All Law is Contract. Do you know what the contracts are regarding BAR Associations and Attorneys?

Most people don’t, in fact we believe that most likely most attorneys aren’t aware of the full extent of the obligation they have when they contract to be a member of the BAR. For those pursuing a free (sovereign) approach to life it is imperative one understands the disadvantages of representation by a Bar Association Attorney.

A living being involved in a court proceeding may incur adverse consequences by being represented by a Bar Association Attorney, based, inter alia, on considerations such as the following:

A. Forfeiture of rights and standing in law.
1. Having an attorney automatically surrenders jurisdiction to the court, via “general appearance,” divesting the one being “defended” from accessing unalienable rights, standing in law, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, capacity to speak for or defend himself, and opportunity to challenge jurisdiction through “special appearance.” As an officer of the court, no attorney can fault the court, contest jurisdiction, or subordinate the court and Bar Association to the genuine rights of his client. Under "In propria persona" Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, states:
"...pleas to the jurisdiction of the court must be plead in propria persona, because if pleaded by attorney they admit the jurisdiction, as an attorney is an officer of the court, and he is presumed to plead after having obtained leave, which admits the jurisdiction." [Emphasis added.]

2. Representation by an attorney waives defects of process in the trial of a case.

3. No State Bar Association is registered with the Secretary of State of any State, either as a State corporation or a foreign corporation. This non-registration violates the provisions of State constitutions stating that the Bar Association is a public corporation. In addition, although attorneys are required by State constitutions to be licensed by the State (as is required for all other professions, such as doctor, etc.), no attorney in America today possesses any such license. “Attorneys” merely have a membership card in their private Bar Association indicating that their dues are current, but no license to practice law.

4. In California, for instance, attorneys must not only comply with the California Constitution by having a license from the State, but also comply with the provisions of the Business and Professions Code, “B&P.” B&P § 6067 requires “a certificate of the oath” to “be indorsed upon” the license of a practicing attorney, while B&P § 6002 states:

"Members of State Bar
The members of the State Bar are all persons admitted and licensed to practice law in this State except justices and judges of courts of record during their continuance in office." [Emphasis added.]

5. Non-compliance with the foregoing requirements of law, i.e., the fact that no license is issued by any State to any attorney to practice law in any State, signifies that every so-called “attorney” in America is unlicensed and may therefore be deemed “practicing law without a license.”[1]

6. Obligations and duties which exist before an attorney begins representing you include superseding allegiances to such causes as:

a. The court, of which he is an “officer” and to which he is obligated and beholden;
b. The private Bar Association that let the attorney “pass the Bar” after going through “law school” and allows
c. The “public,” i.e., government, today functions in private, international equity-admiralty Law Merchant of the international bankers, and it is bankrupt;

7. Having an attorney is tacit confession that one is incompetent to manage his own affairs and must be “represented” (“re-presented”) by someone with prior and superseding allegiance to the same organization that indicts, prosecutes, and judges him. Such helpless status is known by a number of designations, such as “child of the state” and “ward of the court” (legally, wards of court are infants, incompetents, and persons of unsound mind). Corpus Juris Secundum defines a “client” as “one of unsound mind, or an infant.” When you are represented by an attorney you are considered an object, unable to speak for yourself, a “thing” at the mercy of those who are all part of the same cabal. You are, in essence, rendered impotent. As an old Spanish proverb notes: “Better to be a canary in a cat’s mouth than a man in the hands of an attorney.”

8. An attorney's purpose is to make money for himself, as well as vastly more money for the various government/municipal corporations. An aspect of this endeavor is keeping the law obscure and incomprehensible to "laymen" through obfuscation, complexity, duplicitous definitions of words, off-point irrelevancies, and misdirection. If laws, codes, and "legalese" are too arcane for laymen, who speak other languages, such as "English," it will forestall comprehension by "ordinary people." Whether or not a Defendant is found guilty, fined, or goes to prison is often secondary to the attorney’s fee, if not entirely irrelevant.

9. No attorney can give testimony or be a credible witnesses, since he deals in hearsay on behalf of undefined fictitious legal persons[2] within/under the rules and regulations of the private Bar Association and it’s privately copyrighted codes. Attorneys do not speak for/as themselves based on firsthand, personal experience, but argue and discourse in second-hand information (hearsay).
10. No attorney can represent a real, biological being, but only corporate entities, such as the all capital-letter name of the “Defendant.” All such legal fictions are presumed to be owned by the very system that is prosecuting and judging an accused. In these private, commercial courts, therefore, the system tries a legal person, ens legis, that the system presumes to have created and to own. The real being presumed attached to the fictitious entity, i.e., the all-caps name, gets to go along for the ride at the end of the process when fines and sentences are administered.

B. Conflict of interest.

11. The Bar Association is a closed union shop to which all prosecuting attorneys, all defense attorneys, and the judges belong. It is a private association with its own particular agenda, goals, policies, codes, and motives, which are necessarily different than those of any particular individual since they are the perspectives of other living beings. An Internet search for such terms as “fraternal orders,” “private associations,” etc., yields interesting results, e.g., the article in 1upinfo Encyclopedia: http://www.1upinfo.com/encyclopedia/A/AmericanBA..html, which lists the American Bar Association as a “private organization.”
12. And who are the owners of the private Bar Association? The American Bar Association is a branch or subset of the Bar Council of England and Wales, implementing the agenda of the English Crown, et al. By presiding over the making and administering of law and government, the Bar Associations and their legions of attorneys serve to transplant the locus of sovereignty and control, and transfer wealth and property wholesale, from the American people to a foreign power. Although the British ownership of the Bar Association is concealed, some researchers have dug to the truth. Some clues, of course, are expressly manifest, such as the fact that the term “Esquire” is a title of nobility[3] in the British class system of contemporary feudalism signifying a member of the English gentry ranking between a “gentleman” and a “knight.” Every attorney operates under a title of nobility granted by the Crown. Definitions substantiating this assertion include the following:

a. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged, 1976. “A man belonging to the higher order of English gentry, ranking immediately below a knight. . . . Applied to various officers in the service of a king . . . In the U.S. the title belongs officially to lawyers…”
b. The Oxford English Dictionary defines “esquire,” in part, as: “Applied to various officers in the service of a king . . . In the U.S. the title belongs officially to attorneys . . .” The term “esquire” comes from the Latin word scutum, “shield,” and signifies “one who bears a shield against those whom the king wishes to engage in battle.”
c. Webster’s New International Dictionary, 1943: Nobility, attached to hereditary rank irrespective of office, and grouped as (1) Greater – Prince, Duke, Marquis, Count, Earl, Viscount, Baron; (2) Lesser – Baron, Knight, Chevalier, Ritter, Caballero, Esquire, Noble.”
d. OxfordEnglishDictionary, 1999: Esquire n. Earlier as squire n.1 lme. [Origin French. esquier (mod.écuyer) f.Latin scutariusshield- bearer, f.scutumshield: see-ary1.] 1.Orig. (nowHist.), a young nobleman who, intraining for knighthood, acted as shield-bearer and attendant to a knight. Later,aman belonging to the higher order of Englishgentry, ranking next below aknight. lme. bHist. Anyof various officers in the service of a king or nobleman. cAlanded proprietor, acountry squire.arch.

13. The following British companies own the copyrights on Federal and State law (codes) in the United States:

a. The Thompson Group, LLC, LTD, with offices located in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, owns, inter alia: West Publishing Company; Barclays West Group; Bancroft Whitney; Clark Bordman, Callaghan; Legal Solutions; Rutter Group; Warren, Gorham & Lamont, Lawyer’s Coop;
b. Reed Elsevier owns, inter alia: Lexis; Deerings Codes.

14. Inasmuch as all United States District Courts, State Courts, State Bar Associations, and indeed every State of the Union, now utilize and enforce private, de facto, commercial, British-owned “law” against US/State residents, they are doing business in America on behalf of the Queen under cover and color of State and federal law. Attorneys are statute “merchants,” as defined in the federal and State business code, UCC 2-104(1), holding membership in their private Bar Associations. There are no state or federal regulatory agencies over bar associations or attorneys in America. All Bar Associations are entirely self-contained and operate as agents of foreign powers over and against the people.

15. The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, i.e., “NCUSL,” was formed in 1892 upon the recommendation of the American Bar Association (ABA) for the purpose of promoting "uniformity in state laws on all subjects where uniformity is deemed desirable and practicable." Made up of ABA Attorneys chosen by the federal States, the Conference still oversees the preparation of proposed laws, "Uniform Laws," which the States are "encouraged" to adopt. For over a century, this process has continued to function, carried out through selective ABA Committees that prepare drafts for review and ultimate approval by the full Conference. Such private “law” dominates the legal landscape in America today. State Bar Associations write State legislation, and then revise legislative acts into codes that are privately copyrighted. There is no discussion on the floor, as matters are undertaken in private.

C. Overt aggression.

16. Inasmuch as the NCUSL invents and devises the "laws" extended over the entire populace, and any accused is prosecuted, defended, and judged, by attorneys implementing their own private agenda, the people are foreclosed by the Bar Association from accessing the judicature.

17. Attorneys who write and enforce the statutes are all members of an alien organization dubbing its members with a title of nobility, i.e., “Esquire.” This is an inherent conflict of interest between the interests of the people, the true sovereign, creditor, and owner of the country, vis-à-vis a foreign power. This conflict is a violation of the very Constitution the attorney swears an oath to “protect and defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Life is not the creation, and therefore is not the property, of any particular person, organization, king, queen, ruler, government, corporation, or otherwise. Life is the creation, and therefore the property, of the Creator of the universe. Moreover, as the well-settled maxim of law states: “Commerce, by the law of nations, ought to be common, and not to be converted into a monopoly and the private gain of a few.” 3 Inst. 181, in marg., Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, “Maxims.” The monopolistic abrogation of human rights by the Bar Associations constitutes involuntary servitude, peonage, and dictatorship under color of law. Every attorney, just by being an attorney, commits violations of the Constitution of the United States and the laws made in pursuance thereof, e.g., barratry, libel, slander, denial of equal protection under the law, acting on a title of nobility, impairing the obligations of contracts, peonage, extortion, treason, sedition, etc.

18. The American Bar Association and its various State divisions affect, if not dominate, interstate commerce, in a manner that may reasonably deemed racketeering as defined under 18 USC 1951 and 1961. All Bar Association Attorneys make money from fraud schemes perpetrated by originating endless derivatives and legal fictions. In the words of the celebrated Austrian economist Frederich A. Hayek, “To be controlled in our economic pursuits means to be controlled in everything.”

19. Statutes do not secure unalienable rights, but deal with “civil rights” (privileges) and statutory remedies. The State and federal codes are a condition of politics and the Bar Association courts of the staple,[4] existing and functioning within the private, international, consensual Law Merchant of the alleged creditors in bankruptcy of the bankrupt quasi-governmental corporations. The “United States,” for example, is not a country, but a privately owned, bankrupt corporation operating under color of law and government as a mere front and administrative agency for the would-be creditors, IMF, Federal Reserve, English Crown, et al.

20. Law-enforcement officers do not enforce law, but the rules, regulations, policits, and agenda of an alien, hostile power of which they are undoubtedly unaware. This leaves the people in a situation where “the fox guards the henhouse” and there is no police power to offset the monopolistic tyranny of the corporate government. The Bar Association and the corporate security guards, i.e., “law enforcement,” do not protect the interests, rights, and res of the American people, but of foreign powers

21. Virtually all State and Federal legislators are attorneys. Even those in government who are not attorneys operate in accordance with the laws manufactured and manipulated by attorneys. The entire legal/political/governmental system is of, by, and for attorneys.

22. All those with whom an accused deals are part of the same cabal. All are members of the same club as the plaintiff who is out for blood. Those who make (fabricate) the laws are attorneys. The prosecutor is an attorney. The judge is, or was, an attorney, and is in any case beholden to the Bar Association. A hapless Defendant is represented ("defended") by an attorney. Thus, the only ones allowed to represent a Defendant (unless appearing without attorney) have taken solemn oaths to support the same agenda as the organization to which the defender, prosecutor, and judge all belong.

23. All judges are ”licensed” (commissioned) for carrying out the business of the Crown, i.e., extraction of participatory payments on the commercial joint venture of the Colonies with the Crown, and, in addition (since America is defeated in war as well as commerce) war reparations—called “war contributions” from American Colonial belligerents. The system is colorable law operating within de facto enemy rule that attorneys represent, functioning in the state of ongoing emergency under the Emergency War Powers, see Roosevelt's Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111, & 6260; Senate Report 93-549, pp. 187, 594; Trading With The Enemy Act of 1917 and the Amendatory Act of March 9, 1933 codified at 12 USC 95; House Joint Resolution 192 of June 5, 1933; Public Law 73-10; Perry v. U.S. (1935), 294 U.S. 330-381, 79 L Ed 912; 31 USC 5112, 5119.

24. Bar Association Attorneys, necessarily function to ignore and suppress truth, not bring it to light. Attorneys operate in accordance with the standard policy of intelligence agencies and agents of state everywhere: “Deny everything, admit nothing, and vilify your opponent.”

25. The American people have been kept ignorant, confused, and confounded about law—both genuine law and the undisclosed, largely unwritten law of the would-be conquerors (private Law Merchant). The term “legalese” comes to mind when a layman attempts to decipher the codes, as the language involved is vastly different than the same words used in ordinary speech. The result of this enslavement of the people to the Merchant Masters and the entire network of “power elite” that currently dominates mankind on this planet.

26. The word “attorney” comes from “atorner,” a word from old French meaning to “turn or twist.” Attorneys do not practice, and never have practiced, law; they preside over the feudal ceremony of attornment, a ritual whereby the homage (allegiance, pledge) and service of one feudal lord are turned over to another lord, both operating under king-granted privilege. In feudal England the fiefs (landed estates, sub-divisions of feuds) included not only the houses, barns, tools, and domestic animals, but the serfs/peons who were indentured (bound) to the land. Peasants and their progeny were passed with the fief whenever a change of lords occurred, due to inheritance or otherwise. Freedom was unknown and scarcely even thought about. This role of attorneys, operating under a title of nobility, remains intact to this day, merely functioning under different guise. The mass of the world’s population live as peons under a contemporary feudalism of the rulers and privileged aristocracy that attorneys serve. By such means attorneys (knowingly or otherwise) effect the commercial/legal rulership of the Crown and bankers over the United States and its assets, i.e., every “citizen of the United States,” pledged in bankruptcy. A seminal article on the nature and foundation of these matters is The Shetar’s Effect on English Law—A Law of the Jews Becomes the Law of the Land.[5]

It is highly recommended that anyone interested in understanding what/why things are as they are in our world today read this article.

The prerequisites for an attorney to practice in court on the federal level and most States are:
1) to earn a baccalaureate degree from an approved university;
2) attend and graduate from an approved law school;
3) take and pass the Bar Association exam proffered and graded by law professionals; and
4) serve an informal internship. After all that, most attorneys lose more than half of their cases. The punishment doled out by the judiciary burdens solely the people and their res. If it takes such education to understand this colorable law, it is reasonable that neither the average American can comprehend the attendant ambiguities and complexities. These facts support the contention that in most cases, as applied to the American people, statutes and their filial relations are “bills of attainder; pains and penalties,” forbidden by the Constitution.

II. Appropriate case law, legal definitions, quotations, and maxims of law

A. On counsel.
[T]he right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel. McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 771 n. 14 (1970).

There is something specially repugnant to justice in using rules of practice in such a manner as to (prevent a defendant) from defending himself, especially when the professed object of the rules so used is to provide for his defense. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 822-823 (1975).
In re Benny, 29 B.R. 754, 762 (N.D. Cal. 1983): [A]n unlawful or unauthorized exercise of power does not become legitimated or authorized by means of habitude. See also Umpley v. State, 347 N.W.2d 156, 161 (N.E. 1984).

B. Jurisdiction.
Federal Practice and Procedure, § 3522:
The presumption is that a federal court lacks jurisdiction in a particular case until it has been demonstrated that jurisdiction over the subject matter exists. Thus the facts showing the existence of jurisdiction must be affirmatively alleged in the complaint. If these facts are challenged, the burden is on the party claiming jurisdiction to demonstrate that the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Also

…the parties cannot waive lack of jurisdiction by express consent, or by conduct, or even by estoppel.
A footnote to § 3522 states:

The limits upon federal jurisdiction , whether imposed by the Constitution or by Congress, must be neither disregarded nor evaded.

The question of Jurisdiction in the court either over the person, the subject matter or the place where the crime was committed can be raised at any stage of a criminal proceeding; it is never presumed but must be proved; and it is never waived by the defendant. United States v. Roger, 23 F. 658 (W.D. Ark. 1885).
Where jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven… The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the proceedings… Jurisdiction may never be assumed, but must be proven. Hagen v. Lavine, 415 US 528, at 533, 39 L.Ed. 577, 94 S Ct, 1372 (NY March 28, 1974).

Jurisdiction once challenged cannot be assumed and must be decided. State of Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 US 1, 100 S. Ct 2502 (1980).

C. Void Judgments.
Void judgments are those rendered by a court which lacked jurisdiction, either of the subject matter or the parties. Wahl v. Round Valley Bank 38 Ariz. 411, 300 P. 955 (1931); Tube City Mining & Milling Co. v. Otterson, 16 Ariz. 305, 146 P. 203 (1914); and Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 61 S.Ct. 339, 85 L.Ed. 2d 278 (1940).

A void judgment which includes judgment entered by a court which lacks jurisdiction over the parties or the subject matter, or lacks inherent power to enter the particular judgment, or an order procured by fraud, can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided that the party is properly before the court, Long v. Shorebank Development Corp., 182 F.3d 548 ( C.A. 7 Ill. 1999).

A void judgment is one which, from its inception, was a complete nullity and without legal effect, Lubben v. Selevtive Service System Local Bd. No. 27, 453 F.2d 645, 14 A.L.R. Fed. 298 (C.A. 1 Mass. 1972).
A void judgment is one which from the beginning was complete nullity and without any legal effect, Hobbs v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 485 F.Supp. 456 (M.D. Fla. 1980).

Void judgment is one that, from its inception, is complete nullity and without legal effect, Holstein v. City of Chicago, 803 F.Supp. 205, reconsideration denied 149 F.R.D. 147, affirmed 29 F.3d 1145 (N.D. Ill 1992).
Void judgment is one where court lacked personal or subject matter jurisdiction or entry of order violated due process, U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5 – Triad Energy Corp. v. McNell 110 F.R.D. 382 (S.D.N.Y. 1986).

Judgment is a void judgment if court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process, Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 60(b)(4), 28 U.S.C.A.; U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5 – Klugh v. U.S., 620 F.Supp. 892 (D.S.C. 1985).

A void judgment is one which, from its inception, was, was a complete nullity and without legal effect, Rubin v. Johns, 109 F.R.D. 174 (D. Virgin Islands 1985). A void judgment is one which, from its inception, is and forever continues to be absolutely null, without legal efficacy, ineffectual to bind the parties or to support a right, of no legal force and effect whatever, and incapable of enforcement in any manner or to any degree – Loyd v. Director, Dept. of Public Safety, 480 So. 2d 577 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985).

A judgment shown by evidence to be invalid for want of jurisdiction is a void judgment or at all events has all attributes of a void judgment, City of Los Angeles v. Morgan, 234 P.2d 319 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. 1951).
Void judgment which is subject to collateral attack, is simulated judgment devoid of any potency because of jurisdictional defects, Ward v. Terriere, 386 P.2d 352 (Colo. 1963).

Res judicata consequences will not be applied to a void judgment which is one which, from its inception, is a complete nullity and without legal effect, Allcock v. Allcock 437 N.E. 2d 392 (Ill. App. 3 Dist. 1982).

Judgment is void if court that rendered it lacked personal or subject matter jurisdiction; void judgment is nullity and may be vacated at any time, Matter of Marriage of Welliver, 869 P.2d 653 (Kan. 1994).
A void judgment is one rendered by a court which lacked personal or subject matter jurisdiction or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process In re Estate of Wells, 983 P.2d 279, (Kan. App. 1999).
Void judgment is one rendered in absence of jurisdiction over subject matter or parties 310 N.W. 2d 502, (Minn. 1981). A void judgment is one rendered in absence of jurisdiction over subject matter or parties, Lange v. Johnson, 204 N.W.2d 205 (Minn. 1973).

A void judgment is one which has merely semblance, without some essential element, as when court purporting to render is has no jurisdiction, Mills v. Richardson, 81 S.E. 2d 409, (N.C. 1954).

A void judgment is one which has a mere semblance, but is lacking in some of the essential elements which would authorize the court to proceed to judgment, Henderson v. Henderson, 59 S.E. 2d 227, (N.C. 1950).

Void judgment is one entered by court without jurisdiction to enter such judgment, State v. Blankenship 675 N.E. 2d 1303, (Ohio App. 9 Dist. 1996). Void judgment, such as may be vacated at any time is one whose invalidity appears on face of judgment roll, Graff v. Kelly, 814 P.2d 489 (Okl. 1991).
A void judgment is one that is void on face of judgment roll, Capital Federal Savings Bank v. Bewley, 795 P.2d 1051 (Okl. 1990).

Where condition of bail bond was that defendant would appear at present term of court, judgment forfeiting bond for defendant’s bail to appear at subsequent term was a void judgment within rule that laches does not run against a void judgment Com. V. Miller, 150 A.2d 585 (Pa. Super. 1959).

A void judgment is one in which the judgment is facially invalid because the court lacked jurisdiction or authority to render the judgment, State v. Richie, 20 S.W.3d 624 (Tenn. 2000).

Void judgment is one which shows upon face of record want of jurisdiction in court assuming to render judgment, and want of jurisdiction may be either of person, subject matter generally, particular question to be decided or relief assumed to be given, State ex rel. Dawson v. Bomar, 354 S.W. 2d 763, certiorari denied, (Tenn. 1962).

A void judgment is one which shows upon face of record a want of jurisdiction in court assuming to render the judgment, Underwood v. Brown, 244 S.W. 2d 168 (Tenn. 1951).

A void judgment is one which shows on face of record the want of jurisdiction in court assuming to render judgment, which want of jurisdiction may be either of the person, or of the subject matter generally, or of the particular question attempted to decided or relief assumed to be given, Richardson v. Mitchell, 237 S.W. 2d 577, (Tenn.Ct. App. 1950).

Void judgment is one which has no legal force or effect whatever, it is an absolute nullity, its invalidity may be asserted by any person whose rights are affected at any time and at any place and it need not be attacked directly but may be attacked collaterally whenever and wherever it is interposed, City of Lufkin v. McVicker, 510 S.W. 2d 141 (Tex. Civ. App. – Beaumont 1973).

A void judgment, insofar as it purports to be pronouncement of court, is an absolute nullity, Thompson v. Thompson, 238 S.W.2d 218 (Tex.Civ.App. – Waco 1951).

A void judgment is one that has been procured by extrinsic or collateral fraud, or entered by court that did to have jurisdiction over subject matter or the parties, Rook v. Rook, 353 S.E. 2d 756, (Va. 1987).

A void judgment is a judgment, decree, or order entered by a court which lacks jurisdiction of the parties or of the subject matter, or which lacks the inherent power to make or enter the particular order involved, State ex rel. Turner v. Briggs, 971 P.2d 581 (Wash. App. Div. 1999).

A void judgment or order is one that is entered by a court lacking jurisdiction over the parties or the subject matter, or lacking the inherent power to enter the particular order or judgment, or where the order was procured by fraud, In re Adoption of E.L., 733 N.E.2d 846, (Ill.App. 1 Dist. 2000).


Fraud. An intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right. A false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. Any kind of artifice employed by one (party) to deceive another. P. 336.
UCC 1-203:14:

When a party acts in bad faith, he will ordinarily be denied the benefit of any provision or concept that would improve his position.37 Am Jur 2nd, Fraud:

Fraud vitiates every transaction and all contracts. Indeed, the principle is often stated, in broad and sweeping language, that fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters, and that it vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments. Fraud, as it is sometimes said, vitiates every act, which statement embodies a thoroughly sound doctrine when it is properly applied to the subject matter in controversy and to the parties thereto and in a proper forum. As a general rule, fraud will vitiate a contract notwithstanding that it contains a provision to the effect that no representations have been made as an inducement to enter into it, or that either party shall be bound by any representation not contained therein, or a similar provision attempting to nullify extraneous representations. Such provisions do not, in most jurisdictions, preclude a charge of fraud based on oral representations. § 8.

Unquestionably, the concealment of material facts that one under the circumstance, is bound to disclose may constitute fraud. Indeed, one of the fundamental tenets of the Anglo-Saxon law of fraud is that fraud may be committed by a suppression of the truth, (suppressio veri) as well as by the suggestion of falsehood., (suggestio falsi). § 144.

The principle in the law of fraud as it relates to nondisclosure, that a charge of fraud is maintainable where a party knows material facts, is under the duty, under the circumstances, to speak and disclose his information, but remains silent. § 146.

UCC 2-721:4:
The Code contains no definition of fraud. To the contrary, UCC § 1-103 expressly preserves the pre-Code law as to “fraud” when not displaced by the Code. There is no provision in the Code that displaces the pre-Code law of fraud. The definition of fraud found in the pre-Code law therefore obtains whenever the Code refers to “fraud."

"Generally, an essential element of any fraud is a material misrepresentation of fact, and an unfulfilled promise to do something in the future cannot be taken as a material misrepresentation of fact without further proof showing fraudulent intent or other special circumstances." National Bond Finance Company v. General Motors Corporation 238 F.Supp. 248 (1964).

"It is universally recognized that any conduct or any contract of an illegal, vicious, or immoral nature cannot be the proper basis for a legal or equitable proceeding, and the parties will be left in the dilemma which they themselves devised. The law does not permit one to profit by his own fraud or take advantage of his own wrong or found any claim on his own iniquity or acquire property by his own wrong, and no court, particularly a court of equity, will lend its aid to a party who grounds his action upon an immoral or illegal act." I Am Jur 2d, Actions, § 51.

Legal Plunder. "Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?...The law has come to be an instrument of injustice...the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons, and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim--when he defends himself--as a criminal....When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it--without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud--to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed....But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime ...." Frederic Bastiat, The Law, The Foundation for Economic Education, Irvington-on-Hudson, 15th printing, 1990, pp. 7, 19, 20, 21.

Reformation. Equitable remedy used to reframe written contracts to reflect accurately real agreement between contracting parties when, either through mutual mistake or unilateral mistake coupled with actual or equitable fraud by other party, the writing does not embody contract as actually made. If by mistake of fact as to the contents of a written agreement or conveyance, or by mistake of law as to its legal effect, the writing does not conform to the agreement of the parties to it, the writing can be reformed to accord with the agreement. Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, pp. 665-666.

Rescission of contract. A "rescission" amounts to the unmaking of a contract, or an undoing of it from the beginning, and not merely a termination, and it may be effected by mutual agreement of parties, or by one of the parties declaring rescission of contract without consent of other if a legally sufficient ground therefore exists, or by applying to courts for a decree of rescission. Annulling, abrogation or unmaking of contract and the placing of the parties to it in status quo. It necessarily involves a repudiation of the contract and a refusal of the moving party to be further bound by it.

An action of an equitable nature in which a party seeks to be relieved of his obligations under a contract on the grounds of mutual mistake, fraud, impossibility, etc. Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, p. 679.
“Constructive fraud. Definition: [n] comprises all acts or omissions or concealments involving breach of equitable or legal duty confidence.“ HyperDictionary, WordNet Dictionary, website:

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?Dict=&define=constructive=fraud&search.x...
“Fraud in law. Definition: [n] fraud that is presumed from the circumstances although the one who commits it need not have evil intent.” HyperDictionary, WordNet Dictionary, website:

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/fraud+in+law
“fiduciary…in law, a person who is obliged to discharge faithfully a responsibility of trust toward another. Among the common fiduciary relationships are guardian to ward, parent to child, lawyer to client….” See Attachment 1, attached herewith, incorporated herein by reference, and made fully part hereof. Quotation from “fiduciary” defined in 1upInfo Encyclopedia, website:

http://www.1upinfo.com/encyclopedia/F/fiduciar.html
“sham. Adjective: False, counterfeit, pretended, feigned, unreal. Noun: Deception; any trick or fraudulent device that disappoints; a make-believe imposition; a humbug.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, p. 1171.
E. Selected Maxims of Law, Bouvier’s Law Dictionary
· Good faith must be observed. 1 Metc. Mass. 551; 23 id.; 521.
· In favor of life, liberty, and innocence, all things are to be presumed. Lofft. 125.
· Freedom does not admit of valuation. Bracton 14.
· To lie is to go against the mind. 3 Bulstr. 260.
· He who stands on his own rights injures no one. 41 La. Ann. 194; 48 id. 1389.
· No man can forfeit another's right. Fleta, 1. 1, c. 28, §11.
· A pirate is an enemy of the human race. 3 Inst. 113.
· Power ought to follow, not to precede, justice. 3 Bulstr. 199.
· Whatever is against the rule of right is wrong. 3 Bulstr. 313.
· Whatever one does in defense of himself, he is considered to have done legally. 2 Inst. 590.
· Rights never die.
· For we ought to be helped by a benefit, not destroyed by it. dig. 13. 6, 17. 3; Broom, Max 392. Commerce, by the law of nations, ought to be common, and not to be converted into a monopoly and the private gain of a few. 3 Inst. 181, in marg.
· When there is a disagreement in the substance, it appears that there is no acceptance. 12 Allen 44.
· A right of action cannot arise out of fraud. Broom, Max. 297, 729; Cowp. 343; 2 C. B. 501; 5 Scott N.R. 558; 10 Mass. 276; 107 id. 440; 38 Fed.Rep. 800.
· Where truth is, fiction of law does not exist.
· Good faith must be observed. 1 Metc. Mass. 551; 23 id.; 521.
· A hidden intention is bad. 2 Bulstr. 179.
· No man is to be esteemed a wrong-doer who avails himself of his legal right. Dig. 50. 17. 55; Broom, Max 130; 14 Wend. 399, 492. See [1898] Ch. 1.
· He who errs does not consent. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 581; Bract. 44.
· Power ought to follow, not to precede, justice. 3 Bulstr. 199.
· He who uses his legal rights harms no one. 8 Gray 424. See Broom, Max 379.
· Whatever one does in defense of himself, he is considered to have done legally. 2 Inst. 590.
· What is clearly apparent need not be proved. 10 Mod. 150.
· A sacred thing does not admit of valuation. Dig. 1. 8. 9. 5.
· The order of things is confounded if every one preserves not his jurisdiction. 4 Inst. Proem.
· You ought to know with whom you deal.
· It is natural that he who bears the charge of a thing should receive the profits. Dig. 50, 17, 10.
· The meaning of words is the spirit of the law. 5 Co. 2.
· Remove the foundation and all that is built thereon falls.
· Words ought to be made subservient to the intent, not contrary to it. 8 Co. 94.
· One absurdity being allowed, an infinity follow. 1 co. 102.
· Words are to be so understood that the subject matter may be preserved rather than destroyed. Bacon’s Max. in Reg. 3.
· "'Man' is a term of nature; 'person' is a term of civil law."

• No one is bound to arm his adversary against himself. Wing. Max. 665.
• No man is bound to produce writings against himself. Bell, Dict.
• No one is bound to accuse himself. Wing. Max. 486; 14 M. & W. 286; 107 Mass. 181.
• Nothing is so contrary to consent as force and fear. Dig. 50. 17. 116; Broom, Max 278, n.

· He who destroys the means destroys the end. 11 Co. Shep. Touch. 342; Co. Litt. 161 a.
· Once a fraud, always a fraud. 13 Vin. Abr. 530.
· Things invalid from the beginning cannot be made valid by subsequent act. Trayner, Max. 482.
· A thing void in the beginning does not become valid by lapse of time. 1 S. & R. 58.
· Time cannot render valid an act void in its origin. Dig. 50, 17, 29; Broom, Max. 178.
· What is otherwise good and just, if sought by force or fraud, becomes bad and unjust. 3 Co. 78.
· Whenever there is a doubt between liberty and slavery, the decision must be in favor of liberty. Dig. 50, 17, 67.

F. On derivatives.
The 'Lectric Law Library's Lexicon, http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d143.htm:
“DERIVATIVE - Coming from another; taken from something preceding, secondary; as derivative title, which is that acquired from another person. There is considerable difference between an original and a derivative title. When the acquisition is original, the right thus acquired to the thing becomes property, which must be unqualified and unlimited, and since no one but the occupant has any right to the thing, he must have the whole right of disposing of it. But with regard to derivative acquisition, it may be otherwise, for the person from whom the thing is acquired may not have an unlimited right to it, or he may convey or transfer it with certain reservations of right. Derivative title must always be by contract.

“Derivative conveyances are those which presuppose some other precedent conveyance, and serve only to enlarge, confirm, alter, restrain, restore, or transfer the interest granted by such original conveyance.”
Comments by Warren E. Buffet, from 2002 Berkshire Hathaway annual report:
“We view them [derivatives] as time bombs both for the parties that deal in them and the economic system… In our view, however, derivatives are financial weapons of mass destruction, carrying dangers that, while now latent, are potentially lethal.” http://www.fenews.com/fen31/one_time_articles/warren_buffet.html

Consequences of derivatives in law and commerce:
In the legal system today, language, symbols, and ideas are usurped and deployed by particular people (the power-elite, such as the English Crown, international bankers, Bar Associations, etc., for the purpose of achieving self-aggrandizement and self-enrichment at the expense of justice, good faith, fair play, full disclosure, and the unalienable rights of man. Such use of language constitutes war, i.e., wielding weapons of mass destruction that may reasonably be deemed both terrorism and genocide. This phenomenon has grown to such gargantuan proportions that it is wrecking havoc on the Earth and threatening the destruction of our civilization.
Some of the reason the situation has gotten so far out of hand is that the capacity to create and use new derivatives is unending. There are derivatives of derivatives of derivatives, all freely utilized for exploitation, legal plunder, and power. The process of creating and utilizing derivatives is ever-increasing. New laws, regulations, policies, presentments, court cases, etc., continuously appear, all of which affect life, commerce, and the freedom and welfare of the people.

The system invents and uses contrived (derived) names, such as variations of one’s all-caps name, all of which are legal fictions, instead of one’s full appellation consisting of all lower-case, or upper- and lower-case, letters (symbolizing the real being). Therefore, whenever anyone receives a presentment, such as a summons or complaint, the document is not addressed, and does not pertain, to the real being, but to a legal entity, ens legis, that is some bastardization of a name displayed in all-capital letters. In this manner the system is freed from the requirement to deal with actual facts and real beings and can operate on presumptions (both revealed and unrevealed), unsupported allegations, non-existent debts, stipulations, contractual interactions (express, implied, or presumed) between legal fictions, and endless concoctions of the mind (all of which are biased, abstract, and fictitious).

Laws and administrative agencies perpetually multiply, with each new derivative used to make more money for, and increase the power of, those in the system. The process is out of control and increasingly difficult to manage.

If those in the system can create endless new derivatives, including legal fictions, out of all most anything, at any time, and use them for exploitation, enslavement, and moneymaking at the expense of those who are victimized by the monopolistic use of power under color or law, Warren Buffet’s statement is self-evident.

G. Legal fictions.
Some seminal ideas concerning the nature and use of language in law are set forth, inter alia, in a discourse entitled Legal Fictions, by Lon L. Fuller, 1967, Stanford University Press, Stanford, California:

“The Fiction as a Linguistic Phenomenon, page 9-10:

“Ihering once said that the History of the Law could write as a motto over her first chapter the sentence, ‘In the beginning was the Word.’26 Students of the legal fiction might also take this motto to heart. For certainly it is a truth commonly overlooked that the fiction is ‘a disease or affection of language.’

“26 Ihering expresses in this fashion the exaggerated respect shown by early law for the written and spoken word. ‘Among all primitive peoples the word appears as something mysterious; a naive faith ascribes to the word a supernatural Power.’ (II2,441).

“Anyone who has thought about the legal fiction must be aware that it presents an illustration of the all-pervading power of the word. That a statement which is disbelieved by both its author and his audience can have any significance at all is evidence enough that we are here in contact with the mysterious influence exercised by names and symbols. In that sense the fiction is a linguistic phenomenon.
“What Is a Legal Fiction? - Pages 4-5

“The influence of the fiction extends to every department of the jurist's activities.Yet it cannot be said that this circumstance has ever caused the legal profession much embarrassment. Laymen frequently complain of the law: they very seldom complain that it is founded upon fictions. They are more apt to express discontent when the law has refused to adopt what they regard as an expedient and desirable fiction. Perhaps, too, the fiction has played its part in making the law ‘uncognizable’ to the layman. The very strangeness and boldness of the legal fiction has tended to stifle his criticisms, and has no doubt often led him to agree modestly with the writer of Sheppard's Touchstone, that ‘the subject matter of law is somewhat transcendent, and too high for ordinary capacities.’2 2 Preface (6th ed., 1791), p. xiii.

“At another place the only defense he can find is the doubtful one of recrimination, when he points out that the common-law fictions were no worse than the numerous fictions of the Roman law.13 13 Ibid., III, *107.

“A Fiction Distinguished from a Lie - Page 7

“Maine's classical definition of the historical fiction as ‘any assumption which conceals, or affects to conceal, the fact that a rule of law has undergone alteration…remains unchanged, its operation being modified,’19 seems to leave room for the intent to deceive. The English courts were in the habit of pretending that a chattel, which might in fact have been taken from the plaintiff by force, had been found by the defendant.20 Why? In order to allow an action which otherwise would not have lain. If this fiction does not deceive, of what purpose is it?
“19 Maine, Ancient Law (1861; Beacon Press ed., 1963), p.25. Cf. ‘the authorities... distinctly admit that fiction is frequently resorted to in the attempt to conceal the fact that the law is undergoing alteration in the hands of the judges.’ J. Smith, ‘Surviving Fictions,’ 27 Yale L. Jour. (1917), 147, 150.
“20 Blackstone, III, * 152.

“It is easy to conclude uncharitably that the judge who enlarges his jurisdiction or who changes a rule of law under cover of a fiction is very coolly and calculatingly choosing to hide from the public the fact that he is legislating.

“A Fiction Distinguished from an Erroneous Conclusion, page 8

“A fiction is generally distinguished from an erroneous conclusion (or in scientific fields, from a false hypothesis) by the fact that it is adopted by its author with knowledge of its falsity. A fiction is an ‘expedient, but consciously false, assumption.’21 21 Vaihinger, Die Philosophie des Als Ob, 4th ed., 1920, p.130.”
Definitions:

Oran’s Dictionary of the Law, West Group, 1999:
A legal fiction is an assumption that something that is (or may be) false or nonexistent is true or real. Legal fictions are assumed or invented to help do justice. For example, bringing a lawsuit to throw a nonexistent ‘John Doe’ off your property used to be the only way to establish a clear right to the property when legal title was uncertain.

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, 1996:
legal fiction: something assumed in law to be fact irrespective of the truth or accuracy of that assumption. Example: the legal fiction that a day has no fractions—Fields V. Fairbanks North Star Borough, 818 P.2d 658(1991).

Conclusion:
It would appear from the foregoing that fictions and frauds, wielded for the purpose of implementing legalized power and plunder, rule the world today. Everyone alive is adversely affected by this, including the users thereof, who may think that the power, wealth, and career progress obtained through their use of this system is a genuine gain for them. By utilizing a system that is innately and structurally a win/lose game functioning through deceit, non-disclosure, and misrepresentation, however, such alleged winners are undermining their own civilization, disintegrating the foundation on which they exist, and serving to destroy their own progeny, families, community, culture, and nation along with the ecology and peace of the planet. The process is grinding up life and creating unimaginable misery for the world. A re-evaluation of the foundations of the social order might be a worthy undertaking. No system that lacks fundamental integrity and coherence, and is anti-life, can or will endure, that is the nature of life and the universe.