“[Kellogg, the Policy Investigator] was so rude to me,” she said. “He treated me like a criminal,” and told her they had “circumvented the law.”
Eventually, they ignored Kellogg’s threats — until a message from the Tecumseh Police Department warned they would have to appear in court over the matter, and “there was a warrant out for a $100 bond on both of us,” Catherine explained.
Astonished at the hullabaloo over misplaced library books, Catherine told them they would have to serve that warrant.
Alarmingly, police came to their residence and took the $200 in bond cash — but never arrested or processed the couple.
Clearly, the police have created the legal issues for this couple, as crossed signals — not intent — are at the heart of the matter. The Durens performed their due diligence in attempting to resolve the issue once they realized their error — but have been oddly met with strong resistance.
But if the Economic Crimes Unit had been formed to investigate crimes of malintent, it missed the mark in this case — by far. As Catherine asserted:
If we intended to steal a book, why would we go in legally to check them out?
She added, “We were appalled, totally appalled. We didn’t commit a crime.”
These corporate Statutory COURTROOMS are not Courts. Courtrooms give the appearance of justice according to their own Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure – Rule 44:
UNITED STATES v. MARI
“Trial court insistence that, except in extraordinary circumstances, codefendants retain separate counsel will in the long run . . . prove salutary not only to the administration of justice and the appearance of justice but the cost of justice.
Essentially by the time a case . . . gets to the appellate level the harm to the appearance of justice has already been done”
Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) “is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.”) (“Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.”).
The policy enforcers are simply unlawfully contracting with our ARTIFICIAL PERSON TRADE NAME©, and using our human bodies as “surety.”
Any “warrant out” for “arrest” is nothing more than a check (a warrant, negotiable instrument) that liens (arrests) the ARTIFICIAL PERSON TRADE-NAME© PUBLIC OFFICE INSURANCE FRANCHISE.
A warrant — or check — is a legal, negotiable instrument drawn against the state treasury in place of a commercial bank. State agencies disburse funds to vendors or other payees by issuing warrants from the state treasury that bear the State Treasurer’s unique Routing Number and are signed by the State Treasurer.
The warrant purchases the dishonored CHARGES –made real by a Magi/strate (straight legal “magic”)– from the corporate policy statute “violations” on the artificial legal presence person TRADE-NAME PUBLIC OFFICE. The funds are supposedly “drawn from the franchise insurance of the legal corporate TRADE-NAME©” that allows “players” to participate in the corporate game designed to take everything from us (by legalizing/fictionalizing the stuff with pre-paid debt).
The funds being drawn from the PUBLIC OFFICE ESTATE FRANCHISE INSURANCE, fictitiously needs to be paid back by the beneficiary and is thus a LIEN is placed on the “artificial PERSON ESTATE” to recover the funds. However, the negotiable instrument WARRANT is its own funds though which does not require “repayment.”
If a NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT warrant was not its own funds, every promissory note and mortgage would be invalid. The CREDIT RIVER DECISION shows that not a single bank has lawful consideration for any “debt loan” they create out of thin air.
This is to say, the warrant is already paid! The glorified debt collectors (with Guns) -called policy enforcers (28 U.S.C. §3002 (8) “Judgement” means a judgment, [ED: money] order [ED: warrant], or decree entered in favor of the United States in a court and arising from a civil or criminal proceeding regarding a debt)- are collecting double payments. All Corporate Policy Enforcers get to keep their double dip on the fictitious corporate “STATUTORY BILLING CHARGES” legal system.
This double payment is the same as with any and all utilities, such as gas, electric, phone, internet, etc! The TRUE BILL is paid by our corporate franchise TRADE-NAME©. This is why the corporations need a Federal Social Security Number Corporate Franchise Trust number and/or a State Legal presence artificial person corporate franchise trust Driver’s License Number… so the Utility can access the TRADE-NAME© account back end for payment of the TRUE BILL. The Payment Coupon is not a True Bill. Unless it states “TRUE BILL”, then the “billing statement” isn’t a Bill. The payment coupon is a second payment. Typically companies threaten to “turn off service” if double payment is not received so as to make it seem as if the TRUE BILL is unpaid, when in fact the TRUE BILL is already fully paid.
So besides being harassed by these policy enforcers, the couple -described in the article and link above- are then extorted for double payment, and if they don’t pay, threatened with 93 days in jail… for two overdue library books that they attempted to pay.
One of the easiest ways to stop the ultimate cult of Ultimate Evil: Order followers and the destruction of the divine feminine, is to terminate the corporate TRADE-NAME© and claim our human being-ness. World citizenry provides an organized private authority and framework for human beings to exist without the legal system as a NON-LEGAL human being.
Mark Passio on the Cult of Ultimate Evil: Order Followers.