RAT­I­FI­CA­TION A Must!

RAT­I­FI­CA­TION OF COMMENCEMENT

& Real Party In Interest …

RULE 17 OF THE FED­ERAL AND STATE RULES OF CIVIL PRO­CE­DURE
By: Samuel Lynn: Davis, Accused on behalf of SAMUEL DAVIS
March 11, 2010

Back in Jan­u­ary in Las Vegas, a meet­ing was held with about 75 peo­ple in atten­dance. This meet­ing was our typ­i­cally sched­uled bi-​monthly meet­ing with an empha­sis on using cau­tion when attempt­ing to do the 1099OID [tax] processes,

to be sure in one’s own mind that this method was proper and cor­rect and one could defend it. On Sun­day, we held a moot court ses­sion in which we looked at var­i­ous ways to deal with court pro­ce­dures. It was a very sim­ple ses­sion, just deal­ing with dif­fer­ent ways to han­dle arraign­ments. While I played the part of judge, another fel­low played the pros­e­cu­tor and we asked for vol­un­teers in the audi­ence to come for­ward and par­tic­i­pate. We had a vol­un­teer from Hawaii whom I believe has pro­vided the miss­ing link to our processes. As he was being arraigned by me, the judge, I asked him to enter a plea, to which he replied, “Your honor, I object, [as] there has been no rat­i­fi­ca­tion of com­mence­ment in the mat­ter and I can­not enter a plea.”

Now, you must know that I stopped imme­di­ately, looked at the audi­ence and said, “I have no idea what he just said or did but it sounds very impor­tant.” This man then took about 15 min­utes to explain this. I don’t mind telling you that not only was I absolutely fas­ci­nated, but stunned by the rev­e­la­tion of this Rule and its [poten­tial] impact on EVERY CASE in this country.

For years, I have been an emphatic sup­porter of “accepted for value” and ask­ing for claims. We have pre­pared and filed Affi­davits of Spe­cific Neg­a­tive Aver­ments from Rule 9(a) and (b) with vary­ing degrees of suc­cess and fail­ure. This man and his friend filed a one para­graph plead­ing in an IRS case involv­ing six fig­ures, enti­tled OBJEC­TION FOR LACK OF RAT­I­FI­CA­TION OF COM­MENCE­MENT. Their friend had been arrested just days after our meet­ing in Las Vegas on a Fed­eral war­rant issued in Decem­ber of 2008, he was incar­cer­ated and await­ing the next moves of the gov­ern­ment when this man filed the plead­ing. 2 hours after the plead­ing was filed, the judge in the case called a hear­ing, recalled the war­rant, ordered the man released from jail where­upon he was released at a con­ve­nience store some­where in Hawaii! As I have analo­gized what has gone on here and looked at the rule, the def­i­n­i­tions searched the inter­net for the phrase and just con­sid­ered how it all fits together. It fits per­fectly. I will explain in detail how I see this.

Rule 17(a) Real Par­ties in Interest:

“Every action shall be pros­e­cuted in the name of the real party in inter­est. An execu­tor, admin­is­tra­tor, guardian, bailee, trustee of an express trust, a party with whom or in whose name a con­tract has been made for the ben­e­fit of another, or a party autho­rized by statute may sue in that person’s own name with­out join­ing the party for whose ben­e­fit the action is brought; and when a statute of the United States so pro­vides, an action for the use or ben­e­fit of another shall be brought in the name of the United States. No action shall be dis­missed on the ground that it is not pros­e­cuted in the name of the real party in inter­est until a rea­son­able time has been allowed after objec­tion for rat­i­fi­ca­tion of com­mence­ment of the action by, or join­der or sub­sti­tu­tion of, the real party in inter­est; and such rat­i­fi­ca­tion, join­der, or sub­sti­tu­tion shall have the same effect as if the action had been com­menced in the name of the real party in interest.”

Let’s take a look at what this rule is say­ing: “No action shall be dis­missed … after objec­tion … for rat­i­fi­ca­tion of com­mence­ment of the action by the real party in inter­est.”

What is rat­i­fi­ca­tion of com­mence­ment? It is the CLAIM!! No one has a claim in gov­ern­ment, they have told us that every time. They can’t have a claim; they are nei­ther injured nor tres­passed. I believe that it this “rat­i­fi­ca­tion” is the piece that comes before the ques­tion of claim, and if some­one alleges they have a claim, then they have to pro­duce the rat­i­fi­ca­tion of commencement.

Now, the real test in an alleged crim­i­nal mat­ter is that this is a civil rule. Accord­ing to the Fed­eral Rules of Civil Pro­ce­dure (F.R.C.P.), Rule 1, there is only one form of action, a civil action. This is impor­tant because 1) all crimes are com­mer­cial, (27 CFR 72.11) and 2) Every alleged crime has to have “nature and cause”, AND be pros­e­cuted in the name of the peo­ple of the state as a [the] REAL PARTY IN INTER­EST — NOT the “PEO­PLE OF THE STATE OF _​_​_​_​_​_​_​” or the Peo­ple of the State of _​_​_​_​_​_​_​, as that is the cor­po­ra­tion and is an impos­si­bil­ity. This is where [per­sonal /​self] study and under­stand­ing is so impor­tant. If one goes on-​line and types in ”rat­i­fi­ca­tion of com­mence­ment” one will find case after case that will explain the basics fur­ther on this, but I believe it to be a crit­i­cal piece. I put it out there for fur­ther study and comment.

The last 10 years I have taught the 3 ques­tions:

1. May I have your name please?
2. Do you have a claim against me? And
3. Do you know any­one who has a claim against me?

Now, we have another very impor­tant piece in this process in my hum­ble opin­ion. As I did, in my own case in Fed­eral court in Las Vegas the other day, I encour­age each per­son read­ing this to con­sider this and the ram­i­fi­ca­tions. When the judge began to tell me about my sit­u­a­tion and asked if I had an under­stand­ing of the sit­u­a­tion, I said, and I quote: “Your honor, I object, there has been no rat­i­fi­ca­tion of com­mence­ment in this mat­ter.” The judge looked at me and said that he did not know what that was to which I explained as briefly as pos­si­ble that it was Rule 17, real par­ties in inter­est. He told me that was a civil rule and this was a crim­i­nal mat­ter, nature and cause, to which I replied and pointed out that there is only one form of action and that is a civil action, please see your Rule 1.

He noted my objec­tion for the record, which is what I wanted, and then in a few moments entered a plea of not guilty on behalf of the straw-​man to which I replied,” your honor, I accept for value this entire mat­ter and pro­ceed­ing.” The judge then informed me that he had no idea what that meant and I told him that [he was pre­sumed to know the law] I was not there to tell him the law. He then held a deten­tion hear­ing and even­tu­ally ordered me released.

Now, much more hap­pened and I will pro­duce another report on all of that episode and what pre­cip­i­tated the event, this is about you and how you can poten­tially help your­self, or oth­ers, in ANY MATTER.

The point is this: the objec­tion for lack of rat­i­fi­ca­tion of com­mence­ment, which is basi­cally the “proof of claim” made under oath and pain and penalty of per­jury and with­out it, you and “they” can­not move for­ward. If some­one pro­duces or alleges that they do indeed have “rat­i­fi­ca­tion of com­mence­ment” then the per­son pur­port­ing to have the same needs to be asked immediately:may I have your name please; and 2) do you have a claim against me? I believe you will find that the per­son does NOT HAVE A CLAIM against you and there­fore, the alleged rat­i­fi­ca­tion of com­mence­ment is no such thing. These most impor­tant things can­not be sep­a­rated or ignored. They both go right to the heart of every mat­ter in court.

Now, you also must under­stand that if you have actu­ally injured another liv­ing, breath­ing man or woman, or their prop­erty, they can pro­vide such rat­i­fi­ca­tion. This is very sim­ple and it is also very easy, no more than a cou­ple of para­graphs usu­ally and I will be pro­vid­ing live broad­cast teach­ings on this in the next cou­ple of weeks when I get back up on top of things here.

Ladies and Gen­tle­men, the Fed­eral gov­ern­ment has cho­sen to entrap me in an attempt to silence me. They have accused me of being a domes­tic ter­ror­ist and a “national leader” of the anti-​government move­ment. The real truth is sim­ply this: noth­ing can be fur­ther from the truth. Today in Amer­ica, if you sup­port Ron Paul, for­mer con­gress­man Bob Barr, Chuck Bald­win or any­one like them, (see Secret Mis­souri State Police Report) you are on a ter­ror­ist watch list. I know per­son­ally a young man who was held at the Cana­dian bor­der for over an hour because his car dis­played a Ron Paul for pres­i­dent bumper sticker. Our views of our coun­try, our con­sti­tu­tion, Bill of Rights, and espe­cially a belief in a Cre­ator or Sov­er­eign Being other than the accepted gov­ern­ment, Democ­rats or Repub­li­cans, (a shirts and skins bas­ket­ball prac­tice of and on the same team as my son gives the anal­ogy), you are con­sid­ered a threat to the gov­ern­ment and a domes­tic ter­ror­ist. If you file a paper or doc­u­ment in your own defence because you can’t afford an attor­ney or don’t want an attor­ney you are a paper ter­ror­ist. When does it end? When do you and I, our friends and fam­ily, say finally, enough is enough? When do we wake up from this finan­cial insan­ity and real­ize that we only bor­row our own money and pay inter­est for the priv­i­lege? The calls to action is now, either study and learn what is going on, or as I replied in a recent email, bow down and kiss the ring of the “author­ity” in your life. I have never, ever advo­cated any action against any­one in gov­ern­ment for any rea­son. I have had peo­ple asked me to assist them in suing the gov­ern­ment for some action that really does deem a law­suit or other action, always declin­ing to assist. The real ques­tion is this,” what is so ter­ri­fy­ing about these three words: “accept for value”?” Now we have added three more words, “rat­i­fi­ca­tion of commencement”.

WARN­ING! : In court or in plead­ings we should never, ever quote their codes, rules, reg­u­la­tions, ordi­nances, statutes, com­mon law, mer­chant law, pub­lic poli­cies, con­sti­tu­tions, etc., because these are com­mer­cial in nature, and if we use their com­mer­cial law, they can pre­sume we are engaged in com­merce (which means we are of the world/​the sys­tem), which will nul­lify our wit­ness (because we are not of the system/​world). Max­ims of law are not com­mer­cial law, but are mostly based upon scrip­ture and truth. You can use the under­stand­ing from them, but never use them. But knowl­edge is power.

Good luck Amer­ica, may God bless us all.

{jcom­ments on}