I received an email today that wasn’t quite clear but seemed to inquire about the unstated presumptions on which the courts (and the cops) rely. I replied as follows:
I don’t think I understand your email. I’m not sure what you’re asking about.
But if you’re asking about presumptions, they exist in law and/or equity–unless someone expressly refutes them.
As an hypothetical example, the judge is probably aware of a law or rule of evidence that presumes everyone who enters his court to be a “citizen of the United States”. If so, then if you enter his courtroom, he will silently presume you to be a “citizen of the United States” and say nothing about that presumption–unless, you are smart enough to know of that presumption, and you expressly deny the presumption and/or introduce evidence to refute that presumption. If a fundamental presumption of citizenship is refuted, the court might no longer have the in personam jurisdiction it needs to proceed.
I know of, or at least suspect, the existence of several fundamental presumptions regarding:
1) our nature (drug laws presume us to be animals);
2) whether we represent some other entity (the man “Adask” may be presumed to represent the thing “ADASK”);
3) the plane or venue in which we are presumed to act (we suspect that the courts presume us to act within territories (“this state”) rather than States of the Union (“The State”));
4) governmental authority (de facto officers are presumed to have authority over us by virtue of our failure to expressly refuse to consent to that authority); and
5) when we’re sued in equity it may be presumed that the defendant had previously and voluntarily consented to act as fiduciary for the plaintiff.
There might be a dozen more fundamental presumptions that I don’t yet know of or suspect.
All of these presumptions could probably be pigeon-holed into a few fundamental categories like citizenship, venue, plane, jurisdiction, etc..
So, it might be very helpful if we could assemble or secure a complete list of all the presumptions a particular court, court system or police force relies on. We could then go through the list and easily identify those presumptions that did and did not apply to each of us.
Once the fundamental presumptions are identified and denied or refuted, the court may have a very difficult time proceeding.
• Generating a list of presumptions is actually a pretty good idea. The whole damned system appears to be built on a series of fundamental, but unstated, presumptions. These presumptions aren’t merely made up in the judge’s (or cop’s) mind. They’re written into the law and scattered among various sections of Titles and Codes and court decisions.
There’s no telling how many fundamental presumptions there may be, but I doubt that there’s more than a dozen. However, it wouldn’t matter if there were 50 or 100 presumptions. If we could identify the top ten, and then challenge them, we could probably slow or stop the vast majority of governmental proceedings.
Of course, it won’t be enough to merely identify the various presumptions. We’ll also have to learn how to effectively deny them with legally-recognized procedures. Still, once the presumptions were identified, how hard could it be to create our own affidavits (and perhaps the supporting affidavits of two or three others) to refute some of those presumptions?
Insofar as presumptions are unstated, they are implemented by the courts and cops under the cloak of silence. It should follow that any attempt to bring up the subject of presumptions openly, in public, and on the record, should be shocking to the system. If they rely on silence, they won’t want publicity. I’d bet that the system would much prefer to run away than to openly confront and explain the issue of presumptions in front of a jury.
• It’s funny that I’ve been aware of presumptions for most of 20 years but I’ve never before thought of their fundamental significance. I’ve recognized all the individual facts I’ve presented in this article for years. And yet, I’ve never put all of those “pieces” together until now.
The system’s presumptions are fundamental. So, if we can identify ‘em and refute ‘em, we just might go home.
Some of you subscribe to my notions about notice and resulting “right of inquiry”. Those who do will probably see that a first notice from gov-co would present an ideal opportunity to pose questions about the notice sender’s fundamental presumption. ”Do you presume that I’m an animal? Y/N” ”Do you presume that my actions took place in a territory of the United States? Y/N” ”Do you presume that I have consented to recognized the authority of a de facto officer or employee? Y/N,” etc.
• So, how ’bout it? How many presumptions can you identify? Send ‘em in and I’ll post ‘em here. It’s possible and even likely that others have already assembled a list of presumptions and their legal foundations. If you have such list, send it and I’ll post it.
If you don’t have such a list, you might still send a presumption that you suspect exists and may be important. But, ideally, we’ll also want to see the specific law that authorizes that presumption and/or allows that presumption to be refuted. It may very well be that “they” presume each of us to be 14th Amendment “citizens of the United States,” but knowing that presumption and disproving it are two different things. If you know the presumption but you can’t specify the law on which it’s based, you may have a very difficult time refuting that presumption. On the other hand, if you know the law on which a presumption is expressly based, your chances of refuting that presumption may be hugely increased.
For example, it’s my foggy recollection that a fundamental charter at the UN allows the people of the United States to declare their own citizenship. If my recollection is valid, then that Charter might empower us to claim to be citizens–or better yet, the “people”–of The United States of American and/or of The State of Texas, etc.
• I’m going to ad a new “category” called “presumptions” to this blog. As I post new articles on the subject they’ll be easily discovered by simply clicking on the “presumptions” category.
To identify individual presumptions will be extremely helpful. But the ultimate object is to identify the law(s) that mandate or allow those presumptions.
As homeland security says, “If you see sumpt’n (a presumption), say sumpt’n,” hmm?