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.

THE VOLUNTARY CONNECTION AND ADMIXTURE OF REALITY TO FICTION MUST BE ESTABLISHED FOR THE LAWS OF FICTION (THE PERSON) TO BE APPLIED TO REALITY (THE MAN).

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

–=–

INSURE

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

–=–

STRAMINEUS HOMO: 

“Latin. A MAN OF STRAW, one of NO SUBSTANCE,
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.

—CORPUS HUMANUM NON RECIPIT AESTIMATIONEM. Hob. 59. (Black4)

—=—

“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:
but
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.

—=—

LIFE:

“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.”

—FILIUS EST NOMEN NATURAE, SED HAERES NOMEN JURIS. 1 Sid. 193. 1 Pow.Dev. 311. (Black4)

—=—

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

—POTEST QUIS RENUNCIARE PRO SE ET SUIS JURI QUOD PRO SE IMTRODUCTUM EST. Bract. 20. (Black4)

—=—

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
adultery.”

—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…

–=–

PURPOSE

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…

–=–

ISSUE

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. 

Continuing…

–=–

DISCUSSION OF THE “STRAW MAN” CLAIM

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.

Continuing…

–=–

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.

Continued…

–=–

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.

Continuing…

–=–

CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES

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.

HOLDING

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.

DRAFTING INFORMATION

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).

–END OF DOCUMENT–

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

Advertisements

The President Does It Again…


I’d just like to remind the good people of America that there is only one man that the people voted in as president of the United States – well, technically he is elected by the electoral college and not the people, but who’s really paying attention to politics anyhow?

And again I’d like to remind the people that this one “elected” man in the presidency then appoints all other officers and cabinet members of the Federal Government. He is the Chief Executive Officer – the boss. All other officers are underlings operating solely on the authority of the President conveyed to them… millions and millions of unelected men and women controlling every aspect of our lives.

Do you get it?

These officers are not just the appointed goons of this “elected” man named Obama – they are Obama. Everything they do is in his name and under his authority. They are not voted in or elected to their positions. They are appointed by Obama to do his job. Thus, they are Obama.

When the ATF got caught in gun smuggling operations, the ATF was Obama.

When the military unlawfully attacks and occupies foreign countries and rebuilds nations, the military is Obama – acting under Obama’s “Emergency War Powers” and his declared “National Emergency” to bypass Congress, waging unlawful war while officially calling it a “mission of peace”.

And yes, when the IRS commits fraud, purposeful malfeasance, and discrimination while targeting certain political groups in illegal tax audits from its corporate headquarters in Guam, it is the “elected” President of the United States who appoints the Commissioner of that corporation, who in turn appoints managers, Chief Financial Officers, and all other unlawful employees that come after you in the middle of the night.

Of course, the game show of government is playing out as it always does, as the Obama appointed Attorney General (head of the Executive Branch legal team) will be investigating the case of the IRS (part of the Executive branch) through the court system (part of the Department of Justice – which is part of the Executive Branch). What does this mean? It means that the President is investigating himself and his appointed Executive Offices with his own Executive powers!!!

It was not the “Commissioner” who perpetrated the attack on the enemies of Obama; it was Obama – for the Commissioner was acting under the authority of only one man – the “elected” office of president; the Executive.

But it is always the patsy that must resign his appointed office, as we see again with the appointed Commissioner Steven Miller.

But I demand that Obama himself resign, for he is the only man with any power granted by the people (well, ah… sort of – whatever!), which makes the president fully responsible for any action taken by the Executive Branch. Everyone else is appointed by him or by someone else that he appointed!!!

Now imagine, folks, if you actually had a man as your president who was actually responsible for his own actions…

What a different world it would be.

But you didn’t vote for me to be president… not that the electoral college would have accepted the public vote as anything but what it actually is – entertainment.

This is America…?

It’s time to wake up from this dream, isn’t it?

.

For more delicious irony to pull that wool out of your eyes, please check out my research here:

Link–> https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2012/07/04/why-the-supreme-court-claims-obamacare-is-constitutional/

Link–> https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2012/12/24/understanding-the-2012-electoral-college/

.

–Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Tuesday, May 15th, 2013

 

 

 

 

 

To Protect And Serve?


What does this obtuse and open-ended catch-phrase actually mean?

Have you ever asked yourself that question?

–=–

It is fairly obvious and easy enough to say that the police are not actually there to “protect and serve” the people of the land in the conversational sense of the words, but indeed protect and serve only the interests and continuity of the corporations called States, Counties, and Cities.

But we must also define what “protecting” and “serving” actually mean in the legal language. Of course, because we are talking about the sales pitch of the municipal corporation (government) police departments, we must answer this question with the best legal definitions of these words, instead of relying on our mislead perceptions of this misleading moniker as portrayed by the media and entertainment industries.

To protect and serve… Who? What? Where? When? Why?

We will now use U.S. CODE and the Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856, to get a full description of this open ended statement, “To Protect And Serve“.

–=–
TO PROTECT
–=–

The observation that police are driving around in expensive taxpayer-funded vehicles while being paid by taxpayers to do so, issuing citations for speeding, crossing double yellow lines, making illegal U-turns, and other pointless victimless crimes, should be quite enough evidence that the police aren’t driving around looking for an opportunity to protect you from danger or to serve or help you, but are instead driving around looking for ways to earn money through exaction and force for the corporation (government) that they are employed by – so as to fulfill their monthly quotas.

But if this concept isn’t readily obvious to you – that police officers are there to extort money out of your pockets – then let’s examine together the legal definition of the word “protect”.

First, we must understand what a legal right is as opposed to a natural right.

This section of U.S. CODE does a very nice job of making that distinction…

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 exactions 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.

Here we see the difference between a God-given natural right and a right that is bestowed by the government under color of civil law, which in fact is nothing more than a contracted privilege you agree to by signature and consent. When one understands what is stated here in U.S. CODE, one understands that political rights are the definition of tyranny and extortion.

In fact, the word exaction is specifically defined as extortion.

EXACTION, torts. A willful wrong done by an officer, or by one who, under color of his office, takes more fee or pay for his services than what the law allows. Between extortion and exaction there is this difference; that in the former case the officer extorts more than his due, when something is due to him; in the latter, he exacts what is not his due, when there is nothing due to him. Wishard; Co. Litt. 368.

A willful wrong…

This means that government claims under TITLE 42, Section 1981, that it is your right to be exacted (extorted) from by government or other corporations through the “contractual relationship”. And that it is your right to be wronged by men in uniform who willfully harm you while acting under the “color of law”

By signing a ticket or citation (a contract) and then by paying the fee imposed by that contract and agreed upon by you, the fine line of extortion and exaction is crossed, and exaction (nothing due) by contract under threat and duress is created and becomes extortion (what is now due). Add a few late fees and other charges by the courts (more than is due) and exaction is legally upon you via contract. So how does a police officer under the color of his office extort money from you in a way that “exacts what is not due” to him? He forces you to sign a contract which obligates you to pay his office a fine or fee. Thus, exaction (taking what is not due) becomes a legal function of legal contract law, and your “right” to be extorted from (stealing what is now due) as listed in U.S. CODE as an “equal right” (privilege) is justified by your signature on the ticket (contract).

Do you understand? Being extorted and exacted form is a right, benefit, and a privilege. Being taxed is a right, benefit, and privilege. And being subject to pains, penalties, and punishment is a right, benefit, and a privilege. These are the wonderful rights, benefits, and privileges of being a citizen (person) of the United States enjoying the “contractual relationship” between yourself and government.

You enjoy those rights now, ya hear…?

Ok. So what exactly does the word “protect” mean, considering that pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions (extortion) are the so-called rights enumerated and “protected” by police?

PROTECTION, government. That benefit or safety which the government affords to the citizens.

Yeah… so “to protect” can legally be defined as: to ensure the entering into and enforcement of the contractual relationship between government and the citizen by officer willfully wronging the citizens, for which a citizen may be forced into contract under duress and color of law so as to ensure commerce (exaction) for government through such contract, or be imprisoned for breach of that forced contract. And so, police officers (employees of government) are there for the “protection” of the authority and jurisdiction of government to tax, exact (extort), penalize, put into pain, and punish contracted “citizens” through its police “officers” and its “legal system”.

Great…

So what does government mean when it offers to protect your equal rights under the law?

equal protection: an overview

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide “equality” among individuals or classes but only “equal application” of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights.

And so once again, we can plainly see that civil rights were and are not created to make all men equal in the eyes of the law/government, but instead are instilled to make all men equally liable to the legal statutes and codes created by government. In short, civil rights make all Persons of the United States equally enslaved by diminishing natural rights into codified civil rights – turning unalienable God-given rights into State sanctioned and revocable privileges under contract and force.

–=–
TO SERVE
–=–

So what does it mean for the police to serve the people?

Probably not what you think…

SERVICE, practice. To execute a writ or process; as, to serve a writ of capias signifies to arrest a defendant under the process; Kirby, 48; 2 Aik. R. 338; 11 Mass. 181; to serve a summons, is to deliver a copy of it at the house of the party, or to deliver it to him personally, or to read it to him; notices and other papers are served by delivering the same at the house of the party, or to him in person.

Hmmm… So legally, “to serve” actually means to serve process, to arrest under that process, to serve a summons, or to deliver a notice. Ok, so “service” is not quite what we thought it was…

But remember, the police are protecting your right to be served by government, and your right to be exacted from and punished.

So what happens when a police officer (a corporate officer of a municipality, county, or State) serves me with a summons, process, or notice?

SUMMONS, practice. The name of a writ commanding the sheriff, or other authorized officer to notify a party to appear in court to answer a complaint made against him and in the said writ specified, on a day therein mentioned. 21 Vin. Ab. 42 2 Sell. Pr. 356; 3 Bl. Com. 279.

SUMMONERS. Petty officers who cite men to appear in any court (i.e. municipal police).

TO SUMMON, practice. The act by which a defendant is notified by a competent officer, that an action has been instituted against him, and that he is required to answer to it at a time and place named. This is done either by giving the defendant a copy of the summons, or leaving it at his house (i.e. mail); or by reading the summons to him.

Interesting. Just one problem though…

The problem with a police officer witnessing, writing (creating), and delivering at the same time a “ticket” for a code violation – which is a summons and notice to appear in court – is that the police officer is the creator of the complaint, as well as the authorized officer who is citing in the ticket (summons) a time to appear in court to answer an action. This ultimately means that a “ticket” is an illegal summons, as there is no action that has been created by a court of law, magistrate, or by an actual victim.

The “officer” may legally serve a summons written by a court, but does not have the legal authority to create a summons without the court… (Without means outside of its jurisdiction) A lawful summons must come from a judge or magistrate.

Of course, this is why the officer requires your driver’s or other license with a current address and personhood name. The license represents the contract agreed to, signed, and broken by you (i.e. vehicle code, etc.). Without the license and the consent presumed by it, no legal statute in code could be broken, and thus no citation could be created. That would mean no money could be exacted, oh my!

But can an officer make a complaint?

COMPLAINT, crim. law. The allegation made to a proper officer, that some person, whether known or unknown, has been guilty of a designated offense, with an offer to prove the fact, and a request that the offender may be punished.

COMPLAINANT. One who makes a complaint. A plaintiff in a suit in chancery is so called. 2. To have a legal effect, the complaint must be supported by such evidence as shows that an offense has been committed, and renders it certain or probable that it was committed by the person named or described in the complaint.

A better question would be: Can a police officer make a complaint to himself about you, and then punish you for the offense that he complained about to himself without a judge and jury? Can he complain to himself?

Isn’t that bypassing the whole concept of law and a fair trial?

The officer is supposed to be receiving a complaint, and serving a notice of that complaint. Can he do both lawfully? Isn’t there a checks and balances system for these types of lawless behaviors?

As we all know, the police officer generally has no complaint received for traffic and other citations, and is creating the complaint himself, and then creating a summons to appear in court to answer for that complaint/misdemeanor crime.

In fact, one might construe and even be able to prove that the police officer who issued the citation is indeed impersonating an officer of the court by issuing an unlawful summons to appear in that court. This, of course, is a serious felony crime – the impersonating of a court official. Thus, the magistrate would be required to answer to this fact when presiding over the trial. So the magistrate must admit to the fact that the police officer acted with or without his consent and jurisdiction to issue a summons to appear before this magistrate. If the answer is no, the summons holds no legal authority. If the answer is yes, then the magistrate is admitting on the record to cooperating in criminal coercion with intent to extort. Either way, I’m betting the case would be dismissed.

This is really no different than if a Girl Scout came up to you on the street and forced you at gunpoint under threat of arrest to buy her cookies, and by doing so, you must either pay a fine for her services or appear in court. This, in effect, is forced commerce through a forced contract (citation/ticket) under duress and threat of incarceration. The ticket is a get out of jail card. Sign the summons or go to jail…

So what is the definition of an “action”?

ACTION, in practice… Actions are divided into criminal and civil… 2. – 1. A criminal action is a prosecution in a court of justice in the name of the government, against one or more individuals accused of a crime… 2. A civil action is a legal demand of one’s right, or it is the form given by law for the recovery of that which is due… (lawful vs. legal)

A legal demand of one’s right…“.

Think about what that means for a moment. And remember, your “rights” are taxation, pains, punishments, and extortion under the “contractual relationship”. Thus, these “rights” can be demanded of you.

What a messed up system we have…

Criminal actions require a victim harmed. Civil actions require a contract broken or unfulfilled.

So the legal rules, codes, and municipal corporation statutes, which require the consent and contract of the governed to have authority and jurisdiction, are all based on “civil action” – a legal (not lawful) demand to pay what is due to government – when government police officers bypass the court system altogether to create a demand to pay via an illegal summons. In other words, you must pay the fine or go to court.

But what is the cause of action? Who is the injured party? What contract has been broken?

That’s just it, there is no victim and therefore there is no criminal law broken (no victim, no crime). The action, therefore, is based solely on extortion under threat of arrest in the civil realm. This is an unlawful action, and is created or action without cause with an illegal summons to appear, which you may pay money for (extortion) to avoid making an appearance in court. All of this happens when the citation is signed, becoming a contract.

Ok. So what is a “demand”?

DEMAND, contracts. A claim; a legal obligation

DEMAND, practice. A requisition or a request by one individual to another to do a particular thing. 2. Demands are either express or implied. In many cases, an express demand must be made before the commencement of an action… in other cases an implied demand is all that the law requires, and the bringing of an action is a sufficient demand in those cases…  A demand is frequently necessary to secure to a man all his rights, both in actions arising on contracts and those which are founded on some tort. It is requisite also, when it is intended to bring the party into contempt for not performing an order which has been made a rule of court… 4. – 1. Whether a demand is requisite before the plaintiff can commence an action arising on contract, depends upon express or implied stipulations of the parties… 13. – 2. In cases where the taking of goods is lawful, but their subsequent detention becomes illegal, it is absolutely necessary, in order to secure sufficient evidence of a conversion on the trial, to give a formal notice of the owner’s right to the property and possession, and to make a formal demand in writing of the delivery of such possession to the owner. The refusal to comply with such a demand, unless justified by some right which the possessor may have in the thing detained, will in general afford sufficient evidence of a conversion… 14. – 3. When a nuisance has been erected or continued by a man on his own land, it is advisable, particularly in the case of a private nuisance, to give the party notice and request him to remove it, either before an entry is made for the purpose of abating it, or an action is commenced against the wrong doer and a demand is always indispensable in cases of a continuance of a nuisance originally created by another person… 15. – 4. When an order to pay money, or to do any other thing, has been made a rule of court, a demand for the payment of the money, or performance of the thing, must be made before an attachment will be issued for a contempt…

So technically, the police officer is making a demand before an action is created in a court of law. In other words, the officer is acting illegally as both the party that is harmed (legal codes broken) and the judge of a court who would otherwise issue a demand to answer and pay for an action. This paradox, where the demand for payment is created without a cause of action for payment having been created, is why the “ticket” is actually an illegal summons. No judge ordered you to appear before him, and the police officer is not a judge. Thus, your signature on the “ticket” becomes a private contract created through threat and duress between you and the corporate municipality for which that officer is an employee of – which automatically makes that contract null and void. For a contract must be entered into voluntarily. If you break that contract with consent (by ignoring it, not paying, or not appearing), then you are guilty of breach of contract, and more civil actions will be placed upon you, including liens on your home and personal property – the taking of property to pay the fine created illegally in the first place through coercion and duress.

This is the job description of police officers…

This is service at the barrel of a gun.

So can a ticket be an “order”?

ORDER, contracts. An indorsement (endorsement) or short writing put upon the back of a negotiable bill or note, for the purpose of passing the title to it, and making it payable to another person. 2. When a bill or note is payable to order, which is generally expressed by this formula, “to A B, or order,”or” to the order of A B,” in this case the payee, A B may either receive the money secured by such instrument, or by his order, which is generally done by a simple indorsement, (q. v.) pass the right to receive it to another. But a bill or note wanting these words, although not negotiable, does not lose the general qualities of such instruments… Vide Bill of Exchange; Indorsement. 3. An informal bill of exchange or a paper which requires one person to pay or deliver to another goods on account of the maker to a third party, is called an order.

The police officer is creating a bill of exchange (an order) requiring you to pay or deliver yourself (as surety) to the third party (the court/government). You are agreeing to this order with your signature.

PARTY, practice, contracts. When applied to practice, by party is understood either the plaintiff or defendant. In contracts, a party is one or more persons who engage to perform or receive the performance of some agreement. Vide Parties to contrads; Parties to ‘actions; Parties to a suit in equity.

PERFORMANCE. The act of doing something; the thing done is also called a performance; as, Paul is exonerated from the obligation of his contract by its performance… 2. When a contract has been made by parol, which, under the statute of frauds and perjuries, could not be enforced, because it was not in writing, and the party seeking to avoid it, has received the whole or a part performance of such agreement, he cannot afterwards avoid it… and such part performance will enable the other party to prove it aliunde (from another place)…

PAROL. More properly parole. A French word, which means literally, word or speech. It is used to distinguish contracts which are made verbally or in writing not under seal, which are called parol… which are under seal which bear the name of deeds or specialties… It is proper to remark that when a contract is made under seal, and afterwards it is modified verbally, it becomes wholly a parol contract… 2. Pleadings are frequently denominated in the parol. In some instances the term parol is used to denote the entire pleadings in a cause as when in an action brought against an infant heir, on an obligation of his ancestors, he prays that the parol may demur, i. e., the pleadings may be stayed, till he shall attain full age… But a devisee cannot pray the parol to demur. 3. Parol evidence is evidence verbally delivered by a witness. As to the cases when such evidence will be received or rejected…

SEAL – OFFICE, English practice. The office at which certain judicial writs are sealed with the prerogative seal, and without which they are of no authority. The officer whose duty it is to seal such writs is called “sealer of writs;”

SEALING OF A VERDICT, practice. The putting a verdict in writing, and placing it in an envelop, which is sealed. To relieve jurors after they have agreed, it is not unusual for the counsel to agree that the jury shall seal their verdict, and then separate. When the court is again in session, the jury come in and give their verdict, in all respects as if it had not been sealed, and a juror may dissent from it, if since the sealing, he has honestly changed his mind.

By now, we should realize that this whole exchange is an attempt to exact (extort) money from people by government. The police officer is having you sign an informal bill (contract) requiring you to pay on account of the officer to the government court system, which in this case is the “third party”. The police man is an employee or officer of the government corporation, and is securing the bill as a title backed by yourself as surety to pay exaction (extortion money) to the government corporation (third party). If you don’t pay, you and your property (registered property with the State) are the collateral that will be collected or put in jail.

As a parol(e) contract, a ticket/citation (illegal summons) has no authority accept that which you give to it with your consent and signature. It is based on the presumption of law (prima facie law) and orated (without seal) by the officer of the government, and relies upon the consent of the governed (you) for its authority and jurisdiction.

A “ticket”, as an illegal summons to appear, is a contract signed by you to avoid being placed in jail (parole). If you do not sign the summons, you will be arrested. Under this threat, most people sign the ticket, just as they would give their wallet over to an armed robber who threatened to harm or kill them.

Thus, the summons is not lawful. It is an illegal contract based on coercion and fear.

Of course, most people just accept and consent to the authority and jurisdiction of the police officer due to their fear of that officer and to that of the illegitimate for-profit court system of the corporations called municipalities and their prisons. If they decide to take a stand against this ridiculous extortion and racketeering ring hilariously called “law enforcement”, they must then do as the illegal summons requires them to do under their forced signature, which is to make an appearance in court.

APPEARANCE, practice. Signifies the filing common or special bail to the action. 2. The appearance… should (in accordance with the ancient practice) purport to be in term time… yet, in fact, much of the business is now done, in periods of vacation (without appearing). 3. The appearance of the parties is no longer (as formerly) by the actual presence in court, either by themselves or their attorneys; but, it must be remembered, an appearance of this kind is still supposed, and exists in contemplation of law. The appearance is effected on the part of the defendant (when he is not arrested) by making certain formal entries in the proper office of the court, expressing his appearance… or, in case of arrest, it may be considered as effected by giving bail to the action. On the part of the plaintiff no formality expressive of appearance is observed.

The most important aspect of this term is the fact that it can be done through the certified mail using a notary public. In short, the notary is your court away from court. By responding (answering) via certified mail (certification show proof of receipt by the court) with a notarized letter (the notary makes the letter official by witness), the court must then consider that answer as a contract. It must answer that contract or be in violation of it. Thus, a time period (generally 21 days) for the answer of the court must be included within your letter, just as the original illegal summons allowed you a certain amount of time to pay for your fine or appear in court. Items requested should be things like the judges oath and affirmation to the united states of America (not the United States without America), a fee schedule showing the fees required by you to conduct commerce in that court, and demands for cause of action among other things.

This is your appearance and your answer to the illegal summons. And the last thing you want to do is to appear in a court, unless it is with a grand jury.

In a grand jury, the judge has no real authority over you, and the people of the grand jury decide the outcome of the case. Chances are, since the court system is a for-profit enterprise, the case will be dismissed long before it reaches an expensive and arduous grand jury process that must be paid for by the government. After all, they just wanted to exact you of the amount of the citation, and hope you will just be a good little slave and pay it via mail or online with a credit card. And with the judge and police officer participating in organized crime, the last thing they would want is to be indicted by a grand jury for coercion, racketeering, and illegal contracts created at gunpoint.

It is important to note here that when we show up to what is commonly referred to as “traffic court”, we are not really going to court at all. In fact, often times the presiding attorney over the traffic court is not even a true judge, but is just an administrative clerk assigned to arbitrate the proceedings. In order to actually make an appearance, the traffic court would have to schedule a hearing, which it does for those who are fooled into making a plea of “not guilty”. Of course, the only true answer to the question posed by the court as to your being guilty, not guilty, or no contest, is the word “innocent”.

INNOCENCE, The absence of guilt. 2. The law presumes in favor of innocence, even against another presumption of law

Making a plea of “not guilty” is not synonymous with being innocent. In a municipal administrative traffic court (legal setting), you are presumed guilty. Only in law is one presumed innocent. This is why “traffic courts” are set up as the first place the people will appear. Traffic courts are like spider webs – they catch the 99% of the ignorant people who make an appearance there, and entrap them with a plea. Claiming innocence is not a plea. It is a demand.

CLAIM. A claim is a challenge of the ownership of a thing which a man has not in possession, and is wrongfully withheld by another

The claim of the innocence of a man by that man cannot be withheld or challenged by the court.

However, the guilt of a man who claims his person (a corporation/thing) to be not guilty can be so held and presumed under contract created by the plea.

With the plea of “not guilty”, guilt is still assumed by the court under the contract (ticket) signed. After all, you signed the ticket – and this could be construed as an admission of guilt (though you had no choice and would be arrested if you didn’t sign). The plea itself is also a contractual agreement with the court, and the court will demand (legal obligation) action (recovery of what is due the court by contract) based on any plea. A plea of any type is not a demand, but is instead literally a process of begging of the courts forgiveness by answering the declaration (challenge) of the unlawful plaintiff (police officer of the court or government), as opposed to answering the court’s claim with your own demand for the cause of action through the notarized and certified mail, as talked about above.

PLEA, practice. The defendant’s answer by matter of fact, to the plaintiff’s declaration.

PLEA, chancery practice… A plea is a special answer to a bill, and differs in this from an answer in the common form, as it demands the judgment of the court in the first instance, whether the matter urged by it does not debar the plaintiff from his title to that answer which the bill requires… 2. Pleas are of three sorts: 1. To the jurisdiction of the court. 2. To the person of the plaintiff. 3. In bar of the plaintiff’s suit

This process of making a plea takes place within the court, and binds the plea maker (defendant) to the court in contract. One should never make a plea, for this assigns the jurisdiction of the court to the case, and places the person under that jurisdiction.

In opposition to this, an answer may be created by the innocent man to the the courts (plaintiff’s) claim prior to the date of the summons, which may challenge the jurisdiction of the court and require a cause of action of the plaintiff. In most traffic citation cases, there is no cause of action, because the demand was created without the cause of action existing. So there is no official cause of action that dated prior to the illegal summons issued by the police officer (plaintiff), thus the demand (citation and summons) was not based on a legal action of that court – which would have created the summons in the first place. And so your notarized “answer” to the court listed on the “ticket” (illegal summons) through the certified mail is to demand the cause of action, for which the court cannot produce because the summons was created without an action by the court.

Thus, this paradox is not answerable by the court, and its jurisdiction is challenged successfully. Remember, in traffic code violation cases, a civil action is a legal demand of one’s right, or it is the form given by law for the recovery of that which is due.

There is no law that gives a corporate for-profit municipal traffic court the lawful ability to recover what is due to them under a contract (citation/illegal summons) that was created under duress and by force and coercion. If you pay the fee listed on a ticket, you are doing so under your own free will with consent (and ignorance of the law), and accepting the validity, pain, and punishment of the unlawful contract by paying the fee, so as to not have to appear physically in court. This is extortion, and you submit to it by payment or by appearing in traffic court, instead of standing on your natural, God-given rights against tyranny.

What does it mean to legally answer the court?

ANSWER, practice. The declaration of a fact by a witness after a question has been put asking for it

ANSWER, pleading in equity. A defense in writing made by a defendant, to the charges contained in a bill or information, filed by the plaintiff against him in a court of equity… 2. As a defendant is called by a bill or information to make a discovery of the several charges it contains, he must do so, unless he is protected either by a demurrer, a plea, or disclaimer…

DISCOVERY, practice, pleading. The act of disclosing or revealing by a defendant, in his answer to a bill filed against him in a court of equity.

The answer is part of the discovery process in our case. It should be done by mail.

PLEADING, practice. The statement in a logical, and legal form, of the facts which constitute the plaintiff’s cause of action, or the defendant’s ground of defense; it is the formal mode of alleging that on the record, which would be the support, or the defense of the party in evidence… In a general sense, it is that which either party to a suit at law alleges for himself in a court, with respect to the subject-matter of the cause, and the mode in which it is carried on, including the demand which is made by the plaintiff; but in strictness, it is no more than setting forth those facts or arguments which show the justice or legal sufficiency of the plaintiff’s demand, and the defendant’s defense, without including the statement of the demand itself, which is contained in the declaration or count. Bac. Abr. Pleas and Pleading.

So what does it mean for a police officer to “serve” a process or a notice?

PROCESS, practice. So denominated because it proceeds or issues forth in order to bring the defendant into court, to answer the charge preferred against him, and signifies the writ or judicial means by which he is brought to answer… 3. In criminal cases that proceeding which is called a warrant, before the finding of the bill, is termed process when issued after the indictment has been found by the jury

PROCESS, rights. The means or method of accomplishing a thing.

NOTICE. The information given of some act done, or the interpolation by which some act is required to be done. It also signifies, simply, knowledge; as A had notice that B was a slave… 2. Notices should always be in writing; they should state, in precise terms, their object, and be signed by the proper person, or his authorized agent, be dated, and addressed to the person to be affected by them.

In case you missed that, the “serve” part of “To Protect and Serve” is to deliver notices and to issue process (serve process) so as to give official notice to you that you are either required to pay a fine, fee, tax, or other exaction (extortion), or are required to appear in court via a warrent in criminal charges, or as a defendant in a civil case.

To “serve” does not mean to “help”.

It means to “force” or to “deliver”.

“Serving” is a legal term, not a lawful one. Cops are not required to help you or to protect you in any way, accept those which are required of the cop in serving legal documents in process, notice, or summons.

But let’s go back further into the roots of the word serve under feudal law:

SERVICE, feudal law. That duty which the tenant owes to his lord, by reason of his fee or estate. 2. The services, in respect of their quality, were either free or base, and in respect of their quantity and the time of exacting them, were either certain or uncertain. 2 Bl. Com. 62. 3. In the civil law by service is sometimes understood servitude. (q. v.)

SERVITUDE, civil law. A term which indicates the subjection of one person to another person, or of a person to a thing, or of a thing to a person, or of a thing to a thing… 4. The subjection of one person to another is a purely personal servitude; if it exists in the right of property which a person exercises over another, it is slavery. When the subjection of one person to another is not slavery, it consists simply in the right of requiring of another what he is bound to do, or not to do; this right arises from all kinds of contracts or quasi contracts. Lois des Bat. P. 1, c. 1, art. 1.

SERVITUS, civil law. A service or servitude; a burden imposed by law, or the agreement of parties upon certain persons, for the benefit of others; or upon one estate for the advantage of another, or for the benefit of another person than the owner.

SERVITUS. Servitude; slavery; a state of bondage. “Servitus autem, est constitutio,” say the Institutes of Justinian, 1, 3, 2, “qua quis dominio alieno contra naturam subjicitur.” Servitude is a disposition of the law of nations, by which, against common right, one man has been subjected to the dominion of another. See Bract. 4 b; Co. Litt. 116.

SUBJECTION. The obligation of one or more persons to act at the discretion, or according to the judgment and will of others.

SUBJECT, contracts. The thing (i.e. person) 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 (not the same as natural rights – political rights are codified civil legal privileges granted via contract. Natural rights are God-given and above the laws of men.).

SLAVE. A man who is by law deprived of his liberty for life, and becomes the property of another. 2. A slave has no political rights, and generally has no civil rights. He can enter into no contract unless specially authorized by law; what he acquires generally, belongs to his master… 3. In Maryland, Missouri and Virginia slaves are declared by statute to be personal estate, or treated as such… In Kentucky, the rule is different, and they are considered real estate… In general a slave is considered a thing and not a person; but sometimes he is considered as a person; as when he commits a crime; for example, two white persons and a slave can commit a riot…

Remember, the 13th Amendment didn’t end slavery, it made all persons as equal slaves through conviction. This is what government calls equal rights!

Remember, the police are there to serve you process and notice and to protect your rights of punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind.

What more really needs to be said here?

.

For more fun and understanding of our collective disposition within this government fraud per the legal definitions of the words that bind us, you may wish to explore my other essay, here:

https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2012/07/04/why-the-supreme-court-claims-obamacare-is-constitutional/

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney. I am not offering legal advice. I am not practicing law. I will never act as or within any of these presumptions. Claims put forth otherwise will be met with a lawsuit for defamation of my character and slander… If you understand this, then you understand self-actualization and liberty.

.

P.S. I turned 40 years old today. Happy berth-day to me…

.

–Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Wednesday, August 8th, 2012

Dear Latino Voters… Don’t Be Stupid Americans!


In the March 12, 2012 issue of Time Magazine, the following article was published in the “conversation” section on page 2:

“Is this the group that’s really going to pick the next president?”

“CNN’s Soledad O’brien sounded a bit skeptical when she questioned Michael Scherer about his March 5 cover story, “Why Latino Voters Will Swing The 2012 Election”. But MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry had no such doubts: “I imagine [GOP candidates] will be digging into their Spanish-language dictionaries when the get a glance at this week’s TIME. “The cover was widely discussed among Latino bloggers and social media users, some of whom were disappointed that it did not feature any Afro-Latinos, but most of whom saluted TIME for its first cover line in Spanish, Yo Decido…

First of all, my Spanish friends, you must understand that even if every last one of you voted for president of the United States in the 2012 election this year, absolutely none of your votes would count.

That’s right… in the United States, we have an indirect election for president. According to the Constitution of the United States and its several Amendments, the president of the United States is elected by 538 people each election sometime in January.

There are 438 National congressmen in the House of Representatives, and 100 United States Senators in Congress. These are the people you actually get to vote for – the people who make the rules and Amend the Constitution. And the Constitution states that these men and women each receive 1 vote for president, which is delegated to an “elector”. These electors are then appointed by the political parties and the president of the United States is chosen by a vote of these 538 electors.

A list of these electors for 2008 – the 538 people who actually elected President Barack Obama for president – can be found here:

LINK–> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_electors,_2008

So, the answer to the question posed in the question above can be answered two ways…

Will Latino’s pick the next president?

Answer #1 – NO! – The popular vote doesn’t count towards the election of the president. The president is not elected by the people, and the color of peoples skin at the voting poles makes absolutely no difference to who gets elected president.

Answer #2 – MAYBE… The popular vote is called popular for a reason. It relies on the fact that most Latino, White, Black, and every color in between does not understand the election process of the electoral college. In other words, it relies on a big colorful bunch of stupid Americans! In short, the popular vote is a popularity contest; a beauty pageant for ugly old men. It means nothing accept in the fact that the vast majority of colorful Americans voted for their favorite American idol without realizing that their votes – as in Hollywood – are just for show, and that the 538 electors do the actual voting on behalf of each State. But if the Latino voters woke up to this open secret and organized crime, and realized that the Republican and Democratic Political parties have been responsible for appointing these electors for so many decades, then maybe, just maybe, this chain could be broken. The combined Latino vote could only make a difference if, as a group, you vote outside of the two-party system, which would ensure that the electors of president would not be loyal to the political parties, but to all the people of America regardless of their skin color. In this way, the Latino vote could actually change the world.

But even with the possibility of this happening, your leaders are dependent upon this system as well. They might even try to sell you a story that, as a white man, I am the devil, and shouldn’t be trusted. Of course, the black leaders might be telling their people the same thing about you. And the white leaders will no doubt be using you and the Chinese as the excuse for their participation in the legal, organized crime we call politics.

So don’t be stupid American’s like us this year… vote for a non-party candidate. Vot for your mother or father. Vote for a nun. Vote for anybody that has the people at heart. But do not vote as sheep for the latest wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Or, you could collectively send a real message to Washington D.C, by not playing the election fraud game at all. Make 2012 the first year that the people of America tell our government that we want a real election like Russia – a direct election of a non-party president of the people by the people of America.

.

–Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)(Clint4p.com)
–Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Why The Supreme Court Claims Obamacare is Constitutional


Did you really think that the Supreme Court would rule against “Obama-care”?

Just what exactly do you think the Supreme Court is?

Perhaps a reality check is in order here. And for that matter, a little history lesson…

–=–

This tome of research was originally planned as an educational-documentary movie script, but with the election process just around the corner and rumors of a major internet “change”, I feel it absolutely necessary to give it my best shot to create a wide-awake, openhearted, non-consenting public. In fact, my whole mock-presidential campaign was to expose the following facts – and that you the people cannot, no matter how much campaigning you do, elect me as president (or for that matter Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney, or any alternative 3rd party or non-two-party candidate) because you don’t get to vote for president.

Perhaps this all was dreaming too big on my part; that I can wake up an entire nation, but here it goes anyway…

We will now delve extensively into the Department Of Justice as well as the electoral college, and we will learn exactly what the role of the Attorney General is – and I guarantee you that none of these things are anything close to what you might think you know or have been taught in your public (government) school system. In short, we will learn the actual law, and that the law and the entirety of the United States does not exist without your contractual consent to it.

Sit back and hold on, for it is my hope that this is going to be a serious wake up call. I recommend that you read and re-read this entire presentation several times, until these definitions and concepts are familiar and completely understood, for you cannot be free without the knowledge of what enslaves you, especially if you do not know the hidden legal language of the Law Society. Certain words and phrases are underlined, highlighted, and emboldened. Do not take this lightly. Give these your special attention. And by the end, be sure you know the legal meanings of all these words.

If you read nothing else before you cast your vote for the office of president this year, I beg of you to take the time to learn why your vote absolutely does not, never has, and never will count towards the actual official election process of the president of the United States. This is the law. It is more accurate to say that your vote as a registered United States voter is not officially counted in the actual election process for the office of the president of the United States.

So why do you vote?

Why does the government waste our time allowing us to go through the charade of voting for the popular fake-election of president by the “people”?

Why will going through the process of “voting” to replace Obama not do anything to actually officially or legally replace Obama?

And why is Obama-care absolutely constitutional according to the Supreme Court?

Let’s find out…

–=–

What Was The Original Supreme Court?

–=–

The so-called “Founding Fathers” have become the stuff of legend.

They are credited as being radical new thinkers whose ideals were original in their context, and that these ideas created the first free country and a modern republic. And yet, the entire structure of government for the Federal United States, as well as the concepts of individual and state’s rights, liberty, and social contracts, date back not only to the Mayflower Compact, but to the roots of British history and common law, as well as Roman law in the Roman “Republic” and in the Magna Carta, created in 1215. In fact, as it turns out, everything that our “Founding Fathers” did in their declaration of independence was specifically to preserve their “natural-born rights as Englishmen“, which was in fact a perfectly legal pursuit as a crown colony. The Crown of England, in fact, had the same reaction to this declaration and the following constitution as the Northern “States” did when the Southern “States” seceded from the corrupt central government of the United States in the 1860’s – in order to form their own more perfect union and constitution in the South… which was for the Crown to unlawfully call it treason and to take its control back through occupation and military rule.

Why were the colonists of America always, and even to this day, so interested in retaining their English-born rights?

Samuel Adams wrote:

“All persons born in the British American Colonies are, by the laws of God and nature and by the common law of England, exclusive of all charters from the Crown, well entitled, and by acts of the British Parliament are declared to be entitled, to all the natural, essential, inherent, and inseparable rights, liberties, and privileges of subjects born in Great Britain or within the realm. — The Rights of the Colonists: The Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting, Nov. 20, 1772.

John Allen also stated:

For the rights of the people, which is the supreme glory of the crown and the kingdom of Britain, is the Magna Charta of the king as well as of the people; it is as much his previledge, as it is his glory, to maintain their rights; and he is as much under a law (I mean the law of the rights of the people), as the people are under the oath of allegiance to him… And therefore whatever power destroys their rights, destroys at the same time, his right to reign, or any right to his kingdom, crown, or glory; nay, his right to the name of a king among the people… Shall a man be deem’d a rebel that supports his own rights?Excerpts from the sermon, “ORATION, upon the Beauties of LIBERTY, OR the Essential RIGHTS of the AMERICANS” preached to the Second Baptist Church in Boston Dec. 3, 1772.

Resolution #2 of the Declaration of Rights of the Stamp Act Congress on October 19, 1765, was written:

“That His Majesty’s liege subjects in these colonies are entitled to all the inherent rights and privileges of his natural born subjects within the kingdom of Great Britain.

The “Charter of Massachusetts Bay (colony)” issued by the king in 1629 proclaimed that the people of the colony:

…shall have and enjoy all liberties and Immunities of free and naturall Subjects within any of the Domynions of Us, our Heires or Successors, to all Intents, Constructions, and Purposes whatsoever, as if they and everie of them were borne within the Realme of England.

The colonists wanted nothing more than and insisted upon being treated as natural-born Englishmen with all rights and privileges thereof. This was reflected in every facet of the New America. And it is part of the basis of the term God-given natural rights, as the “king” was considered to be of “God” – the “divine” right of kings…

Thomas Jefferson himself, in a letter to Henry Lee on May 8, 1825, wrote about the Declaration of Independence that it was:

“…with respect to our rights, and the acts of the British government contravening those rights, there was but one opinion on this side of the water. All American Whigs thought alike on these subjects. When forced, therefore, to resort to arms for redress, an appeal to the tribunal of the world was deemed proper for our justification. This was the object of the Declaration of Independence. Not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take. Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion. All its authority rests then on the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation, in letters, printed essays, or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, &c..”

One could translate this as the freedom of the press, where that declaration was written as an appeal to pity by the rest of the world – an appeal to the court of popular opinion – and a reminder of the already historically established philosophies that were re-worded in the constitution and declaration.

It is also important to make the distinction between natural and political (contractual) “independence”. Independence, as a legal description or term, does not automatically mean free and clear of something as it might be perceived or misconstrued in every day conversation:

INDEPENDENCE. A state of perfect irresponsibility to any superior; the United States are free and independent of all earthly power. 2. Independence may be divided into political and natural independence. By the former (political independence) is to be understood that we have contracted no tie except those which flow from the three great natural rights of safety, liberty and property. The latter (natural independence) consists in the power of being able to enjoy a permanent well-being, whatever may be the disposition of those from whom we call ourselves independent. In that sense a nation may be independent with regard to most people, but not independent of the whole world. Vide on of Independence. (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856)

And just what does the 5th Amendment to the Constitution actually say about this?

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.

So the constitution states quite clearly that your natural rights of life (safety), liberty, and property can in fact be taken away from you with “due process of law and just compensation”. This is because these are actually your political rights enumerated, not your natural ones. This is not a protection from tyranny of government, but is instead tyranny defined! And this “right” – to have your life, liberty, and property taken away from you – is literally in the hands of the government created federal judicial system. As we will see, this is extremely deceptive and problematic with regards to the “justice” doled out by the “justice system”. Thus, the Bouvier’s Law Dictionary definition of “independence” above perfectly describes the illusion that we all have of our constitutional (political) “independence”. As contracted citizens of this government, natural independence is forfeited and political independence does not exist…

We must also understand that the “Judicial Branch” of this constitution was not in any way new as either the highest court of jurisdiction or of being a so-called “check and balance” of the other government entities. A government creation is not really in a position to monitor another government creation. This fallacy is why we are in the mess we are in today – government supervision and regulation of itself!

Within the British Empire, the highest court within a colony was often called the “Supreme Court”.

Most importantly to the Federal government and to any government who uses this structure of legal precedent, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court cannot be challenged once the government appointed Court members decide on what “justice” is. Therefore, once the Supreme Court decides that something is constitutional – like war, capital punishment, crime and punishment, fines, taxes, incarceration, eminent domain, and other government intrusions into the life (safety), liberty, and property of the people of the United States, the people have no recourse for the taking of their life, liberty, and property. In this way, the Judicial branch serves as a “check and balance” that ensures the tyranny of government is never challenged.

This hierarchy of jurisdiction is called stare decisis.

 STARE DECISIS – To abide or adhere to decided cases. 2. It is a general maxim that when a point has been settled by decision, it forms a precedent which is not afterwards to be departed from. The doctrine of stare decisis is not always to be relied upon, for the courts find it necessary to overrule cases which have been hastily decided, or contrary to principle. Many hundreds of such overruled cases may be found in the American and English books of reports. Mr. Greenleaf has made a collection of such cases, to which the reader is referred. Vide 1 Kent, Com. 477; Livingst. Syst. of Pen. Law, 104, 5. (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856)

Supreme Court decisions are deemed to be binding upon lower courts. Importantly, this is to ensure uniformity in the legal functioning of the United States and its corporate structure. This uniformity is further ensured by requiring BAR certification for the “practice” of the now copyrighted public policy that is called “law” in the United States. Civil law jurisdictions, however, are not generally considered to apply, and so supreme court decisions are not necessarily binding. But the decisions of the supreme court are meant to provide a very strong precedent (jurisprudence constante) for both itself and all lower courts.

So what does jurisdiction mean?

JURISDICTION – Practice. A power constitutionally conferred upon a judge or magistrate, to take cognizance of, and decide causes according to law, and to carry his sentence into execution. 6 Pet. 591; 9 John. 239. The tract of land or district within which a judge or magistrate has jurisdiction, is called his territory, and his power in relation to his territory is called his territorial jurisdiction. 2. Every act of jurisdiction exercised by a judge without (outside of) his territory, either by pronouncing sentence or carrying it into execution, is null. An inferior court has no jurisdiction beyond what is expressly delegated. 1 Salk. 404, n.; Gilb. C. P. 188; 1 Saund. 73; 2 Lord Raym. 1311; and see Bac. Ab. Courts, &c., C, et seq; Bac. Ab. Pleas, E 2. 3. Jurisdiction is original, when it is conferred on the court in the first instance, which is called original jurisdiction; (q. v.) or it is appellate, which is when an appeal is given from the judgment of another court. Jurisdiction is also civil, where the subject-matter to be tried is not of a criminal nature; or criminal, where the court is to punish crimes. Some courts and magistrates have both civil and criminal jurisdiction… 4. It is the law which gives jurisdiction; the consent of, parties, cannot, therefore, confer it, in a matter which the law excludes. 1 N. & M. 192; 3 M’Cord, 280; 1 Call. 55; 1 J. S. Marsh. 476; 1 Bibb, 263; Cooke, 27; Minor, 65; 3 Litt. 332; 6 Litt. 303; Kirby, 111; 1 Breese, 32; 2 Yerg. 441; 1 Const. R. 478. But where the court has jurisdiction of the matter, and the defendant has some privilege which exempts him from the jurisdiction, he may waive the privilege. 5 Cranch, 288; 1 Pet. 449; 8 Wheat. 699; 4 W. C. C. R. 84; 4 M’Cord, 79; 4 Mass. 593; Wright, 484. See Hardin, 448; 2 Wash. 213. 5. Courts of inferior jurisdiction must act within their jurisdiction, and so it must appear upon the record. 5 Cranch, 172 Pet. C. C. R. 36; 4 Dall. 11; 2 Mass. 213; 4 Mass. 122; 8 Mass. 86; 11 Mass. 513; Pr. Dec. 380; 2 Verm. 329; 3 Verm. 114; 10 Conn. 514; 4 John. 292; 3 Yerg. 355; Walker, 75; 9 Cowen, 227; 5 Har. & John. 36; 1 Bailey, 459; 2 Bailey, 267. But the legislature may, by a general or special law, provide otherwise. (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856)

JURISPRUDENCE – The science of the law. By science here, is understood that connection of truths which is founded on principles either evident in themselves, or capable of demonstration; a collection of truths of the same kind, arranged in methodical order. In a more confined sense, jurisprudence is the practical science of giving a wise interpretation to the laws, and making a just application of them to all cases as they arise. In this sense, it is the habit of judging the same questions in the same manner, and by this course of judgments forming precedents. 1 Ayl. Pand. 3 Toull. Dr. Civ. Fr. tit. prel. s. 1, n. 1, 12, 99; Merl. Rep. h. t.; 19 Amer. Jurist, 3. (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856)

The original Federal United States Supreme Court was created within the jurisprudence of the “organic” constitution “for” the united states of America via Article 3, as the third lawful “branch” of government – a check and balance for the Executive and Legislative branches. This organic constitution was very specific, and was meant to be the permanent structure of the three branches of government.

“The term “organic” statute originated from the French term Reglement Organique, which means regulations for an organization or governmental body. 

Organic statute is a statute that establishes an administrative agency or local government and defines its authorities and responsibilities.

An organic statute forms the foundation of a government, corporation or other organization’s body of rules. A constitution is a particular from of organic law for a sovereign state.”

(Source: http://definitions.uslegal.com/o/organic-statute/)

And so, for the purposes of the original, as-written constitution of 1786, the description of the constitution as “organic” is best understood as “original”. Once it was amended, it was not organic (original) any more. The foundational organic nature of the constitution is broken with every amendment added, for a foundation is not meant to be altered, just as food is either organic or altered (non-organic/non-original -vs- as natural law [nature] intended).

But as we are all no doubt aware, everything certainly changes…

On march 27, 1861, the dis-satisfied representative congressmen of seven of the “southern” States decided to leave the “union” as was their right as constitutionally established “sovereign” nation States, according to the very constitution that organically (originally) held that union together, in order to form what many scholars claim to be their own new nation of southern states based on the original intent of that same organic constitution for the united states of America. These elected representatives walked out of Congress, never to return. This was indeed abandonment sine die – (without day – when the court or other body rise at the end of a session or term they adjourn “sine die”). At this critical juncture at the end of true American history, Congress ceased to exist as a lawful (organic, constitutional) body, and could no longer lawfully declare war (without all congressmen present in vote). In the end, 11 states in total lawfully left the union via constitutional succession and declared their sovereignty and independence from the United States (Washington D.C.).

With the union now divided and the lawful (constitutional) congress canceled, drastic measures had to be taken by the remaining elite structure of this defunct “government” corporation. And so on April 15th, 1861 (not so coincidentally the now “national tax day”), Abraham Lincoln – who was no longer a lawful or constitutional president and was now acting under military rule without congress – issued the first Executive Order #1, which placed military rule (martial law) over the entirety of the U.S. territories. This soon became known as the “civil war” against the south by the now unlawful government – a government held together in continuity by the first declared state of emergency and the first declared “Executive Order” (#1) by the first unlawful and unconstitutional president, Abraham Lincoln. This was also referred to as the War of Northern Aggression. But the war was, as we will see, a war to force civil law on all the people of the United States.

These General War Executive Orders were, as they still are today, declared without congressional approval or consent by the Executive:

Proclamation Calling Militia
and
Convening Congress

April 15, 1861

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas the laws of the United States have been for some time past, and now are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed, in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the Marshals by law,

Now therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, and the laws, have thought fit to call forth, and hereby do call forth, the militia of the several States of the Union, to the aggregate number of seventy-five thousand, in order to suppress said combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. The details, for this object, will be immediately communicated to the State authorities through the War Department.

I appeal to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate and aid this effort to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence of our National Union, and the perpetuity of popular government; and to redress wrongs already long enough endured.

I deem it proper to say that the first service assigned to the forces hereby called forth will probably be to re-possess the forts, places, and property which have been seized from the Union; and in every event, the utmost care will be observed, consistently with the objects aforesaid, to avoid any devastation, any destruction of, or interference with, property, or any disturbance of peaceful citizens in any part of the country.

And I hereby command the persons composing the combinations aforesaid to disperse, and retire peaceably to their respective abodes within twenty days from this date.

Deeming that the present condition of public affairs presents an extraordinary occasion, I do hereby, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, convene both Houses of Congress. Senators and Representatives are therefore summoned to assemble at their respective chambers, at 12 o’clock, noon, on Thursday, the fourth day of July, next, then and there to consider and determine, such measures, as, in their wisdom, the public safety, and interest may seem to demand.

In Witness Whereof I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the Seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the city of Washington this fifteenth day of April in the year of our Lord One thousand, Eight hundred and Sixtyone, and of the Independence the United States the Eightyfifth.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN

By the President:

WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.

.

(Author’s note: Take note here that in no way could the Congress of the organic united states of America convene together lawfully, as the southern state representatives were purposefully absent in abandonment of the ever-increasing corrupt and unfair legislature. In this Executive Order, the United States and the Constitution are capitalized and are both not followed by the words “of America. Why demonize England when the United States was worse to its own people?)

.

Executive Order 1
January 22, 1862

The purpose of this war is to attack, pursue, and destroy a rebellious enemy and to deliver the country from danger menaced by traitors. Alacrity, daring, courageous spirit, and patriotic zeal on all occasions and under every circumstance are expected from the Army of the United States. In the prompt and spirited movements and daring battle of Mill Springs the nation will realize its hopes, and the people of the United States will rejoice to honor every soldier and officer who proves his courage by charging with the bayonet and storming intrenchments or in the blaze of the enemy’s fire.

By order of the President:

EDWIN M. STANTON,

Secretary of War.

PRESIDENT’S GENERAL WAR ORDER NO. I.

.

(Author’s note: The lawful people acting within their constitutional and God-given natural rights are now considered “rebellious enemies” and “traitors”. In fact, the president himself was the traitor, defiling the organic constitution and the rights it stood for.)

.

Executive Order – General War Order No. 1
January 27, 1862

Ordered, That the 22d day of February, 1862, be the day for a general movement of the land and naval forces of the United States against the insurgent forces; that especially the army at and about Fortress Monroe. the Army of the Potomac, the Army of Western Virginia, the army near Munfordville, Ky., the army and flotilla at Cairo, and a naval force in the Gulf of Mexico be ready to move on that day.

That all other forces, both land and naval, with their respective commanders, obey existing orders for the time and be ready to obey additional orders when duly given.

That the heads of Departments, and especially the Secretaries of War and of the Navy, with all their subordinates, and the General in Chief, with all other commanders and subordinates of land and naval forces, will severally be held to their strict and full responsibilities for prompt execution of this order.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

.

.

Very importantly, this action by and against the southern States by the United States brought out what are referred to as the “Reconstruction Amendments” (13th, 14th, 15th) and later on the 16th, and 17th Amendments – or what I like to refer to as the legal person-ization and incorporation of the “people” of America from free men into indentured debt slaves, from the years 186o-1871. Or we could call this the corporeal enslavement of the people by turning us into own-able and transferable things (chattels), with the presumed consent of our unsuspecting, purposefully deceived and uneducated, incorporeal souls.

The 13th Amendment didn’t end slavery, it made it legal for government to create them by convicting them of a crime. The people alone, not the government, could no longer own or indenture themselves.

13th Amendment:

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.

Section 2 is ultimately the important clause here, as we will read later. The legislation created by congress allowing private prisons to use prisoners to work for slave wages is just one example of how the 13th Amendment created legalized slavery and indentured servitude in the “United States” jurisdiction.

–=–

What Is A Constitution?

–=–

Should we romanticize the “constitution” as our cherished law of the land that was derived from divine inspiration without question?

Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856 – the only law dictionary officially incorporated by Congress as part of the United States constitution and officially as part of the Supreme Court – let’s us know what the word “constitution” really stands for:

CONSTITUTIONcontracts. The constitution of a contract, is the making of the contract as, the written constitution of a debt. 1 Bell’s Com. 332, 5th ed.

CONSTITUTOR – civil law. He who promised by a simple pact to pay the debt of another; and this is always a principal obligation. Inst. 4, 6, 9.

(That’s you, by the way… you who are reading this as a citizen – you are the “constitutors” of the “constitution”)

TO CONSTITUTEcontracts. To empower, to authorize. In the common form of letters of attorney, these words occur, “I nominate, constitute and appoint.”

CONSTITUENTHe who gives authority to another to act for him. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 893.

CONSTITUIMUS – A Latin word which signifies we constitute. Whenever the king of England is vested with the right of creating a new office, he must use proper words to do so, for example, erigimus, constituimus, c . Bac. Ab. Offices, &c. E.

CHATTELSproperty. A term which includes all kinds of property, except the freehold or things which are parcel of it. It is a more extensive term than goods or effects. Debtors taken in execution, captives, apprentices, are accounted chattels. Godol. Orph. Leg. part 3, chap. 6, 1.

Of course, Article 6 of the constitution states very clearly that the United States is a debtor nation:

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.”

There was never independence if this country was founded in debt to England and France.

–=–

What Is The United States?

–=–

It is also important to know the Bouvier’s Law Dictionary definition given in 1856 of the “United States”:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA – …5. The United States of America are a corporation endowed with the capacity to sue and be sued, to convey and receive property. 1 Marsh. Dec. 177, 181. But it is proper to observe that no suit can be brought against the United States without authority of law. 6. The states, individually, retain all the powers which they possessed at the formation of the constitution, and which have not been given to congress. (q. v.)

–=–

***Remember this part, which have not been given to congress. As we saw with the 13th Amendment, this clause is oh so important with regards to the “reconstruction” of the United States and its “constitution” as a new organic (original) debt contract during this period of martial law. It will come as a shock just how much we the people have indeed given to congress…

So, the question becomes: What powers did the individual states retain? And which ones were “given to congress”?

For this, we must consider that a State was nothing more than the government incorporation of certain United States territories. Each territory, for the purposes of becoming a State of the Union, had something very sinister in common. This common element was a contract called the “Enabling Acts”, and were a uniform set of contractual agreements that were pre-determined and agreed to by all territories in order to become States (incorporated Federal Districts) of the United States.

Each Territory agreed to being a Federal District, and to having a Federal Governor and a Federal State District Attorney. These enabling legislation covenants were passed before each territory became a state, as a prerequisite for statehood and before the state constitution could be accepted by the United States.

More importantly, we can read in the following State “Enabling Acts” that all territorial unappropriated and non-deeded land was granted to the United States via these contracts of statehood. Once the people were made to became citizens via the 14th Amendment, they lost their independence and became subject to the UNITED STATES jurisdiction.

Most western states have the following types of verbiage. Read carefully…

Colorado Enabling Acts:

§ 4. Constitutional convention – requirements of constitution. That the members of the convention thus elected shall meet at the capital of said territory, on a day to be fixed by said governor, chief justice, and United States attorney, not more than sixty days subsequent to the day of election, which time of meeting shall be contained in the aforesaid proclamation mentioned in the third section of this act, and after organization, shall declare, on behalf of the people of said territory, that they adopt the constitution of the United States; whereupon the said convention shall be and is hereby authorized to form a constitution and state government for said territory; provided, that the constitution shall be republican in form, and make no distinction in civil or political rights on account of race or color, except Indians not taxed, and not be repugnant to the constitution of the United States and the principles of the declaration of independence; and, provided further, that said convention shall provide by an ordinance irrevocable without the consent of the United States and the people of said state; first, that perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and no inhabitant of said state shall ever be molested in person or property, (only) on account of his or her mode of religious worship; secondly, that the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States; and that the lands belonging to citizens of the United States residing without (outside of the jurisdiction of) said state shall never be taxed higher than the lands belonging to residents thereof, and that no taxes shall be imposed by the state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by the United States.

Note the distinction between US citizens that are both within (residents of) and “without” of the declared United States jurisdiction of this new State – meaning those with already appropriated land.

And within the Utah enabling acts for the Utah State constitution, in similar uniform legal language (Commercial CODE), it states:

…Second. That the people inhabiting said proposed State do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof; and to all lands lying within said limits owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes; and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States, and said Indian lands shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the Congress of the United States Third. That the debts and liabilities of said Territory, under authority of the Legislative Assembly thereof, shall be assumed and paid by said State.

Note that the “debts and liabilities” portion of this is a demand that the citizens of the new “State” become “constitutors” of the constitution, which, as with all constitutions, makes this a debt contract. Also note that Indian lands are absolutely in no way independent of the United States Federal corporation.

To put this into perspective: If a state government goes away, the land that the fictional corporation (state government) sat upon is still a territory of the United States. States are not independent either politically or naturally, for a state is not of God. A “State” is a fictional incorporated creation of the United States corporation. Only men can be naturally and completely independent of the United States.

These “Enabling Acts” can be found for most of the non-original States as prerequisites to their State constitutions.

–=–

The Southern States:
A New Organic Constitution Is Created By Conquest

–=–

In August 1866, once the civil war was ended and brothers had killed brothers, president Andrew Johnson moved to restore the former Confederate states back into to the unlawful Union. In March 1867, the First Reconstruction Act placed the South under military occupation within federal military districts. Georgia, Alabama, and Florida for instance, became part of the “Third Military District” under the command of General John Pope. Ex-Confederates (the people) were kept from voting or holding public office under military rule, and were replaced with what were referred to as Freedmen, Carpetbaggers, and Scalawags – the Whigs who originally opposed the succession.

Suddenly, the confederate landowners of these states had lost their land rights, and were now faced with the fact that freedmen had the right of vote. These “freedmen” began to live freely on these lands and plantations against the wishes of these confederate land-owners.

FREEDMEN – The name formerly given by the Romans to those persons who had been released from a State of servitude. Vide Liberti libertini. (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856)

RIGHT – …3. It is that quality in a person by which he can do certain actions, or possess certain things which belong to him by virtue of some title. In this sense, we use it when we say that a man has a right to his estate or a right to defend himself... 2. In this latter sense alone, will this word be here considered. Right is the correlative of duty, for, wherever one has a right due to him, some other must owe him a duty. 1 Toull. n. 96. (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856)

In Georgia, black voters were forcibly registered to vote and now sudenly outnumbered the white voters, which sparked the forming of the KKK and the eventual violence that led to the expelling of the new black senators from the Georgia legislature despite the state constitution’s forbidding of blacks serving in office. From October 29 through November 2, 1867, elections were held for delegates to a new constitutional convention in Atlanta, not in the nations capital, and again did not allow ex-confederates (white land and plantation owners) to participate. Charles Jenkins was the first post-war elected governor, coming to office in January 1868. But he refused to authorize state funds for the state constitutional convention (which would have created a new organic State constitution for Georgia), and this government was yet again unlawfully dissolved by General George Meade and replaced by a military governor under military rule. Georgia was returned to military rule to quell violence after Ulysses S. Grant was “elected” president, being one of only two ex-Confederate states to vote against Grant.

All of this was “unconstitutional”, but only when using that word as it refers to the original organic 1786 constitution, as we will see. The United States is still under military rule, which is the very reason that martial law can still be declared with the stroke of a presidential pen, just as Abraham Lincoln first penned it in 1861. If a state were to attempt to succeed from the “union” today, martial law would be declared and military rule would ensue until the rebellion could be squashed, no different than it was then. And the “civil” law would be forcibly restored. As long as the elected governments cooperate with the United States and its uniform rules and codes, martial law is not declared and military rule is not so obvious – thus the illusion of being a free country is maintained.

In March 1869, the new United States Congress again barred Georgia’s representatives from their seats, causing military rule to resume in December 1869. By January 1870, General Alfred H. Terry as commander of the Third Military District forcibly removed from the legislature all ex-Confederates, replacing them with the Republican runners-up, and reinstated all expelled black legislators. Once again, there was a Republican majority in the legislature friendly to the United States corporation.

And finally, in July of 1870, Georgia was forcibly readmitted to the Union – a military conquest – and the newly elected but unlawful and (organically) unconstitutional General Assembly ratified the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States. A Republican governor named Rufus Bullock was inaugurated. He was from New York, not Georgia.

Section 1 of Amendment 14 states:

Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And with the unlawful and unconstitutional passing of this amendment, everything changed, and every man became a person and a citizen under presumed consent.

–=–

What Happened To The Original Supreme Court?
–=–

Under military rule, the courts must of course be recreated into military courts.

In 1870, with the reconstruction of the United States well under way and a new organic constitution established through amendment, Congress passed the “Act to Establish the Department of Justice (DOJ)“, setting this replacement up as an executive department of the government of the United States“, officially coming into existence with the signing of the presidential pen on July 1, 1870. The Attorney General of the United States became the appointed Cabinet level political position in charge of this new department.

Just one problem here… this Act to create the Department of Justice had the tiny little side-effect of all but nullifying what was always considered to be the independent third branch of government as a check and balance – the stuff of legend – the “Judicial Branch”. And so the DOJ became for all intents and purposes the new Judicial Branch of government. But this was not the traditional branch of government we all believe it to be… for it was now a branch of the Executive Department of government (of the president), and in modern times now includes:

Leadership offices

Divisions

Federal Law enforcement agencies

Offices

Other offices and programs

–=–

The BAR Is The Court

–=–

This Executive Department is headed by the appointed Attorney General of the United States – whom is required to be a BAR Association member. The “legal” system in this country has been contracted over to this 100% private association called the American Bar Association (ABA), a representative union and advocacy club for attorneys, which all but monopolizes the entirety of the administration of the law and the legal profession with the help of federal and state laws requiring this trust. Jurisprudence, the science and administration of law, has been fundamentally usurped by this private association. In fact, the Supreme Court wont even hear a case unless it is from a BAR accredited attorney or one who has been approved by another BAR member. In short, the BAR decides what cases will be heard by the Supreme Court, and the court denies cases that aren’t approved by the ABA.

The under-appreciated significance of the BAR Association in the selection of Supreme Court Justices needs to be mentioned here. Of course, the American Bar Association was formed just after the reconstruction process of the United States, in 1878. Since the 1950’s, the ABA has participated in the federal judicial nomination process by vetting nominees and giving them a rating ranging from “not qualified” to “well qualified.” In 2005, the ABA gave John Roberts, George W. Bush’s nomination for Chief Justice of the United States, a unanimous “well-qualified” rating. In 2006, the ABA gave a unanimous “well-qualified” rating to Judge Samuel Alito, Bush’s appointee for Sandra Day O’Connor’s Associate Justice position.

It is also quite important to note that this private association takes an official, purposefully biased stance on certain issues, making the ABA a politically oriented association of more than significant power. For instance, it has an official stance on abortion – the BAR is pro-abortion. The ABA requires collegial programs to offer “Affirmative Action” in their courses which would lead to an ABA accreditation. And it has an official stance on gun control…

From it’s website called the “Standing (ABA) Committee On Gun Violence”:

Assault Weapons
The ABA supports permanent reauthorization of the 1994 enacted ban on assault weapons.

Gun Industry Tort Immunity Legislation
The ABA believes that the gun industry should be held accountable under state civil liability laws, like other industries, businesses, and individuals.

Lawyer’s Role in Addressing Gun Violence
The ABA believes that lawyers share a special responsibility to help create a just and secure society in which firearms are well-regulated.

Regulation of Firearms as Consumer Products
The ABA supports enactment of legislation to provide authority to the Treasury Department to regulate firearms as consumer products, to set minimum mandatory safety standards, to issue recalls of defective products and prohibit sales of firearms failing to meet minimum safety standards, and to disseminate safety information to the public.

(Source –> http://www.americanbar.org/groups/committees/gun_violence.html)

–=–

Again, the significance of having such official political views by such an organization is problematic at the least. This means that in a gun control case, where all attorneys and the judge who sits on the case making the final decision, they will all have the pressure of the official stance of the organization they are forced to be members of when making decisions on such national issues, and in taking away basic “constitutional” and/or natural rights.

Can a gun-owner get a “fair trial” if his defending attorney, the prosecuting attorney, and his presiding judge are all three members of the ABA?

Also notice that the executive office of all U.S. Attorneys, including U.S. State Attorney Generals and Legal Councils are within the DOJ, as well as all things related to law enforcement. Also, another top DOJ official is the Solicitor General, who just happens to represent the federal government in cases heard before the US Supreme Court, and would be doing so against another BAR attorney as the prosecutor.

What is the only thing in the entire court/legal system that is seemingly missing from this list? The Supreme Court itself. So let’s examine this body of supposedly independent justices…

The members (justices) of the supreme court are attorneys… BAR’d attorneys, to be exact. This alone is disturbing to anyone who knows the history of the BAR (British Accreditation Registry). But what is more problematic is the very structure of that court and how these “justices” are appointed to their positions of power – the power to declare legislative and Executive public opinion (positive law) as either constitutional or unconstitutional with the self-proclaimed authority of what it claims to be constitutional “judicial review”.

The inherent problem with this structure? The Executive Branch appoints the Supreme Court Justices with the approval of the Legislative Branch.

Hmmm… who else is part of the Executive branch of government? Oh yeah… President Obama. In fact he’s the head of the entire Executive Branch, which also makes him the true head of the Department of Justice. For while the president has the privilege of appointing non-elected officials to be the “secretaries” or heads of these individual departments like the DOJ with the delegated authority of the Executive, the president is ultimately responsible for everything that happens within the Executive Branch. After all, he is the only person that was  actually “elected” in the whole Executive Branch!

To put this into easily understood terms, the whole Supreme Court is appointed by the office of the president of the United States, who just so happens to also be a BAR attorney this time around. Can you have a separation of powers if the Executive is a member of the judicial BAR? About 56 senators and 36% of congress are also BAR attorneys. The BAR Attorney General was appointed by the BAR president of the United States. The BAR Solicitor General was also appointed by the BAR President of the United States.

You see the problem here?

To call this a conflict of interest is laughable in its underwhelming description of the “judicial” governance as a “check-and-balance” system for this government. And for anyone who is reading this that still entertains the ridiculous notion that there is still any form of “separation of powers” in these “branches” of government – you need your head examined… or you just need to read the following case.

–=–

The Strange But Legal Case Against Eric Holder

–=–

Imagine if an old-time mafia-boss appointed the governor, the chief of police, the mayors, the judges, and the prosecuting attorney of his turf (city/state) where he and his appointed mafia gang members commit daily their organized crime. Well… you don’t have to imagine, because that is exactly what happens every time the president makes his cabinet and judicial appointments. Only instead of turf, they call it his jurisdiction.

As if to help clarify this scenario, a news story just recently broke for your reading pleasure. If nothing else, this article from “The Associated Press” should clear up any misconceptions about the Supreme or any other federal Court (and they’re all federal) with regards to their perceived independence and bias from the legislature and the Executive. My notes are in (Red):

–=–

Justice won’t prosecute Holder for contempt
No grand jury » The department says the A.G.’s decisions don’t constitute a crime.

By LARRY MARGASAK and PETE YOST

| The Associated Press

First Published Jun 29 2012 01:40 pm • Last Updated Jun 29 2012 11:18 pm

Washington • The Justice Department declared Friday that Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to withhold information about a bungled gun-tracking operation from Congress does not constitute a crime and he won’t be prosecuted for contempt of Congress. (Note that this declaration was not made from inside of a courtroom or made by a jury of his peers, and therefore it will never be heard inside of a court room, nor, more importantly, by the people in a grand jury. Here we see that by the act of denying Congress access to the Judicial (DOJ), the Executive has no check or balance. Congress itself cannot prosecute – it must move the case into “judicial review” utilizing the DOJ!)

The House voted Thursday afternoon to find Holder in criminal and civil contempt for refusing to turn over the documents. President Barack Obama invoked his executive privilege authority and ordered Holder not to turn over materials about executive branch deliberations and internal recommendations. (In case you missed that, the president’s appointment was just following the presidents orders. So really, Obama should be on trial for gunrunning, not his minion. Executive privilege is code for the fact that there are no checks and balances but those consented to by the Executive. Executive privilege is what a dictator has who is above his own laws.)

In a letter to House Speaker John Boehner, the department (DOJ) said that it will not bring the congressional contempt citation against Holder to a federal grand jury and that it will take no other action to prosecute the attorney general. Dated Thursday, the letter was released Friday. (Note that this decision leaves no one left to prosecute. The Executive Branch has just side-stepped the entire criminal justice system… Of course, that’s because the executive literally IS the entire criminal justice system (DOJ). Get it? Would you prosecute yourself if you had the choice [executive privilege] not to? Think about it… Would a king punish himself in his own “court“?)

Deputy Attorney General James Cole said the decision is in line with long-standing Justice Department practice across administrations of both political parties. (That’s the deputy attorney, who’s employed by the Attorney General and the DOJ, by the way!)

“We will not prosecute an executive branch official under the contempt of Congress statute for withholding subpoenaed documents pursuant to a presidential assertion of executive privilege,” Cole wrote. (Translation: The Executive Branch will not prosecute the Executive Branch!!! We WILL NOT prosecute an executive branch official because we are not a constitutional government, we are a corporation with a charter that we happen to call a constitution. There is no judicial branch of government any more as a check and balance, since all law and justice functions were transferred to the DOJ. And if there was (is), we would never allow it to reach the Judicial Branch in a criminal case because we have the power and privilege to stop it. I mean… we aren’t going to prosecute ourselves, sillies!)

In its letter, the department (DOJ) relied in large part on a Justice Department legal opinion crafted during Republican Ronald Reagan’s presidency. (Did you catch that? The Justice Department relied on a Justice Department legal opinion!!! Double-speak doesn’t just happen in “1984”, and war certainly is peace!)

Although the House voted Thursday to find Holder in criminal and civil contempt, Republicans probably are still a long way from obtaining documents they want for their inquiry into Operation Fast and Furious, a flawed gun-tracking investigation focused on Phoenix-area gun shops by Justice’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. (So Congress is trying to obtain documents about the Justice Department from the accused head of the Justice Department about a Justice Department agency he was in charge of [the ATF]. Ah-ah-ah Congress… Executive Privilege…)

The criminal path is now closed and the civil route through the courts would not be resolved anytime soon.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., is leading the effort to get the material related to Operation Fast and Furious.

This is pure politics,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said.

(Note that the word politics is defined by Bouvier’s Law Dictionary as

POLITICALPertaining to policy, or the administration of the government. Political rights are those which may be exercised in the formation or administration of the government they are distinguished from civil, rights, which are the rights which a man enjoys, as regards other individuals, and not in relation to the government. A political corporation is one which has principally for its object the administration of the government, or to which the powers of government, or a part of such powers, have been delegated. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 182, 197, 198. –

(In other words, Congress has no political rights when it comes to the DOJ. The DOJ is politically independant of Congress.)

–END A.P. ARTICLE–

(Source –> http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/54404909-68/contempt-department-holder-documents.html.csp)

–=–

Now let’s think about this for a moment… Eric Holder is the appointed head of the Executive Justice Department. Obama is the man who appointed him to that Executive office (with an honorable mention to the senate [THE CONGRESS] who approved him). The prosecuting attorney would also be from that Executive office. The Federal court in which that case would be heard would also be part of the Executive DOJ. The defending attorney representing the DOJ head Attorney General in that case would also be assigned by the Executive Department of Justice.

So how could the people possibly have justice against the President’s appointment or against the President himself, when the entire Justice System is completely under the President’s Executive control? How indeed… the only way would be to assemble a people’s grand jury so that the people could decide! But the executive branch that committed the crime (through the protection of the privilege and immunity of the president himself), as well as the ABA, has the power to halt a people’s jury from ever assembling in the Supreme Court to hear the case in the first place!!!

Yeah… it’s a free country! (Que penchant, disturbing laugh again.)

So, what else would you expect from a Supreme Court that was appointed by the president (whose name is publicly attached and associated to the health care bill) – a bill that congress (the house and senate – mostly BAR attorneys) passed through legislation?

Did you actually think that the presidential appointed “Justices” would decide that this bill was “unconstitutional”?

Do you still actually think that these “Branches” of government are in competition with one another?

Corporately and profitably speaking, the “Affordable Health Care For America Act” (A.K.A Obama-care) is very constitutional!!! After all, it contractually forces Americans to be “constitutors” to the insurance companies without forcing the insurance companies to cover all medical conditions… which in the totality of it all are majorly held companies of government through its pension fund and other investment funds. What more could a corporation want out of its constitution as a corporate charter?

–=–

A Shout Out To The Ladies

–=–

There are some very important legal words that we must define here before we can go on, and trust me when I say they definitely apply to you, the reader…

PEOPLEA state; as, the people of the state of New York; a nation in its collective and political capacity. 4 T. R. 783. See 6 Pet. S. C. Rep. 467. 2. The word people occurs in a policy of insurance. The insurer insures against “detainments of all kings, princes and people.” He is not by this understood to insure against any promiscuous or lawless rabble which may be guilty of attacking or detaining a ship. 2 Marsh. Ins. 508. – Vide Body litic; Nation. (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856)

STATE – government. This word is used in various senses. In its most enlarged sense, it signifies a self-sufficient body of persons united together in one community for the defence of their rights, and to do right and justice to foreigners. In this sense, the state means the whole people united into one body politic; (q. v.) and the state, and the people of the state, are equivalent expressions. 1 Pet. Cond. Rep. 37 to 39; 3 Dall. 93; 2 Dall. 425; 2 Wilson’s Lect. 120; Dane’s Appx. §50, p. 63 1 Story, Const. §361. In a more limited sense, the word `state’ expresses merely the positive or actual organization of the legislative, or judicial powers; thus the actual government of the state is designated by the name of the state; hence the expression, the state has passed such a law, or prohibited such an act. State also means the section of territory occupied by a state, as the state of Pennsylvania.

(Author’s note: This means that The “State” of Pennsylvania or any other one of the 50 states in the union is the incorporated body politic governing a territory of (owned by) the United States. The United States is the D.C. corporation that owns the territory for which the individual 50 states (governments) are incorporated within- they are each United States sub-corporations, allowed to exist by the United States corporation. The land is still the claimed constitutional territory of the United States, despite the 50 State corporations residing on it.)

It is important to note that the use in modern day language of this word people is not the legal term that was used for the constitution. Remember, Bouvier’s Law Dictionary was cherished for being the definitive legal dictionary in regards to the language at the signing of and within the constitution. The only “people” who actually signed the constitution were the founding fathers, and they signed merely as legal witnesses for the individual “States”. You are only people (of the State, the Nation) if you as an individual man consent to it through contract with the State (United States) as a person.

Also of equal importance… if you are a woman reading this text you have probably noticed that I keep using the word man and never the word woman. As this is in fact a presentation on legal terminology, I wish to let you know that this has been a purposeful effort on my part. Why? Because you, as a woman, are actually a man – at least in the law society – unless you legally claim to be a woman.

Let’s see what it means to claim yourself to be a registered woman citizen.

First, we must define the root of that word, which is “man”, again from Bouvier’s Law, 1856:

MAN –  A human being. This definition includes not only the adult male sex of the human species, but women and children; examples: “of offenses against man, some are more immediately against the king, other’s more immediately against the subject.” Hawk. P. C. book 1, c. 2, s. 1. Offenses against the life of man come under the general name of homicide, which in our law signifies the killing of a man by a man.” Id. book 1, c. 8, s. 2. – 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. Vide Barr. on the Stat. 216, note.

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. Fortesc. 91; Bac. Ab. Sodomy. See Gender.

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. Mulieris appellatione etiam virgo viri potens continetur. Dig. 50, 16, 13. – 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. Wooddes. Lect. 31; 4 Inst. 5; but see Callis, Sew. 252; 2 Inst 34; 4 Inst. 311, marg. – 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. Vide Abortion; Contract; Divorce; Feminine; Foetus; Gender; Incapacity; Man; Marriage; Masculine; Mother; Necessaries; Parties to Actions Parties to Contracts; Pregnancy; Wife.

Note that man is a human being, and woman is a person.

So you see, being a female of the species human is not only wonderful but necessary for life itself to continue… But being a wo-man is not. Your rights as a woman (person) are civil, meaning they are prescribed and bestowed upon you as a citizen, or person. Ironically, with the advent of woman’s “rights”, this distinction in legal sexual identification erases a mans natural rights and turns her into a woman – which by default is and always has been beneath a male human man unless the civil legal code states otherwise – which it does. This may be difficult to understand, and even more difficult to utilize, but a woman can only be free from the United States as chattel by publicly shedding herself of her womanhood (her corporate person-hood). You, as a female, do not have the right to vote. But by accepting person-hood, you are granted the privilege to vote as a “civil right“, placing you on equal footing through legislation as a male.

Perhaps this will help in your cognition…

A horse can be male or female, and is still called a horse. It is not called a wo-horse. The same goes for pigs, sheep, dogs, cats, lizards, spiders, and every living sentient being on earth. Only in the corrupt minds of men could such a legal distinction of such binding and degrading class structure be brought to bear upon one half of the species of man! (And by the minds of man/men I mean the ladies too! Just look at that woman in Congress Nancy Pelosi! Yuck!!!)

–=–

The Incivility Of Civil Rights

–=–

While we are on the subject of the legal term “civil”, let’s briefly touch on the horrific hoax of what are called “civil rights”.

Knowing that a “right” is always nothing more than a permitted-by-government legal privilege, such privileges as the right to vote are considered “civil rights“.

The claim of civil rights made without legal standing (outside of government and the civil courts) places civility into the natural realm of man. But in legal language, a civil right is a right that can be taken away. A civil liberty is a liberty that can be taken away. And a civil court is a court that can take civil rights and property away.

Of course, we must specifically define this word in its legal context:

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.

CIVIL LAW. The municipal code of the Romans is so called. It is a rule of action, adopted by mankind in a state of society. It denotes also the municipal law of the land. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 11. See Law, civil.

CIVIL OBLIGATIONCivil law. One which binds in law, vinculum juris, and which may be enforced in a court of justice. Poth. Obl. 173, and 191. See Obligation.

Trust me when I say that the last thing that a man should wish upon him or her self is to have the government decide what is civil. A jury of peers, maybe. Civil rights, as used in the legal context within the jurisdiction of the United States for women, blacks (freedmen) and whites as equal persons, is the vehicle for which your natural or “private” rights as a man are transferred via citizen contract as a person into “public” legal (civil) rights dictated by government.

The perfect example of what civil rights did to natural rights is this beauty in the U.S. CODE, TITLE 42 – entitled: “THE PUBLIC WELFARE”

TITLE 42 > Chapter 21 > Subchapter 1 > § 1981

(a) Statement of equal rights

“All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States (FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INCORPORATED) 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 exactions of every kind, and to no other.”

With citizenship and its forced privilege (right) of civil rights comes not the loss of freedom, for freedom is specifically defined as obeying the law… but instead, a civil right as defined under government code (public policy) takes away the choice of civility and creates a statutory mandate that binds one to mandated statutory civility. And the civil “right” to be punished, put in pain, incur penalties, be taxed, be required to obtain and pay for a license as permission to have freedom to do some thing or act, and to be exacted (extorted) from becomes what the government calls an “equal right“.

So congratulations on being a woman (person) or a black freedman citizen (person) of equal privilege to white citizens (persons), for you are equally enslaved as chattel as the rest of us!

Just what did you really think affirmative action was put into place for? To give you natural civil rights!

Ha, ha ha ha ha…

It made us all equally indebted and extorted, man.

–=–

What Are The Duties Of The Attorney General?

–=–

Now, I’d like to share with you what the government website of the Attorney General of Illinois has to say about this very question.

You can click on the following (.gov) link to verify that this information came from that source (emphasis mine):

(Source–> http://www.illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/about/history.html) (This info is about 2/3 the way down that .gov page)

–=–

–Begin Excerpt–

—————————————————————————

“History of the Office of the Illinois Attorney General”

—————————————————————————

“The effect of the establishment of the Office of Attorney General under the 1870 Constitution, not fully recognized for several decades, was the creation of an office with broad powers to represent and safeguard the interests of the People of this State. The Attorney General has been determined, in decisions of the supreme court, to have not just those duties and powers that might be specifically prescribed in statutory enactments, but to have all those duties that appertain to the Office of Attorney General as it was known at common law. The phrase “prescribed by law” was rejected as a limitation on the Attorney General’s powers to those specified by statute. The supreme court stated in Fergus v. Russel (1915), 270 Ill. 304, discussed below, that “[t]he common law is as much a part of the law of this State as the statutes and is included in the meaning of this phrase.” (See, 5 ILCS 50/1.)

(Author’s note: Statutes are not law without the people’s consent. There is no law in the United States Inc, only statute, public policy, and CODE. Prescribed by law is not the same as prescribed by statute, and so this phrase needed editing. Law only happens outside of the United States’ jurisdiction.)

History continued…

In considering the powers of the Attorney General, the supreme court, in Fergus v. Russel, noted:

* * * Under our form of government all of the prerogatives which pertain to the crown in England under the common law are here vested in the people, and if the Attorney General is vested by the constitution with all the common law powers of that officer and it devolves upon him to perform all the common law duties which were imposed upon that officer, then he becomes the law officer of the people, as represented in the State government, and its only legal representative in the courts, unless by the constitution itself or by some constitutional statute he has been divested of some of these powers and duties.”

(Fergus, at 337.)

The court went on to state:

* * * By our Constitution we created this office by the common law designation of Attorney General and thus impressed it with all its common law powers and duties. As the Office of the Attorney General is the only office at common law [exercising legal functions] which is thus created by our Constitution, the Attorney General is the chief law officer of the State, and the only officer empowered to represent the people in any suit or proceeding in which the State is the real party in interest.”

(Fergus, at 342.)

The court noted that it is the Attorney General’s duty “to conduct the law business of the State, both in and out of the courts.” (Fergus, at 342.)

With these pronouncements, the court in Fergus clearly established the Office of Attorney General as one with expansive powers which the General Assembly lacked the power to diminish. While it has frequently been argued that much of the language in Fergus broadly describing the Attorney General’s role is obiter dicta, it is clear that Fergus stands for “the principle that the Attorney General is the sole officer who may conduct litigation in which the People of the State are the real party in interest.” People ex rel. Scott v. Briceland (1976), 65 Ill. 2d 485, 495. Under Fergus and its progeny, any attempt to authorize any other officer to conduct litigation in which the State is the real party in interest would be an impermissible interference with the Attorney General’s constitutional powers and an appropriation to another agency to be used directly for such purposes would be unconstitutional and void.

The powers generally understood to belong to the Attorney General at common law have been summarized as follows:

* * * 1st. To prosecute all actions, necessary for the protection and defense of the property and revenues of the crown.

2d. By information, to bring certain classes of persons accused of crimes and misdemeanors to trial.

[3rd.] By scire facias, to revoke and annul grants made by the crown improperly, or when forfeited by the grantee thereof.

4th. By information, to recover money or other chattels, or damages for wrongs committed on the land, or other possessions of the crown.

5th. By writ of quo warranto, to determine the right of him who claims or usurps any office, franchise or liberty, and to vacate the charter, or annul the existence of a corporation, for violations of its charter, or for omitting to exercise its corporate powers.

6th. By writ of mandamus, to compel the admission of an officer duly chosen to his office, and to compel his restoration when illegally ousted.

7th. By information in chancery, to enforce trusts, and to prevent public nuisances, and the abuse of trust powers.

8th. By proceedings in rem, to recover property to which the crown may be entitled, by forfeiture for treason, and property, for which there is no other legal owner, such as wrecks, treasure trove, &c. (3 Black. Com., 256-7, 260 to 266; id., 427 and 428; 4 id., 308, 312.)

9th. And in certain cases, by information in chancery, for the protection of the rights of lunatics, and others, who are under the protection of the crown. (Mitford’s Pl., 24-30, Adams’ Equity, 301-2.)

* * * “

1919-20 Ill. Att’y Gen. Op. 618, 629-30, quoting from People v. Miner, 3 Lansing (NY) 396 (1868).

–End Excerpt–

Please go to this link for this government site and copy or digitize it, before this little treasure gets taken down.

–=–

The “Crown” Defined

–=–

For the purposes of understanding what the word “crown” means in the above referenced U.S. court case by the Illinois Attorney, here are a few legal definitions that may help, dated from both modern and 1800’s period dictionary perspectives. See if you can put the puzzle pieces together via these legal definitions…

–=–

COURT – n. 3. A palace; the place of residence of a king or sovereign prince. 5. Persons who compose the retinue or council of a king or emperor. 9. The tabernacle had one court; the temple, three. –Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.

COURTn. 2 the place where a king or queen lives or meets others. –The Newbury House Dictionary ©1999.

ESQUIRE – n. [L. scutum, a shield; Gr. a hide, of which shields were anciently made.], a shield-bearer or armor-bearer, scutifer; an attendant on a knight. Hence in modern times, a title of dignity next in degree below a knight. In England, this title is given to the younger sons of noblemen, to officers of the king’s courts and of the household, to counselors at law, justices of the peace, while in commission, sheriffs, and other gentlemen. In the United States, the title is given to public officers of all degrees, from governors down to justices and attorneys. –Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.

CROWN – n. 4. Imperial or regal power or dominion; sovereignty. There is a power behind the crown greater than the crown itself. Junius. 19. A coin stamped with the image of a crown; hence, a denomination of money; as, the English crown. — Crown land, land belonging to the crown, that is, to the sovereign. — Crown law, the law which governs criminal prosecutions. — Crown lawyer, one employed by the crown, as in criminal cases. v.t. 1. To cover, decorate, or invest with a crown; hence, to invest with royal dignity and power. –1913 Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary.

COLONY – n. 1. A company [i.e. legal corporation] or body of people transplanted from their mother country to a remote province or country to cultivate and inhabit it, and remaining subject to the jurisdiction of the parent state; as the British colonies in America or the Indies; the Spanish colonies in South America. –-Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.

LAWFUL – In accordance with the law of the land; according to the law; permitted, sanctioned, or justified by law. “Lawful” properly implies a thing conformable to or enjoined by law; “Legal”, a thing in the form or after the manner of law or binding by law. A writ or warrant issuing from any court, under color of law, is a “legal” process however defective. –A Dictionary of Law 1893.

LEGAL – Latin legalis. Pertaining to the understanding, the exposition, the administration, the science and the practice of law: as, the legal profession, legal advice; legal blanks, newspaper. Implied or imputed in law. Opposed to actual (law). “Legal” looks more to the letter, and “Lawful” to the spirit, of the law. “Legal” is more appropriate for conformity to positive rules of law; “Lawful” for accord with ethical principle. “Legal” imports rather that the forms of law are observed, that the proceeding is correct in method, that rules prescribed have been obeyed; “Lawful” that the right is actful in substance, that moral quality is secured. “Legal” is the antithesis of “equitable”, and the equivalent of “constructive”. –2 Abbott’s Law Dict. 24; A Dictionary of Law (1893).

RULE – n. [L. regula, from rego, to govern, that is, to stretch, strain or make straight.] 1. Government; sway; empire; control; supreme command or authority. 6. In monasteries, corporations or societies, a law or regulation to be observed by the society and its particular members. –Webster’s 1828 Dictionary

RULEn. 1 [C] a statement about what must or should be done, (syn.) a regulation.

ATTORN (root of “attorney”) – [etern] Anglo-French aturner to transfer (allegiance of a tenant to another lord), from Old French atorner to turn (to), arrange, from a– to + torner to turn: to agree to be the tenant of a new landlord or owner of the same property. –Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law ©1996.

ATTORN – v.i. [L. ad and torno.] In the feudal law, to turn, or transfer homage and service from one lord to another. This is the act of feudatories, vassels or tenants, upon the alienation of the estate. –Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.

ESTATE n. [L. status, from sto, to stand. The roots stb, std and stg, have nearly the same signification, to set, to fix. It is probable that the L. sto is contracted from stad, as it forms steti.] 1. In a general sense, fixedness; a fixed condition; 5. Fortune; possessions; property in general. 6. The general business or interest of government; hence, a political body; a commonwealth; a republic. But in this sense, we now use State.

ESTATE – v.t. To settle as a fortune. 1. To establish. –-Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.

STATEn. [L., to stand, to be fixed.] 1. Condition; the circumstances of a being or thing at any given time. These circumstances may be internal, constitutional or peculiar to the being, or they may have relation to other beings. 4. Estate; possession. [See Estate.] Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.

FREEDOM – Liberty; the right to do what is not forbidden by law. Freedom does not preclude the idea of subjection to law; indeed, it presupposes the existence of some legislative provision, the observance of which insures freedom to us, by securing the like observance from others. 2 Har. Cond. L. R. 208. —Bouvier’s Law Dictionary Revised Sixth Edition, 1856.

FREEMAN – One who is in the enjoyment of the right to do whatever he pleases, not forbidden by law. One in the possession of the civil rights (privilages) enjoyed by, the people generally. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 164. See 6 Watts, 556 –-Bouvier’s Law Dictionary Revised Sixth Edition, 1856.

–=–

An Oath To Uphold The Corporate Charter?

–=–

Each applicant to the Supreme Court must take the following oath as a BAR attorney or approved litigator:

Each applicant shall sign the following oath or affirmation:

I, ……………, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that as an attorney and as a counselor of this Court, I will conduct myself uprightly and according to law, and that I will support the Constitution of the United States.

Yes… that’s the Constitution of the United States (not the United States “of America”).

Note here that the Constitution of the United States is the Corporate Charter for the United States Corporation. This charter, as is the case with all corporations, is re-read into the public record every 20 years – and most people think the “government” is just being patriotic. Note that the word “public” has a very different meaning than what is commonly used in our everyday communicative language. In legalese, the clandestine language of the law society, Public refers to “public policy”. The government, from congress to the Supreme Court decides not on what the law shall be, but instead it sets “public policy”. This statutory law is 100% based on the presumed consent of the governed, and that presumption is all but granted the second we are born into subjugation of the United States. There is no true natural law left in America with regards to what we mistakenly call “government”. In its place, we have public policy. This is 100% contract law. All interactions with this U.S. corporation by men are in contract form as persons – from the signing of a license to drive or to marry to the filing of taxes to being placed in prison. Every single act by the people (persons) as “residents” of Washington D.C. (the City of Columbia) is done so voluntarily. When the people “resister” to vote, they are turning their backs on natural law and on the organic constitution and are instead contracting to the United States (the corporation 10 miles square) as 14th Amendment persons per the 15th Amendment of the private corporate charter that happens to be called a constitution. And in doing so, the people are accepting the contractual offer of government to be considered “persons”, giving up their God-given natural rights to vote in exchange for the privilege (contract) to vote in Washington D.C (where all people within the jurisdiction of the United States [D.C.] corporation “reside” as “residents” – as contracted corporate “persons”).

In fact, the first question on the voting form is, “Are you a United States citizen?”

RESIDENTpersons. A person coming into a place with intention to establish his domicil or permanent residence, and who in consequence actually remains there. Time is not so essential as the intent, executed by making or beginning an actual establishment, though it be abandoned in a longer, or shorter period. See 6 Hall’s Law Journ. 68; 3 Hagg. Eccl. R. 373; 20 John. 211 2 Pet. Ad. R. 450; 2 Scamm. R. 377. (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856)

–=–

Who Really Elects The President Of The United States?

–=–

Hilariously, our consent to this 15th Amendment and to voter registration means that 100 million “public voters” all cast their votes solely in the District of Columbia, not in the state they live – which in the electoral college, D.C. only represents 3 electoral votes out of 538.

17th Amendment:

“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.”

The Electoral College consists of these electors, who formally elect the President and Vice President of the United States (this is not the original united states of America, but the United States corporation). Since 1964, there have been 538 electors in each presidential election, as held in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution.

The Electoral College is an indirect election. This means that all registered Untied States “citizens” do not elect their president! Instead, the people elect congressmen, who along with their chosen political party, delegate the power of “elector” to others and thus the president (Chief Executive Officer ) is elected through the electoral college. This is how all major corporations work – the board of directors (congress) elect the CEO (president) of the corporation (United States).

So what happens to the millions upon millions of registered votes from the citizens (registered U.S. “persons”) of the United States?

It’s simple, really… The peoples votes are at best counted and the results may be similar to the 3 electoral college votes of the District of Columbia that are made by the electors (as public opinion) – the corporation that all voters are contractually “registered” to vote in and claim consensual residence in!

Through the electoral college, the constitutional “electors” of each state then vote for who the president and vice president of the corporation will be, each state having a different number of electoral votes based on population.

And the electoral college overrules the popular vote!!!

In other words, for all of the hoopla, pomp and circumstance, and billions and billions of dollars that surround the public vote for the presidential elections every four years, the whole thing is completely for show to fool the people into thinking they are electing the president! Because the popular (persons) vote doesn’t really count for anything…

The bible says that, “My people perish from a lack of knowledge.–Hosea 4: 6 (KJV).

In the case of legal persons, this could not be a more true statement. Men perish and virtually cease to exist because of their lack of knowledge of legalese and because of their own contractual corporate person-hood.

The voters of each state and the District of Columbia, through the political party system, vote for electors to be their authorized constitutional participants (electors) in a presidential election without most voters even knowing this is happening. Electors are free to vote for anyone eligible to be President, but in practice pledge to vote for specific candidates according to their political party, and political parties (not the people) cast ballots for favored presidential and vice presidential candidates by voting for correspondingly pledged electors within the party. Keep in mind that the Democratic and Republican parties, just like the BAR, are 100% private associations that do not represent the people in any way, though that is not what their media ads tell the people (voters) who support them.

What is the legal definition of “elector” from Bouvier’s law dictionary, 1856?

ELECTOR – government. One who has the right to make choice of public officers one, who has a right to vote. – 2. The qualifications of electors are generally the same as those required in the person to be elected; to this, however, there is one exception; a naturalized citizen may be an elector of president of the United States, although he could not constitutionally be elected to that office.

ELECTORS OF PRESIDENT. Persons elected by the people, whose sole duty is to elect a president and vice-president of the U. S. – 2. The Constitution provides, Am. art. 12, that “the electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for president and vice-president, one of whom at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as president, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as vice-president; and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as president, and of all persons voted for as vice-president, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit, sealed, to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the president of the senate; the president of the senate shall, in the presence of the senate and the house of representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted; the person having the greatest number of, votes for president, shall be the president, if such number be the majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no, person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers, not exceeding three, on the list of those voted for as president, the house of representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the president. But in choosing the president, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum, for this purpose, shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the house of representatives shall not choose a president whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the vice-president shall act as president, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the president. – 3. “The person having the greatest number of votes as vice-president shall be vice-president, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed and if no person have a majority, them from the two highest numbers on the list, the senate shall choose the vice-president; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of president, shall be eligible to that of vice-president of the United States.” Vide 3 Story, Const. §1448 to 1470.

–End–

–=–

Who In The Hell Are The Actual “Electors”
Of The President Of This United States?

–=–

I’ll tell you one thing, it ain’t the people!

What we have here in America is what is called “Legislative Democracy”. Authority is delegated by the people to their congressmen, and in turn they make all decisions for the people, and the people never actually vote on any legislation, and therefore never actually vote on the laws that bind them. If that’s not slavery by legislative democracy, I don’t know what is!

This privilege of the electoral college election of the president of the United States is delegated each year by your congressmen (538 house and senate members of each state, who each have one vote per the constitution) and by the political parties themselves – delegated to other citizens of their perspective states called “electors”.

The Twelfth Amendment provides for each “elector” to cast one vote for President and one separate vote for Vice President. It also specifies how a President and Vice President are elected. In practice the pres and vice-pres are always of the same party. But in reality, they are elected separately, and so the United States could technically have a mixed party ticket. But the public would get really confused at this, and so the electors will never vote in that way so as to retain the quite open secret of their elite college.

12th Amendment:

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate (the vice president).

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President

To get the full skinny from the Congressional Research Center, read this: http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/36762.pdf

–=–

Nowhere here does it mention you, me, or any of the approximately 100 million “registered” voters in the United States. In short, the people do not in any way elect their president – though apparently most have been led to believe they do judging by the media circus that happens every four years costing billions of taxpayer and private campaign dollars. The presidency is really won by which ever political party lobbies the “electors” best, and by which party those electors represent and are members of. This is why someone like me will never be the president of the United States – unless, perhaps, the people actually wake up from their collective dream-state and finally realize that they do not have a choice, and finally revolt against the system that fools and re-enslaves them every four years. Silly persons

Even more disturbing is to actually see a list of who these “electors” are:

So let’s take the 2008 election as an example; where the first black person got elected in a flood of false “hope and change”… Remember how proud the people were that they had elected the first black president? They felt like they had collectively done something together to change the system. They felt so wonderful that they had utilized their “civil rights” and created hope for America. (LOL!!!)

My personal favorite of these 538 “electors” of 2008 is my own Attorney General of Utah, Mr. Mark Shurtleff.

If you are unfamiliar with my own dealings with our corrupt Attorney General, please take a couple of  moments to enjoy my previous confrontation with him at the March, 2010 Tea Party rally at the Utah State Capital in Salt Lake City:


Good times, and I didn’t even know he was an elector back then! Perhaps it’s time to find him again.

Oh, and sorry about the “music”…

When one looks at just a partial list of who gets appointed as electors by political parties, and when one considers the dates of when these people either attain office or get promoted (voted) into higher offices, one cannot help to start digging out the word conspiracy, dusting it off, and ditching the word theory altogether.

CONSPIRACYcriminal, law, torts. An agreement between two or more persons to do an unlawful act, or an act which may become by the combination injurious to others.

CONSPIRATORS. Persons guilty of a conspiracy. See 3 Bl. Com. 126-71 Wils. Rep. 210-11. See Conspiracy.

Remember, with no law, all acts are unlawful in America. And with the DOJ in place, no plans between two or more people will ever be brought to the light of “justice”.

Other “electors” from 2008, who were solely and directly responsible for the election of President Obama include:

Harriet Smith Windsor – Delaware Secretary of State (2001-2009; a Democrat currently serving as the Vice Chair of the Delaware Democratic Party. In 2008 Windsor was an elector for  Barack Obama.

Edward E. “Ted” Kaufman  Delaware United States Senator from 2009 to 2010. Since 2010, he has chaired the Congressional Oversight Panel. He is a member of the Democratic Party who was appointed to the Senate to fill the term of long-time Senator Joe Biden, who resigned to become Vice President of the United States in January 2009. Prior to becoming a U.S. Senator, Kaufman had been an adviser to Biden for much of his political career.

(Author’s note: as stated above, the guy who gets APPOINTED to the U.S. Senate was one of 538 persons that was an elector and he voted for Biden. Anyone smell a plan between two or more people here? No? I sure smell something…)

Wellington E. Webb was the first African American Mayor of Denver (1991-2003), after his stints as Denver City Auditor (1987-1991), and as Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies (1981-1987).

Muriel Bowser – Washington D.C. Democrat politician and a member of the Council of the District of Columbia representing Ward 4.

Vincent C. Gray – Mayor of the District of Columbia as of January, 2011, and was Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, as Council member for Ward 7. In the 1990s he also served as director of the DC Department of Human Services.

Anthony C. Hill Florida State Senator in the Democratic party (2002-2011). He currently serves as a legislative liaison for Jacksonville mayor, Alvin Brown.

Allan Katz is a writer, producer, actor, and director – with no political career. Katz was hired to be one of the youngest writers on Rowan and Martin’s Laugh-In and moved to Los Angeles. While working on Laugh-In, he also wrote episodes of Sanford and Son, All in the Family, and The Mary Tyler Moore Show. He went on to both write and produce other series including M*A*S*H (TV series), The Cher Show, Rhoda, and Roseanne. And now he is an “elector”…???

Rick Minor – Florida policy adviser who is now running for the Florida House of Representatives as a member of the Democratic Party. Previously, he was the Chairman of the Leon County Democratic Party from 2005 to 2009.

Jared E. Moskowitz (born December 18, 1980) Elected to the City Commission of Parkland, Florida in March 2006 at age 25 while a second-year law student.

Francisco (Frank) J. Sánchez – A Florida BAR attorney currently serving as Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade at the Department of Commerce. From 1999 to 2000, he served as a Special Assistant to the President. From 2000 to 2001, he served as Assistant Transportation Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs. In 2001, he founded Cambridge Negotiation Strategies.

Karen L. Thurman Former Democratic U.S. Representative from Florida (1999-2003). In 2005 Thurman was elected Chairman of the Florida Democratic Party, resigning after the election in November 2010.

Carmen Tores – played a character named Margarita Cordova in an American soap opera called “Sunset Beach”. (Author’s note: WTF?)

Frederica Wilson – U.S. Representative for Florida’s 17th congressional district (2011-current). Previously, she was in the Florida State Senate (2003-2010).

James Randolph “Randy” Evans – BAR lawyer and Republican from Georgia, who ironically specializes in government ethics. Evans is a law partner at McKenna Long & Aldridge. He has served as a longtime advisor to the Republican Party of Georgia.

Deborah L. “Debbie” Halvorson – Former U.S. Representative for Illinois’ 11th congressional district (2009-2011). She is a member of the Democratic Party, and formally a state senator.

James Phillip Hoffa – James is the only son of the infamous Jimmy Hoffa. James is a BAR attorney and labor leader and the General President of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Hoffa was first elected during December 1998 and took office on March 19, 1999. He was subsequently re-elected in 2001, 2006 and 2011 to five-year terms. (Author’s note: Again, the irony here is thick enough to cut with a butter-knife.)

Ronald A. Gettelfinger – President of the  United Auto Workers union from 2002 to 2010. (Author’s note: Big surprise!)

Andrew Mark Cuomo – 56th and current Governor of New York, having assumed office on January 1, 2011. A member of the Democratic Party , he was also the 64th New York State Attorney General (2007-2010), and was the 11th United States Federal Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (1997-2001). Andrew is the son of Mario Cuomo, the 52nd Governor of New York (1983–1994).

Thomas P. DiNapoli – 54th Comptroller of the state of New York (also in charge of the state pension system). He is a former state assemblyman in New York, who was appointed as New York State Comptroller on February 7, 2007. Previous State Assemblyman (1987-2007).

Sheldon “Shelly” Silver – BAR lawyer and Democratic politician from New York. He has held the office of Speaker of the New York State Assembly since 1994.

Helen Dianne Foster Currently represents District 16 in the New York City Council. Elected in 2001, she is the current co-chair of the Black, Latino, and Asian Caucus. She currently serves as chairwoman of the Parks & Recreation Committee, and serves as a member of the Aging, Education, Health, Lower Manhattan Redevelopment, and Public Safety Committees. Prior to this she was a BAR Assistant District Attorney in the Manhattan District Attorney’s office, subsequent to which she became an Assistant Vice-President for legal affairs at St. Barnabas Hospital.

William Colridge Thompson, Jr. – Known as Bill or Billy, he was the 42nd Comptroller of New York City (2002-2009). He is the son of William C. Thompson, Sr., formerly a prominent Brooklyn Democratic Party leader, City Councilman, State Senator and BAR’d judge on New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division.

David Alexander Paterson – default 55th Governor of New York (2008 to 2010) as lieutenant governor (2007-2008) – heralded in after Eliot Spitzer resigned in the wake of a prostitution scandal. Paterson was sworn in as governor of New York on March 17, 2008. During his tenure he was the first governor of New York of non-European American heritage and also the second legally blind governor of any U.S. state.

Janice McKenzie Cole – BAR attorney who served as the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina (1994–2001) under President Bill Clinton.

TheodoreTedStrickland – 68th Democratic Governor of Ohio (2007-2011). Ted previously served in the United States House of Representatives, representing Ohio’s 6th congressional district (1993-1995). Strickland currently serves as a member of the Governors’ Council at the Bipartisan Policy Center.

Bunny Chambers – Has Served As Oklahoma’s Republican National Committeewoman Since 1996. She currently serves on the Executive Committee of the Republican State Committee of Oklahoma. She has also held numerous positions on the grassroots level in her precinct and House District. Chambers has been a delegate to the Republican National Convention in 1988, 1996, 2000 and 2004.

Lynne Abraham – BAR attorney who served as the District Attorney of the City of Philadelphia from May 1991 to January 2010.

Thomas M. McMahon – Mayor of Reading, Pennsylvania from January 5, 2004 to January 2, 2012.

Michael Anthony Nutter – Current Mayor of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (since 2007). He is the third African-American mayor of Philadelphia, the largest city in the United States with an African-American mayor. He was re-elected on November 8, 2011. Nutter is a former councilman of the city’s 4th Council District, and has served as the 52nd Ward Democratic Leader since 1990.

Franco Harris – Former Professional football player. He played his NFL career with the Pittsburgh Steelers and Seattle Seahawks. Harris’ made comments in support of Joe Paterno, his coach while at Penn State, during the Penn State sex abuse scandal. Franco is a paid representative for the Harrah’s/Forest City Enterprises casino plan for downtown Pittsburgh. This association has earned him the nickname, “Franco Harrah’s”. (Author’s note: Again… WTF???)

Jack E. Wagner – Current auditor general of Pennsylvania (since 2005), and former state senator (1994-2005). He is a member of the Democratic Party.

Dennis M. Daugaard – 32nd Governor of South Dakota (since January 2011). BAR attorney. As a lieutenant governor under the South Dakota Constitution, Daugaard served as the President of the South Dakota Senate.

Marion Michael “Mike” Rounds– 31st Governor of South Dakota (2003-2011). Rounds currently serves as a member of the Governors’ Council at the Bipartisan Policy Center. Rounds served as the 2008 Chair of the Midwestern Governors Association (a private association). In its April 2010 report, ethics watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington named Rounds one of 11 “worst governors” in the United States because of various ethics issues throughout Rounds’ term as governor. Rounds is a partner in Fischer Rounds & Associates, an insurance and real estate firm. He placed his ownership interest into a blind trust upon being elected governor.

Bryant Winfield Culberson Dunn  – was the Republican Party 43rd Governor of Tennessee (1971-1975).

James Edward “Jim” Doyle – 44th Democrat Governor of Wisconsin (2003-2011). He is currently a BAR attorney ‘of counsel’ at the law firm of Foley & Lardner. 41st Attorney General of Wisconsin (1991-2003), as well as the Dane County District Attorney (1977-1982). In September 2010, Doyle was one of seven governors to receive a grade of F in the fiscal-policy report card of the Cato Institute.

–=–

To view the entire list of 2008 electors, click here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_electors,_2008

.

–=–

And This Is Constitutional?

–=–

The 23rd Amendment specifies how many “electors” the District of Columbia is entitled to have.

23rd Amendment:

Section 1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct:

A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

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

Government has just told you that Washington D.C. is definitely not a State. In actuality, it is “THE STATE” when using that word as the ultimate power of the corporate government via contract with persons and according to legal definitions. Section 2 is also very important, as this addition or “clause” about congress having “power to enforce and legislate” is a built in loophole that gives Congress the power to create any legislation – in other words, to do anything it wants. This clause is also found in the 13th, 14th and 15th amendment Amendments, as well as in the wording of the 16th amendment with regards to income tax. Interestingly, the Congress has delegated that authority created by the 16th Amendment over to the Executive Department via the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which means that Congress isn’t really the branch collecting income tax as is stated in Amendment 16. But then, CONGRESS HAS THE POWER TO ENFORCE THE INCOME TAX BY APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION!!! It is very convenient to write the rules that bind you, and then write the rule that lets you write the over-ruling rule to bypass the first rule, effectively rewriting what you have already written. Sound confusing? It’s supposed to!

–=–

Now, remember that I asked you to remember something… what was it…? Oh, yes!

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA – …5. The United States of America are a corporation endowed with the capacity to sue and be sued, to convey and receive property. 1 Marsh. Dec. 177, 181. But it is proper to observe that no suit can be brought against the United States without authority of law. 6. The states, individually, retain all the powers which they possessed at the formation of the constitution, and which have not been given to congress. (q. v.)

Now we can see how important this section is in each of these Amendments.

Because the wording of the original (organic) constitution of the united states of America was not changed with the implementation of the corporate charter that amended the original constitution away, Congress left these little clauses in the reconstruction Amendments and future amendments so as to nullify and make void the power of the individual State’s rights. By stating here that “Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation”, this and the other amendments with this type of clause are not organic, as these amendment’s intent and meaning can at any time be altered or changed; not by another amendment, but by the day to day legislation within the halls of Congress. In other words, amendments to the constitution with this clause are not organic, as they can and are over-ruled by bills of congress, any time it is convenient.

This clause also does something very, very important… It nullifies the protections of the 10th Amendment!

The 10th Amendment states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Oops! The 14th Amendment, states that:

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

For all of you Tenth Amendment advocates out there, you should really pay attention here. By voluntarily consenting to the 14th Amendment and registering as a 14th Amendment person (citizen), you have given up your 10th Amendment protection. You have taken your residence out of the State you live in and contractually become a resident of Washington D.C. And that means that you also contractually agree to the rules and legal codes of the United States! Whereas before the 10th Amendment gave the individual States rights, Section 5 of the 14th Amendments left no one with 10th Amendment State’s rights – because you no longer have primary residence in the your state!

Let’s go back to Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (accepted by Congress as the official law dictionary for the Constitution and the Supreme Court) to get the definition of resident again:

RESIDENT – persons. A person coming into a place with intention to establish his domicil or permanent residence, and who in consequence actually remains there. Time is not so essential as the intent, executed by making or beginning an actual establishment, though it be abandoned in a longer, or shorter period. See 6 Hall’s Law Journ. 68; 3 Hagg. Eccl. R. 373; 20 John. 211 2 Pet. Ad. R. 450; 2 Scamm. R. 377.

RESIDENCE. The place of one’s domicil. (q. v.) There is a difference between a man’s residence and his domicil. He may have his domicil in Philadelphia, and still he may have a residence in New York; for although a man can have but one domicil, he may have several residences. A residence is generally tran-sient in its nature, it becomes a domicil when it is taken up animo manendi. Roberts; Ecc. R. 75. – 2. Residence is prima facie evidence of national character, but this may at all times be explained. When it is for a special purpose and transient in its nature, it does not destroy the national character. – 3. In some cases the law requires that the residence of an officer shall be in the district in which he is required to exercise his functions. (This is the case with Congress). Fixing his residence elsewhere without an intention of returning, would violate such law. Vide the cases cited under the article Domicil; Place of residence.

DOMICIL – 5. – §2. There are two classes of persons who acquire domicil by operation of law. 1st. Those who are under the control of another, and to whom the law gives the domicil of another. Among these are, 1. The wife. 2. The minor. 3. The lunatic, &c. 2d. Those on whom the state affixes a domicil… A party may have two domicils, the one actual, the other legal

–=–

To Vote Or Not To Vote?
That Really Is The Question.

–=–

Now, I used to tell people not to vote – that voting gave legitimacy to the very corporate charter of the United States, and therefore you get exactly what you consent to. But now, as I ponder the consequences of both voting and not voting, I realize that in the end it will make absolutely no difference whatsoever whether you or I vote or don’t vote for the office of president this year. Even if 100% of the eligible people voted legally (via registration) in the presidential primary, the people would only have at best a less than 1% minority say in who will be president with their 3 electoral votes. (I’m literally laughing out loud right now as I’m pulling my hair out in large strands, but I didn’t want to just say LOL because it’s such a sinister and crazy kind of laugh…)

In fact, as I’m writing this, I’m thinking of how much time and effort was put into the election process for the private association election for the Republican Party representative (not a representative of the people, but of the party). The well-intentioned folks who are so desperately trying to prop up Ron Paul as the Republican candidate must not understand how presidential elections work! And for that matter, Ron Paul isn’t telling people about this either as his campaign collects 10’s of millions from people that will have absolutely no say in whether or not he will become president. Hmmm…

Don’t we know that Ron Paul must win the vote of the 538 electors, not the people? Don’t we understand that the people do not elect the president? Don’t we know that the whole presidential media campaign is a hoax, and that they are wasting all of our time and energy on a very profitable practical joke? And every four years we go through this complete act of futility with the “patriot candidate” only to be defeated by our own ignorance of the electoral college. Do we not understand that the Republican and Democratic “parties” are 100% private associations that have nothing to do with the people or our interests? Do we think that our delegate votes will make any difference in whom that private association props up as the representative of their private association?

What gives, America? Are we really such fools that we can be manipulated into believing that our votes make any difference whatsoever in the election of our CEO/president every four years? (Uh-oh… more nutty LOL coming on…)

Do you get it yet? This means that when the election of 2000 between private association members Bush and Gore was decided by the electoral college against the popular vote, the 538 elected house and senate members who make up what we call Congress (the board of directors of U.S. Inc.) and the votes they delegate to the private association political parties who elect the “electors” actually overruled the millions of people in the election of the President of the United States. 100 million “registered” citizen voters were outvoted by 538 voting “representatives” through “electors”. I mean, Hoffa… really?

And the people call this the right to vote?

In the end, there is only one solution to our collective problem: DO NOT CONTRACT, DO NOT CONSENT, AND DEFINITELY DO NOT REGISTER TO VOTE!!!

The tie that binds us all is in fact our contractual citizenship with this foreign corporation in the City of Columbia. The severing of that contract via the severing of our citizenship is literally the only solution. Their rules and laws (statutory public opinion) only apply to 14th Amendment citizens of the United States.

Why?

Because that contract and only that contract is what gives the United States authority and jurisdiction over you as a person. It cannot control you as a living, breathing man, only as a corporate-person-chattel-thing. Citizenship, once again, changes you from an incorporeal free man to an incorporated corporeal body (chattel) – a thing that can be bought and sold and killed; that can be incarcerated with “due process”; and that can be absolutely controlled through contractual obligation (public law). The only way for the United States corporation, whose legal boundaries are those within the ten miles square of Washington D.C – outside of the 50 states united (the union) – the only way that IT can control, imprison, and buy and sell you and your property as a comodity (chattel) to back its Federal Reserve notes is if you never sever the ties that contractually bind you voluntarily to these privileges of servitude that it calls “rights”.

Remember, a right (freedom) is defined as: the privilege to do whatever you want, as long as you follow their laws. This is why 1,000’s of new laws are created every year within the jurisdiction of the United States – to ensure that you will always be breaking one of their civil laws so that they can exercise control over your person. The only way that the United States (federal government) can touch you is if you take residence within that fictional 10 miles square boundary as a U.S. citizen, and subject yourself to the public opinion it creates, that it calls “law”. Like any other corporation, you are only subject to the rules and punishments of that corporation if you are a contractual employee (citizen) of that corporation. It’s time to quit your job as an indentured servant/employee to the United States, and to take back the personal responsibility for ALL of your own actions – the only thing that will ever make you a free man.

Can you live without the privileges of corporate State benefits?

Perhaps a better question is: Will the corporation allow you to live when those benefits require you to die from the benefit and privilege of those new Obama-care death panels and old-age public opinions? After all… it will be your right to die at the hands of the public opinion!

–=–

A Final Note To Self-Proclaimed “Patriots”

–=–

If you label yourself as a “conservative”, that means that legally you want to conserve the current system. Please stop calling yourself that. This word was foisted upon you by the media as a practical joke. They even have you badmouthing the word “liberal” – which just happens to be what the “Founding Fathers” were labeled as back when men were still men and actually used their guns instead of just crying over their regulation and confiscation. You are being laughed at every time you use the word “liberal” to mean the exact opposite of its original intent. And as for the word “Patriot”, those were the men of old who actually fought for life, liberty, and property… you know, those things that you don’t have or own anymore by law of contract.

And as for your “patriotic” incantation of “The Pledge of Allegiance to the United States”…

For your information, this pledge did not exist during our Founding Father’s lifetimes. This becomes obvious when simply reading the Pledge out loud. It states:

“…one nation, indivisible…”

But according to the original constitution, the states are absolutely not indivisible, but very much the opposite. In fact, when ratifying the U.S. Constitution, States like Virginia specifically declared the right to secede from the Union should they feel it necessary just as an extra precaution to make sure that this State-right was clearly understood. The “Pledge” was written over a century after America’s founding in 1892 by a socialist named Francis Bellamy, whose original text was:

“I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

Just imagining my years as a youth in a group of 30 other youths making this pledge every day in public (government) school sends chills down my spine.

Now, I mean no disrespect here… My process of awakening has seen me tread through these same misnomers as everybody else. Only when one has experience in being a useful idiot like I have, can one then criticize others for same and show them a different path. And my path will no doubt diverge with the more knowledge that gets thrown in my way by somebody else who will criticize me.

I know that people who have reached the end here are looking for solutions. And I’m here to tell you that it is my personal opinion that persons, while they may have remedies, they will never have natural rights. Killing the STRAWMAN person and becoming a man again is the way and the light. But I must at the end here tell you that this essay should in no way be misconstrued as legal advice. I’d be quite personally offended if one of you accused me of practicing law. Only BAR attorneys do that, and I will never take on that sleazy foreign TITLE against the original 13th amendment.

I do not promote excommunication, as this is a legal venture. But the U.S. CODE does enumerate this process if you care to find it. I’d be happy to give personal references of people that might be able to help you, free men that are not citizens or persons, who’ve walked the walk and are now talking the talk. Contact me personally for this.

Mine is only to deconstruct and inform…

Happy July 4th to you. While you are out celebrating your non-independence, remember that July 4th was the day that Abe Lincoln declared martial law and military rule on the States that became, for a short time, independent from the United States Corporation, by convening the first illegal unconstitutional Congress of the new military law United States.

Thank you for reading. Now go get a sandwich and repeat!

.

–Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Tuesday, July 3, 2012