Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Alfred Adask

Expand Messages
  • Tim Kiley
    This is from a great patriot, editor of AntiShyster news magazine. He was arrested on bogus charges last year and is being held in Missouri (!) and has yet
    Message 1 of 5 , Jan 22, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      This is from a great patriot, editor of AntiShyster news magazine.  He was arrested on bogus "charges" last year and is being held in Missouri (!) and has yet to be formally charged with a crime.  (He was arrested in Dallas and "extradited" to another state.)
       
      He is one great researcher.  I thought you might appreciate his insights.
       
      Enjoy,
       
      Tim Kiley
       
       From ALFRED ADASK, Dec.26 --

      IN VOLUNTARY SERVITUDE

       

       

      I do not believe slavery is the relevant issue under the 13th Amendment. If we were slaves, we couldn’t be held personally accountable for our implied “choice” to “serve” as a fiduciary. Slaves have no choice. The key is involuntary servitude which presupposes the capacity (the freedom) to volunteer, (or not) in the first place, to serve as a fiduciary.

        

      My current (foolish) bet is that the vast majority of “presumptions” on which the courts rely to oppress us are probably implied trust relationships which the courts conjure up and make “appear” based on the parties’ alleged conduct rather than express agreement. Note that the meanings of the words “implied” and “presumed” are not so different. To say one word could easily implicate the other. If so, the “presumptions” could easily he “code” or synonyms for “implied trust relationships” (which are then “construed” by the courts in “constructive trusts” also known as “court orders”).

        

      If this conjecture is valid, it almost has to hinge on the prime presumption that a particular defendant voluntarily entered into an implied trust relationship wherein he acts as “trustee” to the plaintiffs role as “beneficiary”. As long as the defendant doesn’t expressly reject his role as implied (unarticulated) trustee, he is presumed to have voluntarily taken on the associated fiduciary obligations and is thus liable to prosecution for breach, unjust enrichment, etc.

        

      I can’t. easily imagine how this strategy could exist without the presumption that the defendant volunteered to be a fiduciary. Thus, the key seems to he that the. defendant deny he voluntarily entered into an implied trust relationship with the plaintiff. Without a voluntary entrance into an implied trust, the court may not “construe” a constructive trust/court order wherein the defendant is “officially” designated as trustee obligated to “serve” the plaintiff-beneficiary. If the court of equity proceeds to impose fiduciary obligations on the defendant without the defendant’s (presumed) voluntary acceptance of appointment as implied trustee, the court has subjected the defendant to “INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE”--=a constitutional No-No under the 13th Amendment.

       

      CONSTITUTIONAL OATH

       

      I suspect the Oath issue is not simply about the judge, hut about the defendant and/or plaintiff. The judge’s constitutional oath probably only al)plies when the case and parties manage to “appear” in a constitutional venue. It. takes two to tango. If YOU can’t manage to act and “appear” in a constitutional capacity, I doubt that the judge has any obligation to obey his

      constitutional oath This commentary is pure conjecture on my part. The oath issue is not necessarily relevant IF we are dealing with implied trusts.

        

      IF the court operates on the presumption that the plaintiff and defendant are bound together in an implied trust relationship, that implied relationship in equity may be analogous to an express contractual relationship at law’. The judge is prohibited by the constitution from “impairing the obligation of contracts”. But contracts have been redefined to allow mere promises to serve as considerations in contracts (rather than lawful money). I doubt that any modem “contracts” (without lawful consideration) are true contracts, but are instead TRUSTS. Similarly, I have reason to suspect that the term “civil contract” may be synonymous with TRUST. 1 am willing to bet that the Judge’s constitutional oath not only prohibits him from “impairing the obligation of contracts”----but also (through one subterfuge or another) from impairing the obligation of TRUSTS. IS so, the only question is this. Does an implied (or express) trust relationship exist between the plaintiff (implied beneficiary) and defendant (implied trustee)? If the judge “finds” that such relationship exists based on only the conduct of the parties, then the judge is BOUND by his constitutional oath to enforce the “terms” of the implied (or express) trust.

        

      Thus 1) the trust relationship is PRIVATE; and 2) the court isn’t violating it’s oath in the sense most people imagine, but rather using its oath as justification to “blindly” enforce the implied terms of the implied trust that the plaintiff and defendant have presumably entered into--even though neither “party” could tell you what a trust is or that they ever truly INTENDED to assume the “mysterious” roles of trustee and beneficiary.

        

      The whole process hinges on the fact that 1) trusts can be created by mere conduct (without words) and implications; and 2) there is NO requirement for FULL DISCLOSURE to the trust participants; and, most importantly, 3) a party to a trust is expected to recognize the existence of the trust and his role in that trust simply from OBSERVING his RELATIONSHIP to the other party.

        

      Admittedly, I am reaching and jumping to conclusions (my favorite sport) and my conclusions are fantastic But you must admit it does walk like a duck and it quacks. Perhaps I have identified a new species of duck, the IMPLIED DUCK? If this conjecture is valid, the first line of defense is to expressly DENY the existence of a trust relationship with the plaintiff.

       

      Page 2

      Make the denial under OATH--by sworn testimony or affidavit. Who will swear under oath to the contrary? Who will TESTIFY that a trust relationship was established by mere IMPLICATION with a defendant who denies under oath that he ever INTENDED in fact or by implication to enter into a trust relationship with the plaintiff?

        

      Again---no involuntary servitude. The fact that I might unwittingly allege that you and I have entered into an IMPLIED trust relationship only works if it is presumed that you silently assented to serve as trustee in that implied relationship. As soon as you stand up and expressly deny (probably under oath) that you ever intended, agreed or volunteered to serve as my trustee-

       

      ---who can prove to the contrary? It is much like being married----both parties must consent. If one of the parties doesn’t say “I do”, there is NO marriage relationship. One “I do” is not enough.

        

      The. difference is that in IMPLIED trust relationship, if the two parties happen to visit a church at the same time and happen to walk up to the front of the church at the same time, and maybe swap a kiss or just hold hands in the vicinity of the altar, it can be PRESUMED by the court that the two parties entered into an IMPLIED trust relationship of marriage----even though neither party said “I do” or actually intended to marry. And next thing you know, some poor

       

      slob is being forced to pay alimony or child support and he doesn’t have a clue why.

        

      13th AMENDMENT vs. 14th AMENDMENT

      As I see it, we are PRESUMED to be a U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment residing IN a territorial state of the national democracy (like “STATE OF OREGON”) as opposed to living ON a state of the union (like “Oregon” or “Kansas”) as found/referenced in the 13th Amendment. The 13th Amendment is so very important---it controls the PLACE where you live, act, etc.; the PLACE where you are presumed to live and act controls which JURISDICTION you fall into: (1) the NATIONAL democracy of the singular “United States” (as found in the 14th Amendment), or (2) one of the SEVERAL states of the Union (which are each guaranteed a republican form of government by Art 4 Sec 4 of the constitution).

       

      If you compare the 13th and the 14th Amendments you’ll see that they each refer to TWO different entities called “United States”. The 13th Amendment prohibits slavery or involuntary servitude “within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction”. The indefinite pronoun “their” is plural in implication and tells us that the term referenced (“United States”) is plural. Thus, in the 13th, slavery amid involuntary servitude are ONLY prohibited “WITHIN” (not “in”) the several (now 50) states of the Union called “United States”.

       

      Page 3

      But the 14th Amendment differs radically in that: 1) the jurisdiction is over PERSONS rather than PLACES; and 2) the term “United States” does not refer to the several states of the Union, but rather to a SINGULAR entity also (and deceptively) called “United States”.

        

      The proof of the 14th Amendment’s SINGULAR “United States” is found in that Amendment’s first sentence which reads “All persons born or naturalized IN the United States and subject to THE jurisdiction thereof....” If you will check Black’s Law Dictionary (7th Ed.) you’ll read that “in” means “under or subject to”. Thus, in legaleze, “in” does not describe a physical location, but is instead a statement of personal jurisdiction. “Within”, on the other hand, signifies a geographical PLACE located “within” some fixed, physical borders.

        

      Thus to be “in” the United States means you are personally subject to that jurisdiction, while being “within” the United States only means that you are present at that location but not necessarily subject to that jurisdiction. For example, an ambassador from France could he “within” the United States while he is at New York or Boston, but his status as ambassador would prevent him from ever being “in” the United States and personally SUBJECT to that jurisdiction.

        

      The 14th Amendment refers to “the jurisdiction thereof”. See it? The article “the” is singular and references “the jurisdiction of the United States”. Thus THAT “United States” is NOT the SEVERAL “United States” found in the 13th Amendment. Instead, the “United States” of the 14th Amendment is a singular, NATIONAL (nation-wide) entity which (so far as I can tell) is the Congress (and maybe the Executive Branch---hut NOT the Art Ill Judiciary).

        

      “Oregon” is a state of the Union as found in the 13th Amendment. The “STATE OF OREGON” is a territorial state of the singular, national “United States” The salient distinction between the 13th and the 14th Amendments is this: slavery and involuntary servitude are ONLY prohibited WITHIN the several states of the Union (Oregon, Kansas, etc.) but hot prohibited “in the territorial states of the national, singular “United States” like the “STATE OF OREGON, STATE OF KANSAS”, etc. Get the point? Involuntary servitude---and even slavery----are quite all right “in” the singular “United States” and its territorial states. Fascinating implications, hmmmm?

        

      So if you want to defeat the involuntary servitude of implied trust relationships and/or constructive trusts, you must first establish that you live, work or act only “within” one of

       

      Page 4

      several “United States” of the Union. If you agree or merely assent to the court’s presumption that you are a 14th Amendment “person” acting “in” the singular, national “United States”, you will have NO STANDING to protest the involuntary servitude of implied and constructive trusts.

       

      For example, use of a zip code or soc. sec. number will at least allow the courts to presume you are a 14th Amendment “person” acting “in” (subject to) the singular “United States” and/or one of its territorial states (like “STATE OF OREGON”). Drivers licenses, birth certificates, checking accounts, credit cards and a host of other instruments will likewise allow the presumption that you are a 14th Amendment “person” acting “in” (subject to) the singular “United States”.

        

      The fact that there are so many devices which create the presumption of “personhood” may seem discouraging to most people. After all, how can you possibly give up the use of these things in everyday life, escape “personhood”, and still lead a semi-prosperous life? The average man would rather accept the burden of involuntary servitude than risk losing his Master Card and checking account, etc., etc.

        

      But, I suspect that the plethora of devices that bind us to the 14th Amendment “personhood” and subject us to involuntary servitude may be evidence that none of these devices are FATAL to any individual refusal to accept involuntary servitude of implied trusts. If the government could absolutely impose 14th Amendment “citizenship” on all of us, why do they need all the extra devices, tricks, am-id presumptions? The multiplicity of devices implies that no single device is sufficient to absolutely condemn us to status as a 14th “person”. This, in turn, implies that it may be possible to overcome the presumptions of 14th “personhood” created by SSN, drivers license, credit cards, etc. If these presumptions can be overcome, it will be by affidavit (am-id perhaps by conduct). And I think those presumptions can at least be expressly challenged in a way government will be loath to confront.

        

      For example. I am now incarcerated for violating my fiduciary obligations imposed by 1) an implied trust relationship between myself and my alleged common-law wife, and 2) the constructive trust/court order that later “elevated” my status as implied trustee to “actual” trustee with enforceable fiduciary duties. The whole process works so long as I assent to the presumption that our “common law marriage” took place “in” the “STATE OF TEXAS” and/or the 14th- Amendment’s singular “United States”. But what if I assert under oath that our alleged

        

                                        Page 5

      marriage didn’t take place? First, there is no implied trust and, probably, no subject matter for the court to construe into a constructive trust/court order. Case against me might disappear.

        

      What if I assert under oath that I live and act only “on” the land of Texas--a state of the Union, guaranteed a republican form of government by Art 4 Sect 4, and no involuntary servitude by the 13th Amendment? Who will argue to the contrary? Who will testify under oath or submit affidavit that I did not live and act within the boundaries of “Texas” (a state of the Union) but instead acted “in” the “STATE OF TEXAS” (a territorial state of the national democracy AKA singular “United States”)?

       

      Assuming my conjecture is roughly correct, 1 don’t doubt that I can still be out-foxed by some clever lawyer or bamboozled by son-some corrupt judge. But will they-icy want to take that risk? Will they want to risk creating a public record of this strategy at the trial court and then at the appellate courts? Maybe. But if I’m correct, probably not. So I plan to test my strategy with a series of Habeas Corpus petitions, and then, if they don’t work, in a trial in front of a jury. And then, if I’m convicted, in a series of appeals.

       

       

      Page 6 of 6 (Alfred Adask 12/26)

       
       
      Alfred N. Adask
      Author and Editor of www.suspicions.info  and Antishyster News Magazine has
      been held captive without warrant since September 30th 2002.
      At present He is an inmate of the Jefferson County Jail in
      Jefferson County Missouri.
      He was told by his captors that he is charged with two counts of
      criminal non-support in a child support issue brought by a 
      resident of Missouri.
      He was taken to a hearing in mid-December of last year and told
      to plead guilty to the charges and also to acquire the services of a
      lawyer.
      Al refused to do both and has not had another hearing to date. His
      next move will be to send in a Habeas Corpus for himself and if
      it is not successful there is a second Habeas Corpus ready to be
      filed at his request.
      Alfred suspects that he will be let out of Jefferson County Jail
      without warning some time in the near future. He wants Us to
      Locate Two or more Local People, who live within an hours
      drive of Jefferson County Jail, who could pick Al up at the Jail and
      who would work with us to arrange his bus fare back to Dallas Texas,
      should this event occur.
      We are also seeking Local People who could help Al by accepting
      collect phone calls from him occasionally, as well as letters; Local People who could visit Al at the jail. Two or three Local People, who
      could establish and maintain a rapport with Al while he is Jefferson County Jail, Jefferson County Missouri.
       
      "I'd like the system to know that my situation is being Watched  
      by people all over the country.
      I'd like the people who are watching my situation to
      call, fax and or email a question to the sheriff here
      and this is the question,
       
      'Is it true that the living man, Alfred Adask, is
       being held as fiduciary for a crime allegedly committed
       by the person ALFRED ADASK with a DOB of 4/21/45 ?'"
       
       
      The Jefferson County Jail Website is at:
       
       
      sheriff Oliver "Glenn" Boyer 
      636-797-5519
      636-797-5049 fax
       
      Jefferson county sheriffs department
      636-797-5533
      636-797-5000
      636-797-5049 fax
       
      lt. col. Steven Meinberg undersheriff
       
      major Mark Tulgetske chief deputy
       
      capt. Chris Pigg law enforcement commander
       
      capt. Denise Lassing support services commander
       
      lt. Virgil Lorenze office of professional standards
       
      lt. Robert McKlin jail director and commander
      636-797-5318
       
      Don Allen office manager
       
      Tanya Bergner administrative secretary
       
      Jina Atkins administrative secretary
       
      Jennifer Finke personnel
       
       
      To Contact Us:
       
      Jefferson County Jail
      P.O. Box 100
      Hillsboro, Missouri 63050
      Alfred Adask Bk. # 2006371
       
      If You can send a Contribution or
      Donation to aid Al at this time contact:  
       
      Richard Clark at
      214-368-4513
      central time zone or
      POB 516371
      Dallas Texas 75251
       
      Jeff Penley at
      res0v435.verizon.net or
      972-496-4788
      central time zone or
      c/o 2921 Robin Hill Ln.
      Garland Tx 75044-5941
       
      We Welcome You to visit Al's
      Suspicions News Magazine Website
      and Download Free copies of
      Suspicions News Magazine at
       
      Yours Truly,
       
      Jeff Penley
       
       
      ... Remember, democracy never lasts long.
      It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself.
      There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.
       
      --- John Quincy Adams
    • Jim
      Hello tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, I need some help in answering a court ordered writ of possession which was issued without a court ordered judgement.
      Message 2 of 5 , Jan 24, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Hello tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com,

        I need some help in answering a court ordered "writ of
        possession" which was issued without a court ordered
        judgement.

        Is the writ of possession by its self a judgement?

        The writ was submitted to the court by the plaintiffs counsel
        to try to collect on a loan made to a corporation.

        This debt has been through the private administrative remedy
        of debt cancelation verification and validation process.
        Which was never answered by the bank or its collection agent
        an attorney.(All documentation waw entered in record but
        ignored by the courtalong wit some other lengthy affidavits)

        What the deffinition says:
        "writ of possession. A writ issued to recover the
        possession of land."
        Black's Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition, page 1605.

        There is no land involved only equipment - there is a
        leased restaurant with the landlord with whom all rents
        are current.This landlord has no involvement in the loan
        having no connection with it in any way,

        Is the writ of possession valid with out the judgement
        and is it valid where no land is involved?

        My thoughts on the answer - take to higher court a suit to
        vacate a void judgment in a collertal attack or is there
        some way to go back to the original court to have it set
        aside for fraud.

        I need some advise on this -Please

        thanks

        Jim Parks mailto:jparks@...
      • *
        It would be helpful to know the state this is in and whether or not the loan agreement contained a clause for confessed judgment in the case of a default. I
        Message 3 of 5 , Jan 24, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          It would be helpful to know the state this is in and whether or not the loan
          agreement contained a clause for "confessed judgment" in the case of a
          default. I do think that Writ Of Possession is improper, it should have
          been a Writ of Attachment.

          Let me know what state and I will see if I have some info on it.

          Gary

          -----Original Message-----
          From: Jim [mailto:jim@...]
          Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 4:25 PM
          To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [tips_and_tricks] writ of possession question


          Hello tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com,

          I need some help in answering a court ordered "writ of
          possession" which was issued without a court ordered
          judgement.

          Is the writ of possession by its self a judgement?

          The writ was submitted to the court by the plaintiffs counsel
          to try to collect on a loan made to a corporation.

          This debt has been through the private administrative remedy
          of debt cancelation verification and validation process.
          Which was never answered by the bank or its collection agent
          an attorney.(All documentation waw entered in record but
          ignored by the courtalong wit some other lengthy affidavits)

          What the deffinition says:
          "writ of possession. A writ issued to recover the
          possession of land."
          Black's Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition, page 1605.

          There is no land involved only equipment - there is a
          leased restaurant with the landlord with whom all rents
          are current.This landlord has no involvement in the loan
          having no connection with it in any way,

          Is the writ of possession valid with out the judgement
          and is it valid where no land is involved?

          My thoughts on the answer - take to higher court a suit to
          vacate a void judgment in a collertal attack or is there
          some way to go back to the original court to have it set
          aside for fraud.

          I need some advise on this -Please

          thanks

          Jim Parks mailto:jparks@...



          To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        • John <genman_2000@yahoo.com>
          Seems to me a writ of Possession would be a post judgment action, otherwise there is no right of possession. I think you can kick this with the record. Go to
          Message 4 of 5 , Jan 24, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Seems to me a writ of Possession would be a post judgment action,
            otherwise there is no right of possession. I think you can kick this
            with the record. Go to your local place where the court clerk
            registers the suits in the court. Have her/him do a search in the
            record for evidence of any suits, or judgments filed against you. If
            there are no judgments or suits that you did not respond too then
            have the court clerk sign and seal a statement that says just that.
            The clerks sealed statement is called self authenticating evidence in
            the court. If there are no hearings scheduled motion the court for a
            evidentiary hearing - you evidence will show that there is no
            judgment. Then motion the court to quash the writ of possession. If
            the folks are going to take possession very soon you might have to
            file a motion like a stay pending review. Another way to do it is
            the court has already issued the writ you could file a motion for
            reconsideration. Be sure and look up what has to be shown in the
            motion for reconsideration. But I can about tell you that you have
            to show new evidence - or a decision that is manifestly unjust. Be
            sure to inclose a statement that requests the court to take the
            evidence presented in this motion as evidence in the case. Have all
            documents notorized. This action changes the way the court looks at
            filings.
            Hope this helps..
            John



            --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, Jim <jim@s...> wrote:
            > Hello tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com,
            >
            > I need some help in answering a court ordered "writ of
            > possession" which was issued without a court ordered
            > judgement.
            >
            > Is the writ of possession by its self a judgement?
            >
            > The writ was submitted to the court by the plaintiffs counsel
            > to try to collect on a loan made to a corporation.
            >
            > This debt has been through the private administrative remedy
            > of debt cancelation verification and validation process.
            > Which was never answered by the bank or its collection agent
            > an attorney.(All documentation waw entered in record but
            > ignored by the courtalong wit some other lengthy affidavits)
            >
            > What the deffinition says:
            > "writ of possession. A writ issued to recover the
            > possession of land."
            > Black's Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition, page 1605.
            >
            > There is no land involved only equipment - there is a
            > leased restaurant with the landlord with whom all rents
            > are current.This landlord has no involvement in the loan
            > having no connection with it in any way,
            >
            > Is the writ of possession valid with out the judgement
            > and is it valid where no land is involved?
            >
            > My thoughts on the answer - take to higher court a suit to
            > vacate a void judgment in a collertal attack or is there
            > some way to go back to the original court to have it set
            > aside for fraud.
            >
            > I need some advise on this -Please
            >
            > thanks
            >
            > Jim Parks mailto:jparks@p...
          • Jim
            Hello *, It was issued by IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER In the Loan agreement there is no such
            Message 5 of 5 , Jan 25, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              Hello *,
              It was issued by IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE
              OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER

              In the Loan agreement there is no such phrase as
              "confessed agreement"


              Thanks

              Jim


              Friday, January 24, 2003, 10:00:12 PM, you wrote:

              > It would be helpful to know the state this is in and whether or not the loan
              > agreement contained a clause for "confessed judgment" in the case of a
              > default. I do think that Writ Of Possession is improper, it should have
              > been a Writ of Attachment.

              > Let me know what state and I will see if I have some info on it.

              > Gary

              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: Jim [mailto:jim@...]
              > Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 4:25 PM
              > To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
              > Subject: [tips_and_tricks] writ of possession question


              > Hello tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com,

              > I need some help in answering a court ordered "writ of
              > possession" which was issued without a court ordered
              > judgement.

              > Is the writ of possession by its self a judgement?

              > The writ was submitted to the court by the plaintiffs counsel
              > to try to collect on a loan made to a corporation.

              > This debt has been through the private administrative remedy
              > of debt cancelation verification and validation process.
              > Which was never answered by the bank or its collection agent
              > an attorney.(All documentation waw entered in record but
              > ignored by the courtalong wit some other lengthy affidavits)

              > What the deffinition says:
              > "writ of possession. A writ issued to recover the
              > possession of land."
              > Black's Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition, page 1605.

              > There is no land involved only equipment - there is a
              > leased restaurant with the landlord with whom all rents
              > are current.This landlord has no involvement in the loan
              > having no connection with it in any way,

              > Is the writ of possession valid with out the judgement
              > and is it valid where no land is involved?

              > My thoughts on the answer - take to higher court a suit to
              > vacate a void judgment in a collertal attack or is there
              > some way to go back to the original court to have it set
              > aside for fraud.

              > I need some advise on this -Please

              > thanks

              > Jim Parks mailto:jparks@...



              > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              > tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/







              > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              > tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/





              --
              Best regards,
              Jim mailto:jparks@...
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.