Gold & Silver Forum - The Official State Office Known as "Person"

From a 'We the People' email I get...

The Official State Office Known as "Person"

This is the single most important lesson that you MUST learn. If you spend an hour to learn this material you will be rewarded for the rest of your life.

The word "person" in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings. See e.g. 1 U.S.C. sec 1. Church of Scientology v. U.S. Dept. of Justice (1979) 612F.2d 417, 425.

One of the very first of your state statutes will have a section listed entitled "Definitions. "Carefully study this section of the statutes and you will find a portion that reads similar to this excerpt:

In construing these statutes and each and every word, phrase, or part hereof, where the context will permit:

(1) The singular includes the plural and vice versa.
(2) Gender-specific language includes the other gender and neuter.
(3) The word "person" includes individuals, children, firms, associations, joint adventures, partnerships, estates, trusts, business trusts, syndicates, fiduciaries, corporations, and all other groups or combinations.

NOTE HOWEVER, THE DEFINITIONS STATUTE DOES NOT LIST MAN OR WOMAN -- THEREFORE THEY ARE EXCLUDED FROM ALL THE STATUTES !!!

Under the rule of construction "expressio unius est exclusio alterius," where a statute or Constitution enumerates the things on which it is to operate or forbids certain things, it is ordinarily to be construed as excluding from its operation all those not expressly mentioned. Generally words in a statute should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. When a statute does not specifically define words, such words should be construed in their common or ordinary sense to the effect that the rules used in construing statutes are also applicable in the construction of the Constitution. It is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that words of common usage when used in a statute should be construed in their plain and ordinary sense. If you carefully read the statute laws enacted by your state legislature you will also notice that they are all written with phrases similar to these five examples :

1. A person commits the offense of failure to carry a license if the person . . .
2. A person commits the offense of failure to register a vehicle if the person . . .
3. A person commits the offense of driving uninsured if the person . . .
4. A person commits the offense of fishing if the person . . .
5. A person commits the offense of breathing if the person . . .

Notice that only "persons" can commit these state legislature created crimes. A crime is by definition an offense committed against the "state." If you commit an offense against a human, it is called a tort. Examples of torts would be any personal injury, slander, or defamation of character.

So how does someone become a "person" and subject to regulation by state statutes and laws ?

There is only one way. You must ask the state for permission to volunteer to become a state person. You must volunteer because the U.S. Constitution forbids the state from compelling you into slavery. This is found in the 13th and 14th Amendments.

13th Amendment Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.14th Amendment Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. You become a state created statutory "person" by taking up residency with the state and stepping into the office of "person." You must hold an "office" within the state government in order for that state government to regulate and control you. First comes the legislativel created office, then comes their control. If you do not have an office in state government, thelegislature's control over you would also be prohibited by the Declaration of Rights section, usually found to be either Section I or II, of the State Constitution.

The most common office held in a state is therefore the office known as "person." Your state legislature created this office as a way to control people. It is an office most people occupy without even knowing that they are doing so. The legislature cannot lawfully control you because you are a flesh and blood human being.

God alone created you and by Right of creation, He alone can control you. It is the nature of law, that what one creates, one controls. This natural law is the force that binds a creature to its creator. God created us and we are, therefore, subject to His laws, whether or not we acknowledge Him as our Creator.

The way the state gets around God's law and thereby controls the people is by creating only an office, and not a real human. This office is titled as "person" and then the legislature claims that you are filling that office. Legislators erroneously now think that they can make laws that also control men. They create entire bodies of laws - motor vehicle code, building code, compulsory education laws, and so on ad nauseum. They still cannot control men or women, but they can now control the office they created. And look who is sitting in that office -- YOU.

Then they create government departments to administer regulations to these offices. With in these administrative departments of state government are hundreds of other state created offices. There is everything from the office of janitor to the office of governor. But these administrative departments cannot function properly unless they have subjects to regulate. The legislature obtains these subjects by creating an office that nobody even realizes to be an official state office.

They have created the office of "person." The state creates many other offices such as police officer, prosecutor, judge etc. and everyone understands this concept. However, what most people fail to recognize and understand is the most common state office of all, the office of "person." Anyone filling one of these state offices is subject to regulation by their creator, the state legislature. Through the state created office of "person," the state gains its authority to regulate, control and judge you, the real human. What they have done is apply the natural law principle, "what one creates, one controls. "A look in Webster's dictionary reveals the origin of the word "person." It literally means "the mask an actor wears."

The legislature creates the office of "person" which is a mask. They cannot create real people, only God can do that. But they can create the "office" of "person," which is merely a mask, and then they persuade a flesh and blood human being to put on that mask by offering a fictitious privilege, such as a driver license. Now the legislature has gained complete control over both the mask and the actor behind the mask. A resident is another state office holder.

All state residents hold an office in the state government. But not everyone who is a resident also holds the office of "person."

Some residents hold the office of judge and they are not persons.
Some residents hold the office of prosecutors and they are not persons.
Some residents hold the office of police office(rs) and they are not persons.
Some residents hold the office of legislators and they are not persons.
Some residents are administrators and bureaucrats and they also are not persons.
Some residents are attorneys and they also are not persons.

An attorney is a state officer of the court and is firmly part of the judicial branch. The attorneys will all tell you that they are "licensed" to practice law by the state Supreme Court. Therefore, it is unawful for any attorney to hold any position or office outside of the judicial branch. There can be no attorney legislators - no attorney mayors - no attorneys as police – no attorneys as governor. Yes, I know it happens all the time, however, this practice of multiple office holding by attorneys is prohibited by the constitution and is a felony in most states. If you read farther into your state constitution you will find a clause stating this, the Separation of Powers, which will essentially read as follows:

Branches of government -- The powers of the state government shall be divided into legislative, executive and judicial branches. No person belonging to one branch shall exercise any powers appertaining to either of the other branches unless expressly provided herein. Therefore, a police officer cannot arrest a prosecutor, a prosecutor cannot prosecute a sitting judge, a judge cannot order the legislature to perform and so on.

Because these "offices" are not persons, the state will not, and cannot prosecute them, therefore they enjoy almost complete protection by the state in the performance of their daily duties. This is why it is impossible to sue or file charges against most government employees. If their crimes should rise to the level where they "shock the community" and cause alarm in the people, then they will be terminated from state employment and lose their absolute protection. If you carefully pay attention to the news, you will notice that these government employees are always terminated from their office or state employment and then are they arrested, now as a common person, and charged for their crimes. Simply put, the state will not eat its own.

The reason all state residents hold an office is so the state can control everything. It wants to create every single office so that all areas of your life are under the complete control of the state. Each office has prescribed duties and responsibilities and all these offices are regulated and governed by the state. If you read the fine print when you apply for a state license or privilege you will see that you must sign a declaration that you are in fact a "resident" of that state.

"Person" is a subset of resident. Judge is a subset of resident. Legislator and police officer are subsets of resident. If you hold any office in the state, you are a resident and subject to all legislative decrees in the form of statutes.

They will always say that we are free men. But they will never tell you that the legislatively created offices that you are occupying are not free. They will say, "All men are free," because that is a true statement.

What they do not say is, that holding any state office binds free men into slavery for the state. They are ever ready to trick you into accepting the state office of "person," and once you are filling that office, you cease to be free men. You become regulated creatures, called persons, totally created by the legislature. You will hear "free men" mentioned all the time, but you will never hear about "free persons."

If you build your life in an office created by the legislature, it will be built on shifting sands. The office can be changed and manipulated at any time to conform to the whims of the legislature. When you hold the office of "person" created by the legislature, your office isn't fixed. Your duties and responsibilities are ever changing. Each legislative session binds a "person" to ever more burdens and requirements in the form of more rules, laws and statutes. Most state constitutions have a section that declares the fundamental power of the people:

Political power -- All political power is inherent in the people. The enunciation herein of certain Rights shall not be construed to deny or impair others retained by the people.

Notice that this says "people" it does not say persons. This statement declares beyond any doubt that the people are Sovereign over their created government. This is natural law and the natural flow of delegated power.

A Sovereign is a private, non-resident, non-domestic, non-person, non-individual, NOT SUBJECT to any real or imaginary statutory regulations or quasi laws enacted by any state legislature which was created by the people.

When you are pulled over by the police, roll down your window and say, "You are speaking to a Sovereign political power holder. I do not consent to you detaining me. Why are you detaining me against my will ?"

Now the state office of policeman knows that "IT" is talking to a flesh and blood Sovereign. The police officer cannot cite a Sovereign because the state legislature can only regulate what they create. And the state does not create Sovereign political power holders. It is very important to lay the proper foundation, Right from the beginning. Let the police officer know that you are a Sovereign. Remain in your proper office of Sovereign political power holder. Do not leave it. Do not be persuaded by police pressure or tricks to put on the mask of a state "person."

Why aren't Sovereigns subject to the state's charges? Because of the concept of office. The state is attempting to prosecute only a particular office known as "person." If you are not in that state created office of "person," the state statutes simply do not apply to you. This is common sense, for example, if you are not in the state of Texas, then Texas laws do not apply to you. For the state to control someone, they have to first create the office. Then they must coerce a warm-blooded creature to come fill that office. They want you to fill that office.

Here is the often expressed understanding from the United States Supreme Court, that "in common usage, the term "person" does not include the Sovereign, statutes employing the person are ordinarily construed to exclude the Sovereign." Wilson v. Omaha Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 667 (1979) (quoting United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U.S. 600, 604 (1941)). See also United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 275 (1947).

The idea that the word "person" ordinarily excludes the Sovereign can also be traced to the "familiar principle that the King is not bound by any act of Parliament unless he be named therein by special and particular words." Dollar Savings Bank v. United States, 19 Wall. 227, 239 (1874). As this passage suggests, however, this interpretive principle applies only to "the enacting Sovereign." United States v. California, 297 U.S. 175, 186 (1936). See also Jefferson County Pharmaceutical Assn., Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, 460 U.S. 150, 161, n. 21 (1983). Furthermore, as explained in United States v. Herron, 20 Wall. 251, 255 (1874), even the principle as applied to the enacting Sovereign is not without limitations: "Where an act of Parliament is made for the public good, as for the advancement of religion and justice or to prevent injury and wrong, the king is bound by such act, though not particularly named therein; but where a statute is general, and thereby any prerogative, Right, title, or interest is divested or taken from the king, in such case the king is not bound, unless the statute is made to extend to him by express words." U.S. Supreme Court Justice Holmes explained:

"A Sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal Right as against the authority that makes the law on which the Right depends." Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U.S. 349, 353, 27 S. Ct. 526, 527, 51 L. Ed. 834 (1907).

The majority of American states fully embrace the Sovereign immunity theory as well as the federal government. See Restatement (Second) of Torts 895B, comment at 400 (1979). The following U.S. Supreme Court case makes clear all these principals. I shall have occasion incidentally to evince, how true it is, that states and governments were made for man; and at the same time how true it is, that his creatures and servants have first deceived, next vilified, and at last oppressed their master and maker.

A state, useful and valuable as the contrivance is, is the inferior contrivance of man; and from his native dignity derives all its acquired importance. ... Let a state be considered as subordinate to the people: But let everything else be subordinate to the state. The latter part of this position is equally necessary with the former. For in the practice, and even at length, in the science of politics there has very frequently been a strong current against the natural order of things, and an inconsiderate or an interested disposition to sacrifice the end to the means. As the state has claimed precedence of the people; so, in the same inverted course of things, the government has often claimed precedence of the state; and to this perversion in the second degree, many of the volumes of confusion concerning Sovereignty owe their existence. The ministers, dignified very properly by the appellation of the magistrates, have wished, and have succeeded in their wish, to be considered as the Sovereigns of the state. This second degree of perversion is confined to the old world, and begins to diminish even there: but the first degree is still too prevalent even in the several states, of which our union is composed. By a state I mean, a complete body of free persons united together for their common benefit, to enjoy peaceably what is their own, and to do justice to others. It is an artificial person. It has its affairs and its interests: It has its rules: It has its Rights: and it has its obligations. It may acquire property distinct from that of its members. It may incur debts to be discharged out of the public stock, not out of the private fortunes of individuals. It may be bound by contracts; and for damages arising from the breach of those contracts. In all our contemplations, however, concerning this feigned and artificial person, we should never forget, that, in truth and nature, those who think and speak and act, are men. Is the foregoing description of a state a true description? It will not be questioned, but it is. ...

It will be sufficient to observe briefly, that the Sovereignties in Europe, and particularly in England, exist on feudal principles. That system considers the prince as the Sovereign, and the people as his subjects; it regards his person as the object of allegiance, and excludes the idea of his being on an equal footing with a subject, either in a court of justice or elsewhere. That system contemplates him as being the fountain of honor and authority; and from his grace and grant derives all franchise, immunities and privileges; it is easy to perceive that such a Sovereign could not be amenable to a court of justice, or subjected to judicial control and actual constraint. It was of necessity, therefore, that suability, became incompatible with such Sovereignty. Besides, the prince having all the executive powers, the judgment of the courts would, in fact, be only monitory, not mandatory to him, and a capacity to be advised, is a distinct thing from a capacity to be sued. The same feudal ideas run through all their jurisprudence, and constantly remind us of the distinction between the prince and the subject. No such ideas obtain here(speaking of America): at the revolution, the Sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the Sovereigns of the country, but they are Sovereigns without subjects (unless the African slaves among us may be so called) and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the Sovereignty. Chisholm v. Georgia (February Term, 1793) 2 U.S. 419, 2 Dall. 419, 1 L.Ed 440.

There are many ways you can give up your Sovereign power and accept the role of "person." One is by receiving state benefits. Another is by asking permission in the form of a license or permit from the state.

One of the subtlest ways of accepting the role of "person," is to answer the questions of bureaucrats. When a state bureaucrat knocks on your door and wants to know why your children aren't registered in school, or a police officer pulls you over and starts asking questions, you immediately fill the office of "person" if you start answering their questions. It is for this reason that you should ignore or refuse to "answer" their questions and instead act like a true Sovereign, a King or Queen, and ask only your own questions of them. You are not a "person" subject to their laws.

If they persist and haul you into their court unlawfully, your response to the judge is simple and direct, you the Sovereign, must tell him :

I have no need to answer you in this matter.

It is none of your business whether I understand my Rights or whether I understand your fictitious charges.

It is none of your business whether I want counsel.

The reason it is none of your business is because I am not a person regulated by the state. I do not hold any position or office where I am subject to the legislature. The state legislature does not dictate what I do.

I am a free Sovereign "Man"(or woman) and I am a political power holder as lawfully decreed in the State Constitution at article I (or II) and that constitution is controlling over you..

You must NEVER retain or hire an attorney, a state officer of the court, to speak or file written documents for you. Use an attorney (if you must) only for counsel and advice about their "legal" system. If you retain an attorney to represent you and speak in your place, you become "NON COMPOS MENTIS", not mentally competent, and you are then considered a ward of the court. You LOSE all your Rights, and you will not be permitted to do anything herein.

The judge knows that as long as he remains in his office, he is backed by the awesome power of the state, its lawyers, police and prisons. The judge will try to force you to abandon your Sovereign sanctuary by threatening you with jail. No matter what happens, if you remain faithful to your Sovereignty, The judge and the state may not lawfully move against you. The state did not create the office of Sovereign political power holder. Therefore, they do not regulate and control those in the office of Sovereign. They cannot ascribe penalties for breach of that particular office. The reason they have no authority over the office of the Sovereign is because they did not create it and the Sovereign people did not delegate to them any such power.

When challenged, simply remind them that they do not regulate any office of the Sovereign and that their statutes only apply to those state employees in legislative created offices. This Sovereign individual paradigm is explained by the following U.S. Supreme Court case:

"The individual may stand upon his constitutional Rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His Rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his Rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their Rights."
Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1905).

Let us analyze this case. It says, "The individual may stand upon his constitutional Rights." It does not say, "Sit on his Rights." There is a principle here: "If you don't use 'em you lose 'em." You have to assert your Rights, demand them, "stand upon" them.

Next it says, "He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way." It says "private business" - you have a Right to operate a private business. Then it says "in his own way." It doesn't say "in the government's way."

Then it says, "His power to contract is unlimited." As a Sovereign individual, your power to contract is unlimited. In common law there are certain criteria that determine the validity of contracts. They are not important here, except that any contract that would harm others or violate their Rights would be invalid. For example, a "contract" to kill someone is not a valid contract. Apart from this obvious qualification, your power to contract is unlimited.

Next it says, "He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property." The court case contrasted the duty of the corporation (an entity created by government permission - feudal paradigm) to the duty of the Sovereign individual. The Sovereign individual doesn't need and didn't receive permission from the government, hence has no duty to the government.

Then it says, "His Rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the State." This is very important. The Supreme Court recognized that humans have inherent Rights. The U.S. Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) does not grant us Rights. We have fundamental Rights, irrespective of what the Constitution says. The Constitution acknowledges some of our Rights. And Amendment IX states, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain Rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The important point is that our Rights antecede (come before, are senior to) the organization of the state.

Next the Supreme Court says, "And [his Rights] can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution." Does it say the government can take away your Rights? No! Your Rights can only be taken away "by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution." "Due process of law" involves procedures and safeguards such as trial by jury. "Trial by jury" means, inter alia, the jury judges both law and fact.

Then the case says, "Among his Rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law." These are some of the Rights of a Sovereign individual. Sovereign individuals need not report anything about themselves or their businesses to anyone.

Finally, the Supreme Court says, "He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their Rights." The Sovereign individual does not have to pay taxes. If you should discuss Hale v. Henkel with a run-of-the-mill attorney, he or she will tell you that the case is "old" and that it has been "overturned." If you ask that attorney for a citation of the case or cases that overturned Hale v. Henkel, there will not be a meaningful response. The OUTLAWS have researched Hale v. Henkel and here is what we found :

"We know that Hale v. Henkel was decided in 1905 in the U.S. Supreme Court. Since it was the Supreme Court, the case is binding on all courts of the land, until another Supreme Court case says it isn't. Has another Supreme Court case overturned Hale v. Henkel? The answer is NO. As a matter of fact, since 1905, the Supreme Court has cited Hale v. Henkel a total of 144 times. A fact more astounding is that since 1905, Hale v. Henkel has been cited by all of the federal and state appellate court systems a total of over 1600 times. None of the various issues of this case has ever been overruled.

So if the state through the office of the judge continues to threaten or does imprison you, they are trying to force you into the state created office of "person." As long as you continue to claim your Rightful office of Sovereign, the state lacks all jurisdiction over you. The state needs someone filling the office of "person" in order to continue prosecuting a case in their courts.

A few weeks in jail puts intense pressure upon most "persons." Jail means the loss of job opportunities, separation from loved ones, and the piling up of debts. Judges will apply this pressure when they attempt to arraign you. When brought in chains before a crowded courtroom the issue of counsel will quickly come up and you can tell the court you are in propria persona or simply "PRO PER", as your own counsel and you need no other. Do not sign their papers or cooperate with them because most things about your life are private and are not the state's business to evaluate. Here is the Sovereign peoples command in the constitution that the state respect their privacy: Right of privacy -- Every man or woman has the Right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into their private life except as otherwise provided herein. This section shall not be construed to limit the public's Right of access to public records and meetings as provided by law.

If the judge is stupid enough to actually follow through with his threats and send you to jail, you will soon be released without even being arraigned and all charges will be dropped. You will then have documented prima facie grounds for false arrest and false imprisonment charges against him personally.

Now that you know the hidden evil in the word "person", Try to stop using it in everyday conversation. Simply use the correct term, MAN or WOMAN. Train yourself, your family and your friends to never use the derogatory word "person" ever again.

How does one remove themselves from the Office of Person?

Statement by the Texan Edward Mandell House (1858-1938) who made secret missions to Europe and helped President Woodrow Wilson get elected:

QUOTE: "[Very] soon, every American will be required to register their biological property in a national system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will affect our security as a charge back for our fiat paper currency. Every American will be forced to register or suffer being able to work and earn a living. They will be our chattel, and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions. Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, forever to remain economic slaves through taxation, secured by their pledges. They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be none the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two should figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability. After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debt to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap to us huge profits and beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor to this fraud, which we will call "Social Insurance." Without realizing it, every American will insure us for any loss we may incur and in this manner; every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and, we will employ the high office of the President of our dummy corporation to foment this plot against America." [End quote]

LEGAL DEFINITIONS (Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition)
"PLEDGE": In common law pleading, those persons who became sureties for the prosecution of the suit.

"ALLEGIANCE: - Obligation of fidelity and obedience to government in consideration for protection that government gives.
__________________________________________

The following outline which is generated by educated experts of law. It is information that should help all Americans understand what has happened to the national Constitutional government, what is happening to our financial system, what is about to happen to us as individuals, and what must be done to secure our Liberty.
__________________________________________

A QUICK STUDY OF COMMERCIAL LAW
Commercial Maxims (Basic Rules)

1. A workman is worthy of his hire
Legal maxim: It is against equity for freemen not to have the free disposal of their own property.
2. All are equal under the Law
Legal maxim: No one is above the law.
3. In Commerce truth is sovereign
Legal maxim: to lie is to go against the mind.
4. Truth is expressed by means of an affidavit
Legal maxim: (none)
5. An unrebutted affidavit stands as the truth in Commerce
Legal maxim: He who does not deny, admits.
6. An unrebutted affidavit becomes the judgment in Commerce
Legal maxim: (none . . . concept of the duel without weapons)
7. A matter be expressed to be resolved
Legal maxim: He who fails to assert his rights has none.
8. He who leaves the field of battle first loses by default
Legal maxim: He who does not repel a wrong when he can, occasions it.
9. Sacrifice is the measure of credibility
Legal maxim: He who bears the burden ought also to derive the benefit.
10. A lien or claim can be satisfied only through rebuttal by Counter affidavit point-for-point, resolution by jury, or payment
Legal maxim: If the plaintiff does not prove his case, the defendant is absolved.

PARTS OF AN OFFICIAL AFFIDAVIT:
1. 7-point instrument
2. Numbered paragraphs (for purpose of inter alia - identifying particulars for future reference)
3. Have a form number on the bottom, unique to each affidavit
4. Written in clean, clear, minimalist style
5. Written in the present tense
6. Avoid using pronouns, the words "to" and "or"
7. Avoid using adjectives and adverbs
8. Sin in red ink (i.e., signifying blood)
9. Notarize it
10. Have as much "commercial paperwork" as possible - (i.e., exhibits and attachments supporting the affiants assertions as possible.

ESSENTIALS OF THE COMMERCIAL PROCESS:
1. Executed by affidavit sworn true, correct, and complete
2. Every document one sends and receives in law and commerce is a paper soldier
3. Use 7-point instruments
4. All attorneys or government agents do not speak for themselves - the private party, spanking for himself and executing all his paperwork by affidavit sworn true, correct and complete overcomes paper soldiers by indirect communication.
5. "True and Correct" is not the same as "True, Correct and complete." "True and Correct" is perjury by omission.
6. An unrebutted affidavit becomes the judgment in Commerce
7. A matter must be expressed to be resolved
Legal maximum: He who fails to assert his rights has none.
8. He who leaves the field of battle first loses by default
Legal maxim: He who does not repel a wrong when he can, occasions it.
9. Sacrifice is the measure of credibility
Legal maxim: Put up or shut up.
10. A lien or claim can be satisfied only through rebuttal by counter affidavit point-for-point, resolution by jury, or payment
Legal maxim: If the plaintiff does not prove his case, the defendant is absolved.

THE COMMERCIAL DOCUMENTS:
1. Commercial paperwork (affidavit of accounting)
2. Declaration (affidavit of notice
3. Contract (affidavit of agreement)
4. Notice of interest (three-week, unbonded distress)
5. Distress (affidavit of distraint/impound
6. Criminal complaint (affidavit of information)
7. Lien (affidavit of obligation) - a "paper debt collector"

FOUNDATION OF EVERY RECORD IN COMMERCIAL PAPERWORK:
1. A ledger of accounting, consisting of an itemized list of goods and services provided by whom to whom, with corresponding monetary values, indicated for each entry

2. Record of responsibility identifying the party who takes commercial liability and responsibility for the accuracy, relevance, and verifiability of each bookkeeping entry.

THREE MAJOR PARTS OF THE 'MAKE BELIEVE' FINANCIAL WORLD:
A. PRINCIPLES:
1. One may play either win/win or win/lose games in interacting with others.
2. The illusion of separation.
3. Court is the substitute for the dueling field. - but it is abstract, and not physical.

B. Presumptions:
1. Government exist and function exclusively by win/lose interactions.

The "United States Government" is a bankrupt corporation underwritten by, in receivership in favor of, and a mere front for the Federal Reserve, International Monetary Fund (IMF), et al. This private government functions in its own commercial, military, international jurisdiction under the "law of necessity" characterizing the "state of emergency" that has prevailed since the Civil War. The law of necessity is actually "no law," (i.e., the suspension of law for the purpose of dealing with the "emergency."

In the law of necessity, the "law of the jungle" prevails, in which anything goes (i.e., one may survive at the expense of the lives, rights, and property of others. This is a state of war, and truth, ethics, and compassion are the most serious casualties. All that matters is winning by any means; there are no rules except "just eat, baby." All is fair in love and war,' and all governments (no matter how structured, dressed up and disguised) function in a perpetual state of war between the government and the people.

All governments function in a perpetual state of war between the government and the people. This is now expressly codified in law, whereby every "citizen of the United States" is classified as an enemy of the private, commercial, corporate government (U.S. Inc.) Based upon the amendatory Act (re the Trading with the Enemy act of March 9, 1933).

This perpetual "state of emergency," which was created by the very Government that is the beneficiary of its self-caused emergency, is codified, inter alia, at 12 USC 95 and in the Appendix of Title 50.

The first act of every new US President is the reaffirmation of his authority under the War Powers, 12 USC 95, inasmuch as that "authorization" is not only his exclusive source of power, but the source of authority for the entire system, including Congress, all administrative agencies, law enforcement, and courts, (i.e., all of the US Inc.). The power of all of these entities (i.e., every aspect of the so-called government and legal system today, derives from this private, military, commercial, international, admiralty-equity jurisdiction of the alleged Creditors of the bankrupt US Inc.

2. The Commercial Maxims become operationally dominant, most especially Maxims four (4) through seven (7), because people never rebut the presumption that they voluntarily agreed to play the "let's pretend" game.

Problems:
a/ If you directly rebut the presumption, then you enjoin the argument, grand credence to your opponent's cause and jurisdiction and traverse.

b/. If you do not rebut the presumption, then you lose by default.

Solution:
Rebut the presumptions of law (which are essentially undisclosed) but not by traversing. Unilaterally affirm your own position in a manner that simultaneously eliminates the presumptions operating against you.

3. Presumptions of law by the system:
a/ Man is the source of sovereign. Otherwise, no one would be held liable. Judges ask: "Do you understand the charges?" He means: "Did you, as a conscious, sentient, autonomous being with free will and ethical discernment, knowingly and intentionally violate the law?"

b/ The system always wins.

c/ The system is under no compulsion, obligation to reveal the presumptions of law to victim.

d/ It is presumed that the victim knowingly, intentionally, and voluntarily contracted into the system and is bound by all terms and conditions of the contract (i.e., the contract is that the person is a subject, slave, and chattel property).

4. Key elements of rebutting:
a/. Rebut the presumptions of law on the basis which the system functions, since it is the presumptions, not what posses as "law" and "facts," that constitute the system's power over you. Dealing with the law and facts is the trap.

b/. The central foundational presumption that one must rebut is the presumption that one is contractually united with the corporate, abstract all-caps name that the Government creates and tricks/deceives one into identifying as one's real being with the fictitious name.

C. Progression
What is the nature of the presumed contractual nexus between the REAL you and the ABSTRACT, corporate image of you?

(1) The USA, a corporation of the English Crown, is bankrupt, and has been since at least 1788.

(2) No de jure, constitutional Congress has existed since March 27, 1861 when seven Southern States walked out of Congress leaving Congress without a quorum for adjourning and therefore ending sine die.

Definition of de jure: Rightful, legitimate, just or constitutional leader without plenary possession of the title; Descriptive of a condition in which there has been total compliance with all requirements of law. Legitimate; lawful; by right and just title.

Definition of sine die: Without day; without assigning a day for a further meeting or hearing. Hence, a legislative body adjourns sine die when it adjourns without appointing a day on which to appear or assemble again.

Definition of de facto: In fact, in deed, actually . . . accepted for all practical purposes, but is illegal or illegitimate.

The US Congress is the "de facto" body established after the Civil War.

The Congress today assembles and acts under the authority of the President acting in capacity of being Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces, under emergency war-powers rule, (i.e., law of necessity)(i.e., no law. ).

(3) Since March 27, 1861, Americans have been under Fascist rule via presidential executive order under the aforementioned Emergency War Powers, 12 USC 95 a,b. Every citizen of the United States is now legally established as an enemy via the Amendatory Act of March 9, 1993, 48 State. 1, amending Trading with the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, H.R. 4960, Public Law No. 91.

(4) December 6, 2865, the 14th Amendment was proclaimed as ratified (without proper ratification). The 14th Amendment, which is a private Roman Catholic Ecclesiastical Trust Law, constitutes a constructive, cestui que trust, a public charitable trust, "PCT," that was expressly designed to bring every corporate franchise artificial person called a "citizen of the United States" into an inseparable merging with the government until the two are united (with the power inhering in the government, not the people). A cestui que trust is fundamentally different from a regular trust.
a. It is not formed by express contract
b. It has no Grantor, but is a constructive trust created by operation of law (i.e., by make-believe) and only has co-trustees and co-beneficiaries.

(5) The Legislative Act of February 21, 1871, 41st Congress, Session III, Chapter 62, page 419, chartered a Federal company entitled "United States," a/k/a "US Inc.," a "Commercial Agency" originally designated as "Washington, D.C." in accordance with the so-called 14th Amendment . . . A "citizen of the United states" is a civilly dead entity operating as a co-trustee and co-beneficiary of the PCT, the constructive, cestui que trust of the US Inc. Under the 14th Amendment, which upholds the debt of the USA and US Inc. In Section 4.

(6) In conformity, the Legislature of each State created a limited-liability corporation, chartered in a private, military, international, commercial, admiralty/maritime jurisdiction, entitled "STATE OF . . . " (e.g "STATE OF CALIFORNIA), as evidenced by, inter alia, the change in the seal and the creation of a new constitution . . .

(7) Inasmuch as all law is contract, the contract involved in a constructive trust is an implied contract, which can be ratified by two means:

a/ Acquiescence by silence

b/ You expressly accept "benefits" offered by the government, and thereby finalize the contract by deed. By your deeds you affirm . . . no written contract is signed, but a contract is formed.

(8) People leave the ground of sovereignty and all capacity for asserting their unalienable rights in favor of being presumed as having exercised their sovereignty and free-will autonomy for the purpose of going along with the government's assertion that they sacrifice everything for the "public good," (i.e., the PCT). By so doing people lose their standing in law, (i.e., they "die a civil death in the law." They are placed in the legal position of mortmain (i.e., as if deceased) and are shorn of capacity for asserting their rights, since the presumption is that they have already exercised those rights for the purpose of being placed in the position that they are in (i.e., playing the imaginary game." The private being (the real individual) is sacrificed for the good of the public (the imaginary collective).

(9) People who die a civil death are like ghosts, and incapable of managing their own affairs.

(10) Black slaves came off the plantation and were placed into the slave plantation called the US Inc.

11. 1871 - 1913 - Officers of the actual government held office in dual capacity (i.e., in both USA and US Inc. status).

12. 1912 - Bonds issued by US Inc. Came due, but US Inc did not have the resources for paying their creditors (the seven families that founded the Federal Reserve Bank), so US Inc.'s owner (the actual government) was required to pay the balance. The national government was also without sufficient funds to meet US Inc.'s obligations, so the creditors settled for all of the assets of both US Inc. And the national government instead of foreclosure on and liquidation of the entire country. They expropriated the nation � both USA and US Inc. Sic transit America.

13. 1912 - US Inc forms an agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank. (It is important to note that both of these entities are private corporations which removes the general allegations of treason or fraud from this relationship.) Through this agreement US Inc. Must function in debt, even though they have neither funds nor resources for financing their operation.

14. 1912 - The first corporate only Senators are seated in the next election year by popular vote of the US Inc. Registered voters. The original-jurisdiction national Senators of the States did not assume office that year, and at least one third of the nation's Senators seats were lawfully and voluntarily vacant.

15. February 3, 1913 - US Inc. Passes its 16th Amendment and Congress orders the Secretary of State to enter it as ratified even though the States had not ratified it according to Law. The Secretary complied. (NOTE: The 16th Amendment was unlawful under the national Constitution; however, it was perfectly legal within the colorable, de facto corporation. It should also be noted that where the national Constitution already had a 16th Amendment, and where the Supreme Court says that the new 16th Amendment did not do anything, this corporate amendment must simply be a space filler entered such that US Inc. Constitution (1871) would have the same number of amendments as that of the national Constitution (1787).

16. April 8, 1913 - US Inc. Passes its 17th Amendment and Congress orders it to be entered as ratified in the exact same manner as their 16th Amendment. This amendment changes where US Inc.'s Senators are elected. This amendment is not even lawfully possible as a national Constitution amendment for several reasons, not the least of which is that the amendment would have required that Congress first pass an amendment that stated that they had the owner to say where Senators are elected. . .

17. December 23, 1913 - The Congress, late at night with only a small cadre of supporters present, passed the Federal Reserve Act, surrendering the creation and management of the nation's currency into the hands of a cartel of private � mostly foreign � bankers. Currency is the single most essential and critical commodity in the world, embodying more law and principles of commerce than any other. Since all interactions are "commerce," and the medium of doing business in commerce is currency, money is in a very significant sense the measure of all things. By abandoning control and management of the money supply, the nation surrendered all capacity for claiming sovereignty. The government lost its independent treasury (one of the requirements in law for national sovereignty). The United States Government became a mere fiefdom, or administrative arm, of the bankers, who now owned the store.

18. 1917 - Corporate-only Senators begin participating in all matters with those Senators who still had original jurisdiction government capacity, as a result of which all activities of the government were performed in a corporate capacity only.

19. 1917 - President Wilson was re-elected by the Electoral College, but only US Inc.'s Senate performed the Senate confirmation necessary for seating the national President. There was no national government Senate confirmation; no national seats were seated and all remained vacant.

NOTE: The national President is also the Military's Commander in Chief, and under the nation's status of being ruled by the private, commercial, martial-law rule of the Bankers and English Crown, the business needs of the nation a have remained under US Inc control since 1871 (i.e., ever since US Inc was incorporated and made operational over such matters).

20. 1717-1944 - All national government seats are and remain vacant, and US Inc. Continues maintaining the business needs of the government under martial-law rule.

21. June 5, 1933 - US Inc declares bankruptcy under House Joint Resolution, "HJR," 192.

22. 1935 � The Social Security Act is passed.

23. On application, the new Social Security Administration (hereinafter "SSA") creates a private Trust with a trust name that sounds like the name of the applicant, except the Trust's name is spelled with all capital letters. SSA makes the applicant a co-trustee of the namesake Trust, designates the SSA General Trust Fund as the Beneficiary of the namesake trust, and assigns the Trust a Social Security General Trust Fund Account number (re: the applicant for accounting and identification purposes.

24. 1938 - In Erie Railroad v. Tompkins, 1938, 304 U.S. 64-92, the U.S. Supreme Court sets the presumption (re: the status and capacity of an individual) as that of General Capacity/General Partnership relationship with the namesake Trust, as if the two entities � individual and namesake Trust � were one-in-the-same person.

25. 1944 - In the Bretton Woods Agreement, US Inc. is quit-claimed to the newly formed International Monetary Fund [IMF] in exchange for the power allowing US Inc.'s President the right of naming (seating and controlling) the governors and general managers of the International Monetary Fund, The World Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the Inter-American Bank also formed in that agreement (codified at US Code, Title 22, Section 286). It must be noted that this act created an unlawful conflict of interest between US Inc. (With its new foreign owner) and its purpose of carrying out the business needs of the national government. This is the cause of our use of the term "original-jurisdiction" government. With the new foreign owner of US Inc. A conflict of interest is created between the national government and US Inc., even though the contracted purpose of US Inc. Has not changed on its face.

26. Since 1953-1975, at least, MKULTRA (Mind Control, etc.), CIA and Military are unlawfully engaging in human experimentation with and without the knowledge of the subjects. Military airborne toxins are sprayed on large cities without warning for the purpose of studying distribution and effect patters, and other more sinister purposes (i.e., chemtrails). CITE: Joint Hearing before the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 95th Congress, 1st Session, August 3, 1977.

17. 1962 - At the National Governors� Conference in Lexington, Kentucky, US Inc informs the governors, under the guise of "public necessity", that they must all form, or reform existing, private corporations under US Inc. (In their state's interest), so that the people will not discover what the state governments are doing with the people's money (i.e., dabbling in foreign notes, Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs), bonds, and evidences of debt), which activity is forbidden from State governments by their own State Constitutions, which information would likely cause a people's revolt ending in the State official's being at worst killed and at least replaced. The proposed incorporation deadline was 1968.

28. 1970 - By this time each State revised its constitution and statutes and formed private corporate entities of the name "STATE OF (X)" .. . and then vacated their original jurisdiction government seats in favor of foreign ownership and control under the mandate of US Inc.

29. It appears that this was all done so a that a General Partnership could be presumed as existing between "The State" (of the national Union of States) and "STATE OF X", a private corporation. Said STATE OF X, as General Partner, then assumes the role of government operator/controller. This scenario is further proven by the fact that these corporate entities cannot handle gold and silver coin of the United States of America in commercial transactions without violating the Par Value Modifications Act and the Foreign Currency Exchange Act.

30 Sept 5, 1996 - US Patent & Trademark Office application number 709471 is filed consisting of a plan for marking the alleged "human property" of US Inc., (I.e., every 'citizen of the United States,' reminiscent of the Biblical reference in the nature of the Mark of the Beast. This plan is a violation of foundational law and is Luciferian in nature.

31. April 19, 1991 - The Ruby Ridge Massacre occurs, carried out by FBI agents.

32. April 19, 1993 - Federal agents end 51-day siege of 7th Day Adventists Branch Davidians compound killing several of the members of the sect, in Waco, Texas. No lawful cause existed for the siege and attack. All escaping children are shot.

33. April 19, 1994 - Federal agents attack, burn and raze the compound, killing approximately 100 of the members of the sect, without any lawful cause for the action.

34. April 19, 1995 - Federal Building in Oklahoma was blown up. There were three sets of explosions recorded on seismographs, the least effective of which was in the Ryder truck. A sub-nuclear device caused the strongest of the explosions, which created the crater. The explosions that demolished the building were set with mil-spec C4 bombs attached to the columns in the basement and on the third floor. Only US Inc. Officials could have orchestrated this sequence of events.

35. 50 USC 1520 et seq. Demonstrates that there exists an agenda for using Americans as biological test subjects. This is a fundamental breach of an alleged Constitutional contract.

36. President Clinton pushes for a mandatory health care bill for the purpose of placing the physical bodies of all Americans under control of US Inc., with international identification attached, for the purpose of tagging the populace. The computer that would handle the tracking is even identified with the acronym: B.E.A.S.T.

As per the established maxim of law: "As a thing is bound, so it is unbound," the way out of the problem is within and through the problem. This is accomplished by understanding what the problem is.

CONTRACT LAW information:

An apparent consent is not real or free when obtained through:
1. Duress
2. Menace
3. Fraud
4. Undue influence
5. Mistake

A CONTRACT IS WHOLLY VOID:
1. Where a contract has but a single object, and such object is unlawful, whether in whole or in part, or wholly impossible of performance, or so vaguely expressed as to be wholly unascertainable, the entire contract is void.
2. If any part of single consideration for one or more objects, or of several considerations for a single object, is unlawful, the entire contract is void.
3. A condition in a contract, the fulfillment of which is impossible or unlawful, within the meaning of the article on the object of contracts, or which is repugnant to the nature of the interest created by the contract, is void.
4. A contract must be so interpreted as to give effect to the mutual intention of the parties as it existed at the time of contracting, so far as the same is ascertainable and lawful.
5. All contracts, which have for their object, directly or indirectly, to exempt anyone from responsibility for his own fraud, or willful injury to the person or property of another, or violation of law, whether willful or negligent, are against the policy of the law.
6. Fraudulent deceit - One, who willfully deceives another with intent to induce him to alter his position to his injury or risk, is liable for any damage, which he thereby suffers.

IMPORTANT FACT: A major Achilles heel of the system is that it is founded on lies, deceit, concealment of material fact, misrepresentation, duress, menace, fraud, undue influence, mistake, absence of valuable consideration, and no free mutual consent (i.e., the absence of essentially every required element for the existence of a valid contract). In short, the alleged presumption of an existing contract is a lie�no contract exists, based on the absence of true agreement derived from full disclosure of all terms and conditions (i.e., no mutual understanding by all involved parties of everything with which the parties are allegedly agreeing).

ACTIONS: Those who face this problem must rebut the rebuttable presumption of the presumed contractual nexus that places us in such dire straits by an affirmative act (i.e., not denial and argument which constitutes traversing).

Non-rebutting rebuttal, first of all, occurs by establishing on the record the underlying commercial paperwork governing the situation�in this case paperwork bearing upon the virtual totality of your life. In commerce and law the reality is the record. Proper commercial paperwork is done by affidavit sworn TRUE, CORRECT AND COMPLETE, and sets forth who owes whom what, on what basis, and who is taking liability/responsibility for every bookkeeping entry, claim, charge, accusation, and anything asserted that might in any way affect the life of someone else.

THE REAL VS THE FICTITIOUS ENTITY
What is the basis and nature of this contract between the real being (name in capital and small letters) and the fictitious entity (all capital letters)? Each performs indispensable functions for and on behalf of the other. The artificial entity serves as the "transmitting utility" in commerce � and law, which is a subset of commerce�since all law, commerce, contract, and governments function in the abstract realm in which the real being cannot enter, and needs a dummy (i.e., "straw man"), that can be the conduit for the flow of energy, goods, and services, back and forth between the world of commerce and the real being. Likewise, the straw man cannot enter the world of reality (i.e., flesh-and-blood persons), which is an inaccessible domain for imaginary entities.

ACTIONS: It is therefore of utmost importance that a bona fide contract be established on the record, in a manner that the system recognizes as the ultimate forum for notice of such contracts, expressly proclaiming inter alia, that under no circumstances is the real being a surety for the Debtor, nor an accommodation party, and therefore is not liable for any debts incurred by, nor for any charges leveled against, the Debtor.

When such a contract is executed, it is a genuine, express contract that is enforceable law. It fulfills all of the criteria of contract law for such a valid contract, unlike the phony presumption of contract on the basis of which the system otherwise functions and on the basis of which over six billion people on this planet are slaves and chattel property. By recording this contract in the proper public forum one establishes on the record for public notice that the Debtor is the property of, and off of the property of the Debtor is pledge as the assets for collateralizing the contract with, the real being.

This forum, of course, is the Uniform Commercial Code [UCC] Department, in the office of each Secretary of State. In UCC terminology, the real being in this equation is called the "Secured Party," and the contract of obligation and indebtedness of the Debtor in favor of the Secured Party is called "Financing Statement."

The particulars of the Financing Statement are delineated in another contract by and between the Debtor and Secured Party called a "Security Agreement," in which every conceivable item of property that the Debtor now owns and might ever acquire is pledged as an asset for collateralizing the Debtor's obligation in favor of the Secured Party. . . The UCC Department, therefore, is the proper forum, and in the United States the supreme forum, for establishing on the record the private contractual relationship between the Secured Party and the Debtor. Such a UCC filing constitutes public record of private contract.

The Constitution, at Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 prohibits any state from passing any law impairing the obligation of contracts. This issue (i.e., impairing the obligation of contracts), is allegedly the most adjudicated of all issues in the Supreme Court. Why? Because all law is contract, and contract is above the Constitution.

Indeed, the constitution has validity only insofar as a bona fide, binding contract exists involving the Constitution.

The key [to freedom from The System] is the creation of a clear, complete, and ironclad set of contracts between the Debtor and Secured Party . . . Presumption of an amalgamation between you and The System is eliminated, and one may live free of the judicial system and invoke non-judicial remedies for intrusion and trespass by any agents of Government.

No bona fide, conscionable contract ever existed by and between the Secured Party and the Government in the first place, based on the absence of such essentials of contract law as genuine agreement, true meeting of the minds, free consent, full disclosure, and the other criteria that are essential for the existence of a valid contract.

The Government functions only an unrebutted presumption of contract (i.e., based on "let's pretend," coupled with such maxims of law and commerce as "He who fails to assert his rights has none", "A matter must be expressed to be resolved"; and "He who leaves the field of battle first loses by default."

Repeating this information . . .
Statement by the Texan Edward Mandell House (1858-1938) who made secret missions to Europe and helped Woodrow Wilson get elected:

QUOTE: "[Very] soon, every American will be required to register their biological property in a national system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will affect our security as a charge back for our fiat paper currency. Every American will be forced to register or suffer being able to work and earn a living. They will be our chattel, and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions. Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, forever to remain economic slaves through taxation, secured by their pledges. They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be none the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two should figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability. After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debt to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap to us huge profits and beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor to this fraud, which we will call "Social Insurance." Without realizing it, every American will insure us for any loss we may incur and in this manner; every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and, we will employ the high office of the President of our dummy corporation to foment this plot against America." [End quote]

DEFINITION OF LEGAL REDEMPTION: "The realization of a right to have the title of property restored free and clear of the mortgages" (Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition).

POINT: The straw man is not owned by the reality until a Redemption is made via the UCC office. The title of an individual resides with the owner of the Birth Certificate until redemption takes place. (This is not a religious term.)