Do You Like Being A Debt Slave?
A walk through the terms and Constitutional presumptions of your unlawful conversion.
Commerce Clause and Credit Clause of the Constitution:
The United States Federal Government is a plenary oligarchy. And the States and Territories are insular incorporated possessions.
Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3: The Congress shall have Power…
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
But more important, Clause 2 states:
To borrow money against the credit of the United States.
These clauses are the premise for the trick of creating your ‘individual’ or ‘natural person’ in the form of a ‘corporate sole’. It is the conversion of the people from mankind into fictitious entity sources of credit, and the creation of the ‘sole proprietorship’ commercial-entity. This sole proprietorship is the mechanism by which people are then regulated through privileges and immunities as subjects of the United States. Yet, we all go along with the ploy without realizing the unlawful conversion from mankind into fictitious entities.
In the created form as a seed of consciousness embodied in the physical man, mankind is NOT part of any government. The man is a creation of the Creator who and which creates.
Conversion must occur to change a man from the said man to a government regulated ‘person’. This is accomplished through two main sources initially: the birth certificate and the social security account. Then numerous other contracts are created using this new ‘person’.
ANY time you use a defined term in the statutes, you have been converted to a person. From the last article all the following are persons:
8 U.S. Code § 1101 - Definitions (a)
(21)The term “national” means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state.
(22)The term “national of the United States” means (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.
(23)The term “naturalization” means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.
Notice how the term "national" also has the term "person" in the definition. This is the trap.
Continuing with 8 U.S. 1101:
(3) The term “person” means an individual or an organization.
Continuing with 8 U.S. 1101:
(28)The term “organization” means, but is not limited to, an organization, corporation, company, partnership, association, trust, foundation or fund; and includes a group of persons, whether or not incorporated, permanently or temporarily associated together with joint action on any subject or subjects.
Now, here is the interesting rub - "individual" is not defined in 8 U.S. 1101. So, you need to go to their source code. What is their source code? Black's Law Dictionary or other Maritime law dictionary.
An individual is a corporation. And when it is a single individual, it is referred to as a "Corporate sole". This will be shown in the definitions later in the article.
Government Breakdown
There are essentially four (4) styles of government related to what we think of as America.
When the media talks about “protecting democracy”, they are referring to protecting how the Territories and States operate as incorporated insular areas of the United States. The media is slowly placing false terms in the mind of man until they believe they are persons in a democracy. The counties and states of the union originally sent delegates to represent mankind who had homes and land on the many states. We did not have popular voting!
YOU ARE NOT PART OF THE UNITED STATES!
The District of Columbia, which is where the United States resides, is defined as the following for debt/taxpayer purposes.
26 U.S. Code § 7701 - Definitions
United States (9) United States The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.State (10) State The term “State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.
AND
18 U.S. Code - United States - The term “United States”, as used in this title in a territorial sense, includes all places and waters, continental or insular, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, except the Canal Zone.
This statement covers the treaties for access to inland waterways, ports, etc., after the Declaration of Independence, Revolutionary War, and War of 1812.
So, how do you get enslaved under the plenary [“oligarchy”] jurisdiction of the United States and responsible for its debts? How do you get pulled under the commerce clause and credit clause?
This unlawful conversion happened through the 14th amendment and the newly defined ‘citizen of the United States’ after the mercenary conflict called the civil war. Before this time, the people of the states knew the difference. This trick into being a ‘citizen of the United States’ was facilitated through the coercive and fraudulent conversion of each man born on the land into a corporation in the form of a sole proprietorship, and the use of the term ‘natural person’ and ‘individual’. This is all accomplished by way of your ‘parents’ [“pair who rents”] acting as informants when each son or daughter is born, providing said son’s and daughter’s vital statistics of the new birth, and transmitting it [“commercial transmitting utility”], and registering it with the State; and this State is a franchise of the United States. All of this governmental fiction is located in the District of Columbia. Good luck finding it though. A man cannot walk down the street and locate the place. It is all fictitious paperwork.
The ALL CAPS NAME as a “sole proprietorship”, owner, person, individual, and natural person: The ALL CAPS NAME is a slave/subject under Roman Law which is the basis for Maritime/Admiralty law. A corporation sole reverts its assets for the benefit of a religious group, not the titular head. See the court case County of San Luis v. Ashurst, 146 Cal. App. 3d 380, 383 (1983) - this is how the property all goes back to the Vatican. If the land and assets are in the name of the ALL CAPS corporate sole [“or similar version of the name unrebutted”] - it is not yours. You have a warranty deed or other color-of-title. You do not own the land!
Background:
Here is a quick clarification on the difference between a ‘word’ and a ‘term’.
word - A vocal sound or combination of vocal sounds, used as a symbol to embody or signify an idea or thought, especially a notion or conception, and forming one of the elements of language ; a single, independent utterance, forming usually a constituent unit of a sentence ; vocable. A Standard Dictionary of the English Language, Isaac K. Funk, editor in chief (Funk & Wagnalls Company: New York, 1903), p. 2078.
term - A word or expression used to express or designate some fixed or definite thing; a word having a limited and specific meaning, naming and characterizing some particular object, quality, state, or the like ; especially, a technical word or expression, as in the sciences, arts, trades, and the like. Id. at 1859.
On “human” and “you” - a recap
3rd Edition of Ballentine’s Law Dictionary - 1969.
human - Of the form and characteristics of a man.
Notice how it does not say a ‘human’ is a man? Because it is not a man - it only looks and may act like a man. Game Piece
Breaking the word into its parts ‘hu-man’ or ‘hue-man’ is the shade or color of a man.
Dictionary.com
hue [ hyooor, often, yoo ]
noun
1. a gradation or variety of a color; tint: pale hues.
2. the property of light by which the color of an object is classified as red, blue, green, or yellow in reference to the spectrum.
3. color: all the hues of the rainbow.
4. form or appearance.
5. complexion.
human
[ hyoo-muhnor, often, yoo‑ ]
adjective
1. of, relating to, characteristic of, or having the nature of people: human frailty.
2. consisting of people: the human race.
3. of or relating to the social aspect of people: human affairs.
4. sympathetic; humane: a warmly human understanding.
human being - A person, male or female.
Whereas: Human is an adjective. It colors the fact of the word man. In the case of ‘human being’, ‘human’ colors the fact of the word ‘being’.
Whereas: Human is not a man, but a person and an adjective, and a person is a natural thing, paper thing, and fictitious entity in the form of individuals, corporations, franchise, etc... based on US codes and based on the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary. A person can be a natural thing/person but is not a man. This will be shown in the actual definition further in the article. So, a human being is a thing with a gender assigned. It is a Game Piece
What about ‘being’ as the second word of ‘human being’?
3rd Edition of Ballentine’s Law Dictionary - 1969.
being - Noun: A person; a living thing. The present participle of the verb “to be;” equivalent to the pleading of the words “which is".” The word has been held to be sufficient as an averment [“an allegation”] of an existing fact [“human”]. Effect added
thing(s) - Inanimate objects. As the subject matter of a bequest, effects, goods, assets, or property, dependent upon the intent of the testator as such appears from the will.
natural - Occurring according to the usual course of nature or according to the operation of natural laws, which, in the particular case, may be unusual and extraordinary in common experience.
allegation - An assertion; a statement of fact in a pleading; a statement of what one can prove; the positive assertion of a fact. The technical name for a pleading in an ecclesiastical court.
Summary on ‘human’:
A ‘human’ has the appearance or color [“form and characteristics”] of man, however is a person as a ‘human being’ with a gender. It is a living thing as an inanimate object that is naturally occurring and if taken action on in an ecclesiastical court there is sufficient information to plead the condition as fact of human. A Game Piece!
Per Bouvier’s Law Dictionary 1856 Edition - American Constitutional Law Definitions:
IDIOT, Persons. A person who has been without understanding from his nativity, and whom the law, therefore, presumes never likely to attain any. Shelf. on Lun. 2.
From Wikipedia:
Semantics of you:
‘You’ prototypically refers to the addressee along with zero or more other persons, excluding the speaker. ‘You’ is also used to refer to personified things (e.g., why won't you start? addressed to a car).[25] You is always definite even when it is not specific.
Semantically, ‘you’ is both singular and plural, though syntactically it is almost always plural: i.e. always takes a verb form that originally marked the word as plural, (i.e. you are, in common with we are and they are).
Third person usage:
Further information: Generic you
‘You’ is used to refer to an indeterminate person, as a more common alternative to the very formal indefinite pronoun one.[26] Though this may be semantically third person, for agreement purposes, ‘you’ is always second person.
Example: "One should drink water frequently" or "You should drink water frequently".
Agreement:
You almost always triggers plural verb agreement, even when it is semantically singular.
Note: Though ‘you’ is properly a plural, it is in all ordinary discourse used also in addressing a single ‘person’, yet properly always with as plural verb. (No confusion here!)
• In Title 15 (Commerce and Trade), Section 2054, ‘you’ refers to a business entity subject to regulations: “You shall not engage in any unfair or deceptive acts or practices…”
• In Title 42 (The Public Health and Welfare), Section 1395w-2, ‘you’ refers to individuals or entities eligible for healthcare benefits: “You shall be entitled to benefits under this part…”
• In Title 29 (Labor), Section 794, ‘you’ refers to employees with disabilities: “You shall be entitled to reasonable accommodations…”
• 20 CFR § 422.402 “You means an individual [“sole proprietorship - created with birth certificate and with a SS account number”] who owes a debt to the United States within the scope of this subpart.”
• 18 U.S. Code § 8 - Obligation or other security of the United States defined [“debt”]: The term “obligation or other security of the United States” includes all bonds, certificates of indebtedness, national bank currency, Federal Reserve notes, Federal Reserve bank notes, coupons, United States notes, Treasury notes, gold certificates, silver certificates, fractional notes, certificates of deposit, bills, checks, or drafts for money, drawn by or upon authorized officers of the United States, stamps and other representatives of value, of whatever denomination, issued under any Act of Congress, and canceled United States stamps.
Inasmuch as i, am i, then who is ‘you’?
Or even more succinct - what is ‘you’? In legal terms, it is a potentially pluralistic set of dead entities responsible for the debt of the nation, or Estate of a descendent, that is registered in the foreign jurisdiction of the United States as a sole proprietorship.
• 26 USC 7701 (a) (1) Person - The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.
AND
• 1 USC § 1 “the words ‘person’ and ‘whoever’ include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;”
With that said, read the following definitions and observe how these terms circularly reference each other until you see that the ALL CAPS NAME is a government created sole proprietorship and corporate entity used for all commercial business falling under the purview of the jurisdiction of the United States law of the sea and ecclesiastical law of the air since the assets of the sole proprietorship revert to the religious group upon death. That NAME is what must be used for all complaints and used to sue or be sued in controversies of civil government control.
How do we know this? Read the definitions below. Give close attention to the bold words in the definition and how they tie together as the list of definitions progress.
Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition:
CORPORATION. An artificial person or being, endowed by law with the capacity of perpetual succession; consisting either of a single individual, (termed a "corporation sole,") or of a collection of several individuals, (which is termed a "corporation aggregate.") 3 Steph. Comm. 166; 1 Bl. Comm. 467, 469. An intellectual body, created by law, composed of individuals united under a common name, the members of which succeed each other, so that the body continues always the same, notwithstanding the change of the individuals who compose it, and which, for certain purposes, is considered a natural person. Civil Code La. art. 427.
Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition:
CORPORATE NAME. When a corporation is erected, a name is always given to it, or, supposing none to be actually given, will attach to it by implication, and by that name alone it must sue and be sued, and do all legal acts, though a very minute variation therein is not material [“this is where they now have plausible deniability to the ALL CAPS naming convention”], and the name is capable of being changed (by competent authority) without affecting the identity or capacity of the corporation. Wharton.
A public corporation is one created by the state for political purposes and to act as an agency in the administration of civil government, generally within a particular territory or subdivision of the state, and usually invested, for that purpose, with subordinate and local powers of legislation; such as a county, city, town, or school district. These are also sometimes called "political corporations." Goodwin v. East Hartford, 70 Conn. 18, 38 A. 876; Dean v. Davis, 51 Cal. 409; Ten Eyck v. Canal Co., 18 N.J. Law, 200, 37 Am.Dec. 233; Murphy v. Mercer County, 57 N.J.Law, 245, 31 A. 229; Van Campen v. Olean General Hospital, 210 App.Div. 204, 205 N.Y.S. 554, 555; Providence Engineering Corporation v. Downey Snipbuilding Corporation, C.C.A. N.Y., 294 F. 641, 646; National Bank of Commerce in New Orleans v. Board of Sup'rs of La. State University and Agricultural and Mechanical Corlege, 206 La. 913, 20 So.2d 264, 269.
• Person includes an individual, corporation…
Black’s Law Dictionary:
COMMUNITY OF PROFITS. This term, as used in the definition of a partnership, (to which a community of profits is essential,) means a proprietorship in them as distinguished from a personal claim upon the other associate, a property right in them from the start in one associate as much as in the other. Moore v. Williams, 26 Tex.Civ. App. 142, 62 S.W. 977.
FEE AND LIFE-RENT. In Scotch law, two estates in land—the first of which is the full right of proprietorship, the second the limited right of usufruct during life—may be held together, or may co-exist in different persons at the same time. See Bell, Prin. § 1712; Ersk. Prin. 420; Fiar.
OWNER. The person in whom is vested the ownership, dominion, or title of property; proprietor. Garver v. Hawkeye Ins. Co., 69 Iowa 202, 28 N.W. 555; McGowan v. Morgan, 145 N.Y.S. 787, 160 App. Div. 588; Cayce Land Co. v. Southern Ry. Co., 111 S.C. 115, 96 S.E. 725, 727; Staples v. Adams, Payne & Gleaves, C.C.A.Va., 215 F. 322, 325. He who has dominion of a thing [“ALL CAPS NAME”], real or personal, corporeal [“dead and fictitious entity”] or incorporeal, which he has a right to enjoy and do with as he pleases, even to spoil or destroy it, as far as the law permits, unless he be prevented by some agreement or covenant which restrains his right. Miller-Link Lumber Co. v. Stephenson, Tex.Civ.App., 265 S.W. 215, 220; Newborn v. Peart, 121 Misc.Rep. 221, 200 N.Y.S. 890, 892; Hare v. Young, 26 Idaho, 682, 146 P. 104, 106; Johnson v. Crookshanks, 21 Or. 339, 28 P. 78.
The word is not infrequently [“is frequently”] used to describe one who has dominion or control over a thing, the title to which is in another. Robinson v. State, 7 Ala.App. 172, 62 So. 303, 306. Thus, it may denote the buyer under a conditional sale agreement; Lennon v. L. A. W. Acceptance Corporation of Rhode Island, 48 R.I. 363, 138 A. 215, 217; a lessee; E. Corey & Co. v. H. P. Cummings Const. Co., 118 Me. 34, 105 A. 405, 407; Texas Bank & Trust Co. of Beaumont v. Smith, 108 Tex. 265, 192 S.W. 533, 534, 2 A.L. R. 771; Hacken v. Isenberg, 288 Ill. 589, 124 N.E. 306, 308; Grattan v. Trego, C.C.A.Kan., 225 F. 705, 708; a pledgee; American Nat. Bank of Tucumcari v. Tarpley, 31 N.M. 667, 250 P. 18, 20; Baxter v. Moore, 56 Ind.App. 472, 105 N.E. 588, 589; and a person for whose benefit a ship is operated on a particular voyage, and who directs and controls it, its officers and crew; Potter v. American Union. Line, 185 N.Y.S. 542, 843, 114 Misc.Rep. 101 (see, also, Petition of E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., D.C.N.Y., 18 F.2d 782, 784).
The term is, however, a nomen generalissimum, and its meaning is to be gathered from the connection in which it is used, and from the subject-matter to which it is applied. Warren v. Lower Salt Creek Drainage Dist. of Logan County, 316 Ill. 345, 147 N.E. 248, 249.
The primary meaning of the word as applied to land is one who owns the fee and who has the right to dispose of the property, but the term also includes one having a possessory right to land or the person occupying or cultivating it. Dunbar v. Texas Irr. Co., Tex.Civ. App., 195 S.W. 614, 616; McCarthy v. Hansel, 4 Ohio App. 425; Thompson v. Thompson, 79 Or. 513, 155 P. 1190, 1191; McLevis v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 165 Minn. 468, 206 N.W. 940, 942; Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Oakley, 135 Wash. 279,
237 P. 990, 992; In re Opinion of the Justices, 234 Mass. 597, 127 N.E. 525, 529. Sometimes it includes a lessee; Tobin v. Gartiez, 44 Nev. 179, 191 P. 1063, 1064; but not always; Smith v. Improvement Dist. No. 14 of Texarkana, 108 Ark. 141, 156 S.W. 455, 456, 44 L.R.A.,N.S., 696. A mortgagee may be deemed an "owner"; Lindholm v. Hamilton, 159 Minn. 81, 198 N.W. 289, 290; Blaine County Bank v. Noble, 55 Okl. 361, 155 P. 532, 534; Burrill Nat. Bank v. Edminister, 119 Me. 367, 111 A. 423, 424; Merriman v. City of New York, 227 N.Y. 279, 125 N.E. 500, 502; but under different statutes or circumstances, an opposite result may be reached; Huebner v. Lashley, 239 Mich. 50, 214 N.W. 107, 108. The term may likewise, on occasion, include mortgagors; Hendricks v. Town of Julesburg, 55 Colo. 59, 132 P. 61, 63; Smith v. Craver, 89 Wash. 243, 154 P. 156, 158; Borough of Princeton v. State Board of Taxes and Assessments, 96 N.J. L. 334, 115 A. 342, 344.
In theft and burglary cases, the "owner" is the person in possession, having care, control, and management at the time. Cantrell v. State, 105 Tex.Cr.R. 560, 289 S.W. 406, 407; Allen v. State, 94 Tex.Cr.R. 646, 252 S.W. 505; Carson v. State, 30 Okl.Cr. 438, 236 P. 627, 628.
In embezzlement, the principal to whom an agent looks for authority, under whose control he acts, and from whom he receives compensation and takes direction, is the owner within the meaning of statute. Coney v. State, 100 Tex.Cr.R. 380, 272 S.W. 197, 199.
Notice that embezzlement is only applicable to the agent that looks for authority from the principle that is referred to as an owner. It is not applicable to the owner as they already own in whole or in part the business and its assets.
Even more interesting, is if the embezzlement in question is referencing promissory notes as they are already promises to pay that are blank indorsed. As such, those promises to pay are negotiable instruments that are pay to the order of the bearer.
So, how do you embezzle something that is in your possession and is by design a debt instrument that is paid to the one holding it? More specifically, how is it possible to steal anything if you are not an agent in the form of a contractual employee, but instead an owner? Even more interesting, how can a man be responsible for a debt instrument of the United States? Especially if the man and his assets are the creditors in the inception of the debt, and the debt belongs to the United States? The only way any of this is possible is if you believe you are the fictitious entity.
What!?
Sole and unconditional owner. An expression commonly used in fire insurance policies, in which the word "sole" means that no one else has any interest in the property as owner, and "unconditional" means that the quality of the estate is not limited or affected by any condition. Globe & Rutgers Fire Ins. Co. v. Creekmore, 69 Okl. 238, 171 P. 874, 876; Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. McCain, 141 Miss. 394, 106 So. 529. To be "unconditional and sole," the interest or ownership of the insured must be completely vested, not contingent or conditional, nor in common or jointly with others, but of such nature that the insured must alone sustain the entire loss if the property is destroyed; and this is so whether the title is legal or equitable. Socicero v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 90 Fla. 820, 106 So. 879; Livingstone v. Boston Ins. Co., 255 Pa. 1, 99 A. 212, 213.
It is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of "sole and unconditional ownership" that the insured is the sole equitable owner and has the full equitable title. Turner v. Home Ins. Co., 195 Mo.App. 138, 189 S.W. 626, 628; Alliance Ins. Co. v. Enders, C.C.A.Idaho, 293 F. 485, 489. It is enough that the insured is equitably entitled to immediate and absolute legal ownership. Exchange Underwriters' Agency of Royal Exchange Assur. of London, England, v. Bates, 195 Ala. 161, 69 So. 956, 960. The term contemplates beneficial and practical proprietorship and not necessarily technical title. Royal Ins. Co. v. Drury, 150 Md. 211, 132 A. 635, 640, 43 A.L.R. 582. See Giles v. Citizens' Ins. Co. of Missouri, 32 Ga.App. 207, 122 S.E. 890, 891.
SUBMERGENCE. As it concerns the proprietorship of land, consists in the disappearance of land under water and the formation of a more or less navigable body over it. Michelsen v. Leskowicz,. 269 App.Div. 693, 55 N.Y.S.2d 831, 838.
Whereas: it could be said that the land of an owner can lose control of said land once presumed to be under water and then within the jurisdiction of the sea. Ever heard of being “under water” on a mortgage or loan?
INDIVIDUAL. As a noun, this term denotes a single person as distinguished from a group or class, and also, very commonly, a private or natural person [“supra: see corporation definition”] as distinguished from a partnership, corporation, or association; but it is said that this restrictive signification is not necessarily inherent in the word, and that it may, in proper cases, include artificial persons. State v. Bell telephone Co., 36 Ohio St. 310, 38 Am.Rep. 583. As an adjective, "individual" means pertaining or belonging to, or characteristic of, one single person, either in opposition to a firm, association, or corporation, or considered in his relation thereto.
Cornell Law Dictionary:
Sole proprietorship is a form of business entity in which one person owns all the assets and assumes all the debts of the business. It is also referred to as proprietorship or an individual proprietorship. The owner of the proprietorship is called the sole proprietor or proprietor.
The sole proprietorship is the simplest entrepreneurial structure and does not require any formalities to be taken to form it. This status will automatically come from the proprietor's business activity. There is no distinction between the business and the proprietor, who enjoys full control over the sole proprietorship and is entitled to all profits, but is subject to unlimited liability for all losses, debts, and liabilities of the business. There is also no separate income tax to be paid for the proprietorship, and all losses and profits are reported on the individual's tax return.
sole proprietor
A sole proprietor is an individual who owns and operates a business alone, without any partners or co-owners. This type of business structure, known as a sole proprietorship, is the simplest form of business organization. The owner has complete control over all aspects of the business and is personally responsible for all its liabilities and debts.
Whereas: The ALL CAPS name is a sole proprietor that is an individual as a person, and the owner is deemed personally responsible for all liabilities and debts. So, the man or woman who “acts” as a person, is the owner, and is personally responsible for the business of the ALL CAPS name. If you act as a man who claims something, it is very different from being an owner.
Whereas: the business is considered a corporation that is an artificial person or being [“supra “human being”, human, color of man but not necessarily a man”], consisting of a single individual, (termed a "corporation sole,"). This same “sole proprietorship” is an intellectual body, created by law, under a common name [“ALL CAPS NAME”], the members of which succeed each other [“all versions of the NAME and hence presumed estates”], so that the body continues always the same, and which, for certain purposes, is considered a natural person. See Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition and Civil Code La. art. 427.
“by 1871, it was well understood that corporations should be treated as natural persons for virtually all purposes of constitutional and statutory analysis.” Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 687 (1978)
In conclusion:
A corporation sole, is a corporation that is an artificial person. For purposes of public jurisdiction under commerce [“where maritime/admiralty/ecclesiastical law exists”] the individual, person, name, and natural person, are all considered a corporation and sole proprietorship as a business [“the business as a corporation is considered a natural person”], and the owner of said business is responsible for all debts and responsibilities of the business that was created as a political legal fiction, created by law, under a common name, for purposes of “civil” government and jurisdiction.
Hence, when ‘you’ are using the registered certificate NAME, that is the same NAME created on your birth certificate, that is the origin or articles of incorporation of the sole proprietorship corporate NAME. You as a man are automatically presumed to be the owner of the registered NAME you never asked for, and as such are responsible for the debts of the United States as defined in 18 USC 8. This is a very rebuttable presumption.
As always, there is a remedy. Settling debt for debts/obligations of the United States presumed to be the debt of your corporate sole proprietorship that is presumed to reside in the District of Columbia, can be found at the IRS website that follows UCC 3 guidelines. However, the best remedy is to never contract with a collection agency of a foreign government in the first place. Instead, work as a man for compensation or receive donations. But, if you find ‘yourself’ in a position of presumed corporate debt, the following applies:
Per Section 3.8.45.5.10.1 of the Internal Revenue Manual states:
“Bill of Exchange
1. If a Bill of Exchange or Registered Bill of Exchange is received from a taxpayer authorizing the campus to settle their account through Fedwire, send everything received to the following address:
Department of the Treasury Office of Executive Secretary
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Room 3413
Washington, DC 202202. Complete Form 9814, Request for Mail/Shipping Service, and check "Next Day Air" and "Remittances and Payments" boxes. Forward to your Shipping area.”
The above can be done with a qualified special indorsement per UCC 3 similar to the following ["be sure to verify the ‘payee’”]:
WITHOUT RECOURSE
Pay To The Order Of: U.S. Treasury
By: /s/ John Michael Doe ©, Authorized Representative
For: JOHN MICHAEL DOE, Principle
Did anyone inform you of this with full disclosure when you signed the W4 or W9 or I9 form? Did anyone inform you of this for ANY contract?
Were you informed that you are presumed to actually be your sole proprietorship?
Were you informed that you even had a sole proprietorship?
If not, that means it is fraud and it is not possible to have consideration if the nature and extent of the contract using any of these presumptions of the corporate name in the form of an ALL CAPS “title” was never fully disclosed. That means everything in your daily life that has any presumptive jurisdiction is fraud by coercion and deceptive practices.
All of the following terms essentially mean the same thing and are used in public litigation and commerce under maritime/admiralty and ecclesiastical law:
• Ens legis
• Person
• Individual
• Natural person
• Human being
• Business
• Corporation
• Franchise
• Company
• Sole proprietorship
• Corporation sole
• You (singular and plural)
It is always important to remember the following:
“in doing this i shall have occasion incidentally to evince how true it is, that states and governments were made for man; and at the same time how his creatures and servants at first deceived, next vilified, and at last oppressed their master and maker. Let a state be considered as subordinate to the people and everything else be subordinate to the state.” Chisolm v Georgia 2 Dall, 440
AND
“Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interfere only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them.” Penhallow v Doane’s Administrators, 3 U.S. 54 (1795) at p 93.
AND
“All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not Human/Creators in accordance with God’s laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process…” Rodriques v. Ray Donovan (U.S. Department of Labor) 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348, (1985).
AND
"The common law is the real law, the Supreme Law of the Land; the code, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are “not the law”, Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn (2d) 261. January 17th, 1963
AND
A person is: “a variety of entities other than human beings.” Church of Scientology v U.S. Department of Justice, 612 F2d 417 (1979) at pg 418.
“…foreigners, not citizens…” United States v Otherson. 480 F Supp. 1369 (1979) at pg 1373.
“ ‘in common usage, the term ‘person’ does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the [word] are normally construed to exclude it.’ Wilson v Omaha Tribe, 442 US653 667, 61 L. Ed 2d 153, 99 S Ct 2529 (1979) (quoting United States v Cooper Corp. 312 US 600, 604, 83 L. Ed 1071, 61 S Ct 742 (1941) See also United States v Mine Workers, 330 US 258, 273, 91 L. Ed 884. 67 S Ct 677 (1947)” Will v Michigan State Police, 491 US 58, 105 L. Ed. 2d 45, 109 S Ct 2304. “a sovereign is not a person in a legal sense” In re Fox, 52 N.Y. 535, II Am. Rep. 751. U.S. v Fox, 94 U.S. 315, 241, Ed, 192
AND
“A “US Citizen” (citizen of the federal corporation) upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in “interstate commerce”, as a “resident” does not have the common-law right to travel, of a Citizen of one of the several states.” Hendrick v. Maryland S.C. Reporter’s Rd. 610-625. (1914)
AND
"...rights of national citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in state citizenship". Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83: 84 L.Ed. 590 (1940)
AND
"There is a difference between privileges and immunities belonging to the citizens of the United States (14th amendment citizen) as such, and those belonging to the citizens of each state as such". Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41 (1900)
AND
"Therefore, the U.S. citizens (citizen of the federal corporation) residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an "individual entity"", Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773 [“corporate sole or sole proprietorship”]
AND
"...the first eight amendments have uniformly been held not to be protected from state action by the privilege and immunities clause [“of the 14th Amendment”]." Hague v. CIO, 307 US 496, 520
AND
"The right to trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the 7th Amendment…and the right to bear arms guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment…have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the 14th Amendment…and in effect the same decision was made in respect of the guarantee against prosecution, except by indictment of a grand jury, contained in the 5th Amendment…and in respect of the right to be confronted with witnesses, contained in the 6th Amendment…it was held that the indictment, made indispensable by the 5th Amendment, and trial by jury guaranteed by the 6th Amendment, were not privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as those words were used in the 14th Amendment. We conclude, therefore, that the exemption from compulsory self-incrimination is not a privilege or immunity of National citizenship guaranteed by this clause of the 14th Amendment." Twining v. New Jersey, 211 US 78, 98-99
AND
Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. 338 May Term, 1796 – United States Supreme Court (pre-civil war) “…every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowman without his consent.”
AND
The various Slaughterhouse Cases [“some included above”] - read them all! 83 US 36 - Supreme Court 1873
Whereas: a US Citizen [“citizen of the United States”] is not sovereign; and is not a man or woman who is private, and who otherwise would not be subject to legal codes, rules, acts, and statutes. This same ‘person’ having national citizenship status is considered a resident per the Residency Act of 1790. The usurpation of the term ‘resident’ was then presumed following the civil war under martial law, and those on the states needed to declare if they were a resident or not. The presumption is that all ‘persons’ are ‘residents’ of the District of Columbia and thus subject to the government as a sole proprietorship through the use of the all caps corporate sole name which is the ens legis or ‘citizen of the United States’ created by the birth certificate [“articles of incorporation”]. So, all suits must be addressed to that ‘corporate sole’. Without rebuttal, it is presumed that one is a resident and under the ‘care’ of said government as a ‘person’ [“idiot”].
So, how do we know the ALL CAPS NAME for the ‘corporation sole’ is the NAME being sued for all corporate government suits? We need look no further than the Roman law regarding the styling of names indicating their status once the inferior condition is created by registration.
Whereas:
“Capitus Diminutio (meaning the diminishing of status through the use of capitalization) in Roman Law. A diminishing or abridgement of a man’s status or aggregate of legal attributes and qualifications.” Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition, 1968
This capitalization is largely ignored through plausible deniability. So, instead watch out for the term ‘you’. Always ask what ‘you’ they are talking about. Also, what is ‘you’? Can they define it? It could be stated that the question around ‘you’ makes no sense when asked if ‘something’ is ‘you’. Ask them to explain and define it by law. This would include the policy enforcer, judge, and potentially any ‘public servant’.
Lex Mercatoria !
https://www.inpowermovement.org/