Towards a understanding of
the word/term "federal"
Translate this Page!
|
Harmon L. Taylor 15 January A.D. 2011 This author is working toward a slight modification of the definition of "federal." In the past, you´ve read this concept: "Federal" means "federal." It doesn´t mean "national," and it most certainly doesn´t mean "constitutional." "Federal" means "federal." At the level of a state, "federal" means "by compact" or "by treaty." At the level of the individual, "federal" means "by private obligation." The point to be made by that definition is simply this. Those who go about defending themselves by throwing "law" at the matter will likely lose every time, because they know not the law that applies. If they knew the law that applied, they´d also realize what facts are the material and relevant facts in the case. We don´t really know the relevant law until we can apply that understanding so as to identify the material and relevant facts. Thus, those who think the problem arises because a statue exists rather than because an alleged commercial nexus exists will "never" argue law that will help them, no matter how correct their understanding and assertion of whatever legal concepts they assert. For that reason, this author has sometimes applied that definition by continuing the discussion this way: There are two generic forms of private obligations: contracts and trusts. And, then, to motivate the reflective minds in the crowd, this author has sometimes concluded this section of the discussion with this cliff-hanger: No one goes to jail for mere breach of contract. Most stop there, and some (not on the list) have sent (angry) emails assuring this author that people DO go to jail for mere breach of contract. In other words, those folks are not yet students of the reality, and they´d still rather be able to justify their anger than solve their problems. It IS a wicked paradigm shift. We DO have to accept the fact that we´ve been so lied to for so long that we´ve based a lot of our present world view on lies. For a person to change his world view is for that person to experience a "death" event, for part of that person "dies" when s/he accepts the fact that certain concepts previously accepted as true and reliable are just flat out lies. Most are reluctant to let go of their life-long perspectives, no matter how ill-founded, and that´s why it takes generations and generations to get a community´s world view changed from the lies into reality. The reason for re-examining this definition is this. Not all "gotcha agreements" behave like PRIVATE obligations. Let´s look at the national mortgage foreclosure scam as an example. That agreement is by and between a bank (lending institution) and the individual(s) (home owner(s)). For those agreements, the banks don´t pretend also to be the "government." They pretend to be commercial players in the marketplace. Therefore, it´s relevant that there BE a signature proved up. The signature is a very important fact, and where the foreclosing entity can´t prove that it was ever party to the agreement, it has no standing to pursue the foreclosure. Key, no "mortgage" agreement is found published in any "code" or "title." We´ve had a case recently, in the "tax" context, where one of the foundational objectives was to get the irs/doj conglomerate to prove up the agreement on which their claim was based. We got some very encouraging information from that case on a couple of critical points, and we also got confirmation that we´ll never be able to compel "them" to prove up the "gotcha agreement" via the judicial process. How can it be, then, on the one hand, that there must be a viable commercial nexus and yet, on the other, no evidentiary requirement that "they" prove up a signature? The working theory on the answer to that question is this. We need to rephrase "private obligation" to "commercial agreement" or simply to "agreement" so as not to get stuck on the variations in what constitutes evidence and by what mechanism for "all" such cases. Public information may be admitted into the case via Judicial Notice. Thus, where a "code" or a "title" is publicly published and available, and where that "code" or "title" IS the body of the agreement, it stands to reason that there need be no tender of it into evidence, for it is admissible via Judicial Notice. And, it may also follow that a "signature" to such "public agreement" is also admissible via Judicial Notice. Cheesy, yes, but we´re not dealing with a group under the guidance of Mother Teresa. We´re dealing with the slimiest of slimeballs this world may have generated to date. Whatever hook or crook they can use, they use it. It comes straight out of Machiavelli´s "The Prince," in that the first objective of power is to get it, and the second objective is to keep it. In that morality, the ends justify the means. Having been in reflection upon this perspective for some time now, what provides confidence that this working theory is headed in the right direction is this additional matter. In PRIVATE obligations, there are a whole slew of defenses, including "illegality." Why has "illegality" not served as a defense in the "income tax" context, where we can prove, for example, that "tax" "dollars" have been used for the planning of, the carrying out of, and/or the cover-up of, all kinds of murderous crimes and criminal activity, including the JFK assassination, the RFK assassination, the MLK, Jr., assassination, the attempted assassination of Reagan, Ruby Ridge, Waco, Murrah Building bombing, TWA 800, S-11, Vince Foster, Sec. Brown, Chandra Levy, MK ULTRA, etc., etc., etc.? One reason may very well be that because it´s a "public" "agreement," it IS, "by definition," NOT "against public policy" to enter into that particular agreement. For purposes of obtaining to a competent solution, the engineering side has to act first by realizing the practical side of the matter. When the science side has time to fill in the theory and the "proof" of that theory, that´ll be great. However, where "agreement" is compelled as the mechanism, and yet nothing about the typical "defenses" and burdens of proof apply, it follows that we may be experiencing the difference between a PRIVATE obligation and a PUBLIC obligation. For this reason, this author will now be defining "federal" this way.
The term "private" is removed. There may be "private" obligations involved, but the ones of focus to date don´t behave that way, at all. Therefore, the expectation is that they are treated as "public" agreements, and with that treatment may come the explanation as to why no proof of signature is required and why perfectly viable defenses are ineffective. Where "they" don´t have to prove up a signature in court, and where normal defenses are ineffective, that hardly means that there´s "no solution." It just means all the more that "the" solution may be primarily (solely?) a "preventative" measure. Where there is no "curative" measure, all that remains is prevention. "Federal" means "federal." It doesn´t mean "national," and it most certainly doesn´t mean "constitutional." "Federal" means "federal." At the level of a state, "federal" means "by compact" or "by treaty." (What is a "compact" or a "treaty?" It´s an agreement entered into by that state.) At the level of the individual, "federal" means "by agreement." There are two generic forms of agreements: contracts and trusts. No one goes to jail for breach of contract. Harmon L. Taylor Subscribe / unsubscribe: legal_reality@earthlink.net |
All the powers in the universe seem to favor the person who has confidence. |
||
 |
 |
|
|
Freedom-School
is not affiliated with the links on this page - unless otherwise
stated. This
is the fine print that so important. Freedom School and other information
served is so for educational purposes only, no liability expressed
or assumed for use. Freedom
School is a free speech site, non-commercial enterprise and operation
as
GOOGLE ANALYTICS: While we do not automatically collect personally
identifiable information about you when you visit the Freedom-School.com
site, we do collect non-identifying and aggregate information that
we use to improve our Web site design and our online presence. |
Presentation CopyrightŠ
2003, 2012 |