For bonded Bar attorneys, who in many cases may also be appointed, commissioned, or elected to ‘public office’ as ‘Judge’, ‘Clerk of Court’, etc. when/if their bond is complained against for good and reasonable cause, their bond may be ‘pulled’, and due to loss of effective bond or ‘suretyship’, they cannot ‘practice’ or ‘discharge’ the duty of the office held, or occupied.　 In short, the bond maker-issuer is the bonding party for the benefit or on behald of the ‘bondee’, ie. the purported ‘public officer’, ‘employee’, or ‘official’.　 This would extend as well to all other ‘public employees’ and ‘agents’-‘agencies’, etc.

Every ‘person’ being bonded has a Dun & Bradstreet ‘bond rating’.　 At least it is reasonable to assume such.　 Once three complaints are filed against any bond, assuming they are with merit and well supported by fact and ‘law’ of the ‘breach’ of fiduciary duty, the bond is most always pulled or revoked.　 The ‘servant’ at ‘risk’ by assuming the responsibilities of operating in any ‘official capacity’ or by ‘employment’, can no longer be underwritten as a ‘no risk’ or ‘low risk’ contract.　 One incident of ‘breach’ or operating ‘ultra vires’, or ‘without the law’, causes the ‘immunity’ provisions of the written ‘law’ to cease to be effective, because when one violates the law as a ‘public servant’, one’s immunity blanket ceases to apply, thereby leaving the insurer or bondsman or bond issuer exposed to the liability arising from the servant’s acts, which under any ‘breach of law authority’ causes or gives rise to an ‘injury’ which is a civil or criminal commercial liability. Everything, whether civil or criminal or martial, is a matter of ‘commerce’, and admiralty law is the venue and jurisdiction by which disputes in/of commercial nature are resolved in truth and fact.

If the Public Official does not stop or take the action(s) you request, you can put them on notice by submitting a “Color of Law” violation.

Q 4529:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-11/suits-against-state-officials

"The immunity of a state from suit has long been held not to extend to actions against state officials for damages arising out of willful and negligent disregard of state laws.165 The reach of the rule is evident in Scheuer v. Rhodes,166 in which the Court held that plaintiffs were not barred by the Eleventh Amendment or other immunity doctrines from suing the governor and other officials of a state alleging that they deprived plaintiffs of federal rights under color of state law and seeking damages, when it was clear that plaintiffs were seeking to impose individual and personal liability on the officials. There was no “executive immunity” from suit, the Court held; rather, the immunity of s tate officials is qualified and varies according to the scope of discretion and responsibilities of the particular office and the circumstances existing at the time the challenged action was taken." Q

Q 4084:

https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law

Digest - know your rights. Q

This post is pure gold. [emphasis added]