Sunday, December 15, 2013
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
False or no oath equals no authority 994 S. W. 2d 316 (Tx. App. - El Paso) PRIETO BAIL BONDS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. No. 08-00342-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, El Paso. May 27, 1999 Rehearing Overruled July 14, 1999 After criminal defendant failed to appear in court, the 34th District Court, El Paso County, Jack Ferguson, J., entered judgment forfeiting $40,000 bail bond. Bail bond surety appealed. The Court of Appeals initially affirmed, 948 S.W.2d 69. The Court of Criminal Appeals vacated and remanded for reconsideration. Thereafter, the Court of Appeals, Larsen, J., held that: (1) senior judge who signed judgment nisi was required, as appointed official, to take constitutional oath, and (2) because judgment nisi was invalid, application for bail forfeiture was unsupported. Reversed and rendered. 1. Criminal Law 1031(1) Bail bond surety preserved for direct appeal its challenge to authority of senior judge who signed judgment nisi, as prerequisite to forfeiture of bond, where surety raised objection after the judgment nisi issued but prior to the final forfeiture hearing. 2. Judges 16(1) Retired judge who exercised statutory election to become judicial officer was nevertheless “appointed” to position of availability by presiding judge, who determined retired judge’s eligibility for service, and thus, retired judge, who as senior judge signed judgment nisi, was not excused from taking oath required of “appointed officers.” Vernon’s Ann. Texas Const. Art. 16, § 1; V.T.C.A., Government Code §§ 74.055, 75.001. See publication Words and Phrases for other judicial constructions and definitions. 3. Judges 16(1) Senior judge, who held no true permanent office and was merely assigned to various courts from time to time, nevertheless qualified as public “officer” by virtue of his being trusted with independent and sovereign powers, and thus, senior judge, who signed judgment nisi, was not excused from taking oath required of “appointed officers.” Vernon’s Ann.Texas Const. Art. 16, § 1. See publication Words and Phrases for other judicial constructions and definitions. 4. Officers and Public Employees 1 An individual is a public “officer,” within meaning of constitutional provision requiring oaths of appointed officers, if any sovereign function of the government is conferred upon that individual to be exercised for the benefit of the public largely independent of the control of others; public officer is one who is authorized by law to independently exercise functions of either an executive, legislative, or judicial character. Vernon’s Ann.Texas Const. Art. 16, § 1. 5. Judges 16(1) Senior judges must take the oaths of officer required of appointed officers under the Texas Constitution. Vernon’s Ann. Texas Const. Art. 16 § 1. 6. Judges 16(1) Oaths of office that senior judge, who signed judgment nisi as prerequisite to bail forfeiture, previously took while serving as district judge and justice of the court of appeals did not survive expired terms of office and satisfy his current constitutional obligation to take oaths. Vernon’s Ann. Texas Const. Art. 16 § 1. 7. Judges 16(1) Oaths of office that senior judge, who signed judgment nisi as prerequisite to bail forfeiture, previously took while serving as district judge and justice of the court of appeals were incomplete as a matter of law, and thus, even if such oaths somehow survived his expired terms of office, they did not satisfy senior judge’s current constitutional obligation, where earlier oaths did not include the “anti-bribery” oath presently required. Vernon’s Ann. Texas Const. Art. 16 § 1. 8. Judges 26 Because senior judge was required to take the constitutional oaths, but did not do so, all judicial actions taken by him, including signing of judgment nisi, were without authority, and state’s application for bail bond forfeiture, which depended on judgment nisi, was unsupported. Vernon’s Ann. Texas Const. Art. 16 § 1. 9. Bail 75.2(1) To be entitled to forfeiture of bail bond, state need only show: (1) a valid bond; (2) that the defendant’s name was distinctly called at the courthouse door; and (3) the defendant failed to appear within a reasonable time of that call. 10. Bail 75.2(1) State’s burden to show that defendant’s name was distinctly called at the courthouse door and defendant filed to appear within a reasonable time of that call, as elements of bail bond forfeiture, is satisfied by the judgment nisi. ____________________ Mark T. Davis, El Paso, for appellant. Jose R. Rodriguez, County Atty., El Paso, for appellee. Before Panel No. 3 BARAJAS, C.J., LARSEN, and CHEW, JJ. OPINION ON REMAND LARSEN, Justice. Prieto Bail Bonds appeals a judgment nisi and subsequent judgment forfeiting a $40,000 bail bond upon which Prieto was surety. We reverse and render. Oath of Senior Judge Jerry Woodard  In its first point of error, Prieto contends that the judgment of forfeiture is invalid because the judgment nisi, a procedural prerequisite to the forfeiture, was defective as the judge who signed it failed to take an oath of office. We initially affirmed the trial court’s judgment by holding that the presiding judge was a de facto judge acting under color of title and the only means to challenge his authority was by quo warranto proceeding.1 The Court of Criminal Appeals, however, reversed our ruling and remanded the case for analysis in light of its recent holding in Wilson v. State.2 Wilson overruled the previous dictate that a procedural irregularity in the assignment of a former judge who is otherwise qualified may be challenged only through a quo warranto proceeding.3 Under Wilson, a party may challenge the authority of a trial judge by regular appeal provided the party objects pretrial.4 In this case, Prieto raised its challenge to Judge Woodard after the judgment nisi issued but prior to the final forfeiture hearing. Since the judgment nisi is the first notice of forfeiture given to a surety such a Prieto, 5 we find that Prieto objected timely. Accordingly, we will address Prieto’s challenge to Judge Woodard’s authority pursuant to Wilson. Facts The Honorable Jerry Woodard was District Judge of the 34th District Court of El Paso County for seventeen years, from 1969 to 1986. He was Justice on the Eight Court of Appeals from 1986 until April 1992. In 1992, he retired and requested assignment as a senior judge pursuant to the Texas Government Code.6 1 Prieto Bail Bonds v. State, 948 S.W.2d 69, 71 (Tex.App.--El Paso 1997), rev’d, 978 S.W.2d 574 (tex.Crim.App.1998). 2 Wilson v. State, 977 S.W.2d 379 (Tex.Crim.App.1998). 3 Id. At 380. 4 Id. 5 Tex.Code.Crim.Proc.Ann. arts. 22.02, 22.03 (Vernon 1989). 6 Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 75.001 (Vernon 1998). Judge Woodard took his last oath of office as a judge when he became justice of the appellate court in 1986; that term of office expired upon his retirement in 1992. He has not taken the oaths required by the Texas Constitution 7 since that time. 8 Pursuant to the Texas Government Code,9 the presiding judge of the sixth administrative judicial region appointed Judge Woodard to preside over the West Texas Impact Court NO. 1, Judge Woodard met all statutory requirements for the appointment. No statute explicitly requires that judges appointed under Section 74 take an oath of office before being assigned to cases as visiting judges.10 We must decide, then, whether the two oaths constitutionally required of all “elected and appointed” officers apply to senior judges assigned pursuant to Chapter 74, and if so, whether the judicial acts of a judge who has failed to take the oaths are done without authority. 1. The Constitutional Requirement Prieto contends that, when presiding over this case, Judge Woodard sat as a senior judge without taking the two oaths of office required by the Texas Constitution. Thus, having failed to fulfill the constitutional prerequisites to holding office, his judicial actions were void or voidable, including his signing of the judgment nisi forfeiting the bond in question.11 Article XVI, Section 1 of the Texas Constitution requires that ‘appointed officers’ take two oaths before entering upon the duties of their offices.12 The statutory scheme for appointment of judges subject to assignment does not require those officials to take an oath upon accepting an assignment.13 Nevertheless, the Texas Code Construction Act provides that: In enacting a statute, it is presumed that: (1) compliance with the constitutions of this state and the United States is intended....14 The State makes several arguments as to why a senior judge need not take the constitutional oaths upon electing that status. First, the State contends that Judge Woodard is not an officer subject to the oath requirement because he was not ‘appointed’ to the position of senior judge, nor did he “hold office” as a senior judge. He therefore is not an “appointed officer” required to take an oath under Article XVI, Section 1 of the Texas Constitution. In the alternative, the State argues that the oaths Judge Woodard took as a Justice of the Eight Court of Appeals and as a District Judge satisfy the constitutional requirements. 2. “Appointment” vs. “Assignment” 7 Tex. Const. art XVI. § 1. 8 The Constitution requires that all elected and appointed officers of the State, before taking the oath of office, shall swear or affirm that they have not paid or promised any money or thing of value or promised public office or employment to secure votes or an appointment (the “anti-bribery oath”). This oath must be filed with the Secretary of State before searing or affirming to the oath of office, in which the officer swears to faithfully execute his or her duties and preserve, protect, and defend the Constitutions of the United States and of Texas. Tex Const. art XVI, § 1. 9 Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 74.054 (Vernon 1998). 10 Tex. Gov’t Code Ann § 74 (Vernon 1998). 11 See Lone Star Industries, Inc. v. Ater, 845 S.W.2d 334, 337 (Tex.App.--El Paso 1992, orig. proceeding). 12 Tex.Const. art XVI, § 1(c), (d). 13 Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. Chs. 74 & 75 (Vernon 1998). 14 Tex. Gov’t Code. Ann. § 311.021 (Vernon 1998).  The State focuses its argument on the transient nature of a senior judge’s assignments to various courts in general, and Judge Woodard’s temporary assignment to the 34th District Impact Court in particular. It argues that senior judges are merely randomly “assigned”15 to conduct the business of sundry courts when needed and therefore do not fit the definition of an “appointed” officer required to take the oaths.16 Moreover, the State contends that the position of senior judge subject to assignment “materializes through a voluntary election by the judicial retiree rather than through the process of election or appointment.” The State refers us to Texas Government Code Section 75.001, which allows a retire to “elect to be a judicial officer.”17 The retired judge’s election, however, does not automatically qualify the judge for assignments. Retired judges are assigned by the presiding judge of an administrative region pursuant to Section 74.055 of the Government Code. Under that section, the presiding judge maintains a list of retired and former judges who meet certain requirements and therefore qualify for assignments.18 In order to be eligible for the presiding judge’s list, the retired judge must demonstrate that he or she: (1) served as a judge for at least 48 months in a district, statutory probate, statutory county, or appellate court; (2) developed substantial experience in an area of specialty (civil, criminal, or domestic relations); and (3) was not removed from office. 19 The retired judge must also certify under oath that he or she did not resign from office after receiving notice that the State Commission on Judicial Conduct instituted formal proceedings against the judge. Finally, the retired judge must certify to the presiding judge that he or she will not appear and plea as an attorney in any court in Texas for a period of two years.20 Thus, the retired judge’s placement on the presiding judge’s list, and thereby his or her eligibility to receive assignments, is subject to the presiding judge’s determination that the retired judge meets the statutory requirements. Under this statutory scheme, the presiding judge is essentially a gate keeper, and as such, his or her placement of a retired judge on the list is akin to an appointment of that retired judge to a position of availability for assignment to various courts as needed. 3. Office Holder vs. Officer [3, 4] The State further argues that an assigned judge cannot be an “officer” because the judge holds no real office. We find, however, that the focus of our inquiry should be the nature of the judge’s function as an “officer” rather than on the nature of the “office” held. An individual is a public officer if any sovereign function of the government is conferred upon that individual to be exercised for the benefit of the public largely independent of the control of others.21 A public officer is one who is authorized by law to independently exercise functions of either an executive, legislative, or judicial character. 22 Specifically, the authorization to pronounce judgment and to adjudicate the rights of parties appearing in court has been held to be a sovereign function of the government and a mark of public office.23 Senior judges such as Judge 15 See Tex Gov’t Code Ann. § 74.055 (Vernon 1998) (judges subject to “assignment”). 16 There is no dispute that senior judges are no longer “elected officers” when they take senior status and make themselves available for assignment. 17 Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 75.001(a) (Vernon 1998). 18 Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 74.055(a) Vernon 1998). 19 Id. 20 Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 74.055(c) (Vernon 1998). 21 Guerrero v. Refugio County, 946 S.W.2d 558, 570 (Tex. Ap.--Corpus Christi 1997, no writ) (citing Aldine Indep. Sch. Dist. V. Standley, 154 Tex. 547, 280 S.W.2d 578, 583 (1955)). 22 State ex rel. Hill v. Pirtle, 887 S.W.2d 21, 931 (Tex. Crim. App.1994)(orig. proceeding.). Woodard, though they hold no true permanent office and are merely assigned to various courts from time to time, are nevertheless authorized to function as judges and as such are entrusted with independent and sovereign powers.24 Accordingly, we hold senior judges are “public officers.” 4. Senior Judges Must Take the Oaths  Having found that senior judges are ‘appointed’ and are ‘officers’, we conclude that they must take the oaths required of appointed officers under Article 16, Section 1 of the Texas Constitution when taking status as a senior judge subject to assignment. We recognize that the position of senior judge does not fit neatly within the traditional notion of an ‘appointed officer’. We are hard pressed, however, to hold that one with authority to preside over litigation and adjudicate the interests of the litigants in a courtroom in the State of Texas should, or can, be exempt from taking an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and of the State of Texas.25 5. Survival of the Oath [5, 7] The State contends, in the alternative, that the oaths Judge Woodard took as District Judge and Justice of the Eight Court of Appeals satisfy the constitutional requirements. The State offers no authority in support of this contention and we do not find the argument persuasive. Elected judges must take a new oath with each new term: we can see no logic whereby a senior judge’s oath would survive an expired term of office, while that taken by a judge successfully seeking re-election would not. In any event, we find that Judge Woodard’s prior oaths were incomplete as a matter of law. Judge Woodard’s earlier oaths of office, which were taken in 1986 and before, did not include the ‘anti-bribery’ oath. This oath was added to the Texas Constitution only in 1989.26 It was required in 1992 when Judge Woodard took senior status and in 1993 when he entered the judgment nisi in question. Accordingly, even if Judge Woodard’s previous oaths continued to bless his status as a senior judge, they did not meet the constitution’s requirements at the time he presided over this case. 6. The Judgment Fails Because the Judgment Nisi was Entered Without Authority  Because Judge Woodard was required to take the constitutional oaths, but did not do so, all judicial actions taken by him in the case below were without authority.27 The Judgment Nisi therefore is without effect. [9,10] Prieto contends that the judgment of forfeiture must fail since the judgment nisi, at least in this case, was an essential element of the State’s case. To be entitled to forfeiture of a bond, the State need only show: (1) a valid bond; (2) that the defendant’s name was distinctly called at the courthouse door; and (3) the defendant failed to appear within a reasonable time of that call. The burden of proof on the second and third prongs is satisfied by the judgment nisi.28 In this case, the judgment nisi was entered into evidence at the forfeiture hearing as Exhibit 1. Since the judgment nisi is without effect, however, it cannot satisfy the State’s burden of proof in this case. We find no other evidence in the record to support prongs two and three 23 Thompson v. City of Austin, 979 S.W.2d 676, 683(Tex. App.--Austin 1998, no pet.h). 24 Id. 25 Tex. Const. art XVI § 1. 26 Tex. Const. art. XVI, § 1(d) (amended Tex. H.J. Res. 40, § 1, 71st Leg. R.S., 1989 Tex. Gen. Laws 6428). 27 See Ater, 845 S.W.2d at 337(actions taken by judge who filed to meet all requisites for qualification as retired judge subject to assignment held null and void). 28 Alvarez v. State, 861 S.W.2d 878, 888 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). of the State’s forfeiture case. Accordingly, the evidence is insufficient to support the judgment of forfeiture and we sustain Prieto’s first point of error. 7. Void or Voidable? Because Prieto Bail Bonds raised its complaint about Judge Woodard’s qualifications at the trial level, as required under Wilson, we need not reach the question of whether his actions in this case were done wholly without authority, and thus are void, or were simply procedurally infirm, and therefore merely voidable. Under either analysis, we must reverse. But we feel bound to observe that the Court of Criminal Appeals has held in a similar situation, involving an “alternative” municipal judge who had never taken the oaths of office, that: “without the taking of the oath prescribed by the Constitution of this State, one cannot become either a de jure or de facto judge, and his acts as such are void.”29 CONCLUSION Having sustained Prieto’s first point of error, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and render judgment in favor of Prieto. Our disposition of this point makes it unnecessary for us to reach Prieto’s remaining points of error. 29French v. State, 572 S.W.2d 934, 939 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (opin. On sec. reh’g): see also Davis v. State, 956 S.W.2d 555, 559 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997): Fain v. State, 986 S.W.2d 666, 675-76 (Tex. App. --Austin 1998, no pet. h.
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Definition of Human Being Are you a 'person', an 'individual', or a 'human being'? These words, at law, define you as being spiritually 'dead.' This is how the world makes its attachment to you. The terms, 'person', 'individual', 'human being', etc., are not in Christ. Words like "individual," and "human being" do not even appear in Scripture! These are 'created' terms by the natural man (1 Cor 2:14). These words describe the 'old man', but not the 'new man' in Christ (Col 3:9-10). In Balantine's Self Pronouncing Law Dictionary, 1948, page 389, Human Being is defined as "See Monster." On page 540 of this same Law Dictionary, Monster is defined as "a human being by birth, but in some part resembling a lower animal." In Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1988, pages 879-880, a Monster is defined as "a person so cruel, wicked, depraved, etc., as to horrify others." From the Random House Dictionary of the English Language, 2nd Edition, page 901, Human Being is defined as a "Natural man: unenlightened or unregenerate," and on page 1461, Unregenerate means "not regenerate; unrepentant; an unregenerate sinner; not convinced by or unconverted to a particular religion; wicked, sinful, dissolute." In Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1988, page 657, Humanitarianism is defined as "the doctrine that humankind may become perfect without divine aid." In Colliers New Dictionary of the English Language, 1928, Humanitarian is defined as "a philanthropist; an anti-Trinitarian who rejects the doctrine of Christ's divinity; a perfectionist." And in the Random House Webster's College Dictionary, 1990, page 653, Humanism is defined as "any system or mode of thought or action in which human interests, values and dignity predominate, especially an ethical theory that often rejects the importance of a belief in God." Therefore, when anyone calls himself or herself a 'human being', or a 'humanitarian,' they are saying (according to every definition of these words, and according to the law), "I'm an animal; I'm a monster; I'm not saved; I'm unrepentant; I'm an unregenerate sinner; I'm not converted; I'm wicked, sinful, and dissolute; I'm cruel, depraved, unenlightened; and I reject Christ's divinity and the importance of a belief in God." "Individuals [Bondman] rely for protection of their right on God's law, and not upon regulations and proclamations of departments of government, or officers who have been designated to carry laws into effect." Baty v. Sale, 43 Ill. 351.” [Codes, edicts, proclamations, and decisions are not Law, which define or regulate the Good and Lawful Bondman. Therefore, title 42 "law" suits are ungodly, and are the redress for and of human beings, i.e., non-believers.] The Septuagint uses the term "human beings" only one time, and its meaning is identical to the above definitions. Let's look at the last verse of the book of Jonah, where Nineva was full of men who were unrepentant, unregenerate, unconverted, wicked, sinful, dissolute, cruel, depraved, unenlightened, rejected the importance of a belief in God. Or, in other words, "human beings." "and shall not I spare Nineve, the great city, in which dwell more than twelve myriads of human beings, who do not know their right hand or their left hand...?" [Jonah 4:11 (Septuagint)] The "human beings" of Nineve did not know their right hand from their left because they did not know the Truth and were lost. They did not know God, they were separated from God. However, those human beings were willing to turn from their ways and learn the things of God, so He spared that city from destruction. The term "human being" is also synonymous with the term 'natural man.' "The natural man is a spiritual monster. His heart is where his feet should be, fixed upon the earth; his heels are lifted up against heaven, which his heart should be set on. His face is towards hell; his back towards heaven. He loves what he should hate, and hates what he should love; joys in what he ought to mourn for, and mourns for what he ought to rejoice in; glories in his shame, and is ashamed of his glory; abhors what he should desire, and desires what he should abhor." [Thomas Boston, quoted in Augustus Toplady, Complete Works (1794, reprinted by Sprinkle Publications 1987), page 584]. And the Word confirms: "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." [1 Corinthians 2:14,] The above verse witnesses to us that the natural man is spiritually dead. The ‘natural man’ in Scripture is synonymous with the ‘natural person’ as defined in man’s laws. "Natural Person means human being, and not an artificial or juristic person." Shawmut Bank, N.A. v. Valley Farms, 610 A. 2d. 652, 654; 222 Conn. 361. "Natural Person: Any human being who as such is a legal entity as distinguished from an artificial person, like a corporation, which derives its status as a legal entity from being recognized so in law. Natural Child: The ordinary euphemism for ‘bastard’ or illegitimate." [Amon v. Moreschi, 296 N.Y. 395, 73 N.E.2d 716." Max Radin, Radin’s Law Dictionary (1955), p. 216.] Those that are spiritually dead belong to the prince of this world because he's dead himself. Satan has dominion over the natural man, for he is the prince of this world [John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11]; and, as a consequence of this, he has dominion over those of the world, i.e., human beings, the natural man – those who receive not the things of the Spirit of God and reject Christ. Because the bondman in Christ is sanctified from the world, he is separated from the adversary's dominion over him–sin [John 8:34]. This is the cause for Christ having sanctified Himself in the Truth of the Word of God – to provide the entrance to the refuge in and through Himself for us.
Friday, September 6, 2013
Sunday, August 18, 2013
Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International Edmonton Ecclesia 10755-133rd Street Edmonton Alberta no code non commercial To: Gail Vickery the private woman acting as the Chief Judge for the Provincial Courts of Alberta 3rd Floor, Bowker Building 9833-109th Street Edmonton, Alberta No Code, Non Commercial From: minister Edward Jay-Robin: Belanger Church office , 10755-133rd Street Edmonton, Alberta No Code, Non Commercial Dear Gail, I have been intimidated to show up for court date settings as put in place by the conflicted and disqualified Vaughn Myers, one of the judges you disqualified for his part in intimidating me to violate the commands of God. I have since 2000 had him in a conflicted position to proceed against me as a Judge as of his prejudice. My publication in an international magazine in 2001 and naming him publically on an international publically viewed website as a suspected cocaine user put him in a position of extreme prejudice. I do not and did not consent to the dates he offered on October 13th in Stony Plain Alberta and on January 26th in Jasper Alberta. He is disqualified and in no position to be setting dates I did not consent to….His offer was and is invalid and affected with prejudice and fraud. On October 5th in Court room # 3 the only judge in Stony Plain not disqualified and stating as such, set me before Vaughn Myers, who he knew to be disqualified, on October 13th 2012, to set a date for trial for a charge instituted in February of 2010 over 2 years ago. That intimidated me to again have my faith violated and breached. I want that unnamed man acting as a judge removed as he intentionally set me before a man who intimidated me to violate the commands of God and in effect committed the same act of intimidation. That is not sanctioned in law in any circumstance and I do not consent to it! I told Vaughn Myers I did not consent to the date of June 6th 2012 3 times as I have a criminal complaint against him. He told the clerk to write down that I did not consent to that date as he is disqualified. He again on January 26th in Jasper Alberta appeared like magic and again I told him in front of witnesses I did not consent to any of his orders or the dates he offered by asking me if the date of May 11th would be acceptable. I asked him if his intent would be to intimidate me to violate the commands of God. I told him I could not accept any of his orders or offers as it violated my faith in obeying the commands of God. He kept offering the date and finally I declined his offer for the third time in front of witnesses indicating I did not accept his offer as he is in conflict as he admitted on the record and he was intimidating me to violate the commands of God and submit to an earthly jurisdiction that has in fraud added to God’s laws. I am a Christian minister not being a corporate entity and I form my name printed first middle last upper lower case as your law form stipulates in 4.2 of the Alberta Curriculum . No law allows you or anyone else to alter my given Christian name for a financial purpose without my express fully informed consent! I have included proof the ALBERTA GOVERNMENT is a dead in law corporate entity for profit business that is a commercial entity subject to commercial law. I am a living man and a minister of Christ who claims the commandments as my law and with to have any action decisions , orders or dates set or made by Vaughn Myers expunged from the record as they have been obtained in fraud in commission of intimidating this minister of Christ to submit to a false Gods codes rules and regulations which are only applicable to “persons” in law or legal fictions. Deuteronomy 1:17, 10:17, Acts 10:34, Romans 2:11 and James 2:9 in the authorized King James Bible says we are not to show respect for persons like an organization of her majesty as section so simply defines as only being persons , as a person is a mask worn by a player on a stage. See section 2 definitions criminal code for person. Note the lawful definition of the word includes. What is included excludes all else. Ignorance of the letter of the law is no defense. Our ministers have been intentionally intimidated from doing what they have a right to do by your Judges when they try to tell them they are not persons in law. They are accused of being crazy. The Alberta Curriculum Act is the law regarding names in Alberta. Where did the court get the sanction to alter it? I am being intimidated by all of your false oathed judges to consent to their jurisdiction by showing up with the threat that if I do not appear to be further intimidated upon the assumption I am a dead corporate debtor I will be hunted down and arrested so they can perpetrate the crime of treason upon her majesty’s ability to defend the laws of God. I do not consent, waive all perceived and assumed benefits the de facto corporation thinks I accepted and await your decision to invoke an investigation upon Vaughn Myers who was the first judge to hear our case in March of 2010. He was in conflict then as of my publication of a letter to him and other de facto officials in December of 2000 regarding possession of marijuana. The whole case went fwd as of his initiation which jeopardizes the crowns position as of the error in law which speaks to fraud and private liability. I accept a reply on this additional complaint to be in line and connected to my first and second complaint to you regarding the renegade actions of your judges intimidating men and women to violate their faith in obeying the commands of God that her Majesty most dutifully defends. Blessings upon knowing my sincere intent and expressed will to not not be intimidated to submit to the codes rules and regulations of a false god defacto corporate government with a commercial motive and impetus for profit in mind. Matthew 6:24 applies. minister of Christ in his service Edward-Jay-Robi
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Sephardi leader Yosef: Non-Jews exist to serve Jews By Marcy OsterOctober 18, 2010 10:40pm JERUSALEM (JTA) — Israeli Sephardic leader Rabbi Ovadia Yosef in his weekly Saturday night sermon said that non-Jews exist to serve Jews. “Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world; only to serve the People of Israel,” he said during a public discussion of what kind of work non-Jews are allowed to perform on Shabbat. "Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat," he said to some laughter. Yosef, the spiritual leader of the Shas Party and the former chief Sephardi rabbi of Israel, also said that the lives of non-Jews are protected in order to prevent financial loss to Jews. "With gentiles, it will be like any person: They need to die, but God will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one’s donkey would die, they’d lose their money. This is his servant. That’s why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew,” said the rabbi, who recently turned 90. An audio recording of some of the rabbi’s remarks was broadcast on Israel’s Channel 10. The American Jewish Committee condemned the rabbi’s remarks in a statement issued Monday. "Rabbi Yosef’s remarks — suggesting outrageously that Jewish scripture asserts non-Jews exist to serve Jews — are abhorrent and an offense to human dignity and human equality,” said AJC Executive Director David Harris. "Judaism first taught the world that all individuals are created in the divine image, which helped form the basis of our moral code. A rabbi should be the first, not the last, to reflect that bedrock teaching of our tradition." Tags: Top Headlines We've redesigned our website! Now is a critical time for you to support JTA. Please donate today. Marcy Oster is a JTA correspondent in Israel. She worked at the Cleveland Jewish News for nearly 12 years and was senior staff reporter when she made aliyah in 2000. She has won several awards for her writing from organizations including The Press Club of Cleveland, Society for Professional Journalists, Women in Communications and the American Jewish Press Association. Read more: http://www.jta.org/2010/10/18/news-opinion/israel-middle-east/sephardi-leader-yosef-non-jews-exist-to-serve-jews#ixzz2XFBLdbl4
Monday, June 17, 2013
NaturalNews) Late last week, a story broke that revealed glyphosate -- the chemical name of Roundup herbicide -- multiplies the proliferation of breast cancer cells by 500% to 1300%... even at exposures of just a few parts per trillion (ppt). The study, published in Food and Chemical Toxicology, is entitled, "Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cells growth via estrogen receptors." You can read the abstract here. There's a whole lot more to this story, however, but to follow it, you need to understand these terms: ppm = parts per million = 10 (-6) = number of parts out of a million ppb = parts per billion = 10 (-9), which is 1,000 times smaller than ppm ppt = parts per trillion = 10 (-12), which is 1,000 times smaller than ppb and 1,000,000 times smaller than ppm The study found that breast cancer cell proliferation is accelerated by glyphosate in extremely low concentrations: ppt to ppb. The greatest effect was observed in the ppb range, including single-digit ppb such as 1 ppb. This news, all by itself, sent shockwaves across the 'net all weekend. Women were asking things like: "You mean to tell me that glyphosate residues on crops in just ppt or ppb concentrations can give me breast cancer?" It doesn't exactly translate like that. It depends on how much you eat vs. your body mass (nanograms of glyphosate per kilogram of body weight). But with ridiculously small amounts of this chemical now being correlated to cancer cell proliferation, you don't have to eat much at all in order to put yourself at risk. But it's not just eating glyphosate that's the problem. You're also DRINKING it. California allows 1,000 ppb of glyphosate in drinking water In December of 1997, California released its Glyphosate in Drinking Water California Public Health Goal (PHG) document. You can view the document yourself at: http://oehha.ca.gov/water/phg/pdf/glypho_c.pdf The document openly admits: Glyphosate is a non-selective systemic herbicide used in agriculture, rights-of-way and aquatic systems. Exposure to glyphosate may occur from its normal use due to drift, residues in food crops and from runoff into potential drinking water sources. It then goes on to state something borrowed straight from Monsanto's quack science team: "Glyphosate is not mutagenic or teratogenic and there is no evidence for reproductive toxicity in multigeneration studies in rats." Based on this blatant lie, California set an upper limit of "1.0 mg/L (1,000 ppb) for glyphosate in drinking water." Yes, that's 1,000 times higher than the amount now shown to cause a 500% to 1300% increase in cancer cell proliferation. What's even more shocking is that California's allowable exposure level was nearly 50% HIGHER than the federal (EPA) level -- 700 ppb. Yes, California -- the state where more people are concerned about GMOs than seemingly anywhere else -- actually used Monsanto-sounding language in its "official" report that set a higher water contamination level than the federal government! Glyphosate carcinotoxicity was documented years earlier Even though California released this document in 1997, the state was already willfully ignoring a growing body of scientific evidence documenting glyphosate toxicity. For example, a study published two years earlier -- in 1995 -- in the Journal of Pesticide Reform (Volume 15, Number 3, Fall 1995) written by Caroline Cox concluded: Glyphosate-containing products are acutely toxic to animals, including humans. ...In animal studies, feeding of glyphosate for three months caused reduced weight gain, diarrhea, and salivary gland lesions. Lifetime feeding of glyphosate caused excess growth and death of liver cells, cataracts and lens degeneration, and increases in the frequency of thyroid, pancreas, and liver tumors. Glyphosate-containing products have caused genetic damage in human blood cells... reduced sperm counts in male rats... an increase in fetal loss... In other words, California knew -- or should have known -- that glyphosate was harmful to humans. But the California government willfully ignored this evidence and seemingly went out of its way to incorporate deceptive Monsanto spin into its "Public Health Goal" documents, thereby allowing 1,000 times higher levels of glyphosate in drinking water than we now know to cause cancer cell proliferation. Ten years later, California lowers its level by just 10% Fast forward to 2007. After a public comment period which was no doubt dominated by disinfo-spewing Monsanto trolls, the state of California issued an updated Public Health Goal (PHG) document. You can view that document here: http://oehha.ca.gov/water/phg/pdf/080406dglyphosate.pdf It concludes that the allowable glyphosate exposure for all Californians should be lowered to 900 ppb -- still nine hundred times higher than the amount needed to accelerate cancer cell growth as we see in the study released last week. This 2007 document from the California government also borrows language that sounds like it's right out of Monsanto's P.R. department: "Based on the genotoxicity and carcinogenicity study results, glyphosate is not likely to pose a cancer hazard to humans," it says. Now the evidence is becoming clear: Monsanto's chemicals are killing women Now it's 2013. We've seen the horrific results of the GMO rat study revealing the growth of massive tumors in rats exposed to GMOs and Roundup (glyphosate). We've also now seen the "parts per trillion" study showing cancer cell proliferation being caused by ultra-low concentrations of glyphosate. We also know the biotech industry has gone to ridiculous lengths to spread disinfo on all this -- to try to discredit scientists who speak out against GMOs and glyphosate, to get scientists blackballed from the industry, and to buy off politicians and members of the press to make sure there is no coverage granted to any scientific studies reporting the dangers of genetically modified crops (and their related chemical herbicides). Glyphosate is the new DDT Based on what we're seeing now, I believe glyphosate is the most toxic chemical that has ever been widely deployed across our food supply. Glyphosate is the new DDT, and it's contaminating our waterways, soils, food and bodies. Furthermore, the California government has clearly been complicit in allowing extremely high levels of glyphosate to contaminate the public drink water, thereby causing tens of millions of Californians to be poisoned with concentrations of glyphosate that promote cancer cell growth. And what will the California government tell you now that the truth has come out? Now that they've allowed their own population to be exposed to a thousand times the concentration needed to accelerate the growth of cancer tumors? "Run for the cure!" And don't label GMOs, either, because you don't have a right to know whether you're eating deadly poison in your food. Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/040808_glyphosate_breast_cancer_drinking_water.html#ixzz2WWRXOZqS
Anonymous Theme: * Income Tax all based on signing an oath / affirmation... * Importance of Learning a Trade... In all of history there has been but one successful protest against an income tax. It is little understood in that light, primarily because the remnants of protest groups still exist, but no longer wish to appear to be /'anti-government.'/ They do not talk much about these roots. Few even know them. We need to go back in time about 400 years to find this success. It succeeded only because the term /'jurisdiction' /was still well understood at that time as meaning /'oath spoken.' 'Juris'/, in the original Latin meaning, is /'oath.' 'Diction',/ as everyone knows, means /'spoken.'/ The protest obviously did not happen here in the USA. It occurred in England. Given that the origins of our law are traced there, most of the relevant facts in this matter are still applicable in this nation. Here is what happened: The Bible had just recently been put into print. To that time, only the churches and nobility owned copies due to the extremely high cost of paper. Contrary to what you have been taught, it was not the invention of movable type that led to printing this and other books. That concept had been around for a very long time. It just had no application. Printing wastes some paper. Until paper prices fell, it was cheaper to write books by hand than to print them with movable type. The handwritten versions were outrageously costly, procurable only by those with extreme wealth: churches, crowns and the nobility. The wealth of the nobility was attributable to feudalism. /'Feud'/ is Old English for /'oath.' / The nobility held the land under the crown. But unimproved land, itself, save to hunter / gatherers, is rather useless. Land is useful to farming. So that is how the nobility made their wealth. No, they did not push a plow. They had servants to do it. The nobility would not sell their land, nor would they lease it. They rented it. Ever paid rent without a lease? Then you know that if the landlord raised the rent, you had no legal recourse. You could move out or pay. But what if you could not have moved out? Then you would have a feel for what feudalism was all about. A tenant was not a freeman. He was a servant to the /(land)/lord, the noble. In order to have access to the land to farm it, the noble required that the tenant kneel before him, hat in hand, swear an oath of fealty and allegiance and kiss his ring /(extending that oath in that last act to the heirs of his estate)./ That oath established a servitude. The tenant then put his plow to the fields. The rent was a variable. In good growing years it was very high, in bad years it fell. The tenant was a subsistence farmer, keeping only enough of the produce of his labors to just sustain him and his family. Rent was actually an /'income tax.' / The nobleman could have demanded 100% of the productivity of his servant except . . . under the common law, a servant was akin to livestock. He had to be fed. Not well fed, just fed, same as a horse or cow. And, like a horse or cow, one usually finds it to his benefit to keep it fed, that so that the critter is productive. Thus, the tenant was allowed to keep some of his own productivity. Liken it to a /'personal and dependent deductions.'/ The freemen of the realm, primarily the tradesmen, were unsworn and unalleiged. They knew it. They taught their sons the trade so they would also be free when grown. Occasionally they took on an apprentice under a sworn contract of indenture from his father. His parents made a few coins. But the kid was the biggest beneficiary. He would learn a trade. He would never need to become a tenant farmer. He would keep what he earned. He was only apprenticed for a term of years, most typically about seven. The tradesmen did not need adolescents; they needed someone strong enough to pull his own weight. They did not take on anyone under 13. By age 21 he would have learned enough to practice the craft. That is when the contract expired. He was then called a /'journeyman.' / Had he made a journey? No. But, if you pronounce that word, it is */"Jur-nee-man."/* He was a /'man,'/formerly /("nee")/, bound by oath /('jur')/. He would then go to work for a /'master' (craftsman)/. The pay was established, but he could ask for more if he felt he was worth more. And he was free to quit. Pretty normal, eh? Yes, in this society that’s quite the norm. But 400 some years ago these men were the exceptions, not the rule. At some point, if the journeyman was good at the trade, he would be recognized by the market as a /'master'/ /(craftsman)/ and people would be begging him to take their children as apprentices, so they might learn from him, become journeymen, and keep what they earned when manumitted at age 21! The oath of the tenant ran for life. The oath of the apprentice’s father ran only for a term of years. Still, oaths were important on both sides. In fact, the tradesmen at one point established guilds /(means 'gold')/ as a protection against the potential of the government attempting to bind them into servitudes by compelled oaths. When an apprentice became a journeyman, he was allowed a membership in the guild only by swearing a secret oath to the guild. He literally swore to /'serve gold.' /Only gold. He swore he would only work for pay! Once so sworn, any other oath of servitude would be a perjury of that oath. He bound himself for life to never be a servant, save to the very benevolent master: gold! /(Incidentally, the Order of Free and Accepted Masons is a remnant of one of these guilds. Their oath is a secret. They would love to have you think that the 'G' in the middle of their logo stands for 'God.' The obvious truth is that it stands for 'GOLD' - [some say 'Generation.'])/ Then the Bible came to print. The market for this time wasn’t the wealthy. They already had a handwritten copy. Nor was it the tenants. They were far too poor to make this purchase. The market was the tradesmen - and the book was still so costly that it took the combined life savings of siblings to buy a family Bible. The other reason that the tradesmen were the market was that they would also be taught how to read as part of their apprenticeship. As contractors they had to know how to do that! Other than the families of the super-rich/(and the priests)/ nobody else knew how to read. These men were blown away when they read Jesus’ command against swearing oaths /(Matthew 5:33-37)/. This was news to them. For well over a millennia they had been trusting that the church - originally just the Church of Rome, but now also the Church of England - had been telling them everything they needed to know in that book. Then they found out that Jesus said /(Matthew 5:34)/, */"Swear not at all..."/* /'oaths.' /Talk about an eye-opener. Imagine seeing a conspiracy revealed that went back over 1000 years. Without oaths there would have been no tenants, laboring for the nobility, and receiving mere subsistence in return. The whole society was premised on oaths; the whole society CLAIMED it was Christian, yet, it violated a very simple command of Christ! And the tradesmen had done it, too, by demanding sworn contracts of indenture for apprentices and giving their own oaths to the guilds. They had no way of knowing that was prohibited by Jesus! They were angry. /'Livid' /might be a better term. The governments had seen this coming. What could they do? Ban the book? The printing would have simply moved underground and the millennia long conspiracy would be further evidenced in that banning. They came up with a better scheme. You call it the /'Reformation.'/ In an unprecedented display of unanimity, the governments of Europe adopted a treaty. This treaty would allow anyone the State-right of founding a church. It was considered a State right, there and then. The church would be granted a charter. It only had to do one very simple thing to obtain that charter. It had to assent to the terms of the treaty. Buried in those provisions, most of which were totally innocuous, was a statement that the church would never oppose the swearing of lawful oaths. Jesus said, */"None."/* The churches all said /(and still say)/, */"None, except . . ."/* Who do you think was /(is)/ right? The tradesmen got even angrier! They had already left the Church of England. But with every new /'reformed' /church still opposing the clear words of Christ, there was no church for them to join - or found. They exercised the right of assembly to discuss the Bible. Some of them preached it on the street corners, using their right of freedom of speech. But they could not establish a church, which followed Jesus’ words, for that would have required assent to that treaty which opposed what Jesus had commanded. To show their absolute displeasure with those who’d kept this secret for so long, they refused to give anyone in church or state any respect. It was the custom to doff one’s hat when he encountered a priest or official. They started wearing big, ugly black hats, just so that the most myopic of these claimed "superiors" wouldn’t miss the fact that the hat stayed atop their head. Back then the term /'you'/ was formal English, reserved for use when speaking to a superior. /'Thee' /was the familiar pronoun, used among family and friends. So they called these officials only by the familiar pronoun /'thee' /or by their Christian names, /'George, Peter, Robert, etc.'/ We call these folk /'Quakers.' /That was a nickname given to them by a judge. One of them had told the judge that he would better */"Quake before the Lord, God almighty."/* The judge, in a display of irreverent disrespect replied, */"Thee are the quaker here."/* They found that pretty funny, it being such a total misnomer /(as you shall soon see)/, and the nickname stuck. With the huge membership losses from the Anglican Church - especially from men who’d been the more charitable to it in the past - the church was technically bankrupt. It wasn’t just the losses from the Quakers. Other people were leaving to join the new /'Reformed Churches.'/ Elsewhere in Europe, the Roman Church had amassed sufficient assets to weather this storm. The far newer Anglican Church had not. But the Anglican Church, as an agency of the State, cannot go bankrupt. It becomes the duty of the State to support it in hard times. Parliament did so. It enacted a tax to that end. A nice religious tax, and by current standards a very low tax, a tithe /(10%)/. But it made a deadly mistake in that. The Quakers, primarily as tradesmen, recognized this income tax as a tax /'without jurisdiction,'/ at least so far as they went. As men unsworn and unallieged, they pointed out that they did not have to pay it, nor provide a return. Absent their oaths establishing this servitude, there was /'no jurisdiction.'/ And they were right. Despite laws making it a crime to willfully refuse to make a return and pay this tax, NONE were charged or arrested. That caused the rest of the society to take notice. Other folk who had thought the Quakers were /'extremists' /suddenly began to listen to them. As always, money talks. These guys were keeping all they earned, while the rest of the un-sworn society, thinking this tax applied to them, well; they were out 10%. The Quaker movement expanded significantly, that proof once made in the marketplace. Membership in the Anglican Church fell even further, as did charity to it. The taxes were not enough to offset these further losses. The tithe /(income)/ tax was actually counterproductive to the goal of supporting the church. The members of the government and the churchmen were scared silly. If this movement continued to expand at the current rate, no one in the next generation would swear an oath. Who would then farm the lands of the nobility? Oh, surely someone would, but not as a servant working for subsistence. The land would need to be leased under a contract, with the payment for that use established in the market, not on the unilateral whim of the nobleman. The wealth of the nobility, their incomes, was about to be greatly diminished. And the Church of England, what assets it possessed, would need to be sold-off, with what remained of that church greatly reduced in power and wealth. But far worse was the diminishment of the respect demanded by the priests and officials. They had always held a position of superiority in the society. What would they do when all of society treated them only as equals? They began to use the term /'anarchy.'/ But England was a monarchy, not an anarchy. And that was the ultimate solution to the problem, or so those in government thought. There is an aspect of a monarchy that Americans find somewhat incomprehensible, or at least we did two centuries ago. A crown has divine right, or at least it so claims. An expression of the divine right of a crown is the power to rule by demand. A crown can issue commands. The king says, */"jump."/* Everyone jumps. Why do they jump? Simple. Ir is a crime to NOT jump. To /'willfully fail (hey, there’s a couple of familiar terms) to obey a crown command' /is considered to be a treason, high treason. The British crown issued a Crown Command to end the tax objection movement. Did the crown order that everyone shall pay the income tax? No, that was not possible. There really was /'no jurisdiction.' /And that would have done nothing to cure the lack of respect. The crown went one better. It ordered that every man shall swear an oath of allegiance to the crown! Damned Christian thing to do, eh? Literally! A small handful of the tax objectors obeyed. Most refused. It was a simple matter of black and white. Jesus said /(Matthew 5:34)/: /*"swear not at all."*/ They opted to obey Him over the crown. That quickly brought them into court, facing the charge of high treason. An official would take the witness stand, swearing that he had no record of the defendant’s oath of allegiance. Then the defendant was called to testify, there being no right to refuse to witness against one’s self. He refused to accept the administered oath. That refusal on the record, the court instantly judged him guilty. Took all of 10 minutes. That expedience was essential, for there were another couple hundred defendants waiting to be tried that day for their own treasons against the crown. In short order the jails reached their capacity, plus. But they were not filled as you would envision them. The men who had refused the oaths were not there. Their children were. There was a /'Stand-in'/ law allowing for that. There was no social welfare system. The wife and children of a married man in prison existed on the charity of church and neighbors, or they ceased to exist, starving to death. It was typical for a man convicted of a petty crime to have one of his kid's stand in for him for 30 or 90 days. That way he could continue to earn a living, keeping bread on the table, without the family having to rely on charity. However, a man convicted of more heinous crimes would usually find it impossible to convince his wife to allow his children to serve his time. The family would prefer to exist on charity rather than see him back in society. But in this case the family had no option. The family was churchless. The neighbors were all in the same situation. Charity was non-existent for them. The family was destined to quick starvation unless one of the children stood in for the breadwinner. Unfortunately, the rational choice of which child should serve the time was predicated on which child was the least productive to the family earnings. That meant nearly the youngest, usually a daughter. Thus, the prisons of England filled with adolescent females, serving the life sentences for their dads. Those lives would be short. There was no heat in the jails. They were rife with tuberculosis and other deadly diseases. A strong man might last several years. A small girl measured her remaining time on earth in months. It was Christian holocaust, a true sacrifice of the unblemished lambs. /(And, we must note, completely ignored in virtually every history text covering this era, lest the crown, government and church be duly embarrassed.)/ Despite the high mortality rate the jails still overflowed. There was little fear that the daughters would be raped or die at the brutality of other prisoners. The other prisoners, the real felons, had all been released to make room. Early release was premised on the severity of the crime. High treason was the highest crime. The murderers, thieves, arsonists, rapists, etc., had all been set free. That had a very profound effect on commerce. It stopped. There were highwaymen afoot on every road. Thugs and muggers ruled the city streets. The sworn subjects of the crown sat behind bolted doors, in cold, dark homes, wondering how they would exist when the food and water ran out. They finally dared to venture out to attend meetings to address the situation. At those meetings they discussed methods to overthrow the crown to which they were sworn! Call that perjury. Call that sedition. Call it by any name, they were going to put their words into actions, and soon, or die from starvation or the blade of a thug. Here we should note that chaos /(and nearly anarchy: 'no crown')/ came to be, not as the result of the refusal to swear oaths, but as the direct result of the governmental demand that people swear them! The followers of Jesus’ words did not bring that chaos, those who ignored that command of Christ brought it. The crown soon saw the revolutionary handwriting on the wall and ordered the release of the children and the recapture of the real felons, before the government was removed from office under force of arms. The courts came up with the odd concept of an /'affirmation in lieu of oath.'/ The Quakers accepted that as a victory. Given what they had been through, that was understandable. However, Jesus also prohibited affirmations /(Matthew 5:36,37)/, calling the practice an oath */"by thy head." /*Funny that He could foresee the legal concept of an affirmation 1600 years before it came to be. Quite a prophecy! When the colonies opened to migration, the Quakers fled Europe in droves, trying to put as much distance as they could between themselves and crowns. They had a very rational fear of a repeat of the situation. That put a lot of them here in the United States of America, enough that they had a very strong influence on politics. They could have blocked the ratification of the Constitution had they opposed it. Some of their demands were incorporated into it, as were some of their concessions, in balance to those demands. Their most obvious influence found in the Constitution is the definition of treason, the only crime defined in that document. Treason here is half of what can be committed under a crown. In the United States treason may only arise out of an /(overt)/ ACTION. A refusal to perform an action at the command of the government is not a treason, hence, NOT A CRIME. You can find that restated in the Bill of Rights, where the territorial jurisdiction of the courts to try a criminal act is limited to the place wherein the crime shall have been COMMITTED. A refusal or failure is not an act /'committed' /- it is the opposite, an act /'omitted.'/ In this nation /'doing nothing' /cannot be criminal, even when someone claims the power to command you do something. That concept in place, the new government would have lasted about three years. You see, if it were not a crime to fail to do something, then the officers of that government would have done NOTHING - save to draw their pay. That truth forced the Quakers to a concession. Anyone holding a government job would need be sworn /(or affirmed) /to support the Constitution. That Constitution enabled the Congress to enact laws necessary and proper to control the powers vested in these people. Those laws would establish their duties. Should such an official /'fail'/ to perform his lawful duties, he would evidence in that omission that his oath was false. To swear a false oath is an ACTION. Thus, the punishments for failures would exist under the concept of perjury, not treason. But that was only regarding persons under oath of office, who were in office only by their oaths. And that is still the situation. It is just that the government has very cleverly obscured that fact so that the average man will pay it a rent, a tax on income. As you probably know, the first use of income tax here came well in advance of the 16th amendment. That tax was NEARLY abolished by a late 19th century Supreme Court decision. The problem was that the tax was not apportioned, and could not be apportioned; that because of the fact that it rested on the income of each person earning it, rather than an up-front total, divided and meted out to the several States according to the census. But the income tax was not absolutely abolished. The court listed a solitary exception. The incomes of federal officers, derived as a benefit of office, could be so taxed. You could call that a /'kick back'/ or even a /'return.' /Essentially, the court said that what Congress gives, it can demand back. As that would not be income derived within a State, the rule of apportionment did not apply. Make sense? Now, no court can just make up rulings. The function of a court is to answer the questions posed to it. And in order to pose a question, a person needs /'standing.' /The petitioner has to show that an action has occurred which affects him, hence, giving him that standing. For the Supreme Court to address the question of the income of officers demonstrates that the petitioner was such. Otherwise, the question could not have come up. Congress was taxing his benefits of office. But Congress was ALSO taxing his outside income, that from sources within a State. Could have been interest, dividends, rent, royalties, and even alimony. If he had a side job, it might have even been commissions or salary. Those forms of income could not be taxed. However, Congress could tax his income from the benefits he derived by being an officer. That Court decision was the end of all income taxation. The reason is pretty obvious. Rather than tax the benefits derived out of office, it is far easier to just reduce the benefits up front! Saves time. Saves paper. The money stays in Treasury rather than going out, then coming back as much as 15 or 16 months later. So, even though the benefits of office could have been taxed, under that Court ruling, that tax was dropped by Congress. There are two ways to overcome a Supreme Court ruling. The first is to have the court reverse itself. That is a very strange concept at law. Actually, it is an impossibility at law. The only way a court can change a prior ruling is if the statutes or the Constitution change, that changing the premises on which its prior conclusion at law was derived. Because it was a Supreme Court ruling nearly abolishing the income tax, the second method, an Amendment to the Constitution, was used to overcome the prior decision. That was the 16th Amendment. The 16th Amendment allows for Congress to tax incomes from whatever source derived, without regard to apportionment. Whose incomes? Hey, it doesn’t say /(nor do the statues enacted under it)/. The Supreme Court has stated that this Amendment granted Congress /'no new powers.' /That is absolutely true. Congress always had the power to tax incomes, but only the incomes of officers and only their incomes derived out of a benefit of office. All the 16th did was extend that EXISTING POWER to tax officers’ incomes /(as benefits of office)/ to their incomes from other sources /(from whatever source derived)./ The 16th Amendment and the statutes enacted thereunder do not have to say whose incomes are subject to this tax. The Supreme Court had already said that: officers. That’s logical. If it could be a crime for a freeman to/'willfully fail' /to file or pay this tax, that crime could only exist as a treason by monarchical definition. In this nation a crime of failure may only exist under the broad category of a perjury. Period, no exception. Thus, the trick employed by the government is to get you to claim that you are an officer of that government. Yeah, you’re saying, */"Man, I’d never be so foolish as to claim that."/* I will bet you $100 that I can prove that you did it, and that you will be forced to agree. Did you ever sign a tax form, a W-4, a 1040? Then you did it! Look at the fine print at the bottom of the tax forms you once signed. You declared that it was /'true'/ that you were /'under penalties of perjury.' /Are you? Were you? Perjury is a felony. To commit a perjury you have to FIRST be under oath /(or affirmation)/. You know that. It is common knowledge. So, to be punished for a perjury you would need to be under oath, right? Right. There is no other way, unless you pretend to be under oath. To pretend to be under oath is a perjury automatically. There would be no oath. Hence it is a FALSE oath. Perjury rests on making a false oath. So, to claim to be /'under penalties of perjury' /is to claim that you are under oath. That claim could be true, could be false. But if false, and you knowingly and willingly made that false claim, then you committed a perjury just by making that claim. You have read the Constitution. How many times can you be tried and penalized for a single criminal act? Once? Did I hear you right? Did you say once; only once? Good for you. You know that you cannot even be placed in jeopardy of penalty /(trial)/ a second time. The term /'penalties' /is plural. More than one. Oops. Didn’t you just state that you could only be tried once, penalized once, for a single criminal action? Sure you did. And that would almost always be true. There’s a solitary exception. A federal official or employee may be twice tried, twice penalized. The second penalty, resulting out of a conviction of impeachment, is the loss of the benefits of office, for life. Federal officials are under oath, an oath of office. That is why you call them civil servants. That oath establishes jurisdiction /(oath spoken),/ allowing them to be penalized, twice, for a perjury /(especially for a perjury of official oath)/. You have been tricked into signing tax forms under the perjury clause. You are not under oath enabling the commission of perjury. You cannot be twice penalized for a single criminal act, even for a perjury. Still, because you trusted that the government would not try to deceive you, you signed an income tax form, pretending that there was jurisdiction /(oath spoken)/ where there was none. Once you sign the first form, the government will forever believe that you are a civil servant. Stop signing those forms while you continue to have income and you will be charged with /'willful failure to file,'/ a crime of doing nothing when commanded to do something! Initially, the income tax forms were required to be SWORN /(or affirmed) /before a notary. A criminal by the name of Sullivan brought that matter all the way to the Supreme Court. He argued that if he listed his income from criminal activities, that information would later be used against him on a criminal charge. If he did not list it, then swore that the form was '/true, correct and complete,' /he could be charged and convicted of a perjury. He was damned if he did, damned if he did not. The Supreme Court could only agree. It ruled that a person could refuse to provide any information on that form, taking individual exception to each line, and stating in that space that he refused to provide testimony against himself. That should have been the end of the income tax. In a few years everyone would have been refusing to provide answers on the /'gross' /and /'net income'/ lines, forcing a NO answer on the /'tax due'/ line, as well. Of course, that decision was premised on the use of the notarized oath, causing the answers to have the quality of /'testimony.'/ Congress then INSTANTLY ordered the forms be changed. In place of the notarized oath, the forms would contain a statement that they were made and signed /'Under penalties of perjury.' /The prior ruling of the Supreme Court was made obsolete. Congress had changed the premise on which it had reached its conclusion. The verity of the information on the form no longer rested on a notarized oath. It rested on the taxpayer’s oath of office. And, as many a tax protestor in the 1970s and early 1980s quickly discovered, the Supreme Court ruling for Sullivan had no current relevance. *_There has never been a criminal trial in any matter under federal income taxation without a SIGNED tax form in evidence before the court_.*The court takes notice of the signature below the perjury clause and assumes the standing of the defendant is that of a federal official, a person under oath of office who may be twice penalized for a single criminal act of perjury /(to his official oath)/. The court has jurisdiction to try such a person for a /'failure.' /That jurisdiction arises under the concept of perjury, not treason. However, the court is in an odd position here. If the defendant should take the witness stand, under oath or affirmation to tell the truth, and then truthfully state that he is not under oath of office and is not a federal officer or employee, that statement would contradict the signed statement on the tax form, already in evidence and made under claim of oath. That contradiction would give rise to a technical perjury. Under federal statutes, courtroom perjury is committed when a person willfully makes two statements, both under oath, which contradict one another. The perjury clause claims the witness to be a federal person. If he truthfully says the contrary from the witness stand, the judge is then duty bound to charge him with the commission of a perjury! At his ensuing perjury trial, the two contradictory statements */"I am under penalties of perjury"/* and */"I am not a federal official or employee"/* would be the sole evidence of the commission of the perjury. As federal employment is a matter of public record, the truth of the last statement would be evidenced. That would prove that the perjury clause was a FALSE statement. We cannot have that proof on the record, can we? About now you are thinking of some tax protester trials for /'willful failure'/ where the defendant took the witness stand and testified, in full truth, that he was not a federal person. This writer has studied a few such cases. Those of Irwin Schiff and F. Tupper Saussy come to mind. And you are right; they told the court that they were not federal persons. Unfortunately, they did not tell the court that while under oath. A most curious phenomenon occurs at /'willful failure' /trials where the defendant has published the fact, in books or newsletters, that he is not a federal person. The judge becomes very absent-minded - at least that is surely what he would try to claim if the issue were ever raised. He forgets to swear-in the defendant before he takes the witness stand. The defendant tells the truth from the witness stand, but does so without an oath. As he is not under oath, nothing he says can constitute a technical perjury as a contradiction to the /'perjury clause' /on the tax forms already in evidence. The court will almost always judge him guilty for his failure to file. Clever system. And it all begins when a person who is NOT a federal officer or employee signs his first income tax form, FALSELY claiming that he is under an oath which if perjured may bring him a duality of penalties. It is still a matter of jurisdiction /(oath spoken)/. That has not changed in over 400 years. The only difference is that in this nation, we have no monarch able to command us to action. In the United States of America, you have to VOLUNTEER to establish jurisdiction. Once you do, then you are subject to commands regarding the duties of your office. Hence the income tax is /'voluntary,' /in the beginning, but /'compulsory' /once you volunteer. You volunteer when you sign your very first income tax form, probably a Form W-4 and probably at about age 15. You voluntarily sign a false statement, a false statement that claims that you are subject to jurisdiction. Gotcha! Oh, and when the prosecutor enters your prior signed income tax forms into evidence at a willful failure to file trial, he will always tell the court that those forms evidence that you knew it was your DUTY to make and file proper returns. DUTY! A free man owes no DUTY. A free man owes nothing to the federal government, as he receives nothing from it. But a federal official owes a duty. He receives something from that government - the benefits of office. In addition to a return of some of those benefits, Congress can also demand that he pay a tax on his other forms of income, now under the 16th Amendment, from whatever source they may be derived. If that were ever to be understood, the ranks of real, sworn federal officers would diminish greatly. And the ranks of the pretended federal officers /(including you)/ would vanish to zero. It is still the same system as it was 400 years ago, with appropriate modifications, so you do not immediately realize it. Yes, it is a jurisdictional matter. An Oath-spoken matter. Quite likely you, as a student of the Constitution, have puzzled over the 14th Amendment. You have wondered who are persons /'subject to the jurisdiction' /of the United States and in the alternative, who are not. This is easily explained, again in the proper historical perspective. The claimed purpose of the 14th was to vest civil rights to the former slaves. A method was needed to convert them from chattel to full civil beings. The Supreme Court had issued rulings that precluded that from occurring. Hence, an Amendment was necessary. But it took a little more than the amendment. The former slaves would need to perform an act, subjecting themselves to the /'jurisdiction'/ of the United States. You should now realize that an oath is the way that was / is accomplished. After the battles of the rebellion had ceased, the manumitted slaves were free, but rightless. They held no electoral franchise - they could not vote. The governments of the Southern States were pretty peeved over what had occurred in the prior several years, and they were not about to extend electoral franchises to the former slaves. The Federal government found a way to force that. It ordered that voters had to be /'registered.' /And it ordered that to become a registered voter, one had to SWEAR an oath of allegiance to the Constitution. The white folks, by and large, were not about to do that. They were also peeved that the excuse for all the battles was an unwritten, alleged, Constitutional premise, that a /'State had no right to secede.' /The former slaves had no problem swearing allegiance to the Constitution. The vast majority of them did not have the slightest idea of what an oath was, nor did they even know what the Constitution was! Great voter registration drives took place. In an odd historical twist, these were largely sponsored by the Quakers who volunteered their assistance. Thus, most of the oaths administered were administered by Quakers! Every former slave was sworn-in, taking what actually was an OATH OF OFFICE. The electoral franchise then existed almost exclusively among the former slaves, with the white folks in the South unanimously refusing that oath and denied their right to vote. For a while many of the Southern State governments were comprised of no one other than the former slaves. The former slaves became de jure /(by oath)/ federal officials, /'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States' /by that oath. They were non-compensated officials, receiving no benefits of their office, save what was then extended under the 14th Amendment. There was some brief talk of providing compensation in the form of 40 acres and a mule, but that quickly faded. Jurisdiction over a person exists only by oath. Always has, always will. For a court to have jurisdiction, some one has to bring a charge or petition under an oath. In a criminal matter, the charge is forwarded under the oaths of the grand jurors /(indictment)/ or under the oath of office of a federal officer /(information)/. Even before a warrant may be issued, someone has to swear there is probable cause. Should it later be discovered that there was NOT probable cause, that person should be charged with a perjury. It is all about oaths. And the one crime for which immunity, even /'sovereign immunity,' /cannot be extended is ... perjury. You must understand /'jurisdiction.'/ That term is only understandable when one understands the history behind it. Know what /'jurisdiction'/ means. You did not WILLFULLY claim that you were /'Under penalties of perjury' /on those tax forms you signed. You may have done it voluntarily, but you surely did it ignorantly! You did not realize the import and implications of that clause. It was, quite frankly, a MISTAKE. A big one. A dumb one. Still it was only a mistake. Willfulness rests on intent. You had no intent to claim that you were under an oath of office, a perjury of which could bring you dual penalties. You just did not give those words any thought. What do you do when you discover you have made a mistake? As an honest man, you tell those who may have been affected by your error, apologize to them, and usually you promise to be more careful in the future, that as a demonstration that you, like all of us, learn by your mistakes. You really ought to drop the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States a short letter, cc it to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Explain that you never realized that the fine print on the bottom of all income tax forms meant that you were claiming to be /'under oath'/ a perjury of which might be /'twice'/ penalized. Explain that you have never sworn such an oath and that for reasons of conscience, you never will. You made this mistake on every tax form you had ever signed. But now that you understand the words, you will most certainly not make that mistake again! That will be the end of any possibility that you will ever be charged with /'willful failure to file.' /Too simple? No, it is only as simple as it is supposed to be. Jurisdiction /(oath spoken)/ is a pretty simple matter. Either you are subject to jurisdiction by having really sworn an oath, or you are not. If you are not under oath and abolish all the pretenses, false pretenses you provided on which the government assumed that you were under oath, then the jurisdiction fails and you become a freeman. A freeman cannot be compelled to perform any act and threatened with a penalty, certainly not two penalties, should he fail to do so. That would constitute a treason charge by the part of the definition abolished here. It is a matter of history. European history, American history and finally, the history of your life. The first two may be hidden from you, making parts of them difficult to discover. But the last history you know. If you know that you have never sworn an oath of office, and now understand how that truth fits the other histories, then you are free. Truth does that. Funny how that works. Jesus Christ was that Truth. His command that His followers: /*"But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne..." *//(Matthew 5:34). /That was the method by which He set men free. Israel was a feudal society. It had a crown; it had landlords; they had tenant farmers bound by oath to them. Jesus scared them silly. Who would farm those lands in the next generation, when all of the people refused to swear oaths? Ring a bell? And what did the government do to Jesus? It tried to obtain jurisdiction on the false oath of a witness, charging Him with /'sedition'/ for the out-of-context, allegorical statement that He would /'tear down the temple' //(a government building)/. At that trial, Jesus stood mute, refusing the administered oath. /(Matthew 27:14). /That was unheard of! The judge became so frustrated that he posed a trick question and attempted to obtain jurisdiction from Jesus by accusing Him of sedition; Pilate said: /*"Then said Pilate unto him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee?"*/ /(Matthew 27:13/). Pilate failed to obtain a compelled oath / jurisdiction over Jesus Christ, as He responded thusly: /*"And he answered him to never a word; insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly."*/ /(Matthew 27:14)/ He did not /'take' /the adjured oath. He left it with its speaker, the judge! That bound the judge to truth. Had the judge also falsely said that Jesus was the man /(guilty of sedition)/? No, not out loud, not yet. But in his heart he had said so. That is what this trial was all about. Jesus tossed that falsehood back where it belonged as well as the oath. In those few words, /*"And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answering said unto him, _Thou sayest it._" *//(Mark 15:2). /Jesus put the oath, and the PERJURY of it, back on the judge, where it belonged. The court could not get jurisdiction. Israel was occupied by Rome at that time. The court then shipped Jesus off to the martial governor, Pontius Pilate, hoping that martial power might compel him to submit to jurisdiction. But Pilate had no quarrel with Jesus. He correctly saw the charge as a political matter, devoid of any real criminal act. Likely, Pilate offered Jesus the /'protection of Rome.' /Roman law extended only to sworn subjects. All Jesus would need do is swear an oath to Caesar, then Pilate could protect him. Otherwise, Jesus was probably going to turn up dead at the hands of /'person or persons unknown'/ which would really be at the hands of the civil government, under the false charge of sedition. Pilate administered that oath to Caesar. Jesus stood mute, again refusing jurisdiction. Pilate /*"..marvelled greatly."*/ He had never before met a man who preferred to live free or die. Under Roman law the unsworn were considered to be unclean - the /'great unwashed masses.' /The elite were sworn to Caesar. When an official errantly extended the law to an unsworn person that /'failure of jurisdiction' /required that the official perform a symbolic act. To cleanse himself and the law, he would /'wash his hands.' /Pilate did so. Under Roman law, the law to which he was sworn, he had to do so. The law, neither Roman law nor the law of Israel, could obtain jurisdiction over Jesus. The law could not kill Him, nor could it prevent that murder. Jesus was turned over to a mob, demanding His death. How was that for chaos? Jesus was put to death because He refused to be sworn. But the law could not do that. Only a mob could do so, setting free a true felon in the process. Thus, Jesus proved the one failing of the law - at least the law then and there - the law has no ability to touch a truly free man. A mob can, but the result of that is chaos, not order. In every situation where a government attempts to compel an oath, or fails to protect a man of conscience who refuses it, the result is chaos. That government proves itself incapable of any claimed powers as the result, for the only purpose of any government should be to defend the people establishing it - all of those people - and not because they owe that government any duty or allegiance, but for the opposite reason, because the government owes the people its duty and allegiance under the law. This nation came close to that concept for quite a few decades. Then those in federal office realized that they could fool all of the people, some of the time. That /'some of the time'/ regarded oaths and jurisdiction. We were/(and still are)/ a Christian nation, at least the vast majority of us claim ourselves to be Christian. But we are led by churchmen who still uphold the terms of that European treaty. They still profess that it is Christian to swear an oath, so long as it’s a /'lawful oath.'/ We are deceived. As deceived as the tenant in 1300, but more so, for we now have the Words of Jesus to read for ourselves. Jesus said: /*"But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne..." *//(Matthew 5:34)/, i.e. /'swear no oaths,' /extending that even to oaths which do not name God. If His followers obeyed that command, the unscrupulous members of the society in that day would have quickly realized that they could file false lawsuits against Jesus’ followers, suits that they couldn’t answer /(under oath)/. Thus, Jesus issued a secondary command, ordering His followers to sell all they had, making themselves what today we call /'judgement proof.'/ They owned only their shirt and a coat. If they were sued for their shirt, they were to offer to settle out-of-court /(without oath)/ by giving the plaintiff their coat. That was not a metaphor. Jesus meant those words in the literal sense! It is rather interesting that most income tax protestors are Christian and have already made themselves virtually judgement proof, perhaps inadvertently obeying one of Jesus’ commands out of a self-preservation instinct. Do we sense something here? You need to take the final step. You must swear no oaths. That is the penultimate step in self-preservation, and in obedience to the commands of Christ. It is all a matter of /'jurisdiction'/ /(oath spoken)/, which a Christian cannot abide. Christians must be freemen. Their faith, duty and allegiance can go to no one on earth. We cannot serve two masters. No one can. As Christians our faith and allegiance rests not on an oath. Our faith and allegiance arise naturally. These are duties owed by a child to his father. As Children of God, we must be faithful to Him, our Father, and to our eldest Brother, the Inheritor of the estate. That’s certain. As to what sort of a society Jesus intended without oaths or even affirmations, this writer honestly cannot envision. Certainly it would have been anarchy /(no crown)/. Would it have also been chaos? My initial instinct is to find that it would lead to chaos. Like the Quakers in 1786, I cannot envision a functional government without the use of oaths. Yet, every time a government attempts to use oaths as a device to compel servitudes, the result is CHAOS. History proves that. The Dark Ages were dark, only because the society was feudal, failing to advance to enlightenment because they were sworn into servitudes, unwittingly violating Jesus’ command. When the British crown attempted to compel oaths of allegiance, chaos certainly resulted. And Jesus’ own death occurred only out of the chaos derived by His refusal to swear a compelled oath and an offered oath. The current Internal Revenue Code is about as close to legislated chaos as could ever be envisioned. No two people beginning with identical premises will reach the same conclusion under the IRC. Is not that chaos? Thus, in every instance where the government attempts to use oaths to bind a people, the result has been chaos. Hence, this writer is forced to the conclusion that Jesus was right. We ought to avoid oaths at all costs, save our own souls, and for precisely that reason. Yet, what system of societal interaction Jesus envisioned, without oaths, escapes me. How would we deal with murderers, thieves, rapists, etc. present in the society without someone bringing a complaint, sworn complaint, before a Jury /(a panel of sworn men)/, to punish them for these criminal actions against the civil members of that society? Perhaps you, the reader, can envision what Jesus had in mind. Even if you cannot, you still have to obey His command. That will set you free. As to where we go from there, well, given that there has never been a society, neither civil nor martial, which functioned without oaths, I guess we won’t see how it will function until it arrives. Meanwhile, the first step in the process is abolishing your prior FALSE claims of being under oath /(of office)/ on those income tax forms. You claimed /'jurisdiction.' /Only you can reverse that by stating the Truth. It worked 400 years ago. It will still work. It is the only thing that will work. History can repeat, but this time without the penalty of treason extended to you /(or your daughters)/. You can cause it. Know and tell this Truth and it will set you free. HONESTLY. Tell the government, then explain it to every Christian you know. Most of them will hate you for that bit of honesty. Be kind to them anyhow. Once they see that you are keeping what you earn, the market will force them to realize that you are not the extremist they originally thought! If only 2% of the American people understand what is written here, income taxation will be abolished - that out of a fear that the knowledge will expand. The government will be scared silly. What if no one in the next generation would swear an oath? Then there would be no servants! No, the income tax will be abolished long before that could ever happen. That is only money. Power comes by having an ignorant people to rule. A government will always opt for power. That way, in two or three generations, the knowledge lost to the obscure /'between the lines'/ of history, they can run the same money game. Pass this essay on to your Christian friends. But save a copy. *Will it to your grandchildren*. Someday, they too will probably need this knowledge. Teach your children well. Be honest; tell the truth. That will set you free - and it will scare the government silly. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Food for thought:* */"The world runs on the initiative of about 5% of the people; the rest need orders. /* /*The consensus of the other 95% on the subject of one’s relationship with: government – banks – tax agencies – courts and corporations (all separate realms) is defective in that such inert abstractions have been accorded superiority over living beings.*/ /*Governments are transitory mental contrivances set up by the clever few for the purpose of living off the efforts of the trusting many – a generalization, yes, but also the truth."*/ Top <#> Home Fun Family Education / Facts Religion / Philosophy Famous Quotes NWO Law, Tax, Guns, Money Sovereignty Health
From Bouviers law dictionary; LICENSE, International law. An authority given by one of two belligerent parties, to the citizens or subjects of the other, to carry on a specified trade. LICENSE, contracts. A right given by some competent authority to do an act, which without such authority would be illegal. The instrument or writing which secures this right, is also called a license. Vide Ayl. Parerg, 353; 15 Vin. Ab. 92; Ang. Wat. Co. 61, 85. “License” is derived from and rooted in the word; “Licentious” (mine); LICENTIOUSNESS. The doing what one pleases without regard to the rights of others; it differs from liberty in this, that the latter is restrained by natural or positive law, and consists in doing whatever we please, not inconsistent, with the rights of others, whereas the former does not respect those rights. Wolff, Inst. §84 Now, you may notice only one of two belligerent parties claim authority, to give the other party authority, to carry on a specified trade. Who and what is a belligerent party? You would think the word “licentious” would be in here, (Bouviers) not? But it isn’t. Now, who in their right mind would even consider asking for permission to apply (carry on) his trade? You may notice that this definition is pertaining to international law and as such, who then, holds Canada’s license? The Bank of England? Who issued the corporation known as “Canada” a license to carry on a specified trade or any trade? Someone’s gotta have it. Who’s got it…….? Who is the authority? Now, the second one is a contract, a right given by some competent authority. Okay let’s stop right there, we really don’t need to go any further than that! In order to be able to claim competent authority, you, of course, would have to have a license. Right? ALL LEGAL FICTIONS are under license, to someone. If someone, can show me a competent legal fiction, with authorized claim in commerce, to enter common law jurisdiction, contrary to section 39, original Latin version of the Magna Carta 1215, I tell you what: “I will chew on someone’s dirty shorts and air it on UTube.” The third one is self explanatory, the act of “LICENTIOUSNESS”, simply means, “the obtaining and usage of ones license, at one’s pleasure, with total disregard to another’s rights.” Pretty simple isn’t it? Especially when the word “LICENCIOUS” simply means, “unlawfully evil.” Add it up, slice it or dice it any way you can, to go out and apply, make application (beg, plead, implore) to receive a license, then turn around and demand, I do the same as you, is also “unlawfully evil.” Slaves making unlawful claims on freemen, for the simple reason of; “I’m a grateful slave and you should be too” is ignorance at its highest level. A moron, a.k.a. sheep, comes to mind (a person of arrested intelligence whose mentality is judged incapable of developing beyond that of a normal child 8-12 years old). Who’s following the piper??? Taken from my perfected claim of right; I claim that, the Crowns claim of; “All property reverts to the Crown for want of a competent heir”, as referred to in the escheats act, stands as a lawful claim and whereas, Canada is an insolvency, an estate, where everything is owned by God and currently held in trust under the Crown until a competent heir(s) shows up and lays a lawful claim of jurisdiction. Furthermore, I claim that the corporation known as “THE CROWN” and/or “HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH II” and all human beings, acting as, persons, holding the subordinate position, [office of a person] in Canada are in fact deemed incompetent by all legal means and therefore require a legal trustee (third party to an action), to legally represent the incompetent one to any and all other corporate persons such as “The Courts of Saskatchewan” and/or “Government of Saskatchewan” etc. Furthermore, I claim that the intentional blurring of the lines with smoke and mirrors, deception, outright lie’s and too numerous to mention false claims as to the well settled division, between the Crown created legal entity known as the “PERSON” and the flesh and blood creation of the Creator known as a “man”, is nothing short of theft, fraud, breach of trust and forced slavery, a heinous criminal activity of the most odious form. Furthermore, I claim that “all persons”, acting as, governments, principals, employees, agents and justice system participants claiming, “retained legal counsel” have, by virtue of their own and/or their principals actions, claimed “total incompetence”, in handling any of their own affairs in law and have become an instant ward of the court, hence, they are imprisoned by their own actions in hand or lack thereof. Furthermore, I claim that due to the self evident and the facts in truth at hand, that all persons, the Crown, governments, principals, employees, agents and justice system participants claiming limited liability or immunity are doing so under the pretence of being in fact deemed totally incompetent and under law made instant wards of the crown and/or court and therefore, cannot claim good faith or colour of right over anyone who is thus blessed to being a competent heir. Now, there exists, in this world, only two types of entities; the living kind and the dead. Any assumptions, erroneous beliefs or preconceived notions as to the former statement being untrue had better be backed up by undisputable, irrefutable proof. There are not, any “competent persons” anywhere! Hence, the dead cannot claim authority over the living, PERIOD!! No ifs, no ands no buts!!