Firefox https://web.archive.org/web/20190228101423/http://i...

The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20190228101423/http://iamsomedude.com…

The 4 Corners

For the record, I am here for this matter for there is a mistake. Where is the proper notice so I
may deal with this matter honorably?

Can I have your name?

Do you have a claim against me?
Do you know anyone who has a claim against me?
I request the order of the court be delivered to me immediately

rinse and repeat ... If the record is broken, become a broken record

These are the four corners and the 3 follow-up questions (and one statement) one asks when
presented with an issue in ANY court. But what is actually happening?

LetТs break this down a little bit Е

For the record, I am here for this matter Е

This is pretty self-explanatory.

One is merely here for the matter to help extinguish a controversy by and through determining if
one even exists. Furthermore, this one statement achieves a separation of oneТs self and the
NAME trust/estate (ie: US Person) attempting to be administrated.

Е for there is a mistake.

What is the mistake? Could it be that there exists no controversy before the court (ie: a mere
friendly suit)? Could it be the mistake is there exists no valid contract with full disclosure and
equal considerations brought before the court for enforcement? Or maybe there is a subscribed
contract upon which one is relying?

Ok, this is where 12 USC з 95a (2) and one's acceptance of such offer via SUBSCRIPTION (ie:
intent to contract) is presented via reference to the paper record (ie: presented certified copy of
subscription from a record, such as a court or county record) and that there is no other
alternative agreement in place (ie: 26 USC з 2032A(d) and UCC 3-419) and that one is relying
upon this subscription which is guaranteed under US Constitution as obligations of contract may
not be impaired and protected pursuant to 18 USC зз 241, 242 for "Courts, as a matter of policy,
uphold subscriptions if any consideration can be found. In a situation where the recipient of the
subscription has begun work or incurred liability in reliance upon it, such action constitutes a
consideration."

Where is the proper notice so I may deal with this matter honorably?
This is where the rubber meets the road so to speak.

The NOTICE one is seeking is in regards to the TAXABLE TERMINATION of interest in some
property (ie: an estate) warranting the transfer or action before the court with respect to some

1 of 4 12/17/22, 16:35
Firefox https://web.archive.org/web/20190228101423/http://i...

BELLIGERENT ACT and/or ACTION especially in light of the FACT one is "acquitted and discharged
from further obligation" as RECRIPROCAL CONSIDERATION for acts and actions done under 12
USC з 95a (2) SUBSCRIPTION and in absence of the PROPER NOTICE, the FACTS ARE NOT IN
DISPUTE.

The ABSENCE of the UNDERWRITNG WARRANT (security and insurance policy issued from the US
Treasury) is the ADMISSION there exists NO CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION nor BELLIGERENCY (ie:
Claim) upon which the RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED thus NO CHARGES against the EXECUTOR of the
ESTATE (26 USC з 1041), thus NO PUBLIC DEBT OBLIGATION upon which the collection activities
(ie: distribution of assets in a prize court) stand WARRANTED.

But if One FAILS to assess the situation (ie: Insurance Adjuster), then one AGREES to the
outcome (26 USC з 2032A(d)) of which the estate (ie. One's interests) stands emburdened with
tax on the transfer (26 USC з 1040) and of whom the EXECUTOR is liable (26 USC з 1041) and
My burden is light - Matthew 11:28-30.

So, if there is no WARRANT nor BOND (ie: Insurance) underwriting the action, then the one who
is initiating the transfer stands as EXECUTOR DE SON TORT. When one REPRESENTS THEMSELF
(When an item is represented, it is produced publicly. To represent an individual means to stand
in his or her place, acting as his or her substitute or attorney (ie: Substitute Trustee)), one is
substituting one's self for another party as INSURANCE (ie: Surety) by way of ACCOMODATION
(UCC 3-419) as INSURANCE = SUBROGATION (the substitution of one person or group by
another in respect of a debt or insurance claim, accompanied by the transfer of any associated
rights and duties (ie: Substitute Trustee)).

People can get caught up in Semantics or ACCEPT THE FACT: REPRESENT = INSURANCE =
SURETY = SUBROGATION = SUBSTITUTE TRUSTEE ... all by way of AGREEMENT and
ACCOMODATION with one's consent.

Can I have your name?

This question is directed towards anyone offering testimony or bringing a claim or action. In order
to proceed, the proper parties must be identified. One can also ask for citizenship and
nationalities if one chooses, for how would one know if one is dealing with unregistered foreign
agents in violation of 22 USC з 611(ie: act of belligerence)

KEEP IN MIND: A public official of the United States in the executive, legislative, or judicial branch
of the Government or in any agency of the United States, including the District of Columbia, is 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; FARA
Enforcement.

Do you have a claim against me?

The purpose of this question is to ascertain (ie: Forensic Examination) if there is a CLAIM (ie: a
tax or duty owed) to be stated upon which the claim of relief should be granted.

It really matters not what the answer is for the admittance of the claim is permission to examine
the EVIDENCE in support of the CLAIM (ie: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32a appeal for the
evidence); the denial or refusal to answer the question is admittance there exists NO CLAIM upon
which the relief can be granted (ie: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6))

2 of 4 12/17/22, 16:35
Firefox https://web.archive.org/web/20190228101423/http://i...

Do you know anyone who has a claim against me?

The SECOND WITNESS: The purpose of this question is to ascertain (ie: Forensic Examination) if
there is a CLAIM (ie: a tax or duty owed) to be stated upon which the claim of relief should be
granted.

It really matters not what the answer is for the admittance of the claim is permission to examine
the EVIDENCE in support of the CLAIM (ie: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32a appeal for the
evidence); the denial or refusal to answer the question is admittance there exists NO CLAIM upon
which the relief can be granted (ie: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6))

If there is an answer, then the BODY of the one making the claim must be produced (ie: Habeas
Corpus) or the witness just comitted perjury under oath; no answer means nobody has made a
claim and now the action before the court is an ACTUAL CONTROVERSY (fabrication of a
controversy to establish a claim is a contempt of court) and the one who brought the claim,
brought the controversy, thus must also bring the remedy.

The only problem: One is ALREADY relying upon and subscribing to an ACT OF CONGRESS, so the
controversy would be that An Act of Congress is meaningless thus the COUNTERCLAIM would
stand as insurrection and rebellion of which must be reported to the Court and Dept of Justice
under 18 USC з 4: misprison of felony, or one is considered a principal pursuant to 18 USC з 3.

I request the order of the court be delivered to me immediately.

The ORDER is the marching orders of the court: the authority under which this court is operating.

This would be the WARRANT (ie: check or bond) issued by the Treasury to the DEBT COLLECTOR
(ie. Attorney / Plaintiff) which underwrites the collection effort (ie: Insurance Policy) as the
Secretary of Treasury is the one with the liability for all the books and the one that appraised the
security instrument. So, if they don't have an Order going back to the Secretary of the Treasury,
they don't have any authority to collect the debt and are acting as rogue agents (ie: unregistered
foreign agents).

In essence, the lack of an order means the court is operating privately in violation of Lieber Code
Article 46 as the courts themself are governed by and under contract with the US Military (cf. FM
27-5).

There you have it. All one needs to know about presenting in court, should one decide to go. This
is not about proving anything, this is about the TEST IF I can control my ego. The temptaion is to
argue, present, and PROVE one self as we all wish to be proven correct, justified, and approved.

It is imparitive: One must refuse to give into this temptation as best one can.

Best to keep in mind: To whom are you beholden to prove yourself? The judge on Earth or the
one above?

Click here to go back

3 of 4 12/17/22, 16:35
Firefox https://web.archive.org/web/20190228101423/http://i...

All works herein are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike

4.0 International License.

4 of 4 12/17/22, 16:35