Claim Back Your Freedom - Notice of Understanding and Intent And Claim of Right - Freeman-on-the-Land claimed Interpretations
Claim back your freedom - Notice of Understanding and Intent And Claim of Right
Freeman-on-the-Land claimed Interpretations 2006 by Jack Harper
Fri, 12/21/2007 - 16:41 — Anonymous This was written by Jackie-Grant-Vel’oice: Harper.
See the attachements he sends to interested folk.
Here is an email with attachments that I send to anyone wishing to put the government on notice.
First off.
Get all concerned and effected parties to go into default.
Send everything by registered mail as proof of service.
Cc copies to all concerned and affected parties.
I did this back in May by Canada Post Fax service.
One week later the entire Supreme Court of Canada (all nine justices) showed up unannounced in Saskatoon for a weekend workshop to discuss the problem of people representing themselves in court.
Three days after they left then Lt. Govenor for Saskatchewan got on the plane (unannounced) and went to England to discuss the problems in his province with the Queen.
Coincidence?
Maybe, maybe not.
One thing I do know I got them rattled coast to coast.
Jack
lHi!
To whom it may concern;
I am known as Jackie-Grant-Vel’oice: Harper and as the subject line states; “I am who I say I am.”
Now you may or may not catch the truth to which you are about to witness, should you take a closer look at the documents and supporting articles
provided in this offer of disclosure.
Not one single lawyer, judge or monkey of the court has in fact or can, dispute the contract they all entered into.
A sovereign has no principal, save for his God.
All three levels of government from principals to agents have been afforded ample opportunity and time to discuss, dispute or simply agree by their silence.
They have chosen silence, save for one……….the main one, The Right Honourable Member of Parliament in The House of Commons for Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar.
By noting and acknowledging receipt of my cover letter and Notice whereas, failing to respond as required by an officer of the court, TO WIT; the notary public.
She has in effect and in fact, acquiescence to the contract presented and as such the aforementioned contract is now “law” concerning any government dealings from here on with “I” and only “I.”
I cannot claim anything for my brother, unless I return to the legal fiction LA- LA land.
You cannot count on anyone else to cut your chains free, as that is your job and yours alone.
All of my elected officials now stand as, “FIRED.”
This also applies to every single agent claiming the principals now fired.
The notary has issued “administrative judgements to all concerned and affected parties” and therefore, no government agent has a principal to act “for” or “against” this one certain “Freeman-on-the-Land.”
I am not subject to “ANY CIVIL LAW”, absolutely not one statute or act applies to me.
The only thing I am bound by is this: “I must not breach the peace or commit mischief or fraud in my contracts.”
Other than that, “I’m good to go.”
So far, they are holding up their end of the contract.
regards,
Jackie-Grant-Vel’oice: Harper
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cover Letter To Carol Skelton, acting as, the Right Honourable Member of Parliament for Saskatoon-Biggar-Rosetown, in The House of Commons;
Date, January 30th, 2007
To: Carol Skelton, acting as, the Right Honourable Member of Parliament for Saskatoon-Biggar-Rosetown, in The House of Commons;
Please regard this cover letter as an introduction to the Notice of Understanding and Intent And Claim of Right, which accompanies this letter.
It has come to my attention, realization and understanding through personal experience, that as a “person” and “British subject”, “I” have no right to freedom of movement, freedom to travel, freedom from arbitrary and/or despotic government, no right to possess private property, no right to Justice in the courts nor the right to contract in good faith with any government in Canada.
Is this the result of “Canada” having the status of “an abandoned British warship at sea with nothing more than a salvage title open to seizure and plunder?
As a result of coming to this understanding and my desire to be a “Freeman-on the-Land”, in “The true north strong and free”, “I” am left with the only resort remaining in a common law jurisdiction whereas, my intent is to lawfully claim my rights and freedoms under “common law”.
Please be advised that “I AM” aware that in your public capacity, you are currently “acting as”, my representative in government by tacit (implied) consent.
And that is the reason this it is directed to you.
I am quite sure you are aware that, Canada, wherein lie’s the province of Saskatchewan and the city of Saskatoon, is a claimed “common law” jurisdiction.
Therefore, the Magna Carta, and Criminal Code of Canada passed in Acts of parliament
are therefore, federal law that are applicable to all claimants in the aforementioned common law jurisdiction, unless of course, they conflict with common law.
Whereas, those Acts of Parliament passed, carry considerable more weight and jurisdiction, when in direct conflict with provincial statutes and therefore, set precedence over any provincial or municipal statutes enacted by any municipal counsel or provincial legislature.
It is not my intent to be difficult or bear any ill will, ill intent or malice towards you, acting as, M.P. for Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar, Saskatoon City Councillor, the Mayor for Saskatoon or the M.L.A for Riversdale and Premier or the Saskatoon Police Service.
It is however, my intent to lawfully capture, claim, secure and protect my “common law rights”, as “Law”’ afforded “I” in numerous Acts of Parliament passed into law.
Whereas, “I’ may engage in lawful activities without fear of criminal activity or reprisal from the very people sworn to protect and serve; “Without Fear - Without Favour.”
It is also my intent to dispel with any and all assumptions, preconceived notions or erroneous beliefs as to my inability or desire to fire all of you. .
I am quite sure a person of your calibre and intellect will have no trouble at all coming to an understanding as to the consequences of your future actions or lack thereof concerning this one certain to be Freeman-on-the-Land.
Whom, very soon by the grace of God, none of you, being, The Right Honourable Member of Parliament Carol Skelton, The Honourable Member of the Legislature Lorne Calvert or His Worship-The Honourable Mayor for Saskatoon Donald Atchison or City Councillor Pat Lorje, nor any future titled legal fiction persons, will no longer represent “I” in government.
Nor, will you have any jurisdiction to govern or force to submit to any existing or future statute and/or Act that you or any other person may enact or attempt to enforce.
Society is not a prison and you are not my jailer.
My so-called Birth Certificate, being a certified extract of the original birth registration, showing my name printed in proper “Canadian Style” (Jackie Grant Veloice Harper) is evidence that the corporation known as “THE PROVINCE OF SASKATCHEWAN” failed to create the CORPORATE LEGAL PERSON known as JACKIE GRANT VELOICE HARPER and/or HARPER, Jackie G. and therefore, has never had any legal jurisdiction over anyone with the name “JACKIE GRANT VELOICE HARPER” and/or HARPER, Jackie G. as the Crown has no contradicting evidence to the creation of the corporate person.
You may or may not be aware that no law exists in right of Canada, a province or municipality with authorized claim in commerce, over a free will man as portrayed by the certified extract issued by “THE PROVINCE OF SASKATCHEWAN”.
The door will soon be open and I am leaving.
Whereas, all of you ostentatious titled legal fictions known as, my Member of Parliament, Member of the Legislature, Mayor and City Councillor, by implied consent, for all intents and purposes are forthwith, “Fired!!”
It is well settled in law, as to the division between the creation of God (man) and the creation of the Crown (person).
And therefore, yours or any other person’s jurisdiction, beginning with Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II ends where my nose begins, unless of course, “I” have “breached the peace”, committed mischief or fraud in my contracts or given any of you my express written and notarized permission.
So in closing “I” bid you all fair well and may God bless you in all your endeavours.
Freeman-on-the-Land and bond servant of Christ:
Jackie-Grant-Vel’oice: Harper
All rights reserved without prejudice
P.S.
What is a Freeman-on-the-Land? A Freeman-on-the-Land is a human being in a common law
jurisdiction who lawfully revokes or denies consent to be represented and governed and exists
completely free of all statutory restraints, obligations and restrictions,
P.P.S
Therefore, be it known to any and all concerned:
“Unless you are prepared to stand up and claim that; “Yes indeed, you are my slave and I own you” then, I would well advise you that any future transgressions of my lawfully claimed rights and freedoms by anyone will be acted upon to the fullest extent of the remedies provided under the Law.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affidavit-
Notice of Understanding and Intent And Claim of Right
Respondent: Carol Skelton, The Right Honourable Member of Parliament for Saskatoon-Biggar-Rosetown, in The House of Commons.
Claimant: Jackie-Grant-Vel’oice: Harper.
Whereas it is my understanding Canada is a common law jurisdiction, and,
Whereas it is my understanding equality before the law is paramount and mandatory, and,
Whereas it is my understanding a statute is defined as a legislated rule of society which has been
given the force of law, and,
Whereas it is my understanding a society is defined as a number of people joined by mutual consent
to deliberate, determine and act for a common goal, and,
Whereas it is my understanding the only form of government recognized as lawful in Canada is a
representative one, and,
Whereas it is my understanding representation requires mutual consent, and,
Whereas it is my understanding that in the absence of mutual consent neither representation nor
governance can exist, and,
Whereas it is my understanding all Acts are statutes restricted in scope and applicability by the
Constitution Act, and,
Whereas it is my understanding Section 32 of the Constitution Act limits it to members and
employees of government, and,
Whereas it is my understanding those who have a SIN (Social Insurance Number) are in fact
employees of the federal government and thus are bound by the statutes created by the federal
government, and,
Whereas it is my understanding that it is lawful to abandon one’s SIN, and,
Whereas it is my understanding men and women in Canada have a right to revoke or deny consent to be represented and thus governed, and,
Whereas it is my understanding if anyone does revoke or deny consent they exist free of
government control and statutory restraints, and,
Whereas a Freeman-on-the-Land has lawfully revoked consent and does exist free of statutory
restrictions, obligations, and limitations, and,
Whereas I, Jackie-Grant-Vel’oice: Harper am a Freeman-on-the-Land, and,
Whereas it is my understanding that acting peacefully within community standards does not breach
the peace, and,
Whereas it is my understanding that any action for which one can apply for and receive a license
must itself be a fundamentally lawful action, and,
Whereas as I am a Freeman-on-the-Land who operates with full responsibility and not a child, I do
not see the need to ask permission to engage in lawful and peaceful activities, especially from those
who claim limited liability, and,
Whereas it is my understanding a by-law is defined as a rule of a corporation, and,
Whereas it is my understanding corporations are legal fictions and require contracts in order to
claim authority or control over other parties, and,
Whereas it is my understanding legal fictions lack a soul and cannot exert any control over those
who are thus blessed and operate with respect to that knowledge as only a fool would allow soulless
fictions to dictate ones actions, and,
Whereas it is my understanding peace officers have a duty to distinguish between statutes and law
and those who attempt to enforce statutes against a Freeman-on-the-Land are in fact breaking the
law, and,
Whereas I have the power to refuse intercourse or interaction with peace officers who have not
observed me breach the peace, and,
Whereas permanent estoppel by acquiescence barring any peace officer or prosecutor from bringing
charges against a Freeman-on-the-Land under any Act is created if this claim is not responded to in
the stated fashion and time,
Therefore be it now known to any and all concerned and affected parties, that I, Jackie-Grant-Vel’oice: Harper a Freeman-on-the-Land do hereby state clearly, specifically and unequivocally my intent to peacefully and lawfully;
(1) Exercise my “common law right to travel”, unhindered, unencumbered at my discretion in my private conveyance of the day, to wit; my private, unregistered, unlicensed automobile.
(2) Exercise my God given right to travel as stated in the Queen’s Bible.
(3) Exercise my “common law right” to refuse to, obtain by submit ion; any application for any government issued license, permit or seek permission to perform any fundamentally lawful action or,
enter into any government contract under duress, threat and /or intimidation which would involve committing an act of fraud and /or theft, or any other crime, by way of deception by “I” and /or any involved government principal, employee or agent. (in compliance with my Common Law Rights, the Magna Charta and the Criminal Code of Canada.)
I claim that pursuant to any action by any government and/or any principal, member, employee, agent, servant, person thereof in Right of Canada, a province, or municipality; “I reserve my right not to be compelled to perform under any contract or commercial agreement that I did not enter knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally. And I do not accept the liability of the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or commercial agreement, which are my rights pursuant to Common Law”.
Furthermore,
I claim that these actions are not outside my community’s standards and will in fact support said community in our desire for truth and maximum freedom.
Furthermore,
I claim the right to engage in these actions and further claim that all property held by me under common law being; any and all intellectual property, real estate, trade tools, private automobile(s) and contents; contents at the private posted residence known as 1040-B 20th, Street West, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan are held under claim of right as mentioned in the Criminal Code of Canada.
Furthermore,
I claim that, the Crowns claim of; “All property reverts to the Crown for want of a competent heir”, as referred to in the escheats act, stands as a lawful claim and whereas, Canada is an insolvency, an estate, where everything is owned by God and currently held in trust under the Crown until a competent heir(s) shows up and lays a lawful claim of jurisdiction.
Furthermore,
I claim that the corporation known as “THE CROWN” and/or “HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH II” and all human beings, acting as, persons, holding the subordinate position, [office of a person] in Canada are in fact deemed incompetent by all legal means and therefore require a legal trustee (third party to an action), to legally represent the incompetent one to any and all other corporate persons such as “The Courts of Saskatchewan” and/or “Government of Saskatchewan” etc.
Furthermore,
I claim that the intentional blurring of the lines with smoke and mirrors, deception, outright lie’s and too numerous to mention false claims as to the well settled division, between the Crown created legal entity known as the “PERSON” and the flesh and blood creation of the Creator known as a “man”, is nothing short of theft, fraud, breach of trust and forced slavery, a heinous criminal activity of the most odious form.
Furthermore,
I claim that “all persons, acting as, governments, principals, employees, agents and justice system participants claiming, “retained legal counsel” have, by virtue of their own and/or their principals actions, claimed “total incompetence”, in handling any of their own affairs in law and have become an instant ward of the court, hence, they are imprisoned by their own actions in hand or lack thereof.
Furthermore,
I claim that due to the self evident and the facts in truth at hand, that all persons, the Crown, governments, principals, employees, agents and justice system participants claiming limited liability or immunity are doing so under the pretence of being in fact deemed totally incompetent and under law made instant wards of the crown and/or court and therefore, cannot claim good faith or colour of right over anyone who is thus blessed to being a competent heir.
Furthermore,
I claim that, “Ignorance of the Law” is not a lawful or legal claim when used by the Crown, government principals, employees, agents and justice system participants at any and all levels to my harm or detriment, especially by those claiming limited liability.
Furthermore,
I claim that anyone who interferes with my lawful activities after having been served notice of this claim and who fails to properly dispute or make lawful counterclaim is breaking the law, cannot claim good faith or colour of right and that such transgressions will be dealt with in a properly convened court de jure.
Furthermore,
I claim that the courts in Saskatchewan are de-facto and bound by the Law and Equity Act and are in fact in the profitable business of conducting, witnessing and facilitating the transactions of security interests and I further claim they require the consent of both parties prior to providing any such services.
Furthermore,
I claim all transactions of security interests require the consent of both parties and I do hereby deny consent to any transaction of a security interest issuing under any Act for as herein stated as a Freeman-on-the-Land I am not subject to any Act.
Furthermore,
I claim my FEE SCHEDULE for any transgressions by peace officers, government principals or agents or justice system participants is TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS PER HOUR or portion thereof if being questioned, interrogated or in any way detained, harassed or otherwise regulated and
TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS PER HOUR or portion thereof if I am handcuffed, transported, incarcerated or subjected to any adjudication process without my express written and Notarized consent.
Furthermore
I claim the universal maxim of law to wit; “the partner (government) of my partner (agent: JACKIE GRANT HARPER) is not my partner (Freeman-on-the-Land)” applies herein and is in full force and effect.
Furthermore
I claim the law of agent and principal applies and that service upon one is service upon both.
Furthermore,
I claim the right to use a Notary Public to secure payment of the aforementioned FEE SCHEDULE against any transgressors who by their actions or omissions harm me or my interests, directly or by proxy in any way.
Furthermore,
I claim the right to convene a proper court de jure in order to address any potentially criminal actions of any peace officers, government principals or agents or justice system participants who having been served notice of this claim fail to dispute or discuss or make lawful counterclaim and
then interfere by act or omission with the lawful exercise of properly claimed and established rights and freedoms.
Furthermore,
I claim the right to deal with any counterclaims or disputes publicly and in an open forum using discussion and negotiation and to capture on video tape said discussion and negotiation for whatever lawful purpose as I see fit.
Affected parties wishing to dispute the claims made herein or make their own counterclaims must respond appropriately within FOURTEEN (14) days of service of notice of this action.
Reponses must be under Oath or attestation, upon full commercial liability and penalty of perjury and registered in the Notary Office herein provided no later than ___________________.
Failure to register a dispute against the claims made herein will result in an automatic default judgement and permanent and irrevocable estoppel by acquiescence barring the bringing of charges under any statute or Act against Freeman-on-the-Land Jackie-Grant-Vel’oice: Harper.
Place of claim of right: Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
Dated: ___January 29, 2007________________
__________________________
Claimant [or claimant’s agent]
Witness: Address Notary Public: ____________________
To register counterclaims and disputes:
NOTARY PUBLIC
ADDRESS
ATTN: Freeman-on-the-Land _____Jackie-Grant-Vel’oice: Harper____________
Use of a Notary is for attestation and verification purposes and does not constitute adhesion, contract
or change in status in any manner. All rights reserved without prejudice.
Qui bene interrogat, bene docet. He who questions well, learns well. 3 Buls. 227.
Qui bene distinguit, bene docet. He who distinguishes well, learns well. 2 Co. Inst. 470.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 3, 2007
Jackie-Grant-Vel’oice: Harper
c/o 1040-B 20th. Street West,
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
Dear Carol Skelton, the Right Honourable Member of Parliament for Saskatoon-Biggar-Rosetown, in The House of Commons.
This letter will acknowledge receipt of your correspondence dated March 19, 2007, whereby you acknowledge receiving my Notice of Understanding and Intent And Claim of Right.
Also, it is with great pleasure and satisfaction that someone on Parliament Hill or anywhere in government for that matter, noted and acknowledged my claim of rights and freedoms.
It appears to be quite an unusual and rare event for someone in government to step out on a limb and respond to this type of notice as you have done, for this madam, I express my sincere gratitude and respect.
Although it may appear to be a drastic move on my part, by filing this claim, it must be remembered that “Freemen-on-the-Land” (to my knowledge) have never existed in/or on the land mass known as “Canada”.
I wish to advise you that only freemen or women with a lawful claim of right, under common law, can write or interpret law and judge another with a jury of twelve of his/her equals indeed the law of the land.
And that brings me to another point that I claim, as a “Freeman-on-the-Land”, section (39) “original” latin version of the Magna Charta, “enshrined forever”, in an Act of Parliament; “Nullus liber homo capitur vel imprisonetur, aut disseisiatur, aut exuletur, aut aliquot modo destruatur, nec super eum ibimus, nec super eum mittemus, nisi per legale judicum parium suorum vel per legem terrae” becomes:- “No free man shall be taken indeed imprisoned, either dispossessed, or outlawed, or exiled or in any manner destroyed, nor passed over him, nor sent over him, except by means of the legal judgement his own equals indeed the law of the land.
Whereas, the Latin word “vel” appears to hold the key. It “vel” is not a simple English “or”. It is an “or” in the sense that it is saying, “in other words”. The latin “vel” consolidates, it re-enforces, it defines.
Therefore, the thrust of this passage is that “trial by jury is indeed the law of the land”. And not, an act of parliament nor any legislation nor any defacto court of Law and Equity nor any incompetent person can lawfully deny “I”, or any Freeman-on-the-Land, the “law of the land”, indeed, “a jury of twelve freemen”. Anyone, wishing dispute to this claim of interpretation, please take it up with the worlds foremost expert in Latin to English conversion; “William Whitaker's labours” and/or the claimed “sovereign” of “Canada” and “Defender of the Faith” at Buckingham Palace, Great Briton.
You may wish to check the government’s official English interpretation of this section of the Magna Charta on record in Ottawa, where you just may find it in error and then ask your legal counsel “how did judges steal common law” and then mix it with Roman Civil Law? (merchant law a.k.a law of the sea, which only governs fictional corporations with privileges, permits and licences).
Please bear in mind that; “out of necessity”, is without failure, the creed of tyrants.
The arbitrary imposition of Roman Civil Law, which enslaves freemen, is the single most important reason “common law” came into existence.
Just show them the rules, ask for clarification and the silence is golden.
Therefore, I claim: “the reason we have definite written rules is to combat the arguments of stupid and opinionated men.”
In Pure Trust and without malice, aforethought, ill will, vexation or frivolity,
So, in closing, I wish to thank you again and may God bless you in all your endeavours.
Freeman-on-the-Land and bond servant of, Yah’shua the Messiah.
Yours truly,
Jackie-Grant-Vel’oice: Harper
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 1, 2007
Jackie-Grant-Vel’oice: Harper
c/o 1040-B 20th. Street
West Saskatoon, Sask.
Clive Weighill
Chief of Police
for the city of Saskatoon
Dear Sir,
I wish to seek clarification on a few issues of concern to me.
I wish to uphold the law and follow the rule of law as I’m sure all of us need to.
Therefore,
Without assumption, I seek clarification as to; “how your peace officers, in your employ and under your command, intend to proceed, (not having observed me breach the peace) upon stopping me while exercising my common law right to travel in my private conveyance of the day to wit; my private unregistered, unlicensed automobile, held under a claim of right in the common law jurisdiction known only as, Canada.”
Before you consider any response, please be advised that I have lawfully revoked consent to being represented and thus governed at all four levels of government (city counsellor, mayor, MLA and M.P.)
Therefore, I also seek clarification as to: “who” do you claim as your principal that you claim to act under or your peace officers claim to act under, in upholding or enforcing statutes against a sovereign and Freeman-on-the-Land, a man with no lawful government?
Also, please take under consideration that, only in a common law jurisdiction can one lawfully, “outlaw the government” and as my former member of Parliament Carol Skelton stated in a letter sent to me from the House of Commons dated March 19, 2007, quote, “ I have noted your claim of rights and freedoms as a “Freeman-on-the-Land” as a “human being in a common law jurisdiction who lawfully revokes or denies consent to be represented and governed and exists completely free of all statutory restraints, obligations and restrictions.” Unquote.
I think you can dispatch with any assumption of counting on her and the federal government, as a claimed principal, also if you wish to consult with my ex-mayor Donald Atchison or city counsellor Pat Lorje and MLA Lorne Calvert you may also take note that they too, have no desire or wish to claim ownership of any Freeman as a corporate slave.
Now, in the future your armed agents may witness a certain, Freeman-on-the-Land, exercising his common law right to travel in his conveyance of the day to wit: “his private, unlicensed, unregistered automobile” identified only by the sign on the back, “Sovereign Ca.”
I wish to make something perfectly clear, so there is no confusion on the side of the road and that is simply this; “I am not questioning yours or any law enforcement officers authority or jurisdiction concerning, “persons”, “drivers”, “motor vehicles”, “applications” or “submit ions” for privileges such as “licensing”, “registration”, “permits”, the 60,000,000 statutes, rules or regulations in existence, as these only apply to the sheep on board the ship of fools under admiralty law who have agreed and need to be represented and thus governed.”
Therefore, upon providing identification as peace officers operating in a common law jurisdiction, whose duty it is, to recognize the difference between law and societies rules (statutes), whereas, their jurisdiction and authority may be questioned as to my being a member of the society they wish to enforce their rules (statutes) on.
Please be advised that “I” am not in possession of a driver’s license, motor vehicle registration, health card, fishing license, gun permit, license for my cat, license for my church, SIN card, bank account, lawful invoice from any crown corporation, library card, BAR card, bus pass, bike license, welfare check, license or permit for my occupation, GST #, PST # nor any other privilege that would tie or connect me to an equity position to the municipal, provincial or federal government, save for my birth certificate, a certified extract, which is evidence that the PROVINCE OF SASKATCHEWAN, failed to create the corporate person “JACKIE GRANT VELOICE HARPER” and/or “HARPER, Jackie G.”, as portrayed by the style of writing on the aforementioned document.
Your legal counsel, Greg Baines, has in his possession a photo copy of it and if anyone attempts, upon presentation and notification to not alter the style of writing on it and then enter it into the CPIC or on a ticket or any other unsolicited Bill of Exchange in an attempt to create joinder for theirs or anyone’s financial gain, then, is that not, a blatant act of fraud under the Personal Property Security Act? Or, should I just exercise my common law right and refuse to give them my name with no consideration, no payment and no guarantee to cause no harm to or devalue the name, (an intangible asset of immeasurable value-according to the PPSA), forthcoming from your officers?
Please clarify.
Furthermore,
Whereas it is my understanding that: “A workman is worthy of his hire”
(Exodus 20:15; Lev. 19:13; Matt. 10:10; Luke 10:7; II
Tim. 2:6. Legal maxim: "It is against equity for freemen not to have the free disposal of their own property."), and,
Whereas it is my understanding that: “All are equal under the Law”
(God's Law--Ethical and Natural Law). (Exodus 21:23-25; Lev. 24:17-21; Deut. 1:17, 19:21; Matt., 22:36-40; Luke 10:17; Col. 3:25.
Legal maxims: "No one is above the law."; "Commerce, by the law of nations, ought to be common, and not to be converted into a monopoly and the private gain of a few."),
and,
Whereas it is my understanding that: “In Commerce truth is sovereign”
(Exodus 20:16; Ps. 117:2; Matt. 6:33, John 8:32; II Cor. 13:8. Legal maxim: "To lie is to go against the mind." and,
Whereas it is my understanding that: “Truth is expressed by means of an affidavit” (Lev. 5:4-5; Lev. 6:3-5; Lev 19:11-13; Num. 30:2; Matt. 5:33; James 5:12),
and,
Whereas it is my understanding that: “An unrebutted affidavit stands as the truth in Commerce” (1 Pet. 1:25; Heb. 6:13-15. Legal maxim: "He who does not deny, admits."), and,
Whereas it is my understanding that: “An unrebutted affidavit becomes the judgment in Commerce” (Heb. 6:16-17. Any proceeding in a court, tribunal, or arbitration forum consists of a contest, or
"duel," of commercial affidavits wherein the points remaining unrebutted in the end stand as the truth and the matters to which the judgment of the law is applied.), and,
Whereas it is my understanding that: “A matter must be expressed to be resolved” (Heb. 4:16; Phil. 4:6; Eph. 6:19-21. Legal maxim: "He who fails to assert his rights has none."),
and,
Whereas it is my understanding that: “He who leaves the field of battle first loses by Default” (Book of Job; Matt. 10:22. Legal maxim: "He who does not repel a wrong when he can, occasions it."),
and,
Whereas it is my understanding that: “Sacrifice is the measure of credibility” (One who is not damaged, put at risk, or willing to swear an oath that he consents to claim against his commercial
liability in the event that any of his statements or actions is groundless or unlawful, has no basis to assert claims or charges and forfeits all credibility and right to claim authority.)
(Acts 7, life/death of Stephen, maxim: "He who bears the burden ought also to derive the benefit."),
and,
Whereas it is my understanding that: “A lien or claim can be satisfied only through rebuttal by Counter-affidavit point-for-point, resolution by jury, or payment” (Gen. 2-3; Matt. 4; Revelation. Legal
maxim: "If the plaintiff does not prove his case, the defendant is absolved."),
and,
Whereas it is my understanding that: The respondent(s) for the crown, being Carol Skelton P.C. M.P., Lorne Calvert Saskatchewan NDP MLA, Mayor for Saskatoon Donald Atchison and Pat Lorje City Counsellor for Ward 2 having been duly served by registered mail, a notarized sworn affidavit under notary protest by an officer of the court and forthwith failed to file a rebuttal, dispute or counter claim with the Notary and thereby dishonoured an officer of the court and therefore having left the field of battle first, lost by default. Whereas, failure to register a dispute against the claims made therein has resulted in an automatic default judgement and permanent irrevocable estoppel by acquiescence has been created barring the bringing of charges under any statute or Act against Freeman-on-the-Land:-Jackie-Grant-Vel’oice: Harper.
I respectfully await your clarification on this issue as to who, you or your agents under your command, lawfully claim as your principal in acting for or against a certain “Freeman-on-the-Land.”
In Pure Trust and without malice, aforethought, ill will, vexation or frivolity, Freeman-on-the-Land and bond servant of, Yah’shua the Messiah.
Yours truly,
p.s.
Please be advised that failure to respond in a timely fashion to this offer will result in a Notarized affidavit of “Notice of Demand seeking Clarification” being served upon your person.
cc:
-filed at the Court of Queen’s Bench Registrar
-Gordon L. Barnhart, Lieutenant Governor for Saskatchewan
-Pat Lorje, City Councillor, Ward 2
-Donald J. Atchison, Mayor for Saskatoon
-Lorne Calvert, Honourable Member of the Legislature Assembly for Saskatoon Riversdale
-Carol Skelton, Right Honourable Member of Parliament for Saskatoon-Biggar-Rosetown in The House of Commons
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affected Parties;
1) Pat Lorje, City Councillor, Ward 2
Councillors office
222 3rd Avenue North, Saskatoon, Sask. S7K 0J5
Fax 975-2784 Home 384 4783
2) Donald J. Atchison, Mayor for Saskatoon
Mayors Office
222 3rd Avenue North, Saskatoon, Sask. S7K 0J5
Fax 975-3144
3) Lorne Calvert, Honourable Member of the Legislature Assembly for Saskatoon Riversdale
940D, 22nd Street West, Saskatoon, Sask S7M 0S1
Fax 244-3602
4) Carol Skelton, Right Honourable Member of Parliament for Saskatoon-Biggar-Rosetown
940E, 22nd Street West, Saskatoon, Sask. S7M 0S1
Fax 975-5786
5) Gordon L. Barnhart, Lieutenant Governor for Saskatchewan
4607 Dewdney Ave., Regina, Sask.
Fax 1 306 787-7716
6) Office of the City Solicitor
222 – 3rd Avenue North, Saskatoon, Sask. S7K 0J5
Fax 975-7878
7) Saskatoon Police Service Administration
130 Fourth Avenue North, Saskatoon, Sask. S7K 0L3
Fax 975-8319
8) Greg Baines
Legal Services
650 – 410 – 22nd Street East, Saskatoon, Sk, S7K 5T6
Fax 975-2248
9) John Clark
Police Complaints Commission
1919 Saskatchewan Drive, Regina, Sask.
Fax 1 306 787-6528
Faxed Friday May 4, 2007
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
et al;
I thought you might find this interesting.
I found it to be most informative ... what a "game"!
Cheers,
=====================================
Hi,
Here's something so incredible and yet SO SIMPLE..it boggles the mind........ This is a bit of a read BUT WELL WORTH IT........ All to do with how you HAVE BEEN SIGNING your Income Tax form,,,,
not knowing the TRUTH
Thus, the trick employed by the government is to get you to claim that you are an officer of that government. Yeah, you're saying, "Man, I'd never be so foolish as to claim that." I'll betcha $100 I can prove that you did it and that you'll be forced to agree.
Did you ever sign a tax form, then you did it.
Look at the fine print at the bottom of the tax forms you once signed. You certified and declared that it was correct ("true") and that you agreed that it was a serious offence to make a false return
.....so....basically you were under an oath and you were "under penalties of perjury." Are you? Were you? Perjury is a felony.
To commit a perjury you have to FIRST be under oath (or affirmation). You know that. It's common knowledge. So, to be punished for a perjury you'd need to be under oath, right? Right.
There's no other way, unless you pretend to be under oath. To pretend to be under oath is a perjury automatically. There would be no oath. Hence it's a FALSE oath. Perjury rests on making a false oath. So, to claim to be "under penalties of perjury" is to claim that you're under oath. That claim could be true, could be false. But if false, and you knowingly and willingly made that false claim, then you committed a perjury just by making that claim.
=======================================================================
Understanding Jurisdiction
In all of history there has been but one successful protest against an income tax. It is little understood in that light, primarily because the remnants of protest groups still exist, but no longer wish to appear to be "anti-government." They don't talk much about these roots. Few even know them. We need to go back in time about 400 years to find this success. It succeeded only because the term "jurisdiction" was still well understood at that time as meaning "oath spoken." "Juris," in the original Latin meaning, is "oath." "Diction" as everyone knows, means "spoken." The protest obviously didn't happen here. It occurred in England. Given that the origins of our law are traced there, most of the relevant facts in this matter are still applicable in this nation. Here's what happened.
The Bible had just recently been put into print. To that time, only the churches and nobility owned copies, due to the extremely high cost of paper. Contrary to what you've been taught, it was not the invention of movable type that led to printing this and other books. That concept had been around for a very long time. It just had no application. Printing wastes some paper. Until paper prices fell, it was cheaper to write books by hand than to print them with movable type. The handwritten versions were
outrageously costly, procurable only by those with extreme wealth: churches, crowns and the nobility. The wealth of the nobility was attributable to feudalism. "Feud" is Old English for "oath." The nobility held the land under the crown. But unimproved land, itself, save to hunter/gatherers, is rather useless. Land is useful to farming. So that's how the nobility made their wealth. No, they didn't push a plow. They had servants to do it. The nobility wouldn't sell their land, nor would they lease it. They
rented it. Ever paid rent without a lease? Then you know that if the landlord raised the rent, you had no legal recourse. You could move out or pay. But what if you couldn't have moved out? Then you'd have a feel for what feudalism was all about.
A tenant wasn't a freeman. He was a servant to the (land)lord, the noble. In order to have access to the land to farm it, the noble required that the tenant kneel before him, hat in hand, swear an oath of fealty and allegiance and kiss his ring (extending that oath in that last act to the heirs of his estate).
That oath established a servitude. The tenant then put his plow to the fields. The rent was a variable. In good growing years it was very high, in bad years it fell. The tenant was a subsistence
farmer, keeping only enough of the produce of his labors to just sustain him and his family. Rent was actually an "income tax."
The nobleman could have demanded 100% of the productivity of his servant except ... under the common law, a servant was akin to livestock. He had to be fed. Not well fed, just fed, same as a
horse or cow. And, like a horse or cow, one usually finds it to his benefit to keep it fed, that so that the critter is productive. Thus, the tenant was allowed to keep some of his own productivity. Liken it to a "personal and dependent deductions."
The freemen of the realm, primarily the tradesmen, were unsworn and unallieged. They knew it. They taught their sons the trade so they'd also be free when grown. Occasionally they took on an apprentice under a sworn contract of indenture from his father. His parents made a few coins. But the kid was the biggest beneficiary.
He'd learn a trade. He'd never need to become a tenant farmer. He'd keep what he earned. He was only apprenticed for a term of years, most typically about seven. The tradesmen didn't need
adolescents; they needed someone strong enough to pull his own weight. They did not take on anyone under 13. By age 21 he'd have learned enough to practice the craft. That's when the
contract expired. He was then called a "journeyman." Had he made a journey? No.
But, if you pronounce that word, it is "Jur-nee-man." He was a "man," formerly ("nee"), bound by oath ("jur)." He'd then go to work for a "master" (craftsman). The pay was established, but he
could ask for more if he felt he was worth more. And he was free to quit. Pretty normal, eh? Yes, in this society that's quite the norm. But 400 some years ago these men were the exceptions, not the rule. At some point, if the journeyman was good at the trade, he'd be recognized by the market as a "master" (craftsman) and people would be begging him to take their children as apprentices, so they might learn from him, become journeymen, and keep what they earned when manumitted at age 21! The oath of the tenant ran for life. The oath of the apprentice's father ran only for a term of
years. Still, oaths were important on both sides. In fact, the tradesmen at one point established guilds (means "gold") as a protection against the potential of the government attempting to bind them into servitudes by compelled oaths.
When an apprentice became a journeyman, he was allowed a membership in the guild only by swearing a secret oath to the guild. He literally swore to "serve gold." Only gold. He swore he'd only
work for pay! Once so sworn, any other oath of servitude would be a perjury of that oath. He bound himself for life to never be a servant, save to the very benevolent master: gold! (Incidentally, the Order of Free and Accepted Masons is a remnant of one of these guilds. Their oath is a secret. They'd love to have you think that the "G" in the middle of their logo stands for "God." The obvious truth is that it stands for "GOLD.")
Then the Bible came to print. The market for this tome wasn't the wealthy. They already had a handwritten copy. Nor was it the tenants. They were far too poor to make this purchase. The market
was the tradesmen - and the book was still so costly that it took the combined life savings of siblings to buy a family Bible. The other reason that the tradesmen were the market was that they'd also been taught how to read as part of their apprenticeship. As contractors they had to know how to do that! Other than the families of the super-rich (and the priests) nobody else knew how to read.
These men were blown away when they read Jesus' command against swearing oaths (Matt 5: 33-37). This was news to them. For well over a millennia they'd been trusting that the church - originally
just the Church of Rome, but now also the Church of England - had been telling them everything they needed to know in that book. Then they found out that Jesus said, "Swear no oaths." Talk about
an eye-opener.
Imagine seeing a conspiracy revealed that went back over 1000 years. Without oaths there'd have been no tenants, laboring for the nobility, and receiving mere subsistence in return. The whole
society was premised on oaths; the whole society CLAIMED it was Christian, yet, it violated a very simple command of Christ! And the tradesmen had done it, too, by demanding sworn contracts of
indenture for apprentices and giving their own oaths to the guilds. They had no way of knowing that was prohibited by Jesus! They were angry. "Livid" might be a better term. The governments had seen
this coming. What could they do? Ban the book? The printing would have simply moved underground and the millennia long conspiracy would be further evidenced in that banning. They came up with a better scheme. You call it the "Reformation."
In an unprecedented display of unanimity, the governments of Europe adopted a treaty. This treaty would allow anyone the State-right of founding a church. It was considered a State right, there and
then. The church would be granted a charter. It only had to do one very simple thing to obtain that charter. It had to assent to the terms of the treaty.
Buried in those provisions, most of which were totally innocuous, was a statement that the church would never oppose the swearing of lawful oaths. Jesus said, "None." The churches all said (and still
say), "None, except . . ." Who do you think was (is) right?
The tradesmen got even angrier! They had already left the Church of England. But with every new "reformed" church still opposing the clear words of Christ, there was no church for them to join -
or found. They exercised the right of assembly to discuss the Bible. Some of them preached it on the street corners, using their right of freedom of speech. But they couldn't establish a church, which followed Jesus' words, for that would have required assent to that treaty which opposed what Jesus had commanded. To show their absolute displeasure with those who'd kept this secret for so long,
they refused to give anyone in church or state any respect. It was the custom to doff one's hat when he encountered a priest or official. They started wearing big, ugly black hats, just so that the most myopic of these claimed "superiors" wouldn't miss the fact that the hat stayed atop their head. Back then the term "you" was formal English, reserved for use when speaking to a superior.
"Thee" was the familiar pronoun, used among family and friends. So they called these officials only by the familiar pronoun "thee" or by their Christian names, "George, Peter, Robert, etc." We call these folk "Quakers." That was a nickname given to them by a judge. One of them had told the judge that he'd better "Quake before the Lord, God almighty." The judge, in a display of irreverent disrespect replied, "Thee are the quaker here." They found that pretty funny, it being such a total misnomer (as you shall soon see), and the nickname stuck. With the huge membership losses from the Anglican Church - especially from men who'd been the more charitable to it in the past - the church was technically bankrupt. It wasn't just the losses from the Quakers. Other people were leaving to join the new "Reformed Churches." Elsewhere in Europe, the Roman Church had amassed sufficient assets to weather this storm. The far newer Anglican Church had not.
But the Anglican Church, as an agency of the State, can't go bankrupt. It becomes the duty of the State to support it in hard times. Parliament did so. It enacted a tax to that end. A nice religious tax, and by current standards a very low tax, a tithe (10%). But it made a deadly mistake in that. The Quakers, primarily as tradesmen, recognized this income tax as a tax "without jurisdiction," at least so far as they went. As men unsworn and unallieged, they pointed out that they didn't have to pay it, nor provide a return. Absent their oaths establishing this servitude, there was "no jurisdiction." And they were right. Despite laws making it a crime to willfully refuse to make a return and pay this tax, NONE were charged or arrested.
That caused the rest of the society to take notice. Other folk who'd thought the Quakers were
"extremists" suddenly began to listen to them. As always, money talks. These guys were keeping all they earned, while the rest of the un-sworn society, thinking this tax applied to them, well; they were out 10%. The Quaker movement expanded significantly, that proof once made in the marketplace.
Membership in the Anglican Church fell even further, as did charity to it. The taxes weren't enough to offset these further losses. The tithe (income) tax was actually counterproductive to the goal of supporting the church. The members of the government and the churchmen were scared silly. If this movement continued to expand at the current rate, no one in the next generation would swear an
oath. Who'd then farm the lands of the nobility? Oh, surely someone would, but not as a servant working for subsistence. The land would need to be leased under a contract, with the payment for
that use established in the market, not on the unilateral whim of the nobleman. The wealth of the nobility, their incomes, was about to be greatly diminished. And the Church of England, what assets
it possessed, would need to be sold-off, with what remained of that church greatly reduced in power and wealth. But far worse was the diminishment of the respect demanded by the priests and officials.
They'd always held a position of superiority in the society. What would they do when all of society treated them only as equals?
They began to use the term "anarchy." But England was a monarchy, not an anarchy. And that was the ultimate solution to the problem, or so those in government thought. There's an aspect of a monarchy that Americans find somewhat incomprehensible, or at least we did two centuries ago. A crown has divine right, or at least it so claims. An expression of the divine right of a crown is the power to rule by demand. A crown can issue commands. The king says,"jump." Everyone jumps.
Why do they jump? Simple. It's a crime to NOT jump. To "willfully fail (hey, there's a couple of familiar terms) to obey a crown command" is considered to be a treason, high treason. The British crown issued a Crown Command to end the tax objection movement.
Did the crown order that everyone shall pay the income tax? No, that wasn't possible. There really was "no jurisdiction." And that would have done nothing to cure the lack of respect. The crown went one better. It ordered that every man shall swear an oath of allegiance to the crown! Damned Christian thing to do, eh?
Literally! A small handful of the tax objectors obeyed. Most refused. It was a simple matter of black and white. Jesus said "swear not at all." They opted to obey Him over the crown. That quickly brought them into court, facing the charge of high treason. An official would take the witness stand, swearing that he had no record of the defendant's oath of allegiance. Then the defendant was called to testify, there being no right to refuse to witness against one's self. He refused to accept the administered oath. That refusal on the record, the court instantly judged him guilty. Took all of 10
minutes. That expedience was essential, for there were another couple hundred defendants waiting to be tried that day for their own treasons against the crown. In short order the jails reached their capacity, plus. But they weren't filled as you'd envision them. The men who'd refused the oaths weren't there. Their children were. There was a "Stand-in" law allowing for that. There was no social welfare system. The wife and children of a married man in prison existed on the charity of church and
neighbors, or they ceased to exist, starving to death. It was typical for a man convicted of a petty crime to have one of his kid's stand in for him for 30 or 90 days. That way he could continue to earn a living, keeping bread on the table, without the family having to rely on charity. However, a man convicted of more heinous crimes would usually find it impossible to convince his wife to allow his children to serve his time. The family would prefer to exist on charity rather than see him back in society.
But in this case the family had no option. The family was churchless. The neighbors were all in the same situation. Charity was non-existent for them. The family was destined to quick starvation unless one of the children stood-in for the breadwinner. Unfortunately, the rational choice of which child should serve the time was predicated on which child was the least productive to the family earnings.
That meant nearly the youngest, usually a daughter. Thus, the prisons of England filled with adolescent females, serving the life sentences for their dads. Those lives would be short. There was
no heat in the jails. They were rife with tuberculosis and other deadly diseases. A strong man might last several years. A small girl measured her remaining time on earth in months. It was Christian holocaust, a true sacrifice of the unblemished lambs. (And, we must note, completely ignored in virtually every history text covering this era, lest the crown, government and church be duly embarrassed.) Despite the high mortality rate the jails still overflowed.
There was little fear that the daughters would be raped or die at the brutality of other prisoners. The other prisoners, the real felons, had all been released to make room. Early release was premised on the severity of the crime. High treason was the highest crime. The murderers, thieves, arsonists, rapists, etc., had all been set free. That had a very profound effect on commerce. It stopped. There were highwaymen afoot on
every road. Thugs and muggers ruled the city streets. The sworn subjects of the crown sat behind bolted doors, in cold, dark homes, wondering how they'd exist when the food and water ran out. They
finally dared to venture out to attend meetings to address the situation. At those meetings they discussed methods to overthrow the crown to which they were sworn!
Call that perjury. Call that sedition. Call it by any name, they were going to put their words into actions, and soon, or die from starvation or the blade of a thug. Here we should note that chaos (and nearly anarchy: "no crown") came to be, not as the result of the refusal to swear oaths, but as the direct result of the governmental demand that people swear them! The followers of Jesus' words didn't bring that chaos, those who ignored that command of Christ brought it. The crown soon saw the revolutionary handwriting on the wall and ordered the release of the children and the recapture of the real felons, before the government was removed from office under force of arms. The courts came up with the odd concept of an "affirmation in lieu of oath." Sound familiar? The Quakers accepted that as a victory.
Given what they'd been through, that was understandable. However, Jesus also prohibited affirmations, calling the practice an oath "by thy head." Funny that He could foresee the legal concept of an affirmation 1600 years before it came to be. Quite a prophecy!
When the colonies opened to migration, the Quakers fled Europe in droves, trying to put as much distance as they could between themselves and crowns. They had a very rational fear of a repeat
of the situation. That put a lot of them here, enough that they had a very strong influence on politics. They could have blocked the ratification of the Constitution had they opposed it. Some of their demands were incorporated into it, as were some of their concessions, in balance to those demands.
Their most obvious influence found in the Constitution is the definition of treason, the only crime defined in that document. Treason here is half of what can be committed under a crown. In the United States treason may only arise out of an (overt) ACTION. A refusal to perform an action at the command of the government is not a treason, hence, NOT A CRIME. You can find that restated in the Bill of Rights, where the territorial jurisdiction of the courts to try a criminal act is limited to the place wherein the crime shall have been COMMITTED. A refusal or failure is not an act "committed" - it's the opposite, an act "omitted." In this nation "doing nothing" can't be criminal, even when someone claims the power to command you do something. That concept in place, the new government would
have lasted about three years. You see, if it were not a crime to fail to do something, then the officers of that government would have done NOTHING - save to draw their pay. That truth forced the
Quakers to a concession.
Anyone holding a government job would need be sworn (or affirmed) to support the Constitution. That Constitution enabled the Congress to enact laws necessary and proper to control the powers
vested in these people. Those laws would establish their duties.
Should such an official "fail" to perform his lawful duties, he'd evidence in that omission that his oath was false. To swear a false oath is an ACTION. Thus, the punishments for failures would exist under the concept of perjury, not treason. But that was only regarding persons under oath of office, who were in office only by their oaths. And that's still the situation. It's just that the government has very cleverly obscured that fact so that the average man will pay it a rent, a tax on income. As you probably know, the first use of income tax here came well in advance of the 16th amendment. That tax was NEARLY abolished by a late 19th century Supreme Court decision. The problem was that the tax wasn't apportioned, and couldn't be apportioned, that because of the fact that it rested on the income of each person earning it, rather than an up-front total, divided and meted out to the several States according to the census. But the income tax wasn't absolutely abolished. The court listed a solitary exception. The incomes of federal officers, derived as a benefit of office, could be so taxed. You could call that a "kick back" or even a "return." Essentially, the court said that what Congress gives, it can demand back. As that wouldn't be income derived within a State, the rule of apportionment didn't apply. Make sense?
Now, no court can just make up rulings. The function of a court is to answer the questions posed to it. And in order to pose a question, a person needs "standing." The petitioner has to show that an action has occurred which affects him, hence, giving him that standing. For the Supreme Court to address the question of the income of officers demonstrates that the petitioner was such. Otherwise, the question couldn't have come up.
Congress was taxing his benefits of office. But Congress was ALSO taxing his outside income, that from sources within a State. Could have been interest, dividends, rent, royalties, and even alimony.
If he had a side job, it might have even been commissions or salary. Those forms of income could not be taxed. However, Congress could tax his income from the benefits he derived by being an officer.
That Court decision was the end of all income taxation. The reason is pretty obvious. Rather than tax the benefits derived out of office, it's far easier to just reduce the benefits up front! Saves time. Saves paper. The money stays in Treasury rather than going out, then coming back as much as 15 or 16 months later.
So, even though the benefits of office could have been taxed, under that Court ruling, that tax was dropped by Congress. There are two ways to overcome a Supreme Court ruling. The first is to have the court reverse itself. That's a very strange concept at law. Actually, it's impossibility at law. The only way a court can change a prior ruling is if the statutes or the Constitution change, that changing the premises on which its prior conclusion at law was derived. Because it was a Supreme Court ruling [that] nearly abolishing the income tax, the second method, an Amendment to the Constitution, was used to overcome the prior decision. That was the 16th Amendment.
The 16th [Amendment] allows for Congress to tax incomes from whatever source derived, without regard to apportionment. Whose incomes? Hey, it doesn't say (nor do the statues enacted under
it). The Supreme Court has stated that this Amendment granted Congress "no new powers." That's absolutely true. Congress always had the power to tax incomes, but only the incomes of officers and
only their incomes derived out of a benefit of office. All the 16th did was extend that EXISTING POWER to tax officers' incomes (as benefits of office) to their incomes from other sources (from
whatever source derived). The 16th Amendment and the statutes enacted thereunder don't have to say whose incomes are subject to this tax. The Supreme Court had already said that: officers.
That's logical. If it could be a crime for a freeman to "willfully fail" to file or pay this tax, that crime could only exist as a treason by monarchical definition. In this nation a crime of failure may only exist under the broad category of a perjury.
Period, no exception.
Thus, the trick employed by the government is to get you to claim that you are an officer of that government. Yeah, you're saying, "Man, I'd never be so foolish as to claim that." I'll betcha $100
I can prove that you did it and that you'll be forced to agree. Did you ever sign a tax form, a W-4, a 1040? Then you did it.
Look at the fine print at the bottom of the tax forms you once signed. You declared that it was "true" that you were "under penalties of perjury." Are you? Were you? Perjury is a felony. To commit a perjury you have to FIRST be under oath (or affirmation). You know that. It's common knowledge. So, to be punished for a perjury you'd need to be under oath, right? Right. There's no other way, unless you pretend to be under oath. To pretend to be under oath is a perjury automatically. There would be no oath. Hence it's a FALSE oath. Perjury rests on making a false oath. So, to claim to be "under penalties of perjury" is to claim that you're under oath. That claim could be true, could be
false. But if false, and you knowingly and willingly made that false claim, then you committed a perjury just by making that claim.
You've read the Constitution. How many times can you be tried and penalized for a single criminal act? Once? Did I hear you right? Did you say once; only once? Good for you. You know that you
can't even be placed in jeopardy of penalty (trial) a second time.
The term "penalties" is plural. More than one. Oops. Didn't you just state that you could only be tried once, penalized once, for a single criminal action? Sure you did. And that would almost always be true. There's a solitary exception. A federal official or employee may be twice tried, twice penalized. The second penalty, resulting out of a conviction of impeachment, is the loss of the benefits of office, for life. Federal officials are under oath, an oath of office. That's why you call them civil servants.
That oath establishes jurisdiction (oath spoken), allowing them to be penalized, twice, for a perjury (especially for a perjury of official oath). You have been tricked into signing tax forms under the perjury clause. You aren't under oath enabling the commission of perjury. You can't be twice penalized for a single criminal act, even for a perjury. Still, because you trusted that the government wouldn't try to deceive you, you signed an income tax form, pretending that there was jurisdiction (oath spoken) where there was none.
Once you sign the first form, the government will forever believe that you are a civil servant. Stop signing those forms while you continue to have income and you'll be charged with "willful failure to file," a crime of doing nothing when commanded to do something!
Initially, the income tax forms were required to be SWORN (or affirmed) before a notary. A criminal by the name of Sullivan brought that matter all the way to the Supreme Court. He argued that if he listed his income from criminal activities, that information would later be used against him on a criminal charge.
If he didn't list it, then swore that the form was "true, correct and complete," he could be charged and convicted of a perjury. He was damned if he did, damned if he didn't. The Supreme Court could only agree. It ruled that a person could refuse to provide any information on that form, taking individual exception to each line, and stating in that space that he refused to provide testimony against himself. That should have been the end of the income tax. In a few years everyone would have been refusing to provide answers on the "gross" and "net income" lines, forcing NO answer on the "tax due" line, as well. Of course, that decision was premised on the use of the notarized oath, causing the answers to have the quality of "testimony."
Congress then INSTANTLY ordered the forms be changed. In place of the notarized oath, the forms would contain a statement that they were made and signed "Under penalties of perjury." The prior ruling of the Supreme Court was made obsolete. Congress had changed the premise on which it had reached its conclusion. The verity of the information on the form no longer rested on a notarized oath. It rested on the taxpayer's oath of office. And, as many a tax protestor in the 1970s and early 1980s quickly discovered, the Supreme Court ruling for Sullivan had no current relevance.
There has never been a criminal trial in any matter under federal income taxation without a SIGNED tax form in evidence before the court. The court takes notice of the signature below the perjury clause and assumes the standing of the defendant is that of a federal official, a person under oath of office who may be twice penalized for a single criminal act of perjury (to his official oath). The court has jurisdiction to try such a person for a "failure." That jurisdiction arises under the concept of perjury, not treason.
However, the court is in an odd position here. If the defendant should take the witness stand, under oath or affirmation to tell the truth, and then truthfully state that he is not under oath of office and is not a federal officer or employee, that statement would contradict the signed statement on the tax form, already in evidence and made under claim of oath. That contradiction would give rise to a technical perjury. Under federal statutes, courtroom perjury is committed when a person willfully makes two statements, both under oath, which contradict one another.
The perjury clause claims the witness to be a federal person. If he truthfully says the contrary from the witness stand, the judge is then duty bound to charge him with the commission of a perjury!
At his ensuing perjury trial, the two contradictory statements "(I'm) under penalties of perjury" and "I'm not a federal official or employee" would be the sole evidence of the commission of the
perjury. As federal employment is a matter of public record, the truth of the last statement would be evidenced. That would prove that the perjury clause was a FALSE statement. Can't have that proof on the record, can we? About now you are thinking of some tax protester trials for "willful failure" where the defendant took the witness stand and testified, in full truth, that he was not a federal person. This writer has studied a few such cases. Those of Irwin Schiff and F. Tupper Saussy come to mind. And you are right; they told the court that they weren't federal persons.
Unfortunately, they didn't tell the court that while under oath. A most curious phenomenon occurs at "willful failure" trials where the defendant has published the fact, in books or newsletters, that he isn't a federal person. The judge becomes very absent-minded - at least that's surely what he'd try to claim if the issue were ever raised. He forgets to swear-in the defendant before he takes the witness stand. The defendant tells the truth from the witness stand, but does so without an oath. As he's not under oath, nothing he says can constitute a technical perjury as a contradiction to the "perjury clause" on the tax forms already in evidence.
The court will almost always judge him guilty for his failure to file. Clever system. And it all begins when a person who is NOT a federal officer or employee signs his first income tax form, FALSELY claiming that he's under an oath which if perjured may bring him a duality of penalties. It's still a matter of jurisdiction (oath spoken). That hasn't changed in over 400 years. The only difference is that in this nation, we have no monarch able to command us to action. In the United States of America, you have to VOLUNTEER to establish jurisdiction. Once you do, then you are subject to commands regarding the duties of your office. Hence the income tax is "voluntary," in the beginning, but "compulsory" once you volunteer.
You volunteer when you sign your very first income tax form, probably a Form W-4 and probably at about age 15. You voluntarily sign a false statement, a false statement that claims that you are
subject to jurisdiction. Gotcha! Oh, and when the prosecutor enters your prior signed income tax forms into evidence at a willful failure to file trial, he will always tell the court that those forms evidence that you knew it was your DUTY to make and file proper returns. DUTY! A free man owes no DUTY. A free man owes nothing to the federal government, as he receives nothing from it. But a federal official owes a duty. He receives something from that government - the benefits of office. In addition to a return of some of those benefits, Congress can also demand that he pay a tax on his other forms of income, now under the 16th Amendment, from whatever source they may be derived. If that were ever to be understood, the ranks of real, sworn federal officers would diminish greatly. And the ranks of the pretended federal officers (including you) would vanish to zero.
It's still the same system as it was 400 years ago, with appropriate modifications, so you don't immediately realize it. Yes, it's a jurisdictional matter. An Oath-spoken matter. Quite likely you, as a student of the Constitution, have puzzled over the 14th Amendment. You've wondered who are persons "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and in the alternative, who are not. This is easily explained, again in the proper historical perspective.
The claimed purpose of the 14th was to vest civil rights to the former slaves. A method was needed to convert them from chattel to full civil beings. The Supreme Court had issued rulings that precluded that from occurring. Hence, an Amendment was necessary. But it took a little more than the amendment. The former slaves would need to perform an act, subjecting themselves to the
"jurisdiction" of the United States. You should now realize that an oath is the way that was/is accomplished.
After the battles of the rebellion had ceased, the manumitted slaves were free, but rightless. They held no electoral franchise - they couldn't vote. The governments of the Southern States were pretty peeved over what had occurred in the prior several years, and they weren't about to extend electoral franchises to the former slaves. The Federal government found a way to force that.
It ordered that voters had to be "registered." And it ordered that to become a registered voter, one had to SWEAR an oath of allegiance to the Constitution. The white folks, by and large, weren't about to do that. They were also peeved that the excuse for all the battles was an unwritten, alleged, Constitutional premise, that a "State had no right to secede." The former slaves had no problem swearing allegiance to the Constitution. The vast majority of them didn't have the slightest idea of what an oath was, nor did they even know what the Constitution was!
Great voter registration drives took place. In an odd historical twist, these were largely sponsored by the Quakers who volunteered their assistance. Thus, most of the oaths administered were administered by Quakers! Every former slave was sworn-in, taking what actually was an OATH OF OFFICE. The electoral franchise then existed almost exclusively among the former slaves, with the white folks in the South unanimously refusing that oath and denied their right to vote. For a while many of the Southern State governments were comprised of no one other than the former slaves.
The former slaves became de jure (by oath) federal officials, "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" by that oath. They were non-compensated officials, receiving no benefits of their office,
save what was then extended under the 14th Amendment. There was some brief talk of providing compensation in the form of 40 acres and a mule, but that quickly faded.
Jurisdiction over a person exists only by oath. Always has, always will.
For a court to have jurisdiction, some one has to bring a charge or petition under an oath. In a criminal matter, the charge is forwarded under the oaths of the grand jurors (indictment) or under the oath of office of a federal officer (information). Even before a warrant may be issued, someone has to swear there is probable cause. Should it later be discovered that there was NOT probable cause, that person should be charged with a perjury. It's all about oaths. And the one crime for which immunity, even "sovereign immunity," cannot be extended is ... perjury.
You must understand "jurisdiction." That term is only understandable when one understands the history behind it. Know what "jurisdiction" means.
You didn't WILLFULLY claim that you were "Under penalties of perjury" on those tax forms you signed. You may have done it voluntarily, but you surely did it ignorantly! You didn't realize the import and implications of that clause. It was, quite frankly, a MISTAKE. A big one. A dumb one. Still it was only a mistake. Willfulness rests on intent. You had no intent to claim that you were under an oath of office, a perjury of which could bring you dual penalties. You just didn't give those words any thought.
What do you do when you discover you've made a mistake? As an honest man, you tell those who may have been affected by your error, apologize to them, and usually you promise to be more
careful in the future, that as a demonstration that you, like all of us, learn by your mistakes. You really ought to drop the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States a short letter, cc it to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Explain that you never realized that the fine print on the bottom of all income tax forms meant that you were claiming to be "under oath" a perjury of which might be "twice" penalized. Explain that you've never sworn such an oath and that for reasons of conscience, you never will. You made this mistake on every tax form you'd ever signed. But now that you understand the words, you'll most certainly not make that mistake again! That'll be the end of any possibility that you'll ever be charged with "willful failure to file." Too simple? No, it's only as simple as it's supposed to be.
Jurisdiction (oath spoken) is a pretty simple matter. Either you are subject to jurisdiction, by having really sworn an oath, or you are not. If you aren't under oath, and abolish all the pretenses, false pretenses you provided, on which the government assumed that you were under oath, then the jurisdiction fails and you become a freeman. A freeman can't be compelled to perform any act and
threatened with a penalty, certainly not two penalties, should he fail to do so. That would constitute a treason charge by the part of the definition abolished here.
It's a matter of history. European history, American history, and finally, the history of your life. The first two may be hidden from you, making parts of them difficult to discover. But the last history you know. If you know that you've never sworn an oath of office, and now understand how that truth fits the other histories, then you are free. Truth does that. Funny how that works.
Jesus was that Truth. His command that His followers "Swear not at all." That was the method by which He set men free. Israel was a feudal society. It had a crown; it had landlords; they had tenant
farmers bound by oath to them. Jesus scared them silly. Who'd farm those lands in the next generation, when all of the people refused to swear oaths? Ring a bell? And what did the government do to Jesus? It tried to obtain jurisdiction on the false oath of a witness, charging Him with "sedition" for the out-of-context, allegorical statement that He'd "tear down the temple" (a
government building). At that trial, Jesus stood mute, refusing the administered oath. That was unheard of!
The judge became so frustrated that he posed a trick question attempting to obtain jurisdiction from Jesus. He said, "I adjure you in the name of the Living God, are you the man (accused of sedition)." An adjuration is a "compelled oath." Jesus then broke his silence, responding, "You have so said."
He didn't "take" the adjured oath. He left it with its speaker, the judge! That bound the judge to truth. Had the judge also falsely said that Jesus was the man (guilty of sedition)? No, not out loud, not yet. But in his heart he'd said so. That's what this trial was all about. Jesus tossed that falsehood back where it belonged as well as the oath. In those few words, "You have so said," Jesus put the oath, and the PERJURY of it, back on the judge, where it belonged. The court couldn't get jurisdiction.
Israel was occupied by Rome at that time. The court then shipped Jesus off to the martial governor, Pontius Pilate, hoping that martial power might compel him to submit to jurisdiction. But Pilate had no quarrel with Jesus. He correctly saw the charge as a political matter, devoid of any real criminal act. Likely, Pilate offered Jesus the "protection of Rome." Roman law extended only to sworn subjects. All Jesus would need do is swear an oath to Caesar, then Pilate could protect him. Otherwise, Jesus was
probably going to turn up dead at the hands of "person or persons unknown" which would really be at the hands of the civil government, under the false charge of sedition.
Pilate administered that oath to Caesar. Jesus stood mute, again refusing jurisdiction.
Pilate "marveled at that." He'd never before met a man who preferred to live free or die. Under Roman law the unsworn were considered to be unclean - the "great unwashed masses." The elite were sworn to Caesar. When an official errantly extended the law to an unsworn person that "failure of jurisdiction" required that the official perform a symbolic act. To cleanse himself and the law, he would "wash his hands." Pilate did so. Under Roman law, the law to which he was sworn, he had to do so. The law, neither Roman law nor the law of Israel, could obtain jurisdiction over Jesus. The law couldn't kill Him, nor could it prevent that murder. Jesus was turned over to a mob, demanding His death.
How's that for chaos? Jesus was put to death because He refused to be sworn. But the law couldn't do that. Only a mob could do so, setting free a true felon in the process. Thus, Jesus proved the one failing of the law - at least the law then and there - the law has no ability to touch a truly free man. A mob can, but the result of that is chaos, not order.
In every situation where a government attempts to compel an oath, or fails to protect a man of conscience who refuses it, the result is chaos. That government proves itself incapable of any claimed
powers as the result, for the only purpose of any government should be to defend the people establishing it - all of those people - and not because they owe that government any duty or allegiance, but for the opposite reason, because the government owes the people its duty and allegiance under the law. This nation came close to that concept for quite a few decades. Then those in federal office realized that they could fool all of the people, some of the time. That "some of the time" regarded oaths and jurisdiction. We were (and still are) a Christian nation, at least the vast majority of us claim ourselves to be Christian. But we are led by churchmen who still uphold the terms of that European treaty. They still profess that it is Christian to swear an oath, so long as it's a
"lawful oath." We are deceived. As deceived as the tenant in 1300, but more so, for we now have the Words of Jesus to read for ourselves.
Jesus said, "Swear no oaths," extending that even to oaths which don't name God. If His followers obeyed that command, the unscrupulous members of the society in that day would have quickly
realized that they could file false lawsuits against Jesus' followers, suits that they couldn't answer (under oath). Thus, Jesus issued a secondary command, ordering His followers to sell all they had, making themselves what today we call "judgement proof." They owned only their shirt and a coat. If they were sued for their shirt, they were to offer to settle out-of-court (without oath) by giving the plaintiff their coat. That wasn't a metaphor. Jesus meant those words in the literal sense!
It's rather interesting that most income tax protestors are Christian and have already made themselves virtually judgement proof, perhaps inadvertently obeying one of Jesus' commands out of
a self-preservation instinct. Do we sense something here? You need to take the final step. You must swear no oaths. That is the penultimate step in self-preservation, and in obedience to the commands of Christ. It's all a matter of "jurisdiction" (oath spoken), which a Christian can't abide. Christians must be freemen. Their faith, duty and allegiance can go to no one on earth. We can't serve two masters. No one can. As Christians our faith and allegiance rests not on an oath. Our faith and
allegiance arise naturally. These are duties owed by a child to his father. As Children of God, we must be faithful to Him, our Father, and to our eldest Brother, the Inheritor of the estate.
That's certain.
As to what sort of a society Jesus intended without oaths or even affirmations, this writer honestly can't envision. Certainly it would have been anarchy (no crown). Would it have also been chaos?
My initial instinct is to find that it would lead to chaos. Like the Quakers in 1786, I can't envision a functional government without the use of oaths. Yet, every time a government attempts to use oaths as a device to compel servitudes, the result is CHAOS.
History proves that. The Dark Ages were dark, only because the society was feudal, failing to advance to enlightenment because they were sworn into servitudes, unwittingly violating Jesus'
command. When the British crown attempted to compel oaths of allegiance, chaos certainly resulted. And Jesus' own death occurred only out of the chaos derived by His refusal to swear a compelled oath and an offered oath.
The current Internal Revenue Code is about as close to legislated chaos as could ever be envisioned. No two people beginning with identical premises will reach the same conclusion under the IRC. Is not that chaos? Thus, in every instance where the government attempts to use oaths to bind a people, the result has been chaos.
Hence, this writer is forced to the conclusion that Jesus was right. We ought to avoid oaths at all costs, save our own souls, and for precisely that reason. Yet, what system of societal interaction Jesus envisioned, without oaths, escapes me. How would we deal with murderers, thieves, rapists, etc. present in the society without someone bringing a complaint, sworn complaint, before a Jury (a panel of sworn men), to punish them for these criminal actions against the civil members of that society?
Perhaps you, the reader, can envision what Jesus had in mind. Even if you can't, you still have to obey His command. That will set you free. As to where we go from there, well, given that there has never been a society, neither civil nor martial, which functioned without oaths, I guess we won't see how it will function until it arrives.
Meanwhile, the first step in the process is abolishing your prior FALSE claims of being under oath (of office) on those income tax forms. You claimed "jurisdiction." Only you can reverse that by stating the Truth. It worked 400 years ago. It'll still work.
It's the only thing that'll work. History can repeat, but this time without the penalty of treason extended to you (or your daughters). You can cause it. Know and tell this Truth and it will set you free. HONESTLY. Tell the government, then explain it to every Christian you know. Most of them will hate you for that bit of honesty. Be kind to them anyhow. Once they see that you are keeping what you earn, the market will force them to realize that you aren't the extremist they originally thought! If only 2% of the American or Canadian people understand what is written here, income taxation will be abolished - that out of a fear that the knowledge will expand. The government will be scared silly.
What if no one in the next generation would swear an oath? Then there'd be no servants! No, the income tax will be abolished long before that could ever happen. That's only money. Power comes by having an ignorant people to rule. A government will always opt for power.
That way, in two or three generations, the knowledge lost to the obscure "between the lines" of history, they can run the same money game. Pass this essay on to your Christian friends. But save a
copy. Will it to your grandchildren. Someday, they too will probably need this knowledge. Teach your children well. Be honest; tell the truth. That will set you free - and it'll scare the government silly.
- anonymous.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commercial Maxims
For many people it might come as a surprise (in many cases a pleasant one) if they were informed that
essentially all of the law of the world is founded on, derived from, and is a function of ten simple,
essential, and fundamental Commercial Maxims seven (7) basic ones plus three (3) corollaries. These
foundational principles/axioms underlie all of man's law. Notwithstanding the vastness and complexity of the law today, it is safe to say that all of the world's law is fundamentally a function of the ten
Commercial Maxims. Although the dazzling complexity and ever-changing forms, parameters, and
labels obfuscate this fact, the essence of the matter remains intact.
The Commercial Maxims constitute the basic rules involved in preventing and resolving disputes,
94 including relating in life and commercial affairs as if disputes might arise and written proof of one's
position, in time and content, must be securely established. Although commerce is usually thought of
as "buying, selling, and trading," all of man's interactions with his fellow man are considered as
being "commerce." Commerce encompasses all relationships between people.
Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, for instance, defines "commerce" as follows:
Commerce. "The exchange of goods, productions, or property of any kind; the buying, selling, and
exchanging of articles…. Intercourse by way of trade and traffic between different peoples or states…including not only the purchase, sale, and exchange of commodities, but also the instrumentalities and agencies by which it is promoted and the means and appliances by which it is carried on, and transportation of persons as well as of goods, both by land and sea…. Also interchange of ideas, sentiments, etc., as between man and man."
Page 244.
The Commercial Maxims codify the fundamental principles/maxims of law and commerce upon which man's law and governments have operated on this planet for at least the past 4-6 thousand years. They constitute, as it were, the rules of the game. Part of the grief of mankind today is that the vast, overwhelming percentage of the populace does not know the basic rules of the game they are playing and are hence incapable of playing it. If one who does not know the rules of a game is playing that
game with others who are masters of the rules, the outcome is a foregone conclusion: the one who
knows the rules wins the game while the one who does not know the rules necessarily loses. Such is the state of the world.
Elucidating the underlying, fundamental rules so that one understands what is going on helps greatly in "leveling the playing field." These rules, therefore, are set forth below with the understanding
that they operate within the context and setting of the universal Underlying Principles. The Commercial
Maxims are the most basic, enduring, and minimalist codification of universal, real law extant on earth.
They are very simple, largely self-evident, and based on common sense. The Jews, for instance, have
studied, analyzed, practiced, and refined Commercial Law, founded on these Maxims, for thousands of
years. This continuous, relentless, single-minded absorption in the law over millennia has "worked the
bugs out." Every angle, facet, ramification, application, and nuance of practice of Commercial Law has been seasoned over time, and is deeply and thoroughly known by those who "own, run, and rule
the world."
Indeed, the "Elite" are precisely where they are because they do know this fundamental law, because it is real, that it must work, always works, and it is impossible for it not to work, since it is grounded in natural law. Those who do not know and use the law by which everything functions necessarily and always lose. This esoteric truth must be obscured and concealed from the "masses" by every means possible. Otherwise, those who would rule mankind would have no way of obtaining their positions of power, privilege, and plunder (all of which are frauds). By knowing and using the law themselves and keeping the knowledge of such law from the masses, the people are deliberately rendered defenceless, confused, emasculated, dependent, helpless "sheeple," considered as existing for the
purpose of being exploited, herded, sheered, gelded, and slaughtered at will.
The Powers That Be thus achieve and operate their monopoly on "law" (the very thought is absurd,
like stating one has a monopoly on light or life), by propagandizing the lie that law is so complex,
esoteric, obtuse, vast, and confusing that only they and their hatchet men called "attorneys" and
"judges" can administer it. The law is "mystified," made into some kind of quasi-religious cult, operated by a high priesthood that alone has the knowledge and authority for operating the resulting "legal system" that rules the life of man. Law must be transformed into a "closed union shop" such as the Bar Association, into whose hands the people must entrust their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honour" without availability of alternative sources of remedy and redress of grievances. Where can one go for relief when the fox guards the henhouse?
If the so-called "Rulers of the World" did not withhold from general understanding the knowledge
that the foundational principles of real law are few in number and easily mastered by everyone, and that all of the documents and instruments used in all law and commerce are likewise few in number and comprehensible to laymen, such con men would have to abandon their aristocratic "titles of nobility" and find real jobs based on genuine productivity, 95 contribution, and "win-win" interactions with their fellow man. It is empowering and exhilarating to understand that the ever-changing, monstrous vastness of "law" can be distilled into a handful of universal principles that can be contained on a 3" X 5" card, and that all of the legal documents and instruments functioning today can be mastered by nearly anyone.
Attorneys and Judges deliberately conceal the fact that the only significance inhering in court cases
and statutes consists of the simple and universal principles of commercial law codified by the Maxims.
All legal documents, proceedings, and processes are obscured by re-naming and mislabelling said documents and processes in accordance with whatever degrees of multiplicity and complexity are needed for preserving its inaccessible aloofness. Law is made diffuse, enormously complex, and allegedly far beyond the ken of regular folks.
With knowledge of the truth underlying all of that misdirection and deception, i.e. seeing through the
Wizard's Light Show, you can understand what is happening and place yourself in a position of mastery of the situation instead of being relegated to the status of a confused, helpless victim forever in the dark and at the mercy of those who exploit your ignorance of the rules and processes by which law (i.e. organized, deadly force) operates. In short, "Know the truth and the truth shall make you free."
As mentioned above, the word "commerce" encompasses all interactions and interchanges between people, including exchanges of such "noncommercial" things as "ideas, sentiments, etc." The
fundamental principles and precepts of universal commercial law that have for millennia formed the
underpinnings of civilized law on this planet are both biblical and non-biblical, i.e. their truth and validity is a function of themselves and the long-accepted usage and practice by many cultures and peoples, in diverse forms, throughout the world for thousands of years. These fundamental Maxims of Commerce, which underlie all commercial documents, instruments, and processes, are enumerated herewith (with biblical references in parenthesis):
1. A workman is worthy of his hire (Exodus 20:15; Lev. 19:13; Matt. 10:10; Luke 10:7; II
Tim. 2:6. Legal maxim: "It is against equity for freemen not to have the free disposal of their own property.").
2. All are equal under the Law (God's Law--Ethical and Natural Law). (Exodus 21:23-25;
Lev. 24:17-21; Deut. 1:17, 19:21; Matt., 22:36-40; Luke 10:17; Col. 3:25. Legal maxims: "No one is above the law."; "Commerce, by the law of nations, ought to be common, and not to be converted into a monopoly and the private gain of a few.").
3. In Commerce truth is sovereign (Exodus 20:16; Ps. 117:2; Matt. 6:33, John 8:32; II Cor. 13:8. Legal maxim: "To lie is to go against the mind."
4. Truth is expressed by means of an affidavit (Lev. 5:4-5; Lev. 6:3-5; Lev 19:11-13; Num. 30:2; Matt.
5:33; James 5:12).
5. An unrebutted affidavit stands as the truth in Commerce (1 Pet. 1:25; Heb. 6:13-15. Legal maxim:
"He who does not deny, admits.").
6. An unrebutted affidavit becomes the judgment in Commerce (Heb. 6:16-17. Any proceeding in a court, tribunal, or arbitration forum consists of a contest, or "duel," of commercial affidavits wherein the points remaining unrebutted in the end stand as the truth and the matters to which the judgment of the law is applied.).
7. A matter must be expressed to be resolved (Heb. 4:16; Phil. 4:6; Eph. 6:19-21. Legal maxim: "He
who fails to assert his rights has none.").
8. He who leaves the field of battle first loses by default (Book of Job; Matt. 10:22. Legal maxim: "He who does not repel a wrong when he can, occasions it.").
9. Sacrifice is the measure of credibility (One who is not damaged, put at risk, or willing to swear an oath that he consents to claim against his commercial liability in the event that any of his statements or actions is groundless or unlawful, has no basis to assert claims or charges and forfeits all credibility and right to claim authority.) (Acts 7, life/death of Stephen, maxim: "He who bears the burden ought also to derive the benefit.").
10. A lien or claim can be satisfied only through rebuttal by Counter-affidavit point-for-point, resolution by jury, or payment (Gen. 2-3; Matt. 4; Revelation. Legal maxim: "If the plaintiff does not prove his case, the defendant is absolved.").
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please be advised that this document is above the comprehension level of all government employee’s and moron’s in general. The truth usually is. All yellow highlighting by Minister Jackie-Grant-Veloice: Harper
PERSON
This article is being presented, by The Informer, to all people who call themselves "persons" when in a legal setting. The word "person" is not, in legal terms or political terms, what one wants to be. Also, as you will see the term "people" in political terminology is very bad for one who loves freedom. Such as in the phrase "We the People." This will quell and settle, once and for all, all the arguments that are flying around about the term citizen and person, that never is settled.
This will also upset people that use the term Pro Se or Propria Persona. I have rung the bell many times since 1990 and still people persist, to their own detriment, to use these terms and tacitly admit they are a "person." This will undoubtedly set some guru’s back a piece that preach citizenship of a state is what you want to be. It will also set back some guru’s who preach 14thamendment, and that blacks were not persons until the 14th Amendment was conceived.
The History here will show why their arguments are flawed. Of course this will inflame those guru’s to know end. But this is not directed to them but to all you "MEN" and "WOMAN" out there that don’t know what to call your selves when addressing any government in a political and legal position. I just gave you the terms to use as you are a physical man or woman reading this, are you not?
The artificial you, with a name spelled in all Capital letters or in reverse, cannot read but has to have a representative. That representative is you, the real live natural MAN or WOMAN and not a "PERSON," is that not correct? Don’t know how to answer this, do you? Well don’t be dismayed for you will after reading this. The truth is here for all to see.
I suspect that Men and Women are so brainwashed by the spin doctors, and guru’s that have never studied this, will have a hard time believing this. This comes from a Law book used to teach in Law Schools across the Country. But you will not find it being taught in this modern era, because to do so would put a very bad crimp in government's control over the masses of people calling themselves
"persons."
Do not think that after reading this you can go into any court and they will say, my gosh you are right we have no control over you. Just the opposite will be true and they can ask at least three questions that will stop you cold in your tracks and they will walk all over you like flies on a cow patty, because you will stammer and not be able to answer them. At that point they will know that you don't know the correct argument and you lose and BAD CASE LAW will be set. The next MAN that comes in with a correct understanding will lose right off the bat because of the bad case law that you have set. I have seen this hundreds of times in the patriot community when someone with a little knowledge is very dangerous to other freedom loving MEN when jumping into water they think is two feet deep only to find it 1000 feet deep and no way to get out.
The material below comes from a 13 volume set of Law books.
This is from Vol. XIII AMERICAN LAW AND PROCEDURE. JURISPRUDENCE AND LEGAL INSTITUTIONS. By James De Witt Andrews LL.B. (Albany Law School), LL.D. (Ruskin University) from La Salle University. I have bolded the footnotes as they may be mixed within some paragraphs, to separate them from the main text so it is not confusing.
Starting at the end of section 63; "Jeremy Bentham, in his remarks in reference to the inexact use of language by Blackstone in pages 47 and 49 of the Commentaries, says: "When leading terms are made to chop and change their several significations, sometimes meaning one thing, sometimes another, at the upshot perhaps nothing, and this in the compass of a paragraph, one may judge what will be the complexion of the whole context" (31).
64. The legal conception of leading words. Inasmuch as the word person, man, thing, property, rights, wrongs and actions are leading terms constituting the designation of departments of the corpus juris, it will be impossible to obtain clear conceptions of subjects connected with these words until an understanding is agreed upon as to the sense in which these terms are used. If we arrive at the meaning of these words intended by Blackstone and make the same clear, we will have a better idea of his method and perhaps a better opinion of it and at the same time will be able to show the distinction between the same words in the Roman, the English and in American law.
Blackstone apparently uses the Roman word persona as synonymous with the English word "person," and the latter word interchangeably with "individual" and "man," whereas he might have avoided all confusion by a closer adherence to that which he professed to follow.
65. The word "person" defined. Gaius says "De Juris divisione" [the divisions of the law] immediately preceding his division of the law; then follows, "De conditione hominm" [meaning the condition or status of men]. In the Institutes "De jura personarum" precedes the expression "all our law relates either to persons, or to things, or to actions,... The words persona and personae did not have the meaning in the Roman which attaches to homo, the individual, or a man in the English; it had peculiar reference to artificial beings and the condition or status of individuals. (33)
33. Professor John Austin’s view.—"Many of the modern civilians have narrowed the Import of the term ‘person’ as meaning a physical or natural person. They define a person thus: ‘homo, cure statu sue censlderatus;, a human being, invested with the condition of status., And, In this definition, they use the term status in a restricted sense, as including only those conditions which comprise rights and as excluding conditions which are purely onerous and burthensome, or which consist of duties merely. According to this definition, human beings who have no rights are not persons, but things, being classed with other things which have no rights residing in themselves, but are merely the subjects of rights residing in others. Such, in the Roman law, down to the age of the Antonlnes, was the position of the slave." Austin’s Jur., vol 1, 358.
The signification in Our Jurisprudence .... The word ‘Person,’ in its primitive and natural sense, signifies the mask with which actors, who played dramatic pieces in Rome and Greece, covered their heads. These pieces were played in public places. And afterwards in such vast amphitheaters that it was impossible for a man to make himself heard by all the spectators. Recourse was had to art; the head of each actor was enveloped with a mask, the figure of which represented the Part he was to play, and it was so contrived that the opening for the emission of his voice made the sounds clearer and more resounding, vox personabat, when the name persona was given to the instrument or mask which facilitated the resounding of his voice. The name persona was afterwards applied to the part itself which the actor had undertaken to play, because the face of the mask was adapted to the age and character of him who was considered as speaking, and sometimes it was his own portrait. It is in this last sense of personage, or of the part which an individual plays, that the word persona is employed in jurisprudence, in opposition to the word man, homo. When we speak of a person, we only consider the state of the man, the part he plays in society, abstractly, without considering the individual".
1 Bouvier’s Institutes, note 1.
Austin’s Jur., 362.
See 4 Harv. Law Rev., 101,
Austin’s Jur., 363.
The word "homo" corresponds to the English word "man," and, as the Romans expressed it, "unus homo sustinet plures personas;" i.e., one man has many persons, or sustains many status, or many different conditions (34) AUSTINS JUR., 362)
Austin says: "The term ‘person’ has two meanings, which must be carefully distinguished. It denotes a man or human being; or it signifies some condition borne by a man (35 See Harvard Law Revues 101). A person (as meaning a man) is one or individual, but a single or individual person (meaning a man) may sustain a number of persons (meaning condition or status)" (36 Austins Jur., 363).
Notice that this meaning is not as broad as that given by Ortolan. It does not include artificial persons. Again, he says: "As throwing light on the celebrated distinction between jus rerum and jus personarum, phrases which have been translated so absurdly by Blackstone and others,--rights of persons and rights of things, jus personarum did not mean law of persons, or rights of persons, but law of status, or condition. A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the status or condition with which he is invested. It is a remarkable confirmation of this that Gauis, in the margin purporting to give the title or heading of this part of the law, has entitled it thus: De conditione hominum; and Theophilus, in translating the Institutes of Justinian from Latin into Greek, has translated jus personarum . . . diviso personarum; understanding evidently by persona . . . not an individual or physical person, but the status, condition or character borne by physical persons. This distinctly shows the meaning of the phrase jus per sonarurn, which has been involved in impenetrable obscurity by Blackstone and Hale.
The law of persons is the law of status or condition; the law of things is the law of rights and obligations considered in a general manner, or as distinguished from these peculiar collections of rights and obligations which are