• Same story, different day...........year ie more of the same fiat floods the world
  • There are no markets
  • "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

Black Magic


Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Jun 6, 2011
right here right now
So, OK it's time to resurrect this thread with the help of articulate and truthful exposition

Pay The Fine – Or Pay The Shyster
by eric • November 1, 2014 •

Why is it effectively impossible to contest a traffic ticket without a lawyer?

Emphasis on effectively.

Yes, it’s possible to learn the legalisms and procedures; the dance steps that are required in order to perform before a judge. But – like trying to learn how to tango – it is a dance few non-lawyers ever master. Which is, I think, precisely the point.

The legal profession is a kind of high-brow cartel that – like any other cartel – manufactures work for itself. Work that is not actually needed but merely required. Like tax preparation assistance, for example. No one genuinely needs this “service” – taxes being illegitimate takings-by-force of other people’s money. But most of us have no choice but to hire (and pay) a tax preparer, else we’re forced to pay even more in taxes.

So it is also with lawyers.

Especially traffic lawyers.

Why, pray, should anyone charged with “speeding” require the “services” of a lawyer to present the relevant facts to a judge? It is not – as they say – rocket science. The cop – acting in his absurd capacity as the aggrieved party – presents his evidence that you were “speeding:”

The posted/legal limit on Electric Avenue is 35 MPH. He witnessed a blue 2009 Chevy apparently exceeding this speed, which he confirmed by use of radar or laser. He states that he pulled the vehicle over and identified the defendant (that’s you) as the driver and issued you a ticket for driving 44 MPH in a 35 zone, contrary to the law.

You produce evidence in your defense, in simple conversational English: A search of county records shows that the 35 MPH speed limit was posted without a traffic survey having been done, as required by law (the relevant papers are passed to the judge). Therefore, the posted limit is legally non-binding. Or, you have obtained records that show the cop’s radar equipment was not tested and calibrated – as required by law – prior to the date it was used in this case. Therefore, the accuracy of the cop’s radar reading is questionable – therefore, there is reasonable doubt you (the defendant) were in fact speeding.

And so on.

But, of course, this is not how it goes. If a Mere Mundane (as Well Grigg so accurately styles it) attempts to present relevant facts – even if “open and shut” exculpatory – without the flim-flam of proper procedure, the judge will summarily dismiss said facts as “irrelevant” or “out of order” or some such thing. Your defense hinges less on the facts than it does on how they are presented.

Or rather, by whom.

This is deliberate – and deliberately vicious.

On the one hand, the system discourages people – Mere Mundanes – from contesting charges because the cost to hire a shyster to contest the charge is often twice or more the cost of simply paying the ransom (i.e., the “fine”). On the other hand, lawyers know that – without their “services” – it is extremely likely that most Mere Mundanes will find themselves adjudicated guilty of whatever offense they’ve been charged with committing. Hence, the choice facing the Mere Mundane is to pay the ransom – or pay a shyster.

They’ve got us coming – and going.

It was not always this way. In fact, it was once a basic right – dating back to 1215, King John I and Magna Carta – which gave us the antecedents of constitutional law and, in particular, the right to plead one’s case. As opposed to having to pay a secular priest (that would be a lawyer) to plead one’s case for one.

For a fee.

There is an old joke that goes: You know why it’s called the justice system, right? Because it’s just for us. Exactly. The system is rigged. For the benefit of lawyers. Keep in mind that even “your” lawyer is an officer of the court. He is on the same side of the line as the prosecutor and the judge. Which is not your side of the line.

This grotesque conflict of interest is rarely noticed, much less discussed.

It ought to be.

Fundamentally, the evil source of all of this nonsense is law based – not on harm caused – but on violations of statute. The former is easily proved – or disproved – by presentation of a damaged party. Of a victim. If a victim cannot be produced, then the charge is specious on the face of it. Simple. And no lawyers needed. In the case of the latter, minutia regarding “the law” determines guilt or innocence. I’s dotted and T’s crossed. The proper forms filled out properly; the right phrases and words – incantations, really – spoken at the right time and in the the required order. Whether you – the defendant – actually did anyone a wrong is not only lost in the shuffle, you’re not even allowed to bring it up.

Because doing so would be contrary to “the law.”


Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Jun 6, 2011
right here right now
Is there such a thing as Unlicensed Practice of Law?

OCTOBER 30, 2014

For many, there is confusion between the terms practicing law and private counsel. The following research summary clarifies many points of interest. Based on substantial research and analysis and legally admissible evidence, we can safely conclude the following:

There is no such thing legally defined anywhere in any enactment of any government that is specifically called a “license to practice law”.

An “Admission to Practice” issued by the U.S. Supreme Court functions as the de facto equivalent of a “license to practice law”.
Individual courts also issue admissions to practice to attorneys who VOLUNTARILY apply for it.

Neither the Constitution nor any legislative act within any state of the Union can or does specifically authorize a justice of the state Supreme Court to issue “Admissions to Practice”. Therefore, there is no authority and can be no lawful authority to issue such grants of privilege.

The Ninth and Tenth Articles to the United States Constitution specifically reserve all powers not delegated by the Constitution to the People or the States respectively. Therefore, the Federal government has never been empowered to issue “licenses” or “admissions” to practice law. Neither can this authority be implied from the “necessary and proper” clauses found anywhere in the Constitution. The idea of “licenses to practice law” is therefore primarily a “judicial doctrine” that cannot adversely affect the Constitutionally protected rights of any man or woman.

All those persons represented by a licensed attorney are “wards of the court”, incapable of executing their own defense or litigation. As such, “licensed attorneys” are there to represent them as “incompetents” and the authority of the state to license such attorneys derives from the need to protect such incompetent persons.

It is not a crime to practice law without a license and there can be no adverse consequences for doing so for any person not domiciled on federal territory under exclusive federal jurisdiction, so long as the person doing so identifies themselves NOT as an “attorney”, but as a “Counsellor at Law”.

The only case where any judge or public official may mandate or influence one’s choice of counsel is in the case of public traded entities, such as corporations. Private corporations and private persons may not be controlled or regulated in their choice of legal “counsel” to only those who have been licensed or admitted to practice by the state supreme Court.

The only legitimate purpose for “licensing” of attorneys is to protect the public. In practice, public servants abuse this regulatory authority delegated to them NOT to protect the public, but to:10.1. Stifle all attorneys from speaking the truth in open court about government and official corruption, especially as it pertains to the judiciary.10.2. Establish and further the ends of a legal profession monopoly on the practice of law designed to further their own private economic ends.

The authority to “practice law” conveyed upon “counsel” or a “counsellor at law” includes the following:
11.1. Preparing pleadings, discovery, and execute discovery.
11.2. Arguing issues of law before the court.
11.3. Advising the assisted party of his rights and options.The word “attorney” is not equivalent to “counsel” as used in the Sixth Amendment. All licensed “attorneys” may also be classified as “counsel”, but not all counsel need be licensed attorneys within the meaning of the Sixth Amendment. Any claims to the contrary will require proof of a damaged party, as a result of “unlicensed practice of law”, by the living man or woman who is a damaged party due to this mysterious “practice”, who will testify under oath and quote the law and/or contract which applies where someone was practicing law without disclosure of these facts.


Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Jun 6, 2011
right here right now
Equity & Trusts vs Common Law


We are always open to discussion as long as it doesn’t go down an endless rabbit hole. Many solutions are relatively simple and should remain simple so as to make it manageable. The concept that all courts are matters of trusts is a true and simple one. It will be discussed in upcoming calls.

Here is a posting we received – “Equity” IS the LAW, at law came from Equity and EVERY State as well as the Feds have Equity available to us, we just NEVER ask for it. We’ve been brainwashed into thinking Everything is Legal (we agree there, it is LAW not legal). It’s an in depth subject!

Everything is really a Trust, two executable contracts, but in order for it to be a trust we must “Express” the Trust; otherwise it defaults to D.C., Statutes and codes, common law, the FORM and not the substance of the law, ever since 1933 and except for a few bones we get thrown, WE LOSE! (this is why going on offense with your own case is so powerful vs playing defense all the time)

You might want to get a copy of Gibson’s book, Equity, 2nd edition 1907, a Treatise on suits in Chancery. It’s online and about the best one, but by no means the only one. There’s Pomeroy, Story, Phelps, Lewin and others. Once you express the Trust to the Bank and make them Trustee they owe you the Duty as beneficiary. We have always been the beneficiary, but the Banksters repudiate the Trusteeship at law and we never dispute that correctly. Once you waive that right to dispute, YOU LOSE. “Equity” is Just the Opposite of “AT law”.

Comments – This information may help if you are already a defendant in a case. We have heard of this approach being effective in recent cases, especially once you are being dragged into an alleged court (administrative proceeding actually, non trial by jury). First – do not accept identification by the ALL CAPS NAME. You are accepting surety (liability; you don’t want to do that. Tell them with a written notice that you do not accept any position as trustee or surety. So notify them you are are only there on Special Appearance, and do not accept any roles as trustee or surety. If needed, give them a handwritten document, and keep your mouth shut. At best, you are one of the beneficiaries of the estate they are trying to access (charge). If they try to proceed at all at this point, you can also add, “you can appoint someone else into the trustee position if such thing exists here today, I do not accept any titled status here, i am a man, i require you to act accordingly”.

Then in line with PROOF of CLAIM teachings, ask “does anyone in the court with a claim against me, a man? If so let them come forth and be placed under oath to take the stand and swear they are the damaged party with a verifiable claim. If they will not come forth, you order the court to dismiss the case against you, a man”. Again you can put this in writing preferably. Anything else you may utter or answer can be fatal though, so don’t add much to this or get being called “Mr Something or You”. As a man not under their jurisdiction are an “idiot” when it comes to their statutes and codes, that is not a bad thing to say. You don’t “understand” (stand under) anything. Don’t get caught answering to the NAME they are using (like Mr. NAME, or You”, even with a slight gesture. Simply tell them “I am a man with a given name of Whatever”, please act accordingly”. All of this works to keep them from establishing you as surety for the matter; as a man, not accepting a reduced “citizen” status as some dead entity with a title (ie: an entity like a person, individual, corporation, trustee, etc). Getting back to common law keeps you out of their statutes, trusts, and codes game – you can’t likely win once inside that maze. Write everything you can and don’t respond beyond your writings. You shouldn’t need to speak much. Anything you say can and will be used against you (by reducing your status down to something other than a man). They are masters at getting you to “speak” and give up/confess your standing.

WARNING: If you have hired an attorney, you may have already accepted a reduced status, and will have difficulty using these techniques. In all cases the attorney is an officer of THEIR court and only helps those who are incompetent to help themselves. He can only bargain for you now as a citizen/ slave, he cannot not help you achieve your status as a man.


heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Apr 1, 2014
on the low side of corporate Oregon
Good thread though I have not read it all BUT am going to work with great anticipation when I return knowing that this will still be available....cool...... finished the second vid though....cool....he asks better questions than i did! Oh in the second vid the reason they were doing the ticketing after he left court was to show that he was habitual. It is well known that the arrest record stays and the conviction can be expunged. And while arrest actually by definition is that they have to seize you as in put their hand on you you still are essentially under arrest at a traffic stop, damm grey areas.


Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Apr 2, 2010
Good thread though I have not read it all BUT am going to work with great anticipation when I return knowing that this will still be available....cool...... finished the second vid though....cool....he asks better questions than i did! Oh in the second vid the reason they were doing the ticketing after he left court was to show that he was habitual. It is well known that the arrest record stays and the conviction can be expunged. And while arrest actually by definition is that they have to seize you as in put their hand on you you still are essentially under arrest at a traffic stop, damm grey areas.
They say you are under arrest when the bubble gum machine comes on !!!
Sep 25, 2013
Bangkok, Thailand
Logical tricks to perpetuate slavery.


Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
May 28, 2010
wit;in reach
in the days if a person was on trial in order to insure the lier or lawyer was not going to sell you out' a family member stayed with the lawyers closest family member (s) to keep em honest . in 1969 a lawyer misrepresenting Charley manson tried to xx him or one of the Manson family members n' was never seen again. courts n' the system plays dirty pool ! they are hypocrites, drunks, drug users, bribe takers, whore mongers etc.. IE: humans in sensitive positions.. n' like the money n' power . IMHO worst then many they preside over. sad but true. :eating:


Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sep 16, 2012
third cove on the right
Is there such a thing as Unlicensed Practice of Law?

There is no such thing legally defined anywhere in any enactment of any government that is specifically called a “license to practice law”.

The practice of Law CAN NOT be licensed by any state/State.
( Schware v. Board of Examiners, 353 U.S. 238, 239 )

( Sims v. Aherns, 271 S.W. 720 (1925))

The "CERTIFICATE" from the State Supreme Court:
ONLY authorizes,




1. Like the Actors Union, Painters Union, etc.
2. No other association, EVEN DOCTORS, issue their own license. ALL ARE ISSUED BY THE STATE.
The State Bar is;
An Unconstitutional Monopoly.
Violates Article 2, Section 1, Separation of Powers clause of the Constitution.
There is NO POWER OR AUTHORITY for joining of Legislative, Judicial, or Executive within a state as the BAR is attempting. BAR members have invaded all branches of government and are attempting to control de jure government as agents of a foreign entity!

Sep 25, 2013
Bangkok, Thailand
Lawyers are guilty.

Lawyers plead the 5th by refusing to respond to any accusations or notices.

Then they leave the burden of proof to the accuser, while they kill witnesses and destroy evidence.

FYI, a lawyer is guilty until proven innocent. That is the price of being above the bar.


Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Jun 6, 2011
right here right now
"The fact is that the average man's love of liberty is nine-tenths imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice and truth. He is not actually happy when free; he is uncomfortable, a bit alarmed, and intolerably lonely. Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men. It is the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority, like knowledge, courage and honor. It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty - and he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies. "-(Henry Louis Mencken)


To F*ck This Court and Everything that it Stands For.
As of Wednesday, April 15, 2015, I am in receipt of the Order dated 3/31/2015 wherein the despicable "Judge" Willis B. Hunt, Jr. has the audacity to attempt to dismiss this case based upon fallacious and irrelevant contentions that are without merit-ofwhich he is absolutely aware.
Firstly, Jason is my HUSBAND, as I have stated, you a*shole. And my son is no longer an infant; he has grown into a strong, extremely intelligent and beautiful little boy. Don't you ever again in your mother*cking life attempt to

Pg. 1of9
Case 1:14-cv-02128-WBH Document 41 Filed 04/20/15 Page 2 of 9

disrespect me, my family, or our status again. Keep our names out ofyour unworthy mouth-you old, IMPOTENT geezer.
And no, Jason did not sign the complaint-so the f*ck what? Is that really the best argument you can come up with-after the MANY pages I have presented to this court-as to why you cannot allow the matter to progress? Loi. What a joke you are, old man.
What about the 100+ pages o f valid legal contentions that have been presented by Plaintiffs before this court? You don't want to delve into those-do you? You don't want the American people to know about the fraud that your B*TCH A*S is helping pull on them. Ain't that right? F*cking b*tch...You disgust me.
And you mean to tell me that a mother cannot bring suit on behalfofher own child-and no one finds that the least bit strange? THIS is what people think freedom and unalienable rights look like? God help us. Lord, help us all...
The court ''takes judicial notice" ofblah, blah, blah ...Yep. Whatever. That's right-I had a cocked and fully loaded AK-47 assault rifle, as well as a .45 caliber
pistol. What's your point? And NO, I was never convicted of anything. But you know what? They can go right ahead and try to convict me ifthey want to-I don't give a d*mn. This whole system is a joke.

Pg. 2of9
Case 1:14-cv-02128-WBH Document 41 Filed 04/20/15 Page 3 of 9

The United States of America have collectively and individually been politically and legally overthrown by foreign opportunists and domestic sellout b*tches like you. Mitchell County officials will get their f*cking feelings hurt if they even try me. I'm not playing with you or anybody else. F*ck you all. How about that?
Also, you genius, I NEVER stated that I am not a citizen ofany nation. Don't try to twist my words. I said that my family and I are the posterity ofthose who conquered this land and have thus inherited it from them; and that you citizens o fthe United States, as defined by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. federal Constitution in 1868 have no rights to anything here. I said we are Floridian- Americans-but our lawful State government has been overthrown by insurgent federal citizens, (citizens o f the United States), like you.
And now that 99.9% of Americans are ignorant as to our true history, you traitors have tricked them all into identifying themselves as federal citizens, and you, what-think this means you will get away with something? No. Absolutely not. All that the people need is a proper education, free o f propaganda and l i e s - and I'm working on that. See Attachment A, entitled "Why Most Americans Do Not Inherently Owe Federal Income Taxes". Let me know ifyou want to write the introduction to my next publication-there are many more to come.

Pg. 3of9
Case 1:14-cv-02128-WBH Document 41 Filed 04/20/15 Page 4 of 9

Look here, old man, when I told you I AM Justice-I meant it. It took me about I month to study the history ofthe world and to learn the history and inner workings of American jurisprudence, literally. I was born to do this here. Don't you know that your FBI and CIA have been trying to recruit me since grade school? Lol. But they're unscrupulous losers like you, so it won't be happening.
Instead, I will educate the People, and hopefully one day, if we are lucky, they will rise up against you oppressive, lying traitors and hang you all for the crime you have committed against us all.
What? You think because you sit up there in that little black robe hiding behind the ignorance ofthe masses like a little b*tch, that ANYBODY gives a d*mn about you or what you have to say? Well, just in case you haven't noticed-I couldn't give two f*cks about you or what you have to say. F*ck you, old man. You're a joke. Your court's a joke. You take it up the a*s; and you suck nuts. Loi.
For the last time, we have not asserted any civil rights pursuant 42 U.S.C. §1983-as that particular federal code section applies specifically to federal citizens ONLY; we are not federal citizens. Answer me this, genius: ifthe original states were in existence before the federal government-with their own constitutional provisions for protecting their citizens' unalienable human rights-

Pg. 4of9
Case 1:14-cv-02128-WBH Document 41 Filed 04/20/15 Page 5 of 9

then why would state citizens need to claim protection for those rights under the federal constitution? They don't. That makes no sense. At all.
All rights claimed under 42 U.S.C. §1983 are those of federal citizens, exclusively. Further, your stupid assertion regarding federal civil rights and their respective statute of limitations is flawed in this: it's not applicable and is outright stupid. In addition, a law person worth his salt would know about and respect legal principle concerning domicile, which dictates that you cannot apply the "Williams v . C i t y o f A t l a n t a 7 9 4 F . 2 d 6 2 4 ( 1 J1h C i r . 1 9 8 6 ) " t o u s , t h e P l a i n t i f f s , b e c a u s e t h e parties to that case are domiciled in the District o f Columbia, being that they are federal citizens ofthe United States [federal government]. Our domicile is right here in Florida. Y ou're an idiot.
You then end your f*ckery by stating that the case is dismissed "for good cause shown, and in the absence ofopposition"; however, you have not shown any good or legally valid cause--and you know it. There is no applicable legal basis for your assertions, old man. All ofyour arguments are frivolous.
You have presented federal rights and laws to defeat unalienable human rights and laws that supersede them both. What a shameful and stupid joke you are. Also, we have properly and flawlessly opposed, rebutted, and defeated the 60+

Pg. 5of9
Case 1:14-cv-02128-WBH Document 41 Filed 04/20/15 Page 6 of 9

pages o f irrelevant and inapplicable contentions Defendants have attempted to levy against us. But you don't even acknowledge that, huh? What a hoe.
This court has undoubtedly been showing unprecedented favor to Defendants; had not said one word to us, the Plaintiffs, since the filing ofthe original complaint more than 9 months ago; and now states that there was no opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss? What about the IOo+ pages ofproper rebuttals and defenses that Plaintiffs presented to the court? You've just completely disregarded them all, huh? I suppose you did same thing in Civil Action No. I:l4-CV-2703-WBH-LTW too, didn't you? You b*tch...
Don't worry, I take it all as a compliment, because I am well aware that the court has not spoken to me because it cannot defeat my legal arguments-so it runs and cowers like a panic-stricken hoe that has stolen money from her back-handing pimp. Just for the record: you are a hoe. This court is a hoe. And I will backhand you both, should you continue to waste my time.
Let me ask you-do you really think I ever believed this court would give me a fair shot? Ha! No. I'm much too intelligent for that. Just know that this entire proceeding has served the purpose for which it was intended. And you played right into it, in the exact way that I intended for you to, like the dumb hoe that you are...

Pg. 6of9
Case 1:14-cv-02128-WBH Document 41 Filed 04/20/15 Page 7 of 9

The federal government was not created to replace the state governments by any means. It was created to tend to matters that fell without the sovereignty o f any one particular state. After having been oppressed by the King ofGreat Britain, is that what the Founding Fathers did? They went through hell and fought the War for Independence just to relinquish their citizens to the federal government and set it up to be more oppressive than the King ofGreat Britain could have ever been? I
think not.
In fact, the people were so weary of something like this happening that it is the very reason that the Federalist Papers were written-to convince the peoples of the several states that a weak and limited central REPUBLICAN government to loosely hold them together was a good idea. Looks like the people were right to be weary ofa federal, oversized, oppressive central government. I mean, look at this mess...The U.S. federal government is out of control.
The federal government currently taxes the people exponentially more than theBritishKingcouldhaveeverdreamedofdoing. Andpeople'shumanrightsare being violated faster than you can say the phrase "Willis B. Hunt, Jr. is a b*tcha*s hoe". I mean, I am not a retard that you are going to convince that these brilliant men intended for the federal government to wield power over the several states and their people as it presently does. This is not freedom, you jacka*s. This is slavery worse than the history o f the world has ever seen.

Pg. 7of9
Case 1:14-cv-02128-WBH Document 41 Filed 04/20/15 Page 8 of 9

Any idiot can take a look into the history of American jurisprudence through studying congressional records, U.S. Supreme Court cases, etc.-as I have done- to realize that these United States of America have been overthrown. The
American people-due to their own neglect ofcivic duty and responsibility to educate themselves and their children, have allowed this to happen.
I say all ofthis to say: Mr. Hunt, I don't give a d*mn about you or anything you have to say. Y ou are a castrated coward and a disgrace to these United States o f America. Fortunately for us all, you are in old age and presumably nearing the inevitable death that awaits all old impotent geezers like yourself, with a one-way ticket to hell; which is good. That's exactly where a treacherous, lying, spineless, bastard son-of-a-b*tch like you deserves to be for the rest of eternity. Bum.
Lastly, I will be posting the entirety ofthese court proceedings online and disseminating them amongst the general population, for the people to see this disgrace. You control nothing. You are nothing. And you can do nothing. F*ck you. Die.

For the UNREPRESENTED Plaintiffs, (Signed Wednesday, April 15, 2015).
Pg. 8of9

More here
Aug 18, 2010
Equity & Trusts vs Common Law


We are always open to discussion as long as it doesn’t go down an endless rabbit hole. Many solutions are relatively simple and should remain simple so as to make it manageable. The concept that all courts are matters of trusts is a true and simple one. It will be discussed in upcoming calls.

Here is a posting we received – “Equity” IS the LAW, at law came from Equity and EVERY State as well as the Feds have Equity available to us, we just NEVER ask for it. We’ve been brainwashed into thinking Everything is Legal (we agree there, it is LAW not legal). It’s an in depth subject!

Everything is really a Trust, two executable contracts, but in order for it to be a trust we must “Express” the Trust; otherwise it defaults to D.C., Statutes and codes, common law, the FORM and not the substance of the law, ever since 1933 and except for a few bones we get thrown, WE LOSE! (this is why going on offense with your own case is so powerful vs playing defense all the time)

You might want to get a copy of Gibson’s book, Equity, 2nd edition 1907, a Treatise on suits in Chancery. It’s online and about the best one, but by no means the only one. There’s Pomeroy, Story, Phelps, Lewin and others. Once you express the Trust to the Bank and make them Trustee they owe you the Duty as beneficiary. We have always been the beneficiary, but the Banksters repudiate the Trusteeship at law and we never dispute that correctly. Once you waive that right to dispute, YOU LOSE. “Equity” is Just the Opposite of “AT law”.

Comments – This information may help if you are already a defendant in a case. We have heard of this approach being effective in recent cases, especially once you are being dragged into an alleged court (administrative proceeding actually, non trial by jury). First – do not accept identification by the ALL CAPS NAME. You are accepting surety (liability; you don’t want to do that. Tell them with a written notice that you do not accept any position as trustee or surety. So notify them you are are only there on Special Appearance, and do not accept any roles as trustee or surety. If needed, give them a handwritten document, and keep your mouth shut. At best, you are one of the beneficiaries of the estate they are trying to access (charge). If they try to proceed at all at this point, you can also add, “you can appoint someone else into the trustee position if such thing exists here today, I do not accept any titled status here, i am a man, i require you to act accordingly”.

Then in line with PROOF of CLAIM teachings, ask “does anyone in the court with a claim against me, a man? If so let them come forth and be placed under oath to take the stand and swear they are the damaged party with a verifiable claim. If they will not come forth, you order the court to dismiss the case against you, a man”. Again you can put this in writing preferably. Anything else you may utter or answer can be fatal though, so don’t add much to this or get being called “Mr Something or You”. As a man not under their jurisdiction are an “idiot” when it comes to their statutes and codes, that is not a bad thing to say. You don’t “understand” (stand under) anything. Don’t get caught answering to the NAME they are using (like Mr. NAME, or You”, even with a slight gesture. Simply tell them “I am a man with a given name of Whatever”, please act accordingly”. All of this works to keep them from establishing you as surety for the matter; as a man, not accepting a reduced “citizen” status as some dead entity with a title (ie: an entity like a person, individual, corporation, trustee, etc). Getting back to common law keeps you out of their statutes, trusts, and codes game – you can’t likely win once inside that maze. Write everything you can and don’t respond beyond your writings. You shouldn’t need to speak much. Anything you say can and will be used against you (by reducing your status down to something other than a man). They are masters at getting you to “speak” and give up/confess your standing.

WARNING: If you have hired an attorney, you may have already accepted a reduced status, and will have difficulty using these techniques. In all cases the attorney is an officer of THEIR court and only helps those who are incompetent to help themselves. He can only bargain for you now as a citizen/ slave, he cannot not help you achieve your status as a man.
Capitis deminutio (lit. "decrease of head") is a term used in Roman trials referring to the extinguishing, either in whole or in part, of a person's former legal capacity.

There were three changes of state or condition attended with different consequences, maxima, media and minima. The greatest, capitis deminutio maxima, involved the loss of liberty, citizenship, and family (e.g. being made a slave or prisoner of war). The next change of state, capitis deminutio media, consisted of a loss of citizenship and family without any forfeiture of personal liberty. The least change of state, capitis deminutio minima, consisted of a person ceasing to belong to a particular family, without loss of liberty or citizenship.

Don't let the capitalization of name issue confuse you, its a redherring, a logical fallacy.

capitis deminutio maxima / "legal name" issued at birth by informant (mother) - John J. Doe - d.b.a. doing business as - statutory / admiralty law

capitis deminutio minima / "lawful given name" given by parents at birth - John James - without family name attached - common law / constitutional rights

Now that you no longer live in your parents house (jurisdiction), you have the lawful right to assume your given name ....

Whatever contract that the courts hold you in contempt of (Traffic) have that contract signature be of your lawful given name even if the court addresses you in legal title. Motion court to dismiss for misnomer when making your special appearance, sign all citations (charging instruments) with "refusal for cause" as capitis deminutio minima.


Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Jun 6, 2011
right here right now
http://usa-the-republic.com/jurisprudentia/commercial liens.html

Edited by TLH staff [with acknowledgments and credit to Alfred Adask (Publisher of AntiShyster magazine),
Richard Boalbey, David DeReimer, and the various lien authors, for providing some of the content

(Applicable To The U.S.A.; Adaptable For Some Other Countries)

Table of Contents
(Note: Allow the full file to load before using the links below.)
Chapter 1

  • Introduction
  • Scope and Purpose of Manual
  • Some Notes on the Sample Briefs
  • The Commercial Lien Strategy - Background
  • Some Examples of the Strategy
  • The Power Of Commercial Liens
Chapter 2

  • Theory of Commercial Lien Strategy
  • Introduction
  • The Commercial Affidavit Process
  • Constitutions as Enforceable Contracts
  • Bonding of Government Officials
Chapter 3

  • Basic Concepts of Liens
  • Lien - Definition
  • Different Types of Liens
  • Comparisons
  • Liens vs. Levies
Chapter 4

  • Procedure and Implementation
  • Research
  • Notice and Demand
  • Notice of Default
  • Commercial Lien
  • Lawsuits and Criminal Complaints
Chapter 5

  • Mistakes and Pitfalls to Avoid
  • Defective Legal Form and Procedure
  • "Hanson-type" or "Nebulous" Liens
  • Aiming Too High
  • Beware of "Exotic" Arguments
Chapter 6

  • Obstacles and Strategies for Overcoming Them
  • Refusal to File Liens
  • Abuse of Judicial Power
Chapter 7

  • The Coloring Agreement Approach
  • Background
  • Instructions
Chapter 8

  • Final Thoughts, by Alfred Adask
Appendix A - Bibliography and Sources

Appendix B - Index of Sample Legal Briefs

Appendix A, will allow you to do further research on your own.

Some Notes on the Sample Briefs

Included with this manual is an Appendix containing sample legal briefs, based upon actual examples used by others.

You will have to reformat these briefs using your word processing software, and you MUST adapt them to your situation, and to the requirements of your state or locality. These are not and (in the nature of things) cannot be "fill-in-the-blank" forms.

The Commercial Lien Strategy - Background

Faced with corrupt lawyers and judges, no litigant can expect to win in court by simply playing defense. To beat them, you must be able to scare them. You must be able to make them respect you, and that means you must be able to take the offense -- attack them personally.

Unfortunately, judges, lawyers, and other government officials enjoy various levels of personal immunity provided by both law and "professional courtesy." How do you sue a lawyer for malpractice? You hire another lawyer -- if you can find one who'll take the case. How do you sue an IRS agent for violating your Constitutional rights? Only with great difficulty. How you sue a judge for railroading you in court? You don't.

As a practical matter, private citizens can't sue the President of the United States, a Governor, judge, or even an IRS agent for failing to obey or enforce the laws. If we try to sue in court to compel our government officials to obey the law and perform their lawful duties, the judges routinely ignore our petitions and laugh us out of court.

Because legal and de facto immunities shield government personnel from being sued for committing crimes against the People, the public is legally disarmed, unable to aggressively sue the government or its agents and compel them to obey the Law. As a result, the public's legal posture is fundamentally defensive: we try to duck, dodge, and hide in legal loopholes to defend ourselves against the government and the courts. We try to escape, evade, and avoid, but we seldom counter-attack against our antagonists, largely because we think there are no lawful weapons to do so. However, it appears that a powerful offensive legal weapon may now have been discovered, tested, and proven for common Citizens -- the commercial lien. We don't try to sue a government official for failing to perform his lawful duties. Instead, we simply file a lien that encumbers the official's personal property and credit rating like a ton of bricks until he voluntarily satisfies our demand to perform his lawful duty, and we, in turn, voluntarily agree to excise the lien.

Some Examples of the Strategy

Example 1 -- Edward J. Wagner, an hourly, unionized employee at General Electric, received Notices of Levy from the IRS, garnishing his wages and moneys received from several other sources. Wagner tried to persuade G.E. not to honor the Notices, since they were not properly attested as "true bills of commerce." His efforts met with no success.

After giving G.E. proper Notice and Demand, Wagner and his wife filed a Commercial Lien in the amount of $224,640,000.00. In the lien, Wagner impounded G.E. inventory that he had worked on (including air conditioning units, analyzing equipment, etc.) as security for the lien. This is similar to an auto mechanic impounding a car he had repaired ("mechanic's lien"). This meant that G.E. could not lawfully sell or transfer the equipment until the lien was either extinguished or satisfied.

Among the reasons for the high dollar amount are that the law allows for such high sums as rewards for damages incurred, and it generally has to be large enough in relation to the size of the company involved, to get its attention. Otherwise such a large company might just ignore it.

Consequently, a legal war followed, and by June of '92, G.E. had gone to court several times trying to remove Wagner's lien, all without any real success. This was in spite of the fact that G.E. had the best, most highly paid, and highly motivated lawyers.

In June of '92, the first major victory for the Wagners came. The IRS issued four different official Releases of Levy, one to General Electric, plus three other places where they had wages and income that the IRS had levied -- the Port of Seattle, Dean Witter Reynolds, and Ohio State Life Insurance Company. These effectively released the IRS's attachment on the Wagners' income and assets. That's a pretty solid testimonial to the power of the arguments in Mr. Wagner's lien.

Example 2 -- In August 1992, Mr. Nelson Starr, who lives in Florida, filed a lien on several federal judges, the Commissioner of the IRS, the Attorney General of the United States, one or more U.S. attorneys for the Southern District of Florida, and several other individuals, in the amount of $350,000 on each individual. The officials asked Mr. Alan Diamond, President of the Florida Bar Association, to inspect the lien and see if it was lawful or not.

In spite of his desire to please his powerful friends, Diamond could find nothing illegal about the lien. In fact, in a sworn affidavit, Diamond declared that, "... the document causes irreparable harm to the system of the administration of justice. While some of the harm may be compensable at law, no degree of compensation will adequately remedy the damage to the appearance of integrity of those named and of the system of the administration of justice. In my opinion, the filing of this type of lien is a direct attack on the justice system and on the general reputations of those named in the "lien." It may negatively impact on the financial credit rating of those individuals. It will probably have a negative impact on their willingness to continue to serve as representatives of the United States. And, it constitutes an abuse of civil process that cannot be adequately remedied by an action at law. [emphasis added]" In plain English, Diamond did not like the lien, but couldn't find any way to extinguish it. Further, he seemed to say that these liens could drive public officials right out of office!For libertarians and patriots, that is a powerful endorsement!

Example 3 - Another a man in Florida filed Commercial Liens against nine IRS agents and was later taken to court by the IRS agents' wives. The wives tried unsuccessfully to remove the liens, because their credit cards had stopped working. The liens had compromised their credit rating, and they couldn't go shopping except with cash. Imagine the distress that the IRS agents themselves had to endure from their wives on account of these liens! Evidently, the liens hit the agents where they lived, in a way that other actions at law could not do.

Example 4 - Perhaps the most imaginative use of the Commercial Lien Strategy is a lien by Mr. Phil Marsh of the Pilot Connection against the President of the United States, the U.S. Congress, the Federal Reserve, and the Commissioner of IRS on behalf of all 250 million Americans (see Appendix B.6). For each of the 250 million Americans, the lien demands $10,000. If the lien were enforced, it would mean the government would owe the people $2.5 trillion, over half the annual Gross National Product.

This "class action lien" will almost certainly never be enforced. However, if the courts find a way to extinguish it, it may have the effect of weakening the power of all liens (including the one the IRS files on us!).

[Editor's Note: Everything in this manual is "information" only, not legal advice. This caveat applies with particular force to Mr. Marsh's lien. We present this lien as an interesting and imaginative application of the Commercial Lien Strategy, not as an "endorsement."

Our organization originally included Phil Marsh and The Pilot Connection on our list of sources. However, some of our customers began to complain about poor service, and some raised questions about the integrity of the group. Later, Marsh appeared on the television show 20/20 and vigorously denounced the IRS. Also, it appears that The Pilot Connection may have been stockpiling arms and ammunition. These actions invited official retaliation, which was not long in coming.

In 1994, Phil Marsh and other members of The Pilot Connection were prosecuted by Federal territorial gangsters on a smorgasbord of criminal charges. In November of that year, the trial ended in a hung jury on most counts, and a few outright acquittals, with no convictions. The defense team included "public defenders" and two experienced pro se litigants from the National Commodity and Barter Association. The pro se's from N.C.B.A. later reported that Marsh was highly resistant to their legal advice throughout the trial.

These facts suggest that Marsh is relatively blind to strategy, and that his reasoning is at a "proto-conscious" level, with a strong commitment to being "right" regardless of new information. Given Mr. Marsh's track record, we strongly advise readers of his lien to thoroughly scrutinize and research his legal theories before using any of them.]

Ease of Use

Although this lien strategy is explosive, it's more like nitro-glycerin than hydrogen bombs. You need to be knowledgeable and careful to use nitro-glycerin, but you don't need to be a nuclear physicist. However, nitro-glycerin can blow up in your face if you handle it carelessly!

Likewise, "bombing" government officials with liens is a craft, not a science, that can be used as easily by knowledgeable pro se's as it can by lawyers and legal scholars. The commercial lien is simple, inexpensive, and takes very little time. It requires no court action or judge's approval. And, it has proven to be very direct and effective, if it is handled correctly. However, a few careless pro se's have had their liens "blow up" in their faces (see Chapter 5), so be meticulous when you use them.

Long Range

You can file a commercial lien on property in another state or on property you've never seen. With a commercial lien, you can attack the personal property of your adversary at long range rather than merely fighting to defend your own property in your own back yard. This offensive capability makes the commercial lien a powerful legal weapon. With the commercial lien, you can literally take the fight to their back yards.

The Helplessness of Judges

The commercial lien, which is authorized both by the common law and by Title 15 of the United States Code (USC), is reportedly the same lien the IRS uses to take Americans' homes and cars. However, some pro se litigants do not depend upon Title 15, but upon the common law of negotiable instruments (a.k.a. Commercial Law).

As such, it's almost impossible to remove a commercial lien without the approval of the individual claimant who filed the lien. Although a commercial lien can be challenged by a common law court or by a 7th Amendment jury trial, it does not require a court process or a court judgment for its establishment, validity, or execution. Therefore, it appears that the courts may not be able to simply extinguish this lien on their own discretion (or on motion from the lien debtors) without the voluntary approval of the person who filed the lien.

Traditionally, these liens can only be removed by the voluntary decision of the person who filed the lien, by the decision of a constitutional common-law jury trial, or by waiting 99 or 100 years. Since the common law has been smothered in the U.S.A., all judges are essentially powerless to overcome the liens.

The Right Way L.A.W.

Before utilizing any of the procedures suggested in this manual, we strongly suggest that you join an organization called "The Right Way ... L.A.W." They are experts on legal and court procedures, as well as liens in general. They also have great expertise regarding Title 42 (civil rights violation suits).

Appendix B).
This explanation will, no doubt, be very different from anything you have been taught. In fact, licensed attorneys may have the hardest time understanding this, because they have been taught to think only in a certain way. An intelligent lay reader will probably understand the following article without much trouble.

Most of us have been hypnotized into believing that the meaningless scribbles of "legislators," "Presidents," etc., constitute "the law." After reading this chapter, one thing should be absolutely clear to you. The law is whatever you give your consent to. This insight frees you from being a "victim" and a "subject," and restores you to your rightful position of power and sovereignty. (Always remember, though, that Territorial Gangsters [TG's] have all sorts of ways to obtain your "consent"! Standing up for your rights always involves risk.)

by an anonymous Christian patriot

A Powerful Weapon

The Commercial Affidavit Process -- or "CAP" -- is perhaps one of the most powerful devices available to the common man for righting wrongs and accomplishing justice. The process is not new, as some may believe. At its foundation are the laws of commerce which spring from the eternal, immutable Laws of God, and those laws have been in force since the beginning of human existence. Provoke the use of the Commercial Affidavit Process against you and you provoke the wrath of all that is just and right.

Today, those who are availing themselves of the CAP system are equipping themselves with a very powerful equalizer. Make no mistake! The CAP is a very lethal weapon in the war against injustice. It is capable of righting wrongs while eliminating the "cost factor" that deprives thousands of people from getting justice. The expression "equal under the law" again has real meaning, thanks to CAP. When the CAP methodology is properly loaded and sighted on a wrongdoer, success is "as good as in the bag." The Process is powerful and dangerous to those who are in the line of fire. There is no escape: either acquiesce and justly recompense or suffer the awful consequences. And, those consequences can be calamitous as will be shown.

The Foundation Of Law

There are basically three classes of laws: The Laws of God, which encompass the Laws of Nature; The Law of the Land, also referred to as the Common Law; and lastly there is Private Law, or man-made law, also referred to as Contract Law.

Our Founding Fathers believed that it was self-evident that the God of Nature is the sovereign of the universe and everything in it (as well as mankind) and that He had endowed all mankind with "certain unalienable rights" making them self-directing sovereigns, which means that any governments instituted among men derive their just powers (only) from the consent of the governed, who are the source of earthly power and authority. Hence any attempt to exercise any powers NOT conveyed by the People is unjust and unauthorized, and any act done pursuant to such usurpation of power is void.

They were further convinced that God's temporal law for mankind was expressed in the law of the land. Common law is common-sense law. It is simple, straightforward and self evident, primarily because it is based on God's Laws. It is the foundational law of the union of States.

The Founding Fathers authorized three legal systems in the Constitution, first Common Law, secondly Equity Law, and thirdly Admiralty Law, which is the law of the sea. Gradually Common Law has been displaced by Equity Law until today the Common Law is rarely heard of or understood because it has been covered up and hidden away by the legal profession for very understandable business reasons. Such people are pursuing their own private agenda. In fact the Common Law is generally looked upon as obscene, example: to have a common law marriage is considered to be unclean. Why? The first marriage license in the United States was issued in 1863. The question is not whether some third party should or should not perform the service; it is whether sovereigns must get permission from their servants (the government) before they can be married.

Private Law

Private Law is that law which comes into being when people enter into agreements creating the rules and terms by which they agree to be bound together.

State and federal constitutions are examples of private law. They come under the heading of contract law because they are contracts that establish governments and are designed to protect the People from the government. To keep the government under control, the People were very precise in the language they used to make it perfectly clear exactly what powers were being delegated AND that any powers not specifically delegated were reserved (by the People) to the states or the People.

It should be remembered that the People are the sovereigns of State governments and the States are the sovereigns of the federal government. Thus the People, either directly or indirectly, are the sovereigns over both governments. The States have been given specific and limited power. They also made sure there were provisions that safeguarded the People's right to abolish or change that government and to create a different one if they chose.

Public Law is a form of private law that results when laws are made in proper application of the delegated authority conveyed to the legislators. Title 18 (the Federal Criminal Code) is an example of public law. It was drafted to grant unto non-citizens the protections and defenses Citizens have under common law; Title 18 does not apply to sovereign Citizens, who answer directly to violations of GOD's Laws.

Administrative Law is one term used to describe private law that comes into existence when someone acquires dominion over others and can dictate to them what the law is. Title 26 (the Internal Revenue Code) in an example of Administrative Law; it and the other federal titles classified by congress as "non-public" (administrative) laws, thus apply only to subjects of the federal government.

In 1938 the United States abandoned Public Law and adopted an unconstitutional system called Public Policy. An understanding of this distinction is so vital that the definitions of these terms follow:

Public Law

That portion of law which deals with the powers, rights, duties, capacities and incapacities of government and its delegated authority. Those laws which are concerned with a government in its political capacity, considered in its quasi-private personality, i.e., as capable of holding or exercising rights or acquiring and dealing with property in the character of an individual.

Public Policy

The rules and procedures (policy) of a sovereign over its subjects. It holds that no subject can lawfully do that which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against the public good as defined by the sovereign. Public policy is set by legislative acts and, pursuant thereto, by judicial and administrative promulgating of rules and regulations.

Such rules and regulations are therefore not laws but rather terms imposed by contract agreements. It's the contracts themselves which make these rules and regulations binding. If you are not a party to those contracts, not a subject (property) of the government, you can make yourself a party by volunteering to comply. But once you decide to play the game you are compelled by the rules of that game to continue to play. Once compelled, the best out is to reassert your sovereign rights. The very concept of Public Policy and its inherent usurpation of power from the sovereign People is so addictive and has become so widely accepted by bureaucrats in all levels of government that they act as if they were the masters of the People.

This shift in government was instituted with the Supreme Court's decision in the Erie Railroad case, as a result of which, all Supreme Court decisions prior to that time are being treated as no longer relevant in equity court proceedings. And so another milestone was reached in the conspiracy to overthrow the rights of the People.

This Administrative Law is much like Roman Law which is also called Civil Law. Conceptually, Roman or Civil Law, which is practiced in most of Europe, is diametrically opposite to the Common Law.

Under Roman or Civil Law you are guilty until proven innocent and have only those rights your master the government chooses to grant you; and what your master giveth, he can take away. Under the Common Law as practiced in America, you are innocent until proven guilty and retain all rights not delegated to government.

We are seeing more and more of this Roman class of laws in this country: if you are charged you are treated as being guilty until proven innocent. If that is happening to you, it's because of your legal status -- or what "they" perceive as your legal status. If your legal status is that of being a sovereign Citizen your unalienable rights are being violated!

Principles Of Law Making

In the days before the turn of the century in America, the custom was for those studying law to study the Bible and the laws contained therein so that those principles would occupy a preeminent place in the minds of those practicing law. This is not the case today; rather the opposite is true. The eternal truths contained in the Bible have been lost from the view of those who need them the most. It is still the best place to learn about laws generally, as well as other eternal truths. The concept of a system of laws not founded upon those eternal truths is tantamount to building a house on quick sand.

In America, the sovereign power resides in and comes only from the People. "We the People" are the sovereigns. All the power and authority the government has ... was given to it by the People! If we don't have the right to do a thing, then we cannot delegate such a right to any government! ("We cannot give to anyone or anything any power or authority we do not have!")

Is it not in controversion to this principle that representatives of the People -- legislators or bureaucrats or judges -- pretend they can make laws to implement powers We the People did not and cannot give them? It is self-evident! Yet they pretend they can do virtually anything they or even a majority of them merely agree among themselves (vote) to do; they publish interpretations of laws and promulgate rules based on those interpretations; or they render decisions that are clearly antithetical to the concepts set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as the Founding Fathers understood and expounded them; and thereby they violate their sworn oath to defend and uphold the Constitution.

They know that few if any who discover such usurpation will have the perseverance, let alone the financial means and time required to find a qualified, willing attorney to utilize the court system to expose their usurpation and bring them to account and thus rectify their malfunction.

They also promote and rely on the general MISCONCEPTION that any statute passed by a legislature is valid. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail! This is succinctly stated as follows:

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed ...

"Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it ... No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." 16 Am Jur 2d §177

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional act of the Legislature protects no one. It is said that all persons are presumed to know the law, meaning that ignorance of the law excuses no one; if any person acts under an unconstitutional statute, he does so at his peril and must take the consequences."16 Am Jur 2d §178

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 at 491.

In order for a law to be proper, it must be just. It must protect equally the rights of all without violating the rights of any. There is nothing mysterious about proper law; it is based on reasonableness and common sense, and is harmonious with the Laws of God.

Check a law against this measure to see if it fits the mold of eternal truth and justice: say to yourself, "Would I be unwilling to have this law applied to myself or my closest friend?" If such application seems repugnant to you, if it seems unfair or unjust, then there is probably something wrong with that law. God knows that people's political standards are a reliable reflection of their moral standards and that the laws which they support are a good test of how they wish to be judged (Matthew 7:1). People can clearly see that taking money from some one by force is a crime when done by individuals, but they may fail to recognize the criminality of the same act when done by government.

For example, how would you feel if you had a particular "entitlement" and the government told you that you were authorized to collect a portion of this government handout from each of your neighbors? Let's suppose that your "entitlement" is food stamps: instead of giving you stamps, the government gives you a list of people from whom you are "authorized" to collect the money to buy the food. How would you feel if they told you it was all right to force your neighbors to give you the money? And every time you needed more food, you had to do it all over again? Would that be right? If not, why? Would changing the name of the collector make it right? Would it go against your grain to do so? How would your neighbors feel when you presented your "authorization"? How would you feel if your neighbors were coming to collect FROM YOU for some other "entitlement" program they were "authorized" to collect?

The Commercial Affidavit Process is a pre-common law process. It is also referred to as a "commercial law process," not to be confused with the [Uniform] Commercial Code and other manipulated and complicated rules and regulations. It is a pre-common law process because until there is a disagreement, there is no dispute. All that is being done is the establishment of claims and obligations. The purpose of the CAP is to make claims and determine if the accused agrees or not. If the Accused does not contest the claims there is no dispute to be adjudicated thus the appropriate damages are consensually agreed-upon. Thus it is pre-judicial. It may also be completely non-judicial if it is properly (composed of unrebuttable truth) and successfully implemented.

The term "commercial" as used herein refers to any dealings people have among themselves. Thus the "laws of commerce" refers to the just rules of procedure governing human relationships, the self-evident principles of right and wrong which are the foundation of the common law.

The foundation of COMMERCIAL LAW rests solidly on the bedrock of justice and common sense. These laws are so sound and so universally accepted that they cannot with impunity be overturned, overwritten or tampered with in any way: they are founded on eternal truths, needing no proof from anyone to justify their validity (i.e., self-evident); they are immutable; they provide equal justice to all parties of interest and thus are completely fair. That is the KEY to their power. All other just laws spring from this foundation. (By contrast, corrupted laws are mere shadows of these true and correct principles.)

Justice is delivered quickly, simply, fairly and conclusively with the Commercial Affidavit Process. This may be a terrible disappointment to wrong-doers who are confident they can get away with their illegitimate activities. Those who are subverting just laws, setting them aside, covering them up, creating shadow-law or colorable law and just generally using self-serving laws to subject and plunder their fellow man are in for a rude awakening. In summary, the Common Law grows out of the laws of commerce which themselves are based upon self-evident truths. Such truths are commonly expressed as maxims.

Maxims In Law

Maxims are as much a part of the laws of human relations (commerce) as a foundation is a part of a building. They are fundamental and immutable, having their basis in God's Laws. No one of sound mind argues against them. They are the bedrock of logic, of reason, of common sense, of truth. They are fundamental principles upon which all that is right, just and true is founded. They are the standards to measure the correctness of any course or action.

The word "maxim" is defined as an expression of an absolute truth or principle. Maxims are so powerful and unequivocal that they are the foundation of all human relationships. They have the power to cut to the heart of a matter in a heartbeat with reason, logic, and authority. They cover every topic imaginable and every aspect of our lives. They are not easily misunderstood, misapplied, or subverted; they are universally accepted for what they are: self-evident TRUTHS.

Maxims might be considered the redundant backup system when all else fails.

Anyone who is not schooled in the logic of maxims is easily confused for the want of such understanding. The legal profession has a vested interest in keeping the People ignorant of these principles: protecting the need for their "priestcraft." Priestcraft is "the craft of specialists who work to create the illusion their craft is too complex to be understood by anyone else."

It doesn't take a law degree to understand maxims.

The light of truth in maxims cannot be extinguished through the evil works and craftiness of men. They may be forgotten by many, intentionally concealed by some, but they still exist, no matter what, and they won't go away!

Below are maxims that surround the rightfulness and lawfulness of the Commercial Affidavit Process. This by no means is an exhaustive list:

Regarding Justice:

  • All are equal under the Law.
  • A matter must be expressed to be resolved.
  • Claims made without accountability are void.
  • Might does not make right.
  • Force, perjury or subornation of perjury, voids all.
  • Fraud vitiates the most solemn promise.
  • While the battle continues, he who first leaves the field or refuses to contend loses by default.
  • You are free to make any decision you wish, but you are never free to escape the consequences of your decisions.
  • A laborer is worthy of his hire.
  • Thou shalt not steal.
  • Notice to the agent is notice to the principal and notice to the principal is notice to the agent.
  • Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.
Regarding Truth:

  • Truth stands supreme.
  • Truth affects but cannot be affected.
  • Truth is expressed in the form of an affidavit.
  • Truth will out.
  • An unrebutted affidavit stands as the truth.
  • An affidavit must be rebutted point-for-point.
  • Thou shall not bear false witness.
  • Ignorance is no respecter, it affects all without regard to position or title.
Regarding Sovereignty:

  • It is self-evident that all men are endowed by their creator (God) with equal and unalienable rights.
  • The created cannot be greater than its creator.
  • A man can give to another no more than he himself has.
  • A man may not with impunity infringe upon another man's rights.
  • The People are Sovereign.
  • In America the government is the servant of the "sovereign" People.
Regarding Power and Authority:

  • We cannot give to anyone or anything any power or authority we do not have.
Failed Legal System

Although the court system MAY have an essential part to play once the Commercial Affidavit has been served AND ANSWERED, that system is not and cannot be invoked until the charges in the affidavit have been answered by (1) acquiescence, (2) rebuttal or (3) default: until that point, THERE IS NO DISAGREEMENT TO ADJUDICATE. A disagreement could arise only from a rebuttal.

But even though it would be feasible to involve the court system to adjudicate such disagreement, no one seeking JUSTICE really would want to do so because the court system has become extremely costly, very slow and corrupted by the conniving convolutions of man-made rules and legalisms and by the natural inclinations of those who live from the legal system to promote the financial success of the legal business!

If any adjudication is found necessary (only in the event of rebuttal) it will be done by a common law jury invoked at the discretion of the Claimant (see "RESOLUTION BY JURY" below). In stark contrast to the equity court system of today, the CAP system is so effective in exposing the truth, in rendering and enforcing justice, that it is a lethal weapon in the war for the freedoms and liberties -- the unalienable rights -- of the People.

Private Matter

The Commercial Affidavit Process places the full power of justice back in the hands of the common man. It cannot be overstated that the whole Commercial Affidavit Process is not dependent on the court system. It functions quite well on its own outside the current legal system.

It needs to be thoroughly understood that because it is driven by SWORN TRUTH, the Commercial Affidavit Process is outside the jurisdiction of any equity court. It is a private contract matter. Should an attempt be made to involve an equity court it would result in a trespass against the Affiant's rights: those interfering individuals, who were unlawfully involved, would themselves become one of the accused. An equity court has no jurisdiction whatsoever, for the CAP is strictly a non-judicial or pre-judicial process between individuals and is private.

This alone presents a very real dilemma for those who are accustomed to using the legal system to work wrongs and trespass against others with seeming impunity. They can't hide behind a legal system that only dispenses justice to those who can afford to play the game. Those who are used to shielding themselves under "sovereign immunity" protections, hiding behind legions of attorneys and judges, and using other "legal tricks" now have none of this protection.

NO judge, court, law, or government can invalidate these commercial processes, i.e., an affidavit or complaint or a lien based thereon because no third party can invalidate someone's affidavit of truth. A judge CANNOT interfere with, tamper with, or in any way modify testimony without disintegrating the truth-seeking process of his profession, destroying the very fabric of his own occupation and abrogating the First Amendment which was established to protect truth. For a judge to interfere with testimony is to commit professional suicide and to invite countless civil and criminal repercussions. ANYONE who tampers with testimony is a threat to the peace and security of society, violating its laws and acting as its enemy and is therefore justifiably subject to the appropriate penalties. The Commercial Affidavit Process is by its very nature private, and strictly between parties of interest, only. It is unequivocally non-judicial.

Sworn Truth

The foundation of the law, commerce and the whole legal system consists in telling the truth ("I solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth ...") either by testimony, by deposition or by affidavit. Every honorable judge requires those who appear before him to be sworn to tell the truth and is compelled by the high principles of his profession to protect and seek out the truth.

A Commercial Affidavit is an Affidavit of Truth. It is the sworn testimony of the Affiant who solemnly swears that the facts contained therein are true, correct and certain. Every claim made in the Affidavit is backed up by documentary evidence that is provable without any contrivance.

Meeting The Demands

If (as is usually the case) the Accused recognizes the charges are true and/or decides (correctly) that the wisest thing to do is meet the demands rather than face the staggering punitive damages which accompany the issuance of the Criminal Complaint, the Accused has the option of simply meeting the demands for redress as required by or negotiated with the Claimant. If the Accused has the good sense to meet the demands of the Claimant, then the wrongs have been satisfactorily redressed; and that is the end of the issue: all charges are resolved; the Commercial Affidavit Process is closed.

Anyone is free to use the CAP system; but it is a two-edged sword: it cuts both ways! Anyone who undertakes it MUST follow the maxim, "Be honest with yourself," because, especially under the Commercial Affidavit Process, "Truth will out!" Consequently it is extremely important to ensure that everything in the affidavit is true and unrebuttable.


When one is the Accused in a commercial affidavit process properly (truthfully) done, by far THE WISEST COURSE IS TO REDRESS THE CLAIMANT AS DEMANDED -- whatever must be done to accomplish it.

Should the Accused be misguided into choosing ANY response other than acquiescence, the Criminal Complaint will issue accompanied by the Commercial Lien based on the Complaint's ledger of charges, counts, redresses demanded and ADDING (1) PUNITIVE DAMAGES and (2) INCARCERATION as provided in the applicable federal and/or State criminal codes. Although it is extremely unlikely in the face of a properly done affidavit, should the Accused believe that Affiant's charges are somehow in error, he or she may (DURING THE GRACE PERIOD ONLY) rebut any such charge; however, (1) such response will NOT avoid issuance of the Trial Criminal Complaint; (2) the Commercial Lien will still issue for any charges not rebutted AND (3) a second Commercial Lien will issue for any rebutted charges about which the Common Law Jury thereby convened remains unpersuaded! Hence REBUTTAL (unless 100% successful -- which is highly unlikely) WILL NOT AVOID the horrendous PUNITIVE DAMAGES and INCARCERATION provided by law.


The sworn Affidavit will stand as truth if not timely rebutted by the Accused. In the instant case, thirty (30) days.

The only one who can rebut a Commercial Affidavit is the Accused who alone, by his own affidavit, must speak for himself and only for himself. If the Accused uses someone else to speak for him, the third party must speak for and in behalf of the Accused as if he were the Accused; and the Accused still stands completely liable as if he himself were speaking. If however, the third party is identified as separated from the Accused, he also becomes a co-party with the Accused as an accomplice, thus a co-conspirator having no immunity whatsoever.

Every charge or claim contained in the Claimant's Affidavit must be rebutted point-for-point by the Accused. The Accused's rebuttal must be done in the form of an Affidavit of Truth. That means it must be SWORN TESTIMONY and must be signed by at least two witnesses. The Accused/Affiant must swear to the truth, the correctness and the certainty of his or her rebuttals within that affidavit, thereby assuming complete liability for the statements contained in it and must be prepared to prove his or her statements, preferably with documentation that is unimpeachable.

Failure to follow the correct process of rebutting the charges or ANY ATTEMPT TO PRESENT REBUTTAL EVIDENCE THAT IS NOT SWORN AS BOTH TRUE and "THE WHOLE TRUTH" INVALIDATES such response as if no evidence or rebuttal were given at all. SUCH FAILURE IS FATAL TO THE DEFENSE!

If a proper rebuttal is offered, any of several conclusions may result:

  1. If any or all charges are rebutted, those charges will (at Claimant's discretion) be resolved as described under "RESOLUTION BY JURY."
  2. Any charges not rebutted or redressed will result in a DEFAULT CONVICTION for those charges and the issuance of a "non-trial" criminal complaint which will be covered under "CRIMINAL LIABILITY."
Resolution By Jury

The Claimant may accept or reject Accused's rebuttal of any charge, point-for-point. Claimant's acceptance of the rebuttal of any point resolves that point. At the discretion of the Claimant ALL UNACCEPTED POINTS may be either resolved by another affidavit on those points, repeating the process. The fallout of all the Affidavits are resolved by a common-law jury. If and when the jury system is used, the Claimant will draft the Criminal Complaint, subpoena a jury, and the process will move to a full-blown, common-law criminal trial.

If the matter goes to a common-law criminal trial, the trial will be held under the rules of common law. These rules are significantly different from those in an equity court proceeding. In common-law trials, technical rules are virtually non-existent. Like its name, the rules of common-law trials are from common sense. The procedure is very simple and straightforward. It's designed to arrive at the true facts, assess guilt and render a just verdict without undue delays or fancy maneuvering, thus eliminating delays intended to forestall or get the Accused acquitted on some technicality. The jury is the real boss. It decides what is relevant and what is not. The jurors hear what they want to hear and exclude what they feel is not relevant. The Claimant or his appointee becomes the prosecutor, and the Accused or his appointee becomes the defense attorney. The parties of interest (the Claimant and the Accused) may have anyone they want as counsel, professional or not.

The risk faced by the Accused is very real. A common-law court only recognizes common law, and it applies common-law decisions. Equity court decisions and rules that conflict with the common law are without standing in common-law proceedings.

In the Commercial Affidavit Process, the claimants are almost always sovereign Citizens. As such they have legal standing at common law. The Accused are usually "subject citizens" being charged with crimes against "sovereign Citizens." Typically the acts committed have been done under colorable law with colorable authority or colorable jurisdiction, in which case is patently unconstitutional and therefore void, leaving the Accused defenseless: so a second Commercial Lien will issue for those redresses and punitive damages of which the jury has not exonerated the Accused.

Due Process

In order to meet the demands of due process, the parties must have reasonable time to express their versions of the controversy ("In order for a matter to be resolved, it must be expressed.") Therefore a grace period must be allowed, commonly referred to as "commercial grace." Many court jurisdictions allow only 20 days, which may be sufficient; but the Claimant in his discretion believes that 30 days is more reasonable. At the Claimant's discretion, even more time may be granted without notice; HOWEVER, that does not relieve the defense of the obligation to respond within the time of commercial grace given -- default falls by declaration in thirty (30) days.

How important is it to TIMELY answer the accusations made in a Sworn Affidavit of Truth? IT IS VITALLY IMPORTANT! If the Accused fail to properly and timely answer, he stands to lose all and will have foreclosed to himself any future possibility of redressing or rebutting those charges. The primary objective is to insure justice quickly and with a minimum of difficulty. Failure to timely answer is fatal to the outcome. It is equivalent to abandoning the battlefield and causes loss by default ("While the battle continues, he who first leaves the field or refuses to contend loses by default.")

The Accused, having started the contest by violating and trespassing upon the Affiant's rights, cannot with impunity leave the contest. The victory and the spoils goes to him who stays and is the last to leave the battle. The loser loses and in so doing, grants the spoils to the victor. There is no recovery for the loser; notwithstanding any new battle which may ensue, the loss still stands; it can't be set aside. Consequently, the Accused's failure to redress or rebut charges contained in a Commercial Affidavit is tantamount to abandoning the battlefield: thus losing by default.

Some in government, by trying to hide behind some rule or procedure that requires Claimants to follow some predetermined course or time limit, commit a fatal error! They are usually relying on some statute or other inferior level of protection, which might apply to those who are subject to such jurisdiction, but not to sovereign Citizens. When "estoppel by acquiescence" caused by failure to timely answer enters the picture, as it surely will in this setting, the result has a far-reaching impact on the future of each Accused.

Criminal Liability

Responding to the Commercial Affidavit is critically important: the Accused is usually being charged with very serious crimes that carry very heavy, punitive penalties. The law has always viewed trespassing upon unalienable rights as being an offense so serious that it is beyond satisfaction merely by payment of the approximate money damages demanded.

The Affidavit is a commercial complaint, but it is not yet a "criminal" complaint. The main distinction is that by resolving the charges during the Affidavit stage, the Accused can get off by simply redressing the grievances as specified in the Affidavit or as mutually negotiated. If the Accused recognizes his or her errors and wants to redress the Claimant but does not have the ability to do so within the time limit, the Accused may contact the Claimant and express that desire with a written statement to that effect. Then arrangements can be made to stop any further action. If some such arrangements are not made, then the CRIMINAL COMPLAINT issues adding PUNITIVE DAMAGES and JAIL TIME!

The Criminal Complaint is in reality a ledger in which those details which were omitted in the Affidavit are (now) spelled out. It lists the causes of action, the number of counts, redresses demanded and the MASSIVE CIVIL PENALTIES (which occur when unalienable rights are violated), thus compounding the problems for the Accused: now, on top of the redresses being demanded, massive PUNITIVE DAMAGES are added as well! Normally this increases the cost to the Accused by a factor of at least a hundred if not a thousand fold. The effects of the criminal complaint invariably destroy all prospects for the future of the Accused!

An S.E.C. Security

When the Commercial Affidavit has matured, (after 30 days) it is evidence of a debt and/or obligations. In order for it to be classed as a security, it must carry the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (S.E.C.) TRACER FLAG on it from the very beginning. As a security it must conform to the rules governing securities and must be identified and monitored as such from the beginning.

A Ledger Identifying The Penalties

Since the Criminal Complaint is in reality a ledger in which the causes of action and the number of counts are listed and the civil penalties (punitive damages) determined, the criminal complaint acts as a punishment tool for wrongdoers who will not repent.

Should the Accused be so foolish as to ALLOW the Criminal Compliant to be activated (i.e., fail to answer by redressment or rebuttal), the war is over: all that remains is collecting the spoils of battle. The Accused has lost and lost in a very big way. In all probability the Accused will never recover from the consequences.

This is true is because THE "TRIAL" WAS GOING ON DURING THE 30 DAYS. To compare the Commercial Affidavit Process to a conventional trial would look like this: The Commercial Affidavit presents the prosecutor's case in one fell swoop. The moment the Accused is served, the defense process begins. THE ACCUSED THEN HAS 30 DAYS TO MAKE A CASE. If during that time the Accused make no defense nor redress of the charges, he or she then stands convicted by default! The "trial" is now over. The Criminal Complaint is only a formality to calculate the punitive damages against the Accused which thus have been awarded to the Claimant.

Accompanying the Criminal Complaint is the COMMERCIAL LIEN which issued by CONSENSUAL DEFAULT against all the assets of the Accused. This effectively gives the Claimant lien rights against all of the property of the Accused. Such a lien may be filed in the county recorder's office; however, this filing is not a necessity, but a convenience. Any common law commercial lien will stand by law for one hundred years or until the damages have been collected. In most cases that means practically forever because the Accused does not, and probably never will have enough property to satisfy the damages thus assessed.

Now the full power of the legal enforcement system can be brought to bear to collect the damages owed by the Accused. The Sheriff is empowered to seize pay checks, cars, homes: anything and everything.

Loss Of Government Employment

The Accused is in fact a convicted felon: unbondable by any insurance company, subject by law to immediate termination if employed by the government and forever barred from holding public office.


The Criminal Complaint is turned over to the appropriate Prosecuting Attorney, who must institute a sentencing hearing wherein a judge will impose the incarceration (jail-time) prescribed in the appropriate criminal codes for the offenses of which the Accused stands convicted. Should any such authority fail to prosecute sentencing against the convicted party, the mildest charge then faced by such authority is Felony Misprision; but such Prosecuting Attorney could also be charged with conspiracy to aid and abet the convicted party in commission of the same offenses.

Under our current political situation, where the enemies of the People often occupy positions of power and authority and those same people can prevent or slow the wheels of justice, there are still many ways to publish the convictions and misdeeds of parties so convicted that can be even more humiliating to the convicted than the normal methods of publishing the results of their conviction.


The fundamental purpose, and one of the major objectives of the Commercial Affidavit Process is to educate wrongdoers to the fact they have abused the unalienable rights of a sovereign Citizen and cannot get away with it, and to give them an opportunity (commercial grace) to repent and undo the wrongs they have done. Unlike the typical criminal trial where the Accused no longer has the option of simply redressing the wrongs he or she has done, the Commercial Affidavit Process DOES give the Accused that option!

Further, the CAP is designed to educate wrongdoers that they are being used by the conspirators in the war against the People. Thus they may see for themselves what is really going on and decide which side they choose to serve.

Role of the Courts

An affidavit is someone's solemn expression of truth. The foundation of the law, commerce, and the whole legal system consists of telling the truth ("I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth ..."), either by testimony, deposition, and/or by affidavit.

Every honorable judge requires those who appear before him to be sworn to tell the truth, and is compelled by the high principles of his profession to protect truth and do nothing to tamper with that truth, either directly or indirectly, either in person or by proxy, or by subornation of an affiant or other person.

A judge CANNOT interfere with, tamper with, or in any way modify testimony without disintegrating the truth-seeking process in his sacred profession and destroying the fabric of his own occupation. To do so abrogates the First Amendment, which was established to protect truth. It is committing professional suicide, as well as inviting countless civil and criminal repercussions.

ANY judge who tampers with testimony, deposition, or affidavit, is a threat to the Commercial Peace and Dignity of the County, State, and United States of America, thereby violating the laws of all those political subdivisions and acting in the nature of a foreign enemy agent (A MIXED WAR), justifiably subject to penalties of TREASON.

WHOEVER acts against Commercial Affidavits without executing the necessary Commercial Paperwork under affidavit is subject to being charged criminally. Said charges begin with FRAUD, which is gaining at the expense of the loss of another using trickery or deception, and the charges expand from there to include all those violations that extend to and are a natural outgrowth of such fraud.

Commercial processes are fundamentally non-judicial and pre-judicial. NO judge, court, law, or government can invalidate these commercial processes; i.e., an affidavit or a lien or complaint based thereon, because no third party can invalidate someone's affidavit of truth. To act against such affidavit is to create a situation and or enhance the condition of A MIXED WAR. No one can rebut an affiant except a party (e.g., a lien debtor) who alone, by his own affidavit, must speak for himself if challenged. Only someone himself knows his truth and has the right and responsibility to assert it.

The MIXED WAR situation and or condition is that where those in authority have violated their oaths of office, violated the fundamental law they took an oath to uphold and protect, violated the codes, statutes and regulations that govern them thereby they disregarded the peace and safety of the community by their actions, acting for undisclosed foreign agents or governments, against those whom they swore to protect [see Black's Law Dictionaryon "War"]. Simply, an act or acts of TREASON in a secret war against the people.

Notes on the Above Article

What you have read gives you the theoretical foundation for most of this manual. Practically, there are difficulties with the strategy described above. Conducting a common-law criminal trial is not easy, as the author noted. The court system has, for practical purposes, extinguished that option. Thus, territorial gangsters are often shielded from criminal prosecution. However, the one aspect of the strategy that can still be effective is Commercial Liens. As of this writing, it seems that no judge can extinguish such a lien if it is properly executed.

Constitutions as Enforceable Contracts

The Commercial Lien Strategy depends upon one "maxim" as its linchpin: the idea of a constitution as aspecific performance contract between a governing official and the people in a particular jurisdiction. Some writers (such as Lysander Spooner) have denounced the U.S. Constitution as a fraud, on the grounds that it is not an enforceable contract.

The Commercial Lien Strategy, by contrast, holds that constitutions are enforceable contracts. The instruments of contract? OATHS OF OFFICE. The Commercial Lien Strategy assumes that, when an official signs an oath, he/she signs a contract to exercise the powers of office within the limitations of the constitution and the laws. On paper, there are sanctions against officials who violate their oaths.

"Whoever, having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true, is guilty of perjury and shall be fined no more than $2,000.00 or imprisoned not more than five years or both." 18 U.S.C. §1621

In practice, it is very difficult to prosecute a malfeasant public official. However, such officials may be exposed to great personal, commercial liability for violating their oaths of office.

Apparently, many government officials realize this. Alfred Adask, editor/publisher of The AntiShyster, writes:

"A friend of mine recently asked the [Texas] Secretary of State for copies of Governor's and AG's oaths, but received no response for nearly two months. Finally, he received a copy of the AG [Dan] Morales's oath which was dated January, 1991, but was not file stamped until March 26, 1993. Very suspicious. Governor [Anne] Richard's oath is yet to be found by the Secretary of State. Likewise, very suspicious.

"It appears possible (probable?) that the Governor and AG had not taken their oaths of office for two years after they were elected. If so, they were (are?) probably in office illegally. It would follow then, that anything they'd done or signed in an official capacity in the last two years might also be unlawful and without legal merit.

"The potential for legal havoc could be huge. Laws signed by the Governor during the last two years might not be lawful; the entire Executive branch of the Texas State government might be without lawful authority to enforce any law or regulation; innumerable criminal convictions might be reversed. All of the civil court cases prosecuted by Attorney General Morales and the entire AG's office (which derives its authority from the AG's oath) might also be unlawful.

"Of course, it's virtually impossible that the courts will rule that all official acts of Texas for the last two years are unlawful. But whether those official acts are bogus or not, there is an infinitely more important question:

"Why weren't the oaths of the Governor and Attorney General of Texas -- the two most important officials in the Executive branch of our state's government -- on file at the Secretary of State's office?

"Why? Some sort of clerical error?

"I don't think so. I think the oaths were missing because they didn't exist ... [Emphasis added]

"So perhaps some officials simply choose to be "oathless" in an attempt to "cover their butts" from being sued (or "liened on") for not "upholding and defending" the state constitution? Could be."

Bonding of Government Officials

Some pro se litigants postulate the requirement that government officials be "bonded." As far as anyone knows, this theory has not been tested in court. Nonetheless, some readers of this manual may wish to research this topic further. Therefore, what follows is a brief exposition of the theory.

The "bonding" theory states that most elected officials and government administrators (perhaps even lawyers), are legally required to be "bonded." That is, they must purchase a "performance bond" (a kind of insurance policy) which guarantees that the official will perform the duties required by his office.

In the event the government official fails to perform his duties, any party injured by this breach of contract can recover the cost of his damages from the bonding company.

According to these pro se litigants, despite the legal requirement that government officials be bonded, many, perhaps most, are not. Therefore, the "bonding requirement" strategy is based on first determining if a given official is legally required to be bonded. Then, if he is bonded -- and evidence can be shown to the bonding company that he is failing to meet the performance requirements of his bond -- the bonding company may revoke the bond or raise his premium, which should help "encourage" the wayward official to obey the law.

Further, if the bond is required by law in order to hold a particular office, once that bond is lost, it's possible that the office must also be surrendered.

If the official is not bonded, then the lien process includes notifying the government official of this legal deficiency. If he does not correct the deficiency (purchase a performance bond) within 90 days, then anyone damaged by his actions can file a commercial lien on the government official for all of his personal property.

Also (according to this theory) a government official's bond is dependent upon his legal immunity, and that immunity is to some extent based on having a legal Oath of Office on file (usually with the Secretary of State). If his Oath of Office is insufficient to meet the Constitutional or statutory requirements, he may lose his immunity and his bond. If he loses his bond, he becomes personally liable ("lienable") for any illegal act he commits in office.

Appendix B.1). In this Notice, Mr. Gray alleges that Judge Feldman had broken various laws in the process of taking of some of Mr. Gray's property to repay back taxes to the IRS.

Although you can use ideas from Mr. Gray's "Notice and Demand," obviously your own must be custom designed for your own purpose. Yet there are certain common elements that should always characterize it:

  1. It should be in the form of an Affidavit, and it should address the individual(s) personally.
  2. The "Notice" should be as concise as possible, preferably avoiding religion or morality. It should focus on applicable law, and contain appropriate citations of law, if possible, to support what is being claimed.
  3. It must quote the legal amount of time given for the recipient to fulfill the demand, and what will happen if the demand is not satisfied within that time.
  4. It should give the recipient a certain period of time in which to rebut the claims made therein.
  5. Finally, it should be "served" by Sheriff or "served" registered mail, return receipt requested. (Sheriff's number or the registered mail number is the SEC tracer [case] number).
Notice of Default

If the individual does not respond to or rebut your Notice and Demand (see Appendix B.1), you should then send a Notice of Default, stating that (1) the recipient has acquiesced to your claims by default, and that (2) payment or satisfaction is expected.

Filing this Notice of Default (see Appendix B.2) with the County Recorder or Clerk of Court where the lien debtor has property creates a public, legal record in support of your subsequent lien.

Commercial Lien

If, after the lawful period passes without correction, only then can a Commercial Lien be served to the offending official or sent Registered Mail, Return Receipt Requested, and also filed at the courthouse(s) for the county(ies) in which the offender has property. The lien must be accompanied by (or must contain) a Commercial Affidavit, containing a ledger of damages suffered. The lien must also cite the law(s), action(s) or obligation(s) that gave rise to the damages. Models of both documents are listed in Appendix B.

Lawsuits and Criminal Complaints

Some pro se litigants will first file a lawsuit (Title 42 U.S. Code §1983) or a criminal complaint before filing a commercial lien. This step is included to show a "good faith" attempt to obtain justice according to normal legal procedures. After the courts refuse to consider the litigant's legal complaints (which is usually the case), the litigant declares a state of "Mixed War," and files the commercial lien.

An example of a Criminal Complaint is included in Appendix B.4. If you use it, you must change the document to suit your particular situation. There is no "fill-in-the-blanks" magic here!

Appendix B.5), substitute your name and the name of the government official in question, and be sure to substitute all references to Arizona law with those of your own state or locality. If the presentee is a Federal official, you may choose to omit the references to state law.

Present the Coloring Agreement to the official in question, either in person or by registered mail. If the official is under oath to defend the Constitution of the United States (or the state in question), (s)he is bound by the agreement, whether or not (s)he accepts it or dishonors it. Present the agreement up to three times. If it is returned (dishonored) each time, then you may sue to compel him/her to accept it, based upon the oath of office.

Don Smith expands upon the theory as follows:

"The object is to create a civil contract (not tort) liability for the government agent for violating your constitutional rights, which rights are probably not part of the agreement that you signed, and is the reason the government agent is bothering you in the first place. This will likely have a chilling effect on the agent's activities toward you; i.e., you will probably not hear from him again...

"For any violation, simply file contract (not tort) action to recover the amount specified in the Coloring Agreement's schedule. If the violator is a Federal sworn employee, sue in U.S. Court of Federal Claims, 717 Madison Pl N.W., Washington, D.C. ...

"When The Beast invades [your] rights thereafter, your suit is in CONTRACT instead of equity. If IRS is involved, this moves the case into the Court of Claims, if over $10,000, sounding in admiralty-instance. Under $10,000, the District Court sits as a Court of Claims to enforce the contract dispute if a federal defendant, and if the case sounds in admiralty-instance ... You WANT TO BE IN ADMIRALTY, not equity, since you don't have any "squish" in the decision of the court. The same can be done in state court, sounding in admiralty-instance. You need only characterize your pleading as a complaint in the way of "libel." "Libels" may be used for judgments as well as prize. You want strict enforcement of the contract. You don't want equity civil rights enforcement ...

"If the government employee/official ignores the Coloring Agreement and proceeds to violate the rights you have established by contract, you may file a Commercial Lien against him ..." [for a sample lien see Appendix B.8].

Smith points out that this approach only creates an agreement between you and the specific government official involved. He also states that it will only work if the official has sworn an oath of office; otherwise the official will simply dishonor the agreement. However, if the official is not under an oath of office, this can still have a chilling effect.

Imagine an official pleading, in court, to have the agreement set aside because he (the official) has not sworn an oath of office! This creates many "embarrassing issues." For example, if the official is not under oath, is he an impostor, acting in his own capacity? If not, who does he really work for? Are all his official acts legally void? Should all prisoners prosecuted by him/her be released from prison? Rather than open up such a "can of worms," the "oathless" official is much more likely to drop matters and leave you alone.

Don Smith writes a newsletter, "Writ Rap." To obtain a copy, send SASE to Don Smith, nRa, c/o General Delivery, Laveen 39, Arizona. For back issues or teleconference, send one unopened roll of stamps to the same address, and you will receive three 720 kB disks (Word Perfect 4.2 format). All of Mr. Smith's material used in this manual is reproduced with permission.

Example of Notice and Demand

B.2 - Example of Notice of Default

B.3 - Model Commercial Affidavit

B.4 - Model Criminal Complaint

B.5 - The Coloring Agreement

B.6 - Phil Marsh's Lien on the U.S. Government

B.7 - Nelson Starr's Lien on Judges and IRS Agents

B.8 - Model Commercial Lien



Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Jun 6, 2011
right here right now
Understanding Administrative Law

By: Ron Branson, Author/Founder J.A.I.L.

What you are about to read is very provocative and likely to shock, but educate, many of you. Some of you will likely be inspired to do likewise, but just as you see those disclaimers which say, "Experts - do not try this at home," so I say, "Do not try mimicking this at home. Remember, when reality and common sense run up against politics and money, the former two will not register in the courts."

We have all heard the term "Administrative Law." Administrative Law is everywhere in society, and affects everyone of us. But despite our familiarity, how many people really know what "Administrative Law" is? Most people see the word "Law" and automatically think it is some kind of a special law passed by either Congress, our state legislators, or our city councils, etc. No matter where we are in our experience and knowledge of Administrative Law, we all tend to feel deep down inside, "I just do not like it." It is that same sort of feeling when we drive down the highway and pass a police car with its lights flashing, having pulled over a car. You don't naturally think, "Boy, I'm pleased to see that police officer out here on the highway performing us a public service." Rather, you are more likely to think, "Boy, I'm glad it's him he pulled over, and not me." Just as hearing from the Internal Revenue Service, "public service" is probably the last thing that enters your mind.

Administrative Law demands things of us that intrude into our personal lives, our homes, our businesses. It makes us comply with certain codes, inspects us, demands arbitrary taxes and payment in advance of establishing liability, calls us into account before boards composed of political appointees having conflicts of interests, all without the benefit of a trial by jury of your peers.

Administrative Law governs us, to name only a few, in our relation to our children through CPS, our right to contract through the State Contractor's License Board, our businesses through Business Licenses and Worker's Compensation Boards which provide a feeding frenzy for lawyers, and even our pleasurable moments through Fishing and Gaming Licenses, our travel through DMV, etc., etc, and so on without end. In fact, all of our lives in every area is governed by administrative agencies and their "laws," and there is near nothing that is not regulated and licensed by some agency. It would almost seem that life's existence itself is but a special privilege of government that is revocable upon whim. Whatever happened to "... governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."?

As some of may you already know, none of the protections set forth in the U.S. Constitution has any application whatsoever upon the enforcement and carrying out of "Administrative Law." So we shout with outrage at the government, "You're violating my Constitutional rights," and you ask, "What gives? Is Administrative Law superior to, and above, the Constitution of the United States, which is the supreme Law of this Land?"

I am now going to pull the veil off the mystery of "Administrative Law," and let you in on a secret that no government wants you to know. Some of you are going to laugh at the simplicity of the matter, once I tell you. "Administrative Law" is not some esoteric law passed by some legislative body. "Administrative Law" simply means "Contract Agreement." But if government called it what it really was, everyone would know what is going on. But by the government calling it "Administrative Law," few understand it, and think, "Oh my goodness, I don't want to go to jail because I violated Administrative Law." What you must implicitly remember is that Administrative Law and Police Powers are diametrically opposed to each other. They cannot co-exist in the same context. Like oil and water, they can never mix. But governments do not want you to know that. If there were any form of police power exerted to enforce "Administrative Law," it would clearly fly in the face of the Constitution. So all governments exercise fraud when they take "Administrative Law" beyond "the consent of the governed," Declaration of Independence.

Every time you hear the term "Administrative Law," you must correctly think "Contract Agreement." If everyone thought that way, people would automatically ask themselves the logical question, "Where's the contract?" But government does not want you to think in terms of "Contracts," nor the fact that there can ever be police powers involved in the enforcement of a contract. If you fail to show up for work, can your boss call up the police and send them out to arrest you? No! This is true even if your boss happens to be the city, or the chief of police. Police powers are limited only to criminal acts, never contract disputes. These are totally separate and exclusive jurisdictions.

The U.S. Constitution specifically forbids all fifty states of this country from passing any law that interferes with any individual's right of contract, or, if the persons so chooses, the right not to contract. "No state shall...make any...law impairing the obligation of contracts." Article I, Sec. 10, Clause 1. The right to contract necessarily establishes the right not to contract. Just like the First Amendment to Congress, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" so in Article I, Sec. 10, no state shall make any law that impairs the free exercise of the right to contract or not to contract. Now how does this Constitutional prohibition to states apply to such state administrative agencies as the "State Contractor's License Board?" Ah, yes, and note, we are not here even challenging this as an Administrative Law, but rather the very authority of the State itself to even "make" such an administrative agency that presumes to govern the right to contract. In other words, the Legislature was acting unconstitutionally when they even considered "making" such a law, whether the law passed by a majority vote or not. In other words, it was null and void the very moment it was "passed." One could just imagine the untold hundreds of billions of dollars that would invigorate the entire economy of this country if states could not interfere with, or tax our constitutional right to contract, or not to contract, with whosoever we pleased.

Contracts are very much a necessary part of all of our lives, and we all understand the meaning of agreements and keeping our word. Contracts always must contain a consideration, and are made voluntarily for the mutual benefit of each of the parties entering them.

I am going to explain the legitimate uses of contracts, and then proceed to what they have transmuted into by the State. In a legitimate contract, for instance, and I speak to those married, remember the days when you went out on dates with that special person that made your heart throb? You fell in love and the two of you decided, for the mutual benefit of both of you, to get married. You voluntarily appeared before a minister who asked you the question, "Do you, Sharon, take Steven to be your lawfully wedded husband?" In which you replied, "I do!" You were under no obligation to agree. Remember, wherever one may say "Yes" or "I do" they equally have the right to say, "No," or "I don't," to wit, "Do you, Steven, take Sharon to be your lawfully wedded wife?" which could equally be responded to by, "No, I do not!" Of course, what a way to shock everyone and ruin a marriage ceremony. Without both parties agreeing equally to the full terms and conditions, there can be no "Administrative Law," oops, I mean, "Contract Agreement."

(For the benefit of those of you reading this who are ministers, I would like to take a sidebar. What are those commonly heard words that come from your lips, "...lawfully wedded wife?" I ask you, is there an "unlawfully wedded wife," or an "unlawfully wedded husband?" How did those words get in the marriage vow? Why not just ask, "Do you, Steven, take Sharon to be your wife?" Ah, it is the State trying to stick their foot in the door and become a third party to the marriage "Contract Agreement." I ask you, is it a crime to get married? Must couples have government's permission to get married? The government thinks so. But does the government have constitutional authority to do so? Absolutely not.

Consider the marriage license. A license is a special grant of permission from the government to do that which is otherwise illegal. People are now being convicted of "practicing law without a license," so I ask you, are couples who refuse marriage licenses guilty of practicing marriage without a license? We are instructed in the Bible, "Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the LORD." Prov. 18:22. Yes, and remember that famous quote, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's, Matt. 22:21, and "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." Matt. 19:6. Would it not be just as appropriate if God were to say, "What therefore God has 'licensed,' let not man license?" Of course! Are you not therefore rendering to Caesar that which is God's? And are you not doing it "By the power vested in you by the State of [fill in state], I now pronounce you man and wife." And what about this so-called doctrine beaten into our heads by the courts of "Separation of Church and State?" End of sidebar.)

Let's next turn to the "Contract Agreement" of Civil Service Employment. You open the newspaper and see an ad placed by the City of Ten Buck Two, saying "Now hiring." You go and apply for the job and you are hired. Whether it be secretary, street cleaner, or police officer, you enter a Civil Service Contract, and receive a mutual benefit, i.e, a paycheck. If you were to receive no consideration from the city, you would be merely a slave. Neither the city nor you were under duress, you both receive a consideration, and established a legitimate "Contract Agreement." The city wishes to call it "Administrative Law." After being hired, if there arises a dispute, you cannot shout, "My Constitutional Rights were violated," for you are now under Civil Service protection, and are not entitled to a jury trial nor any of the protections of the Constitution, for now it is Administrative Law that controls, and the Constitution has no application whatsoever.

Now let's take this a step further, and talk about a ticket. I once was mailed a ticket through the mail offering me an "Administrative Review." I wrote back to this administrative agency by certified mail with return receipt, and with a sworn declaration attached stating that I had never entered into a "Contract Agreement" with them, and that such contract did not exist. I further demanded that they respond with a counter-declaration stating that I had indeed entered into a "Contract Agreement" with them, and thus bring the question into issue. (An uncontested declaration stands as the truth. No counter-declaration, no dispute.) I also demanded that they attach of copy of the contract we had between us as evidence to support their contention.

This administrative agency just did not know what to do, so they just declared my "request for an Administrative Review" untimely, despite the certified mail proving otherwise. They then stated that I now owed them more than twice the amount they originally demanded of me. However, as you note, I did not ask for an "Administrative Review." Rather my only issue was the appropriateness and legitimacy of the agency "offering" me the administrative review. If you received a letter from Moscow, Russia accusing you of failing to possess a license from the Moscow Aviation Flight Board, and offering you an administrative review, would you ask for an administrative review?

Further, in my communication to this administrative body, which further baffled them, I asked, "When you say you are offering me an "Administrative Review," it implies I am now on appeal. Was there a trial in which I have already been found guilty, and that I now should appeal that decision? I never received a notice of such trial. When was the trial? Who sat in judgment? What was the basis of his or her findings? What is the particular clause in the "Contract Agreement" I have been found guilty of violating?

You see, my questions were entirely logical and practical, but they just did not know how to deal with me. So they just forged ahead with enforcement as if I said nothing. This resulted in my lawsuit against them which went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court twice, once through the state courts, and then all the way through the federal, the issue in federal court being deprivation of due process of law. There was not one court, neither state, nor federal, that would address a single issue I presented in my lawsuit. This suit resulted in five long years of litigation, and the agency admittedly spent over $100,000.00 defending itself, and demanded of me that I should pay them for their time from what started out to be $55.

This case resulted in my filing a criminal complaint against the defendants with the U.S. Attorney, and petitioning Congress to open impeachment proceedings against five federal judges for conspiracy to commit extortion, accompanied with a copy of the proposed Federal J.A.I.L. Bill, with my instant case as an example of why Congress should pass J.A.I.L. into law. Everything grew very quiet. No one would say anything.

All this over the implied assumption that I had entered into a "Contract Agreement" that did not exist, and never did exist.

Here in Los Angeles, the city dispenses bureaucrats throughout the city to your search your home. However, the city likes to refer to it as "inspection." Although the U.S. Constitution provides, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizure shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" [Fourth Amendment], these bureaucrats come to you "for your good," as a "public service." They charge you money for their services, and exercise police power, having neither oath or affirmation, warrant, or probable cause, mandating you "volunteer" to accept their searches. If you refuse to volunteer, they turn you over to the city prosecutor who will prosecute you for failure to comply with the program. If you think these bureaucrats are bribe-free, you have a shock coming. Many hint at and suggest that they can arrange special treatment for you, or that they can make things very bad for you.

We have now come to the point in this country where the public's common acceptance that we are administrative subjects, that a mere suggestion by a government bureaucrat has now become law, and one is guilty by the simple allegation of whatever charge these bureaucrats wish to lay upon them without appeal to the Constitution.

Approximately seven years ago I was stopped by a police officer. He "offered" to engage me into a contract with him. The problem with his contract offer was that it was imposed upon me by the threat of my going immediately to jail, and that of having my car stolen. Under criminal constitutional standards he was required to take me before a magistrate at least within 48 hours of his conducting my arrest. He did not wish to do that however, so for his convenience, not mine, he asked me to enter into a contract with him. But what was my consideration in this contract? Was it that I didn't have to go to jail immediately? Nay, for that is like placing a gun to one's head and asking them to voluntarily write a check, which is called "Robbery" in the criminal codes.

This nice policeman told me that by signing his ticket, I was not waiving any of my rights. I read it, and all it said was that I promised to appear before the clerk of the court authorized to receive bail by a certain date. I went ahead and took the comfortable route, and signed his contract under duress, "agreeing" to appear before the court clerk as opposed to going to jail. I then went to the clerk of the court by the date specified and asked if she was the clerk of the court authorized to accept bail. She said "Yes." I then told her who I was, and that since she was the authorized person before whom I had promised to appear, I needed her signature showing I had fulfilled my promise. She refused. Gee, what's wrong with these people? They demand my signature to show up before them under threat of going to jail. I show up as they ask and request their signature to show that I have complied, and they refuse. They do not respect you for keeping your promise to them. It seems they are not satisfied, and they want something more from you than they made you promise. Hmmm, it seems to me that not all the terms of the contract were revealed when the officer said all I had to do was appear in front of the clerk. I must have been defrauded.

What they really wanted, and now demanded, was that I appear before a commissioner, not a judge, when originally I was entitled under the Constitution to appear before a magistrate for a determination of probable cause of my arrest by the kind police officer. The officer must have lied to me when I was clearly told that I would not be waiving any of my rights. But a waiver of my rights under the Constitution requires my voluntary and knowledgeable consent with a consideration in the pie for me. But I never got the pie. This "Contract Agreement" does not seem to be like saying "I do" at the altar and getting a wife, or "I agree" at the Civil Service interview, and getting a paycheck.

This commissioner bullied me, trying to induce me by force to enter into his offered contract agreement, when in no way was he qualified to act or perform pursuant to the Fourth Amendment requirements of a magistrate.

When he failed to convince me that it was in my best interest that I should voluntarily agree to his contract, he proceeded to unilaterally enter me into his contract whether I agreed to it or not. And of course, it was done with "my best interest at heart." He's an educated man, and has graduated from law school. So why didn't he know that a contract requires my voluntary consent? Having waived my rights for me (which is an impossibility), he now tells me that I am going to appear for trial on the date he chose for me, and that I am going to sign a promise to appear. I told him, "NO! I am not going to sign such a contract agreement!" He became very wroth, and I was immediately arrested, chained to thieves, con artists, and extortionists and thrown into jail for not agreeing to sign.

At least one of the sheriff's deputies handling me expressed disbelief at what she was hearing that I was arrested for not agreeing to sign on to the commissioner's offer. Here they were digging through my pockets and relieving me of all my possessions, and my crime is failing to accept an offer. This could only be a civil charge at best, but refusing to contract is not a violation of a contract. I had not even agreed to the deprivation of a magistrate to appear before this commissioner.

No sooner had they illegally processed me into the Los Angeles County jail system, that they wanted to get rid of me. Under California statute, no person can be jailed on an alleged infraction, but here I was in jail. The fact is, neither the courts nor the administrative boards know how to deal with the rare individual who sensibly raises questions about the existence of a contract, so they just bully forward with police power enforcement, and address nothing.

The deputies told me they were putting me out of jail, but that I must come back to court on the date specified by the commissioner. I told them "No! I did not agree to appear." They told me that if I did not appear, I would be arrested. I said that I was already under arrest, so just keep me in jail until you are finished with me. They said, we can't do that, we don't have the money to keep you here. I said, "I'm not here to save you money. If you want me, just keep me here. If you don't want me, put me out." So they threw me out of jail to get rid of me, and I never showed up later. In the meantime, I commenced suit against the commissioner for kid napping, holding me hostage and demanding ransom for my release. (His ransom was my signature, for he said when I gave him my signature, I would be free to go. Of course, that was why I was in jail because I did not agree to that.)

In my civil suit against the commissioner, I had him totally defenseless, and the trial judge hearing the case knew it. There was absolutely no way the commissioner could lawfully wiggle off, but since when do judges do things lawfully? The trial judge knew the commissioner was naked, and had no jurisdiction whatsoever for what he did to me. He slammed his hands down on the bench and said, "Mr. Branson, in all my twenty years' career on the bench, I have never met a person like you." He then quoted the words found in my complaint, "Just keep me in jail until you are finished with me."

This judge could see the potential chaotic conditions if every person which was stopped by the cops stated "Just keep me in jail until you are finished with me." I was supposed to fear losing my job, my reputation and companionship and capitulate. He knew that if everybody did what I was doing, the entire system would fall apart. I was suddenly costing government mocho money to the tune of thousands upon thousands of dollars when the whole idea was to make some money from me. This lawsuit continued for years all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, yet not one judge would address the issues of my contract case.

I now refer to a humorous situation that sounds like make-believe. An acquaintance of mine was called into court by one of the ABC "public service" administrative agencies to be cross-examined to discover information from him to be used against him. He was asked to take the witness stand. They asked him to raise his right hand after which the clerk of the court said, "Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?" He responded, "No, I do not!" Everyone in the court gasped. (Remember, the right to say "Yes" also includes the right to say "No!") The judge instructed the clerk to re-read the swearing-in again, supposing that he just did not understand the question. He responded the second time, "I heard you the first time, and my answer is, No, I do not!" You can imagine the uncomfortable and embarrassing situation into which this placed the judge. He asked why he would not swear to tell the truth, and he said, "The Bible says, 'Let God be true, but every man a liar,' " (referring to Rom. 3:4), and "I am a man, and a liar."

The judge came unglued and threatened him with jail if he did not swear to tell the truth. He responded, "Judge, you asked me a straight-forward question requiring either a yes, or a no answer. I gave you a straight-forward answer to your question, and that was No, I do not. You can't say I did not answer your question, for I did answer it, but you just don't like my answer. If you didn't want to hear my answer, then don't ask me the question. And judge, on what basis do you threatened me with jail? Is it because I answered your question truthfully? Or is it because you wanted me to lie, and I didn't do it? Or is it because you believe I am lying to you when I tell you I am a man, and a liar?"

The judge threw him in jail for three days, after which he brought him forth to swear him in again. He said, "Judge, my answer to you is still the same as three days ago. I am still a man, and still a liar, and no amount of jail time can change that. The judge again threaten him with jail, to which he responded, "On what basis do you threaten me with jail? Is it because I answered your question truthfully, and you want me to lie? Or is it because you believe I am lying to you when I tell you I am a man, and a liar?"

The system just does not know how to handle people who question the actions of government when all the government is only trying to get your approval to what they do to you. If you don't agree to the Contract Agreement, then they do you the favor of "agreeing" for you even if it is against your will, without consideration. As I say, this is not quite like you saying "I do" at the alter, but the judge spake and it was so.

Other examples are, when you are called to jury duty, the judge makes you raise your right hand and agree to follow the law as interpreted to you by the judge. But wait, it is not the judge or the jurors who are entitled to a jury trial, but the defendant who is constitutionally entitled to a fully informed and unencumbered jury which must judge on both the law and the facts. Here we have a judge seeking to induce the defendant's jurors to conspire with him against the defendant. How can the judge, in conspiracy with the jurors, agree to waive the rights of the defendant? They can't. It is the defendant that is entitled to a fair and impartial trial, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy ... an impartial jury." Jurors who have been induced to conspire with the judge cannot possible be "an impartial jury." Fifth Amendment, U.S. Constitution.

Then there are the various taxing agencies who want you to enter into a "Contract Agreement" with them. They kindly provide you with a pre-printed line on their forms to agree with their offer of a "Contract Agreement." But if you choose not to accept their offer, can one go to jail? Not constitutionally. However, they somehow want you to believe that if you do not accept their offer, then you are obligated to comply with their "Imposed Criminal Administrative Law," for after all, you don't want to go to jail because you violated the law.

Remember, anything that requires your signature, or a swearing thereto in order to give it application, is not law, but a contract. A contract must entail being fully cognizant of all its terms, agreeing to all those terms, having equal right to say yes or no, offering you a consideration to which you would rather have than retaining your constitutional rights and saying no, being totally done without duress in any way. Anything otherwise fails the test of a contract.

The Solution:

The solution is quite simple, J.A.I.L. I know there will be many naysayers who will seek to convince me that it is for the above reasons that J.A.I.L. will not work because everyone has waived their rights to the Constitution, and thus, we are all slaves of the government. To those, in an effort to cut these Naysayers off, I say, "Please re-read the last two sentences in the above paragraph defining contracts."

Here is how J.A.I.L. will solve the problem. Under J.A.I.L. cases will be brought before judges arguing fraud, deception, and undo influence, by government agents. The judge will be required to apply the proper laws governing these grievances, to which he will have no escape or evasion. If the judge does evade the issue, the party will call the judge on it, and give him his last chance to comply with the law as addressed to the issue presented. (This will satisfy the willful acts requirement of J.A.I.L.)

From there, it is purely a matter of exhausting appeals afforded within the state, keeping the fraud issue alive, and filing a complaint with the Special Grand Jury created by J.A.I.L. The judge will then be served by the Special Grand Jury and told to answer it. The complainant can then reply to the judge's opposition.

They judge may wish to argue that the complainant has no rights of protection by the Constitution because he waived them all. The complainant may reply that the so-called "waivers" to which the judge refers in his defense is but a part of the conspiracy alleged to which the judge was a necessary actor in the conspiracy. Of course, when these Special Grand Jurors hear the judge's argument, it will doubtless occur to them that they too have become the dupes of the same giant judicial fraud and conspiracy to which the complainant, and all other complainants are arguing about.

J.A.I.L. works like quicksand. It increases the judges liability the more he says in an attempt to justify himself. He has now implicated himself in a potential criminal indictment, and may face prison in addition to being civilly liable to the complainant, it which he cannot allege he is covered by judicial immunity. Further, the blabbing of one judge in his defense is more than likely going to indict the entire judicial system and all the judges in one giant sweep, for they are all tied together in the same conspiracy.

In nearly every instance in which I can think, under J.A.I.L. the judge's best defense is to say nothing, for anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law, either civilly or criminally. Judges generally will be best suited to accept the lesser evil of not countering the complaint unless they know they have been totally honest and forthright, and can support their position by the Constitution and the law, which will be very hard to do in these days when most everything is based upon fraud and deception.

The eventual positive impact that J.A.I.L. will make upon this nation on behalf of restoring government back to the people is inestimable involving such a boon to the American economy that it is beyond comprehension. - Ron Branson (J.A.I.L. CIC)

J.A.I.L.- Judicial Accountability Initiative Law - www.jail4judges.org


Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Jun 6, 2011
right here right now
ʎɐqǝ uo pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ʎnq ı ǝɯıʇ ʇsɐן ǝɥʇ sı sıɥʇ


Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Jun 6, 2011
right here right now
The Commercial Lien Process

What is a Commercial Lien?

If someone has 'wronged' you, by their actions, you have a remedy, in Law. The Common Law is the Law-of-the-Land, and is the highest man-made Law under which the People of the Nation are bound.

Under the Common Law, everyone is individually responsible for their own actions. The 'office' they may hold, the 'authority' they may consider they have, and/or the uniform they may wear, does not protect them in any way, shape, form. Simply because they (like everyone else) are responsible for every action they take. This was set into tablets of stone following Word War II, at the Nuremberg Trials. German Officers claimed "I was only obeying orders", yet they were still found guilty, and hung accordingly. This also forms a part of the Geneva Convention to which most Countries are signatories, especially the United Kingdom. Thus "I was only obeying orders" is not a defence.

The reasoning is simple: BEFORE taking any actions against anyone else, make sure that what you are doing is lawful and moral. If you suspect that the action you have been ordered to take is either unlawful or immoral, then you must refuse to obey. You can report the order, and your reasons for believing it to be unlawful and/or immoral to a higher authority. You can go as high as you like in the chain of authority, pointing out that anyone who conspires to support the unlawful/immoral order are making themselvesaccomplices, in Law. And that, as a consequence, they (themselves) will be held fully accountable, in Law.

The Process itself

In simple terms you write down The Exact Truth of what occurred, based on your first-hand knowledge, including any necessary supporting documentation. You will be writing under penalty of perjury, so do not lie, or make any Statements you feel you cannot prove. You explain the 'wrong', and you claim damages. You claim damages that you feel you deserve.

You write this in the form of a sworn Affidavit, and send it to whoever 'wronged' you, giving them 30 days to rebut what you have said. You tell them that you will remove any Statements they can prove to be incorrect, but the result (after all removals) will be Notarised and placed on to the Public Record.

You must take this step. Because it is honourable, and you must remain in honour. You cannot expect a Commercial Lien to work if you cannot prove this step. Thus your Notice should be sent by Recorded Delivery, such that you can prove it was received. If you do not take this step you can expect your collar to be felt at some later date because it is essential, and the essence of the Common Law, that a Party you consider offended you has the chance put their side of the story, and you must not deny them that chance.

It is very important to remember how the Common Law works. This is solely by Verdicts of Juries (upon hearing first-hand knowledge-based evidence) and by unrebutted Statements of Truth (also based solely upon first-hand knowledge).

What remains unrebutted, in substance, creates The Truth, in Law. (This is the only way the Law can work. It relies on people being truthful, with the possibility of perjuring themselves if they lie). Note that 'in substance' does not mean 'simple denial' as in "No, I didn't!". 'In substance' means denial with supporting proof. (And remember "I was only obeying orders" is not 'proof', nor is it any kind of defence. Neither, by the way, is "I didn't know" - because ignorance of the Law is no excuse. They should have checked, and discovered whether or not their actions were lawful and/or moral, before doing whatever they did).

Being The Truth, in Law, it immediately becomes The Judgement, in Law.

This is why, as a Witness, you are required to swear to: "Tell The Truth, the Whole Truth, and nothing but The Truth". Simply because all judgements are based on that. (I repeat ... it is the only way the Law can work).

Now that you have an Affidavit that remains unrebutted, you can get it notarised by a Notary Public. 'Notarising' consists of identifying yourself to the Notary (Passport, Driving Licence, etc), and signing your Affidavit in his or her presence ... such that he or she can verify that it was you, yourself, making your signature. The Notary will apply his seal, and will sign accordingly. (Their fees for doing this range from £30 to £50 on average).

All you need to do from this point onward is to 'place the fact that your Affidavit exists on to the Public Record'. This can be done by talking out a small advertisement in a newspaper. Within the advertisement you can invite Debt Collection Agencies to contact you - in order to actually exercise the Commercial Lien debt.

What can the Lienee do about this?

Judges know that they cannot affect a Commercial Lien because it is based on first-hand knowledge, which they can never have. Only you can have that knowledge. Only you can make the Statements you made. Thus there is nothing for them to 'judge', and they know that.

The Lienee, therefore has three options:

1. To pay up the full amount you have demanded

2. To engage a Common Law Court, with a Jury of 12, to have their side of the story considered. In this Court you will also be able to explain your side of the story to the Jury. The Jury has the power to wipe away your Lien (if, for example, they don't believe what you stated), or to modify the amount you have demanded (if they think it was unreasonable). This is because the whole process derives from the Common Law (Note: Not Statute Law, which is subsidiary to Common Law!)

3. To wait 99 years with the Lien hanging over their head. However, within this period, you can progress your Lien via Debt Collection Agencies and Credit Reference Agencies.

Who can you take out a Lien against?

Anyone you feel who has wronged you - or conspired to wrong you. For example, the Directors of a Company who have made demands upon you, without a Contract of Obligation from you. For example, all Debt Collection Agencies who simply write, demanding money, when you have never heard of them before, and know that you have no obligation to 'do business' with them. They may write on the basis of a Parking Fine, or whatever. The point is they do this without having first obtained a lawful obligation from you. They may very well claim a Warrant from the Northampton Bulk Clearing Centre, but you never consented to be 'judged' at Northampton Bulk Clearing Centre (and were never given any opportunity to put your side of the story). Furthermore the Warrant is not based on the Verdict of a Jury, or sworn Affidavit from first-hand knowledge (computers do not have first-hand knowledge!). So any such Warrant is void in Law. Consequently, if they continually harass you, they are (seriously and criminally!) 'wronging' you.

Therefore you go to the Companies House Website, and pay £1 for a Current Appointments Report on the Debt Collection Agency. This will list the names of the Directors. You apply a Lien to each of the Directors, because it it their responsibility to make sure that their Agency acts in honour, and within the Law, not outside of it..

Important Notes

If you read the description above carefully, you will see that - in order to apply a Commercial Lien - you do not need to get a Court's permission. The Lienee would need to take you to Court (with a Jury of 12) in order to get it removed, or the amount reduced, without making a payment.

Obviously you need to be prepared to remove it yourself, if they do pay up.

A Detailed Example Template:

1. Sample Notice of First And Final Warning

Notice of First And Final Warning

Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent; Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal

The Commercial Lien Process

A Common Law Commercial Lien is a process that any Human Being can employ in order to obtain lawful remedy from the actions of another Human Being(s) who have – or have attempted to – or have conspired to - damage said Human in some way. Such wrongs are known as “torts”, and are the subject of Tort Law. This includes ‘harassment’, such as ‘threats with menaces’, which is considered to be ‘psychological damage’, and also ‘defamation of character’, which is also considered to ‘damage a reputation’. The reason for this is very simple: Since all are equal under the LAW, then each Human Being has a Duty of Care to each other Human Being, such as to make sure that – whatever action we take towards each other – we have the Common Law behind those actions, and thus can live together in peace. Abrogating said Duty of Care is a CRIMINAL ACT, and constitutes a tort.

I believe that you have created a tort, or torts, against My Human Self.

The Commercial Lien process is a construct of the Common Law (The Law-of-the-Land), and England is a Common Law jurisdiction (being, as it is, on Land). Thus any Human Being residing in this country is subject to the Common Law above all else. And that includes the individual(s), to whom this Notice is addressed.

The process comprises:

1. The subject of the harassment (myself in this case), will write a Statement of Truth (Affidavit), under penalty of perjury. This being the case, what I will write will be “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”, and will thus be based on first-hand knowledge.

2. You will be sent a copy of this Affidavit, comprising my allegations. You will have to REBUT EACH POINT in order to ward off the possibility of a Lien. You will be given 30 (thirty) days to do so, but I can assure you that you will not be able to rebut EVEN ONE SINGLE POINT. You will need to rebut by means of a sworn Affidavit of your own, written under the same criteria, namely: From first-hand knowledge, and under penalty of perjury.

3. Any points you manage to rebut will be removed from my allegations, and the remainder kept as my final Affidavit. The result will be Notarised (by a Notary Public) to become My Statement of Truth, which will not only become THE TRUTH, IN LAW – but will also become A JUDGMENT, IN LAW.

4. That being the case, no Hearing will be required. Because the judgement has already been made by the truth. (That’s Common Law!)

5. I will then place a Public Advertisement, warning whomsoever may be concerned, that your creditworthiness is henceforth highly suspect. I will inform Credit Reference Agencies to this effect. I would then be LAWFULLY ENTITLED TO SIEZE ANY OF YOUR PROPERTY, up to (and including) the value of the Lien.

6. This process will occur in a LAWFUL manner – because you are given the chance to REBUT IN SUBSTANCE - and I will thus retain entirely ‘clean hands’ (unlike yourselves, which is why your mechanism is UNLAWFUL, and why I am able to counter it by this LAWFUL means).

7. As footnotes, I should add that

a. Even if I make an honest mistake, WHICH YOU FAILED TO REBUT, my mistake BECOMES THE TRUTH, IN LAW. You will not be able to claim ‘libel’, ‘slander’, etc, because you were given thirty days to rebut the allegations, before public announcement.

b. By a failure to REBUT IN SUBSTANCE you would have tacitly acquiesced to my Statements as Truths, in Law.

c. REBUT IN SUBSTANCE does not comprise simply dismissing my allegations. That is mere gainsaying. “IN SUBSTANCE” means “accompanying with HARD proofs” (in this case, “to the contrary”).

  1. As a part of the Lien, I will demand a substantial sum in recompense/settlement of the damages.

  1. Being Common Law construct, the only way this Lien can be removed is:

  1. By Full Payment … in which case I will remove it

  1. The passage of 99 years

  1. The verdict of a Jury of 12, deciding that the Lien should not have been imposed. But this will require YOU to take ME to a Court de Jure (Common Law Court) … whereupon I will be able to explain (to said Jury) exactly how you took actions which comprised the tort(s) against me WITHOUT ANY LAWFUL EXCUSE WHATSOEVER. DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, ASSUME THAT ANY JUDGE CAN REMOVE A LIEN. A JUDGE CONNOT DO THAT, AND JUDGES KNOW THAT (because it is a Common Law, NOT A STATUTORY, process)

This was your last and final warning. If I receive one further communication from any of your Agents by means of mail, phone call, or knocks on my door, then I will undertake the Commercial Lien process against those individual(s) to whom this Notice is addressed.

That being the case, I suggest that you take full Notice of this Notice, and immediately cease & desist from your UNLAWFUL actions in respect of My Self. You will find, in the future, that you will need to contend with this Commercial Lien process more frequently as time goes on, and more people discover it. Now might be a very good time to find yourself a decent, honest, upright, honourable job – instead of the thoroughly despicable, dishonest, and downright FRAUDULENT one you currently get away with.

If you wanted an obligation from me, you should have requested it – before doing ANYTHING else. It’s far too late now. To carry on, under the gross mis-assumption that you have such an obligation, is simply CRIMINAL. And, if you persist, you will eventually pay very dearly.

Sincerely, without ill-will, frivolity or vexation,

<1>: of the <2> family, as commonly called, English Sovereign, and subject SOLEY to The Common Law.

Without any admission of any liability whatsoever, and with all Natural Indefeasible Rights reserved.

2. Sample Statement of Truth (Affidavit)

Affiant: <1>: of the family <2>

Sworn on: _________________________

Statement of Truth of

<1>: of the family <2>

In relation to the individual who accepts liability for the Name: “<5>”.

Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent; Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal.

I, <1>: of the family <2> (as commonly called), being the Undersigned, do solemnly swear, declare, and depose:

1. THAT I am competent to state the matters set forth herein.

2. THAT I have first-hand knowledge of the facts stated herein.

3. THAT all the facts stated herein are true, correct, and certain, admissible as evidence, and if called upon as a witness, I will testify to their veracity.

4. THAT the eternal, unchanged principles of Law are:

a) A workman is worthy of his hire.

b) All are equal under the Law.

c) In Law, truth is sovereign.

d) Truth is expressed in the form of an Affidavit.

e) An unrebutted Affidavit stands as truth in Law.

f) An unrebutted Affidavit becomes the judgment in Law.

g) All matters must be expressed to be resolved.

h) He who leaves the battlefield first loses by default.

i) Sacrifice is the measure of credibility.

j) A lien or claim can be satisfied only through an Affidavit by a point-for-point rebuttal, resolution by Jury or payment.

5. THAT Commercial processes (including this Affidavit and the required responses to it) ARE NON-JUDICIAL and pre-judicial because:

I. No judge, court, government or any agencies thereof, or any other third parties whatsoever, can abrogate anyone’s Affidavit of Truth; and

II. Only a party affected by an Affidavit can speak and act for himself and is solely responsible for responding with his own Affidavit of Truth, which no one else can do for him.

6. THAT the lawful seizure, collection, and transfer of ownership of money or property must be effected by means of a valid Commercial Lien.

7. THAT I am not the creation or chattel property of any person or any government agency whatsoever. I am not under any obligation whatsoever to any governmental agency, state or federal (i.e. union), or any of their self-passed laws, statutes, regulations or policies.

8. THAT any and all of the various papers, documents, adhesion contracts, or "agreements" I may have signed with any government agency or entity or any others that might be construed to indicate a conclusion contrary to my herein-below assertions were made, signed by me on the basis of mistake due to lack of full disclosure creating a deliberate lack of full knowledge, a deliberate action of fraud, non-disclosure, concealment of material fact, and misrepresentation. Such action thereby creates a stressful situation of duress and intimidation, vitiating all documents by such action of fraud.

9. THAT it is the sincerest belief and spiritual conviction of this Affiant that slavery and peonage are immoral, are violations of the First Precept of Commercial Law (“a workman is worthy of his hire”), that fraud, misrepresentation, nondisclosure, intimidation, deceit, concealment of material fact, lying, and treachery are morally wrong.

10. THAT I have absolutely no desire whatsoever to be a "client" (slave) of any governmental agency, state or federal (i.e. union), or any of their Principals, or the "United Kingdom," or to incur any debts or obligations to said entities for whatever "benefits" said entities might purpose to provide or seek to provide to this Affiant, or be directed by, subject to, or accountable to any parties other than my own conscience and best judgement for the purpose of preserving inviolate my unalienable/inalienable indefeasible rights to life, liberty, freedom and property while engaging in the honourable, productive, and non-harmful activities of my life.

11. THAT I, <1>: of the family <2>, am the sole and absolute owner of myself, my body, and my estate, and possess unconditional, allodial, sovereign title thereto, and that I abjure, renounce, forsake, and disavow utterly and absolutely now and forever all presumptions of power, authority, or right by any governmental agency, its Principals, over the rights, life, liberty, freedom or property of this Affiant from whatever source presumed or derived.

12. THAT I, the Affiant, am NOT a Legal Fiction Person (as defined in a Law Dictionary) “<3>” as being a Corporate Entity (incorporated or non-incorporated) or some other kind of Partnership, BUT INSTEAD a living breathing, sovereign, flesh and blood Human Being with a living soul, with a distinct Mind that is capable of possessing personal knowledge commonly called <1>: (of the family <2>, when necessary to distinguish my Clan).

13. <4>

14. THAT all parties who act against this Affiant on their alleged basis must produce the Commercial Affidavits of TRUTH, sworn by the claimants to be "true, correct, and complete (certain)," which prove the origin and foundation of their claims and include providing the contract(s) or agreement(s) with the signature of this Affiant thereon wherein this Affiant has knowingly, intentionally, and voluntarily, in full legal and lawful capacity, agreed to waive or surrender rights to “<5>”, their Principals, or the "United Kingdom" or agreed to become subject to or the slave or property of said entities in any way or in any jurisdiction whatsoever.

15. In order for a crime to exist, four elements must exist; there must be a defined crime, there must be a victim, and that the victim must have been damaged, and the intent must be established on the part of the accused. Without proof of all four elements, no crime can said to have been committed. In this Affidavit, crimes are defined – namely the unlawful ejection and the lack of Duty of Care, the Affiant is the victim, this Affidavit verifies the damages, and the intent is established at the end of the thirty (30) day grace period, if the respondents fail to rebut (respond to) the wrongs they have been a party to as noted herein.

16. NOTICE is hereby given, and demands made, on “<5>” that:

a) ALL properties taken unlawfully, removed in violation of commerce, or otherwise converted, sold, or seized by “<5>”, or other Parties in collusion therewith, be immediately returned IN FULL VALUE (£) PLUS 10% to the original Owner, the Undersigned Affiant; OR

b) All Parties who proceed to act or assist in said actions, against this Affiant, <1>: of the family <2>, without thorough, verifiable, point-by-point rebuttal of each and every point set forth in this Affidavit shall be immediately charged with criminal fraud, theft, conspiracy of extortion, theft and fraud, and commercial liens shall be placed against all their real and personal properties (defined crimes: criminal conspiracy, robbery, misprision of felony, conspiracy against the rights of peoples, extortion, fraud and false statements, and other such crimes as are related to issues of RACKETEERING plus such Constitutional violations not listed combined and described simply as TREASON); and

c) All court costs and legal fees relating to this instant case shall be paid by those who have drawn the Undersigned Affiant <1>: of the family <2> into this instant matter.

17. THAT failure to respond as herein required to this Affiant, within the herein a prescribed time of thirty (30) days will be deemed by this Affiant to invoke the doctrine of acquiescence and admission, to recover, in commerce, the lost or damaged properties plus damages, penalties and costs.

18. THAT this Commercial Affidavit, Notice and Warning of Commercial Grace, is the ONE AND ONLY such Notice and Warning. If all actions are not abated within thirty (30) days, or if at any time in the future any actions are reinstated, it shall be considered a wilful disregard for this Notice and Warning, and such shall engender the immediate filing of Criminal Complaints (Affidavits of Information) and Commercial Liens (Affidavits of Obligation) against all parties involved.

19. THAT the foundation of Commercial Law, being based on certain eternally just, valid, and moral precepts, has remained unchanged for at least six (6) millennia. Said Commercial Law forms the underpinnings of Western Civilization if not all Nations, Law, and Commerce in the world, is NON-JUDICIAL, and is prior and superior to, the basis of, and cannot be set aside or overruled by, the statutes of any governments, legislatures, quasi-governmental agencies, or courts. It is therefore an inherent obligation on all Authorities, Officials, Governments, Legislatures, Governmental or Quasi-governmental Agencies, Courts, Judges, Attorneys, and all aspects and Agents of all Law Enforcement Agencies to uphold said Commercial Law, without which said entities are violating the just basis of their alleged authority and serving to disintegrate the society they allegedly exist to protect.


20. THAT if the Respondent, “<5>” fails to rebut such claims or charges, the Undersigned is LAWFULLY entitled to claim default against the Respondent. In that case, the Undersigned is fully entitled to take whatever LAWFUL steps may be necessary in order to execute this Lien.

21. THAT only I, the Human Being involved against my free will in this instant matter, can determine how much stress, harassment, and other disturbance I have suffered by virtue of being UNLAWFULLY ejected from the dwelling I was inhabiting at the time, and consequently only I am in the position of decide and dictate my desired compensation, being the amount of <6> for all combined attempts to trespass on my absolute sovereignty, that being the sum total demanded by this Commercial Lien on the individual who accepts liability for the Name “<5>”.

22. THAT by specifically offering “<5>” the chance to apologise in writing (although the opportunity has always been there for the taking) via a Notice of First And Final Warning, dated <7>, in this instant matter, I come to this position with clean hands as having shown good faith.

23. THAT for all the purposes of all of the forgoing, all references to “<5>” shall be construed to refer to an individual who considers their Legal Fiction Name to be “<8>”, or any variant thereof, including Names phonetically sounding the same or similar, and who can accept service via <9>.

24. THAT I, <1>: of the family <2>, the Undersigned Affiant, depose and certify that I have written the foregoing with intent and understanding of purpose, and believe the statements, allegations, demands and contents herein to be true, correct, and complete, commercially reasonable, and just, to the best of my knowledge and belief.

* All words herein are as Affiant defines them.

Signed and sealed this ____________________ day of ____________________, 20____.

All rights reserved.

By: ___________________ (Affiant)

<1>: of the family <2>, in rerum natura


3. Sample Public Notice


A Common Law Commercial Lien has been LAWFULLY established between myself, <1>: of the family <2>, and the individual who accepts liability for the Name "<5>", at address<9>, herein referred to as “the Tortfeaser”.

The reason for this Lien is that I have been the subject of a wrong (i.e. a tort) at the hands of the Tortfeaser, and my remedy IN LAW is to be able to place Lien on their property, until the wrong has been set aright. Thus I am LAWFULLY able to seize goods and assets that belong to the Tortfeaser, up to the amount of the Commercial Lien, which is <6>.

This Notice is to inform whomsoever may be concerned that the creditworthiness of this Tortfeaser is, henceforth, highly suspect, until the Lien lapses - or is, by some other means, removed.

Notes for the Templates

DO NOT CHANGE THE FORMAT OF THE AFFIDAVIT/STATEMENT OF TRUTH (Notary Publics love it, and will have an orgasm when they see it).

Simply Embed it by means of "Replace All", searching for the "<..>" codes given below, and replacing with your specific text

Use "View > Headers and Footers", on the first page, to change the Given & Family Names in the Footer.

Add any "evidence pages" as extra pages at the end, such as scanned 'Signed for' receipts, and scanned samples of letters sent/received, which are referred to in the listed complaints, torts, etc.

The UK Column have agreed to publish Public Notices for free. It would then be possible to send the Subject a copy of the UK Column Edition containing the Public Notice.

Replacements Codes:

<1> = Given Name e.g. Veronica
<2> = Family Name e.g. Chapman
<3> = Affiant's Legal Fiction Name e.g. MS VERONICA CHAPMAN
<4> = All listed complaints, torts, detail, etc inserted … see specimen, below.
<5> = Subject's Full Name e.g. MR. ROBERT DOE
<6> = Amount - as numbers, then spelled in words within brackets e.g. £5,000,000 (FIVE MILLION POUNDS STERLING)
<7> = Date when "Notice of First And Final Warning" was 'Signed for', as received e.g. 22nd January, 2012 (Note: this is NOT <12>, below)
<8> = Subject's Name variants e.g. BOB DOE
<9> = Subject's full Service Address e.g. 1 Any Street, Anytown, Anywhere, AnyPostalCode
<10> = Your Address (in "Notice of First And Final Warning" only)
<11> = Individual(s) Name(s) and Service Address (in "Notice of First And Final Warning" only)
<12> = Date (in "Notice of First And Final Warning" only)

Specimen complaints, detailed torts, etc. - which go in at <4>

("Word" will automatically number these in, and re-number everything that follows)

1. THAT on the <date> at a place commonly known as "<place>", "<5>" arrived just after <time>am, and started to 'fling his weight about'.

2. THAT on that date, and at that time, "<5>" disturbed me, the Peaceful Inhabitant, without LAWFUL authority to do so.

3. THAT on that date, and at that time, "<5>" ejected me, the Peaceful Inhabitant, from that dwelling without any LAWFUL authority so to do.

4. THAT on that date, and at that time, "<5>" attempted to deceive me with a statement "I'm a Bailiff, I can do what I like".

5. THAT having ejected me, "<5>" made no attempt to discover whether or not I had the means to summon a taxi or some other kind of aid necessary to leave the place.

6. THAT I, <1>: of the family <2>, the Undersigned, herewith and herein demand of "<5>" to furnish answers to the following:

a) Where is the real and true Commercial Paperwork bearing on this instant matter that made me liable to summary ejection from said dwelling?

b) Where are the real, true, proper and lawful assessments bearing on this instant matter that I am said to be liable to summary ejection from said dwelling?

c) Where are the clean hands?

d) Where is the good faith action?

e) Where are the truth, mercy, grace, and all similar just and virtuous qualities and proceedings based on them that are supposed to inhere in the Common Law, and commerce via the Uniform Commercial Code?

7. THAT if "<5>" believes his actions against me carried the force of Law behind them, let him show the Common Law precedent.

8. THAT if "<5>" believes that the Common Law (the Law-of-the-Land) does not exist, has no value, is not supreme in this Land, or that it is inferior to any Administrative Court-produced 'Warrant' he may have possessed, then let him show that there is no crime of murder (a Common Law crime), or Misconduct in Public Office (a Common Law misdemeanour), or Contempt of Court (a Common Law misdemeanour).

9. THAT if "<5>" disavows the Common Law, then let him explain whether or not he disavows the crime of murder.

10. THAT if "<5>" disavows the Common Law, but does not disavow the crime of murder, then let him show how this is possible.

11. THAT if "<5>" disavows the Common Law, and also disavows the crime of murder, then this places him an "Outlaw" (i.e. "Wanted - Dead or Alive"), with no protection from the Common Law, and thus fair game for anyone to take his life, not only "without facing any penalty" for so doing, but may possibly even "receive a bounty" for so doing. (Read up on history!)


Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Jun 6, 2011
right here right now
Fundamentals of Life on Earth

(and the deceptions)


  1. The Basics of Life
Starting at the beginning, the first Chapter in my book is called “Taking”, but I’ve thought more about that … since writing it … and I’ve decided that we have to go back to absolute basics.

If a planet supports ‘life’, then it must provide EVERYTHING necessary for that ‘life’.

Considering A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE OF ‘LIFE’ (any example … it doesn’t matter which one), a planet cannot support “some of it” … or “a bit of it”. The planet has to provide it all, otherwise it will be a waste of energy.

If anything is missing, then that ‘life’ will never get started in the first place, or will die out. (We know about species on this planet that have died out).

You can consider all aspects of life, for example:






Shelter from the elements

Some means of disposing waste materials

Some means of mating and procreating the species.

Those are the basics.

But you can add other things, for example: ENTERTAINMENT to stop you going bonkers, and INFORMATION to inform you. And so on. The ability to move … to travel … is another example of a ‘basic’.

And NO-ONE has the right to deny you these basics. That’s one very essential point. To deny you any of these basics, while utilising them themselves … is HYPOCRITICAL (and actually CRIMINAL, btw).

Simply because everyone is equal.

Now … does the Earth ‘charge’ for the resources it provides? Does it send out Invoices? Does the Sun (from which ALL energy is derived) send out Invoices for the Light & Heat it throws our way?

No, they don’t. In that case what right does anyone have to take the resources the Earth & Sun provide freely … and then ‘charge’ you for them? That sounds like mega-hypocrisy to me!

Yes … I know … others may have put in time & effort to provide you with these resources conveniently … and they need to be recompensed (somehow!) … and so quite possibly you do have some obligation towards them. However, I will show conclusively that money is a worthless illusion, and so how can ‘paying them’ discharge any such obligation?

Just to sum up with a few examples: Animals have fur, or a very tough hide, so they are not affected by the elements. Humans are not so endowed, so we need clothing. Thus the Earth provides us with the resources for creating suitable clothing.

That’s just one very simple example. All other examples are similar.

It is important to think about this - because what it means is that - all the other ‘overheads’ are not, actually, necessary to sustain ‘life’. For example ‘Money’, ‘Legalese’, and ‘Religion’ (being the three most prominent). These are not necessary because the Earth & the Sun provide everything necessary.

  1. legal tender.2 wealth in general.3 colloq a rich person; rich people •marry money.4 commerce, law (always monies or moneys) sums of money. moneyed or monied adj having much money; wealthy. be in the money colloq to be wealthy. for my, our, etc money colloq in my, our, etc opinion. get one's money's worth to get full value for the money or other resources one has put into something. have money to burn to have enough money to be able to spend in ways which others may find foolish.made of money colloq said of a person: extremely rich. make money to make a profit or acquire wealth. money down money paid on the spot for something.money for old rope colloq money obtained without any effort. money talks an expression used to convey the idea that people with money have power and influence over others. on the money US slang spot-on; exactly right. put money into something to invest in it. put money on something colloq to bet on it. put one's money where one's mouth is to support what one has said by risking or investing money, or giving other material or practical help.

    See definition 1a: “coins or banknotes used as a means of buying things;

    Completely wrong! We’ve already seen that coins & banknotes are real objects. If this definition were correct then ‘money’ would be real. Look at definition 4: “ sums of money.” … how can you define something using the same word in the definition?

    This calamity comes about purely because the compilers of dictionaries do not understand what they are defining.

    However, if you move from the ‘m’s to the ‘c’s, there is enough of a gap (in the dictionary) to engender some kind of realism into the definitions. So we can look up “credit”:

    credit noun 1 faith placed in something. 2 honour or a cause of honour • To her credit, she didn't say anything. 3 acknowledgement, recognition or praise. 4(credits) a list of acknowledgements to those who have helped in the preparation of a book or film. 5 trust given to someone promising to pay later for goods already supplied • buy goods on credit. 6 one's financial reliability, especially as a basis for such trust. 7 the amount of money available to one at one's bank. 8 a an entry in a bank account acknowledging a payment; b the side of an account on which such entries are made. Compare debit. 9 a a certificate of completion of a course of instruction; b a distinction awarded for performance on such a course. verb (credited, crediting) 1 to believe; to place faith in someone or something. 2(often credit something to someone or someone with something) to enter a sum as a credit on someone's account, or allow someone a sum as credit. 3 (oftencredit someone with something) to attribute a quality or achievement to someone • We credited you with more sense.
    Examine definition 1: “faith placed in something.” (Those definitions are all about honour, recognition, acknowledgement, etc. All things that take place in one's brain (an nowhere else!)

    Bingo! There you have it! Where is ‘faith’? IN YOUR HEAD. Faith = Belief.

    ‘Cash’ (Tokens) are ‘real’ … ‘money’ is nothing more than faith, and thus AN ILLUSION. (or DELUSION?). One is real, the other is not. They cannot, therefore, possibly be the same thing.

    We elect our Government to represent us, to look after the borders, infrastructure and healthcare (etc) of our country. We give them the power to use a Monetary Belief System if they want to (I can't think why anyone would want to ... but there it is).

    We give them the power to create as much 'money' (illusion) … via a Treasury … as they would ever need.

    And what's the first thing they do, once elected?

    THEY ASK -US- FOR IT!!!!!!

    Can you think of anything more ABSURD?????

    (The only thing more absurd is that we stand for it. We let them do it to us).

    How is this ILLUSION passed around? By means of its Tokens.

    As has already been said, 93% of the BELIEF only exists electronically … but that leaves 7% existing as real Token REPRESENTATIONS.

    And what does it say on these Tokens? Well, in the UK … probably due to our history … we are fortunate that the ‘illusion’ is still hidden in plain sight. Because, if one consults a £10 banknote/token, it will read:


    … and that piece of paper will contain a rubber-stamped signature from someone who considers they have the authority to represent the Bank of England.

    This “promise” is worthless, as we shall see. And other countries are not so fortunate as to be able to read this worthless promise in plain sight. For example the Federal Reserve Notes do not bear this worthless promise, and neither do the new Euro Notes. (Presumably this is because the promise is so worthless, there is absolutely no point whatsoever in making it).

    Why is this promise so worthless?

    Well, first of all, what is this £10 banknote? This answer is that it is a Promissory Note.

    Colloquially one would call it an IOU.

    An IOU from the Bank of England.

    An IOU from the Bank of England containing a promise that they will never, and CAN never, fulfill.

    That’s what makes it an empty, worthless, promise.

    Because it can never be fulfilled.

    Because “a sum of £10” does not exist in the real world. It only exists in one’s IMAGINATION.

    So, all they can ‘promise’ is: IMAGINATION.

    But then, what IS ‘a promise’?

    Why does anyone ‘promise’ something?

    Why does anyone ever NEED to promise something?

    The answer is simple: A promise is necessary when - whatever is being promised - cannot be actually done at that time.

    There is no need to promise if the action being promised can be done there and then. If it can be done there & then, it would be done there & then … and no need to make a promise!

    A promise is something that “you will do in the future”.

    When you can. When the time is right. When everything necessary to fulfill that promise is in place. (And so on).

    So … why does the Bank of England need to make a promise if it can come up with “a sum of £10” there and then?

    There are two possible answers:

    i. Because “a sum of £10” is so large, or unwieldy, that it would be impractical,


    ii. Because “a sum of £10” does not, actually, exist … and they hope to magic it into reality … at some unspecified time in the future.

    But we have already established that “a sum of £10” is imaginary, therefore (i) above cannot apply.

    So we are left with (ii), above.

    And that is precisely what is going on.

    The Bills of Exchange Act is a Statute and – as we will see – a part of the absurdity of “the legal system” – however it does attempt to resolve the absurdity of Promissory Notes.

    It does this by pointing out (fundamentally) that “everyone’s imaginations are as good as everyone else’s”.

    Which translates, in practice, to the fact that anyone can write a Promissory Note. (Simply because every Human has the ability to make promises).

    A cheque is nothing more than a Promissory Note.

    Consequently it is perfectly possible to write one’s own Promissory Notes to cover any & all monetary demands made upon oneself. It is simply a matter of writing an IOU.

    IOUs created this way will be absolutely & utterly WORTHLESS (of course!) … but we have discovered that those from the Bank of England (and Federal Reserve, etc) are equally worthless.

    We have discovered that it is possible to tie a court de facto up in knots by offering a Promissory Note in discharge of a demand. This can cause the court to adjourn, trying to decide which Promissory Note is more worthless than some other Promissory Note.

    They have a bit of a problem … for the reasons given above, in this essay.

    We will come back to this aspect when discussing methods for peaceful Lawful Rebellion, as encouraged by the Magna Carta of 1215.

    PLEASE NOTE: At this stage I have only discussed what money ‘is’, and who ‘makes’ it … I HAVE NOT DISCUSSED “how it gets into circulation”. There are other deceptions in operation so as to achieve that aspect.

    I will say it one more time: ‘Money’ WAS … IS … and ALWAYS WILL BE … nothing more than a superbly-crafted, now ingrained, CON TRICK … a mind-fuck (by any other name). All we ever need to do is to SHARE the resources provided by the Earth FAIRLY amongst us … AND ‘MONEY’ HAS NEVER …. DOES NOT … AND WILL NEVER … achieve that.

    I get people telling me "... they don't want to be accused of Fraudulent Conversion". Huh??? What do you think this entire Money Scam is, then? It's nothing BUT Fraudulent Conversion! The FRAUDULENT CONVERSION of 'ideas', plucked out of thin air, into 'money worries' and misery for many, many people (actually all except those who perpetrate ... or go along with ... the Fraudulent Conversion Scam!).

    Fraudulent Conversion? Geez!

    5. Religion is bullshit - George Carlin.

    7. then maybe you should read this.

    These are the details of the Application (as it stands on 5th January, 2010)

    12. Signatures

    I get asked about "Signatures". When/how should one sign a letter. This is the sort of thing I get asked:

    "... i was just about to send off my letter to Xxxxx and was wondering whether it should be signed by me as well as printed? is this important? normally i would sign a letter personally, but i dunno now ... am i re-enforcing my acceptance legally as a named fiction? fuck it gets complicated! and i really know nufffin about this kinda ting."

    I guess he's not the only one!

    Well, this was my reply (which, I think) says it all:

    Signing letters? I don't, these days ... reasons:

    1. The arseholes often don't sign theirs ... so why should I?

    2. Why should I give them a copy of my signature, just so that they can Photoshop it?

    3. They ignore me anyway ... as much as they can.

    4. I have a personal Embossed Stamp that I use ... obtained from here: http://www.rubberstamp.uk.com/EmbossingPresses.php

    5. What is said in the Letters generally doesn't require a signature ... it's just telling them they have no power/authority to write to me in the first place. That's THEIR problem ... nothing really to do with me PERSONALLY (any more than anyone else). Basically they are all Organic-Robot MORONS ... so they don't understand anything anyway.

    6. The only thing that's 'personal' is that I will henceforth charge them for writing to me. Well, I've told them ... so they can't claim ignorance ... whether I've signed it or not. Again EVERYONE has they right ... AND HAS THE RIGHT TO EXERCISE THAT RIGHT ... so - fundamentally -they are lucky to have got away with it for as long as they have. And that's the way I look at it ... not whether or not I've signed anything.

    Basically the letter is a 'bombshell' ... and bombs don't normally contain signatures ... they just blow up whatever stuff is around at the time.

    No point in demanding that a bomb bears a hand-written signature before it's allowed to go off ... is there?

    The fact is ... I've told them to run for cover. It's up to them whether they do or not ... isn't it?

    That's the way I look at it. It isn't really 'complicated'.

    The whole thing is all about 'mindset'. 'Mindset'. Not 'how to do things officially' ... but HOW TO DO THINGS HONOURABLY.

    And the honourable thing to do is to: Give them Notice. If they don't take any notice ... fucking tough on them!


    Marc Stevens has it just about right (... see Chapter 6 in my book: Global Elite/Psychopaths)

    (Oh ... and yes ... these days, these little essays of mine tend to go all the way around the Internet)

    Veronica: of the Chapman family (December, 2009/January 2010)

    ("Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote" Benjamin Franklin, 1759)



Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Jun 6, 2011
right here right now
Vested Interest. A government that robs Peter to pay Paul, can always depend on the support of Paul.


Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sep 16, 2012
third cove on the right


Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Jun 6, 2011
right here right now

by Patrick M. Wood
Friday, October 14, 2005


Who controls global monetary affairs? The BIS! Based in Basle, Switzerland, the BIS is central bank to central banks. The BIS has greater immunity than a sovereign nation, is accountable to no one, runs global monetary affairs and is privately owned. This is a must-read report to understand the globalization process.



When David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski founded the Trilateral Commission in 1973, the intent was to create a "New International Economic Order" (NIEO). To this end, they brought together 300 elite corporate, political and academic leaders from North America, Japan and Europe.

Few people believed us when we wrote about their nefarious plans back then. Now, we look back and clearly see that they did what they said they were going to do... globalism is upon us like an 8.6 magnitude earthquake.

The question is, "How did they do it?"

Keep in mind, they had no public mandate from any country in the world. They didn’t have the raw political muscle, especially in democratic countries where voting is allowed. They didn’t have global dictatorial powers.

Indeed, how did they do it?

The answer is the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), self-described as the "central bank for central bankers", that controls the vast global banking system with the precision of a Swiss watch.

This report offers a concise summation of BIS history, structure and current activities.


The famous currency expert Dr. Franz Pick once stated,

"The destiny of the currency is, and always will be, the destiny of a nation."

With the advent of rampant globalization, this concept can certainly be given a global context as well:

"The destiny of currencies are, and always will be, the destiny of the world."

Even though the BIS is the oldest international banking operation in the world, it is a low profile organization, shunning all publicity and notoriety.

As a result, there is very little critical analysis written about this important financial organization. Further, much of what has been written about it is tainted by its own self-effacing literature.

The BIS can be compared to a stealth bomber. It flies high and fast, is undetected, has a small crew and carries a huge payload. By contrast, however, the bomber answers to a chain of command and must be refueled by outside sources.

The BIS, as we shall see, is not accountable to any public authority and operates with complete autonomy and self-sufficiency.

Leading up to Founding

As we will see, the BIS was founded in 1930 during a very troubled time in history. Some knowledge of that history is critical to understanding why the BIS was created, and for whose benefit.

There are three figures that play prominently in the founding of the BIS:

  • Charles G. Dawes

  • Owen D. Young

  • Hjalmar Schacht of Germany
Charles G. Dawes was director of the U.S. Bureau of the Budget in 1921, and served on the Allied Reparations Commission starting in 1923. His latter work on "stabilizing Germany’s economy" earned him the Nobel Peace Prize in 1925.

After being elected Vice President under President Calvin Coolidge from 1925-1929, and appointed Ambassador to England in 1931, he resumed his personal banking career in 1932 as chairman of the board of the City National Bank and Trust in Chicago, where he remained until his death in 1951.

Owen D Young was an American industrialist. He founded RCA (Radio Corporation of America) in1919 and was its chairman until 1933. He also served as the chairman of General Electric from 1922 until 1939. In 1932, Young sought the democratic presidential nomination, but lost to Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

More on Hjalmar Schacht later.

In the aftermath of World War I and the impending collapse of the German economy and political structure, a plan was needed to rescue and restore Germany, which would also insulate other economies in Europe from being affected adversely.

The Versailles Treaty of 1919 (which officially ended WWI) had imposed a very heavy reparations burden on Germany, which required a repayment schedule of 132 billion gold marks per year. Most historians agree that the economic upheaval caused in Germany by the Versailles Treaty eventually led to Adolph Hitler’s rise to power.

In 1924 the Allies appointed a committee of international bankers, led by Charles G. Dawes (and accompanied by J.P. Morgan agent, Owen Young), to develop a plan to get reparations payments back on track. Historian Carroll Quigley noted that the Dawes Plan was "largely a J.P. Morgan production"1 The plan called for $800 million in foreign loans to be arranged for Germany in order to rebuild its economy.

In 1924, Dawes was chairman of the Allied Committee of Experts, hence, the "Dawes Plan."

He was replaced as chairman by Owen Young in 1929, with direct support by J.P. Morgan. The "Young Plan" of 1928 put more teeth into the Dawes Plan, which many viewed as a strategy to subvert virtually all German assets to back a huge mortgage held by the United States bankers.

Neither Dawes nor Young represented anything more than banking interests. After all, WWI was fought by governments using borrowed money made possible by the international banking community. The banks had a vested interest in having those loans repaid!

In 1924, the president of Reichsbank (Germany’s central bank at that time) was Hjalmar Schacht. He had already had a prominent role in creating the Dawes Plan, along with German industrialist Fritz Thyssen and other prominent German bankers and industrialists.

The Young Plan was so odious to the Germans that many credit it as a precondition to Hitler’s rise to power.

Fritz Thyssen, a leading Nazi Industrialist, stated

"I turned to the National socialist party only after I became convinced that the fight against the Young Plan was unavoidable if complete collapse of Germany was to be prevented." 2

Some historians too quickly credit Owen Young as the idea-man for the Bank for International Settlements.

It was actually Hjalmar Schacht who first proposed the idea3, which was then carried forward by the same group of international bankers who brought us the Dawes and Young Plans.

It is not necessary to jump to conclusions as to the intent of these elite bankers, so we will instead defer to the insight of renowned Georgetown historian, Carroll Quigley:

"The Power of financial capitalism had another far reaching plan, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole.

This system was to be controlled in a feudalistic fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences.

The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks, which were themselves private corporations.

Each central bank, in the hands of men like Montagu Norman of the Bank of England, Benjamin Strong of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, Charles Rist of the Bank of France, and Hjalmar Schacht of the Reichsbank, sought to dominate its government by its ability to control treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence co-operative politicians by subsequent rewards in the business world."4

So here we have a brief sketch of what led up to the founding of the BIS.

Now we can examine the nuts and bolts of how the BIS was actually put together.

The Hague Agreement of 1930

The formation of the BIS was agreed upon by its constituent central banks in the so-called Hague Agreement on January 20, 1930, and was in operation shortly thereafter.

According to the Agreement,

The duly authorized representatives of the Governments of Germany, of Belgium, of France, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of Italy and of Japan of the one part.

And the duly authorized representatives of the Government of the Swiss Confederation of the other part Assembled at the Hague Conference in the month of January, 1930, have agreed on the following:

Article 1. Switzerland undertakes to grant to the Bank for International Settlements, without delay, the following Constituent Charter having force of law: not to abrogate this Charter, not to amend or add to it, and not to sanction amendments to the Statutes of the Bank referred to in Paragraph 4 of the Charter otherwise than in agreement with the other signatory Governments.5

As we will see, German reparation payments (or lack thereof) had little to do with the founding of the BIS, although this is the weak explanation given since its founding.

Of course, Germany would make a single payment to the BIS, which in turn would deposit the funds into the respective central bank accounts of the nations to whom payments were due. (It would be the subject of another paper to show the shallowness of this operation: Money and gold were shuffled around, but the net amount that Germany actually paid was very small.)

The original founding documents of the BIS have little to say about Germany, however, and we can look directly to the BIS itself to see its original purpose:

“The objects of the Bank are: to promote the co-operation of central banks and to provide additional facilities for international operations; and to act as trustees or agent in regard to international financial settlements entrusted to it under agreements with the parties concerned.” 6

Virtually every in-print reference to the BIS, including their own documents, consistently refer to it as "the central banker’s central bank."

So, the BIS was established by an international charter and was headquartered in Basle, Switzerland.

BIS Ownership

According to James C. Baker, pro-BIS author of The Bank for International Settlements: Evolution and Evaluation,

"The BIS was formed with funding by the central banks of six nations, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom. In addition, three private international banks from the United States also assisted in financing the establishment of the BIS."7

Each nation’s central bank subscribed to 16,000 shares.

The U.S. central bank, the Federal Reserve, did not join the BIS, but the three U.S. banks that participated got 16,000 shares each. Thus, U.S. representation at the BIS was three times that of any other nation.

Who were these private banks? Not surprisingly, they were,

  • J.P. Morgan & Company

  • First National Bank of New York

  • First National Bank of Chicago
On January 8, 2001, an Extraordinary General Meeting of the BIS approved a proposal that restricted ownership of BIS shares to central banks.

Some 13.7% of all shares were in private hands at that time, and the repurchase was accomplished with a cash outlay of $724,956,050. The price of $10,000 per share was over twice the book value of $4,850.

It is not certain what the repurchase accomplished. The BIS claimed that it was to correct a conflict of interest between private shareholders and BIS goals, but it offered no specifics.

It was not a voting issue, however, because private owners were not allowed to vote their shares.8

Sovereignty and Secrecy

It is not surprising that the BIS, its offices, employees, directors and members share an incredible immunity from virtually all regulation, scrutiny and accountability.

In 1931, central bankers and their constituents were fed up with government meddling in world financial affairs. Politicians were viewed mostly with contempt, unless it was one of their own who was the politician.

Thus, the BIS offered them a once-and-for-all opportunity to set up the "apex" the way they really wanted it - private. They demanded these conditions and got what they demanded.

A quick summary of their immunity, explained further below, includes

  • diplomatic immunity for persons and what they carry with them (i.e., diplomatic pouches)

  • no taxation on any transactions, including salaries paid to employees

  • embassy-type immunity for all buildings and/or offices operated by the BIS

  • no oversight or knowledge of operations by any government authority

  • freedom from immigration restrictions

  • freedom to encrypt any and all communications of any sort

  • m from any legal jurisdiction 9
Further, members of the BIS board of directors (for instance, Alan Greenspan) are individually granted special benefits:

  • “immunity from arrest or imprisonment and immunity from seizure of their personal baggage, save in flagrant cases of criminal offence”

  • “inviolability of all papers and documents”

  • “immunity from jurisdiction, even after their mission has been accomplished, for acts carried out in the discharge of their duties, including words spoken and writings”

  • “exemption for themselves, their spouses and children from any immigration restrictions, from any formalities concerning the registration of aliens and from any obligations relating to national service in Switzerland ”

  • “the right to use codes in official communications or to receive or send documents or correspondence by means of couriers or diplomatic bags” 10
Lastly, all remaining officials and employees of the BIS have the following immunities:

  • “immunity from jurisdiction for acts accomplished in the discharge of their duties, including words spoken and writings, even after such persons have ceased to be Officials of the Bank”

  • “exemption from all Federal, cantonal and communal taxes on salaries, fees and allowances paid to them by the Bank…”

  • exempt from Swiss national obligations, freedom for spouses and family members from immigration restrictions, transfer assets and properties - including internationally - with the same degree of benefit as Officials of other international organizations.11
Of course, a corporate charter can say anything it wants to say and still be subject to outside authorities.

Nevertheless, these were the immunities practiced and enjoyed from 1930 onward.

On February 10, 1987, a more formal acknowledgement called the "Headquarters Agreement" was executed between the BIS and the Swiss Federal Council and basically clarified and reiterated what we already knew:

Wall Street And The Rise of Hitler, by Antony C. Sutton.)

There are a few things that the BIS cannot do. For instance, it does not accept deposits from, or provide financial services to, private individuals or corporate entities. It is also not permitted to make advances to governments or open current accounts in their name.15

These restrictions are easily understood when one considers that each central bank has an exclusive franchise to loan money to their respective government. For instance, the U.S. Federal Reserve does not loan money to the government of Canada.

In like manner, central banks do not loan money directly to the private or corporate clients of their member banks.

How Decisions are Made

The board of directors consist of the heads of certain member central banks. Currently, these are:

  • Nout H E M Wellink, Amsterdam (Chairman of the Board of Directors)

  • Hans Tietmeyer, Frankfurt am Main (Vice-Chairman)

  • Axel Weber, Frankfurt am Main

  • Vincenzo Desario, Rome

  • Antonio Fazio, Rome

  • David Dodge, Ottawa

  • Toshihiko Fukui, Tokyo

  • Timothy F Geithner, New York

  • Alan Greenspan, Washington

  • Lord George, London

  • Hervé Hannoun, Paris

  • Christian Noyer, Paris

  • Lars Heikensten, Stockholm

  • Mervyn King, London

  • Guy Quaden, Brussels

  • Jean-Pierre Roth, Zürich

  • Alfons Vicomte Verplaetse, Brussels 16
Of these, five members ( Canada, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland) are currently elected by the shareholders. The majority of directors are "ex officio," meaning they are permanent and are automatically a part of any sub-committee.

The combined board meets at least six times per year, in secret, and is briefed by BIS management on financial operations of the bank. Global monetary policy is discussed and set at these meetings.

It was reported in 1983 that there is an inner club of the half dozen central bankers who are more or less in the same monetary boat: Germany, U.S., Switzerland, Italy, Japan and England.17 The existence of an inner club is neither surprising nor substantive: the whole BIS operation is 100% secret anyway.

It is not likely that members of the inner club have significantly different beliefs or agendas apart from the BIS as a whole.

How the BIS works with the IMF and the World Bank

The interoperation between the three entities is understandably confusing to most people, so a little clarification will help.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) interacts with governments whereas the BIS interacts only with other central banks. The IMF loans money to national governments, and often these countries are in some kind of fiscal or monetary crisis. Furthermore, the IMF raises money by receiving "quota" contributions from its 184 member countries. Even though the member countries may borrow money to make their quota contributions, it is, in reality, all tax-payer money.18

The World Bank also lends money and has 184 member countries. Within the World Bank are two separate entities, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development(IBRD) and the International Development Association (IDA).

The IBRD focuses on middle income and credit-worthy poor countries, while the IDA focuses on the poorest of nations. In funding itself, the World Bank borrows money by direct lending from banks and by floating bond issues, and then loans this money through IBRD and IDA to troubled countries.19

The BIS, as central bank to the other central banks, facilitates the movement of money. They are well-known for issuing "bridge loans" to central banks in countries where IMF or World Bank money is pledged but has not yet been delivered. These bridge loans are then repaid by the respective governments when they receive the funds that had been promised by the IMF or World Bank.20

The IMF is the BIS’ "ace in the hole" when monetary crisis hits. The 1998 Brazil currency crisis was caused by that country’s inability to pay inordinate accumulated interest on loans made over a protracted period of time. These loans were extended by banks like Citigroup, J.P. Morgan Chase and FleetBoston, and they stood to lose a huge amount of money.

The IMF, along with the World Bank and the U.S., bailed out Brazil with a $41.5 billion package that saved Brazil, its currency and, not incidentally, certain private banks.

Congressman Bernard Sanders (I-VT), ranking member of the International Monetary Policy and Trade Subcommittee, blew the whistle on this money laundry operation. Sander’s entire congressional press release is worth reading:

IMF Bailout for Brazil is Windfall to Banks, Disaster for US Taxpayers Says Sanders

BURLINGTON, VERMONT - August 15 - Congressman Bernard Sanders (I-VT), the Ranking Member of the International Monetary Policy and Trade Subcommittee, today called for an immediate Congressional investigation of the recent $30 billion International Monetary Fund (IMF) bailout of Brazil.

Sanders, who is strongly opposed to the bailout and considers it corporate welfare, wants Congress to find out why U.S. taxpayers are being asked to provide billions of dollars to Brazil and how much of this money will be funneled to U.S. banks such as Citigroup, FleetBoston and J.P. Morgan Chase. These banks have about $25.6 billion in outstanding loans to Brazilian borrowers. U.S. taxpayers currently fund the IMF through a $37 billion line of credit.

Sanders said,

"At a time when we have a $6 trillion national debt, a growing federal deficit, and an increasing number of unmet social needs for our veterans, seniors, and children, it is unacceptable that billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars are being sent to the IMF to bailout Brazil."

"This money is not going to significantly help the poor people of that country. The real winners in this situation are the large, profitable U.S. banks such as Citigroup that have made billions of dollars in risky investments in Brazil and now want to make sure their investments are repaid.

This bailout represents an egregious form of corporate welfare that must be put to an end. Interestingly, these banks have made substantial campaign contributions to both political parties," the Congressman added.

Sanders noted that the neo-liberal policies of the IMF developed in the 1980’s pushing countries towards unfettered free trade, privatization, and slashing social safety nets has been a disaster for Latin America and has contributed to increased global poverty throughout the world.

At the same time that Latin America countries such as Brazil and Argentina followed these neo-liberal dictates imposed by the IMF, from 1980-2000, per capita income in Latin America grew at only one-tenth the rate of the previous two decades.

Sanders continued,

"The policies of the IMF over the past 20 years advocating unfettered free trade, privatizing industry, deregulation and slashing government investments in health, education, and pensions has been a complete failure for low income and middle class families in the developing world and in the United States. Clearly, these policies have only helped corporations in their constant search for the cheapest labor and weakest environmental regulations. Congress must work on a new global policy that protects workers, increases living standards and improves the environment."

One can surmise that a financial circle exists where the World Bank helps nations get into debt, then when these countries can’t pay their massive loans, the IMF bails them out with taxpayer money - and in the middle stands the BIS, collecting fees as the money travels back and forth like the ocean tide, while assuring everyone that all is well.

BIS dumps gold-backed Swiss Francs for SDR’s

On March 10, 2003, the BIS abandoned the Swiss gold franc as the bank’s unit of account since 1930, and replaced it with the SDR.

SDR stands for Special Drawing Rights and is a unit of currency originally created by the IMF.

According to Baker,

"The SDR is an international reserve asset, created by the IMF in 1969 to supplement the existing official reserves of member countries. SDR’s are allocated to member countries in proportion to their IMF quotas. The SDR also serves as the unit of account of the IMF and some other international organizations. Its value is based on a basket of key international currencies." 21

This "basket" currently consists of the euro, Japanese yen, pound sterling and the U.S. dollar.

The BIS abandonment of the 1930 gold Swiss franc removed all restraint from the creation of paper money in the world. In other words, gold backs no national currency, leaving the central banks a wide-open field to create money as they alone see fit.

Remember, that almost all the central banks in the world are privately-held entities, with an exclusive franchise to arrange loans for their respective host countries.

Regional and Global Currencies: SDR’s, Euros and Ameros

There is no doubt that the BIS is moving the world toward regional currencies and ultimately, a global currency. The global currency could well be an evolution of the SDR, and may explain why the BIS recently adopted the SDR as its primary reserve currency.

The Brandt Equation, 21st Century Blueprint for the New Global Economy notes, for instance, that,

Since the SDR is the world’s only means of meeting international payments that has been authorized through international contract, "The SDR therefore represents a clear first step towards a stable and permanent international currency" 22

As to regional currencies, the BIS has already been hugely successful in launching the euro in Europe. Armed with new technical and social know-how, the BIS’ next logical step is to focus on America and Asia.

For instance, according to BIS Papers No. 17, Regional currency areas and the use of foreign currencies,

"Canada, Mexico and the United States are members of the trade group NAFTA. Given the high proportion of Canada and Mexico’s trade with the United States, a NAFTA dollar or “Amero” has been proposed by some Canadian academics such as Grubel (1999). See also Beine and Coulombe (2002) and Robson and Laidler (2002)." 23

Assuming that NAFTA permanently identifies Canada, the U.S. and Mexico as one trading block, then North America will look like the European Union and the Amero will function like the Euro.

All of the work put into the SDR would be perfectly preserved by simply substituting the Amero for the U.S. dollar when they choose to bring the Amero to ascendancy over the dollar.

For those American readers who do not grasp the significance of the adoption of the euro by European Union countries, consider how one American globalist describes it.

C. Fred Bergsten is a prominent and core Trilateral Commission member and head of the Institute for International Economics. On January 3, 1999, Bergsten wrote in the Washington Post,

"The adoption of a common currency is by far the boldest chapter of European integration. Money traditionally has been an integral element of national sovereignty ...and the decision by Germany and France to give up their mark and franc ...represents the most dramatic voluntary surrender of sovereignty in recorded history. The European Central Bank that will manage the euro is a truly supranational institution". 24

Bergsten will have to rephrase this when the U.S. gives up the dollar for the amero - that will become the most dramatic voluntary surrender of sovereignty in recorded history!

Our credo is "Follow the money, follow the power." This report has endeavored to follow the money. We find that:

  • The BIS is central bank to all major central banks in the world

  • It is privately owned by central banks themselves, most of whom are also private

  • It was founded under questionable circumstances by questionable people

  • It is accountable to no one, especially government bodies

  • It operates in complete secrecy and is inviolable

  • Movement of money is obscured and hidden when routed through the BIS

  • The BIS is targeting regional currency blocks and ultimately, a global currency

  • It has been hugely successful at building the New International Economic Order, along with its attendant initiatives on global governance.

  • As to "follow the power," another paper will more fully explore the influence of power that the BIS exerts over other banks, nations and governments. For your own consideration in the meantime, Proverbs 22:7 provides a useful compass: "The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender".
NOTE: Carl Teichrib, World Research Library Senior Fellow, contributed to this report.


  1. Quigley, Tragedy & Hope, (MacMillan, 1966), p.308

  2. Edgar B Nixon, ec., Franklin D. Roosevelt and Foreign Affairs, Volume III (Cambridge: Balknap Press, 1969) p. 456

  3. Sutton, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, (GSC & Associates, 2002) p. 26

  4. Quigley, op cit, p. 324

  5. BIS web site, Extracts from the Hague Convention, http://www.bis.org/about/conv-ex.htm

  6. BIS, Statutes of the Bank for International Settlements Article 3 [as if January 1930, text as amended on March 10,2003], Basic Texts (Basle, August 2003), p. 7-8

  7. Baker, The Bank for International Settlements: Evolution and Evaluation, (Quorum, 2002), p. 20

  8. ibid., p. 16

  9. BIS, Protocol Regarding the Immunities of the Bank for International Settlements, Basic Texts, (Basle, August 2003), p. 33

  10. ibid, Article 12, p.43.

  11. ibid, p. 44

  12. BIS, Extracts from the Headquarters Agreement, http://www.bis.org/about/hq-ex.htm

  13. Baker, op cit, p. 26-27

  14. ibid, p. 27

  15. BIS, The BIS in profile, Bank for International Settlements flyer, June, 2005

  16. BIS, Board of Directors, www.bis.org/about/board.htm

  17. Epstein, Ruling the World of Money, Harper’s Magazine, 1983

  18. IMF web site, http://www.imf.org

  19. World Bank web site. http://www.WorldBank.org

  20. Baker, op cit, p. 141-142

  21. IMF web site, http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/facts/sdr.htm

  22. The Brandt Equation: 21 st Century Blueprint for the New Global Economy. The Brandt Proposals - A Report Card: Money and Finances. Seehttp://www.brandt21forum.info/1ckMoney.htm.

  23. BIS, Regional currency areas and the use of foreign currencies, BIS Papers No. 17, September, 2003

  24. Washington Post, The Euro Could Be Good for Trans-Atlantic Relations, C. Fred Bergsten, January 3, 1999


Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Jun 6, 2011
right here right now
Memorandum of Law on the Name


Many people are involved in diligent research concerning the use of all capital letters for proper names, e.g., JOHN PAUL JONES as a substitute for John Paul Jones in all court documents, driver's licenses, bank accounts, birth certificates, etc.. Is the use of all capital letters to designate a name some special English grammar rule or style? Is it a contemporary American style of English? Is the use of this form of capitalization recognized by educational authorities? Is this an official judicial or U.S. government rule and/or style of grammar? Why do attorneys, court clerks, prosecutors judges, insurance companies, banks, credit card companies, utility companies, etc. always use all capital letters when writing a proper name?

What English grammar experts say

One of the foremost authorities on American English grammar, style, composition, and rules is The Chicago Manual of Style. The latest (14th) Edition, published by the University of Chicago Press, is internationally known and respected as a major contribution to maintaining and improving the standards of written or printed text. Since we can find no reference in their manual concerning the use of all capitalized letters with a proper name or any other usage, we wrote to the editors and asked this question:

"Is it acceptable, or is there any rule of English grammar, to allow a proper name to be written in all capital letters? For example, if my name was John Paul Jones, can it be written as JOHN PAUL JONES? Is there any rule covering this?"

The Editorial Staff of the University of Chicago answered:

"Writing names in all caps is not conventional; it is not Chicago style to put anything in all caps. For instance, even if 'GONE WITH THE WIND' appears on the title page all in caps, we would properly render it 'Gone with the Wind' in a bibliography. The only reason we can think of to do so is if you are quoting some material where it is important to the narrative to preserve the casing of the letters.

“We're not sure in what context you would like your proper name to appear in all caps, but it is likely to be seen as a bit odd."

Law is extremely precise. Every letter, capitalization, punctuation mark, etc., in a legal document is utilized for a specific reason and has legal (i.e. deadly force) consequences. If, for instance, one attempts to file articles of incorporation in the office of a Secretary of State of a State, if the exact title of the corporation — down to every jot and tittle — is not exactly the same each and every time the corporation is referenced in the documents to be filed, the Secretary of State will refuse to file the papers. This is because each time the name of the corporation is referenced it must be set forth identically in order to express the same legal entity. The tiniest difference in the name of the corporation identifies an entirely different legal person.

Memorandum of Law on the Name Page 1 of 22

It is therefore an eminently valid, and possibly crucial, question as to why governments, governmental courts, and agencies purporting to exist (in some undefined, unproved manner) within the jurisdiction of “this state” insist on always capitalizing every letter in a proper name.

Mary Newton Bruder, Ph.D., also known as The Grammar Lady, who established the Grammar Hotline in the late 1980's for the "Coalition of Adult Literacy," was asked the following question:

"Why do federal and state government agencies and departments, judicial and administrative courts, insurance companies, etc., spell a person's proper name in all capital letters? For example, if my name is John Paul Jones, is it proper at any time to write my name as JOHN PAUL JONES?"

Dr. Bruder's reply was short and to the point:

"It must be some kind of internal style. There is no grammar rule about it."

It seemed that these particular grammatical experts had no idea why proper names were written in all caps, so we began to assemble an extensive collection of reference books authored by various publishers, governments, and legal authorities to find the answer.

What English grammar reference books say Manual on Usage & Style

One of the reference books obtained was the "Manual on Usage & Style," Eighth Edition, ISBN I-878674-51-X, published by the Texas Law Review in 1995. Section D, CAPITALIZATION, paragraph D: 1:1 states:

"Always capitalize proper nouns... [Proper nouns], independent of the context in which they are used, refer to specific persons, places, or things (e.g., Dan, Austin, Rolls Royce)."

Paragraph D: 3:2 of Section D states:

"Capitalize People, State, and any other terms used to refer to the government as a litigant (e.g., the People's case, the State's argument), but do not capitalize other words used to refer to litigants (e.g., the plaintiff, defendant Manson)."

Either no attorney, judge, or law clerk in Texas has ever read the recognized law style manual that purports to pertain to them, or the act is a deliberate violation of the rules for undisclosed reasons. In either ignorance (“ignorance of the law is no excuse”) or violation (one violating the law he enforces on others is acting under title of nobility and abrogating the principle of equality under the law) of law, they continue to write

Memorandum of Law on the Name Page 2 of 22

"Plaintiff,” "Defendant," "THE STATE OF TEXAS" and proper names of parties in all capital letters on every court document.

The Elements of Style

Another well-recognized reference book is "The Elements of Style," Fourth Edition, ISBN 0-205-30902-X, written by William Strunk, Jr. and E.B. White, published by Allyn & Bacon in 1999. Within this renowned English grammar and style reference book, is found only one reference to capitalization, located within the Glossary at "proper noun," page 94, where it states:

"The name of a particular person (Frank Sinatra), place (Boston), or thing (Moby Dick). Proper nouns are capitalized."

There's an obvious and legally evident difference between capitalizing the first letter of a proper name as compared to capitalizing every letter used to portray the name.

The American Heritage Book of English Usage

The American Heritage Book of English Usage, A Practical and Authoritative Guide to Contemporary English, published in 1996, at Chapter 9, E-Mail, Conventions and Quirks, Informality, states:

"To give a message special emphasis, an E-mailer may write entirely in capital letters, a device E-mailers refer to as screaming. Some of these visual conventions have emerged as away of getting around the constraints on data transmission that now limit many networks".

Here is a reference source, within contemporary — modern — English, that states it is of an informal manner to write every word of — specifically — an electronic message, a.k.a. e-mail, in capital letters. They say it's "screaming" to do so. By standard definition, we presume that is the same as shouting or yelling. Are all judges, as well as their court clerks and attorneys, shouting at us when they corrupt our proper names in this manner? (If so, what happened to the decorum of a court if everyone is yelling?) Is the insurance company screaming at us for paying the increased premium on our Policy? This is doubtful as to any standard generalization, even though specific individual instances may indicate this to be true. It is safe to conclude, however, that it would also be informal to write a proper name in the same way.

Does this also imply that those in the legal profession are writing our Christian names informally on court documents? Are not attorneys and the courts supposed to be specific, formally writing all legal documents to the "letter of the law?" If the law is at once both precise and not precise, what is its significance, credibility, and force and effect?

Memorandum of Law on the Name Page 3 of 22

New Oxford Dictionary of English

"The New Oxford Dictionary of English" is published by the Oxford University Press. Besides being considered the foremost authority on the British English language, this dictionary is also designed to reflect the way language is used today through example sentences and phrases. We submit the following definitions from the 1998 edition:

Proper noun (also proper name). Noun. A name used for an individual person, place, ororganization, spelled with an initial capital letter, e.g. Jane, London, and Oxfam.

Name. Noun 1 A word or set of words by which a person, animal, place, or thing is known,addressed, or referred to: my name is Parsons, John Parsons. Kalkwasser is the German name for limewater. Verb 2 Identify by name; give the correct name for: the dead man has been named as John Mackintosh. Phrases. 3 In the name of. Bearing or using the name of aspecified person or organization: a driving license in the name of William Sanders.

From the "Newbury House Dictionary of American English," published by Monroe Allen Publishers, Inc., (1999):

name n. I [C] a word by which a person, place, or thing is known: Her name is Diane Daniel.

We can find absolutely no example in any recognized reference book that specifies or allows the use of all capitalized names, proper or common. There is no doubt that a proper name, to be grammatically correct, must be written with only the first letter capitalized, with the remainder of the word in a name spelled with lower case letters.

US Government Style Manual

Is the spelling and usage of a proper name defined officially by US Government? Yes. The United States Government Printing Office in their "Style Manual," March 1984 edition (the most recent edition published as of March 2000), provides comprehensive grammar, style and usage for all government publications, including court and legal writing.

Chapter 3, "Capitalization," at § 3.2, prescribes rules for proper names:

"Proper names are capitalized. [Examples given are] Rome, Brussels, John Macadam, Macadam family, Italy, Anglo-Saxon."

At Chapter 17, "Courtwork, the rules of capitalization," as mentioned in Chapter 3, are further reiterated:

"17.1. Courtwork differs in style from other work only as set forth in this section; otherwise the style prescribed in the preceding sections will be followed."

Memorandum of Law on the Name Page 4 of 22

After reading §17 in entirety, I found no other references that would change the grammatical rules and styles specified in Chapter 3 pertaining to capitalization.

At § 17.9, this same official US Government manual states:

"In the titles of cases the first letter of all principal words are capitalized, but not such terms as defendant and appellee."

This wholly agrees with Texas Law Review's Manual on "Usage & Style" as referenced above.

Examples shown in § 17.12 are also consistent with the aforementioned §17.9 specification: that is, all proper names are to be spelled with capital first letters; the balance of each spelled with lower case letters.

Grammar, Punctuation, and Capitalization

"The National Aeronautics and Space Administration" (NASA) has publish one of the most concise US Government resources on capitalization. NASA publication SP-7084, "Grammar, Punctuation, and Capitalization." A Handbook for Technical Writers and Editors, was compiled and written by the NASA Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia. At Chapter 4, "Capitalization," they state in 4.1 "Introduction:"

"First we should define terms used when discussing capitalization:

• All caps means that every letter in an expression is capital, LIKE THIS.
• Caps & lc means that the principal words of an expression are capitalized, Like

• Caps and small caps refer to a particular font of type containing small capital

letters instead of lowercase letters.

Elements in a document such as headings, titles, and captions may be capitalized in either sentence style or headline style:

  • Sentence style calls for capitalization of the first letter, and proper nouns of course.

  • Headline style calls for capitalization of all principal words (also called caps & lc).

    Modern publishers tend toward a down style of capitalization, that is, toward use of fewer capitals, rather than an up style."

    Here we see that in headlines, titles, captions, and in sentences, there is no authorized usage of all caps. At 4.4.1. "Capitalization With Acronyms," we find the first authoritative use for all caps:

    "Acronyms are always formed with capital letters. Acronyms are often coined for a particular program or study and therefore require definition. The letters of the acronym
Memorandum of Law on the Name Page 5 of 22

are not capitalized in the definition unless the acronym stands for a proper name:

Wrong - The best electronic publishing systems combine What You See Is What You Get (WYSIWYG) features...

Correct - The best electronic publishing systems combine what you see is what you get (WYSIWYG) features...

But Langley is involved with the National Aero-Space Plane (NASP) Program.”

This cites, by example, that using all caps is allowable in an acronym. "Acronyms" are words formed from the initial letters of successive parts of a term. They never contain periods and are often not standard, so that definition is required. Could this apply to lawful proper Christian names? If that were true, then JOHN SMITH would have to follow a definition of some sort, which it does not. For example, only if JOHN SMITH were defined as 'John Orley Holistic Nutrition of the Smith Medical Institute To Holistics (JOHN SMITH)' would this apply.

The most significant section appears at 4.5., "Administrative Names":

"Official designations of political divisions and of other organized bodies are capitalized:

• Names of political divisions;
• Canada, New York State;
• United States Northwest Territories;
• Virgin Islands, Ontario Province;
• Names of governmental units, US Government Executive Department, US

Congress, US Army; • US Navy.”

According to this official US Government publication, the States are never to be spelled in all caps such as “NEW YORK STATE.” The proper English grammar — and legal — style is “New York State.” This agrees, once again, with Texas Law.

Review's Manual on Usage & Style.

The Use of a Legal Fiction

The Real Life Dictionary of the Law

The authors of "The Real Life Dictionary of the Law," Gerald and Kathleen Hill, are accomplished scholars and writers. Gerald Hill is an experienced attorney, judge, and law instructor. Here is how the term legal fiction is described:

"Legal fiction. n. A presumption of fact assumed by a court for convenience, consistency orto achieve justice. There is an old adage: Fictions arise from the law, and not law from fictions.”

Memorandum of Law on the Name Page 6 of 22

Oran's Dictionary of the Law

From Oran's "Dictionary of the Law," published by the West Group 1999, within the definition of "Fiction" is found:

"A legal fiction is an assumption that something that is (or may be) false or nonexistent is true or real. Legal fictions are assumed or invented to help do justice. For example, bringing a lawsuit to throw a nonexistent ‘John Doe’ off your property used to be the only way to establish a clear right to the property when legal title was uncertain."

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law

"Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law" 1996 states:

"legal fiction: something assumed in law to be fact irrespective of the truth or accuracy of that assumption. Example: the legal fiction that a day has no fractions — Fields V. Fairbanks North Star Borough, 818 P.2d 658 (1991)."

This is the reason behind the use of all caps when writing a proper name. The US and State Governments are deliberately using a legal fiction to "address" the lawful, real, flesh-and-blood man or woman. We say this is deliberate because their own official publications state that proper names are not to be written in all caps. They are deliberately not following their own recognized authorities.

In the same respect, by identifying their own government entity in all caps, they are legally stating that it is also intended to be a legal fiction. As stated by Dr. Mary Newton Bruder in the beginning of this memorandum, the use of all caps for writing a proper name is an "internal style" for what is apparently a pre-determined usage and, at this point, unknown jurisdiction.

The main key to a legal fiction is assumption as noted in each definition above.

Conclusion: There are no official or unofficial English grammar style manuals or reference publications that recognize the use of all caps when writing a proper name. To do so is by fiat, within and out of an undisclosed jurisdiction by unknown people for unrevealed reasons, by juristic license of arbitrary presumption not based on fact. The authors of the process unilaterally create legal fictions for their own reasons and set about to get us to take the bait, fall for the deceit.

Assumption of a Legal Fiction

An important issue concerning this entire matter is whether or not a proper name, perverted into an all caps assemblage of letters, can be substituted for a lawful Christian name or any proper name, such as the State of Florida. Is the assertion of all-capital- letter names "legal?" If so, from where does this practice originate and what enforces it?

Memorandum of Law on the Name Page 7 of 22

A legal fiction may be employed when the name of a “person” is not known, and therefore using the fictitious name “John Doe” as a tentative, or interim artifice to surmount the absence of true knowledge until the true name is known. Upon discovering the identity of the fictitious name, the true name replaces it.

In all cases, a legal fiction is an assumption of purported fact without having shown the fact to be true or valid. It is an acceptance with no proof. Simply, to assume is to pretend. Oran's "Dictionary of the Law" says that the word “assume” means:

1. To take up or take responsibility for; to receive; to undertake. See "assumption." 2. To pretend.
3. To accept without proof.

These same basic definitions are used by nearly all of the modern law dictionaries. It should be noted that there is a difference between the meanings of the second and third definitions with that of the first. Pretending and accepting without proof are of the same understanding and meaning. However, to take responsibility for and receive, or assumption, does not have the same meaning. Oran's defines “assumption” as:

"Formally transforming someone else's debt into your own debt. Compare with guaranty. The assumption of a mortgage usually involves taking over the seller's 'mortgage debt' when buying a property (often a house)."

Now, what happens if all the meanings for the word "assume" are combined? In a literal and definitive sense, the meaning of assume would be: The pretended acceptance, without proof, that someone has taken responsibility for, has guaranteed, or has received a debt.

Therefore, if we apply all this in defining a legal fiction, the use of a legal fiction is an assumption or pretension that the legal fiction named has received and is responsible for a debt of some sort.

Use of the legal fiction “JOHN P JONES” in place of the proper name “John Paul Jones” implies an assumed debt guarantee without any offer of proof. The danger behind this is that if such an unproven assumption is made, unless the assumption is proven wrong it is considered valid.

An assumed debt is valid unless proven otherwise. (“An unrebutted affidavit, claim, or charge stands as the truth in commerce.”) This is in accord with the Uniform Commercial Code, valid in every State and made a part of the Statutes of each State. A name written in all caps — resembling a proper name but grammatically not a proper name — is being held as a debtor for an assumed debt. Did the parties to the Complaint incur that debt? If so, how and when?

Where is the contract of indebtedness that was signed and the proof of default thereon? What happens if the proper name, i.e. “John Paul Jones,” answers for or assumes the fabricated name, i.e. “JOHN P JONES?” The two become one and the same. This is the

Memorandum of Law on the Name Page 8 of 22

crux for the use of the all caps names by the US Government and the States. It is the way that they can bring someone into the "de facto" venue and jurisdiction that they have created. By implication of definition, this also is for the purpose of some manner of assumed debt.

Why won't they use "The State of Texas" or "John Doe" in their courts or on Driver's Licenses? What stops them from doing this? Obviously, there is a reason for using the all-caps names since they are very capable of writing proper names just as their own official style manual states. The reason behind "legal fictions" is found within the definitions as cited above.

The Legalities of All-Capital-Letters Names

We could go on for hundreds of pages citing the legal basis behind the creation and use of all-capital-letters names. In a nutshell, fabricated legal persons such as “STATE OF TEXAS” can be used to fabricate additional legal persons. "Fictions" arise from the law, not the law from fictions. Bastard legal persons originate from any judicial/governmental actor that wishes to create them, regardless of whether he/she/it is empowered by law to do so. However, a law can never originate from a fictional foundation that doesn't exist.

The generic and original US Constitution was validated by treaty between individual nation states (all of which are artificial, corporate entities since they exist in abstract idea and construct). Contained within it is the required due process of law for all the participating nation states of that treaty. Representatives of the people in each nation state agreed upon and signed it. The federal government is not only created by it, but is also bound to operate within the guidelines of Constitutional due process. Any purported law that does not originate from Constitutional due process is a fictional law without validity. Thus, the true test of any American law is its basis of due process according to the organic US Constitution. Was it created according to the lawful process or created outside of lawful process?

Executive Orders and Directives

For years many have researched the lawful basis for creating all-caps juristic persons and have concluded that there is no such foundation according to valid laws and due process. But what about those purported "laws" that are not valid and have not originated from constitutional due process? There's a very simple answer to the creation of such purported laws that are really not laws at all: "Executive Orders" and "Directives." They are "color of law" without being valid laws of due process. These "Executive Orders" and "Directives" have the appearance of law and look as if they are laws, but according to due process, they are not laws. Rather, they are "laws" based on fictional beginnings and are the inherently defective basis for additional fictional "laws" and other legal fictions. They are "regulated" and "promulgated" by Administrative Code, rules and procedures, not due process. Currently, Executive Orders are enforced through the charade known as

Memorandum of Law on the Name Page 9 of 22

the Federal Administrative Procedures Act. Each State has also adopted the same fatally flawed administrative "laws."

Lincoln Establishes Executive Orders

Eighty-five years after the Independence of the united States, seven southern nation States of America walked out of the Second Session of the thirty-sixth Congress on March 27, 1861. In so doing, the Constitutional due process quorum necessary for Congress to vote was lost and Congress was adjourned sine die, or "without day." This meant that there was no lawful quorum to set a specific day and time to reconvene which, according to Robert's Rules of Order, dissolved Congress. This dissolution automatically took place because there are no provisions within the Constitution allowing the passage of any Congressional vote without a quorum of the States.

Lincoln's second Executive Order of April 1861 called Congress back into session days later, but not under the lawful authority, or lawful due process, of the Constitution. Solely in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the US Military, Lincoln called Congress into session under authority of Martial Law. Since April of 1861, "Congress" has not met based on lawful due process. The current "Congress" is a legal fiction based on nothing more meritorious than “Yeah, so what are you going to do about it?” Having a monopoly on the currency, “law,” and what passes for “government,” and most of the world’s firepower, the motto of the Powers That Be is: “We’ve got what it takes to take what you’ve got.”

Legal-fiction "laws," such as the Reconstruction Acts and the implementation of the Lieber Code, were instituted by Lincoln soon thereafter and became the basis for the current "laws" in the US. Every purported "Act" in effect today is "de facto," based on colorable fictitious entities created arbitrarily, out of nothing, without verification, lawful foundation, or lawful due process. All of such “laws” are not law, but rules of rulership by force/conquest, originating from and existing in military, martial law jurisdiction. Military, martial law jurisdiction

= jurisdiction of war
= win/lose interactions consisting of eating or being eaten, living or dying
= food chain
= law of necessity
= suspension of all law other than complete freedom to act in any manner to eat, kill, or

destroy or avoid being eaten, killed, or destroyed
= no law
= lawlessness
= complete absence of all lawful basis to create any valid law.

Contractually, being a victim of those acting on the alleged authority granted by the law of necessity,

= no lawful object, valuable consideration, free consent of all involved parties, absence offraud, duress, malice, and undue influence

Memorandum of Law on the Name Page 10 of 22

= no bona fide, enforceable contract
= no valid, enforceable nexus
= absolute right to engage in any action of any kind in self-defense
= complete and total right to disregard any alleged jurisdiction and demands from self-

admitted outlaws committing naked criminal aggression without any credibility and right to demand allegiance and compliance from anyone.

Every President of the United States since Lincoln has functioned by Executive Orders issued from a military, martial law jurisdiction with the only “law” being the “law of necessity,” i.e. the War Powers. The War Powers are nothing new. Indeed, they have been operational from the instant the first man thought he would “hide from God,” try to cheat ethical and natural law by over reaching, invade the space and territory of others, covet other people’s land or property, steal the fruits of their labors, and attempt to succeed in life by win/lose games. All existing “authority” in the United States today derives exclusively from the War Powers. Truman’s re-affirmation of operational authority under the War Powers begins: “NOW, THEREFORE, I, HARRY S. TRUMAN, President of the United States of America, acting under and by virtue of the authority vested in me by section 5(b) of the Trading with the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, 40 Stat. 415, as amended (section 5(b) of Appendix to Title 50), and section 4 of the act of March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 2. ...” Sic transit rights, substance, truth, justice, peace, and freedom in America, “the land of the free and the home of the brave.”

The Abolition of the English & American Common Law

Here's an interesting quote from the 1973 session of the US Supreme Court:

"The American law. In this country, the law in effect in all but a few States until mid-l9th century was the pre-existing English common law... It was not until after the War Between the States that legislation began generally to replace the common law." – Roe vs. Wade, 410 US 113.

In effect, Lincoln's second Executive Order abolished the recognized English common law in America and replaced it with "laws" based on a fictional legal foundation, i.e., Executive Orders and Directives executed under “authority” of the War Powers. Most States still have a reference to the common laws within their present day statutes. For example, in the Florida Statutes (1999), Title I. Chapter 2, at § 2.01 "Common law and certain statutes declared in force," it states:

"The common and statute laws of England which are of a general and not a local nature, with the exception hereinafter mentioned, down to the 4th day of July, 1776, are declared to be of force in this state; provided, the said statutes and common law be not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the acts of the Legislature of this state. History. -- s. l, Nov. 6, 1829; RS 59; GS 59; RGS 71; CGL 87."

Note that the basis of the common law is an approved Act of the people of Florida by Resolution on November 6, 1829, prior to Lincoln's Civil War. Also note that the subsequent "laws," as a result of Acts of the Florida Legislature and the United States, now take priority over the common law in Florida. In April 1861, the American and

Memorandum of Law on the Name Page 11 of 22

English common law was abolished and replaced with legal fiction "laws," a.k.a. Statutes, Rules, and Codes based on Executive Order and not the due process specified within the organic Constitution. Existing and functioning under the law of necessity ab initio, they are all non-law and cannot validly assert jurisdiction, authority, or demand for compliance from anyone. They are entirely “rules of rulership,” i.e. organized piracy, privilege, plunder, and enslavement, invented and enforced by those who would rule over others by legalized violence in the complete absence of moral authority, adequate knowledge, and natural-law mechanics to accomplish any results other than disruption, conflict, damage, and devastation. The established maxim of law applies:

Extra territorium just dicenti non paretur impune. One who exercises jurisdiction out of his territory cannot be obeyed with impunity.

10 Co. 77; Dig. 2. 1. 20; Story, Confl. Laws § 539; Broom, Max. 100, 101.

Applying it all to Current "laws"

An established maxim of law states the importance of the name:

Ad recte docendum oportet, primum inquirere nomina, quia rerum cognitio a nominibusrerum dependet. In order rightly to comprehend a thing, inquire first into the names, for a right knowledge of things depends upon their names.

Co. Litt. 68.

Title III, "Pleadings and Motions," Rule 9(a) "Capacity," Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, states, in pertinent part:

"When an issue is raised as to the legal existence of a named party, or the party's capacity to be sued, or the authority of a party to be sued, the party desiring to raise the issue shall do so by specific negative averment, which shall include supporting particulars."

At this juncture, it is clear that the existence of a name written with all caps is a necessity-created legal fiction. This is surely an issue to be raised and the supporting particulars are outlined within this memorandum. Use of the proper name must be insisted upon as a matter of abatement — correction — for all parties of an action of purported "law." However, the current "courts" cannot correct this since they are all based on presumed/assumed fictional law and must use artificial, juristic names. Instead, they expect the lawful Christian man or woman to accept the all-caps name and agree by silence to be treated as if he or she were a fictional entity invented and governed by mortal enemies. They must go to unlimited lengths to deceive and coerce this compliance or the underlying criminal farce would be exposed and a world-wide plunder/enslavement racket that has held all of life on this planet in a vice grip for

Memorandum of Law on the Name Page 12 of 22

millennia would crumble and liberate every living thing. At this point the would-be rulers of the world would be required to succeed in life by honest, productive labors the way those upon whom they parasitically feed are forced to conduct their lives.

Oklahoma Statutes

Since the entire game functions on the basis of people’s failure to properly rebut a rebuttable presumption, the issue then becomes how to properly rebut their presumption that you are knowingly, intentionally, and voluntarily agreeing to be treated as if you were the all-caps name. One angle of approach is found in the requirement for proper names to be identified in any legal dispute. This includes a mandate to correct the legal paperwork involved when proper names are provided. In regard to criminal prosecution this is clearly set forth in the Oklahoma Statutes, Chapter 22, § 403:

"When a defendant is indicted or prosecuted by a fictitious or erroneous name, and in any stage of the proceedings his true name is discovered, it must be inserted in the subsequent proceedings, referring to the fact of his being charged by the name mentioned in the indictment or information."

American Jurisprudence

In general, it is essential to identify parties to court actions properly. If the alleged parties to an action are not precisely identified, then who is involved with whom or what, and how? If not properly identified, all corresponding judgments are void, as outlined in Volume 46, American Jurisprudence 2d, at "Judgments:"

"§ 100 Parties — A judgment should identify the parties for and against whom it is rendered, with such certainty that it may be readily enforced, and a judgment which does not do so may be regarded as void for uncertainty. Such identification may be achieved by naming the persons for and against whom the judgment is rendered. Technical deficiencies in the naming of the persons for and against whom judgment is rendered can be corrected if the parties are not prejudiced. A reference in a judgment to a party plainly liable, followed by an omission of that party's name from the language of the decree, at least gives rise to an ambiguity and calling for an inquiry into the court's real intention as reflected in the entire record and surrounding circumstances." [Footnote numbers and cites are omitted.]

The present situation in America A legal person = a legal fiction

One of the terms used predominantly by the present civil governments and courts in America is “legal person.” Just what is a legal person? Some definitions are:

Memorandum of Law on the Name Page 13 of 22

[A] legal person: a body of persons or an entity (as a corporation) considered as having many of the rights and responsibilities of a natural person and especially the capacity to sue and be sued. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law (1996).

Person. I. A human being (a "natural" person). 2. A corporation (an "artificial" person). Corporations are treated as persons in many legal situations. Also, the word "person" includes corporations in most definitions in this dictionary. 3. Any other "being" entitled to sue as a legal entity (a government, an association, a group of Trustees, etc.). 4. The plural of person is persons, not people (see that word). — Oran's "Dictionary of the Law," West Group (1999).

Person. An entity with legal rights and existence including the ability to sue and be sued, to sign contracts, to receive gifts, to appear in court either by themselves or by lawyer and, generally, other powers incidental to the full expression of the entity in law. Individuals are "persons" in law unless they are minors or under some kind of other incapacity such as acourt finding of mental incapacity. Many laws give certain powers to "persons" which, in almost all instances, includes business organizations that have been formally registered such as partnerships, corporations or associations. -- Duhaime's Law Dictionary.

PERSON, noun. per'sn. [Latin persona; said to be compounded of per, through or by, and sonus, sound; a Latin word signifying primarily a mask used by actors on the stage.] -- Webster's 1828 Dictionary.

A corporation incorporated under de jure law, i.e. by bona fide express contract between real beings capable of contracting, is a legal fact. Using the juristic artifice of “presumption,” or “assumption” (a device known as a “legal fiction”), implied contract, constructive trusts, another entirely separate entity can be created using the name of the bona fide corporate legal fact (the name of the corporation) by altering the name of the corporation into some other corrupted format, such as ALL-CAPITAL LETTERS or abbreviated words in the name. The corporation exists in law, but has arbitrarily been assigned another NAME. No such corporation (legal fact), nor any valid law, nor even a valid legal fiction, can be created under the “law of necessity,” i.e. under “no law.” Likewise, the arbitrary use of the legal-fiction artifice of “right of presumption” (over unwary, uninformed, and usually blindly trusting people) can be legitimately exercised under “no law.” Anything whatsoever done under alleged authority of naked criminal aggression, i.e. law of necessity, can be rendered legitimate. Maxims of law describing “necessity” include:

• “Necessity has no law.” Plowd. 18, and 15 Vin. Abr. 534; 22 id. 540. • “In time of war, laws are silent.” Cicero.

Non-existent law, the legal condition that universally prevails in the official systems of the world today, means that no lawful basis exists upon which anything can be created, or be made to transpire, upon which basis allegiance and obedience can be legitimately demanded. Acting under the law of necessity, i.e. lawlessness, allows complete and total right of everyone to disregard any and all alleged assertions of any lawful, verifiable, and legitimate jurisdiction over anything or anyone. Anyone acting against anyone under such non-law is self-confessing to be a naked criminal aggressor, and con man who has forfeited all credibility and right to demand allegiance, obedience, or compliance with any jurisdiction he might assert. If you, as a real being, are in real law and it is

Memorandum of Law on the Name Page 14 of 22

impossible for an attorney or judge to recognize or access it, you are not (and cannot be made subject to by them) in their jurisdiction. The crucial issue is then how to notice them of your position and standing.

A person created under de jure law, with the person’s identifying name appearing as prescribed by law and according to the rules of English grammar, is a legal fact. A corrupted “alter ego” version of that name, manufactured under the legal fiction of “right of presumption” will have “credibility” only so long as the presumption remains unchallenged. The rule of the world is that anything and everything skates unless you bust it.

Legal or Lawful?

It is crucial to define the difference between "legal" and "lawful." The generic Constitution references genuine law. The present civil authorities and their courts use the word "legal." Is there a difference in the meanings? The following is quoted from A Dictionary of Law (1893):

Lawful. In accordance with the law of the land; according to the law; permitted, sanctioned, or justified by law. "Lawful" properly implies a thing conformable to or enjoined by law; "Legal," a thing in the form or after the manner of law or binding by law. A writ or warrant issuing from any court, under color of law, is a "legal" process however defective. See "legal." [Bold emphasis added]

Legal. Latin legalis. Pertaining to the understanding, the exposition, the administration, the science and the practice of law: as, the legal profession, legal advice; legal blanks, newspaper. Implied or imputed in law. Opposed to actual "Legal" looks more to the letter [form/appearance], and "Lawful" to the spirit [substance/content], of the law. "Legal" is more appropriate for conformity to positive rules of law; "Lawful" for accord with ethical principle. "Legal" imports rather that the forms [appearances] of law are observed, that the proceeding is correct in method, that rules prescribed have been obeyed; "Lawful" that the right is act full in substance, that moral quality is secured. "Legal" is the antithesis of equitable, and the equivalent of constructive. 2 Abbott's Law Dic. 24. [Bold emphasis added]

Legal matters administrate, conform to, and follow rules. They are equitable in nature and are implied (presumed) rather than actual (express). A legal process can be defective in law. This accords with the previous discussions of legal fictions and color of law. To be legal, a matter does not have to follow the law. Instead, it conforms to and follows the rules or form of law. This is why the Federal and State Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure are cited in every court Petition so as to conform to legal requirements of the specific juristic persons named, e.g., “STATE OF GEORGIA” or the “U.S. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT” that rule the courts.

Lawful matters are ethically enjoined in the law of the land — the law of the people — and are actual in nature, not implied. This is why whatever true law was upheld by the organic Constitution has no bearing or authority in the present day legal courts. It is

Memorandum of Law on the Name Page 15 of 22

impossible for anyone in “authority” today to access, or even take cognizance of, true law since “authority” is the “law of necessity,” 12 USC 95.

Therefore, it would appear that the meaning of the word “legal” is “color of law,” a term which Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, defines as:

Color of law. The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under “color of law.”

Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 241.

Executive Orders rule the land

The current situation is that legalism has usurped and engulfed the law. The administration of legal rules, codes, and statutes now prevail instead of actual law. This takes place on a Federal as well as State level. Government administrates what it has created through its own purported "laws," which are not lawful, but merely “legal.” They are arbitrary constructs existing only because of the actions of people acting on fictitious (self-created) authority, i.e. no authority; they are authorized and enforced by legal Executive Orders. Executive Orders are not lawful and never have been. As you read the following, be aware of the words "code" and "administration."

Looking at the United States Census 2000 reveals that the legal authority for this census comes from "Office of Management and Budget" (OMB) Approval No. 0607-0856. The 0MB is a part of the Executive Office of the President of the United States. The U.S. Census Bureau is responsible for implementing the national census, which is a division of the "Economics and Statistics Administration" of the U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). The USDOC is a department of the Executive Branch. Obviously, Census 2000 is authorized, carried out, controlled, enforced and implemented by the President — the Executive Branch of the Federal Government — functioning as it has been since 1861, in the lawless realm of necessity (which is now even more degenerate than when it commenced under Lincoln).

In fact, the Executive Office of the President controls the entire nation through various departments and agencies effecting justice, communications, health, energy, transportation, education, defense, treasury, labor, agriculture, mails, and much more, through a myriad of Executive Orders, Proclamations, Policies, and Decisions.

Every US President since Lincoln has claimed his 'authority' for these Executive Orders on Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution:

"The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; ... He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other

Memorandum of Law on the Name Page 16 of 22

public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments."

In reality, the Congress is completely by-passed. Since the Senate was convened in April, 1861 by Presidential Executive Order No. 2, (not by lawful constitutional due process), there is no United States Congress. The current “Senate” and “House” are, like everything, “colorable” (“color of Senate”) under the direct authority of the Executive Office of the President. The President legally needs neither the consent nor a vote from the Senate simply because the Senate's legal authority to meet exists only by Executive Order. Ambassadors, public ministers, consuls, Federal judges, and all officers of the UNITED STATES are appointed by, and under authority of, the Executive Office of the President.

The Federal Registry is an Executive function

The first official act of every incoming President is to re-affirm the War Powers. He must do so, or he is devoid of power to function in office. The War Powers are set forth in the Trading With The Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, and the Amendatory Act of March 9, 1933 (The Banking Relief Act). In the Amendatory Act, every citizen of the United States was made an enemy of the Government, i.e. the Federal Reserve/IMF, et al, Creditors in bankruptcy who have conquered the country by their great paper-money banking swindle.

For the past 65 years, every Presidential Executive Order has become purported "law" simply by its publication in the Federal Register, which is operated by the Office of the Federal Register (OFR). In 1935, the OFR was established by the Federal Register Act. The purported authority for the OFR is found within the United States Code, Title 44, at Chapter 15:

"§ 1506. Administrative Committee of the Federal Register; establishment and composition; powers and duties

The Administrative Committee of the Federal Register shall consist of the Archivist of the United States or Acting Archivist, who shall be chairman, an officer of the Department of Justice designated by the Attorney General, and the Public Printer or Acting Public Printer. The Director of the Federal Register shall act as secretary of the committee. The committee shall prescribe, with the approval of the President, regulations for carrying out this chapter."

Notice that the entire Administrative Committee of the Federal Register is comprised of officers of the Federal Government. Who appoints all Federal officers? The President does. This “act” also gives the President the authority to decree all the regulations to carry out the act. By this monopoly the Executive establishes, controls, regulates, and enforces the Federal Government without need for any approval from the Senate or

Memorandum of Law on the Name Page 17 of 22

anyone else (other than his undisclosed superiors). He operates without any accountability to the people at all. How can this be considered lawful?

In 1917, President Woodrow Wilson couldn't persuade Congress to agree with his desire to arm United States vessels traversing hostile German waters before the United States entered World War I, so Wilson simply invoked the "policy" through a Presidential Executive Order. President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order No. 9066 in December 1941 forcing 100,000 Americans of Japanese descent to be rounded up and placed in concentration camps while all their property was confiscated. Is it any wonder that the Congress, which the President “legally” controls, did not impeach President William Jefferson Clinton when the evidence for impeachment was overwhelming? On that note, why is it that Attorney-Presidents have used Executive Orders the most? Who, but an attorney, would know and understand legal rules the best. Sadly, they enforce what's “legal” and ignore what's lawful. In fact, they have no access to what is lawful since the entirety of their “authority,” which is ethically and existentially specious, derives from the War Powers.

How debt is assumed by legal fictions

We now refer back to the matter of assumption, as already discussed, with its relationship to arbitrarily created juristic persons, e.g. “STATE OF CALIFORNIA” or “JOHN P JONES.” Since an assumption, by definition, implies debt, what debt does a legal fiction assume? Now that we have explored the legal — executive — basis of the current Federal and State governments, it's time to put all this together.

The government use of all caps in place of proper names is absolutely no mistake. It signifies an internal (“legal”) rule and authority. Its foundation is pure artifice and the results have compounded into more deceit in the form of created, promulgated, instituted, administered, and enforced rules, codes, statutes, and policy — i.e. “the laws that appear to be but are not, never were, and never can be.”

Qui sentit commodum, sentire debet et onus. He who enjoys the benefit, ought also to bear the burden. He who enjoys the advantage of a right takes the accompanying disadvantage — a privilege is subject to its condition or conditions. -- Bouvier's Maxims of Law (1856).

The Birth Certificate

Since the early 1960's, State governments — themselves specially created, juristic, corporate persons signified by all caps — have issued Birth Certificates to "persons" with legal fiction all-caps names. This is not a lawful record of your physical birth, but rather the birth of the juristic, all-caps name. It may appear to be your true name, but since no proper name is ever written in all caps (either lawfully or grammatically) it does not identify who you are. The Birth Certificate is the government’s self-created document of title for its new “property,” i.e. the deed to the juristic-name artificial person whose all-

Memorandum of Law on the Name Page 18 of 22

caps name “mirrors” your true name. The Birth Certificate brings the new all-caps name into colorable admiralty/maritime law, the same way a ship (and ship of state) is berthed.

One important area to address, before going any further, is the governmental use of older data storage from the late 1950's until the early 1980's. As a "left over" from various teletype-oriented systems, many government data storage methods used all caps for proper names. The IRS was supposedly still complaining about some of their antiquated storage systems as recent as the early 1980's. At first, this may have been a necessity of the technology at the time, not a deliberate act. Perhaps, when this technology was first being used and implemented into the mainstream of communications, some legal experts saw it as a perfect tool for their perfidious intentions. What better excuse could there be?

However, since local, State, and Federal offices primarily used typewriters during that same time period, and Birth Certificates and other important documents, such as driver's licenses, were produced with typewriters, it's very doubtful that this poses much of an excuse to explain all-caps usage for proper names. The only reasonable usage of the older databank all-caps storage systems would have been for addressing envelopes or certain forms in bulk, including payment checks, which the governments did frequently.

Automated computer systems, with daisy-wheel and pin printers used prevalently in the early 1980's, emulated the IBM electric typewriter Courier or Helvetica fonts in both upper and lower case letters. Shortly thereafter, the introduction of laser and ink-jet printers with multiple fonts became the standard. For the past fifteen years, there is no excuse that the government computers will not accommodate the use of lower case letters unless the older data is still stored in its original form, i.e. all caps, and has not been translated due to the costs of re-entry. But this does not excuse the entry of new data, only "legacy" data. In fact, on many government forms today, proper names are in all caps while other areas of the same computer produced document are in both upper and lower case. One can only conclude that now, more than ever, the use of all caps in substitution the writing a proper name is no mistake.

When a child is born, the hospital sends the original, not a copy, of the record of live birth to the "State Bureau of Vital Statistics," sometimes called the "Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services" (HRS). Each STATE is required to supply the UNITED STATES with birth, death, and health statistics. The STATE agency that receives the original record of live birth keeps it and then issues a Birth Certificate in the corrupted, all-caps version of the baby’s true name, i.e. JAMES WILBER SMITH.

cer-tif-i-cate, noun. Middle English certificat, from Middle French, from Medieval Latinceruficatum. from Late Latin, neuter of certificatus, past participle of certificare, to certify, 15th century. 3: a document evidencing ownership or debt.-- Merriam Webster Dictionary (1998).

The Birth Certificate issued by the State is then registered with the U.S. Department of Commerce -- the Executive Office -- specifically through their own sub-agency, the U.S. Census Bureau, which is responsible to register vital statistics from all the States. The word "registered," as it is used within commercial or legal based equity law, does not

Memorandum of Law on the Name Page 19 of 22

mean that the all-caps name was merely noted in a book for reference purposes. When a Birth Certificate is registered with the U.S. Department of Commerce, it means that the all-caps legal person named thereon has become a surety or guarantor, a condition and obligation that is automatically and unwittingly assumed unless you rebut the presumption by effectively noticing them: “It ain’t me.”

registered. Security, bond. -- Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law (1996).

Security. I a: Something (as a mortgage or collateral) that is provided to make certain the fulfillment of anobligation. Example: used his property as security for a loan. lb: "surety." 2: Evidence of indebtedness, ownership, or the right to ownership. -- Ibid.

Bond. I a: A usually formal written agreement by which a person undertakes to perform a certain act (as fulfill the obligations of a contract) ... with the condition that failure to perform or abstain will obligate the person ... to pay a sum of money or will result in the forfeiture of money put up by the person or surety. lb: One who acts as a surety. 2: An interest-bearing document giving evidence of a debt issued by a government body or corporation that is sometimes secured by a lien on property and is often designed to take care of a particular financial need. -- Ibid.

Surety. The person who has pledged him or herself to pay back money or perform a certain action if the principal to a contract fails, as collateral, and as part of the original contract. -- Duhaime'sLaw Dictionary.

1: a formal engagement (as a pledge) given for the fulfillment of an undertaking. 2: one who promises to answer for the debt or default of another.

Under the Uniform Commercial Code, however, a surety includes a guarantor, and the two terms are generally interchangeable.

Merriam Webster's "Dictionary of Law" (1996).

Guarantor. A person who pledges collateral for the contract of another, but separately, as part of an independently contract with the obligee of the original contract.

Duhaime's Law Dictionary.

It is not difficult to see that a state-created Birth Certificate, with an all-caps, name is a document evidencing debt the moment it is issued. Once a state has registered a birth document with the U.S. Department of Commerce, the Department notifies the Treasury Department, which takes out a loan from the Federal Reserve. The Treasury uses the loan to purchase a bond (the Fed holds a “purchase money security interest” in the bond) from the Department of Commerce, which invests the sale proceeds in the stock or bond market. The Treasury Department then issues Treasury securities in the form of Treasury Bonds, Notes, and Bills using the bonds as surety for the new “securities.” This cycle is based on the future tax revenues of the legal person whose name appears on the Birth Certificate. This also means that the bankrupt, corporate U.S. can guarantee to the purchasers of their securities the lifetime labor and tax revenues of every “citizen of the United States”/American with a Birth Certificate as collateral for payment. This device is initiated simply by converting the lawful, true name of the child into a legal, juristic name of a person.

Memorandum of Law on the Name Page 20 of 22

Dubuque rei potissinia pars prineipium est — The principal part of everything is in the beginning. (“Well begun is half done.”)

Legally, you are considered to be a slave or indentured servant to the various Federal, State and local governments via your STATE-issued and STATE-created Birth Certificate in the name of your all-caps person. Birth Certificates are issued so that the issuer can claim “exclusive” title to the legal person created thereby. This is further compounded when one voluntarily obtains a Driver’s License or a Social Security Account Number. The state even owns your personal and private life through your STATE-issued marriage license/certificate issued in the all-caps names. You have no rights in birth, marriage, or even death. The state holds title to all legal persons the state creates via Birth Certificates until the rightful owner, i.e. you, reclaims/redeems it by becoming the holder in due course of the instrument.

The main problem is that the mother and father, and then the eighteen-year-old man or woman, voluntarily agreed to this contrived system of plunder and slavery by remaining silent — a legal default, latches, and failing to claim one’s own Rights. The maxim of law becomes crucially operative: “He who fails to assert his rights has none.”

The legal rules and codes enforce themselves. There is no court hearing to determine if those rules are correct. Government rules are self-regulating and self-supporting. Once set into motion, such "laws" automatically come into effect provided the legal process has been followed.

The various bankruptcies

The legal person known as the UNITED STATES is bankrupt and holds no lawful Constitutionally mandated silver or gold — gold coin or bullion — with which to back any currency. All private held and federally held gold coins and bullion in America was seized via Executive Order of April 5, 1933 and paid to the creditor, the private Federal Reserve Corporation under the terms of the bankruptcy.

Congress — still convening strictly under Executive Order authority — confirmed the bankruptcy through the Joint Resolution to Suspend the Gold Standard and Abrogate the Gold Clause, June 5, 1933, House Joint Resolution (HJR) 192, June 5, 1933, 73rd Congress, 1st Session, Public Law 73-10. This 1933 public law states, in part:

"... every provision contained in or made with respect to any obligation which purports to give the oblige a right to require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency, or in an amount in money of the United States measured thereby, is declared to be against public policy."

The corporate U.S. declared bankruptcy a second time, whereby the Secretary of Treasury was appointed “Receiver” for the bankrupt U.S. in Reorganization Plan No. 26, Title 5 USC 903, Public Law 94-564, "Legislative History," page 5967.

Memorandum of Law on the Name Page 21 of 22

Since 1933, the only “assets” used by the UNITED STATES to “pay its debt” to the Fed have been the blood, sweat, and tears of every American unfortunate to be saddled with a Birth Certificate and a Social Security Account Number (the U.S. Government must conceal this fact from the American people at all cost). Their future labor and tax revenues have been “legally” pledged via the new all-caps, juristic-person names appearing on the Birth Certificates, i.e. the securities used as collateral for loans of credit (thin-air belief) to pay daily operational costs, re-organization expenses in bankruptcy, insurance policy premiums required to float the bankrupt government, and interest on the ever-increasing, wholly fraudulent, debt.

All Caps Legal Person vs. The Lawful Being

Just who or what is the all-caps person, i.e. “JOHN PAUL JONES,” “JOHN P JONES,” or some other all capital letter corruption thereof? It is the entity the government created to take the place of the real being, i.e. John Paul Jones. The lawful Christian name of birthright has been replaced with a legal corporate name of deceit and fraud. If the lawful Christian name answers as the legal person, the two are recognized as being one and the same. However, if the lawful being distinguishes himself/herself as a party other than the legal fiction, the two are separated.

A result of the federal bankruptcy was the creation of the “UNITED STATES,” which was made a part of the legal reorganization. The name of each STATE was also converted to its respective, all-caps legal person, e.g. STATE OF DELAWARE. These new legal persons were then used to create more legal persons, such as corporations, with all-capital letters names, as well. Once this was accomplished, the con began to pick up speed. All areas of government and all alleged “courts of law,” are de facto, “color of law and right” institutions. The “CIRCUIT COURT OF WAYNE COUNTY” and the “U.S. DISTRICT COURT” can recognize and deal only with other legal persons. This is why a lawful name is never entered in their records. The all-caps legal person is used instead. Jurisdiction in such sham courts covers only other artificial persons. The proper jurisdiction for a lawful being is a Constitutionally sanctioned, common-law-venue court. Unfortunately, such jurisdiction was “shelved” in 1938 and is no longer available. The only courts today are statutory commercial tribunals collecting tribute (plunder) from the alleged Creditors who think they have conquered the country on their way to ruling the world.

Memorandum of Law on the Name Page 22 of 22


Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Jun 6, 2011
right here right now




Be it known to all courts, governments, and other parties, that I, Harold Samuel Jones, am a natural, freeborn Sovereign, without subjects. I am neither subject to any entity anywhere, nor is any entity subject to me. I neither dominate anyone, nor am I dominated.

My authority for this statement is the same as it is for all free Sovereigns everywhere: the age-old, timeless, and universal respect for the intrinsic rights, property, freedoms, and responsibilities of the Sovereign Individual.

I am not a "person" when such term is defined in statutes of the United States or statutes of the several states when such definition includes artificial entities. I refuse to be treated as a federally or state created entity which is only capable of exercising certain rights, privileges, or immunities as specifically granted by federal or state governments.

I voluntarily choose to comply with the man-made laws which serve to bring harmony to society, but no such laws, nor their enforcers, have any authority over me. I am not in any jurisdiction, for I am not of subject status.

Consistent with the eternal tradition of natural common law, unless I have harmed or violated someone or their property, I have committed no crime; and am therefore not subject to any penalty.

I act in accordance with 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).

Thus, be it known to all, that I reserve my natural common law right not to be compelled to perform under any contract that I did not enter into knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally. And furthermore, I do not accept the liability associated with the compelled and pretended "benefit" of any hidden or unrevealed contract or commercial agreement.

As such, the hidden or unrevealed contracts that supposedly create obligations to perform, for persons of subject status, are inapplicable to me, and are null and void. If I have participated in any of the supposed "benefits" associated with these hidden contracts, I have done so under duress, for lack of any other practical alternative. I may have received such "benefits" but I have not accepted them in a manner that binds me to anything.

Any such participation does not constitute "acceptance" in contract law, because of the absence of full disclosure of any valid "offer," and voluntary consent without misrepresentation or coercion, under contract law. Without a valid voluntary offer and acceptance, knowingly entered into by both parties, there is no "meeting of the minds," and therefore no valid contract. Any supposed "contract" is therefore void, ab initio.

From my age of consent to the date affixed below I have never signed a contract knowingly, willingly, intelligently, and voluntarily whereby I have waived any of my natural common law rights, and, as such, Take Notice that I revoke, cancel, and make void ab initio my signature on any and all contracts, agreements, forms, or any instrument which may be construed in any way to give any agency or department of any federal or state government authority, venue, or jurisdiction over me.

This position is in accordance with the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Brady v. U.S., 379 U.S. 742 at 748 (1970):

"Waivers of Constitutional Rights not only must be voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts, done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and consequences."

Typical examples of such compelled and pretended "benefits" are:

1. The use of Federal Reserve Notes to discharge my debts. I have used these only because in America, there is no other widely recognized currency.

2. The use of a bank account, with my signature on the bank signature card. If there is any hidden contract behind the bank signature card, my signature thereon gives no validity to it. The signature is only for verification of identity. I can be obligated to fulfill no hidden or unrevealed contract whatsoever, due to the absence of full disclosure and voluntary consent.

3. Likewise, my use of the bank account thereof is due to the absence of a bank not associated with the Federal Reserve system. In general, people have been prevented from issuing their own currencies, and such prevention is in violation of the United States Constitution. Were there an alternative, I would be happy to use it. To not use any bank at all is impossible or very difficult, as everyone knows, in today's marketplace.

4. The use of a Social Security number. The number normally assigned to persons of subject status, I use exceptionally, under duress, only because of the extreme inconvenience of operating without one in today's marketplace, where it is requested by banks, employers, lenders, and many other government agencies and businesses. My reason for using it is not because I wish to participate in the Social Security system, as I don't wish to participate. Let it be known that I use the Social Security number assigned to me for information only.

5. The use of a driver's license. As a free Sovereign, there is no legal requirement for me to have such a license for travelling in my car. Technically, the unrevealed legal purpose of driver's licenses is commercial in nature. Since I don't carry passengers for hire, there is no law requiring me to have a license to travel for my own pleasure and that of my family and friends. However, because of the lack of education of police officers on this matter, should I be stopped for any reason and found to be without a license, it is likely I would be ticketed and fined or obligated to appear in court. Therefore, under duress, I carry a license to avoid extreme inconvenience.

6. State plates on my car. Similarly, even though technically, my car does not fit the legal definition of a "motor vehicle," which is used for commercial purposes, nevertheless, I have registered it with the state and carry the state plates on it, because to have any other plates or no plates at all, causes me to run the risk of police officer harassment and extreme inconvenience.

7. Past tax returns filed. Any tax returns I may have filed in the past, were filed due to the dishonest atmosphere of fear and intimidation created by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the local assessors' offices; not because there is any law requiring me to do so. Once I discovered that the IRS and other tax agencies have been misinforming the public, I have felt it is my responsible duty to society to terminate my voluntary participation. Because such returns were filed under Threat, Duress, and Coercion (TDC), and no two-way contract was ever signed with full disclosure, there is nothing in any past filing of returns or payments that created any valid contract. Therefore, no legal obligation on my part was ever created.

8. Certificate of Naturalization. The fact that a Certificate of Naturalization was granted to me by a government agency when I entered this world, is irrelevant to my Sovereignty. No status, high or low, can be assigned to another person through a piece of paper, without the recipient's full knowledge and consent. Therefore, such a piece of paper provides date and place information only. It indicates nothing about jurisdiction, nothing about property ownership, nothing about rights, and nothing about subject status. The only documents that can have any legal meaning, as it concerns my status in society, are those which I have signed as an adult, with full knowledge and consent, free from misrepresentation or coercion of any kind.

9. Marriage license. The acquisition of a marriage license is now being revealed as being necessary only for slaves. The act of a Sovereign such as myself obtaining such a license, through social custom and ignorance of law, has no legal effect in changing my status. This is because any such change in status, if any may be supposed to occur, could happen only through a hidden and unrevealed contract or statute. Since no hidden, unrevealed, and undisclosed information, if it exists, can be lawfully held to be binding, it is null and void.

10. Children in public school. The attendance of my children in government-supported "public" schools or government-controlled "private" schools does not create any legal tax obligation for me, nor any other legal obligation, because I never signed a contract agreeing to such obligation for the supposed "privilege" of public school attendance.

11. If any of my children have attended government supported "public" or controlled "private" schools, such was done under duress and not out of free will. Be it known that I regard "compulsory state education" as a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states in relevant part:

12. "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."

13. Declaration of Citizenship. Any document I may have ever signed, in which I answered "yes" to the question, "Are you a U.S. citizen?" - cannot be used to compromise my status as a Sovereign, nor obligate me to perform in any manner. This is because without full written disclosure of the definition and consequences of such supposed "citizenship," provided in a document bearing my signature given freely without misrepresentation or coercion, there can be no legally binding contract.

14. I am not a "United States" citizen subject to its jurisdiction. The United States is an entity created by the U.S. Constitution with jurisdiction as described on the following pages of this Affidavit. I am not a "resident of," an "inhabitant of," a "franchise of," a "subject of," a "ward of," the "property of," the "chattel of," or "subject to the jurisdiction of" any corporate federal government, corporate state government, corporate county government, corporate city government, or corporate municipal body politic created under the authority of the U.S. Constitution. I am not subject to any legislation, department, or agency created by such authorities, nor to the jurisdiction of any employees, officers, or agents deriving their authority therefrom. Further, I am not a subject of the Administrative and Legislative Article IV Courts of the several states, or Article I Courts of the United States, or bound by precedents of such courts, deriving their jurisdiction from said authorities. Take Notice that I hereby revoke, cancel, and make void ab initio any such instrument or any presumed election made by any of the several states or the United States government or any agency or department thereof, that I am or ever have voluntary elected to be treated as a United States citizen subject to its jurisdiction or a resident of any territory, possession, instrumentality or enclave under the sovereignty or exclusive jurisdiction of any of the several states or of the United States as defined in the U.S. Constitution in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 and Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2.

15. Past voter registration. Similarly, since no obligation to perform in any manner was ever revealed in print, as part of the requirements for the supposed "privilege" to vote for government officials, any such registration on my part cannot be legal evidence of any obligation to perform. Likewise, I have granted NO jurisdiction over me, to any political office. It is my inherent right to vote on elections or issues that I feel affect all of society; NOT because I need anyone to rule over me. On the contrary - I have used the voting process only to instruct my public servants what a citizen and Sovereign would like done.

16. Use of the 2-letter state code and zip code. My use of the 2-letter state code and zip code in my "address," which is secretly codified to indicate United States "federal zone" jurisdiction, has no effect whatsoever on my Sovereign status. Simply by receiving or sending "mail" through a quasi-federal messenger service, the postal service, at a location indicated with a 2-letter state code and zip code, cannot place me under federal jurisdiction or obligation. Such a presumption would be ludicrous.

17. I use these codes only for the purposes of information and making it more efficacious for the U.S. Postal Service to deliver my mail.

18. Use of semantics. There are some immature people with mental imbalances, such as the craving to dominate other people, who masquerade as "government." Just because they alter definitions of words in the law books to their supposed advantage, doesn't mean I accept those definitions. The fact that they define the words "person," "address," "mail," "resident," "motor vehicle," "driving," "passenger," "employee," "income," and many others, in ways different from the common usage, so as to be associated with a subject or slave status, means nothing in real life.

19. Because the courts have become entangled in the game of semantics, be it known to all courts and all parties, that if I have ever signed any document or spoken any words on record, using words defined by twists in the law books different from the common usage, there can be no effect whatsoever on my Sovereign status in society thereby, nor can there be created any obligation to perform in any manner, by the mere use of such words. Where the meaning in the common dictionary differs from the meaning in the law dictionary, it is the meaning in common dictionary that prevails, because it is more trustworthy.

Such compelled and supposed "benefits" include, but are not limited to, the aforementioned typical examples. My use of such alleged "benefits" is under duress only, and is with full reservation of all my common law rights. I have waived none of my intrinsic rights and freedoms by my use thereof. Furthermore, my use of such compelled "benefits" may be temporary, until better alternatives become available, practical, and widely recognized.


It is further relevant to this Affidavit that any violation of my Rights, Freedom, or Property by the U.S. federal government, or any agent thereof, would be an illegal and unlawful excess, clearly outside the limited boundaries of federal jurisdiction. My understanding is that the jurisdiction of the U.S. federal government is defined by Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution, quoted as follows:

"The Congress shall have the power . . . To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (NOT EXCEEDING TEN MILES SQUARE) as may, by cession of particular states and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the United States, [District of Columbia] and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock yards and other needful Buildings; And - To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers..." [emphasis added]

and Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2:

"The Congress shall have the Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."

The definition of the "United States" being used here, then, is limited to its territories:

1) The District of Columbia

2) Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

3) U.S. Virgin Islands

4) Guam

5) American Samoa

6) Northern Mariana Islands

7) Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands

8) Military bases within the several states

9) Federal agencies within the several states

It does not include the several states themselves, as is confirmed by the following cites:

"We have in our political system a Government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a Citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other." Slaughter House Cases United States vs. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)


"THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT IS A FOREIGN CORPORATION WITH RESPECT TO A STATE." [emphasis added] Volume 20: Corpus Juris Sec. §1785: NY re: Merriam 36 N.E. 505 1441 S.Ct.1973, 41 L.Ed.287.

This is further confirmed by the following quote from the Internal Revenue Service:

Federal jurisdiction "includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa." - Internal Revenue Code Section 312(e).

In legal terminology, the word "includes" means "is limited to."

When referring to this "District" United States, the Internal Revenue Code uses the term "WITHIN" the United States. When referring to the several States, the Internal Revenue Code uses the term "WITHOUT" the United States.

Dozens, perhaps hundreds, of court cases prove that federal jurisdiction is limited to the few federal territory areas above indicated. For example, in two Supreme Court cases, it was decided:

"The laws of Congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government," Caha v. United States, 152 U.S., at 215.

"We think a proper examination of this subject will show that the United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory, of which Alabama or any of the new States were formed..."

"ecause, the United States have no constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain, within the limits of a State or elsewhere, except in the cases in which it is expressly granted..."

Alabama is therefore entitled to the sovereignty and jurisdiction over all the territory within her limits, subject to the common law," Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 221, 223, 228, 229.

Likewise, Title 18 of the United States Code at §7 specifies that the "territorial jurisdiction" of the United States extends only outside the boundaries of lands belonging to any of the several States.

Therefore, in addition to the fact that no unrevealed federal contract can obligate me to perform in any manner without my fully informed and uncoerced consent, likewise, no federal statutes or regulations apply to me or have any jurisdiction over me. I hereby affirm that I do not reside or work in any federal territory of the "District" United States, and that therefore no U.S. federal government statutes or regulations have any authority over me.



All United States and State government officials are hereby put on notice that I expect them to have recorded valid Oaths of Office in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, Article VI:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution..."

I understand that by their Oaths of Office all U.S. and State government officials are contractually bound by the U.S. Constitution as formulated by its framers, and not as "interpreted," subverted, or corrupted by the U.S. Supreme Court or other courts.

According to the Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

and the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

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

Thus, my understanding from these Amendments is that the powers of all U.S. and State government officials are limited to those specifically granted by the U.S. Constitution.

I further understand that any laws, statutes, ordinances, regulations, rules, and procedures contrary to the U.S. Constitution, as written by its framers, are null and void, as expressed in the Sixteenth American Jurisprudence Second Edition, Section 177:

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

'The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.'

'Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it...'

'A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.'

' No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.'" [emphasis added]

and as expressed once again in the U.S. Constitution, Article VI:

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

All U.S. and State government officials are therefore hereby put on notice that any violations of their contractual obligations to act in accordance with their U.S. Constitution, may result in prosecution to the full extent of the law, as well as the application of all available legal remedies to recover damages suffered by any parties damaged by any actions of U.S. and State government officials in violation of the U.S. Constitution.


Furthermore, I hereby revoke, rescind, and make void ab initio, all powers of attorney, in fact or otherwise, implied in law or otherwise, signed either by me or anyone else, as it pertains to the Social Security number assigned to me, Harold Samuel Jones as it pertains to my naturalization certificate, marriage or business license, or any other licenses or certificates issued by any and all government or quasi-governmental entities, due to the use of various elements of fraud by said agencies to attempt to deprive me of my Sovereignty and/or property.

I hereby waive, cancel, repudiate, and refuse to knowingly accept any alleged "benefit" or gratuity associated with any of the aforementioned licenses, numbers, or certificates. I do hereby revoke and rescind all powers of attorney, in fact or otherwise, signed by me or otherwise, implied in law or otherwise, with or without my consent or knowledge, as it pertains to any and all property, real or personal, corporeal or incorporeal, obtained in the past, present, or future. I am the sole and absolute legal owner and possess allodial title to any and all such property.

Take Notice that I also revoke, cancel, and make void ab initio all powers of attorney, in fact, in presumption, or otherwise, signed either by me or anyone else, claiming to act on my behalf, with or without my consent, as such power of attorney pertains to me or any property owned by me, by, but not limited to, any and all quasi/colorable, public, governmental entities or corporations on the grounds of constructive fraud, concealment, and nondisclosure of pertinent facts.

I affirm that all of the foregoing is true and correct. I affirm that I am of lawful age and am competent to make this Affidavit. I hereby affix my own signature to all of the affirmations in this entire document with explicit reservation of all my unalienable rights and my specific common law right not to be bound by any contract or obligation which I have not entered into knowingly, willingly, voluntarily, and without misrepresentation, duress, or coercion.

The use of notary below is for identification only, and such use does NOT grant any jurisdiction to anyone.


Subscribed and sworn, without prejudice, and with all rights reserved, Harold Samuel Jones, Principal, by Special Appearance, in Propria Persona, proceeding Sui Juris.

My Hand and Mark as Subscriber


Printed Name: Harold Samuel Jones

Date:December 4, 2008_


Using a notary on this document does not constitute any adhesion, nor does it alter my status in any manner. The purpose for notary is verification and identification only and not for entrance into any foreign jurisdiction.


Having witnessed the signing and sealing of the forgoing Verified Declaration by Harold Samuel Jones, I place my hand and seal hereon as an authentic act as a Notary Public.

Subscribed and affirmed before me this 4 day for the12th month in the year of our Lord and Savior, Two Thousand and Eight, A.D.




Address of Notary __________________________


My Notary Expires __________________________