Want to stop COVID restrictions? Put a claim on a Public Servant's Bond!

[tankasnowgod]

One thing I have heard over and over again as I have delved deeper into legal issues and how the United States of America was set up is that the system that we are under now is commercial. IT'S ALL COMMERCIAL. This is something I have heard Yusef El say several times. I have also heard that all crimes are currently prosecuted as commercial crimes. You can see some of this in 27 CFR 72.11 -

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2021-title27-vol2/xml/CFR-2021-title27-vol2-sec72-11.xml

Did you know that kidnapping, burglary and robbery are all "commercial crimes?" I have heard that even murder is a "commercial crime" now, as they can use the excuse that the victim was a taxpayer.

So, if you are being wronged in a commercial system (with, say, COVID mandates), you need a commercial remedy. The following video surmises it briefly, in what is likely the most intelligent Tic Tok video ever produced-

https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/096/749/930/original/89e3fe0a5f652cd0.mp4

A simple, but powerful, concept. If someone is putting out "mandates" that break the law (or existing codes, regulation, public policy or what have you), put a claim on their bond. ALL public servants have them. Governors, Mayors, Presidents, and likely high level bureaucrats like Fauci. Here is the website she mentioned (note, I have only scanned it briefly so far)-

Bonds for the Win – Bonds For the Win

bondsforthewin.com

Here is the story of one mom who got the entire school district to drop their mask mandates-


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=3KdwaSIOFpE


(We all know how Youtube is these days, so you might what to download the video if interested)

It's focused on school districts, but I don't see why this process wouldn't also work for businesses challenging restrictions, or employees of such businesses.

And while it is focused on the UNITED STATES, I think this process would work in other countries. It's a commercial remedy. Every state in the union has adopted the Uniform Commercial Code. Virtually every country as well (certainly every country with more than 1 million people). Maybe Canadians can file a claim against Justin Castro's bond (or Justin Trudeau, for those of you that don't read Fulford).

@Lollipop2 @haidut

 

[Elderflower j58]

@tankasnowgod
Wow thanks for that great info.
Just wondering would this apply in the UK.

 

[tankasnowgod]

@tankasnowgod
Wow thanks for that great info.
Just wondering would this apply in the UK.

I don't know for sure, but I would think so.

The UK is certainly under the Uniform Commercial Code. I bet if you did some quick internet searches, you could find out. Just search "United Kingdom Uniform Commercial Code." Or "bonds" or "surety bonds" and then whatever public official you are wondering about. I bet you could even go to various government websites and find out which officials are bonded. I'm sure some of the specifics would be different, but the principles would be the same.

If you watched the video with I posted with the mother who did this process, she mentioned that she made a claim directly on the superintendent's bond. The host then mentioned that, in Arizona, everyone is covered under a "blanket bond," with exceptions for a couple officials, like Secretary of State, and Sheriffs. So, since some things vary from state to state, I'm sure some things vary from country to country.

 

[Elderflower j58]

@tankasnowgod

Thanks I'm going to checkout UK policies regarding bonds or possibly ministerial accountability

 

[Lollipop2]

One thing I have heard over and over again as I have delved deeper into legal issues and how the United States of America was set up is that the system that we are under now is commercial. IT'S ALL COMMERCIAL. This is something I have heard Yusef El say several times. I have also heard that all crimes are currently prosecuted as commercial crimes. You can see some of this in 27 CFR 72.11 -

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2021-title27-vol2/xml/CFR-2021-title27-vol2-sec72-11.xml

Did you know that kidnapping, burglary and robbery are all "commercial crimes?" I have heard that even murder is a "commercial crime" now, as they can use the excuse that the victim was a taxpayer.

So, if you are being wronged in a commercial system (with, say, COVID mandates), you need a commercial remedy. The following video surmises it briefly, in what is likely the most intelligent Tic Tok video ever produced-

https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/096/749/930/original/89e3fe0a5f652cd0.mp4

A simple, but powerful, concept. If someone is putting out "mandates" that break the law (or existing codes, regulation, public policy or what have you), put a claim on their bond. ALL public servants have them. Governors, Mayors, Presidents, and likely high level bureaucrats like Fauci. Here is the website she mentioned (note, I have only scanned it briefly so far)-

Bonds for the Win – Bonds For the Win

bondsforthewin.com

Here is the story of one mom who got the entire school district to drop their mask mandates-


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=3KdwaSIOFpE


(We all know how Youtube is these days, so you might what to download the video if interested)

It's focused on school districts, but I don't see why this process wouldn't also work for businesses challenging restrictions, or employees of such businesses.

And while it is focused on the UNITED STATES, I think this process would work in other countries. It's a commercial remedy. Every state in the union has adopted the Uniform Commercial Code. Virtually every country as well (certainly every country with more than 1 million people). Maybe Canadians can file a claim against Justin Castro's bond (or Justin Trudeau, for those of you that don't read Fulford).

@Lollipop2 @haidut

Fascinating! Thank you for the tag. Diving in to this...

 

[Lollipop2]

Fascinating! Thank you for the tag. Diving in to this...

@tankasnowgod, WoW - fantastic video! This can really work.

 

[i_nomad]

The process may be doable… but the lady behind it (the YouTube channel connected) associates with the likes of “Juan O’Savin” and Charlie Ward.

That’s a hard no. Best to avoid that type. And be wary of this Bond stuff before looking into other sources. The people mentioned above are controlled opposition overflowing with bull****. Makes me immediately question this whole thing.

 

[Veritas IV]

Will also investigate, possibly selectively spread the word without linking here directly.

Am thinking a video or two will need to be archived.

Thank you for the links, videos and info.

(Hopefully it's all legit)

 

[tankasnowgod]

The process may be doable… but the lady behind it (the YouTube channel connected) associates with the likes of “Juan O’Savin” and Charlie Ward.

So what? And what do you mean by "associates with" anyway? Was at the same event as one or both? Are close personal friends? Does business with? Is married to? Once interviewed, or was interviewed by?

And beyond that, it wasn't the HOST of the interview that did the Bond claim process. It was the interviewee, Violet. Does she have ANY association with Juan O'Savin or Charlie Ward? Or are you gonna make this a "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" thing?

For example, Geraldo once (famously) interviewed a group of white supremacists, and got his nose broken. In the broadest sense of the definition (and likely the way you are using it), Geraldo associates with white supremacists.

That’s a hard no. Best to avoid that type.

What "type" is that?

Anyways, you don't have to associate with that "type." This is a commercial process, free to all. Hundreds of millions of people have checking accounts, for example, and just because a criminal like Bernie Madoff may have used bank services, does not mean that you are "associating" with him by having a similar type of bank account that he did.

And be wary of this Bond stuff before looking into other sources. The people mentioned above are controlled opposition overflowing with bull****. Makes me immediately question this whole thing.

What do you mean "this bond stuff?" The fact of the matter is that Public Officials are bonded, and claims can be made against them. This is something you can research yourself and verify independently.

For example, here is company that advertises it's services to bond public officials specifically-

Public Official Bond | Apply Online

Apply for your Public Official Bond online 24/7 and get a free quote. Instant digital delivery or overnight shipping available. No hidden fees!

www.suretybonds.com

Go ahead and "question" it, but why not do your own research (if interested) instead of dismissing it outright? I heard Yusef El mention something similar early on, to the effect that putting a claim on a bond would be much more effective than suing them, or just speaking up at board meetings. Of course, if you plan on doing something like this, you should understand what you are doing.

 

[tankasnowgod]

Will also investigate, possibly selectively spread the word without linking here directly.

Am thinking a video or two will need to be archived.

Thank you for the links, videos and info.

(Hopefully it's all legit)

Putting a claim on a bond is very legit. Here's a short Youtube video from a Surety Bond company talking about the claims process-


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7YqGnPhZ6Q

 

[Perry Staltic]

The key is having a valid claim which requires research to determine how the bonded entity violated their obligations.

 

[i_nomad]

So what? And what do you mean by "associates with" anyway? Was at the same event as one or both? Are close personal friends? Does business with? Is married to? Once interviewed, or was interviewed by?

And beyond that, it wasn't the HOST of the interview that did the Bond claim process. It was the interviewee, Violet. Does she have ANY association with Juan O'Savin or Charlie Ward? Or are you gonna make this a "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" thing?

For example, Geraldo once (famously) interviewed a group of white supremacists, and got his nose broken. In the broadest sense of the definition (and likely the way you are using it), Geraldo associates with white supremacists.

What "type" is that?

Anyways, you don't have to associate with that "type." This is a commercial process, free to all. Hundreds of millions of people have checking accounts, for example, and just because a criminal like Bernie Madoff may have used bank services, does not mean that you are "associating" with him by having a similar type of bank account that he did.

What do you mean "this bond stuff?" The fact of the matter is that Public Officials are bonded, and claims can be made against them. This is something you can research yourself and verify independently.

For example, here is company that advertises it's services to bond public officials specifically-

Public Official Bond | Apply Online

Apply for your Public Official Bond online 24/7 and get a free quote. Instant digital delivery or overnight shipping available. No hidden fees!

www.suretybonds.com

Go ahead and "question" it, but why not do your own research (if interested) instead of dismissing it outright? I heard Yusef El mention something similar early on, to the effect that putting a claim on a bond would be much more effective than suing them, or just speaking up at board meetings. Of course, if you plan on doing something like this, you should understand what you are doing.

The entire point of my comment was to suggest doing more research before just trusting random internet stuff.

She has several videos on her YouTube where she interacts with and talks to those “types”… and you know exactly what I mean by that. They are making lots of money off of people buying into their nonsense. They are distractions. Controlled opposition.

Making the effort to promote truth look foolish by throwing disinformation, often outright laughable, into the mix.

 

[tankasnowgod]

The entire point of my comment was to suggest doing more research before just trusting random internet stuff.

I fully agree with this statement. But this isn't at all what you said. In fact, you outright discounted the idea without doing any further research.

She has several videos on her YouTube where she interacts with and talks to those “types”… and you know exactly what I mean by that.

Actually, I didn't. She doesn't "associate" with them. Clearly, she follows and interviews them. Why not state things clearly?

They are making lots of money off of people buying into their nonsense. They are distractions. Controlled opposition.

What does Charlie Ward or Juan O Savin's business practices have to do with the process of putting a claim on a bond?

And if they are "distractions," why not share the process that you are using that is working so perfectly to overturn Covid restrictions?

Making the effort to promote truth look foolish by throwing disinformation, often outright laughable, into the mix.

Again, irrelevant. The real question would be, could this claims process work to get the relief sought? And the answer is yes, if done correctly. It's all based on the commercial nature of the system we are in.

It's clear that putting a claim on a bond is not "outright laughable." In fact, it's one of the reasons that public officials are bonded in the first place, to protect various entities (including the government, people affected and even the official) from any official misconduct. Which is something easily verified by going to websites of companies that bond public officials-

Public Official Bond | Surety Bond Authority

For public officials, a Public Official Bond is conditioned on the faithful performance of official duties and prevents a breach of trust and integrity.

suretybondauthority.com

I think the website she put together is potentially useful, too. You could scan through the codes to see which ones (if any) the state official you are looking to serve has violated. I wouldn't stop there, I would verify these codes with an official government website, or something like Cornell Law. Those websites, however, are often hard to navigate, and so she is providing a useful service (free of charge) by putting the codes she thinks are relevant on her site. So, it's a good and helpful research tool, but you should verify her work with a government source, if you are going to do a claims process.

 

[Philomath]

One thing I have heard over and over again as I have delved deeper into legal issues and how the United States of America was set up is that the system that we are under now is commercial. IT'S ALL COMMERCIAL. This is something I have heard Yusef El say several times. I have also heard that all crimes are currently prosecuted as commercial crimes. You can see some of this in 27 CFR 72.11 -

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2021-title27-vol2/xml/CFR-2021-title27-vol2-sec72-11.xml

Did you know that kidnapping, burglary and robbery are all "commercial crimes?" I have heard that even murder is a "commercial crime" now, as they can use the excuse that the victim was a taxpayer.

So, if you are being wronged in a commercial system (with, say, COVID mandates), you need a commercial remedy. The following video surmises it briefly, in what is likely the most intelligent Tic Tok video ever produced-

https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/096/749/930/original/89e3fe0a5f652cd0.mp4

A simple, but powerful, concept. If someone is putting out "mandates" that break the law (or existing codes, regulation, public policy or what have you), put a claim on their bond. ALL public servants have them. Governors, Mayors, Presidents, and likely high level bureaucrats like Fauci. Here is the website she mentioned (note, I have only scanned it briefly so far)-

Bonds for the Win – Bonds For the Win

bondsforthewin.com

Here is the story of one mom who got the entire school district to drop their mask mandates-


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=3KdwaSIOFpE


(We all know how Youtube is these days, so you might what to download the video if interested)

It's focused on school districts, but I don't see why this process wouldn't also work for businesses challenging restrictions, or employees of such businesses.

And while it is focused on the UNITED STATES, I think this process would work in other countries. It's a commercial remedy. Every state in the union has adopted the Uniform Commercial Code. Virtually every country as well (certainly every country with more than 1 million people). Maybe Canadians can file a claim against Justin Castro's bond (or Justin Trudeau, for those of you that don't read Fulford).

@Lollipop2 @haidut

Fascinating. I wonder if this process could work on vax mfg’s CEO’s or board members - personally? It would be interested to know how far their company vax liability “immunity” extends?

 

[tankasnowgod]

Fascinating. I wonder if this process could work on vax mfg’s CEO’s or board members - personally? It would be interested to know how far their company vax liability “immunity” extends?

Maybe, but what code/law/statute have they violated? To make a successful claim, you need a specific violation. From what I understand, the companies basically sold all the so called "Covid Vaccines" to various governments. And everyone who took one is supposed to sign a contract and consent form, similar to this one-


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGiPdTMC9kg&t=1s


If someone did a "naked acceptance" and signed that form, that would be fairly good evidence of "informed consent." Everyone has the right to contract unlimited.

I think there would be a much better chance of success by putting a claim on the FDA members who voted to authorize use of the Pfizer vaccine. Peter Doshi brought up several issues with the Pfizer data that could be the hallmarks of fraud (and totally negate even the "95% Relative Risk Reduction" claim), and being negligent in their duty would likely be ground for some claim.

 

[DrJ]

Is the head of the TSA bonded? Maybe we can stop wearing the stoopid masks on airplanes.

 

[Grapelander]

(We all know how Youtube is these days, so you might what to download the video if interested)

Looks like people got this to BitChute.
Excellent & relevant topic - many of us with autistic children are getting hammered hard over masks and community access.
I am looking at my legal options. They broke ADA and Federal / State disability laws here in California.
I figured even if I didn't win I could be part of a critical mass of lawsuits that they have to defend.

The Justice Department today reached an agreement with the Maine Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to resolve alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

A young man with intellectual disabilities (ID) filed a complaint with the Justice Department alleging that Maine imposed restrictions that placed him at serious risk of having to move from his own home into a congregate setting in order to receive the services he needs. Congregate settings are multi-person homes or facilities where residents receive needed services. This agreement will help ensure that Mainers with ID and autism can receive the personal assistance they need in their own homes.

While Maine’s Medicaid program allows unlimited personal assistance services for people living in congregate settings, the state’s community service program for people with ID and autism limits those same services when they are provided in a person’s own home. As a result, people with disabilities who need more personal assistance, like the young man who filed the complaint, may be forced to leave their homes and move to a segregated setting.

“The ADA requires states to provide disability services in the most integrated setting appropriate,” said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke for the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “This often means ensuring that people with disabilities can receive services in their own homes rather than in congregate settings. The Civil Rights Division will vigorously enforce the ADA to avoid unnecessary segregation of people with disabilities and ensure their full integration into the community.”

“We appreciate Maine DHHS’s cooperation with the department’s investigation,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Donald E. Clark for the District of Maine. “The settlement agreement ensures that this young man, and other Mainers with disabilities, will be able to obtain needed services in their own homes.”

After receiving the complaint, the department opened an investigation under the ADA. Maine fully cooperated with the Justice Department’s investigation. In February 2020, the department issued a letter of findings concluding that Maine was failing to provide the complainant with necessary services in the most integrated setting appropriate to his needs, which is his own home, thus placing him at serious risk of having to enter a congregate setting. The department also found that Maine had failed to modify its service program for people with ID and autism to avoid discrimination.

Under the agreement reached today, Maine will modify its policies so that people with ID or autism can receive services in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs. For example, DHHS will implement a process for granting exceptions to its cap on services provided in one’s own home. DHHS will also establish an individualized process for people to assess their options of where they want to live and receive services. For the complainant, DHHS will provide access to all needed in-home services and pay $100,000 in damages.