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

Understanding The Contractual Relationship


In my last post, “To Protect And Serve” (link), we discussed the nature of the contractual relationship between the people and government. The importance of this relationship cannot be understated, as the authority and jurisdiction of government CODE, legal requirements, licenses, taxation, imprisonment, and everything else that is forced upon the people is done so through contract. And force is used upon the people when the stipulations of a legal contract are not met and the people decide to not cooperate with the law enforcement officers who protect and serve the people on behalf of government. As we discussed, protecting and serving does not mean protecting and serving your God-given natural rights, but instead it means to enforce the law through the protection of its continuity and uniformity, as well as to serve you with arrest, summons, process, and notices. To protect does not mean to defend you, and to serve does not mean to be hospitable to you or help you.

Again, the understanding of the following U.S. CODE explains this quite well…

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.

Protecting your rights to be punished, put in pain, penalized, taxed, forced to obtain licenses, and exacted (extorted) from is the job of a police officer, and the service of these “benefits” and “privileges” of extortion through process, notice, and summons is the requisite of that protection – the protection of the right of government to extort.

But the important aspect for the implementation of this protection and service is all based on what paragraph (b) defines as the contractual relationship. This relationship between you and government must be understood if ever you wish to stand up against this legal extortion via contract.

The interaction of police with you as a contracted or licensed citizen is a prerequisite for this interaction. In other words, the police must “identify” you through license or other form of identification in order to serve you with a process, summons, or notice. Agreeing to this contractual relationship is agreeing to being protected and served… and arrested, put in pain, and punished for non-compliance of contract.

A police officer cannot lawfully interact with you unless you are legally contracted with his corporation (government), giving him jurisdiction and authority (your permission and consent) to do so. As a citizen and licensed driver, you are within this contractual relationship.

The best way to understand this need for police to verify your legal person through legal license or other identification is to revisit an old confrontation I had with the Salt Lake City Airport Police. Keep in mind as you are watching this video that I did not have a contract in the form of a “permit” to be in the airport handing out fliers. I was in a public area, not within a secured area. As you are watching, you will realize what I was realizing as this event unfolded – that these police officers had no authority or jurisdiction over me or my actions because I did not sign a contract called a permit. If I had obtained this permit for free speech, I would have been subject to their will. But without the contract, they knew that they had no real power over me… except that of threat and coercion.

In my opinion, this was one of the most important “caught on tape” moments in modern history, and so here it is again. Enjoy!

Part 1:

“Free speech is not absolute.” – David J. Bywater, Airport Police

Illogical, irrational, unreasonable…

Notice that the police officer states as fact that if I violate the stipulations of the permit (which I don’t have), then and only then are my actions a misdemeanor. So why would I then sign a permit limiting my rights and giving this idiot permission to protect and serve me by arresting me and serving me process? He then states that I can get in trouble for not getting a permit – charged for the crime of not obtaining permission for free speech… That’s about as ridiculous as being charged with resisting arrest with no other charges for being arrested in the first place.

So if I don’t cooperate with military rule by obtaining a permit, martial law tactics of violence by police will be enforced. Cooperate with martial law military statutes or become a prisoner of the Civil War with no ending? Do you get it yet, folks?

Now watch as the media spins this and makes us look ineffectual. Notice that I completely explained the situation, and gave the media the opportunity to report on the absolute violation by Airport Police of my rights. Instead, they chose to protect the government; which is really their first priority – just as it is the police’s first priority. I also handed them my flier, chalked full of information about these scanners. Yet not one mention to the public as a service to the people. This is why you should never trust your major media, which is owned through collective government investments by the very governments (private corporations) who are destroying our way of life:

Part 2:

If you understand what happened here, you now understand that the contractual relationship between you and government is everything, and it allows the tyranny that you just saw and live under every day. Perhaps you haven’t experienced it first hand yet, but you will… Perhaps when forced vaccination of your child comes to town, or the banning of your fresh organic backyard garden that you don’t have a permit for. The contractual relationship is what allows peaceful military rule through the cooperation of the citizenry and through a martial law De facto government. The only reason that you don’t see the fact that martial law already does and has been in place since 1863 (General Orders 100) is simply the fact that you are contractually obligated to be cooperative and peaceful like sheep – and you consent to this every day. These police are acting under martial law, though they wont admit it or don’t comprehend it themselves. All police and military are the secret police, you see?

In these situations, the most important responsibility for you is to attempt to educate these men, who are acting under color of law but not true law. Your fate will be in the hands of these men some day.

If only I knew then what I know now…

Original Opt Out Day post with full radiation information on body scanners is here:

https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2010/11/28/national-opt-out-day-the-most-important-story-you-missed/

Read it. Understand it. Print it. Us it!

.

–Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Wednesday, August 15th, 2012

What Is A Representative?


In a recent conversation, I was enlightened on a subject that I think will clear up a few things in your quest of comprehension as to why our “representative” congressmen, presidents, governors, and other elected officers of the UNITED STATES (a federal corporation in the District of Columbia) don’t seem to be representing the interests of the people of the states for which they represent. This is very enlightening…

The simple answer to this question is this:

At some point in history, the original intended constitutional description of an elected politician went from being a “delegate” of the people to being a “Representative” of the people.

What is a delegate?

A delegate is a person chosen by the people or an other entity to represent the will of the people or that entity. That person (one of the people) is generally referred to as a “statesman” because his or her interest was only in that of the state or area (now called a district) for which he was an elected delegate. When in a national setting, such as in a congressional session with other delegates from other areas, this chosen representative of the people was there on behalf of the people and interests of those people in his district or state (statesman), and nothing else. National issues, therefore, would not trump local ones. But the most important difference between a delegate and a representative is this: a delegate was required to bring any legislation created in that lawmaking session either locally or nationally back to his area (district) for a vote of the people. In other words, he did not have the freedom to make decisions for the people, he merely was the chosen voice and scribe of the people as a representation of the people’s interests. The delegate and the laws he or she created had no power except that granted by the vote of the people. This made the laws passed by the delegate the actual law of the people. And this made it very difficult to pass a law that was tyrannical and not representative of the people.

What is a Representative?

A representative in today’s legal standing is a person chosen by the people or an other entity to represent the will of the people or entity, that much is the same. But today’s elected politicians are no longer delegates of the people, but rather the parent (parens patria) of the people will. Today’s politicians become TITLE 2 and TITLE 5 employees of the federal government, not delegates of the people. What does this mean? It means that as a representative, today’s elected delegate is conferred with the legal power, authority, and jurisdiction to make their own decisions (i.e. to vote for legal CODE without a vote of the people – with disregard of a people’s vote). A representative is not a statesman. And a representative does not make law, but rather creates legal CODE. This CODE is not the will of the people, as it is not voted upon by the people. A representative does not have the interests of his area (district) or state in mind when voting or creating legal CODE. Therefore, a representative is not acting in the people’s interest, for he is not delegating the peoples will. He or she is no longer a delegate of the people. And these legal CODES which are passed off as laws are very easy to pass, simply because the people have no say in their content or their passing.

-≈-

In short, comprehending the distinction between a delegate and a representative has been the final step for me to finally understand why the entirety of the legal US CODE has no lawful power, authority, or jurisdiction over me as one of the people without my personal consent, since all law is always based on the consent of the people.

If the people as a whole did not vote for a law, it is not the law. It is prima facie legal CODE requiring the consent of the people in the enforcement of that CODE. This includes state, county, local, and district legal CODE as well.

And remember that judges are “elected” as well, and are the adjudicators of legal CODE, not the law. And please understand that you also “elect” an attorney to “represent” you. BAR attorneys swear an oath to uphold that copyrighted legal CODE and to follow legal court procedure. An attorney is not a delegate, but a representative of yourself as a ward of the court not fit to represent yourself. All BAR attorneys and judges are on the same team, representing the legal CODE, not the people. And these BAR attorneys make up a majority of our elected officials in the senate, a large majority of the house, and of course our representative President, who has granted himself the authority to make his own law (legal CODE) through the use of Presidential Directives and Executive Orders, giving force to legal CODE’s without and above constitutional considerations.

Just because a politician makes a pretty speech about being a statesman and representing the will of the people doesn’t make this a reality. Most politicians want nothing more than the corporate clout and money that being a post-politician carries with it, not to mention a multi-million dollar tax-exempt expense account and a life-long taxpayer funded pension virtually unmatched in the private sector.

So the next time you decide to vote for your local, county, state, or federal representative, including the President of the UNITED STATES, remember that you are electing a representative and not a delegate. And remember that by voting for that person, you are granting that person your presumed consent to make decisions on your behalf, but certainly not in your best interests.

(Special thanks to Burt. His information is here: http://www.youtube.com/user/donotconsent83)

.

–Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com) — (Clint4P.com)
–Friday, February 17, 2012

Do You Own Your Children?


Do you know who owns your child?

This might seem like a strange question to most… but the answer is even stranger and more terrifying to comprehend.

When a question like this is posed, we the people often look to our legislature and our constitution for the answers, as esoteric and interpretable as those answers may be. But without the rose-colored glasses, we can actually read with our own eyes what the answer to this question is from the eyes and opinion of our government.

Before you can truly attain the answer to this question though, and comprehend how it applies to you and your children, you must first temporarily suspend your emotion, your idealism, and your beliefs. For when we refer to law, these things do not apply. And when it is a corporation that writes these laws, morals, ethics, and values go out the window.

Anger though, for the purpose of the information you are about to receive, is permitted and requested…

First of all, let’s clarify that what we are about to see is the opinion of the court system. Courts do not offer “judgment”, only “opinion”. The justices (not judges) of the “Supreme Court” as well offer nothing but opinion, which then becomes what the BAR association considers to be “Public Policy” or public opinion. The BAR copyrights these opinions then misleadingly calls it the “law”.

The side effect of being a consenting citizen of the United States (corporation) is that these copyrighted codes are applied to you with what the U.S.CODE itself calls Prima Facie law (law which derives its authority from presumed consent). Therefore, all branches of government technically operate under presumed law, meaning that the consent of the governed is automatically assumed in all legal matters and decisions based on court opinion.

This, unfortunately, applies to all contracts made with or on behalf of the state…

And one of those contracts is called a “Marriage License“.

Yours and your spouses signature on that state-sanctioned and federally registered document signifies a consent-based contract between all three parties – you, your spouse, and the “State“.

But don’t take my word for it… Let’s see what the court system offers in their opinion about this subject?

First, lets visit an Illinois Appellate Court judgment from 1997:

Appellate Court of Illinois, NO. 5-97-0108:

Marriage is a civil contract to which there are three parties-the husband, the wife and the state.

Van Koten v. Van Koten. 154 N.E. 146.

Continued…

…When two people decide to get married, they are required to first procure a license from the State. If they have children of this marriage, they are required by the State to submit their children to certain things, such as school attendance and vaccinations. Furthermore, if at some time in the future the couple decides the marriage is not working, they must petition the State for a divorce. Marriage is a three-party contract between the man, the woman, and the State

Linneman v. Linneman, 1 Ill. App. 2d 48, 50, 116 N.E.2d 182, 183 (1953), citing Van Koten v. Van Koten, 323 Ill. 323, 326, 154 N.E. 146 (1926).

The State represents the public interest in the institution of marriage.

Linneman, 1 Ill. App. 2d at 50, 116 N.E.2d at 183 (1953).

Continued…

This public interest is what allows the State to intervene in certain situations to protect the interests of members of the family.   The State is like a silent partner in the family who is not active in the everyday running of the family but becomes active and exercises its power and authority only when necessary to protect some important interest of family life.   Taking all of this into consideration, the question no longer is whether the State has an interest or place in disputes such as the one at bar, but it becomes a question of timing and necessity.

Also, this case law states…

The state has a wide range of power for limiting parental freedom and authority in things affecting the child’s welfare… In fact, the entire familial relationship involves the State.

Prince, 321 U.S. at 167, 64 S.Ct. at 442, 88 L.Ed. 645.

(SOURCE: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/il-court-of-appeals/1486817.html)

Well now… the courts sure do seem to offer the opinion that your child is owned by the state!

But heck, what should we the people (not People) expect?

When such authority and jurisdiction is just arbitrarily handed over to a bunch of attorneys running around in black moo-moos with little wooden hammers yelling that they rule supreme in their houses of judicial worship simply because the state allows them to presume such authority and jurisdiction… I suppose those people who consent to this charade get just what they deserve – slavery through a bondage contract.

But then, when the President of the country is also a lawyer, along with his wife, and for that mater more than half of all U.S. Presidents, 56/100 Senators, over 35% of Congressmen, both “speakers” of the house, and most of the State Governors in office today are all BAR attorneys/lawyers, I suppose we shouldn’t be at all surprised that the opinion of the BAR Association is the law of the land…

Of course, the above opinion is not just some isolated case. This opinion is quite general in its purview, and quite common in its legal application. In fact, it is the very basis of the criminal racket we call the dreaded “Child Protective Services (CPS)”, which claims its overarching authority from the Federal “Health And Human Services (HHS)” as it legally kidnaps your children.

So where else can we find such blatant power abused so absolutely?

How about in the case of MEADOWS v. MEADOWS, (Aug 2008), in the “Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama”?

“The primary control and custody of infants is with the government.”

Tillman V. Roberts. 108 So. 62

There is no wider area for the exercise of judicial discretion than that of providing for and protecting the best interests of children.

Ex parte Handley, 460 So.2d 167 (Ala.1984).

The court stands in the position of parens patria[e] of children.

Ayers v. Kelley, 284 Ala. 321, 224 So.2d 673 (1969)․

…we held that the best interest of the child took precedence over the parent’s right to travel.

Everett, 660 So.2d at 601-02.

In 1984, the Court of Appeals of Idaho ruled that the State had a ‘compelling governmental interest’ that justified restricting the residence of the custodial parent, holding that the best interests of a child had priority over the parent’s right to travel.

Ziegler v. Ziegler, 107 Idaho 527, 691 P.2d 773 (Idaho App.1985) (citing Carlson v. Carlson, 8 Kan.App.2d 564, 661 P.2d 833 (1983)).

**Note: The word “interest”, when it is used by the courts on behalf of “the state”, should be considered here to be defined in layman’s terms as the monetary interest in what the State considers one of its trade-able commodities. For to a for-profit government, people are considered legal “persons”, and their value is not in flesh and blood, but in labor and tax. Persons are the original form of legal tender. -Clint-

Continued…

“Parens patriae,” literally “parent of the country,” refers traditionally to role of state as sovereign and guardian of persons under legal disability.”

Ex parte Bayliss, 550 So.2d 986, 988 n. 1 (Ala.1989) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1003 (5th ed.1979)).

“Pursuant to the parens patriae doctrine, ‘the primary control and custody of infants is with the government, to be delegated, as of course, to their natural guardians and protectors, so long as such guardians are suitable persons to exercise it.’ ”

Ex parte Wright, 225 Ala. 220, 222, 142 So. 672, 674 (1932). See also Fletcher v. Preston, 226 Ala. 665, 148 So. 137 (1933); and Striplin v. Ware, 36 Ala. 87 (1860).

“In other words, the state is the father and mother of the child and the natural parents are not entitled to custody, except upon the state’s beneficent recognition that natural parents presumably will be the best of its citizens to delegate its custodial powers… ‘The law devolves the custody of infant children upon their parents, not so much upon the ground of natural right in the latter, as because the interests of the children, and the good of the public, will, as a general rule, be thereby promoted.’ “

Chandler v. Whatley, 238 Ala. 206, 208, 189 So. 751, 753 (1939) (quoting Striplin v. Ware, 36 Ala. at 89) (‘ ’).

(SOURCE: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/al-court-of-civil-appeals/1325717.html)

Wait a minute, you say. This doesn’t sound very “constitutional” to me…

Oh, you mean that mythical and more importantly interpretable (in court opinion) document that you believe gives you rights? Silly rabbits, tricks are for kids.

In reality, everything that happens is in fact “constitutional” as long as the court (an attorney in a black moo-moo) says it is “constitutional” from within its (his/her) opinion.

In the end, you have only one right. And that right is the right of non-consent. (Consent is the most important legal term that you can possibly ever comprehend.)

But don’t take my word for it… here are a few more instances of “case law” which let you know that the constitution simply does not apply to you in the corporate world of commercial (copyrighted) code…

But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it.

Padelford, Fay & Co., vs. Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah 14 Ga. 438, 520

**Note: Remember, the word “person” refers to your veil of artificial person-hood; your STRAWMAN if you will. The court will never refer to you in the sense that you are a living, breathing, sentient being with god-given rights that cannot be taken away, but instead relies on your presumed consent as the physical representation of your fiction, your corporate self. “Person” is defined in U.S. CODE as an “individual, association, corporation, group…” etc. It is not defined as “people” unless those people are a group of “persons”, in which case, as in the constitution, the word “people” is capitalized (i.e. We, the People – referring to the men who signed the constitution, and whom were the only men for which that constitution held under “contract” with any authority. The constitution has no authority accept that for which the court passes judgment (opinion) upon. -Clint-

“The people of the United States resident within any State are subject to two Governments: one State, and the other National; but there need be no conflict between the two. The powers which one possesses, the other does not. They are established for different purposes, and have separate jurisdictions. Together they make one whole, and furnish the people of the United States with a complete government, ample for the protection of all their rights at home and abroad. True, it may sometimes happen that a person is amenable to both jurisdictions for one and the same act… It is the natural consequence of a citizenship which owes allegiance to two sovereignties, and claims protection from both. The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government.

The Supreme Court, 92 US 551: “U.S. v Cruikshank”

Well, there you have it!

Even as the Supreme Court – which has mistakenly translated the word “supreme” to mean that these seven appointed “justices” who pass “opinion” upon the masses of consenting “citizens” are more supreme than even God himself – these men and women; who are not voted into these positions of power in any way by the people, but instead are appointed by the President of the United States (corporation)… these self-imposed deities clearly state here that they are the law of the land, and that that “the natural consequence of citizenship” is for the people to be under their supreme opinion!

Well I for one do not voluntarily submit to the opinions of these megalomaniacs any longer.

And for the record, as a free man with God as my witness…

I DO NOT CONSENT!!!

.

FYI… Stay tuned, subscribe, or do what ever you need to do to monitor future postings from my blog – for there are BIG things happening and lots of important information coming to you soon, free of charge, from yours truly and my band of merry men.

Stay tuned…

.

Special thanks to Burt for all that he does to open my eyes. Please visit his YouTube page here:

http://www.youtube.com/user/donotconsent83?ob=video-mustangbase

And keep this future website in your bookmarks, of which I very much plan to be a part of:

onlyfreemen.com

.

–Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Friday, December 16, 2011

STRAWMAN Makes First Physical Appearance On Television!


As if the government of Ontario, Canada is trying to flip its middle finger to the people of Ontario, the government came out with this “public service” commercial depicting the “legal persons” of Ontario being contracted with the government by their STRAWMAN name!

From a birth certificate to an I.D Card to a Driver’s License to a Marriage License to a Home contract and a change of address form, this is one of the most perfect representations of what a STRAWMAN would look like if it were a living, breathing entity like the people it sucks the blood of.

The theme of this delightful ditty: The government serves the people by forcing them to contract with the government in every aspect of their lives!

You want to explain the STRAWMAN to somebody? This is a perfect visual aid! And official too!!!

See the commercial here: http://www.videodelivery.gov.on.ca/player/download.php?file=http://www.media.gov.on.ca/b0643a07a585b985/en/pages/text.html

Sorry, I couldn’t figure out how to embed this one…

.

–Clint Richardson (RealityBloger.wordpress.com)
–Wednesday, July 20, 2011

The United States: A Corporation


The “United States” is a corporation…

If you really want to understand why this is true, then you will have to look at each of the following pieces of the puzzle (links)… This will take a lot of your time and more importantly, the suspension of your idealism and belief.

That is hard. Trust me, I know.

I just spent an hour putting this post together and am passing this information on to you, so please don’t let it go to waste. Consider it an early Christmas present!

———————–≈———————–

Let’s focus on proving the corporate structure of the Federal Government, so that there is no doubt in your mind…

Here is the first carrot that I will dangle in front of you to get you to keep reading! This is from the U.S. CODE.

U.S. CODE is the corporate code of the UNITED STATES Federal corporation. Here it states that “United States” is defined as “a Federal corporation”.

———————–≈———————–

TITLE 28—JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE

PART VI–PARTICULAR PROCEEDINGS

CHAPTER 176–FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURE

SUBCHAPTER A–DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS

§ 3002. Definitions

15) ‘‘United States’’ means—

(A) a Federal corporation;

(Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/usc_sec_28_00003002—-000-.html )

 

———————–≈———————–

Wam, bam, thank you mam!

So when did this happen…?

First, understand that the “United States” Federal corporation is a ten mile stretch of land that is not one of the 5o states united, and that this was mandated in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.

Team Law down in SoCal has a great fact-sheet printed here… read this to get an understanding of the corporate setup of D.C, by charter in 1801:

http://www.teamlaw.org/Mythology-CorpUS.htm

Now read the last two paragraphs in Article 1, Section 8 here:

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

Note that this Article only gave the federal government authority over the D.C. land – not to exceed 10 miles square. This is the corporate structure that is the Federal Government. Note that the Government is not allowed to “own” land outside of this 10 mile D.C. area. Also, states are not authorized to “own” land either. So all federal lands, state parks, national parks, etc… are not “property” of the constitutional government.

But a corporation… which the Supreme Court now says is a person too with first amendment rights… that becomes a whole other can of worms!

———————–≈———————–

Now, as referenced above, “The Act of 1871” (Google this term for other pdf files which explain this in more detail, but watch for misinformation as well). It does seem like a redundancy, as mentioned above. Though it does seem to join the few “municipalities” of Washington D.C. into one “municipal corporation”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_Organic_Act_of_1871

———————–≈———————–

Interestingly, the Constitution Act of 1871 was passed in Canada the same year, confirming the Queens rule over Canada through Parliament.

http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/ca_1871.html

———————–≈———————–

Equally as intriguing is this info which says that English Parliament changed the social security system in the United States. It is very hard to except that the history we have learned is false. But until we do, we know nothing but false history, written by the “victors”. Also check out the “Treaty of Peace” (as referenced in this article, and the “Treaty of 1213”, showing the Vatican owns the Crown.

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/queen.htm

Check out all of the articles on this site when you have time:

www.apfn.org

Like this one which is congressional record referring to the bankruptcy, dissolving of, and reorganization of the United States corporation:

http://www.apfn.net/DOC-100_bankruptcy.htm

———————–≈———————–

It is also very hard for most to imagine that the constitution that we hold so dearly is not a very good document. It takes away freedom as much as it grants it. The only true freedom is God-given, natural law, not a peace of paper. Besides, most politicians only take a verbal oath, but they do not turn it in in writing, which is what contracts them to the oath… Big grand jury’s going on up in Utah here about that, since about 75% of our government is not sworn in on paper (lawfully). In fact, one of our smaller towns recently passed a code that says legislatures and government workers are not bound by any oath they take. It is city law in Tremonton, Utah!!!

For instance, why would anyone think that the 5th amendment is a good thing, or even idealistically “constitutional”?

Let’s read and understand the 5th amendment…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

“…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.”

Notice that the clause “without due process of law” nullifies the statement before it, and “without just compensation” nullifies the statement before it!

This last part is called the “Takings Clause”, and is what eminent domain is largely based on – taking property and land with “just compensation“.

Who decides what “just compensation” is?

Why, the very government that is doing the “taking”!

All of this, right under our noses…

Read more:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/takings.htm

Now to the 13th amendment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

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.”

The statement “except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted” nullifies the former and later statement that slavery is illegal. This didn’t outlaw slavery… it legalized state sanctioned slavery while outlawing private individual ownership!

The constitution is full of these “except” clauses, which is why this holy worship of the constitution is ridiculous in my mind, and why it needs to be rewritten for modern times, not just reinstated. For once in history, the problem with a legal document (the constitution) is that it does not have enough small print!!!

Here is my blog about this:

https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2010/08/15/is-slavery-legal-in-america/

I highly recomend it.

———————–≈———————–

Even worse, the “Federal Prison Industries” website is the “Amway” or “Wallmart” for the corporate U.S. slave prison system, called Unicor. Basically, the private prison system is huge. It relies on the courts to ensure a continuous influx of “prisoners” or “slaves” to build the products which the Federal Prison Industries sells. Think jobs are outsourced to India, check out the jobs outsourced to the prison industry!

Unicor Corporate Overview:

UNICOR, Federal Prison Industries is a self-sustaining, self-funded corporation established in 1934 by executive order to create a voluntary real-world work program to train federal inmates.

Check out Unicor here:

http://www.unicor.gov/

———————–≈———————–

***Also, the most important legal term you can understand is “CONSENT”. This is a must read. It also shows that the whole of the Internal Revenue Code is not statutory law, and in fact is Prima Facie law, meaning it is presumed law, meaning it is only law with the free peoples consent. Please, please read this. It will change your whole perspective on what law is and how it affects you.

https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2010/12/08/consent-why-the-irs-domestic-and-homeland-security-have-no-lawful-power/

———————–≈———————–

But aren’t the courts there to ensure justice against government tyranny, you know, the whole checks and balances thingy?

The biggest mistake you can make is to get an attorney (plead incompetence and inability to represent yourself, and become a ward of the court) and then go into court to fight anything (consent to the corporate court and its non-statutory legal codes – not law).

Why?

You must understand that the courts are also private corporations. In fact, in Los Angeles they did a freedom of information act and found out that the judges down there build and own the private corporate courts, rent them out to the government for millions of dollars, and write checks on dummy and city “municipal” accounts that are not registered with the IRS! In other words, the court system is a money laundering system. This is happening all over the U.S. It involves the crime families as well, and other corporate structures that would surprise you.

Watch these videos… Though they are of horrible quality and video production, they are very revealing:

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtHCIXVb_eo

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_lwzj8DY_U&feature=related

Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKVNKCiGMpM&feature=related

So we see that the courts are indeed private corporations, just like all governments across the country.

———————–≈———————–

One last website to check out…

http://www.usavsus.info/

Understanding the difference between what is lawful and what is legal is paramount. They are two different concepts, one natural law and one corporate law (legality and code) with the peoples’ consent needed.

———————–≈———————–

I could go on and on… but if this doesn’t do the trick, then I am almost all out of tricks. If you haven’t watched The Corporation Nation, now would be the time. The movie will explain the rest, and explain the general accounting system for corporate government, the CAFR.

http://thecorporationnation.com/

My Christmas Gift to you, the gift of truth and comprehension!

Happy New Year everybody…

.

-Clint Richardson- (realitybloger.wordpress.com)

Saturday, December 18, 2010