Usufruct Derivative - Conversion

A breakdown of fraudulent schemes to entrap mankind at fictitious courts - deriving income from someone else's property

Mar 16, 2025

Background

Recently, the question was asked what Usufruct Derivative is and how it relates to the court schemes and violating their own laws. Below is a general breakdown. Please note, the “Notice” example near the end is only an example. Each man or woman’s case and particulars of the fraud can vary. This is not legal advice as it does not pertain to a particular case and, as always, “legal” is the destruction of Creation’s Law.

Usufruct Derivative and Mail Fraud

Usufruct Derivative as It Relates to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 & 1342 (Mail Fraud and Fraudulent Representations of a Name)

1. What is a Usufruct Derivative?

A usufruct is a legal term derived from civil law (primarily Roman and Napoleonic legal traditions), referring to the right to use and derive income or benefit from someone else's property without altering its substance.

A usufruct derivative is an extension of this concept in the context of financial and legal instruments, referring to:

A derivative claim of rights or benefits from another entity's property or legal standing.
A situation where a holder of a usufruct interest (e.g., government, fiduciary, trustee) exercises control or derives benefit from an asset while the original owner retains title.

2. Connection to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 & 1342 (Mail Fraud & Fictitious Names in Fraud)

18 U.S.C. § 1341 (Mail Fraud) and § 1342 (Use of a Fictitious Name or Address in Fraudulent Schemes) criminalize deceptive practices involving mail and financial fraud, particularly the use of misrepresentations in commerce.

The usufruct derivative concept intersects with these statutes in cases where:

A fraudulent party asserts a usufruct claim over another's legal identity or property
- Example: If a financial institution, government entity, or another party unlawfully asserts control over an individual’s financial resources or legal standing using derivative usufruct claims, this could involve fraudulent misrepresentation.
Fraudulent use of a person's legal identity in a usufruct arrangement
- Many legal and financial systems operate on the idea that the government maintains a usufruct interest in an individual’s legal identity (e.g., STRAWMAN, legal fiction, ens legis).
- If someone fraudulently claims rights over this identity (e.g., through mail fraud or deceptive financial filings), it can trigger § 1341 & § 1342 violations.
Manipulation of commercial paper, promissory notes, or financial derivatives through usufruct claims
- If an entity fraudulently creates, transfers, or claims usufruct rights over negotiable instruments (e.g., bonds, promissory notes, Federal Reserve instruments), using mail services or fictitious names, this could constitute a mail fraud scheme.

3. Practical Example of Usufruct Derivative in Fraud

A bank or financial institution claims a usufruct interest over a borrower’s promissory note, treating it as a negotiable instrument.
The institution monetizes the usufruct derivative interest but fails to disclose this to the borrower.
If the institution misrepresents this in financial documents, uses fraudulent names, or mails deceptive notices, it may fall under § 1341 or § 1342 violations.

4. The Government’s Role in Usufruct Derivative

The birth certificates, social security numbers, and legal identities function as a form of usufruct interest, where the government derives commercial and administrative benefits [Commerce Clause] from an individual’s legal identity while the individual retains limited rights over it.
If the government (or third parties) engages in mail-based financial schemes that manipulate these usufruct-based legal fictions, they could theoretically be subject to § 1341 and § 1342 penalties.

General Usufruct Derivative Conclusion:

Usufruct derivatives are a means of claiming rights or benefits over another’s property or legal identity.
18 U.S.C. § 1341 and § 1342 penalize fraudulent misuse of usufruct-based financial or legal claims, particularly when deception occurs through mail fraud or fictitious identities.
If an entity misuses usufruct claims to engage in fraudulent commerce via postal services, it can fall under federal fraud statutes.

Use of All Caps Name and Jurisdictional Conflicts

Jurisdictional Conflicts and Fraudulent Practices in Usufruct Derivatives Under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 & 1342

Form AO430 and its use of case-sensitive identities in jurisdictional conflicts is highly relevant to understanding Usufruct Derivative fraudulent practices. It ties directly into the fraudulent manipulation of jurisdictions, legal fictions, and commercial vs. military law applications—which can create deceptive legal traps.

Analysis:

Conflict of Jurisdictions: UCC vs. UCMJ
Case Sensitivity and Legal Implications (AO430)
Mail-Based Fraudulent Practices in Jurisdictional Manipulation
How This Applies to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 & 1342 and Other Statutes

1. Conflict of Jurisdictions: UCC vs. UCMJ

UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) – Municipal Corporate Jurisdiction

This applies to commercial transactions, negotiable instruments, and contractual obligations.
It operates under the Municipal Government, applying to financial matters under commerce and admiralty law.
Individuals are often treated as corporate persons (i.e., the STRAWMAN concept) subject to contractual obligations.

UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) – Strictly Territorial

UCMJ governs military personnel, courts-martial, and military conduct.
It applies within federal territorial jurisdiction (U.S. territories, military bases, embassies).
Individuals under military jurisdiction lack common law rights, and courts operate under strict chain-of-command governance.

Conflict Between UCC and UCMJ

If a civilian is fraudulently placed under UCMJ jurisdiction, they may lose access to constitutional protections and be subjected to military tribunal procedures.
If a military member is misclassified under UCC jurisdiction, they may be treated as a commercial entity rather than a sovereign individual.
Hybrid jurisdictional claims can be used to manipulate a legal proceeding, ensuring a party is placed into an unfavorable jurisdiction.

2. Case Sensitivity in Jurisdictional Representation

Form AO430 (Appearance Bond - Bonded Case - SEC Implications)

This form distinguishes entities by capitalization and formatting, indicating different jurisdictional categories:
- "Defendant" → Natural person (creditor)
- "DEFENDANT" → Legal fiction or corporate entity (debtor)
- "Plaintiff" → Claiming party (debtor in commercial law)
- "PLAINTIFF" → Corporate entity acting under commercial/military jurisdiction

Implications of This Case Sensitivity

If someone is charged as "DEFENDANT" instead of "Defendant," they could be:
- Subjected to a different jurisdiction unknowingly
- Converted into a corporate entity under UCC jurisdiction
- Unable to claim sovereign protections
If PLAINTIFF is a legal fiction, the entity bringing the case may lack standing and be engaging in fraud.

3. Mail-Based Fraudulent Practices in Jurisdictional Manipulation

How Fraudulent Court Documents Are Used

Jurisdictional deception occurs when legal notices, summonses, or court documents are sent in the mail (triggering mail fraud statutes) and:
- Use case-sensitive name distinctions to trick individuals into accepting false jurisdiction.
- Present contradictory jurisdictional claims, making it difficult for the recipient to assert the correct defense.
- List multiple jurisdictions (UCC, UCMJ, Admiralty, Territorial, or Statutory) to create confusion.

Example of Jurisdictional Fraud via Mail

A person receives a court summons via USPS, stating they are charged under UCMJ, UCC, and Federal statutes simultaneously.
The name on the document is listed in ALL CAPS (e.g., JOHN DOE instead of John Doe).
The entity bringing the case ("PLAINTIFF") is legally a debtor under UCC, yet is posing as a creditor.
Mailing such a fraudulent document constitutes "Scheme to Defraud" under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1342.

Potential Legal Violations:

18 U.S.C. § 1341 (Mail Fraud) – Sending deceptive court documents through the mail.
18 U.S.C. § 1342 (Fictitious Name Fraud) – Using a fraudulent entity name or jurisdictional misrepresentation.
18 U.S.C. § 241 (Conspiracy Against Rights) – If multiple parties collaborate to mislead an individual into false jurisdiction.
15 U.S.C. § 1692e (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act – FDCPA) – If the court falsely represents legal standing or jurisdiction over a commercial obligation.

4. How This Applies to the Legal System & Remedies

The Key Issue:

If jurisdiction is fraudulently imposed, then the underlying case lacks lawful authority.
A court must establish proper jurisdiction before proceeding, and deceptive practices used to assert jurisdiction can void a case.

Remedies and Defenses:

Challenge Jurisdiction Immediately:
- File a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction based on fraudulent claim.
Correct the Legal Identity:
- Demand clarification of name formatting and jurisdiction (i.e., "Am I being charged as John Doe or JOHN DOE?")
Cite Mail Fraud & Fictitious Name Statutes:
- If court documents misrepresent legal status, file a complaint under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1342.

Potential Challenge:

If fraudulent jurisdictional conflicts are not challenged immediately, the court assumes consent.

Final Conclusion

UCC vs. UCMJ creates intentional jurisdictional conflicts to deceive individuals into false legal status.
Case-sensitive name formatting (Form AO430) plays a crucial role in defining a person's legal standing (creditor vs. debtor).
Fraudulent court documents sent via mail constitute federal violations under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 & 1342.
Recognizing and challenging jurisdictional fraud is critical to avoiding legal traps.

Case Law References & Jurisdictional Challenge Template

1. Case Law References Supporting Jurisdictional Challenges

A. Jurisdiction Must Be Proven and Cannot Be Assumed

Thomson v. Gaskill, 315 U.S. 442 (1942)

“A court must dismiss a case when it lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter or the parties.”

Application: If jurisdiction is fraudulently imposed (e.g., UCC vs. UCMJ conflicts), the case must be dismissed.

Hagens v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528 (1974)

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. The requirement that jurisdiction be established as a threshold matter springs from the nature and limits of the judicial power of the United States and is inflexible without exception.”

Application: If a court cannot prove jurisdiction properly, it must dismiss the case.

Wright v. Georgia, 373 U.S. 284 (1963)

"An individual cannot be subject to a jurisdiction that has not been properly established by law."

Application: If a case is being prosecuted under multiple jurisdictions (e.g., UCC vs. UCMJ), a person cannot be subjected to all simultaneously without explicit lawful basis.

B. Fraudulent Jurisdiction Renders a Case Void

Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908)

“A jurisdictional defect renders a case void ab initio.”

Application: Any case based on fraud or misrepresentation of jurisdiction is void from the start.

McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178 (1936)

“It is well settled that the burden of proving jurisdiction rests upon the party asserting it.”

Application: The court (or plaintiff) must prove jurisdiction, not the defendant.

Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F.2d 416 (5th Cir. 1972)

“No court can acquire jurisdiction over a person without due process and legal notice of the nature and cause of the proceeding.”

Application: If documents mailed to a defendant misrepresent jurisdiction, they violate due process and are fraudulent under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 & 1342.

C. Use of All-Caps Legal Fiction & Fraudulent Identity

Chicago v. Mayer, 44 N.E. 1104 (Ill. 1896)

"The use of a name in all capital letters represents a legal fiction or corporate entity."

Application: If a court document alters the defendant’s name to ALL CAPS, it may be attempting to impose UCC jurisdiction over a living individual.

Dun & Bradstreet v. Greenmoss Builders, 472 U.S. 749 (1985)

"A legal fiction cannot be imposed upon an individual without their consent."

Application: If a court summons refers to JOHN DOE instead of John Doe, this could be fraudulent imposition of corporate jurisdiction.

2. Template for a Notice to Challenge Jurisdiction Based on Fraudulent Practices

This type of motion can be filed in state or federal court to challenge fraudulent jurisdiction.

Affirmation Demand For Jurisdiction, Fraudulent Conversion, And Securities Violations

At the [court name] court of [jurisdiction] on special visitation

On the matter of:
[man/woman's name], a man/woman
One who notices and demands full disclosure

Case number: [_________]

Affirmation Demand For Jurisdiction, Fraudulent Conversion, And Securities Violations

To: [Judge's Name], one who sometimes acts as a judicial officer
and to: [Attorney's Name], one who sometimes acts as legal counsel
and to: Any and all Principals, Agents, and Agencies attempting to impose statutory jurisdiction without full disclosure

Notice To Principal Is Notice To Agent, Notice To Agent Is Notice To Principal

I. Demand For Disclosure Of Jurisdiction

Provide sworn affirmation verifying under penalty of perjury:
- The exact jurisdiction this court is operating under.
- Whether this court is an administrative, admiralty, maritime, equity, or common law court.
- Whether this proceeding involves statutory jurisdiction and, if so, what authority confers jurisdiction over a man/woman.
- The statutory definition of "Defendant" and "Plaintiff" in relation to a man/woman.
Provide the contract, agreement, or document that proves this court has personal jurisdiction over a man or woman without consent.
Clarify whether this court recognizes a man or woman as distinct from a statutory "person," "natural person," or "individual."
Provide sworn testimony that this proceeding is not operating under a hidden contract or commercial jurisdiction.
Pursuant to Thomson v. Gaskill, 315 U.S. 442 (1942), jurisdiction must be proven by the party asserting it.
Plaintiff has failed to properly establish jurisdiction in this matter, as the court documents include multiple jurisdictional claims (UCC, UCMJ, or other statutory jurisdictions), creating a legal conflict.
Under Hagens v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528 (1974), federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and must dismiss cases where jurisdiction is not properly established.

II. Command For Disclosure Of Fraudulent Conversion

Provide the legal basis for converting a man or woman into a corporate entity, legal fiction, or statutory person without full disclosure.
Disclose whether any agency, judge, or attorney has assumed or presumed that i, a man/woman, am a corporate entity.
Provide documentation proving that i, was informed, fully disclosed, and voluntarily consented to be bound under statutory jurisdiction.
If no such contract exists, confirm in affirmation form that this court has no authority over a man/woman absent consent.
The summons and complaint refer to the Defendant in an ALL CAPS format (e.g., JOHN DOE), indicating a legal fiction or corporate entity rather than a living man/woman.
Under Chicago v. Mayer, 44 N.E. 1104 (Ill. 1896), the use of a name in all capital letters represents a corporate fiction, not a natural person as a man/woman.
The fraudulent alteration of Defendant’s name constitutes misrepresentation under 18 U.S.C. § 1342 (Fictitious Names in Fraud).

III. Command For Disclosure Of Securities Violations

Provide full accounting and disclosure of any and all securities created in relation to this case under UCC Articles 8 & 9 and SEC Rule 10b-5.
Provide documentation that this case number has not been monetized, securitized, or otherwise converted into a financial instrument.
Clarify whether any bond, trust, or financial obligation has been issued in connection with this proceeding.
Provide proof that i, a man/woman, am not being unlawfully treated as a financial instrument for the benefit of this court, attorneys, or other entities.

IV. Notice Of Fraud And Maxim Of Law

Failure to rebut this affirmation point-for-point within ten (10) days shall constitute full agreement and tacit acquiescence that:

No lawful jurisdiction exists.
This court is fraudulently converting a man or woman into a corporate fiction.
Securities fraud is taking place in relation to this case.
All actions taken under false jurisdiction are void ab initio.

The summons and related court documents were sent via U.S. mail, incorporating conflicting jurisdictional claims and fictitious identity representations.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (Mail Fraud), it is a federal offense to use the mail to execute or attempt to execute a fraudulent scheme.
Furthermore, under Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F.2d 416 (5th Cir. 1972), no court can acquire jurisdiction over [a man] without due process and lawful notice of the nature and cause of the proceeding.
Further actions by this court without full disclosure shall be construed as willful fraud, misrepresentation, and obstruction of justice.
Any party failing to rebut these demands shall be held personally liable and may be subject to criminal referral under:

18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 & 1342 – Mail fraud and fictitious service fraud.
18 U.S.C. §§ 241 & 242 – Conspiracy against rights.
42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 & 1985 – Deprivation of rights under color of law.
UCC 1-305 – Remedies to be liberally administered to prevent injustice.

V. Final Declaration & Notice Of Default

WHEREFORE, it is hereby ordered and commanded that:

All points above be fully disclosed in sworn affirmation within ten (10) days.
Failure to respond shall constitute agreement and acceptance that fraud has occurred.
All fraudulent securities transactions tied to this case must be disclosed, audited, and nullified.
Any financial gains made through fraudulent bonds or case securitization must be returned with triple damages as provided under UCC 1-305.
Any court, attorney, or agent failing to comply will be reported for professional and criminal misconduct.

Dated: [DATE]

Notice To Principal Is Notice To Agent, Notice To Agent Is Notice To Principal

Final Notes on the Notice

This notice asserts jurisdictional fraud based on statutory conflicts and name misrepresentation.
The court is forced to address jurisdiction first before proceeding with any other matter.
If the court cannot prove jurisdiction, the case must be dismissed.

Summary:

The previous post, about being foreign to the United States, covered the transferring of your “vessels” to the land and soil. By actively claiming those “vessels”, you are confirming the claim to the property. As a result, the use of those “vessels” by the court without your permission creates the fraudulent conversion situation.

The reality is that non of this should be required. However, the governments and their courts operate on tacit acquiescence or consent [though typically without full disclosure] in order to move jurisdiction to the sea and trick people into to submission.

The active effort of the people on the land on the states to exercise Ex Parte Milligan to regain their proper civil land courts under Natural and Common Law, will pave the way for a faster lawful removal of these district military tribunal/administrative courts. However, it is up to the people to exercise this right. A right of which we have given up in our passive world of fake “benefits and privileges”.