What Is A Strawman? And Debunking The IRS’s Straw Man Argument


A drowning man will clutch at a straw.

“Said about someone who is in a very difficult situation,
and who will take any available opportunity to improve it”

–Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary & Thesaurus, Cambridge University Press


This is a topic that serves as the perfect opportunity to utilize my book in its intended digital form, as a massive reference source to pull from as part of any researcher’s due diligence process. In fact, this entry could be seen as a summary of the book series. Many of the quotes and sources below were harvested from my 1st book, which is free to download in pdf form at (StrawmanStory.info). This serves as a perfect opportunity to put to rest all the fallacious rhetoric out there of exactly what a strawman is, what its creator is, and to whom it applies.

Today’s topic: what is a “Taxpayer,” and what relation is a “taxpayer” to a “straw man,” why the truth/patriot movement has it all wrong, and why the IRS is so intent on making sure each of us remain without comprehension through its own official publications? As we will see in the IRS published whitewash paper below, the best way for government and its agencies to hide facts is to hide those facts behind the public’s misinterpretation of them. What government needs propaganda when its citizen-ships are creating their own lies and calling them as mainstream or alternative truths?

Firstly, we must get to the root of just what this legal “strawman” is. In its simplest explanation, we merely need to understand the legal (artificial) concept of personhood as compared to what is Real. For a man’s persona (mask) is never actually the man (as form without substance). In short, the legal term strawman is merely the personification (legal identity) of a classic strawman argument — a logical fallacy brought into artificial (legal) existence as a fictional, commercial vessel. And when we go to court, we present ourselves as if we actually are the mask (persona) we legally operate in, which is legally called as an appearance. The actual Living (True) man appears as an actor (agent) in personification (mask) of a legal entity created by and thus property of government, from which he or she makes legal arguments and accepts administrative decisions. When we go to court, we put this strawman forward as bail and act in surety (puppet master) to it, causing us to be bound by whatever judgement is placed upon it (the person/legal identity). To be clear, all legal law (government) applies only to the strawman, the government’s created property, never to any man… unless that is he is acting in surety to that person (property). When we rent a car (vessel), are we not bound by the law of government (law of the road) and by the rules of the owner of that property? As surety for that person (property/commercial vessel of government), whatever is assigned as punishment for the person (strawman) is thus sanctioned and thus put upon (imposted) upon the man (actor/agent) using that persona in commerce.

And so the strawman argument has been turned into a seemingly realistic and inseparable part of the man in surety to it, causing the appearance of responsibility for the actions and contractual (legal) obligations assigned to it, including the entirety of the US CODE when proven applicable to the person (strawman).

And so the court’s argument is essentially this: the strawman committed a legal (fictional) crime in the fictional (legal) realm we created, and though no actual harm has happened to anyone or anything in Reality, in Nature, we are charging the strawman (person) with a legal crime against another legal (fictional) person, place, or thing, and therefore as surety to that strawman (person), we expect you to pay for the strawman’s crime!

And so we can see that the court just personified a logical fallacy. It created a strawman (artificial, legal identity in form but no substance) at the time of your Live Birth, induced you to use that persona (status) in life to receive benefits and legal “consumer protections,” and so convinced you that this is actually your identity in Reality, in a voluntary agency relationship, and then expects you to be responsible for any extortions, exactions, punishments and pains it prescribes to that fictional, legal persona (mask), which again is all government (corporate) property.

To appear in the jurisdiction of a the United States (district corporation) is to appear in legal form only, without substance (without blood), the very definition of a straw man. For, as defined, what is made of straw is a metaphor that means without substance. To be clear, all legal persons, places, and things (nouns/names) are without substance. Nothing legal is Real. What is legal does not Exist in Nature. It is only ever a creation of man, and defines the forces of Nature as an “Act of God” in all insurance policies, or in other words, not an act of the state (fiction) or any of its property (persons, places, or things). An “Act of God,” then, is never the act of a strawman (person), nor is it an act of man. The point here is to understand that government recognizes and defines “God” (Jehovah) as a higher power, a sovereign authority and Law than itself, and that it and its persons (property) stand helpless before an Act of God (Reality/Nature), and therefore its fictional insurance (based in mammon) cannot cover any damages caused to fictional things (legal property) unless a specific Act of God is covered (i.e. “earthquake insurance,’ “flood insurance”).

Indeed, the maxims (principles) of law clearly show this to be True:

Maxims On God

“An act of God does wrong to no one.

“The act of God does no injury;
that is, no one is responsible for inevitable accidents.”

“No one is held to answer for the effects of a superior force,
or of an accident, unless his own fault has contributed.”

Maxims On Appearance

“He who does anything through another (e.g. a person/strawman),
is considered as doing it himself.

“What does not appear does not exist,
and nothing appears judicially before judgment.”

Fact not appearing is presumed not to exist.”

Concerning things not appearing and things not existing,
the rule (reasoning, conclusion) is the same.”

“A thing which is not made to appear is regarded
as if
it could not be made to appear and did not therefore exist.

The court has nothing to do with what is not before it.


A man cannot appear (have artificial life/existence) in fiction, just as a cartoon cannot appear (have artificial life/existence) anywhere but in the fictional cartoon realm. A legal persona (status) only “exists” in legal fiction. Thus, a man must pretend to appear in fiction (the artificial, legal jurisdiction of any court) by pretending to be a person (fictional character) in that legal (anti-Real/anti-Nature) realm. Without this fictional (legal) appearance by the puppet master, the puppet (person) is said to have not appeared.


This is accomplished by attaching a legal surname (last name) to the first (christian) name, the word “last” carrying the meaning of last intention, or last will and testament (declared law). In law, the first name is considered as a God-given gift, a part of Nature, while the last name (Latin agnomen) is property of the state. This admixture of names, of fiction and Nature, is strictly forbidden by the Bible (Natural Law). Without this admixture of names, being registered (taxable) property of government, then the man (by first name only) is too ambiguous to be identified as a legal entity making an appearance. Appearance of a legal person requires the full, legal name to be answered to in volunteerism.

AGENCY – Includes every relation in which one person acts for or represents another by latter’s authority, where one person acts for another, either in the relationship of principal and agent, master and servant, or employer or proprietor and independent contractor… Properly speaking, agency relates to commercial or business transactions. (–Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition)

RELATION – …The connection of two persons, or their situation with respect to each other, who are associated, whether by the law, by their own agreement, or by kinship, in some social status or union for the purposes of domestic life; as the relation of guardian and ward, husband and wife, master and servant, parent and child; so in the phrase “domestic relations.” The doctrine of “relation” is that principle by which an act done at one time is considered by an fiction of law to have been done at some antecedect period… A recital, account, narrative of facts; information given. (–Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition)

CONTROLnoun – Power or authority to manage, direct, superintend, restrict, regulate, direct, GOVERN, administer, or oversee. The “control” involved in determining ‘whether “principal and agent relationship” or “master and servant relationship” is involved must be accompanied by power or right to order or direct. – verb – …To control a thing is to have the rlght to exercise a directing or GOVERNING influence over it. (–Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition)

GOVERNTo direct and CONTROL the actions or conduct of, either by established laws or by arbitrary will; to direct and control, rule, or regulate, by authority. To be a rule, precedent, law or deciding principle for.

MASTER AND SERVANT – The relation of master and servant exists where one person, for pay or other valuable consideration, enters into the service of another and devotes to him his personal labor for an agreed period… It usually contemplates employer’s right to prescribe end and direct means and methods of doing work. (–Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition)

VOLUNTEER – One who receives a voluntary conveyance, that is, a conveyance made without a good or valuable consideration. (–William C Anderson’s Dictionary of Law, 1889)

VOLUNTEERA person who gives his services without any express or implied promise of remuneration. One who intrudes himself into a matter which does not concern him, or one who pays the debt of another without request, when he is not legally or morally bound to do so, and when he has no interest to protect in making such payment… One who, acting on his own initiative, pays debt of another without invitation, compulsion, or the necessity of self-protection. One who merely offers his service on his own free will, as opposed to one who is conscripted. Also AN ATTORNEY (AGENT), as to any persons other than those by whom he was retained. (Under the) Law of Master and Servant – The term “Volunteer” includes one who, without the assent of the master and without justification arising from a legitimate personal interest, unnecessarily assists a servant in the performance of the master’s business.

WILLFUL – Proceeding from a conscious motion of the will; voluntary. Intractable; having a headstrong disposition to act by the rule of contradiction. Obstinate; perverse. Intending the result which actually comes to pass; designed; intentional; not accidental or involuntary. (–Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition)

INVOLUNTARYWithout will or power of choice; opposed to volition or desire. An involuntary act is that which is performed with constraint (q. v.) or with repugnance, or without the will to do it. An action is involuntary, then, which is performed under duress. (–Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition)

PERSONA – Latin. In the civil law. Character, in virtue of which certain rights belong to a man and certain duties are imposed upon him. Thus one man may unite many characters, (personæ) as, for example, the characters of father and son, of master and servant. (–Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition)

PERSONA CONJUNCTA ÆQUIPARATUR INTERESSE PROPRIOA personal connection [literally, a united person, union with a personis equivalent to one’s own interest; nearness of blood is as good a consideration as one’s own interest.(–Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition)

PERSONA EST HOMO CUM STATU QUODAM CONSIDERATUSA person is a man considered with reference to a certain STATUS. (–Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition)

PERSON VICE FUNGITUR MUNICIPIUM ET DECURIATowns and boroughs act AS IF PERSONS. (–Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition)

NATIONALITYThat QUALITY or CHARACTER which arises from the fact of a person’s BELONGING to a nation or state. Nationality determines the political STATUS of the individualespecially with reference to allegiance; while domicile determines his civil STATUS. Nationality arises either by birth or by naturalization(–Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition)


Remember that government also acts as a person (corporation) too, and that your relation to it can only be identified by the person (individual) you accept willfully under the doctrine of master and servant (volunteerism) and as agent for service of process to it as the person’s principal. Your relation to government exists only as a legal persona (status) or not at all. And you may only appear to government as its proprietary person (legal status) or as that of a foreign person (legal status), which is merely the person (property) of another legal nation, country, state, etc. (corporations). The difference? An employee is paid for his service, while a citizenship is exacted (extorted) and taxed for his service and reciprocal receipt of legal benefits and protections. But the term employee is merely a title placed upon a person, not a man. All legal titles can only be attached to legal persons, places, and things, but nothing in the Reality of Nature is ever actually its legally prescribed name or title. However, in Nature, it is only man that may choose his path, to follow the Law of God or to follow the anti-God, anti-Nature legal law of men.


Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, ye that are escaped of the nations: they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god that cannot save.

—Isaiah 45:20, KJB


On that note, it is important to note that by default all men are considered to be “christian” in the Biblical sense, not as a standing, corporate religion or denomination, but as free men assumed by default to follow the Law of God, also called the True Natural Law. After all, man is of Nature, thus his Highest Law (Source) is thus considered to stem from the Creator (God) of Nature. Thus we may understand the notion that “all men are created equal.” However, once a man gives up his God-given rights and accepts the person (property) of another false god (nation), the man looses such Natural Rights, for nothing of Nature (God) exists in or respects anything in fiction. Keep in mind that only a man can be a follower of christ, as a True christian. A person is a fiction, a puppet, and cannot do anything without being driven by a man. This is why religions are, every one of them, as legally created corporations of the state, false. For they are attended by men acting in person (legal fiction), and over and over we are told that God respects no persons (fictions). Religions teach what they are required to teach as corporations of the state, which is to, above all else, follow the “law of the land,” meaning the law of man. This is, of course, absolutely opposed to the Law of God (Natural Law).

All men are indeed Created equal in Nature (under God), for no man is born with a status (persona) in Reality. But persons are legal creations of men, and are created specifically to be unequal, and to place upon them flattering titles of false (legal) authority and license (anarchy/lawlessness toward the Natural Law). To be clear, the fallacious term “equal rights” merely means that all persons (statuses) of (belonging to) the United States shall be EQUALLY PUNISHED UNDER THE LAW.


“The only right a Christian has is to give up his rights.

–Oswald Chambers


“No greater mischief can happen to a Christian people,
than to have God’s word taken away from them, or falsified,
so that they no longer have it pure and clear.”

–Martin Luther


For all the gods of the nations are idols…

—Psalms 96:5, KJB


Volunteerism is performance without coercion. Citizenship is a performance debt (tacit contract of use) entered into voluntarily, just as an employee (servant) is a hired volunteer by the employer (master), for the employee is submissive (servant) to the will of the employer (master). The difference between the laws (doctrines) of “master and servant” and of “principal and agent” is that an agent is a representation of the principal. Indeed, an employee acts as an agent of its employer (principal) when the employee does business (commerce) in his master’s (employer’s/principal’s) name. In interstate commerce, a citizenship of the United States is an agent in all commercial affairs, and the 50 state governments are considered as foreign, third parties to any and all commercial activity. Government considers us to be in agency at all times, 24/7, as a default and without exception. This is, of course, a prima facie (surface) presumption, which is rebuttable.

An Act of God cannot “appear” in court (fictional jurisdiction). Only a fictional entity (legal status/person) may “appear” in the fiction (jurisdiction) of that court. If the man in surety does not answer to a legal name called out by the court, which identifies the man as surety to that person (property) of government, then the court cannot administrate its own property (person). The case cannot go forward without the agent in surety to the person being present by making an appearance (pretending to be the person). The only exception to this rule is the an attorney (agent) may appear in representation (simulation) of the person without the man in surety being present in the court.

The term injury, or in-jury, simply means that the “act” in question cannot be pulled into a court of law infant of a judge or jury, that one cannot take “God” or Nature to court. Silly as this sounds, we must acknowledge this system as it stands, not as we wish it to be. To injure means to bring into or under legal law. Thus what is an act of God (Nature) can do no wrong and can injure nothing fictional, for what is Real, what is of Nature, is always considered a “Creation” or Act of God. To support this notion, we find that nothing in Nature, nothing in its Natural state of Life or Existence can be patented. To work around this aspect, which comes from the Natural Law — that God’s Creation is God’s (sovereign) property higher than man’s authority to claim it, meaning that property does not exist in Nature, only in man’s legal fiction — the government issues license to “scientific” corporations and persons with the legal flattering title of “scientists” to re-create by genetic alteration, causing the Source of what Exists to be considered by the legal realm of artificial law as “manmade,” and no longer an act of God. And this is why our entire surface world, the Creation of God, from plants to animals to man, is being genetically altered to the point of being unrecognizable as a Creation or Act of God, and thus patentable as government property. This includes our genes.

While no legal (artificial) law applies to any man or to anything of God’s Creation in Nature (Reality), any man acting voluntarily (contractually) in the agency of and appearing as a registered legal persona (proprietary individual or corporation, etc.) of government is bound to all legal laws that apply to that person (strawman), just as one would be bound to the rules and laws encapsulating a rental car (rented commercial vessel). The courts address only persons, not men, and men may only address the courts in persona or in agency (as attorney) of the person, never as one’s True Self.

And so the strawman argument of the legitimacy of legal law by government in all its institutions, agencies, and departments is directed not at anything Real or of Nature, but only ever at the strawman persona (mask) that each man pretends and appears to be. For all legal persons, places, and things are property of (creations of) government. When we appear in court, in persona, we are misrepresenting ourselves as that which we are not — as that which we physically cannot be — as that which is artificial (legal). And so all proceedings against us will also be based upon this personified mis-representation of us, which is legally defined as a straw man.

The legal system simply has no power over any man unless that man acts in the property (person) of that legal system and its government. Without this contractual volunteerism (also known as the doctrine of master and servent) the true colors of each government would shine through, revealing the only avenue of control over men (Reality) left to it, which is strictly violent, military oppression and thus forced suppression. Dictatorship, as a direct and obvious force over men, not persons.

The court never addresses any man unless he stands in agency (attorney) for a person, as only a strawman that is created and thus bound by the creators (courts) law. A strawman is not of Nature, and so has no “God-given rights” referred to as the Natural Law. A strawman is bound to the law of persons, not the Law of Nature, for a strawman is never Created in Nature (by God). A strawman (person) is not “God-given,” and no law of Nature (Reality) can protect anything artificial (manmade), as that which is not a Creation of the Source of Nature.

He who controls the fiction controls the Real it re-presents.

He who dictates history controls what is the false (legal) truth (history) about the Real.

Thus, he who’s history is dictated by the information (form without substance) of the artificial creation of a legal entity created and registered by a legal birth certificate is the Real misrepresented and so controlled by the fiction (person) and its law.

Happy legal birth-day, strawman…


While we will get to the aforementioned IRS publication spoken of soon enough, we must have this further foundation in law to understand why it is fallacious. And so let us now equate just what a “taxpayer” is in conjunction to a “strawman.” Is a taxpayer Real, or is it a creation of the legal system and its government? Obviously a “taxpayer” is a title, and is certainly not part of what is self-evident and self-existent in Nature (Reality). And of course, what is a creation of the artifice must be defined by that artifice as its false creator god, giving it existence only by the words used to describe and bind it into legal word magic. In the end, a title is useless unless it can be placed upon and bound to in surety that which it is intended to subject or modify. No man holds any title, for titles don’t exist in Nature. No man is ever a “taxpayer.” Only a strawman (person) may hold such a title of flattery.


“The taxpayer — that’s someone who works for the federal government but doesn’t have to take the civil service examination.”

-President Ronald W. Reagan


“…the taxpayer must be liable for the tax. Tax liability is a condition precedent (prior) to the demand. Merely demanding payment, even repeatedly, does not cause liability.” 

–Terry  v. Bothke, 713 F.2d 1405, at 1414 (1983)


“A precedent condition, in law, is a condition which must happen or be performed before an estate or some right can vest, and on failure of which the estate or right is defeated.

–Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language, 1828


“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

—UNAM SANCTAM, Bull of Pope Boniface VIII promulgated November 18, 1302


“And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar (#G2541) Augustus, that all the world should be taxed (Strong’s #G583).”

—Luke 2:1, KJB


And all went to be taxed (#G583), every one into his own city.”

—Luke 2:3, KJB


“The way to crush the bourgeoisie (i.e., middle class) is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.”

—Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, Jewish Russian leader of the Bolshevik Revolution


Just what does it mean to be taxed? What is a “taxpayer?” And are you or I one of them?

Remember, no man is ever a “taxpayer,” for no man is ever a person. Man must respect persons and flattering titles (property of government) before they can be assigned to him in the legal realm. Of course the foundational, Natural Law in scripture is very clear:


Let me not, I pray you, accept any man’s person:
neither let me give flattering titles unto any man.

—Job 32:21


That’s right, in one tiny verse the Bible just told us exactly why we are enslaved, because we respect persons (including corporations and governments) and flattering titles (including citizen and taxpayer). For only through the artificial persona and title may the good man be overcome.


It is not good to accept the person of the wicked,
to overthrow the righteous in judgement.

—Proverbs 18:5


For there is no respect of persons with God.

—Romans 2:11


Let me not, I pray you, accept any man’s person:
neither let me give flattering titles unto any man.

—Job 32:21


All positions of power, of godship in magistracy, be it that of kings to presidents to congressmen to judges to mayors to police officers, comes strictly from the flattery of legal status (persona/mask) and of artificial flattery (titles, entitlements). But do not be fooled, for the flattery of titles extends to the “middle class,” the “common folk,” and “the poor” as well. These states of being do not Exist in Nature, unless Nature is made unavailable to those lower classes by the higher classes, causing dependence upon money instead of upon Nature (Source) Itself.


And his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honor of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries (titles).

—Daniel 11:21, KJV


“For the vile person will speak villainy, and his heart will work inequity, to practice hypocrisy, and to utter error against the Lord, to make empty the soul of the hungry, and he will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail.

—Isaiah 32:6


It is to be in error to call oneself as something one is not. In the Bible, we are taught to be content with merely being, as I AM. I AM part of God, and God alone is my Sovereign Master and Lawmaker. I stress again that this is recognized as the Highest Law by government. Only a fool would dismiss the Bible when all roads lead to it, when it is used to swear oath upon, and when the word God is mentioned so many times in both constitutions and in law, especially as “Acts of God.” What fool would not seek the definition and deeper meaning of the word God when his government states that God exists and is responsible for such inevitable and helpless “Acts?”

I can answer that, for we have all been made the fool by the organized, corporate church and state. I was the fool. But now I see…

When in the scripture stories Caesar stated that “all the world should be taxed,” this translation into English (dog-Latin) was left purposefully incomplete to say the least by the kings scribes, causing a purposeful mis-transliteration of the intent of that word. When we seek the True intent of this verse, we find in Strong’s Concordance and Thayer’s Greek Lexicon the difference between the Bible’s (Higher) language and the common, vulgar tongue of the mass of illiterates speaking dog-Latin (English), or what Mark Twain called as a “mongrel language” that borrowed its form from all others while extricating away the substance of poetic, metaphoric, and beautiful meaning for a more modern and cold literalism. Ask any speaker of the Greek language, for instance, and they will tell you that Greek is impossible to be Truly understood or communicated into the low form of English.

To be “taxed” (as it is translated) is not merely the exaction and extortion of money as we politically consider it. For as we just read above, to be taxed as a “taxpayer” one must first be identified as a “taxpayer,” and into this flattering title no man is ever merely born in Nature. It applies only to persons. One must first be militarily conquered, defeated, or purchased (as a volunteer) before one can be liable for such a tax. In other words, everything must be legally named (placed into noun form) so that the name (property) may be thus extorted. The precedent must exist before the tax can be applied.

Let us read again from above:


“…the taxpayer must be liable for the tax. Tax liability is a condition precedent (prior) to the demand. Merely demanding payment, even repeatedly, does not cause liability.” 

–Terry  v. Bothke, 713 F.2d 1405, at 1414 (1983)


It is not the man, but the persona (mask) governed (controlled) as property that it is liable for taxation. Taxation is a fee for the use of government property, namely for the use of its unique money system and fiat paper (credit). And so it was then in the day of Caesar as it is today in the United Nations and its Agenda 2030, a plan specifically purposed with the intention to tax (register as a legal identity) the entire planet, all the billions that even now Exist in Reality (Nature) without legal (government registered) name and title. In other words, the whole population of the world has been declared by the UN just as it was by Caesar — that it must be taxed!

But first, the precedent of proprietary global citizenship must be set worldwide, that all men may be extorted through taxation.


World Bank:

“Overview: Providing legal identity for all (including birth registration) by 2030 is a target shared by the international community as part of the Sustainable Development Goals (target 16.9). The World Bank Group (WBG) has launched the Identification for Development (ID4D) cross-practice initiative to help our client countries achieve this goal and with the vision of making everyone count: ensure a unique legal identity and enable digital ID-based services to all.

—United Nations 2030 Agenda, from a World Bank publication entitled, “Identification for Development”


Target 16.9:

“By 2030, provide legal identity for all, including birth registration.

—United Nations Sustainable Development 2030 Target Goal 16.9


No community should be considered to be outside the span of this new agenda. Whatever your ethnicity, whatever your livelihood, whatever your lifestyle or location, all of you are inside the agenda. We need to inform everyone that these goals are the heart of a plan for the future of the worlds people, as well as for the planet itself… PEACE AND SECURITY, human rights and justice, and sustainable development, brought together within this 2030 agenda.”

—David Nabarro, Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General of the United Nations, from a speech on April 15th, 2016


“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

—Benjamin Franklin, for the Pennsylvania Assembly in its Reply to the Governor (11 Nov. 1755), later used as a motto upon the title page of ‘An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania’ (1759), published by Benjamin Franklin, authored by Richard Jackson


“As distrust, in some sense, is the mother of safety, so security is the gate of danger. A man had need to fear this most of all, that he fears not at all.

—Thomas Brooks, citation in Josiah Hotchkiss Gilbert’s, ‘Dictionary of Burning Words of Brilliant Writers,’ p. 532 (1895).


Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

—Matthew 7: 15, KJB


“International Day of Peace, 21 September 2017: Together for Peace, Respect, Safety, and Dignity for all.”

–United Nations document, from: (UN.org/peaceday)


For when they shall say, PEACE AND SAFETY; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape… Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober.

—1 Thessalonians 5: 3 & 5-6, KJB


“And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up. And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people. And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, AND BY PEACE SHALL DESTROY MANY; he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.”

—Daniel 8: 23-25, KJB


“The horse is prepared against the day of battle: but safety is of the LORD.

—Proverbs 21:31, KJB



To make sure or secure, to guarantee, as, to insure safety to any one.
To engage to indemnify a person against pecuniary loss from specified perils.
To act as an insurer.” (Black4)


“He who is SURETY to a stranger will smart (be put in pain) for it.” 

–Proverbs 11:15



put forward as
bail or SURETY.

—Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, definition of Steaminess Homo


To tax all the men of the world, first the world must be reimagined (made into a legal realm as an international jurisdiction) — and all men must be re-created into legal persons (property) of every nation united. All men must be given Social Security through the United Nations, which is already present in over 140 nations through the International Social Security Association (ISSA) of the United Nations. One must be given a benefit before one can be voluntarily controlled (governed) and thus taxed for use of another’s property. And to receive any benefit from government, one must first assume the persona (subjection) of fiction it is attached to. And so the goal of registration (taxing) of all men in to fictional personhood is scheduled to happen by 2030 — the date that a global debtor’s prison is thus established, as hell on earth.

HELLThe name formerly given to a place under the exchequer (treasury) chamber, where the king’s debtors were confined. (Black4)


One need not confine men in prisons when they are bound to a performance debt wishing the jurisdictions (invisible walls) of nations.

But what does this word taxed actually mean when used by both Caesar in the Bible and by the United Nations? What was its intention in the scriptural texts?

Firstly, let’s break the fallacious notion that taxes are definitely not just the way it is nor as certain as death. Only public-minded, non compos mentis slaves think in this defeatist way, that what is artificial is a certainty (Reality), which is why most common citizenships pay their taxes on a regular basis. But to be taxed implies much, much more…

Strong’s #G583 – “Taxed” – apographō

From ἀπό (#G575), meaning: from, of, out of, for, off, by, at, in, since, on, etc…

And γράφω (#G1125), meaning: write, writing, describe.

1. To write off, copy (from some pattern)
2. To enter in a register or records

1. Specifically, to enter in public records the names of men, their property and income
2. To enroll


Quoting further from Thayer’s Greek Lexicon:

apographō (taxed)… To have one’s self registered, to enroll one’s self
those whose names are inscribed in the heavenly register, Hebrews 12:23
(the reference is to the dead already received into the heavenly city,
the figure being drawn from civil communities on earth,
whose citizens are enrolled in a register


To copy, to simulate man into personhood… this is taxation. The registration of men into fictional, taxable (extort-able) characters in the legal fiction realm. It is a design to steal men away from their very Nature (God) and Law and to replace It with the false gods (idols) of the nations.

Here, as in most references in the Bible, the word dead or death is metaphorical, referring to a spiritual death of the soul while taxed (registered) in the person of the legal state and following its dead law in dead hands (mortmain) as dead pledges (mortgages). This state of spiritual death is caused by the following of the legal law over that of the Law of God (Nature). This is called, again, as personhood — to live a fictional (spiritually dead) life in pursuit of mammon (money and valuation) as a strawman.

And so we can see that no man owes any tax except he that agrees to be registered to any legal district (Caesar) voluntarily or is forced by other violent means. The term “taxpayer” is a title, representing a legal status, and is not of Nature (Reality). It is a creation of the state. It is not part of the Higher, moral Law of Nature. It is the result of coveting that which is artificial, namely what is referred to as the god of mammon, as the credit, debt, and valuation (love/belief) of and in money and its usage. For what is priceless (without or beyond artificial monetary value) cannot be taxed. And the maxims of law is clear that:


“The human body does not admit of valuation.



“The body of a freeman does not admit of valuation.

—Liberum corpus aestimationem non recipit. (BouvMaxim)


“That which is granted or reserved under a certain form, is not to be drawn into a valuation.

—Quod sub certa forma concessum vel reservatum est, non trahitur advalorem vel compensationem. Bacon’s Max. Reg. 4. (BouvMaxim)


The value of a thing is estimated by its worth in money, and the value of money is not estimated by reference to one thing.

—Res per pecuniam aestimatur, et non pecunia per res. 9 Co. 76; 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 922. (Black4)


“The wisdom of law cannot be valued by money.

—Sapientia legis nummario pretio non est aestemanda. (BouvMaxim)


“He that diligently seeketh good procureth favour:
he that seeketh mischief, it shall come unto him.
He that trusteth in his riches shall fall

—Proverbs 11: 27-28, KJB


Let us be clear, the flattering title of “taxpayer” is the placing of valuation upon a man through his strawman (persona/legal status), causing legal extortion of that human capital under governmental management (administrational law of persons). Once anything of Nature is so valued in mammon, it can never be Truly Free again in Nature until that value is discharged, for all that is Real is born (Created) priceless (without valuation). Only its name (noun – as a man-made, fictional person, place, or thing) and the artificial status that name creates can be controlled and thus validated as property of its creator. And only a name belonging to a corporate nation can be flatteringly titled as a “taxpayer,” never a Real man. Again, it is only man’s respect of persons and flattering titles that allows him to be taken in surety for the artificial crimes of the fictional strawman (person).

In other words, without respect of persons, no man may be voluntarily taxed under the burden and sanction (punishment) of the law of persons (contract).

Before we move on, let me put any fallacious arguments about just what volunteerism is to rest. To do this, let us just consider our so-called all-volunteer military. Yes, it is at this point in history a voluntary choice to join the armed (heraldic) services of the United States. But what happens to the volunteer once he has contracted to that military service? Does he walk around disobeying law and the orders of his superior officers just because he is a volunteer? No. And neither does a citizenship of any nation. The soldier has agreed to be under the doctrine of master and servant (volunteerism). To receive and use the flattering title and licenses (lawlessness) of “soldier” or “officer” one must follow the requirements and law of the granter of those titles, no matter how tyranical, for no Natural rights or protections may apply to fictional characters.

To be clear, to be a volunteer is not to have a magic word that allows one to break the law, even when that law is overtly immoral and outrageous to ones religious or True beliefs. Citizenship to the United States is a voluntary status (persona), and this point is not deferrable at bar. No force or gun is pointed at your head to be a citizen, only to follow the law that you voluntarily submitted to by becoming a citizen (a contractual relationship based on use of the person). See the difference?

For those begging the question of who exactly he or she “became a citizenship” of the United States, I urge you to read the confirmation and ratification sections of my book, Strawman: The Real Story Of Your Artificial Person, so that you may comprehend the process. (See pages 581-586, free to download at StrawmanStory.info)

Certainly the actions we do or do not do under law as citizen-ships of the United States cause what is called presumption of law. If we use the property of another and gain benefits from that use then we are bound to the obligations as well of that usage, which implies a contractual relation-ship and system of law governing that obligatory debt. Debt is either monetary or performance-based, meaning that one must perform the duty (obligation) of the right and status granted, to follow a legal course in pursuit of disharmony in mammon instead of a Natural one in pursuit of harmony with God’s Nature. Thus what is prima facie (avoidable) is made legitimate (unavoidable) by use of these legal statuses (strawmen) assigned in a blanket fashion over the general population.

One example of the presumption of fact that verifies the common, public citizenship to be bound by and under this trust act comes from the New York Second Class Cities Law, §22:


Officers, trustees of public property:

The common council and the several members thereof, and all officers and employees of the city are hereby declared trustees of the property, funds and effects of said city respectively, so far as such property, funds and effects are or may be committed to their management or control, and every taxpayer residing in said city is hereby declared to be a cestui que trust in respect to the said property, funds and effects respectively;  and any co-trustee or any cestui que trust shall be entitled as against said trustees and in regard to said property, funds and effects to all the rules, remedies and privileges provided by law for any co-trustee or cestui que trust; to prosecute and maintain an action to prevent waste and injury to any property, funds and estate held in trust; and such trustees are hereby made subject to all the duties and responsibilities imposed by law on trustees, and such duties and responsibilities may be enforced by the city or by any co-trustee or cestui que trust aforesaid. The remedies herein provided shall be in addition to those now provided by law.”

—New York Second Class Cities Law, sub-Section 22, New York Code


So what does it mean to be considered on the face as part of a cestui qui trust?

It means you are considered as a consort of that which is dead (legal fiction) — not a man in legal consideration, but a registered person sometimes called as a straw man. It means you have been granted artificial life within a legal matrix system and its code; one created not by God but by Caesar (a false god/district).


“For all the gods of the nations are idols…”

—Psalms 96:5, KJB


The word god is merely a generic term that can mean many different things unless specifically qualified. A god is a magistrate. Caesar was a god. Obama and Trump are/were gods. The pope and queen and the legislators are gods. Remember, this is the realm of the legal (anti-Nature) law, a devolution of Reality into fictional characters played by men under flattering titles and statuses. It is a realm built entirely of straw. Thus, the cestui qui trust of dead persons (defective statuses) called citizen-ships of the United States (district/Caesar) are the followers of false gods, idolators, worshiping what is not the Reality of Nature (Creation), and instead embracing the fictional creations of men acting as and in the perpetual (immortal) legal office, title, and in the capacity of gods.

The reason that the King’s translators used the word “god” for all positions (flattering titles) of men in authority is simply because the word god implies sovereignty, the power of ruling over other men. This is a requirement of sovereignty, which is why no man is ever sovereign unless he respects persons and bears the flattering title of some corporation (nation/state).

DEVOLUTIONnoun – [Latin] 1. The act of rolling down; as the devolution of earth into a valley. 2. Removal from one person to another; a passing or falling upon a successor. (Webs1828)

GODnoun – …2. A false god; a heathen deity; an idol. Fear not the gods of the Amorites. Judges 6:10. 3. A prince; a ruler; a magistrate or judge; an angel. Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people. Exodus 22:28. Psalms 97:7… 4. Any person or thing exalted too much in estimation, or deified and honored as the chief good. Whose god is their belly. Philippians 3:19. – verb transitiveTo deify(Webs1828)

CREATORnoun – [Latin] 1. The being or person that creates. Remember thy creator in the days of thy youth. Ecclesiastes 12:1. 2. The thing that creates, produces or causes. (Webs1828)

SUPREMEadjective – [Latin supremus, from supra.] 1. Highest in authority; holding the highest place in government or power. In the United States, the congress is supreme in regulating commerce and in making war and peace. The parliament of Great Britain is supreme in legislation; but the king is supreme in the administration of the government. In the universe, God only is the supreme ruler and judge. His commands are supreme and binding on all his creatures. 2. Highest, greatest or most excellent; as supreme love; supreme glory; supreme degree. 3. It is sometimes used in a bad sense; as supreme folly or baseness, folly or baseness carried to the utmost extent. [A bad use of the word.] (Webs1828)

SOVEREIGNadjective – suv’eran. [We retain this barbarous orthography from the Norman sovereign. The true spelling would be suveran from the Latin supernes, superus.] 1. Supreme in power; possessing supreme dominion; as a sovereign ruler of the universe. 2. Supreme; superior to all others; chief. God is the sovereign good of all who love and obey him. 3. Supremely efficacious; superior to all others; predominant; effectual; as a sovereign remedy. 4. Supreme; pertaining to the first magistrate of a nation; as sovereign authority.noun – suv’eran. 1. A supreme lord or ruler; one who possesses the highest authority without control. Some earthly princes, kings and emperors are sovereigns in their dominions. 2. A supreme magistrate; a king. 3. A gold coin of England, value (of) $4.44. (Webs1828)

MAGISTERIALadjective – [See Magistrate.] Pertaining to a master; such as suits a master; authoritative. 1. Proud; lofty; arrogant; imperious; domineering. Pretenses go a great way with men that take fair words and magisterial looks for current payment. (Webs1828)

MAGISTRATEnoun – [Latin magistratus, from magister, master; magis, major, and ster, Teutonic steora, a director; steoran, to steer; the principal director.] A public civil officer, invested with the executive government or some branch of it. In this sense, a king is the highest or first magistrate as is the President of the United States. But the word is more particularly applied to subordinate officers, as governors, intendants, prefects, mayors, justices of the peace, and the like. The magistrate must have his reverence; the laws their authority. (Webs1828)

CESTUI QUE VIEHe whose life is the measure of the duration of an estate. The person for whose life any lands, tenements, or hereditaments are held. (Black4)

CESTUI QUE USEHe for whose use and benefit lands or tenements are held by another. The cestui que use has the right to receive the profits and benefits of the estate, but the legal title and possession (as well as the duty of defending the same) reside in the other. (Black4)

CESTUl QUE TRUSTHe who has a right to a beneficial interest in and out of an estate the legal title to which is vested in another. The person who possesses the equitable right to property and receives the rents, issues, and profits thereof, the legal estate of which is vested in a trustee. Beneficiary of trust. (Black4)

CESTUl QUE TRUSTHe for whose benefit another person is seised of lands or tenements or is possessed of personal property. He who has a right to a beneficial interest in and out of an estate the legal title to which is vested in another. He may be said to be the equitable owner, (and) is entitled therefore, to the rents and profits; may transfer his interest, subject to the provisions of the instrument creating the trust; may defend his title in the name of his trustee; but has no legal title to the estate, as he is merely a tenant at will if he occupies the estate; and may be removed from possession in an action of ejectment by his own trustee. See Trust. (Bouv1892)


This state of existence or being (legal status) in the legal realm is called spiritual death. It is to exist not under the God of Nature (Creation) but under men acting as gods, sovereigns, and supreme rulers, who claim dominion over all names and titles and statuses. They are the legal (artificial) gods and creators of straw men. This metaphoric term of being dead is of course severely mistranslated from the Bible, when in fact the scriptures (Law)  is referring only to men following the legal law over the Law of God (Law and Laws of Nature). This spiritual death of citizenship to the nations and their gods is what must be shed to be “re-born” into Nature’s Realm and Law. There is nothing religious or strange about this act, being merely the shedding of any respect for all persons, places and things (names/nouns) assigned to Nature and thus placed over Reality to cause all men to follow false gods in the artifice (false creation). We seem to have no problem with the idea of coming out of The Matrix, because its a cool science fiction movie. But when it comes to the Real deal, the very action of coming out of this modern legal system of Babylon, well that’s just religious fiction, right?

Oh, how wrong we have been…

Turns out it’s the Natural Law, the foundation. And the metaphor of The Matrix is exactly what the scriptural Law teaches one to avoid, revealing all traps and inducements thereof. For strawmen and taxpayers only have artificial life in the legal realm, the legal matrix of words in coded legalese. And it is no irony whatsoever the the legal definition for the word hell is as a debtor’s prison. For what is a nation but an open-air prison for performance debtors (legal persons)?

And so just what is a “taxpayer?”

Firstly, it is important to recognize that without money and its valuation upon all persons, places and things (names/nouns), there could be no tax. Thus, as with all evils, the love of money is the root of all taxation. Let us be clear that the word love is just another word meaning belief in and respect of. Respect of money (valuation in money) is the root of all evil. Belief in the value of money is the root of all evil. For what law in the United States is not based on money, its use, its users, or its rules — money (valuation) being the one and only product that each nation has a monopoly upon?

And yet what in Nature is Created or Born with a price? What needs money to Exist in Reality? Why nothing, of course. Only fiction and legality survives on money — the lifeblood of evil (artifice). So simple, yet so seemingly impossible to conceive, is a Reality without money (fiction). Strange days indeed…

Ok, so obviously a taxpayer is a registered user (legal person) of another’s property, namely the money and credit of the United States. That’s simple enough. But is that all it takes to also be a taxpayer? Of course not.

One owes no obligational “tax” to anyone but his master, his god, the sovereign creator of his pretended, fictional legal status in society. Pay to play. Of course, the creator (false god) of the status of “citizenship” and of “taxpayer” is certainly the legal state (district/Caesar), and modernly all the nations united under the World Bank, International Social Security Association, and other United Nations entities working to register (tax) every man on earth into a legal persona (strawman) by their “Agenda 2030” goal.

But what does this term “taxpayer” have to do with the term “strawman?”

Let’s find out…

An adversarial commenter (troll) on my blog was good enough to leave a link to a wonderfully deceitful information hit-piece on the use of the term “straw man” in a lame attempt to discredit my life’s work and research. Here’s the link:

Link–> https://www.irs.gov/irb/2005-14_IRB/ar13.html

In short, this laughable piece of sophistry is not ironically the IRS merely using a straw man argument (logical fallacy) to attempt to debunk the very legally recognized notion of just what a strawman actually is as defined in law. Essentially, when government calls any of us a “taxpayer” it is not only evoking but legally personifying a straw man argument, or more specifically an alternative flattering legal (artificial) title attached to the person (strawman) in law (as their own created fiction). In other words, the IRS is declaring us as surety to a dead entity under the doctrine of cestui due use and trust discussed above — as an already registered (taxed) entity (persona/property) of the state containing no substance (no blood) and thus no actual Life. It is styling us as dead (fictionally named and registered) persons that are its property, and doing so because we are the registered agents (actors) for service of process, or “he who is in surety to another.” Legal entities are of course always considered by law as dead, for the legal realm is the realm of dead persons, places, and things (property) of the legal fiction, or hell — as one existing without spiritual Life (without moral Law and choice) and thus outside of Nature (God) and It’s (God’s) Law. And this is of course why so many, including christ, were metaphorically risen from the dead in those moral scriptures, as those who rose above this legal, spiritual death back into Nature and It’s Highest Law, being re-born into their original intent and innocence (unblemished name) without persona (mask). To follow the legal law of men over the Highest Law of God, the Law of Nature, is to live a spiritually dead life in the person (property) of another.

Let us be clear that the Law of God and the law of man are whole recognized concepts in the legal realm, and that one is certainly higher in authority than the other. The word legal, in its Truest sense as man’s “positive law,” literally means not of Nature and in opposition to God, as the undoing of God’s Law. While this is explained in detail in my book, it is important to note that what is positive in law is that which is an addition by man. In other words, positive or legal law is wholly unnatural and always against the “negative” or self-existent and self-evident Law of Nature (God). Its whole purpose and intent is to bend the rules of Nature (of God).

POSITIVE LAWLaw proper, as opposed to moral laws, or to natural orGod-madelaw. An enforceable legal rule which prohibits or requires certain conduct. Often contrasted with moral law. Lawyers speak of positive law to distinguish it from other rules similarly expected to be followed but not conduct-related. For example, many of the provisions of the Laws of Manu deal with morality or hygiene. This made it hard for jurists and legal historians to later sort out what was intended to be enforceable by the state, or which ought to influence the court on disputes over contracts or inter-personal relationships, and the moral or religious rules, which serve as guidance to the citizens but do not attract the attention of law enforcement. (–Lloyd Duhaime Legal Dictionary, online at duhaime.org)


In other words, the legal law is the law of the dead, of legal, artificial, fictional existence.

But more importantly, it outlaws the Law of Nature, causing men to act not according to the moral law or even to their religious beliefs, but instead dictating the conduct of their persona (status in society) to which men must oblige in surety for the performance debt to their strawman (government property). The benefits of citizenship require us to act in evil (artifice) and respect fictional persons and fake, flattering titles against the foundational Law of Nature (Source). One simply cannot have two gods, which is just code for the fact that man cannot have two conflicting and opposing systems of law.

One does not choose ones God.

One chooses one’s Law, which thus proves the sovereignty of one’s God in all matters Real and legal. And so one may only declare the rights of whatever Law they have chosen, in the name of that Law’s Creator. And God respects no fiction!

The whole point is to cause spiritual death to all men by causing all men to abandon their very own Nature (God) so as to place them under the retention and distraint of the legal law of the district (Caesar).


“[I.] Cestui que vie remaining beyond Sea for Seven Years together and no Proof of their Lives, Judge in Action to direct a Verdict as though Cestui que vie were DEAD… in every such case the person or persons upon whose life or lives such Estate depended shall be accounted as NATURALLY DEAD, And in every Action brought for the recovery of the said Tenements by the Lessors or Reversioners their Heires or Assignes, the Judges before whom such Action shall be brought shall direct the Jury to give their Verdict as if the person soe remaining beyond the Seas or otherwise absenting himselfe were DEAD

“[IV.] If the supposed dead Man prove to be alive, then the Title is revested. Action for mean Profits with Interest.

—Cestui Que Vie Act 1666, 1666 c. 11 (Regnal. 18_and_19_Cha_2), from the U.K. Legislature Archives


It is very important to note that one may instantly know one’s status (persona/mask) in legal society by the “term” of one’s proprietary estate (property holdings) there in. To be clear, if property is held for any term of definable time, including that which is called the “life of the man” in persona, then this is property held by a dead, legal person, a strawman (a fictional man of no substance) under a limited contract. And so we must know the difference between the Life of a man and the pretended, spiritually dead, fictional life of a person. The dead (Cestui Que Vie) strawman simply cannot hold property, and may only use and enjoy (but not dispose of) another’s property.



“26. The state of being in force, or the term for which an instrument has legal operation; as the life of an execution.”

—Definition for ‘life’ from: Webster’s 1828 Dictionary of the English Language (Webs1828)


Land or property that is held on one’s own right is passed by blood to one’s heirs, and so is not dependent upon any time constraints, for blood is an immortal (inheritable) natural right in law. It’s really that simple. For a person (strawman) has no blood! A person (proprietary granted status) may only have legal (artificial) life (operation) as long as some man (with actual, Natural Life) is there to steer and be surety for that persona (mask/legal status/title). The death of the man represents the figurative death of the being or fictional life-force of the person, which is called an execution of contract (of legal life). This is legal death, not Natural death. Those who “rose from the dead” became spiritual alive under the Law of God. But they did not ever actually die in Real Life, just lifted themselves out of the spiritual death of Caesar’s taxation (registration of personhood) and that legal system of false law and fiction. This is the metaphor of spiritual awakening (going from spiritual death in fictional civil life to spiritual Life), the choice to follow only God’s Law of Nature and no other god (law).

And so finally, obviously, a “taxpayer” is thus a contractual flattering title of any qualified person (property of the district), and so the “taxpayer” dies (is executed) with the person, for no more obligations exist to pay tax upon being registered property of Caesar (the district). With the death of the man comes the end of his or her pledged and contracted surety to act and be responsible for the debts and obligations of the legal person (property of the district). To be clear, all citizen-ships (commercial vessels) are persons (legal statuses/property) of the United States, which is a district (where all persons, places, and things [legally registered names] are held in seizure, distress, distraint) — another word for the realm and rendition of Caesar. Thus to be born again so-to-speak back into Nature (Gods Realm and Law) the user (agent/actor) must render back to Caesar (the district) what is Caesar’s property (status) as the scripture (Natural Law) states.


“Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in Truth. Is it lawful to give tribute (tax) to Cesar, or not?”

“…And Jesus answering said to them, Render to Cesar the things that are Cesar’s (give back the legal person, relinquish flattering titles and privileges), and to God the things that are God’s. And they marveled at him.”

—Mark 12: 14 and 17, KJV


And here again we see that Reality, God, Nature and Its Law have no respect for persons, or of course for any legal fiction whatsoever. This is the very foundation of the Bible’s teachings, as the avoidance of all things legal, artificial, fictional, etc. To render or return the property (persona) of the state (Caesar) is to quit claiming to be anything but an Act of God.

No wonder we are conditioned from birth to hate the Bible, to keep it away from public (legal) learning institutions, and to follow the doctrines of false (legalized) religions and governments rather than the Bible!

Rendition is another word for performance, and the legal term execution (death) is of course the end of a contract requiring some performance and abeyance to law — not the death of an actual man, but of the man’s voluntary persona. Citizenship is a performance debt (contract). This legal death (execution of bond and surety to person) back into a spiritual Life and Law can happen at any time, not just at the recorded death certificate indication of the “Natural death” of the actual man. We seek the death of any and all legal existence (artificial life) of the person, not the man. We must render back the registered property of Caesar (the state/district) that is its person (status) and flattering titles so as to stop being its user and registered agents in surety, so that we may be free of the state (district) and its positive (anti-God) law, and so that we may act upon our moral standards restricted by legal law. In other words, we stop being performance actors (citizenships) in the legal matrix of fiction and become again men of God under the Law of God’s Nature.

And so we must understand the metaphor of nailing our selfish ways (the flesh) to the cross (i.e. hang or post public notice). A cross (stauros) is a post, or pike. Thus, we nail paper to a post.


It is impossible to enslave, mentally or socially, a bible-reading people. The PRINCIPLES of the bible are the groundwork of human freedom.

—Horace Greeley, founding editor of ‘The New-Yorker’ and ‘New York Tribune’ newspapers


And you, being DEAD in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the HANDWRITING OF REQUIREMENTS that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, HAVING NAILED IT TO THE CROSS.

—Colossians 2: 13-14, NKJV


And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.”

—Galatians 5:24, KJB


Those who belong to Christ Jesus have NAILED the passions and desires of their sinful nature to his cross and crucified them there.”

—Galatians 5:24, NLT (New Living Translation)


Remember, this is not religion. It is the story of Law. Every aspect of this is the Source Law, the Law of retaining one’s Source of Existence and priceless place in Nature, and nothing else. Public notice is as old as the law itself, and so is the hanging (nailing) of public notices in the public square to a post (pike).

The word cross as used here, translated and taken from the same word (stauros) translates figuratively as exposure to spiritual death, another term for self-denial, the denial of True Self.

The figurative meaning of the word crucify, from Strong’s G4717 (stauroō) is to crucify the flesh, and to figuratively extinguish (subdue) passion or selfishness.

And finally, this metaphor that Jesus Christ “is come in the flesh” causes the literalist to close down immediately towards any spiritual knowledge that might be garnered by the metaphor. The “flesh,” or Strong’s G4561 – sarx, (σάρξ), is defined as carnal or simply carnal minded. The termto follow after the flesh’ is used of those who are on the search for persons with whom they may gratify their lust.”

A person is he that does not act as his True Self, as one not self-responsible and not acting under the Highest Law, which requires proper choice at all times. Legalism is the opposite of choice, being based purely on causality. Thus legalism is called as spiritual (without choice) death.

And so we are to nail the flesh to the cross and instead follow the Law (Son) of God. It’s just a metaphor, and obviously a damn powerful one, meaning we must become (be re-born into) our True Selves again.

To love thy True Self as thy neighbor is the law. Self Love is, of course, part of the Natural Law, for one cannot love thy neighbor as thy True Self (without legal name and title) unless first one loves thy True Self. Instead, in the artifice of the legal realm, we take the name of and act as legal persons (fictions) under false legal gods in denial of the True Self and Its Nature. In other words, person-hood is denial of one’s own highest self-existence in Nature, which happens to also be very the definition of Jehovah (YHWH), as all that is self-Existent and self-evident. God (Jehovah) is nothing more and nothing less than all that is Truth (Reality) — as a monotheistic conception of the God of Reality (Nature/Source) and Sovereign of the Universe.

But legal truth is not Real, and neither is the truths debated by the “truth movement.” Truth in Its Self is not debatable. It has no alternatives or versions. And if it does, it must therefore be a creation of man, not God, being not self-evident, and therefore must be believed in (loved) as a lie confirmed and ratified as a false but accepted legal truth. It must be therefore enforced and given standing under legal law for it to be accepted as false (confirmed and ratified) truth. A perfect example of this, of course, is the legalized (forced) truth of the value of money, an oxymoron if ever there was one.

Money comes from nothing, and only nothing can come from nothing. To debate over the false propped up corporate valuation of money (mammon) is like debating over the location of a drop of water in the ever-morphing ocean.


“Nothing can come of nothing: speak again.”

–Shakespeare’s ‘King Lear’ (I, i, 92)


“Out of nothing can come, and nothing can become nothing.”

—Aulus Persius Flaccus on creativity


“From nothing, nothing comes.” 

–Latin Maxim: ex nihilo nihil fit.


It is important to note here that if government calls what happens in Nature without man’s control as an “act of God” in insurance policies, then you better damn well believe that government believes in a Higher Power. Only a fool would be a subject to a false god that acknowledges a Real God of Nature, when the Highest Natural Law of that Real God of Nature admitted to by government states take no false gods! Like it or not, if you are a citizenship of the United States, you are by default a believer in God (Jehovah), and you are also an admitted adulterer against God by following the doctrines (laws) of the state (false god). Apply your reason and logic and you will find this to be Truth, not because it is religion, but because it is the foundation of the Law of both realms. I cannot stress how important this realization is.

ATTAINTverb transitive – [See Attainder.] 1. To taint or corrupt; to extinguish the pure or inheritable blood of a person found guilty of treason or felony, by confession, battle, or verdict, and consequent sentence of death, or by special act of Parliament… 3. To disgrace; to cloud with infamy; to stain. 4. To taint or corrupt. – noun – 1. A stain, spot or taint. [See taint.] 2. Any thing injurious; that which impairs (Webster’s 1828)

TAINTA conviction of felony, or the person so convicted. (Black’s 4rth)

ATTAINDER – English criminal law. Attinctura, the stain or corruption of blood which arises from being condemned for any crime (Bouvier’s 1856)

STRAW – …3. Any thing proverbially worthless. I care not a straw for the play. I will not abate a straw. (–Webster’s 1828)

STRAW MAN – 1. A fictitious person, especially one that is weak or flawed. 2. A tenuous and exaggerated counterargument that an advocate puts forward for the sole purpose of disproving it. — Also termed straw-man argument. 3. A third party used in some transactions as a temporary transferee to allow the principal parties to accomplish something that is otherwise impermissible. 4. A person hired to post a worthless bail bond for the release of an accused. — Also termed stramineus homo. (Black’s 7th)

STEAMINESS HOMO – Latin. A man of straw, one of no substance, put forward as bail or surety. (—Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition.)


The problem is that most people think of citizenship as an honor instead of a condemnation; a charge of felony in attainder. In such a large, open-air prison, it is sometimes hard to remember we are all convict fellons by birth, abandoned to the state. The word condemnation is defined as “the process by which property of a private owner is taken for public use” in Black’s 4th Edition, with the word condemned meaning “worthless.” This describes the birth certification or “delivery” (abandonment) process, and is ho w we become public persons from that false legal birth event and registration. It is the persona (legal mask/status), not the actual man that is feloniously created. For government is only god over its own creation, which is the person and never the man. The man volunteers to become surety for that status in adulthood (legalized adultery against God’s Law), and thus has standing through it, being bound for both its monetary and performance debts. By this voluntary action and false existence in bond and surety, one is considered to be in attainder, for persons (fictions) have no blood to be considered.

As fictional, legal (anti-Nature) persons (citizens/subjects) of a false god (the legal state/national district), all men suffer by their suretyship in this legally pretended attainder, or pretended corruption of blood — when one receives a legal status (person) of citizenship (subjection) to the district of New Columbia (the seat of the United States) through birth certification (nativity). To have standing in blood corruption by law is to destroy the lawful line in heirship of one’s progeny, of one’s children and of one’s parents, for citizenship is a choice to call the fictional state as god (father), though obviously no blood relations actually exists. A user and surety for another’s property is never an heir to that property or land. What exists only legally is always dead, which can be stated as to be made of straw (without value or consideration).


“Man (homo) is a term of nature; Person (persona) of civil law.”

—Black’s Law Dictionary, Second Edition (1910). Page 577


 “Son is a name of nature, but heir is a name of law.”



“One may relinquish for himself and his heirs a right which was introduced for his own benefit.”



In other words, a right can only be introduced to that which is a creation of man’s law. Persons. Strawmen.

Remember, the son is named by the first (christian) name of Nature, but the heir at law comes from the last or surname of legal genealogical history.

SURNAMEThe family name; the name over and above the Christian name. The part of a name which is not given in baptism; the last namethe name of a person which is derived from the common name of his parents; the name common to all members of a family. A patronymic. (–Black’s 4rth)

PATRONYMIC – noun – 1. A name derived from the name of a father or ancestor, typically by the addition of a prefix or suffix, e.g., Johnson, O’Brien, Ivanovich. adjective – 1. Denoting or relating to a name derived from the name of a father or male ancestor.“the patronymic naming of children.” (–Oxford Dictionary online)



Citizenship, or rather the act of birth registration (taxation) to Caesar’s district, the nation, where the state becomes father of the person we act as surety to (creator of person/status in society), is the act of one relinquishing the blood-rights of himself and his heirs. The boy or girl is still a son in Nature (outside of the legal realm), but in the legal realm of Caesar’s jurisdiction the legal persona (strawman) attached to the child in bond and surety at adulthood (legalized, state-licensed adultery) is no longer an heir by law.

ADULTERYnoun – [Latin adulterium. See Adulterate.] 1. Violation of the marriage bed; a crime, or a civil injury, which introduces, or may introduce, into a family, a spurious offspringIn common usage, adultery means the unfaithfulness of any married person to the marriage bed… 2. In a scriptural sense, all manner of lewdness or unchastity, as in the seventh commandment. 3. In scripture, idolatry, or apostasy from the true God. Jeremiah 3:8. 4. In old laws, the fine and penalty imposed for the offense of adultery. 5. In ecclesiastical affairs, the intrusion of a person into a bishopric, during the life of the bishop. 6. Among ancient naturalists, the grafting of trees was called adultery being considered as an unnatural union. (Webs1828)

ADULTERATEverb transitive – [Latin adultero, from adulter, mixed, or an adulterer; ad and alter, other.] To corrupt, debase, or make impure by an admixture of baser materials; as, to adulterate liquors, or the coin of a country. – verb intransitiveTo commit adultery. – adjectiveTainted with adultery; debased by foreign mixture. (Webs1828)


The etymology of the word adultery comes from the Old French avoutrie, aoulterie, a noun of condition from avoutre/aoutre, and from the Latin adulterareto corrupt,” meaning, “debauch; falsify, debase.” The term adulterate is used correctly when describing a lie or a corruption of something that was pure. Broadly speaking, an act of Adultery is an act that makes purity into impurity. (–etymonline.com)

The action of attaching and thus registering (taxing) the legal state surname (last name) to the first or pure and God-given “christian” first name is an act of legalized adultery (adult-hood), and is the only way that any man may be so taxed (registered) to Caesar’s district and realm, being re-rendered as a person, no longer recognized as a man (Creation of God). A person is a creation of the state. This admixing of names is called as a blemish or mark upon the soul and True Nature of man in the Bible. It is a corruption of the connection man has to Source, for it carries the anti-Source (fictional) law, the law of persons.

Indeed, all ancient religions in their base foundation concur on this point. Only man’s recreation of false doctrines in incorporation obfuscates the True intent of most religions and the meanings of their words. Self-evident, self-existent Truth is of course universal, requiring no man for its self-evident, self-existent Truth and Nature.


Three evil deeds [that create suffering]
depending upon the body are:
killing, stealing, and committing

—Buddha, from The Practice of Dhyâna


Have nought to do with adultery;
for it is
a foul thing and an evil way.”

—Mohammed, from the Qu’ran, Sura XVII, The Night Journey, Mecca


While in modern legal cases and in our dumbed down society, the word adultery is of course used for sexual relations simply because sex sells and occupies the mind. But the root of the word is the admixture of anything to cause the pureness of another to vanish or to become unseen. This is the nature of national citizenship, a figurative (artificial) corruption of blood.

Fortunately, the actions of this arrogant commenter and believer of these deceivers did not somehow magically erase every legal dictionary and history of the word straw man and man of straw in all languages. Nope, it was just troll-poop scatted carelessly by one unwilling to verify facts.

It is one of the small pleasures in life to be able to now completely demolish these types of misinformation pieces printed by the organized criminal revenue collection agency of government. In older days, these farmers of revenue (fishers of men) were agents of the king/treasury, and were known by the title of “escheats,” or “cheaters.” They were the henchmen for the head pirates of the pirate cove. Of course the escheat laws are alive and well in the United States, a modern feudal system lost to the changing language arts.

I wish to walk the reader through this hilariously deceiving bulletin and pick apart the glaringly obvious trickery in its wording, which to anyone without familiarity of legal law, would cause fear and loathing of what some call legally as the “straw man.”

My comments from herein will be in blue below after each false and misleading statement by both the “truth” movement and by the Internal Revenue Agency.

Let’s begin…


Internal Revenue Bulletin:  2005-14

Frivolous tax returns; use of “straw man” to avoid tax. This ruling emphasizes to taxpayers and to promoters and return preparers that a taxpayer cannot avoid income tax on the erroneous theory that the government has created a separate and distinct entity or “straw man,” in place of the taxpayer and that the taxpayer is not responsible for the tax obligations of the “straw man.” This argument has no merit and is frivolous.


Silly rabbit, tricks are for attorneys and scribes! The “taxpayer” is a title assigned to the already created strawman (property)! A “taxpayer” is the personification of the fallacious strawman argument. Only persons (strawmen) are “taxpayers” as so defined.

To be clear, the above statement is accurate as a fallacious statement. However, it has no foundation in law. Remember, the taxpayer is a flattering title attached to the strawman (person), not in place of it. A taxpayer has no standing without being attached to a legal person (status).

This Latin term that has been translated into the English (dog-Latin) “strawman” stems from the term stramineus homo, to which Black’s Law 4th Edition defines as “a man of straw, one of no substance, put forward as bail or surety.” To be clear, this refers to the bond of surety that each man stands in when operating in a commercial persona (public citizenship status) of the corporate United States. To be of no substance is to be formal, a fictional personification of the Real; a simulation (representation). All aspects of legal identity, including all names, numbers, marks, signs, signatures, flattering titles, marriages, contracts, and licenses are all connected to this “straw man.” It is merely a word for a legal person, with the understanding that anything designated as “legal” is artificial, or “art” for short. Of course, a man built of straw is the simulation (personification) of an Real man. What is not of nature is of the artifice (i.e. man-made). Thus, the colloquialism that a fictional persona is made of straw actually makes a whole lot of sense at the figurative level, like the scarecrow (man of straw) searching for a brain from the evil Wizard of Oz. And it is very important to understand that all things of government origin are made of straw. Fiction is not reality. The legal language is almost exclusively a figurative language defining fictional persons, places, and things (nouns), the word noun meaning merely name. The words or terms of art of government are property of government. Thus, so is the name of every national citizenship, registered at birth and used by each man (agent) in public, commercial franchise. And so it is true, one would certainly not use the strawman as an excuse to not pay the taxes of the taxpayer, because they are one in the same. Taxpayer is a title, and titles can only be granted or forced upon government property, which is the legal person (strawman). To separate the two as different legal entities is disingenuous at best, outright trickery at the worst in regards to this first paragraph.

With this knowledge of the true intent and meaning of the term straw man, a quite legitimate term of art dating to the Roman law, let us examine the IRS’s first statement above. Notice that this government “agency” is trying to distinguish a difference between what a “taxpayer” is and what a “straw man” is. Funny that the IRS doesn’t define the word “taxpayer” so that we can be certain that a “taxpayer” is not indeed merely another fictional form without substance, a flattering title assigned to the strawman.

And so we must ask, where in Nature, where in Reality can we find a “taxpayer?” Is any man, animal, insect, or plant born a taxpayer? Was I a “taxpayer” when I fell out of my mother’s womb? Is a “taxpayer” a Creation of God, or a creation of government? Is the title of “taxpayer” a legal status or does it course through my veins as some inescapable genetic dis-ease? Just where, oh where do “taxpayers” come from?

Anyone in their right mind knows the answer to these questions. Even the most patriotic of subjects to the sovereign tyranny and piracy of these United States cheaters can’t possibly think that being a “taxpayer” is somehow Natural or has anything to do with the True Nature of Life. After all, there is no money in Reality, in Nature, so how can there be a tax on money in Nature? Ironically, if money grew on trees, it would be all but worthless. But let us consult the foundational maxims (principles ) of law for verification:

MAXIM: An act of God does wrong to no one.

MAXIM: The act of God does no injury; that is, no one is responsible for inevitable accidents.

MAXIM: No one is held to answer for the effects of a superior force, or of an accident, unless his own fault has contributed.

MAXIM: All men know God. [Hebrews 8:11]

MAXIM: That is the highest law which favors religion.

MAXIM: God, and not man, make the heir. [Romans 8:16]

MAXIM: The law which governs corporations is the same as that which governs individuals.

A citizen-ship (commercial vessel) of the United States is called an individual person, whereas a corporation is called an artificial person. Both are, according to the maxims of law, governed by the same law. For a person is never of God (Nature), and so cannot be protected by the Law of Nature’s God. An Act of God is under God’s Natural Law, while all legally created persons and titles are under man’s legally created law. And this is why, while all men are said to be created equal under God, all persons are certainly not created equal. In fact, the whole purpose of persons is artifical inequality — the destruction of God’s Law of Creation, or Law of Nature. This was simply word trickery by the “founding fathers” of the United States, to fool the illiterate masses into believing that the fathers (gods) and their bloodlines (Posterity) were equal in status (persona) to themselves, the creators of the legal realm and artifice.

And so we can see here, at the beginning, that this disinformation piece is designed to separate these two terms into separate or unattached legal entities, dismissing outright the “straw man argument” as it calls it. And indeed, anyone foolish enough to use such an argument would lose, for these are not separate things. A taxpayer is a part of the straw man (person/citizenship), and cannot exist without it. Corporations are “taxpayers” too, for corporations are persons too! “Taxpayer” is merely a fictional title without substance placed upon any man acting in surety and agency to a United States proprietary persona (citizen-ship/legal status) that agrees to contract and conduct commerce therein.

Let us look at the source, the US Code for our definitions:

26 U.S. Code § 7701 – Definitions

(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—

(1) Person – The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation

(14) Taxpayer – The term “taxpayer” means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.

And of course we have court record to guide us as to the interpretational definitions of that master-class of devilmasters in their devilry:

From: PDFLong v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236 (1922):

The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws…

[Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236 (1922)]


You see, we forget that there is also a legal entity called as a “nontaxpayer.”

From: PDFBotta v. Scanlon, 288 F.2d. 504, 508 (1961):

“A reasonable construction of the taxing statutes does not include vesting any tax official with absolute power of assessment against individuals not specified in the statutes as a person liable for the tax without an opportunity for judicial review of this status before the appellation of ‘taxpayer’ is bestowed upon them and their property is seized…”

[Botta v. Scanlon, 288 F.2d. 504, 508 (1961)]


So the status of taxpayer must be bestowed upon a person (strawman) before that person is a taxpayer, or he is by default considered as a nontaxpayer. So taxpayer is a legal status, not a natural disease.

But how does this fact relate to the person, the strawman?


“This word ‘person’ and its scope and bearing in the law, involving, as it does, legal fictions and also apparently [IN APPEARANCE ONLY] natural beings, it is difficult to understand; but it is absolutely necessary to grasp, at whatever cost, a true and proper understanding to the word in all the phases of its proper use. A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the STATUS or CONDITION with which he is invested. Not an individual or physical person, but the STATUS, CONDITION or CHARACTER borne (carried) by physical persons.” 

The law of persons is the law of STATUS or CONDITION.

—American Law and Procedure, Vol. 13, page 137, 1910


And so how is a “taxpayer” then defined both statutorily and as deliberated by the courts?


“And by statutory definition, ‘taxpayerincludes any person, trust or estate subject to a tax imposed by the revenue act.  …Since the statutory definition of ‘taxpayer’ is exclusive, the federal courts do not have the power to create nonstatutory taxpayers for the purpose of applying the provisions of the Revenue Acts…”

–C.I.R. v. Trustees of L. Inv. Ass’n, 100 F.2d. 18 (1939)


Specifically, Rowen seeks a declaratory judgment against the United States of America with respect to “whether or not the plaintiff is a taxpayer pursuant to, and/or under 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(14).” (See Compl. at 2.) This Court lacks jurisdiction to issue a declaratory judgment “with respect to Federal taxes other than actions brought under section 7428 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,” a code section that is not at issue in the instant action. See 28 U.S.C. § 2201; see also Hughes v. United States, 953 F.2d 531, 536-537 (9th Cir. 1991) (affirming dismissal of claim for declaratory relief under §2201 where claim concerned question of tax liability). Accordingly, defendant’s motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED, and the instant action is hereby DISMISSED.

–Rowen v. U.S., 05-3766MMC. (N.D.Cal. 11/02/2005)


In other words, a “taxpayer” is a legal person that artificially exists (appears) only in a certain fictional, legal jurisdiction, and only when certain conditions exist. Remember, to be taxed is to be registered as a person of the state/district (Caesar). This is not a man, for no man is bound to any jurisdiction, only the persons of men may legally appear. Men Live in blood and Spirit, they don’t appear. To show up in court, the person (legal admixed name) must be found to be in that court, and jurisdiction over that legal persona must be proven, lest the case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (see above). The question above is not whether a taxpayer exists, but whether that title can be attached to the person (strawman) of the defendant in surety to it.


“And by statutory definition the term “taxpayer” includes any persontrust or estate subject to a tax imposed by the revenue act. …Since the statutory definition of taxpayer is exclusive, the federal [and state] courts do not have the power to create nonstatutory taxpayers for the purpose of applying the provisions of the Revenue Acts…”

–C.I.R. v. Trustees of L. Inv. Ass’n, 100 F.2d.18 (1939)


It is clear that a “taxpayer” is thus a creation of the state, not of Nature. A taxpayer is any person (legal status) subject to tax. Thus it is clear that a taxpayer is no man, but can indeed only be a straw man (fictional entity/persona) that some man is in surety to.


“He that is surety for a stranger shall smart for it: and he that hateth suretiship is sure.

–Proverbs 11:15, KJB

“A man void of understanding striketh hands, and becometh surety in the presence of his friend.”

–Proverbs 17:18, KJB

“I will be surety for him; of my hand shalt thou require him: if I bring him not unto thee, and set him before thee, then let me bear the blame for ever…

–Genesis 43:9, KJB


To be considered as a “taxpayer” is to be in surety first for a legal persona (status), and then also for the flattering legal title of taxpayer. The taxpayer is required to pay tax, and the man in surety will surely follow, for the surety insures payment of the persona and title he uses.

When a trust or estate can be given the title of “taxpayer” then we know that a taxpayer is not a Real man. A person is also not a man, but the legal status of a man bound in surety to another. It’s just a word. Form without substance. This must be understood here so that we may certainly state that a “taxpayer” is indeed merely a fictionally created straw man of (belonging to) government.

Go through the following definitions very slowly and meticulously, connecting all the dots:

BONDSMAN One who by a SEALED INSTRUMENT engages that: if another person (the principal) fails to do a specified thing he will pay a certain sum of money; a surety(–W.C. Anderson’s Dictionary of Law, 1889)

BONDSMANnoun – [bond and man.] A SLAVE. 1. A SURETY; one who is BOUND, or who gives security, for another. (–Webster’s 1828)

SECURITY – (1)An instrument which guarantees the certainty of some specific thing, as, payment or PERFORMANCE. (2) A SURETY. Written after the name of one who signs a promissory note, means ” surety.” See Surety. (3) Individual safety. See Personal Security… evidences of indebtedness. (–W.C. Anderson’s Dictionary of Law, 1889)

SURETY – Contracts. A person who binds himself for the payment of a sum of money or for the performance of something else, for another, who is already bound for the same. A surety differs from a guarantor, and the latter (guarantor) cannot be sued until after a suit against the principal. 2. The surety differs from bail in this, that the latter (bail) actually has, or is by law presumed to have, the custody of his principal, while the former (surety) has no control over him. The bail may surrender his principal in discharge of his obligation; the surety cannot be discharged by such surrender. 3. In Pennsylvania it has been decided that the creditor is bound to sue the principal when requested by the surety, and the debt is due; and that when proper notice is given by the surety that unless the principal be sued, he will consider himself discharged, he will be so considered, unless the principal be sued. But in general a creditor may resort to the surety for the payment of his debt in the first place, without applying to the principal. (See) Contribution; Contracts; Suretyship. (–Bouvier’s 1856)

SURETYSHIP – The contract of suretyship is that whereby one obligates himself to pay the debt of another in consideration of creditor indulgence, or other benefit given to his principal, the principal remaining bound therefor. It differs from a guaranty is this: that the consideration of the latter is a benefit flowing to the guarantor. Suretyship is an accessory promise by which a person binds himself for another already bound, and agrees with the creditor to satisfy the obligation, if the debtor does not. A contract of suretyship is a contract whereby one person engages to be answerable for the debt, default, or miscarriage of another. For the distinctions between “suretyship” and “guaranty,” see GUARANTY. (–Black’s Law 1st)

STRAWMAN – 1. Draft or outline copy ready for suggestions and comments. 2. Third party used as a cover in illegal or shady deals. 3. Nominee director. 4. A weak or flawed person with no standing. Also called man of straw. (–Black’s Law 2nd)

STRAWMAN – 1. A weak or imaginary opposition set up only to be easily confuted. 2. A person set up to serve as a cover for a usually questionable transaction. (–Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary)

DUMMYnoun – One who holds legal title for another; a straw man. (–Black’s Law 4th Edition)

DUMMYadjective –Sham; make-believe; pretended; imitation. As respects basis for predicating liability on parent corporation for acts of subsidiary, “agency,” “adjunct,” “branch,” “instrumentality,” “dummy,” “buffer,” and “toolall mean very much the same thing. (–Black’s Law 4th Edition)

AGENCYA relation, created either by express or implied contract or by law, whereby one party (called the principal or constituent) delegates the transaction of some lawful business or the authority to do certain acts for him or in relation to his rights or property, with more or less discretionary power, to another person (called the agent, attorney, proxy, or delegate) who undertakes to manage the affair and render him an account thereof. The contract of agency may be defined to be a contract by which one of the contracting parties confides the management of some affair, to be transacted on his account, to the other party, who undertakes to do the business and render an account of it. A contract by which one person, with greater or less discretionary power, undertakes to represent another in certain business relations. A relation between two or more persons, by which one party, usually called the agent or attorney, is authorized to do certain acts for, or in relation to (lie rights or property) of the other, who is denominated the principal, constituent, or employer. (–Black’s Law 2nd Edition)


In case you missed that, a surety is the same as a slave, as involuntary subjection; a performance debtor in an open-air prison (district).

Obviously, this opening statement by the IRS was one of obfuscation and very well-known inaccuracy, not in reference to law but to a vast range of misconceptions brought forth by the mythology of the generally misinformed patriot/truth/liberty/sovereignty movements. In other words, the IRS is not refuting the fact or legal existence of the “straw man,” for without it there would be no entity to charge any tax to. Instead, the IRS has address the strawman argument created by fallacious defendants against the IRS and has chosen merely to address that existential, external strawman argument, without explaining the actual facts about what the word strawman stands in reference to in law, as the actual persona that the title of “Taxpayer” is attached to. One (the taxpayer) cannot exist and have standing without the other (the person) being precedent.

Continuing with the IRS document…



The Service is aware that some taxpayers are attempting to reduce their federal tax liability by taking the incorrect position that their incomes are not subject to tax based on a theory that the government has created a separate and distinct entity, or “straw man,” in place of the taxpayer and that the taxpayer is not responsible for the tax obligations of the “straw man.” Some promoters market a package, kit, or other materials that claim to show taxpayers how they can avoid paying income taxes based on these and other meritless arguments.

This revenue ruling emphasizes to taxpayers and to promoters and return preparers that a taxpayer cannot avoid income tax on the erroneous theory that the government has created a “straw man.” This argument has no merit and is frivolous.

The Service is committed to IDENTIFYING taxpayers who attempt to avoid their tax obligations by taking frivolous positions, including frivolous positions based on meritless “straw man” or similar arguments. The Service will take vigorous enforcement action against these taxpayers and against promoters and return preparers who assist taxpayers in taking these frivolous positions. Frivolous returns and other similar documents submitted to the Service are processed through its Frivolous Return Program. As part of this program, the Service confirms whether taxpayers who take frivolous positions have filed all of their required tax returns, computes the correct amount of tax and interest due, and determines whether civil and criminal penalties should apply. The Service also determines whether civil or criminal penalties should apply to return preparers, promoters, and others who assist taxpayers in taking frivolous positions, and recommends whether a court injunction should be sought to halt these activities. Other information about frivolous tax positions is available on the Service website at IRS (website).

This, again, is a truth told based on the logical fallacy of the foolish theroist, but not because the Truth is told to counteract or correct the “truther” that submitted the theory — that the taxpayer is not responsible for the tax obligations of the strawman. Inversely though, it is correct to say that the strawman is responsible for the tax obligations of the taxpayer. This simple reversal of terms is again a way for the IRS to trick us into confusion based on the fallacious, ill-conceived “theories” of the patriot/truth movement and its false gurus. The surety is responsible for the strawman, and the strawman is responsible for the taxpayer, in that order. Again, no effort to educate or correct these fallacies is present herein, for if we were made to understand the way this all works, no one in their right (informed) mind would fall for the trap of being a taxpayer. The IRS would have to close its doors, with no persons dumb enough left to place its false, flattering legal titles upon. Thus it would have no precedent to tax (extort) from any person.

Note that each year, around 50% of all US citizens do not pay federal income taxes. By this accounting, 50% of us should be in jail, since most people believe that all persons are taxpayer by default! Unless that is, that most of that 50% just don’t qualify under the flattering title of “taxpayers.”

Notice that only the word “taxpayer” is used above, as what is against the taxpayer or as the process of “identifying taxpayers.” This is because a “taxpayer” is a specific title created by the IRS under US CODE, and of course it makes the rules over what its own creation (property) must do. At no time does it mention any man or person that is not a taxpayer, because it only has jurisdiction over fools who allow themselves to become and be flatteringly titled as “taxpayers.” In other words, an identified, titled “taxpayer” cannot avoid taxes, because this is the purpose and law of over a title of “taxpayer.” But first the “taxpayer” must be identified, which obviously means that while all taxpayers are persons, not all persons are taxpayers. No man in their right mind would first identify himself as a person that is a “taxpayer” and then argue that he is not a “taxpayer.” This is where gurus and false teachers come into play, steering the truth and patriot movement wrong for many decades with what the courts label as “paper terrorism” and fallacious theories at outrageous prices.

Again we can see above that the IRS is merely arguing against what it knows is a fallacious theory, a strawman argument that is easily disputed, but not offering any corrective facts to prove that argument, of which these gurus have convinced their marks that the taxpayer and the strawman are not the same thing, when in fact the straw man is the “taxpayer” (person liable to tax) when so qualified as such, not the man. For while all persons are men, not all men are attached to persons.

Continuing with the IRS document…



Whether the government’s use of different forms of a taxpayer’s name (e.g., different capitalization formats, spellings) creates a “straw man,” which is a separate and distinct legal entity from the taxpayer to allow the taxpayer to avoid federal tax obligations?

Here we see again the obfuscating idea being put forward that the “taxpayer” is separate from the straw man (person) or citizenship status again. But this is not any argument I’ve made, and certainly the above definitions show that the “taxpayer” is “any person subject to any internal revenue tax.” And so yes, if this is the claim being made, then certainly one would loose this case, having only partial knowledge and understanding of the legal law and tax code regarding personhood (citizenship) in the subjection of bond and surety. In other words, this whitewashing document is designed for the very idiot that posted it to my website, so that he may cease in doing any due diligence or further research to defeat this strawman argument and feel more comfortable with his own voluntary servitude in persona and “taxpayer” status. In other words, this IRS document is a lie designed to appear as truth to the truth movement, and is put forward as official “truth” therein. Unfortunately, this type of false positive truth are what the truth movement is founded upon — the truth of lies.

To be clear, there is no requirement or set way to write names or other titles. Style manuals are not law, merely suggestions and standards. More to the point, if one writes one’s name without ALL-CAPS or even misspells their own name, as soon as that man (agent in surety to the name) answers in legal appearance for that name, the error is considered remedied and corrected. For the intent of the agent is clear as soon as he appears in that name. This ALL-CAPS argument is perhaps the most worthless of the many patriot mythologies surrounding the strawman system. 




The “straw man” claim is premised on the erroneous theory that most government documents do not actually refer to individuals.

Note: Remember that a person (status) is defined as “an individual.” All citizenships are individuals (persons) as opposed to corporations (artificial persons) made up of many individuals. Only a fool would claim that a strawman is not the same as a person (individual). Again, this is just obfuscating language designed to throw us off the scent. No claim I have made states that I believe a straw man is not an individual person, nor that the “taxpayer” is not defined as an individual liable for tax under this IRS Code. That would be downright stupid — which unfortunately is the basis of the realm of false guru-based nonsense and advertising in the truth movement and radio circuit.



Users of the “straw man” theory falsely claim that only documents using an individual’s name with “standard” capitalizationi.e., lower-case with only the beginning letters of each name capitalized, are legitimate. These individuals erroneously argue that the use of the individual’s name in all upper-case letters, which is common in some government documents, refers to a separate legal entity, called a “straw man.”

To be clear, government can only communicate with persons, with straw men. In other words, every letter that comes to a citizenship of the United States from government is addressed to the person (sttrawman), which was sent to the man acting in agency and surety for that person at the registered federal mailing address on file. Again, government cannot commune with the Living, only the dead. As registered agent for service of process, your home address is also your interstate commercial address.

To even mention this notion that nothing but capital letters are being used or that the so-called “ALL-CAPS” name has anything to do with whether the straw man exists legally (artificially) is again purposefully misleading and fallacious. And the error is again not corrected by legal facts, as I have provided here. Style manuals again are not law, any more than proper manners and morals are law, and no law states that any name must be capitalized or even spelled correctly for legal identity of the person (strawman) as a “taxpayer” to be established. Those who are again foolish enough to use this argument have been tricked by false gurus that parrot other false gurus and shock-jock radio hosts. This argument by the IRS does not apply to myself nor to anyone else that understands what a straw man is. Again, this is just misleading rhetoric designed to confuse the subject and cause tax (commerce) to flow. ALL-CAPS are used for ease of reference to determine corporations from individuals and fictions from Reality, etc. But both are persons (strawmen) as we have defined and as defined by the courts, and so the point is mute. There is no law that applies here, only stylization suggestions for organization and ease of use, the same as any other corporation out there has.

Moving on…


These individuals also erroneously argue that, as a result of the creation of a “straw man,” they are not liable for the debts, including the tax debts, of their “straw man,” that taxing the “straw man” is illegal because the “straw man” is a debt instrument based upon the labor of a real person and is, therefore, a form of slavery, or that no tax is owed by the real individual because it can be satisfied, or offset, by money in a “Treasury Direct Account” held in the name of the “straw man.”

Firstly, an individual is a person (strawman), so this argument is again mute. Of course the tax is charged not to the strawman, but to the “taxpayer,” which again is a title put upon the strawman (person). Obviously an agent in surety to the person (strawman) that is identified as a “taxpayer” is liable to pay the tax. You cannot argue the tax, only whether the title of “taxpayer” applies to the person (strawman). The precedent must exist to lay the tax. Once the title is linked, one cannot claim one’s person (status) to not be a “nontaxpayer.” We again see the IRS trying its best to keep the separation going, as if the strawman doesn’t exist in the first place. Yet it says here that “these individuals” are doing the arguing, which means that they are already considered to be persons (strawmen) doing the arguing in surety (strawman form). And so the IRS is claiming that the “strawman” and thus the surety for that person is not liable for the debts of the “taxpayer.” That’s ridiculous, unless that strawman (person) can show the IRS to be of its other created title/status, which used to be called a “non taxpayer.” Remember, the person (strawman) is property of government. We have no choice in the matter.

We read above that surety is a synonym for slavery, and we see above that the IRS does not dismiss this statement, but only uses it to further the ridiculousness of the argument. A bit of truth mixed with lies and obfuscations is always more effective.

There is no such thing as a “Real” person, for man creates nothing Real, and nothing legal is ever Reality. The term “real person” is an oxymoron, meaning a real artifice, a real lie, or a real fiction. What is Real is of God, never of the government. This again is self-evident. But it helps promote the strawman argument well, pretending that the strawman and the title of “taxpayer” and the person are somehow separate entities. Men do labor in the name of a person. Persons do no labor, anymore than a pair of leather work gloves lays bricks without a force moving them.

As to the rest of it, this is a big one. Many people have been tricked into the permanent delusion of seeking rewards, reparations, payoffs, and non-existent pots of gold at the end of non-existent rainbows, believing that for some reason there is some magical account that they can access such as the aforementioned “Treasury Direct Account,” as if that account was specifically set up with the design to remedy by some reward the “truther” that finds it. The gurus have created their own treasure hunt built on these mystery accounts that, if only we could prove their existence, we can somehow rape them of all their money. After all, these are trust accounts for the persons we dwell in, and therefor they must be created for us to find and take, right? Does that make sense to you, considering the person (strawman/legal status) is government property and not your own, and that your actions in surety to that persona are strictly voluntary? What possible remedy does one who is a voluntary slave seek, since no wrong can come to a volunteer? A man benefiting from fraud, after all, cannot suddenly claim it to be fraud while still continuing to act in and benefit from the fraud! It seems the whole truth/patriot/freedom/liberty movement has gone from seeking True Freedom and Liberty under God to wanting money for damages instead, seeking some magic account that doesn’t exist for that purpose. They have simply forgotten or chose to ignore God and It’s Law and chosen mammon (valuation) in It’s stead.

And yes, before I realized the scam, I too was like a jackass lead by a carrot (of gold) to seek this never to be found straw man account. But eventually, one realizes that these otherwise good-intentioned people were displaced from seeking Natural Freedom and Liberty in Nature and under Its Law only to be sidetracked into seeking money in mammon under the law of persons and begin to love their state and status within this master and servant game of volunteerism. It is a shameful turn that many or most have succumbed to, some even accepting money for the stolen lands of their family posterity (bloodline inheritance). And this monetary reward bait-trap keeps us in the system instead of rejecting it outright as fraud, leaving us stuck in the legal law matrix and its commercially coded sub-structure instead of causing us to leave this obvious simulacrum of Babylon. It causes us to remain in legal persona until we find the hidden treasure that can never be found, for it is nothingness, and from nothing comes nothing. And again, just as Huxley predicted, we have been made to love our servitude simply through this endless pursuit of mammon.

As for taxing the strawman as a “taxpayer,” they are only taxing their own property (legal entity/vessel) that we choose voluntarily to use in commerce. A user and surety of another’s property will always smart for it and pay for that use. This idea of labor being a man’s property comes from the one part of the tax code that they do everything to avoid, which is Title 83.



All individuals are subject to the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. Section 1 imposes a tax on all taxable income. Section 61 provides that gross income includes all income from whatever source derived, including compensation for services. Adjustments to income, deductions, and credits must be claimed in accordance with the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, the accompanying Treasury regulations, and other applicable federal law. Section 6011 provides that any person liable for any tax imposed by the Internal Revenue Code shall make a return when required by Treasury regulations, and that returns must be filed in accordance with Treasury regulations and IRS forms. Section 6012 identifies the persons who are required to file income tax returns. Section 6151 requires that taxpayers pay their tax when the return is due. Section 6311 requires payment of taxes by commercially acceptable means as prescribed by Treasury regulations.

There is no authority under the Internal Revenue Code or any other applicable law that supports the claim that taxpayers may avoid their federal tax obligations based on “straw man” arguments, as described in this revenue ruling, or on similar arguments. The formatting of a taxpayer’s name in all upper-case letters on government documents or elsewhere has no significance whatsoever for federal tax purposes. Courts have rejected as frivolous “straw man” arguments. United States v. Furman, 168 F.Supp.2d 609 (E.D. La. 2001) (rejecting criminal defendant’s contention that he was not properly identified in federal government documents that misspelled his name or used his properly spelled name in all capital letters). In addition, courts repeatedly have rejected similar arguments based on frivolous claims that purport to provide a basis for avoiding taxes, and have penalized taxpayers who have made these arguments.  Seee.g.Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517, 519 (7th Cir. 1984) (“[A]ll individuals, natural or unnatural, must pay federal income tax on their wages . . ..”); United States v. Romero, 640 F.2d 1014, 1017 (9th Cir. 1981) (“[I]n our system of government, one is free to speak out in open opposition to the provisions of the tax laws, but such opposition does not relieve a citizen of his obligation to pay taxes.”).

All of these demands and statements are very specific. The term “wages,” for instance, is a very limited term that is defined in the tax code. And yes, income tax certainly applies to “wages.” To argue otherwise is foolish. But the IRS must prove what is a “wage” and what is not, just as it must prover identity of persona before it may prove “taxpayer” status. Again, it must establish precedent.

It is also certainly true that courts will joyfully reject such claims presented at bar, for they are erroneously presented in the first place, backed nowhere by the law. A person cannot deny personhood, only a man can. And a person’s actions in and under law decides whether that person is a taxpayer, whether natural (individual) or unnatural (corporation). Remember, the creator controls. This maxim applies to persons (legal identity and status) and to the words (terms of art) in legal language used to create and govern them. You cannot change or alter the definitions of government, but you can learn them and use them properly.

Note too that the IRS refers to these fallacious notions as being a way for “avoiding” taxation. Avoidance is not illegal in any way, and is the very definition of being a “nontaxpayer.” Once what is avoidable becomes unavoidable due to one’s actions and contracts in commerce, only then is avoidance illegal. In other words, once the “taxpayer” status is attached to the strawman (person) it cannot any longer be avoided. Avoidance is what happens before these obligations are made. Thus the IRS and the courts will always deny claims made for avoidance of taxation after the intent and liability is established (confirmed by actions). The only thing one can do is to not become a “taxpayer” by not using the person (strawman) in any way that would creates such a title (status) as “taxpayer.”

To be clear, if a person (strawman) is called into court amor being a taxpayer, and the agent for service of process appear in court as that person so declared to be a “taxpayer,” then the agent has already all but lost his case. All such denials and objections to the title of “taxpayer” should have been addressed through the U.S. Mail system before any appearance is made. To appear as a taxpayer and argue that you are not a taxpayer is certainly a sign of ignorance, illiteracy of legal law, and foolishness.




The Service will challenge the claims of individuals who attempt to avoid or evade their federal tax liability by refusing to file returns and pay tax, and will disallow deductions or other claimed tax benefits, including the exclusion of income, based on frivolous “straw man” arguments. In addition to liability for the tax due plus statutory interest, individuals who claim tax benefits on their returns, or fail to file returns, based on these and other frivolous arguments face substantial civil and criminal penalties. Potentially applicable civil penalties include: (1) the section 6651 additions to tax for failure to file a return, failure to pay the tax owed, and fraudulent failure to file a return; (2) the section 6662 accuracy-related penalty, which is equal to 20 percent of the amount of taxes the taxpayer should have paid; (3) the section 6663 penalty for civil fraud, which is equal to 75 percent of the amount of taxes the taxpayer should have paid; (4) a $500 penalty under section 6702 for filing a frivolous return; and (5) a penalty of up to $25,000 under section 6673 if the taxpayer makes frivolous arguments in the United States Tax Court.

Taxpayers relying on these theories also may face criminal prosecution for: (1) attempting to evade or defeat tax under section 7201, for which there is a significant fine and imprisonment for up to 5 years; (2) willful failure to file a return under section 7203, for which there is a significant fine and imprisonment for up to one year; or (3) making false statements on a return, statement, or other document under section 7206, for which there is a significant fine and imprisonment for up to 3 years.

Persons, including return preparers, who promote these theories and those who assist taxpayers in claiming tax benefits based on these frivolous arguments may face penalties and also may be enjoined by courts pursuant to sections 7407 and 7408. Potential penalties include: (1) a $250 penalty under section 6694 for each return or claim for refund prepared by an income tax return preparer who knew or should have known that the taxpayer’s argument was frivolous (or $1,000 for each return or claim for refund if the return preparer’s actions were willful, intentional or reckless); (2) a penalty under section 6700 for promoting abusive tax shelters; (3) a $1,000 penalty under section 6701 for aiding and abetting the understatement of tax; and (4) criminal prosecution under section 7206, for which there is a significant fine and imprisonment for up to 3 years for assisting or advising about the preparation of a false return, statement or other document under the internal revenue laws.


The use of different forms of a taxpayer’s name (different spellings, capitalization, etc.) does not CREATE a “straw man” that allows taxpayers to avoid their federal tax obligations. Claims based on “straw man” arguments or on similar arguments, to avoid federal tax obligations, are frivolous and have no merit.


The author of this ruling is the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration), Administrative Provisions and Judicial Practice Division. For further information regarding this ruling, contact that office at (202) 622-7950 (not a toll-free call).


This notion that the misspelling or different spelling or ALL-CAPS spelling “CREATES” a straw man is again not corrected by the IRS, but merely left to stand as a strawman argument to be easily refuted and defeated. It is easy to call bullshit without providing facts to support the call. And in the IRS’s case, it is necessary to keep the public dumbed down as to the backbone of their criminal racket.

The strawman is created by the birth certificate as a legal entity (person/status).

The taxpayer is a title placed upon the already existent strawman (person).

Notice that all penalties listed have to do with an already identified by precedent “taxpayer” arguing against that title and status. None of this applies to persons that cannot be identified as “taxpayers.”

In the end, this whole whitewashing treatment of the subject of the straw man has been just one ridiculously and painfully obvious strawman argument, the taking of another’s logical fallacy and arguing against the known fallacy without providing facts or proves that would correct the fallacy, but instead defeating the already known-to-be-incorrect assumptions of the positions taken by fools.





I sincerely hope that this treatment of the strawman topic has clarified its methodology. Again, this is but a precursor, a summary if you will of my book “Strawman: The Real Story Of Your Artificial Person”, which is free to download at (StrawmanStory.info), and where you will find the above information sourced and explained in triplicate.

And this knowledge guide you and keep you free…


–clint > richard-son (RealityBloger.wordpress.com)
–Thursday, September 21, 2017


It’s Time To Withdraw Your Membership To The United States!

Citizenship SchoolIf you are a member of an organization that begins to do things you don’t like, the rational course of action would be to withdraw your financial support to that organization and cease to be a member.

If your bank misbehaves or charges you ridiculous extra fees just because it can according to your “agreement” with the bank, the rational course of action would be to withdraw your financial support and cease to be a customer.

If your insurance coverage starts to diminish in quality or denies you your due benefits or coverage when you need it, the rational course of action would be to withdraw your financial support to that company and cease to be a member.

If my doctor or hospital began to practice bad medicine and cause more illness than it cured, the rational course of action would be to withdraw financial support to that hospital or doctor and cease to be a customer, and perhaps pursue alternative healing.

In fact, when we consider this repetitive logic, wouldn’t anyone be hard-pressed to think of any thing that might mistreat us as a member or customer that would not warrant the withdraw of financial support and termination of contract or membership?

So why then are people still voluntary members of the United States central government?

Do they enjoy the thought of future bad healthcare – which is really the quite unlawful forced commerce with insurance companies and not actual healthcare? If their membership to a corporation that gives them “benefits” suddenly forces them to accept bad medicine and bad insurance, isn’t the simple solution to end their membership to the main corporation?

Do the people enjoy paying taxes and unjust extortion fees and taxes for non-crimes just so that government can invest that money for itself without offering any benefit back to the people? Would it not be prudent to end that kind of business “relationship” with such a bad business?

Do people really believe that the meager benefit of “old-age insurance” called social security (socialism) is worth the vast amount of legal restrictions and tyrannies set forth upon them through their entire life – even when they could have invested their own money and walked away with double or triple what this administration will ever pay them – should they actually live through Obama-care? Do the people even know that there is no actual trust in their name – just a large investment fund that has been completely tapped for the national debt with no legal requirement to ever pay them anything? Do they know the difference between investing for themselves and their future and contributing (giving away) their hard-earned money to government? Do they realize where their money goes as government invests it into war, Monsanto, pharmaceuticals, and Think tanks?

Is there some misconception that being a “citizen” is somehow patriotic – that withdrawing their citizenship (membership) will make them less “American”?

Really? Because last time I checked, it was called the United States of America, not America of the United States.

Was there created at some point in history the fallacy that America is the central government called the United States – a 10 mile square municipal corporation that is not even one of the actual 50 states in the “union” ? Do the people actually believe that America is the United States?

Perhaps that misconception derives from the misunderstanding of just what citizenship is.

For citizenship is simply a membership, be it voluntary or forced through coercion and martial law, unilaterally agreed to by an individual. It is no different than a gym membership; where you must follow the rules set out in your agreement contract that only you sign. Like the government, the gym does not sign your contract. It is simply an agreement for membership to enjoy some benefits, as well as an agreement for you to follow their rules.

But what happens when the rules change without your consent?

What happens when the benefits diminish?

For instance, each state is a member of the Untied States, forced to hand over their unappropriated lands to the United States and draft new State constitutions after the Civil War under “reconstruction” and after agreeing to the terms of uniform “enabling acts” under duress. In fact, the civil war was nothing but a military takeover by a defunct central government under martial law of the lawfully succeeded sovereign states. They were forced back into contract membership with the new central government, one that was unlawfully created absent of the lawful participation of these states’ lawful congressmen. In their stead, military martial officers of law were forced into congress to replace the lawfully elected congressmen of each state. And under duress and at gunpoint, these states became members of this municipal corporation in Washington D.C, eventually dividing the entire territory of America into counties within states.

COUNTY. A district into which a state is divided.

2. The United States are generally divided into counties; counties are divided into townships or towns…

4. In some states, as Illinois; 1 Breese, R. 115; a county is considered as a corporation, in others it is only a quasi corporation.

5. In the English law this word signifies the same as shire, county being derived from the French and shire from the Saxon. Both these words signify a circuit or portion of the realm, into which the whole land is divided, for the better government thereof, and the more easy administration of justice. There is no part of England that is not within some county, and the shire-reve, (sheriff) originally a yearly officer, was the governor of the county. Four of the counties of England, viz. Lancaster, Chester, Durham and Ely, were called counties Palatine, which were jurisdictions of a peculiar nature, and held by, especial charter from the king. See stat. 27 H. VIII. c.25.

COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. Certain officers generally entrusted with the superintendence of the collection of the county taxes, and the disbursements made for the county. They are administrative officers, invested by the local laws with various powers.

***All legal definitions taken from Bouvier’s Law Dictioanry, 1856

Counties are nothing but municipal corporations; a network grid of contract issuers and enforcers for the United States government – acting under administrate local law with federal powers. Another word for administrative is contract. And all administrative law is simply the administration of the unilateral contractual relationship with you and government. The county has police officers. The gym has security guards. There is no difference. Police officers are just security guards for the county corporation. They’re authority is presumed, just as your citizenship that might grant them contractual authority over you is presumed.

UNILATERAL CONTRACT, civil law. When the party to whom an engagement is made, makes no express agreement on his part, the contract is called uni-lateral, even in cases where the law attaches certain obligations to his acceptance… A loan of money, and a loan for use, are of this kind.

One does not generally think of government as just another customer-based corporation, but this is exactly what it is. When signing a unilateral agreement (contract), one agrees to follow a certain set of de facto corporate rules and regulations (codes) as set out by government. This is the voluntary state of citizenship – a series of unilateral contractual agreements signed or unsigned (presumption of law) by the people of America.

This circumstance of multiple contractual obligations is often called the STRAWMAN, which is simply the “person” as defined and bound by these contracts. The “person” is artificial, as defined in US Code and the 14th Amendment (see below). The person is a corporate veil of the man, used for the purposes of contracts. And in administrative law, government can only contract with this artificial person. Government cannot regulate man, only the corporate person. Thus, administrative law has nothing to do with and no authority over living man, unless he or she is acting under the commercial activities described within their contractual relationship with government.

A driver’s license, for instance, is a unilateral contractual agreement by one man to follow the State government’s vehicle code, which is administrative law. Driving is administratively speaking a commercial activity. Thus, driving can be regulated by government… but only if the man agrees to become a commercial person while utilizing his automobile. He does this when he unilaterally agrees for no reason at all to agree with government that he is utilizing his car as a commercial “vehicle”, even when dropping the kids off at school. Even if that car is never used for any purpose in commerce pr commercial activities, the government still elicits people to obtain a commercial license to drive.

You see, this is the only way that government can have authority over you. It must trick you into entering into some agreement and contract for which you give your consent to its authority. Without this unilateral agreement, government cannot rule you and regulate every part of your life. It must convince you that the activities you participate in are within its authority as a legal activity before it can tell you they are illegal. And it must lie to you so as to convince you that using your car to travel is illegal unless you have a license to do so. For a license is nothing more than permission from government to do something illegal. In other words, every time you get into your vehicle and drive you are breaking the law by permission.

Though traveling in your personal automobile is not unlawful, driving commercially without a license is illegal – a breach of contract.

Perhaps most ironic about all of this is the simple realization that all of this contractual relationship nonsense is based on one and only one thing – your membership with the United States corporation in Washington D.C. This is the central hub of information. It is where your official artificial person is stored and maintains residence. And states and counties are just subdivisions of that corporation – artificial borders signifying United States jurisdiction, assigned federal locator codes called ZIP codes that are property of the United States. For the U.S. Postal Service is part of the United States corporation in Washington D.C. Your United States mail is not delivered to your home, it is delivered to your commercial address within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

You must never forget that all of your commercial activities are being done inside of the United States jurisdiction – the artificial corporate veil that extends throughout the 50 states and beyond like a spider web, ensnaring the activities people like flies and spinning them into commercial persons.

Imagine in your mind that the entire land of America has a plastic coating over it for which all people walk upon as corporate persons and citizens of the United States, never really comprehending that this clear plastic coating of corporate person-hood separates their natural body from the natural land. The people walk and talk on this corporate veil of clear plastic as if it doesn’t exist and as if they are walking on the actual land – which ironically is a true statement. For corporatism is indeed artificial, just as the artificial person replaces the man in his or her transactions with the corporation government, so to does the United States replace the land of America with its veil of artificial person-hood called statutes and codes.

Yet just on the other side of this artificial construct lies the natural world, natural law, and all of the natural rights that existed before the people contractually agreed to give them up for government granted political rights. For tyranny and oppression is literally the contractual right of citizens of the United States.

For a deeper understanding of what a right actually is (and this reality will certainly surprise you), please take the time to study my expose’ here:

Link–> https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/tyranny-requires-equality/

Perhaps this love affair with citizenship stems from the fallacious belief that the United States is still the same old sovereign county it was when it was founded, before the civil war tore it apart and the defunct and unlawful United States glued it back together with legal tape and military oppression?

Well, I’ve got some bad news for you folks…

The United States is now a member of the United Nations… and the United States is referred to as a “sovereign state” by that international central government. Just like the states under contractual membership with the United States corporation in Washington D.C. are not referred to as “countries”, the 193 countries of the world under membership of the United Nations corporation are also not called “countries”. And it is not the people or the 50 states that are members of the United Nations, it is just this 10 mile square piece of land called the United States corporation that is a member.

So can a sovereign individual state be a member of such a central government and still be sovereign? And can a sovereign nation then still be sovereign as a member of an international government under international maritime and admiralty (military) law?

The United Nations doctrine for “statehood” rings familiar, sounding very much like the false paradigm of the rules of “statehood” for the 50 states in the United States of America:

The dominant customary international law standard of statehood is the declarative theory of statehood that defines the state as a person of international law if it “possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.” Debate exists on the degree to which recognition should be included as a criterion of statehood. The declarative theory of statehood, an example of which can be found in the Montevideo Convention, argues that statehood is purely objective and recognition of a state by other states is irrelevant. On the other end of the spectrum, the constitutive theory of statehood defines a state as a person under international law only if it is recognized as sovereign by other states. For the purposes of this list, included are all states that either:

  • (a) have declared independence and are often regarded as having control over a permanently populated territory


  • (b) are recognised as a sovereign state by at least one other sovereign state

Link–> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states

The word-magic here involves the concept that the “state” has “declared independence” and has “control over a permanently populated area”.

This is of course the United States. It, as a central incorporated government, has declared independence that no one dare challenge due to its military might. The once sovereign states now pledged as collateral for this corporation, its debts, and its “good faith and credit” are considered nothing but legal territories of the United States in the legal realm through this contractual and constitutional relationship. The governments of the individual state territories of the United States are still military in nature, each one occupied by the United States’ military and its bases, which under the Libor Code represents military rule.

In other words, the presence of a military base in your State is stated in law to signify military rule under martial law. These bases are not just for your protection, they are for your control. They are the occupying forces of the United States, left over from the same forces that occupied each State during the Civil War. They are the United States corporation’s military – the military of Washington D.C. –  not the American or state militia. They protect the United States from all threats both foreign and domestic, and that includes the people of America and the 50 states. The military ensures the continuity of this 10 mile square municipal corporation and its military rule over the 50 states and other insular possessions. The United States is legally in possession of us!

And each state is governed militarily by a “governor”, whom in Canada is referred to as “Governor General”, and who is the ex officio Commander-in-Chief of the State National Guard of His State unless called in total by the President as (CIC) of the United States. This military position of Governor as commander of a military force is followed by a whole list of military positions…

Lieutenant Governor
Attorney General
Solicitor General
Insurance Commissioner – i.e. military commissions
Superintendents – The commanding officer of the United States Military Academy is its Superintendent.
State Controller
Officers of the court
Police Officers
Employees of Commissions and Authorities

All of these titles represent rule by military force.

OFFICER. He who is lawfully invested with an office.

2. Officers may be classed into, 1. Executive; as the president of the United States of America, the several governors of the different states. Their duties are pointed out in the national constitution, and the constitutions of the several states, but they are required mainly to cause the laws to be executed and obeyed.

3. – 2. The legislative; such as members of congress; and of the several state legislatures. These officers are confined in their duties by the constitution, generally to make laws, though sometimes in cases of impeachment, one of the houses of the legislature exercises judicial functions, somewhat similar to those of a grand jury by presenting to the other articles of impeachment; and the other house acts as a court in trying such impeachments. The legislatures have, besides the power to inquire into the conduct of their members, judge of their elections, and the like.

OFFICE. An office is a right to exercise a public function or employment, and to take the fees and emoluments belonging to it

2. Offices may be classed into civil and military.

TAKE. This is a technical expression which signifies to be entitled to; as, a devisee will take under the will. To take also signifies to seize, as to take and carry away…

CIVIL. This word has various significations. 1. It is used in contradistinction to barbarous or savage, to indicate a state of society reduced to order and regular government; thus we speak of civil life, civil society, civil government, and civil liberty.

2. It is sometimes used in contradistinction to criminal, to indicate the private rights and remedies of men, as members of the community, in contrast to those which are public and relate to the government; thus we speak of civil process and criminal process, civil jurisdiction and criminal jurisdiction.

3. It is also used in contradistinction to military or ecclesiastical, to natural or foreign; thus we speak of a civil station, as opposed to a military or ecclesiastical station; a civil death as opposed to a natural death; a civil war as opposed to a foreign war.

So what does all this mean?

Consider for a moment just what the term “civil war” actually represents. As with the United States Civil War, we find that it was indeed fought to ensure the forced continuity of the United States government. It was not so much a war as it was an invasion. And it was fought to ensure that the people under martial law went along with that government who did not wish to.

To make the contradistinction between the words military and civil is almost a mute point. For a “civil society” under “civil law” cannot be accomplished without force of a military entity – which is the executive branch of government (now the Department Of Defense – as in defense of the realm).

For instance, the U.S. District Courts operate with no authority to actually enforce their decisions. Thus the power of the courts lie in the connection it has to the Executive Branch of that area. This is the true importance of the County Sheriff, for the Sheriff is the Executive power of all the courts within that county. The Sheriff’s Department man’s these courts (bailiffs, etc.), who operate under his authority. Of course, the Sheriff would have little power without the decisions and warrants issued by the courts. In a lawful society this would be referred to as a check and balance, creating a restraint of unreasonable power or influence by either entity. But when unlawful men occupy these offices as persons of the militarized United States under its authority and jurisdiction, the law becomes lawless and the powers of corruption go unchecked.

In essence, this relationship between the judicial and the executive is symbiotic in nature, where alone each office and officer would have no lawful power. But together they become the law, both written and enforced. The cowardly attorney’s in black robes called judges hide behind their pulpits and gavels while the Sheriff hides behind his badge and gun, while each gives authority to the other. Neither takes responsibility for their own actions, because they have been allowed to operate as artificial persons under limited liability incorporation. And they protect each other from legal action as one derives power unjustly from the other.

If lawful men took over either office, refusing to enforce the power and authority of the other, and taking responsibility for their own actions outside of the color of law, the people would have little to fear from their government. But lawful men such as these generally end up dead or imprisoned by the very entity they represent.

On the national level, the President of the United States acts as the Commander In Chief of his executive army, carrying out the legislative and judicial law presented to it. Congress, like the judicial, has no power to enforce its created statutes and codes (judicial opinions for courts) without the enforcement arm of the Executive Branch. A law or decision without force carries no weight, especially from men with no honor.

In other words, the legal system of the United States is solely based on the force and coercion of the executive government to carry out the political laws created by congress. The local and state governments operate under the authority of the United States, for they are just corporations as extensions of that federal government corporation.

Congress created the court system and the Supreme Court, which derives its authority and jurisdiction from that body politic.This is an important fact because this means that the entire system of corporate administrative courts across the country are statutory in nature – created by congress and not the constitution itself, and operating under the authority and jurisdiction of the United States corporation. To put it simply, this means that the courts are operating under private corporate law without lawful authority. That is, unless you consent to that authority as a private corporate person – a member of the United States corporation. Just like the gym example, this private law only applies to members of the United States.

This creation of the court system was done by Congress in the Judiciary Act of 1789:


The Judiciary Act of 1789

September 24, 1789.

1 Stat. 73.

CHAP. XX. – An Act to establish the Judicial Courts of the United States.

SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the supreme court of the United States shall consist of a chief justice and five associate justices, any four of whom shall be a quorum, and shall hold annually at the seat of government two sessions, the one commencing the first Monday of February, and the other the first Monday of August. That the associate justices shall have precedence according to the date of their commissions, or when the commissions of two or more of them bear date on the same day, according to their respective ages…

Link–> http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/judiciary_1789.htm


The authority and jurisdiction of these statutory courts only applies to citizens (members) of the United States.

Some people also refer to citizens as “employees” of the Untied States, which is not incorrect. Congressmen (representatives and senators) are also “employees” of the United States corporation, but are officially called “Members”. And we can read above that judges and justices are “commissioned” as employees.

All of these men are acting as artificial persons of the United States, for there is no natural law or natural rights under civil and administrative law because only political law exists there – abeyance by force of contract. This is the very definition of military rule. And every time a citizen does not obey the law, the militarized executive branch steps in to force either compliance, incarceration, or death.

Murder is unlawful and illegal, but government gives license to commit this illegal act – a license to kill. It is interesting to note that government only acknowledges the “civil death” of a person, not the bloody and violent taking of the life of a man.

CIVIL DEATH, persons. The change of the state of a person who is declared civilly dead by judgment of a competent tribunal. In such case, the person against whom such sentence is pronounced is considered dead.

It is interesting to note here that just as a living or natural man cannot have a civil death but only a natural one, the word “perish” does not apply to persons, as artificial persons never existed as a living things but only as contractual things in legal code:

TO PERISH. To come to an end; to cease to be; to die.

2. What has never existed cannot be said to have perished

You see, an artificial person (corporation) never actually exists in nature, so it cannot have a natural death.

So it is perhaps the best definition of civil law for me to say that:

Civil law is the state of non-necessity of martial law while under military rule, because the governed are not acting in civil disobedience.

Martial law is the physical manifestation of force and violence via government decree to ensure the continuity of military rule that is visible and obvious (violent) to all people.

And military rule is simply the current state of a system of de facto United States corporate law based on coercion, force, and occasional violence, which is sugar-coated and masked under the appearance of civility and under the guise of “civil law”.

Civil law and military rule, therefore, are all but indistinguishable. They are both systems of law enacted by forced compliance of the Executive Branch of government. In both systems, the laws they tout are ensured by force. And in both instances, a man’s natural rights are struck down in lieu of positive or political rights.

It is ironic and disturbing then to point out the now obvious paradox of a subjected people in an occupied land…

For it would only be through open revolt and total disobedience of the current laws of the United States central government that the above facts could manifest themselves as self evident. This axiom of military rule is invisible to the civil servants and citizens of government, no differently than the subjects of a king might never consider that they are at all times under military rule – the rule by force of a tyrant – no matter how fair or just that king seems to be.

This kingdom called the United States – the District that reigns the lands of America through contractual membership under force of its own law despite being a foreign corporate entity outside of those lands – holds the reigns to millions of soldiers; obedient Americans conscripted by their own enemy through contract as security guards for the United States. And these soldiers, in their belief that they are fighting for America, will no doubt blindly follow this United States corporation into oblivion no differently than did those useful fools that killed father, brother, and child in that great United States Civil War – “The War Of Northern Aggression“.

Perhaps a more fitting title to that Civil War and to all wars proceeding it would read: “The Unending War Of Continued United States Aggression, Both Foreign and Domestic“.

Now you might think that Congress is there to redress grievances of the people to the United States government as representatives thereof. But oh what a tangled web they weave…

Congressmen are “employees” of the United States government, according to TITLE 5 of U.S. CODE.

So this would be like expecting a mid-level management employee of Walmart to change the policies of Walmart’s CEO and board of directors. Employees have no individual say on what happens in the United States corporation. So a single representative is worthless without the agreement of the vast majority of the entire body of representatives.

And of course the people represented in these congressional districts never seem to realize that the business affairs of Congress only happen inside of Washington D.C. – in other words outside of their State. Just as employees of Walmart have no authority outside of the corporate jurisdiction of Walmart, neither do the congressmen and Senators have power in the 50 individual States as republics. They are the Representatives of the Federal Government to the people, not the representatives of the people to the Federal Government. They conduct only Federal business in the jurisdiction of the United States, even while doing so in the States they hold domicile. They are United States Employees, not State Employees. In fact, they have absolutely no power within the State government, except those imposed by force by the Federal Central government as a whole.

So why do the people contractually volunteer to give up their power to a bunch of known-to-be-corrupt representatives as employees of the very entity that enslaves them, instead of leaving this horrific militarized club called the United States by withdrawing legal membership?

Perhaps it is the misconception that our membership (citizenship) is not a choice.

But wait a minute, you say. Isn’t it my “constitutional right” to be a citizen?

That’s an interesting question, actually. In fact, the concept of “citizenship” as it stands today was not part of the original constitution. Citizenship was created after the “country” was placed under military rule (martial law) under the Libor Code and General Orders 100. It was in this reconstruction period after the “Civil War” that was created reconstruction amendment #14.

The 14th Amendment states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside…”

Whereas before this amendment was ratified by the now unlawful military congress the concept of citizenship was based on the blood of the man in question in a natural sense, the United States now took on a corporate disposition and changed the presumption of citizenship into a legally binding contractual duty; where all people became artificial persons as individual corporate bodies politic within the United States’ web of corporatism.

The most overlooked word in this amendment to the constitution is the word “subject”:

SUBJECT, contracts. The thing which is the object of an agreement. This term is used in the laws of Scotland.

SUBJECT, persons, government. An individual member of a nation, who is subject to the laws; this term is used in contradistinction to citizen, which is applied to the same individual when considering his political rights.

2. In monarchical governments, by subject is meant one who owes permanent allegiance to the monarch. Vide Body politic

NATIONALITY. The state of a person in relation to the nation in which he was born.

2. A man retains his nationality of origin during his minority, but, as in the case of his domicil of origin, he may change his nationality upon attaining full age; he cannot, however, renounce his allegiance without permission of the government. See Citizen; Domicile; Expatriation; Naturalization…

NATIONS. Nations or states are independent bodies politic; societies of men united together for the purpose of promoting their mutual safety and advantage by the joint efforts of their combined strength.

2. But every combination of men who govern themselves, independently of all others, will not be considered a nation; a body of pirates, for example, who govern themselves, are not a nation. To constitute a nation another ingredient is required. The body thus formed must respect other nations in general, and each of their members in particular. Such a society has her affairs and her interests; she deliberates and takes resolutions in common; thus becoming a moral person who possesses an understanding and will peculiar to herself, and is susceptible of obligations and rights…

3. It belongs to the government to declare whether they will consider a colony which has thrown off the yoke of the mother country as an independent state; and until the government have decided on the question, courts of justice are bound to consider the ancient state of things as remaining unchanged.

In the Civil War, it would be a foregone conclusion to state that the United States did not accept (as it was lawfully required to do via its own charter) the secession of the confederate states – the yolks that threw themselves from the mother country. Instead, it acted unlawfully by all standards of ethics and natural law – a military conquest being the result – forcing the confederate states to be captured as prisoners of war and to accept the new reorganized United States and its new corporate constitution as their new sovereign tyrant.

COUNTRY. By country is meant the state of which one is a member.

2. Every man’s country is in general the state in which he happens to have been born, though there are some exceptions. See Domicil; Inhabitant. But a man has the natural right to expatriate himself, i. e. to abandon his country, or his right of citizenship acquired by means of naturalization in any country in which he may have taken up his residence. See Allegiance; Citizen; Expatriation…

Remember, the United Nations refers to the United States as a state that is a member of the U.N, just as the United States refers to its own 50 States that are supposedly independent but members of that body.

But more importantly one must understand the distinction made here of being “born in the country of the United States”.

Though a man may be born in the State of Georgia, his residence is created within the jurisdiction of the United States – that incorporated legal boundry that extends across the entirety of the territories called “states” and beyond. In essence, when a man is born in the United States, it is his artificial person that is civilly born, creating a citizen.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside…”

Again, this very important distinction must be made…

Though you physically are born in and reside within a State, the artificial representation of you called a legal “person” and a “citizen” is civilly born in and resides within the jurisdiction of the United States. Registered persons/citizens who vote are actually voting in the artificial representation of Washington D.C. – the jurisdiction that extends from that central district 10 miles square over the entire “country” through contract. Your home is a registered United States home. Your vehicle is a registered United States vehicle. Your children are registered United States persons. And all of these contractual agreements can be utilized to take these things away from citizens. In fact, it is the political and constitutional right of all citizens to have their registered property of the United States taken away from them. Just read the 5th Amendment very carefully… for it tells you clearly that through the United States court system under what it calls “due process”, you life, liberty, and property can be taken from you (see definition of take above).

In this way, it is correct to say that for the most part, the actual individual states are empty – abandoned by all the people who became residents of the United States in Washington D.C. – for the people all reside in the United States, and the States are territories of the United States. The people walk as persons upon the plastic coating of United States jurisdiction, never touching the natural land. Of course the illusion of States rights still exists among the citizens of the United States, who have no idea they are under the military rule of this foreign corporation, and who do not comprehend the true nature of the word person or citizen.

In the United States corporation…

Citizenship is granted, not taken;

Citizenship is legal and political, not lawful and natural;

Citizenship is contractual, not moral;

Citizenship is a voluntary membership, not a mandatory requirement.

Citizenship is artificial and un-American!!!

Perhaps the natural born citizens of the United States should be asking themselves why this so-called privilege and natural right of citizenship is being tossed to the wind and bestowed to those who did not naturally and traditionally gain it? The fact that citizenship can be contractually bestowed upon anyone who is contractually willing to receive or pay for all of the benefits and tyranny that accompanies such a legal status should be enough for anyone to realize that its conveyance has nothing to do with anything but a contractual tie to the military rule of government. This once honorable title of men is now just a corporate slogan to sell monopolized, for-profit government products and services to ignorant persons at non-competative prices.

Take the influx of what we call “illegal immigrants” as a clue as to how America became a militarized corporate slave machine:

The Pew Hispanic Center determined that according to an analysis of Census Bureau data about 8 percent of children born in the United States in 2008 — about 340,000 — were offspring of unauthorized immigrants. In total, about four million American-born children of unauthorized immigrant parents resided in this country in 2009, along with about 1.1 million foreign-born children of unauthorized immigrant parents. The Center for Immigration Studies – a think tank which favors stricter controls on immigration—claims that between 300,000 and 400,000 children are born each year to illegal immigrants in the U.S.


These are “natural born” children (citizens) just like you according to your representatives in government, for citizens are no longer required to have honor to join the “country”. And soon over 11 million non-natural born invading immigrants will join the party when the United States says it’s just alright.

Citizenship means nothing to an honorable man. It is just a ticket to ride on the slave-ship. It is the act of selling ones soul to acquire artificial things. And it has become a pour substitute for a once-cherished thing. Most importantly, it does not make you an American, just a useful pawn in a collective extortion racket designed to create corporate authority by making all the people into one collective tool to extract their individual power and intent as one lone consenting voice for the actions of an unlawful corporation. And every unlawful action by government is based on the informed consent it presumes from its members.

Isn’t it time to rebut that presumption of consent and take back our individual voices and power as individual men?

So let’s say that you are a member of an exclusive golf club that only allows people just like you to enter. You retain a membership to this club because you wish to be a part of something special and be around like-minded individuals who contribute and benefit from this club and its rules and regulations, as well as its exclusivity and respect. And you stay a member because this club operates legitimately and lawfully with full respect to nature and to all involved.

But then let’s say that your club is taken over and its rules for membership changed.

Suddenly, this club is full of men, women and children (persons) who are not like-minded in any way and who do not respect in any way your methods, opinions, lifestyle, morals, ethics, values, and so on. And then the club management passes rules and regulations that require you to integrate, hire as employees, and tolerate all of these new members – lest you be fined and imprisoned for discrimination and your corporation terminated and its assets seized by government. (Note: This is what E-Verify does.)

Would not the proper response be to immediately end your membership with that club and either find a more lawful club or start your own exclusive one?

The club only seeks to collect more and more revenue and fees from these new members, in order to both generate more revenue and to control more and more of the population by forcing its registration of all things and children. So why would anyone stay as a member of that club only to be forced to tolerate a cultural invasion and complete change in the standards of that club? Why would you continue to financially support that club’s central governing body when everything it does goes against your ideals and values?

So why do you continue to stay a member of the United States club?

It’s not a requirement! It’s not necessary for you to work and live in America and in a State. This beast’s Social Security number is not needed for anything at all. And it certainly isn’t helping you to stay a member, unless you consider tyranny, unjust taxation without representation, pain, punishment, and extortion your political right like government does.

We complain, we scream, we weep, and we suffer. And all because we believe that we must stay members of this corporation that continuously harms us. We accept the mark and the number of this beast because we believe it is for the greater good. We support its illegal wars and pay for them with our voluntary taxes. It doesn’t listen or care about us as anything but commodities, because a corporation only cares about growth (expansion) and profits. It sells our labor and bonds our incarceration. It takes all and gives nothing.

So why are you still a citizen of this 10 mile square corporation that seeks to control every aspect of your life through your voluntary contractual obligation? Isn’t it time to pull the plug and stop financially supporting its exaction tactics to extort your money and estate?

Isn’t it time to take back your registered United States property and place it back into your personal possession, including your children?

Or are a few non-guaranteed benefits at the expense of future generations (your children and theirs) more important than being free?

Do you really think it would be un-American to withdraw your membership to this corporation that isn’t even part of America?

Since the concept of being an American seems to have been blurred between the natural and the contractual, perhaps we should end here with a quote from the most American thing I can think of…

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security…”

–Declaration of Independence


–Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Saturday, May 18th, 2013


All legal definitions taken from Bouvier’s Law Dictioanry, 1856:

Tyranny Requires Equality

Question: What is required for a set of uniform codes and regulations to apply to all the persons of the United States?

Answer: Uniformity of legal equality under the law. In other words, equal rights.

It is an ultra-common misconception amongst the subjected people of the United States in their thought that “rights” are always a good thing, and that “rights” are always somehow a protection against the erosion and encroachment of government and corporations (persons) into the people’s personal liberties. To be even more clear, the general thought is that rights are always in place to prevent things like crime, extortion, tyranny, foreclosure, unlawful searches and seizures, incarceration, and so on from happening to the people.

For instance, one might arrogantly say that they have the right to a “fair trial”. And yet not once does the consideration dawn upon men of good conscious that the trial itself is literally forced upon them by government. Thus, the “right” to a “fair” or “speedy” trial is in actuality a direct consequence of an oppressive government in the first place. In other words, the fact that the trial is forced upon a person is the actual “right”, and the ability to receive the qualities of “fair” and “speedy” in that trial are not the root of that right. In this way, we begin to understand that rights are not voluntary at all, and these governmental rights are indeed forced upon the people. The government sells this tyranny to the people by baiting us like snake oil salesman with positive sounding diatribe such as fair and speedy. This is like me offering you (forcing upon you) my services to get hit with a hammer upon your head, but the impact will be “quick” and “painless”. Your right, you see, is to get hit upon the head with a hammer, with the beneficial service of the impact of that hammer being quick and painless.

Or you might believe in the “right” to free speech and the ability to freely assemble. Yet hate speech laws proclaim your speech must be nice and politically correct. Some cities require you to get a permit for free speech and to protest or assemble peacefully – but only in small, roped off , designated areas. The police even tell you that “anything you say may be used against you” when they read you your “rights”. But how can this be your right? If you don’t have a choice about these rights, are they really rights?

The real question you must ask is: Can a right be violently forced upon you?

Today we are going to be talking about a concept that is very difficult to understand. In legal code, we find what is called positive law. But we often forget that where there is a positive there is usually also a negative – an opposite and equal reaction, if you will. Positive law and “positive rights” are put into place in purposeful and direct violation or opposition to natural law and “negative rights”. A right is either positive or negative, and never-ever in between. Positive laws are laws assigning temporary and are revokable governmental rights placed upon legal persons, which usually create a direct violation of a man’s natural rights under God – the natural laws outside of governmental code.

The difference between these two types of law or “rights” is paramount to understand.

The problem is that all legal codes are positive, including the very misunderstood U.S. constitution itself.

Let’s use as an example the constitutional (positive) right known as the “freedom of religion”. This is one of the most deceptive phrases in legal code (positive law) that I can imagine. For in order to comprehend what it is to have the “freedom of religion,” we must first have a legal definition of these two legal words. All terms and phrases in the legal language have very specific meanings, and are often quite opposite to what we generally think of as conversational words – the words generally defined in an English general language dictionary. The word “freedom” is perhaps the best example of a legal word used to fool the unwitting public. We must realize that there is a very good reason why the legal dictionary is completely separate from the regular English dictionary, and why general dictionary definitions specifically tell you when referring to the same legal definitions within. English and Legal are two completely different languages, no different than English and Chinese. And every word in government must be a legal one, for government only deals in the legal construct, in the legal language.

Would it surprise you to learn that government is acting constitutionally when it requires you to get a permit for exercising “free speech”? To understand why this is so, we must define the legal terms involved, and you must stop thinking of the constitution as anything other than a legal language document.

So what is “freedom”, and what is “speech”?

The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

First, let’s get it into our heads what the word “freedom” means as used in this legal constitution.

While the natural or negative right to free participation in any religion is unalienable, the governmental or positive constitutional right to freedom of religion or freedom of speech is most certainly alienable. To understand this, we must understand the legal meaning of this legal term called freedom. In the Merriam Webster or any other normal English dictionary, you will see that the word freedom is defined in two distinctly different ways. Let’s take a look…


(1) The quality or state of being free: as

(a) the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action

(b) liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another: independence

(c) the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous <freedom from care>

(h) unrestricted use <gave him the freedom of their home>


(2)   (a) A political right

(b) franchise, privilege

(Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freedom)

And so we can see here that there are without a doubt two distinctly different definitions of the word freedom, and that the legal definition is indeed a political or “positive” right.

The truth about freedom is this…

There is but one freedom under government rule enjoyed by citizens (subjects): freedom is the revokable political positive right (privilege) to be free to act as you will as long as you obey the laws of government. This is not the state of actually being free in an unrestricted way to do what you please while being responsible for your actions, but rather a literal legal enslavement to government law to act under government rule. It is a truism to state that free men must have responsibility for their own actions, lest government become the master and punisher of those who are its servants (subjects). United States citizens are not free men, but instead they live within invisible legal chains called “freedom”.

The right to bear arms as a natural/negative right must go unchallenged by government by its very nature of being a negative right – the natural right of non-interference. But the positive governmental rights which are assigned to citizens to carry legalfire-arms” is certainly being challenged in government right now – as we speak. The trick with government you see, in order for its tyranny to prevail, is to make all its equal people as citizens accept positive rights by government so that the people turn their backs on their natural, God-given, negative, unalienable rights the rights of men against government intrusion into those rights. Indeed, government actually requires a lien on all people’s natural/negative rights for them to enjoy citizenship within the United States under government’s strictly positive law, for we must remember that negative rights cancel out positive rights. So government must find legal ways to circumvent the peoples liberties (negative rights) and assign restrict-able political (positive) rights. Government does this via the contractual relationship offered to the people called “citizenship”, which carries with it the contractual benefit of positive rights, often called “civil rights” and/or “constitutional rights”. While it calls these liberties, they are far from it…


The Laws Of Attraction


So that we do not get confused here, let’s see just how one form of “right” is cancelled out by the other form. The job of an attorney as an “officer of the court” is to keep you within the legal language, so that the court never has to talk in plain English. The legal language of the law society within government is meant to keep you always in the artificial person-hood of your citizenship – never speaking the language of mankind. The following list shows the difference between the laws of man (natural) and the laws of government (legal):

Negative ……………………………………………………… Positive

Man …………………………………………………………….. Person

Free …………………………………………………………. Freedom

Free Man ………………………………………………………. Citizen

Natural ………………………………………………………. Political

Liberty ………………………………………………….. Entitlement

God-given ………………… Man-made (government granted)

Right (natural) …………………………… Privilege (revokable)

Right (natural) ……………………….. Duty (moral obligation)

Duty (responsibility, trust)…………. Contractual obligation

Responsibility ……………… Limited liability (incorporated)

Unalienable (inherent) ………… Alienable (not permanent)

De Jure ……………………………………………………… De Facto

Lawful …………………………………………………… Color of law

The words unalienable and inherent can be defined as essential and intrinsic . These words apply to ideals rather than to actual living beings. While life itself is not unalienable in any way (as is apparent throughout all of nature and its food-chain) the idea that life is an unalienable right is a negative concept in that it refers to the negative right of men to not be subject to the will of other men. This is the moral obligation of honor and duty that men should not kill other men… or as it is more commonly known: “Thou Shall Not Kill”.

On the contrary, cows, pigs, and chickens live under the positive rights granted by ranchers and farmers, in that they are subjects of that farm and its positive laws. These animal’s natural rights are only valid in as much as the farmer or rancher grants the same positive right to mirror their natural/negative rights. But when slaughter-season comes around and the market-price for bacon goes up, the cows, pigs, and chickens learn real quick that any rights they may perceive as livestock (citizens) of that farm are certainly alienable and in no way inherent or permanent. The cows only eat because the government (farmer) feeds them hey – thus the cows believe it is their natural right to have food brought to them every day by the farmer. But the farmer is only acting under his own positive law, and in reality the cows have no natural rights. But they still believe… The chickens may only have children (chicks) if the government (farmer) allows the hens to keep their eggs and hatch them. Parenthood is a legal term under contract with the state (farm). But the farmer, under the positive law of his farm (his rules), overpowers the natural rights of the chickens and allows those unborn children of the chickens to be collected for sale to others.

The only difference between the cows, pigs, and chickens and that of the humans within the United States farm is that the humans contractually volunteer and agree to be livestock under positive rights and laws, whereas these animals never had a choice.

And people think animals are dumb?

The difficult aspect here is to make people understand that as citizens they are not free, but are also livestock under the United States farm which grants the alienable privilege of “freedom”. Breaking through the “it’s a free country” paradox and fallacy of the American people seems to be the biggest challenge of our modern life and times.

Perhaps the most difficult of these opposite terms is the way in which a right creates an opposite duty. The individual natural right of “liberty” creates an opposite natural duty for all other individuals to respect the right of each others’ individual liberties. It would be the duty, for instance, for the people to use arms against government for violating their natural negative rights, no differently than if it was just a neighbor. For a natural right is something to be cherished and protected to the death. And it is a man’s duty to protect his own rights and that of others. It is a man’s duty to not interfere or trespass upon others rights – the duty to protect each others’ negative rights.

But when government offers political rights to citizens (artificial persons), the moral duty changes into a contractual obligation under legal law. The obligation of legal duty is no longer a choice, but rather a forced positive right – a right that forces you to conduct yourself in an activity that may be against your own interests or those of other individuals’ interests. The negative right requires only the opposite negative duty – a moral obligation to do no harm to others or yourself and to defend your negative rights with your life if necessary. But the contractual relationship of citizenship stifles negative rights (the right to not have your own rights trampled) so that positive rights are agreed to by the persons under contract. In other words, citizens agree to abandon their natural (negative) rights and accept under contract with government or corporations a replacement to their natural rights with the political (positive) rights offered by government, and accepted through contract by citizens. Thus, while in the natural realm government has no power over a man. But in the political realm government has total control over the person/citizen. For a positive law to be acceptable to natural men, that positive law must not be in violation of any negative right.

Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856, defines a the word Duty:

DUTY, natural law. A human action which is, exactly conformable to the laws which require us to obey them. 2. It differs from a legal obligation, because a duty cannot always be enforced by the law; it is our duty, for example, to be temperate in eating, but we are under no legal obligation to be so; we ought to love our neighbors, but no law obliges us to love them. 3. Duties may be considered in the relation of man towards God, towards himself, and towards mankind… 4. A man has a duty to perform towards himself; he is bound by the law of nature to protect his life and his limbs; it is his duty, too, to avoid all intemperance in eating and drinking, and in the unlawful gratification of all his other appetites. 5. He has duties to perform towards others. He is bound to do to others the same justice which he would have a right to expect them to do to him.

To live under natural law is to follow the laws of non-interference, responsibility of ones own actions, and honor to fulfill one’s moral obligations under promise and private contract.

On the contrary, the magnetic opposite of this natural law called duty is offered by government through contract, as a political or positive right:

DUTIES. In its most enlarged sense, this word is nearly equivalent to taxes, embracing all impositions or charges levied on persons or things; in its more restrained sense, it is often used as equivalent to customs, (q. v.) or imposts. (q. v.) Vide, for the rate of duties payable on goods and merchandise…

When the services of government are forced upon the people, the people must pay duties (taxes) on those services whether they enjoy or require those services or not. The right to pay taxes is a positive right, and the right to be punished for not paying those taxes is also a positive right. Punishment is an artificial duty created upon the positive right to be taxed – extortion being the right granted by government to persons. You, as a citizen/person, have the positive right to be taxed without the negative right to say no. The imprisonment you may enjoy as punishment for not paying mandatory taxes is also your positive right and duty. And most importantly, the right to pay more and more taxes on more and more things and accept more and more government services with more and more duties, as well as the right to allow government to raise those taxes at its own whim, is also your positive right.

Again, a right is not voluntary in the positive legal realm. So unfortunately, tyranny through extortion is certainly your right if government says it is so, and creates the positive law declaring it as such.

Positive law is involuntary service at the barrel of a gun…

It is perhaps easiest to comprehend these two completely opposite kinds of “rights” by using an analogy of magnets. Most people have played with magnets in their lifetime, attempting to push together two equal magnets that are opposed to each other in their polarities. A positive and a negative are diametrically opposed to each other. The harder we push those magnets together, the harder it becomes to push them, until the negative magnet throws off the positive magnet with a protective shield. And so the only way to make those magnets stick to each other is to turn one magnet around so that the polarities are equal, allowing them to join together. When speaking of God’s law and natural rights (negative rights), our opposing magnet in this case is government code and legality (positive rights). In essence, we must turn our back on law and our natural rights in order to function within government and its legal law and codes. The natural law is magnetically opposed to the positive (legal) law, just as negative rights are magnetically opposed to positive rights.

The first thing to consider whenever attempting to discern the legal language is to remember that emotion must be left out of the equation; that morals and ethics happen in men, not in legal codes. The legal language is just words, with a specific meaning, and with no humanity or consideration of morals or ethics. A contract, for instance, is just an agreement as written in this legal language. It has no moral obligations in an of itself to do anything, but instead establishes the specific positive rights and counterpart duties that will be followed. The moral and ethical parts of the fulfillment of that contract happen outside of the contract, in the hearts, minds, and actions of the men who signed that contract. The contract itself is a bridge between the moral realm and the legal realm, allowing what would otherwise be a natural duty to become an enforceable positive right. For instance, the right to be paid in exchange for an already delivered service or thing as agreed to within a private contract is a positive right, enforceable by law if one party to that contract doesn’t fulfill. Multiply this by 1 million and you have a government contract with men to be citizens, and in exchange the men as citizens must accept the services of government’s legal codes as a forced legal duty to accept. This is also positive law, the difference being that the former contract between men is done in good faith, where no legal recourse is needed, while the contract of citizenship is done without understanding, intention, comprehension, or good faith. A contract steeped in fraud is not enforceable by law, unless the law has been replaced by the positive laws created by government that allow that fraud to be law. This is government.

Just remember that rights are a double-edged sword, which can be positive or negative. In defining what this means, the term positive should not be misconstrued to mean good, no more than the word negative should be misunderstood as a bad thing. They are legal terms, and so attaching an emotional meaning to these words will only lead to confusion.


Equality – Ladies Acting As Men


A woman reading this may have an emotional response and espouse that women may sign contracts too, so why only mention “men” here? The confusing answer to this question is that in law, women are men. This is not my opinion, it is just legal law. All people are part of mankind, regardless of sex.  The legal language sees no sex and feels no emotion or obligation to appease the feminist or male perspective, unless specifically written into that code as an artificial construct. The word “men” simply refers to the species man, regardless of color, race, creed, or sex. In this way, the basic legal language itself is a higher language, not weighted down with petty intricacies and debates about whether women and men are equal, or whether all men are created equal. In actuality, the legal language has no ability in and of itself to make such a discernment, and is only concerned with defining the artificiality of mankind as “persons”. It is just a tool. Thus it does not recognize sex unless it is specifically told to, and then does so only in terms of a legal “status”. Legal code cannot be prejudiced, for it has no emotion or predisposition. A natural (real female) woman has equal rights with a natural man only if that natural woman has the legal status assigned to her as a legal fictional man called a legal “woman”. The legal term “Woman” is a status, not a natural state of a living being – not a living man (mankind). For legal does not recognize a natural living man or woman, only the artificial persons of these living people – which have no sex unless specifically defined that way in the code for legal separation purposes (rape, etc.). But this is no different legally than separating different species of ants for research and classification. There is no realization of feminism or masculinity in legal code, because a piece of paper has not the ability to make such distinctions or realizations. Paper has no emotions, any more than the legal words written on that paper. And so any sexual or other emotional or physical distinction between these two artificial persons is solely a construct of science and legal status, no different than distinguishing between garbage and recyclables. To the legal language, garbage and recyclables are the same thing – trash. Only when the legal codes are changed to recognize a certain type of trash as recyclable will a legal status be created allowing certain rights, restrictions, and benefits to be placed upon certain trash legally defined as “recyclables”. Though all garbage is created equal, certain garbage has a status. But that status can only be granted if all trash is first made equal under the legal law. Similarly, women have equal rights with men in law only because they take upon themselves the artificial person-hood status called “woman”, creating this status in positive law which states that persons shall be equally protected and punished under the law and shall have equal rights under the legal law known as “positive rights” but called “Equal Protection Under The Law”.

The reality for women is that their legal status is detrimental to their natural rights as men (mankind), and they become whatever the legal codes say they are as artificial constructs. Equal rights for “women” in law makes them no better or no worse than men, but instead makes them “equal” – removing any sexual differences unless specifically enumerated within that code and how it applies to that particular status of “woman” in opposite to men. Once this equality is established, then special positive rights can be assigned to the legal status of “women”. Thus, a “woman” can have unequal rights giving them special privileges over their supposed equal citizens of the male persuasion. The same goes for “African American” or other ethnicity’s – who are given a special status of “minority”, which then allows them to claim certain positive rights which trample all other citizen’s natural rights or lesser positive rights. In this way, it is the lesser status citizens who have inequality forced upon them, of which it is their contractual duty to accept that positive right and give up their right to sue for what would otherwise be blatant discrimination based on race. Affirmative Action is an example of this. Protected rights of a certain status of citizens requires unfair and unequal treatment of all other citizens. Equality steals away the individualism of a human (regardless of sex, color, race, etc.) and makes everyone not special in any way. It peals away the sex, the color, the race, the religion, and the humanity of each individual living man and woman and places them all in one giant legal blender – a melting pot of unwarranted equality. The end result of this multicultural duel-sexed cornucopia of persons is called legal “U.S. citizens”, whom in the end are in no way equal under law due to the assigned legal status’ called entitlements. If one person is entitled to a positive right that other persons are not entitled to, then the negative right of liberty does not exist in that legal system.

This is not to say that the legal language doesn’t neutrally define these unique traits of mankind in a scientific and unemotional way, it is just to say that it treats them no different than any other legal concept (like the trash example), and its basis is not founded on anything but simply defining these terms without the hindrance of human emotional traits. In short, the legal language only deals with artificiality in the form of corporations, contracts, and persons (i.e. citizens). These citizens are artificial things, not living people. Thus, when defining legality, emotion and humanity really has no place, race becomes a legal weapon, and equality exists only when considering positive rights and punishment for not obeying the forced contractual obligation of legal codes.

Back in 1856, this was the definition of “Sex” in Bouvier’s and other dictionaries, which shows that “women” is a status:

SEX. The physical difference between male and female in animals. 2. In the human species (of animals) the male is called man, (q. v.) and the female, woman. (q. v.) Some human beings whose sexual organs are somewhat imperfect, have acquired the name of hermaphrodite. (q. v.) 3. In the civil state the sex creates a difference among individuals. Women cannot generally be elected or appointed to offices or service in public capa-cities. In this our law agrees with that of other nations. The civil law excluded women from all offices civil or public: Faemintae ab omnibus officiis civilibus vel publicis remotae sunt. Dig. 50, 17, 2. The principal reason of this exclusion is to encourage that modesty which is natural to the female sex, and which renders them unqualified to mix and contend with men; the pretended weakness of the sex is not probably the true reason. Poth. Des Personnes, tit. Vide Gender; Male; Man; Women; Worthiest of blood.

A mature and thinking natural female human should be able to see that though this legal definition has changed over the years, the status is still the same. Legal persons called “women” have now been made to have equal status with legal persons called “men”. This is to say that the equality established in the legal code is completely artificial with respect to the hearts and minds of men. And though this status seems to benefit the female sex of mankind, you as a woman must remember that government defines you first as an “animal” here, and then assigns you a special status of woman-human-animal. So while you may certainly enjoy the positive rights bestowed upon you as “wo-man”, you must accept these positive rights with the knowledge that they create inequality among all natural men. In other words, equality in law is not true natural equality, but is an artificial status granted by a corrupt government that by definition tramples the negative rights of half of the population (male-human-animals). You, as a female of the species human, will only ever know true natural equality when men are not forced by law to treat you as such by positive law. As it is in legal code, men are forced to accept your legal equality, which in the end creates a resentment between sexes in the natural realm. This goes for creed, race, sex, and any other status that is “protected”. And in this way, citizens are forced to accept the most deviant and sinister of persons as equal, even when those persons act completely against the morals and values of others’ negative rights, and even as organizations of these persons legally extort from others. These persons are equal under punishment of legal law. Ironically, the struggle for equal rights for women, slaves, blacks, homosexuals, and other minority groups necessarily requires the unequal state of equality and status for certain individuals, but in no way creates equality among mankind.

If you are emotionally angry right now, then you are speaking a different language than the legal one, and your emotions are getting in the way of understanding your own enslavement.

As a woman, you are a legal fiction.

As a man, you are a beautiful creature of emotion, love, and flesh and blood.

Here is how these legal terms are defined in Bouvier’s Law Dict, 1856:

MAN. A human being. This definition includes not only the adult male sex of the human species, but women and children… 2. In a more confined sense, man means a person of the male sex; and sometimes it signifies a male of the human species above the age of puberty. Vide Rape. It was considered in the civil or Roman law, that although man and person are synonymous in grammar, they had a different acceptation in law; all persons were men, but all men, for example, slaves, were not persons, but things.


MANKIND. Persons of the male sex; but in a more general sense, it includes persons of both sexes; for example, the statute of 25 Hen. VIII., c. 6, makes it felony to commit, sodomy with mankind or beast. Females as well as males are included under the term mankind. See Gender.


GENDER. That which designates the sexes. 2. As a general rule, when the masculine is used it includes the feminine, as, man sometimes includes women. This is the general rule, unless a contrary intention appears. But in penal statutes, which must be construed strictly, when the masculine is used and not the feminine, the latter is not in general included… 3. Pothier says that the masculine often includes the feminine, but the feminine never includes the masculine; that according to this rule if a man were to bequeath to another all his horses, his mares would pass by the legacy; but if he were to give all his mares, the horses would not be included.


WOMEN, persons. In its most enlarged sense, this word signifies all the females of the human species; but in a more restricted sense, it means all such females who have arrived at the age of puberty. 2. Women are either single or married. 1. Single or unmarried women have all the civil rights of men; they may therefore enter into contracts or engagements; sue and be sued; be trustees or guardians, they may be witnesses, and may for that purpose attest all papers; but they are generally, not possessed of any political power; hence they cannot be elected representatives of the people, nor be appointed to the offices of judge, attorney at law, sheriff, constable, or any other office, unless expressly authorized by law; instances occur of their being appointed post-mistresses nor can they vote at any election. 3. The existence of a married woman being merged, by a fiction of law, in the being of her husband, she is rendered incapable, during the coverture, of entering into any contract, or of suing or being sued, except she be joined with her husband; and she labors under all the incapacities above mentioned, to which single women are subject.

In the modern definition, Webster’s English Dictionary defines the word woman not as a natural being, but as an artificial person. Most people will not realize what is being defined here:


a : an adult female person
b : a woman (person) belonging to a particular category (as by birth, residence, membership, or occupation) —usually used in combination <councilwoman>

In the legal language, the term woman is never used in legal code to describe the natural state of a female, but only to issue a legal status.

However, the word female is used:

FEMALE. This term denotes the sex which bears young. 2. It is a general rule, that the young of female animals which belong to us, are ours, nam fetus ventrem sequitur. The rule is, in general, the same with regard to slaves; but when a female slave comes into a free state, even without the consent of her master, and is there delivered of a child, the latter is free.

If right now, while claiming to be a “woman”, you wish to call me sexist, a chauvinist, racist, or other false paradigm, you could be no further from the truth than I can possibly imagine – and you need to reread this section. In fact, I may be one of the few men in existence who actually recognize your natural/negative equality without the threat or need of being punished by the positive legal system if I don’t!!!

For those who can separate the legal and English languages with logic and reason, we can move on…


Love And Marriage


Love and hate are not considered in this legal language when speaking of the contract of legal marriage. Marriage is nothing but a contractual state of being between (as persons) the man, the woman, and the State. It is paper with legal words written on it, and signed by all parties involved. It has no emotion, ethics, morals, values, etc.

Children produced by this marriage contract are not treated as living breathing humans, because the legal language does not deal with living breathing humans. Rather, it treats children as artificial things that are State property – things which are disputed due to the avoidance or negation of a contract by the artificial persons contracted in that legal marriage. Children are no less fictitious persons than the persons who birthed them, when considering the legal nature of human animals.

Again, judging or discussing the legal language with emotion is foolish, since it has no emotion when it defines you. It does not understand love any more than that for which it may necessarily define love as a legal concept. Like an android, the legal language may sometimes simulate the emotions of living man, but will never actually feel them. And like an android with its humanoid appearing synthetic skin and outer shell, our own artificial persons may appear to be living men and women; but are in fact made up of nothing but the wires and circuitry of this legal language.

Love and marriage are distinctly different concepts. One is an emotion and one is a legal arrangement through contract. Love is for the most part incredibly outside of our control while marriage is a legal set of rules and regulations defining a state of contract controlled by government. Love is not in any way dependent upon the contract of marriage, nor is love required in a contract of marriage – for the legal language knows not love! But this does not mean that attempts by modern society, religions, and the courts have not presupposed the conjoining of these two concepts. But love is an emotion, and marriage is a thing (a signed paper contract). But most importantly, love is not controllable by law while marriage is.

Therefore love is a negative right whereas marriage is a positive right.

Love has no limits, whereas marriage is nothing but limits.

So now we may begin to personally see and feel the difference between positive and negative rights – like feeling the difference between heat and cold. When it comes to love, it is safe to say that our natural or God-given right is that we should be able to love any man or woman we choose, and that in fact it is not even a controllable choice – as love is an emotional feeling that, as most of us have certainly felt, is way outside of our emotional control. So love is not something that can be controlled by government with regards to law.

But the government deals especially well in the creation and enforcement of contracts. And marriage is nothing but a legal contract, which has nothing to do with love or emotion in the eyes of legal law. Therefore, marriage is indeed something that can be controlled by government with regards to positive law.

This again makes love a negative right and marriage a positive right.

I imagine right about now your emotion has kicked in again and you are feeling something that is causing you to perhaps forget that legality has no hindrance of emotion. This disposition may be getting in the way of your understanding of why or how love can ever be considered a negative thing. And some folks may musingly be thinking the opposite about marriage being a positive thing! But the confusion is only there because you are assigning emotion to the equation of the definitions of a legal construct. You must never do this. And one of the most difficult aspects of truly understanding the law and how it applies to living man is to be able to switch back and forth between the conversational and the legal language. For while we express our emotions through our interjectional conversations among other living humans, we must assume an unemotional state of person-hood when we switch over to the legal language. For the legal language is nothing if not a perversion of the natural state of man. Thus, we must recognize this perversion and imitate it in order to succeed in legal dealings and communications. If I am going to speak to an android, I would not expect that machine to contemplate morals or ethics other than what is written into its software and codes as a simulation. So why should I do anything different when speaking the legal language to an attorney or a judge? To them, you are nothing but an artificial person, and they are speaking the legal language without the limitations of human emotion if indeed they are doing their jobs correctly. They, in their capacities and regulations as officers of the court, are perversions of man that can only act within the scope of their written code and court procedures. They are legal automatons working in a fictional legal world that in my opinion no man should ever lay his natural rights or trust within. Doing so creates a contract of acceptance of the moral perversions of the legal language, the giving up of negative rights for positive ones, and acquiescence to all of the codes that are created and opinion-ed by such legal automatons in government.

And so your confusion about why a negative right is actually a good thing can be compared to traveling to another country and attempting to speak a new language there. In China, a horse may have the same name as a pig does in America. Thus, confusion may stem in conversations with the Chinese people when they call a horse a pig. But after a while, one becomes accustomed to switching back and forth between ones natural or “1st” language and that of the foreign language.

To most people, the legal language is certainly a foreign one. And so for now, simply realize that any confusion that you may be experiencing is just a loss in translation from your normal every-day conversational language to the foreign legal language.

A negative right is very much a good thing. Sometimes negative rights are referred to as “liberties”. Negative rights are also stated to be “unalienable” – which in legal language means that a legal lien cannot be taken out against that negative right. The constitution lays out some of these unalienable rights in a legal context, but is certainly no guarantee of such an unalienable status upon those constitutional (positive) rights. The thought that any legal document can ever guarantee another legal thing or right as unalienable is pure fallacy. For remember, a legal right is a positive right. And a legal positive right can be revoked at any time by its creator. Perhaps this is why God’s law in its permanence over man’s law is so important. We will talk about that in a moment.

Instead, the constitution as a legal document contradicts the very essence of protecting negative or “unalienable” rights as it boldly describes the ways in which such supposedly unalienable rights may indeed have liens put upon them or against them through legal means. And because of this, you will continuously hear me state loudly and fervently that my “rights” are absolutely not derived from the constitution or any other man-made law or legal code.

I have stated many times before that the 5th Amendment of the “BILL OF RIGHTS” in the U.S. constitution is perhaps the worst example of the deceptive nature of the legal language I have ever encountered. Perhaps in understanding what a “liberty” is as a negative (natural) right can help us to understand why the constitution in no way whatsoever gives individuals unalienable (negative) rights.

The 5th Amendment states:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Geez, the constitution uses longer run-on sentences than I do!

Firstly, this is the right of persons, not men. A fictional person cannot have unalienable rights. A person can only be granted political positive rights.

Secondly, we must know what a “bill” is:

BILL, legislation. An instrument drawn or presented by a member or committee to a legislative body for its approbation and enactment. After it has gone through both houses and received the constitutional sanction of the chief magistrate, where such approbation is requisite, it becomes a law.

This nickname given to the first ten amendments to the constitution is not an official legal term, but instead borrows from the original English term of the “Bill Of Rights”, which was a declaration granted by Royals William and Mary who reigned England. But this was not a declaration of natural rights of the British people, but was instead a declaration of the rights bestowed upon the SUBJECTS of the crown. Again, this can be compared to a farmer declaring positive rights of a bail of hey to be fed to his cows (subjects) twice a day. But with these seemingly wonderful rights also come the duties to submit as subjects to all other rights forced upon the subjects.

And what is the legal definition of “subject”?

SUBJECT, contracts. The thing which is the object of an agreement.


SUBJECT, persons, government. An individual member of a nation, who is subject to the laws; this term is used in contradistinction to citizen, which is applied to the same individual when considering his political rights. 2. In monarchical governments, by subject is meant one who owes permanent allegiance to the monarch.


SUBJECTION. The obligation of one or more persons to act at the discretion, or according to the judgment and will of others. 2. Subjection is either private or public. By the former is meant the subjection to the authority of private persons; as, of children to their parents, of apprentices to their masters, and the like. By the latter is understood the subjection to the authority of public persons.


CITIZEN, persons. One who, under the constitution and laws of the United States, has a right to vote for representatives in congress, and other public officers, and who is qualified to fill offices in the gift of the people. In a more extended sense, under the word citizen, are included all white persons born in the United States, and naturalized persons born out of the same, who have not lost their right as such. This includes men, women, and children. 2. Citizens are either native born or naturalized. Native citizens may fill any office; naturalized citizens may be elected or appointed to any office under the constitution of the United States, except the office of president and vice-president. The constitution provides, that ” the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.” Art. 4, s. 2. 3. All natives are not citizens of the United States; the descendants of the aborigines, and those of African origin, are not entitled to the rights of citizens. Anterior to the adoption of the constitution of the United States, each state had the right to make citizens of such persons as it pleased. That constitution does not authorize any but white persons to become citizens of the United States; and it must therefore be presumed that no one is a citizen who is not white.

Now, you should be wondering how a “right” can ever be “lost”. Of course, only political (positive law) rights can be taken away by government. Natural rights must be voluntarily given up to government.

But you may also be wondering why I am including these antiquated definitions within this essay.

The answer is an important realization about rights in general. For to declare that all men are created equal, and then to claim citizenship only for white persons should be a big clue to you that the legal law sees no equity but that for which is written by the hands of privileged men. And the preponderance by 100’s of millions of U.S. citizens that the constitution ever granted equal rights in natural men is the greatest fallacy of our time. Instead, the constitution literally and clearly states that only certain individuals (persons) are equally privileged and have the right to entitlements as positive rights that trample on the negative rights of all other colored or female persons.

And if you are not a citizen… let’s face it folks, then you are just an animal without government granted privileges and positive rights.

But even more importantly to comprehend here is that just because the constitution and other legislation has been changed over time to reflect “equality” in all persons regardless of sex or color, this if anything proves that nothing in the constitution or civil rights is in anyway an unalienable negative right. In other words, as they were changed in the past, so too can they be changed in the future.

Just ask the Japanese American citizens who were imprisoned during World War II if all citizens are equal regardless of race or color?

Here in this Bill Of Rights we have a listing of 10 positive entitlements that people mistakenly refer to as unalienable negative rights or liberties. But these are not in any way negative rights. They are instead listed here as positive rights that can be aliened upon through what is called “due process of law“.

This is why I call these an “exception clause”… and the constitution and all of legal code is riddled with them.

If your protections from double jeopardy and self-incrimination, and your protections of the rights of life, liberty, and property are indeed absolute and unalienable, then there would be no need to write them down in the first place, let alone place an exception clause within this statement (bill) of rights that allowed “due process of law” to deny you those very rights. In this way, these listed constitutional positive rights are not at all unalienable, and the constitution states clearly the “process” of how a lien can indeed be placed upon these listed positive rights – with due process of law.

Just ask anyone whose had their land stolen by government for “public use” through “eminent domain”; having watched in horror and helplessness as that land was then sold off to private corporate developers for a parking garage, a strip mall, or housing projects. Then ask that person whether they feel that their rights to property and liberty are secure and unalienable?

The 5th Amendment is the entire basis of the positive right of eminent domain claimed by government. In eminent domain cases, the 5th Amendment is noted as being the “takings clause“. This refers to the “exception clause” as noted within the 5th Amendment that property can be “taken” for public use by government with due process of law and “just compensation“. It is a fallacy to mistake the term “due process of law” with the “protection of natural rights”. Law and legal code can only protect legal or positive rights without exception.

If property rights were truly negative in nature for citizens, then government would be forced to respect the nature of that negative right without the ability to apply its right of positive law to nullify that individual persons’ negative right. In other words, the negative or natural right would not be able to be tread upon by a legal concoction of codes and concepts. A positive right by true republican idealism and rules of ethics can never trump a negative right.

In the case of eminent domain, with the backing and righteousness of the constitution itself, the government claims that it is your political “positive” right to literally have your land and home stolen by providing a remedy of what it terms to be “just compensation” for the imposing of that positive right upon you. We know this is a positive right when government won’t take no for an answer…

Imagine if I came up to your front door and handed you a check for $10,000 for the forceful purchase of your home that has a market value of $200,000 – me being just some guy with no government or militarized police force to back me up. Your first inclination would likely be to tell me to go stick my check where the sun don’t shine. But when government comes-a-knocking, our knees quiver and our head spins; for we know not how to tell government to stick its positive law where the sun doth not shineth.

So what’s the difference between when an average every day Joe “offers” you the contract of his version of “just compensation” in exchange for your home and when government makes you the same legal contractual offer?

Ah, this is where positive and negative rights truly come into play…

When the man approaches you to purchase your home, you use your negative right to say no to the contract offered by this individual man. You did not recognize his person, and refused the right of contract – acting in a negative capacity. This means that you have imposed the consequence of your negative right upon the man and expect him to fulfill his natural duty to uphold your right to say no. The abeyance and non-retaliation against your own negative rights by others with similar negative rights is called a “duty”. Thus, when average Joe made the offer for your home at a ridiculously low price, well below the market value of what you might sell that same house to another individual, it was your negative right to deny that offer of contract. It is now the duty of average Joe to respect your negative right to say no by walking away from the offer without force, retaliation, or theft of your property.

Duty has a direct association with negative rights. The consequence of a man declaring his natural, God-given, negative rights means that all other men of good conscious have the duty to respect that negative right. Thus, a negative right creates a duty in others to refrain from taking action against another. So a negative right is best explained as the right to not have “due process of law”, violence, or coercion forced against you. Therefore, a negative right is the right to be left alone. So Joe would respect your negative right to say no to his offer by fulfilling his natural or negative duty to not coerce you to sell your house to him. When this process is complete, the natural or unalienable right has been fully implemented and respected.

Under this system of respect and integrity between men, a lawful society without government can be imagined.  But since we live in and except the artificial world of fictional persons we must understand how this mutually respectful system of trust and integrity-based law has been perverted by government legal codes and its courts – which claim the very power of “due process of law” as listed in the Bill of Rights. In this regard, the constitution is in direct violation of all of man’s natural rights.

Before we can go on, this realization must be acknowledged: that the constitution does not give inalienable rights to individuals. Without this conscious admission, we cannot proceed. And we must fully realize and appreciate that the difference between a negative right and a positive right is that a negative right will never be written down as a legal right. Only a positive right must be written down, for this is the only way that a positive right may be enforced through due process of law to have power over a negative right. A positive right is adjudicated under positive law. And through the perversion of the legal code and its contractual nature, men are tricked into accepting positive rights that are in direct conflict with their natural/negative rights. They voluntarily relinquish the right to utilize negative rights against legal positive rights. Without the contractual nature of legal codes, no positive right of men could ever overshadow a negative right of God. In other words, the duty of men to respect and acknowledge the natural rights of their fellow man would never be excusable under color of law just because that man has a government ID, a police uniform, or a judges robe. The acceptance of a voluntary contractual obligation of positive rights by “citizens” allows other men to act as perverted beasts – artificial persons that trample upon any semblance of another man’s natural/negative right to not to be trampled on in the first place, with the excuse that their duty to respect man’s negative rights do not exist in legal code and are justified through due process of law, which is forcibly served upon that person/citizen for the benefit of the collective “public”. And in doing so, any recompense or remedy for their actions is applied not to the man himself for committing these acts of violence, coercion, and theft (taking) of property against the natural rights of another man, but are instead considered legal actions by an artificial person against another artificial person and its estate. You might say that no man was harmed, but only his dead or artificial person. This is referred to as acting under the “color of law”. Thus, the man doing the taking is not responsible for his own actions – actions taken by an artificial person (an incorporated entity with limited liability) on behalf of the due process of law of government. Positive rights then really equate to moral corruption of the living man in lieu of legal protections granted to the artificial person for which that man carries – the veil of artificial and limited liability corporation status called person-hood. And with this disposition; as in the art and atrocities of war where men kill men while claiming the positive right to do so as their perverted legal “duty” in the following of orders; men avoid their true and natural duties to protect the sanctity, integrity, freedom, and livelihood of the rest of their fellow man by claiming that due process of law allows constitutional and legal authority to do so. And government protects that positive right.

And so we now take for our example the constitutionally proclaimed power by government to at any time, through due process of law  and with just compensation, “take” your property through this process of eminent domain. To do this, the government exercises the true nature of your constitutional “rights” by utilizing the legal system of which government created in the first place. Thus, the taking of your property is justified by these artificial persons in government with the disclaimer that they as men are not responsible for the theft of your property because the due process of law allows such perversion of responsibility to be delegated to an artificial construct within the protection of legal code. Government officers are not men, but instead an incorporated group of persons. They have the positive (government granted and protected) right to ignore their duties to uphold and respect your negative rights because you agreed through contract to consent and be subject to these positive rights granted by government. They claim this positive right for one and only one reason: because you unwittingly told them they could. You gave up your natural rights when you became a citizen, accepting positive rights through contract. And every time that you state a pledge of allegiance to the “flag” of this artificial corporation called the United States (not a pledge to the other people within these united states of America and their natural rights, mind you), and every time you check the box that states you are a “citizen of the United States”, and every time you claim legal constitutional rights instead of negative natural rights, you are literally giving your consent and permission for government to tread on you and your negative rights via contractual obligations and duties to government’s provided positive rights and services.

Understanding and proving to government that you are alive 100% of your life seems like a ridiculous notion. But the truth is that government requires you to be dead for any transaction in commerce or contract with itself, and assigns you an artificial person for such commerce and communication. Proving that you are alive every minute of every day of your life while claiming only natural rights is the only true defense against government tyranny. Any other right provided by government and claimed by you in court is of a contractual nature, meaning it is by default a revokable and enforceable positive right – the validity of which will be decided by an artificial person known as a judge.

A negative right is the right not to be subjected to the actions and coercion of another man, person, or government.

A positive right is the right to be subjected to the actions and coercions of another man, person, or government.

A free man has the right not to be subjected to the actions and coercion of another man, person, or government.

A citizen has the right to be subjected to the actions and coercions of another man, person, or government.

A free man enjoys the negative right to be free under God and nature, deriving his rights as such.

A citizen enjoys the positive right (privilege) to be free under government, as long as and only if he obeys the law (legal codes) of that government no matter how tyrannical and inhumane they become.

The perversion of the words positive and negative is just one example of how the legal language harms man’s natural state of being by perverting even the basic definition of natural words. However, legal words only apply in the fictional legal realm, which is why of course living men must be attached to an artificial person.

But I digress, for the title of this writing is “Tyranny Requires Equality”.

And so I had better now qualify why I believe that this is so…

Just as the words negative and positive have been perverted into different meanings than we are accustomed to in our everyday speech, so too have the words equality and rights.

It is important to understand that as with all legal terms, when the legal language uses the word equality it does not predispose that such equality is espoused by living men. Remember, the legal code does not deal in living beings. It can only define legal terms for artificial persons attached to human animals. Thus, when the government states that all men are created equal, it doesn’t really mean that in literal terms. It is referring to persons. And it is referring to the way in which the law punishes equally that of all persons under the law.

Let’s face the hard truth… When the constitution and Declaration of Independence was penned over two centuries ago, the term men combined with the term equal only applied to white male land-owners. As much as it pains us to admit that the constitution did not in any way make all men equal, and in fact made some men 3/5 a person (not a man) for political purposes, we must admit that the constitution was only a legal document granting subjects of the government certain entitlements. It did not deal in men as flesh and blood human animals, it dealt strictly with artificial persons. A statement of equality as is laid down in the constitution does not necessitate the conversational meaning of that word when describing flesh and blood men, race, or color. In fact, since the constitution only applies to persons as citizens, its privileges also only apply to persons as citizens. Remember, a legal government document only applies to men who have taken the perversion of artificial person-hood. The constitution promoted slavery and entitled only the privileged class to “freedom” – which again means the requirement to obey the law. And it can only be considered a document of freedom for those who contractually accepted the legal definition of freedom to “obey the government’s laws”. The constitution, if anything, made all men un-free, but gave the privileged class of white male citizens the “freedom” to arbitrarily own other men and be higher in legal status than the female half of the species. Of course, the contract of marriage created the STRAWMAN Dominus name change that allowed women to obtain some of the rights of their husbands via a legal contractual nature.

This ownership of people was without question or doubt the “original intent” of the constitution. Just read the damn thing! And remember that slavery was outlawed in England long before it was in the United States.

Over the decades, incremental change began to be seen, amendments passed, and legislation created that allowed for all “persons” to obtain “equal rights” under the law. But remember that these were certainly not natural rights granted by the government, but were instead positive rights. And slowly but surely all persons were made civilly equal. But what this really meant was that all men were allowed to accept the perversion of their natural state of being men and were allowed to become persons. And so again, I cannot stress enough that the constitution only makes contractual obligations of men as persons for which it calls “equal” and “civil” rights. Again, any natural man, woman, or child who wonders into the fictional borders of the United States will know immediately that all men are not equal, but that equality requires the voluntary agreement and contract of tyranny of citizenship. An illegal alien is simply a man who has not sold his soul for the positive rights and entitlements of citizenship. And the treatment, imprisonment, and exportation of these “human animals” by government and it’s millions of citizens is enough evidence to me to call any woman, black man, or legal immigrant a total and complete hypocrite – one who screams for their equal rights from a government and constitution that for centuries denied their ancestors those same rights that they now deny all other men of the world. Americans are hypocrisy defined – free men enslaved by their own freedom. And the white, property-owning citizen is ironically the only non-hypocrite… but only because his ancestors were born into the privileges of citizenship in the first place that denied all others their own rights and entitlements.

Never again should any United States citizen falsely and hypocritically declare that all men are created equal. For they are not men – as citizens they are not even alive.

This is the oft quoted fallacy that plagues the people of the United States and other governments. For government can not declare all men as equal and free, but can only declare its citizens as equal with freedom. For what happens when one bucks their government and tries to act upon their natural God-given rights in their negative capacity and as protection against the forcibly assigned positive rights violently bestowed by that government upon its people? Why of course the government violates the man’s natural rights claiming that his person’s positive rights come first!

And this is the most difficult thing about law and rights to comprehend. For most people believe that rights are somehow voluntary, and don’t realize that there is such a thing as positive rights that are involuntary. It’s certainly a confusing concept – that there should be in existence a human right that is enforceable by punishment from government, whether you want that right or not. Well… that’s because people think only in terms of humanity, and not in the terms of their artificial person for which those forced rights apply.

Another example I like to use over and over is this one from TITLE 42 of U.S. CODE. This code is in my opinion the perfect examination of how a “positive right” is actually a forced privilege through coercion and violence upon persons and not men:

42 USC § 1981 – Equal rights under the law

(a) Statement of equal rights

All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exaction of every kind, and to no other

(b) “Make and enforce contracts” defined

For purposes of this section, the term “make and enforce contracts” includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.

(c) Protection against impairment

The rights protected by this section are protected against impairment by nongovernmental discrimination and impairment under color of State law.

And so here in one neat little package, the tyranny requires equality concept comes shining through. Remember, as stated here, the nature of “civil rights” is not to make men equal, but to make all persons equally screwed under the law. Government does not define men. It’s legal language simply makes all human animals as equal citizens – which means equal protection of the positive rights that are forced upon those citizens. This is the tyranny of legal equality. True natural equality will only ever happen in the minds of men, not through statute or positive right. It will never happen in all men, and no legal statute will ever succeed in this task. For the acceptance of all men as equal is a negative right, and this type of acceptance can only happen within men, not without. The bottom line is that respect for human and animal rights must be earned and learned, not entitled and forced.

First, in Section (a) of this U.S. CODE we have an explanation of your positive rights as an (artificial) person within the jurisdiction of the United States (federal government) – the federation controlling the “union” of States. It tells you that you have the positive right to enter into contract equally with all other persons, and most importantly into contracts with government. And then it tells you that by committing to such a contractual nature, the positive rights of punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exaction (literally defined as legal extortion) are applied to you under that contract. If you sign a government or other contract, you are subject to positive rights. If you sign a contract, you give up your power of natural negative rights in acceptance of politically assigned privileges called positive rights. And in doing so, as a person and citizen, you are subject to all of the coercive measures that government allows itself to use against you to enforce those positive rights against you, including pain, punishment, and extortion.

Notice here that taxation and extortion are listed here side by side as a your right. There is hardly a difference between the two, and the avoidance of both gives you the positive, forceful, contractual duty to give acceptance to your right to be receive (enjoy) penalties, be punished, and be put in pain.

Now do you understand what a positive right is?

In Section (c) it states something that is also very important. It implies here that State laws, when compared to Federal laws, are subservient to these Federal U.S. CODES. By stating that the laws of the government of the individual States are only assigned to be as authoritative as to the “color of law”, this code is stating that you have no positive State’s rights that will protect you against these stated Federal positive rights. Federal contract law (citizenship), in other words, trumps any state law that may protect any other right you enjoy, either positive or negative. In other words, as a citizen you really have no negative rights!!!

But most important here is the legal right that all persons have to be equal with every other person. The last thing that government wants is for a man to break out of his or her artificial person/cage and be special – and claim to be unequal in the eyes of the legal code. Only with equality can democracy exist. Only with uniform equality can the people be considered a “body politic”. And only in a body politic can the government claim to act with the consent of all the equal people through representative government – representatives of the whole equal citizenry.

Some folks think that by exercising their right not to vote in elections that they are withdrawing consent to the election itself. But not voting is just another political positive right that persons have, in that this duty is not enforced as a requirement. Not voting is technically voting “no contest” to what the majority votes. Government doesn’t mind at all if individuals don’t vote in its public elections, for not voting means nothing at all. Even with less than 50% of the people voting in an election cycle, the majority of those actual votes still creates a majority vote. There is no law stating otherwise. And the president is not elected by the people anyway, but instead by the “electors”. That’s right, the constitution clearly states that the president is not elected by the people (voters) by popular vote, but by appointed electors. Amazingly, the majority of United States citizens believe that they actually elect the president every four years – a laughable psy-op that creates the illusion of authority of that office.

If this is news to you, you’ll be tickled to death to know that migrants who obtain citizenship in the United States know more about our presidential election process than most natural born citizens do!

Here is a link to the questions asked of potential legal immigrants before they become citizens. You’ll notice that question #16 asks: “Who elects the President of the United States?”

Scroll down a ways and you’ll see “The Electoral College” as the official answer.

LINK: http://immigration.findlaw.com/citizenship/typical-citizenship-examination-questions.html?DCMP=ADC-IMMI_Citizenship-NaturalizationTestQuestions&HBX_PK=the+naturalization+test+questions

Elections are a positive, not a negative right. Citizens do not have negative rights, other than those which have not been supplanted YET by positive ones.

What is the definition of the word “negative”?

NEGATIVE. This word has several significations. 1. It is used in contradistinction to giving assent; thus we say the president has put his negative upon such a bill. Vide Veto. 2. It is also used in contradistinction to affirmative; as, a negative does not always admit of the simple and direct proof of which an affirmative is capable. When a party affirms a negative in his pleadings, and without the establishment of which, by evidence, he cannot recover or defend himself, the burden of the proof lies upon him, and he must prove the negative. Although as a general rule the affirmative of every issue must be proved, yet this rule ceases to operate the moment the presumption of law is thrown into the other scale. When the issue is on the legitimacy of a child, therefore, it is incumbent on the party asserting the illegitimacy to prove it. Vide Affirmative Innocence.

NEGATIVE AVERMENT, pleading, evidence. An averment in some of the pleadings in a case in which a negative is asserted. 2. It is a general rule, established for the purpose of shortening and facilitating investigations, that the point in issue is to be proved by the party who asserts the affirmative; but as this rule is not founded on any presumption of law in favor of the party, but is merely a rule of practice and convenience, it, ceases in all cases when the presumption of law is thrown into the opposite scale. For example, when the issue is on the legitimacy of a child born in lawful wedlock, it is, incumbent on the party asserting its illegitimacy to prove it. Upon the same principle, when, the negative averment involves a charge of criminal neglect of duty, whether official or otherwise, it must be proved, for the law presumes every man to perform the duties which it imposes. Vide Onus Probandi.

And from Webster’s 2012 dictionary:


(1) a: marked by denial, prohibition, or refusal <received a negative answer>; also : marked by absence, withholding, or removal of something positive <the negative motivation of shame — Garrett Hardin>

b (1) : denying a predicate of a subject or a part of a subject <“no A is B” is a negative proposition> (2) : denoting the absence or the contradictory of something <nontoxic is a negative term> (3) : expressing negation <negative particles such as no and not>

c : adverse, unfavorable <the reviews were mostly negative>

(5) a : not affirming the presence of a condition, substance, or organism suspected to be present; also : having a test result indicating the absence especially of a condition, substance, or organism <she is HIV negative>

By these definitions we can construct a view of how the word negative applies to and interacts with the word positive in law. A negative right attempts to remove or refuse a positive right, and a man seeks to withhold or remove the positive right with his negative right. Negative rights are a prohibition against positive ones. A living man may deny a positive right exists by denoting the contradiction of that positive right to his negative right. A living man must prove the non-existence of a positive. Positive rights directly contradict negative rights, negating the inherent and replacing it with the artificial, creating an absence of liberty. Positive is adverse and unfavorable to the negative. Men must not affirm the presence of a positive right, unless he is prepared to accept the conditions of its disease.

Even the word enjoyment has been twisted into a legal perversion, as defined in Bouvier’s:

ENJOYMENT. The right which a man possesses of receiving all the product of a thing for his necessity, his use, or his pleasure.

And Black’s Law Dictionary online defines Enjoyment as:

ENJOYMENT: 1 (a) possession and use <the enjoyment of civic rights>

And from Webster’s:

ENJOYMENT: The exercise of a right; the possession and fruition of a right, privilege, or incorporeal hereditament.

So while you may emotionally enjoy living somewhere, enjoyment is a legal term with no emotional attachments. It is the state of usufruct to which you are a person who enjoys the use of property, but do not legally own that property. Paying off a loan to a bank, it turns out, has absolutely nothing to do with ownership, as the home never belonged to the bank in the first place. A “lien” position is not an ownership position, but rather just a status of legal claim.

Legislative records explain this positive right of equal enjoyment best:

“The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called “ownership” is only by virtue of government, i.e. law, amounting to mere user; and user must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.” Senate Document No. 43, 73D Congress, 1st Session, entitled: “Contracts Payable in Gold”, by George Cyrus Thorpe, submitted to the senate: April 17, 1933

“The money will be worth 100 cents on the dollar because it is backed by the credit of the Nation. It will represent a mortgage on all the homes and other property of all the people in the Nation.” –Congressman Patman, speaking from the Congressional Record of March 9, 1933, and referring to the Act of March 9, 1933.

Enjoyment is use, as a user, of government property. Persons are not owners, they are users. Persons enjoy incorporeal use of real estate. The word estate in Latin means “status”. And a status of course is an entitlement – a positive right.

But don’t worry, all property holders have equal rights under the law – which really means that all property holders cannot say no when the government wants to eminent domain (legally steal) their property. Equal rights means equal enjoyment of equal extortion, which means equal victim-hood of the people is equally enjoyed as persons under the contractual nature of citizenship. Does it make you feel better that at any time the government can take anyone’s property, including your own? Does this equate to the disposition we take when our friends and neighbors have their property stolen by government for the public good? You are the “public”, you know.

Is it this equality of the possibility of legal theft upon all citizens that stops us from defending the property of our fellow man?

Have we been artificial for so long that we are becoming emotionless?

Have we grown to love our servitude, as Huxley declared so long ago?

Perhaps we have just lost our ability to do anything but legally enjoy our servitude – and have forgotten how to be free men.

Equality in legal terms is a detriment to all men, for no two men are alike. Under the law, men and women have no sex, except as a mechanical function in science. Their uniqueness is stripped away and replaced by a legal status. Their thoughts and ideas are stunted so that equality can prevail. By accepting the artificial person, the living soul becomes nothing but a user of the body – with enjoyment of the artificial person which interacts with the artificial world. In this way, the man hides away behind the mask of his or her person.

But the person is not the man, it is not created by the man, and it is not owned by the man. The person is a creation of and property of the government, assigned numbers and statistics which define each artificial person. And only the creator of persons can establish forced equality and tyranny among all persons equally.

And so I leave you with these final questions…

If government is the creator of persons, then isn’t it time to stop worshiping these idols of the false god of government and get back to nature’s and God’s law?

Who is your creator?

Isn’t it time to become a man again?


–Clint Richardson (Realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Is Slavery Legal In America?

While one might be shocked at the presentation of such a question about such a historically controversial subject, one might also not be worse off to simply read their Constitution of the United States…

Let’s have a look at the 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

So, let’s break this down and comprehend what this really means:

The phrase “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted…” simply translates to –

“Slavery and involuntary servitude are illegal unless the court system (the state) makes it legal by conviction (court order).

In other words…

“The state has the authority to enslave you simply by convicting you of a crime and sending you to private prison or requiring community service through state approved agencies.”

Now we must understand that slavery in the United States was not legal or illegal until individual states made it so. Instead, it was just an accepted practice of common law brought over to the United States by the English settlers who were already accustomed to owning slaves. While southern states continued with their tolerance of the ownership of people (of any race or color) either through slavery or by indentured servitude (involuntary servitude), one by one the Northern states individually outlawed the practice, though this was not necessarily done by altruistic means as much as political ones.

It is very important to understand the concept of freedom in this case. The colonists that inhabited the states as individual citizens had the freedom (the right) to own slaves and to indenture others for payment of debt. This was a right.

It is also very important to understand that this right, as with all rights, was taken away from the individual people both when individual states outlawed the practice and when the Thirteenth Amendment was amended to the Constitution. Thus, the right to own slaves was turned into a privilege, and immediately revoked.

Remember, a right is God-given. It is not something that can be legislated. It is freedom without oppression. Breathing is a right.

Also remember that a privilege is not a right. A privilege is not a freedom. A privilege is a state sanctioned action, only allowable by state decree or with permission through license or legal statute. Driving is a privilege, revocable at any time by the state.

The question here is not one of moral compass or civil right, but one of individual rights compared to state authority. This is a story of the state taking rights away from individual citizens, and creating a monopoly on slavery through it’s system of laws, as stated in section 2:

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

It doesn’t matter what your personal opinion on the slavery issue is, it only matters that you understand that the state is now the slave owner instead of the individual citizen.

Now, let’s examine the prison state that is America…

  • The United States population accounts for approximately 5% of the world’s population.
  • Yet, the United States holds 25% of the worlds prisoners in its prisons.
  • That makes the good old U.S.A the #1 prison nation in the world!
  • But, you see, that also makes the U.S.A. the #1 legal slave owner in the world…

Do you remember when then Vice President Dick Cheney was indited along with Alberto Gonzalez for conflicts of interest in investing 85 million in private prisons? I guess you can’t indict a slave trader if he is operating within the permissions and full support of the United States government:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQEMPdIxZcY

Another great video from 2008 about the private prison business…

PBS special report: Prisons For Profit – http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/419/video.html

Look, the politicians, courts, attorneys, lawyers, judges, and anyone else involved in this legalized human trafficking and slavery are not acting in the best interest of the people. They are simply compartmentalized cronies each contributing to a shameful slave and private prison business.

And the court system is set up to ensure a constant influx of new slaves…

What is even more disheartening is the fact that the majority of people subjected to this legalized slavery are not guilty of breaking the law, meaning they have done harm to others or their property. No, these state inducted slaves were guilty of “victimless crimes”, meaning that no one or their property was hurt. This means that the state is the “victim”. This means that a code, limit, statute, or other nonsensical legality (not law) was broken. This means that the government has set up a system in which it imprisons and enslaves good and innocent people for breaking its own outrageous rules. This means that for running a red light, you could become a slave too. This means that for holding up a sign in protest, you could become an involuntary servant to the government.

Private prisons do pay their prisoners (slaves) for their work, to the tune of .30 – .60 cents per hour. This is a loophole to make the private prison business the cheapest labor in America.

Now, to put this all into perspective, I would refer you to a previous post about the legalization of drugs, specifically marijuana. (https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2010/01/31/marijuana-to-legalize-or-to-not-legalize-that-is-the-question/)

Metaphorically speaking, the legal slave trade in America works in much the same way that legalization of drugs works… where as before “pot” was just a weed that grew wherever, neither legal or illegal – but now it’s an illegal drug except by government approved prescription and sanction (legal). In other words, I can obtain it with government license (state permission).

Likewise, slavery was neither legal or illegal, it just was, until individual states outlawed it. Then this “amendment” came along and made it “illegal without permission” for all states, just like pot. All you have to do is run a state approved prison (pot pharmacy) and only conduct this slavery within its walls (pot clinic/pharmacy/store) to make it legal slavery (medical marijuana). The concept to comprehend here is God’s law or common law – meaning most prisoners did not break this law, which states “do not do harm to others or their property”. Instead, they have committed “victimless” crimes (the STATE is the victim – like running a stop sign) which makes them eligible for slavery in private prisons per the 13th Amendment (and some of those prisoner/slaves are only guilty of smoking a joint).

Marijuana is illegal without a (state approved) doctors prescription, making it legal for state approved persons by state approved distributors.

Slavery is illegal without a judges (the STATE’S) prescription (permission), making it legal for state approved institutions to have slaves which are state approved (condemned) individuals.

I don’t know how I can make this any clearer!

This system of outsourcing prisoners to privately held corporate prisons, only induces “the state” to produce more victimless (innocent) state appointed criminals in order to produce more prisoners (slaves) for the state sanctioned legal slave trade that our government has the monopoly on through its 13th Amendment to the constitution.

And one last thing… community service is not for the benefit of the community. It is the temporary indenturing of code violators who haven’t harmed anyone but the state. The only “community service” you are allowed to participate in are state sanctioned organizations or corporations which serve the state or are non-profit in name only, receiving large sums of contracted money for your service. This is not constitutional or lawful. It is slavery hidden behind a corrupt charitable FOR PROFIT company who uses your state approved enslavement as positive public relations in a public-private-partnership (ppp) with the government.

The 13th Amendment is unconstitutional. It must be abolished, as must legalized state sanctioned slavery.

Please pass this on , for if we do not liberate our brothers and sisters out of this legal slave trade now, we may soon find that the only job choices left in America are prison guards or involuntary servants.


UPDATE: It’s amazing how good people pass things around and other good people fighting the good fight turn up in your reality. This is an organization who is fighting against the private prison business, and a video I highly recomend:

National Public Service Council To Abolish Private Prisons http://npsctapp.blogspot.com/


Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)

Sunday, August 15, 2010