Anibal Jose Baez
Admiral Scott Duncan, I require your clarification on this matter.
One of the "many ways to skin the cat" that Scott has mentioned, if brought in front of a JUSTICE for a criminal matter, you can state you are acting as an AGENT for the PRINCIPAL, you are submitting a Motion to Dismiss, for one of the parties, the PRINCIPAL, is not present. Because the whole LAW of AGENCY thing, remember? So, that is why I mentioned this.
Another way to "skin a cat" in criminal matters, where one DID NOT ASKED for those CHARGES, and/or you want to exercise your person's right not to contract, you also have the Notice of Mistake. This DOCTRINE is our most studied one. The burden of proof is on the accuser, and we know it's all surety, and what/who accounts for it.
When you analyze this in this context, that is why I say when I read the Notice of Mistake, it is so clear to me. Remember, the Notice of Mistake is a DOCTRINE, it is NOT a document. Also, take into account the LAW of AGENCY.
When you are doing something on behalf of the PRINCIPAL, like filling INCOME TAXES, we have the AGENCY relationship. Filling is something one MUST do, if your person generates INCOME. The reason you sing by: in the signature is to show INTENT that you are NOT the PRINCIPAL, but acting as AGENT. Therefore, the PRINCIPAL is the responsible party.
So, yes, there is mixing of things, but it all depends in the way to "skin the cat" one chooses to use.
Admiral, I would appreciate your correction on this matter, if needed.