Uniform Commercial Code

As many of you know, I have been doing some intense research lately about what exactly is going on around here.  I have recently learned some very important information that I think is worth sharing.  I captured the following text from the Cornell University Law Library.  They began posting law references way back in the early 90s.  This is the entire Uniform Commercial Code.  This is the law of the land in America since 1930.  The Constitution was mostly set aside because of bankruptcy proceedings and was replaced with this.

Please copy and paste this into a document and print a copy for reference.  This is the law of the land.  The better you understand this the safer you will be in the coming months.

Enjoy

U.C.C. – ARTICLE 1 – GENERAL PROVISIONS

PART 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS [Table of Contents]

§ 1-101. Short Titles.

(a) This [Act] may be cited as the Uniform Commercial Code.

(b) This article may be cited as Uniform Commercial Code-General Provisions.

§ 1-102. Scope of Article.

This article applies to a transaction to the extent that it is governed by another article of [the Uniform Commercial Code].

§ 1-103. Construction of [Uniform Commercial Code] to Promote its Purposes and Policies: Applicability of Supplemental Principles of Law.

(a) [The Uniform Commercial Code] must be liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying purposes and policies, which are: (1) to simplify, clarify, and modernize the law governing commercial transactions; (2) to permit the continued expansion of commercial practices through custom, usage, and agreement of the parties; and (3) to make uniform the law among the various jurisdictions.

(b) Unless displaced by the particular provisions of [the Uniform Commercial Code], the principles of law and equity, including the law merchant and the law relative to capacity to contract, principal and agent, estoppel, fraud, misrepresentation, duress, coercion, mistake, bankruptcy, and other validating or invalidating cause supplement its provisions.

§ 1-104. Construction Against Implied Repeal.

[The Uniform Commercial Code] being a general act intended as a unified coverage of its subject matter, no part of it shall be deemed to be impliedly repealed by subsequent legislation if such construction can reasonably be avoided.

§ 1-105. Severability.

If any provision or clause of [the Uniform Commercial Code] or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of [the Uniform Commercial Code] which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of [the Uniform Commercial Code] are severable.

§ 1-106. Use of Singular and Plural; Gender.

In [the Uniform Commercial Code], unless the statutory context otherwise requires: (1) words in the singular number include the plural, and those in the plural include the singular; and (2) words of any gender also refer to any other gender.

§ 1-107. Section Captions.

Section captions are part of [the Uniform Commercial Code].

§ 1-108. Relation to Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act.

This article modifies, limits, and supersedes the federal Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 7001 et seq., except that nothing in this article modifies, limits, or supersedes Section 7001(c) of that Act or authorizes electronic delivery of any of the notices described in Section 7003(b) of that Act.

PART 2. GENERAL DEFINITIONS AND PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION [Table of Contents]

§ 1-201. General Definitions.

(a) Unless the context otherwise requires, words or phrases defined in this section, or in the additional definitions contained in other articles of [the Uniform Commercial Code] that apply to particular articles or parts thereof, have the meanings stated.

(b) Subject to definitions contained in other articles of [the Uniform Commercial Code] that apply to particular articles or parts thereof:

(1) “Action“, in the sense of a judicial proceeding, includes recoupment, counterclaim, set-off, suit in equity, and any other proceeding in which rights are determined.

(2) “Aggrieved party” means a party entitled to pursue a remedy.

(3) “Agreement“, as distinguished from “contract“, means the bargain of the parties in fact, as found in their language or inferred from other circumstances, including course of performance, course of dealing, or usage of trade as provided in Section 1-303.

(4) “Bank” means a person engaged in the business of banking and includes a savings bank, savings and loan association, credit union, and trust company.

(5) “Bearer” means a person in possession of a negotiable instrument, document of title, or certificated security that is payable to bearer or indorsed in blank.

(6) “Bill of lading” means a document evidencing the receipt of goods for shipment issued by a person engaged in the business of transporting or forwarding goods.

(7) “Branch” includes a separately incorporated foreign branch of a bank.

(8) “Burden of establishing” a fact means the burden of persuading the trier of fact that the existence of the fact is more probable than its nonexistence.

(9) “Buyer in ordinary course of business” means a person that buys goods in good faith, without knowledge that the sale violates the rights of another person in the goods, and in the ordinary course from a person, other than a pawnbroker, in the business of selling goods of that kind. A person buys goods in the ordinary course if the sale to the person comports with the usual or customary practices in the kind of business in which the seller is engaged or with the seller’s own usual or customary practices. A person that sells oil, gas, or other minerals at the wellhead or minehead is a person in the business of selling goods of that kind. A buyer in ordinary course of business may buy for cash, by exchange of other property, or on secured or unsecured credit, and may acquire goods or documents of title under a preexisting contract for sale. Only a buyer that takes possession of the goods or has a right to recover the goods from the seller under Article 2 may be a buyer in ordinary course of business. “Buyer in ordinary course of business” does not include a person that acquires goods in a transfer in bulk or as security for or in total or partial satisfaction of a money debt.

(10) “Conspicuous“, with reference to a term, means so written, displayed, or presented that a reasonable person against which it is to operate ought to have noticed it. Whether a term is “conspicuous” or not is a decision for the court. Conspicuous terms include the following: (A) a heading in capitals equal to or greater in size than the surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the same or lesser size; and (B) language in the body of arecord or display in larger type than the surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the same size, or set off from surrounding text of the same size by symbols or other marks that call attention to the language.

(11) “Consumer” means an individual who enters into a transaction primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.

(12) “Contract“, as distinguished from “agreement“, means the total legal obligation that results from the parties’ agreement as determined by [the Uniform Commercial Code] as supplemented by any other applicable laws.

(13) “Creditor” includes a general creditor, a secured creditor, a lien creditor, and any representative of creditors, including an assignee for the benefit of creditors, a trustee in bankruptcy, a receiver in equity, and an executor or administrator of an insolvent debtor’s or assignor’s estate.

(14) “Defendant” includes a person in the position of defendant in a counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim.

(15) “Delivery“, with respect to an instrument, document of title, or chattel paper, means voluntary transfer of possession.

(16) “Document of title” includes bill of lading, dock warrant, dock receipt, warehouse receipt or order for the delivery of goods, and also any other document which in the regular course of business or financing is treated as adequately evidencing that the person in possession of it is entitled to receive, hold, and dispose of the document and the goods it covers. To be a document of title, a document must purport to be issued by or addressed to a bailee and purport to cover goods in the bailee’s possession which are either identified or are fungible portions of an identified mass.

(17) “Fault” means a default, breach, or wrongful act or omission.

(18) “Fungible goods” means: (A) goods of which any unit, by nature or usage of trade, is the equivalent of any other like unit; or (B) goods that by agreement are treated as equivalent.

(19) “Genuine” means free of forgery or counterfeiting.

(20) “Good faith,” except as otherwise provided in Article 5, means honesty in fact and the observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing.

(21) “Holder” means: (A) the person in possession of a negotiable instrument that is payable either to bearer or to an identified person that is the person in possession; or (B) the person in possession of a document of title if the goods are deliverable either to bearer or to the order of the person in possession.

(22) “Insolvency proceeding” includes an assignment for the benefit of creditors or other proceeding intended to liquidate or rehabilitate the estate of the person involved.

(23) “Insolvent” means: (A) having generally ceased to pay debts in the ordinary course of business other than as a result of bona fide dispute; (B) being unable to pay debts as they become due; or (C) being insolvent within the meaning of federal bankruptcy law.

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

(25) “Organization” means a person other than an individual.

(26) “Party“, as distinguished from “third party”, means a person that has engaged in a transaction or made an agreementsubject to [the Uniform Commercial Code].

(27) “Person” means an individual, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, joint venture, government, governmental subdivision, agency, or instrumentality, public corporation, or any other legal or commercial entity.

(28) “Present value” means the amount as of a date certain of one or more sums payable in the future, discounted to the date certain by use of either an interest rate specified by the parties if that rate is not manifestly unreasonable at the time the transaction is entered into or, if an interest rate is not so specified, a commercially reasonable rate that takes into account the facts and circumstances at the time the transaction is entered into.

(29) “Purchase” means taking by sale, lease, discount, negotiation, mortgage, pledge, lien, security interest, issue or reissue, gift, or any other voluntary transaction creating an interest in property.

(30) “Purchaser” means a person that takes by purchase.

(31) “Record” means information that is inscribed on a tangible medium or that is stored in an electronic or other medium and is retrievable in perceivable form.

(32) “Remedy” means any remedial right to which an aggrieved party is entitled with or without resort to a tribunal.

(33) “Representative” means a person empowered to act for another, including an agent, an officer of a corporation or association, and a trustee, executor, or administrator of an estate.

(34) “Right” includes remedy.

(35) “Security interest” means an interest in personal property or fixtures which secures payment or performance of an obligation. “Security interest” includes any interest of a consignor and a buyer of accounts, chattel paper, a payment intangible, or a promissory note in a transaction that is subject to Article 9. “Security interest” does not include the special property interest of a buyer of goods on identification of those goods to a contract for sale under Section 2-505, the rightof a seller or lessor of goods under Article 2 or 2A to retain or acquire possession of the goods is not a “security interest”, but a seller or lessor may also acquire a “security interest” by complying with Article 9. The retention or reservation of title by a seller of goods notwithstanding shipment or delivery to the buyer under Section 2-401 is limited in effect to a reservation of a “security interest.” Whether a transaction in the form of a lease creates a “security interest” is determined pursuant to Section 1-203.

(36) “Send” in connection with a writingrecord, or notice means: (A) to deposit in the mail or deliver for transmission by any other usual means of communication with postage or cost of transmission provided for and properly addressed and, in the case of an instrument, to an address specified thereon or otherwise agreed, or if there be none to any address reasonable under the circumstances; or (B) in any other way to cause to be received any record or notice within the time it would have arrived if properly sent.

(37) “Signed” includes using any symbol executed or adopted with present intention to adopt or accept a writing.

(38) “State” means a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, or any territory or insular possession subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

(39) “Surety” includes a guarantor or other secondary obligor.

(40) “Term” means a portion of an agreement that relates to a particular matter.

(41) “Unauthorized signature” means a signature made without actual, implied, or apparent authority. The term includes a forgery.

(42) “Warehouse receipt” means a receipt issued by a person engaged in the business of storing goods for hire.

(43) “Writing” includes printing, typewriting, or any other intentional reduction to tangible form. “Written” has a corresponding meaning.

§ 1-202. Notice; Knowledge.

(a) Subject to subsection (f), a person has “notice” of a fact if the person: (1) has actual knowledge of it; (2) has received a notice or notification of it; or (3) from all the facts and circumstances known to the person at the time in question, has reason to know that it exists.

(b) “Knowledge” means actual knowledge. “Knows” has a corresponding meaning.

(c) “Discover“, “learn“, or words of similar import refer to knowledge rather than to reason to know.

(d) A personnotifies” or “gives” a notice or notification to another person by taking such steps as may be reasonably required to inform the other person in ordinary course, whether or not the other person actually comes to know of it.

(e) Subject to subsection (f), a personreceives” a notice or notification when: (1) it comes to that person’s attention; or (2) it is duly delivered in a form reasonable under the circumstances at the place of business through which the contract was made or at another location held out by that person as the place for receipt of such communications.

(f) Notice, knowledge, or a notice or notification received by an organization is effective for a particular transaction from the time it is brought to the attention of the individual conducting that transaction and, in any event, from the time it would have been brought to the individual’s attention if the organization had exercised due diligence. An organization exercises due diligence if it maintains reasonable routines for communicating significant information to the person conducting the transaction and there is reasonable compliance with the routines. Due diligence does not require an individual acting for the organization to communicate information unless the communication is part of the individual’s regular duties or the individual has reason to know of the transaction and that the transaction would be materially affected by the information.

§ 1-203. Lease Distinguished from Security Interest.

(a) Whether a transaction in the form of a lease creates a lease or security interest is determined by the facts of each case.

(b) A transaction in the form of a lease creates a security interest if the consideration that the lessee is to pay the lessor for the right to possession and use of the goods is an obligation for the term of the lease and is not subject to termination by the lessee, and: (1) the original term of the lease is equal to or greater than the remaining economic life of the goods; (2) the lessee is bound to renew the lease for the remaining economic life of the goods or is bound to become the owner of the goods; (3) the lessee has an option to renew the lease for the remaining economic life of the goods for no additional consideration or for nominal additional consideration upon compliance with the lease agreement; or (4) the lessee has an option to become the owner of the goods for no additional consideration or for nominal additional consideration upon compliance with the lease agreement.

(c) A transaction in the form of a lease does not create a security interest merely because: (1) the present value of the consideration the lessee is obligated to pay the lessor for the right to possession and use of the goods is substantially equal to or is greater than the fair market value of the goods at the time the lease is entered into; (2) the lessee assumes risk of loss of the goods; (3) the lessee agrees to pay, with respect to the goods, taxes, insurance, filing, recording, or registration fees, or service or maintenance costs; (4) the lessee has an option to renew the lease or to become the owner of the goods; (5) the lessee has an option to renew the lease for a fixed rent that is equal to or greater than the reasonably predictable fair market rent for the use of the goods for the term of the renewal at the time the option is to be performed; or (6) the lessee has an option to become the owner of the goods for a fixed price that is equal to or greater than the reasonably predictable fair market value of the goods at the time the option is to be performed.

(d) Additional consideration is nominal if it is less than the lessee’s reasonably predictable cost of performing under the leaseagreement if the option is not exercised. Additional consideration is not nominal if: (1) when the option to renew the lease is granted to the lessee, the rent is stated to be the fair market rent for the use of the goods for the term of the renewal determined at the time the option is to be performed; or (2) when the option to become the owner of the goods is granted to the lessee, the price is stated to be the fair market value of the goods determined at the time the option is to be performed.

(e) The “remaining economic life of the goods” and “reasonably predictable” fair market rent, fair market value, or cost of performing under the lease agreement must be determined with reference to the facts and circumstances at the time the transaction is entered into.

§ 1-204. Value.

Except as otherwise provided in Articles 3, 4, [and] 5, [and 6], a person gives value for rights if the person acquires them: (1) in return for a binding commitment to extend credit or for the extension of immediately available credit, whether or not drawn upon and whether or not a charge-back is provided for in the event of difficulties in collection; (2) as security for, or in total or partial satisfaction of, a preexisting claim; (3) by accepting delivery under a preexisting contract for purchase; or (4) in return for any consideration sufficient to support a simple contract.

§ 1-205. Reasonable time; Seasonableness.

(a) Whether a time for taking an action required by [the Uniform Commercial Code] is reasonable depends on the nature, purpose, and circumstances of the action.

(b) An action is taken seasonably if it is taken at or within the time agreed or, if no time is agreed, at or within a reasonable time.

§ 1-206. Presumptions.

Whenever [the Uniform Commercial Code] creates a “presumption” with respect to a fact, or provides that a fact is “presumed,” the trier of fact must find the existence of the fact unless and until evidence is introduced that supports a finding of its nonexistence.

PART 3. TERRITORIAL APPLICABILITY AND GENERAL RULES [Table of Contents]

§ 1-301. Territorial Applicability; Parties’ Power to Choose Applicable Law.

(a) In this section:

(1) “Domestic transaction” means a transaction other than an international transaction.

(2) “International transaction” means a transaction that bears a reasonable relation to a country other than the United States.

(b) This section applies to a transaction to the extent that it is governed by another article of the [Uniform Commercial Code].

(c) Except as otherwise provided in this section:

(1) an agreement by parties to a domestic transaction that any or all of their rights and obligations are to be determined by the law of this State or of another State is effective, whether or not the transaction bears a relation to the State designated; and

(2) an agreement by parties to an international transaction that any or all of their rights and obligations are to be determined by the law of this State or of another State or country is effective, whether or not the transaction bears a relation to the State or country designated.

(d) In the absence of an agreement effective under subsection (c), and except as provided in subsections (e) and (g), the rights and obligations of the parties are determined by the law that would be selected by application of this State’s conflict of laws principles.

(e) If one of the parties to a transaction is a consumer, the following rules apply:

(1) An agreement referred to in subsection (c) is not effective unless the transaction bears a reasonable relation to the State or country designated.

(2) Application of the law of the State or country determined pursuant to subsection (c) or (d) may not deprive the consumer of the protection of any rule of law governing a matter within the scope of this section, which both is protective of consumers and may not be varied by agreement: (A) of the State or country in which the consumer principally resides, unless subparagraph (B) applies; or (B) if the transaction is a sale of goods, of the State or country in which the consumer both makes the contract and takes delivery of those goods, if such State or country is not the State or country in which the consumer principally resides.

(f) An agreement otherwise effective under subsection (c) is not effective to the extent that application of the law of theState or country designated would be contrary to a fundamental policy of the State or country whose law would govern in the absence of agreement under subsection (d).

(g) To the extent that [the Uniform Commercial Code] governs a transaction, if one of the following provisions of [the Uniform Commercial Code] specifies the applicable law, that provision governs and a contrary agreement is effective only to the extent permitted by the law so specified: (1) Section 2-402; (2) Sections 2A-105 and 2A-106; (3) Section 4-102; (4) Section 4A-507; (5) Section 5-116; [(6) Section 6-103;] (7) Section 8-110; (8) Sections 9-301 through 9-307.

§ 1-302. Variation by Agreement.

(a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (b) or elsewhere in [the Uniform Commercial Code], the effect of provisions of [the Uniform Commercial Code] may be varied by agreement.

(b) The obligations of good faith, diligence, reasonableness, and care prescribed by [the Uniform Commercial Code] may not be disclaimed by agreement. The parties, by agreement, may determine the standards by which the performance of those obligations is to be measured if those standards are not manifestly unreasonable. Whenever [the Uniform Commercial Code] requires an action to be taken within a reasonable time, a time that is not manifestly unreasonable may be fixed by agreement.

(c) The presence in certain provisions of [the Uniform Commercial Code] of the phrase “unless otherwise agreed”, or words of similar import, does not imply that the effect of other provisions may not be varied by agreement under this section.

§ 1-303. Course of Performance, Course of Dealing, and Usage of Trade.

(a) A “course of performance” is a sequence of conduct between the parties to a particular transaction that exists if: (1) theagreement of the parties with respect to the transaction involves repeated occasions for performance by a party; and (2) the other party, with knowledge of the nature of the performance and opportunity for objection to it, accepts the performance or acquiesces in it without objection.

(b) A “course of dealing” is a sequence of conduct concerning previous transactions between the parties to a particular transaction that is fairly to be regarded as establishing a common basis of understanding for interpreting their expressions and other conduct.

(c) A “usage of trade” is any practice or method of dealing having such regularity of observance in a place, vocation, or trade as to justify an expectation that it will be observed with respect to the transaction in question. The existence and scope of such a usage must be proved as facts. If it is established that such a usage is embodied in a trade code or similar record, the interpretation of the record is a question of law.

(d) A course of performance or course of dealing between the parties or usage of trade in the vocation or trade in which they are engaged or of which they are or should be aware is relevant in ascertaining the meaning of the parties’ agreement, may give particular meaning to specific terms of the agreement, and may supplement or qualify the terms of the agreement. A usage of trade applicable in the place in which part of the performance under the agreement is to occur may be so utilized as to that part of the performance.

(e) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (f), the express terms of an agreement and any applicable course of performance, course of dealing, or usage of trade must be construed whenever reasonable as consistent with each other. If such a construction is unreasonable: (1) express terms prevail over course of performance, course of dealing, and usage of trade; (2) course of performance prevails over course of dealing and usage of trade; and (3) course of dealing prevails over usage of trade.

(f) Subject to Section 2-209, a course of performance is relevant to show a waiver or modification of any term inconsistent with the course of performance.

(g) Evidence of a relevant usage of trade offered by one party is not admissible unless that party has given the other party notice that the court finds sufficient to prevent unfair surprise to the other party.

§ 1-304. Obligation of Good Faith.

Every contract or duty within [the Uniform Commercial Code] imposes an obligation of good faith in its performance and enforcement.

§ 1-305. Remedies to be Liberally Administered.

(a) The remedies provided by [the Uniform Commercial Code] must be liberally administered to the end that the aggrieved party may be put in as good a position as if the other party had fully performed but neither consequential or special damages nor penal damages may be had except as specifically provided in [the Uniform Commercial Code] or by other rule of law.

(b) Any right or obligation declared by [the Uniform Commercial Code] is enforceable by action unless the provision declaring it specifies a different and limited effect.

§ 1-306. Waiver or Renunciation of Claim or Right After Breach.

A claim or right arising out of an alleged breach may be discharged in whole or in part without consideration by agreement of the aggrieved party in an authenticated record.

§ 1-307. Prima Facie Evidence by Third-Party Documents.

A document in due form purporting to be a bill of lading, policy or certificate of insurance, official weigher’s or inspector’s certificate, consular invoice, or any other document authorized or required by the contract to be issued by a third party is prima facie evidence of its own authenticity and genuineness and of the facts stated in the document by the third party.

§ 1-308. Performance or Acceptance Under Reservation of Rights.

(a) A party that with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as “without prejudice,” “under protest,” or the like are sufficient.

(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to an accord and satisfaction.

§ 1-309. Option to Accelerate at Will.

term providing that one party or that party’s successor in interest may accelerate payment or performance or require collateral or additional collateral “at will” or when the party “deems itself insecure,” or words of similar import, means that the party has power to do so only if that party in good faith believes that the prospect of payment or performance is impaired. The burden of establishing lack of good faith is on the party against which the power has been exercised.

§ 1-310. Subordinated Obligations.

An obligation may be issued as subordinated to performance of another obligation of the person obligated, or a creditor may subordinate its right to performance of an obligation by agreement with either the person obligated or another creditor of the person obligated. Subordination does not create a security interest as against either the common debtor or a subordinated creditor.

A legal challenge to the jusidiction of Equity courts over free men

In a recent hearing where jurisdiction was effectively challenged the judge apparently got rattled and made some drastic determinations on the record that now can be used as leverage over the court and the lawyers for the rest of the case.

Our person was saying The Supreme Court says, “There has been created a fictional federal “State (of)  [name of state]  within a state.” We have numerous references to this. But he went on the record saying there was no fictional  state of Tennessee which ofcourse we can prove is not true.

From our memorandum that was also part of the record:

In Cunard S. S. Co. v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 100, 43 S.Ct. 504 (1923),The court ruled that “The term United States is a metaphor [a figure of speech]”.

According to [Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)] [65 S.Ct. 870, 880, 89  L.Ed. 1252] The term “United States” may be used in any one of several senses. [1] It may be as a sovereign nation or the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution. Or [2] It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, and includes  “citizens of the United States”  as created   by the 14th Amendment  domiciled  in the District of Columbia, or the federal Territories and possessions , or Federal enclaves (area within a Union State) or living in one of the States of the Union or a foreign country.

The  US Constitution, Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2, states as follows:

“The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needed Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.”

Within these areas or  in jurisdiction over 14th Amendment “citizens of the United States”  Congress  is not subject to the same constitutional limitations which restrict its power in the areas of land over which the 50 States exercise their respective sovereign authorities:

“The United States may acquire territory by conquest or by treaty, and may govern it through the exercise of the power of Congress conferred by Section 3 of Article IV of the Constitution …. In exercising this power, Congress is not subject to the same constitutional limitations, as when it is legislating for the United States. … And in general the guaranties of the Constitution, save as they are limitations upon the exercise of executive and legislative power when exerted for or over our insular possessions, extend to them only as Congress, in the exercise of its legislative power over territory belonging to the United States2, has made those guaranties applicable.”

Hooven & Allison Co. vs Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)

The Supreme Court ruled that this case would be the last time it would address official definitions of the term “United States”. Therefore, the Hooven case must be judicially noticed by the entire American legal community

In Law the term “United States of America” refers to the several States which are “united by and under the Constitution”;  the term “United States” refers to federal possessions, property, territories, lands  areas defined in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 (1:8:17) and in Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2) of the Federal Constitution, that for whatever causes are not subject to the sovereignty or jurisdiction of any of the several States of the union that is the “United States of America”.

In the Cumulative Bulletin of the 63rd Congressional Session, Chapter 16, Section 2, 1913, page 177, we  find  that the terms “State” and “United States” are identified  differently when used in the context of the federal United States, or federal zone as opposed to the union of several states that is the constitutional republic, the united States of America:

Congress is the state legislature for all Territories, Possessions, and Enclaves like military bases –- an area now collectively called the federal zone.  In the year 1995 A.D., Justice Kennedy used the term “federal zone” as a household word in his concurring opinion in U.S. v. Lopez, 115 S.Ct. 1624 (1995).

“These are the territories over which Congress has exclusive jurisdiction over the landmass and the citizens that are subject to the sovereign jurisdiction of the Congress of the United States”. .

United States is construed to mean “any territory, Alaska, DC, The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Philippine Islands, American Samoa, Guam, Virgin Islands, Midway Island, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariannas, Federated States of Micronesia, Republic of Palau, Marshall Islands, Johnson Island, Baker Howland and Jarvis Islands, Kingman Reef, Palmyra Island, and Navassa Island.”

Furthermore, even though the “United States” is not a member of the “Union of States united by and under the Constitution”, it is bound by that Constitution to restrict its activities in dealing with the several States and with the Common Law Citizens of those States.  Under 1:8:17 and 4:3:2 of the Constitution for the United States of America (1787).  Congress has exclusive power to legislate and regulate the inhabitants of its federal property, territories, lands  areas defined in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 (1:8:17) and in Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2) of the Federal Constitution and its  “citizens”  wherever they are “resident”, even if they do inhabit one of the 50 States of the Union.

As can readily be seen from the quote above, with three separate and distinct definitions for the term “United States”, it becomes absolutely necessary to separate and define each use of this term in law.  It is equally as necessary to separate and define to whom the law applies when there are two classes of citizenship existing side-by-side, with separate and distinct rights, privileges and immunities for each.

The term “United States”, when used in its  meaning  as Congress’ exclusive jurisdiction over federal property, territories, lands  areas defined in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 (1:8:17) and in Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2) of the Constitution, as opposed  to  the limited jurisdiction  of  the federal government  under the  constitution over the several states of the union that  is the constitutional republic, the united States of America, under Article 1, Section 8  et all , (excepting Clause 17}, when used  in this respect as its jurisdiction over federal property, territories, lands  areas defined in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 (1:8:17) and in Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2,   the “United States” is foreign with respect to the several states of  the union  united by and under the Constitution. that  is the constitutional republic, the united States of America

“The idea prevails with some — indeed, it found expression in arguments at the bar — that we have in this country substantially or practically two national governments; one, to be maintained under the  Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise.” Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, supra.

as opposed to the several States which are “united by and under the Constitution”

“The United States may acquire territory by conquest or by treaty, and may govern it through the exercise of the power of Congress conferred by Section 3 of Article IV of the Constitution …. In exercising this power, Congress is not subject to the same constitutional limitations, as when it is legislating for the United States…… . … And in general the guaranties of the Constitution, save as they are limitations upon the exercise of executive and legislative power when exerted for or over our insular possessions, extend to them only as Congress, in the exercise of its legislative power over territory belonging to the United States2, has made those guaranties applicable.”

Hooven & Allison Co. vs Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)

Congress must be considered in two distinct characters. In one character as legislating for the states; in the other, as a local legislature for the district. Loughborough vs Blake, 15 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 317 – 5 L.Ed. 98 (1820)]

Title 28, United States Code, Section 297 defines the several States of the union as being “freely associated compact states” in subsection (a), and then refers to these freely associated compact states as being “countries” in subsection(b). The individual states were considered to be foreign countries to the United States and to each other

This is also true of  legal  relationship between states:

It is equally well settled that the several states of the Union are to be considered as in this respect foreign to each other,  [Hanley v. Donoghue, 116 U.S. 1, 29 L. Ed. 535] [6 S.Ct. 242, 244 (1885), emphasis added]

The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state. [citing In re Merriam’s Estate, 36 N.E. 505, 141 N.Y. 479, affirmed U.S. v. Perkins, 16 S.Ct. 1073, 163 U.S. 625,

It may be  significant to note, [Instructions for Form 2555:  Foreign Earned Income]  [Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service] defines Foreign Country. –

“A foreign country is any territory under the sovereignty of a government other than the United States. “[emphasis added]

But the definition  does not include U.S. possessions or territories.

…..a “foreign country” does NOT include U.S.** possessions or territories.   U.S. possessions and territories are not “foreign” with respect to the federal zone; they are “domesticwith respect to the federal zone because they are inside the federal zone.

The U. S. Supreme Court has ruled that this foreign nation has every right to legislate for its “citizens” and to hold subject matter and in personam jurisdiction, both within (inside) and without (outside) its territorial boundaries, when legislative acts call for such effects (Cook v. Tait supra).

As a foreign nation under International law, it is perfectly legal for this nation to consider its people as “subjects” rather than as individual Sovereigns.  The protections of the State and the Federal Constitutions do not apply to these “subjects” unless there is specific statutory legislation granting specific protections (e.g., The Civil Rights Act).  The guarantees of the Constitution extend to the “United States” (i.e., the federal zone) only as Congress has made those guarantees applicable (Hooven supra).

In 26 CFR 1.1-1 (c) you will find stated, “Who is a citizen? . Every person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen.”   [emphasis added]

singular, the federal United States, of  possessions, territories, zones  areas,   not plural as the  union of the 50 states that is the constitutional  republic, the United States of America.

 

Congress did not forget the proper use of English here.

NOTE: The 13th Amendment bans involuntary servitude and slavery “within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction”. This is the manner in which amendments and legislation must be written if the law is to apply within the sovereign lands of the 50 states and to their Citizens.

But The 14th Amendment is not written thusly. The 14th Amendment embraces persons “born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. The phrase, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” does not state the “plural nature” [i.e. “their“] that is required to refer to the states of the Union.

In the absence of the plural language  the courts have ruled that the law applies only to federal places or persons.

The 18th Amendment created Prohibition.

“After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.”

In Cunard S. S. Co. v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 100, 43 S.Ct. 504 (1923), the US Supreme Court held that the language Congress used in the Amendment limited its application to areas under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress – which of course is not the states of the Union.

3A Am Jur 1420, Aliens and Citizens, explains:  “A Person is born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States**, for purposes of acquiring citizenship at birth, if his birth occurs in territory over which the United States** is sovereign …”   singular, the federal United States, of  possessions, territories, zones  areas,   not plural as the  union of the 50 states that is the constitutional  republic, the United States of America.

Further, this “United States”, besides designating federal property, possessions, territories, lands  areas defined in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 (1:8:17) and in Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2) of the Federal Constitution, that for whatever causes are not subject to the sovereignty or jurisdiction of any of the several States of the union that is the “United States of America”, . and its “citizens” under the 14th Amendment, wherever they are “resident”, even if they do inhabit one of the 50 States of the Union, , in commerce and finance, is a corporate entity. :

The Legislative Act of February 21, 1871, Forty-first Congress, Session III, Chapter 62, page 419, chartered a Federal company entitled “United States,” a/k/a “US Inc.,” a “Commercial Agency” originally designated as “Washington, D.C.,” in accordance with the 14th Amendment, which upholds the debt of the USA and US Inc. in Section 4.

As evidenced by Title 28 USC Section 3002(5) Chapter 176.  It is clear that the United States . . . is a corporation . . . 534 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT 724.

`It is well settled that “United States” et al is a corporation, originally incorporated February 21, 1871 under the name “District of Columbia,” 16 Stat. 419 Chapter 62.  It was reorganized June 11, 1878 with all federal territories and possessions. This corporation also copyrighted the names UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES, USA, US and AMERICA.

There is likewise equal ambiquity  in both constitutional and state statutory law, and in federal law regarding  the term used:   “State of Iowa”,

We find In federal law, Congress defines various places of exclusive federal jurisdiction as “States”. These places are not “states of the Union”. The other manner in which federal law sometimes  addresses this issue is with the phrase, “…in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction” , as in 26 CFR 1.1-1 (c which therefore refers only to federal places.

In Article II(a) of the Uniform Detainers  Act“(a) ‘State’ shall mean a state of the United States;  the United States of America;  a territory or possession of the United States;  the District of Columbia;  the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.”

In 1940, Congress passed the “Buck Act” now found in 4 U.S.C. Sections 105-113. In Section 110(e), this Act authorized any department of the federal government to create a “Federal Area”. for imposition of the “Public Salary Tax Act of 1939.” This tax is imposed at 4 U.S.C. Section 111. The rest of the taxing law is found in the Internal Revenue Code. The Social Security Board had already created a “Federal Area” overlay. U.S.C. Title 4 is as follows:

Sec. 110(d): The term “State” includes any territory or possession of the United States.

Sec. 110(e): The term “Federal Area” means any lands or premises held or acquired by or for the use of the United states or any department, establishment, or agency of the United states; and any federal area, or any part thereof, which is located within the exterior boundaries of any State, shall be deemed to be a federal area located within such State.

Under the “Buck Act,” 4 U.S.C Secs. 105-113, the federal government has created a “Federal area” within the boundaries of the several states. This area is similar to any territory that the federal government acquires through purchase, conquest or treaty, thereby imposing federal territorial law upon the people in this “Federal area.”

The Supreme Court has determined, “There has been created a fictional federal “State (of)  xxxxxx    within a state.” See Howard v. Sinking Fund of Louisville, 344 U.S. 624, 73 S.Ct. 465, 476, 97 L.Ed. 617 (1953); Schwarts v. O’Hara TP School District, 100 A 2d. 621, 625, 375, Pa. 440

Under the Provisions of 4 U.S.C cited above, Sections 105 , the federal “State” is defined “(also known as, “The State of xxxxxxx.”)

Under state law, in the State” means within the exterior limits of the State of Iowa and includes all territory within these limits owned or ceded to the United States of America.

26 USC § 3306 Definitions – For purposes of this chapter—

(j)(1) State – The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.

26 USC § 5891 Structured settlement factoring transactions

(c) Definitions (6) State -The term “State” includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and any possession of the United States.

The actual meanings of such terminology  herein discussed affecting this case  is ambiguous and unclear on its face at a minimum   which materially affect the Courts jurisdiction of the  law, In Personam, and in its own setting under proper oath and credentials to hear the case, which  must be resolved if  [[ this case is to continue.]]  [[ the Court ‘s ruling is to stand. ]]

This being the case, it will become a legal issue in this case, which Tennessee his court has jurisdiction in, Tennessee, the state of the republic or some other  federal area, region, zone,  district or jurisdiction of the federal United States, the federal UNITED STATES, INC., or its  federal area or jurisdiction, STATE OF  TENNESSEE, or  the   “federal district of the District of Columbia”, STATE OF  TENNESSEE.

Then as we said, she went to ADMINISTRATIVE OR JUDICIAL” questions  “So, is this an administrative proceeding under executive authority of a military, or maritime law jurisdiction, OR a judicial proceeding sitting as a court of law?” judge answered “Administrative” admitting his was not a judicial court as we have suspected all along.

Since the court admits it is an administrative court, As stated in our memorandum on this, Defendant  is entitled by law to an actual adjudicative hearing before such  Administrative Agency that oversees this part of the code applied in this case as may be provided for in the regulatory procedures, regulations and guidelines written by the executive  department agency to which the issues of this case are subject and/or as found  in its own regulations from the state’s administrative procedures code and that the   determinations  of such an adjudicative hearing must be made before this court administratively or procedurally has  subject matter of a case to consider.

And if in hearing of these proceedings or deliberations of the Court this is determined to be the case, Defendant respectfully gives notice to the Court request for such hearing is hereby made  for such administrative agency hearing to be held  and those determinations made before this case  proceeds further before this Court.

Defendant further questions whether the Plaintiff has exhausted its own necessary administrative remedies found in the regulatory procedures, regulations and guidelines written by the executive department agency to which the issues of this case are subject and/or as required by the state’s own   administrative procedures code before bringing the action to this Court in any capacity and if in hearing of these proceedings or deliberations of the Court it turns out  Plaintiff  has not exhausted such necessary administrative remedies, Defendant is entitled to such executive determinations before Plaintiff brings this case,   as it cannot consider the case  to grant relief until such administrative remedies have been exhausted under the state’s and the executive department’s own administrative requirements. And the Court must comply with such regulatory requirements or it is waiving its judicial immunity.

 

The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies applies where a statute provides an administrative remedy, even though the terms of the statute do not make the exhaustion of the remedy a condition of the right to resort to the courts.  (First Nat. Bank v. Board of County Comrs., 264 U.S. 450 [44 S.Ct. 385, 68 L.Ed. 784, 788-789].)

Either of these points should finally kill the case and we will raise these as the case moves on. So much more that came out of this hearing. We will go on later. If there are questions , You may reach us at 662-489-6554. Dr Weatherly

 

IMPORTANT Advisement:  The information and materials included here are only from the personal experience, knowledge or observation of the provider who is not a licensed legal professional and are not given by the provider or to be construed by the recipient as competent legal advise or assistance and the reader is encouraged to seek and maintain access to competent legal counsel to assist in all decisions concerning his or her situation. And any monetary exchanges between the parties to this email are to be understood as the non-contractual, voluntary contribution or gift of either party.

Dr. Weatherly

I am disputing the installation of the WAVE device by the Kansas City Water Department

The following is the communication line (please read from the bottom message up) as I have been attempting to protect my 4th amendment right to privacy.
If you have the WAVE installed in you house now, you probably should investigate exactly what information about your habits is being broadcast and how often.
______________________________________________________________
Lisa,
This is Dr. Drumright.  I am Mr. Ford’s chiropractor.  Please make sure he gets a copy of this message.
Thanks
Ed,
I need you to help me protect my privacy.
You see after experiencing ID theft, I have become extremely wary of the accumulation of private information in data bases that I don’t personally have control over.
The following (please read from the bottom up) is a series of emails between myself and Robert Thiemann at the Water Department.
There is no reason for the collection and storage of water use data more often than needed to calculate a bill.
The bills go out every two months, so they need to have a reading once every two months.
Any greater frequency of readings serves them no purpose while increasing the risk of this information being stolen and used for bad intent.
I look forward to your timely response to this problem.
They have told Christina they would turn off the water to my family if we don’t waive our right to privacy and quickly comply.
Sincerely,
Dr. Darrel Drumright
______________________________________________________________________
—–Original Message—–
From: Robert Thiemann [mailto:Robert_Thiemann@kcmo.org]
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 8:11 AM
To: Darrel Drumright
Subject: RE: Wave installation

I understand your concerns Dr Drumright. However, the automatic meter reading device cannot be turned off.

Rob Thiemann
Kansas City Water Services Department
816-513-0349
Fax – 513-0230
Cell – 225-0751
Inactive hide details for "Darrel Drumright" <drd@harmonyhealth.com>“Darrel Drumright” <drd@harmonyhealth.com>

        • “Darrel Drumright” <drd@harmonyhealth.com> 09/29/2009 04:33 PM

To

“Robert Thiemann” <Robert_Thiemann@kcmo.org>

cc

Subject

RE: Wave installation

Mr. Thiemann,

That is what the Army said before they lost my ID along with 25 million other veterans.

That is what Blue Cross Blue Sheild said before they lost my ID along with thousands of other providers.

You have to understand why I am sceptical about trusting a city government with so much sensitive information.

Such as what time of day I ussually take a shower, or if anyone has been home for the past three days.

Can I turn the thing on and off?

Dr Drumright

            • —–Original Message—–
              From:
              Robert Thiemann [mailto:Robert_Thiemann@kcmo.org]
              Sent:
              Monday, September 28, 2009 3:21 PM
              To:
              Darrel Drumright
              Subject:
              Re: Wave installationMr Drumright –

              I’m checked and I’m sorry but we are not going to be able to make an exception on the installation of your WAVE automatic meter reading system.

              Sincerely,

              Rob Thiemann
              Kansas City Water Services Department
              816-513-0349
              Fax – 513-0230
              Cell – 225-0751

              Inactive hide details for "Darrel Drumright" <drd@harmonyhealth.com>“Darrel Drumright” <drd@harmonyhealth.com>

                                            • “Darrel Drumright” <drd@harmonyhealth.com> 09/24/2009 09:34 AM

              To

              <robert_thiemann@kcmo.org>

              cc

              Subject

              Wave installation


              Good morning Robert,

              This is Dr Drumright.

              We discussed installing a special WAVE unit in my home at 5820 N Bedford Ave, KCMO 64151 that only broadcasts once per month.

              Thank you very much for listening to my concerns about information concentrations.

              What is the next step?

              Sincerely,

              Darrel Drumright

    • —–Original Message—–
      From:
      Robert Thiemann [mailto:Robert_Thiemann@kcmo.org]
      Sent:
      Tuesday, September 29, 2009 8:02 AM
      To:
      Darrel Drumright
      Subject:
      RE: Wave installation
      Dr Drumright –

      The city’s database is well protected and AMR technology has been proved safe in utilities around the country. The AMR meter does not control the flow of water and will not disrupt your water supply.

      Rob Thiemann
      Kansas City Water Services Department
      816-513-0349
      Fax – 513-0230
      Cell – 225-0751
      Inactive hide details for "Darrel Drumright" <drd@harmonyhealth.com>“Darrel Drumright” <drd@harmonyhealth.com>

                    • “Darrel Drumright” <drd@harmonyhealth.com>09/28/2009 06:02 PM

      To

      “Robert Thiemann” <Robert_Thiemann@kcmo.org>

      cc

      Subject

      RE: Wave installation


      Mr. Thiemann,


      Thank you for contacting me on this important issue.


      I need to know what other options there are to address my security and privacy concerns.


      Will I be able to turn the unit on and off myself to prevent the accumulation of behavior data in an unprotected database?


      Does the unit block water flow if the power goes out?


      Turning off my children’s water supply if I do not compromise my privacy rights is unacceptable.


      I look forward to working with you to create a satisfactory solution to this problem.


      Dr Drumright

Friday 9 am – Congressional Hearing on HR1207 Audit the Fed bill

That will be 8 am in the Kansas City area.

I don’t know if CSPAN will be showing it live so I found this direct link to the hearing.

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES

Join me and millions of concerned sovereign Americans as we expose the central bank for the lie that it is.

Now will come an age of transparency in all public affairs.

Corporations, courts and treason against natural born sovereignty.

Problem: Artificial entities called corporations have more authority in the current legal system than natural born people.

Result: slavery: someone else (government) gets the fruit of your labor before you even see it, and there is nothing you can do about it. Or is there?

Solution:  Form a new transparent Constitutional Court.  File charges of treason against all members of congress, the senate, the current commercial court system, and the entire executive branch both past and present.  Hold amnesty hearings, and begin prosecutions.

Anyone got any other ideas on how we go about restoring authority to the sovereign people of America?

The Official State Office Known as “Person”

This is the single most important lesson that you MUST learn. If you spend an hour to learn this material you will be rewarded for the rest of your life.

Please read the following carefully and comment as you feel fit.  This is VERY interesting if not a little complicated.  I would love to discuss this in detail with everyone interested.

original link

The word “person” in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings. Seee.g. 1 U.S.C. sec 1. Church of Scientology v. U.S. Dept. of Justice (1979) 612F.2d 417, 425.

One of the very first of your state statutes will have a section listed entitled “Definitions. “Carefully study this section of the statutes and you will find a portion that reads similar to this excerpt:

In construing these statutes and each and every word, phrase, or part hereof, where the context will permit:

(1) The singular includes the plural and vice versa.

(2) Gender-specific language includes the other gender and neuter.

(3) The word “person” includes individuals, children, firms, associations, joint adventures, partnerships, estates, trusts, business trusts, syndicates, fiduciaries, corporations, and all other groups or combinations.

NOTE HOWEVER, THE DEFINITIONS STATUTE DOES NOT LIST MAN OR WOMAN — THEREFORE THEY ARE EXCLUDED FROM ALL THE STATUTES !!!

Under the rule of construction “expressio unius est exclusio alterius,” where a statute or Constitution enumerates the things on which it is to operate or forbids certain things, it is ordinarily to be construed as excluding from its operation all those not expressly mentioned. Generally words in a statute should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. When a statute does not specifically define words, such words should be construed in their common or ordinary sense to the effect that the rules used in construing statutes are also applicable in the construction of the Constitution. It is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that words of common usage when used in a statute should be construed in their plain and ordinary sense. If you carefully read the statute laws enacted by your state legislature you will also notice that they are all written with phrases similar to these five examples :

1. A person commits the offense of failure to carry a license if the person . . .

2. A person commits the offense of failure to register a vehicle if the person . . .

3. A person commits the offense of driving uninsured if the person . . .

4. A person commits the offense of fishing if the person . . .

5. A person commits the offense of breathing if the person . . .

Notice that only “persons” can commit these state legislature created crimes. A crime is by definition an offense committed against the “state.” If you commit an offense against a human, it is called a tort. Examples of torts would be any personal injury, slander, or defamation of character.

So how does someone become a “person” and subject to regulation by state statutes and laws ?

There is only one way. You must ask the state for permission to volunteer to become a state person. You must volunteer because the U.S. Constitution forbids the state from compelling you into slavery. This is found in the 13th and 14th Amendments.

13th Amendment Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.14th Amendment Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. You become a state created statutory “person” by taking up residency with the state and stepping into the office of “person.” You must hold an “office” within the state government in order for that state government to regulate and control you. First comes the legislativel created office, then comes their control. If you do not have an office in state government, thelegislature’s control over you would also be prohibited by the Declaration of Rights section, usually found to be either Section I or II, of the State Constitution.

The most common office held in a state is therefore the office known as “person.” Your state legislature created this office as a way to control people. It is an office most people occupy without even knowing that they are doing so. The legislature cannot lawfully control you because you are a flesh and blood human being.

God alone created you and by Right of creation, He alone can control you. It is the nature of law, that what one creates, one controls. This natural law is the force that binds a creature to its creator. God created us and we are, therefore, subject to His laws, whether or not we acknowledge Him as our Creator.

The way the state gets around God’s law and thereby controls the people is by creating only an office, and not a real human. This office is titled as “person” and then the legislature claims that you are filling that office. Legislators erroneously now think that they can make laws that also control men. They create entire bodies of laws – motor vehicle code, building code, compulsory education laws, and so on ad nauseum. They still cannot control men or women, but they can now control the office they created. And look who is sitting in that office — YOU.

Then they create government departments to administer regulations to these offices. With in these administrative departments of state government are hundreds of other state created offices. There is everything from the office of janitor to the office of governor. But these administrative departments cannot function properly unless they have subjects to regulate. The legislature obtains these subjects by creating an office that nobody even realizes to be an official state office.

They have created the office of “person.” The state creates many other offices such as police officer, prosecutor, judge etc. and everyone understands this concept. However, what most people fail to recognize and understand is the most common state office of all, the office of “person.” Anyone filling one of these state offices is subject to regulation by their creator, the state legislature. Through the state created office of “person,” the state gains its authority to regulate, control and judge you, the real human. What they have done is apply the natural law principle, “what one creates, one controls. “A look in Webster’s dictionary reveals the origin of the word “person.” It literally means “the mask an actor wears.”

The legislature creates the office of “person” which is a mask. They cannot create real people, only God can do that. But they can create the “office” of “person,” which is merely a mask, and then they persuade a flesh and blood human being to put on that mask by offering a fictitious privilege, such as a driver license. Now the legislature has gained complete control over both the mask and the actor behind the mask. A resident is another state office holder.

All state residents hold an office in the state government. But not everyone who is a resident also holds the office of “person.”

Some residents hold the office of judge and they are not persons.

Some residents hold the office of prosecutors and they are not persons.

Some residents hold the office of police office(rs) and they are not persons.

Some residents hold the office of legislators and they are not persons.

Some residents are administrators and bureaucrats and they also are not persons.

Some residents are attorneys and they also are not persons.

An attorney is a state officer of the court and is firmly part of the judicial branch. The attorneys will all tell you that they are “licensed” to practice law by the state Supreme Court. Therefore, it is unawful for any attorney to hold any position or office outside of the judicial branch. There can be no attorney legislators – no attorney mayors – no attorneys as police – no attorneys as governor. Yes, I know it happens all the time, however, this practice of multiple office holding by attorneys is prohibited by the constitution and is a felony in most states. If you read farther into your state constitution you will find a clause stating this, the Separation of Powers, which will essentially read as follows:

Branches of government — The powers of the state government shall be divided into legislative, executive and judicial branches. No person belonging to one branch shall exercise any powers appertaining to either of the other branches unless expressly provided herein. Therefore, a police officer cannot arrest a prosecutor, a prosecutor cannot prosecute a sitting judge, a judge cannot order the legislature to perform and so on.

Because these “offices” are not persons, the state will not, and cannot prosecute them, therefore they enjoy almost complete protection by the state in the performance of their daily duties. This is why it is impossible to sue or file charges against most government employees. If their crimes should rise to the level where they “shock the community” and cause alarm in the people, then they will be terminated from state employment and lose their absolute protection. If you carefully pay attention to the news, you will notice that these government employees are always terminated from their office or state employment and then are they arrested, now as a common person, and charged for their crimes. Simply put, the state will not eat its own.

The reason all state residents hold an office is so the state can control everything. It wants to create every single office so that all areas of your life are under the complete control of the state. Each office has prescribed duties and responsibilities and all these offices are regulated and governed by the state. If you read the fine print when you apply for a state license or privilege you will see that you must sign a declaration that you are in fact a “resident” of that state.

“Person” is a subset of resident. Judge is a subset of resident. Legislator and police officer are subsets of resident. If you hold any office in the state, you are a resident and subject to all legislative decrees in the form of statutes.

They will always say that we are free men. But they will never tell you that the legislatively created offices that you are occupying are not free. They will say, “All men are free,” because that is a true statement.

What they do not say is, that holding any state office binds free men into slavery for the state. They are ever ready to trick you into accepting the state office of “person,” and once you are filling that office, you cease to be free men. You become regulated creatures, called persons, totally created by the legislature. You will hear “free men” mentioned all the time, but you will never hear about “free persons.”

If you build your life in an office created by the legislature, it will be built on shifting sands. The office can be changed and manipulated at any time to conform to the whims of the legislature. When you hold the office of “person” created by the legislature, your office isn’t fixed. Your duties and responsibilities are ever changing. Each legislative session binds a “person” to ever more burdens and requirements in the form of more rules, laws and statutes. Most state constitutions have a section that declares the fundamental power of the people:

Political power — All political power is inherent in the people. The enunciation herein of certain Rights shall not be construed to deny or impair others retained by the people.

Notice that this says “people” it does not say persons. This statement declares beyond any doubt that the people are Sovereign over their created government. This is natural law and the natural flow of delegated power.

A Sovereign is a private, non-resident, non-domestic, non-person, non-individual, NOT SUBJECT to any real or imaginary statutory regulations or quasi laws enacted by any state legislature which was created by the people.

When you are pulled over by the police, roll down your window and say, “You are speaking to a Sovereign political power holder. I do not consent to you detaining me. Why are you detaining me against my will ?”

Now the state office of policeman knows that “IT” is talking to a flesh and blood Sovereign. The police officer cannot cite a Sovereign because the state legislature can only regulate what they create. And the state does not create Sovereign political power holders. It is very important to lay the proper foundation, Right from the beginning. Let the police officer know that you are a Sovereign. Remain in your proper office of Sovereign political power holder. Do not leave it. Do not be persuaded by police pressure or tricks to put on the mask of a state “person.”

Why aren’t Sovereigns subject to the state’s charges? Because of the concept of office. The state is attempting to prosecute only a particular office known as “person.” If you are not in that state created office of “person,” the state statutes simply do not apply to you. This is common sense, for example, if you are not in the state of Texas, then Texas laws do not apply to you. For the state to control someone, they have to first create the office. Then they must coerce a warm-blooded creature to come fill that office. They want you to fill that office.

Here is the often expressed understanding from the United States Supreme Court, that “in common usage, the term “person” does not include the Sovereign, statutes employing the person are ordinarily construed to exclude the Sovereign.” Wilson v. Omaha Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 667 (1979) (quoting United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U.S. 600, 604 (1941)). See also United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 275 (1947).

The idea that the word “person” ordinarily excludes the Sovereign can also be traced to the “familiar principle that the King is not bound by any act of Parliament unless he be named therein by special and particular words.” Dollar Savings Bank v. United States, 19 Wall. 227, 239 (1874). As this passage suggests, however, this interpretive principle applies only to “the enacting Sovereign.” United States v. California, 297 U.S. 175, 186 (1936). See also Jefferson County Pharmaceutical Assn., Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, 460 U.S. 150, 161, n. 21 (1983). Furthermore, as explained in United States v. Herron, 20 Wall. 251, 255 (1874), even the principle as applied to the enacting Sovereign is not without limitations: “Where an act of Parliament is made for the public good, as for the advancement of religion and justice or to prevent injury and wrong, the king is bound by such act, though not particularly named therein; but where a statute is general, and thereby any prerogative, Right, title, or interest is divested or taken from the king, in such case the king is not bound, unless the statute is made to extend to him by express words.” U.S. Supreme Court Justice Holmes explained:

“A Sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal Right as against the authority that makes the law on which the Right depends.” Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U.S. 349, 353, 27 S. Ct. 526, 527, 51 L. Ed. 834 (1907).

The majority of American states fully embrace the Sovereign immunity theory as well as the federal government. See Restatement (Second) of Torts 895B, comment at 400 (1979). The following U.S. Supreme Court case makes clear all these principals. I shall have occasion incidentally to evince, how true it is, that states and governments were made for man; and at the same time how true it is, that his creatures and servants have first deceived, next vilified, and at last oppressed their master and maker.

A state, useful and valuable as the contrivance is, is the inferior contrivance of man; and from his native dignity derives all its acquired importance. … Let a state be considered as subordinate to the people: But let everything else be subordinate to the state. The latter part of this position is equally necessary with the former. For in the practice, and even at length, in the science of politics there has very frequently been a strong current against the natural order of things, and an inconsiderate or an interested disposition to sacrifice the end to the means. As the state has claimed precedence of the people; so, in the same inverted course of things, the government has often claimed precedence of the state; and to this perversion in the second degree, many of the volumes of confusion concerning Sovereignty owe their existence. The ministers, dignified very properly by the appellation of the magistrates, have wished, and have succeeded in their wish, to be considered as the Sovereigns of the state. This second degree of perversion is confined to the old world, and begins to diminish even there: but the first degree is still too prevalent even in the several states, of which our union is composed. By a state I mean, a complete body of free persons united together for their common benefit, to enjoy peaceably what is their own, and to do justice to others. It is an artificial person. It has its affairs and its interests: It has its rules: It has its Rights: and it has its obligations. It may acquire property distinct from that of its members. It may incur debts to be discharged out of the public stock, not out of the private fortunes of individuals. It may be bound by contracts; and for damages arising from the breach of those contracts. In all our contemplations, however, concerning this feigned and artificial person, we should never forget, that, in truth and nature, those who think and speak and act, are men. Is the foregoing description of a state a true description? It will not be questioned, but it is. …

It will be sufficient to observe briefly, that the Sovereignties in Europe, and particularly in England, exist on feudal principles. That system considers the prince as the Sovereign, and the people as his subjects; it regards his person as the object of allegiance, and excludes the idea of his being on an equal footing with a subject, either in a court of justice or elsewhere. That system contemplates him as being the fountain of honor and authority; and from his grace and grant derives all franchise, immunities and privileges; it is easy to perceive that such a Sovereign could not be amenable to a court of justice, or subjected to judicial control and actual constraint. It was of necessity, therefore, that suability, became incompatible with such Sovereignty. Besides, the prince having all the executive powers, the judgment of the courts would, in fact, be only monitory, not mandatory to him, and a capacity to be advised, is a distinct thing from a capacity to be sued. The same feudal ideas run through all their jurisprudence, and constantly remind us of the distinction between the prince and the subject. No such ideas obtain here(speaking of America): at the revolution, the Sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the Sovereigns of the country, but they are Sovereigns without subjects (unless the African slaves among us may be so called) and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the Sovereignty.Chisholm v. Georgia (February Term, 1793) 2 U.S. 419, 2 Dall. 419, 1 L.Ed 440.

There are many ways you can give up your Sovereign power and accept the role of “person.” One is by receiving state benefits. Another is by asking permission in the form of a license or permit from the state.

One of the subtlest ways of accepting the role of “person,” is to answer the questions of bureaucrats. When a state bureaucrat knocks on your door and wants to know why your children aren’t registered in school, or a police officer pulls you over and starts asking questions, you immediately fill the office of “person” if you start answering their questions. It is for this reason that you should ignore or refuse to “answer” their questions and instead act like a true Sovereign, a King or Queen, and ask only your own questions of them. You are not a “person” subject to their laws.

If they persist and haul you into their court unlawfully, your response to the judge is simple and direct, you the Sovereign, must tell him :

I have no need to answer you in this matter.

It is none of your business whether I understand my Rights or whether I understand your fictitious charges.

It is none of your business whether I want counsel.

The reason it is none of your business is because I am not a person regulated by the state. I do not hold any position or office where I am subject to the legislature. The state legislature does not dictate what I do.

I am a free Sovereign “Man”(or woman) and I am a political power holder as lawfully decreed in the State Constitution at article I (or II) and that constitution is controlling over you..

You must NEVER retain or hire an attorney, a state officer of the court, to speak or file written documents for you. Use an attorney (if you must) only for counsel and advice about their “legal” system. If you retain an attorney to represent you and speak in your place, you become “NON COMPOS MENTIS”, not mentally competent, and you are then considered a ward of the court. You LOSE all your Rights, and you will not be permitted to do anything herein.

The judge knows that as long as he remains in his office, he is backed by the awesome power of the state, its lawyers, police and prisons. The judge will try to force you to abandon your Sovereign sanctuary by threatening you with jail. No matter what happens, if you remain faithful to your Sovereignty, The judge and the state may not lawfully move against you. The state did not create the office of Sovereign political power holder. Therefore, they do not regulate and control those in the office of Sovereign. They cannot ascribe penalties for breach of that particular office. The reason they have no authority over the office of the Sovereign is because they did not create it and the Sovereign people did not delegate to them any such power.

When challenged, simply remind them that they do not regulate any office of the Sovereign and that their statutes only apply to those state employees in legislative created offices. This Sovereign individual paradigm is explained by the following U.S. Supreme Court case:

“The individual may stand upon his constitutional Rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His Rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his Rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their Rights.” Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1905).

Let us analyze this case. It says, “The individual may stand upon his constitutional Rights.” It does not say, “Sit on his Rights.” There is a principle here: “If you don’t use ’em you lose ’em.” You have to assert your Rights, demand them, “stand upon” them.

Next it says, “He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way.” It says “private business” – you have a Right to operate a private business. Then it says “in his own way.” It doesn’t say “in the government’s way.”

Then it says, “His power to contract is unlimited.” As a Sovereign individual, your power to contract is unlimited. In common law there are certain criteria that determine the validity of contracts. They are not important here, except that any contract that would harm others or violate their Rights would be invalid. For example, a “contract” to kill someone is not a valid contract. Apart from this obvious qualification, your power to contract is unlimited.

Next it says, “He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property.” The court case contrasted the duty of the corporation (an entity created by government permission – feudal paradigm) to the duty of the Sovereign individual. The Sovereign individual doesn’t need and didn’t receive permission from the government, hence has no duty to the government.

Then it says, “His Rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the State.” This is very important. The Supreme Court recognized that humans have inherent Rights. The U.S. Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) does not grant us Rights. We have fundamental Rights, irrespective of what the Constitution says. The Constitution acknowledges some of our Rights. And Amendment IX states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain Rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The important point is that our Rights antecede (come before, are senior to) the organization of the state.

Next the Supreme Court says, “And [his Rights] can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution.” Does it say the government can take away your Rights? No! Your Rights can only be taken away “by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution.” “Due process of law” involves procedures and safeguards such as trial by jury. “Trial by jury” means, inter alia, the jury judges both law and fact.

Then the case says, “Among his Rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law.” These are some of the Rights of a Sovereign individual. Sovereign individuals need not report anything about themselves or their businesses to anyone.

Finally, the Supreme Court says, “He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their Rights.” The Sovereign individual does not have to pay taxes. If you should discuss Hale v. Henkel with a run-of-the-mill attorney, he or she will tell you that the case is “old” and that it has been “overturned.” If you ask that attorney for a citation of the case or cases that overturned Hale v. Henkel, there will not be a meaningful response. The OUTLAWS have researched Hale v. Henkel and here is what we found :

“We know that Hale v. Henkel was decided in 1905 in the U.S. Supreme Court. Since it was the Supreme Court, the case is binding on all courts of the land, until another Supreme Court case says it isn’t. Has another Supreme Court case overturned Hale v. Henkel? The answer is NO. As a matter of fact, since 1905, the Supreme Court has cited Hale v. Henkel a total of 144 times. A fact more astounding is that since 1905, Hale v. Henkel has been cited by all of the federal and state appellate court systems a total of over 1600 times. None of the various issues of this case has ever been overruled.

So if the state through the office of the judge continues to threaten or does imprison you, they are trying to force you into the state created office of “person.” As long as you continue to claim your Rightful office of Sovereign, the state lacks all jurisdiction over you. The state needs someone filling the office of “person” in order to continue prosecuting a case in their courts.

A few weeks in jail puts intense pressure upon most “persons.” Jail means the loss of job opportunities, separation from loved ones, and the piling up of debts. Judges will apply this pressure when they attempt to arraign you. When brought in chains before a crowded courtroom the issue of counsel will quickly come up and you can tell the court you are in propria persona or simply “PRO PER”, as your own counsel and you need no other. Do not sign their papers or cooperate with them because most things about your life are private and are not the state’s business to evaluate. Here is the Sovereign peoples command in the constitution that the state respect their privacy : Right of privacy — Every man or woman has the Right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into their private life except as otherwise provided herein. This section shall not be construed to limit the public’s Right of access to public records and meetings as provided by law.

If the judge is stupid enough to actually follow through with his threats and send you to jail, you will soon be released without even being arraigned and all charges will be dropped. You will then have documented prima facie grounds for false arrest and false imprisonment charges against him personally.

Now that you know the hidden evil in the word “person”, Try to stop using it in everyday conversation. Simply use the correct term, MAN or WOMAN. Train yourself, your family and your friends to never use the derogatory word “person” ever again.