Towards a understanding of
the word/term "federal"

Bigger text (+) | Smaller text (-)
Translate this Page!

Harmon L. Taylor
Legal Reality

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.

"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 agreement."

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
Legal Reality
Dallas, Texas

Subscribe / unsubscribe: legal_reality@earthlink.net


NOTICE: Harmon L. Taylor,and Legal Reality are not affiliated with Freedom School.
NOTICE: If anything in this presentation is found to be in error a good faith effort will be made to correct it in timely fashion upon notification.
      Hit Counter    Specialty Areas

All the powers in the universe seem to favor the person who has confidence.
Share/Save/Bookmark Subscribe

More & Other Information - Resource Pages
AntiShyster Magazine Attention Signing the Constitution Away
Aware Belligerent Claimant
Bonds Citizenship / nationality related items
Education Graphics
Health related  
Howard Griswold History
Jerry Kirk Jurisdiction
Law related items Lee Brobst
Lewis Mohr Luis Ewing
Money Reading Material
Reading Room Stuff
Tax matters Travel related
Truth Video
NOTICE: The information on this page was brought to you by people who paid this website forward so that someone such as you might also profit by having access to it. If you care to do so also please feel encouraged to KEEP THIS SITE GOING by making a donation today. Thank you. Make donation with PayPal - it´s fast, free and secure!

Freedom-School is not affiliated with the links on this page - unless otherwise stated.
This enterprise collectively is known and generally presented as "Freedom-School.com" - "we," "us" or "our" are other expressions of Freedom-School.com used throughout. "You" is in reference to the user / visitor.

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.
The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.
Freedom School does not consent to or condone unlawful action.
Freedom School advocates and encourages one and all to adhere to, support and
defend all Law which is particularly applicable.
Information is intended for [those] men and women who are not "US CITIZENS" or "TAXPAYERS" - continued use, reference or citing indicates voluntary and informed compliance. Support is not offered.

Freedom School is a free speech site, non-commercial enterprise and operation as
there is no charge for things presented.
Freedom-School.com site relies on this memorandum and others in support of this philosophy and operation.

The noteworthy failure of [the] government or any alleged agency thereof to at any time rebut anything appearing on this website constitutes a legal admission of the fidelity and accuracy of the materials presented, which are offered in good faith and prepared as such by Freedom School and any and all [third] parties affiliated or otherwise. THIS IS AN ELECTRONIC AGREEMENT AND IS A LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT, EQUIVALENT TO A SIGNED, WRITTEN CONTRACT BETWEEN PARTIES - If the government, or anyone else, wants to assert that any of the religious and/or political statements appearing on this website are not factual or otherwise in error, then they as the moving party have the burden of proof, and they must responsively meet that burden of proof under the Administrative Procedures Act 5 U.S.C. § 556(d) and under the due process clauses found in the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments to the national Constitution BEFORE there will be response to any summons, questions, or unsubstantiated and slanderous accusations. Attempts at calling presented claims "frivolous" without specifically rebutting the particular claim, or claims, deemed "frivolous" will be in deed be "frivolous" and prima facie evidence that shall be used accordingly. Hey guys, if anything on this site is found to be in error a good faith effort will be made to correct it in timely fashion upon notification.

Freedom-School.com is not responsible for content of any linked website or material.
In addition, users may not use Freedom-School.com to engage in, facilitate or further unlawful conduct;
use the service in any way, or manner, that harms us or anyone connected with us or whose work is presented;
damage, disable, overburden, or impair the service (or the network(s) connected to the site)
or interfere with anyone´s use and enjoyment of the website.

All claims to be settled on the land - Austin, Travis county Texas, united States of America, using Texas Common Law.
All parts of this contract apply to the maximum extent permitted by law. A court may hold that we cannot enforce a part of this contract as written. If this happens, then you and we will replace that part with terms that most closely match the intent of the part that we cannot enforce. The rest of this contract will not change. This is the entire contract between you and us regarding your use of the service. It supersedes any prior contract or statements regarding your use of the Freedom-School.com site. If there exists some manner of thing missing we do not forfeit our right to that thing as
we reserve all rights.
We may assign, or modify, alter, change this contract, in whole or in part, at any time with or without notice to you. You may not assign this contract, or any part of it, to any other person. Any attempt by you to do so is void. You may not transfer to anyone else, either temporarily or permanently, any rights to use the Freedom-School.com site or material contained within.

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.
Visitors to this site who have Javascript enabled are tracked using Google Analytics. The type of information that Google Analytics collects about you includes data like: the type of Web browser you are using; the type of operating system you are using; your screen resolution; the version of Flash you may be using; your network location and IP address (this can include geographic data like the country, city and state you are in); your Internet connection speed; the time of your visit to the Freedom-School.com site; the pages you visit on the Freedom-School.com site; the amount of time you spend on each page of the Freedom-School.com site and referring site information. In addition to the reports we receive using Google Analytics data, the data is shared with Google. For more information on Google´s privacy policies, visit: www.google.com/privacy_ads.html
Here is Google´s description of how Google Analytics works and how you can disable it: "Google Analytics collects information anonymously, and much like examining footprints in sand, it reports website trends without identifying individual visitors. Analytics uses its own cookie to track visitor interactions. The cookie is used to store information, such as what time the current visit occurred, whether the visitor has been to the site before, and what site referred the visitor to the web page. Google Analytics customers can view a variety of reports about how visitors interact with their website so they can improve their website and how people find it. A different cookie is used for each website, and visitors are not tracked across multiple sites. Analytics requires that all websites that use it must update their privacy policy to include a notice that fully discloses the use of Analytics. To disable this type of cookie, some browsers will indicate when a cookie is being sent and allow you to decline cookies on a case-by-case basis."


Presentation CopyrightŠ 2003, 2016
All Rights Reserved

H O M E