770 lines
38 KiB
Plaintext
770 lines
38 KiB
Plaintext
|
|
Welcome to the first "official" installment of the Frog Farm.
|
|
|
|
The purpose of the Frog Farm is to discuss issues which involve a Free
|
|
People and their Public Servants, and how to deal with the various problems
|
|
that can arise between a free person who exercises and demands rights and
|
|
errant public servants who exceed the scope of their powers. These include:
|
|
|
|
The Rights of Man and subsequent obligations
|
|
The nature of the contract for government
|
|
The right of liberty
|
|
The Constitutions and their Amendments
|
|
Supreme Court Decisions
|
|
The Money Issue - Real Money v Imaginary Debt
|
|
Taxes and Licensing
|
|
Republic v Democracy
|
|
Barter and Trade v Commerce and Traffic
|
|
Various types of Jurisdiction
|
|
|
|
And the PRIMARY TOPIC, ABOVE, BEHIND AND THROUGH ALL THESE OTHERS, IS:
|
|
|
|
Defending one's rights in the courts
|
|
|
|
Questions and constructive criticism are welcomed. Note that humor,
|
|
philosophy or other such interesting things are welcome as well.
|
|
|
|
If you wish, you may send encrypted mail via PGP. The public key is
|
|
at the end of this installment.
|
|
|
|
This installment consists of three pieces:
|
|
|
|
1) Notes from a business law text on the Uniform Commercial Code
|
|
with comments by transcriptionist
|
|
2) Definitions of the Sovereign in American Law
|
|
3) A sample case in rough outline
|
|
|
|
If you know of a possible provider for a "real" list server, please send
|
|
mail! My supply of material and willingness to discuss it are plentiful; my
|
|
available time and volume capability are far lower.
|
|
|
|
until next time,
|
|
laissez faire...
|
|
|
|
**
|
|
|
|
notes from Business Law: Uniform Commercial Code, 11th ed.,Ronald A. Anderson
|
|
all emphasis from transcriptionist
|
|
|
|
|
|
the original contract for government is the constitution. all the others are
|
|
ones that you were probably forced or pressured into "voluntarily" signing,
|
|
unless by some rare stroke of fortune, you have never signed anything in
|
|
your life, and your parents never signed anything for you. barring that, how
|
|
do you nullify contracts with government (or with anyone, for that matter)
|
|
when you realize you have been a victim of fraud?
|
|
|
|
the answer: you must be the Idiot who finally comes to his senses.
|
|
|
|
"11:10. INSANE PERSONS. An insane person lacks capacity to make a binding
|
|
contract. The contract of an insane person is either voidable or void. In
|
|
order to constitute insanity...the party must be so deranged mentally as to
|
|
not understand that a contract is being made OR DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE
|
|
CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT IS DONE. IF A PARTY LACKS SUCH UNDERSTANDING, THE CAUSE
|
|
OF THE MENTAL CONDITION IS IMMATERIAL."
|
|
|
|
so you don't have to be insane in the clinical sense of the word - by law, the
|
|
only indicia of insanity is that you are mentally incapable of understanding
|
|
the effects of signing the contract.
|
|
|
|
"(a) Effect of Insanity. An insane party may generally avoid a contract in
|
|
the same manner as a minor. Upon the removal of the disability, that is, upon
|
|
becoming sane, the former insane person may either ratify or disaffirm the
|
|
contract. If the insane person dies, a personal representative or heirs may
|
|
also affirm or disaffirm the contract."
|
|
|
|
now when you suddenly realize that you don't want this contract, what are the
|
|
mechanics of voiding it? let's start out with the alleged ratification of the
|
|
contract. these weird looking guys in suits are sending you threatening
|
|
letters, making harrassing phone calls, and generally making your life hell.
|
|
naturally, your first reaction is to find out what authority or right they
|
|
have to do all this, since if they can't show you any, they're liable for
|
|
prosecution and damages. even if they're telling the truth when they say they
|
|
work for the government (and their actions would certainly seem to suggest the
|
|
opposite), if they exceeded their jurisdiction (authority, limits of power),
|
|
they lose their "immunity from prosecution".
|
|
|
|
so you need to ask them: where is the contract, and when did i sign it, and is
|
|
that really my signature, and was i sane at the time, or maybe a minor and my
|
|
parents did it without even consulting me -- and EVEN IF IT IS VALID, i don't
|
|
believe i was made aware of all those terms and conditions i see in the fine
|
|
print, and given the nature of this contract, that's pretty clear evidence of
|
|
fraud, which vitiates all solemn contracts, now doesn't it?
|
|
|
|
"12.5. FRAUD. Fraud is the making of a false statement of fact with knowledge
|
|
of its falsity or with reckless indifference as to its truth, with the intent
|
|
that the listener rely thereon, and the listener does so rely and is harmed
|
|
thereby...When one party to the contract is guilty of fraud, the contract is
|
|
voidable and may be set aside by the injured party."
|
|
|
|
"(a) Misstatement of Fact. A misstatement of a past or present fact is an
|
|
element of fraud...An intentional misrepresentation of the nature of the
|
|
transaction between the parties is fraudulent.
|
|
|
|
"(b) Mental State. The speaker must intend that the other party rely upon the
|
|
statement which is false."
|
|
|
|
as far as these are concerned, it's obvious that: 1) the government ALWAYS
|
|
needs more money, so the more people they can get to join them, the better,
|
|
and 2) they're ALWAYS willing to lie through their teeth to get people to
|
|
join. Read Vic Lockman, "Social Security: The Crumbling Fraud". also the
|
|
NO-SS.DOC file for a more detailed explanation of the fraud, and an example of
|
|
an affidavit which rescinds the contract.
|
|
|
|
"2. Misstatement of Opinion or Value. Ordinarily, a misstatement of opinion
|
|
or value is not regarded as fraudulent, on the theory that the person hearing
|
|
the statement recognizes, or should recognize, that it is merely the speaker's
|
|
personal view, and not a statement of fact...IF, HOWEVER, THE DEFENDANT, IN
|
|
MAKING A STATEMENT AS TO THE FUTURE, HAD KNOWLEDGE NOT AVAILABLE TO THE
|
|
PLAINTIFF WHICH SHOWED THAT SUCH EXPECTATIONS COULD NOT BE REALIZED, THE
|
|
STATEMENT AS TO THE FUTURE EXPECTATIONS CAN BE HELD FRAUDULENT. Thus, a
|
|
statement that a business would make a stated profit in the future is
|
|
actionable when the speaker knows that on the basis of past events, such
|
|
prediction was false."
|
|
|
|
did they lie to you about the soundness of the system to get you to join? damn
|
|
straight, and they knew it. public servants are split about 50/50 on this.
|
|
Half of them know perfectly well that it's a ripoff and an unsound system; the
|
|
other half are totally ignorant.
|
|
|
|
"3. Misstatements of the Law. ...Ordinarily, the listener is regarded as
|
|
having an opportunity of knowing what the law is...equal to that of the
|
|
speaker, so that the listener is not entitled to rely on what the speaker
|
|
says. [However] when the speaker has expert knowledge of the law, OR CLAIMS TO
|
|
HAVE SUCH KNOWLEDGE, the misstatement of law can be the basis for fraud
|
|
liability."
|
|
|
|
it's generally held that ignorance of the law is no excuse. but these people
|
|
are your government! they wouldn't lie to you, would they? so of course you
|
|
trusted them! not only that, but isn't it generally accepted that the
|
|
government knows FAR more about the law than any of us peons (slaves)? and
|
|
don't most people operate on that assumption whenever they sign anything? no
|
|
wonder they're bound by so many contracts.
|
|
|
|
"(c) Investigation Before Relying on Statement. If the listener had available
|
|
the ready means of determining the truth of the statement...the listener is
|
|
not entitled to let that opportunity pass...as a limitation on this rule,
|
|
however, some courts hold that negligence of the injured party is not a bar to
|
|
damages when the wrongdoer takes active steps to conceal the truth...in any
|
|
case, if an examination by the plaintiff would not have revealed a particular
|
|
defect or condition, either because it is not visible, OR BECAUSE OF THE
|
|
TECHNICAL NATURE OF THE MATTER, OR IF A SIMPLE EXAMINATION COULD NOT BE MADE,
|
|
the injured party may rely on the statements of the other party, and raise the
|
|
issue of fraud upon learning that the statements were false. A misrepresen-
|
|
tation made to present further inquiry also constitutes fraud."
|
|
|
|
most people would say that the law is a very technical matter; others would
|
|
disagree. the only thing that matters is that at the time, you probably got
|
|
real worried at the thought of having to research and confirm everything you
|
|
were being told. lord knows, it's taken people a loooong time to figure out..
|
|
it certainly takes more than a "simple" examination!
|
|
|
|
"12:6. UNDUE INFLUENCE. An aged parent may entrust all business affairs to a
|
|
trusted child; an invalid may rely on a nurse; a client may follow implicitly
|
|
whatever an attorney recommends. The relationship may be such that for all
|
|
practical purposes, the one person is helpless in the hands of the other. When
|
|
such a confidential relationship exists, it is apparent that the [first party]
|
|
IS NOT IN FACT EXERCISING FREE WILL IN MAKING A CONTRACT SUGGESTED BY THE
|
|
[second party], BUT IS MERELY FOLLOWING THE WILL OF THE OTHER PERSON."
|
|
|
|
this is most often the case when parents make contracts for minors, since
|
|
under normal circumstances, minors may not make valid, binding contracts.
|
|
in this day and age (circa 1992), most parents sign their children up for
|
|
Social Security before they're five minutes out of the womb! and it doesn't
|
|
matter even if you're old enough to walk and talk, you're STILL just doing
|
|
what you're told and not asking questions.
|
|
|
|
"Because of the great possibility that the person dominating the other will
|
|
take unfair advantage, the law presumes that the dominating person exerts
|
|
undue influence upon the other person WHENEVER THE DOMINATING PERSON OBTAINS
|
|
ANY BENEFIT FROM A CONTRACT MADE WITH THE DOMINATED PERSON."
|
|
|
|
if you didn't have a Social Security number, your parents couldn't claim you
|
|
as a tax deduction. how many other benefits and privileges do they derive from
|
|
entering you into these contracts? not to mention the obvious hassle from
|
|
bureaucrats they can avoid just by signing those papers - who can blame them,
|
|
given the hassle you're getting now just for asking questions and trying to
|
|
determine these people's lawful authority? in any case, they DEFINITELY derive
|
|
numerous and substantial benefits from having you move along in the same
|
|
direction as the rest of the herd..
|
|
|
|
"[the] essential element of undue influence is that the person making the
|
|
contract DOES NOT EXERCISE FREE WILL."
|
|
|
|
how the heck can someone exercise free will regarding something when they
|
|
don't understand it, their legal guardian is forcing them into it, and they're
|
|
too young to legally avoid it even if they DO understand it? my parents got me
|
|
my social security number when i was about 8 or 9 years old. i remember
|
|
standing in the office with my father, listening to him explain "how the
|
|
system worked"; namely, that every time i worked, they'd take a little bit out
|
|
and save it for me, and when i was old, i'd have something to live off of. of
|
|
course, i know NOW that it was all lies, and even HE probably didn't know it
|
|
then, but at the time -- hell, do you think your parents would lie to you?
|
|
even if you don't trust the government (and most kids instinctively don't),
|
|
you STILL probably trust your parents. at least until you hit puberty...
|
|
|
|
"12:7. DURESS. A person makes a contract under duress when there is such
|
|
violence or threat of violence that the person is deprived of free will, and
|
|
makes the contract to avoid harm."
|
|
|
|
i'll point out the obvious here...namely, that ALL law is backed up with the
|
|
threat of force. the government told you it was required by law (a lie), that
|
|
you had to have an SS number in order to legally work (another lie), and that
|
|
it was AGAINST THE LAW to NOT have a number if you wanted to work (the biggest
|
|
lie of all). ergo, you were under the impression that if you DIDN'T join, they
|
|
would punish you severely, just like a robber or a murderer.
|
|
|
|
"If a contract is made under duress, then the resulting agreement is voidable
|
|
at the victim's election."
|
|
|
|
if you were forced into it, you can get out of it.
|
|
|
|
"(b) Economic Duress. The economic pressure on a contracting party may be so
|
|
great that it will be held to constitute duress. Economic duress occurs when
|
|
the victim is threatened with irreparable loss for which adequate recovery
|
|
could not be obtained by suing the wrongdoer."
|
|
|
|
don't they always tell you that the system is there to give you financial
|
|
security? don't they spin grim tales about what happens to folks who DON'T
|
|
join, like the canonical old-ladies-eating-Alpo? don't they make you scared
|
|
out of your wits that if you don't join, you'll end up poor and starving?
|
|
this would actually fall more under misstatement of fact, above, but it's
|
|
something to think about.
|
|
|
|
okay, that's the why, what about the how? the remedies for fraud are
|
|
rescission, action for damages, or reformation of the contract by a court. we
|
|
won't concern ourselves with that last one -- why bother trying to turn manure
|
|
into gold? as for damages, they're all fine and dandy, but the REAL goal is to
|
|
get these idiots to leave you alone, and keep them from damaging you in some
|
|
way. RESCISSION is just you saying, "I take it back; I revoke my signature; it
|
|
is as if I had never signed it."
|
|
|
|
"12:8. REMEDIES. ...
|
|
|
|
"(a) Rescission. If the contract is voidable, it can be rescinded or set aside
|
|
by the party who has been injured or of whom advantage has been taken. IF NOT
|
|
AVOIDED, THE CONTRACT IS VALID AND BINDING..."
|
|
|
|
in other words, you have to do it AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
|
|
|
|
"When a contract is voidable, the right to rescind the contract is lost by any
|
|
conduct that is inconsistent with an intention to avoid it. For example, when
|
|
a party realizes that there has been a mistake, BUT CONTINUES WITH THE
|
|
PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT, THE RIGHT TO AVOID THE CONTRACT BECAUSE OF THE
|
|
MISTAKE IS LOST. Likewise, it is generally held that a contract, although
|
|
procured by duress, may be ratified by the victim of the duress, as by
|
|
ADHERING TO THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT, OR MAKING CLAIMS TO BENEFITS ARISING
|
|
THEREFROM. The right to rescind the contract is lost if the injured party,
|
|
WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS, AFFIRMS THE TRANSACTION, or when, with such
|
|
knowledge, the injured party FAILS TO OBJECT TO THE GUILTY PARTY WITHIN A
|
|
REASONABLE TIME. In determining whether a reasonable time has expired, the
|
|
court considers WHETHER THE DELAY BENEFITED THE INJURED PARTY, whether a late
|
|
avoidance of the contract would cause unreasonable harm to the guilty party,
|
|
and whether avoidance would harm intervening rights of third persons acquired
|
|
after the original transaction."
|
|
|
|
so the minute you figure out the fraud, from that moment on, watch your steps
|
|
VERY carefully. don't cash any checks the government may "give" you, don't
|
|
accept ANYTHING from them. just keep quiet, and research the daylights out of
|
|
your case, and don't give them any hassles. lay low until you've got your case
|
|
completely written out and planned ahead for as many possible contingencies as
|
|
you can imagine. if they object, one of your lines of defense can be that you
|
|
knew that it was fraud, but that was ALL you knew; therefore, you didn't have
|
|
"full knowledge of the facts". you had to do years of research to uncover all
|
|
the facts you needed to PROVE that fraud.
|
|
|
|
"When the contract has resulted in the transfer of property from the guilty
|
|
party to the victim, the latter also loses the right to rescind if, WITH
|
|
KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUE SITUATION, the victim RETAINS AND USES the property,
|
|
SELLS IT TO ANOTHER, or USES IT AFTER THE GUILTY PERSON REFUSES TO TAKE IT
|
|
BACK."
|
|
|
|
money is property. so again, DON'T ACCEPT ANYTHING from them!
|
|
|
|
**
|
|
|
|
Definitions of the Sovereign in American Law
|
|
|
|
Short Research by Nombrist Beor/Paul Campbell
|
|
5455 Gull Road, Suite #142
|
|
Kalamazoo, MI 49001
|
|
|
|
History
|
|
|
|
Peviously, the sovereign was the king, introduced to England by William the
|
|
Conqueror. He had both the power of jurisdiction overall others as well as
|
|
being effectively outside any jurisdiction. He held the power in the country.
|
|
Everyone else was a subject to his sovereign power.
|
|
|
|
After the Revolution in this country, the States were sovereign until the
|
|
illegal ratification of the Constitution. At that power, the sovereignty rested
|
|
with the people. This unique position also left no one to be subject to the
|
|
sovereigns. They were equals as long as they did not contract away their rights
|
|
as sovereigns. They gave up a very minor list of rights only in order to
|
|
protect their other rights.
|
|
|
|
[see Chisholm v. State of Georgia, GA, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419, 455,
|
|
1 L.Ed. 440. Spooner v. McConnell, 22 Fed. Cas. 939, 943.]
|
|
|
|
"...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are
|
|
truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects..
|
|
with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow
|
|
citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty." CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US)
|
|
2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL 1793 pp. 471-472.
|
|
|
|
Later, when some individuals decided to place themselves under the jurisdiction
|
|
of the 14th Amendment, they became subjects of government, which was subject to
|
|
the sovereigns.
|
|
|
|
Today, in combination with phony legislation, stupid judges, petty bureacrats,
|
|
and imagined benefits along with massive public deception, especially by the
|
|
public schools, I hear cries of "But the government can't operate and protect
|
|
us if we are not juristic persons and at its every beck and call." I myself am
|
|
still at it's beck and call at the time of this writing. My parents made me a
|
|
ward of the state by their license to procreate, and further entered me into
|
|
contract with the Department of Commerce with a birth certificate, and made me
|
|
give full power of attorney to the Department of Health and Social Services via
|
|
Social Security Insurance. I am currently less than 6 months from becoming the
|
|
age of majority, and some changes are going to be had around here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Definition
|
|
|
|
The words "sovereign people" are those who form the sovereign, and who hold the
|
|
power and conduct the government through their representatives. Every citizen
|
|
is one of these people and a constituent member of this sovereignty. Scott v.
|
|
Sandford, Mo., 60 US 393, 404, 19 How. 393, 404, 15 L.Ed. 691.
|
|
|
|
After that, things get complicated, because the European definition doesn't
|
|
quite fit with the ones used now. The sovereignty rests with the state, when
|
|
the state is a group of people. The United States is a sovereign only so far as
|
|
a representative of its citizens in international dealings. Suffice to say that
|
|
you are sovereign, but you grant the state sovereignty over you only in the
|
|
limited cases listed in the Constitution, and when it steps outside those
|
|
bounds, it is no longer sovereign (able to govern) over you. The Yick Wo case
|
|
listed first below sums it up best.
|
|
|
|
"Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to the law, for it is the author
|
|
and source of law, but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to
|
|
the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom
|
|
and for whom all government exists and acts." - "For, the very idea that one
|
|
man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material
|
|
right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to
|
|
be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of
|
|
slavery itself." Yick Wo v. Hopkins, Sheriff, 118 U.S. 356.
|
|
|
|
"Sovereignty" in government to that public authority which directs or orders
|
|
what is to be done by each member associated is relation to the end of the
|
|
association. It is the supreme power by which any citizen is governed and is
|
|
the person or body of persons in the state to whom there is politically no
|
|
superior. The necessary existence of the state and that right and power which
|
|
necessarily follow is "sovereignty". By "sovereignty" in its largest sense is
|
|
meant supreme, absolute, uncontrollable power, the absolute right to govern.
|
|
The word which by itself comes nearest to being the definition of "sovereignty"
|
|
is will or volition as applied to political affairs. City of Bisbee v. Cochise
|
|
County, 28 P.2d. 982, 986, 52 Ariz. 1.
|
|
|
|
"Sovereignty" is a term used to express a supreme political authority of an
|
|
independent state or nation. Whatever rights are essential to the existence of
|
|
this authority are rights of sovereignty. The rights to declare war, to make
|
|
treaties of peace, to levy taxes, and to take property for public uses, termed
|
|
the "right of eminent domain," are all rights of sovereignty. In this country
|
|
this authority is vested in the people, and is exercised through the joint
|
|
action of the federal and state governments. To the federal government is
|
|
delegated the exercise of certain rights or powetrs of sovereignty, and with
|
|
respect to sovereignty, "rights" and "powers" are synonymous terms; and the
|
|
exercise of all other rights of sovereignty, except as expressly prohibited, is
|
|
reserved to the people of the respective states, or vested by them into their
|
|
local government. When we say, therefore, that a state of the Union is
|
|
sovereign, we only mean that she possesses supreme political authority, except
|
|
as to those matters over which such authority is delegated to the federal
|
|
government or prohibited to the states. Moore v. Smaw, 17 Cal. 199, 218, 79
|
|
Am. Dec. 123.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goverment is NOT the Sovereign
|
|
|
|
There are a lot of cases that refer to the sovereign powers of the United
|
|
States or the states themselves and some even construe this limited power as
|
|
not just acting in a sovereign capacity, but as a sovereign itself. This is
|
|
only true so long as it is acting in its sovereign capacities.
|
|
|
|
The "sovereign powers" of a government include all the powers necessary to
|
|
accomplish its legitimate ends and purposes. Such powers must exist in all
|
|
practical governments. They are the incidents of sovereignty, of which a state
|
|
cannot divest itself. Boggs v. Merced Min. Co., 14 Cal. 279, 309.
|
|
|
|
In all governments of constitutional limitations "sovereign power" manifests
|
|
itself in but three ways. By exercising the right of taxation; by the right of
|
|
eminent domain; and through its police power. United States v. Douglas-Willan
|
|
Sartoris Co., 22 P. 92, 96. 3 Wyo. 287.
|
|
|
|
The term "sovereign power" of a state is often used without any very definite
|
|
idea of its meaning, and it is often misapplied. Prior to the formation of the
|
|
federal Constitution, the states were sovereign in the absolute sense of the
|
|
term. They had established a certain agency under the Articles of Confederation,
|
|
but this agency had little or no power beyond that of recommending to the
|
|
states the adoption of certain measures. It could not be properly denominated
|
|
a government, as it did not possess the power of carrying its acts into effect.
|
|
The people of the states, by the adoption of the federal Constitution, imposed
|
|
certain limitations in the exercise of their powers which appertain to
|
|
sovereignty. But the states are still sovereign. The sovereignty of a state
|
|
does not reside in the persons who fill the different departments of its
|
|
government, but in the people, from whom the government emanated; and they may
|
|
change it at their discretion. Sovereignty, then, in this country, abides with
|
|
the constituency, and not with the agent; and this remark is true, both in
|
|
reference to the federal and state governments. Spooner v. McConnell, 22 Fed.
|
|
Cas. 939, 943.
|
|
|
|
"Sovereignty means supremacy in respect of power, domination, or rank; supreme
|
|
dominion, authority or rule." Brandes v. Mitteriling, 196 P.2d 464, 467, 657
|
|
Ariz 349.
|
|
|
|
"Government" is not "sovereignty." "Government" is the machinery or expedient
|
|
for expressing the will of the sovereign power. City of Bisbee v. Cochise
|
|
County, 78 P.2d 982, 986, 52 Ariz. 1.
|
|
|
|
The "sovereignty" of the United States consists of the powers existing in the
|
|
people as a whole and the persons to whom they have delegated it, and not as a
|
|
seperate personal entity, and as such it does not posssess the personal
|
|
privileges of the sovereign of England; and the government, being restrained by
|
|
a written Constitution, cannot take property without compensation, as can the
|
|
English government by act of king, lords, and Parliament. Filbin Corporation v.
|
|
United States, D.C.S.C., 266 F. 911, 914.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Agents of the government
|
|
|
|
"Sovereignty" is the right to govern. In Europe the sovereignty is generally
|
|
ascribed to the prince; here it rests with the people. There the sovereign
|
|
actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance. Our
|
|
governors are the agents of the people, and at most stand in the same relation
|
|
to their sovereign in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereign. Their
|
|
princes have personal powers, dignities, and pre-eminences. Our rulers have
|
|
none but official, nor do they partake in the sovereignty otherwise, or in any
|
|
other capacity than as private citizens. Chisholm v. State of Georga, Ga., 2.
|
|
U.S. (2 Dall.) 419, 471, 1 L. Ed. 440.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hale doctrine: The Difference between corporations and sovereigns
|
|
|
|
"If, whenever an officer of employee of a corporation were summoned before
|
|
a grand jury as a witness he could refuse to produce the books and documents of
|
|
such corporation, upon the ground that they would incriminate the corporation
|
|
itself, it would result in the failure of a large number of cases where the
|
|
illegal combination was determinable only upon the examination of such papers.
|
|
Conceding that the witness was an officer of the corporation under
|
|
investigation, and that he was entitled to assert the rights of the corporation
|
|
with respect to the production of its books and papers, we are of the opinion
|
|
that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and
|
|
a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books
|
|
and papers for an examination at the suit of the state. The individual may
|
|
stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on
|
|
his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He
|
|
owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to
|
|
open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He
|
|
owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the
|
|
protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law
|
|
of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be
|
|
taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution.
|
|
Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of
|
|
himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the
|
|
law. He owes nothing to the public as long as he does not trespass upon their
|
|
rights."
|
|
"Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is
|
|
presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain
|
|
special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the
|
|
state and the limitations of its charter. Its powers are limited by law. It can
|
|
make no contract not authorized by its charter. Its rights to act as a
|
|
corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its
|
|
creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its
|
|
contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers..." Hale v. Henkel,
|
|
201 U.S. 43, 279.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pitfalls for the sovereign individual
|
|
|
|
Since you don't want to be a juristic person, you can't make claims or
|
|
dmands under administrative law, including USC Title 5, only under the at law
|
|
jurisdiction, except of course when you are demonstrating to the court that you
|
|
are not subject to the jurisdiction of the administrative law. This means
|
|
avoiding terms such as taxpayer like the plague.
|
|
|
|
The term "taxpayer" means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.
|
|
-- 26 USC 7701 A(1)(14)
|
|
|
|
The worst thing you could do is claim yourself a citizen of the United States,
|
|
instantly placing you under the jurisdiction of the United States via the 14th
|
|
Amendment. Equally bad is declaring yourself a resident of a state, which means
|
|
a foreign agent temporarily residing in the state for the purposes of trade,
|
|
regulated under the admiralty jurisdiction and the Uniform Commercial Code. The
|
|
Privacy Act grants 4th Amendment privileges to such juristic persons.
|
|
|
|
States and state officials acting officially are held not to be "persons"
|
|
subject to liability under 42 USCS section 1983. Wills v. Michigan Dept. of
|
|
State Police, 105 L.Ed. 2nd 45 (1989).
|
|
|
|
The reason for this is that they were acting in capacity of the sovereign. The
|
|
sovereign is not that same as "person" as used in the laws. "Sovereign person"
|
|
would be ambiguous. Try to stay with "sovereign" or "sovereign individual" to
|
|
avoid this.
|
|
|
|
Statutes employing the word "person" are ordinarily construed to exclude the
|
|
sovereign. 56 L.Ed. 2d. 895 -- Def. of "person"
|
|
|
|
Except for the all but nonexistant common lawyer, lawyers are also a bad thing.
|
|
This is because they can't claim a lot of your rights for you and because by
|
|
their own oath, their first commitment is to the government, not you. For
|
|
example, while using a lawyer, you can't claim the right not to incriminate
|
|
yourself under the 5th amendment. Also, by using a representative, you are
|
|
declaring yourself incompetent in your legal affairs; also, that you have an
|
|
unnatural (juristic) personality that must be "represented". You will hear
|
|
that "he who represents himself has a fool for a client" -- but you will not
|
|
represent yourself -- you will DEFEND yourself, in your own natural person!
|
|
|
|
"The right of a person under the 5th Amendment to refuse to incriminate hmself
|
|
is purely a personal privilege of the witness. It was never intended to permit
|
|
him to plead the fact that some third person might be incriminated by his
|
|
testimony, even though he were the agent of such person." Hale v. Henkel, 201
|
|
U.S. 43.
|
|
|
|
|
|
For further consideration
|
|
|
|
While it is understood that unless we hold United States citizenship or live
|
|
within the District of Columbia, we are not citizens of the United States, this
|
|
makes our presence in Courts of the United States (such as a Court of Chancery,
|
|
aka a Court of Equity, aka an Admiralty Court) a rather interesting one.
|
|
Consider this:
|
|
|
|
A foreign sovereign power must in courts of United States be assumed to be
|
|
acting lawfully, the meaning of "sovereignty" being that decree of the
|
|
sovereign makes law. Eastern States Petroleum Co. v. Asiatic Petroleum
|
|
Corporation, D.C.N.Y., 28 F.Supp. 279, 281.
|
|
|
|
The very meaning of "sovereignty" is that the decree of the sovereign makes
|
|
law. American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 29 S.Ct. 511, 513, 213 U.S. 347,
|
|
53 L.Ed. 826, 19 Ann.Cas. 1047.
|
|
|
|
"Sovereignty" means that the decree of sovereign makes law, and foreign courts
|
|
cannot condemn influences persuading sovereign to make the decree. Moscow Fire
|
|
Ins. Co. of Moscow, Russia v. Bank of New York & Trust Co., 294 N.Y.S. 648,
|
|
662, 161 Misc. 903.
|
|
|
|
And you, as a sovereign individual, are certainly "foreign" to courts of the
|
|
United States!
|
|
SOVEREIGN
|
|
|
|
The concept of sovereignty stands on its own. The sources shown
|
|
below may help you to see that it is a respected and valid
|
|
concept.
|
|
|
|
"...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the
|
|
people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but
|
|
they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but
|
|
themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens,
|
|
and as joint tenants in the sovereignty." CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA
|
|
(US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL 1793 pp471-472
|
|
|
|
=================================================================
|
|
|
|
The second paragraph below contains a strong statement of the
|
|
sovereignty of the people.
|
|
|
|
The section is what is known as the "Brown Act" or
|
|
"secret meeting law" (California Government Code).
|
|
|
|
----------------------
|
|
|
|
Chapter 9
|
|
|
|
MEETINGS
|
|
|
|
Section 54950. Declaration, intent; sovereignty. In enacting
|
|
this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public
|
|
commissions, boards and councils and other public agencies in
|
|
this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business.
|
|
It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly
|
|
and that their deliberations be conducted openly.
|
|
|
|
The people of the State do not yield their sovereignty to
|
|
the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating
|
|
authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide
|
|
what is good for the people to know and what is not good for
|
|
them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that
|
|
they may retain control over the instruments they have created.
|
|
(Added Stats. 1953, c. 1588, p.3270, sec. 1.)
|
|
|
|
**
|
|
|
|
Things to Think about and take care of in a typical case: (partial list)
|
|
|
|
The act or omission in question: Is it declared by law to be a crime?
|
|
Research the law/code/ordinance
|
|
The victim: Who?
|
|
What Life, Liberty or Property was harmed?
|
|
Is the person Natural or Juristic?
|
|
Is he At Law, or in Equity?
|
|
Is the person competent to testify?
|
|
The complaint: Verified by affidavit signed by victim?
|
|
If no victim, serve & file constructive notice on gov't agent and judge
|
|
Ten days later, file Suit
|
|
Grand jury indictment/information
|
|
Grand Jury represents the People
|
|
District Attorney = The State
|
|
Object to prosecution by information, Demand Grand Jury Indictment.
|
|
Warrant - Made out for the party arrested?
|
|
Check spelling-Joe Blow is not Jo Bloe!
|
|
Signed by a judge?
|
|
Check "judge's" Oath of Office/compare with required oath in Constitution
|
|
Arrest - You have the right to remain silent
|
|
You have the right to counsel present
|
|
Not required to give fingerprints [Davis v. Mississippi]
|
|
Give Miranda/Titles 18,42 warning
|
|
Writ of Habeas Corpus
|
|
Arraignment - Starts calendar for speedy trial
|
|
Appear specially, not generally
|
|
Demand all rights at all times
|
|
Disclaim equity jurisdiction
|
|
Give Miranda/Titles 18,42 warning
|
|
Demand to see a verified complaint - Must be sworn to by complainant within 15
|
|
days of Notice to Appear
|
|
Must have the seal of the court
|
|
Defendent cannot understand charges without counsel
|
|
Demand counsel of choice
|
|
Object to denial by judge
|
|
Cite cases
|
|
File written Demand for Counsel of Choice
|
|
If judge appoints Public Defender, object!
|
|
You have to talk with Public Defender before you can accept him as counsel.
|
|
You cannot relate to him.
|
|
You have no confidence in him
|
|
You cannot be forced to employ counsel beholden to your adversary
|
|
Stand "mute"
|
|
Judge will enter "Not guilty" plea
|
|
Object! Let the record show that defendant stands mute
|
|
File "Arraignment & Plea"
|
|
File Demand for Plaintiff to Show Constraining Need or in the Alternative
|
|
to Dismiss
|
|
File Demand for Jury Trial in which the jury decides both the law and the
|
|
facts At Law
|
|
File Notice of intention to tape record the proceedings per Rule 980(f)
|
|
"unless otherwise ordered for cause"
|
|
File Demand for court reporter to take transcripts at all hearings
|
|
File Demand for transcripts of all proceedings
|
|
File Demand for Evidentiary Hearing
|
|
File/serve Declaration-Petition for Redress of Grievances
|
|
The Preliminary (Evidentiary)Hearing
|
|
Appear specially, not generally
|
|
Claim all rights at all times
|
|
Challenge jurisdiction
|
|
|
|
ADMINISTRATIVE AND PROCEDURAL MATTERS
|
|
Demand formal, verified complaint
|
|
You intend to challenge jurisdiction but you need counsel to adequately argue
|
|
jurisdiction
|
|
Appearing pro per, not pro se
|
|
Get judicial notice of demand for counsel of choice and supporting brief
|
|
Get judicial determination for the record that the court is denying
|
|
unfettered counsel of choice [final judgement on the matter]
|
|
Demand that hearing be postponed so that denial of counsel may be appealed to
|
|
higher court
|
|
Does court honor demand for rights sua sponte?
|
|
Demand that the court prove both agency's and court's jurisdiction on the
|
|
record.
|
|
"Jurisdiction cannot be assumed & must be decided" Maine v. Thiboutot
|
|
100S.Ct.2502 (1980)
|
|
"Jurisdiction cannot be presumed" Smith v. McCullough 46S.Ct.338(1926)
|
|
Examine/cross-examine witnesses
|
|
Discovery:File/serve Demand
|
|
Suppression hearing
|
|
file Demand to Supress Evidence
|
|
Formulate jury instructions
|
|
They must have foundation in the record
|
|
in the Evidence Exhibits
|
|
in the Testimony of Witnesses
|
|
Formulate questions for witnesses
|
|
For Cross-exam
|
|
For Direct exam
|
|
Keep Proposed Jury Instructions in mind
|
|
Subpoena Witnesses
|
|
Expert witnesses
|
|
Gov't agents
|
|
Witnesses at scene of arrest
|
|
Alibi
|
|
Motion [Demand] Hearing
|
|
Give equity disclaimer/Demand rights
|
|
Challenge ensign v. flag
|
|
Give Miranda/Title 18 warning
|
|
File Constructive Notice
|
|
Demand Counsel of choice
|
|
File paper
|
|
Demand Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction
|
|
File jurisdiction briefs on Status, Status of Citizens, Merchant At Law,
|
|
Rights, Memorandum of Law, Equity, The Monetary System
|
|
Demand Rights Sua Sponte
|
|
File paper
|
|
Demand jury trial w/12 jurors
|
|
File Notice & Demand
|
|
Jury Selection
|
|
Questions for Jurors
|
|
Prosecution's Opening Statement
|
|
Defense Opening Statement (may wait)
|
|
Prosecution Examines Witnesses
|
|
Object! Object! Object!
|
|
Defense Cross-examines
|
|
Defense may testify
|
|
Not required to take Oath
|
|
Prosecution Closing Statement
|
|
Prosecution rests
|
|
Defense challenges Prima Facie Case
|
|
Code Pleading
|
|
Defense moves for directed verdict of aquittal
|
|
Defense Opening Statement if delayed
|
|
Defense Examines Witnesses
|
|
Prosecution cross-examines
|
|
Object! Object! Object!
|
|
Defense Closing Statement
|
|
Defense rests
|
|
Prosecution 2nd Closing Statement
|
|
Judge's Instuctions to Jury
|
|
Object! Object! Object!
|
|
Jury Deliberations
|
|
Jury Verdict
|
|
Defense Motion for Verdict of Aquittal Notwithstanding Jury Verdict
|
|
Motion for New Trial if appropriate
|
|
Notice of Appeal
|
|
Demand for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal and Order
|
|
If denied, file Writ of Habeas Corpus
|
|
Demand for transcripts at gov't expense
|
|
Proposed statement on Appeal
|
|
Use court's form as a cover sheet
|
|
Fill blanks with "see Proposed Settled Statement [Attached]
|
|
Don't put signature on form
|
|
Prosecution's Amendments
|
|
Defense Revised Proposed Statement
|
|
Settlement conference
|
|
Opening Brief on Appeal
|
|
Prosecution's Rebuttal to above
|
|
Prosecution's Opening Brief
|
|
Defense rebuttal
|
|
Defense Closing Brief
|
|
|
|
Originally from Frog Farmer on the Garbanzo Citadel.
|
|
|
|
**
|
|
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
|
|
Version: 2.2
|
|
|
|
mQCNAiuhO1QAAAEEAOuUGP0QKhow6Fao1yAZklOAoU+6sXt8978TaJYQQ+NTHMx7
|
|
zlnmG6d6LWarPgwIwyCyygEMU+2zAClde08YHOSI/zH+2rvLSaddgPcGJlf7V7+K
|
|
uhu3nBJM6dhEBKY2P3UfO+CmQQemQ3Q8yR4m8HEpno1VRzUIh2QAFfmIg8VVAAUR
|
|
tDNJYW4gTSBTY2hpcmFkbyA8aW1zQHRodW5kZXItaXNsYW5kLmthbGFtYXpvby5t
|
|
aS51cz4=
|
|
=WIMt
|
|
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
|
|
|
|
--
|
|
|