You are on page 1of 1



Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Traigle, 421 U.S. 100 (1975)

"[t]he simple but controlling question is whether the state has given anything for which it can ask
return," Wisconsin v. J. C. Penney Co., 311 U. S. 435, 311 U. S. 444. (so, the simple but controlling
question is whether the BANK (or any other claimant) gave anything for which it can ask in return.)

"The corporation, including the foreign corporation doing only interstate business in Louisiana, enjoys
under our laws many privileges separate and apart from simply doing business, such for instance as the
legal status to sue and be sued in the Courts of our State, continuity of business without interruption by
death or dissolution, transfer of property interests by the disposition of shares of stock, advantages of
business controlled and managed by corporate directors, and the general absence of individual liability,
among others." (therefore, if one has individual liability, then one receives NO PRIVILEGES from STATE,
thus is NOT enfranchised)

Thus BANK had no right to seek this order because it gave nothing and in order to move "in rem" (a
proceeding in equity) then one must give equity to get equity and once asked for proof of claim
without answer means NO PROOF OF CLAIM that a "loan" ever occurred, thus the BANK never gave
equity, thus the BANK in reality owes the Defendant payment for the asset it received in the form of a
release from mortgage OR it can return the same plus profits in exchange for the order of the court to
foreclose on the property.

So, you have received no proof of claim the BANK ever gave a loan in exchange for the mortgage and
promissory note securities it claimed to have received by virtue of the deposit of the mortgage
complaint security with the court; NOR have you received any tax forms showing you abandoned the
securities nor tax forms showing the bank paid the tax on the transfer.

Furthermore, as one must do equity to receive equity and there is no bond of record, this is a mistrial for
whomever is trying to bring a public charge is doing so without a bond as qualified heir (cf. 26 USC
2032A(e)(11)) and attempting to evade and defeat a tax liability (cf.26 USC 7201; 7202; 7203) for I have
received no tax forms showing the taxes have been paid on this issue.

"Where is my value?" "Show me the tax forms that declared it at a taxable gain since you've construed
that I abandoned the property." "Excuse me, did you pay the taxes on the secondary issue when you
issued the bank certificates against my note, or did you construe that it was a tax-exempt original issue
because you presumed I had abandoned my security?"


Equity will not allow a statute to be used as a cloak for fraud and it appears BANK engaged in vexatious
litigation through an abuse of the process in attempt to evade or defeat a tax liability.