By:
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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!
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.
.jpg)
