Sovereignty Law

[Moderators note: This rather current event demonstrates that attempts by federal agencies to defy the limits of their authority come to naught. My research indicates this: a) That an agency or official cannot grant themselves increased authority without first having said authority, b) that maintaining a pretense of having done so can only be fraud and arguably treason, c) actions based on such a pretense can only be actions for which they remain accountable, and that d) there is no statute, code, nor law which gives our public servants the authority to displace the activities of their paid jobs with self-serving fraud. If a person worked for me and played Solitaire all day I would fire them; if they worked for me and hacked my company's intranet instead of doing their job I'd send them to jail. And if it were a country instead of a corporation, where millions of lives are involved... well, that's why we have treason laws. But notice - a public servant even giving publicly-funded time to propagating that kind of fraud is grounds for treason. Umm, wow. With the concerted effort given to fraud like this today, grounds for racketeering are entirely reasonable... and with racketeering laws, not only are the damages tripled but when any group member is found guilty of a crime everyone involved in the group is as well; they're all deemed to be co-conspirators. An interesting perspective of our public servants, to be certain. Finally, a basis in law for what the majority of Americans already believe; this should prove fascinating when it's applied in law.]

National Lawyers Guild Condemns Electronic Surveillance by President as a Violation of the Fourth Amendment

NEW YORK - December 19 - The National Lawyers Guild (NLG) announced today that it condemns the domestic electronic surveillance program revealed recently by President Bush as a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The NLG President Michael Avery declared, "The Fourth Amendment requires a warrant from a court before the government can engage in electronic surveillance of private conversations, whether by telephone or otherwise. For the president to authorize electronic surveillance without a court order is an outrageous violation of a clear constitutional provision."( ... )

[Moderators note: While interesting, these quotes don't get to the nub of the matter (and neither do the approaches taken by the mainstream news media). Legislating what our public servants cannot do and looking to the Constitution for what rights remain to us is bass-ackwards. The overall problem is that the federal government's authorities and jurisdiction were created to be, and remain, ever so limited. Torture is merely an extreme instance in which our public servants attempt to go far beyond their allowed scope, and recent legislation purporting to allow themselves more authority and jurisdiction are castles built on clouds; one cannot grant themselves increased authority without first having the authority to do so. What's more, those filling the position of federal public servants are well aware of this. The maxim Actor qui contra regulam quid adduxit, non est audiendus ("He ought not to be heard who advances a proposition contrary to the rules of law.") again pertains, and renders all of these attempts to escape the narrow confines of their limited venue and scope of authority null and void, ab initio. Another instance of simple fraud applied in some very extreme ways.]( ... )

"DOMESTIC MIXED WAR - A mixed war is one which is made on one side by public
authority, and the other by mere private persons. (Black's Law Dictionary
5th Ed., page 1420). War does not exist merely because of an armed attack
by military forces of another nation until it is a condition recognized or
accepted by political authority of government which is attacked, either
through an actual declaration of war or OTHER ACTS DEMONSTRATING SUCH
POSITION (emphasis added; Savage v. Sun Life Assur Co. of Canada, D.C. 57 F
Supp 620, 621)."

http://doprocess.net/articles/CRIMCOMPLAINT.TXT

-

"The MIXED WAR situation and or condition is that where those in authority have violated their oaths of office, violated the fundamental law they took an oath to uphold and protect, violated the codes, statutes and regulations that govern them thereby they disregarded the peace and safety of the community by their actions, acting for undisclosed foreign agents or governments, against those whom they swore to protect [see Black’s Law Dictionary on War]. Simply, an act or acts of TREASON in a secret war against the people."

- From "Commercial Liens: A Most Potent Weapon"

-

CALIFORNIA CODES
PENAL CODE
SECTION 37-38




"37. (a) Treason against this state consists only in levying war
against it, adhering to its enemies, or giving them aid and comfort,
and can be committed only by persons owing allegiance to the state.
The punishment of treason shall be death or life imprisonment without
possibility of parole. The penalty shall be determined pursuant to
Sections 190.3 and 190.4.
(b) Upon a trial for treason, the defendant cannot be convicted
unless upon the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or
upon confession in open court; nor, except as provided in Sections
190.3 and 190.4, can evidence be admitted of an overt act not
expressly charged in the indictment or information; nor can the
defendant be convicted unless one or more overt acts be expressly
alleged therein.


38. Misprision of treason is the knowledge and concealment of
treason, without otherwise assenting to or participating in the
crime. It is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison."

Actor qui contra regulam quid adduxit, non est audiendus. ("He ought not to be heard who advances a proposition contrary to the rules of law.")

Says it all, doesn't it?

[Moderator's note: While freely available, the fundamental precepts, or maxims, in which our law is based seem to have become endangered by a majority of persons today. They are therefore referenced here for the gentle reader, in an effort to assure their continued use. Argumentum ab authoritate est fortissimum in lege.]

[Moderator's note: This article outlays the difficulties regarding sovereignty within a predominantly commercial law venue, even in Canadia. The premise is that although sovereign, a private citizen is effectively required to adopt a fictitious corporate persona, an illusiory likeness, simply to interact with a society thoroughly engrossed in a commercial law venue (to effect justice, and transfer goods and services. What people don't seem to have a really good instrument for, given this, is application of the maxims Ipsae legis cupiunt ut jure regantur ("The laws themselves require that they should be governed by right." Co. Litt. 174.), and Lex non cogit impossibilia ("The law requires nothing impossible." Co. Litt. 231, b; 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 951). That is to say that merely because someone, somewhere, has come up with a presumption in law that they can create a likeness of a sovereign, individually or collectively, and create a de facto (forced) worldly requirement that it be used for necessary interaction with society, and due to the concept that an unasserted right is inaccessible and an unrebutted argument in law stands, that it's therefore a) lawful to create such a slanderous voodoo doll in the first place, and that b) being compelled by necessity to use it gives it any validity. It sounds like simple fraud to me. Obviously unlawful assertions such as those, based in arguments which defy fundamental maxims, could never stand for even a moment whether they are disputed or not. If something is obviously abhorrent to law, any so-called "presumption" that the law would tolerate it in the first place would be, and is, an absurdity. Nothing need be done about it, attempting to effect it would be whimsical, and the fraud, obstruction of justice, and treason in attempting to do so would be delightful with regards to compensating for damages and time lost remedying such an attempt (i.e. applying commercial liens to effect justice against the resulting encroachment on rights, and optionally applying criminal charges to unrebutted points. Last I checked, the UCC statutes themselves described treason as an executable offense.). Oh, the fun we have.

( ... )

( ... )

There are only three items of information required in the financing statement to be valid.

The debtor’s name, the name of the secured party and an indication of the collateral. Take notice that I did not write a description of the collateral. Section 9-504(2) allows for an “all assets” or “all personal property” description of collateral even if the collateral is limited. The only requirement is that the debtor authorizes the description of collateral.

( ... )The same would hold true for the secured party although Comment Two found in 9-506 says, “an error in the name of the secured party will not be seriously misleading”. This would suggest that the name of the secured party is not a valid requirement of a financing statement. (I suggest you discuss this section with your company attorney).( ... )

[Moderator's note: This is an evaluation of the supposed basis of the conventional federal citizenship that's so prevalent, with all its limitations and generally-accepted arbitrary procedures, as good fundamental material for those who've decided to choose something more substantial and functional.( Read more... )

[Moderator's note: About the only thing relevant here is the quoted text( ... )Under California Code of Civil Procedure §697.510, a party holding a judgment can file a notice with the California Secretary of State and create a lien on all the judgment debtor’s personal property located in California.( ... )

( Read more... )
The use of, by implication, mistake, or otherwise, of fictitious names within any lawful and even "legal" document renders said document/instrument fatally flawed for simple fraud. And, since no Private Citizen can be held accountable for the same crime twice, by guarantee, then if initially one is charged in the wrong name, and that mistaken identity at any stage of the proceeding renders the present proceeding null, void, and dismissed. This renders the above "statute" also null, void, and never written, for this fatal error cannot be corrected and one must, secondly, face the same charges. Mistaken Identity cannot be used as a correctable error merely because one cannot be charged twice for the same cause, even if the first charged was mistaken.
( Read more... )

Commercial Law
( Read more... )
COMMERCIAL PROCESSES ARE NON-JUDICIAL, PRE-JUDICIAL, AND ARE MORE POWERFUL THAN JUDICIAL PROCESSES.
( Read more... )

Now, all of a sudden we find ourselves, simply by going back to what we've wanted all along, which is truth, rightness and a remedy, that we have, by going back in this and finding the rules that pertain to it, a way to have more power than they do, since we are sovereign.

No one, not a judge, jury or anyone else can overturn this or change this process.

( Read more... )

COMMERCIAL LIEN STRATEGY: A "P R E S I D E N T I A L" O P I N I O N
by Alfred Adask
[Reprint from the AntiShyster Magazine, P.O. Box 540786 Dallas, Texas, 75334-0786 - - annual subscription (6 issues) $25.00. This article appeared in Volume 3, No. 1 Jan/Feb. 93]

In the last issue of the AntiShyster, we began to explore a new Commercial Lien Strategy (CLS) whereby common citizens, without the aid of lawyers or Courts, can induce government officials to actually obey the law they have sworn to uphold.

In brief, the CLS works like this:
( Read more... )