

**        Well you know what a lot of these guys are doing from these different banks.  They are starting to reverse the EFT numbers on the closed accounts they’re reversing the numbers.  I haven’t see it but someone got a check back and that is what is on the check.   They’re also claiming they can’t find the account. 

R:        That’s okay.  The other thing you might want to do is do what I did.  I also had a bank that grabbed $2600 out of my account.   I knew they were going to do it and I kind of wanted to prosecute it here cause it’s close.   That’s the account I use for my open account.  They did this for a judgment coming from a credit card. 

**        Okay!

R:        When they come with the judgment I simple wrote and told them that this property is my personal property, it’s exempt from levy and not to honor the claim.  Well the bank went ahead and did it.  So when she did it then right away I wrote a check on my closed account which is another bank and I sent it in for the same amount see because I took her letter telling me that they had taken it and I attached it to that check because now that’s the offset you see.  I put it in with a deposit slip but not only that I certified the letter so they had to sign for it and I also registered the letter with the post office for $3,000 bucks.  Now I didn’t buy an insurance policy but the registration on there stated on there the value and I had to pay for it at the post office to post it for that. 

**        Right… okay.

R:        So now what I did was I accepted her statement where she had taken that particular check and stated that they had sent it to my bank and my bank had marked it CLOSED….  Oh what she said was that ‘my’ bank had returned it to ‘our’ bank.  Well that’s mine too.  Anyway she said it was returned to our bank, ACCOUNT CLOSED.  Then she went on and stated…  for this reason I did not deposit it to your account.  Now that’s the only reason that they gave.  So it’s just setting there.  I have my receipt, she sent my check to me that had (2) two punch holes in it.  The two punch holes were through my account number, but not through the ABA number of the bank.  So you see they didn’t do anything, it’s just setting there.  My check is just simply the receipt.  Well see that is the check that was in that I was referring to when I sent with the post office that she had to sign for.  Maybe that’s why she gave it back to me. 

**        In other words they are just suspending everything?

R:        Well we’ll see what they’re going to be doing with it.

**        I still have a minus in my account for $23 or $24 from when I had a couple of checks that the bank told me they were good then changed their mind and are charging me for check I wrote that they cleared and are now trying to charge me a fee.   It’s such a small amount that it is a lot to try to clear it up but I still have issues because of the large $5,000 check drawn on a credit card they told me cleared then changed their mind.  I think they need to be responsible for that.    I need to just take some time to think these things through.   They are trying to threaten me with turning my name over to some checking service which will make it hard for me to get another checking account again.

R:        I just laugh at them because if anybody ever refuses a checking account on me he’s going to have a civil action on him and I’ll have the feds in on him.  See they can stop you from using credit EXCEPT… we take them on the diversity and by God they are going to have to credit your account because that is the remedy. 

**        Right the new checking I just opened and they were going to do an over draft protection and they denied me that because they said I had a bad credit history. 

R:        Well then what you want to do is just request that they review their position or you will commence an action on diversity of citizenship to disqualify their negative witness. 

**        Displace their witness with facts…

R:        I think we can sue them for damages.  You just tell them… hey… diversity of citizenship, even if they’ve only got a dollar in controversy, it’s $10,001.  Because they have to have a $10,000 bond even if they are going to deal in $1.00 of credit.

**        Oh I love this!

R:        So you see with diversity and someone only had $5.00 or something less then what they state it’s $10,000 Plus that 5.00 because of the bond they are required to carry under Superintendent of a Federal Project.   And they must comply with Osha, DOT and EPA. 

**        This is great I can just write a letter and staple it to there letter.

R:        Also write on that one they sent you also --- ACCEPTED AND RETURNED for SETTLEMENT on there someplace.   You could also write in there someplace that the Finding of Fact and Conclusion of Law are absent in your claim and you are going to request this in the request for settlement and in the event that you fail this matter will be removed into a federal forum for civil action on diversity of citizenship whereby you can obtain the assessment to prosecute the slander and libel.    You’ll get more of a feel for the understanding when you read those removals.  Start with 1441 through 1446 in title 28.

**        Okay good.  I have that book. 

R:        Well if you have the Rules for Civil Procedure the evidence code is in there too.

**        Great!  I know this is good.  There is a lot of information here.  I know people are asking for more transcripts… they’re having Roger withdrawal and I know how that goes.  Especially after the first of the year when you’re ready to go out and conquer the world for what you didn’t finish last year before we were rudely interrupted by the holidays… chuckle.

R:        Well we have to figure out some ways also how to deal with the silence. 

**        Do you have to pay a court fee for doing a removal or do you know?

R:        No, see when you have the other cases… the other cases are receipts for pre-payment.

**        Well what if you don’t have a case and they just send you bills?

R:        Then I think you need to get a case someplace.  But you’re going to have…

**        I guess you could pay for it with a private check like E* did.

R:        Yeah but see if the clerk of court tries to play with you then that is going to also apply to them you just make a 2nd request on them.  The first is a dishonor.  If you’ve got an action like that then you’d be the debtor and they’re the plaintiffs.  Well see like in my case RODGER G. ELVIS then I would just write a check as his attorney or authorized representative.   I don’t think there is going to be but if they want to bring up the idea of a filing fee on diversity well just tell them if you’re going to require that you’re going to also be a party to the action. 

**        Oh Okay.  They would be blocking the remedy.

R:        They’re assuming it when we’re commencing action.  But I don’t think they’ll do that.  I  think they’ll probably make some remarks that we can’t do this, this or this but I’ll be there will be a number.

**        Well I do want to do this with the FTB because I’m tired of dinking around with them thinking I have to live in fear of them sneaking up on me and robbing me.

R:        And anything else lets say that is less then $10,000 lets say it’s $3,000, well then it’s going to be $13,000. 

**        This is music to my ears because they decided to separate it on me so I’m taking each year and doing it separate.   One of them is $11,000 plus and one I think is $13,000 so I can. 

R:        Humhum…

**        Another thing I think is going to be fun to listen and anticipate is this gal just filed a RICO action and they have 20 days to answer and I think she got it filed before the 15th of Dec.   I know this isn’t what we’re doing but it sure would tickle me to have someone win. 

R:        Well just read through those 501 and 601 and the others I gave you.  You’ll get an understanding.

**        Okay.  Well I guess I’ll let you go for now.  This is a lot of really good information! 

 

  

¨¨¨

Thanks everyone for the contributions and being on the honor system.   We’re making some wonderful progress in our learning efforts of being in GRACE.  For anyone who would like to participate in our email study can contribute $10 a month to Barbara Busch, P.O. Box 881007, Los Angeles, CA 90009-6707.   I am planning a seminar/workshop in February here in Los Angeles.  Details are not worked out yet but I will let you know in the next few days.  We have lots of activities going on.  Thanks again and don’t forget to include your email address with your funds.