Life, Law, & The Ucc

Life, Law, and the UCC Page 1 of 45
Click Here to Enter Our

Web Store
Life, Law, and the UCC

Underlying Principles
by Brian Lucas
Part 1
This article is about freedom, i.e. how to live free of the scourge of government usurpation and
immunize yourself against the plague of the legal system, with its attorneys, courts, judges,
agencies, police, etc. To establish this situation effectively you must have a basic understanding of
fundamental principles that operate in life in general and in law in particular, as well as understand
practical means for utilizing the knowledge in a manner that is easily comprehensible and doable.
The reason for concentrating on law is that it is unique among all of man’s domains of activity.
Namely, law is force—“official” exercises of deadly violence—and is therefore not merely another
academic discipline. Indeed “law” can be defined as “the rules utilized by a government involving
the use of deadly force.” Because law involves life and death applications of ideas and principles, it
is essential for survival and well being that we understand what these ideas and principles are and
how they must be used for safeguarding one’s “life, fortune, and sacred honor.”
I. The Current State of the Law in America
Several years ago this author contacted WestLaw, Lexus, and several other issuers and publishers
of materials bearing on law, requesting the purchase of several CDs involving State and Federal
law. The uniform answer from all issuers was that they would rent the CDs but not sell them.
Upon asking the reason for their unwillingness to sell the material, their answer was startling: the
law changes so frequently and dramatically that continual updates are needed for the CDs. In
fact, the representatives stated that attorneys must determine the current status of the law before
going to court that day in order to know what the law is that can be used and relied on.
The response to all of these representatives was, “Suppose natural law behaved in such an erratic
manner?” All agreed that the result would be chaos and perpetual unreliability. Does that
http://www.illuminati-news.com/life-law-and-the-ucc.htm 3/15/2006
answer not likewise reflect the state of the legal/court system in the United States today? Anyone
with actual experience with the courts knows that the laws are complex, ever-changing, ultimately
unknowable in totality of scope and dependability, and generally unreliable. All of this occurs with
people’s lives and destinies attached.
It is well-known that the United States Library of Congress now has between 2,000,000 and
3,000,000 books on law. Any law library is a daunting place, possessing row after row of shelves
with books full of fine print. Making knowledge of such “law” even more unattainable is not only
that what passes for law today perpetually changes, altered by every new court case/opinion,
legislative enactment, and all of the ever-changing policies, rules, and regulations of administrative
agencies, but an immense amount of the world’s law today, as actually implemented, is unwritten
and inaccessible. This is not only because judges operate in general equity in which the ultimate
arbiter of a matter is the “conscience of the court” (i.e. how the judge feels about something that
day), but because almost all of the world’s law is the private Law Merchant of the Creditors in
bankruptcy of the world’s nations, essentially all of which are insolvent and in receivership to the
Bankers.[1][1] This private Law Merchant is of ancient origin, and is implemented today by men
whose identities are unknown to the mass of mankind.
In the face of this undependability of law we may ask some fundamental and ingenuous questions:
1. Is there such a thing as genuine law that is timeless, stable, and dependable?
2. If so, can such universal law be effectively invoked and utilized in practice today?
3. If genuine law exists, why is it not taught and uniformly utilized instead of the
chaotic and colorable charade that dominates the legal field today?
4. Can we integrate said universal law with the ephemeral, desultory “law” that now
enslaves the overwhelming majority of people on this planet?
Fortunately, affirmative answers re all of the above questions. Answering them, and providing
clear understanding and effective, practical ways for utilizing genuine law, is the subject of this
article.
II. Fundamental Principles.
Preceding and more fundamental than any codifications of man-made law is the underlying context
within which all such law exists and is rendered operational. These “pre-law” principles consist of
various intrinsic and timeless truths that are universal and inviolable regardless of the particulars of
any law concocted by governments that might be superimposed over, against, and on top of such
innate aspects of life. These existential/ethical principles and truths are:
1. All existence originates and emerges from, and consists and expresses the
essence, substance, nature, character, reality, and laws of being of, the prior,
originating Source of itself. In other words, it is axiomatic that everything is an
expression of, and one with, that which caused, generated, and begets it, and also
that all that exists functions in accordance with the laws that make it what it is.
What something is, and the laws by which it subsists and functions, are merely
different aspects of, or perspectives on, the same reality. The universe is a cosmos,
not a chaos; every aspect of everything that exists manifesting sublime order and
intelligence. This fact, combined with the fact that laws of existence are
comprehensible, or at least codifiable, by man is the implicit basis of all of the
science, technology, philosophy, and endeavors of man.
The implicit assumption of inherent coherence underlying all aspects of man’s life, including law,
and implies such fundamental ethical and existential consequences as:
a. Existing within and as an intrinsic aspect of every thought, word spoken,

and act committed, is corresponding liability/accountability for that thought,
word, and deed. This is not only an ethical truth, but also an existential fact.
From the perspective of cause/effect natural law, no one can escape liability
and accountability for his thoughts, words, and deeds. All contrary ideas are
illusory. Man deceives himself, and proceeds in self-delusion contrary to
reality and its laws, by believing that he can, by some clever means or on the
basis of any of an infinite number of possible sources of authority (e.g. one’s
boss, some government, religious leaders, “authority figures,” or some other
“assigned author”), escape personal liability and accountability for everything
he thinks, speaks, writes, and does.
This principle formed the basis of the precedent of the Nuremberg Trials after World War II. Nazi
officials who allegedly administered “death camps” were not excused of responsibility by pleading
“I was just following orders,” or “I was just doing my duty.” This precedent would appear largely
lost on “officials” today.
b. Existing within and as an intrinsic aspect of every thought, word, and deed
are the precise action/reaction consequences thereof. The exact results of
anything one thinks, feels, says, writes, and does are structured within them
at origin and inception. Ends are always the exact product of the particular
means used for achieving them. The ends never “justify the means” because
all ends are a function of whatever means are deployed in bringing them
about. Were this not true, no basis could exist for any science, technology, or
sane human endeavor. To achieve a precise result, the unique means
necessary to produce it must be utilized. Different means always produce
different ends, regardless of how similar any appearance to the contrary
might be.
2. It is a free will universe. Man is a free-will being and the irreducible unit of
experience, autonomy, self-responsibility, and free choice. It is free will that gives
significance to man’s life, making everyone responsible, accountable, and liable for
everything he thinks, speaks, writes, and does and at the same time able and
obligated to fashion his own destiny. People create themselves, their own fate,
everything that they are and that happens to them. The free-will thought/decision
upon which one acts is the prime origin of all events in the life of man. Each
individual free-will being himself/herself is solely and uniquely responsible for who
and what he/she is, and everything that unique being speaks, writes, does, and
experiences. Thinking creates destiny.
One may reasonably postulate that the greatest source of man’s suffering and problems, in
individual and social/institutional life, is not realizing this crucial, central fact. Instead, people
blame, project, believe, and attribute the responsible, genuine source of their own thoughts and
actions falsely on an unlimited number of things outside of, and other than, themselves. Many
people even believe that man is some kind of stimulus/response tropism devoid of autonomy, self-
originating choice, and capacity for creating.
Some of the consequences and ramifications of this foundational premise are as follows:
a. One can accurately and ethically speak only for oneself. Only each unique
and unfathomable sentient being knows that being’s own unique truth and
possesses the responsibility and right for proclaiming it, in accordance with
his unique priorities and perspective in time and space.
b. One can experience the behavior, actions, and appearance of another

being but not that being’s inner experience, feelings, and sensations. In the
words of the Bible, “Man looketh upon the outward appearance, but the Lord
looketh upon the heart.” In his book, The Politics of Experience, C. D. Laing
brilliantly elaborates on this aspect of man and his relationship with others.
c. The prime cause of all events and actions in the life of man is the free-will
thought/decision/act of some unique man or woman. Human events do not
cause themselves—individual people cause them. Documents do not write
themselves—some particular being writes them, as well as acts on them or
not as each particular actor decides of his/her own free will. Individual free-
will thought/action is the “cause” referenced in the phrase “nature and cause”
in the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
d. Man can act in a win/win or win/lose manner. A win/win interaction is an

expression of peace, dignity, love, unity-harmony, mutual good faith, absence
of malice and deceit, and all of the other ingredients in contract law required
for a valid contract enforceable at law. Free consent of all contracting parties
is essential. A win/lose interaction is an expression of separation, conflict,
and disharmony, and never results in a genuine contract the “winner” claims
exists. In actuality, a “win/lose” interaction is non-existent, since even the
“winner” loses in the end. Such an apparent victor causes harm to others,
creation, and himself. He may think he wins, but in accordance with the
inexorable laws of existence he “reaps what he sows,” incurs the
corresponding karma (action/reaction or cause/effect consequences of every
deed) by his harmful acts. The “Golden Rule” in existential terms might be
expressed: “One who harms others harms himself,” or “That which someone
does unto someone else shall be done unto him.” “He who lives by the sword
dies by the sword.”
3. Manifest existence is the interplay of opposites. What we call “creation,” i.e.

something manifest and perceptible as opposed to the “nothingness” of the eternal,
uncreated, non-dual, absolute, is relative, ever-changing duality. Duality implies a
“split,” as it were, in the One, so that what can be perceived is what it is by virtue of
its relationships with other aspects of manifestation. That which is called “up” is so
only in relation to what is called “down.” Similarly, dark is the absence of light.
“Right” is what it is by virtue of perceiving its opposite, which is “left.” Good is
considered as being so based upon contrasting it with an opposite value, which, from
some relative perspective, is considered as less good, or not good, i.e. “evil.” All
coins have a heads and tails side, just as every manifest thing has two sides. The
bottom and top of any given thing exist simultaneously.
Therefore, in manifest existence, i.e. the ever-changing Relative, what something “is,” and
whatever values might be attached to it, are a function of the perspective and evaluation of the
particular perceiver/evaluator. To a giant who is 20’ tall, a man 6’ 6” tall is a midget; to a midget
3’ tall, the 6’ 6” man is a giant. “All things are in relation,” and indeed, they are what they are by
virtue of their relationship with other things, as subjectively perceived and evaluated by some
unique observer/knower in a matrix of manifestation from which that particular aspect of creation
may be observed.
Because everyone is not only profoundly unique in nature, but necessarily cannot
occupy any order and position in the total scheme of things other than what/where
he is, and cannot be identical concerning these parameters with anyone else,
everyone necessarily perceives existence differently than anyone else. That which
someone sees one way, another will view in a different manner. What one considers
as right will be thought of as wrong by another. That which some consider “good”
will be regarded as “evil” by others. This relativism engenders Shakespeare’s
comment in Hamlet, “There’s nothing good or bad but thinking makes it so.” There
is no point in railing against this aspect of life as “moral relativism,” or concluding
that as a result “anything goes,” since while values are possible only from the point
of view of a given perspective, there are fundamental elements of man and life that
all have in common. Only from this vantage point can any basis be presumed for
assigning universal values to particular modes of behavior. Perhaps the most
fundamental of these values is derived from the very nature of man and life as
described by the next principle.
4. The nature of life is to grow, progress, and evolve towards its fulfillment, towards
ever-fuller realization of its own unbounded divinity and infinity. In order to be able
to live to further life, something must first and foremost be able to live. This is why
“survival is the first law of life.” With that comes absolute right to engage in any
just, lawful, or necessary measures for self-defense, as the steward of one’s own
life. Survival, however, is dynamic. It is not stagnant, but embodies direction
consisting of a drive for more, different, and better. This is why problems are not
solved on the level of the problem, and survival thrives on progress, which, in turn,
thrives on solutions. Dwelling on and wallowing in problems creates and reinforces
them while not creating solutions.
All life seeks fields of greater happiness. No one must be taught that he wishes happiness, or that
he prefers such a condition in comparison with its relative opposite, unhappiness and suffering.
Consequently, if one understands this universal nature is innate in all people, one may live the
Golden Rule, and therefore experience a life of harmony (good) rather than dissonance (evil).
5. The map is not the territory; the name is not the thing named; the
symbol/idea/word is not the substantive thing being abstractly expressed. One
cannot spend the word “money” nor eat the word “pizza.” This is the essence and
prime principle of semantics. Although this principle may be self-evident, it does not
prevent many people from mistaking the two. “Some people eat the menu and leave
the dinner,” as the late Gregory Bateson phrased the matter.
6. All truth is subjective. The nature, depth, structure, and complexity of each man
and woman is unfathomable, and each man and woman experiences life in a unique
manner. In addition, manifest existence is process in pattern—flows, interactions,
and transformations of inscrutable energy moving at astronomical speeds in the
vastness of empty space, emerging from and re-merging back into the absolute,
unmanifest. The eternal, unbounded, absolute is unmanifest and possesses no
properties ascertainable and definable by and in terms of the relative manifest it
begets. Both source and manifestation are thereby infinite and unfathomable, and
each man and woman is a unique aspect/expression of both. The manifest is unique
in exact configuration at each precise moment anew, with each configuration
unrepeatable, i.e. never the same as it ever was at any time, neither into the
unlimited past nor as it ever will again be throughout the unendingness of time.
Inasmuch as each man and woman is a unique expression of both the
unbounded/unfathomable absolute and the ever-changing/non-repeating manifest,
the particular perspective and experience of each man and woman, i.e. his/her truth,
will likewise be unique for each conscious unit of experience and perceived and
understood in a manner and perspective that is unique, and subjective, for each.
Moreover, because man’s inherent nature is the knower and experiencer, everyone subjectively
considers that what he is doing, thinking, or feeling is justified from his own perspective. This
perspective is unique to him and cannot be identically shared by anyone else. This should be a
source of tolerance and deference between people.
7. Man is a goal-oriented being. Everything man does is for some purpose, i.e. for
achieving some objective. This is borne of the above-described drive in all life for
more happiness, abundance, achievement, power, peace, and bliss. It is self-evident
that at any given instant, an infinite number of thoughts, feelings, perspectives,
priorities, and actions are possible for man. It is equally self-evident that no one can
act on more than a (relatively small) finite number of these infinite possibilities at
the same time. The innate thrust/energy of life, however, is for more—towards full
realization of its own infinite and divine nature.
Because everyone is unique in nature, structure, experiences, position in space/time, etc., the
perspectives, needs, desires, and priorities of everyone are likewise unique, and thereby function
to channel life’s innate drive for more into directions that each being considers as being most
beneficial for furthering the growth, progress, and fulfillment of that unique being. All
achievements in the life of man are therefore steps, or even milestones, on this path towards
fulfillment. The ultimate goal is paved by innumerable finite goals realized on one’s life’s course,
all of which are chosen for the purpose of maximizing achievement, progress, and happiness. No
one knowingly behaves in ways that retard and thwart the inherent life-drive within him for his own
success and ultimate fulfillment. Man acts in accordance with his situation and state of being at
any given time in the manner that he deems best further his interests, and would consider
alternative courses of action as at best useless and at worst destructive of his own desired ends.
In other words, if one knew an alternative that was superior re obtaining an objective he would
adopt it.
8. In every living being is to be observed supreme self-love. This is simply life loving
itself, providing the impetus for safeguarding and furthering its innate drive for
growth and fulfillment. Without self-love life would long ago have disappeared for
want of impetus to preserve itself. Primal self-love makes sense of the world.
9. “All law is contract.” or “Contract makes the law.” All law of every kind, including
the laws of being, laws of thought, natural law, and every species of man-made law
that is, was, and ever will be or could be, is contract. The essence and foundation of
a contract is agreement. People, things, and processes relate in mutual agreement
that certain things are true, operational, expected, committed, and, if this-or-that
happens such-and-such will occur. Each of the ten (10) Articles of Amendment of
the Constitution, i.e. the so-called “Bill of Rights,” express principles of commercial
law. For instance, the term “nature” in the phrase “nature and cause” in the Sixth
Amendment of the Constitution refers to the underlying contract (whether “civil”
meaning money/specific performance or “criminal” meaning a contract of
indebtedness of an aggressor to his victim for the wrongs or damages done), along
with the proof (of default on the contract or commission of the criminal acts).
Moreover, every document or instrument involved must be executed by identified
free-will beings each taking personal responsibility for the truth, accuracy, relevance,
and verifiability of each and every thing alleged that can adversely affect another,
under oath by affidavit certified and sworn on the commercial liability of the affiant
sworn true, correct, and complete. This is the “nature” to which the term refers.
Perhaps the foundational presumption (and possibly the only valid one) is that every individual
free-will being is the unit of responsibility, accountability, and sovereignty. Were this premise not
regarded as axiomatic, no basis for any law could exist in society, as no one could be held liable for
anything. Most of the remainder of the presumptions of law on which the system functions are
self-serving and specious.
All governmental law operates on presumptions, such as the presumption that you freely assent to,
i.e. ratify, implied adhesion contracts in which the terms and conditions are created and enforced
by the government without realistic capacity of the “ruled” to prevail against the stronger party.
“Adhesion contract” is defined in law as:
“Standardized contract form offered to consumers [citizens] of goods and

services [government laws, statutes, and benefits] on essentially “take it or
leave it” basis without affording consumer realistic opportunity to bargain and
under such conditions that consumer cannot obtain desired product or
services except by acquiescing in form contract [i.e. what the government
says things are]. Distinctive feature of adhesion contract is that weaker party
has no realistic choice as to its terms.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition,
page 38.
One thing that renders the system hopelessly problematic unless one understands the game, is
that one of the system’s presumptions of law is that no one in the system is required to divulge the
presumptions (undisclosed) under which the system functions. Rebutting mere “law” and “facts”
does not access, nor does it neutralize, the presumptions of law that constitute the system’s power
over you. These presumptions must be negated if you are to have any chance of prevailing against
the system.
10. Love is the realization in consciousness of the eternal and innate unity/harmony of
all manifest things with each other and their common source. By definition, that
which we regard as the opposite of love, i.e. “hate,” is the result of non-realization of
this unity/harmony. Hate is, therefore, borne of and characterized by conscious
absorption in the illusion of separation. From this fundamental illusion of separation
all of man’s ills and conflicts emerge, i.e. the whole gamut of human problems,
discords, and suffering: need and lack, failure, disunity, insufficiency, requirement,
judgment, divine condemnation, conditionality, superiority, and ignorance.
One’s happiness and grief are a function of the extent that one understands and lives in accordance
with the above ten (10) universal principles/truths. Indeed, virtually all of life can be resolved
down to a single duality concerning life, i.e. whether one loves or does not love. The
corresponding ethical choice concerning one’s dealing with one’s fellow man is, accordingly,
whether one relates sincerely from the heart towards others in accordance with the genuine intent
of interacting on a win/win basis or whether one attempts to further one’s innate life drive for more
by relating in a win/lose manner.
The alleged “necessity” for religions is a function of non-realization of the simple truth that
whatever life, existence, consciousness, and their Source and essence are, one is an expression of
and is inherently and unalterably one with that Source and essence, and cannot be otherwise. (No
one can ever not exist.) Similarly, the purported “necessity” for governments is founded on the
fact that some men interact with others on a win/lose basis, and government must “fight fire with
fire” by functioning by similar win/lose means. Those occupying positions in a “government”
consider “winning” vis-à-vis the “governed” as dominating people’s lives by enforcing win/lose
exchanges. In other words, a “government,” in order to treat the symptoms of man’s alleged
ethical and existential deficiencies deals with supposed wrongdoers by application of destructive,
physical force. The fact that governments purportedly exist for the purpose of protecting people,
property, and rights from assault and destruction by those who play win/lose games, and resolve
disputes between people by being an impersonal, independent and fair arbiter of conflicts, is all a
function of the fact that people don’t realize their unity with each other in and from their common
Source, and thereby do not love each other enough not to transgress against each other in the first
place.[2][2]
A government’s nature as an organization that functions for the purpose of preventing and
rectifying wrongdoing gives rise to all of man’s law and the principle on which that law is
adjudicated: The court is the substitute for the dueling field. An arbitration tribunal is intended as
being a “civilized” means for resolving disputes in an orderly and dignified manner instead of
letting disputants resort to violence between themselves for settling differences.
The alleged justification for the existence of governments and their authority for establishing laws,
courts, police, armies, and legal systems, is based on presumptions such as the following:
a. Man’s cultural, social, and communal life is hopelessly adversarial,

rendering the existence of some kind of government necessary;
b. Most people have neither the ability nor fundamental priority for resolving
disputes harmoniously among each other;
c. When left alone mankind is incapable of developing free means for

upholding law and order and resolving disputes, rendering an independent
and over-arching coercion monopoly necessary;
d. A non-involved third party possesses authority for expropriating the right of

arbitrating disagreements; and,
e. Such a third party arbitrator can successfully achieve just resolution of the
dispute.
Once the axiomatic presumption that governments are necessary is adopted—usually implicitly and
unconsciously, without thorough, sincere, and rational thought that analyzes whether the premise
is sound or not—all of the game from that point on is what kind of government should exist and
how it should be structured, manned, financed, and operated. Discussion and advocacy of the
various shapes, forms, and functions of government are perfectly acceptable, i.e. “politically
correct.” Whenever one points out that the emperor has no clothes, however, and no governments
should exist at all because all of them are organizations through which some men rule (exploit,
plunder, dominate, and enslave) others by deadly, physical force—without ethical authority, devoid
of adequate knowledge, and in the absence of capacity for achieving genuine, self-existing
results—all hell breaks loose. Such primal sanity triggers deep-seated cognitive dissonance and is
instantly branded as “anarchy,” “extreme,” and “unworkable.” In the words of the psychologist
David Viscott, “When truth is proclaimed in a hostile environment it is labeled ‘insane.’” Clear
perception and understanding of the truth, however, is the opposite of insanity. And, to
paraphrase Gertrude Stein, “the truth is the truth is the truth.”
If man, both individually and collectively, does not establish life and law on the truth (the real way
things are), then man is engaging in the futile effort of attempting to achieve sound and enduring
results by actualizing principles that are neither real nor ethical. The result of the folly is foregone
disintegration and destruction. The point of this article is that because our current civilization—and
especially its law—functions on the basis of largely specious principles, it is on its way to ruin. Our
task, if we would establish our affairs on a firm foundation and not be swept along with the herd
like lemmings to the sea, is for understanding true principles and securing our fate by structuring
our lives and affairs by correct actualization of those principles.
Part 2
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,
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 discussed in Part One. 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 defenseless, 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 honor” 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, 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
mislabeling 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 "non-commercial" 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.” Oriental
proverb: “Of all that is good, sublimity is supreme.”).
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 Counteraffidavit 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.”).
Perhaps the simplest way of expounding on the nature and validity of Commercial Law is to
comment on each of the Maxims in the order given.
1) A workman is worthy of his hire (Exodus 20:15; Lev. 19:13; Matt. 10:10; Luke 10:7; II Tim.
2:6).
The eighth Commandment, "Thou shalt not steal" (Exodus 20:15), signifies the absolute right of
every man to all honorably acquired property. This basic human right originates fundamentally
from the inherent, unalienable right of self-ownership and the free-will nature of man. If a man is
the sovereign owner/steward of himself, and exercises his free will for engaging in ethical use of
faculties that result in his accumulation of property, said property ownership is, ethically and
existentially, inviolably the man's own as distinguished from the property of anyone else. No one
has a higher claim on said property nor any right to steal it by any means, whether by force or
fraud.
Were this fundamental property right not universal and inviolate, no coherent basis for interrelating
could exist in the society of man. Man is a purposeful, goal-oriented being, capable of abstract
thought and free choice. People engage in thinking, use of faculties, and expenditure of time and
life-diminishing energy for the purpose of achieving rationally cognized results. There are an
infinite number of possibilities of thought and action. Inasmuch as man's manifest existence is
finite, i.e. contained within boundaries, man must use his machinery of thought and being in the
ways that he comprehends as best further his well being, life progress, consciously chosen duty,
and priorities born of his world view. The I Ching comments on this principle in Hexagram 60,
"Limitation":
"Therefore what concerns us here is the problem of clearly defining these

discriminations, which are, so to speak, the backbone of morality. Unlimited
possibilities are not suited to man; if they existed, his life would only dissolve in the
boundless. To become strong, a man's life needs the limitations ordained by duty
and voluntarily accepted. The individual attains significance as a free spirit only by
surrounding himself with these limitations and by determining for himself what his
duty is."[3][1]
If someone does not think, act, and exert life-diminishing time and energy for the purpose of
achieving specifically cognized goals, he cannot legitimately expect to realize the ends he desires.
It is both a biblical and Zen maxim that: "He who does not work shall not eat." The Bhagavad-Gita
states in Chapter 3, Verse 8:
"Do your allotted duty. Action is indeed superior to inaction. Even the survival of
your body would not be possible without action."[4][2]
A Chinese proverb phrases the matter more caustically: "Some people sit around waiting for a
roasted chicken to fly into their mouths."
Negating the legitimacy of property ownership by claiming that someone who works is not thereby
entitled to the anticipated rewards of his efforts makes a mockery of man's nature and life, as well
as ethical and natural law. A man engages in a particular course of action for the purpose of
achieving anticipated results and if he did not thus expect his efforts to accomplish the desired
goals he would not act in the manner he considers to be the best and most efficient possible means
for achieving them. If his actions did not express his best possible judgment it is safe to assume
that he would be indulging in alternatives that he considered as being superior. Moreover, man
utilizes cause/effect natural law throughout all his goal-oriented actions, i.e. the one acting
attempts to discern the most effective and efficient means possible to accomplish his goals.
Invoking particular natural-law processes brings about the precise consequences of whatever
processes are used.
It is self-evident that stealing is a violation of ethical law inasmuch as the one who performs the
life-diminishing labor for acquiring the property necessarily has the highest, if not exclusive, claim
thereon. He is the one who decided, thought, acted, and utilized his faculties, not someone else.
Who can claim a greater right to someone's property than the one who acquired ownership by
expenditure of thought, effort, time, and energy? Stealing a man's property is literally stealing a
part of his life, since the time, energy, and effort the man expended in earning the property is
irretrievably gone and not the efforts of gods or men can return the life-diminishing labor he
expended in acquiring the property (even if the same or similar property is subsequently bestowed
upon the man). In the words of a Zen master, “An evil done can never be undone.”
All governments exist by virtue of promulgating an endless panoply of alleged "higher" reasons
why the "government" is entitled to the fruits of people's earnings instead of the earners thereof.
The terse Libertarian maxim is correct: "Taxation is theft." As eloquently expressed by Bastiat in
The Law, when the law, which is force and can be legitimately used only in defense of just rights to
life and property, is perverted into an instrument of aggression, slavery, theft, and plunder, it has
destroyed its own object. Man’s history on this planet has universally shown that the
governmental approach to law is a catastrophe since it trashes ethical and natural law, structures
degeneracy through perpetrating fraud, deceit, violence, lies, and every manner of crime in the
name of law and justice, thereby obviating all hope for coherence, integrity, and peace in the social
order. All of this is borne of efforts to structure organized and “respectable” ways to abrogate the
First Maxim and expropriate the fruits of the labor of others.
The conundrum, of course, is that while on the one hand a substantial portion of mankind may be
incapable of self-government (a hypothesis that is only an arbitrary postulate), no externally
imposed government can compensate for the lack. The best that can result from a man-made
government, i.e. a legal-force institution, is that restraints on human action, interference in
people’s exercises of free will, are used for the purpose of protecting life and property. In do
doing, however, a government uses organized force for imposing some contrived, abstract, finite,
and arbitrary order onto the natural condition that would otherwise exist if people were left free.
Through state rulership, artificial palliatives, superficial behavior/conditions borne of coercively re-
configuring the manifest expression of life, are proffered either as “solutions” (which they are not
and never can be), or at least superior to leaving people free.
Whenever society has a government with some alleged overarching "right" to steal wealth instead
of everyone in the culture honorably gaining through constructive/productive use of faculties and
quid-pro-quo honorable exchanges, the society is "legally" structured on a hopelessly self-
contradictory, unethical, and schizophrenic basis. Organizing life in such a way pre-ordains the
civilization to disintegration by systematically rupturing both natural and ethical law. Only the real
thing is the real thing. Plastic models of how things “should” be, superimposed by force, neither
are the real thing nor can cause its spontaneous manifestation.
A man-made government is therefore an outside-in/top-down artificial order and set of processes

imposed by physical force over and against the self-existing transcendence of an organic, inside-
out/ground-up holistic unfolding of life. As stated, the catch-22 of man’s condition is that while a
substantial proportion of the populace of this planet has not awakened and spiritually evolved to
the place that they are naturally able to govern themselves, any kind of “other governing”
organization that might be structured as compensation for the lack is a fraudulent, invasive,
distorting, falsifying, and a disruptive failure method. Any such “other-governing” utilized as
compensation for lack of sufficient inner/existential development not only cannot bring about what
can ensue only by virtue of self-existing suchness spontaneously manifesting transcendence in its
natural fullness and integrity, but all such approaches necessarily stifle, destroy, suppress, and
obviate the possibility for the desired situation to manifest. The bottom line of the matter is that
the problem, and its solution, is inner, spiritual, and existential, not political. Namely, the cause of
the problem is insufficient consciousness, development, and love; the cure is more of those things.
Only the actual reality can be and engender a true, self-existing condition that satisfies the heart
and soul of man and fulfills life.
Since all governments exist by non-disclosure, there is therefore no true meeting of the minds
between the people and the government, i.e. there is no actual agreement. Such a situation is
institutionalized lying—perjury by omission and misrepresentation. No government ever does, or
can, provide full disclosure of all of the rights, privileges, and immunities the people forfeit in
exchange for submitting to government rule, nor does—or can—any government articulate what
honorable goods and services are provided by the government as valuable consideration, so that
the resulting interaction can constitute a bona fide contract enforceable at law. If no genuine
agreement exists—or can exist—from the outset, no valid contract can exist. The situation is a
fraudulent, criminal con game that establishes a condition of “mixed war” whereby the government
is inherently and permanently at war with the “governed.” Governments can exist only by deceit,
misrepresentation, and concealment of material fact in contract, and cannot otherwise exist at all.
Establishing any kind of human government, i.e. an organization on the basis of which some men
(those occupying positions of “authority” in the institution) may “legally” take things of value from
others without open, honorable, good-faith, quid-pro-quo exchange, i.e. “win/win” interactions,
inherently abrogates the First Maxim. All governmental power is discretionary, and must be or it is
not power. Discretionary power is privilege, which is fraud.
The point of this discourse, including what might be considered a “digression” into the nature of
law and government, is that this First Maxim is in a sense the foundation of everything. It is the
essence of the Golden Rule, the entire basis of law and justice, the core and point of a contract and
all contract law, and the basis in society of peace, stability, coherence, and sanity. When that
which poses as “law” is the institutionalized abrogation of this First Maxim, confusion, frustration,
futility, and ultimate ruin are the inevitable results. Such a pattern characterizes the history of
man’s civilizations on this planet.
2) All are equal under the Law (God's Law--Moral and Natural Law). (Deut. 1:17; Luke 10:17;
Col. 3:25).
It should be self-evident that every man, by virtue of simply existing, is subject to the laws by
which he exists. Everyone is obviously equally the product of and inherently obedient to the laws
of being, thought, and nature. Nothing can exist without expressing the laws through which and
on the basis of it exists and functions.
Similarly, since all relationships are contractual, everyone is likewise bound by ethical law. The
equal-exchange principle upon which the inherent balance and cause/effect nature of existence
subsists also applies in the life of man. Otherwise, there is no basis for stating that ethics exist, or
that man is an ethical being, or that ethics in human life can have any basis of discernment at all.
If two people relate and one can validly say: "I have a legitimate right to take from you, cause loss
to you, without correspondingly enriching you by giving you something of equal or greater value in
exchange," on what basis can he prove the validity for his "special" right of engaging in win/lose
interactions? Is it because one claims to be "better," or more "deserving" than the one from whom
he wants to gain something for nothing? Thousands and thousands of such "reasons" have been
promulgated throughout human history, especially concerning "government's" alleged right to take
without giving in exchange. A few such "reasons" are:
· I'm an aristocrat.
· I'm a part of the ruling elite. My nature and destiny is to rule.
· I'm better (e.g. smarter, wiser, holier, more noble, more deserving) than you.
· I represent God.
· I represent higher truth.
· I represent natural law.
· I'm acting for the good of society (or the "General Will," or "law and order," or
"the greatest good for the greatest number," etc.).
· I'm authorized by law (whatever that is).
· I'm authorized by government (e.g. "I have a license to kill").
· "I proclaim that might is right, justice the interest of the stronger," Plato (i.e.
"might makes right and I've got the guns").
· I'm authorized by treaty (Between whom? With what authority? With what
binding relevance to the victimized party?).
· I'm poor and needy so I deserve it.
· "Equality" and "social justice" (whatever those are) should prevail in society.
Once again, one begins with a cognized and concocted end (the desire for power) and then
provides the alleged justification after the fact for validating his actions. In this case, the essence
of the matter is: "I want to steal your property or rights instead of productively earning what I
want or need." The reasons proffered for legitimizing the crime can be any of an infinite number of
high-sounding non-sequiturs. If man had extended a fraction of the thought, energy, creativity,
and ingenuity in working for the purpose of succeeding by honorable means instead of by cheating
of his fellow man, we would not be in the mess we are in today.
3) In Commerce truth is sovereign (Exodus 20:16; Ps. 117:2; John 8:32; II Cor. 13:8).
The word "truth" can be defined in two distinct ways:
1) The actual state of existence, i.e. what things are and the way they function in
and as themselves, in their actual reality—the thing in itself. Webster's 1828
American Dictionary of the English Language, defines what might be designated as
“Truth”:
"True state of facts or things."
2) An abstract representation or mapping of some aspect of reality that can be

objectively discerned and verified as "accurate," as per Webster's, supra:
"Conformity to fact or reality; exact accordance with that which is, or has
been, or shall be. The truth of history constitutes its whole value. We rely on
the truth of the scriptural prophecies. The duty of a court of justice is to
discover the truth. Witnesses are sworn to declare the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth."
One of the most important of all philosophical and epistemological questions was asked by Pontius
Pilot: "What is truth?" I.e., what is the relationship, the correlation, between reality as it actually is
and that which transpires within a particular human mind? Given the state of man on this planet
the question has a vast spectrum of answers and possibilities. Some people attempt to be
scrupulously accurate in what they think and believe concerning reality. Other people are so
deluded that a point is reached whereby they are labeled "insane" due to vast gulf between what
they consider as being real and the way other people experience existence.
Consequently, notwithstanding the degree that whatever someone thinks, feels, believes, says, or
acts upon may be "objectively" verifiable by other people, with or without technical instruments
used as extensions/surrogates of the senses, truth must be considered as subjective concerning
man's interactions with others. Everyone perceives and experiences existence through the state
and functioning of his unique nature, mind, body, nervous system, state of development, and world
view.
It is supremely essential that man act truthfully as the basis upon which he lives, acts, and relates
with others. As the requirement involves oneself, only the truth, i.e. actual reality as it is, provides
a dependable basis for living one's life. If someone falsely believes there is a fortune in gold buried
in some specific location and spends money on that basis he could be financially ruined through
having spent all his money on chasing a delusion. If one relates with others on the basis of false
information, speaking other than one’s actual perspective and intent, harm can accrue to all
concerned. In other words, the map (truth) must be a faithful representation of the territory
(Truth).
Exodus 20:16, the ninth Commandment, states: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy
neighbor." Lies are weapons and can destroy lives. People can believe and act on what they are
told, and both kill and be killed on a false basis, such as by marching off to war on the basis of
what their "leaders" tell them. The Bible is especially harsh on those who bear false witness. In
Israel, the penalty in Orthodox circles for bearing false witness is death. In the United States, the
penalty can be social and commercial ostracism for life. Who wants to deal with someone who
lies? Multi-billion dollar diamond deals close with a handshake and a few words exchanged. Lying
in such a context is implicitly understood as utterly unthinkable.
The core of the matter is that if truth were not sovereign in Commerce ("commerce" meaning all
human intercourse of any kind, i.e. money, property, and otherwise) there would be no way
society could exist and function. There would be no dependability in human relations, nor any
rules, nor basis of ethics, nor grounds for any remedy and recourse. No contracts could be
executed, nor any terms and conditions set forth on which anyone could rely. All society would
disintegrate for want of any fundamental basis for interrelating.
This third Maxim is in a very real sense the most fundamental of all the principles of law, and
constitutes the focal point around which everything else revolves. It is the fulcrum upon which all
else hinges in order to function and possess validity. It is entirely reasonable to regard truth as the
most important of all things. Truth is extolled in all valid systems of philosophy, religion, and law.
Lao-tzu, for instance, phrased the matter as follows:
Man at his best, like water,
Serves as he goes along:
Like water he seeks his own level,
The common level of life,
Loves living close to the earth,
Living clear down in his heart,
Loves kinship with his neighbors,
The pick of words that tell the truth,
... The fair profit of able dealing,
The right timing of useful deeds,
And for blocking no one's way
No one blames him.[5][3] [Emphasis added.]
It is possible that more court cases revolve around whether someone is telling the truth than
everything else put together. The remainder of the Maxims pertains largely to practical
application—how and when to speak one's truth and appropriate remedies and recourses available
in the event of someone does not tell the truth.
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).
As stated above, man's truth is subjective. Each individual perceives existence from the "inside
out" as it were, experiencing whatever he does through his unique nature and machinery of
consciousness, from his own particular perspective in time and space. Truth, like beauty, is in the
eye of the beholder.
If someone expresses his subjective truth and others verify the same truth in their own subjective
terms, the truth is labeled as an "objective fact," i.e. the abstract map is perceived by others as
accurately representing the territory. That which is uttered conceptually may be dependably acted
upon concretely and the results are realized as they are symbolically represented.
Inasmuch as everyone has free will and is the non-reducible unit of experience, choice,
responsibility, and self-government, only each particular being can speak his/her own truth and
has the right and obligation to do so. No one is obligated, or qualified, to express the truth of
another, as per the famous line in Tennyson’s book, The Courtship of Miles Standish: “Why don’t
you speak for yourself, John.”
Law requires a universally accepted means whereby someone may assert his subjective truth in a
manner that all understand is intended as being uttered without equivocation, concealment,
deception, or insincerity. An "affidavit," especially an affidavit "sworn true, correct, and complete,"
has evolved over time as the accepted process by which someone expresses his truth in the most
solemn, absolute, ceremonial means possible, past which nothing exists. An affidavit, as a solemn
and sworn statement of truth, automatically renders the affiant subject to charges of perjury if
anything concerning which he swears in his affidavit is false.
Black's Law Dictionary, 5th edition, defines "Affidavit" and "Oath" as follows:
"Affidavit. A written or printed declaration or statement of facts, made voluntarily,

and confirmed by the oath or affirmation of the party making it, taken before a
person having authority to administer such oath or affirmation." pp. 28-29.
"Oath. Any form of attestation by which a person signifies that he is bound in

conscience to perform an act faithfully and truly.... An affirmation of truth of a
statement, which renders one willfully asserting untrue statements punishable for
perjury. An outward pledge by the person taking it that his attestation or promise is
made under an immediate sense of responsibility to God. A solemn appeal to the
Supreme Being in attestation of the truth of some statement. An external pledge or
asseveration, made in verification of statements made, or to be made, coupled with
an appeal to a sacred or venerated object, in evidence of the serious and reverent
state of mind of the party, or with an invocation to a supreme being to witness the
words of the party, and to visit him with punishment if they be false...." p. 555.
So that a document can be regarded as an “affidavit” it must contain the characteristics and
properties itemized below. I.e., an affidavit:
1. States facts (truth) on the basis of firsthand, personal knowledge, not conjecture,
theory, or hearsay. The facts stated must express direct knowledge of the affiant
(not “information and belief,” which is hearsay).
2. Cannot be argumentative.
3. Must not draw conclusions of law.
4. Can be executed and served at any time without notice to the adverse party.
Because an affidavit is not subject to cross-examination, it is an ex parte proceeding.
5. Must be certified (witnessed) by someone authorized to take oaths, usually a

notary public.[6][4] If it is not sworn before someone authorized to administer
oaths it will not be considered as being an affidavit.
6. Constitutes one of three kinds of testimony, the other two being deposition and
direct oral examination, and stands as uncontroverted evidence if not timely rebutted
point-for-point by proper counteraffidavit executed by the adverse party.
7. Must be executed by being sworn true, correct, and complete, i.e. under oath,
defining the degree and nature of the commercial liability being staked by the affiant
for the veracity, accuracy, relevance, and verifiability of everything stated in the
affidavit.
8. Can be invalidated or nullified only by being rebutted point-for-point by

counteraffidavit sworn true, correct, and complete.
9. Stands as the truth concerning each point that is not rebutted by counteraffidavit
as above; the entire affidavit stands as the truth if not answered at all (see Maxim
Five).
10. Stands in full as the judgment (application) of the law if completely unrebutted by
counteraffidavit as above; invokes execution of the law concerning the points in the
affidavit that are not expressly rebutted by the counteraffiant (see Maxim Six).
Without a “competent witness,” i.e. personal testimony, no court has any power to act. Judgments
may be made solely on evidence, but all evidence requires competent witnesses for attesting to its
validity, i.e. for the purpose of verifying the evidence submitted. Without a competent witness, a
judgment is void.
In court, an adverse party has the right of cross-examination. When testimony is issued via
affidavit, the adverse party has the right (and obligation, if he/she desires not to have the affiant’s
affidavit stand as the truth and judgment of the law) to respond to the affidavit point-for-point via
counteraffidavit sworn true, correct, and complete.
Regardless of the form in which testimony is introduced into a proceeding or dispute, once a
“competent witness” has submitted testimony, by affidavit or otherwise, the adverse party must:
1. Disprove stated facts or prove alternative facts;
2. Prove application of law to stated or alternative facts.
In the event that the adverse party fails to comply with the above two (2) essentials, the
“testimony” of the “competent witness” becomes established as uncontroverted evidence.
For the most part (almost always), no attorney can be a “competent witnesses” because (1) he
does not have firsthand knowledge of facts, and (2) he does not submit whatever he says under
oath, i.e. via affidavit sworn true, correct, and complete. Attorneys act under authority of the
corporate, limited-liability “system,” not in their own right as unlimited-liability beings.
Furthermore, they relate second-hand information, i.e. what is told them by others. Legally,
therefore, what attorneys state is hearsay. Their utterances are not the result of what they
experience directly and concerning which they can attest on the basis of direct, firsthand, personal
knowledge.[7][5]
In addition to the above, an affidavit must, or to the greatest extents possible should:
1. Be a seven-point instrument, i.e. include all of the seven (7) points that are
essential for any legal/commercial document to be 100% complete and valid, and
therefore invincible.
2. Have all paragraphs numbered, for the purpose of, inter alia, identifying particular
points/passages for future reference.
3. Have a form number on the bottom, unique to each affidavit, constituting a basis
of unambiguous future reference and enhancing its admissibility as evidence in court.
4. Be written in clean, clear, matter-of-fact, minimalist style: “just the facts, ma’am.”
5. Be written in the present tense.
6. Avoid using pronouns and the words, “to” and “or,” which are ambiguous. The
less ambiguity, the less need/excuse exists for a third party, such as a judge, to
intervene in the matter to “interpret” the text.
7. Use as few adjectives and adverbs as possible, since they color matters and try to
tell people what to think. Often the more nakedly words and terms are expressed,
the more definitive and ironclad the result.
8. Be signed in red ink, signifying blood. Signing in red ink demonstrates that you,
as the affiant, are pledging your unlimited liability (“the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth”) on the veracity, relevance, accuracy, and verifiability of
everything that you assert. It proclaims that you are stating your truth in the
capacity of being a living, biological being and not as a corporate fiction functioning
in limited liability (a commercial, lawful, and existential fraud because it arbitrarily
limits the alleged liability of a legal person by fiat and force).
9. Be notarized, with the notary constituting third party witness (one of the essential
seven (7) points referenced above).
10. Have as much “commercial paperwork,” i.e. exhibits and attachments, supporting
the affiant’s assertions, as possible. Obviously, the more incontrovertible the
substantiation the better.
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.”).
In court, when oral testimony is given, the adverse party must disprove the facts that have been
stated under oath, or prove alternative facts, and likewise prove the application of law re the
stated facts. When testimony is provided by all adverse parties, i.e. by all disputants, under
affidavit sworn true, correct, and complete, then what is actually occurring is a duel of commercial
affidavits.
A properly executed affidavit sworn true, correct, and complete is one of the essential ingredients
that must be included within a 7-point instrument so that the resulting document can be
invincible. One must always keep in mind the following essentials of the commercial process:
1. All commercial documents must be executed by affidavit sworn true, correct, and
complete, although for the sake of streamlining commercial paperwork this process
is rendered implied and not express. The force and effect remain the same, since
those who execute commercial paperwork can be held liable for the accuracy,
validity, and verifiability of what is stated in the document.
2. Every document one sends and receives in law and commerce is a paper soldier,
i.e. a dueling combatant in the judicial arena that is an abstract and verbal substitute
for a real dueling field. Soldiers do battle for the purpose of winning vis-à-vis an
opposing side. Law involves a winner and a loser; commerce involves someone
paying and someone being paid. In both cases, the lives, rights, and property of people
are involved in the interaction, signifying that anything that anyone executes that
can adversely affect somebody else must be asserted with liability and
accountability. Otherwise, anyone can make any allegations, claims, and charges
against anyone for anything and no penalties accrue for any specious action.
3. If one’s paper soldiers would be invincible combatants and not paper tigers, they
must be seven-point instruments, all of which must be present in order that the
result be sound and devoid of weaknesses. One of these essential seven (7) points
is the necessity for being executed via affidavit sworn true, correct, and complete,
with the signer’s commercial liability staked on the validity, veracity, relevance, and
verifiability of everything that the signer claims/charges/alleges that might result in
someone else experiencing loss.
4. As mentioned above, neither attorneys nor government agents—unless speaking

for themselves with firsthand, personal knowledge—can ever execute a document by
affidavit sworn true, correct, and complete. This is because such persons deal in
hearsay and as agents of other people and the system, not for/as themselves. This
is a fundamental weakness/defect in all of their paperwork, which those who are not
encumbered by acting as agents of the public are not inflicted. Nothing prevents a
private party, if he is speaking for and as himself, from executing all his paperwork
by affidavit sworn true, correct, and complete, and thereby by such means alone
overcoming the paper soldiers of those whose paperwork is defective by virtue of the
omission.
5. All attorneys and agents of the government executed paperwork by declaring

“true and correct under penalty of perjury.” “True and correct” is not “true, correct,
and complete.” In fact, declaring “true and correct” is perjury by omission, granting
the alleging party carte blanche for asserting off-point irrelevancies. Indeed, all
attorneys, the whole system, and everything that passes for “law” today functions by
this means. The game is alleging any old thing, no matter how untrue, absurd, and
bizarre, and then tricking the receiver of the nonsense into denying, i.e. traversing,
and thereby enjoining the argument on the alleging party’s ground and departing
from the affected party’s ground of truth.
In commerce, when someone executes an affidavit sworn true, correct, and complete that affects
someone else, the affected party must rebut point-for-point by counteraffidavit sworn true, correct,
and complete. Whatever points are unrebutted stand as the truth. When this occurs in a court
trial, there might be, for instance, ten (10) counts leveled against the defendant. If the defendant
successfully rebuts, i.e. neutralizes, seven (7) of the counts, it is the three (3) that remain that
stand as the truth. From this scenario the following Commercial Maxim logically follows.
6) An unrebutted affidavit becomes the judgment in Commerce (Heb. 6:16-17).
This point is now rendered self-evident. At the end of the duel, when the truth has been decided
on the basis of the loser having not rebutted particular accusations, claims, charges, and the like,
what stands as the truth is that concerning which the judgment of the law is applied. The
defendant must then pay the appropriate price for whatever wrongs/debts are determined as valid
by his having not successfully rebutted them.
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.”).
This Maxim and the following one are corollaries. By means of utilizing them one may accomplish
virtually anything in the world of law and commerce, certainly in the way of self-defense. Such
success is achieved by knowing the principles/rules and applying them in practice.
One must first of all never forget that all law is contract. Furthermore, contracts are very often (in
fact probably more often than not) ratified by saying and doing nothing, i.e. default, than by any
express words and action. If you speak your mind contractually in the proper manner, a contract
between you and any party coming after you can be finalized in which the tables have been turned
and what began with you on the defensive and your opponent as the aggressor is reversed 180o
and you are the commercial and financial victor, with your opponent rendered impotent in law and
obligated contractually/commercially for paying you the sums of money established in the terms
and conditions of the finalized contract. This is accomplished by the means outlined under the
following Maxim.
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.”).
As example of the nature and power of the Commercial Maxims, we can make an analogy of a
court trial and a tennis match. Both occur in a context called a “court”—a tennis court and a court
of law. In a trial, if one stands mute and does not answer/rebut the charges of which he is
accused, then all charges leveled against him stand as the truth. Silence is deemed as
acquiescence/consent. This course of action is akin to standing on a tennis court and not hitting
any of your opponent’s balls back.
If, however, you are in court and become involved in the trial, i.e. a duel involving answering,
denying, rebutting, and explaining, you are traversing, which is in tennis the equivalent of
endeavoring to return all of your opponent’s volleys in a manner that he cannot then return the ball
to you. Certainly the possibility exists that one can win such a match, but never without exertion
and the loss of many points.
A third strategy exists, which would be disallowed in tennis but can be invoked when dealing with
the system. That strategy would consist, in tennis, of placing a 100’ high wall along the full length
of the tennis net, prohibiting your opponent from ever hitting any ball into your court whatsoever.
Everything he hit—no matter how hard or skillfully—would simply rebound back on him and you
would remain unscathed, the winner without needing to hit a single ball.
In a situation of dealing with the law, building a 100’ high wall is accomplished by the following
strategy, by means of which you may remain immune from the plague of the legal/judicial system
and go about your life without the obligation for becoming embroiled in legal games that you might
not wish to play:
1. Copyright your name by publishing a Copyright Notice four (4) times in a

newspaper of general circulation that publishes legal notices. The publishing should
be done once a week for four (4) weeks. This Copyright Notice informs any potential
User of any name that is intended as pertaining to you that any unauthorized use
thereof without your express, prior, written permission signifies the User’s consent
for becoming the debtor on a self-executing UCC Financing Statement in the amount
of $500,000 per unauthorized use of any name used with the intent of obligating
you, plus costs, plus triple damages.[8][6]
2. Execute a Private Agreement by and between the real you, as the Creditor, with
your name in upper- and lower-case letters (John Henry Doe) and your all-capital-
letter name (JOHN HENRY DOE) as the Debtor. This document is private and is not
filed, but retained by you.
3. File a properly executed UCC Financing Statement, with Security Agreement and
Hold Harmless and Indemnity Agreement (both of which are contracts between the
abstract you, i.e. the all-caps name, and the real you, i.e. your upper- and lower-
case name), in the UCC Department of the Secretary of State, preferably in the State
in which you live.
4. In the event that any person in the system levels accusations, claims, charges,
bills, fines, summons, indictments, etc., against you, his presentment constitutes an
offer for contracting with you, i.e. for doing business. As a counteroffer, setting forth
your terms and conditions for doing business with him, send him an affidavit sworn
true, correct, and complete containing the following items, notices, and
requirements:
a. Notify him of your paramount claim on your straw man and providing him
with the details of what the cost is to that person for doing business with you,
i.e. by using your all-caps name in commerce without your permission for his
unjust commercial enrichment.
b. Require that he validate/verify the alleged debt, under oath, in accordance

with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, at 15 USC 1692(g).
c. Require that he provide proof of his authority for collecting the alleged
debt, with certified, true copies of all agency agreements from whatever
principal(s) are allegedly providing him with authority for acting against you.
d. Require that he provide a copy of the underlying contract in which you are
allegedly in default, including an accounting of all goods and services with
which you were provided and for which you have not paid (i.e. all the proper
commercial paperwork).
e. Require that he provide the contractual and statutory source of his

authority for issuing currency (that never before existed in the history of the
universe) by creating a promissory note with your all-caps name as debtor
and requiring that you, the real being, become the surety for the alleged
debt.
f. Provide him with a Privacy Act Notice informing him that he is foreclosed
from imparting any information about you and your affairs for the benefit of
any third parties.
g. Require that he respond to you within a specified period of time via

counteraffidavit sworn true, correct, and complete, notifying him that his
failure to respond within the designated time via point-for-point rebuttal
under oath sworn true, correct, and complete invokes the doctrine of
consent/acquiescence by silence and constitutes his tacit agreement that your
position is correct in totality and that all of his allegations and actions are
bogus, null and void, and of no force and effect.
h. In form him further that all continued action against you in the absence of
full compliance with all of your “put up or shut up” demands constitute his
agreement and consent, i.e. “confession and consent of judgment,” that he
grants you full authorization for collecting against him in his personal capacity
by such means as filing a UCC Financing Statement against all of his property,
which may be non-judicially seized (strict foreclosure) for the payment of his
obligation.
5. If he does not withdraw his offending claims, charges, presentment, etc., within
the specified time frame for him to do so, then his default constitutes a finalized
contract between you and him. By the terms of this consummated, ratified contract
he is now indebted to you for the amounts that you informed him he would owe
should he proceed as he was doing without substantiating his position and negating
yours. He has then lost the game of “put up or shut up,” left the field of battle, and
lost by default. The transaction that he initiated as a position of would-be creditor,
attempting to make you a debtor, has been reversed and you are established in the
end as the creditor and he is placed in the position of being your debtor. Such is the
power of truth combined with understanding and use of the appropriate principles.
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.”). In the vernacular, the principle embodied in
this Maxim is encapsulated in the admonitions: “Talk’s cheap,” “Put your money where your mouth
is,” and “Put up or shut up.”
For instance, if someone attempts to join a high-stakes poker game but will not place any stakes
while wishing to take the pot without ever risking any loss, he would probably be thrown out of the
building. Judges and attorneys, however, function from their aloof strata of “true and
correct” (perjury by omission and irrelevancy) while requiring that all of the disputants bind
themselves by swearing to tell the “truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,” which is the
judicial equivalent of swearing “true, correct, and complete.” While nearly any document the
system would have people sign requires execution “under penalty of perjury, true, correct, and
complete” (see, for instance, an IRS Form 1040, application for Social Security, etc.), the chances
of anyone receiving a document from anyone in the system, e.g. an IRS agent, that is sworn under
penalty of perjury true, correct, and complete are essentially non-existent. In 28 USC 1746 those
“within the United States” relieved themselves of any such encumbrance.
This unwillingness for sacrificing, therefore, i.e. staking some risk on the validity, veracity,
relevance, and verifiability of everything agents and officials of the system say and do, renders the
totality of their undertakings shams. No sacrifice, no credibility.
10) A lien or claim can be satisfied only through rebuttal by Counteraffidavit 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.”).
As was stated earlier, the total number of commercial—and hence legal—documents is quite small.
Technically, all of the documents must be affidavits executed by being sworn true, correct, and
complete. These categories of documents, by which all of the law and commerce of the world
function, are as follows:
1. Commercial paperwork (affidavit of accounting);
2. Declaration (affidavit of notice);
3. Contract (affidavit of agreement);
4. Notice of interest (three-week, unbonded distress);
5. Distress (affidavit of distraint/impound);
6. Criminal complaint (affidavit of information);
7. Lien (affidavit of obligation).
A lien is a “paper debt collector,” and should be the culminating document borne of an adequate
paper trail, i.e. accumulation of documents interchanged between the parties resulting in a
finalized, consensual, private contract that grants one party authority for seizing another party’s
property that was contractually pledge for the purpose of collateralizing an obligation. It is of
utmost importance that one understand that in law and commerce, the reality is the record. As a
result, “the bookkeeper is king.” If you would hope to succeed you must keep complete books and
records. Always “get it in writing.” Otherwise you have only thin air upon which to base any
claims you might wish to assert.
The foundation of every record is the commercial paperwork, consisting of two (2) essential
elements:
1. A ledger of accounting, consisting of an itemized list of goods and services

provided by whom to whom, with corresponding monetary values indicated for each
entry;
2. Record of responsibility identifying the party who takes commercial liability and
responsibility for the accuracy, relevance, and verifiability of each bookkeeping
entry.
Although technically every document in commerce must be executed by/under affidavit sworn true,
correct, and complete, the commerce of the world consists of billions of people engaging in
countless commercial transactions a day. Obviously, then, it is impractical for the trillions of
documents involved in actual commerce to be done by having to take each one to a notary to be
certified and sworn as being true, correct, and complete. Commerce, to be practical, must be
efficient, streamlined, and minimalist. The force and effect of every document, however, is
ultimately its accuracy, relevance, and verifiability combined with some living, sentient being who
takes responsibility for the validity of the document and the information that it contains. This must
be so because every legal and commercial document involves someone paying and someone
receiving gain. Since every such document thus involves a potential loss to someone else,
accuracy and responsibility/accountability/liability must be inherent in everything. Therefore,
although not in actuality sworn true, correct, and complete, all commercial documents are enforced
as if they were. Reality cannot be cheated. No matter how fantastic and removed from reality and
sanity matters become, ultimately everything must be grounded in, and be able to be traced back
to, the ground level, which is the combination of accuracy (truth) and individual
responsibility/accountability.
While the Tenth Maxim provides an option of dealing with a lien via counteraffidavit sworn true,
correct, and complete, if you have developed your lien properly, rebuttal by the adverse party is
impossible. This is because finalization of the contract is derived from a series of defaults by the
adverse party, i.e. contractual ratifications by invoking the doctrine of “consent and acquiescence
by silence.” In short, you give the adverse party X number of days to prove his position or
abandon it, i.e. “put up or shut up,” and notify him that if he fails to do either within the required
time frame his non-doing signifies full agreement with all of the assertions you have noticed him by
affidavit sworn true, correct, and complete.
By the time a lien is executed, your paper trail, i.e. record of property executed commercial
paperwork, is significant, and that of the defaulting party is either woefully inadequate or non-
existent (since their normal penchant is to ignore you). In the end, then, the only way the
adverse party can rebut your lien is by proving on the record something that never happened and
does not exist, which is that he successfully rebutted, via counteraffidavit sworn true, correct, and
complete, each and every affidavit you noticed him. Since he cannot prove the impossible, your
position stands unrebutted as the truth and judgment of the law, granting you authority for seizing
his property as payment of his obligation.
Dealing with a claim, which is established on the record by means of filing a UCC Financing
Statement with a proper Security Agreement and Hold Harmless and Indemnity Agreement, is even
more ironclad.
First of all, in your paperwork you do not reference such words as “lien,” “distress,” nor any terms
with legal implications that can be construed as granting authority for commencing a justiciable
controversy (legal dispute/court case). Restrict all your terms to strict commerce/UCC, e.g.
“Financing Statement,” “security interest,” “Security Agreement,” “claim,” etc.
By such means you have neutralized the possibility for an adverse party to neutralize your claim by
the first two means referenced in the Tenth Maxim, i.e. rebuttal and arbitration, leaving him with
only the third option, which is payment.
Fortunately, non-judicial seizure of assets, i.e. “strict foreclosure,” is a viable process, recognized
and discussed in the new Article 9 of the UCC, and acted upon widely throughout the world. A
properly executed lien and non-judicial collection thereon is the teeth and culmination of securing
your life, rights, and property outside of the legal/judicial/governmental system.
Part 3
A. Principles.
All of creation can be thought of as music. Both consist of vibrations, rhythm, harmony, potential
dissonance, and forms (melodies). Creation, like music, is characterized by a type of construction
with which every musician is familiar: theme and variations. As examples, one may cite trees,
people, birds, sex, essentially anything in creation. Based on something so simple as male and
female, for instance, look at the variations and complexities that ensue.
The same situation pertains in law and commerce, where everything is a function of basic themes
(principles) with variations (particular expressions, contexts, set of facts, events, combinations,
and nuances). Ralph Waldo Emerson articulately expressed the paramount importance of
understanding and applying principles in any given situation:
Without ambition one starts nothing.
Without work one finishes nothing.
The prize will not be sent to you.
As to methods there may be a million and then some,
But the principles are few.
The man who grasps principles can successfully select his own methods.
The man who tries methods, ignoring, principles, is sure to have trouble.
In the case of law and commerce, the basic themes are the fundamental principles and Commercial
Maxims heretofore discussed in Parts One and Two, respectively. The bridge between the first set
of universal principles, which may be considered as axiomatic in our universe, and the Commercial
Maxims that apply in law and commerce, is the activation of a single, simple ethical choice, i.e. a
single principle: One may play either win/win or win/lose games in interacting with others.
This ethical choice, regardless of which choice is adopted as a basis for achieving, is implemented
for the purpose of actualizing another fundamental principle, discussed above: The nature of life is
to grow, progress, and evolve towards its fulfillment, towards ever-fuller realization of its own
unbounded divinity and infinity. In other words, “life” is a four-letter word spelled “more.” Every
living thing wants more. This includes “good guys,” i.e. people who live by win/win interactions,
and “bad guys,” i.e. those who function in life on a win/lose basis. Everyone thereby makes an
ethical choice concerning which approach he will adopt for furthering his inherent life-drive for
more. Everyone wishes to succeed. What remains is the choices one makes as to the means, i.e.
whether to pursue honorable or dishonorable action.
Another principle heretofore discussed that operates whenever someone acts on his innate drive
for more is the fundamental source of man’s problems: the illusion of separation. When one has
conscious awareness that he, like all and everything, is an express of the One, and is therefore one
with everything and everyone, playing win/lose games is perceived as ludicrous, since one is
involved in attempting to cheat oneself, i.e. another aspect of oneself. This is like a hand trying to
grasp itself.
George Gilder, in his book Wealth and Poverty, articulates this principle eloquently in the context of
economics:
The belief that the good fortune of others is also finally one's own does not come easily or
invariably to the human breast. It is, however, the golden rule of economics, a key to
peace and prosperity, a source of the gifts of progress.
We now arrive at what is simultaneously the alleged “necessity” for the existence of governments,
and the way in which all governments function (and must function in order for the institution to be
classified as a “government”). Namely, some people relate with others by dishonorable means,
i.e. by win/lose interactions, whereby someone attempts to gain the rewards of some relationship
without giving something of equal or greater value in exchange. A thief, for instance, takes
property that is the fruit of the labor of someone else, i.e. the cause/effect result of the rightful
owner’s labor, without engaging in any win/win actions that generate the rewards that the thief
expropriates. Because almost everyone has the presence of some bit of larceny in his heart (those
who have none are often called “saints,” “sages,” and the like), many people engage in actions that
they think will be a shortcut in fulfilling their life-drive for more—they lie, cheat, steal, take by
force, fraud, duress, etc. By such means, people who act in a win/lose manner think that they
have taken a shortcut in fulfilling their life-drive for more. What such people do not realize is that
such a “shortcut” takes longer in the end.
Ever since Eden the ways, contexts, nuances, and aspects of man’s efforts at winning by playing
win/lose games have been infinite in variety, creativity, and subtlety. The end result of all of them,
however, include such consequences as the following:
1. Since man “reaps what he sows,” i.e. the inviolable law of karma (action/reaction
in the life of man) functions by virtue of natural law, the alleged “winner” causes
harm not only to his victim, the larger community, and perhaps all of creation, but
also ultimately to himself. For this reason there is existentially no such thing as
“win/lose” success over time; all such approaches to action eventually generate
“lose/lose” consequences, i.e. everyone loses and no one wins, including the
purported “winner.”
2. Discord and disharmony are generated in the fabric of social life.
3. The conflicts that necessarily result require, by the innate drive of life for more
happiness and harmony, resolution of the ensuing dispute, i.e. restoration of
coherence.
4. Governments exist primarily for the alleged reason of preventing people from
engaging in win/lose activities, and even more, for pursuing means for achieving
rectification, via “punishment” and other applications of destructive, physical force,
against the perpetrators of win/lose games.
Further, as we have seen, the map is not the territory; the name is not the thing named, and all
law is contract. All courts deal with words/abstractions/maps, i.e. legal persons and contracts
between them. Thus, the lynchpin between the universal, existential principles and the activation
of the ten (10) Commercial Maxims, consists of the principle: The court is the substitute for the
dueling field. The court system is intended as being a forum wherein and whereby disputes can be
arbitrated in a “civilized” and “objective” manner, thereby obviating the alleged necessity for the
disputants taking retribution, fighting it out, engaging in duels, etc. Neither duels, nor courts, nor
governments would exist if everyone played only win/win games.
By creating a ceremonial forum for dispute resolution called a “court,” the duel is shifted from the
direct, physical plane and into a structured setting wherein dispute resolution may occur in
accordance with allegedly known and mutually agreed-upon rules, arbitrated by an alleged
“impartial” referee called a “judge.” Courts deal in words, abstract symbols, and ideas. Indeed,
the legislative branch of a tripartite government actualizes the three (3) facilities by which man
functions: 1) thought (legislative branch, i.e. a group of people who dream up the laws), 2) word
(judicial branch, where words are used for arguments and arbitration, for the purpose of arriving
the resolution of a dispute), and 3) deed (executive branch, that carries out the results of court
decisions in the realm of concrete action, i.e. re-imposes the abstract result arrived at in court back
upon reality in the form of fines and punishments).
B. Presumptions.
Some remarkable conclusions from the above-described gestalt become self-evident:
1. The courts, dealing with words and contracts, neither deal with, nor act directly
upon, real beings; they involve themselves exclusively with abstract legal persons.
[9][1]
2. Once one is clear concerning the above fact, questions immediately arise
concerning the abstract entity that is purportedly united with the real being in some
manner:
a. What kind of legal person is the court dealing with that is allegedly some abstract
representation of you?
b. What is the relationship between the real you and the abstract version of
you with which the courts deal?
c. How did that alleged unification between the real you and the abstract you
come about?
d. What is the nature of the alleged nexus between the real you and the
abstract representation of yourself?
e. Whatever the above-reference nexus is presumed by the courts as being,

can you sever the alleged nexus in a manner that forecloses the courts and
legal system from trying the abstract representation of you and then having
the executive (sheriff, police, wardens, etc.) re-impose the abstract
sentencing back on you (re-impose the map back onto the territory)?
Of these questions, let us deal first with the nature of the alleged nexus between the abstract
(reflection, mirror image) of you and the real (substantive, living) you. Inasmuch as all law is
contract, the nature of the nexus can therefore be only one thing: contract. More accurately, the
courts and legal system function on the basis of a presumption of contract. In other words, the
system deals with concocted presumptions, which are “as if,” or “what if,” i.e. in the subjunctive
mode of English grammar. All of this transpires in an imaginary realm, an Alice-in-Wonderland
world of mental abstractions, playing a game that might be called “let’s pretend.”[10][2] From the
primal premise that one can play “let’s pretend” games and re-impose them on the real world
derives our current colorable, malleable, ephemeral, mirage-like, infuriating system. In this
make-believe world anything goes, for reasons that include the following:
1. Governments exist and function exclusively by win/lose interactions. Even when

a government appears to be giving something, or engaging in some constructive
action, it is at the expense of removing rights and resources from the people to secure
its authority and financing. Moreover, whatever “good” a government may appear to
do is superficial symptom-treatment, and does nothing to create genuine solutions,
which do not reside with any government but within the hearts and minds of the
people.
In the United States today the situation is far worse. What is called the “United States
Government” is a bankrupt corporation underwritten by, in receivership in favor of,
and a mere front for the Federal Reserve, International Monetary Fund (IMF), et al.
This private government functions in its own commercial, military, international
jurisdiction under the “law of necessity” characterizing the “state of emergency” that
has prevailed since the Civil War. The law of necessity is actually “no law,” i.e. the
suspension of law for the purpose of dealing with the “emergency.” In the law of
necessity the “law of the jungle” prevails, in which anything goes, i.e. one may survive
at the expense of the lives, rights, and property of others. This is a state of war, and
truth, ethics, and compassion are the most serious casualties. All that matters is
winning by any means; there are no rules except “just eat, baby.” “All’s fair in love
and war,” and all governments (no matter how structured, dressed up, and disguised)
function in a perpetual state of war between the government and the people. This is
now expressly codified in law, whereby every “citizen of the United States” is classified
as an enemy of the private, commercial, corporate government (US Inc.) based upon
the Amendatory Act re the Trading With The Enemy Act of March 9, 1933.
This perpetual “state of emergency,” which was created by the very Government that
is the beneficiary of its self-caused emergency, is codified, inter alia, at 12 USC 95 and
in the Appendix of Title 50. The first act of every new US President is the reaffirmation
of his authority under the War Powers, 12 USC 95, inasmuch as that “authorization” is
not only his exclusive source of power but the source of authority for the entire
system, including Congress, all administrative agencies, law enforcement, and courts,
i.e. all of US Inc. The power of all of these entities, i.e. every aspect of the so-called
government and legal system today, derives from this private, military, commercial,
international, admiralty-equity jurisdiction of the alleged Creditors of the bankrupt US
Inc.
2. The Commercial Maxims become operationally dominant, most especially Maxims

four (4) through seven (7), because people never rebut the presumption that they
voluntarily agreed to play the “let’s pretend” game. When one engages in tangible
rebuttal, however, a catch-22 prevails:
· If you directly rebut the presumption you enjoin the argument, grant
credence to your opponent’s cause and jurisdiction (and are now merely
haggling about the particulars, i.e. the price), and traverse. Black’s Law
Dictionary, 5th Edition, defines “traverse” and “traverser” as follows:
Traverse. “In common law pleading, a traverse signifies a denial.

Thus, where a defendant denies any material allegation of fact in the
plaintiff’s declaration, he is said to traverse it, and the plea itself is
thence frequently termed a ‘traverse.’” Page 1345.
Traverser. “In pleading, one who traverses or denies. A prisoner or

party indicted; so called from his traversing the indictment.” Page
1345. [By this definition, everyone in jail is there because he
traversed, i.e. enjoined the argument.]
· If you do not rebut the presumption you lose by default, i.e. Commercial
Maxims four (4) through seven (7) operate and your failure is established.
The way out of this “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” catch-22 is accomplished
by rebutting the presumptions (essentially all of which are undisclosed) not by
traversing, i.e. arguing, denying, addressing your adversary’s issues, etc., but by
unilaterally affirming your own position in a manner that simultaneously eliminates the
presumptions operating against you.[11][3] In such case you are not arguing,
denying, and the like, nor are you addressing any aspect of what any possible adverse
party might assert, such the validity, veracity, authenticity, relevance, etc., of
anything he might allege. You are remaining in your own domain, “minding your own
business,” asserting your own truth, all in a manner that simultaneously neutralizes
and preempts his unrevealed presumptions. Now if an adverse party comes after
you, it is he who is traversing, i.e. he leaves his ground and enters your domain,
where you are sovereign and your truth rules, and where he does not belong, where
your assertions stand, and for which he cannot speak.
The wise words of the I Ching are apt in the world of commerce: “A Superior Man goes
only into his own domain.” The great French political economist, Frederic Bastiat,
phrased the matter more bluntly: “Minding one’s own business is the only moral law.”
The same sentiment is echoed by a timeless maxim of law: “It is a fault to meddle
with what does not belong to or does not concern you. Dig. 50, 17, 36; 2 Inst. 208.
(See Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Maxims.”)
This process of rebutting without traversing by unilaterally asserting your own truth
without involving yourself in countering someone else’s stated position is a powerful
and subtle technique that operates in certain esoteric martial arts. In this article we
call the process “non-rebuttal rebutting.”
Some of the presumptions of law upon which the system functions are:
1. Man is the source of sovereignty, experience, free will, and government (possibly
the only accurate and noble presumption in the entire legal system today). This
foundational presumption is essential because otherwise no one could be held liable
for anything, no one would be accountable, and no law would therefore be possible.
The first thing a judge asks a defendant at an arraignment is “Do you understand the
charges?” In other words, “Did you, as a conscious, sentient, autonomous being
with free will and ethical discernment, knowingly and intentionally violate the law?”
2. We in the system always win, and you always lose.
3. We are under no compulsion, no obligation, to reveal the presumptions of law

under which we function.
4. It is presumed that you knowingly, intentionally, and voluntarily contracted into

the system and are bound by all of the terms and conditions of the contract, i.e. you
contracted yourself into the position of being our subject, slave, and chattel
property, so what’s your beef?
The key elements of the entire scenario start becoming clear at this point, i.e.
1. You must rebut the presumptions of law (almost entirely unrevealed) on the basis
of which the system functions, since it is the presumptions, not what posses as “law”
and “facts,” that constitute the source of the system’s power over you. Dealing with
the “law” and the “facts” is taking the bait and falling into a trap. It is following
rabbit trails that lead away from you own turf and into their hostile jungle in the
dark. The system deals entirely with fabricated, off-point irrelevancies and lures
people into traversing, i.e. enjoining the argument, which is like joining their
imaginary game of cops and robbers (in this case a game of “system vs. suckers”).
This is akin to joining in the plot of a novel one is reading, is if it were real. What
those in the system say and do is their truth, their business, their priorities—not
yours. Why are you involving yourself with what is not your business and for which
you cannot speak? Speak for yourself and recognize that they are speaking for
themselves.
2. The central, foundational presumption that you must rebut is the presumption that
you are contractually united with the corporate, abstract all-caps name that the
Government creates and tricks/deceives you into identifying your real being with the
fictitious name.
It is clear that if the Government creates a corporate entity, in this case your all-capital-letter
name, which the Government owns and can therefore act on and against in any manner the
Government wishes, and if you are presumed as being contractually bound with that entity, then
you are rendered a permanent slave and your life is one of perpetual conflict and tension. The
Government desires a mountain of compliance from you re the taxes you must pay, the regulations
you must comply with, and the laws you must obey. Because all of these things are designed and
enforced from the Government’s perspective, and in accordance with its whims and priorities, and
your natural life necessarily consists of a contrary set of understandings, goals, and desires, living
in such a situation renders your life one of permanent conflict and tension. You are trying to “serve
two masters” at the same time, each requiring contrary things from you. The result is the situation
characterized by Thoreau’s celebrated comment, “The mass of men live lives of quiet desperation.”
C. Progression.
What is the nature of the presumed contractual nexus between the real you (owned by you) and
the abstract, corporate image of you (owned by the Government until/unless you redeem it)? The
set of facts and events, outlined below, arranged in historical progression, summarizes America’s
situation and how it developed. All of this progression is the acting out of an original ethical choice
of the perpetrators, i.e. the decision of particular people that they can gain in life by playing
win/lose games at the expense of others. Their first step in pursuing this win/lose course of action
is inventing relating with the people in accordance with such imaginary games as “rulers and ruled,
where I am the ruler and you are the ruled,” which in turn is founded on another let’s pretend
postulate, “let’s suppose that some men have a transcendent right for governing others.” People
are drawn into the phony game by promulgation of such make-believe ideas as, “I’m a citizen of
the United States.” The entire system thus consists of becoming absorbed in a vast mirage of
endless artificially concocted, preposterous nonsense. No one possesses any existential/ethical
right to rule others (everyone is a free-will sovereign), and no one can be a fictitious entity, i.e. a
“citizen of the United States.
In basically chronological order, the following win/lose progression of growth of the power, scope,
and pervasiveness of government vis-à-vis the rights, freedom, and well being of the people
characterizes the sad—if not desperate—plight of America today:
1. The USA, a corporation of the English Crown, is bankrupt, and has been since at least
1788. The Articles of Confederation states in Article 12: “All bills of credit emitted, monies
borrowed, and debts contracted by, or under the authority of Congress, before the
assembling of the United States, in pursuance of the present confederation, shall be
deemed as considered a charge against the United States, for payment and satisfaction
whereof the said United States, and the public faith are hereby solemnly pledged.” The
“Founding Fathers,” as constitutors, acknowledged and reorganized the debt in the US
Constitution 1787, Article VI, hence “constitution.” Bankruptcy occurred on January 1, 1788
based on 21 loans that the United States of America received from the King of England
dating from February 28, 1778 through July 5, 1782, the repayment of which had been
ratified by Congress on January 22, 1783. The United States Bank, created in 1791, was a
private bank, with 18,000 of 25,000 shares owned by England.
2. No de jure, constitutional Congress has existed since March 27, 1861 when seven (7)
Southern States walked out of Congress leaving Congress without a quorum for adjourning
and therefore ending sine die. That which is called “Congress” today assembles and acts
under the authority of the President acting in capacity of being Commander-In-Chief of the
Armed Forces, under emergency war-powers rule, i.e. “law of necessity,” i.e. no law (see 12
Stat 319, which has never been repealed and exists in Title 50 USC §§ 212, 213, 215,
Appendix 16, 26 CFR Chapter 1 § 303.1-6(a), and 31 CFR Chapter 5 § 500.701 Penalties).
3. Since the above-referenced date, March 27, 1861, Americans have been under Fascist
rule via presidential executive order under the aforementioned Emergency War Powers, 12
USC 95 a, b. Every “citizen of the United States” is now “legally” established as an “enemy”
via the Amendatory Act of March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, amending Trading With Enemy Act of
October 6, 1917, H.R. 4960, Public Law No. 91.
4. December 6th, 1865, the 14th Amendment was proclaimed as ratified (even though it
never properly was, see below). The 14th Amendment, which is private Roman Catholic
Ecclesiastical Trust Law, constitutes a constructive, cestui que trust, a public charitable
trust, “PCT,” that was expressly designed to bring every corporate franchise artificial person
called a “citizen of the United States” into an inseparable merging with the government until
the two are united (with the power inhering in the government, not the people). A cestui
que trust is fundamentally different from a regular trust, which is express in nature and consists
of a contractual indenture involving three (3) parties: Grantor (Creator or Trustor), Trustee,
and Beneficiaries. In an express trust, legal ownership is transferred by written contract
between Grantor and Trustee in which the Grantor surrenders ownership of property to the
legal person, the Trust, to be managed by the Trustee on behalf of those who are to benefit
from the arrangement, the Beneficiaries. A cestui que trust, on the other hand, differs from
an express trust in several crucial ways:
a. It is not formed by express contract, i.e. overt agreement expressed in writing,

but by legal construction, i.e. fiat.
b. A cestui que trust has no Grantor, but, being a constructive trust created by
operation of law, i.e. by make-believe, has only co-trustees and co-beneficiaries. The
co-trustees are the parties with the duties for managing property for the “public good,”
i.e. for the benefit of those designated as co-beneficiaries.
5. The Legislative Act of February 21, 1871, Forty-first Congress, Session III, Chapter 62,
page 419, chartered a Federal company entitled “United States,” a/k/a “US Inc.,” a
“Commercial Agency” originally designated as “Washington, D.C.,” in accordance with the
so-called 14th Amendment, which the record indicates was never ratified (see Utah Supreme
Court Cases, Dyett v Turner, (1968) 439 P2d 266, 267; State v Phillips, (1975) 540 P 2d
936; as well as Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 448, 59 S. Ct. 972; 28 Tulane Law Review, 22;
11 South Carolina Law Quarterly 484; Congressional Record, June 13, 1967, pp. 15641-
15646). A “citizen of the United States” is a civilly dead entity operating as a co-trustee
and co-beneficiary of the PCT, the constructive, cestui que trust of US Inc. under the 14th
Amendment, which upholds the debt of the USA and US Inc. in Section 4.
6. In conformity with the above-referenced creation of United States (1871) and the 14th
Amendment, the Legislature of each State created a limited-liability corporation, chartered
in a private, military, international, commercial, admiralty/maritime jurisdiction, entitled
“STATE OF…” e.g. “STATE OF CALIFORNIA,” as evidenced by, inter alia, the change in the
seal and the creation of a new constitution, e.g. Constitution of the State of California
(1879), concerning which, re California:
a. A general partnership agreement, hereinafter “General Partnership,” exists between

the California Republic (1849), and STATE OF CALIFORNIA (1879), with STATE OF
CALIFORNIA acting as governmental controller.
b. STATE OF CALIFORNIA now acts as an agent/instrumentality of United States,

collecting whole life insurance premiums, known as “taxes,” for the International
Monetary Fund, based, inter alia, upon the Limited Liability Act of 1851 and the
bankruptcy of United States of 1933, see House Joint Resolution 192 of June 5, 1933;
Public Law 73-10; Perry v. U.S. (1935), 294 U.S. 330-381, 79 L Ed 912; 31 USC 5112,
5119.
7. Inasmuch as all law is contract, the contract involved in a constructive trust is an implied
contract. An implied contract can be ratified by two (2) means:
a. Acquiescence by silence, i.e. the “government” asserts its intentions concerning

your life, rights, and property and you assent, don’t rebut, and compliantly go along
with what they claim. In 1871 the Government changed the nature of its contract with
the people from law as defined by the original Constitution of 1787 that recognizes law
(common law), admiralty (on the sea only), and equity (functioning by voluntary
contract between all participating parties), and began relating to people as if they were
“citizens of the Unites States” within/under the private, commercial, international,
military jurisdiction of the new de facto corporation, i.e. US Inc. They offered people a “new
deal,” and almost everyone bought it (based on naïve and foolish trust and assuming
that everything was OK).[12][4]
The people were thereby swindled out of access to law and placed on the ship of state
of US Inc. where the captain’s word is law and no one has any rights. Shades of the
Arabian Nights story of Aladdin and His Magic Lamp: “New lamps (shiny, worthless
ones) for old (magical, but dull and dusty).”
The point is that in implementing this win/lose progression of ever-increasing

government power, everything undertaken by the would-be “win” side is at the
expense of loss to the “lose” segment. As Jefferson phrased the matter, “As
government grows, liberty recedes.”
b. You expressly accept “benefits” offered by the government, and thereby finalize
the contract by deed. This is similar to finalizing a contract with a restaurant by sitting
down at a table, reading a menu, and then ordering and consuming a meal. By your
deeds you affirm to the restaurant that you will pay for the meal in accordance with
the price stated on the menu. No written contract is signed, but a contract is formed
nevertheless.
8. By the above two (2) means people give implied assent that they are bound by an
alleged contract with US Inc. (a let’s pretend game) in accordance with the terms and
conditions that inhere in being treated as a “citizen of the United States” under the 14th
Amendment, and are therefore placed into permanent indentured servitude. In such a
position people leave the ground of sovereignty and all capacity for asserting their
unalienable rights in favor of being presumed as having exercised their sovereignty and
free-will autonomy for the purpose of going along with the government’s assertion that they
sacrifice everything for the “public good,” i.e. the PCT. By so doing people lose their
standing in law, i.e. they “die a civil death in the law.” They are placed in the legal position
of mortmain (i.e. as if deceased) and are shorn of capacity for asserting their rights, since
the presumption is that they have already exercised those rights for the purpose of being
placed in the position they are in, i.e. playing the imaginary game. The private being (the
real individual) is sacrificed for the good of the public (the imaginary collective).
9. When people die such a civil death in they law they are like ghosts, and thereby
incapable of managing their own affairs and enjoying their unalienable rights. Like the
estate of a decedent, they are then managed by the executors/administrators of the estate,
in probate. Such is the condition of every “citizen of the United States” today, managed by
the government agencies acting as executors/administrators of their estates in bankruptcy,
legal incapacity, and civil death as assets of the bankrupt US. The US is a mere front for
the private Real Parties of Interest, the Creditors in bankruptcy, i.e. the families who own
the Federal Reserve.
10. The 14th Amendment was allegedly established for the purpose of creating a citizenship for
the liberated blacks, and other disenfranchised people, who otherwise had no citizenship
because they could not comply with the requirements for state citizenship. What actually
happened was that the blacks were taken off of the Southern slave plantations and placed
into the slave plantation of US Inc., a far worse lot.[13][5] The government then gradually
absorbed everyone else—including state citizens—into the same condition.
11. 1871-1913. Officers of the actual government held office in dual capacity, i.e. in both USA
and US Inc. status.
12. 1912. Bonds issued by US Inc. came due but US Inc. did not have the resources for paying
their creditors (the seven families that founded the Federal Reserve Bank), so US Inc.’s
owner (the actual government) was required to pay the balance. The national government was
also without sufficient funds to meet US Inc.’s obligations, so the creditors settled for all of
the assets of both US Inc. and the national government instead of foreclosure on and
liquidation of the entire country. By so doing they expropriated the nation—both USA and
US Inc. Sic transit America.
13. 1912. US Inc. forms an agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank (It is important to note
that both of these entities are private corporations which removes the general allegations of
treason or fraud from this relationship). Through this agreement US Inc. must function in
debt, even though they have neither funds nor resources for financing their operation.
14. 1912. The first corporate only Senators are seated in the next election year by popular
vote of the US Inc. registered voters. The original-jurisdiction national Senators of the
States did not assume office that year and at least one third of the nation’s Senators seats
were lawfully and voluntarily vacant.
15. February 3rd, 1913. US Inc. passes its 16th Amendment and Congress orders the
Secretary of State to enter it as ratified even though the States had not ratified it according
to Law. The Secretary complied. It should be noted that this would not have been lawful if
it were a national Constitution amendment, however it was perfectly legal within the
colorable, de facto corporation. It should also be noted that where the national Constitution
already had a 16th amendment and where the Supreme Court says that the new 16th
Amendment did not do anything, this corporate amendment must simply be a space filler
entered such that US Inc.’s Constitution (1871) would have the same number of
amendments as that of the national Constitution (1787).
16. April 8th, 1913. US Inc. passes its 17th amendment and Congress orders it to be entered
as ratified in the exact same manner as they did with US Inc.’s 16th Amendment. This
amendment changes where US Inc.’s Senators are elected. This amendment is not even
lawfully possible as a national Constitution amendment for several reasons, not the least of
which is that the amendment would have required that Congress first pass an amendment
that stated that they had the power to say where Senators are elected before they could
even deliberate on such a subject matter, after which they would then have to have
competent ratifications performed on such amendments in accord with constitutional limits,
not as was done with US Inc.’s 16th Amendment.
17. December 23, 1913. The Congress, late at night with only a small cadre of supporters
present, passed the Federal Reserve Act, surrendering the creation and management of the
nation’s currency into the hands of a cartel of private—and mostly foreign—bankers.
Currency is the single most essential and critical commodity in the world, embodying more
law and principles of commerce than any other. Since all interactions are “commerce,” and
the medium of doing business in commerce is currency, money is in a very significant sense
the measure of all things. By abandoning control and management of the money supply the
nation surrendered all capacity for claiming sovereignty. The government lost its
independent treasury (one of the requirements in law for national sovereignty). The United
States Government became a mere fiefdom, or administrative arm, of the bankers, who
now owned the store.
Passage of the Federal Reserve Act was a major milestone on the “road to serfdom” that this entire
progression outlines. The conspiratorial nature of matters is exemplified in comments by one of
the major actors in the triumph of the Federal Reserve, Edward Mandell House, who had this to say
in a private meeting with President Woodrow Wilson:
“[Very] soon, every American will be required to register their biological property in
a national system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under
the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to
submit to our agenda, which will effect our security as a chargeback for our fiat
paper currency. Every American will be forced to register or suffer being able to
work and earn a living. They will be our chattel, and we will hold the security
interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of
secured transactions. Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills
of lading to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, forever to remain economic
slaves through taxation, secured by their pledges. They will be stripped of their
rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be
none the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by
accident one or two should figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability.
After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debt to
the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap to us
huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor
to this fraud which we will call “Social Insurance.” Without realizing it, every
American will insure us for any loss we may incur and in this manner, every
American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will
become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and, we will employ the
high office of the President of our dummy corporation to foment this plot against
America.”
18. 1917. Corporate-only Senators begin participating in all matters with those Senators who
still had original jurisdiction government capacity, as a result of which all activities of the
government were performed in corporate capacity only.
19. 1917. President Wilson was re-elected by the Electoral College, but only US Inc.’s Senate
performed the Senate confirmation necessary for seating the national President. There was
no national government Senate confirmation; no national seats were seated and all
remained vacant. Note: the national President is also the Military’s Commander in Chief,
and under the nation’s status of being ruled by the private, commercial, martial-law rule of
the Bankers and English Crown, the business needs of the nation have remained under US
Inc. control since 1871, i.e. ever since US Inc. was incorporated and made operational over
such matters.
20. 1917-1944. All national government seats are and remain vacant, and US Inc. continues
maintaining the business needs of the government under martial-law rule.
21. June 5, 1933. US Inc. declares bankruptcy under House Joint Resolution, “HJR,” 192.
22. 1935. The Social Security Act is passed.
23. On application, the new Social Security Administration (hereinafter “SSA”) creates a
private Trust with a trust name that sounds like the name of the applicant except the Trust’s
name is spelled with all capital letters. SSA makes the applicant a co-trustee of the
namesake Trust, designates the SSA General Trust Fund as the Beneficiary of the namesake
trust, and assigns the Trust a Social Security General Trust Fund Account number re the
applicant for accounting and identification purposes.
24. 1938. In Erie Railroad v. Tompkins, 1938, 304 U.S. 64-92, the U.S. Supreme Court sets
the presumption re the status and capacity of an individual as that of General
Capacity/General Partnership relationship with the namesake Trust, as if the two (2)
entities—individual and namesake Trust—were one-in-the-same person.
25. 1944. In the Bretton Woods Agreement US Inc. is quit-claimed into the newly formed
International Monetary Fund (hereinafter “IMF”) in exchange for the power allowing US
Inc.’s President the right of naming (seating and controlling) the governors and general
managers of the International Monetary Fund, The World Bank for Reconstruction and
Development, and the Inter-American Bank also formed in that agreement (codified at
United States Code Title 22 § 286). It must be noted that this act created an unlawful
conflict of interest between US Inc. (with its new foreign owner) and its purpose of carrying
out the business needs of the national government. This is the cause of our use of the
term “original-jurisdiction” government. With the new foreign owner of US Inc. a conflict of
interest is created between the national government and US Inc., even though the
contracted purpose of US Inc. has not changed on its face.
26. Since 1953 – 1975 at least, MKULTRA (Mind Control, etc.), CIA, and Military are unlawfully
engaging in human experimentation with and without the knowledge of the subjects.
Military airborne toxins are sprayed on large cities without warning for the purpose of
studying distribution and effect patterns, and other more sinister purposes (see numerous
cites on the Internet re “chem-trails”). Cite: Joint Hearing before the US Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence, 95th Congress, 1st Session, August 3, 1977.
27. 1962. At the National Governor’s Conference in Lexington, Kentucky, US Inc. informs the
governors, under the guise of “public necessity”, that they must all form, or reform existing,
private corporations under US Inc. (in their state’s interest), so that the people will not
discover what the state governments are doing with the people’s money (dabbling in foreign
notes, i.e. Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs), bonds, and evidences of debt), which activity is
forbidden from State governments by their own State Constitutions, which information
would likely cause a people’s revolt ending in the State official’s being at worst killed and at
least replaced. The proposed incorporation deadline was 1968.
28. 1970. By this time each State revised its constitution and statutes and formed private
corporate entities of the name “STATE OF (X)” (where “(X)” is representative of the
common State name), and then vacated their original jurisdiction government seats in favor
of foreign ownership and control under the mandate of US Inc.
29. It appears that this was all done so a General Partnership could be presumed as existing
between “The State” (of the national Union of States) and “STATE OF (X)”, a private
corporation. Said STATE OF (X), as General Partner, then assumes the role of
governmental operator/controller. This scenario is further proven by the fact that these
corporate entities cannot handle gold and silver coin of the United States of America in
commercial transactions without violating the Par Value Modifications Act and the Foreign
Currency Exchange Act.
30. September 5, 1996, U.S. Patent & Trademark Office application number 709471 is filed,
consisting of a plan for marking the alleged “human property” of US Inc., i.e. every “citizen
of the United States,” reminiscent of the Biblical reference in the nature of the Mark of the
Beast. This plan is a violation of foundational law and is Luciferian in nature.
31. April 19th, 1991. The Ruby Ridge Massacre occurs, carried out by FBI agents.
32. April 19th, 1993. Federal agents end 51-day siege of 7th Day Adventists Branch Davidians
compound killing several of the members of the sect, in Waco, Texas. No lawful cause
existed for the siege and attack. All escaping children are shot.
33. April 19th, 1994. Federal agents attack, burn, and raze the compound, killing
approximately 100 of the members of the sect, without any lawful cause for the action.
34. April 19th, 1995, Federal Building in Oklahoma was blown up. There were three sets of
explosions recorded on seismographs, the least effective of which was in the Ryder truck.
The strongest of the explosions, which created the crater, was caused by a sub-nuclear device.
The explosions that demolished the building were set with mil-spec C4 bombs attached to
the columns in the basement and on the third floor. Only US Inc. officials could have
orchestrated this sequence of events.
35. 50 USC 1520 et seq. demonstrates that there exists an agenda for using Americans
(Sovereign and otherwise) as biological test subjects. This is a fundamental breach of an
alleged Constitutional contract.
36. President Clinton pushes for a mandatory health care bill for the purpose of placing the
physical bodies of all Americans under control of US Inc., with international identification
attached, for the purpose of tagging the populace, as per the Biblical prophesy of the Mark
of the Beast. The computer that would handle the tracking is even identified with the
acronym: B.E.A.S.T.
What the above progression depicts is the systematic growth of the power, scope, and pervasive
control of Government exercised against the American people by foreign, criminal, and hostile
powers. The inherent win/lose nature of those who believe in and operate governments is
actualized, driven by the life-drive for more, with the one and only single result that always occurs
when the flawed premises upon which governments are founded become established in ruling a
nation: the culture rises, grows to its zenith, and then—slowly or suddenly—decays, disintegrates,
and disappears. This same dreary gestalt constitutes the nature of man’s history on this planet as
far back as the eye can see. Civilizations rise, fall, and disappear, replaced by new ones that—
based upon being founded on, and functioning in accordance with, wrong principles—are
foredoomed for extinction, as were all of their predecessors and as all future civilizations will be
until mankind finally learns and ceases “beating a dead horse” by structuring law, commerce,
religion, and social organization in general on principles that are existentially impossible and
ethically wrong.
The above progression has proceeded in America by implementing such strategy as:
1. Relentlessly instilling in people the foundational idea that governments in general are
absolutely essential in the society of man and that the Government in America is the
people’s friend and servant, i.e. a “government of the people, by the people, and for the
people.” These premises are untrue—self-serving cons by those who want the power.
2. Creating governmentally owned corporate franchises, such as a “citizen of the United

States” and one’s all-capital-letter name, with which people are deceived into identifying.
3. Regarding every citizen of the United States as contractually being:
a. A corporate citizen, i.e. a corporate franchise;
b. A co-trustee (with duties) and co-beneficiary (with privileges) of the 14th

Amendment Public Charitable cestui que Trust;
c. Pledged as an asset in the bankruptcy of US Inc., and therefore a co-surety for

the debts of US Inc.;
d. An enemy of the Creditors;
e. Chattel property of the Bankers and Power Elite;
f. A slave with no capacity for asserting any rights, no standing in law, and no
capacity for contracting.
4. Functioning on the presumption that the individual being, with autonomy and free will,
knowingly, intentionally, and voluntarily contracted into the situation of being united—like
heads and tails of a coin—with a corporate entity created and owned by the Government.
As per the established maxim of law, “As a thing is bound, so it is unbound,” the way out of the
problem is within and through the problem. This is accomplished by understanding what the
problem is, i.e. its structure and character, just as solving the problem of a plugged drain is
accomplished by realizing that the problem is the plugged drain, whereby the solution consists of
unplugging the drain. “Know the truth and the truth shall make you free.” Understanding the
problem and how it arose is the purpose of all of the foregoing.
D. Practice.
As repeatedly noted, “all law is contract,” whereby solving the problem is achieved by invoking
contract law. All contracts, both express and implied, must be formulated in accordance with the
universal essentials of contract law concerning the interaction between the parties. These
fundamentals are well codified in many places, e.g. the California Civil Code, Sections 1549 et
seq.:
§ 1549. Contract, what

A contract is an agreement to do or not to do a certain thing.
§ 1550. Essential elements of contract
It is essential to the existence of a contract that there should be:
1. Parties capable of contracting;
2. Their consent;
3. Lawful object; and,
4. A sufficient cause or consideration.
§ 1556. Who may contract

All persons are capable of contracting, except minors, persons of unsound mind, and
persons deprived of civil rights.
§ 1565. Essentials of consent
The consent of the parties to a contract must be:
1. Free;
2. Mutual; and,
3. Communicated by each to the other.
§ 1567. An apparent consent is not real or free when obtained through:
1. Duress;
2. Menace;
3. Fraud;
4. Undue influence; or
5. Mistake.
§ 1598. When contract wholly void

Where a contract has but a single object, and such object is unlawful, whether in
whole or in part, or wholly impossible of performance, or so vaguely expressed as to
be wholly unascertainable, the entire contract is void.
§ 1608. Effect of its illegality
If any part of single consideration for one or more objects, or of several
considerations for a single object, is unlawful, the entire contract is void.
§ 1620. Express contract, what
An express contract is one, the terms of which are stated in words.
§ 1621. Implied contract, what
An implied contract is one, the existence and terms of which are manifested by
conduct.
§ 1441. Impossible or unlawful conditions void
A condition in a contract, the fulfillment of which is impossible or unlawful, within the
meaning of the article on the object of contracts, or which is repugnant to the nature
of the interest created by the contract, is void.
§ 1636. Contracts, how to be interpreted
A contract must be so interpreted as to give effect to the mutual intention of the
parties as it existed at the time of contracting, so far as the same is ascertainable
and lawful.
§ 1668. Certain contracts unlawful
All contracts which have for their object, directly or indirectly, to exempt anyone
from responsibility for his own fraud, or willful injury to the person or property of
another, or violation of law, whether willful or negligent, are against the policy of the
law.
§ 1709. Fraudulent deceit
One who willfully deceives another with intent to induce him to alter his position to
his injury or risk, is liable for any damage which he thereby suffers.
A major Achilles heal of the system is that it is founded on lies, deceit, concealment of material
fact, misrepresentation, duress, menace, fraud, undue influence, mistake, absence of valuable
consideration, and no free mutual consent, i.e. the absence of essentially every required element
for the existence of a valid contract. In short, the alleged presumption of an existing contract is a
lie—no contract exists, based on the absence of true agreement derived from full disclosure of all
terms and conditions, i.e. no mutual understanding by all involved parties of everything with which
the parties are allegedly agreeing.
As we have noted, we must rebut the rebuttable presumption of the presumed contractual nexus
that places us in such dire straits by an affirmative act, i.e. not denial and argument (which
constitute traversing). We must engage in express action that, by its very nature, rebuts the
presumptions that are otherwise the source of all the mischief being perpetrated against us. The
issue is then how and in what forum this non-rebutting rebuttal is exercised.
Non-rebutting rebuttal, first of all, occurs by establishing on the record the underlying commercial
paperwork governing the situation—in this case paperwork bearing upon the virtual totality of your
life. In commerce and law the reality is the record. Proper commercial paperwork is done by
affidavit sworn true, correct, and complete (whether express or implied), and sets forth who owes
whom what, on what basis (i.e. the underlying contract), and who is taking liability/responsibility
for every bookkeeping entry, claim, charge, accusation, and anything asserted that might in any
way affect the life of someone else.
In this case the underlying commercial paperwork of your life consists of the genuine, express,
bilateral contracts by and between, the real being and the artificial, corporate entity, i.e. your all-
capital-letter name. Correspondingly, the name, i.e. symbolic representation, that portrays
yourself as a real being, is set forth in accordance with the rules of English grammar in upper- and
lower-case letters. The difference is then between JOHN HENRY DOE (fictitious name, corporate
entity) and John Henry Doe (real being).
What is the basis and nature of this contract between the real being and the fictitious entity? Each
performs indispensable functions for and on behalf of the other. What the artificial entity does is
serve as a “transmitting utility” in commerce—and law, which is a subset of commerce—since all
law, commerce, contract, and governments function in the abstract realm in which the real being
cannot enter, and needs a dummy, i.e. “straw man,” that can be the conduit for the flow of energy,
goods, and services, back and forth between the world of commerce and the real being. Likewise,
the straw man cannot enter the world of reality, which is an inaccessible domain for imaginary
entities. Reality and abstraction are two different “meta-levels” re each other, just as are the
waking and dreaming states of awareness. One cannot, as it were, kill the tiger of the waking
state with the gun of the dream state. Further yet, as an imaginary concoction in abstraction, the
straw man can neither think, nor act, nor even sign its name.
Therefore, the secret of the system is this: So long as the rebuttable presumption of contractual
bondage is not eliminated from the equation by non-rebuttal rebutting, every time someone signs
his name he is signing as a surety, accommodation party, and guarantor for the straw man, and is
therefore guaranteeing that he will:
1. Pay whatever debts the straw man, i.e. “Debtor,” incurs;
2. Bind the Debtor contractually and will answer on behalf of the Debtor for whatever
charges are leveled against the Debtor, both criminal and civil.
It is therefore of utmost importance that a bona fide contract be established on the

record, in a manner that the system recognizes as the ultimate forum for notice of such
contracts, expressly proclaiming inter alia, that under no circumstances is the real being
a surety for the Debtor, nor an accommodation party, and therefore is not liable for any
debts incurred by, nor for any charges leveled against, the Debtor.
When such a contract is executed, it is a genuine, express contract that is enforceable law. It
fulfills all of the criteria of contract law for such a valid contract, unlike the phony presumption of
contract on the basis of which the system otherwise functions and on the basis of which over six
(6) billion people on this planet are slaves and chattel property. By recording this contract in the
proper public forum one establishes on the record for public notice that the Debtor is the property
of, and all of the property of the Debtor is pledge as the assets for collateralizing the contract with,
the real being. This forum, of course, is the UCC Department, in the office of each Secretary of
State. In UCC terminology, the real being in this equation is called the “Secured Party,” and the
contract of obligation and indebtedness of the Debtor in favor of the Secured Party is called a
“Financing Statement.” The particulars of the Financing Statement are delineated in another
contract by and between the Debtor and Secured Party called a “Security Agreement,” in which
every conceivable item of property that the Debtor now owns and might ever acquire is pledged as
an asset for collateralizing the Debtor’s obligation in favor of the Secured Party.
At this point both the Debtor, and the Debtor’s property, have been wrested away from being the
presumed property and fair poaching preserve of the system and placed securely, by private
contract, into the domain of the Secured Party. The Secured Party, as a real being, is not, as the
Debtor is presumed by the system (unless one files a properly executed Financing Statement) as
being:
1. The property of the Government;
2. Fair game for assuming and becoming obligated for fulfilling all of the debts the
Government might pile on the Debtor, as well as answering for all of the charges the
Government might level against the Debtor.
3. An abstract, corporate entity functioning in commerce in limited liability.[14][6]
The UCC Department, therefore, is the proper forum, and in the United States the supreme forum,
for establishing on the record the private contractual relationship between the Secured Party and
the Debtor. Such a UCC filing constitutes public record of private contract. The strength, power,
validity, and teeth of this situation is not the UCC recordation per se. A UCC office is merely a
convenient forum for filing Financing Statements, constituting a central location whereby anyone
interested in doing business with the Debtor may determine what prior claims exist against that
Debtor, i.e. who might have a prior claim and be “first in time and first in line.” The reality of the
matter is what is recorded, not the place of recordation, and this reality is the private contract
between the Debtor and Secured Party.
The Constitution, at Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 prohibits any state from passing any law
impairing the obligation of contracts. This issue, i.e. “impairing the obligation of contracts,” is
allegedly the most adjudicated of all issues in the Supreme Court. Why? Because all law is
contract, and contract is above the Constitution. Indeed, the Constitution has validity only insofar
as a bona fide, binding contract exists involving the Constitution.
The key, therefore, is the creation of a clear, complete, and ironclad set of contracts between the
Debtor and Secured Party. When this is done, the contract cannot be “impaired,” i.e. intruded
upon, revised, negated, and otherwise influenced, by third parties. Such a contract is thus
inviolable and entirely outside the judicial system. Since the entire government and legal system
constitute third parties re the private contract by and between the Debtor and Secured Party, those
in the system are in their domain doing their business (all win/lose rip-off games), and you are in
your domain minding your business (which hopefully is only win/win transactions). Presumption of
an amalgamation between you and the system is eliminated, and one may live free of the judicial
system and invoke non-judicial remedies for intrusion and trespass by any agents of Government.
The whole judicial system is thus a vast, off-point, system of domination and usurpation that deals
with the oblivious masses who have not properly protected themselves by filing Financing
Statements founded on and consisting of private contracts outside the legal system. All such
people, i.e. the vast majority of the populace, have not rebutted, have not asserted their rights,
and thereby automatically have “Left the field of battle and lost by default.” If one is not properly
established as being outside the legal system by properly executed and filed commercial
paperwork, i.e. private contracts, one is automatically within the legal system and has entered
through the door of Dante’s Inferno that says, “Abandon hope all ye who enter here.”
We have stated that a citizen of the United States is devoid of standing in law and possesses no
capacity for contracting. How, then, can the Debtor contract with the Secured Party? The answer
is founded upon the following principles:
1. No bona fide, conscionable contract ever existed by and between the Secured
Party and the Government in the first place, based on the absence of such essentials
of contract law as genuine agreement, true meeting of the minds, free consent, full
disclosure, and the other criteria that are essential for the existence of a valid
contract. The Government functions only an unrebutted presumption of contract, i.e.
based on “let’s pretend,” coupled with such maxims of law and commerce as: “He
who fails to assert his rights has none”; “A matter must be expressed to be
resolved”; “He who leaves the field of battle first loses by default.”
By not speaking your mind by drafting and express contract by and between yourself and your all-
caps name, you “fail to assert your rights” and “lose by default.” The practical consequence of this
failure is that because you have not asserted it, your position is not on the table and therefore
cannot be dealt with. Moreover, neither any judge, nor any Government agent, nor any other third
party in existence, can speak for you and assert your rights and position if you do not. They could
do so even if they so wished, and it is self-evident that they possess no such desire. Their desire is
for gaining unjust enrichment in commerce at your expense by piling on debts and charges against
your all-caps name and sending you the bills and summons for answering them. You must
foreclose them from exercising this option by wresting the Debtor from the domain of presumed
Government ownership and establishing your straw man in the realm of clear and solid ownership
by you, re all of the Debtor’s property pledged as collateral securing the Debtor’s obligation to the
Secured Party. This is accomplished by executing a properly drafted Financing Statement,
supported by ironclad private contracts, and letting everyone in the system know of the result by
filing it in the UCC Department.
Law is a two-way street, a double-edged sword. It flows and cuts both ways. If the Government
regards the real being as possessing the capacity and right whereby that being can sign for the
Debtor in a manner that forfeits the real being’s rights, by the same token that being retains the
right for entering into a contract that secures the real being’s right, in essence stating:
“Excuse me, Government, but if I have the right to sign blindly for the Debtor in an
open-ended manner that is a one-way street from which my life, substance, rights,
and labor flow out of me—at my expense and diminishment—for your benefit, by the
same token I have the equivalent right of signing for the Debtor as an authorized
representative—not a surety and not an accommodation party—in a contract
whereby I have paramount claim on the Debtor and all of the Debtor’s property is
contractually pledged as collateral for the purpose of securing the Debtor’s obligation
that is due me for my service of acting as the Debtor’s basis of a pre-existing claim
and being the living being who is authorized for signing on behalf of the Debtor.
“If, and to the extent, that the assemblage of all-capital letters you have created
that might appear as possessing similarity with my true name, has nothing to do
with me, i.e. is not loaded with any presumptions of obligating me, then no nexus
exists between me and that all-caps name. If that all-caps name is not intended as
involving me in any way, then I don’t care what you do with it. To the extent,
however, that the all-caps name is presumed as bearing on me in some manner I
possess the exclusive right of stating otherwise and defining what, if any,
relationship exists between myself and that all-caps name. Why is this so? Because
I alone am the one that would be expected to be the surety for that name, not any
of you third parties.”
Many times Redemption-type filings are rejected on the basis that the Secured Party and the
Debtor are the same person. This is of course not true, and is self-evident by virtue of the fact
that the Debtor’s name is in all-capital letters while the name of the Secured Party is in upper- and
lower-case letters, and also that the Debtor—not being a living, sentient being—cannot sign for
himself while the Secured Party, being real and not abstract in nature, cannot function as a
transmitting utility in the world of commerce where everything is contract between abstract legal
persons of various kinds.[15][7]
Since explaining these matters is usually futile when engaging in the actual process of getting your
paperwork filed in the State UCC Department, as well as in the office of a county recorder, various
strategies may be required. Some of these include:
1. Cross-file with others, e.g. friends, family members, etc., and then do a UCC-3
amendment switching Secured Parties so that each Secured Party is matched with
his own all-caps name as Debtor.
2. If real estate is involved, file a simple UCC-1, with no attachments, in the office of
the county recorder and then send a “true and accurate copy by document
custodian” of the certified, true copy of the filing that you obtain from the country
recorder to the State, where, because it is already filed with the county recorder,
filing in the State is mandatory.
The bottom line of this entire matter is that by means of knowing and utilizing the law,
fundamentally contract law and the Commercial Maxims, one can not only live outside the legal,
judicial, court system but also activate non-judicial remedy, such as “strict foreclosure,” against
violators of your rights (police, judges, agents, and the like) without involving—and thereby being
at the mercy of—the very legal/judicial/governmental system from which one would be free.
All of this is accomplished by understanding and acing upon the fundamental principles involved.
Once again, Emerson was correct when he wrote:
Nothing brings peace at last but triumph of principles.
Footnotes:
[1][1] All wars of the 20th Century, in fact the last 100 years or so, are the result of the
losing country’s not having had an articles of agreement with the International Bankers.
Phrased another way, before a war the country that was the eventual loser of the war did
not have such agreement and after the country was defeated, it did.
[2][2] It is self-evident that if people restricted all of their interactions with others to
win/win games, peace and harmony would reign and not even an excuse for governments
could exist.
[3][1] I Ching, Wilhelm/Baynes, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1969, p. 232.

[4][2] Maharishi Mahesh Yogi on The Bhagavad-Gita, Penguin Books, Baltimore, 1969, p.
191.
[5][3] Lao-tzu, op. cit., Aphorism 8.
[6][4] Certification of an affidavit, i.e. “third party witness,” has been universally necessary
from inception, probably for thousands of years. The process began with someone who
personally knew an affiant, affirming that the name of an affiant was truly his and not that
of an imposter. This was to prevent fraud and forgery that would occur if someone other
than the one whose name was being signed was actually signing the affidavit.
[7][5] Attorneys, and those in the system, do not swear true, correct, and complete that
everything they state is “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” Rather,
they “declare under penalty of perjury true and correct.” By such means attorneys and
officials have self-granted authority for committing perjury by omission, i.e. uttering off-
point irrelevancies that may be deemed fictitious. Their intent is to trick, deceive, and
intimidate people into traversing, i.e. joining issue with the fiction, and thereby leaving their
ground of truth, sovereignty, and relevance and entering into the colorable, make-believe
world of the legal system where “anything goes” and the owners of the private law can
“make it up as they go.” The lives and destinies of the people are attached to this scenario.
[8][6] Remember that the system can deal only with abstract persons, e.g. your all-caps
name, so if no one can go against your all-caps name they cannot reach you.
[9][1] There are basically only four (4) categories of legal persons; all the rest are
variations on a theme of these. These legal persons are 1) corporations, 2) partnerships, 3)
sole proprietorships, and 4) trusts. The IRS Code at 7701(a)(2) lists seven (7), the
additional three (3) being 5) estate, 6) association, and 7) company.
[10][2] What is not well known is that Lewis Carroll wrote Alice In Wonderland as a satire
on the legal system.
[11][3] The entire governmental, legal, court system today is colorable, i.e. “phony.” It is a
domain of make believe, much like children’s games. In grade school, for instance, a group
of children might decide to spend their lunch recess playing such games as “cops and
robbers,” or “cowboys and Indians.” Such a scenario is characterized by fake shootings and
feigned deaths, together with arguments such as “Gotcha,” “No, you missed,” and other
imaginary disputes. The point is that once you agree to play the game by joining in the let’s
pretend, you have left the real world and cannot invoke the rights and truth that obtain
there. The point of the UCC process is for staying out of the make-believe game. It is like
sitting on the sideline and saying, “Thanks anyway, guys, but I don’t feel like playing today.
Mom fixed a great lunch and I think I’ll just sit this one out. Have fun.”
[12][4] Never assume, especially when interacting in any manner with the Government. To
“assume” makes and “ass” out of “u” and “me.” Assuming that an interaction with the
Government—a colossal win/lose Beast—is bona fide and undertaken in good faith is
delusion. If one would assume, better one assume that the entirety of the system and all
its interactions with people are for increasing the scope of governmental power, control,
plunder, and enslavement at the expense of the people. Place the burden of proving good
faith on the Government; never assume that such good faith already exists or that anything
in the system’s Alice-in-Wonderland world of make-believe is as it appears.
[13][5] By being placed in the jurisdiction of the colorable law of the 14th Amendment, the
blacks became “colored.” This term has nothing to do with skin pigmentation, only legal
characterization.
[14][6] The Secured Party is, in fact, an unlimited-liability being, and therefore outside the
domain of accessibility of the courts, government agencies, and legal system, all of which
are contractually confined within the domain of corporate limited liability, and must be
insured and bonded. In accordance with the 9th Commercial Maxim, “Sacrifice is the
measure of credibility,” whoever risks the most establishes the greatest credibility. The
Secured Party is thereby paramount over the entire third-party, limited-liability domain of
laws, governments, and courts.
[15][7] The Secured Party and Debtor are no more the same person than one’s real self and
one’s reflection in a mirror. If the Government is presumed as owning the Debtor, and
thereby possessing carte blanche capacity for doing as it wishes with its property, the mirror
is a greatly distorted one re the genuine nature of the real being, much like warped and
wavy carnival mirrors. Furthermore, the situation itself is warped inasmuch as a condition
now exists by which the reflection is presumed as the dominating entity, whereby the
endlessly changing and distorted image of the Debtor is re-imposed by force of law back
onto the real being who is therefore perpetually “bent out of shape.”
This scenario is reminiscent of an old joke concerning a man who desired a new suit but
could not afford one of his choosing, and went into a discount store. There was a suit of
exquisite material, but improperly made. One sleeve was considerably shorter than the
other, while likewise the pant’s legs were of different lengths. Other irregularities also
existed. When he tried it on it did not fit and looked terrible.
A clerk, however, pointed out that if he hunched up one shoulder, twisted his body, and
leaned sideways the irregularities were compensated for. The man bought the suit and
walked out dressed in it. As he was walking down the sidewalk in his highly distorted
posture two ladies pass by the other way. One says, “My, look at that poor, deformed
man. What a shame he is so contorted.”
“Yes,” replied the other lady, “but don’t his clothes fit him beautifully?”
|| Home | Current Updates | The U.S. Constitution | The Shadow Government a.k.a. the Illuminati | Secret Societies | The New
World Order | Occultism | Banking & Paper Money | Politics | Business | Technology | Media Control | Government & Mind Control |
Microchipping | Drugs | Nazism Today & In The Past | The War on Terrorism | Religions & Religious Wars | Wars Towards a New
World Order | U.S. Patents to Control Us | Surveillance | Health | Miscellaneous | E-Books for Free | Links to Other Websites |
Copyright Fair Use | E-Mail Us ||
December 14, 2003

Life, Law, & The Ucc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Life, Law, & The Ucc

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Life, Law, & The Ucc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Life, Law, and the UCC Page 1 of 45

Click Here to Enter Our

Life, Law, and the UCC

I. The Current State of the Law in America

II. Fundamental Principles.

a. Existing within and as an intrinsic aspect of every thought, word spoken,

his unique priorities and perspective in time and space.

b. One can experience the behavior, actions, and appearance of another

d. Man can act in a win/win or win/lose manner. A win/win interaction is an

3. Manifest existence is the interplay of opposites. What we call “creation,” i.e.

“Standardized contract form offered to consumers [citizens] of goods and

a. Man’s cultural, social, and communal life is hopelessly adversarial,

c. When left alone mankind is incapable of developing free means for

d. A non-involved third party possesses authority for expropriating the right of

Commerce. “The exchange of goods, productions, or property of any kind; the

19:11-13; Num. 30:2; Matt. 5:33; James 5:12).

"Therefore what concerns us here is the problem of clearly defining these

A man-made government is therefore an outside-in/top-down artificial order and set of processes

· I'm a part of the ruling elite. My nature and destiny is to rule.

· I represent higher truth.

· I represent natural law.

· I'm authorized by law (whatever that is).

· I'm authorized by government (e.g. "I have a license to kill").

· I'm poor and needy so I deserve it.

The word "truth" can be defined in two distinct ways:

"True state of facts or things."

2) An abstract representation or mapping of some aspect of reality that can be

Man at his best, like water,

Serves as he goes along:

Like water he seeks his own level,

The common level of life,

Loves living close to the earth,

Living clear down in his heart,

Loves kinship with his neighbors,

The pick of words that tell the truth,

... The fair profit of able dealing,

The right timing of useful deeds,

And for blocking no one's way

No one blames him.[5][3] [Emphasis added.]

"Affidavit. A written or printed declaration or statement of facts, made voluntarily,

"Oath. Any form of attestation by which a person signifies that he is bound in

3. Must not draw conclusions of law.

5. Must be certified (witnessed) by someone authorized to take oaths, usually a

8. Can be invalidated or nullified only by being rebutted point-for-point by

1. Disprove stated facts or prove alternative facts;

2. Prove application of law to stated or alternative facts.

5. Be written in the present tense.

4. As mentioned above, neither attorneys nor government agents—unless speaking

5. All attorneys and agents of the government executed paperwork by declaring

6) An unrebutted affidavit becomes the judgment in Commerce (Heb. 6:16-17).

1. Copyright your name by publishing a Copyright Notice four (4) times in a

b. Require that he validate/verify the alleged debt, under oath, in accordance

e. Require that he provide the contractual and statutory source of his

g. Require that he respond to you within a specified period of time via

1. Commercial paperwork (affidavit of accounting);

2. Declaration (affidavit of notice);

3. Contract (affidavit of agreement);

4. Notice of interest (three-week, unbonded distress);