PPH reports “Court system cash strapped, says chief justice.” Maine Supreme Judicial Court Chief Justice Leigh Saufley’s Tuesday (1-19-11) meeting with members of the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee provided an overview of Maine’s court system. “We are doing very well given the limited budget that we have at this point,” Saufley said. “But we are struggling, there’s no question about that.” “Forty-one clerks’ offices have been reduced to 26, two courthouses have recently been closed, four more have been consolidated into two, with more consolidations scheduled in the next three years, Saufley said.”

The NH Concord Monitor reports  “NH chief justice proposes new mega-court.” “New Hampshire court officials said Wednesday that combining three courts into one will better serve the public while saving $37 million over 10 years.”

“The plan to combine the state’s probate, family and district courts into a new Circuit Court was the centerpiece of a report submitted to the state Supreme Court by the Judicial Innovation Commission. The group, which included judicial branch workers, lawmakers and businesspeople, was appointed in March to analyze how to cut costs and streamline court operations at time when courts face both growing demand for services and shrinking funding. Under the plan, the state’s 78 courts in 40 locations would remain open, but management and staff would be shared. In 2009, Gov. John Lynch proposed closing some courts and consolidating others to save money but the Legislature rejected the idea.”

Are the courts really “cash strapped?”  The months of research on the evidence below are serious points to ponder:

Court docket numbers are assigned a CUSIP number, securitized and traded for profit. “Each case has its own account! And the clerk is the “custodian of the account!” Gives new meaning to the phrase “the business of the court!”

The Court Registry Investment System (CRIS) is a cash management system used by the Judiciary. (see p. 41) The CRIS report shows how the courts invest and financially benefit from court cases. (This is a large file. It may take up to 5 minutes to download but it is totally worth the wait.)

CUSIP stands for Committee on Uniform Securities Identification Procedures. A CUSIP number identifies most securities, including: stocks of all registered U.S. and Canadian companies, and U.S. government and municipal bonds. The CUSIP system—owned by the American Bankers Association and operated by Standard & Poor’s—facilitates the clearing and settlement process of securities.

The number consists of nine characters (including letters and numbers) that uniquely identify a company or issuer and the type of security. A similar system is used to identify foreign securities (CUSIP International Numbering System).

Court cases are issued a CUSIP number. To find the CUSIP No. and Bonds by the CUSIP No. Click here.

US District Court Local Rules   

 67.2 Deposit of Registry Funds Into Interest-Bearing Account

Connect the dots.

Securitization is illegal

Beware Metro And Regional Government!

View more related documents at and

Do we have more than just a conflict of interest here? Are the courts “crying wolf?”

I attended a hearing in Bath, Maine awhile back. Most cases involved traffic violations. The accused were hurdled in like cattle. From 9:00 a.m. to noontime, approximately $30,000 in fines were agreed upon by the victims. The same line was spoken by the judge “how much can you pay today?” This is only ONE court in Maine. Where does this money go? Is it not time for an audit of the Maine courts?

Published in: on January 20, 2011 at 3:30 am  Comments (6)  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

6 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. Hi!

    Courts? There aren’t constitutional courts operating in Maine. None of the so-called judges possess a “commission” which creates the constitutional office and is under seal.

    According to the Constitution of the State of Maine, all civil and criminal cases must be by a trial by jury (not jury trial – a play on words). District so-called courts do not have trial by jury. Why is that?

    Additionally, the so-called courts in Maine receive “federal” funding. Maine is supposed to be a free and independent state so how can its “courts” accept federal funding? It can’t unless they are courts of something else such as “commercial” courts perhaps.

    The so-called courts belong to the insiders, and they are designed for you to lose and most do.

    Thank you!


  2. Australia has been saddled with the same “corporatized” court system you have, a system that essentially ignores Constitutional law and enforces the statutes of corporate government. Government in the west has been corporatized and shifted from its proper Constitutional foundation. This process has been going on in Australia since about the 1920s (as in the US) but was given its biggest push under the Fabian Socialist prime minister Gough Whitlam in the early 1970s who set in place a shell government under the unlawful title Her Majesty Queen of Australia.

  3. Hi!

    Recently, I have received two (2) “certificates” from two (2) fake judges here in Maine.

    I asked in several Freedom of Access requests Title 1, Chap. 13, Section 408 for their commissions and not “certificates,” and so far both are in violation of this statute.

    All constitutional judges MUST be commissioned, and it is ONLY those so named in their commissions that can enter the public judicial office and no one else.

    A “certificate” does not rise to the level of a commission since a commission is a “letters patent” and a “certificate” is not.

    Passing along their “certificates” as a commission is passing along a fraudulent document.

    This is outright fraud, and they ought to go straight to jail.

    I have yet to receive their commissions but I am still trying to get them.

    Another Freedom of Access request goes out next week.

    Lise from Maine

  4. What a bunch of scammers, your money laundering, racketeering and fraud is soon coming to an end. Your time for buying, selling and trading people on the stock exchange via the Birth Certificate is coming to an end. What are you going to do when you have no money? You won’t know how to live! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. You better start thinking about your doing. I am talking to the court system. Your greed has taken you over!


    Correction to the sentence “You better start thinking about your doing.” is suppose to read You better start thinking about what your doing.

  6. The “Court Registry Investment System” (“CRIS”) results in courts earning INTEREST on deposits that litigants make into “court registries”. Nothing more. The principle amount of the money deposited into “court registries” goes only to the winning litigant themselves.

    In order actually understand CRIS (the “Court Registry Investment System”), you need to first know what a “court registry” actually is. A “court registry” is actually an office at the court house where litigants deposit money pending the outcome of a case (until the case is over, at which time, the money is paid to one litigant or the other). When a litigant deposits money at the “court registry” pending the outcome of a case, the court registry “registers” (records) the deposit to the litigant making the deposit and records the date, time and amount of the deposit. If the litigant depositing the money at the “court registry” wins his/her case, then the “court registry” refunds that deposited money back to the depositing litigant. If the litigant depositing the money at the “court registry” loses his/her case, then the “court registry” pays that deposited money to the winning litigant (to the other side). So, in this sense, a “court registry” is like an “escrow agent” in a real estate transaction. A “court registry” is a neutral third party which temporarily holds money that will ultimately go to one litigant or to the other litigant, depending on which side wins the case.

    Neither the government nor the federal courts keep any of the money deposited into the “court registry”. The Federal Reserve never gets within miles of this money. Only litigants end up with money that is deposited into the “court registry”.

    Why would any litigant ever deposit money into the “court registry”? The answer is “to get something NOW” (BEFORE the case is over).

    Example (a real case): A car repair shop gives the customer a $1,000 written estimate and tells the customer it will take a week for the repairs. On that condition, the customer leaves his car with the repair shop and returns in one week with a $1,000 in cash. Upon arrival, the repair shop tells the customer that his car is repaired, but that due to unforeseen circumstances, the repairs will cost the customer $2,000 and that the repair will keep the car until it receives all $2,000 from the customer. But, the customer knows the law. So, he goes to the court house and makes a $2,000 deposit into the “court registry” (the full amount in dispute). The “court registry” then issues a written “order” and givers it to the customer. That order “orders” the repair shop to release the car to the customer immediately (even though the dispute/case has not been resolved in favor of the customer yet). The customer then returns to the repair shop with the order in hand along with a sheriff deputy and the customer picks up his repaired car and drives off the lot with a big grin on his face.

    Now, in order for the repair shop to get paid any amount at all (whether it be $1,000 or $2,000) for its repair services, it must file suit against the customer in the same court where the customer made the deposit at the “court registry”. Due to a back log of of cases, the court cannot hear the case for three more months. But, when the court finally gets around to hearing the case, if the repair shop wins, then the judge will order the “court registry” to pay the amount that the customer deposited into the “court registry” (all $2,000) to the repair shop. But, when the court finally gets around to hearing the case, if the customer wins the case, the court will order the “court registry” to only pay the repair shop $1,000 of the $2,000 that the customer deposited into the “court registry” (the amount that even the customer admits was owed), minus deductions for all of the winning customer’s court costs and attorney fees. By using the “court registry” in this way, the customer (who made the $2,000 deposit) was able to use his car during the three month period while the case was waiting to be heard. Otherwise, the repair shop would have been able to legally refuse to release the customer’s car to him until the case was over (in three months).

    So, the “court registry” system benefitted the customer in this case (he got to use his car while waiting for the case to be heard). But, if the repair shop had won the case in court, the “court registry” would have benefitted the repair shop, because the total amount of amount of money that it wanted for the repairs was already deposited into the “court registry” (all $2,000), so the repair shop would have had no collection problems collecting its winnings in court (it could have simply picked up its winnings from the “court registry” on the way out of court). Thus, either party to a case can benefit from the “court registry”, depending on who ultimately wins the case.

    Now, back to CRIS (the Court Registry Investment System). Over the years, federal courts noticed that at any given point in time, there were millions of dollars on deposit in the federal court registries. Seeing an opportunity earn INTEREST on those deposits, the federal government passed 28 U.S.C. 2041which created the “Court Registry Investment System”. (Read it. It is short and to the point.). That act required all federal “court registries” to deposit the money that they had received from federal court litigants with the Treasury of the United States, not into the Federal Reserve. That act also permitted (but did not require) the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States to use that money to buy “public debt securities” from the federal government, not from the Federal Reserve (that would make the Federal Reserve a debtor to the federal courts, something that would never happen). The Court Registry Investment System effectively makes the federal government a debtor to the federal courts.

    So, the Court Registry System Investment IS ABOUT THE INTEREST generated from “court registry” deposits. IT IS NOT ABOUT THE DEPOSITS THEMSELVES.

    Before CRIS, the commercial banks into which the “court registries” deposited the money of litigants only paid the courts “INTEREST” on those deposits at short-term bank rates. A study was done which determined that commercial banks could fail and that the rates of interest generated on deposits made by the “court registries” into commercial banks did not justify the risk of depositing money into commercial banks. (If a commercial bank failed, the federal courts would have still had to refund to federal court litigants the deposits that they had made into the federal “court registries”.). The study determined that depositing “court registry” money with the Treasurer of the United States was not only 100% safe, doing so would generate more INTEREST than deposits the same money in commercial banks. That was the reason for the Court Registry Investment System. IT IS ALL ABOUT THE INTEREST, NOT ABOUT THE MONEY DEPOSITED ITSELF. The federal courts wanted the deposits to be 100% safe and they wanted the INTEREST for themselves.

    There is absolutely no connection whatsoever between the Court Registry Investment System and the Federal Reserve (read the act), the imaginary “cesta que trust”, birth certificates, social security numbers, the alleged 1933 bankruptcy of the United States, capital letters, straw men and yellow fringe on flags, etc.

    With that said, the Court Registry Investment System is subject to two legitimate complaints. First, the money invested with the Treasury of the United States through the Court Registry Investment System actually belongs to the litigants with cases pending before the federal courts. That money does not belong to the federal courts themselves. Nevertheless, the federal courts receive and retain the INTEREST generated from the investment of “court registry” deposits with the Treasury of the United States and THEY DO NOT SHARE THAT INTEREST with the litigants to whom the deposits actually belong. Second, the end result of the Court Registry Investment System is that it effectively makes federal government a debtor to the federal courts. The INTEREST (not the principle) that the federal government pays back to the federal courts is an expense to the federal government, and therefore, an expense to the American taxpayer in the form of increased taxes, increased federal borrowing or both.

    So, if you oppose the Court Registry Investment System (as I do), then oppose it for the correct reasons (the reasons set forth in the paragraph above). Do not oppose the Court Registry Investment System because you mistakenly believe that it is a tool to collect money from federal court litigants for the federal government or for the Federal Reserve (owned by private banking interests). The Court Registry Investment System does not do that (and cannot do that). All of the principle amounts of all of the deposits into the “court registries” go to the litigants themselves, not to the federal government or to the Federal Reserve. Any claim to the contrary is simply a lie.

    Side note: The Federal Reserve is the most evil institution in the history of mankind. But, it has no connection to the Court Registry Investment System or to the federal courts.

    Side note: Many states have since copied the model set forth in the “Court Registry Investment Act”. As a result, many states are also earning INTEREST from of the money of state court litigants which is deposited into their own “court registries” at rates higher of INTEREST than they were receiving from commercial banks.

    The Court Registry System: Its all about earning interest on money that actually belongs to federal court litigants. Nothing more.

    Final Note: Two of the people who peddle the false information about CRIS are two of the people who actually created the “Judge DALE Hoax”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: