Well, it looks like the 100th monkey theory is in full force and effect.
For those of you NOT on the legal reality mailing list, I want you to have a copy of this very excellent dissertation about how we have been tricked into thinking we owned anything because our all caps name is listed as the legal owner of our property. As many of you know, I have suspected for a long time now that we have been tricked into defending an assertion of title of complete ownership of both legal and equity title and using the wrong law for asserting rights that we thought we had but which we actually can never have as a diminished capacity ward of the state. For those who do not know Harmon is a brilliant man who once was a Bar Card holder and who now has turned back to God and surrendered his Bar Card and he has chosen to work toward the restoration of lawful government. Everything we do is predicated upon who owns the property and has the rights of outright ownership. Legal title without equity title is a fiduciary agreement for the legal title holder performing in accordance with the terms of the of the trust imposed by the equity title holder. Enjoy. L -o-
|---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Legal Reality
Date: Dec 3, 2007 12:38 PM
Subject: The "gun ownership" case before the Supreme Court
To: Legal Reality <email@example.com>
Gun Ownership or Ownership of Both Legal and Equitable Title.
Title is the True Question before the Supreme Court
By Harmon Taylor
Concerning the Most Recent 2nd Amendment Case Pending Before the Supreme Court
2 December A.D. 2007
If we learn the legal reality of the property ownership aspects of our property, we'll learn the legal mechanism being used in attempt to disarm us.
We've got a lot of work to do, but we won't achieve our objective until we identify the problem correctly. If we constantly treat only the "symptoms," we'll never cure the "disease." The symptoms continue, because we've not focused on the disease.
It's critical that we understand, as soon as possible, that the fundamental, substantive authority being used against us is our own signature.
This "gun ownership" case will attempt to drive a stake into the heart of the Second Amendment, but the Second Amendment is
window dressing. It is irrelevant to the fundamental legal analysis at work, here.
Realizing that the Second Amendment is not relevant to the discussion is the single-most important idea to realize, and to realize as soon as humanly possible. This case IS NOT about the Second Amendment, no
matter what the Court may or may not say, and no matter what the propagandists will most assuredly try to convince us regarding. This IS about "property rights."
Let's start with the generic car scenario in order to understand the legal mechanism at issue. If we'll learn how the property rights affect the gun (carrying) issue as regards our cars, we'll see that
exact same "model" or "pattern" being applied in the "gun ownership ban" case before the Supreme Court.
Why do we have to have a "license" to carry a gun in our cars? Because we don't own our cars. The "equitable title" owner of the car has managed to get us to agree not to carry guns in our cars unless we get
permission. That permission is the "license to carry."
If we do as we're told in the car-buying transaction, what we own about our cars is "legal title" only. The "equitable title" is owned elsewhere. To put a
generic label on the owner of that "equitable title," let's use STATE
as the name of the beneficiary.
What's all this talk about "legal title" and "equitable title" regarding our cars? What we're talking about is from the law of trusts. A trust is an ancient legal mechanism by which "full title" to
property is split. There are two generic pieces that arise at the time of that split. Those pieces are the "legal title" and the "equitable title." The fiduciary owns/controls the "legal title;" the
beneficiary, the "equitable title."
Here's how this scam works. When the car is manufactured, the "full
title" document is printed. This is the Manufacturer's Statement of Origin (MSO), or the Manufacturer's Certificate of Origin (MCO). Whatever may be the name of those "today," that document embodies "full
title" to that car. The typical buyer never sees the MSO and never even knows that such a document even exists. What happens is that the car dealer gets the buyer to sign all the paperwork, and where we act like good Prussians, doing what we're told and not asking any questions, we voluntarily sign the documents that create the trust. The "full title" document, i.e., the MSO, is then sent to the proper "agency," which then goes about the job of producing the paperwork that confirms that the car is now trust property. Key to that confirmation is the delivery to the new owner of the "certificate of title." What a "certificate of title" embodies is "legal title" only. Where's the "equitable title?" It's in the file where the MSO information is kept. Typically, the MSO is microfilmed and then shredded, leaving only the copy of the original as the "best evidence." However that MSO is handled, whoever has that MSO information (at this stage of the transaction) is either directly the beneficiary or the agent for the beneficiary(ies). In short, where that "certificate of title" is printed, a trust exists, and the scam has obtained its objective.
No, it's NOT fraud. We're on full disclosure by at least two mechanisms. The most obvious Notice to us is the "funny money," itself. There's no way that "funny money" CAN exist in any system
other than a purely maritime-based system. In a maritime-based system, "everything" operates on the basis of agreement. There are two generic types of agreements: contracts and trusts. So, that's one form of Notice. The other form is in the paperwork, itself. Why in the world would we trade "full title" for "legal title" only, except voluntarily? The fact that we have no clue about the law of trusts is not relevant to the judicial decision-makers. Our ignorance of the law does not translate into a theory of fraud on their part. By agreeing to the "law" of the "place" called "this state," we're also saying that
by our signature, we DO understand what we've signed in all of its particulars. So, as angering as this scam is, especially where we come into realizing that first time that we ARE being scamed, and even
"under color of law," the fact remains that this is no ordinary scam. The scammers have created an entire body of law on which they depend, and we agree to that body of law from the minute we agree to the
transaction. So, no, it's NOT fraud.
To argue fraud is to try to put the responsibility of fixing this
problem off onto the scammers. Since they've set up the rules and the
transactions in the first place, changing them won't happen. So, one
proceeds into an endless and futile loop by arguing fraud. Better is
to know how the scam operates so as to purchase the MSO, and then, of course the property that is identified by that MSO.
(If the first dealer you go to won't sell you the MSO, and the property that is identified by it, then find another dealer. The reality is that no one can compel you to enter into the office of fiduciary. No one can compel you to create a trust. So, no matter what this or that "legislation" says, no "legislature" can compel you to create a trust any more than the dealer can. The only way that legislation can be read is exactly as described here: creating a trust is a purely voluntary act.)
Now, given that the registered car is trust property, the rest of the restrictions and obligations follow as a result of that agreement. Why is insurance "required?" Because it's been agreed to. It's legally impossible for any legislature, anywhere, to compel anyone into any type of commercial transaction. Thus, it's impossible for any legislature to compel anyone to purchase anything. The enforceable aspect, then, of insurance, is not because the legislature thinks it can compel the transaction, but rather because purchasing insurance has been agreed to, as part and parcel of this trust we're scammed into creating.
(Yes, there is a way to fix all that. Regarding any specifics, I hope to know in a few months of the validity of a rather simple technique to reverse that transaction. The reason for anticipating this question is twofold. First, yes, the problem is fixable. Everything is fixable in this regard. Secondly, the fix has nothing to do with any statute, or any "constitution," or any "rights," or anything of the popular line of thinking. That fix has everything to do with addressing the commercial reality of how the property ownership interests being used against us were created in the first place.)
Specifically, in exactly the same way that the "legal title" owner of the car has agreed to insure the car/driver/etc., the "legal title" owner of the car has also agreed to allow no guns in the car, except by those "licensed to carry." Yes, there are exceptions, such as "traveling," and, with or without "traveling," as in simply going to the gun range, those that focus on where and how the weapon is carried, i.e., fully loaded with one in the chamber and trigger cocked, or magazine separated from the empty weapon, which is on safety and secured in the trunk in a carrying container.
If we'll recognize the car ownership scam for what it is, and if we'll see its basic legal mechanism and how that mechanism, i.e., an agreement, operates to disarm us as we travel in our cars, then we'll see how just about everything that vexes us operates, for this is the same kind of legal mechanism that has been used against us for quite some time now, just in various different circumstances.
"Like what?" you may ask. Like prayer in school, prayer at the high school football games, the 10 Commandments monument in Alabama,
"no-knock" warrants, searches of property of welfare recipients, and "eminent domain!" The key difference between the car ownership scam and the "gun ownership" issue pending before the Supreme Court is simply the property that we're talking about. In the car ownership scam, obviously, the property of focus is the car. Thus, that's a "personal property" issue. Here, in the "gun ownership" issue, what we're talking about is a "land ownership" issue. Once we focus on the right property, we see that the legal mechanism is virtually identical.
To establish the point of land ownership by illustration, let's take a trip to Alabama. Let's remember the good Chief Justice Moore. If we'll learn what happened there, in terms of the legal reality, we'll understand the legal mechanism at play in this "gun ownership" issue in DC. To say this again, we're NOT talking about any "Second Amendment" issue or any "rights" issue regarding "guns." What we ARE talking about is "property rights," in particular who has what authority over that property based on the agreement between the parties.
To zero in on this concept of agreement between the parties, an
excellent case study is that which arises from the inside job massacre
of 11 September A.D. 2001. Many of the victims and survivors agreed to
settle their cases. Then they became aware of the XTS 3500, Motorola
radio scam, involving Guiliani and NYC leadership, even the head of the
F.D.N.Y. So, they brought suit based on the "Radio Silence" problem,
and they were turned away. The Supreme Court declined to change that
ruling, because they have to uphold the agreements made between the
parties. Thus, agreements are critical to the legal mechanism, and
whether the Supreme Court like or enjoy making the rulings they have to
make, they DO uphold the agreements made, and they DO fully recognize
all the property rights at issue at the base of such matters.
In Alabama, the good Chief Justice, thinking that the building in which he set up that 10 Commandments monument was on "public" land, refused to remove it upon request. He got sued for such refusal, and he lost. Then he refused to comply with the court orders commanding him to remove the monument. So, he ended up being kicked off the Alabama Supreme Court, and he may be in jeopardy of losing his "license" to "practice law," as well.
As an illustration of that specific problem, a true Believer knows that
there are at least 11 Commandments, anyway. See John 13:31-35 (the new
Commandment). Thus, as a place to start, the good Chief Justice's god
and my God are different. I say that to illustrate that
where the blind lead the blind, they both fall in the ditch. I think
that he intends to have the same God I have, and that he doesn't intend
to mislead his followers and supporters, but his god IS different from
mine, and he IS misleading his followers, nonetheless. That
misdirection play starts with a popular misunderstanding of Scripture. All that are
popularly taught are the "10" Commandments, without a second thought to
the reality that He was murdered BECAUSE He said He was God, for which
statements of reality "they" charged Him with blasphemy, found Him
guilty, and sentenced Him to death. Not that He needed more proof, but
He rather handily proved His case to the penultimate by rising again on
the third day! So, those who worship the God of the Bible recognize
that there are at least 11 Commandments.
Then, the good Chief Justice gets into an even more understandable and
popular misunderstanding, which misunderstanding arises from the "law
of man." It doesn't matter that he's a Chief Justice.
He's already proved that his "beliefs" about "what should be" are
blinding him to "what is." That doesn't make him stupid. Quite the
contrary. He's quite intelligent. It's still the case that having a
high IQ is no test for whether one understands the legal reality. And,
when it comes to our present legal reality, he's among wonderful company in his ignorance.
The paradigm shift is so wicked that it is a nightmare to navigate, but
if we don't see this for what it is, we're going to continue to steer
our respective ships straight into the rocks at the base of the cliff.
Maybe there's no preventative solution for this, but we at Legal
Reality have got to try to prevent the experience of suffering even more damage than we've
suffered, nationally, already.
What did the good Chief Justice miss regarding the "law of man?" What
he missed is that the entity he worked for is a commercial entity. It
was declared into existence not by a legislative act of
a recognized democracy but rather by a commercial act. What I'm saying is that
STATE OF ALABAMA is a commercial enterprise, not a "constitutional
Government." And, what THAT means is that its method of operation is
no different from that of GM, or Ford, or Chrysler, which are all
commercial entities. In other words, since STATE OF ALABAMA is a
private, commercial enterprise, the land on which the good Chief
Justice placed his monument is NOT "public" land, but rather "private" land.
Part and parcel with that "private" land reality is the understood "No trespassing" sign that includes a policy along this line: "We don't want to hear about the God of the Bible on the land owned by STATE OF ALABAMA." So, the trespass started when the monument promoted an agenda offensive to the people running the God-hating entity known as STATE OF ALABAMA. How do we know it hates God? Let me count the ways. The one I'll mention here is this. It relies on and promotes use of "funny money" rather than on the honest system of weights and measures that God teaches us to use.
Bottom line, the issue with the good Chief Justice is just one more symptom of this same disease. We're off into discussions of the "state's" formal persecution of Christianity and the "state's" promotion of atheism as the "state" religion rather than focusing on the mechanism that "allows" this issue to become an issue at all. That mechanism derives its authority from land ownership, and/or from
ownership interests, whether "legal" or "equitable," in that property.
Let's address this "religious" issue just a little bit. It's not directly relevant to the property ownership legal mechanism, but it well illustrates the motives and inclinations of those who are promoting the idea of disarming us, not only in our cars, but now also
in our homes. To see how they think is to see the swiss cheese reality of the walls of their "fortress."
It's not even logical to talk about a "separation of church and state." Why not? Because
that's an impossibility. What's the impossibility? Separating a "state" from
its "church." Said another way, separating a "state" from its "foundational moral code." In short, it's legally and humanly impossible to separate any "state" from its "foundational moral code." Said another way, all
"states" are "churches."
While it IS possible to separate God (of the Bible) from a state, it IS NOT possible to separate a state from its foundational moral code.
What Jefferson was talking about was the difference between worshiping the king and worshiping God (of the Bible), the difference between having a king dictate how (and what) the people worship and allowing each person's conscience, as guided by God, to direct how (and Who) the people worship. Where a people worship their king, they HAVE a "church." That "church" is based on a foundational moral code that
"allows" them (compels them) to worship man instead of God. This is nothing new; all that got started in the Garden, and it's pretty much been that way ever since. So, worship of man, whether the king, or his system, or a product of man, as in a banking system or "the economy," is as old/ancient as mankind itself. But, we're still talking about a "church." The fact that such "church" is in active rebellion against God Almighty is a completely different issue. To evaluate the matter by comparing moral codes on a "better/worse" scale, what we'd be talking about would be a matter of "preference" of moral codes. That's a different issue. The point of
this "separation of church and state" concept is that what where talking about is the recognition of the relationship between the "state" and its "foundational moral code." And, all "states" have a "foundational
moral code," meaning that it's not only legally impossible, but also humanly impossible, ever in a million years to separate a "state" from its "foundational church." Thus, "church" and "state" are inseparable.
Obviously, a state may most certainly alter or change its foundational moral code. But no matter what the content of that moral code, even if it changes daily, it's still that
state's foundational moral code.
How does a "state's" foundational moral code come into play? The
clearest application of a "state's" foundational moral code when that
state evaluates its own rules! For example, how does that state evaluate whether there
even is a death penalty? On what basis, then, did Mexico negotiate the extradition
treaty to say to "United States" that they'll return an accused murderer to the states but only on the condition that
that the accused doesn't get the needle if he's convicted of murder? That basis is Mexico's
"foundational moral code." In that moral code, a "death penalty" is
an immoral act. We can compare and contrast that with Scripture, but
to go there is to evaluate "priorities." It might be difficult to
avoid "going there," but the point isn't whether we approve Mexico's
foundational moral code. The point is recognizing that such foundational moral code exists and that those people have gathered
around that foundational moral code, even implementing it in international agreements. Thus, at the base of the "state," the
internationally recognized independent body politic, known as Mexico, there is a "church." That "church" has affected what is and what is
not the "law" in and for Mexico, and this is exactly how it is in every
"state" known to mankind from the existence of that first "state."
In those places where there is a death penalty, is drawing and quartering a proper or applicable punishment, or is that cruel and unusual? By
what standard is "proper" evaluated? By what standard is "cruel and
unusual" evaluated? All of these sorts of things compel one to draw upon the foundational moral code of that
"state." Is horse stealing a hanging offense? In the states, it most
certainly used to be, and then that changed. Why? Because the moral view of that
offense and the punishment for it has changed as society has changed. In general, what we're talking about is the "gut check" that accompanies a challenge to any
rule. How DO we know what IS and what IS NOT a good rule? The answer lies in that society's, that "state's," "foundational moral code."
So, in short, to see the reality is to see that ALL "states" are "churches," in that ALL "states" gather around a foundational moral
code by which each "state" evaluates its own rules. As moral sentiment changes, the "laws" change, and this is the reality for every state that has every existed. "Law" is not only a function of place; it is also a function of time. Thus, it's just completely nonsensical, even ludicrous, to
suggest that there CAN be a separation of church and state, as the propagandists have suggested to us. Key
here is that all "states" look to a foundational moral code, which means that
all "states" are "churches." To realize that is to realize that while all
states MAY be separated from God Almighty, thus separated from the moral code of The King, NO state CAN be separated from its own
Critical to see here is that the entire issue is designed to keep our minds off the obvious. The obvious is that we're not really talking
about "separation of church and state," but rather, "who owns the property?!"
But, even regarding the religious issue, we're still not talking about any "separation" issue but rather a "change" issue. It's
not a "separation of church and state," but a "change of state church,"
a "change of foundational moral code" issue. For example, "atheism" is a "religion;" hence, atheists simply are members of a
different "church." They worship man and fate and things of this nature rather than God Almighty. Thus, whatever the basis of the "religion," i.e., whatever the suitable label for the foundational moral
code, whether Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, Protestantism, Buddhism, etc., all we're talking about here are different "churches," i.e.,
labels on different moral codes. Thus, the "atheists" are simply a different church, a church whose members
gather around a different moral code from that based on Scripture. Sodom and Gomorrah had a moral
code. We might consider that as a complete absence of a moral code, but "no moral code" IS a moral code, in exactly the same way that
"atheism" IS a religion. In both cases, the foundational premise is that "man" is god rather than God is God. Again, we can picture a God-less state, but even a God-less state HAS a god, so it is NOT a god-less state; it HAS a moral code; it IS a "church." The "atheist"
church/state HAS a moral code on which is based the management system of that church, which management system we
call its "government."
In short, it's legally impossible for there ever to be a separation of ANY state from the moral code on which it is founded. All that can
be separated from a state is its prior moral code, thus its prior god or God relevant to the chosen moral code. Thus, a state may be separated from all other churches, but it can't be separated from itself. No state can be separated from the moral code it exists to protect and defend. In sum, all "states" are "churches."
Where members of a particular "church" own the property, the law relevant to that property will follow that foundational moral code.
Thus, to see the legal mechanism of the property interests, we see how it is that atheism is now the "state" "religion." Where the atheists own enough of the land interests to make it a "trespass" on their private land to promote the God of the Bible, the foundational moral code is changed. It's as simple as that.
Those very same atheists have disarmed us in our cars by means of our agreement to it, and now they want also to disarm us in our homes. And, that plan may very well
succeed. Why? Because our homes are not really ours any more than our cars are ours. It's as simple as that.
As I've mentioned in times past, fair is fair. Chances are good that no one receiving this directly from Legal Reality would be terribly interested in setting up a whorehouse on his/her property at the request of the pagans among us so that they may engage their worship practices on our land. So, why should the God-hating "one worlders" allow us to set up churches, or monuments, or the like, on their property so that we may worship our God on their land? Fair is fair.
To deny this legal reality is to perpetuate our demise and
self-destruction. We can deny this, or we can come to terms with it
and deal with it efficiently and successfully. That's completely up to
us. The first step in the process of dealing with it is identifying
the problem correctly, i.e., recognizing that what we're dealing with
is property rights, not First Amendment religion issues, not Second
Amendment "gun ownership" issues, not Fourth Amendment search and
seizure issues, but basic property ownership issues.
Those who need to debate this issue are going to be large in number,
and that fact is a key reason why nothing is changing to our benefit.
The courts, including the Supreme Court, have upheld the private property ownership
rights, the rights derived from commercial agreements, for which many
across the nation still libel and slander the jurists. So, we expect
no difference, even where a group's leader has given at least two oaths
to uphold the "laws" of the "place" called "this state," one
to the Bar Association and one regarding his office, both of which
oath's he's flagrantly violated. Now, he's not doing that with an evil
intent, but, in terms of the legal reality, it's still the case that he
took at least two oaths to support a system, a "church," that he then
turned right around and defied. He obligated himself to uphold that "church's"
"choice of law," and then he turned right around and did the exact
opposite. Thus, we see that he's even at odds with, "Let your Yes mean Yes, and your No, No." So, if we don't come to terms with the legal reality any better than he has and any better than his supporters have, we're in "deep voodoo," as one nationally recognized personality has so eloquently stated it.
Let's look at another case that has triggered an emotional outrage, but which response of outrage has led to no legal change, no policy change, and no change in practice, in or by the juggernaut that brought about the problem in the first place. There is no prayer at the high school football games. Why? Because the pagans who own the "private" land on which that stadium sits, those stadiums sit, don't want us to use their land to worship our God.
Let's look at another case. There is no prayer in school. Why? Because the pagans who own the "private" land on which that school sits, those schools sit, don't want us to use their land to worship our God. It's the exact same picture.
Let's look at another case. KELO V. NEW LONDON (04-108) 545 U.S. 469 (2005) How is it
that a commercial enterprise gets an interest in our land so as to have the authority to compel us to sell it? There's one and only one way that what appears to be a "compelled" transaction can ever in a million years happen. The owners of that land fully agreed to it,
ahead of time.
This takes us to the area of "eminent domain," which is definitely its
own area of focus and study, but to address it very briefly, let's
presume a Constitution. In that language is found this so-called
"eminent domain" concept. Obviously, building a new football stadium
in Arlington, Texas, which stadium seating prices are now such that
only corporate clients can afford to purchase tickets, is not the sort
of thing contemplated in or by the Constitution, but then they didn't
have the benefit of professional football as "bread and circus"
entertainment, back then, either. But, presume a Constitution, and
presume the need for a Fort. By what legal theory does that "eminent
domain" language operate, anyway? It's called "agreement." To assert
"Citizenship" with a "church" created by a "Constitution" that reserves
the "eminent domain" clause is to
"agree," on the way in, to the sale of property to that "church" in the
event that "church" needs a "Citizen's" property for that Fort, given
that the owner of that property will be justly compensated. This is
the mechanism of "eminent domain," even in the "constitutional"
context. Outside that context, which is exactly where we are in these
Constitution-free, maritime, commercial zones such as that managed by
this entity called STATE OF ALABAMA, we're all the more obviously
talking about "agreement." That "agreement" well predates the exercise
of the "compelled sale" clause.
To focus, then, on this "gun ownership" case, it has absolutely, positively nothing, whatsoever, to do, directly, with guns or with gun ownership. The "gun ownership" angle is simply the current marketing purpose, agenda, and angle. It's simply the newest "symptom" of the same disease we've been subject to for decades, now. It's simply the newest application of this exact same legal mechanism.
The underlying legal mechanism has everything to do with land ownership, and if we'll stay focused on this reality, we'll address this potential disaster sensibly, i.e., without losing our minds as a response to the anticipated propaganda in the event the Supreme Court uphold that statute.
On the one hand, if the Court strikes down the statute, for whatever reason, then this discussion will be "too early." The risk one takes on this side of the coin is that should the Supreme Court strike down that statute, the recipients of this information who need it the most will dismiss this analysis if they don't have to apply it "immediately."
However, to wait until after the Court upholds the statute, for whatever reason, should that happen, would be "too late", because those who most need this information at that time would be acting very much in response to emotional stimulus rather than reflective thoughtfulness.
Therefore, I address this now [as in ahead of time] in hopes of negating what could be (1) a propaganda boon for the Anti-American agenda alive and well among some in the city of Washington, DC; and (2) an emotional and activity-response nightmare for the nation, especially those who put a lot of stock in the Second Amendment.
It helps to read the statutory language, but we don't have to study the statute to know what's at issue. What we need to realize is the systemic legal reality. If we focus there, maybe we can avoid what may otherwise be an emotional 'Pearl Harbor' - a 'Ruby Ridge' - 'Waco' - 'Murrah Building Bombing' - '9/11'
event, in the event that the result we are led to believe via the propaganda outlets is that city of Washington, DC "residents" may no longer "own guns."
Regarding the propaganda angle, as just one of many examples of the
effectiveness of it, the propaganda we've lived under for 30+ years
since the Court decided the Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113) case is amazing. I'm not going
to get into the legal reality of what the Court addressed in that case,
here. The reason for mentioning that case is that what we hear from
the "news" pundits and propagandists and what the Court actually did and said are
diametrically opposed to one another. The propaganda is exactly the
opposite of what the Court did in and through that case. In other
words, if the only source of information one has received about that
case is from the "popular news outlets," then that person has received
a lot of propaganda that promotes the "one world government" agenda and
nothing, at all, about what the Court actually said or did in
or through that opinion and decision. The point about the
propaganda is simply this. They tell us what they want us to hear and
to think, and nothing else. No matter what the Court may say, if
there's anyway at all to spin that decision to promote the demise of
"gun ownership" that is the flavor of the 'swill' the propagandists will
produce for our consumption.
What we're going to
learn in the "gun ownership" case is "another chapter", as it were, to
the Kelo v. City of New London case, supra. In that opinion, what the Court
taught us, basically, is that we have no clue, generally, as to how our
land is owned these days. It's because we have no clue about the land
ownership that we have such things as no prayer in school, no prayer at
the high school football games, the case against the good Chief Justice
in Alabama, and these no-knock warrants. There is also a recent focus
on warrantless searches at the residence of welfare recipients. All of
these "symptoms" are from the same "disease," and until we diagnose the
"disease" correctly, we're going to continue to suffer more and more
To solve a problem, we must first identify it correctly. We've got some serious, serious problems, but they're fixable, if we'll stay focused and level headed. So, just know that the "gun ownership" case is another "test" case, nothing more. Thought
of in other terms it's the next warning shot across our bow.
Thought of in still other terms, the Supreme Court took the Kelo case,
and the no-knock warrant case, and these other cases, for a very
specific reason. It's called, Notice. What will REALLY help then, is
this perspective: the Supreme Court doesn't necessarily like or enjoy
having to rule the way they have to rule. So, the thing to do is to
listen intently to what they are teaching us, so that we may act
competently and in time to prevent the complete loss of all ability,
individually and nationally to defend ourselves against the
international juggernaut that intends to dominate this land and this
people. On the one hand, it sort of doesn't matter how far upstream we
have to go -- IF we have the right ship and the right crew. On the other
hand, that ship and that crew might appreciate not having to go quite
as far upstream as they will have to go if we don't come to terms with
the legal mechanism being used against us. In other words, the sooner
we --"get it"-- the sooner some problems are prevented outright, and the sooner some of these existing problems are cured.
It's a simple mechanism, and it's right [here] in plain sight. It's just that we're so accustomed, now, to doing as we're told, like good Prussians, that we're not thinking about the obvious.
If, in this "test" case, we hear that the Supreme Court has upheld
that city of Washington, DC statute/ordinance, then what the propaganda will promote is that
gun ownership may be declared illegal by legislative act, despite the
Second Amendment. But, what you won't hear is that the case has
nothing whatsoever to do with the Second Amendment. This case is
designed to drive a stake into the heart of the Second Amendment
concept, and so to know, ahead of time, that we're not talking about
the Second Amendment, but rather what we've agreed to by and through
the land ownership transactions, then we'll focus our responsive time,
"money", and energy NOT with the NRA and these "gun rights" groups, but
rather with review of our land ownership documents, for in this land ownership documentation is both the problem and the solution.
Some may say, "O.K., fine. Where's the agreement?" And, my initial
response is simply this: "If you'll argue that in court, via proper
(as in competent) use of motions, and pleadings, and discovery
mechanisms, you may or may not ever see the agreement, but you stand a
far greater chance of hanging onto your land, as well!" How so?
Because, the Supreme Court will look for that necessary agreement in
that Record. They've been screaming that at us for a very long time,
So, where the relevant agreement is properly demanded, and where
there is no evidence of any written agreement, then there must be no
justification for the claim, which cannot be justified without the
But, as some may persist, "Really, we need to know -- so where is the
agreement?" In general, there are two pieces to that puzzle. First,
there's the land transaction, itself, in which, if we do as we're told,
like good Prussians, and if we animate all of the "choice of law"
indicial that make it possible for there to be interests created in that
land that are recognized in and by the authority of the place called
"this state," then the land is prepped for the second part of the
transaction. Thus, the first step is the transfer of the land under
under the "law" of the "place" called "this state." The second part of
the agreement is the "registration," by which (A) that "county"
("state") guarantees a clear (legal) title but by which (B) the (legal title)
owner also sets up, typically unknowingly, the trust interests on which
are based that "county's" "property tax" claims. There are more
details to cover, but the point here is to introduce the reality that most people have no idea at all about the scams going
on in the name of "government", which scams are based on agreements
that serve as the legal mechanisms by which all the rest of what vexes us operates against us.
[Ed. Note: See UCC § 3-501. PRESENTMENT - below.]
So, now, let's look at the "no-knock" warrant cases. Do you knock
before you enter into a building that you feel, in good conscience,
that you own? O.K., so why should anyone else? Thus, where a "city" or
a "county" or a "state" or the "feds" feel in good conscience
based on competent analysis by their attorney(s), that they do, in
fact, own sufficient interest in the land or the improvement on that
land (house, building, etc.), as to constitute a "possessory" or
"access" right to that property, why in the world do we expect
representatives of that entity to knock before coming right on in?
Really?! Why do we expect them to behave any differently that we do?
The law is not different depending on who or what owns the land. It's
called private property. No one held a gun to our heads to give them
that part of our property. We did it freely. We may have done it
unknowingly, and we may feel that we've been defrauded. But, it's
still the agreement that is being enforced. For now, what we need to
come to terms with [is that] "fair is fair." If "they" own sufficient interest in
the land, WHY should they have to knock?! If we're paying a "property
tax" there very well may be sufficient ownership in that land by that
"county" entity to justify that entity's giving consent to no-knock
access to our property. This has NOTHING to do with the Fourth
Amendment. It has everything to do with private property and what has and what has not already been agreed to.
Let's look at another case. Why are the welfare recipients subject to unannounced searches of their property? There'll be one of two reasons. One, the "city" or "county" or "state" or
the "feds" who have a sufficient ownership interest in that property, which may be the case for all property run through Housing and Urban Development (HUD), or any of the bankruptcy management agencies, e.g., the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC), have already given their consent to such access. Two, in the application for those benefits, the applicant has agreed to it. It'll be along these lines, and it'll be one or the other, or both.
Agreement, agreement, agreement. We are vexed by our own signatures.
(And think about it -- does it not correspond with our country's founding document, the unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America? Wherein it reads, "...Governments are instituted amoung Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed...[sic]" And also, consider the [current] thirteenth amendment, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, ... shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.")
O.K., you say, "Why is all this not fraud?" Because "they've" given us full
disclosure. No, of course they didn't bring it specifically to our
attention! "Hi. We're with [the] your government, and we're here to scam you.
Please sign here." However with all the indicial of the legal reality starting with the "best
evidence" that LITERALLY SCREAMS AT US EVERY DAY, namely the "funny
money" scam, there is no other legal mechanism by which any of that "stuff" CAN, ever in a million years, operate.
We can get as bent out of shape on this fact as we want, but arguing that in court will be, largely, a complete waste of time, "money" and energy, and that's just the up side - there's a down side also. To know that we're dealing with private obligations is to know to
demand the agreement that was signed by which that claim existed. If it's their claim and if there's no proof of any agreement, then fraud you see is rather much irrelevant, for there is no evidence of any agreement in the first place. If all that is argued is fraud, then that may subtly (cleverly indirect and ingeniously) confess [to] the existence of [a] the agreement, and so one
screws him or her self by arguing fraud. (Properly done, it may be pled "in the alternative," which is a pleadings style matter.) Fraud is an affirmative defense, meaning that it becomes relevant if and only if there exists an agreement in the first place. Thus, by "knowing that it's fraud" going into it is, basically, to confess the agreement into existence, which may tend to give the farm away, right there in the court proceedings.
(If the reader is a bit perplexed at this and the reader is a product of the public school system then it is with respect and encouragement that the reader re-read this section until it penetrates the consciousness.)
[Remember that the Department of Education gets what it pays for.]
This is just one more example as to why it matters that we approach these things systematically and logically, not emotionally. Just compel "them" to prove up their case, one step at a time. If we get too far ahead of ourselves in our own thinking, then we may presume into existence the very fact or set of facts that will then be used to justify the decision that runs against us.
"Federal" means "federal." It doesn't mean "national" and it most certainly doesn't mean "constitutional." "Federal" means "federal." At the level of a body politic, "federal" means "by compact" or "by treaty." However, at the level of the individual, "federal" means "by private obligation."
There are two generic forms of private obligations: contracts and trusts.
Trusts are found in Scripture, which is the basis for the Common Law of Great Britain, which is the basis for the Common Law recognized in America (which is a different "place" from "United States" which is another topic for another time.) In its current recognition and use, the law of trusts started several centuries ago in Great Britain. It's not accidental that the world banking activities are based out of London. It's not accidental that trusts are a very common mechanism used to confound us. And, there's a direct connection between all of these "non-accidents."
How does all of this apply in the "gun ownership" case before the Supreme Court? If the land at issue in that case has been transferred up under the authority of "this state" then there may very well be sufficient "equitable" interest in that land to allow the "owners" of those "equitable" interests to assert their preference that it constitutes a "trespass" on "their" "land" to be there AND to have a weapon. That is exactly what we'll learn from the analysis of that case. Is there sufficient "equitable ownership" interest to control the activity within the house? "Guns", then, are just the start. We'll be at a time where if we're on "their" property with the Word of God, it'll be a trespass, in what we used to think was our own home. So, we move from the football stadium, and the school, and the statehouse, to our own house. It's just the next step in application of the exact same legal mechanism.
So, should it develop that "guns" are marketed to us as "un-ownable", the focus needs to be on our land. The fact that this understanding will also shut down the NAFTA Superhighway land grab is simply icing on the cake. Far more fundamental is the understanding that the symptoms we see have a common origin, and that common origin is found in the ownership of the property at issue.
Fix the land ownership problems, and there'll be a LOT of these things used to vex us that will simply "go away." Refuse to see this for what it is and none of it goes away. Why? Because what is being used against us is our own signature. Again, there will be millions who will rush to call this fraud, but, as mentioned, to argue "fraud", which is an "affirmative defense", may be an admission of the critical, threshold issue, namely that an agreement exists, and all that has to happen in court is establishment that the [a] agreement exists.
All of that said, there may be any number of reasons WHY the Supreme Court would strike down the "gun ownership" ban, not the least of which is the right of self-defense, which is still part of the criminal codes throughout the administrative subdivisions of the "place" called "this state." So, no "state" can recognize a "right," and then prevent its exercise, especially "under color." That's, basically, a crime under 18 USC 241, and 242, and it's an actionable violation of rights under color, regarding which see 42 USC 1983 and Bivens. But, where the "gun ownership" ban is on handguns, shotgun sales should soar, as may sales of rifles, etc. So, we're NOT deprived of self-defense, completely, by living in someone else's house in which the "house rules" include "No hand guns."
Thus, on the positive side, should the Supreme Court strike down that statute, we've STILL got the land ownership issues before us and all of those related problems already in operation. To prevent further encroachment, we don't have to wait on seeing IF we're going to be pressed THAT far with some other statute somewhere else. We're already pressed THAT far. To the extent we can curb that appetite, now is the time to get started.
On the negative side, should the Supreme Court uphold that statute, our need to address the land ownership issues is all the more pressing.
In summary, the "gun ownership" ban statute purports to test the Second Amendment, but that's not really the issue, here, at all. The question in terms of legal reality is whether the "city's" equitable interest in the land (which we know exists if there's a "property tax" bill from them) is adequate to justify what amounts to a claim or charge of trespass where there exists a weapon on that premises. Thought of in other terms, is the equitable ownership interest on which the "property tax" is based sufficient to justify depriving someone of his "right" to own a hand gun? By "owning" property in the boundaries of that "city," has one agreed not to own a hand gun? Since disarming people is exactly what has happened at the airports and other public places, it's certainly conceivable as applicable in "homes," as well. We'll see what the Supreme Court see in that once they teach us the legal reality in and through that case. Whatever their holding, just know that IF there turns out to be justification in preventing "gun ownership" in DC, that issue actually has NOTHING to do with guns or with the Second Amendment and everything to do with land ownership.
In the Constitution-free, maritime, commercial zone called "this state," there is no Second Amendment, one way or the other. In the Constitution-free, maritime, commercial zone called "this state,""everything" turns on agreements. [contracts]
Harmon L. Taylor
The reason that spam exists is to justify the "solution" of scanning email to determine whether it's spam. In this fashion, the justification arises to read all email. And, emails without "unsubscribe" information are tagged as "spam." Those who want to unsubscribe should send a note to firstname.lastname@example.org. If this note is still labeled as "junk mail," etc., you may want to contact your ISP and ask them to remove that indicator for email to your address from email@example.com.
# # #
Freedom School is not affiliated with the author of this presented email.
Former United States Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger:
By September We’ll Have CONFISCATED ALL PRIVATELY OWNED GUNS
Jon Roland's comments on Heller case.
D.C. v. Heller: GOA Brief And Other Documents
The D.C. v. Heller decision
IS THE D.C. GUN CASE OFF TARGET? By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
Gun Owners Fooled By Mammoth Supreme Court Hoax
Subject: Guns Are Civilization
Right to Carry Handgun in Vehicle While Traveling
More Gun Control Isn't The Answer
Gun Control Doesn't Work, Editor's Commentary
Rising Gun Ownership Has Helped Cut Murder Rates for Americans Over 25, New Study Says
Concealed handgun licenses surge among young Texans
ACADEMIA WEIGH IN: Glenn H. Reynolds & Brannon P. Denning
Heller's Future in the Lower Courts, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. Colloquy 406 (July 2008)
WHETHER THE SECOND AMENDMENT SECURES AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT
US CODE: Title 15, §7901 Findings; purposes
Are you aware?
Why One Should Carry a Gun...
April 2009: Concerning the Second Amendment:
Nordyke v. King
Guns Are Civilization
Gun Facts, version 3.0 [book]
Gun in the house...
This may be closer to reality than
What do you know?
In Texas School, Teachers Carry Books and Guns
Open Letter to Sportsmen
Ammunition Accountability Ac
Harmon L. Taylor:
Lewis Mohr's Follow-up Discussion:
The most IMPORTANT FACT! There is a difference between "the state" and "this state" -- with "this state" being a legal subdivision of "the state." ("the" vesus "this")
The several counties of "this state" are NOT, and I repeat ARE NOT political subdivisions of "the state." If you believe that they are then you have allowed your ears to hear and your mind to assume that the all capital-spelled named counties are political subdivisions. They are not! Please check the Texas Constitution at Article 11, Section 1 wherein it reads, "The several counties of this State are hereby recognized as legal subdivisions of the State." [Underline emphasis added.]
Now check the Penal Code. A legal subdivision CANNOT use the Penal Code. Check Penal Code 1.08. Then check the Definitions at Penal Code at 1.07(24)(A)(B)(C) and take notice that only political subdivisions can use lawful statutes and while you are there check out 1.04(d) and read carefully that "this state" is in the air with Satan.
Texas Penal Code
§ 1.04. TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION. (d) This state includes the land and water and the air
space above the land and water over which this state has power to define offenses.
[Bold & underline emphasis added.]
§ 1.07. DEFINITIONS. (24) "Government" means: (A) the state; (B) a county, municipality, or
political subdivision of the state; or (C) any branch or agency of the state, a county,
municipality, or political subdivision. [Bold emphasis added.]
§ 1.08. PREEMPTION. No governmental subdivision or agency may enact or enforce a law that
makes any conduct covered by this code an offense subject to a criminal penalty.
[Bold emphasis added.]
|Further, upon application [consider that 'application' is a form of begging] one may voluntarily remove themselves from "the state" into "this state."|
However, can a unilaterial (one signature) contract that is not fully disclosed be valid? Generally contracts, to be an actual 'contract', require a 'contrator' and a 'contractee' and two [or more] signatures accordingly.
(Consider that a contract, 'most any contract, is mostly in favor of the offerer - not the offeree!)
Man / woman is living in "the state" -- a civilly dead "person" / "resident" in "this state" -- "resident" = 'res' = [essentially means] thing / 'ident' as in identification. "resident" = 'thing identified'.
Texas Government Code
§ 311.005. GENERAL DEFINITIONS. The following definitions apply unless the statute or context in which
the word or phrase is used requires a different definition:
(2) "Person" includes corporation, organization, government or governmental subdivision or agency,
business trust, estate, trust, partnership, association,
and any other legal entity. [Bold emphasis added.]
(Do you see any mention of man / woman? See, "Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius" below.)
Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 52
An allegation that a corporation is incorporated shall be taken as true,
unless denied by the affidavit of the adverse party,
his agent or attorney, whether such corporation is a public or
private corporation and however created.
[Bold emphasis added.]
See 'your name' in all-capital-letter-spelled and you can readily presume that 'they' are attempting to get you to acting into being a civilly dead "person" / corporation! They want you to be an 'accommodation' party - a form of voluntary servitude!|
Grave markers, a/k/a tombstones, generally read in all-capital-letter-spelled names [name = the identifier] of the remains, [of] the dead that may be found beneath the marker.
Submit an 'application' and charter for a new corporation to the Secretary of State of [your State] in upper and lower case spelling of the reqested 'name' and upon approval [incorporation] the corporation's 'name' will be presented [legally] in all-capital-letter-spelled name. (See below.)
The same hold true with other things like an 'application' for 'birth certificate', Social Security account, 'driver license'.
Notice in the Bible, did Jesus have a 'birth' or a nativity? How about you?
In Texas one is presumed to be a corporation until denial -- see, Rule 52 above. Think about it - does one not generally hand over a copy of the 'birth certificate' and claim that it is 'theirs'? Or do they say something like, "I have an awareness of who I am and I say who I am - not the state! Any record of my nativity is hearsay. I am not aware that I need to be certificated."
Who, or what, are you a creation of?
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF TEXAS
TITLE I ADMINISTRATION PART I
CHAPTER 70 CORPORATIONS
SUBCHAPTER C ENTITY NAMES
Rule Section-79.32 Characters of Print Acceptable in Names
(a) Entity names may consist of letters of the Roman alphabet, Arabic numerals,
and certain symbols capable of being reproduced on a standard English language typewriter,
or combination thereof.
(b) Only upper case or capital letters, with no distinction as to type face or font, will be recognized,
(c) The symbols recognized as part of a name may include ! " $ % ( ) * ? # = @ [ ] / + & and -.
Source Note: The provisions of this Section-79.31 adopted to be effective January 1, 1976;
amended to be effective September l5 1981, 6 TexReg 3249;
amended to be effective January 2, 1992, 16 TexReft 7469. (Bold emphasis added.)
As found in Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition:
Entity. A real being; existence. Department of Banking v. Hedges, 136 Neb. 382. 286 N.W. 277, 281
USC TITLE 16 CHAPTER 44A Sec. 2432
Sec. 2432. - Definitions
(10) Vessel of the United States --- The term "vessel of the United States" means -
(A) a vessel documented under chapter 121 of title 46 or a vessel numbered as provided in
chapter 123 of that title;
(B) a vessel owned in whole or in part by -
(i) the United States or a territory, commonwealth, or possession of the United States;
(ii) a State or political subdivision thereof;
(iii) a citizen or national of the United States; or
(iv) a corporation created under the laws of the United States or any State, the District
of Columbia, or any territory, commonwealth, or possession of the United States;
unless the vessel has been granted the nationality of a foreign nation in accordance
with Article 5 of the 1958 Convention on the High Seas; and...
Consider the basic legal principle of "Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius" Which means "The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another," i.e., the certain designation of one person is an absolute exclusion of all others. This principle requires that where law expressly describes [a] particular situation to which it shall apply, an irrefutable inference must be drawn that what is omitted or excluded was intended to be omitted or excluded. See, Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.
See also, INCLUDE, INCLUDES, INCLUDING
|Research the words (both in the common everyday usage and legal usage): name -- res -- birth -- berth -- vessel -- person -- resident -- inhabitant -- franchisee -- subject -- ward -- property -- certificate -- license -- contract -- servitude -- voluntary -- knowingly -- willingly -- identifier -- of
"Me, I want to see the contract that forms the basis for your supposed authority --
or perhaps you can bring into evidence an affidavit of obligation?"
U.C.C. - ARTICLE 3 - NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS
PART 5. DISHONOR
§ 3-501. PRESENTMENT.
(a) "Presentment" means a demand made by or on behalf of a person entitled to enforce an instrument (i) to pay the instrument made to the drawee or a party obliged to pay the instrument or, in the case of a note or accepted draft payable at a bank, to the bank, or (ii) to accept a draft made to the drawee.
(b) The following rules are subject to Article 4, agreement of the parties, and clearing-house rules and the like:
(1) Presentment may be made at the place of payment of the instrument and must be made at the place of payment if the instrument is payable at a bank in the United States; may be made by any commercially reasonable means, including an oral, written, or electronic communication; is effective when the demand for payment or acceptance is received by the person to whom presentment is made; and is effective if made to any one of two or more makers, acceptors, drawees, or other payors.
(2) Upon demand of the person to whom presentment is made, the person making presentment must (i) exhibit the instrument, (ii) give reasonable identification and, if presentment is made on behalf of another person, reasonable evidence of authority to do so, and (iii) sign a receipt on the instrument for any payment made or surrender the instrument if full payment is made.
(3) Without dishonoring the instrument, the party to whom presentment is made may (i) return the instrument for lack of a necessary indorsement, or (ii) refuse payment or acceptance for failure of the presentment to comply with the terms of the instrument, an agreement of the parties, or other applicable law or rule.
(4) The party to whom presentment is made may treat presentment as occurring on the next business day after the day of presentment if the party to whom presentment is made has established a cut-off hour not earlier than 2 p.m. for the receipt and processing of instruments presented for payment or acceptance and presentment is made after the cut-off hour.
Gun in the house...
Texas Freedom fighter's rant
Get to know THE STATE OF TEXAS
How the Crown Rules the World by MARK OWEN
Open Letter to Agents of the Crown
|NOTICE: Harmon L. Taylor, Lewis Mohr and other presented entities are not affiliated with Freedom School.