AFFIDAVIT OF GENUINE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT

By: Henry Kroll 

At: http://scariestbookofalltime.blogspot.com/2012/07/affidavit.html

 

All men and women know that the foundation of law and commerce exists in the telling of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Truth, as a valid statement of reality, is sovereign in commerce.

An unrebutted affidavit stands as truth in commerce.

An unrebutted affidavit is acted upon as the judgment in commerce.

Guaranteed—All men shall have a remedy by the due course of law. If a remedy does not exist, or if the existing remedy has been subverted, then one may create a remedy for themselves – and endow it with credibility by expressing it in their affidavit.

Ignorance of the law might be an excuse, but it is not a valid reason for the commission of a crime.

All corporate government is based upon Commercial Affidavits, Commercial Contracts, Commercial Liens and Commercial Distresses. Hence, governments cannot exercise the power to expunge commercial processes.

The Legitimate Political Power of a corporate entity is absolutely dependent upon its possession of Commercial Bonds against Public Hazard.

No Bond means no responsibility, means no power of Official signature, means no real corporate political power, and means no privilege to operate statutes as the corporate vehicle.

The Corporate Legal Power is secondary to Commercial Guarantors. Case law is not a responsible substitute for a Bond.

Municipal corporations, which include cities, counties, states and national governments, have no commercial reality without bonding of the entity, its vehicle (statutes), and its effects (the execution of its rulings).

In commerce, it is a felony for the Officer of a Political/Public Office to not receive and report a Claim to its Bonding Company -- and it is a felony for the agent of a Bonding Company to not pay the Claim.

If a Bonding Company does not get a malfeasant public official prosecuted for criminal malpractice within sixty (60) days, then it must pay the full face value of a defaulted Lien process (at 90 days.)

Except for a Jury, it is also a fatal offense for any person, even a Judge, to impair or to expunge, without a Counter-Affidavit, any Affidavit or any commercial process based upon an Affidavit.

Judicial non-jury commercial judgments and orders originate from a limited liability entity called a municipal corporation – hence must be reinforced by a Commercial Affidavit and a Commercial Liability Bond.

A foreclosure by a summary judgment (non-jury) without a commercial bond is a violation of commercial law.

Governments cannot make unbonded rulings or statutes which control commerce, free-enterprise citizens, or sole proprietorships without suspending commerce by a general declaration of martial law.

It is tax fraud to use Courts to settle a dispute/controversy which could be settled peacefully, outside of or without the Court.

An official (officer of the court, policeman, etc.) must demonstrate that he/she is individually bonded in order to use a summary process.

Notice to agent is notice to principal; notice to principal is notice to agent.

PUBLIC HAZARD BONDING OF CORPORATE AGENTS: All officials are required by federal, state, and municipal law to provide the name, address and telephone number of their public hazard and malpractice bonding company, the policy number of the bond, and, if required, a copy of the policy describing the bonding coverage of their specific job performance.

Failure to provide this information constitutes corporate and limited liability insurance fraud (15 USC), and is prim-a-facie evidence and grounds to impose a lien upon the official, personally, to secure their public oath and service of office.

If we are all equal before God then who has the power to put obligations upon us?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Administrative Law is one term used to describe private law that comes into existence when someone acquires dominion over others and can dictate to them what the law is. Title 26 (the Internal Revenue Code) in an example of Administrative Law; it and the other federal titles classified by congress as "non-public" (administrative) laws, thus apply only to subjects of the federal government. (EXHIBIT A: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (5pages).)

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

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

Public Policy
The rules and procedures (policy) of a sovereign over its subjects. It holds that no subject can lawfully do that which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against the public good as defined by the sovereign. Public policy is set by legislative acts and, pursuant thereto, by judicial and administrative promulgating of rules and regulations. Such rules and regulations are therefore not laws but rather terms imposed by contract agreements. It's the contracts themselves which make these rules and regulations binding. If you are not a party to those contracts, not a subject (property) of the government, you can make yourself a party by volunteering to comply. But once you decide to play the game you are compelled by the rules of that game to continue to play. Once compelled, the best out is to reassert your sovereign rights. The very concept of Public Policy and its inherent usurpation of power from the sovereign People is so addictive and has become so widely accepted by bureaucrats in all levels of government that they act as if they were the masters of the People.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding Justice:

·         All are equal under the Law.

·         A matter must be expressed to be resolved.

·         Claims made without accountability are void.

·         Might does not make right.

·         Force, perjury or subornation of perjury, voids all.

·         Fraud vitiates the most solemn promise.

·         While the battle continues, he who first leaves the field or refuses to contend loses by default.

·         You are free to make any decision you wish, but you are never free to escape the consequences of your decisions.

·         A laborer is worthy of his hire.

·         Thou shalt not steal.

·         Notice to the agent is notice to the principal and notice to the principal is notice to the agent.

·         Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

Regarding Truth:

·         Truth stands supreme.

·         Truth affects but cannot be affected.

·         Truth is expressed in the form of an affidavit.

·         Truth will out.

·         An unrebutted affidavit stands as the truth.

·         An affidavit must be rebutted point-for-point.

·         Thou shall not bear false witness.

·         Ignorance is no respecter, it affects all without regard to position or title.

Regarding Sovereignty:

·         It is self-evident that all men are endowed by their creator (God) with equal and unalienable rights.

·         The created cannot be greater than its creator.

·         A man can give to another no more than he himself has.

·         A man may not with impunity infringe upon another man's rights.

·         The People are Sovereign.

·         In America the government is the servant of the "sovereign" People.

Regarding Power and Authority:

·         We cannot give to anyone or anything any power or authority we do not have.

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

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