Corporate Denial

The term "Piercing the Corporate Veil" is a legal one which identifies the process where a court removes the protection provided individual members of a corporation for criminal activity, and makes these members responsible for their own actions. In reality, according to the original meaning of corporations, is that these corporate groups were established exactly for that reason; for unlawful purposes, primarily to escape punishment for their crimes by placing the blame on a fictional organization responsible to no one.

The "United States" government jumped on the corporate bandwagon the first part of the 1870's by declaring themselves a separate entity from Constitutional government. This, of course, followed the war between the states and the supposed Fourteenth Amendment, which lawfully never was, but was accepted by the newly formed corporation called the "United States."

The fact that the Constitution had already established a United States was inconsequential to those traitors in Congress, because it was the Constitution itself they wanted destroyed, and the war, instigated by the Jewish factions of Europe, was fought for this purpose, and all the flowery fictions blamed for the war is pure fantasy.

Corporations themselves are natural processes of society, that is, when a group of people gather for a particular purpose, such as for forming a community they are a corporation, and there can be no criminal intent attached thereto, but it is when corporations are established with the power to declare themselves bankrupt that makes them criminal. This is the situation of our "government" today; the richest, most powerful nation on earth "bankrupt." Just the thought is ridiculous.

Corporations are legal fictions; that is, they do not exist except in the minds of men. Anyone can create a fantasy in their own mind and make it do for them what they please, but these fantasies cannot, nor do not extend to areas outside the realm of personal capacity. Corporations are made of living, breathing men, all with the same ideas and purposes, so we can look upon them with the same limitations as the individual, and that is their jurisdiction is confined to the lawful area of their creation.

A corporation, being a legal fiction, cannot think, it cannot act in any manner, even to communication with natural man, and for this reason it must have somebody, or bodies to speak and act for it, and the lawyers have set themselves up for this task.

The enormity of corporate enterprises is limited only by imagination, and they are gold mines for the bar associations, which are corporations themselves. Even thieves must leave an out for themselves, as they never know when the worm will turn, and "dumb" burrowing rodents will have at least two exits from their dens. After years of research, a few people locally have found, what we believe to be that "out" from corporate jurisdiction which has been milking the citizens of this nation for well over a century.

We have had great success with this "out," and the shocked looks and frenzies of judges presented with this procedure show us that we are on the right track. As all other "sure" things, however, we can't rest on our laurels and be smug with our assumptions that it is fool proof.

We have to remember that it took the lawyer profession many years to come up with their gimmicks, and they aren't going to fall over and play dead as we proceed to break up their playhouses, and we know from experience that they know how to play rough. The idea is to hit hard, fast, and as widespread as possible before they can see what is happening, and that is why we need as much diversity and geographical application as we can muster.

There is nothing complicated about the procedure of disclaiming corporation existence, which is what all this is about; the difficulty lies overcoming a lifetime of corporate propaganda, and we have had great difficulty in this area. We who work with this procedure went through the same agonizing process before we realized that it really works. We were looking for the complicated when the answer to our problems was right under our noses all of the time.

I don't mean to write a book and omit the meat of my subject, but you will find that some prosecutors and judges just haven't got the picture yet, and will ask your source of information when you go before them, and you need a little background to keep from being embarrassed. Again, try not to read difficulty into a perfectly simple procedure, which is outlined below. Not having access to laws of other states I can only quote from those to which I have access, and those are of Louisiana.

We have tried this system in Alabama and Florida, and know it works there (we didn't even research the law books in those states before acting) and we have to assume it will work nationally, as the corporation veil encompasses every nook and cranny of the nation, and for this very reason we at present can't see where a general withdrawal from their jurisdiction is possible. Every case must be decided on its own until there are enough of us, and locations, to make the corporate masters accept the fact that they can't fight it. Please read the two sections from the Louisiana Civil Codes, and the Louisiana Revised Statutes, below carefully; disect them word by word and the message will come out loud and clear.

(Eldon’s note: Statute 445 was repealed around 1988; however, 429 is still around as Revised Statute 15:429, and is posted on the internet by the Louisiana State Government website: Revised Statute 15:429 )

Civil Codes of Louisiana Art. 445.

The statutes and regulations which corporations enact for their police and discipline, are obligatory upon all their respective members who are bound to obey them, provided such statutes contain nothing contrary to the laws, to public liberty, or to the interest of others.

Louisiana Revised Statutes Art. 429.

On trial of any criminal case it shall not be necessary to prove the incorporation of any corporation mentioned in the indictment, unless the defendant, before entering upon such trial, shall have filed his affidavit specifically denying the existence of such corporation.

These two simple paragraphs say it all. If one is a member of a corporation he is bound by corporate rules and regulations, and those outside those corporations are not subject to their jurisdiction. The corporate status of an individual entering the court is automatically assumed by the court unless they have notice to counter such assumptions, and this is the purpose of the affidavit, an example of which I will provide below.

All of the socialist programs, integration of the races, the grab of power at all echelons of government, and all the other ills of this nation are corporate "enterprises." One cannot escape the thumb of corporate authority until such time as he has removed himself from the jurisdiction.

We can view government today as a corporate reality, where the Constitution is merely a by word, or ruse of fiction, where the Congress is the board of governors, the president is the corporate CEO, and the "courts" are mere corporate arbitration boards, including the U.S. Supreme Court. When we pierce the corporate veil and remove ourselves from that corrupt venture we become men again and carry with us our natural laws and sovereignty, from whence the corporations received their powers originally.

The corporations of which we are primarily concerned are these:

I will provide here a scenario (fictitious name and place) and a sample of affidavit to overcome the final disposition of the case involved: John Preston Hickman has just been stopped by a Tarrant City, Alabama cop by the name of William C. Henly, for doing 45 in a 35 MPH zone. After the normal procedures of checking drivers license, insurance, etc., Henly gives Hickman a ticket, with an appearance date of June 15, 2000 in city court. John does it right by not arguing with the cop, and doing as he has been told by the officer, and accepting the ticket and even signing it as ordered by the cop. Then John goes home and prepares himself an affidavit, which reads something like this:

Eldon's Note: I have a sample Canadian affidavit of denial available on my FTP download site. Find it as: genaffidavit.rtf

Affidavit of Denial of Corporation Existence

I, John Preston: Hickman, a living, breathing full liability man, declare in my own handwriting that the following facts are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

I hereby deny that the following corporations exist: UNITED STATES, THE STATE OF ALABAMA, THE COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, TARRANT CITY, ALABAMA, THE TARRANT CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, WILLIAM C. HENLY, ALL BAR ASSOCIATIONS, THE TARRANT CITY COURT, JOHN PRESTON HICKMAN, of 3102 WILLOW DRIVE, TARRANT CITY, ALABAMA, and ALL OTHER CORPORATE MEMBERS WHO ARE, OR WHO MAY BE ASSOCIATED WITH ANY COMPLAINTS AGAINST MY NATURAL BODY.

If any man or woman desiring to answer this affidavit, please answer in the manner of this affidavit, with notarized affidavit, using your Christian or family name for signature, and mail to the below named notary, address provided, within five (5) days or default will be obtained.

John Preston: Hickman

On the 25th day of May, 2000 a.d., a man who identified himself as John Preston Hickman appeared before me, a notary, and attested to the truth of this affidavit with his signature.

Wilson R. Nimbly, Notary Public
1423 Fairmon Drive
Tarrant City, Alabama 35217

Three copies of this affidavit should be (preferably) handwritten; one copy forwarded to the Tarrant City Police Department in time to give them five days to respond. One copy should be kept on you when you go to court, and, thirty minutes before you enter the court, take the remaining two copies, file one in their court, have the clerk stamp the other and keep with you in court in case the prosecutor and judge have not received their copies.

Eldon's note: It may be better in Canada to serve by registered mail. Make sure it is sent so as to allow time to get to the Clerk of the Court. Have the affidavit sworn before a notary or a commissioner for oaths. Send at least three copies, and the original.

The way it has gone for us in like situations here, when the "defendant's" name is called, he stands and answers, and the judge will look to the prosecutor and ask him the anticipated action of the charges. The prosecutor (speaking in low tones) replies that the evidence is lacking for prosecution, or something in that manner, and the judge dismisses the case.

This system has worked in many such cases, in a state tax case, where the state was required to return the money taken from the bank accounts of a husband and wife, with the tax "debt" being cleared from the records. I have used it, personally, to place a $150,000.00 lien against a lawyer in Birmingham, Alabama, which has been there for several years. He brought suit in HIS court to have the lien removed, to no avail. Of course I never answered his frivolous suit because I had already identified myself as a living man, and not one of his fictions.

I used the affidavit to stop my phone company from adding AT&T charges for their social engineering, and a couple of other minor purposes; all were stopped cold. The amount of wins in this area, with no losses convinces us that this procedure set up in 1925 by the state legislature of Louisiana is a very valid process, and should be effective, for any and all reasons, against any corporation, public or private, within the United States. There is a case pending against the Social Security administration, or involving social security, and the results will be reported to those who receive this.

Tax liens are official legal charges against an individual, and the affidavit works there also. Remember that IRS is a corporation unto itself, and even though it is not directly connected to the U. S. Government, the fact that it operates within this nation makes it liable to the affidavit. If a bank, for any reason, gives a person's money to those whose signatures are not on the bank card, are committing a crime, and the person giving that money to IRS, the state, or anyone else is personally responsible to the depositor, and an affidavit to that bank should result in the immediate redeposit of those funds. The use of the affidavit is limited only by the imagination, and I think it is about time we make it payback time for those bastards who have milked us dry for the past several decades. I would like to know the results of all who use this system and I will keep a permanent record of all transactions.

One man was hesitant to use this system because "judges just walk all over those who challenge their jurisdiction." Well, with the affidavit we most certainly challenging their jurisdiction, but not in general. Any rebuttal at all is, in a way, challenging their jurisdiction, and that is what it is all about.

What we need to get straight right off is the fact that they DO have jurisdiction in their corporate capacities, but that doesn't mean they can bring noncorporate citizens into that jurisdiction, which is exactly what they have done - through fraud. All we are doing with the affidavit is merely showing them that their assumptions that all men are a part of their scheme are very wrong, and that we have the law on our side that shows them to be wrong.

Corporations, even though they are "legal" fictions, are still businesses; businesses are commercial enterprises, and commercial enterprises are are controlled by the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). udges will tell you differently and they will be wrong. Corporations are established by the state, whether federal or otherwise, (government is state) and all states of the Union have accepted the UCC, which originally was established for the District of Columbia, if my information is correct. The UCC is a complicated mass of business jargon to the casual reader, but in reality our rights are contained in the pages of those documents. Our right to contract, fair play in contracts, business, and all other aspects of human commerce activities are covered in the UCC.

While man, especially the Christian man, is born with the common law in his heart, the English common law was derived from commerce and commercial law itself. In the middle ages, open "fairs," or trading centers were set up in England, and most likely in all other countries of Europe, where people could bring their produce and goods to sell. People would come from all areas of Europe to attend these fairs, or trading centers, and of course squabbling was rampant and constant, so courts of arbitration were established to settle these arguments, and render the exact law on any subject. These courts were called "pied powder courts" because, it is said, that the courts settled arguments before the dust of the well trampled ground could settle on their feet.

If I remember correctly, admiralty and maritime law was derived from this, and separation was made between law of the sea and law of the land, which was included in our Constitution. For a judge to say that the isn't affected by commercial law, or the UCC, is hogwash. I ask them if they aren't under commercial law, then why did it cost me $150.00 to file a case their their courts and

I still pay taxes to support them. Of course, the answer is evaded, and this is another story. The bottom line of the affidavit denying the existence of corporations is that it pierces the corporate veil by an individual, and for the same purposes; the criminal activities of the courts themselves. We, as individual sovereigns, have the right and the duty to questions our servants, and if the refuse to be questioned then this only proves our contention that they are crooks. It also makes them aliens to our way of life, because they are upholding the policies of the bar associations, which are alien corporations, instead of the law of this land. No lawyer, no judge, or other "judicial" agent of this nation is licensed by the state; aka, we the people, to do business - anywhere in the country. Yet, they treat us as aliens in our own venues. This has to stop, and I mean to do everything within my power to help it along.

Ray Earnest

HOMEPAGE is: Click Here

If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
Samuel Adams, speech at the Philadelphia State House, August 1, 1776.

Current Texas Rules of Court recognize
a man’s right to deny corporate existence:
By a Texas Law Researcher

In "The State of Texas" there are 2 rules in the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. They are rule 52. ALLEGING A CORPORATION, and rule 93. CERTAIN PLEAS TO BE VERIFIED. Rule 52 is straight forward about the corporation status.

TRCP 52. ALLEGING A CORPORATION

“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.”

In an equity setting where there is a maritime contract in effect . Only like entities can contract with each other. The entities I am talking about are “persons”, entities in a subject to government position (citizens, body politic, corporations, members, employee's and any other man made legal fiction).

Now we get to rule 93. This one is vague but interesting. In the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, this rule is mentioned in the section on the "Motion to Abate", which is basically an old common law motion. I will reproduce the important parts with my comment in parentheses. - This rule takes up a whole page.

TRCP 93. CERTAIN PLEAS TO BE VERIFIED

Ok. You get the point. This rule goes on to talk about contracts without consideration. It also talks about insurance claims. These pleadings are basically denying “personam jurisdiction” and subject matter jurisdiction.

Here is one more interesting tidbit. The book to which I refer is "O'Connor's Texas Rules Civil Trials 2000". Quoting Justice Michael O'Connor On page XII:

"To reduce gender choices, I refer to trial judges as the "trial court" and to parties as "it" - as though all parties were corporations, which they often are."

What is the significance of this? If you answer to the appelation of "person" in response to a charge under any Statute or Act, you are considered a corporate body without a free will mind.

Proof That Canadian Judges Consider All Canadians
As Being Corporate Entities

Criminal Code of Canada - Notice to corporation

621. (1) The clerk of the court or the prosecutor may, where an indictment is filed against a corporation, cause a notice of the indictment to be served on the corporation.

Comment: This is the only place where indictments are authorised, and for corporations, not for full liability People. The Common Law and the Magna Carta allow ONLY "Good Men of the Neighbourhood" - a Grand Jury to take a man to court.

Contents of notice

(2) A notice of an indictment referred to in subsection (1) shall set out the nature and purport of the indictment and advise that, unless the corporation appears on the date set out in the notice or the date fixed pursuant to subsection 548(2.1), and enters a plea, a plea of not guilty will be entered for the accused by the court, and that the trial of the indictment will be preceded with as though the corporation had appeared and pleaded.
R.S. 1985, c, C-46, S. 621; 1997, c. 18, s.71

Comment: The entering of a plea by a judge is done frequently against Canadians. This activity is only authorized in the Criminal Code of Canada for an accused corporation.

This means that all Canadians are considered corporations or corporate entities; or, the judges have unlawfully assumed authority for which there is no basis. Since the civil codified system (Criminal Code of Canada) is ONLY applicable to corporations or corporate entities, and not to full liability men with God Given rights, that means that Canadians judges are arch-traitors to the People of Canada when they unlawfully assume jurisdiction over them by imagining that they are corporations, and should be facing the death penalty, the penalty for TRAITORS.

Treason is not only aiding the enemy in time of war. It is the act of a servant overthrowing the authority and rights of the master or sovereign. The Canadian People are sovereign over all levels of government.

The REASONS for the Affidavit:

Protocols within the Code (Uniform Commercial Code - UCC)

The foundational maxims of the underlying commercial law, from which all law and commerce
in the world today derive, are:

*All are equal under the law (moral and natural law). In commerce truth is sovereign.

*Truth is expressed in the form of an affidavit.

*An unrebutted claim, charge, or affidavit stands as the truth in commerce.

*An unrebutted affidavit becomes the judgment in commerce.

*All matters must be expressed to be resolved. He who leaves the field of battle first loses by default.

*Sacrifice is the measure of credibility (one who has not been damaged by, given to, lost on account of,
or put at risk by another has no basis to make claims or charges against him/her).

*A lien or claim can be satisfied only through rebuttal by counter affidavit point-for-point,
resolution by jury, or payment.

The reason, this scenario prevails is because the world has been set up to run precisely this way.
We (the slaves) were just not supposed to figure it out. Code is Set in Stone

For a greater expansion of the Maxims of Commercial Law, Click Here

It MUST be understood that in this fraud that makes you a corporate entity, the Canadian (and American) courts determine whether you are, or are not a corporate member subject to the Crown, or to the corporate UNITED STATES, in the PRE-TRIAL HEARING.

That is, in fact, the so-called "TRIAL" where you MUST have the above noted affidavit, and have it read into the transcript. If you are charged under any statute, the actual trial is an administrative procedure of a dissident slave. Therefore, one must be persistant in demanding that the affidavit denying corporate existence be refuted point by point, or demand that it stand as truth prior to the termination of the pre-trial hearing. The result should only be the quashing of the case for want of proper jurisdiction; and, this upon your request for a motion to quash.

THE SOURCE OF THIS ARTICLE IS DETAX CANADA NOTICE: DETAX CANADA, Eldon Warman are not affiliated with Freedom School.
Specialty Areas

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.

Freedom School is not affiliated with the links on this page - unless otherwise stated.

Freedom School information served for educational purposes only, no liability 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 unlawful action. Freedom School advocates and encourages one and all to adhere to, support and defend all law which is particularly applicable.

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 third parties affiliated or otherwise. If the government wants to assert that any of the religious and/or political statements that are not factual appearing on this website are 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.

H O M E