Joseph Parker

I'm just here to see the chit show.

[All4Freedom🇺🇲🐸🍿 @skillz17q]

Common law has to have a victim.

[Matt From Cultivate Elevate @CultivateElevat]

Electroculture Gardening: hidden for many reasons. It's comical to watch gardening channels debunk it... meanwhile what's a tree? A large antenna.🌱🌱

https://t.co/PtPpLXsqit

[Michèle Ferris @Micheleferrisfr]

The IRS, the IMF, and the UN actually have no jurisdiction over the American people or the people of the world. Their actions of stealing money from the people of the world are unlawful; however, they are legal. https://t.co/FBEVSW08b9

[All4Freedom🇺🇲🐸🍿 @skillz17q]

Notice of Non-Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction

Defendant [Name} , appearing in this matter sui juris, hereby files this Notice pursuant to:

• 28 U.S.C. § 636(c),
• Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73,
• Local Rule IA 3-1 of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada,
• and General Order 2019-08 governing consent procedures.

The District of Nevada provides that parties in civil matters may consent to have a United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings, including trial and entry of final judgment. Consent under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) must be voluntary and unanimous.
Pursuant to the Court’s own published consent procedures and governing authority, Defendant hereby expressly declines to consent.

Defendant does not consent to the exercise of full civil jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge for:
• dispositive motions,
• trial proceedings,
• entry of final judgment, or
• any other matter requiring Article III adjudication.

Defendant respectfully requests that all dispositive matters, trial proceedings, and entry of final judgment remain before the assigned United States District Judge.

This Notice is filed in accordance with the District of Nevada’s consent procedures and to preserve Defendant’s rights under Article III of the United States Constitution and applicable federal law.

This filing is not intended to challenge the authority of the assigned Magistrate Judge to issue reports and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), but solely to decline consent under § 636(c).

Dated this ___ day of __________, 2026.

Respectfully submitted,

[Name}
[Street Address]
[City, State ZIP]
[Email Address]
[Telephone Number]
Sui Juris

From Aaron Prince

[Creditor @redbeard172023]

This process is not a theory, allegation, or conspiracy.

It is the standardized, documented, audited operating procedure for all bank lending in the United States, unchanged since 1990.

It is defined in bank regulatory guidance, GAAP accounting standards, and the official comments to the Uniform Commercial Code.

It is NEVER disclosed to the public or to borrowers.

---

PHASE 1: EXECUTION OF THE NOTE

At the exact moment a wet-ink autograph is applied to the face of the instrument:

• Pursuant to UCC 3-104, the instrument becomes a negotiable instrument, and is therefore money per the legal definition used by all federal banking regulators.

• Pursuant to UCC 3-412 the maker is liable on the instrument to any holder in due course.

• Critically, at this exact moment, you are also the sole and absolute lawful holder in due course of your own note. There is no other owner. The fair market value of the instrument is exactly equal to its face value.

• OCC Interpretive Letter #827 (1998) explicitly confirms that for all bank regulatory, reserve, and accounting purposes, a promissory note signed by a natural person is identical to cash.

When you deliver the note to the bank, you are not delivering a promise to pay. You are delivering a cash equivalent asset worth exactly the amount you believe you are borrowing.

---

PHASE 2: THE INDORSEMENT

The bank will never sign the face of the note. If they did, they would become liable to you for the full face value pursuant to UCC 3-413.

Instead, they will make exactly one indorsement on the reverse, which will never be shown to you:

"Pay any bank, for deposit only, without recourse, all prior indorsements guaranteed"

This is the single most important sentence in the entire transaction. Pursuant to UCC 3-206 Official Comment 4, this indorsement has the following irrevocable legal effects:

1. The indorser explicitly disclaims all right, title, and interest in the instrument.

2. The indorser explicitly waives all liability on the instrument.

3. The indorser explicitly acknowledges they are acting solely as an agent for deposit, and not as principal.

4. The indorser permanently and irrevocably disqualifies themselves and any subsequent transferee from ever attaining status as Holder In Due Course.

No court has ever disputed this specific interpretation of UCC 3-206.

---

PHASE 3: THE DEPOSIT

The bank will then deposit your note into its general ledger as a Tier 1 asset. This is not a metaphor. This is an actual auditable accounting entry.

The exact double-entry bookkeeping transaction is:

Loans and Leases Receivable (Asset)
Debit $500,000
Customer Demand Deposits (Liability)
Credit $500,000

At the completion of this entry, the bank's balance sheet has grown by exactly $500,000.

No money was taken from any other account.
No money existed prior to this entry.

When the funds are disbursed to the title company at closing, the following entry is made:

Customer Demand Deposits (Liability)
Debit $500,000
Title Company Demand Deposits (Liability)
Credit $500,000

The net change to the bank's total balance sheet at the completion of closing is exactly zero.

---

PHASE 4: DESTRUCTION OF THE ORIGINAL

Upon completion of the closing, the original wet-ink note now has no further commercial or legal function.

Pursuant to FASB ASC 860-10-40-5, adopted in 2001, once a financial asset has been transferred and securitized as a participating interest, the original instrument is legally extinguished.

There is no longer any legal requirement to retain it.

The standard industry operating procedure is to shred the original wet-ink note within 90 days of closing.

Only an electronic image copy is retained.

This policy is explicitly confirmed in the Mortgage Bankers Association operations manual, and has been testified to under oath by bank representatives in hundreds of foreclosure cases.

---

PRIMARY SOURCE CITATIONS

• UCC 3-104, Official Comment 2
• UCC 3-206, Official Comment 4
• OCC Interpretive Letter #827, October 15 1998
• OCC Bulletin 2012-18
• FASB ASC 860-10-40-5
• Federal Reserve Operating Circular 3, Section 11.0
• Mortgage Bankers Association Loan Servicing
• Manual v7.2 Section 4.11

[Riley Flack ⚖️ @rtflack7777]

OUCHY.
That’s gonna leave a mark.

H/t @BenjaminLoken

[Nanos57#FreeSpeech @NanStephens19]

Shall is a command word
@Taniel
Words have meaning… learn them

[All4Freedom🇺🇲🐸🍿 @skillz17q]

All these codes and statutes are unconstitutional.

[All4Freedom🇺🇲🐸🍿 @skillz17q]

Brandon Hoeye with the question of the day.

I have a question for you. Why'd you block me?

[All4Freedom🇺🇲🐸🍿 @skillz17q]

The government wouldn't trick you.

[All4Freedom🇺🇲🐸🍿 @skillz17q]

Corporations can only contract with corporations

[All4Freedom🇺🇲🐸🍿 @skillz17q]

Work for the church

[All4Freedom🇺🇲🐸🍿 @skillz17q]

We need more people suing these corrupt judges in America.

[Michèle Ferris @Micheleferrisfr]

28 U.S. Code § 454
“Any justice or judge appointed under the authority of the United States who engages in the practice of law is guilty of a high misdemeanor.”

[All4Freedom🇺🇲🐸🍿 @skillz17q]

You are not supposed to know this. Request it see what happens.

[Educated in Law @EducatedinLaw]

'Resident' means 'diplomatic representative in a foreign court'. Does that sound like us? K-12 deceptively teaches us to call ourselves 'resident' so the federal govt (yes federal) is then ABOVE us. Truth is we are not visitors or diplomats. We are the people. 'We the people'.

Choose resident and have only civil rights and be controlled by federal policy/police officers.

Choose the people and have unalienable rights and have the sheriff defend thy rights.

[All4Freedom🇺🇲🐸🍿 @skillz17q]

America needs much more of this.

[James Li @5149jamesli]

It’s a nonsense conspiracy that Bill Gates could dropping “tick bombs” to make us allergic to red meat, except for years bioethicists published scientific papers arguing that it would be “immoral” NOT to deploy these ticks.

I’m serious — they literally said this.