Collectivism vs. Individualism (Photo credit: Lily Zhu)
For over a decade (and for reasons I’ll explain in another post later this week), I’ve understood that “democracy” is a collectivist form of government fundamentally identical to communism and socialism. I am therefore more than a little intrigued by the terms “collective” and “collectivist”.
So, imagine my surprise when (last week) I stumbled on an A.D. 1988 Supreme Court case that dealt with the “collective entity doctrine”. I’d never before heard of the term “collective entity” in American law and I had no idea that there was a “collective entity doctrine”. That surprised me. I don’t know about a lot of things–in fact, most things are unknown to me. Nevertheless, given my interest in collectivist forms of government, and given that the term “collective entity” has been used by the Supreme Court in at least 9 cases since A.D. 1974, I’m almost amazed that I hadn’t previously heard of this doctrine.
In fact, according to the Braswell v. US case (below), there are at least three other cases (including the earliest instance, Hale v Henkel in A.D. 1906) which did not actually use the term “collective entity” but helped lay the foundation for what came to be called the “collective entity doctrine”.
Thus, the “collective entity” concept has been recognized in American law for over a century, but I just heard about it last week. Apparently, I didn’t get the memo. Nevertheless, I’m amazed by my own ignorance. How could I not have heard of that concept before now?
My ignorance is particularly amazing because, as you’ll see if your read the attached case, the “collective entity doctrine” seems to closely parallel and may even explain the “ADASK”/ “Adask” name dichotomy that I’ve been fixated on for over fifteen years. I.e., I subscribe to the theory that the all-upper-case name “ALFRED N ADASK” signifies some sort of artificial entity that is other than the man whose proper name is “Alfred Adask”. I read the collective entity doctrine” as coming very close to suggesting that either 1) “ALFRED N ADASK” is a “collective entity”; or 2) the relationship between “ALFRED N ADASK” and “Alfred Adask” may constitute or create a “collective entity”.
Thus, I should’ve caught wind the collective entity doctrine years ago. But I didn’t.
However, my ignorance may be excused because when I looked up the term “collective entity” under “collective” and under “entity” in the 8th edition (A.D. 2004) of Black’s Law Dictionary, I found no mention of “collective entity”. How could it be that a concept recognized by the Supreme Court as a “doctrine,” and which can trace its roots all the way back to A.D. 1906, and which has appeared in at least nine Supreme Court cases, is not defined in Black’s Law Dictionary?
Perhaps the term “collective entity” is defined in one or more of the earlier editions of Black’s or perhaps in the most recent (9th) edition. I haven’t checked them all so I don’t know. But it strikes me as extremely suspicious that Blacks‘ has failed to include the term “collective entity” in its 8th edition.
My reading of the Braswell case leads me to suspect that the “collective entity” concept may be one of the most important in American law. That’s because I’m fixated on the “ADASK”/ “Adask” name hypothesis and the “collective entity doctrine” seems to “fit” that hypothesis. But–given that I’m obsessed with the “ADASK”/”Adask” name hypothesis–it wouldn’t be surprising if I tended to see evidence of that hypothesis almost everywhere I looked. Thus, in reading Braswell, I may have leaped to an unsupportable conclusion.
Could be.
But I don’t think so.
I may not have interpreted Braswell properly, but I still believe I’ve stumbled onto something very important.
Why?
Because, according to the Braswell case, anyone who represents a collective entity (which can include corporations, labor unions and even partnerships) forfeits at least some of the rights that he would normally expect as a man. More, although the Braswell case never mentions trusts, it implies that anyone who represents a trust or perhaps a trust beneficiary, also forfeits some of his constitutionally protected rights by the mere act of “representing” the trust.
This possibility is especially troubling in a legal system that routinely subjects defendants to the presumption that they are fiduciaries in some implied trust relationship. I.e., if representing a trust can implicate the “collective entity doctrine,” it is unproven but conceivable that you might lose some rights simply because a judge silently presumes that you represent an implied trust that you don’t even know about.
I read Braswell to suggest that any time the man “Adask” represents the thing “ADASK,” the man may thereby waive at least some of his constitutionally-protected rights. For example, suppose it were true that the name “ADASK” signifies an entity other than the man “Adask”. Suppose the IRS sent a letter addressed to “ADASK” but the man “Adask” received and opened that letter. Under my reading of the “collective entity doctrine,” it appears possible that the act of merely receiving the letter addressed to “ADASK” might be construed as evidence that “Adask” represents “ADASK” and therefore waived certain fundamental rights that “Adask” might need to defend himself against the IRS. If so, it follows that an accurate understanding of the collective entity doctrine might be essential to avoid some significant degree of governmental prosecution.
Again, I may be going too far in my analysis of Braswell.
But maybe not. Maybe the case is as important as I suspect.
You can download a pristine copy of the Braswell case from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/487/99.html.
That case is about 10,000 words.
You can also download my copy of the case wherein I’ve interjected another 10,000 words of my own commentary as I went through the case and attempted to understand its meaning and implications.
More, my “version” of the case is not only over 20,000 words, but it’s also colorized with the various highlighting schemes I use to help me understand words and sentences as I read a document. I know that this highlighting is a pain in the butt for other readers, but it helps me to understand a original text and I’m not going to remove it.
My analysis of the Braswell case is pretty much “stream of consciousness”. My document is not an essay, per se, it’s an ongoing analysis. Some of the conclusions I leap to at the beginning of the case may be refuted or contradicted by the time I get to the end of the case. More, the text hasn’t been proofread, so if you see obvious errors (maybe I neglected to include the word “not” at point where it seems likely that meant to use it) let me know.
Given the length of my analysis of the Braswell case and my annoying habit of highlighting the text, I don’t expect many people to read and understand my analysis of this case. Even so, I believe that those of you who take the time and make the effort to read this case may learn something of importance.
Here’s my version of the case as a PDF file: 120723 Braswell v US COLLECTIVE ENTITY DOCTRINE
urnoticed
July 31, 2012 at 6:22 PM
1) boiled down: “get collective or get ‘collected’!
2) as a Man (You) in covent with AYEC (almighty yahweh elohim Creator) so shall you GOVERN!
3) continue your righteous administration of the original Estate as “entrusted” to you by AYEC
4) may AYEC bless your future ruminations accordingly
love,
jaiseli
urnoticed
July 31, 2012 at 6:42 PM
1) i f-uped – should have been “covenant”
2) perfection only begins with the return Home.
Anon4fun
July 31, 2012 at 7:25 PM
Apparently, when acting as a fiduciary, one has no rights which the trust creating that capacity has not granted. This explains why the functions of employee, citizen, and taxpayer usually do not share the rights endowed by God to men.
As to Smith receiving a tax bill addressed to SMITH, since these are clearly different names, good steward and responsible guardian Smith could hardly do less than demand a paper trail showing where he has agreed to answer for the debts of SMITH, if that is what the sender is claiming.
palani
July 31, 2012 at 8:07 PM
Outline of a new system of logic .. circa 1827 by George Bentham, ESQ
http://books.google.com/books?id=FDZHAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA130&lpg=PA130&dq=collective+entity&source=bl&ots=CX9VoRY6F4&sig=LlYcej9Yo0SEPXIe2nftk1NwzOM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7X0YUJKFOpKC8QT3uYCYBw&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=collective%20entity&f=false
palani
July 31, 2012 at 8:22 PM
Harvard Law Review .. 1911 ….
http://books.google.com/books?id=4wgtAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA260&lpg=PA260&dq=collective+entity&source=bl&ots=OyddMg1fEj&sig=BuNAZbc_vMtHdaykW2mGIjVuE_E&hl=en&sa=X&ei=D4MYUMXzDIKy8AT2pYCgAQ&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=collective%20entity&f=false
The conception of a number of individuals as a corporate or collective entity occurs in the earliest stages of human development, and is essential to many of the most ordinary processes of thought. Thus the existence of tribes, village communities, families, clans and nations implies a conception of these several bodies of individuals as entities having corporate rights and attributes. …
palani
August 1, 2012 at 6:08 AM
In the Harvard Law Review article I linked to above the author talks of “earliest stages of human development”. Hue-man is color of man, presumed to be civilized or on the path to civilization. The concept of forming legal fictions to control the relations between these monkeys is to be viewed as one of the first steps from gathering bananas in a tree to creating lasting monuments.
civilization … 1704, “law which makes a criminal process civil”
Civilization, it seems, is intended for hue-men creatures.
Al
August 1, 2012 at 3:53 AM
Slightly off topic but may help with Adask/ADASK. I found it a couple of weeks ago and it is not too bad a read. The quoted parts are what I think to be the most interesting. May be nothing but maybe something
SEM
August 1, 2012 at 12:45 PM
Gentlemen:
If you recall; Benjamin Franklin refused to put his ‘Hancock’ on the Constitution it contained elements of Scripture. Therefore, the other Framers (again) had to re-write the Constitution; and this time it was immersed in Scipture.
I say that to say this:
Said “COLLECTIVISM” dates back to the time of the separation of Cain from Adam after the murder of Able. Careful reading of The Book of Genesis is very revealing as to current (seemingly) phenomenal Laws.
Please consider the following:
Second Book of Adam and Eve CHAP. I.
The grief stricken family. Cain marries Luluwa and they move away.
1 WHEN Luluwa heard Cain’s words, she wept and went to call her father and mother, and told them how that Cain had killed his brother Abel.
2 Then they all cried aloud and lifted up their voices, and slapped their faces, and threw dust upon their heads, and rent asunder their garments, and went out and came to the place where Abel was killed.
3 And they found him lying on the earth, killed, and beasts around him; while they wept and cried because of this just one. From his body, by reason of its purity, went forth a smell of sweet spices.
4 And Adam carried him, his tears streaming down his face; and went to the Cave of Treasures, where he laid him, and wound him up with sweet spices and myrrh.
5 And Adam and Eve continued by the burial of him in great grief a hundred and forty days. Abel was fifteen and a half years old, and Cain seventeen years and a half.
6 As for Cain, when the mourning for his brother was ended,
he took his sister Luluwa and married her, \
without leave from his father and mother; for they could not keep him from her, by reason of their heavy heart.
7 He then went down to the bottom of the mountain,
away from the garden,
near to the place where he had killed his brother.
8 And in that place were many fruit trees and forest trees.
His sister bare him children,
who in their turn began to multiply by degrees
until they filled that place.
Thus, as was said by King Solomon, “Everything that is…was; and everything that is to be, has already been.”
It follows therefore, that the only thing new is the history we don’t know.
PeaceOut
messianicdruid
August 1, 2012 at 3:02 PM
You may want to read the book of Kolbrin.
http://www.culdiantrust.org/
SEM
August 1, 2012 at 5:51 PM
I clicked the link. Read the preface. Have yet to pursue the ideal.
pop_de_adam
August 1, 2012 at 2:21 PM
-Al
I was reading this collective entity doctrine yesterday and today the linked article/case and I became curious about the word “arraignment” for some reason.(this word was pretty much what I suspected, declaration of charges and a pleading) and decided to look it up in Blacks 2nd edition that I found scanned on the website of Worldfreemansociety.org., as I don’t have a copy of any legal dictionary. While I randomly perusing it for interesting things, I came upon this curious word/term “Civilian”.
Civilian. One who is skilled or versed in the civil law. A doctor, proffessor, or student of the civil law. Also a private citizen, as distinguished from such as belong to the army and navy or (in England) the church.
Judges lawyers and prosecuters all seem to use the “all caps” in all of the serving of process papers and case papers I come across, this makes me think perhaps they recognize they don’t want their conventional living name attached to the cases before them and they are representing themselves as something other than themselves. Think about that, they do precisely what they seem to want to deny all others ability to refute/rebutt. Have they consented to thier own representations to maintain deniability? “It wasn’t me who impressed these people into servitude as inmates, it was this “fictional aka person” over here that did this.” These lawyers and judges are more properly the “civilians” and “citizens” as it is their venue/forum they invite unwary outsiders to. An analogy might be perhaps the Internal Revenue Code should really be acting upon, guiding and controling the workers and agents within the Internal Revenue Service. Why should Mc Donalds’ internal bylaws have any bearing upon those without it, or the Chicago Pipefitters Union, I have flown through O’Hare, but am not a plumber and not disposed to joining a union why should I care what they do?
pop_de_adam
August 1, 2012 at 8:37 PM
CAPs anywhere else is exageration or exclaimation
I can’t yell at you with a keyboard.
SEM
August 1, 2012 at 5:23 PM
Pop_de_adam:
That is because free-market economics tells us that human action is the uncontrollable element in forward-looking central planning. Any trend that economists can discern is bound to be vitiated by HUMAN ACTION. It is human action itself, humanity’s resolve to change unhappy or destructive circumstances that changes the trend in defiance of projections. It is always thus, which is why centralized planning never quite predicts the reality.
Excuse the CAPS.
PeaceOut
pop_de_adam
August 1, 2012 at 8:30 PM
So here we have human action acting to supress human action?
pop_de_adam
August 1, 2012 at 8:39 PM
Is that democray?
SEM
August 2, 2012 at 9:07 AM
Actually, Pop_:
It’s called LIFE. The way it’s been since inception.
PeaceOut
Michael
August 2, 2012 at 1:47 PM
If anyone is paying state and federal income tax’s …..you must either be working for the state
OR a ignorant fool…….!
Why would anyone work 1/4 of his or her life to fund their own enslavement or perhaps death.
Wake up ………… drop out!
Silence is consent………….Wake up !!………..and don’t give your consent!
Alfred Adask is the man!
Always ” at arms length ” without prejudice
SEM
August 2, 2012 at 4:56 PM
“Silence is golden; but, SOMETIMES it’s yellow.”
There is two types of warrior! The successful warrior not only knows how to fight; he knows when to fight.
We should excersize caution in our words; as, unlike the great beasts in the earth which have proven tamable, the little tongue is absolutely un-tamable…whence, Life and Death is in the tongue.
PeaceOut
Timmy
August 2, 2012 at 5:54 PM
i would think rather than work through and try to overcome all the “pipefitter’s union” rules, if we aren’t pipefitters we would simply strike at the head in each of our individual situations. That is, it must really boil down to the birth certificate and/or the social security number. Perhaps also the passport. I have heard, but not verified that the IRS cannot and will not interact with you unless you have a valid SS number. Interestingly, I was a minor when my mother applied for and got mine, so under contract law I could invalidate just on that one point alone. Obviously none of us understood or consented to our birth certificates. (As opposed to things we voluntarily applied for, like driver’s licenses…) If we can neutralize obviously involuntary status attachments, then would we not be done?
Yartap
August 2, 2012 at 7:46 PM
Alfred,
Well, we now know who is the slow reader. ME! Thanks, Alfred, for your love of reading case law. It’s not my cup of tea. But, I read your take, and the included colored notes were very helpful for bring up different questions I did not think of. Plus, it got me to looking and researching into other areas of our great question and quest.
And after researching the subject more, I’m starting to look at the “elephant” a little more from your perspective. TWO VENUES DO EXIST! I would describe them as “the States of the Union” (the State) and the “United States’ District of Columbia and its Foreign Territories” (this state). I still hold to the Participate (this state) and Non-Participate (the State) venues, but it is clearly two venues and not one, as I once thought (Thank You!). Your venues and my venues are the same.
With respect to the Braswell case, I stepped back and looked at the whole proceedings. On one side, the Majority (Rehnquist”s gang of 5) adhered to the strawman belief of “Collective Entity;” while the Minority (Kennedy”s gang of 4) adhered to the doctrine of “Collective Entity” with some personal 5th Amendment Right in play for the Agent of the corporation. But, both sides believed in the doctrine. As I looked, I could not help but think that this was a put-on show or illusion of justice for the public’s consumption.
The doctrine is summarized as follows:
“But, individuals, when acting as representatives of a collective group, cannot be said to be exercising their personal rights and duties, nor be entitled to their purely personal privileges. Rather they assume the rights, duties and privileges of the artificial entity or association of which they are agents or officers and they are bound by its obligations.” Braswell v. United States, 487 U.S. 99 (1988) quoting, United States v. White 322 U.S. 694 (1944).
I took note that Rehnquist even said the Collective Entity applied to “Partnerships.” That’s just one step away from an individual person (I know that the one step already exist). Now, the case law is set with Rehnquist’s statement of how it applies to partnerships. If a case comes before another court that involves a partnership, hello Collective Entity Doctrine. Now, what if it is a case of a former partnership (due to the death of a partner) with a single personal partner, helloooo Collective Entity Doctrine for each and every single person.
It seemed to me that one of the bases of the case was that the government was TOO DAMN LAZY in procuring the evidence from/against Braswell and his corporations; and wanted Braswell to produce the so-called incriminating evidence against himself for them. The question is: If a subpoena would not get the records of Mr. Braswell, then why not a warrant for the records? What is the reason for this grand court case? Could it be the government was just on a fishing expedition and had no probable cause for his records? Thus, would not be able to obtain a warrant from a judge.
And I also took note (from You) that neither side used the term, Trust, in their decisions. The only reasons I can think of, for this neglected language is: 1) The Big Cats play in trust, and 2) Many of the older trust have provisions (by-laws) for the trustee to not comply even though it is a creation of a state, like a corporation.
Further, in my research, I would like to state my findings: THE USE OF “CAPITAL LETTERS” IN ONE’S NAME, ADDRESS, STATES, ZIP CODE OR ANY OTHER USE DOES NOT ESTABLISH OR CREATE A STRAW MAN OR A FIDUCIARY STATUS FOR SOMEONE. From my research and gleaning of court cases and laws, with just the exception of UCC 1-102(10) cod definition of the term, “Conspicuous,” there does not exist anything related to the use of capitalization as a means of establishing or a way of establishing or an indicator that a fiduciary relation has been establish.
Does the Straw Man concept exist? The answer is YES! It is not the Capitalization upon the document, but rather, the Document that establishes the fiduciary relationship.
It is done through the Codes and Court Cases (such as Braswell) of the U.S. government. And the Venues exist, too. The fiduciary relationship is procured by someone accepting (voluntary by Right to contract) the benefits (unemployment benefit, EBT, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, FRN’s and etc.) and the responsibilities (payment of taxes, serving in the military, etc.) and the venue’s rule offered by the “corporate” U.S. government and becoming a public officer / person / taxpayer / individual / citizen / resident / employee / U.S. person, as you are known by code, for the public good of the country. By your “voluntary” PARTICIPATION, the government agrees, accepts and assigns you a number for your “corporate franchise” (straw man) which the government OWNS.
I finish with this:
“The United State government is a FOREIGN corporation with respect to the states.”
[19 Corpus Juris Secunddum (C.J.S.), Corporations, § 883]
Adask
August 2, 2012 at 8:48 PM
First, thanks for taking the time to read that lengthy attachment.
Second, you ask why does the government want you to supply the records without being able to duck the subpoena.
I think part of the answer may be found in the principle “Out of the mouths of two or three shall a thing be established.” I’m pretty sure that “prima facie evidence” is that provided by a SINGLE witness. I’m pretty sure that “probable cause” is the result of TWO witnesses that agree to the facts of a particular case.
I’ve been circumstances where I can’t prove it, but I am convinced that the system needed me to witness against myself and thereby provide the SECOND witness needed to produce ” probable cause”.
I could be wrong, but I don’t believe they can proceed against you unless they have at least two witnesses–and you are often earmarked to be that second witness.
The collective entity doctrine is certainly a device to compel you to witness against yourself. It may also be a device to compel you to be the second witness that the government needs to each the level of probable cause needed to proceed.
Thanks again, for making the effort to read the entire attachment.
SEM
August 3, 2012 at 1:05 PM
Good Answer!
PeaceOut
Jim on Oregon
August 5, 2012 at 9:54 AM
Another outstanding article, Al. Your insight is remarkable, as usual.
I am excited to ponder the implications of “custodial relations” (authentication) and “collective” status inferred from undenied fiduciary relations. It all fits nicely together, taken with your great article on “Consent” a couple of months ago.
I highly recommend to any of your readers who do not want to take the time to read your entire document that they scroll through the text and at least read your comments in blue. You tie in other fundamental theories that are so critical to understanding the “system”.
It has been years since I spent much time studying high court holdings, and I am kinda amazed by this Braswell case in that the “supremes” (allegedly comprised of several homosexuals and Christ-hating zionists…but that is another subject for another time) wrote this decision with unnecessary redundancy of the core conclusion. The same conclusion was repeated over and over. I got it the first time. Makes me wonder what they were trying to accomplish…or to hide.
The “involuntary servitude” insight on implied trust relations is very interesting, and I have forwarded that section on to others. Our goal should be to deny and separate ourselves from their presumptions of fiduciary relations and purposeful availment of benefits of their private, foreign venue and the resultant legal disabilities that result.
In January, 2007, I crafted a Notice designed to do just that. As we know now…and maybe it was not so clear to me back then…the trick is to get your identity and your status, standing, capacity, venue, etc on the record as evidence in the case. I can’t remember how I used my Notice or even what resulted, but some of the declarations I made may be of interest to your readers. It may be that it is more appropriate to be attached to comments on your recent “Consent” article, but your commentary on this Braswell case brings in many associated legal theories.
Making the proper denials of the system’s presumptions is central to your theories, yet few have perfected that requirement. It can’t all be done with “at arm’s length”. The procedure to get evidence on the record is not well-understood, and is understandably discouraged by the system.
I am attaching my Notice to this comment, with the caveat that it was created at a time prior to other insights, and I may have missed something significant. But I believe it is necessary to start somewhere, and this document will give the readers some ideas of their own to run with. Some of the subject matter will be new to this blog, and to most of your readers. I believe it will be helpful.
This is the Notice I used:
NOTICE
of
Continuous and Irrevokable Protest, Objection, Rejection, Disavowal, Rescission, Severance, Non-Acceptance, Waiver, Forfeiture, and Refusal of Juristic Benefits,
and
Return of Tangible Benefits.
I, James-Russell: Iler, declarant herein, make this averment with the intention of memorializing this Notice to correct and make more perfect the public record, and to create lawful evidence as to my ecclesiastical relations, political orientation, avoidance of “minimal (adhesion) contacts”, and refusal of “benefits” conferring reciprocal duties and trust relations “in this state”.
This Notice is intended for the attention of various men employed “in this state” of commercial affairs, all of whom have forfeited and waived their inherent rights in a lawful organic Republic in favor of a legislative democracy operating as a composite-state proprietorship under Bankruptcy employed in and accepting the benefits of a public-welfare socialistic and un-Godly “state”. This is a special and extraordinary Notice, crafted with specificity and particularity. All use of language is knowing and intentional, and must be given the specific legal character intended.
I am employing the term “disavow” as a substitute for the ten similar words within the title of this Notice with the intent to create a more readable document, and the reader is cautioned that a more appropriate term from the title may be substituted as necessary to clarify the meaning beyond “disavow” in particular applications.
I have diligently studied the holdings of the high courts relating to the legal theory of minimum contacts and their jurisdictional ramifications, and I now find it necessary to supplement my previous averments (denying such minimum contacts) with specific disavowal of benefits received from the “public trust” of the corporate “composite state”. Offered benefits and protections and allegiance are always presumed as being accepted, and purposeful availment and acceptance creates a corresponding duty or reciprocity, liability, and trust relations. This Notice rebuts such presumptions.
Take Notice of the following in regards to this Declarant, James-Russell: Iler. The relational status to any juristic benefits is premised upon facts personally-known, which can readily be validated upon a testimonial hearing. I aver no knowledge of any evidence contrary to any element in this Notice.
(1) I disavow “U.S. citizenship”, having neither been born in the corporate “United States” nor naturalized therein.
(2) I disavow residency “in this state”, a clever fiction.
(3) I disavow the elective franchise, available only to “U.S. citizens’ and residents of a composite commercial state.
(4) I disavow any fiduciary/trustee relations between myself and any other entity created to conduct transactions territorial to the composite “United States”.
(5) I disavow any financial or social benefits resulting from the attachment of limited liability “in this state”.
(6) I disavow any diminished legal capacity and diminished organic rights resulting from presumed waiver or assignment or transfer or delegation of inherent powers, rights, and immunities.
(7) I disavow any “benefits” of enfranchisement “in this state”.
(8) I disavow knowing and voluntary pledge, gift, hypothecation, surety status, or accommodation party participation or status in the administration of the public bankruptcy and debt for its foreign creditors.
(9) I disavow any participation in the general welfare benefits of “this state”.
(10) I disavow presumption as a beneficiary of the public trust, or a ward of the state, or of any diminished legal capacity whatever, relative to “this state”.
(11) I disavow any protection afforded to me by the military branches of the corporate “United States”, any government militia, or any “police power” exercised by any alleged state/county/municipal employee of “this state”.
(12) I disavow any oath of allegiance or vows to a foreign composite state, such as “United States” and “STATE OF OREGON”. My sole allegiance is to my eternal-creator God of my Fathers and to His Son, the living Christ.
(13) I disavow any right to hold elected public office or to enjoy any office of trust and honor “in this state”.
(14) I disavow the existence of any “insurable interests” with second and third-party actors in relation to any land or private property owned by me “in this state” or outside “this state”.
(15) I disavow the existence of any vested rights or property or interest in any ens legis public corporations, or of any valid contractual relations “in this state”.
(16) I disavow any “income”, “employment”, “employment insurance”, “retirement”, TIN, EIN, or SS numbers, vendor number, “federally-privileged worker”, or any benefits or privileges resulting from employment in federal territory.
(17) I disavow any contractual relations with any public utility “in this state”, including, inter alia: electricity, sewer, water, waste, propane, and telephone.
(18) I disavow any purposeful availment to beneficial relations resulting from any constitutional provision or amendment crafted for 14th Amendment U.S. citizens and/or residents of “this state”, including, inter alia, franchisement, consumer protection benefits, employment-related benefits, access to statutory “courts” for contract enforcement, police and emergency (fire and medic) protection, land title protection, public school benefits, interstate commerce protection, civil rights protections, public contract rights, bankruptcy protection, suffrage, loans and grants, proprietary “partnership” relations, as I am neither signatory to, posterity of, third-party beneficiary of, or bound by oath to an political subdivision or constitution of “this (composite) state”.
(19) I disavow any waiver or transfer of allegiance from the Oregon Republic to any artificial entity acting as a legislative democracy not created by constitutional convention or vote of the veniremen, and I disavow acceptance of any ultra vires conduct “in this state”.
(20) I disavow the voluntary acceptance and beneficial recirculation of Federal Reserve Notes” (FRNs). I am aware of the failure of consideration, and deny holder-in-due course status. Any compelled use of FRNs cannot be construed as a voluntary joint-liability benefit with expectation of profit in transactions. Any compelled use is for minimal survival under practical necessity coerced by penal statutes forbidding other alternatives and freedom of choice. I recognize this coercion as an unfair trade practice which serves no known beneficial public interest but to compel jurisdiction under the foreign UCC in interstate commerce, and this appears to be a moral fraud inducing undue influence and failure of consideration in contracts, which denies government of holder-in-due-course status when engaged in commercial activity.
I aver that no person can compel a man to accept unwanted juristic benefits, nor can any man be compelled to accept a foreign political status and character or be held to duties, obligations, and liabilities presumed by that foreign “state of affairs”. The Ratification Doctrine requires timely notice of explicit disavowal of presumed premises, and this document is lawfully sufficient for that purpose, and no inferences can be drawn as to acceptance of “opportunities given, protections afforded, benefits conferred” within “this state”.
The Benefit Acceptance Doctrine holds that if a “benefit” is compelled, and the “beneficiary” objects, there is no quid-pro-quo reciprocity of equivalent duty or performance. If any tangible property was created “in this state” and under my custody and control, I shall return it upon notice. Want of genuine, valuable, lawful consideration (benefit received) compels failure of a reciprocal quid-pro-quo duty. The factual settings herein demonstrate the want of consideration in any relations with a composite foreign state. I am therefore an “excepted” man without liability to foreign statutory duties and performance, entitled to automatic standing and relief outside “this state” and its “cradle-to-grave” socialistic beneficial schemes under Bankruptcy, without lawful creation, lawful oaths, lawful bonds, lawful seals.
Anyone with any evidence whatsoever to the contrary is required to timely rebut, object, and deny. Absence of response indicates acceptance and acquiescence and establishes stipulation, decree nisi. So be it.
Done on the soil of Baker County, Oregon, this ______ day of the first
month in the year of our Lord 2007.
James-Russell: Iler
………………………………………………..
Adask
August 5, 2012 at 1:09 PM
Hi Jim,
Thanks for taking time to read my entire “Braswell” article. Doing so requires effort. I’m glad you made that effort. More, I’m glad that after doing so, you thought my comments relative to Braswell made some sense.
It’s always good to hear that somebody 1) understands what I’m groping to explain and 2) agrees that my explanation is roughly correct. Sometimes I write and wonder if anyone “gets it”. It’s good to know that I’m not “writing to a brick wall”.
As for your own document from A.D. 2007–nicely done. It’s lengthy and verbose–pretty much like my own documents tend to be. You document (and mine) probably don’t need to be so long. But there’s a point to being so long-winded: every one of the documents that we draft (not copy) are a learning exercise. You’re not just raising an objection to the system, you’re educating yourself–which is all to the good.
Every reader might generate a similar document that could be longer or shorter, but it has to be drafted by the reader himself–not just copied. If you copy, you don’t really understand. You’ve got to take the time to obsess and learn in order to draft your own document. After you’ve made that effort you become more knowledgeable, more confident in your own understanding and stronger.
There could be hundreds or even thousands of documents that are hugely different from yours in terms of content, but are almost identical to yours in terms of purpose. That singular purpose is to attempt to manifest the fact that you do not CONSENT to be associated with “this state” or any other entity that might strip you of your God-given, unalienable Rights and that you protest against any presumption to the contrary.
As someone else has observed, mere resistance is winning. We don’t have to overpower our adversaries. We need only resist. Our resistance forces them to expend extra energy and deprives their extortion racket of its former efficiency. The system absolutely depends on our implied consent to subject to its powers. When we deny that consent, the system can still overcome us. But in doing so, the system has to expend extra energy that it can’t afford. More, the people within the system are forced to see and admit to the abuse they are perpetrating against their neighbors and their country. The extra effort, plus the morale-grinding consequences of being forced to see that they are the “bad guys,” tends to wear the system down under the weight of our resistance. If enough people resist, the system may be destroyed.
It’s not necessary to shoot and bomb. All we have to do is find enough people willing and able to simply resist.
One of the verses in the Bible that always resonates with me is the Christ telling his followers that “Those who stand firm to the end shall be saved.” What does “stand firm” mean other than “resist” the forces of evil? Thus, we might say “Those who resist to the end, shall be saved.”
It is my hope and intent to “stand firm [resist] to the end”.
Thanks again for taking time to read the Braswell article.
Al
sem
August 6, 2012 at 4:06 PM
Jim:
I have read Braswell too, I can see the significance of the matter and therefore the simplicity of the matter.
Num 30:2 and several other passages of Scripture speaks of the “OATH”. No man is required to take an oath, but if he does he will not be found guiltless if he dishonors that oath.
It seems therefore, that a persons’ voluntary committment to the collective (or in your case) his involuntary committment thereof, is the issue.
However, according to your statement:
“I can’t remember how I used my Notice or even what resulted, but some of the declarations I made may be of interest to your readers.”
Does this not make you effort(s) incomplete; thus, causing the interest to wane?
PeaceOut
Jim on Oregon
August 6, 2012 at 6:52 PM
Sem, at that time I was engaging the enemy in the trenches…multiple trenches. I had three actions going in three different courts. It was a challenge keeping things straight back then, and more so now. In “this state” they call OREGON, the criminals are the guys who maliciously and falsely prosecute, condemn, and incarcerate those who have accused them of violating their “OATH”. The entire system hammers the legal reform activists, and it is very expensive to eventually prevail in a high court.
I am certain that I shook up the system with a number of documents, but justice is denied when the game might be exposed. With other foundational premises established, I am confident that I could have eventually prevailed. But now they seem to have backed off against me, perhaps because of the huge expenses I cost them. It was not worth it to keep trying to “teach me a lesson”.
In one sense, the effort could be called “incomplete”, but in another sense it is always ongoing. You know, the “eternal vigilance” requirement incumbent on us all in His Kingdom.
I was keeping the documents within easy reach, as I feel that I have acquired more knowledge of the procedures, in addition to increased knowledge and insight found over the years in this blog.
If the readers of this blog have to be spoon-fed and hand-held and convinced to create enough interest to read new and eye-opening insights as to how the system operates (as I am confident my attached document reveals), then something is badly wrong.
Alfred’s blog readers ALWAYS are truth-seekers and freedom-lovers and oppression-fighters. Back in the early 90′s when I first subscribed to Alfred’s ANTISHYSTER magazine (downloaded now on the internet, if you look hard!), I looked forward to each issue like a kid on Christmas eve. I wanted to learn! I hungered for truth! You want to learn now, or you wouldn’t be reading any of this. You must hate deception and fraud, as I do.
There are many, many theories to learn and integrate into your arsenal. Alfred focuses on the foundation of the deception, and collateral insights. I feel that my Notice incorporates not only what I learned from Alfred prior to 2007, but what I also learned from others about the hugely important presumption to overcome, that of purposeful availment of benefits, requiring reciprocal duties.
If you would like to contact me personally for more information on anything I have mentioned, I authorize Alfred to give you my email. We all have different levels of abilities and knowledge and understanding and experience, but we are all in this together. We need to support each other, and not rag on each other because we think somebody is wrong about something. The enemy is common to us all. We are learning its ways. We will prevail. It is written.
Thanks for commenting. Jim
Jerry Sparks
April 1, 2013 at 10:30 PM
@ >His Kingdom.
You are surely not meaning the Kingdom of “God” by saying, “His Kingdom” are you. Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as IT IS in heaven.
SEM
August 6, 2012 at 9:05 PM
Jim:
Thank you for your reply.
I almost didnt know how to respond; yet, in truth the information in your post is informational, motivational and energetic.
My comment was not intended to be offensive; nevertheless, no team can operate effectively without a plan, thus, the ommitted information would have been helpful to the team.
I concur wholeheartedly that this site is very useful in it’s endeavor; in fact, I too make use of the various insight provided here. However, before marching to the battle field, we must train amonst ourselves; not only testing the Spirit, but also the strength of each others application(s).
Sincerely
Jerry Sparks
April 1, 2013 at 10:25 PM
@ >I almost didn’t know how to respond;
This is hard to believe,& swallow.