Direct Link to Latest News

 

Defending Yourself Against "Legal Fiction"

February 6, 2010

corporate_personhood3.gif(Editor's Note: Again, I don't pretend to understand this "legal fiction" argument, and welcome clarifications by knowledgeable readers.)

by Rino


The 'false allegation' industry also exists here in Australia. We need to draw back the curtain and begin to pay attention to the man behind the curtain.

There are critical points to understand. Once the world went off the Gold standard, the people now in effect became dead to the Law.. All courts are courts belonging the central banks, being the creditor in any case. A Judge cannot see the substantive Law in relation to a man or woman's God-given rights anymore under public policy. Public policy refers to the bankruptcy/insolvency of that nation.
 
All charges are against the created Birth Certificate Trust estate/prepaid account recognized by the all capital letter name.

The person who is charged is NOT the man but his corporate entity account. All the courts want is to settle a public account and they want access to your Birth Certificate trust/prepaid estate account.

When you argue/defend and a claim, which in commerce is a demand for money, you are in effect saying 'I don't want to pay' and at this point of dishonour there may be more bogus charges/claims come forward due to this. So all legislative acts apply only to these corporate persons, individuals, taxpayers, residents, etc.; and guess what, they are all created fictions of law. They are not real they are created fictions of law.
 
The idea is not to argue/defend because the living man or woman is not even named as a party in any court action, only the birth certificate/Corporate Trust entity is named.

That is why it is said that 'arguments are for fools'. This information applies in Canada, Australia, America and anywhere else where a central bank exists.

So what happens when there is a 'Charge' against someone? An account is created and it must be settled otherwise someone is placed in prison as collateral for that debt. Arguing and defending creates problems.
 
This is what they do when they create a charge. The courts/agencies use the important concept/principle of 'Bankers Acceptance law'. It is the important concept and principle of primary liability.  The newly created charge is created by the 'maker' of the instrument, i.e, lawyer, agency, court or any other third party entity and the bankers acceptance law goes like this, 'The primary liability to 'pay' an instrument rests with the maker ( i.e lawyer, agency, prosecutor, court etc) of that instrument UNLESS someone else (The charged entity) refuses (argues or defends) to pay.

Under the rules of Admiralty Law, he who brings forward a charge must also bring forward the remedy and that remedy is your birth Certificate/Trust prepaid asset account. The reason they 'falsely charge' people is because they are well aware of the existence of this Trust account and you are deemed to be in control of your estate, operating as a Trustee of that account.

However they will never openly admit to this under public policy and they will always remain silent and refer you to some legislative act and make you think it applies to you.
 
When they say to you that 'anything you say can and will be used against you', what they are really saying is be careful how you respond to our presentment/claims because you may not know what it is that we are really asking of you!

They know and understand that all energy comes from the living man who in reality is the creditor, however if you create dishonour they will treat you as the debtor and the debtor has no rights.

What is the false allegation industry really all about? It is proof that you have in fact an prepaid Trust/estate account created at your birth and evidenced by your birth Certificate. Your birth certificate is evidence of two things: 1) that a Trust does in fact exist and 2) it is a security, which is used as collateral by any government to receive funding from the central banks.
 
If you understand that the Bible tells us not to charge your 'brother' because you make a debtor of him and this is why those in power know and understand this concept. This is why they created the fiction corporate entity because it is supposed to protect/buffer you.

Once Adam and Eve dishonoured the creator, they were taken out of the Garden of Eden which was no longer a commercial free zone and absolutely everything that is done, is done in commerce involving commercial accounts.

Ever since then the same principle has applied, creditors are winners and debtors are losers! Were we not told to be the 'head' (creditor) and not the 'tail' (debtor)? Its all about an account, the rest is all illusion, just ask for the bill so that you can do a bankers acceptance by your endorsement of the charging instrument/complaint and proceed to settle and close the account. However be prepared they will test you first.
 
We as living people no longer know or understand who we are and everything has been inverted upside down. We have lost our identities and once again have given away our birthright for "bowl of pottage."
 ----

First Comment: Paul

Greetings Henry,

In our work to date, we have come across these claims
several times:  it's important to realize that some of them
can be substantiated with good authority, while others
appear to be theories that have somehow "morphed" into fact
primarily for the one(s) asserting such claims.


These two short essays are good places to begin,
to acquire a necessary foundation:

http://www.supremelaw.org/press/rels/cracking.title.28.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/us-v-usa.htm
(Note well that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that
the Federal government is NOT a corporation!)


Our letter to Bill Gates re: USA v. Microsoft, Inc.
goes into many similar issues:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/microsoft/transmittal.htm


In actual litigation we have already established that the entity
"UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" incorporated twice in Delaware,
but both corporations were later revoked by the Delaware
Secretary of State:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/usa.inc/
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/usa.inc/registered.agent.2007-02-12.gif

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/usa.corp/
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/usa.corp/registered.agent.2007-02-12.gif

When this fraud was exposed by our office,
The Conspiracy (of which you write so often),
re-incorporated "THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA"
also in Delaware, as if adding "THE" would cure the manifold
problems that resulted from impersonating the Federal government
with a Delaware corporation, when both are legally "foreign"
with respect to each other:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/usa.inc/THE.UNITED.STATES.OF.AMERICA.JPG


Legally speaking, all corporations chartered in any of the 50 States are
"foreign" corporations with respect to the District of Columbia:

http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/chaptr11.htm

Foreign corporation. 
A corporation doing business in one state though chartered
or incorporated in another state is a foreign corporation as to the first state, and,
as such, is required to consent to certain conditions and restrictions
in order to do business in such first state.



Now, we went the next step and inquired with a sample of
Secretaries of State in other States of the Union, and
all confirmed that UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
failed to register as a "foreign" corporation with their offices:

http://www.supremelaw.org/sos/
http://www.supremelaw.org/sos/al/
http://www.supremelaw.org/sos/al/usa.corp.certificate.gif
http://www.supremelaw.org/sos/al/usa.inc.certificate.gif

http://www.supremelaw.org/sos/ca/
http://www.supremelaw.org/sos/ca/usa.corp.certificate.gif
http://www.supremelaw.org/sos/ca/usa.inc.certificate.gif



This next one, domiciled in Washington State, is likewise quite deceptive:

http://www.supremelaw.org/sos/wa/Corporations%20Registration%20Detail.htm

UNITED ESTATES OF AMERICA, LLC



The use of "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" [sic] as the "Plaintiff"
on all Federal criminal "INDICTMENTS", and on all Federal civil cases, initiated by the U.S. Department of Justice, appears to be an expertly concealed attempt to avoid invoking the Judicial Power of the United States, by which the U.S. Constitution very clearly requires that the "United States" (Federal government) be the Proper Party:

http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#3:2:1

Instead, they are invoking the legislative power of the United States (Federal government) chiefly by convening a legislative tribunal instead of a constitutional court.


A much longer, and much more detailed explanation, can be
found in these two briefs which I filed at the U.S. Supreme Court,
to which 48 UNlicensed ATTORNeys either fell silent, or
formally waived their clients' right to answer:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/cert.htm#drama
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/mandamus.2.htm

Soon after filing those 2 briefs at the U.S. Supreme Court,
Justice O'Connor retired and Chief Justice Rehnquist died.
Also, Ginsburg, Thomas and Breyer turned up withOUT
PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSIONS:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/letter.2004-02-12/letter01.gif


Lastly, there is some documentary evidence to support
the notion that parties who are in fact at war with each other
may not refer formally to each other by their Proper Names;
instead a "nom de guerre" is a customary legal requirement
under the Law of Nations.  For authorities in support of
this proposition, see:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/barber/2-A-MEMORANDUM%20OF%20LAW.htm





Scruples, the game of moral dilemmas




Comments for "Defending Yourself Against "Legal Fiction""

Jim said (February 9, 2010):

We in the United States of America live in areas governed by Admiralty Law, not Common Law that once was the law in our court system.

It's a law of contracts. According to Admiralty Law only entities created by the State are subject to this law. Any entity created by the State is called a Person. Therefore that entity is a fiction. Examples are a corporation, trust, or a limited partnership.

When you and I were born from our mother's womb we were considered human beings, not persons. Once our parents were issued a Birth Certificate we now had legal status under the Admiralty Law of the Sea.

Common Law is law of the land where human beings have rights under God. Human beings are creatures created by God's miracle. Under the Law of the Sea only persons are recognized and they no rights, only privileges granted by Admiralty Law.

To differentiate between a human being and a person all government agencies use capital letters when referring to a person. Only persons are subject to Admiralty Law. Human beings have no standing in their courts. Human beings do not need a drivers license, need to pay taxes, need any license a license of any kind, nor can they be sued.

Example: Look at the spelling of your name on any document issued from a government agency. Your name is in all capital letters. Now look at the spelling of your name on any of your diplomas, capital H small enry, capital M small akow. Human beings go to church and school.

Only fictions created by a governmental agency goes to court, pays taxes, serves in the military, drives a car, hunts ducks, is engaged in business, etc.

It was all done years ago for the benefit of the international bankers because of the bankruptcy of the corporate UNITED STATES.

Once you learn this, and more you will get an even bigger picture of the illusion we Americans and you Canadians are living in.
It truly is a Matrix.


Robert said (February 8, 2010):

You & your readers might want to check out the introduction of the living temple audio at www.creditorsincommerce.com. In the first 30 minutes he explains how the international bankers have taken the sovereignty of the American people.

Here's a video of a guy in Canada who was exercising his common law right to travel & his encounter with the police.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfbfpz4iYDU

Keep us updated with this "Freeman on the land" information. I believe this is how we will defeat the nwo.


David said (February 8, 2010):

It has occurred to me that one reason why Obama and his handlers/managers have gone to so much effort to prevent anyone from finding his actual birth certificate is connected with this stuff, and they may have arranged that there is no actual birth certificate for him. He has been CIA property since before birth. Consider that.


Wayne said (February 7, 2010):

Eldon Warman has a well researched explanation for all this at www.detaxcanada.org


Jimmy said (February 7, 2010):

Is there any way by which anyone charged with some crime or misdemeanor, can settle this "debt" with the courts/bankers without further incurring into any other legal charges being posted against your record, as for example being actually convicted of these crimes or misdemeanors? In other words, is there a pay-your-way-out-of-it method?


P said (February 7, 2010):

Proving what the 'legal fiction' mess is all about and proving that the courts are commercial (ie: Admiralty Law) is hard to do as the villains left no handbook as to how they constructed this whole false 'legal' realm. One thing that IS easy to prove is the legal fiction that they have hung around your neck (of course you and your Mother voluntarily accepted it - that's how everything from driver's licenses to income tax works in this country). Check everything you have with an ID on it that is issued by governments, Banks, Credit Unions, Insurance companies, tax forms, or corporations and you will find that it is issued to or sent to JOHN DOE and not John Doe. There are only three entities that I can think of that have ALL CAPS names: Trusts, corporations, vessels (ships).

In legal terms this is known as 'idem sonans' = 'sounds alike' and 'stramineus Homo' = a straw man, a substitute put forward as bail or security (from Black's Law Dictionary). When the Judge calls for JOHN DOE and you, John Doe answer, you have accepted (without knowing it) the responsibility for all of the legal fiction's ('ens legis' being) liabilities. Once you have answered for the 'fiction' - you are screwed !

It is easy enough to get out of this Babylonian system but first you have to understand it completely. You must first understand who you really are (this requires you to have some Biblical knowledge and some knowledge of the founding Father's intent, then you need to fully understand how you have been hood winked. For that knowledge I recommend that you study the following website: http://www.usavsus.info/ and watch the 'It's an Illusion' video that can be found here: http://www.tpuc.org/node/558


PJ said (February 7, 2010):

HI Henry, WIKI: The Seventh Amendment (Amendment VII) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, codifies the right to a jury trial in certain civil trials. Unlike most of the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court has not incorporated the amendment's requirements to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment.

“ In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”

PS: For the ordinary person who is called into the court room in any dispute over $20, at the first hearing it can be a good idea to "Demand a Jury trial."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution


Jeffrey said (February 7, 2010):

Henry: This will help explain Rino's "legal fiction" argument.

In addition, you may purchase the book, "They Own It All, Including You"


Edward Mandell House had this to say in a private meeting with Woodrow Wilson (President) [1913-1921]

[Very] soon, every American will be required to register their biological property in a National system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will affect our security as a charge back for our fiat paper currency. Every American will be forced to register or suffer not being able to work and earn a living. They will be our chattel, and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions. Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, forever to remain economic slaves through taxation, secured by their pledges. They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be non the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two would figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability. After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debt to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap to us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor or to this fraud which we will call “Social Insurance.”

Without realizing it, every American will insure us for any loss we may incur and in this manner; every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and, we will employ the high office of the President of our dummy corporation to foment this plot against America.”


Mike said (February 7, 2010):

Regarding your article posted here:

http://www.henrymakow.com/defending_yourself_against_leg.html

The reason you can't understand the article is because it is written so poorly nobody could understand it, the comment following it is much shorter but conveys far more intelligible information.

Why do you post crap like this?

--

Mike,

For the comments?

H


Mark said (February 7, 2010):

As a practicing attorney of over 20 years I can tell you that I have seen a number of these extremely convoluted arguments against various aspects of the legal systems that descend from English common law in various jurisdictions where Britain once ruled. Indeed, some notable scholars have even argued that the system itself represents the underground resurgence of wizardry and sorcery with its dependence on the use of certain "magic words" to achieve results.

What all the arguments share in common is a divergence between the conclusions they draw and the results that will be obtained in court. In short, they're not going to get you anywhere. Regardless of the justice or injustice of the legal system, the arguments stand no chance of influencing the result.

Assuming for the moment that armed (or even symbolic) resistance is out of the question (and we should not, since the "el Barzon" movement was very effective in Mexico in the mid-'90s), we are left with the question of what WILL be effective (for the debtor, since the article I'm responding to is mostly about debt)?

Professor James C. Scott coined the term "Weapons of the Weak" for what he called "everyday forms of peasant resistance such as foot dragging, dissimulation, false compliance, pilfering, feigned ignorance, slander, arson, sabotage and so forth." In the United States at least, it is expected that those who have debts they cannot pay will declare bankruptcy (and that may well improve one's existence), however others choose "informal bankruptcy" which has been defined by Dawsey & Ausubel as simply hanging up on creditors and ignoring their mail. Unfortunately the latter strategy opens the individual up to certain perils such as being sued.

It is at this point that the author of the article you reprinted decry the dearth of lawyers who will actually do them any good, claiming that all have been co-opted by the state. It is in a sense true that most are co-opted, but not by the state, rather by the creditors. It is an important distinction because if it were the state there would be nothing that could be done, however in this instance it's simply a matter of the money being in the hands of the other side, and there are a few lawyers (notably among them the Edelman, Combs firm in the Chicago area) who actually do good work for the consumer and make a good living at it. Most creditors have poorly prepared cases that suffer from any of a number of flaws, notably the inadmissibility of the evidence of the debt due to the impracticality of bringing to each and every debt case the testimony of the live witnesses who could support the admission of even perfect records. Secondarily, many cases are brought by creditors after the statute of limitations has already run--they are too old for a court to recognize. There are also mechanisms debtors may use such as "accord and satisfaction" checks as well as hard-nosed negotiating--the other side knows how weak the really are and will often settle as low as twenty cents on the dollar. Many debtors share information with one another on any number of online bulletin boards, and some have made a profitable proposition of suing collectors under various laws that protect consumers such as the FCRA and FDCPA, turning lemons not into lemonade but into a fermented, toxic counter-weapon.

I have written an eBook, "Debt Hope: Down and Dirty Survival Strategies" that explodes nearly all of the myths and provides the reader with practical solutions. You can read it for free here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/25443175/Debt-Hope-Down-and-Dirty-Survival-Strategies-Evaluation-Version-Complete


Tim said (February 7, 2010):

I’m trying to understand the way he describes it myself, however,

A simple analogy may help to clarify.

Say for example there’s only a few people on earth. You, me, a judge and a couple of cops with guns and a cell.

You arrive on Gods earth. The judge and I inform you that we own you and you must pay us money for the privilege.

You ask for proof that may be legally tested in a court of law. Of course, there is none, and can never be.

Sure the cops can drag you off at the Judge’s order, but that again would not stand up as “Legal” in an honest legal system.

In order to get our will over you, we must get you to enter an agreement. That is, agree that you are owned by us and owe us money.

Dishonoured agreements (i.e. contracts) can then be brought before our court in the form of a broken obligation agreed to.

As I and the judge cannot claim agreement with you prior to your birth or prior to talking to you,

an “account” (read: contract) must be setup by us to represent you in our legal system (Name in capital Letters in our account, because it’s not authorised by you), then you must be tricked into admitting you are responsible for it.

It’s a fundamental flaw in all (honest) legal systems


Greg said (February 7, 2010):

I too have just lately read about this.
There is a chap who has a better grasp of this idea;
John Harris from www.tpuc.org

I recommend having a look at the BBC video "Its an illusion"

This article is very informative and if you read between the lines of the unsaid one can almost glimpse the simple truth of it..
.. we are all truly slaves.

I dont wish to bog you down with crappy links but these three are rather good, especially the last.
http://www.tpuc.org/
http://lawfulrebellion.org/lawful-rebellion/
http://www.bbc5.tv/eyeplayer/video/john-harris-its-illusion

Love your column, always a provoking read.


Dan said (February 7, 2010):

I have enjoyed your essays for years. I just read the "Legal Fiction" piece. I did some study on this topic and how it relates to federal income taxes and it can get confusing. I was not making any progress with the taxing authorities but then I discovered the book Cracking the Code by Pete Hendrickson. He has also written 2 other books you would really enjoy and learn a lot from. Please check out his website at www.losthorizons.com . The website is huge but you will gain the most from reading Cracking the Code (CTC) as the most important info is in the book, not the website. I am not affiliated with the author in anyway, I just recommend his books and info. Over $10.5 million has been returned to it's rightful owners by filing educated tax returns.


Peter said (February 7, 2010):

If you want to know just how the lawyers work click on this link. John has been fighting the banks in Australia for 10 years.

When you hire a lawyer you declare yourself mentally incompetent and a ‘ward of the court/state’. You effectively sign over all your rights to the lawyer who is also sworn to always work in the best interests of the court/state and NOT in the best interests of the client.

So, once you hire a lawyer you are done. They just play a pantomime in front of you to make you believe something like justice has occurred. Why do you think we have so many ‘law’ shows? It’s is to brainwash the people that something like justice occurs in the courts. It doesn’t. It’s all a con.

I propose to take my lawyers in Australia to a common law court for non-disclosure and let the common law court determine the penalty. I will ask for all my fees back $A45,000 plus interest plus another $A50K in damages. We will see how the lawyers like that! ;-)


http://www.rightsandwrong.com.au/Should%20I%20hire%20an%20attorney.pdf


Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at