Friday, April 17, 2009

The Simple Solution to Usury, Comprehending the Power of Your Signature.

Born free to tacitly accept slavery

Americans are born free. But then, through an artful web of "legal"deciet, trickery, word games and constructive frauds, we become enslaved. The irony is that we "choose" slavery by unquestioning acceptance of government licenses, numbers and status as a "U.S. citizen."

In all humility, I may be the most appropriate person in America to write the following overview of how "Americans" have been betrayed. My career began a decade ago during the common law court movement and has survived "redemption" and the UCC. I have watched in horror as well-meaning people (many of them close personal friends of mine, who were lawfully seeking shelter from the legal storm) have fallen from self-righteous optimism to dejection, poverty, insanity, imprisonment and even death-by-suicide. It is safe to say that just about every sovereignty/freedom process or program that does not work has crossed my desk.

But, we have been learning—we are not as hopeful and naive as we were in the common law court days. Through trial and error, good men and women have been challenging the ruthless power behind the benevolent facade of the U.S. government and its satelite state governments. In most cases, that power reaches out and destroys those who dare approach, but every now and then the good guys score a point or, in our defeat, we are able to glean valuable insight.

During the weekend of June 18, 2005, a gathering of astute individuals assembled at a location in SE Oregon. The event was called by a couple of legal historians who had decided it was time to set the record straight on myths about legal process, citizenship status and lawful v. legal rights. As a participant, I can report that the gathering was marvelous in every way—good information, good people, good food and perfect weather. I can also report that, after years of "thrust-and-parry" between freedom-seeking Americans and freedom-usurping government agents, crystalline truths are surfacing.

It is important that each of us understand the mechanisms that little men behind the curtains have put in place to ensure our perpetual enslavement. But more importantly, it is critical that we all understand that freedom is a choice and with that choice comes total responsibility—including the responsibility of finding one’s own way out of the unique slave state we create for ourselves through tacit acceptance of government constructs and "benefits."

Following are, at this time, the groundrules by which we are forced to play with U.S. government in the contemporary game of life. Keep in mind at all times that the rules are made by government and, therefore, subject to change at any time and without notice. This should come to us as no surprise as the rules have always been changing in this manner.

by Don Harkins

As we grow and gain experience, we learn a lot about ourselves and others. One axiom of understanding human nature relates to lying: Anyone capable of lying about something is potentially capable of lying about anything.

With regard to the "U.S.," the corporate fiction masquerading as government (hereinafter "government"), history reveals a pattern of lying to justify going to war (the Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I, Gulf War II). Lies that send millions of people to their deaths and cause $billions in damages qualify as "big" lies. If the U.S. "government" is willing to lie as a justification for something as important as war, then we can presume its willingness to lie about anything (everything).

As it turns out, the "government" is actually lying about everything—at least everything concerning its relationship with ordinary people.

The U.S. "government" has institutionalized the foundational lie upon which all other lies are constructed: Most Americans haven’t a clue that being a state citizen living in the United States of America is much different than being a U.S. citizen.

The difference is, in fact, as great as the difference between freedom and slavery.

Time, place, space and plane

Most people have little trouble understanding time and place in a real sense relative to their lives. "Time" is measured by the 24-hour clock and "place" is easily defined as a physical location.

Space and plane are not difficult to understand, either: Space is a three-dimensional area and plane is a two-dimensional area or a line. But, space and plane are simply absent from consideration in a real sense relative to our lives due to significant omissions in our education.

Space is never empty. In terms relative to time and place and our lives on Earth, space is filled with power. The type of power contained in space is determined by the plane upon which it sits.

A simple example would be city and county jurisdiction: If you are at a certain place, you may be subject to certain laws—either of the city or of the county depending on the place and, in some cases (parking and curfew, for instance), the time. The "space" may look and feel the same at a certain time on either side of the imaginary line separating city and county jurisdictions, but it is filled with power emanating from different authorities.

The authority represents a "plane." City, county, state, federal and martial (military) jurisdictions are "planes." For instance, a person may be in a county jurisdiction, be apprehended by a state policemen who suspects he has violated a federal law. That person may be held by the state in a county jail under the authority of the U.S. Marshal’s Service and then taken before a federal judge where federal rules apply.

The parameters of time, space, plane and place were established in Ponzi v. Fesseden, et al. You must control all four factors—or someone (something) is controlling you.

Now that you know to include space and plane in your understanding of the world in relation to time and place, you must realize that the intertwining and overlapping of these concepts have been carefully complicated to keep ordinary folks in a perpetual state of confusion.

You can presume, however, per the insular cases that wherever the several states are not present (space) the U.S. fills the territorial void. Further, all things not of the states are territorial possessions of the U.S.


Each of us have relationships with "government"—whether we want them or not—which is based upon "presumptions."

The "government" presumes that we know and understand all the laws; that we know and understand all our rights and responsibilities under all the laws and; that our signature on contracts with "government" is our admission that we are willing to trade constitutionally-protected privileges and immunities for presumed "benefits."

We, on the other hand, are taught since childhood to presume that "government" is here to help us and that it serves to protect us from enemies—both foreign and domestic and; that the "government" is the defender of freedom.

"Government’s" presumptions are, of course, absurd and self-serving. Absurd because "government" knows that it is impossible for ordinary working people of average intelligence and a public education to know and understand all of the laws and their long-range implications with regard to rights under the law and citizenship status; self-serving because the laws are written by lawyers who speak a different language that only sounds like English so that people can be tricked into accepting, through their silence, a construct of citizenship that makes them liable to be taxed, regulated and prosecuted at the whim of "government."

In all fairness, "government" should not presume ordinary people understand everything and ordinary people should not presume that "government" is benevolent.

It follows that a benevolent "government" should presume that ordinary people know nothing and instruct its officers to protect the rights of ordinary people. That the officers of "government" are used to usurp, rather than protect our rights is further proof that "government" is actually malevolent.

It is most appropriate for us to go forward in our lives knowing that all rights not understood, demanded, defended and articulated are presumed by the "government" to be waived.

The 14th Amendment

The Union, as bound under contract by the Constitution, was legally broken in 1861 with the secession of the southern states. The "Union Army" was really a coalition of soldiers from several sovereign northern states and the Southern Army was really a coalition of soldiers from several sovereign southern states.

When the Civil War (which is more accurately referred to as the War of Northern Aggression by revisionist historians) was over, all the states had to reenter the Union. Reentry was conditional upon acceptance of the 14th Amendment, which imposed a much different set of conditions (and much greater federal control) on the states than was originally prescribed by the Constitution. Most notably was the creation of U.S. citizenship and making the states liable for war debts incurred by the federal "government."

Most revisionist scholars agree that the 14th Amendment, popularly lauded as the glorious achievement that closed the southern plantation and freed the negro slaves, actually opened the federal plantation making slaves of everyone.

This new type of citizen is not defined by the Constitution. The U.S. granted itself leave to create rules by which "U.S. citizens" must live. Every law affecting the lives of ordinary Americans passed since ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1867 has been with the presumption that those obligated to abide by them are U.S. citizens. The Constitution (and the structure of government with limited powers it describes and the rights it guarantees) does not apply to U.S. citizens.

In essence, all of the rights guaranteed to state citizens under the U.S. Constitution have been sucked into the due process clause of the 14th Amendment where they are subject to the arbitrary whims of lawyers and legislators.

"Government" presumes that no citizens of the United States of America exist and that all "persons" are U.S. citizens.

Several very excellent books have been written on the subject of what transpired between the states and the federal "government" between 1861 and 1874. This is a fascinating area of research because it reveals that a series of events took place which set in motion mechanisms that have freed the federal "government" of its constitutional straightjacket.

The language of bondage

There is a ruling class in America. The ruling class pretends to be speaking Webster’s Dictionary English when it’s really speaking Black’s Law Dictionary, Ballentine’s Law Dictionary or Bouvier’s Law Dictionary English (hereinafter "legalese"). Ordinary people do not know the difference and are, therefore, victims of an endless array of intentionally injurious legal deceptions.

The deceptive word games, wrought through legalese and employed to accomplish what is generally recognized, when accomplished by any other means, as one of the most heinous crimes one human can commit against another—enslaving him.

Since we now know that the correct presumption is "government’s" malevolence, the most appropriate way to proceed with any correspondence from "government" is with the presumption that it intends to diminish our rights. Therefore, we must read all "government" documents in the "government’s" language—legalese.

All Americans should have a copy of Black’s or some other law dictionary and it should be consulted to correctly identify what the "government" is really saying with every word on a "government" document. We should also presume that "government" knows exactly what it is doing on every document and never makes a mistake in its wording.

The current edition of Black’s in use is the eighth edition. One can usually find older editions at used book stores and they are extremely helpful in understanding what "government" documents are really saying. But the meanings of words have been changing significantly in recent editions. "Government" is evolving, mutating, sprouting wings and expanding its authority in all areas; its language is also evolving to justify its changing role in the lives of its U.S. citizens.

The seventh edition was red. This was the publisher’s way of serving notice that definitions in law were changing. The eighth edition of Black’s is black. There is more symbolism here. Perhaps it signifies the death of common law in American jurisprudence. Further, it shows that the courts no longer have the need to observe constitutional rights because they presume that all Americans are U.S. citizens on the U.S. plane who have no rights other than those granted to them by the U.S. "government."


Can you ever remember a time where interaction with "government" did not require your signature? Licenses, fines, fees, programs, citations, prosecutions, jail, jury duty, settlements—all agreements between us and "government" (and legally-binding agreements between people) require our signatures.

Why? "Government" cannot compel you to assume liability; it requires your consent to validate what it’s doing with you or to you. Attaching your signature is such a powerful, binding tool that you can instantly "plane" from one state to another—out of whatever state you are in to federal jurisdiction, for instance—on the authority of your signature alone.

What happens if you don’t sign a "government" document? You don’t receive due process. You may spend (a lot of) time in jail, be denied "benefits" or be the recipient of threats, duress and coercion but, ultimately, due process (the arbitrary, statutorially-defined, negotiable process based in deceit)* is not observed.

With each instance where a signature is demanded and denied there are causes and effects. These causes and effects are specific to each instance and are quite beyond the scope of this article.

One case in point, however, was brought up at the conference. Alford Adask (publisher of The Anti-Shyster) was held in jail without charges stemming from a paternity claim from a former girlfriend. Adask refused to sign anything and, 344 days later, after a lot of threats and intimidation, he was released without any charges being filed or an order to reappear in court.

Most people would rather sign their name than spend almost a year in what Adask described as a pretty horrible Missouri jail, but the point, I think, is well made: It is important to note that in every case where your signature is demanded and subsequently denied, everything about the process that begins with a signature changes.

At this point you should be experiencing an epiphany: "My signature is not just the scribble version of my name?"

Restricting your signature: Your signature creates everything. It has weight, impact and is, as far as the "government" is concerned, at least as important as your physical body. With this new understanding of your signature in mind, you should resist using it without first contemplating what you are signing and why. And then begin restricting its use with the understanding that an unrestricted signature is an open-ended invitation for opportunists.

Since your signature belongs to you and is your property, you have the authority to restrict its use.

At this juncture, let us differentiate a "signature" from an "autograph." An autograph is for signing birthday cards, guest registries and letters to friends and family members. Signatures are part of a legal process indicating, "I agree to the foregoing."

So, do you agree to that speeding ticket? Do you agree to the criminal charges against you? Do you agree with whatever it is you are signing and do you agree to all of the other conditions you are agreeing to whether you are aware of them or not? With whom are you agreeing?

We have all signed documents against our will. The problem is that, if we don’t make some indication of our duress, the document stands as being signed with our blessing and it is impossible, legally, to argue to the contrary.

Therefore, in all cases, we can restrict our signature. Again, the instances where we would sign a document with a restricted signature are too numerous to list in this article, but I can give a couple of "for instances."

In all cases, whatever you write to restrict your signature must be before, or above your signature.

If you are signing something under threat, duress or coercion, you can write that (it can also be initialed "under TDC").

If you are not agreeing with a document or its implications, you can write "for identification purposes only."

In some cases, our signature may be used as a security and traded on the open market because it implies a value (on negotiable instruments, for instance). You can write, "No assured value," "No liability accepted," or "not bondable."

The point of this section is to get you to realize that "government" requires your signature to get your consent and that your signature belongs to you. If "government" wants your signature, do not give it carte blanche authority to do with it whatever it desires: Restrict its use—you have that authority.

What do they want?

Whenever "government" asks you questions it wants something from you that it does not already have. The first question we should be asking ourselves when approached by agents of "government" is, "What do they want?"

First of all, you do not have to verbally volunteer anything to "government"; everything can be submitted in writing. You have the right to remain silent and can always reserve the right to counsel.

Secondly, whether receiving a written presentment or a verbal request for information, you must determine the purpose of the query. Particularly on written presentments, decode the request with a law dictionary. Make sure you know what is really being requested and answer accordingly. If you are not clear as to what is being asked, request clarification.

The tendency of humans is to emotionally respond to "government." "Government," on the other hand, is the absence of emotion; it’s just business. Things take time. "Government" knows things take time and, remember, "government" requires your consent before moving forward in its designs against you.

In many cases, "government" already knows everything it needs to know in the case it is building against you. Therefore, it is either trying to get you on the record as admitting something or going through a lot of trouble to capture that brass ring—your signature. Do not be tricked into a confession or giving up your signature. "Government" cannot initiate a campaign of deceit against you until you provide it with your signature.

Also, never adopt the attitude with "government" that, "I have nothing to hide." "Government" does not care about you, your children or your guilt or innocence; "government" wants your servitude and your acquiescence to its authority for the purpose of harvesting your energy.

The hardest thing for most people to accept is that "government" does not see them as live, flesh-and-blood beings with rights, dignity, hopes and dreams who only want to live their lives in a just world suitable for raising their children. To "government," we are merely paper fictions representing resources—row crops to be harvested and, in some cases, weeds to be killed.

Duped into the U.S.

In 1994, 10th Circuit Court Judge Marian Opala observed that the Constitution does not apply to 14th Amendment citizens. As stated previously, the "government" presumes we are all 14th Amendment (U.S.) citizens. To break the "government’s" presumption of our U.S. citizenship status, wherein we must beg the "government" to grant us the benefit of its statutory due process, we must prove our status as a citizen of the United States of America (or American national) who must be afforded privileges and immunities under the Constitution.

With each passing day, declaring or maintaining one’s status as an American national becomes more difficult to achieve—but it can be done. There are several reasons for this and they are all founded on one principle: Just as "government" cannot compel us to accept liability, it must provide remedies, or "escape clauses," with every "contract."

Social Security: Today U.S. citizens are "created" shortly after birth via the SS5 form enrolling infants into the Social Security system wherein they are assigned a Social Security number. In previous generations, the SS5 was signed just before becoming employed for the first time. Numerous attempts to obtain SS5 forms from the "government" have thus far been futile. "Government" refusal to release this document is a strong indication of its importance.

The Social Security Act was passed August 14, 1935. The office of the U.S. Attorney General (AG), at the request of the Committee of Ways and Means, drafted a "Memorandum of the Constitutionality of the ‘Social Security Bill’." Stated in the memorandum was the observation that the legal basis of the Social Security Bill is the taxing and spending power of the federal "government," which was not in dispute. However, the bill was being promoted as a tax to supply old age benefits and unemployment insurance, neither of which are authorities granted by the Constitution. Therefore, "...these tax provisions must be deemed invalid," wrote the office of the U.S. AG..

In other words, the Social Security bill is really direct taxation of Americans that was disguised as a social welfare bill and passed as an end-run around the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust Co (1895). In Pollock, the Supreme Court held that Congress did not have the authority to directly tax personal property or the income (rents) from personal property without apportionment by population among the several states. The Pollock decision overturned the Income Tax Act of 1894 and decided forever the limits of U.S. authority regarding direct taxation.

The true purpose of the Social Security Act has been revealing itself in stages since being passed under FDR. As of this writing, it has blossomed into the main nexus of how we "assent" to our being taxed beyond the lawful authority of "government." The SSN itself has become the number of access and identification that allows "government" to track our every move and is a perpetually updating indicator of our "election" to be U.S. citizens.

At the conference, it was mentioned that, upon reaching the age of 18, Americans have six months to declare their desire to unenroll from Social Security—a declaration that the young adult desires to be treated as an American national and not a U.S. citizen.

It was explained that the SS "account" was "opened" with a parent’s signature and, since the parent can no longer legally speak for their child-turned-adult, the Social Security Act (Title 42, U.S. Code) provides a remedy. As of this writing, I have not found the provision in question and the Social Security Administration has not answered my electronic query about it via its website.

For parents looking forward to their children being drafted, it appears that conscripted availability for military service is tied directly to their SSN. It appears that only U.S. citizens are eligible for the draft (See page 7). It would be a good idea to conduct the research necessary to locate this "remedy" and use it as a way to introduce your young son or daughter to the intricacies of citizenship—there is something about the threat of being sent to a foreign land to die for corporate causes that tends to make young people more open to suggestion.

U.S. Postal Service: The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) is the single worst nexus that keeps us in the U.S.

The USPS adopted its present form in 1970. While we enjoy the benefits of using the USPS to deliver our private correspondence, it also acts as a witness to process service from the "government." The ability of "government" to use the USPS in this capacity starts with our signature when we open an account with the USPS to have mail delivered. If you can stop the USPS, it is very difficult for the "government" to serve you with any notice of a claim.

By attaching our signature, we give the USPS the authority to open an account. No one, not even the "government," can send us anything—unless we open an account.

There are a lot of theories on how to enjoy the benefits of getting and receiving mail while not being personally responsible for and associated with an open account with the USPS.

The zip code is a federal zone identifier; zip+4 is the federalized number for the specific USPS account. Placing the zip code, or the zip+4 in parentheses, brackets or in a box theoretically places the zip "outside" the "contract" in legal contemplation. Whether it does or not is speculative since the "benefit" of the account—mail delivered from one address to another—has been received by both the sender and receiver.

Another theory is for American nationals to use the four-line international/non-domestic sequence (name, locale, full state name and country [US of A]) instead of the three-line domestic mail sequence (name, locale, two-letter state abbreviation/zip code).

It would appear that the "government" would have few difficulties identifying individuals with USPS accounts for the purpose of perfecting service or as evidence of U.S. citizen status. So, deviating from the prescribed style for addressing correspondence alone is not enough to disprove U.S. citizenship. However, if you are an American in every other way, you must carefully address correspondence in such a way that you don’t "plane" over to the U.S. side.

In decades past, one merely paid the fee and opened an account in any name he desired without being required to show ID or proof of residency. Today, two forms of positive ("government"-issued) ID and proof of residency are necessary to open an account with the USPS.

Provisions in the Patriot Act have made it much more difficult for an American to open an account with the USPS without being physically linked to it as a U.S. citizen.

To become truly informed on the complexities of our relationship with the USPS, one must read both the Domestic Mail Manual and the International Mail Manual.

Banking: Upon opening a bank account (again, your signature opens the account) you agree to everything in Title 26 of the U.S. Code and everything else pertaining to the federal bankruptcy, taxation and availability of your financial records to "government" agents for inspection.

By opening and using a bank account to write and cash checks, deposit and withdraw cash or obtain loans, you are making a record of your usage of federal reserve notes as a medium of exchange. Each time you use a federal reserve note you "plane" into the U.S.

There is virtually no way to perfect your status as an American national while holding a bank account, benefitting from banking services and/or using federal reserve notes.

Interfacing with banks, bankers and the services they provide is when it is advisable to restrict your signature with the understanding that your signature indicates your agreement with everything on a document—both written and implied.

As a hint, because this issue can become very complicated and demands that you obtain more knowledge than is provided in this article, all financial instruments, even the laws that govern their existence, are negotiable. Your open-ended, unrestricted signature implies your assent to certain values and liabilities. Restricting your signature from being used to indicate an assured value or the acceptance of liability is advisable.

Another hint is that we are forced to use the banking system, the unsecured, fiat paper currency and the paper financial instruments used to represent them because there are no options available for us to facilitate many of our private transactions

As an aside, it has been demonstrated that you can "be" in the US of A one moment, jump into the U.S. in the next moment and then jump back into the US of A. It is all very confusing and to successfully negotiate the ground rules of our schizophrenic existence we must be aware of our words and actions and their potential implications to our status in the eyes of "government" at all times.

Licenses: Licenses are acquired to obtain permission to engage in an activity that would otherwise be prohibited. All licenses granted by all states place you squarely in the U.S.

The key to enjoying a license-free existence is to arrange your life in such a manner that you are not required to obtain licenses or keep them in good standing.

The most exhaustively researched and ardently protested license is the drivers license. The drivers license serves many valuable functions for "government" beyond establishing driving competency. First of all, it’s granted on the basis of a signature, contractually binding the licensee to all the laws found in the states’ motor vehicle codes and makes him subject to fines and/or imprisonment for "nonperformance."

The driver’s license (and accompanying vehicle registration and proof of insurance) grants the licensee "permission" to enjoy the "benefit" of traveling from state to state on the public highways. It contains information about the holders’ physical appearance and physical address for identification purposes. The drivers license also ties the physical body of the holder to information found in the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) computer which stores the entire criminal history and driving record of the paper fiction operating under the obligations implied with the license. The NCIC computer also serves as a gateway to other information databases containing the electronic record of the holders’ entire lives.

The value of the drivers license to "government" should now be apparent as it goes quite beyond demonstrating driver competency. The incessant encroachment of federal authority into state affairs has reached such a point that Congress passed a bill in May, 2005, ordering the development of a national ID. The national ID is tied to state drivers licenses and increases their identification and tracking abilities with modern technology.

Most "right to travel" activists know that licenses are only required for those driving for commercial purposes. The Constitution does not authorize "government" to prohibit our right to travel. But once again, through trickery, we assent to driver licensure with our signatures.

The drivers license issue is a very complex picture involving vehicles, vehicle titles and certificates thereof, manufacturers’ statements of origin, the federal bankruptcy, citizenship and law enforcement.

For the purposes of this article, the "government’s" presumption is that it must use the legitimate police powers of the state to protect the people from commercial users of the nation’s highways and byways. The most efficient way to do this is to license and register cars and drivers.

We have come a long way from driving’s humble beginnings. Just prior to the national bankruptcy being declared in 1933, a vehicle "title" was nothing more than the bill of sale. Title holders would then seek a registration number from the secretary of state for liability purposes.

By 1933, states were creating "certificates of title" for vehicles and holding evidence of true title. This simple trick fooled people into thinking they still owned their vehicles when, in fact, the state had given itself a higher claim to them as an asset.

This may be another aspect of the 14th Amendment where the states are liable for the debts of the federal "government." Since the federal "government" effectively declared bankruptcy in 1933, the states were obligated to put up our assets as collateral on the on-going line of credit being afforded the federal "government" to stay in business.

It was also at about the same time (and, presumably for the same reasons) that land patents and allodial titles were no longer issued with the purchase of real property. Property "owners" are now issued "statutory deeds" and actual evidence of title is held either by the state or by the banks.

The foregoing begs the question: "What is the ultimate proof of property ownership?" The answer, quite simply, is the right to use and dispose of property as one sees fit.

With regard to vehicles, unlicensed, uninsured drivers may be arrested and their vehicles impounded where exorbitant impound fees accumulate until they are paid. Failure to pay the impound fees will result in the vehicle being sold at auction. No signature or transfer of title is necessary as the state already holds it and the new "owner" will receive a new certificate of title.

With regard to real property, failure to pay property taxes will result in foreclosure and sale at auction. No signature or change of title is needed here, either, as the state already holds it and merely issues a statutory deed to the new "owner."

Further adding to the crime, in many states, revenues generated at auction go to pay the delinquent taxes, fees and penalties and any monies left are divided among the taxing districts servicing the property in question—the former "owner" gets nothing and loses all equity.

As of this month, the national debt is about $7.8 trillion. That does not count the "government’s" long-term obligations.

Question: Does secretly holding title to every asset and resource in America equal enough collateral to cover the national debt?

Justice: Per Title 18, U.S. Code, all crimes are commercial in nature.

This is fitting since the District of Columbia incorporated in 1871 (or 1878 according to some researchers). The Constitution was allegedly sucked into the municipal code of incorporated Washington, D.C., where it has undergone significant changes that gave birth to most of the foregoing.

At present time, to our knowledge, all cities, states and counties are incorporated enterprises. There are only two purposes for incorporation: Maximize profits and minimize personal liability.

Since all crimes are commercial, they are negotiable and bondable. Judges, therefore, are in the business of judging. This fact alone illuminates why nearly everyone seeking justice in a courtroom based upon facts and evidence comes away disappointed (or imprisoned).

Since the "government" presumes we are all 14th Amendment citizens and we generally do nothing to break the presumption, we are afforded no privileges and immunities under the organic Constitution; we are granted due process under U.S. Code while under federal jurisdiction or the states’ rules of criminal and civil procedure when brought before state courts.

But courts are all federal now: All matters of law light at the door of the U.S. Department of Justice or are ruled on by the U.S. Supreme Court. Wherever the judicial buck stops is the proof of ultimate legal authority.

The ALL CAPS name: There has been a lot of speculation as to why "government" insists upon spelling our names in all capital letters on "government" documents. The issue continues to become more controversial with every unsatisfied attempt to compel "government" bureaucrats to simply spell our names in a grammatically-correct manner.

The general bureaucratic excuses for all caps names is either that it’s merely a "style" issue, or part of the computer programming that generates all caps names. Why, then, are public servants so resistant to changing the "style" to accommodate the wishes of a citizen or why would "government" promote such a uniformity of grammatically-incorrect computer programming all across the country?

"Government" has not been able to satisfactorily support its claims that style and computer programming demand the spelling of our names in all caps.

So, we are on our own in attempts to find out why "government" agencies prefer to spell our names in all caps. The multitude of theories on the all-caps-name subject boil down to one common concept: "Government" itself is a fiction and, therefore, can only recognize (do business with/regulate/enroll/draft/prosecute/hire) another fiction.

Since our flesh and blood selves are not fictions at all, the trick "government" performs is to convince flesh and blood humans that the all caps name, which is a paper fiction created by "government," is really them for the purpose of "doing business." This is always accomplished with our signature.

Proof that the all caps name profoundly affects how "government" interfaces with us is evidenced by one of the most ardent seekers of our true capacities as men and fictions of "government" I have ever met.

This man has managed to achieve "official" recognition of his true Christian name in the Superior Court for the State of Washington.

He opened his own, non-adversarial court case, supplied the court with an affidavit proving that he was who he’s claiming to be and that he is not the all-caps fiction. The judge upheld his argument by signing an order in recognition of his true Christian name.

The man in question is a student of, among many other freedom-oriented subjects, the right-to-travel issue. He has been arrested several times for not having a state-issued "license" to drive. Now he travels with a certified copy of the court order acknowledging his name and it is not the same (all caps, last/first/middle) name the police have on the NCIC computer. He is no longer being arrested at the scene and the original moving violations that may have precipitated the stops are being dismissed.

He has also transformed himself from being a "registered voter" into being a "sovereign elector." He created and filed his own voter registration card with the pertinent information and his correctly spelled name, all of which has been accepted by his county and its published list of "voters."

For the last four years, he has signed everything in his true Christian name (First name then middle name—upper and lower case [with the proper restrictions, of course]) and even his friends have become accustomed to calling him by his true Christian name. He hyphenates the name so that "government" cannot goof up which of those two names comes first.

Notary Public

Though not much discussion was held on this subject, it was stated that not even notaries are aware of the power vested in the office of notary. We were instructed to get familiar with the historical implications of notary and how those implications affect matters today. Apparently, the office of notary can be lawfully used to our extreme benefit as we seek our paths toward being American nationals.


Another subject discussed is passports. U.S. citizens are provided with dark blue passports which afford them the rights and protections of a U.S. citizen (which, as we have found, are not that enviable). But, it is believed (and several people are working on it at this time) that you can petition the U.S. State Department for an American national passport. The discussion arose after one man noted that he had actually seen an American national passport and made a general inquiry as to whether or not anyone else had seen or heard of one.

It is believed that an American national travels with greater privileges and immunities than a U.S. citizen. Such a passport could also be used as prima facie evidence of citizenship status that may be helpful in a lot of areas.

Again, the American national passport issue is under investigation at this time. Though there is probably no harm in contacting the U.S. state Department and asking what requirements exist to obtain an American national passport, unless you really know what you are doing, it is advisable to await confirmation of the process and more detailed instructions on how best to proceed. If too many people attempt to blunder through the process, the "government" may amend the process to make it much more difficult for us to qualify for American national passports.

End notes:

We were given a Republic but we could not keep her. The responsibility of our lost Republic lies in the hearts and souls of those in whom the power was vested: The people.

The research memorialized by Foundation for Rights Director Ralph Boryszewski in "Treason" (see backpage) shows that George Washington’s very first official act as the first elected president of the United States of America was an act of treason. Encouraged by the people’s apparent ambivalence toward the rights (and responsibilities) they had just been "given" per the Constitution for the United States of America, the acts of treason have continued in an unbroken chain that has delivered us to the doorstep of slavery 218 years later.

By whose perverse logic does silence on issues we know nothing about, have never been informed of and have no reason to suspect even exist, justify the presumption on the part of "government" that we know about them all and, through silence and/or signature, our physical selves are converted into paper fictions through which it claims the authority to govern us?

Judging by the idiotic rules by which we are playing today, our gravest mistake as a people has been allowing the lawyers to take control of all branches of "government."

Our folly where lawyers are concerned is magnified by our insistence upon using them to handle our civil affairs when simply being honorable would nullify our demand for their services.

It’s all fine and dandy that we read all the right books, go to all the right seminars, buy into all the right programs and shelter our assets in all the right trusts in times of relative peace. But when "government," with its limitless line of credited resources and covens of attorneys declares war upon you and forces you to defend your honor on a battlefield of its own design and construction (benignly referred to as a courtroom), it will be you—not the books, sovereignty gurus or trusts—that will be required to defend your beliefs and actions; it is you that had better be prepared to defend your sovereignty by knowing it and feeling it with every fiber of your being. If you are not equal to the challenges sovereignty demands of you, the "government" lawyers in the "government" courts will spot your weaknesses and exploit them and you will be punished.

There is no "program" for successfully extricating oneself from entanglements with "government." Anyone who claims to have such a program is lying. Each case (that is each American), comes with a unique set of temporal circumstances and a unique set of spiritual circumstances. In the temporal sense no man is able to design one template to insure success in all cases; in the spiritual sense, God uses events in our lives to teach us to be faithful and not place the entirety of our trust in man.

The purpose of our convening on June 18-20, 2005, was to let the chaff of patriot sovereignty myths blow away in SE Oregon wind to reveal the foundational truths upon which we can proceed with our lives, as best as we can, under the current set of political circumstances.

The main lesson learned that excellent weekend is that it is the sole responsibility of every living man, woman (and, sad to say child), to decide where they fit into the scheme of things and then go out and acquire the knowledge necessary to occupy and defend that self-determined niche. The first rule of sovereignty is acceptance that you are in charge, for better or worse.

Why attempt to live with the system at all?

It was asked why we should spend so much time learning how to apply remedies the system provides for those desiring to make an election to be American nationals when the system itself is so corrupt.

The response was sobering: The masses in America have devolved to such an immoral state that the only thing keeping them from raping, murdering and robbing everything in sight is the system.

It may not be a good system and it is the system that facilitated the devolution of our people into a pit of selfish, ignorant immorality but, ironically, if and when the system fails...God help us all (Hollywood even gave us a preview with the Mel Gibson movie Mad Max).

That means we have an even higher calling than simply arranging our lives so that we can live in the US of A. We must arrange our lives so that we can convince others to live in the same country. It is pretty nice in the US of A because there is no such thing as criminals in that glorious state.

Thursday, March 19, 2009

At the edge of the abyss - When everything is never enough.

What is Usury? How does it work? Why is it so harmful? Is it in fact, harmful?

Usury is an abstract concept, a secular abstract concept, that when applied to our physical or concrete reality the practice of Usury transfers wealth from the victim of Usury to the Usurer.

In the Orthodoxy, Usury has been defined as the unlawful or excessive charging of interest. This definition is in fact obfuscation, an obfuscation in order to mislead the victims of Usury to accept the charging of a "fair" rate of interest. I put quotes around the word fair, because as it will become evident to you, the rate of interest is only secondary to the basic and fundamental premise of Usury, which is, that the victim of Usury has no escape once he has been ensnared in an Usurious contract.

In simple words, Usury is no more than a "no-win" game for the victim of Usury, which the only logical thing to do for the victim of Usury is to choose not to play; that is to say, NOT to become a victim of Usury.

In the usual context, Usury is practiced and found in financial matters, but in effect, any contract that the sole outcome is at the discretion, and benefit of one party is a Usurious contract. The Usurer is heavily dependent on his victim's ignorance, because if it was not for his victim's ignorance, the Usurer would have to resort to an alternative method of earning his sustenance.

So successful have become Usurers in our present system of living, and their practice so pervasive, that it permeates each and every aspect of our lives. The Usurers leaving nothing to chance, have gone and developed a system where the ignorant is taught and inculcated with inimical values in preparation for them to readily become victims of Usury. The ignorant, lacking an innate reference point other than their instinct of self-preservation in the event of physical danger, have no defenses against the Usurers' dogmatic and institutionalized system of pedagogy where such inimical conceptual values are instilled on their ignorant victims.

Going further, Usury coupled with unfettered greed leads to the systematic destruction of each and everyone on the planet, including the Usurers themselves. To personify this coupling of Usury with unfettered greed, picture a morbidly obese person inflicted with Gluttony, that is to say someone whom eats themselves to death; and that Ladies and Gentlemen, is our collective destiny if we do not reform our institutions.

Our legal institutions, so firmly ensnared in the Usurers' clutches, cannot be expected to provide Justice or relief for the mass of ignorant victims of Usury that cannot even articulate an affirmative defense.

What to do? It all comes down to you, inform yourself, learn how to fight and defend your rights, teach your children. Learn and know what is your best interest, again, teach your children to know what is in their best interest. The Usurers have no power over you or me other than whatever power you or I are willing to give them.

If you like to know more, please write us an email to join our newsletter at

As always, wishing you the best for you and your family,


Saturday, October 04, 2008

Zeitgeist: Addendum

To all: Please note, that whatever I post, it is for you to make a critical analysis of its contents and does not carry my implied endorsement.

Thursday, May 08, 2008


America: Collective Delusion
A Long Strange Trip

by Tom Hyland

I have lived in New Mexico for over 40 years, and 18 of those years in Santa Fe County. Most of my friends are self-created types who work for themselves, as this is also my lifestyle. Having made a living since the age of 17 as a sign maker and graphic designer has enabled me to appreciate the freedoms my lonely schedule affords me, and I have attracted similar life-styled friends who are fiercely independent and curious as to the workings of our government and encroachments upon their rights. It is my impression that individuals who remain employed throughout their lives are less likely to have the time to study, question, or oppose authority. The true reality of the original intent of our nation is that We The People are the authority. All agents, officers, and officials of this nation are our servants, but because it is human nature that a government unchecked will grow into an abusive and dangerous entity, the servants of this nation must pledge an oath to defend and protect the Constitution, which is the foundation of all law and the guarantee that your Rights will remain inalienable.

Part One
In my studies I learned many years ago that the driving code is commercial in nature. I obtained my first driver’s license at the age of 14 after completing a driver’s training class at Roswell High and have been a licensed driver until July 26, 2004. On that day, I visited the New Mexico Motor Vehicle Division headquarters in Santa Fe and returned my license, registrations, license plates, Certificates of Title, and anything else that had the word MVD printed upon it. I requested the secretary to print out the latest summary of my “Client History” which defined me as a “Non-Driver” with one surrender and no violations.

By law, the only individuals who are required to license themselves and their vehicles are those who are involved in the commercial activity of transporting goods or paying passengers for a living. We The People have a Right to own the cars we have purchased and travel upon the public Right of Way. However, it has been written since the times of horse and buggy that the commercial activity of transportation shall be a regulated privilege. “The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Thomas v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

In my meeting with the directors of the MVD, I opened the books of laws defining these commercial activities and read aloud certain passages describing jurisdiction and intent. I asked the directors if they could prove anywhere, in written law, that the Citizen must relinquish his right to travel and subvert that freedom into a paid-for privilege. The directors were unable to interject any proof at all except to say I am welcome to my opinions. I was reading from a page titled “Definitions,” and I pointed out that the title atop this page wasn’t “Opinions.” From New Mexico Administrative Code Title 18, section, is the definition “Driving of Motor Vehicles”: “The department of public safety hereby adopts Part 392 of Title 49 of the Federal Regulations with no amendments.” I offered the page from 49 CFR 392 for them to peruse, which begins with the headline “Driving of Commercial Motor Vehicles.” At that point the directors went silent, and I told them I would return the following Monday and close my account.

About two months later, I was detained in a traffic stop by a Santa Fe police officer whose probable cause for stopping me was her observation that there was no license plate on my pickup truck. I showed this officer an Affidavit, executed on the day of July 24, attesting to the items returned to the MVD. I showed the officer the printout from the MVD database of my status as a non-driver. And, I produced the same definitions from Title 18 and the Code of Federal Regulations I mentioned in the previous paragraph. This officer was confused and unable to reach a decision without calling her commanding officer, and this other fellow arrived shortly thereafter. He read over the same facts, laws, and evidence, and ordered that my truck should be towed away and held in ransom until I became, once again, a participant within the commercial driving codes defined by Title 18. At the moment the front wheels of my truck were lifting off the ground, the original officer said, “So, tell me some more about your rights.” I replied, “These are your rights, too, but you told me earlier that you didn’t want to hear anything about the Constitution or my rights.” She replied, “Yeah . . . that’s correct.”

I immediately phoned Sheriff Greg Solano to inform him of this attack upon my rights and my property. The sheriff, in America, is the only elected police officer, and he has the authority, and duty, to protect and defend his citizenry against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The sheriff has the authority and power to eject any agent from any federal agency operating without court ordered warrant, be it FBI, CIA, IRS, ATF, ICE, or any other problematic initials, that are operating within the boundaries of his county jurisdiction. Every phone call to my sheriff went unanswered. Over the next two weeks, I wrote the sheriff two letters. In a letter to me, Sheriff Solano replied, “. . . until such time as a court of law rules that citizens may declare themselves sovereign, I cannot act to assist you in this matter. As you well know, I am sworn to uphold the constitution and the laws of the federal, state, and local governments. As part of that responsibility, I must rely on court rulings on matters such as yours.” We The People created the sheriff. We created the courts. We created the judges. And there is no court that has the authority to determine if we are sovereign, or not. Sheriff Solano wrote that he must uphold ALL laws. The lawful definition of a law officer is the first paragraph to NMSA 29 (New Mexico Statutes Annotated), titled “Law Enforcement.” It reads, “29-1-1. It is hereby declared to be the duty of every sheriff, deputy sheriff, constable and every other peace officer to investigate all violations of the criminal laws of the state which are called to the attention of any such officer or of which he is aware, and it is also declared the duty of every such officer to diligently file a complaint or information, if the circumstances are such as to indicate to a reasonably prudent person that such action should be taken, and it is also declared to be his duty to cooperate with and assist the attorney general, district attorney or other prosecutor, if any, in all reasonable ways. Failure to perform his duty in any material way shall subject such officer to removal from office and payment of all costs of prosecution.”

It was 30 days later when my truck was returned to me. The third letter I wrote to the tow truck operator, apprising him of his criminal activity of accepting stolen property under the lawless orders of the Santa Fe Police Department, and their likely unwillingness to pay for his defense in an upcoming civil trial, convinced the man that it would be best to remove this truck from his possession. Not knowing when my property would be returned, I had to buy another truck, as I live almost 15 miles from Santa Fe, and I had no practical means to work, or buy food, or attend to my affairs. I need to work, to earn money; however, driving to work is not a commercial activity. If my only activity were transporting signs, then I would be involved in commercial transportation. Driving to work or the grocery store, or taking a bowl of soup to your grandmother is your right.

But . . . is it really my truck? When you go to a car dealership, and if you pay the entire amount, no financing through a bank or loan company, you are given the “Title of Origin” or “Manufacturer’s Statement of Origin.” This is the true title to the car. The car manufacturer builds the car and owns this property until it is delivered to the car dealership. The car and “MSO” is handed over, for the wholesale payment, and now, the dealership owns the car. If the customer purchases the car with full payment, he is given possession of the car and the perfect title, the MSO. Unwittingly, that individual seeks out the nearest MVD office, hands over the perfect title in exchange for the MVD fabricated “Certificate of Title,”–it says “MVD” on it–and now the state owns your car in a commercial privilege defined as “driving.” Your full compliance is met when you attach a license plate, with registration sticker, to the bumper, and you carry the driver’s license on your person. This is what gives the cops the authority to have your car towed away, because, in reality, the state owns your car. If somebody shoves a gun in your face and demands your wallet, that is called “robbery.” If your property or your money has been stolen away without your knowledge or consent, that is called “conversion.” To have been duped into a situation where you unwittingly waive your rights and ownership of property and convert those precious belongings into paid-for privilege is “fraud.” To be held before a judge, or by armed police, and to be forced to pay fines or suffer imprisonment, is “coercion,” “racketeering,” and “extortion.” I have brought charges against 34 individuals, working within the machinery of government of the State of New Mexico, and I will say more about that later.

On January 15, 2005, I appeared at the Santa Fe Municipal Court for a pre-trial hearing to review the charges brought against me during that traffic stop in September. The prosecuting attorney for the City of Santa Fe, Art Michael, was stunned when I described to him that there was no nexus connecting me to the New Mexico MVD. Mr. Michael asked me if he may shake my hand. I allowed this, and he said, “You are the first person, ever, to come in here and tell me this.” All charges against me, no license, no registration, no insurance, were dismissed, with prejudice.

On June 23, 2005, I was detained late one evening when a New Mexico State Police officer observed that one of my headlights was defective. Only minutes earlier, I became aware of the headlight, and was turning my brights on, and off, when other cars neared, and was intent on returning home and fixing this light immediately. This traffic stop resulted in three citations, once again, for the identical charges listed above. However, considering me walking home several miles in the dark, the officer waived the truck being towed. In the ensuing months leading to a trial by jury, I mailed the state cop so much information regarding the fraudulent nature of the MVD, and his own upcoming performance at my trial to testify against me, that this individual quit the police and became a security guard.

I requested specifically that my rights to a trial by jury be secured, and this was granted by the presiding judge, Sandra Miera. However, as the trial approached, I asked the judge to certify a subpoena that called for Santa Fe Prosecuting Attorney Art Michael to appear and testify on my behalf. I wanted Mr. Michael to describe to the jury how he dismissed the identical charges now brought against me once again, in my previous appearance at the Santa Fe Municipal Court. When Judge Miera was presented with the subpoena to certify, she recused herself from the case. And within minutes, the case was reassigned to Judge George Anaya, but right to trial by jury was subverted to a “hearing.” A hearing is a judicial venue in which your fate is decided by only one person, a judge. The word “hearing” does not appear in the Constitution, because of its biased and unfair nature, and the framers of our Constitution underlined that only true and fair due process of law could be met within a trial by jury.

On October 12, 2005, the hearing regarding arraignment for my second incident was conducted at the Santa Fe County Magistrate Court. The entire affair ended in less than 30 seconds when Judge Anaya dismissed all charges, with prejudice. “Dismissed with prejudice” means that the matter has been put to rest, forever, with no grounds to ever open or re-examine again. Dismissed “without” prejudice leaves the case vulnerable for further controversy.

On the afternoon of September 22, 2006, I was near the plaza in Santa Fe and had just locked my truck and was walking away when a Santa Fe police officer drove up and announced, “Hey . . . you were not wearing a seat belt.” I asked him, “Isn’t it a bit late to be discussing whether I was wearing a seat belt or not?” He didn’t answer that question but asked to see all of my credentials. When I told him where my credentials went, and how long ago, the officer retreated to his police cruiser to confer with headquarters on the radio. Whoever he was speaking with told him to not issue any tickets, only warnings. The “warning” section of the traffic citation states that you are admitting that laws have been violated, but there will be no fines issued or court dates to meet. I refused to admit that I had broken any laws and signed “All Rights Reserved” just before my signature.

When you receive a traffic ticket, there is a headline atop the page that reads, “Uniform Traffic Citation.” Uniform means this is the same procedure, the same laws, the same jurisdiction from state to state. It is the same company doing business over every square inch of this country. This isn’t only a New Mexico fraud, but a fraud that we suffer in every state in the union. An unpaid parking ticket in Oregon, from five years ago, will prevent you from renewing a driver’s license in Rhode Island tomorrow afternoon. With a driver’s license, you have no right to be on the road, you have no right to park your car on the street.

After these three incidents had passed, I considered the state of affairs which is my life. Having read and absorbed the Constitution and a great many driving codes, plus other laws regarding income taxes, building codes, and further studies too numerous to mention in this article, I came to the conclusion that I am very much like a human yo-yo. My public servants will continue forever to yank me up and down like a toy on a string, unless I devise a civil suit that will expose the treachery and deceit of this fraud that has been robbing the American people for over 90 years. “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” Miller v. U.S. 230 F 486, 489.

Part Two
Part One of this story described the many facts, laws, and evidence I have acquired regarding the jurisdiction of “driving,” which is defined in every state as “driving a commercial motor vehicle.” The only individuals required to hold a driver’s license are those involved in the commercial transportation of goods or paying passengers. This reality has been underlined by over 100 Supreme Court cases, federal and state, upholding and protecting our Right to Travel. In July 2004, I closed my account at MVD when I surrendered every item fabricated by that agency and received proof from their official data base of that transaction. Since then, I have incurred great expenses, losses, and inconvenience, however, I knew that I would encounter many obstacles on the road back to Our Liberty.

In preparing a body of evidence that could be used in a court of law to prove my case, I began issuing a series of letters addressed to my public servants. The First Amendment to the Constitution states, in part, “Congress shall make no law prohibiting the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” I wrote several letters, and finally, affidavits, explaining the jurisdiction of commercial traffic code, how I had ended all contracts with the MVD, and the ensuing events that unfolded. These letters and affidavits were addressed to the Governor, the entire Supreme Court, the Attorney General, Secretary of State, Speaker of the House, Senate Pro Tem, Director of MVD, Secretary of Taxation and Revenue, Mayor of Santa Fe, all city counselors, Chief of Police, arresting officers, and several other individuals working within their personal and private capacities within the government agencies of New Mexico.

Each and every letter was specified individually to notify and remind that public official of his or her personal connectedness to the machinery of government, and his or her duty and oath, which would enable them to receive a complaint and then rectify the problem. The letters, and then affidavits, were a primer of facts, laws, and evidence that would inform that official of the specific nature of the commercial driving code and the sovereign Citizen’s Right to Travel as a guaranteed life right and not a paid-for privilege.

As I described in Part One, the driving code dissolves your Right to own the very car you paid for, and your Right to free passage upon the streets and highways of this land. When you receive a traffic ticket, there is a headline atop the page that reads, “Uniform Traffic Citation.” Uniform means this is the same procedure, the same laws, the same jurisdiction from state to state. It is the same company doing business over every square inch of this country. This isn’t only a New Mexico fraud, but a fraud that we suffer in every state in the union. An unpaid parking ticket in Oregon, from five years ago, will prevent you from renewing a driver’s license in Rhode Island tomorrow afternoon. With a driver’s license, you have no right to be on the road, you have no right to park your car on the street.

Not one individual replied or answered any of my letters. Nobody replied to the affidavits, though they were warned that you cannot rebut an unanswered, unchallenged affidavit by the time it is presented as evidence in a court of law. It was a peculiar and unsettling feeling to me that not one of the 34 individuals I wrote felt any compulsion or duty to respond or inquire regarding the injustice of this wide-ranging malady, nor did anyone express any thoughts regarding my well-being or concerns.

The civil case titled “Thomas Hyland v. the machinery of government of the State of New Mexico” was filed at the New Mexico First Judicial District Court on December 27, 2006. From the paragraph “Relief Demanded” is this: “Plaintiff Hyland demands that the rule of valid and Constitutional law be reinstated in this instant case, to accomplish the following: (a) Defendants be penalized for their fraud, collusion, and conspiracy to commit fraud, conversion, extortion, racketeering, and conspiracy to deny and deprive Plaintiff of his Constitutional Rights, and the Court direct the Defendants to use their authorities to correct, forever, these crimes upon Plaintiff and all other constituents of Defendants. (b) Stop, permanently, the unwarranted detainment of motorists, upon the alleged probable cause that they do not display Motor Vehicle Division license plates, registration stickers, or seat belt compliance, as these codes only pertain to the “licensed driver,” that individual who is involved in the commerce of transporting goods or paying passengers upon the streets and highways of America as an occupation. (c) Restore Constitutional governance to the State of New Mexico, as intended by the Constitutions, and to restore a Constitutional Republic, as required by Article IV, Section 4, of the Constitution of the United States of America.” (d) Award plaintiff damages for pain, suffering, mental anguish, and emotional distress arising from the unlawful deprivation of his Constitutionally guaranteed Rights, which are priceless . . . .”

On Friday afternoon, May 11, 2007, I was compelled to appear at the unconstitutional venue of a hearing, (read Part One to better understand the unconstitutional nature of a hearing) presided by Judge James A. Hall. Purpose of the hearing was to rule on Motions to Claim and Exercise Constitutional Rights, Motions for Default Judgment against 17 Defendants who failed to answer the case, motion to proceed towards Trial by Jury against the one individual who did answer, that being Sheriff Greg Solano, and Right to Trial by Jury, which is granted in the federal and state Constitutions. Counsel for the defendants filed motions to dismiss and motions denying proper service for all defendants. Judge Hall committed sedition, insurrection, and treason when he: (a) denied the Constitutional Rights Motion, which means he denied my right to claim rights, the Constitutions, all Rights guaranteed therein, his oath, and due process of law; and (b) denied the Right of trial by jury without fee. Both the federal and state constitutions protect the Right to trial by jury. If you’ve read this entire article this far, then you probably know what I’m getting at. You cannot be made to pay for a right. The New Mexico Constitution, Article II, Section 12 states: “The right of trial by jury as it has heretofore existed shall be secured to all and remain inviolate.” The efforts of Hall extracting fees from the Citizenry to exercise basic Rights guaranteed in the Constitutions could be compared to the moneychangers who set up business in the temple.

Hall stated he wanted the case determined on its merits, which is this story I am telling, yet, he dismissed Sheriff Solano from the case without any consideration, fact, or law, whatsoever, for the merits of the case concerning Solano. Hall ignored the Certificate as to the State of the Record, attested to by the court clerk, stating that 17 defendants were in default, and in contradiction to court rules, denied my Motion for Default Judgment. Hall stated that the Supreme Court can modify, restrict, or overturn the Constitution, and can “interpret” the Constitution, which again, is sedition, insurrection, and treason. Hall disobeyed the Code of Judicial Conduct, including the requirements to be unbiased, fair, just, and impartial in the conduct of his duties before the court.

There has been a second hearing slated for June 8, to determine if the case shall move towards trial concerning 33 remaining defendants, though 17 of those defendants were certified “defaulted” by the court clerk, and thus, lawfully, there would be no further controversy regarding those individuals, except that Hall has revived their status as defendants in cause, in an attempt to erase their record of default, which places a fraud upon the court, and further exemplifies Hall’s behavior as traitor to his oath and the people he swore to serve and protect. Diligent work has been accomplished by me and several Citizen witnesses at this hearing, and we have filed charges against James Hall for treason. “Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.” Olmstead v. United States, 227 U.S. 438.

The actions of “Affidavits of Observation of Treason, Active in the First Judicial District Court by James Hall, Acting as Judge, Pursuant to his Oath,” delivered to state and federal officers, should bring this man down and remove him from any claim to position or retirement benefit. However, the performance of Mr. Hall, and his dismissal, might be only the beginning of the results of corruption that has been festering within our Judicial District Courts. If you visit the public records of Dun & Bradstreet, the corporate financial data base, you will learn that the First Judicial District Court has incorporated itself as a “Private Company” since the year 2002. Its chief executive officer is one Patricio Serna, who may be the same Patricio Serna who sits as a member of the New Mexico Supreme Court. It appears that every District Court in New Mexico has incorporated and is open for business, privately. This might explain how the case I presented, based solely on facts, evidence, and Constitutional law, has been attacked by “opinions” and statutes inferior to the Constitutions. Also, a “conflict of interest” would be an enormous understatement to describe a “court” where the “CEO” is one of the defendants in my case.

There is a growing interest among the supportive parties to this case to reveal the putrid rot that is being flaunted on public record as a court that displays total indifference and arrogance regarding its original duties and purpose, which are to uphold the Constitutions, the People’s Rights guaranteed therein, and to serve justice. I thought the courts were for the people, but alas, we have had these stolen away and now they belong to small and private groups. The major goal of any company is to reap profits for its officers and shareholders. In view of this diversion from the original intent of our Constitutional justice system, it is perhaps inevitable that Mr. Hall would develop a clouded view as to where his allegiance lies.

1. Here follows the outcome of my story, “A Long Strange Trip.”:
June 8, 2007 arrived and I appeared at the New Mexico First Judical District Court to hear the defendants’ pleadings to have the rest of this affair dismissed against all and everyone. In spite of the fact that 17 of the remaining 33 defendants had attained the status of default, qualified by the Court Clerk himself, Judge James Hall dismissed all charges against every defendant, without providing any fact, law or evidence to explain their innocense.

“Whatever gave you the idea you could come into this court and attempt such a case?” Judge Hall asked me.

“The First Amendment to the Constitution states I have a right to address my grievences to my government,” I replied.

Judge Hall smiled at me and asked, “Yeah??… where does it say we have to answer you?”

That’s a pretty good answer, folks. Remember, this court is NOT here to provide you due process or justice. It is a private company, listed as such on Dun & Bradstreet, and it exists only to provide financial profit to its shareholders. And guess what? You ain’t one of ‘em! Would you like to learn how far reaching this malady has spread? Go to the website of Dun & Bradsteet, type in the search for your local court, and see what comes up on the screen. EVERY court in America has incorporated into a private company. The phrase “Court” of wherever is just as phony as our money with the headline “United States of America.” Our money in’t American, and would be more accurately presented with the title of “Rockefeller & Co,” and our courts are NOT courts. They are masquerading as governmental departments of justice, when in reality, they are private businesses devoted to emptying your wallet and placing financial profit in the hands of their shareholders.

After the case went down, I was deeply digusted by the entire affair and wanted only to fade away, but my friends talked my into appealing to the New Mexico Court of Appeals. After spending large sums of time and money at that venue so that my appeal could be reviewed, that “private company” declared that everything that happened down at First Judicial Court was hunky-dory and this matter is closed. I predicted, exactly, that was going to happen, but my friends told me not to be a quitter and that I must exhaust every remedy. I love this quote from Albert Einstein… “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

I possess what could be described as a magical ability. All I have to do is think of the police and they will appear. On October 9, 2007, I was thinking a lot about the cops, the MVD, and an upcoming hearing for yet another round of tickets (no license, registration, insurance) that I collected in March 2007, when I was pulled over once again, for going 35 in a 25 mph zone. I told the cop I didn’t have any of the credentials he was seeking, so he got on the radio and they told him to book me. He asked me to sign the tickets, I refused, and he took me to jail. When I appeared before Judge George Anaya, who remembered my quite well, he said, “Get licensed, registered, insured, and the entire matter will be dismissed… no fines, no court fees. Do not comply, and you will stay in jail for three months.”

My car is now registered, and I am licensed and insured. My house is for sale. When it closes, I will leave this country and will not return.

Listen kids, there is no Constitution. There are no laws. There are no remedies. There are no guarantees. This country was bought, or stolen, long ago, long before you were born, and this America is doomed along with all the slaves who dwell here.

I am having a great time here at the “Don’t Give a Shit Festival,” and though I am the only participant, I have never had so much fun and enlightenment as I am experiencing lately. I simply do not care anymore. I don’t care about this evil lie called America, the most perfectly crafted delusion that has all of its slaves chanting “We live in the land of the free… the home of the brave.” More accurate would be “the land of the fee… the home of behave.”

This is a fight against ignorance, as it stands the Master Criminals are the "Learned" ones using their knowledge to subjugate the ignorant.

Don't quit, share the knowledge and take back your life, land and liberty.

Monday, November 26, 2007

The End of America, Noami Wolf.

Friday, July 13, 2007

Too much information?

See for yourself:

Thursday, June 28, 2007

ZEITGEIST, The Movie - Official Release - Full Film