THe Trust is US

I. Framework & Background (Intro)

There are fundamentally two types of law operational in the world:

1. Genuine, substantive law, the Commercial Maxims [1]—of which common law in England before 1066 purportedly was a variation; and,
2. The law of rulers, i.e., “Dictator Law,” such as Roman Civil Law, hereinafter “RCL,” that now prevails on planet Earth.

The first type of law is characterized by two (2) fundamental axioms:

1. Every man is a sovereign being with free will and complete right to do whatever he wishes with his own life so long as he does not transgress against the similar rights of others, in which case he owes recompense to the one he wronged;
2. When relating with other free-will beings all interactions are contracts, whereby one is lawfully and ethically obligated to keep the terms and conditions of the contracts into which one enters.

Dictator Law has but one principle:

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

These two fundamental types of law have been vying with each other for supremacy over man throughout the known course of human history. Dictator Law constitutes the law of kings, princes, rulers, and, indeed, all governments exercising any discretionary authority whatsoever. The nature of power is to utilize discretionary authority to assert deadly physical force, i.e., officialized violence, over other people for the purpose of insisting that the will of the ruler(s) prevail. Anything goes and there are no rules except to succeed by any means possible.

Given that the nature of life is “more,” anyone who wishes to “succeed” in life by dominating other people rather than by relating with them so that all parties involved in any interaction are bettered in their own terms,[2] will, by the innate impulse and nature of life itself, use whatever degree of discretionary power he has secured for himself to increase that power and gain yet more self-aggrandizement at the expense of loss to others. To be actual “power,” authority must be absolute in capacity to enforce one’s will, as “half a power” is impotence and amounts to “no power.” Power must possess unequivocal authority to go to ultimate measures to enforce a cause. As Rousseau said of this principle:

“For the same reason that state sovereignty is inalienable it is indivisible. The Will is General or else it is nothing.” The police, for instance, will escalate use of force until a subject either:

1. Surrenders;
2. Is captured; or
3. Is killed.

This scenario plays itself out in the smallest of legal matters, since what is at stake is vastly more far-reaching than any particular issue or person involved. Every legal enforcement is inherently an expression of the prestige and unassailable supremacy of the state. In reality, since all governments are force—their sole actual mechanics of functioning—“law” in the world of man consists of the “rules defining who may use deadly force against others, and for what reason(s).” Governments, therefore, having only violence as their operational tool of power, are organized attempts to rule life by death.

Insofar as power is concerned, if one’s goal is power rather than truth, love, harmony, and the like, all the rules are disregarded and anything goes. No longer do any of the eternal verities, ethics, fair play, honesty, or any other such noble considerations, matter, and, indeed, are deemed mere encumbrances to achieving the goal, which is permitted by any means whatsoever, without reservation. Higher aspects of the soul are mere inconvenient and irritating impediments.

In an episode of the original Star Trek series, McCoy says, “I have learned that in the battle between good and evil, evil will usually prevail—unless good is very, very careful.” It is the general nature of most people to be peaceful, trusting, and cooperative. Many good people are in fact unable to comprehend the mentality of a deliberate sociopathic predator, who is deficient in or devoid of feeling, sympathy, good will, etc., and who consciously and rationally acts to exploit such innocent qualities in others for the purpose of achieving power and gain at the expense of loss to his prey. Those who operate the cons of the ages may be deemed intentional predators/aggressors.

As a result, the world is run by the ruthless—almost always operating under the guise of help, protection, necessity, and the voluntary acceptance by those whom they subjugate.
The long-and-short of the matter is that throughout the known history of man, Dictator Law in some guise or another has overwhelmingly prevailed. Genuine law—which alone allows and is characterized by honoring individual sovereignty, liberty of conscience, real freedom, and the soul and spirit of man—has functioned successfully only within limited domains of geography and culture, and for relatively brief periods of time. Such is the case, for instance, in the Western Civilization throughout the past several millennia. Many celebrated personages have articulated the issue eloquently, such as:

• The first great struggle for liberty was in the realm of thought. The libertarians reasoned that freedom of thought would be good for mankind; it would promote knowledge, and increased knowledge would advance civilization. But the authoritarians protested that freedom of thought would be dangerous, that people would think wrong, that a few were divinely appointed to think for the people. —Charles T. Spradling, Liberty and The Great Libertarians
• True, it is evil that a single man should crush the herd, but see not there the worse form of slavery, which is when the herd crushes out the man. —Antoine De Saint-Exupery (1900-1944) Citadelle, 1948

· The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe.

To be your own man is hard business. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself. —Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936)

· The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience. —Albert Camus (1913-1960)

To provide an indicator or overview of the process by which RCL has come to prevail so universally, unassailably, and pervasively in the world today, a brief historical progression is in order.

II. Development and triumph of Roman Civil Law

A. The point of the game of Roman Civil Law is to amalgamate three things so pervasively that they became a single operational, indivisible unity:

1. The leaders of the Church and the principles, conscience, precepts, rules, beliefs, dogmas, and agendas thereof;
2. The “secular” or civil law of the government and all its legislative, judicial, executive, administrative, and enforcement procedures;
3. The lives of the people in all areas, including the most intimate and personal of things, such as the training of one’s offspring; ubiquitous privacy invasions via such the presence of cameras in buildings, roadways, airports, bus stations, etc.; bank account fingerprinting; blanket phone surveillance; the presence of one’s buying habits, income, tastes, biometric data, etc., on computers all over the world; what is or is not allowed in the bedroom; and what constitutes “vice” that may be regulatable by the State.

The nearly universal and totalistic degree to which RCL has been implemented is, indeed, the result of incredibly brilliant planning, understanding, execution, and perseverance over a very long period of time—and would have to be or it could not prevail to the almost universal extent that it now does in the world. The whole process must be undertaken with sufficient popular support, since people must be persuaded/sold/conned into voluntarily thinking that what is transpiring is good for them, right, just, necessary, and wise, or at least that they are better off having RCL rule them than not having it.[3] In other words, RCL is manifestation writ large, i.e., over the whole populace, of the precept that “the perfect sting occurs when the mark does not know he has been stung.” This con is a whopper, and nearly belies the celebrated comment of Abraham Lincoln: “You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all the time.” The masses of people can and have been fooled more than “some of the time.” They often appear to love and accept Roman Civil Law, and even think that they enacted it (or helped to enact it) for their own benefit.

B. The Cons of the Ages.

As is common knowledge, the “world system,” i.e., the system by which the world is governed, is the product of millennia of development and use. This system functions on the basis of an integrated utilization of four (4) of the major cons that have successfully exploited mankind throughout history. These four (4) major cons are:

1. The science/technology con, whereby a scientific priesthood attains power and essentially a monopolistic position to dictate what the laws of physics, chemistry, etc., are. Some of the consequences of this phenomenon include foreclosing exploration of deeper, more powerful, and more universal knowledge, as well as alternative “outside-the-box” ways of looking at things, and, most importantly, fostering external dependency at the expense of people’s realizing their own true nature and actualizing its potential. One who is awake and empowered cannot be exploited. The esoteric heart of the con is that all of the technological development and manipulation that occurs in the realm of science, including the design, engineering, and manufacture of all industrial products involving scientific knowledge (essentially everything produced today), are accomplished by projecting into the outer world things that we, as spiritual beings, are inwardly capable of knowing, being, and doing in, by, and through ourselves. Examples of inner technological capacity in man include yogis and masters who possess such “supernatural,” or at least extraordinary, powers (“siddhis,” in Sanskrit) as invisibility, transporting one’s body anywhere instantly at the speed of thought, being multiple places at the same time, etc.

The point of the Science and Technology Con, as with all of the cons, is to foster outward absorption and dependency in people at the expense of realizing their true spiritual nature and thereby being self-sufficient and seeing through the con that one needs others to manage one’s life. All of the cons stymie the unlimited creative potential of our true nature for the sole purpose of keeping a “world system” of domination and exploitation in place over the masses.

2. The religious con, in which the doctrine and dogma of some religion are promulgated as truth (perhaps the best, or at least most important, truth), and if you want to get to God you must go through that religion’s priesthood and live your life in accordance with the teachings of the religion. Fostering fear, such as by invoking “hell” and the “devil,” is often a part of the control mechanism utilized.
3. The law/government con, consisting of instilling as deeply, securely, pervasively, and unquestioningly as possible the belief that man must have governments, i.e., that some people must be governed by other people. It could be considered a remarkable phenomenon that many people who are otherwise incredibly intelligent and discerning never think about questioning this premise, living their lives without ever addressing such a seminal idea. As Socrates purportedly said, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” Ideas govern man’s life, whether or not those ideas are consciously held, and, in the words of Spinoza, “Nature abhors a vacuum.” Something will control one’s life. If one does not analyze the ideas that govern his thinking and acting, his life will be controlled by random ideas and ideas deliberately instilled in him by others.

The operational consequences of this con are that the overwhelming percentage of mankind implicitly and unthinkingly believes, as if it were an unshakeable aspect of existence itself, that man must have human governments. One may openly question and analyze what kind of government might be best, but if one questions the implicit premise of the necessity and propriety of the existence of government per se, all hell breaks loose. Such a doubter is instantly ridiculed and derided (powerful weapons), and labeled (another powerful weapon) as an “anarchist,” or “anti-social,” or “a rebel,” or some other opprobrium, as if such labeling resolved the matter and eliminated the need to evaluate the ideas of someone espousing so radical (meaning “of or from the roots”) a concept.

This unshakeable and unassailable premise of the necessity of governments is immediately rendered questionable by pondering a few elementary considerations: “What does ‘governing’ mean?” “Does man, with the sublime attribute of free will, exist to be ruled by other men?” “If so, which men are supposed to rule what other men? i.e., Who should govern whom?” “Am I to govern you or are you to govern me?” “Who decides who governs whom?” “What source of authority authorizes structuring society on the premise that some men must rule others?” “Who is to be entitled to act in what manner to dominate what areas of what other people’s lives?” “What are the mechanics that should be used for governing?” Etc. ad infinitum. Once a false premise has been established as the foundation, no end of ills and falsehoods follow.

The problem with governments, when thought about clearly and with an open mind, is that the institution itself is hopelessly, irredeemably, and fatally flawed and cannot be rendered sound and legitimate by any variations in the institution whatsoever. These flaws are structured at inception:

1) Absence of valid ethical authority for one free-will being to dominate the life of another free-will being, whom he did not create, cannot fathom, does not own, and who is innately possessed of the inherent right/responsibility to live his own life;

2) Absence of adequate knowledge, i.e., no one is omniscient, and everyone has his hands full in ascertaining how best to live and fulfill his own life without meddling in the lives of others—especially masses of people—whom he cannot comprehend, and has neither the right, nor the ability, to try to impose such knowledge even if he knew it;

3) No effective mechanics, since the only operational tool of power available to governments is endless applications of deadly physical force, i.e., legalized violence, which needless to say does not enlighten and uplift people, transform their inner natures so that the deficiencies that created the alleged problems (who defines anything as a “problem,” and why?) simply are not there, or even bring about existential rectitude (true justice).

As a result of the premise of the necessity of governments being rendered operational by those who would rule others, the history of man on this planet is the monotonous replay of the same dreary earth dramas: civilizations form, grow and expand, reach a zenith, and then decline, disintegrate, and disappear—either suddenly and violently or gradually. As Lao-tzu observed concerning this foregone inevitability, “Most people who miss after almost winning should have known the end from the beginning.”

4. The last, and in many ways the most important, con is the money con (paper-money banking swindle), consisting of exchanging symbols of wealth (e.g., pieces of paper that cost the issuer nothing) for real wealth (i.e., people’s labor, property, freedom, and rights, which cost the people their life force and freedom to fulfill their destinies). When one has achieved a monopoly on the implementation of this con (as exists today), one is essentially at the pinnacle of the attainment of the objective of all cons, since mastery of this con enables purchasing all the other cons.

The knowledge of these cons and how to effectuate them has been transmitted through the ages through various “secret societies,” i.e., groups of people who not only learn the knowledge and feel justified in using it for their own advantage vis-à-vis the “masses,” but function in a manner that seeks to foreclose the general populace from knowing and implementing the knowledge.

C. Law & history.
At the time of Christ's crucifixion Pontius Pilot asked what might be the most important question man can ask: "What is truth?" At the dawn of the Twentieth Century, Oliver Wendell Holmes asked what might be the most important question re jurisprudence: "What is law?" (O. W. Holmes, "The Path of the Law," Harvard Law Review, Vol. X, No. 8, 1897, p. 457 at 460.)

Pursuant to Reference Librarian David Rabasca and Director of Legal Research Dan Zafren of the Law Library of the Library of Congress, said Library exceeded two (2) million books on law in 1989 and has by now upwards of three (3) million books—if not more. Public Officials persistently preach to the American people that "Ignorance of the law is no excuse," but anyone hauled into court these days may legitimately be perplexed as to the practical application of this axiom inasmuch as no man on earth can know or understand the entire range of existing human law, which is vast, complex, and ever-changing. Both West Publishing Company and Lexis have informed this author that government codes are not available for sale (only lease) on CD ROM because the law (due to court rulings, new legislation, ever-changing administrative rules, etc.) changes daily, and an attorney must consult in the morning before going to court to find out what “law” he can or cannot use in court that day. Clearly, therefore, the expression, “Ignorance of the law is no excuse” does not, and cannot, pertain to the law of the prevailing RCL for want of anyone’s ability to know the depth, extent, intent, or agenda of those who make, adjudicate, and enforce this vast and ever-changing private law.[4]

History, however, like the “news” on TV, radio, and newspapers, is rarely anything actually new. It is the same old thing with different variations. Both “history” and “news” are almost entirely centered around the actions, and therefore mystification, of governments, and variations of man’s inhumanity to man, as in the country-and-western hit song of some years ago, “Play that somebody done somebody wrong song.” History is mostly a recordation of events in the lives of nations, governments, battles, conquests, etc.

What is deemed to be of “historical significance” is in the mind of the one deciding the matter. Events that are labeled “history” are virtually always occurrences (the whole truth about which is inherently unknowable, and certainly by people not there to witness it) that glorify the victor in some political war, or conflict between nations, or achievements of rulers and armies, etc., often ignoring if not discrediting the losers, whose merits and achievements are relegated to inferior status by the winners. In short, history usually is to vaunt the perspectives of those who decide that what is called “history” is sufficiently important to record as such.
Assorted quotes on history:

• History is nothing more than a tableau of crimes and misfortunes. —Voltaire
• An account, mostly false, of events, unimportant, which are brought about by rulers, mostly knaves; and soldiers, mostly fools. —Ambrose Bierce, Devil’s Dictionary
• History, in general, only informs us what bad government is. —Jefferson
• Blest is that nation whose silent course of happiness furnishes nothing for history to say. —Jefferson
• History never embraces more than a small part of reality. —La Rochefoucauld

· History is more or less bunk. —Henry Ford

Nevertheless, history is essential regarding law and is somewhat less than “bunk” by the paper trail and observation of ensuing consequences of laws.

D. Consequences of Jurisdiction.
The key word in law is “jurisdiction.” If a given system of law and government lacks jurisdiction over you, it cannot interact with you in any way, other than 1) through mutually voluntary means in which you freely consent to an interchange or 2) by tricking you; or 3) by rendering you the victim of naked aggression. A court without in personam jurisdiction over you cannot arrest, try, or warehouse (incarcerate) your body. If the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction it cannot hear and entertain the cause of action brought against you, the nature of the dispute. If any court ever has, during any course of a given proceeding, lacked jurisdiction, the entire proceedings, as well as all judgments and orders ensuing therefrom, are null and void. The case is non-existent ab initio.

The key, therefore, is to extricate yourself completely from a jurisdiction concerning which you are treated as a slave, enemy, chattel property, devoid of standing in law, established as a permanent debtor, automatically considered “guilty until proven innocent” (thereby requiring you to accomplish the impossible task of proving a negative), inherently required to testify against yourself, incriminate yourself, and be subject to compelled performance. The solution is to move to a jurisdiction in which you are free, untouchable, inaccessible, invisible, and independent with respect to the catastrophic domain that may have been exploiting, taxing, regulating, enslaving, and destroying you.

The missing element, the seemingly unknown key requirement and act for accomplishing this, is, in essence, consummately simple. Even better, capacity to achieve your desire for freedom in law is exclusively your prerogative and doing, and no one else’s. No other being, person, court, judge, government, minister, priest, and, indeed, not even God Himself, can make this change for you. The reason for this is that what is required is proper notification of your own private, free-will, sovereign, spiritual, and political choice. The point of the matter is how to accomplish this for real, in the real world, so it is successful and reliable, thereby giving you a freedom, independence, clout, and peace of mind otherwise impossible.

Since most of us find ourselves, usually by birth and upbringing, in America, we will focus the discourse on the law and history of this country and the tangible processes involved in achieving our goal. The key element of the equation is jurisdiction—who has legal authority to exercise the power of the state over whom or what.
To understand the situation in America it is necessary to start from times past—long before North America was allegedly discovered by Europe. We begin in ancient Rome, for reasons that will become clear.
E. The Death and Rebirth of the Roman Empire.

As it became increasingly clear that the Roman Empire under the scam and con of the Caesars was disintegrating, it was obvious that if the power game were to continue it would have to be under new guise. The result was the development and imposition of the same result under new trappings and pretense, like putting the same old wine in new wineskins. Power remains power, regardless of any of an infinite number of grounds upon which it may be promulgated.

There is always a religious or some kind of higher or supernatural basis proposed for States and their rulers. Many rulers, such as the Caesars and the ruling aristocratic families throughout Western Civilization, claim supernatural origin. The Caesars claimed to be descendants of intercourse of their ancestors with gods. Royal Families in the West claim to be members of the Merovingian Dynasty resulting from the union of Christ and Mary Magdalene.

In addition, money and law function synchronistically, like hand in glove. In ancient Rome, the money-powers were the power, philosophers, and guiding force behind the Caesars. The Vatican is a self-confessed continuation of the Roman Empire of the Caesars (Kaisers) under religious guise rather than that of the Caesars. The higher or divine authority for the supremacy of the Vatican consists of the Pope’s claim that he is the exclusive representative of Christ, i.e., the Vicar of Christ, owning everyone, everything, and all life on earth and ruling same as Christ’s representative on Earth until Christ’s return.

Church law became involved with commercial ventures when the Roman Church started funding the Roman Army during the time Rome was fighting Greece. From there the Church became progressively involved in the civil government of Rome until it had completely converted the Roman Empire into the Church’s own commercial state. The ruling consisting of a unification of ecclesiastical and civil law, i.e., rule by a union of church/state, became known as RCL.

In simple terms, rulership of a nation by RCL is domination of private, commercial, ecclesiastical law over the populace by administration through the state of general civil law that is enforced over and deemed binding on everyone. It was against the establishing of this situation in America that precipitated the Revolution.
By the time of Constantine, the amalgamation of religious belief and practice with civil law and authority was well along, forming a theocratic society in which temporal and religious matters merged. The unity of the threatened empire was seen to depend on a unity of religious belief among its subjects, since the history of Rome under the Caesars had shown that force cannot hold the world together. Church Councils, beginning with the Council of Nicaea, 325 A.D., Constantinople, 381 A.D., progressively refined and defined Church policy and dogma, i.e., what was “true” and should thereby be enforced by civil/secular law.

Where a necessary qualification for citizenship was Orthodoxy in religious belief, it was natural that the canons of the church councils which had defined that belief should also be the law of the land. Justinian had decreed that “the canons of the first four councils of the church...should have the status of law. For we accept as holy writ the dogmas of those councils and guard their canons as laws.”.... But some emperors thought themselves empowered to do likewise and to legislate on ecclesiastical or even doctrinal matters. Hence there came into existence the collections known as nomocannones in which the laws of the church and the laws of the state were set down side by side and compared, though the former always precede the latter ... The nomocanones and the commentaries of the canonists advertised the fact that church and state went together. The two were interdependent and it was generally believed that the one could not exist without the other. J. H. Burns, The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought, Cambridge University Press, 1988, pages 65-68.
With the spread of commerce, the church's influence and wealth grew. Around 596 A.D., Pope Gregory began a process of moving RCL into England, determined to have his inspiration of Roman law and economy prevail there.

“He [Pope Gregory] was inspired with the idea of converting England not to Christianity, [for the British branch of the Catholic Church was already there] - but to the discipline of Rome.” E. K. Rand, Founders Of The Middle Ages, 1928, Chapter 1.

Moving RCL into England was strictly using a commercial venture of the mercantile Church to take over the economy and the country and enslave its people to the private- or conscience-law of the Church. It was the authority and conscience of the Roman Church that dictated the Statutes, Codes, and laws through the Kings and Parliaments to control human behavior that resulted in a situation that the Church deemed ideal for its economic, commercial, and political advantage. Anyone who was not controlled by RCL was considered to be (arbitrarily defined as) “pagan.” That is, if you were operating free of the rule of RCL, for instance under common law, or any other version of law (such as Gnosticism) that allows freedom of conscience, you were deemed a heathen as far as the Roman Church was concerned.[5] It was the intent of the Church to enslave everyone as much as possible to the RCL for a commercial and political advantage. RCL was referred to as "Black Letter Law," meaning servitude to the laws of the Church—whether or not by means of functioning through the king—and is representative of the unquestioned authority of the Church's dictates. In the church/state/people triumvirate, the church is supreme in the equation. The Church is and gets the elevator; the people get the shaft.

F. The real purpose of the Norman Conquest of England in 1066 was to secure the triumph of RCL in England. In his History of England Grimshaw wrote:
The liberties of Englishmen are not (as some arbitrary writers would represent them) mere infringements on the King's prerogative, extracted from their princes by taking advantage of their weaknesses; but a restoration of their ancient Constitution, of which their ancestors had been defrauded by the art and finesse of the Norman lawyers, rather than by the force of the Norman arms.[6]

As time progressed, RCL, an amalgamation of Canon Law and Jewish commercial law with/into admiralty-maritime law, progressively engulfed, absorbed, and transformed English common law. It is certainly enlightening, if not indispensable, reading to peruse the classic work The Shetar's Effect on English Law—A Law of the Jews Becomes the Law of the Land, in the Georgetown Law Review of April, 1983, 71 Geo. L.J. 1179. This article explains in depth and detail the situation in England concerning the invasion and progressive triumph of RCL.

Because of the domination and financial draining of Rome after 1066, England fell into increasingly dire straits. By the time of King John, 1199, England was in conflict, disarray, and bankruptcy. Since most of the Crown's debt was owed to the Vatican, King John severed relations with the Pope, including refusing to accept Stephen Langton's appointment by Pope Innocent III as Archbishop of Canterbury.

King John was excommunicated and in 1208 England was placed under Papal Interdict. John recanted to regain his good standing with the Vatican, returning title of England and Ireland to the Vatican and accepting Langton as Archbishop of Canterbury. On October 3, 1213, John ratified his surrender by signing a treaty with the Vatican acknowledging, and purporting to grant legitimacy to, the Pope's claim of ownership of everything on earth as Vicar of Christ. This treaty was finalized when Pope Innocent III signed the contract/treaty in the Vatican on April 21, 1214. By this treaty John contractually bound the Crown to administering the entire British Empire in trust on behalf of the Vatican/Pope in perpetuity.

Rule of RCL extends admiralty/maritime, the law of the sea, negotiable instrument law, where the captain’s word is law, onto the land in the form of vice-admiralty. This process occurred on a global scale when the assorted explorers sailed the world, financed and politically supported by their Monarchs, for commercial, territorial, and political expansion of their home country.

G. United States of America
The Governors of the Colonies, which were British corporations, governed the New World in vice-admiralty, RCL, on behalf of the Crown, bound by the joint venture agreement and the obligations incurred on the colonies to pay the Crown the funds due for the King having financed the voyages that discovered and settled the New World. While many of the colonists came to America to escape the domination—both political and religious—of RCL, the roots of RCL were nevertheless innately transplanted in North America from inception. As the perpetual increase in RCL in England progressed it did likewise in the Colonies.

A pivotal juncture occurred in 1756 when Lord Mansfield, Chief Justice of the King's Bench, made vast additions of Roman Civil Law into the Common Law. This especially included turning the action of assumpsit (promise for debt, express or implied) into an equitable action, thus denying trial by jury on writs of assistance. In writing on Swift v. Tyson, 1828, which the notorious Supreme Court Case of Erie Railroad v. Tompkins, 1938 overturned, Justice Story wrote:

The law respecting negotiable instruments may be truly declared in the language of Cicero, adopted by Lord Mansfield in Luke v. Hyde (2 Burr. R. 883-887) to be in a great measure not the law of a single country only, but of the commercial world. The fame of Mansfield, whose decisions were deplored by Thomas Jefferson, lay in moving into equity out of the law the action called assumpsit, giving summary judgments to merchants on writs of assistance. The very thing that, in fact, sparked the American Revolution…. It is observable that the law merchant and the maritime law are not generally distinguished from each other, but are frequently used indiscriminately. The only real difference is in the sanction. When viewed as a part of the municipal law the rules are called the law merchant, when regarded from the standpoint of international law the same rules are the law maritime. Writs of assistance Writs of assistance were court orders that authorized customs officers to conduct general (non-specific) searches of premises for contraband. The exact nature of the materials being sought did not have to be detailed, nor did their locations. The writs were first introduced in Massachusetts in 1751 to strictly enforce the Acts of Trade, the governing rules for commerce in the British Empire. Merchants in much of New England were skillful at evading the system and many had become masters of smuggling. The powerful new court orders enabled officials to inspect not only shops and warehouses, but also private homes. It quickly became apparent to many colonists that their homes were no longer their castles…. The writs were one of a list of grievances that the Americans harbored against the Crown and contributed to the process of changing loyal colonists into advocates for independence. www.u-s-history.com/h1205.html

It was this RCL that had taken over all Europe and England and the USA founding fathers wanted nothing to do with it insofar as the "commercial law system of the American states” was concerned. It represented to them the most insidious form of slavery of both body and mind, that is, slavery by entrapment through one-sided or implied contracts of which the individual may not be aware that he is subject until he is hit with compelled performance.

Remember that RCL is an amalgamation of private conscience, private commerce, civil law, religion, and the people in a complete and indissoluble unity so that the lives of the populace, including their free exercise of individual conscience, is absorbed and subordinated into the “superior” conscience of the Church, which then enforces its alleged “superiority” with the deadly force, i.e., legalized violence, of the “secular” State. This is, of course, tyranny and slavery. Invasion into the soul of man is the original sin of all forms of totalitarianism, i.e., all forms of statism whatsoever, which occurs as soon as there is any alleged authority vested in anyone to exercise discretionary power over others.

After Lord Mansfield introduced RCL into English common law in 1756, Thomas Jefferson disdained English common law wanted nothing to do with it since it had now become polluted with Roman Civil (Ecclesiastical) Law. In a letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper in 1814 Jefferson went into minute detail to show how the private ecclesiastical law of the Church, i.e., RCL, became integrated into the common law of England.

Jefferson's understanding of the problem consisting of the common law of England having become amalgamated with the compelled performance of private Church law structured and guided the new commercial system of the American states. The intent was to structure a situation where the people were protected from the slavery of ecclesiastical authority dictating public commercial law, i.e., “public policy.” Of crucial importance, if not paramount, in the equation was the establishment and preservation in law of sound money, i.e., substance-money, which constitutes portable allodial land titles and is the money of sovereigns.

Jefferson saw the tyranny of private ecclesiastical law dictating governmental authority, and was attacked by many colonists as being a heretic. He clearly understood, however, that Public Law would be vital for private use to protect individual rights. Thus he insisted that private law, which is the biased, sectarian thought of some particular man, group, or sect, has absolutely no place in dictating public policy, which, like water or air, should be open and universal. Those who opposed his views totally missed his understanding that freedom of conscience must prevail if genuine law, rights, freedom, and sovereignty are to be preserved. Jefferson wrote: "The common law protects both opinions [both his and theirs], but enacts neither into law." This is akin to Voltaire’s celebrated quote: “I may disagree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” Also, we must remember that Jefferson and the Founding Fathers were Masons, not Christians, whether Catholic or Protestant, and would have been squelched by a triumph of Rome in America. They were therefore actions in their own best interest as well as that of their countrymen.

Among the many things that were important to the Founding Fathers, the one thing that stood out was to establish a government free of any relationship or influence of the private RCL operating in and controlling public law. It was the oppression of the RCL, as the king and parliament dictated at the behest of the Church, that was at the foundation for seeking independence from England, and therefore also from the Church to which the Crown was established as subordinate.

RCL is also referred to as "admiralty-maritime law" or the "law of the sea" as well as "private international law," based on private Church law operating for commercial purposes in the public sector. When operating in the international realm of commerce, negotiable instruments, and admiralty-maritime, RCL is called “Maritime Law.” When enforced municipally, RCL is called the “Law Merchant.” The Hanseatic League, which arose in Northern Europe in about 1219, was very powerful for several centuries, and made quantum leaps in the development of Negotiable Instrument Law administered in international admiralty-maritime. The Law Merchant, admiralty-maritime, is not the product of any particular country or government. It is the private law of member merchants in accordance with the rules, regulations, and by-laws of their private association of which all are voluntary members.

"A case in admiralty does not, in fact, arise under the Constitution or Laws of the United States." American Ins. Co. v Canter, 1 Pet. 511, 545 (1828).

"The Law of Merchants, as far as it depends on custom, constitutes a part of the voluntary, not of the necessary, Law of Nations. It may, therefore, so far as it is merely positive, be altered by any municipal legislature, where its own subjects only are concerned. Innovations may also be made in the voluntary Law of Nations, so as to effect the inhabitants of different states, either by the sovereign thereof (Eden's Prim. Law, sect. 3) or any confederated union of human authority."

It must be remembered that the crucial distinctions in nature and consequences of RCL and Common Law include:

1. Before Mansfield in 1756 the Common Law in England did not recognize unilateral contracts where there is no full disclosure and true meeting of the minds. Genuine Law requires express, bi-lateral contracts where all parties to the contract genuinely understand the meaning and significance of all of the terms and conditions to which all were agreeing, in accordance with the fundamentals of universal contract law.

2. RCL functions entirely on unilateral or implied contracts, whether signed adhesion contracts or ordinary implied contracts that are ratified by deed or, even more treacherously, by silence. A classic example of an implied contract is ordering and consuming a meal in a restaurant. You look at the menu, which notices you of the terms and conditions, after which your actions of ordering something and eating it ratify the contractual requirement for you to pay the bill, even though you sign nothing. Inasmuch as today’s courts are of, by, and for citizens of the United States[7] only, do you not ratify an implied contract confirming that you are a “citizen of the United States” simply by appearing in such a court?

3. Rulership of RCL consists of the private conscience of one man or a few, select, elite group of men, prevailing over the conscience of the masses, i.e., individual conscience, imposed by force of state without the full disclosure of bilateral contracts required.

Through RCL, the conscience-law of those deciding the public policy of the constructive trust prevails totally over the private conscience of members of the populace without the people knowing how it happened. By your implied consent you entered into a contract in which you gave your rulers, i.e., would-be owners and masters, a blank check and surrendered your entire res, i.e., “bundle of rights,” into trust as a dead estate. You died a “civil death in the law,” abandoned all claim on your estate, life, and affairs, and granted all rights to your life to other men whose identities you do not even know. When you are deemed a citizen of the United States you have no freedom of choice concerning the most intimate and personal of matters, except as the church/state/trust allows you in accordance with its by-laws, or what they cannot prevent simply because they cannot have enforcers to monitor everyone directly twenty-four hours a day while reading minds.[8]

The offer of the implied contract is always unilateral but people’s acceptance of the terms and conditions of the contract, which are unknown, ever-changing, and, in fact, unknowable, can be established merely by silence—doing nothing. Worse than silence is accepting the benefits, by which you tacitly agree to incur the commensurate liabilities—which are always at the terms of the church/state. The so-called “agreement” never has definite limits, which are decided on an ad hoc basis (such as by a judge in court). All you agree on is to abjectly surrender to your would-be owners and masters. You have, as it were, merely agreed to get on the ship and join the voyage under the unquestioned dictatorship of the captain. Thereafter, administration of the trust over you is constructed in accordance with the circumstances.

When this situation becomes the operational “law of the land,” as it is today in America, there is no separation of powers in the government, or between you and the government, because you are in a trust relationship absorbed into the “superior” conscience of the Church/State. Your position is always inferior and subordinate while simultaneously indissolubly one with the corpus of the trust. You, the trust, and the government are now one, with the operational terms and conditions, i.e., “law,” of the religious conscience of the Church enforced through the “secular” government. In this scenario, everyone is put into a position of being his own enforcer because he volunteered into the situation. This is why the IRS perpetually proclaims that taxes are “voluntary.”
The central, crucial, and pivotal point in the matter is as follows:

As long as you proclaim, act, and are construed as being a “citizen of the United States,” which is a political decision and not a legal or administrative matter, you are regarded as having voluntarily executed a will, died a “civil death in the law,” become a member of the private 14th Amendment cestui que trust, and agreed that your life in toto belongs to the “higher” conscience of the Church. You are completely obligated to comply with all the rules, regulations, by-laws, and machinations of “public policy” as adjudicated through the private, commercial, religious, international tribunals of your owners/masters called “courts,” including being subject to all of the compelled performance of the rules of the private association, i.e., “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,” and inform on/testify against yourself in all matters as your duty to the Democracy and the corpus of the trust. Since you are presumed to have entered into this deal of your own volition, it is presumed to be what you want and have authorized—indeed, required—your public servants to do, what’s your beef if you get what you asked for? Unless you expressly and properly annihilate the operational presumption that you are a citizen of the United States, you are stuck—trapped in the “Roach Motel” of the trust, a tar baby from which no action within the trust can extricate you, and, indeed, gets you in deeper.

The power existing in RCL inheres in the underlying (undisclosed) presumptions on the basis of which RCL operates. These presumptions, which are arbitrary and made up unilaterally by their creators and owners, are underpinnings of the private law that rules you. You cannot compel the owners of the law to which you are subject to disclose anything, since they are the creators and owners of that law, not you. All such presumptions—except when absolutely essential otherwise—are one-sided in favor of those who create and own the law and thereby decide what the rules of the game are. Examples of operational presumptions in RCL today are:

1. The owners and operators of the law are under no compulsion to reveal to you the presumptions of law under which they operate.

2. The system always wins and you always lose.

3. You are inherently guilty, i.e., guilty until you prove that you are innocent. Indeed, this is a foregone conclusion already established and concluded before you ever walk into court, so the judge has carte blanche and nothing to prove.

4. You are regarded as having agreed, by your own free will, to having surrendered your life completely, become civilly dead to life/rights, a decedent, devoid of standing in law, no longer possessing legal or equitable title to your estate, which is presumed to be in probate as a dead estate in the cestui que trust with unassailable authority for executors-administrators, such as judges, to administer. By being presumed as having granted your estate of your own free will into trust, you are regarded as having surrendered ownership of what you granted and therefore no longer possessing any authority to defend or claim ownership of it. Legal title now belongs elsewhere, leaving you with only user privileges. The basis for being deemed as being in this position is based on your having accepted the terms and conditions that were offered without any revisions or counter-offer, thereby ratifying the implied/unilateral contract by your actions and non-actions:

a. You provided the government with no notice that you objected to, were not contracting in accordance with, or did not wish to ratify, the contract unilaterally offered to you by the government, thereby indicating that you agree with the terms and conditions in full;
b. You accepted the benefits of the contract and thereby incurred all of the contractual obligations signified by the quid-pro-quo of contract law;
c. You never notified the proper parties that you wished to live in accordance with some law and jurisdiction other than the government’s, thereby leaving all agents, operatives, and representatives of US Inc. with nothing but their own law and position to operate on with respect to you. You didn’t “speak for yourself,” and, since only you can do so and they cannot, they have nothing of yours on the table with which to deal.

As Jefferson aptly observed: “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never can be.” The most primal ignorance in this equation is ignorance of what applicable law you voluntary choose, by divine, sovereign right, to pertain to you. If you fail to know such law and notify the operating system of your decision, they have nothing whatsoever but their own position to use in dealing with you. Your resulting fate is thereby of your own making, borne of your own non-doing, i.e., your own default. The 5th and 6th Commercial Maxims (see Universal Principles and Commercial Maxims) triumph.

Benjamin Franklin, upon leaving the hall at the final close of the Constitutional Convention, was asked by a lady eagerly awaiting knowledge of the results: “What kind of government have you given us?” Ben purportedly replied, “A republic, madam, if you can keep it.” A republic, of course, is just another variation of the Law and Government Con, which in the case of the USA, as the lady said, was “given,” i.e., offered. The people did not have to opt into it. Indeed, the Constitution was a hard sell, and seen through by many men of acumen at the time, e.g., Patrick Henry, who reputedly said, “I smell a rat.” One might read the Anti-Federalist Papers for an extensive analysis by noteworthy personages concerning the Constitution. [9]

In any case, the American people went to sleep, put it on automatic, surrendered to naïve trust and expectation to be taken care of without paying attention to their own lives and what was actually happening, with the result that the World Powers—with great intelligence and brilliance, combined with innumerable millennia of experience—proceeded to infiltrate, pervert, subvert, and progressively transform and completely take over the law, government, and money of the country, which could not have occurred had the people not accepted the deal in the first place. By so doing, however, the American people lost their rights, freedom, independence, peace, and capacity to fulfill their destinies (or at least the situation drastically changed their destiny[10]). The problem, of course, is ever recognizing the validity of an external government in the first place. As soon as one gives his power away, it is gone, and the receivers are only too happy to use it for their benefit at the expense of loss to those who abnegate their independence and self-reliance.

The nature of power is to use whatever power is secured to acquire yet more power. Eventually the effects, like the frog in a tank of water in which the temperature can be progressively and gradually heated, become so unbearable that something snaps. By then, however, it is usually too late. Tyranny is not self-correcting. The time to deal with matters is at inception. Old sayings inform us: “Well begun is half done,” implying the converse, that wrongfully begun is, if continued unabated, guaranteed disaster. “The seed begets the tree.” The time to deal with problems is before they ever arise or, if they do, at inception when they are small. The longer problems persist and are built on, compounded, and expanded, the more difficult it is to eliminate them. Eventually man stands powerless before the consequences of what he should have stopped at inception or, better yet, never have allowed to transpire in the first place.

Declaration of Independence, which is a four-point document (seven points being necessary for a legal/commercial document to be iron-clad), necessitated war for want of an international forum of law and courts to which the dispute between the Colonies and England could be brought and reconciled peacefully rather than on the dueling field.

An indication that the Declaration of Independence was borne of serious intent and not a sham is revealed in the fate of signers. In general, they did not fare well. They were declared traitors by the Crown and in many cases were killed, their estates escheated to the Crown, their families ruined, etc. In addition, the King established a trade blockade around America after 1776 to strangle international commerce in and out of the Colonies. Thereafter, the King, as the price for lifting the blockade, compelled the signing of the Treaty of Peace in Paris. This treaty may be deemed a deception, since no monarch is going to compel the signing of a treaty establishing his own surrender. Moreover, the Crown was still under the contract/treaty with the Vatican, and could not surrender the Colonies, which were part of the Commonwealth that had been pledged to be administered by the Crown on behalf of the papacy, in trust, in perpetuity.

It was therefore essential to form a new government whereby the country could be recognized as a sovereign nation in the family of nations while internally preserving freedom, law, rights, and sovereignty was a most delicate matter, involving the careful integration of a number of diverse—and mutually exclusive—elements:

1. Preserving freedom, independence, and genuine common law—Public Law for private purposes—at home, where rights, freedom, individual sovereignty, and freedom of conscience were upheld by the government, and at the same time merging the government internationally with the Admiralty-Maritime, commercial, negotiable-instrument law of RCL that was established as operational in the world as the international forum for nations to engage in commerce, resolve disputes, and be recognized as a nation in the Law of Nations.

2. Articles of Confederation and other existing documents and law, as well as treaties and agreements, required both acknowledging the joint-venture debt to the Crown and the fact that all of the colonies were corporations created and owned by, and obligated to, the Crown.

3. The sovereignty of the American people after the Declaration of Independence.

The Dual Federalism established by the Constitution, 1787, and Bill of Rights, 1791, attempted to establish an operational system combining two (2) hostile and diametrically opposite systems of law:

At home: Public municipal law for private purposes operating in personam. This meant that public law was available to and for American inhabitants in their free, sovereign capacity. There was no interaction with the people by the government without express petition by one of the people, such as to resolve a dispute or prosecute a criminal matter. There was no “ruling” over the people by the government, i.e., no compelled performance, because the people were regarded as the sovereign. In other words, the people were the true government and the constructed one, operating as a “republic,” was the mere creation and servant of the people. When directed inwardly, towards the states, the central government in Washington, DC is called the “National Government.”

Internationally: Private law for public purposes operating in rem, i.e., Admiralty-Maritime, Public Negotiable Instrument Law (NIL), RCL. This allowed the central government to deal with foreign relations, international commerce, international negotiable instruments, and matters of the ocean, which were not the province of the states and the people. It is essential to understand that Admiralty-Maritime/NIL/RCL was the existing International law at the time and had to be accepted by, and integrated with, the government in order for USA to be accepted in the world community as an actual nation in the family of nations. The delicate trick was how to accomplish the goal of joining the prevailing international law without being swallowed up and consumed by it, as was nearly universally the case elsewhere. Real (public) NIL has no limited liability and mandates the redeemability of all negotiable instruments in substance at the end of the voyage. When directed outwardly, towards other nations, International Law, and international commerce, Washington, DC is called the “Federal Government.”

III. Life in the Roach Motel Trust.
In America, the goal to infuse the communism/collectivism of RCL was a major motivation for the passage of the Limited Liability Act of 1851, which brought limited-liability insurance of international admiralty-maritime onto the land to enable private corporations to expand with far greater risk and recklessness based on having “limited-liability insurance” to deal with a corporation’s creditors in case the corporation collapsed. Also, such private, international law as the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was passed, and, most crucially, the 14th Amendment of 1868. These legislative Acts structured the house called “Democracy” into which everyone moved by default through ignorance, apathy, and naïve trust. The private, international, commercial, ecclesiastical, military jurisdiction of US Inc. and the 14th Amendment forecloses access to law. Law had been available to Americans in the Republic, but is not accessible or usable in the private admiralty-equity of the Democracy.

After adoption by US Inc. of the 14th Amendment, the “government,” now the private, corporate government of US Inc. rather than the USA, began operating through and from the jurisdiction of the 14th Amendment and relating to the people from that stance. In other words, US Inc. began interacting with the people on the basis of the terms and conditions of the new contractual relationship of the private corporation. The government unilaterally offered everyone, by simply de facto functioning, a “New Deal” that was drastically different in nature and consequences than the previous situation. The 14th Amendment was a major milestone in the “road to serfdom” for the American people, the triumph of RCL in America, and the loss of rights, freedom, law, standing in law, and independence for citizens. As in the case of the fable of Aladdin’s Lamp from the Thousand and One Nights, this was a hawking of “new lamps for old.”

It is crucial to understand that the 14th Amendment is private, Roman Catholic, ecclesiastical trust law, which effectively accomplishes what it is designed to do and what the Church has been the past-master for centuries at achieving: A complete amalgamation of the people into Church/State until an indissoluble unity is operationally established.

The 14th Amendment states: "Anyone born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a “citizen of the United States." The “United States” is a private, now bankrupt, corporate fiction. Real beings cannot be born in fictions—they are of, by, and born in reality, from the real wombs of living mothers. Citizenship connotes membership in a political society to which a duty of permanent allegiance is implied. In the prevailing situation, if you say, “I am a citizen of the United States,” you are in essence stating:

1. I am an imaginary, fictitious entity created by men whom I do not know in accordance with whatever their intent and agenda was, which is also unknown—and inaccessible—to me.
2. Inasmuch as I am unreal, I have neither life, nor rights, nor consciousness, nor conscience, nor substance.
3. As a corporate fiction created by other men without my knowledge and understanding, I am completely at the mercy of said men and whatever henchmen they use to enforce authority over me—as a thing/object/article of property.
4. I am owned by other men whose nature, as well as the extent and significance of their intent, is unknown to me.
5. As a fiction created and owned by others, I am subject to all of the laws and contracts—both presumed and implied, express and constructive—of my creators/owners, and, in fact, I AM those laws and contracts and cannot exist, and therefore cannot act, other than in accordance with them, as they are created, interpreted, adjudicated, and enforced by all the other aspects of the system of, by, and acting under the command of the ultimate bosses, i.e., the Church/State, the true owners of the law being administered.
6. To attempt to assert any clout against those who created, own, and possess carte blanche to do anything of any sort they wish with their creation is to be in rebellion against the “law” of said actual owners of the corporate fiction with which I am presumed to be bound (i.e., in bondage) as a citizen of US Inc.
7. To accept any benefits, or exercise any actions that result in any gain to me—commercial or otherwise—signifies at least fraud by me inasmuch as I am attempting to benefit from the use of things, such as the private law, statutes, currency, and even my very self, that do not belong to me.
8. To say that I own anything, or possess any rights of ownership of anything, is false.
9. I am manifestly insane and mentally incompetent by my stating, as a real being, that I am a fiction whose nature and extents are unknown to me, created and owned by other men. I am as real as the Tooth Fairy.
10. All and every attempt to exercise freedom and independence constitute sedition, warranting punishment as an enemy with no rights, and proving that I am a “delinquent trustee” of the public cestui que trust as expressed via the all-caps name, the strawman;
11. I have no liberty of conscience whatsoever, having subordinated my individual conscience to that of the cestui que trust of the civil-law system, the rule of the private, ecclesiastical RCL of the United States, within and under the 14th Amendment and the private ecclesiastical trust law thereof.

Each State of the United States, i.e., Federal District, is a diocese of the 14th Amendment Trust/Church.
Welcome to the wonderful world of RCL rule, which now prevails in all nations and is enforced via the legal/commercial system over the people of essentially every country in the world.

IV. Operational Principles.
The following principles are crucial to the equation:
1. You are either in or out—there is no in-between, no middle ground. “You can’t be a little bit pregnant.” One needs to ascertain in which category he falls and what he wants to do about it. This is akin to either clicking or not clicking the “Caps Lock” toggle switch on a computer keyboard, and results are accordingly. In accordance with the ancient maxim of law, Omnes homines aut liberi sunt aut servi. “All men are freemen or slaves.” (See Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 1087.)
2. The solution to a problem is structured in the problem, but is not solved on the level of the problem, but by/from a higher “meta-level.” You cannot un-kick the tar baby by further kicking it. All attempts to do so merely absorb and immobilize you all the more. The “higher level” in this case is your political decision, which decides whether you are in or out. This cannot be dealt with by the courts or assorted government agencies, which are all tar babies of the Roach Motel in the public (bankrupt, fictitious) sector.
3. Everyone is inherently a free-will sovereign, whether he knows it or considers himself to be such or not. It is therefore neither the duty of anyone to inform anybody else that he is sovereign, nor can any thing, being, law, or system of any nature whatsoever externally grant anyone sovereignty. Nothing external to one’s own being can grant the properties of that being.
4. As a sovereign, everyone is entitled to choose, formulate, and decide on his own jurisdiction, i.e., the “applicable law” under which he lives. In accordance with the cardinal maxim of law, “he who fails to assert his rights has none,” if you do not make the decision concerning what applicable law pertains to you, the system will. In such case, you automatically lose by default, since you—the only sentient being in creation with the knowledge, right, and duty to do so—have failed to proclaim your position. In court this means that you have lost before ever walking through the turnstiles, and the judge need even not look at your paperwork to rule against you in accordance with FRCP Rule 12(b)(6), “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
5. The deeper and more significant meaning of the phrase “ignorance of the law is no excuse” is, in accordance with the foregoing, ignorance of your own law. An alleged Illuminist, Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler, who was nominated by J.P. Morgan & Co. to be President of Columbia University, summarized the situation, concerning which one must decide where he stands[11]:

The world is divided into three categories:
1) Those few (insiders/elite) who know what is happening because they are making it happen;
2) Those (slightly larger group) who watch things happen;
3) The great mass of men who have no idea what is happening.

6. Sovereignty means freedom, and with it, simultaneous unlimited liability for one’s actions. Sovereignty inherently is, and requires, living by self-reliance, self-responsibility, and capacity/willingness to be self-supporting and not dependent on others. Many people do not want this, and would rather abnegate their sovereignty in favor of having their decisions made for them and being taken care of. As George Bernard Shaw quipped, “Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.” Indeed, there are many people who prefer being institutionalized so their lives can be externally structured. Men often join the military for such reasons, and even engage in actions that assure being sent—or returned—to jail, since they are “unable” to make it on their own. Everything in relative existence is a trade-off, with a “better and a worse side.” One must obviously make such private decisions for oneself.

7. The only authority that counts is one’s own conscience. In the words of Emerson, “Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind.” It is one’s consciousness that knows, chooses, selects, decides, believes, conceives, etc. Consequently, no decision can have more integrity than the nature of the consciousness that decides it. These sentiments are echoed by such ancient spiritual maxims as “know thyself,” and “the unexamined life is not worth living.” The system thrives on, and requires, that it be recognized as “authority.” What passes for “news” on the media is saturated, both obviously and subtly, with the mystification of the almighty state and it’s alleged “authority.” Even with accidents or natural disasters, a news report will always get the state into the matter: “authorities were on the scene” or “authorities commented….” It has well been said, however, “they shall have problems who accept authority as truth rather than truth as authority.”

8. Nothing expressed by the system is as it appears at face value, since what is seen is only the surface, behind which is an unfathomable infinity that is unknowable and inaccessible to observers/receivers of it, since it is the product of the doing and intent of other beings.

9. People go to jail and end up with ruined lives by mistaking the two fundamental bodies of law operational in the world: Genuine Law and RCL. These two types of law are structured, and operate from inception, on the basis of contrary, mutually exclusive, and diametrically opposite motivations, premises, and presumptions. If you try to apply what pertains in one jurisdiction, such as Genuine Law (public law for private purposes), in the jurisdiction of the other, i.e., RCL (private law for public purposes), you will be “mixing apples and oranges,” and what you are doing will not work. Since each category of law is correct in its own sphere, when one attempts to use rules, premises, presumptions, and processes that do not apply in the jurisdiction in which one is functioning, the futility rebounds against a user of the process to his detriment. The usual response by people who engage in this error is to rail against corrupt judges, the lawlessness of the system, treason, violations of the Constitution, etc. Such frustration is the result of a failure to understand the rules of the game in which one is involved. Patriots go to court with football helmets, cleats, shoulder pads, etc., prepared to play football, when the court is playing tennis, and then wonder why they get clobbered.
The Bill of Rights, for instance, consists of “public law for private purposes,” and applies in the private sector and in the Republic. Here one has access to substance, absolute rights, standing in law, freedom from compelled performance, unconditional right not to testify against oneself, etc. That real law, however, neither operates within today’s public, commercial courts, nor is it available to citizens of the United States. Every citizen of the United States is a fictitious entity devoid of substance, rights, standing in law, and freedom from compelled performance, and is required to testify against itself in all circumstances. In a public court a citizen, already dead to rights before ever entering the court, is presumed guilty until it proves itself innocent (an impossibility, since said fiction is devoid of standing to assert any rights at all and, in any case, cannot prove a negative).

10. It is imperative to decide what you absolutely depend on and shun the rest. In the words of C. S. Lewis:
You never know how much you really believe anything until its truth or falsehood becomes a matter of life and death. It is easy to say you believe a rope to be strong as long as you are merely using it to cord a box. But suppose you had to hang by that rope over a precipice. Wouldn't you then first discover how much you really trusted it?

11. Political decisions include the following, all of which must be properly addressed:

a. Citizenship;
b. Foreign relations—dealings with foreign states;
c. When or whether a state of war exists or has ended;
d. The “Guaranty Clause” of the Constitution, Article IV, Section 4, guaranteeing to every state a republican form of government.

One’s political decision concerning these matters is the digital yes/no switch that establishes whether one is in or out of the private club of US Inc. Properly declaring your political decision and noticing the appropriate parties thereof through public (published) notice and the private administrative process is the only way out of the Roach Motel and gaining recognized freedom in law. It cannot be done from inside the Motel, i.e., within the public sector. The culprit is the operation of a presumed nexus of the real being with the all-caps name, which is credit, whereby the real being becomes surety and accommodation party for the debts of the all-caps name that is the creation and property of the Powers-That-Be. By such means the mass slavery and peonage system is administered. The point, then, is to sever completely the possibility for the real being to be presumed as attached in any manner to the all-caps name. Without expressly terminating that presumption, it stands for want of any other position on the table for the system to deal with. By eliminating the operational presumption that you, as a real being, are, or may be construed as being, a fiction called a “citizen of the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” you can cut the cord that binds you and be free.