The Enslavement is not Real

Dispelling the power of the agreements when key elements are not met. Although, it is only real if you believe it and succumb to the mind control.

Are you the ship? Are you the military “person”?

Is the Slavery Real?

For those who have been following the articles, you have seen a historical account through actual law, cases, and legal statutes that shows how most are duped into believing we are slaves and subjects by taking on titles and names and then stating we ARE those things.

However, the slavery is all fiction. ALL OF IT!

It comes down to creating valid contracts and the ability to contract, with full disclosure, regardless of the presumption.

Key Elements of a Contract - Birth Certificate is not a Contract

Although the birth certificate did in fact create a corporate sole that can be tied to the Social Security number for use by the State for commerce, it does not mean you are contractually bound by said “agreement” or corporate creation. Examples of the confirmation of the corporate sole exist on the SS4 form and Passport forms. Notice how a sole proprietorship can use the SSN on the SS4 form? Notice how the passport form has you fill in your information presumably twice? The first part is for the corporate sole and its SSN, of which said corporate sole needs the passport as the “national”, and the second part is for the man or woman filling out the form who is not a citizen of the United States. Both assume the sole proprietorship is what is using the social security number. If you think you are the “citizen”, then you filled out the form wrong.

AND

You are not the birth certificate or the corporate sole unless you agree to be said fictitious entity.

The UCC code has inherent indorsement methods to relieve responsibility of negotiable instruments due to the potential implications of missing contractual elements. All contracts are negotiable instruments. They are paper things which we give perceived value. What makes a valid contract?

The elements of a contract:

1. There must be an offer - were you offered the corporate contract in the form of the birth certificate for the corporate sole as a newborn? NOPE

2. Acceptance of offer - Did you, while newborn in the hospital, accept the offer? NOPE

3. There must be fair consideration - What were you offered in return that creates a fair contract as a newborn or young man or woman? Duties and responsibilities? Rights and privileges? You were born with all the rights of the universe. People working for the State may “argue” that the ability to work and exchange in commerce is the fair offer provided - but how many people actually understand the difference of commerce, trade, bartering, using real money [“money that has a universally agreed value and limited availability, thus setting its value without subjectivity”] versus currency, negotiable instruments, etc…?
   
   If you did a poll of 10 people, you would be hard pressed to find (9) nine that fully understand these principles. i, surely did not understand them until recent study. After all the study, there is still intentional complexity in the UCC and international/interstate commerce ideas.
   
   It is important to note, people who are free [“mankind at birth”] do not require commerce. Mankind only requires their value in energy and the ability to trade that energy for other sustainable returns. This is not taxable. It is a Maxim of Law that every man is worth his hire. Only fictions can be taxed and exchanged in commerce.

4. The one contracting must have the capacity to contract. As a newborn one of mankind, did you have the capacity to contract? NOPE

5. Is it lawful? In other words, as one of mankind, was the contract within the rights of a man [“rights are everything possible in the world as long as it causes no harm to another of mankind”]. Does it fall within Common or Natural Law? NO!

6. Was there intention? Was the intent to have a contract that is binding? NOT POSSIBLE - YOU WERE A NEWBORN WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE OF THE WORD “INTENT”!

7. Clearly identified people - are both/all people clearly identified? This falls into another Maxim of Law - “Similar” or “Like” are not the same. So, the ALL CAPS NAME is not the same as the Upper Lower Case name or all lower case, or any other derivation. Did two flesh and blood people, who had full disclosure, autograph the document? IMPOSSIBLE! You were a newborn. More important, a man cannot be a fictitious entity without choice. That means ANY title is a fiction and not the man.

Break down any agreement [“the word agreement is not quite the same as a the word contract”], and it is almost impossible for any contract or agreement to be enforceable without these elements. This includes the presumptive agreements from the last article.

With that said, does a birth certificate meet ANY of these requirements?

NO!

But, that public corporate sole name is used for the government [“State”] to give the State plenary power over commerce. The real question most people are not asking relates to states [“geographically defined”] and if commerce truly applies to those states in the Union. The reality is it does not for those who claim nationality of the state. “Interstate commerce” has been abused. The constitution makes it clear that people are to be able to freely trade between states of the Union and exporting from a state to another state is not to be taxed.

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 5

NOTE: “State” is the body politic consisting of the “People” and the legislature. A “state” [“lower case”] is the land that is defined by the physical boundaries and has “people” as a plural number of mankind. It is important to keep in mind the difference as the constitution for the United States of America is between bodies politic as entities that were originally unincorporated.

The constitutional clause above is often overlooked. Yet, everyday, we pay taxes on articles between States and within a State. What is the difference between the terms “tax”, “impost”, “duty”, and “excise”?

• Tax: An expansive term that refers to a required payment imposed by a government on its citizens or businesses to fund public goods and services. Taxes can be direct, such as income tax, or indirect, such as sales tax or value-added tax.

• Impost: A type of tax, especially an import duty, levied by a government on goods imported from foreign countries. Imposts are typically used to raise revenue and protect domestic industries.

• Duty: A tax imposed by a government on the import or export of goods. Duties can be imposed on both imported and exported goods, and are often used to regulate international trade and raise revenue.

• Excise: A type of indirect tax imposed on the manufacture, sale, or consumption of specific goods, such as alcohol, tobacco, or fuel. Excise taxes are often used to discourage the consumption of certain goods or to raise revenue.

What is an article? From The American Heritage Dictionary:

article

/är′tĭ-kəl/

noun

1. An individual thing or element of a class; a particular object or item.

   an article of clothing; articles of food.

2. A particular section or item of a series in a written document, as in a contract, constitution, or treaty.

3. A nonfictional literary composition that forms an independent part of a publication, as of a newspaper or magazine.

An article is basically any stand alone thing.

Only residents, inhabitants, fictitious entities, employees, etc., are taxable and prone to Union state “interstate commerce”. The people of the states, living on the states, and with a nationality of any state by birth or naturalization by any means whatsoever, are not governed by commercial law. Yet, this article makes it clear that NO TAX OR DUTY laid upon articles from one State into another and NO VESSEL from one State shall PAY DUTIES IN ANOTHER. The constitution does not even restrict this prohibition of who or what it applies regarding the transportation or the items. But, the constitution does give plenary power to the government for COMMERCE. So, make as much fall under commerce as possible, and it falls under the government’s plenary power.

However, since people believe they are the corporate NAME used on credit cards, bank accounts, birth certificate, and passports, it is easy to get roped into the usufruct.

usufruct

/yoo͞′zə-frŭkt″, -sə-/

noun

1. In law, the right of enjoying all the advantages derivable from the use of something which belongs to another so far as is compatible with the substance of the thing not being destroyed or injured.

• To hold in usufruct; subject to a right of enjoyment of its advantages by one while owned by another.

The Century Dictionary

usufruct

Usufruct is the right to use and benefit from a property, while the ownership of which belongs to another person. The person who enjoys the usufruct is called the usufructuary. The usufructuary shall maintain the property as a responsible owner and shall not cause damage to or diminution of the property, except where the property is subject to natural depletion over time. In modern civil law, the usufruct is divided into perfect usufruct and imperfect usufruct or quasi-usufruct, depending on whether the property is subject to depletion. For perfect usufruct, the property is used without changing its nature. In the latter, the property cannot be used without being consumed, such as money, food, etc., and the usufructuary shall deliver to the owner at the end of the usufruct the same value or the same quantity and quality as at the beginning of the usufruct.

Cornell Law School Dictionary

Look at all the terms in the definition above and it becomes apparent that you are presumed to be the “person” and not the property “owner”, and the “owner” is not necessarily the one who has highest claim to the property.

This loophole is how they seize property when you do not pay their taxes, or how they seize your automobiles when you do not get it registered or a proof of title.

If you believe you are the “registered owner” of the “vehicle”, then you are tied into a usufruct arrangement. If you have a “warranty deed”, you are the “real property owner” and have imperfect title that is registered, and hence, tied into a usufruct arrangement. This imperfect title allows for the presumption of the property being bonded with a revenue or municipal bond that is used to assess taxes to the property. Without this knowledge or the actions to administratively satisfy the bond and remove the claim on the property with the sheriff, you may not be the one who can claim the property which noway depends on another man’s courtesy.

Confusing?

You are viewed as a foreign entity in the form of a resident, person, or inhabitant trading in commerce, and therefore taxable.

Corporation Contracts are Between Persons

The next false doctrine in contracts is the belief that by one man signing a contract on behalf of an organization, he is now fully responsible for all occurrences of said organization, regardless of consideration or understanding.

The term “owner” [“a title - hence a diminishment”] makes the presumption of responsibility. This is captured within the definition of the term in Black’s Law Dictionary as described in the Do You Like Being a Debt Slave article.

However, a man who claims something as property is very different than a fictitious “owner” who is responsible for all maritime events that a man may know nothing about or fully understand. There is a presumption of understanding when calling oneself an “owner”.

Man needs to remember, any title is a fiction. ANY TITLE IS A FICTION.

ANY TITLE IS A FICTION

ANY TITLE IS A FICTION

A man should not want to be something else when he/she grows up. Instead, a man should want to experience all that is possible while still being a man. This experience is limited only by harm. Harm to another of mankind is the only limitation of action.

Let’s explore this idea logically.

1. When you sign a contract for a company to do business with another company, does this require the man who is permitting the agreement between entities to inherently have duties and responsibilities within those companies or corporations? Are your rights automatically diminished? The answer is - not necessarily. Not unless it is explicit in the contract and there is some type of employment agreement expressing the duties and responsibilities clearly, and it is fully agreed by all involved. Without this element, the contract is between fictitious entities only. Your role was to bring the fictitious entity into existence and act to connect it to another fictitious entity. All other diminishment of rights are up to the man and must be documented, understood, and given full consideration and agreement.

2. Are you able to place the corporation on the witness stand to have it testify on the harm a man did wrong to said corporation? NO! It is a physical impossibility.

3. Are you able to place a title on the witness stand for the same expectation? Not possible.

4. A man does witness what is another man’s actions. This is why we need to witness actions. We are not A “witness” [“title that presumes an action thing - a conversion”]. The man does the witnessing. An act of observance to what is true. A “witness” is simply a thing that might be presumed to be action or controlled by the court.

5. Does a contract between two corporations mean that some government has personal and subject matter jurisdiction over you as a man? Not necessarily. That must be proven. That burden of proof is placed upon those bringing the complaint. By the way, complaints are for fictional entities. Claims are for mankind. Claims require those who do witness. A minimum of two and ideally three of mankind must witness to the facts of harm or else it is hearsay.

6. Does some government, consisting of a group of people in a room somewhere making laws to conduct their daily business, actually translate to the ability of said government to then make rules for a man? Are these rules [“by-laws, corporate policies, procedures, mandates, and other restrictions”] for this government [“separate corporation”] rules that the man must live by without the man’s consent? NO! Representation does not mean rule making for you. Only rule making for those who are part of the government body to do it’s work. That governmental body is put in place with consent to protect your unalienable rights; not to restrict your rights. Restrictions are only for lesser citizens [“fictitious entities with titles”].

Now apply this logic to all the agreements mentioned in the last article.

Do taxes apply to you?

The most exciting topic! TAXES!

A man is worth his hire. Only jobs are taxable as income. Work is free to receive compensation.

Have any of mankind reading this article ever read your local or State or Federal tax codes? Do you know what they mean? Do you understand the terms they use and what their definitions mean and to what those definitions apply?

Some in the “freedom” or “patriot” “movement” think the terms are not important. But, without knowledge, a man can be tricked. Context can be stretched. The usufruct can be used to convert. Conversion is unlawful per 18 USC 1341 and 1342.

What is a taxpayer? What is a business? What is public? Are you a federal government public office, agency, part of the military or an employee within the government corporation? Are you a corporate employee of a government agency. If ‘yes’, then you are a taxpayer. If ‘no’, unless you contracted this year to be a taxpayer through one of their forms, then NO, you are not a taxpayer.

This applies to States if you have a Driver’s License or declare residency through sending your “children” to public school or in one of the other statutory methods devised within the codes. You must volunteer into this slavery. This volunteering by declaring residency creates a “situs”, or location with the State organization; with said State organization being a sub-franchise of the United States government. Then you must provide a return for the property in question and it will be assessed based on the State’s defined assessment method.

Situs means the location of property or an item for legal purposes. Where the situs of something is depends on the type of item and can have important legal consequences. For most physical items the situs is the place where the object is located presently such as a house or a purse. However, for intangible items like a patent the situs normally is where the property is registered. The situs of property changes where a lawsuit can be brought regarding the property and often adds difficulties to resolving property disputes.

Cornell Law Dictionary

All these statutes for States depend on the definition of “person”, “State”, and “United States” within their statutes. If not in a specific section, the definition reverts to the “rules for construction” section for the State. If it is not fully defined in the rules for construction section [“there are references for other terms not defined”], it reverts to the “United States” statutes as the parent organization. If it is not here or not clearly defined, it reverts to their source code, the law dictionaries for maritime/admiralty/ecclesiastical law.

Regardless, they must defend against the Maxims of Law.

Did anyone tell you this when you “signed up”? Does this meet the requirements for a contract? It is in the State’s statutes, but did you read them all and fully understand the implication? Would a reasonable man understand the statutes?

Return to the rules of contracts and test the agreements to those standards.

• We have covered persons - they are fictitious entities. Are you a fictitious entity?

• Did you ever put in a “return” to your local assessors office as an inhabitant or resident? If not, how did you get on their tax rolls? Tax rolls are for businesses. They presume you are a “sole proprietorship” and hence taxable. However, that is a presumption.

• Have you ever rebutted that presumption? Have you ever asked your assessors office how they came up with the taxes for your property?

• Have you ever asked the assessor what the definitions of the terms are they use to make that determination?

• Are you an employee of the municipality?

• Are you a business contracted with or residing in the municipality?

• What makes them believe you are a business, resident, or an inhabitant? Be careful in the definitions. A name that is expressed as a “person” can be domiciled IN the State, County, or Municipality as an “individual”, “natural person”, or “corporate sole”. It is based on context. A man is domiciled on the land and claims property, but is NOT IN the body politic “things” noted herein.

“The Comon Law appeareth in the statute of Magna Carta and other ancient statutes (which for the most part are affirmations of the common law)…” Sir Edward Coke

Code examples:

West Virginia Tax Code 2 . . .

. . . §11-6B-2. Definitions.

(2) "Claimant" means a person who is age sixty-five or older or who is certified as being permanently and totally disabled, and who owns a homestead that is used and occupied by the owner thereof exclusively for residential purposes: Provided, That: (1) If the property was most recently used and occupied by the owner or the owner's spouse thereof exclusively for residential purposes; (2)the owner, as a result of illness, accident or infirmity, is residing with a family member or is a resident of a nursing home, personal care home, rehabilitation center or similar facility; and (3) the property is retained by the owner for noncommercial purposes, then the owner of that property may continue to claim a homestead property tax exemption on the property.

(5) "Owner" means the person who is possessed of the homestead, whether in fee or for life. A person seized or entitled in fee subject to a mortgage or deed of trust shall be considered the owner. A person who has an equitable estate of freehold, or is a purchaser of a freehold estate who is in possession before transfer of legal title shall also be considered the owner. Personal property mortgaged or pledged shall, for the purpose of taxation, be considered the property of the party in possession.

(10) "Resident of this state" means an individual who is domiciled in this state for more than six months of the calendar year.

This last part is how people are tricked. The sole proprietorship as an individual and natural person was covered in detail in the article “Do You Like Being a Debt Slave”. You are not an individual unless implicated by context as a business owner. The statutes and the source code in Black’s Law Dictionary make this clear once you connect all the different definitions and uses.

Think about this logically. The State made the corporate sole business with the birth certificate. They are the owner of the business in the true sense. If you are using the usufruct, you are benefitting from the creation of the business. But, that does not mean you are responsible. If you claim as trademark or copyright your name, now you can claim them as property. But, you are still not the “owner”.

PROPERTY. Rightful dominion over external objects ; ownership ; the unrestricted and exclusive right to a thing; the right to dispose of the substance of a thing in every legal way, to possess it, to use it, and to exclude every one else from interfering with it. Mackeld. Rom. Law, § 265.

Property is the highest right a man can have to anything; being used for that right which one has to lands or tenements, goods or chattels, which noway depends on another man's courtesy. Jackson ex dem. Pearson v. Housel, 17 Johns. 281, 283. BLACK’S Law Dictionary 2^nd Edition.

Property is defined in West Virginia Code §2-2-10; however, the thing in which the term is applied in the code is a person. As described within the same code, it is clearly referencing fictitious entities by ejusdem generis and expressio unius est exclusion alterius, and not a man or woman or those of mankind. Property as known to man is of that which in noway depends on another man’s courtesy.

We do not own anything in this life with the exception of our souls, spirit, effort, and associated gifts/talents. Everything else we can only claim for a time. By consciousness, all was here when we arrived and will be here when we are physically gone as long as there is a continuation of consciousness. We are merely custodians of what can be...

. . . §11-4-3. Definitions.

“Owner” means the person, as defined in §2-2-10 of this code, who is possessed of the freehold, whether in fee or for life. A person seized or entitled in fee subject to a mortgage or deed of trust securing a debt or liability is considered the owner until the mortgagee or trustee takes possession, after which the mortgagee or trustee shall be considered the owner. A person who has an equitable estate of freehold, or is a purchaser of a freehold estate who is in possession before transfer of legal title is also considered the owner. Owner includes the corporation or other organization possessed of the freehold of a qualified continuing care retirement community. Owner includes homeowners who have vacated their owner-occupied, single-family, residential property, which was their most recent primary residence, and have listed that property for sale with a licensed real estate broker, and have not leased said property to anyone since vacating said property. Owner means the person who is using and occupying all or a portion of a parcel of real estate the freehold of which is possessed by a family trust: Provided, That the parcel is used and occupied by the owner thereof exclusively for residential purposes.

. . . §2-2-10. Rules for Construction of Statutes.

(9) "Person" or "whoever" includes corporations, societies, associations and partnerships, and other similar legal business organizations;

(10) "Personal estate" or "personal property" includes goods, chattels, real and personal, money, credits, investments, and the evidences thereof;

(11) "Property" or "estate" embraces both real and personal estate;

(13) "State", when applied to a part of the United States and not restricted by the context, includes the District of Columbia and the several territories, and the words "United States" also include the said district and territories;

Part II. Definitions.

. . . §8-1-2. Definitions of terms.

(13) “resident” shall mean any individual who maintains a usual and bona fide place of abode within the corporate limits of a municipality or within the boundaries of a territory referred to in this chapter, as the case may be;

(18) “Person” shall mean any individual, firm, partnership, corporation, company, association, joint-stock association, or any other entity or organization of whatever character or description.

The same definitions exist in the vehicle code and other State of West Virginia Codes.

It is also true for the United States Statutes.

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.

1 USC § 1: “the words ‘person’ and ‘whoever’ include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;”

• Based on ejusdem generis and expressio unius est exclusion alterius, Person, claimant, owner, resident, and individual are all fictitious entities, as in the rest of the list in 26 USC 7701, 1 USC § 1, §8-1-2 - 13 & 18, §11-6B-2 - 2,5 &10, §2-2-10, §11-4-3, other West Virginia Codes and is restrictive to the lists and definitions. The grouped term PROPERTY OWNER is not listed in any definitions in the West Virginia Code.

Notice that the definition of “State” in the West Virginia codes clarify the location as being part of the “United States” as follows: “includes the District of Columbia and the several territories, and the words "United States" also include the said district and territories”.

Are you in the District of Columbia or one of the United States territories? In almost all cases, the answer is NO. So, to become a “citizen of the United States” [“14th amendment citizen”], which is what is protected and controlled via the 14th amendment, you need to volunteer into this role. If it is presumed, you must rebut the presumption.

Spend some time and look at your State’s codes and see if they are the same. It is almost a guarantee the definitions and circular references are all constructed in a very similar if not identical manner. Look at the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the State of California, etc… they may have different numbering, but the terms and definitions are almost identical.

NOTE: If you are not paying your mortgage that has a balance, you technically do not own your home and hence cannot claim it as property in the true meaning of the term as defined in Black’s Law Dictionary. The State definition above already presumes it applies to “persons”. As a result, taxes may apply as you are “renting” or a “tenant” until the mortgage is paid. Although, said mortgage is based on debt instruments [“negotiable instruments”] and there are options for indorsement.

There is a valid [“actually in the UCC code and IRS manual previously covered”] concern that a bank may have accessed the credit of the nation through the fed discount window via FedNow or FedWire or sold the mortgage to another lending institution that has said access to credit.

There is a possibility that they are then fraudulently charging you for currency through the same usufruct as mentioned before. They may have already received payment by accessing your credit with the collateral security that was the mortgage promissory note. That is possible and is provable with information requests (FOIA) and hard questions to the lenders.

Some strict “law” guys may say they have never seen the rebuttal to this actually work. However, that is also not true, the case law is scarce due to settlements with NDA’s [“Non-Disclosure Agreements”]. The UCC code explicitly allows the indorsement process and the movement of currency with rules that, if you understand, are based on fake paper exchanges as negotiable instruments. Every contract in the federal reserve banking world is a negotiable instrument. This includes the federal reserve note [“FRN”]. But, this requires a ton of study. And, if you do not know it well and know what questions to ask, you can get trapped in a hurry. So, tread lightly.

So how do we assume debt?

Who is the Debtor

§ 9-307. LOCATION OF DEBTOR.

(a) ["Place of business."]

In this section, "place of business" means a place where a debtor conducts its affairs.

(b) [Debtor's location: general rules.]

Except as otherwise provided in this section, the following rules determine a debtor's location:

(1) A debtor who is an individual is located at the individual's principal residence.

(2) A debtor that is an organization and has only one place of business is located at its place of business.

(3) A debtor that is an organization and has more than one place of business is located at its chief executive office.

(c) [Limitation of applicability of subsection (b).]

Subsection (b) applies only if a debtor's residence, place of business, or chief executive office, as applicable, is located in a jurisdiction whose law generally requires information concerning the existence of a nonpossessory security interest to be made generally available in a filing, recording, or registration system as a condition or result of the security interest's obtaining priority over the rights of a lien creditor with respect to the collateral. If subsection (b) does not apply, the debtor is located in the District of Columbia.

So, where is the debtor?

(h) [Location of United States.]

The United States is located in the District of Columbia.

What is a Negotiable Instrument?

§ 3-104. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT.

(a) Except as provided in subsections (c) and (d), "negotiable instrument" means an unconditional promise or order to pay a fixed amount of money, with or without interest or other charges described in the promise or order, if it:

(1) is payable to bearer or to order at the time it is issued or first comes into possession of a holder;

(2) is payable on demand or at a definite time; and

(3) does not state any other undertaking or instruction by the person promising or ordering payment to do any act in addition to the payment of money, but the promise or order may contain (i) an undertaking or power to give, maintain, or protect collateral to secure payment, (ii) an authorization or power to the holder to confess judgment or realize on or dispose of collateral, or (iii) a waiver of the benefit of any law intended for the advantage or protection of an obligor.

The use of currency is technically exchanges between fictions of negotiable instruments. It is regarded as money for commercial economic purposes and those of exchanges between intergovernmental organizations or between two or more countries. The real question is if people are willing to accept the fictitious paper for value. A federal reserve note is a promise to pay as it is legal tender for all debts. It is a negotiable instrument and therefore payable to bearer for all debts.

And how do we know that negotiable instruments are securities of the U.S. including the FRN? Well, they say so.

18 U.S. Code § 8 - Obligation or other security of the United States defined

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.

And what is actually real money that is not related to government exchanges? Why is a debt instrument, which is a negotiable instrument, not technically money in relation to mankind?

Article I, Section 8, Clause 5:

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

In the case of commerce, the UCC defines money as follows:

UCC § 1-201. General Definitions.

(24) "Money" means a medium of exchange currently authorized or adopted by a domestic or foreign government. The term includes a monetary unit of account established by an intergovernmental organization or by agreement between two or more countries.

Mankind is not a government or intergovernmental agency. If you ask for money from the government, you are only going to get their definition of “money”. This is a convenient loop hole to prevent full discharge with Gold or Silver coin. Any judge will look at you like a conspiracy theorist if you declare the FRN not money. They only operate under their definitions.

How can a corporation, government, or agency thereof have a higher right than man? How can said entity provide courtesy or consideration? We create fictitious entities. Fictitious entities do not create mankind.

“Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to 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.” —supreme Court Decision, Yick Wo vs. Hopkins 118 U.S. 356

Next time, the topic will be on proper service of documentation. This includes how traffic tickets fall into this contract structure and false presumption trap.

Final Note:

Administrative Law does not apply to mankind. Here is an example:

TITLE 2 - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND PROCEDURE - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA - CHAPTER 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS - Sec. 101. Definitions.

"Person."

Includes a government unit or an agency of the Federal Government.

Now ask - are you a government unit or an agency of the Federal Government?

Any administrative procedure falsely applied to one of mankind, is in violation of your rights. This opens the door to 42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights and 42 U.S. Code § 1985 - Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights.

Why 42 USC versus 18 USC? 18 USC is not for a private right of action and requires a DA to forward your complaint of criminal behavior. 42 USC is for persons and can be put forth as a claim of harm by deprivation of rights. Per the Amendment IV of the Bill of Rights:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

So, if your persons are not secure [“the name, title, or family members having some title”] that you claim as your own property, it is a deprivation of rights. By understanding that a “person” is something you claim as a man rather than being a “person”, the perspective changes dramatically.

Man and his “persons”