|
| |||||
|
|
|
| ||
Caps or Not Caps
That is the Question
To see "HisNameIsLife" video
After reading this page - to order
"America; Freedom to Fascism" DVD
By David Film
www.DavidFilm.com
The author shall in no way be held liable for any loss or other damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages. As always, the advice of a competent legal, tax, accounting or other professional should be sought in matters pertaining to liabilities, judgments or suits brought against him/her in any court of law. The following is not legal advice, nor does the author claim to advise the reader in legal matters. For this reason the content should not to be construed as being legal advice, legal counsel, or legal material.
A number of years ago I was having dinner in a church following their Sunday AM church service. As providence would have it, I had the privilege of sitting next to an attorney who was attending that day. His background and experience is often in defending homeschool situations or cases where government agencies have taken children from their parents on what they felt was "neglect" because the parents were teaching them at home.
As I sat there and struck up a conversation with him, I soon found I had a rare opportunity to hear him (without charge!) describe situations that - legally - seemed insurmountable. But from his line of defense, he won case after case by explaining to the parent(s) that the secret to winning the case was to rescind the child's Social Security number and/or Birth Certificate. In this way the state had no legal jurisdiction over the parent's affairs in how they raised the child.
The whole subject was astounding to me, but he knew all too well the situation in which we find ourselves today, and what we can do about it.
What I am going to describe to you on the following pages was not what he related to me, but lays a foundational background of information to help you - the reader - understand the framework under which this attorney operated, and how he was able to win legal situations in court time after time.
As a result of heated arguments and differences of the North and South concerning the Civil War, seven representatives of the southern states walked out of the thirty-sixth session of Congress on March 27, 1861. Since the Constitution specifies due process required for Congress to vote, there was no quorum present to specify a day for it to reconvene. This meant that Congress was officially and legally dissolved.
The following month, Lincoln called Congress back into session. It was not executed by lawful authority, but by what is known as “Executive Order”. He acted solely on his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Military. It was an act under authority of Martial Law. Since that date, Congress has never again convened under lawful "due process" according to the Constitution.
Essentially, this act abolished what was then a recognized “English common law” in America, and replaced it with "laws" based on "fictional" legal foundation.
Now hold that thought as I digress on a subject called "fictional law".
I would like you to take a look at your Driver's License, Birth Certificate or Social Security Card. Is your name typed in all caps?
Why, in courts, clerk records, insurance companies, banks, etc. is your name (and others) printed or typed in all caps? Is there a grammatical reason why it appears this way ie. JOHN JONES rather than John Jones?
From the Chicago Manual of Style:
"Writing names in all caps is not conventional; it is not Chicago style to put anything in all caps. For instance, even if 'GONE WITH THE WIND' appears on the title page all in caps we would proper1y render it 'Gone With the Wind' in a bibliography. The only reason we can think of to do so is if you are quoting some material where it is important to the narrative to preserve the casing of the letters.
We're not sure in what context you would like your proper name to appear in all caps but it is likely to be seen as a bit odd."
From Dr. Mary Newton Bruder, PH.D. also known as The Grammar Lady:
"It must be some kind of internal style. There is no grammar rule about it."
It seemed that these particular grammatical experts had no idea why proper names were written in all caps.
From the Manual on Usage &: Style, Eighth Edition, ISBN 1-878674-51-X, published by the Texas Law Review in 1995. In Section D, CAPITALIZATION, paragraph D: 1:1 states:
"Always capitalize proper nouns... [Proper nouns], independent of the context in which they are used, refer to specific persons, places, or things (e.g., Dan Austin, Rolls Royce)."
Paragraph D: 3:2 of Section D states:
"Capitalize People, State, and any other terms used to refer to the government as a litigant (e.g., the People's case, the State's argument), but do not capitalize other words used to refer to litigants (e.g., the plaintiff: defendant Manson). "
Grammatically, there is no hint of any reason to print or type proper names in all caps, yet lawyers, judges and law clerks continue to write "Plaintiff", "Defendant", in all caps in all of the legal documents.
In The Elements of Style, Fourth Edition, ISBN 0-205-30902-X, written by William Strunk, Jr. and E.B. White, published by Allyn & Bacon in 1999. Within this renowned English grammar and style reference book there was only one reference to capitalization located within the Glossary at proper noun, page 94, where it states:
"The name of a particular person (Frank Sinatra), place (Boston), or thing (Moby Dick). Proper nouns are capitalized."
Obviously and legally, there is a difference between capitalizing the first letter of a formal name as compared to capitalizing the entire name.
In The American Heritage Book of English Usage, A Practical and Authoritative Guide to Contemporary English, published in 1996, at Chapter 9, E-Mail, Conventions and Quirks, Informality, they state:
"To give a message special emphasis, an E-mailer may write entirely in capital letters, a device E-mailers refer to as YELLING.
It is informal to write every word in capital letters. They say it's "screaming" to do so. Are all court documents “Plaintiff” and “Defendant” YELLING at us when they print our proper names in all caps? Is the insurance company screaming at us to pay our policy? Are those in the legal profession writing our names “informally” on court documents? Legal documents are supposed to be by the "letter of the law". Can we assume, for the moment, that there may be a “legal” reason for referring to our names in this manner?
Now we will see an interesting scenario unfold in all of this....
We refer to The Real Life Dictionary of the Law:
The authors, Gerald and Kathleen Hill, are accomplished scholars and writers. Gerald Hill is an experienced attorney, judge, and law instructor. Here is how the term “legal fiction” is described:
"Legal fiction. n. A presumption of fact assumed by a court for convenience, consistency or to achieve justice. There is an old adage: 'Fictions arise from the law, and not law from fictions.' "
Oran's Dictionary of the Law
From Oran's Dictionary of the Law, published by the West Group 1999, within the definition of Fiction is found:
"A legal fiction is an assumption that something that is (or may be) false or nonexistent is true or real. Legal fictions are assumed or invented to help do justice. For example, bringing a lawsuit to throw a nonexistent "John Doe" off your property used to be the only way to establish a clear right to the property when legal title was uncertain."
Merriam-Webster~ Dictionary of Law 1996 states:
"Legal fiction: something assumed in law to be fact irrespective of the truth or accuracy of that assumption. Example: the legal fiction that a day has no fractions
-Fields v. Fairbanks" North Star Borough, 818 P.2d 658 (1991)."
This is the reason behind the use of full caps when writing a proper name. The U.S. and State Governments are deliberately using a LEGAL FICTION to "address" the Lawful person. This is deliberate because their own official publications state that proper names are not to be written in full caps. They are not even following their own recognized authorities.
In the same respect, by identifying their own government entity in full caps, they are legally stating that they are also a legal fiction. Dr. Mary Newton Bruder in the beginning of this report states the use of full caps for writing a proper name is an "internal style" for what is apparently a pre-determined usage and, at this point, unknown jurisdiction.
The main key to a legal fiction is assumption as noted in each definition above.
There are no official or unofficial English grammar style manuals or reference publications that recognize the use of full caps when writing a proper name. To do so is considered a legal fiction.
Now we beg the question: Can a legal fiction be substituted for a lawful name? If so, where does this legal fiction originate from and what enforces it? A legal fiction can be used when the name of a "person" is not known by using the fictional name "John Doe". If there is no way to identify someone, then the legal fiction “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” is used to describe the unknown person until the proper name can be identified.
A legal fiction is an assumption of fact without proving it to be true. It's an acceptance without proof. To assume is to “suppose”. Oran's Dictionary of the Law says that the word “assume” means:
1-To take up or take responsibility for; to receive; to undertake. See assumption.
2-To pretend.
3-To accept without proof.
Accepting without proof and pretending mean the same thing. However, “assumption” and “taking responsibility” are not the same. Oran's defines "assumption" as:
"Formally transforming someone else's debt into your own debt. Compare with guaranty. The assumption of a mortgage usually involves taking over the seller's 'mortgage debt' when buying a property (often a house)."
Although this may seem innocuous, it is important to understand that “pretended acceptance”, WITHOUT PROOF, is when someone has taken responsibility for, has guaranteed, or has received a debt. If we apply all this in defining a legal fiction, the use of a “legal fiction” is an “assumption” or “pretension” that the legal fiction named has RECEIVED AND IS RESPONSIBLE for a debt of some sort.
Use of the legal fiction JOHN SMITH in place of the proper name John Smith IMPLIES an assumed debt guarantee without any offer of proof. The danger behind this is that if such an unproved assumption is made, then unless the assumption is PROVEN WRONG it is considered valid. In theory, this contradicts the constitutional protection of the citizen who is “innocent until proved guilty”.
An assumed debt is valid unless proven otherwise. This is in accord with the Uniform Commercial Code valid in every State and made a part of the Statutes in each State.
A legal fiction written with full caps - resembling a proper name but grammatically not a proper name - is being held as a debtor for an assumed debt. If John Doe, answers for or assumes the legal fiction i.e. JOHN DOE, they become one and the same. This is the crux for the use of the full caps legal fictions by the U. S. Government and the States. It is the way that they can bring someone into their fictional venue and jurisdiction that they have created. This also is for the purpose of any type of assumed debt.
Why won't they use "The State of Texas" or "John Doe" in their courts or on Drivers Licenses? Is there some legal reason why they can’t? Obviously there is a reason for using legal fictions and it is found in the subject discussed above. In a nutshell, a legal fiction in and of itself, such as the STATE OF TEXAS, can also create additional legal fictions.
NOT THE LAW FROM FICTIONS.
Take a moment to understand what that means.
Legal fictions originate from any law that is used to create them. But a law can never originate from a fictional foundation that doesn't exist.
The Constitution of the United States is a foundation document having been created between the individual states. It specifies required due process of law for all the participating states included in it. The federal government was formed by it, and is also bound by it, and it’s “due process”. For this reason, any law that originates from the Constitutional due process is valid. Any law that do not originate from it is a fictional law without validity.
In returning to the former subject of Lincoln's original "Executive Order" as Commander in Chief of the U.S. Military, we see an interesting scenario taking place:
There is no basis for creating legal fictions. `But what about "laws" that have not originated from constitutional due process? They are really not laws at all, but “Executive Orders and Directives”. They are what is called the "color of law" without being valid laws of due process. They have the appearance of law and look like legitimate laws, but according to due process, they are not laws. They are "laws" based on “legal fiction” and are the basis for further fictional "laws" and other legal fictions. They are regulated by Administrative Code, rules and procedures, NOT DUE PROCESS. Currently, Executive Orders are enforced through the legal fiction known as the federal Administrative Procedures Act. Each State has also adopted the same fictional administrative "laws".
Every "Act" in effect today is based on legal fiction, not lawful due process. It is paramount to someone creating a “fictional government” by mere genius and creativity, all based on an authority given him called “Executive Order”. Lincoln has been called the greatest American Lawyer and his ingenious legal rule of America enforces such a title. He essentially had to create a new government in which the people of the United States would live under, since the original authority of congress was terminated when seven members walked out of the heated debate which took place on March 27th, 1861.
Here's an interesting quote from the 1973 session of the U.S. Supreme Court:
"The American law. In this country, the law in effect in all but a few States until mid- 19th century was the pre-existing English common law... It was not until after the War Between the States that legislation began generally to replace the common law." --Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113.
IF, as we have seen above, legal fictions arise out of other legal fictions, do we find individual States within the United States creating legal fictions also? Oklahoma Statutes, Chapter 22, § 403 state:
"When a defendant is indicted or prosecuted by a fictitious or erroneous name, and in any stage of the proceedings his true name is discovered, it must be inserted in the subsequent proceedings referring to the fact of his being charged by the name mentioned in the indictment or information." [Bold emphasis added].
It is necessary to properly identify parties to court actions. If not, then judgments are void, as outlined in Volume 46, American Jurisprudence 2d, at Judgments:
"§ 100 Parties -A judgment should identify the parties for and against whom it is rendered, with such certainty that it may be readily enforced, and a judgment which does not do so may be regarded as void for uncertainty. Such identification may be achieved by naming the persons for and against whom the judgment is rendered. Technical deficiencies in the naming of the persons for and against whom judgment is rendered can be corrected if the parties are not prejudiced. A reference in a judgment to a party plainly liable, followed by an omission of that parties name from the language of the decree, at least gives rise to an ambiguity and calling for an inquiry into the court's real intention as reflected in the entire record and surrounding circumstances." [Footnote numbers are omitted; cites have not been reproduced; bold emphasis added]
One term which is used by the present civil governments and courts in America is “legal person”.
“Legal person: a body of persons or an entity (as a corporation) considered as having many of the rights and responsibilities of a natural person and have the capacity to sue and be sued.”
-Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law 1996.
“Person”
1. A human being (a "natural" person).
2. A corporation (an "artificial" person). Corporations are treated as persons in many legal situations. Also, the word "person" includes corporations in most definitions in this dictionary.
3. Any other "being" entitled to sue as a legal entity (a government, an association, a group of Trustees, etc.).
4. The plural of person is persons, not people.
-Oran's Dictionary of the Law, West Group 1999.
A “Person” is an entity with legal rights and existence including the ability to sue and be sued, to sign contracts, to receive gifts, to appear in court either by themselves or by lawyer and, generally, other powers incidental to the full expression of the entity in law. Individuals are "persons" in law unless they are minors or under some kind of other incapacity such as a court finding of mental incapacity. Many laws give certain powers to "persons" which, in almost all instances, includes business organizations that have been formally registered such as partnerships, corporations or associations.
-Duhaime's Law Dictionary.
PERSON, noun. per'sn. [Latin persona; said to be compounded of per, through or by, and sonus, sound; a Latin word signifying primarily a mask used by actors on the stage.]
-Webster's 1828 Dictionary.
A person is basically an entity -legal fiction -of some kind that has been legally created and has the legal capacity to be sued. Isn't it odd that the word "lawful" is not used within these definitions?
To define what is "legal" as opposed to what is "lawful", the Constitution of the United States is lawful. However, civil authorities and courts prefer to use the word legal. Is there a difference in the meanings?
Lawful
In accordance with the law of the land; according to the law; permitted, sanctioned, or justified by law.
"Lawful" properly implies a thing conformable to or enjoined by law;
"Legal", a thing in the form or after the manner of law or binding by law. A writ or warrant issuing from any court, under color of law, is a "legal" process however defective. See legal.
A Dictionary of Law 1893 - www.iresist.com/nbn/defs
Legal
Latin legalis. Pertaining to the understanding, the exposition, the administration, the science and the practice of law: as, the legal profession, legal advice;. legal blanks, newspaper. Implied or imputed in law. "Legal" looks more to the letter of the law, and "Lawful" to the spirit of the law. "Legal" is more related to conformity to positive rules of law; "Lawful" has to do more with ethical principle. "Legal" is more concerned that the forms of law are observed, that the proceeding is correct in method, that rules prescribed have been obeyed; "Lawful" is concerned that the right is artful in substance, that moral quality is secured.
2 Abbott's Law Dict. 24. [Bold emphasis added]
Legal matters follow rules. They are implied rather than actual. A legal process can be “defective” in law. This is the “color of law”. To be legal, a matter does not follow the law necessarily. Instead, it follows the “rules of law”.
This is why the Federal and State Rules of Civil & Criminal Procedure are cited in every court petition to conform to “legal requirements” of the legal fictions, i.e., the STATE OF GEORGIA or the U.S. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, that rule the courts.
The “lawful” (spirit of the law) is the law of the people, and are actual laws – not implied. The Constitution therefore has little bearing on the “legal” courts that pass judgments on lawsuits and actions. Our “lawful” court system that was originally put in place by the Constitution has been replaced by a “legal” system.
Legalism has taken over the law. The “procedures of administration”, legal rules, codes, and statutes are now being substituted for actual law. The whole “legal” system is just that – purely “legal”, not “lawful”. They are legal fictions enforced by Executive Orders, which are not “lawful”.
For example, let's take a look at the United States 2000 Census. The legal authority for this census comes from Office of Management and Budget. This is a part of the Executive Office of the President of the United States. The U.S. Census Bureau is responsible for implementing the national census, a division of the Economics and Statistics Administration of the U.S. Department of Commerce, which is a department of the Executive Branch of the government.
The Executive Office of the President controls the entire nation through various departments and agencies effecting justice, communications, health, energy, transportation, education, defense, treasury, labor, agriculture, mails, and much more through a myriad of Executive Orders, Proclamations, Policies, and Decisions.
All the U. S. Presidents since Lincoln who have claimed their "authority" for these Executive Orders is generally based on Article II, Section 2 of the U. S. Constitution:
"The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; ...He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments."
In reality, Congress is completely ignored. Since April 1861, congress is called into session by Presidential Executive Order No.2, not by lawful constitutional due process.
Since the Senate’s “legal” authority to meet at all, exists in the authority of the President. For that reason, he does not need the consent or any vote by the Senate to act on anything. Ambassadors, consuls, Federal judges and any other officers of THE UNITED STATES are APPOINTED by the President. In 1935, the Office of the Federal Register was established by the Federal Register Act. Every Presidential Executive Order has become "law" simply by its publication in the Federal Registry, which is operated by the Office of the Federal Register (OFR). The authority for the OFR is found within the United States Code, Title 44, at Chapter 15:
"§ 1506. Administrative Committee of the Federal Register; establishment and composition; powers and duties. The Administrative Committee of the Federal Register shall consist of the Archivist of the United States or Acting Archivist, who shall be chairman, an officer of the Department of Justice designated by the Attorney General, and the Public Printer or Acting Public Printer. The Director of the Federal Register shall act as secretary of the committee. The committee shall prescribe, with the approval of the President. regulations for carrying out this chapter."
Every administrative position of the Federal Register is made up of officers of the Federal Government, appointed by the President. He has the authority to decree any and all regulations of this act. There is no requirement from the Senate for any of this.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order No. 9066 in December 1941 to round up 100,000 Americans of Japanese decent and placed in concentration camps while all their property was confiscated. Congress could not impeach President Clinton when the evidence for impeachment was overwhelming,
In referring to THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA or JOHN SMITH “legal fiction” assumption, we find that the assumption implies debt.
The government use of full caps signifies a legal rule and authority. Its foundation is legal fiction and the result is further legal fiction that is created, promulgated, instituted, administrated, and enforced via legal rule, code, statute and policy. These are essentially 'the laws that are but never were.'
‘He who enjoys the benefit, ought also to bear the burden. He who enjoys the advantage of a right takes the accompanying disadvantage -- a privilege is subject to its condition or conditions.” -Bouvier's Maxims of Law 1856.
Since the early 1960's, State governments, which are created legal fictions signified by full caps - have issued birth certificates to "persons", with legal fiction. Full caps names.
This is NOT a lawful record of your physical birth but a LEGAL FICTION as signified by the use of the full caps.
It may look like your proper name, but that's impossible since no proper name is ever written in full caps.
The Birth Certificate is the government's created legal instrument for its legal title of ownership, or deed, to the personal legal fiction they have created just for that person.
When a child is born, the hospital sends the original to the State Bureau of Vital Statistics, sometimes called the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS). Each STATE is required to supply the UNITED STATES with birth, death, and health statistics. The STATE agency that receives the original record of live birth keeps it and then issues a birth certificate in the name of the child's fictional person, as signified in full caps, i.e. JAMES SMITH.
Cer-tif-i-cate, noun. Middle English certificat, from Middle French, from Medieval Latin certificatum, from Late Latin- neuter of certificatus, past participle of certificare, to certify, 15th century. 3: a document evidencing OWNERSHIP or DEBT.
-Merriam Webster Dictionary 1998.
The Birth Certificate issued by the State is then registered with the U. S. Department of Commerce - the Executive Office - through their own agency, the U.S. Census Bureau, who is responsible to register vital statistics from all the States. When the birth is “registered”, it means that the legal person named on it in full caps has become a SURETY or GUARANTOR, evidencing indebtedness.
Registered. Security, bond. -Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law 1996
Security. 1 a: Something (as a mortgage or collateral) that is provided to make certain the fulfillment of an obligation. Example: used his property as security for a loan. 1b: "surety". 2: Evidence of indebtedness, ownership, or the right to ownership. -Ibid.
Bond.
1a: A usually official written agreement by which a person undertakes to perform a certain act (as fulfill the obligations of a contract). with the condition that failure to perform or abstain will obligate the person... to pay a sum of money or will result in the forfeiture of money put up by the person or surety.
1b: One who acts as a surety.
2: An interest-bearing document giving evidence of a debt issued by a government body or corporation that is sometimes secured by a lien on property and is often designed to take care of a particular financial need. -Ibid.
Surety
The person who has pledged him or herself to pay back money or perform a certain action if the principal to a contract fails, as collateral, and as part of the original contract.
-Duhaime' s Law Dictionary .
1: a formal engagement (as a pledge) given for the fulfillment of an undertaking.
2: one who promises to answer for the debt or default of another. Under the Uniform Commercial Code, however, a surety includes a guarantor, and the two terms are generally interchangeable.
-Merriam Webster's Dictionary of Law 1996.
Guarantor. A person who pledges collateral for the contract of another, but separately, as part of an independently contract with the obligee of the original contract-
-Duhaime's Law Dictionary.
A birth certificate with your name in full caps is a “legal” document indicating debt. Once it is registered with the U.S. Department of Commerce, the U.S. Department of the Treasury issues Bonds, Notes and Bills using the birth certificate as “sureties” or “collateral”. The amount of collateral is based on earning power of that legal person over his or her lifetime. This is done by the procedure of converting the lawful name into a legal fictional person.
The principal part of everything is in the beginning.
The purpose of the birth certificate is to provide evidence to your existence as a “legal person”. When you apply for a Social Security card marriage certificate, or driver’s license, it provides even more evidence that you have assumed that legal fiction and all the responsibility that accompanies it. They hold the sovereign right to all legal fiction titles they have created.
Our current problem is that we have voluntarily agreed to their system of legal fiction law by simply remaining silent -a legal default -and not taking claim to our own rights. “Rights not personally invoked are considered to be waived.” The legal rules and codes enforce themselves. There is no court hearing to determine if those rules are correct. Their "law" is self-regulating and self-supporting. Once set into motion, their "laws" automatically come into effect provided the legal process has been followed.
Whether we like to realize it or not, this country of ours went bankrupt in 1933. Here’s what President Franklin D. Roosevelt said in his inaugural address on March 4, 1933 - the famous speech where he said, among other things, “We have nothing to fear but fear itself.” He also said:
“ I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the measures that a stricken nation in the midst of a stricken world may require. These measures or such other measures as the Congress may delve out of its experience and wisdom, I shall seek within my constitutional authority to bring to speedy adoption. In the event that the Congress shall fail to take one of these two courses, in the event that the national emergency is still critical, I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will then confront me. I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis: broad executive powers to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were, in fact, invaded by a foreign foe.”
He was referring here to his “War Powers”, or the War Emergency Powers Act. It gave him power as the Executive Branch of the government to take whatever action deemed necessary to restore order to the nation in midst of the depression. As a result, all privately held and federally held gold coins and bullion in America was seized by Executive Order of April 5, 1933 and paid to the creditor, the private Federal Reserve Bank according to the terms of bankruptcy.
For this reason, at that point the United States had no silver or gold bullion to back up or pay their debts. As a matter of fact, Congress even confirmed this bankruptcy through the Joint Resolution to Suspend The Gold Standard on June 5, 1933 in H.J. Res. 192, 73rd Congress, 1st session, Public Law 73-10. Within this 1933 Public Law, it states in part:
"... every provision contained in or made with respect to any obligation which purports to give the obligee a right to require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency, or in an amount in money of the United States measured thereby, is declared to be against public policy".
In 1950, the United States declared bankruptcy a second time, whereby the Secretary of Treasury was appointed as "Receiver" of the bankruptcy in Reorganization Plan No. 26, Title 5 USC 903, Public Law 94-564, Legislative History, page 5967.
The only asset the UNITED STATES has, in order to pay their bankruptcy debt since 1933, is the people themselves, (or the legal fictions created for them). But, if the they openly declared this, the people would never allow their labors and future to be collateral to this bankruptcy debt. Consequently, they legally pledge the future labor and tax revenues of Americans, by the full caps fictional legal persons they have created, as collateral for credit.
Just who is the full caps person, i.e. JOHN JAMES SMITH? He's the legal fiction the government created to take the place of the real person, ie. John James Smith. The lawful name of birthright has been substituted by a legal fiction created by the government.
If the lawful name answers as the legal person, the two are recognized as being one and the same. However, if the lawful being refuses acceptance of the legal fiction. The two are separated.
Therein lies the simple solution to the entire matter: refusal by the lawful citizen to accept or answer for the legal fiction.
All areas of government, including the courts of law, are currently operating as legally created fictions. For example, the CIRCUIT COURT OF WAYNE COUNTY or the U.S. DISTRICT COURT can only recognize other “legal” persons. This is why your lawful name is never entered in their records. It has been substituted with the “legal” person written with full caps. Jurisdiction in such legal fiction courts is only with other legal fictions or persons.
The only jurisdiction a lawful American Citizen can enter into is a lawful constitutional court - a common law venue. The "catch 22" is that lawful courts no longer exist. Only legal courts are available to Americans.
Every document now issued by any government addresses the person written in full caps. Lawful Americans must insist that they are not that legal fiction. Lawful Americans must be represented by lawful government and lawful courts, not legal fictions. As long as an individual continues to allow courts to imply their legal fiction name as their real name, the scenario will continue. “Rights not personally invoked are considered to be waived.” If one does not exercise his/her lawful rights, they may as well not have any.
We have all been duped and the billboard was right before our own eyes. The use of full caps to write a proper name is absolutely no mistake.
"Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John. 8:32
American Citizenship and United States Citizenship
by David Film
Do you know why the symbols that we see in elections concerning the Federal Government are the elephant for the Republican, and the jackass for the Democrat? Many probably think it is very appropriate, but few understand why.
that you have ever read. It deals with your legal status that determines whether you have unalienable rights or just privileges granted to you by the government. Most Americans think that they have unalienable rights protected by the Constitution. They also think that when they vote they are electing officials to govern this nation under Constitutional principles. Most think that lawyers and judges practice law under a judicial system. Others think that the government has no boundaries. We have been having our American history re-written, and much of our heritage has been conveniently left out or glossed over.
is the basis for American history. It outlined grievances against the King and proclaimed actions to set the citizens of this new country free. In 1787 there was a Constitutional convention for the united States of America to draw up a model under which this country would operate. However, the Colonies refused to accept it without a “Bill of Rights” to be included (1791) enumerating Articles to be included, specifying powers delegated to the Federal Government and the States and the people retained all powers not specifically delegated. This came out of wisdom to avoid history repeating itself. At last people had power over government and were no longer serfs to a King or Dictator. They had a “more perfect Union” – a Republic for America
Did you ever hear the expression “He has the memory of an elephant”? The elephant is the symbol for the Republican party, and is always knows as the G.O.P. – standing for the “God Old Party” – but it is a memory from the past. We now live under a Democracy. The problem lies in the original Constitution. It is Article I, Section 8, Clause (17): Powers of Congress:: “To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of congress, become the seat of government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings; and (18) To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.”
The above powers of congress delegated power is the authority to do anything the legislature desires to do within the District (Federal Zone) without Constitutional restraints. Today this is known as Washington D.C.
The legislature has taken advantage of those delegated powers for their personal and political benefits. As a result of heated arguments and differences of the North and South concerning the Civil War, seven representatives of the southern states walked out of the thirty-sixth session of Congress on March 27, 1861. Since the Constitution specifies due process required for Congress to vote, there was no quorum present to specify a day for it to reconvene. This meant that Congress was officially and legally dissolved.
The following month, Lincoln called Congress back into session. It was not executed by lawful authority, but by what is known as “Executive Order”. He acted solely on his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Military. It was an act under authority of Martial Law. Since that date, Congress has never again convened under lawful "due process" according to the Constitution. President Lincoln appointed representatives for the southern states and forced the legislature to again sit.
The Nobles enjoyed certain rights to property, including ownership of slaves. As we all know from understand American history, this became a heated issue and debate during Lincoln’s term of office. As a result of recognizing the slaves as human beings, this particular issue had to be resolved. For this reason the 13th Amendment was removed from the Constitution and replaced with a new Amendment that prohibited slavery. That Article was ratified on December 6, 1865.
In 1868 the legislature incorporated the District (Federal Zone) as a private municipal corporation. (Today known as Washington DC). This legislature adopted the 14th Amendment and promulgated a Civil Rights Act to give privileges to it's new “inferior” class of U.S. citizens. The results of these Acts were the end of the Republic and the beginning of the Democracy - and they were Constitutional for the Federal Zone. These acts changed the form of our government.
The 14th Amendment made U.S. citizens out of American Citizens and also made them subject to the legislature. A government of 'we, for, and of the people' came to an end. The corporate Democracy has its own Constitution (Constitution of the United States}. All Amendments from this point on are Amendments adopted by the Democracy, not the Republic. The Original Constitution only had 12 Amendments and the Democracy has added the rest. Now we have two United States with two different Constitutions.
The corporation had both and the people were hungry. Mass mind control exercised through the media played its part. The government would take care of its subjects regardless of cost. People never thought long enough to figure out that governments have nothing but what they can con the people out of, with slogans such as: “Take from the rich and give to the poor”. What happens when the rich gets poor? Can you really be an employer without the resources to pay for labor and materials? Not very long. Anyway, the people were going to be looked after in old age. It was the “carrot on a stick” method. All they had to do was to become a U.S. citizen and thus give up all their unalienable rights, and pay a very small premium for social insurance. Additionally they were agreeing to become a Taxpayer. They became a Taxpayer for any kind of tax, They became a new U.S. citizen with all those Civil Rights extended by Congress, but also got the privilege of abiding by any “color of law” statute, rule, or regulation that might be enacted throughout their life span.
The government never had citizens or subjects before the 14th Amendment was adopted. Thus a new class of “inferior” citizenship was created. In fact such is a statutory U.S. citizen that is subject to all the rules, regulations and statutes drafted by the corporation under “color of law”. What was the motive for creating this new class of citizenship? Was it because the Legislature thought they could extend their Jurisdiction into the foreign states, or was it because the Freed men had no legal status after the 13th Amendment was enacted? The Blacks being slaves did not have legal status as slaves.. For this reason, it was a brilliant solution to the dilemma.
It is interesting to note that the legislature covered themselves with a public law that allowed American Citizens to bypass the 14th Amendment requirements with an Act concerning the Rights of American Citizens in foreign States. (outside of the Federal Zone). Keep in mind that the exclusive legislative authority granted was limited to the Federal Zone (Washington DC). American Citizens were in foreign states and not under the rule of the legislature. However, by deception they became a corporate citizen.
Federal U.S. citizens have no unalienable rights, just statutory civil rights and government granted privileges, which include voting, paying taxes, welfare, Social Security, licenses, and control of your life. The American Citizen remaining within the Republic, has unalienable rights, common law, he is an elector, and can do anything without a license so long as he does not harm someone else. He possesses all his unalienable Rights. This was the difference being Liberty and Slavery.
Citizenship is a lawful status. No one can determine your status for you because that is a personal thing. You are what you are, therefore, you must act the part of your status. The term “presumption” is very strategic. For example,: if you are seen fishing then it is presumed that you are a fisherman. Likewise, if you are seen operating an automobile then you are presumed to be a driver - and when you enter the “lawful”court rooms, you are presumed to be a U.S. citizen. What is your allegiance to? Did anyone inform you that you had to give allegiance to the corporation? No, that was your decision. You are a U.S. citizen because you attested to that fact when you signed up for Social Security, voter registration, drivers license, filled out the 1040 tax forms, applied for a gun permit etc. Thus you have exemplified your lawful status by those actions. You may see that the corporation offers many benefits to its citizens and you cannot get those benefits if you are not one of their members. You cannot straddle the fence and be both at the same time. There is not a court in this Country that would give you standing while straddling the fence.
All natural persons born in this Country were born free as American Citizens but their lawful status changed with their first nexus with the corporation, like a birth certificate or something else. U.S. citizens not only have benefits, they have responsibility to pay the national corporate debts that paid for the benefits. By law you have a choice and it is yours to make.
If you like being a corporate member of the Democracy, then do nothing and retain your present legal status. In this case you are the slave and the legislature is the master. If you desire to be an American Citizen, under the Republic with all unalienable rights restored and master of your government officers, then you can remove yourself from the corporate Democracy.
”Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and whereas in the recognition of this principle this government has freely Received emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the right of citizenship; and whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendants are subject of foreign states, owing allegiance to the governments thereof, and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any offices of this government which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government.
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That all naturalized citizens of the United States, while in foreign states, shall be entitled to, and shall receive from this government, the same protection of persons and property that is accorded to native born citizens in like situations and circumstances.
Sec.3. And be it further enacted, That whenever it shall be made known to the President that any citizen of the United States has been unjustly deprived of his liberty by or under the authority of any foreign government, it shall be the duty of the President forthwith to demand of that government the reasons for such imprisonment, and if it appears to be wrongful and in violation of the rights of American citizenship, the President shall demand the release of such citizen, and if the release so demanded is unreasonably delayed or refused, it shall be the duty of the President to use such means, not amounting to act of war, as he may think necessary and proper to obtain or effectuate such release, and all the acts and proceedings relative thereto shall be as soon as practicable be communicated by the President to Congress. Approved July 27th, 1968.
This includes anyone who is a United States Citizen, including residents of Guam, Puerto Rico the Virgin Islands, and anyone else who wants to be a United States Citizen – even residing in the 50 territorial states.
However, American Citizens are those who are citizens of America in the traditional understanding, and are protected by the Constitution and Constitutional rights that were originally drawn up for that purpose.
Do not confuse the two. We are talking about two types of governments. For this reason, United States citizens do not have constitutional protection.
With 1933 action.
Did the American form of government under our constitutional republic come to an end in 1933 with the institution of permanent emergency war powers given to President Franklin D. Roosevelt by Congress itself?
Is this the real explanation for the ongoing and continuous unconstitutional acts by the three brances of government? In an interview with Dr. Eugene Shroeder on Radio Free America, the following questions are addressed: You contend that American constitutional government essentially was abolished by Congress at the beginning of the Roosevelt New Deal presidency in 1933. Could you please explain?
Let’s go to the Congressional Record in 1933 and read just a small section here from Rep. James Beck. He said:”If I think of all the damnable heresies that have ever been suggested in connection with the Constitution, the doctrine of emergency is the worst. It means that when Congress declares an emergency, there is no Constitution. This means it’s dead.” When Franklin D. Roosevelt came to the White House in 1933, the United States was in the midst of the Great Depression. It was considered an emergency.
Congressman Beck was suggesting that in a national emergency were to be declared in this country, the Constitution would effectively be set aside. Now let’s move forward to Senate Report 93549 that was issued in 1973 - 40 years after FDR came to the White House. This 1973 Senate report says that since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. In other words, for 40 years, the United States had been in a perpetual state of declared national emergency.
The introduction to Senate Report 93549 says that “a majority of the people of the United States have lived all their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency.” It says that “in the United States, actions taken by the government in times of great crisis have, from at least the Civil War, in important ways shaped this present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency.”
It then states that “this vast range of powers taken together confers immense authority to rule this country without reference to the normal constitutional process.” So in 1973 our own Senate had determined in this report that for 40 years the United States had already been operating under emergency rules and powers “without reference to the normal constitutional process.” That begins to make sense in terms of the unconstitutional way in which all the branches of government have been behaving. The so-called “New Deal” which came into power in 1933 was indeed a “new deal” - it was a new form of government being imposed upon the American people.
this emergency was supposed to be temporary - to deal with the emergency we now call the Great Depression. But as time went on and we went into World War II and then into the police actions in Korea and Vietnam - there were no longer “declarations of war” - that state of emergency instituted in 1933 was never terminated. It became a part of our everyday lives and we are still under those emergency powers. Here’s some additional documentation. Here’s what President Franklin D. Roosevelt said in his inaugural address on March 4, 1933 - the famous speech where he said, among other things, “We have nothing to fear but fear itself.” He also said: I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the measures that a stricken nation in the midst of a stricken world may require. These measures or such other measures as the Congress may delve out of its experience and wisdom, I shall seek within my constitutional authority to bring to speedy adoption. In the event that the Congress shall fail to take one of these two courses, in the event that the national emergency is still critical, I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will then confront me. I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis: broad executive powers to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were, in fact, invaded by a foreign foe.
It is critical, in this context, to remember that if the nation is at war or under invasion that the executive branch of government becomes in essence a dictator. There are no limitations on the power. A commander-in-chief can do anything the he deems necessary to be done. FDR was inaugurated on March 4, 1933. On March 5, he issued his first emergency proclamation, No. 2038. That proclamation called for an extraordinary emergency session of Congress to be convened on March 9, 1933 at 12 Noon. That Congress convened and passed its first act, entitled 48th Statute 1, the Emergency Banking Relief Act.
The first section of this act reads as follows: “The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March 4, 1933 pursuant to the authority conferred by subdivision b of Section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended, are hereby approved and confirmed.”
What does October 6, 1917 have to do with the national emergency in 1933? The October 6, 1917 measure referred to in the 1933 legislation was known as the Trading With the Enemy Act. Under this act, German citizens were placed totally under the power of the president of these United States and because of that, the executive branch of the United States was given total authority over those enemies.
in extraordinary session they gave FDR the power to issue any order, license, rule, proclamation heretofore or hereafter - that is, from March 4, 1933 or anytime in the future - that he chose to issue and that was all conferred under the act of October 6, 1917. In that act, as it was amended, the American people were no longer excluded from the powers under that act. All of the transactions of the American people were included under the powers of that act.
The War Powers Act has never been repealed - as Liberty Lobby has long advocated - but it has been debated. It’s been debated, but let me read you the current law from today. This comes from Title 12, USC, Section 95 (b): “The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made or issued by the president of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March 4, 1933 pursuant to the authority conferred by subdivision b of Section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended, are hereby approved and confirmed.”
This is exactly as it was written on March 9, 1933 and now permanently codified (under U.S. law) at Title 12 USC Section 95 (b). That is called a constitutional dictatorship in the technical legal terms. It’s an emergency government - a war government - in which the president is authorized to do anything that he deems necessary for the operation of this country. Frankly, I was only vaguely aware of this, but you’ve put it into simple terms that everyone can understand.
The bottom line is that if we are going to challenge our government after 62 years on the lawfulness of the authority to do what they’ve done for all of these years, then we had better be very specific as to what it is that we are challenging, and we had better have the laws and the documents and the verification behind us to prove our case.
Then what we need is for some of these young maverick congressmen to get up there on Capitol Hill and demand that we repeal this law and return to constitutional government (outside these war powers that are now in place).
seized all the constitutional money in this country (gold and silver coinage) under war powers. Under the Constitution no person could be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Also private property could not be taken for public use without just compensation. So therefore the people’s money couldn’t be taken under our Constitution.
A lot of people are under the impression that war-time emergency powers end at the time the war ends. This isn’t so, apparently. In 1976, following the extensive study of 1973 (cited in the Senate document quoted earlier), Congress passed the National Emergencies Termination Act saying that they had terminated all national emergencies. That is Public Document 94412.
However in the last paragraph of that document we find in the fine print that it says “This act shall not apply to any of the authorities under the act of October 6, 1917, as amended.” As a result of that, all of these authorities that had been implemented under the New Deal of FDR were exempted from those terminations.
You have to remember that the American people weren’t asking the right questions, so there wasn’t a big uproar on our part. And probably there wasn’t enough political courage on the part of the people in government who realized what was at stake.
When the American people aren’t saying anything about it, the good people in government have no incentive to do anything about it. And our media and education establishments aren’t doing anything to bring any of this to the attention of the American people.
You indicated there is a financial and monetary angle to this controversy. When the constitutional money system was effectively seized on March 9, 1933, and emergency war currency was issued, that currency was backed by the debts of the American people. The only way this currency could come into existence was in the form of deposits of the debt of the American people - either through the national debt or the private debt. That has created a great dilemma. Once that currency is issued through debt, there is no way we can ever pay back the principal that was issued, plus the interest due on it. In fact, according to Senate document 313 of 1933, it is stated very openly that all property is in the hands of the federal state, that so-called “private property” is subordinate to the necessities of the state.
The reason for this is that all private property was pledged as security for the issuance of the emergency war currency. All title to property (along with the gold and the silver) was seized on March 9, 1933, when the new emergency war currency came into effect.
Can the growing state sovereignty movement have an impact on bringing about a return to constitutional government? The states were obliterated on March 9, 1933. In fact, if you go to Article 1, Section 10 of our Constitution (which is a critical aspect in all of this) it states: “No State shall...enter into any Agreement or compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”
the states were permitted to enter into inter-state compacts. It was called regional government. Under those interstate compacts, the states actually became corporations under this act, and essentially became sub-corporations of the District of Columbia. As a result of that, along with the war powers, the states were obliterated. So we actually have to re-form our legitimate state governments.
What about the claim, by some people, that the Common Law remains supreme, despite all this?
The Common Law was abolished in this country in 1934 under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Act wherein the new form of courts were introduced into this country. The federal rules didn’t get transmitted to the Congress until 1937 because the original Supreme Court then in place didn’t transmit those rules.
However, in 1937 after FDR attacked the Supreme Court, then those rules were transmitted, the courts were changed in this country, the Common Law was abolished and all the original rights of the people under the law were abolished with it.
-
| Site Tools |
|
Verse of the Day |
|
|
|
|
|
|
