This area of the library contains content on legal processes, legal people (citizens, corporations, trusts, associations, etc...) and how to live free in the world of Fictions.

For those just becoming aware of the Legal Body, we suggest you start with this:

Understanding the Legal System

I. Fundamentals.

A. Definition.

Because the definition of terms used in any field of endeavor is essential for enabling mutual understanding of whatever is being discussed, we begin by defining “law”:

“Law” consists of the set of rules within a given territory and sphere of functioning that defines who has what alleged authority for using deadly physical force against whom.

Examining at this definition we find at least five (5) essential aspects/elements:
1. Law is a set of rules. These rules, within a finite sphere called a “set,” consist of abstract concepts expressed in symbols and words. Law, therefore, functions in the realm of abstraction, not reality. It is a product of, and used by, the human mind through man’s ability to create symbolic representations, i.e., “maps,” of reality, i.e., “territory.” The cardinal axiom of semantics pertains: “The map is not the territory. The name is not the thing named.” The bottom-line practical consequence of this understanding is that law is a word game. In the course of any legal process, at some point a conclusion is reached by some living being(s), based on whatever uses of words and concepts (speaking and writing) occurred in the proceeding (such as a prosecution, arrest, or trial), whereby a conclusory map (warrant, summons, indictment, complaint, ruling, order, judgment, etc.) is formulated for the purpose of being imposed back on the territory (reality, such as a living being). The vital importance of understanding concepts pertaining to law, and the definitions of the words used, is therefore obvious.

2. Concrete application of law occurs within the boundaries of a given territory—abstract or real. This realm of application, in law, is called “venue”—the situs wherein whatever law is operating is deemed to be allowed to operate.

3. The sphere of functioning of law, i.e., the locus of authority for dealing with it, is called “jurisdiction.” Another definition of jurisdiction is power and control, such as whether some policeman has a right to arrest you, or a judge of a particular court has the authority to try the matters alleged (subject matter jurisdiction) and impose them on the physical you (in personam jurisdiction).

4. The issue of authority is far-reaching and profound. From what source does anyone presume to derive his alleged authority for acting against anyone else? For innumerable millennium mankind on this planet has been implementing violence against members of his own species for a vast number of alleged reasons. The crucial issue is, what reasons will stand the light of day and in what context or from what vantage point be deemed legitimate? The vast majority of the people on the planet, it would seem, rely on the guns of the law to accomplish results, and mindlessly subscribe to the validity of such widespread practice, without questioning or challenging the fundamental soundness of either policing or being policed by others.

5. All of the foregoing revolves around the final, and most serious, element of our definition of law, which is force. It is the fact that law and all the other elements thereof discussed above resolve down to uses of deadly physical violence, that makes a study of the subject so important. “Law” is not simply another academic discipline or philosophical discourse. It is a matter of life and death—all hinging on the particular understanding of the parties involved concerning the first four (4) concepts.

B. Types of law.

There are fundamentally only two kinds of law in human society: “real law,” of which true common law is a particular cultural style and development, and “Roman Civil Law.” The latter is a perversion and usurpation of the former. Roughly speaking, the first kind refers to the means used by free people for interacting with each other in the complete absence of any governmental involvement, while the second is the law of governments whereby the locus of power and alleged sovereignty resides in the state vis-à-vis the people.

“Common law,” as the law of free, sovereign people, is independent of organized governments. While common law in general is the set of values and prevailing customs that arise organically out of a given culture or group of people, what is referred to as “English common law” is that system of principles and procedures for dealing with disputes that derives from the Anglo-Saxon culture prevailing in England before 1066. Such English common law is the law of the land, dealing with issues bearing on land (as opposed to the sea), e.g., ownership, boundaries, and produce of the land (including man, his labor, and such derivatives of the land as silver and gold). Adherence by the people to common law provided peace and stability to the social order for hundreds of years before the Norman Conquest, and, although progressively eroded and usurped by the Crown after 1066, for centuries thereafter. All writs are of common-law derivation, as are the jury system and countless other aspects of what constitutes law today. We largely take the vast heritage of common law for granted without being aware of the source of law we use. In common law a king has no access, without permission, to the meanest commoner’s hovel, which is the source of the phrase: “A man’s home is his castle.”

Roman Civil Law is the “law” of the state, i.e., rulers—kings, princes, emperors, dictators, etc. Over the centuries governments have usurped the forms, trappings, and genius of common law, transmuting them into operations of Roman Civil Law to use as tools of ruler-ship. The spirit of truth, fairness, and justice of common law is thereby stifled and twisted, the forms of common law gutted of content and perverted from their just intent into means to implement tyranny.

The principles of both common law and Roman Civil Law are simple. Common law is expression of two fundamental precepts:

1) Every man has free will and is therefore sovereign over himself and his own domain. A man is fully entitled to do whatever he wishes with his life except transgress against the similar right of others. If one damages another he loses his sovereignty and rights to the degree necessary to provide rectitude and recompense to the one he wronged. In short: “Thou shalt not transgress against the rights of thy neighbor.”

2) All social intercourse is contract, whether express (written, bilateral) or implied (unwritten, ratified by acts not signature). Therefore, you are obligated to fulfill the terms and conditions of whatever contracts you enter into.

Roman Civil Law has but one principle:

The will of the ruler has the force and effect of law.

All human governments are necessarily some form of Roman Civil Law, because no basis in common law can exist for any “ruler” to “rule” (i.e., to usurp, enforced by force, the rights, options, or property of) another man. Also, the fact that all life is contract is the source of the timeless maxim of law: Contract makes the law. This maxim is found in virtually every culture, language, and legal system in the world. All law is inherently contract, whether express or implied. An express contract is formalized in writing, specifying the various rights and duties of the parties and all the terms and conditions to which the parties agree, with the voluntary consent of each party indicated by his signature. An implied contract is ratified by act instead of signature. An implied contract is formed, for instance, when one goes into a restaurant and orders a meal. Although no written contract is signed, a contract is formed nonetheless by the act of ordering and consuming the meal, on the basis of which one non-verbally consents to pay for it.

Roman Civil Law functions chiefly by implied contract, ratified by the presumed assent of the “ruled” through either not asserting and preserving their own rights and freedom vis-à-vis the ruler or, worse yet, accepting the “benefits” that the government offers and thereby incurring whatever obligations are contractually implied by the acceptance.

C. Law and contract.

All contracts, whether express or implied, are subject to the universal essentials of contract law, which pertain to fundamentals of the interaction between the parties. These fundamentals are well codified in many places, e.g. the California Civil Code, Sections 1549 et seq.:

§ 1549. Contract, what: A contract is an agreement to do or not to do a certain thing.

§ 1550. Essential elements of contract: It is essential to the existence of a contract that there should be:

1. Parties capable of contracting;
2. Their consent;
3. Lawful object; and,
4. A sufficient cause or consideration.

§ 1556. Who may contract: All persons are capable of contracting, except minors, persons of unsound mind, and persons deprived of civil rights.

§ 1565. Essentials of consent: The consent of the parties to a contract must be:

1. Free;
2. Mutual; and,
3. Communicated by each to the other.

§ 1567. An apparent consent is not real or free when obtained through:

1. Duress;
2. Menace;
3. Fraud;
4. Undue influence; or
5. Mistake.

§ 1598. When contract wholly void: Where a contract has but a single object, and such object is unlawful, whether in whole or in part, or wholly impossible of performance, or so vaguely expressed as to be wholly un-ascertainable, the entire contract is void.

§ 1608. Effect of its illegality: If any part of single consideration for one or more objects, or of several considerations for a single object, is unlawful, the entire contract is void.

§ 1620. Express contract, what: An express contract is one, the terms of which are stated in words.

§ 1621. Implied contract, what: An implied contract is one, the existence and terms of which are manifested by conduct.

§ 1441. Impossible or unlawful conditions void: A condition in a contract, the fulfillment of which is impossible or unlawful, within the meaning of the article on the object of contracts, or which is repugnant to the nature of the interest created by the contract, is void.

§ 1636. Contracts, how to be interpreted: A contract must be so interpreted as to give effect to the mutual intention of the parties as it existed at the time of contracting, so far as the same is ascertainable and lawful.

§ 1668. Certain contracts unlawful: All contracts which have for their object, directly or indirectly, to exempt anyone from responsibility for his own fraud, or willful injury to the person or property of another, or violation of law, whether willful or negligent, are against the policy of the law.

§ 1709. Fraudulent deceit: One who willfully deceives another with intent to induce him to alter his position to his injury or risk, is liable for any damage which he thereby suffers.

D. Governments.

When the ruler-ship of a state, called a “government,” exists, the “contract” between rulers and ruled is presumed to exist by the assent (assent, not consent) of the ruled. The ruled are not presumed to have assented to a ruler ship over them by signing a written contract with a ruler specifying all mutual rights, duties, valuable consideration, etc., but by non-objection to the existence of the government and acceptance of benefits offered by the government. People’s non-objection to, and acceptance of, governments is the result of people’s ignorance and moral, intellectual, spiritual, and physical laziness. Consequently, tyranny is a symptom or effect of an originating cause which almost no one understands or addresses, i.e., people’s own thoughts, actions, and defaults. Were people to cease giving their power and autonomy away, governments would disappear like mist in the morning sun.

All so-called “contracts” between rulers and ruled necessarily violate virtually every one of, or do not possess any of, the fundamentals of an involvement that are necessary for the interaction to be a lawful and enforceable contract. All such alleged contracts are minimally voidable, if not wholly void, and when challenged are found to be non-existent and therefore unenforceable. Any “contract” on the basis of which the system acts against you is characterized by elements of fraud, deceit, duress, malice, absence of fully informed consent, no meeting of the minds, bad faith, want of lawful object, no valuable consideration, etc.

Any time any agents of state act against the people, however, a contract is formed via the interaction, but not the one the state attempts to enforce. By attempting to enforce a presumed, but wholly void and unlawful, therefore non-existent, “contact,” the actors of state commit a crime which creates an entirely different contract than the one the state proclaims to be in force and effect. Every state acts against people ever and always on this basis. If there were a full, express, bona fide contract between every individual in society and every specific member of the government, there would be no government other than the assemblage of private contracts between sovereign, autonomous people. No abstract generalization, such as “law and order,” “government,” “nation,” could exist as a basis for “authorizing” any living being to act against any other living being without proving the lawful and ethical basis for so doing.

All crime is contract. A criminal, by his aggression, forms a contract with his victim whereby he becomes indebted to (obligated to repay) the one he wronged (the creditor) to the extent of the damage he caused. Since every act, indeed the very existence of the state, is fraud (presuming to derive authority from fictions, e.g., “government,” to act against real beings), all actors of state function in the absence of lawful and ethical foundation.

Via the inherent fraud of governments, born of man’s ignorance, laziness, larceny, and default, life and law have been turned upside down. What hope for man can exist when that which is irredeemable is made “legal” and that which is illusion is made “official”?

All governments exist to provide a context in which a few people (the ruling elite) can attain to positions of power, plunder, and prestige over and at the expense of the many (the ruled). No open, good faith, bona fide contractual relationship of honorable quid-pro-quo exchange exists where the “rulers” agree to provide certain goods or services in exchange for the rights and property surrendered by the “ruled.”

The relationship between rulers and ruled is one of exploitation and not open, honorable exchange that will withstand the light of day. This is innately so for many reasons, not the least of which is that none of the so-called rulers have anything of their own, i.e., any valuable consideration lawfully belonging to them, to be able to contractually pledge in exchange for the people’s surrender of rights, property, and autonomy. No government has any money of its own, only largesse it plunders by taxes, fees, fines, licenses, and other government revenue-gathering means (all undertaken without consent). All “benefits” a government dispenses are crumbs of the cake the government first took from the people by robbing them of their rights and property under color of law. The “valuable consideration” pledged by the state not only does not belong to the state, but was criminally acquired by the state in the first place.

Accepting government benefits is contractually enslaving oneself while accepting scraps of stolen property. A few of innumerable quotes expressing this insight are:

”There are many farm handouts; but let’s call them what they really are: a form of legalized theft. Essentially, a congressman tells his farm constituency, “Vote for me. I’ll use my office to take another American’s money and give it to you.” —Walter Williams

“The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize that they can bribe the people with their own money.” —Alexis de Tocqueville

“Everyone wants to live at the expense of the State. They forget that the State lives at the expense of everyone.” —Frederic Bastiat

Since all governments are force, exist by force, function by force, (deadly physical violence), all are organized aggression institutions. They do not exist for or on the basis of peace (honorable win/win relationships), but “officially” establish win/lose interactions as “law,” rendering peace, harmony, truth, and ability impossible to prevail in the social order.

Per Corpus Juris Secundum, every government is a constructive trust. A constructive trust (see Black’s Law Dictionary) is a mixture of law and (not or) fraud. As expression of fraud, all governments are perforce de facto. “De facto” can be defined in law as:

“A state of affairs or government which must be accepted for all practical purposes, but is illegal or illegitimate. It exists and is sustained by fraud and force, not law and the free, mutually voluntary, open consent of all parties.”

Because this is a free-will universe, all law is contract. If one party in a transaction (ruler) gains and the other (ruled) loses and a bona fide contract (based on genuine agreement, mutual meeting of the minds, full disclosure, etc.) does not govern the interaction, then the interaction is unlawful.

In law every punctuation mark, capitalization, and use of words has legal meaning. “Legal meaning” means there are consequences of deadly force attached. This is why all governments, via their legal systems, define the legal meanings of the words they use in their own system. The would-be rulers of the world have “legally” stolen and enslaved the world through word-games and unrevealed duplicity in their use of language. Words mean one thing in ordinary usage but possess entirely different meanings (and therefore practical deadly force consequences) in law.

E. Names in law.

An established maxim of law is:

“In order rightly to comprehend a thing, inquire first into the names, for a right knowledge of things depends upon their names.” (Co. Litt. 68, Bouvier’s Law Dictionary.)

One’s name in law states one’s identity. The name proclaims the rights and legal capacity of the party represented by his name. Your name declares, like a public notice or a flag, your character and standing. In common law, the name has two parts: a given or Christian name (or Christian appellation), consisting of all the names one is given by one’s mother and father, and the family name or surname, which is the name of one’s family or house.

All government legal systems self-define and manipulate the meanings of words they use in their system. The present de facto system designates one’s name as consisting of a First, Middle, and Last name. This is deception, designed to be yet another way whereby people acquiesce to the validity and jurisdiction of the implementing authority over whatever paperwork they sign bearing such designation. By agreeing to this identification of your name you are presumed to have agreed to be within their system. In common law you have a given or Christian name (appellation) and a surname or family name, not a First, Middle, and Last name.

All governments are corporate (abstract) in nature—legal fictions (imaginary creations of the mind) and not real beings like a man or an elephant. No one can shake hands with a government or put it on the witness stand to testify. Corporate legal fictions can deal only with entities of the same type or class, i.e., other corporate legal fictions. Since all law is contract, this corporate interaction can occur in the United States (“this state”) only on the basis of contracts between legal fictions.

The way this situation has developed, and the manner in which it is utilized against the people, is a masterpiece of sly treachery that has resulted in implementation of legalized theft, war, exploitation, and subjugation of unimaginable proportions. As referenced in the footnote above on the California Civil Code, the master term for the de facto private commercial corporation called the “United States,” i.e., “this state” as referenced in UCC 1-105, constitutes the venue and jurisdiction of the Law Merchant operational today throughout the world.

The 14th Amendment created a corporate franchise legal fiction aspect/subset of this state called a “citizen of the United States.” Anyone claiming to be a “citizen of the United States” is stating that he is a concocted imaginary entity, a corporate franchise figment, and the wholly owned chattel property of the powers-that-be. Every “citizen of the United States” exists by color of law., and is therefore “colored,” regardless of race or skin pigmentation.

As example of the system’s double meanings and alteration of words, the “United States,” i.e., “US,” is not the “United States of America,” i.e., “USA.” The two are separate legal entities and jurisdictions from each other. The US has created an abstract plastic overlay that mirrors and parallels the same things as the USA, making certain changes.

The impetus of this small introduction to the legal system concentrates on a major aspect of the word duplicity: your name. A government can tax and regulate only what it creates. The United States creates corporate legal fictions which, because said corporate entities are wholly owned by the US, the US can tax and regulate at will.

As pertains to you, the US creates a corporate legal fiction the title of which is some version of your name in all capital letters. As example, let’s say your name is John Paul Jones. Your name in that form is a declaration of your character and capacity as a real, living, sentient being with unalienable rights. Unalienable rights are those that you possess because you exist. The US, however, creates a corporate fiction such as JOHN P. (or PAUL) JONES, which is not real, has no rights, is not you, and does not pertain to you unless you agree (by unrebutted presumption or otherwise) that such a designation of letters is or refers to you. The ALL-CAPITAL LETTERS name is called a “Strawman,” it exists only on the “Public” side of life where all fictions function, whereas the real living you functions in “Private” capacity.

Further, the version of one’s name such as “JONES, JOHN PAUL,” is a military designation, signifying the status of that name as within and under the war powers in which every “citizen of the United States” is an enemy of the “government,” the alleged creditors in the bankruptcy of the United States, i.e., the IMF, English Crown, Vatican, et al.

Supposing someone you did not know published a d.b.a. in legal notices to do business as a company indicated by your name in all capital letters. Supposing, further, that the company became embroiled in a host of legal difficulties and also incurred massive debts that it could not pay. Suppose yet further that attorneys, creditors, process-servers, and police began knocking on your door, demanding that you pay the bills, answer the various legal complaints, or come with them in handcuffs. What would you do? Pay the bills? Go to court and fight the charges? Meekly surrender to the gendarmes? The answer should obviously be “NO.” All of those bills and charges were not incurred by you. They are not your responsibility unless you volunteer to assume them. It is a case of mistaken identity.

Yet this is in essence exactly what the US has done to the American people—tricked them into identifying with, and thereby incurring the debts and legal obligations of, corporate legal fictions which the US creates, invents, owns, and deceives the people into identifying with.

So when most people today get a traffic ticket, or a notice from the IRS or FTB, or a summons to go to court to answer a complaint of some kind, and it is addressed to “their name” in all capital letters, nearly all of them think that the bill or summons pertains to them, and they act accordingly. If you go to court concerning any such matter, you are entering a private, commercial, corporate bankruptcy tribunal which is in practice an idem sonans trust court in the general equity of the private Law Merchant. At this point a major interface of the fundamental deception occurs. Unless you understand what is happening and are armed with the knowledge of how to act correctly, you have lost everything at the beginning of the proceedings and the rest is only a charade and discourse to decide how badly you will be damaged.

Thus, you go to court and wait your turn. After a while the clerk calls what sounds like your name. This is the interface, and your response to the query as to whether “you” are present by answering to what sounds like your name is the crucial juncture. If, as most people do, you say, “here,” you have probably lost the game, battle, and war, and the rest is foregone down-the-drain with you as they play out their court charade. This is because when you hear your name, you are thinking: John Paul Jones, the real, living being with genuine rights. When the clerk calls your name, however, the court (clerk, judge, and the entire gang) is referring to JOHN PAUL JONES (usually with an abbreviation, a further perversion of the name, such as JOHN P. JONES), the corporate legal fiction, franchise, chattel property of this state as it is written on the summons, warrant, complaint, citation, or what not. The judge is looking at the paperwork in front of him (all any judge can deal with is whatever papers he has to refer to), which charges or complains against JOHN PAUL JONES. Both assemblages of letters—all capital and upper and lower case—sound the same when spoken, but in writing, on legal documents, the two are vastly different in legal meanings and consequences.

Read on...click here