Benefits Accepted = Jurisdiction

8/6/2019 Benefits Accepted = Jurisdiction

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/benefits-accepted-jurisdiction 1/36

BENEFITS ACCEPTED =JURISDICTION

compiled b y Dick Lancial

T he supporting inform ation I used to com piled this report w as originally obtained by m e

du ring 19 86 to 19 88 w hile I w as still living in the K ansas C ity, K an sas area and w as m ade available

to m e b y what w as th en k nown as th e M isso uri P atrio ts A sso cia tio n h ead qu artere d in In de pe nd en ce ,M issouri. B etw een 1989 and 1990 I then w rote this report based upon those com pilations. M uch

o f t he in fo rm atio n h ere in my o pin io n h ad to h av e b ee n a pp ro pria te d from a n 8 00 p ag e le tte r (b elie ve

it o r n ot) late r id en tified as th e M erc ier T re atise .' It is m y belief to day (19 98) that the info rm ation

I have compiled here is just as relevant and m aterially correct as it was back w hen I originally

ob tain ed it an d com piled and prepared this report. A lso, on e shou ld check the law s an d reg ulation s

of their p articu lar S tate pertain ing to the co nten ts of th e inform ation p ro vided herein , w ith sp ecial

emph as is o n th e d riv er lic en sin g d is cu ss io n fo und h ere in .

INTRODUCTION

Unfortu nately th ere are far to m any situation s w herein o th erw ise inno cen t p atrio ts an dlo r

other concerned Americans find them selves convicted of so-called tax crim es and end up paying

d ea rly fo r th eir s ta nd a ga in st g od le ss ty ra nn y. Many h av e b ee n s uc ce ss fu l in th eir e ffo rts - wh ile many

m ore have gone to jail, lost property, and w orse yet, died. I have carefully read and studied m any

volum es of books put out by tax attorneys and various other patriots and other sources. M any

d iscu ss jurisdictio n and the v arious prob lem s asso ciated w ith it. B ut th e co nten ts o f w h at I am abou t

to d iscu ss I h av e y et to find pub lished and d issem inated , at least in an y sing le con cise form at. T hat

is not to say they do not exist - only that I haven 't run across any. Those of us who know about

jurisdiction and understand it, know that no court can hear a case w ithout first having proper

ju ris dic tio n - th is is e lem en ta ry a nd b asic . L ik ew ise , n o g ov ernme nta l ag en cy (su ch a s th e IRS, E PA ,

_ ICC , a nd th e a lp ha be t s ou p ag en cy 's) ca n e xerc ise a ny co ntro l o ve r a ny bo dy o r a ny th in g w ith ou t firs th aving p roper (mean ing lawfu l) j ur isdi ction .

When you w ere born , or rath er - con ceived, som eon e at th e h osp ital or p erh aps yo ur p arents

. p ro vid ed in fo rm atio n to th e S ta te D ep artm en t o f V ita l S ta tistic s a nd to th e Cou nty R ec ord ers O ffice

reg ard in g yo ur birth/co nception . A B irth C ertificate w as then created w ith you r nam e, the d ate and

tim e of your birth, nam es of your m other and father and certain other data. A lthough you w ere an

infant and had no control or say in the m atter, the fact is, w ith that birth certificate you becam e a

party to a contract; notw ithstanding the fact that you w as incapable of consenting to being a party

to any contract. M oreover, that not being bad enough, to add insult to injury, that contract is

"invisible" and you probably never knew that you are a party to such a contract.

Today, not only does one get a "birth certificate" when bom lconceived, now a Social

S ecu rity n umbe r is is su ed c re atin g e ve n a no th er d ec ep tiv e, b ut in visib le c on trac t. Y et, h ad w e b ee n

1For those of you int&restedinobtaininga copy oflhc Mercier Treatise (letter), it can bcobtained from: PlltriotlLaW Publiciltions, P.O. Box

86507. Creston StatiOD, Portll lwl, Oregon 197106); ask for Publication No. 75 or76. Price is 50.00 and 60.00, respectively. Publication 76 includes

an appropriately sized three-ring looselcaf'binder. CASH or Money Orders ONLY - NO Checks. Add 10%for shipping.

Ben ef it s A ccep ted =J ur is dic tio n - Page 1



mature enough in our knowledge at the time, many of us would have elected to have kept ourselves

uninvolved in any aspects of such contracts. ABtime goes on we find ourselves entangled in still even

more of these contracts, except in most of these cases, by our own doing such as "applying" for

certain privileges and benefits that the government has to offer. These contracts create certain juristic

legal consequences and are as binding on us as any other contract that we knowingly make ourselves

a party to. Still even another way that we become a party to some of these invisible contracts is

caused by statute. For instance, all of the States have statutes prohibiting anyone from "driving" a

"motor vehicle" on the public streets and highways without first being "licensed" to do so. They say

in effect that ifyou wish to exercise your "right" to travel by "driving" a "motor vehicle" on the publicstreets and highways, you have to first waive your right to do so. To force you to waive your right

you will not be issued a drivers "license" unless you "apply" for the license, take a test, and pay a fee.

By doing so, it is said that you "voluntarily" waived your "right" and converted it to a "privilege."

More on the drivers license issue later, but for now, be it enough said, that any license, I repeat, ANY

license to do anything regulated by the government (at any level) that is forced by statute or

regulation is an "ADHESION CONTRACT", is an invisible contract, and creates jurisdiction over

the person in certain matters and over the subject matter, depending upon what the license was issued

for.

ADHESION CONlRACT

Distinctive feature of adhesion contract is that weaker

party ha s no realistic choice as to its terms.

Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition

The acceptance of benefits offered by the government (a Juristic Corporate Institution) is the

grand finale of events that causes one to be liable for paying taxes, since the acceptance of these

benefits creates a contract. When correctly understood, the acceptance of any government benefit

hails in the legal principle known as QUID PRO QUO (meaning something for something - the

mutual consideration which passes between the parties to a contract, and which renders it valid and

binding). See B la ck 's L aw D ic tio n ar y, Fifth Edition. In other words, there is no free lunch tickets.

Anyone that expects that he can get something tor free is really fooling himself He may get

. something now that appears to be free, but sooner or later pay-back day will arrive.

As regarding income taxes, the juristic grab goes a lot deeper than just collecting money from

you for the support of the government. Most of us already know that most of our tax dollars is

wasted by dumping it down every rat hole and immoral and illicit project the government can dream

up. The IRS by way of the income tax has a far more devious and less understood purpose than just

collecting revenue for the government. Their ultimate purpose is to create an authoritarian

collectivist and conforming society - a part of the one world dictatorial scheme condemned in Gods

Holy Word. The government systematically creates situations wherein the people eventually are

forced into the acceptance of benefits through adhesion contracts, and then claim that reciprocity is

due.

Imagine, if you will, that the government has intentionally created a food shortage. Imagine

even further that along with this food shortage, a government created high unemployment rate is

sweeping the nation, aswell. (Anything here sound realistic, historical or even current?) (Remember

Franklin D. Roosevelt and his cronies?) You now have millions of unemployed and hungry people

willing to sign their signatures to anything just for a loaf of bread. But wait a minute - what about

quid pro quo? Something for something, remember! In effect, a contract has been created, albeit

induced by the government, the fact is a contract is now in force between you and the government,

Benefits Accepted = Jurlsdiaion - Page 2



w ith yo u being the weaker party. Because of this adhesion contract which is invisible, you become

indebted to the governm ent for w hatever the governm ent says you are indebted to it for and for a

du ration as lon g as th e go vernmen t decides, u nless YOli break the shack les.

T he go vernment u ses the income tax in just su ch a m ann er, altho ug h I d ou bt that yo u w ill ev er

find a high ranking governm ent official w ho is feeding at the governm ent trough supplied by the

taxpayers, w ho w ill ever adm it it - short of being on his death bed, ife ven th en .

The follow ing is a partial list of m ost of the entrapm ents that bind us to the contracts I'vementioned:

I. U se of Federal R eserve N otes;

2. P riv ate Insuran ce P ro gram s;

3. S ocial S ecurity ;

4. M arriage license; _

5. B ank accounts;

6. E ng ag in g in Interstate C omm erce;

7 . V eh ic le R eg is tra tio n;

8. U tilizin g C omm ercial N otes;

9 . V oter R eg is tra tio n;10. U se of C redit;

11 . B ir th Ce rti fi ca te ;

1 2. In vo lv em ent in the U niform C omm ercial C od e;

1 3. D riv er's L ic en se ; a nd

14 . C i ti zenshi p;

From this list, it w ould appear that not to m any Americans are in a position to claim th at th ey

are rea lly FREE. H ow can anybody be free and yet be so encum bered w ith contracts that in m any

cases they did not know they were a party to? How do these entrapm ents bind us? The follow ing

is a som ewha t c ompre he ns iv e e xp la na tio n o f h ow e ac h o f th e a bo ve liste d e ntra pm en ts b in d u s d own.

1. USE OF FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES

The basic crux of this contract issue is that contracts were entered into by folks in the

circumstantial co ntext of th ose fo lk s attem pting to ex perience m onetary p rofit or g ain throu gh the

o pe ra tio n o f th os e c on tra cts . In o th er w ord s, th ere h ad b ee n a n ex ch an ge o f fin an cia l C on sid era tio n

(benefit) involved; and in C ontract Law , an exchange of valuable C onsideration (benefits) is of

par ticular significance.

T his C on sideration req uirem en t is a P rinciple o f N ature; it is imm oral and un eth ical to ho ld

a c on trac t a ga in st a p erso n u nd er c irc um sta nc es in which th at p ers on n ev er re ce iv ed a ny b en efit fromit. O therw ise, the Judicature of the U nited States w ould be w orking a T ort (dam age) on som eone

else. This C onsideration (m eaning som e practical benefit being exchanged or som e operation of

N ature tak in g p lace) can also o rig in ate from third person s no t a party to th e co ntract.

T he u se a nd re -c irc ula tio n o f F ed era l R ese rv e Note s (FRN 's ) is a reg ula te d, re ve nu e ta xa ble

a ctiv ity . FRN 's a re "c ommerc ia l" n ote s who se p rim ary fu nc tio n is to e nh an ce tra de , c ommerc e, a nd

in du stry . A s Ju stic e B aldwin o f t he Unite d S ta te s S up reme Cou rt (1 83 0 - 1 84 4) sta te d in h is T re atise

(A G eneral V iew , 11 L. Ed. 873 (1873», "I cannot abandon m y first im pression that one requisite

B e ne fit s A c ce pt ed =Ju risd ic tio n - Page 3



of a bill of credit is, that it be m ade a tender illpaym ent of debt." A FRN, w hich is legal tender lor

all debts, public and priv ate, is ob vio usly a bill o f credit.

The circulation of paper m oney, notes, or the circulation of any juristic currency, even

ca rry in g in trin sic v alu e, in g ov ernme nta l C ommerc e (in ters ta te c ommerc e) (a s d is tin gu ish ed from

p rivately m inted coins and no tes), has alw ays been the closed priv ate d om ain of the K ing o f E nglan d.

A nd it h as been th e ex clusive domain of the K ing since paper m oney w as first p rinted an d circu lated

b y K ing R ich ard II to fin ance an o ffensive w ar against F rance that Parliam ent declined to levy tax es

to w age.

"O f a ll th e co ntriv an ce s fo r ch eatin g the lab orin g class es o f m an kin d, n on e is so

effectual as that w hich deludes them w ith paper m oney. It is the m ost perfect

ex ped ien t ev er in ven ted fo r fe rtilizin g th e rich m an 's field s by the sweat of th e

p oo r m an 's b ro w. O rd in ary tyran ny , o pp re ssio n, ex ces siv e tax atio n, th ese bear

lig htly o n th e h ap pin ess o f th e c ommun ity comp ared w ith frau du len t cu rren cies

an d th e ro bb erie s comm itted b y d ep reciated p ap er. O ur o wn h isto ry ha s recorded

enough, and m ore than enough, of the dem oralizing tendency, the injustice and

intolerable oppression of the virtuous and w ell disposed, of a degraded paper

c urren cy , au th orized b y law , o r in an y w ay co un ten an ced b y g ov ernmen t."lllurninist Nelson W. Aldrich, United States Senator, at a New York

City dinner speech on October 15, 1913 (two months before his pet

Federal Reserve System was enacted by Congress to create the veryconditions he fraudulently represented to oppose), in IV Proceedings

of the Academy of Political Science #1 @ 38 [Columbia University,

New York (1914)].

S o, th e circulatio n of p ap er m oney by go vernm en t throu gh its instrum entalities (banks) w as

born in tortuous fraud intended to dam age people and w as designed to accom plish in the practical

setting (the dam ages of taxation by inflation) w hat w as not accom plished legally on the Floor of

P arliame nt b y c ommon co nse nt.

"T he u nnecessary circulation of p ap er m oney today in the U nited S tates carries alo ng w ith it

identical un derlying enscrewm en t objectives. Just how is it th at the C itizen s of th e U nited States are

..n ow b urd en ed w ith su ch a n in cre dib le B olsh ev ik In come T ax Mac hin e - so smo oth ly o ile d an d e atin g

aw ay at our substance as it does? T he answ er lies in our acceptance of protectorate/commercial

b ene fi ts f rom gover nment .

T he C onstitution for the U nited S tates w arran ts objective ev aluation b ecause o ur F ounding

Fathers g ave g overnm ent just plain too m uch jurisd iction. N o explicit and b lun t restrainm en ts w ere

made aga in st th e c irc ula tio n o f p ap er c urre nc y media ; n o p ro vis io n fo r th e B ill o f R ig hts re stra inmen ts

to o pe ra te irre sp ectiv e o f im pe nd in g te ch no lo gy th at o th erw ise a lters fac tu al se ttin gs n ot o rig in ally

contem plated w hen the B ill of R ights w as drafted. B esides w hich, the Fram ers gave governm ent a

blank check to nail C itizens to the w all as taxable objects. This situation did not exist under the

Ar ti cl es o f Confederat ion .

"Both th e S ta te s a nd th e U nite d S ta te s e xis te d b efo re th e Con stitu tio n. T he p eo ple ,

through that instrum ent, established a m ore perfect union by substituting a

n atio nal go ve rnmen t, a ctin g, w ith am ple p ow er, d irectly o n th e citizen s, in stea d

o f th e co nfed erate go ve rnmen t, w hic h ac te d w ith p ow ers , g reatly re stric te d, o nly

u po n th e S ta te s."

In Re Debs, 158 US 573 @ 578 (1894).

O ur Founding Fathers w anted a "N ational G overnm ent," so w e now have their largesse.

B en efas A ccep ted= Ju risd ic tio n - Page 4



"E xperience has m ade the fact know n to th e p eo ple o f t he U nite d S ta te s th at th ey

req uire d a n atio nal g ov ernme nt fo r n atio nal p urp oses. T he se para te g ov ernmen ts

o f th e sep arate S tates, b ou nd to ge th er b y th e a rticles o f c on fe dera tio n a lo ne, w ere

not sufficient for the p rom otion of the general w elfare of the p eople inre sp ec t to

fo re ig n n atio ns , o r to th eir c omp le te p ro te ctio n a s c itiz en s o f t he Un ite d S ta te s, 'in

order to fo rm a mo re p erf ec t u nio n, e sta blis h ju stic e, in su re d omes tic tra nq uility ,

p ro vid e fo r the com mon defense, prom ote the general w elfare, and secure the

bless ings of liber ty ' to th em se lv es a nd th eir p os te rity , o rd ain ed a nd e sta blis he d th e

g ov ernme nt o f th e U nite d S ta te s, a nd d efin ed its p ow ers b y a co nstitu tio n, w hic hthey adopted as its fundam ental law , and m ade its rule o f action. II

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U S 542 @ 549 ( 1875 ).

As c ommerc ia l H old ers in Due Cou rse , g ov ernme nt b elie ve s th at th e m ere u se o fFRN 's, th ose

circulating "evidences of debt" (S ee 12 USC sec. 411 and 31 USC sec.'s 39 2 & 5 10 2) th at th e L eg al

T en de r S ta tu te s h av e e nh an ce d th e v alu e o f a s a c o-e nd orse r, th e m ere a cce pta nc e a nd b en eficia l u se

o f tho se circulating comm ercial equity instrum en ts of debt, co nstitutes an attachm ent of E qu ity

J uris dic tio n s uffic ie ntly re la te d to e xp erie nc in g c omme rc ia l p ro fit o r g ain in In te rs ta te Commerc e a s

to w arran t th e a tta chme nt o f c iv il lia bility to g ov ernme nt's s up po se d T itle 2 6.

B ills, notes, and checks are N egotiable Instrum ents as w ell as Inland B ills of Exchange.C olle ctiv ely , N eg otia ble In strume nts d iffe r somewh at from o rth od ox Commerc ial c on trac ts fo r th e

reason th at th e Am erican Ju risprud ential law concernin g th em sprin gs from several different an d

independent sources. W hereas the sim ple Law of Contracts had its origin in the C ommon Law of

England, in contrast, th is Law of N egotiable Instrum ents arose largely out of the summary and

chr ono log ic all y abb revi at ed p ractic es and i nte rn ati onal cus toms o f me rchants inComm erce. T hose

m erchants form ulated a body of rules and common practices relating to their trade w hich w ere

g ra du ally a do pte d in to th e L aw o f th e L an d b y th e E ng lish Cou rts. B ills o f e xc ha ng e a nd p romiss ory

n otes , o f w h ic h FRN 's a re a comp osite b le nd , ac qu ire d e arly o n th e p ec ulia r q ua lity a nd n atu re amo ng

merchants inCommerce as being negotiable, 'i.e., passable as Tender to different people.

N eg otia bility w as th en d efin ed to m ea n th at ifan in strument is n eg otiable in form and is in the h an ds

,of a H older in D ue C ourse, then possible personal defenses som eone m ay later assert against theHold er a re cu t o ffin th e Hold er's fa vo r. T his id ea o f n eg otia bility is a n in trig uin g o ne . It d iffe rs q uite

a b it from th e c on ce ptio n o f as sig na bility u nd erly in g th e tra nsfer o f C ho os es inAc tio n whic h a re n ot

negotiable.

U nd er the C ommon M ercantile L aw of C omm ercial C on tract L aw applicable to N eg otiab le

Instrum ents, it has always been Prim a Facie Evidence (evidence that is moderately good and

accep table a lthough no t a ir -t igh t. It stan ds a s v alid u nle ss c ou nte rm an ded .) th at th e m ere issu an ce

of the Negotiable Instrum ent itself constitutes the evidence of the receipt and enjoym ent of

C onsideratio n. C onsideratio n is a ben efit on e enjo ys. T his C onsideration D octrin e survives th e

codification of the L aw M erch an t in to th e N egotiable Instrum ents L aw and also surviv es the later

re stateme nt o f th e Nll, into the U niform C omm ercial C ode.

The Law of C ommercial C ontract applicable to the use and re-circulation of N egotiable

Instrum ents is quite old, just like K ing 's Com merce itself Com mercial Paper was also used

e xte nsiv ely b y m erc ha nts in th e M id dle Age s, a nd th e o rig in o f o ur co ntemp ora ry L aw o fN e go tia ble

In strume nts w as a n u nwritten Common L aw a pp lic ab le to m erc ha nts , ca lle d th e L aw Me rch an t. T his

Law Merchant was gradually assim ilated as an appendage onto English Common Law and

s ub seq ue ntly b ec am e a p art o f o ur Americ an Ju risp ru den ce when th e N ew E ng la nd Colo nies tu rn ed

into States and adopted English C ommon L aw . The Law M erchant is spoken of by English Judges

BenefwAccepted=Jurisdiction - Page 5



with reference to Bills of Exchange and negotiable securities. It is neither mar," nor less than the

common usages of'merchants and traders in the different departments of trade - ratified by decisions

of Courts of Law. These Courts later on, with such usages being proved before them, re-adopted

those merchant practices into the Common Law of England with a view to the interest of trade and

public convenience. Therefore what was at one time mere custom between merchants became grafted

upon, or incorporated onto, the Common Law and may now be correctly said to form an overlapping

part of the Common Law. When such general Commercial practices have been judicially ascertained

and established, those commercial practices become a part of the Law Merchant which contemporary

American courts of justice are bound to honor. In the early 1800's, many American states enactedtheir own statutes pertaining to Commercial paper with the result being a lack of uniformity in both

statutes and the court decisions applying to those statutes and factual settings. Because lawyers don't

like the lack of similarity, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws drafted

a bill to make the Law of Negotiable Instruments uniform from one State to the next. The draft of

the bill was called the Negotiable Instruments Law which, when completed in 1896, was largely

enacted into lex by nearly every State. the contemporary Uniform Commercial Code repeals the NIL

in those States that have enacted the UCC; but the kicker is that the old Law Merchant himself is still

very much around, alive, enforceable, and kicking.

If the government legitimately entices people into accepting the Consideration inherent in

Negotiable Instruments that it is the Holder in Due Course to, that the Legal Tender Statutes have

enhanced the value of, and additionally retains a distant Equity interest in, then it would have those

people in an invisible contract.

So called Holders in Due Course are in a special Status as it pertains to the use and re-

circulation of Commercial instruments. Holders in Due Course are assumed to have taken the

Negotiable Instrument (FRN) free of the defense of "Absence or Failure of Consideration, II and

additionally, are generally free of all other defenses as well. When government is a Holder in Due

Course. of FRN's, it is immune to any defense that may be asserted against it as it collects on an

invisible contract created when its Commercial benefits were accepted.

By the filing of an Objection and Notice of Protest, and a Notice of Defect, government is

automatically denied its Status as a Holder in Due Course. An individual must both want and then

use a benefit provided by another party prior to effectuating an attachment of Equity Jurisdiction

strong enough to extract money from them in a judicial proceeding for default.

Government is usually quite thorough in whatever it decides to muscle in on. Government

also dealt with the private circulation of Notes (both. bank notes and private company notes that

circulated as though they were currency) through a series of penal statutes that date back to the Civil

War. These began with the Legal Tender Laws in 1862, then followed with the National Banking

Act of 1864, and various acts outlawing private coin circulation.

The combined effect of these CivilWar era penal statutes collectively was to monopolize the

entire American currency supply under federal jurisdiction (which is precisely what government

wanted). By these penal statutes, both privately circulated coins and paper notes were outlawed, and

die-hard private mints were later either purchased by government or otherwise permanently put out

of business. These original Civil War era penal statutes have been augmented since then. In the

1900's, under an administrative regulation promulgated by the Board of Governors of the Federal

Reserve Board, the issuance, if even for brief promotional purposes, of publicly circulating private

bank notes by member banks, was forbidden.

Benefits Accepted= Jurisdiction - Page 6



A fter the C ivil W ar, governm ent's enactm ent of currency m onopoly statutes paralleled the

private Express Statutes in the sense that private postal com panies previously com peting w ith

governm ent w ere ordered shut dow n and put out of business at gun point. In s o d oin g, g ov ernmen t

se ale d u p a n atio nal p ostal m on op oly . T he se P riv ate E xp re ss S tatu te s remain tod ay an d c an b e fo un d

at 18 USC sections 1693 to 1699 and 38 USC sections 601 to 608.

It w ou ld a pp ear th at g ov ernme nt do es n ot lik e comp etitio n, a nd it h as this n asty h ab it o f u sin g

penal statutes and hired bouncers (U .S . M arshals) to force people into relationships w ith it against

th eir w ill an d o ver th eir o bjec tio n: re lation sh ips th ey n ev er w ou ld h ave v olu ntarily c on summate d o f

their ow n free w ill and volition. For exam ple, som e enterprising folks, seeing the escalating rise in

postage rates in the early 1970's and detecting that som ething just w asn't quite right due to the w ide

percentage variance in cost and pricing, prom ptly w ent about setting up their ow n postal com pany

in R ochester, N ew York in 1976. T hey concentrated on R ochester's C entral B usiness D istrict; and

o ffe rin g th e lowe r p ric es th ey d id , th ey q uick ly sig ned u p law firm s, b an ks, ac co un tan ts, h otels, an d

th e like . S ev era l n atio nal m ag az in es fe atu red artic les a bo ut th em (ex emplary m ig ht b e F red F erre tti

in "Private M ail v. The Letter of the Law ," N ew Y ork Tim es, 25 Septem ber 1976.)

G overnm ent Agents in the Postal Service, sm elling an inexpensive upstart on the block

o ff er ing cheaper p ric es and accele ra ted deli ve ry schedule s, quickl y th rew a Restr ai ning Order Peti tionat R och ester P ostal S erv ic e in F ed eral D istrict C ou rt th ere . T he P etitio n w as g ra nted w ith ju stify in g

reference being m ade to the Private Express Statutes of the C ivil W ar era. O n appeal, the Second

C ircuit C ourt of A ppeals in U nited States Postal Servicev. B rennan, 574 F . 2d 712 (1978) w ent into

a discussion on how governm ent's right to seal up a national postal m onopoly under penal statutes

h as n ev er b ee n s uc ce ss fu lly c ha lle ng ed and rema in s e ss en tia lly a ir-tig ht.

B y its own statuto ry word in g, eith er o ne's d ocume nted in vo lv em en t in In te rstate C ommerc e

o ver th e m in im um liab ility th re sh old lev el o r o ne's C itize nsh ip Con trac t attac hes all th e c iv il an d/o r

crim inal liability governm ent thinks it needs for a crim inal prosecution. B ut F ederal Judges do not

necessarily think like U .S. Attorneys; and in a crim inal prosecution for Title 26 infractions, the

Ju dic ia ry , b y cu stom , wou ld lik e to se e a h ig he r le ve l o f administra tiv e an d m erch an t sta tu s than th e'm ere use and re-circulation ofFRNls infers. So, w hat the Federal B ench w ants to see is som e type

of contract before they w ill consent to a crim inal prosecution for Title 26 penal infractions. The

J ud ic ia ry s ho uld a ls o mak e th e d is tin ctio n b etween th os e c on tra cts e nte re d in to k nowin gly , a fte r b oth

p artie s h av e b ee n fu lly in fo rm ed o f all th e co nseq ue nces, an d th ose co ntrac ts fra ud ulen tly le d in to b y

fa ilu re to d is clo se v ita l in fo rma tio n. A fte r o ne h as d uly d iv es te d o ne se lf o fth es e fra ud ule nt c on tra cts ,

they can no longer act as the nexus to bring charges against that individual.

2. PRIVATE INSURANCE PROGRAMS

T o an y Christia n who re lie s stric tly o n God's p ro tec tio n in all situ atio ns, In su ra nce p ro gram sw ill b e fo und to b e a bhorre nt. T he re as on s imp ly is b ec au se man 's c ommerc ia l e nte rp ris es a re lic en se d

and regulated by government. Because of this licensing, a nexus is established between the

governm ent and the other party (you). The individual then is treated as ifhe w ere a corporate entity

a nd ju risd iction th en attac he s. B en efits a re ex te nd ed , th us , lim ite d lia bility a ttac hes. S om e o f th ese

b en efits in clud e (b ut a re n ot lim ited to ) th e fo llowin g ty pe s o f in su ran ce:

a) T he S ocial Security program (to be discussed later);

b) T heft (any type of personal property);

Benefits Accepted = J ur is dic tio n - Page 7



c) Fire;

d) Automotive (liability, comprehensive, collision, etc.);

e) Homeowners (liability, fire, wind/hail/lightening [Acts of God], flood, etc.;

f) Health;

g) Life;

h) Workmen's compensation;

i) Unemployment;

j) Dental; and

k) Any and all insurance programs provided by those for which labor is rendered.

Participation in insurance (possessing an insurance policy) is a license in commerce and is

regulable interstate commercial activity - attaching Admiralty/Maritime jurisdiction to its possessor

through the Law Merchants jurisdiction codified in the Uniform Commercial Code. With the

insurance companies being privately owned, and therefore, third party beneficial interest holders, use

of the police powers for the private enrichment of a Special Interest Group is patently unlawful. The

State has a vested interest in this activity, however, because from the revenues generated by

mandatory (automotive) and non-mandatory insurance statutes, insurance companies then pay state

income taxes.

3. SOCIAL SECURITY

The federal government, during the "reign" of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his "new deal"

Democratic Party, bymeans ofmassive "fraud," deception, and misinformation, successfully did away

with the Common Law of England and made all "persons" subject to a version of the Roman Civil

Law. The three main indica of the common law are (1) Land, (2) Labor, and (3) Substance.

President Roosevelt, asmentioned above, through the "new deal" Democratic Party controlled

.Congress, established the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), the Federal Land Bank, theFarmer's Home Administration, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Federal

Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC), etc., and with the previously established federal

reserve banking system (1913), all real property has been made security for some type of indebtedness

- either through private debt or some type of voter approved bond issue. This has eliminated private

ownership of land.

Labor

The right to labor was taken away from the people of America by the Social Security Act of

1935. Americans, by obtaining a Social Security Number have "voluntarily" surrendered their

Constitutional and God given rights by and through this quasi-adhesion social insurance contract.

The social security tax is the base premium, and the subsequently enacted withholding and income

taxes are surcharges or additions to the premiums.

Substance

Since the "reign" of Franklin Roosevelt, this once great nation has been plunged into massive

national debt. Debt alone violates the principles of the common law upon which this country was

B en efits A cc ep te d= J urisd ic tio n - Page 8



ed. T he coinag e of the U nited S tates as w ell as paper F ed eral R eserv e Notes al l have stamped

printed on them the words "IN GOD WE TRUST." This is a hollow statement because

,~,.,."rnP·nT has led the people away from trusting in the God of Israel. Paper money is not an

I~IJL_""--. of the common law , nor is it in accordance w ith G od's Law of the N ew C ovenant because

h as n o sub sta nc e.

"Fo rmer ly . when you d id n ot ~ow G od , yo u w ere slaves to tho se w ho by n ature are

n ot g od s." G ala tian s 4:8.

Americans today, because of the social security program foisted upon them have only "civil

" T hese "c iv il rig hts" are ac tu ally th e c on cu rre nt p riv ile ge s a nd immun itie s g ra nte d u nd er th e

Roman C iv il L aw e sta blish ed b y th e fed eral g ov ernmen t th ro ug h th e F ou rte en th Amen dmen t.

The direction the federal and State governments have taken by FRAUD, deception,

sinform aticn, deceit, outrig ht lies, and the barrel o f a gun has been used to enslave the American

"... w ere yo u a slave w hen you w ere ca lled ? ... if you can gain you r freedom , do

so . F or he w ho w as a slave w hen he w as called by the Lo rd is the Lord 's freem an;

Sim ilarly. he w ho w as afreeman w hen he was called is Chris t's s lave . You w ere

bought a t a p rice; do no t becom e slaves o f m en . 1 Corinthians 7: 21-23.

As the situation now exists, one cannot claim "citizenship" at either State or federal level.

does, jurisdiction attaches. A lthough one m ay be a native born American, he m ust becom e a

s tr anger , and so journer inthe land of his birth. H e m ust becom e an Ambassador for the Lord

Christ.

U nder the organic C onstitution of 1789, citizenship w as to com e from the common law

W.LJLLo~l~llJ·Lj.I of the state in w hich one w as dom iciled. W ith the abolition of the common law , there is

c ommon law c itize nsh ip . A ll c itize nsh ip n ow c omes from th e F ou rte en th Amen dmen t. H av e y ou

w ondered w hy debt is dealt w ith here? For exam ple, one no longer has a common law right to

he m ust register (seek perm ission of the State) to vote. O ne also has no common law right tow ife and fam ily ; he m ust register to w ork (seek perm ission from the federal go vernm ent to

b y obta in in g a s oc ia l s ec urity n umber).

T he common law entitled one to eam a livelihood to subsist (live) by natural right, an d to do

by any law ful calling w here desire and expertise could be dem onstrated. D ue to the past and

'r.·,....~ · . A .econom ic situation, it is assum ed by governm ent that all "persons" operate on credit.

'~ --'--'~ who ope ra te in a body of custom s and usages known as the Law M erchant (see Internal

Legal R eference G uide @ p. 58 (10) 0-200) or m ercantile equity, w here the common law

nwtlPr&> applicable, and they are governed by general Commercial Law . This fact was

,~"~''.Q.UU'llC;;U in Erie R ailroad v. Tom pkins, 304 U S 64 (1938) w herein it is stated: "[T]here is no

'o~·-........e de ra l c ommon law. II T his m eans that there is no base of common law g eneric to the S tates.

T he E rie d ec isio n w as a d irec t ra tific atio n o fH JR 1 92 (3 1 USC se ctio n 4 63 ) e nac te d 0 6/0 5/3 3

·~""I.IUUll:1ll~theold standard do llar (in violation of A rticle 1, Sec. 1 0 of th e U .S . C onstitution and

Law [the basis of English C ommon Law ] at Exodus 20:15 and D euteronom y 25: 13-16)

sealed the nation behind the F ederal R eserve A ct of 1 933. HJR 192 opened th e d oor for nearly

application of the L aw M erchant at the federal level, and the regulato ry R om an C iv il law at

State level. Ita lso removed all b us in es s to th e c las s o f "p riv ileg e," a nd ca use d all "pe rson s" to

B e n ef it s A c c ep te d = Ju risd ic tio n - Page 9



op erate u nd er a "c orpo ra te" c apa city .

Itwould appear that w ith the abolition of the Common Law at both the State and federal

levels, the governm ents have attem pted to set them selves up as the G od head of its people and rule

over them w ith absolute im punity. T his is in violation of both the C ommandm ents in S cripture ("Y e

shall have no other gods before m e [E xodus 20:3]) and the C ommandm ent of the F irst Amendm ent

to th e U .S . C on stitu tion w herein esta blishment o f a S tate relig ion is fo rb idd en .

The 97th Congress, in joint resolution HJR 97-280 (96 Stat 1211) of 4 October 1982,encouraged everyone within the exterior boundaries of the United States to read the Bible and

p ra ctic e B ib lic al te ac hin g. E ve ry on e (a nd e sp ec ia lly Chris tia ns ) s ho uld d o th eir c iv ic d uty , a nd d o s o.

In doing so, you w ill com e across G od's covenant w ith H is people (see H ebrew s 8:8-12,9: 15; Jam es

1:22,2:17; L uke 4:4; and R om ans 8:28).

T his covenant requires- specific perform ance from both parties. F aith and dem onstrative

action are required on our part, and G od prom ises us contem porary protection and C hrist m ediated

eternal salvation. D em onstrative faith forbids C hristians from entering covenants (contracts or

treaties) w ith other entities around them - including governments (see Exodus 23:32-33;

D eu te ro nomy 7 :2 ).

T he S ocial S ecurity system is abhorrent for a num ber of reasons. Itwas perp etrate d u po n

u nsu spe ctin g Americ an s by mean s o f g ro ss frau d an d co erc ion . It is in g ro ss vio latio n o f the common

law . It violates the covenant w ith God. It also establishes a religion in clear violation of the

"est ab li shmen t o f rel ig ion II clause of the First A mendm ent. The 23rd Psalm begins w ith the w ords:

"The Lo rd ismy sh ep he rd ; I sh all n ot w an t. 11 W ith the enactm ent of the S ocial S ecurity A ct of 1935,

the federal and S tate governm ents have taken on the task of caring for all America ns from cra dle to

g ra ve . It is their p osition tha t the ir citizen s sh ou ld say : "M y governm ent is m y shepherd; I shall not

want. II

T he First A rticle of A mendm ents to the U .S. C onstitution, contained in the B ill of R ights

(1791) , unequ ivoca lly decl ares :

"Co n gr es s s ha ll m ak e n o law r es pe ctin g a n e sta blis hm en t o fr elig io n , o r p r oh ib itin g

th e free e x er c is e t he r eo f"

The D eclaratio n o fIn dep end en ce d eclares th e g rie va nce s an d ju stificatio n o f "o ne p eo ple"

necessitating their separation from another. It calls upon the Law of G od, lithe law s of nature and

n atu re's G od,1 I a s ju stific ation for th at se paratio n an d asserts th eir " ina lien able righ ts 11 and n atu ra l

"station" as having been endow ed upon them by "their C reator. II

S im ila rly , th e P re amb le to th e Con stitu tio n fo r th e Unite d S ta te s d es ig na te s th e c itiz en sh ip o f

th e U nite d S tates an d d ecla res it to be b y rig ht b loo d w ith th e w ord s lito o urse lve s an d o ur P oste rity . II

The 11 one p eople" of the D eclaration ofIndependence are "W e the People" of the Pream ble. W ho,

then, w ere the m en that fram ed and ratified the C onstitution? The fram ers w ere, one and all, o f th e

wh ite r ac e and CHRISTIAN faith. Th is exp la in s th e wo rd s lito our se lv es IIand illumin ate s th e phr as e

"and our pos te rity ,"

"T he b rief p reamb le se ts fo rth b y whom it w as fo rm ed , fo r w ha t p urp ose a nd fo r

w hose benefit an d protection . It d eclares th at it is fo rm ed b y the peo ple of th e

Un ite d S ta te s; th at is to sa y, b y thos e who wer e member s o f t h e d if fe re nt p olitic al

c ommun itie s in th e se ve ra l S ta te s; a nd its g re at o bje ct is d ec la re d to b e to secure

Ben ef it s A c c ep te d = lurisd ic tW n - Page 10



the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity. It speaks in general

terms of the people of the Uruled Stales, and of citizens of the several States, when

it is providing for the exercise of powers granted or the privileges secured to the

citizen. It does not define what description of persons are intended to be included

under these tenus, or who shall be regarded as a citizen and one of the people. It

uses them as tenus so well understood, that no further description or definition

was necessary."·

DIed Scott v. Sanford, 19 Howard 393 @ 410 - 411.

In th e view of the F ou nd in g F athers, the p olitical realm w as regard ed as a m ere reflectio n o rexten sion o f th e religiou s. F or, in fact, all law is a d irect exp ression o f th e prev ailin g relig io n up on

w hich the state is founded. There is no such thing as a secular state; therefore, relig ion is the great

state-bu ilding p rin cip le. T he Am erican colon ists created a new state b ecau se they alread y WERE

a church, and that church w as the soul of the state created. The Fathers held as divine doctrine that

g ov ernm en ts w ere es ta blish ed fo r th e b en efit o f th e g ov ern ed , a nd n ot fo r th at o fth e g ov ern ors, w ho

w ere to regard them selves as the servants of G od appointed for the benefit of H is people. The

prosperity and happiness of the nation w as seen to be a direct outcom e of its relig ion, and ruin w as

in ev itab ly se en to fo llow v ic e a nd sin . T he first lin e o f in stru ctio n, th en , w as th at re lig io n e sta blis he s

g ov ernmen t, re lig io n th en fo llow s gov ernmen t, a nd mo ra lity fo llow s th at re lig io n.

Therefore, the second, and consequential, line of instruction w as that the first duty of ag ov ernme nt w as to s up po rt, te ac h, a nd p ra ctic e th e R elig io n o f th e N atio n b y p ub lic re co gn itio n a nd

honor paid to that relig ion in the outw ard form s of its w orship , and by using it as the groundw ork in

the edu cation of th e peo ple; and by pu ttin g a social stigm a up on all deviation from it. Itwas w id ely

b elie ve d th at fa ilu re to a dh ere to th es e p rin cip le s would in ev ita bly le ad to th e d es tru ctio n o f th e s ta te .

It w ould lead to the tendency of m en to follow the m ode of life of the court and those socially above

th em . It w as fu rth er b elieved that the irrelig io n of the ru ling class w ou ld rap id ly sp read to the lo wer

strata of so cial life. T his, ho wev er, w ou ld create a "w hip -lash" effect su ch that as the irreligion o f

th e ru ling class w as sp reading downward , an o pp osite curren t w ould d ev elo p am ong st th e peop le.

A s th e fo undin g fa th ers th ou gh t o f t h emselv es a s b ein g " th e Churc h, " re lig io n wa s a lre ad y " th e

e stab lishm en t," a nd th e F irst Amen dmen t w as to fo rb id Con gre ss from mak in g a ny law a ffe ctin g th at

e stab lishm en t. T he Christia n re lig io n w as w ell e sta blis he d in a ll 1 3 o rig in al c olo nie s b y o ur P ilg rim ,

P uritan , an d P ro testan t ancesto rs anteced ent to the ratification o f th e C onstitu tion , A pril 6, 1 78 9.

T his suprem e law of the land crow ned the w ar for independence w hich began w ith the unanim ous

v ote of all 1 3 co lo nies thirteen years earlier - A pril 6 , 1 77 6.

In the early colonial years and later through the first hundred years or so of our existence as

a nation, the established relig ions w ere the only m eans by w hich our Founding Fathers "fed the

hun gry , clothed th e nak ed, g ave w ater to th e thirsty, an d cared for th e w id ow and th e fath erless. II

This, then, w as the prevailing view of history, law , and relig ion at the tim e the American

. re pu blic w as fo un de d a nd s ub se qu en tly fo r a t lea st its first h un dre d y ea rs o f e xiste nc e. T he o rg an ic

law comp le te ly embodie d th es e p rin cip le s fo r it w a s wholly b as ed upon th e s ame auth ority th at ta ug ht

them - the Christian B ible. .

By virtue of the established relig ions, our Founding Fathers loved their neighbors as

th em selv es, and freely shared th e little com th ey h ad to h elp each o th er surv iv e the cruel con dition s

p reVa le nt in th e Americ an w ild ern es s a nd th e v ario us w ars th e y ou ng n atio n fo un d its elf e ng ag ed in ,

id est, th e w ar fo r in dep end ence, th e W ar o f 18 12 , the C ivilW a r, etc. It w as the estab lish ed religion s

B en efits A ccep ted = Ju risd ic tio n - Page 11



which were the "charity" to our Founding Fathers during the darkest of days.

These were the circumstances under which our Founding Fathers insisted on the guarantee,

through the first article of amendment in the Bill of Rights, that Congress would never make any law

"respecting an establishment of religion," or prohibit "the free exercise thereof. "

In the cruelest of wilderness conditions, even in the darkest of the days of the war for

independence, when hundreds of thousands of people were reduced to the extremes of poverty, the

"established religions" provided faith, food, and charity to see their families through.

There was no "Federal Establishment." There was no federal Social Security; no federal

disability pensions; no federal unemployment compensation; no federal Medicare or federal Food

Stamps; no federal housing, federal charities, federal subsidies; or federal retirement pensions.

With the already established religions, the people provided all the charity that was ever needed

~and our Founding Fathers specifically forbid Congress from making any law that affected the already

existing establishments of religious charity.

To our Founding Fathers, the essence of religion was charity. To our Founding Fathers, the

highest and most sacred duty of each religion was to care forthe widow and the fatherless - and

Congress was, therefore, specifically forbidden from ever making any law that respected in any way

"an establishment of religion," or prohibited the free exercise thereof.

Thus, as the supreme law of our land, the Constitution clearly recognizes the supreme role

ofreligious charity by the established religions, and gives them supreme precedence over all other acts

of Congress. More particularly, any such act of Congress respecting an establishment of religious

charity was to be declared unconstitutional. As Mr. Justice Black declared in Everson v. Board of

Education, 330 US 1:

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this:

Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. .. no tax in anyamount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or

institutions, whatever they maybe called. ..neither a state nor thefederal government

can openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or

groups and vice versa. "

Everson v. Board o(Education, supra @pp. /5 ~/6.

In this case, Congress has "set up a church" to carry out the highest religious duty - charity-

and has levied a tax to support this religious activity - and has done so secretly. And a tax has been

levied for the establishment of that most satanic of religious organizations - a godless religion known

to the prophets of God as "the Church of the Devil."

As our Founding Fathers knew so well, the Devil is a secular humanist who sets up falsechurches, false Christs, false saviors and false religious charities to cover a multitude of sins and

deceive the world.

Mr. Justice Potter Stewart rightly noted in his dissent in Abington School District v.

Schempp, 374 US 203 @ 214 (1963) being "godless" constitutes "the establishment ofa religion of

secularism." The secularism of Social Security is the Devil's own religion - something straight out

of the Illuminati conspiracy.

Benefus Accepted = = Jurisdiction - Page 12



Moreover, this position is supported by the Holy Scriptures which describes this Church of

the Devil as being a beast with two horns that looks like a lamb but speaks like a dragon. In other

words, it looks like the Church of the Passover Lamb (Christ); but it really is the voice of the Dragon

(Revelation 13: 11).

This Dragon with two horns was given power by the Devil to make an image to the beast, and

to give that image the power to speak - like the voice of the people - and to ca~se -

"Both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their righ thand, or in their foreheads; and that no man might buy or sell, unless he had the

mark or the name of the beast, which is the number of his name. "

Revelation 12:9; 13:14-17.

It is getting increasingly difficult to conduct any type of business without divulging one's

social security number; and the computer access number for the social security is the prophetized

"666." Thus, everywhere we tum, the Church of Social Security is there (the right hand) in the

conducting ofbusiness and is constantly on our minds and in our view (the forehead) when partaking

of or in the observation of anyone else partaking of any of the 105 benefits stemming from

membership in the Church of Social Security. This is an incredibly apt description' of the pervasive

impact of Social Security and the myriad of other federal benefits (charities) that have been added to

it - like a Christmas tree, whose red tape and regulations pervade every aspect of life, and are less

understood than the greatest mysteries of the Holy Scriptures.

On many occasions the U.S. Supreme Court has noted, the federal government must be

"neutral" on this "establishment" issue. The Constitution specifically forbids Congress, in no

uncertain terms, from establishing any religion or supporting" any religious activities .... whatever they

may be called," including the godless charity.

The eternal contest between the Church of the Lamb and the charity of the Devil is to be

refereed by government under the Constitution. One who chooses not to partake of this regulated

charity (one who has rescinded his Social Security number and account) cannot have judgment given

to the Devil by default.

The "establishment of religion" was never raised at the time the Social Security Act of 1935

was adopted by Congress. It was sold to the American people as retirement insurance - not charity -

and it was sold to the Supreme Court as a general revenue tax "not earmarked for any particular

purpose."

Contrary to the Constitutional dictates of neutrality, Congress now has openly committed

itself to taxing the people to support a godless religion that dispenses charity to cover a multitude of

national sins - all in violation of the First Amendment "establishment of religion" clause and the Tenth

Amendment. Because the definition of the term "person" in the Social Security Act, Title 26, USC,

and the Fourteenth Amendment are the same, then this tax for the support of the Church of Social

Security includes the income tax as well as the Social Security Tax. This makes the income tax as

inviable as the FICA contributions pursuant to the First and Tenth Amendments as well.

Just what is religion? The Supreme Court first attempted to define "religion" in the so-called

"Mormon cases" in 1890, but really was unable to do so. Religion is unknown to man except by

revelation from God. Religion is the knowledge of God unto Salvation; victory over death.

Benefits Accepted= Jurisdiction - Page 13



Thus, government does not, nor can it, reveal God, or act the part of God. Under the

provisions of the first article of am endments in the Bill of R ights, the federal government

P ROTECT S the religion of all those w ho receive revelations from G od. B y so doing, every person

is free to receive revelations from G od and to live according to the law s of G od thus revealed to m an.

In this m anner, the need for m an-m ade law s dim inish as m an receives m ore revelations from

G od. E ventually, the law s oflife w ill all center on the tw o greatest comm andm ents - to love G od and

to love your neighbor as yourself T hese are the tw o great law s of charity on w hich hang all th e law

and th e p roph ets .

T he re aso n th e C on stitu tio n p ro tec ts re lig io us free dom is to in crea se th e re vela tio ns o f G od

th at en han ce lo ve (ltch arity ") a nd to re du ce th e laws o f g ov ernm en t u ntil all law s are c ircumsc rib ed

by the law of charity - and life becom es eternal. T his w as the sense in w hich Jesus revealed that "to

he w ho w as truth, m ore truth shall be revealed; but to he w ho has it not, shall be taken even that truth

w hich he thinks he hath. It

T ru th w ill se t u s fre e. T he lo ss o f tru th , re vea le d from h ea ven , is th e lo ss o f fre ed om . C ha rity

to those w ho have lost their freedom is the highest duty of all religions.

Reve ale d r elig io n d ef ie s all e arth ly d efin itio n an d g ov ernme nt re gu la tio n. N eith er G od n or

revealed religion can be regulated or defined by C ongress or the Suprem e C ourt. E ven the nam e of

G od w as " in effab le" to th e a ncie nt H eb rew s.

T he sac re d o r h ea ven ly d efinitio n of " relig io n" is rev eale d in th e L aw o f G od rec ord ed b y th e

prophets and apostles. According to the Constitution, this revealed "religion" is the one

" esta blishme nt" th at is su prem e o ver a ny a ct o f C on gress . N oah We bster d efin es " re lig io n" to m ean ,

"the duty of obedience that m an ow es to G od who created him. II As defined by the Law of G od,

"Religion, pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this, to care for the w idow and the

fatherless" (Jam es 1 :27). .

Government has attempted to supplant B iblically m andated personal and fam ily

r espons ib iliti es . Acco rd in g to Sc rip tu re , in div id ua l f ami lie s and congr eg at io ns a re r espons ib le for th e

care of the elderly and needy. P arents are to care and provide for children (D euteronom y 21: 15-17;

2 Corinthians 12: 14). Children are to care and provide for parents in their old age if need be (1

T imoth y 5 :8 ). Wh en th e family c an no t p ro vide c are , resp on sibility th en rests w ith th e c on gre gatio n

(G alatians 6:2; Jam es 2:8). T his w ork m ust be personal, not a program under C aesar (governm ent)

(Mar k 1 2:1 7) .

T he imp os itio n o fa " dia le ctic al g os pe l" inwh ic h th e S ta te a nd its in stitu tio ns a re in str uments

o ff ir st re so rt f or "w elf ar e" a nd r es ults in magn if yin g th e p re -em in en ce o f C ae sa r ( go ve rnmen t) ra th er

th an God , s ho uld u nq ue stio nin gly b e r eje cte d.

M oses w arns us that those who subvert this religious duty and afilict the widow and the

fathe rl es s w i ll pay a d re ad fu l a nd e te rn al fo rfe it ( Ex od us 2 2:2 2- 24 ).

T he B ible defines the "duty of obedience" as "loving your neighbor as yourself," w hich is

"like unto" the first comm andm ent to love the L ord your G od, w ith all y ou r h ea rt, m igh t, m in d, an d

strength. "on these tw o law s hang all the law and the prophets" (M atthew 22:40).

Ben e fi ts A ccept ed = J u ri sd ic tio n - Page 14



To obey these laws, the Christ Jesus said, we must each feed the hungry meat in due season,

clothe the naked with the wedding garments given to Adam and Eve in the garden, give the water of

etemallife to the thirsty, care for the widow and the fatherless, proclaim liberty to the captives, and

set the prisoners free. In a word, the law of God and the essence of religion, pure and undefiled, is

"charity. "

The Bible reveals that "fervent charity" isthe highest religious duty: "ABOVE ALL THINGS,

have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity will cover the multitude of sins (1 Peter 4:8). The

law of God goes on to say that true charity cannot be compelled (Pay up or JIllsteal your house or

put you in jail). It must be done by free will offerings and... IN SECRET - so the left hand will not

know what the right hand is doing" (Matthew 6:1-4).

Specifically, the law of God forbids "sounding the trumpets" as when false charity is debated

in the halls of Congress. True charity cannot be compelled as is the case with Social Security

"contributions" and its attendant "income tax;IInor is it to be paraded in public as when the poor are

compelled to parade to public officers to "qualify" for public charity.

We cannot cover our "multitude of national sins" with a world-wide (all 147 nations on the

planet have some sort of social security plan) compulsory "contribution" extracted as a withholding

tax along with the other half of the tax withheld as the income tax under threat of federal

imprisonment; nor can we "preserve the integrity" of a false charity by denying everyone a job unless

they are a member of the Church of Social Security with its attendant "number of his name. II

True Christian charity is not public welfare promoted by politicians and ministered over by

public servants who are in the employ of a godless religion that forces everyone to take a number and

bow down at the alter of public charity. According to the Laws of God, as honored by the established

religions of our Founding Fathers, charity is the pure love of Christ. It is the charity that never faileth

(1 Cori?thians 13:8). It is the only charity that will cover the multitude of sins committed by our

nation.

And Social Security is the biggest charity cover-up ever designed by the Devil - in total

violation of the First and Tenth Amendments. Under our Constitution, every person is free to

worship God, that is, free to obey God's law of charity according to the dictates of his own

conscience. The Constitution forbids the Federal Government from ever establishing a federal

religion - "to support any religious activity ... openly or secretly" - such as dispensing charity to the

widow, the fatherless, the hungry, the thirsty, and the naked.

This highest of sacred duty was reserved by the Constitution to the people and the States by

the First and Tenth Amendments.

How pure, honest, upright, and moral can a government be that forces everyone to bow downand worship at the same alter; and confiscates contributions for charity, and compels everyone, even

our little children, to receive a mark, which is the number of your name; and unless you disclose your

Social Security number you cannot get ajob, you cannot buy or sell, or get a driver's license, or open

a bank account, or even write a check at the grocery store!

With all due respect to the Devil and his angels, the original Illuminati conspirators and their

descendants (the Anti-christ and his hinch men), it appears that Congress has decreed that every

State, every County, every City, and every Citizen is now "locked in" as members of the Church of

B e ne fi ts A c ce p te d= J u ri sd ic ti on - Page 15



S ocial Security and there is no escape. C on gress has not provided an "out" once som eone gets into,

or som eone else signs them up for, m em bership in the C hurch.

T he First Amendm ent to the C onstitu tion for the U nited S tates is our only protection against

the establishment of a godless religion that seek s to destroy all other religions. O ur land of liberty

has become a jail by the same name, and OUR COURTS HOLD THE KEY!!! The Court has the

authority and duty to proclaim liberty to the captives and the opening of the prison to them that are

bound by upholding and defending the F irst Am en dm ent and d eclaring th e truth abo ut the C hurch o f

S oc ia l S ec urity (Is aia h 6 1:1 ; L uk e 4 :1 8-1 9).

In th e final analysis - the day of judgm en t - the L aw of G od reveals that there w ill only be tw o

churches: the C hurch of the Lam b w ho is a virgin bride dressed in w edding garm ents of linen pure

an d w hite; and the C hurch of the D evil, the w hore o f all the earth, dressed in the black robes of death,

m ourning, and hell - w orn by the educated elite and the high priests of evil.

A nd there w ill only be tw o plans of salvation - tw o plans of charity that claim authority to

c ov er "a multitu de o f n atio na l sin s. II The first plan is a false charity that pays people to be poor, and

keeps them in bondage to the beast w ith ten horns, ten crow ns, and ten toes "w ith lying w onders and

a ll dece ivableness of unrigh teousness. II T his is lithe g ross d arkness" that now covers the m inds of the

people.

A nd after this darkness com es the brighter light of true charity that w ill destroy the secret

w ork s o f d ark nes s b y e xp osin g its n ak ed ne ss. T he p ro ph et Is aiah se es th is lig ht as b ein g b rig hter th an

the light o f seven days, and it will shine in lith e d ay o f th e g re at sla ug hter, w hen th e towe rs fall. .. w ith

th e flam e o f a d ev ou rin g fire , w ith s ca tte rin g an d tempes t a nd h ail-sto nes" (Isa ia h 3 0:2 5-3 0).

This is the day of judgm ent, and the issue to be brought before a Court is w hether the plan

of true charity w ill prevail in the darkness. T he d ecision of that C ourt o n th is issu e w ill either set the

captive's free from bondage to the beast - or seal the doom of the federal governm ent to the sam e

,plagues as those heap ed upon the Pharaoh .

The question to be brought before a C ourt is the sam e hum ble request m ade by M oses to the

P haraoh: "T hus saith the G od ofIsrael: L et m y p eople go three days journey into the w ilderness that

they m ay w orship m e - or p lagues w ill b efall this nation. II

In the final ju dgm ent before the bar of G od (the Judge of all other judges), w e w ill either bow

to the Savior as his bride and receive our new nam e in an eternal m arriage that w ill create an eternal

fam ily - filled w ith charity (Isaiah 62; R evelation 2: 1 7); or w e w ill bow dow n and w orship the beast

w ith ten horns w ho forces everyone to take a social security num ber, w hich is the num ber of your

name, and will be dragged down into the bottom less pit of social slavery masquerading as the

Messiah.

O n June 19, 1986, the U nited States Suprem e C ourt ruled 9-0 that none of the 50 States m ay

p ull th eir emp lo yee s o ut o f th e S ocial S ecu rity S ystem - lito sa ve its in te grity . II All S O S ta te s MUST

"bow dow n and w orship II S oc ia l S ecu rity a s THE supreme compelline religion in America - th e

suprem e com pelling source of charity - food for the hungry, clothes for the naked, w ater for the

th irs ty , c are fo r th e w id ow a nd th e fa th erle ss - an d comfo rt fo r th ose who a re in p riso n, sh ack led h an d

and foot by the policies of a police state that is comm itted to IIc on tro llin g th e e co nomy" and cov erin g

its sin s w ith a fa lse c ha rity (C f. M atth ew 2 5:3 1-4 6).

Ben ef it s A c c ep te d = J urisd ictio n - Page 16



S ig nif ic an tly , th e Chu rc h o f Soc ia l S ec ur ity d is pe ns es its c ha rity th ro ug h th e te n (1 0) F ed er al

Reserve Sharing Districts, like a beast w ith ten horns, ten crowns, and ten toes that stom ps on

everyone who refuses to bow down and worship the beast, and take the num ber of their nam e (Cf.

Leviticus 26:26~ D euteronom y 2:34). T he ten (10) Federal R eserve Sharing D istricts w ere set up

under P resident N ixon at the sam e tim e the S uprem e C ourt silenced prayer and B ible reading by our

c hild re n in p ub lic s ch oo ls a s a n u nc on stitu tio na l e sta blishmen t o f re lig io n.

If our public schools cannot even allow our children to read the law of charity in the Biblebecause i t cons ti tu te s IIan establishm ent of religion;" or pray to the G od of charity w ho created this

nation at the beginning of each school day, then clearly the federal governm ent cannot establish a

godless charity with com pulsory taxation that supports the Church of the Devil as the suprem e

compell ing chari ty .

The real issues involved here are religious freedom (both the establishm ent and the free

e xe rc is e th ere ot). T he g re ate st f ra ud e ve r p er pe tra te d u po n th e Americ an p eo ple is th e e sta blishmen t

of the C hurch of S ocial S ecurity w hich is in utter and com plete violation of the C onstitution and its

"establishm ent of religion" clause. T his C hurch also interferes w ith the free exercise thereof as it

contradicts biblical scripture and forces the covenant of the elders m ade w ith the G od ofIsrael to be

bro ken . T his C hurch also ch ang es the citizen ship of th e m ember - m ak ing ev en more frau d in vo lved .

T he C ongress of the U nited S tates ha s e sta blis he d a fe de ra l r elig io n a nd le vie d a two p ro ng ed

tax (F ICA co ntrib utio ns and the in come tax) to sup po rt its " religio us activ ities, II and it has secretly

participated in the affairs of a religious organization know n to the prophets of G od as the C hurch of

th e Devil.

T his C hurch o f S ocial S ecu rity is ab horren t fo r a n umber of reaso ns. It w as and is p erpetrated

upon unsuspecting Americans by m eans of gross fraud and coercion. It is in gross violation of the

common law . A nd, it violates the covenant the elders m ade w ith the G od ofIsrael prohibiting them

or their descendants from m aking covenants w ith any other parties.

T his covenant required specific perform ance from both parties. T his covenant (basically

L ev itic us 26 ) req uired th e Israelites to k eep the 75 9 statutes, ord inan ces, an d judgmen ts en umerated

in the Scriptures. One of the 759 statutes that m ust be kept is that an Israelite m ust not m ake any

cov enan ts (co ntracts) w ith th e g ov ernm ent in the lan d in w hich th ey find them selv es.

32 Tho u shalt m ake n o c oven an t w ith the m, n or w ith their go ds.

33 They shall n ot d well in thy lan d. Jest t hey m ake thee sin

a ga in st m e: fo r if tho u serve their go ds. it w ill su rely be a

s na re u nto th ee .

E x od u s 2 3: 32 -3 3.

By the governm ent forcing everyone into the C hurch of Social Security through fraud and

co ercion , m an y American s of C hristian faith h ave u nw itting ly m ade a cov enan t w ith go vernmen t an d

now serve the god governm ent. This is exactly what the God of Israel warned against when he

p rohib ite d th e eng ag ing in such cov enan ts. T his is also a d irect co ntradiction to the F irst Amen dment

re lig io n c la use - b oth e sta blishmen t a nd fr ee e xe rc is e. T his c on tra ctu al p ro vis io n o f n ot makin g o th er

co ven ants is reiterated b y E xo du s 3 4: 1 0-1 7.

A n avow ed saved C hristian is collaterally estopped by the L aw of G od from engaging in the

B en efits A cc ep te d :::J uris dic tio n - Page 17



activities of the Church of Social Security and any other contract with government at any level. The

contract with the Creator is superior to any contract made with man. Driver's licenses, marriage

licenses, even a Form 1040 contract must take a back seat to the contract the elders made with the

Creator. This concept of making no covenants is repeated at Deuteronomy 7:2 and Joshua 9:3-18.

Obviously the God of Israel made that contractual term as boldly as He did because He was fully

cognizant of what governments are inclined to do to their citizens.

If one is contractually prohibited (collaterally estopped) by a covenant with his God from

making contracts with government, then, a true avowed saved Christian, as an Israelite, iscontractually prohibited from partaking of any of the approximate 105 benefits offered by the Church

of Social Security. He is prohibited from being a member of the said Church, and cannot fill out

income tax: return contracts, cannot possess any licenses from government, nor engage in any

contractual relationships with government. If one pays a tax, he expects to get something in return

for said taxes (pursuant to the Consideration Doctrine). There is an implied contract in the payment

of taxes, so even the payment of taxes is contractual and is, therefore, prohibited.

Because the Church of Social Security was foisted upon the American public by fraud and is

unconstitutional in its very essence, and the taxing statutes are only valid for those who are members

of the Church of Social Security, this writer hereby submits that the entire fabric of the Social

Security law and the income statutes is unconstitutional; and the United States government cannot

be heard by a Court on any charges it may attempt to bring against any Israelite.

The United States of America came into existence with the establishment of the Constitution

of the United States. Under the Articles of Confederation and the Continental Congress, this country

was the united States of America - thirteen (13) totally independent nations with a single entity (the

central government) acting as spokesman for the group. The present Constitution made for a single

united nation, but the independent sovereignty of the States was only given up to the extent expressly

set forth in said Constitution. It is imperative that full recognition of the obligations that are explicitly

described within the National Contract be clear, but also, it is more important that one understand

~hat his covenant/contract with the Supreme Being is superior to and must take precedence over anyother contract.

"All acts of the legislature apparently contrary to natural right andjustice are, in our law, and

must be in the nature of things, considered void. The laws of nature are the Laws of God, whose

authority can be superseded by no other power on the planet. A legislature must not obstruct our

obedience to Him from whose punishment they cannot protect us. All human Constitutional or

statutory provisions that are contrary to the Laws of God we must, bound by our conscience,

disobey. IIRobin v. Hardaway, 1 Jefferson 109 (1772).

The Social Security Act of 1935 has been ruled, numerous times, Constitutional; but as

President John Adams so eloquently stated:

"I fmen, through fear.fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any

natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would

absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right tofreedom being the gift ofAlmighty

God, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a

slave."

Benefits Accepted = Jurisdiction - Page 18



4. MARRIAGE LICENSE

The Marriage license is a contract. As such, it represents a limited partnership with the State

being the superior third party partner, which in real terms means that the contract cannot be dissolved

without permission from the State. It also represents a contract over time for profit and gain where

the State has an interest in the children of the contract as represented by benefit programs such as

food stamps, cash assistance, medical assistance, aid to dependent children, etc. Additionally, it also

gives the State an interest in State divorced women's rights to alimony, child support payments, etc.

The marriage license is an adhesion contract. Because most people are unaware and\or

uninformed (fraud due to "failure to disclose") of the consequences and obligations of being a

voluntary party into this three party adhesion contract, they run right down to the county clerks

office, plunk down their money, and then later cannot figure out why the government is sticking its

intrusive nose into their family affairs.

"W a iv er s o f C on stitu tio na l r ig hts n ot o nly m us t b e v olu nta ry , b ut m us t b e k no win g,

in te llige nt a cts d on e w ith su ffic ie nt a wa re ne ss o f the re le va nt c irc um stan ce s a nd

li ke ly c o ns eq u en ce s. "

B ra dv v . U n ite d S ta te s, 397 U S 7 42 .

To obtain a marriage license, it is necessary to pay a license fee, which is a tax, and this tax is upon

a right. The right of marriage has long been antecedent to the establishment of the State.

A Christian and true Israelite has an unalienable (granted by God and elucidated in the Bible)

right to marry. This is a scriptural right that is not a privilege extended by the State. The sacrament

of marriage predates all forms of man's government.

"... T he re fo re w ha t Go d h as j o in e d to ge th er , le t m a n n o t s ep a ra te . n Matthew 19:4-6;

Mark 1 0:6 -9 .

"F or this r eas on a m an w ill le ave his f athe r a nd m othe r a nd be u nite d w ith his w ife ,

a nd the y w ill be co me o ne jle sh." G en esis 2 :2 4.

The marriage license provides the state with authority to assume jurisdiction over many

aspects of that marriage relationship, such as:

a) Assuring that children of such marriage attend public schools to a specified age

because the children from a state sanctioned marriage are wards of the State until

such time as they reach legal age as defined by the State;

b) Effectively making the natural parents of the resulting children of such marriage

nothing more than surrogate mothers and fathers;

c) Creating a condition of corporate status in all parties as attaching to articles of

commerce and property of the State;

d) The license allows the terms of this contract of adhesion to be subject to change

at the whim of the legislature or regulatory agency (such as Health and Human

Services) responsible for administering/supervising family related functions; and

e) Inheritance tax laws are implemented by the marriage license which leads to

effectively abolishing all right to inheritance. This isthe Third Plank of the Communist

Ben ef it s A c c ep te d = Jurisd ictio n - Page 19





applies in this instance.

7. VEHICLE REGISTRATION

Vehicle registration carries with it certain rights, entitlements, and benefits. Some of the

benefits include but are not limited to:

a) The privilege of using the paved roads (state right-of-ways) for purposes of

transacting interstate commerce for profit and/or gain pursuant to trade, commerce,

business, and/or industry (using the public roads as a place of business);

b) The use of the police powers of the State relating to the recovery of stolen

property or enforcement of limited liability (insurance) coverage as a means of

protection of property;

c) Any and all benefits and privileges relating to having your automotive property

enlisted within the State's Fleet of IImotor vehicles"; and

d) Any and all benefits and privileges extended to citizens of your State or theUnited States such as -

i) Being eligible for applying for or receiving insurance or limited liability

commercial contracts, and

ii) Use of a readily identifiable vehicle tag for identification purposes of

your automobile .

.The government uses the vehicle registration as a nexus for bringing actions against an

individual having a vehicle registered in his name as if he were a corporate entity. Thus, jurisdiction

.is assumed in contrac;liction and conflict with God's covenant.

8. UTILIZING COMMERCIAL NOTES

The same facts and circumstances as in 5 and 6 above equally applies in this instance.

9. VOTER REGISTRATION

As with any of the other entrapments mentioned herein, voter registration carries with it

certain rights, entitlements and benefits. And, of course, such rights, entitlements and benefits always

carry with them QUID PRO QUO (reciprocity - something for something) requirements. Some ofthe benefits derived from voter registration (but not necessarily limited to) are the following:

a) Permission from the State to vote at federal, State, County, or Municipal

elections;

b) Access to a State issued Voter Registration Card for identification purposes; and

c) Implied "residency" in the State wherein that you live based on possession of

Bene fi ts Accepted = J urisd ic tio n - Page 21



a Voter R eg istratio n C ard .

T he last paragraph in N o.7 ab ov e also ap plies in th is in stan ce.

10. USE OF CREDIT

The rig hts, e ntitlemen ts , a nd benef its e xte nd ed th rough th e e ngagemen t in a n ungod ly s ch eme

of cred it results in o ne b ecoming attach ed to in terstate comm erce th ro ugh th e ex ten sio n o f credit

th ro ugh the F ed eral R eserv e C orpo ratio n. T he F ed eral R eserv e is an in strumen tality o f the fed eral

governm ent, and all lending institutions are instrum entalities of the Federal Reserve. These

in stitu tio ns h av e b ee n a nd a re p ra ctic in g u su ry a nd deb t manipula tio ns in v io la tio n a nd c on tra dic to ry

to G ods H oly W ord.

"Ifyou lend money to one of my people among you who is needy. do not be a

moneylender; charge him no interest." Exodus 22:25.

"Do not charge your brother interest. whether on money orfood or anything else

that may earn interest." Deuteronomy 23: 1 9.

Thu s, it w ou ld b e p ru den t o f an Israelite to rej e ct, w aiv e, an d fo rfeit all rig hts to b orrow from

governmen t o r in str umenta litie s th ere of , o r a cc ep t b ills o f c re dit o r n egotia ble in strumen ts :

a) U se of checks;

b ) C o-sig nin g for loan s;

c) Use of credit card;

d) S ecu rin g lo an s;

e) P articip atio n in eq ual cred it o pp ortu nity p ro gram s;

f) P articip atio n in an y b en efits ex ten ded b y th e F ed eral R ese rv e C orp oratio n;

g ) P articipation in any benefits ex ten ded b y th e F ederal T rade C omm issio n;

h) P articipation in any benefits extended by the U .S . O ffice of C onsum er A ffairs;

an di) P articip atio n in FDIC and F SL IC insu ran ce p ro gram s.

This, of course, m eans that engagem ent in credit in any capacity for commercial benefit

(p ro fit) o r p riv ate en richmen t w ou ld b e in v io latio n o f G od s co ven an t.

11. BIRTH CERTIFICATE

A s m entio ned o n p ag e on e o f th is d iscu ssio n, yo u h ad ab so lutely n o co ntro l o r say reg ard in g

th e creation o f you r b irth certificate. Y ou r p aren ts w ere p ro bab ly un aw are and u nin fo rm ed (fraud

due to "failure to disclose") that they were N OT required to secure a certificate of birth on your

behalf, so they did so. T hey also probably w ere unaw are and uninform ed (fraud due to "failure todisclose") that certificates required by statute to be com pleted by officers or agents of the State

(licen sed d octo rs) m ay, as a ru le, b e in tro duced as ev id en ce (see M arlow v . S ch ool D istrict, 116 P.

797), and therefore, they w ere acquiescing to a statute that violates ones general right to privacy

b ecau se th e b irth certificate is a g ov ernm en t record , n ot th e in divid ual's; arid g overnm ent m ay be

c ompelled to p ro du ce th at reco rd ag ain st yo ur w ill, o ver y ou r o bjectio n, an d w ith ou t yo ur k nowled ge

o r consent .

Benefits Accepted = J ur is dic tio n - P age 22

The doctor w ho delivered you acted as a licensed agent of the State and entered you into a



"trust" relationship with the State - to be regulated as other commercial and corporate interests and

government property as a result of that offer and acceptance by your parents. This, of course,

comprises a fiction of law.

Such statutory practices by government are deceitful misrepresentations (fraudulent)

concerning the recording of births, and your parents were probably unaware and uninformed (fraud

due to "failure to disclose ") of the consequences and obligations of your being a "certified article of

commerce" with the undesirable privileges of being regulated by government in Commerce (as an

article of commerce). You have been registered with the U.S. Department of Commerce (see

Edwards v. California, 314 US 160 and Article 1, Sec. 8 of the U.S. Constitution). You have also

received voluntary membership in an Eleemosynary Corporate Estate (the Federal Reserve

Corporation). The word "Eleemosynary" as defined by The American Heritage Dictionary, 2d

College Edition is as follows: Ill. Of or pertaining to alms or the giving of alms. 2. Dependent upon

or supported by alms. 3. Contributed as an act of charity; gratuitous. II

"W a ive rs o f C on s titu tio na I r igh ts n ot o nly m us t b e v olu nta ry , b ut m us t b e k no win g,

in te lligen t a cts d on e w ith su ffic ien t a war en ess o f the re leva nt c irc um stan ce s an d

li ke ly c o ns eq u en c es . "

B ra dy v. U nite d S ta te s. 397 U S 7 42 .

Some of the rights to benefits stemming from the birth certificate include but are not limited

to the following:

a) Registration for school (public education);

b) Application for marriage license (permission by the State to inter-marry;

c) Application for government grants or government scholarships (education

financial assistance);

d) Registration to the Draft Board for military service;

e) Application for passport (permission from government to travel);

t) Application for a Social Security Card (application to a social welfare system);

g) Application to welfare;

h) Application for food stamps;

i) Application for medical assistance;

j) Application for any other state or federal benefits requiring either birth certificate

or social security number because one cannot have an SSN without a Certificate

of Birth;

k) Any and all benefits directly or indirectly offered under Title 42 USC; and

I) Federal Reserve Corporate considerations (which comes from citizenship as

provided by the certificate of birth).

One's right to be born is the result of God's grace and not that of government's. Hence,

original jurisdiction upon anyone (requiring specific performance by the Supreme Contract with Him)results in one's personal relationship with God.

12. INVOLVEMENT IN THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE

Contracts (of the kinds in this entire discussion) and parties thereto fall under the

Commercia1/Maritime jurisdiction of the State and/or Federal governments under provisions of the

Uniform Commercial Code.

B en efits A ccepted= Ju risd ic tio n - Page 23



Such jurisdiction is assumed by State and/or Federal governments on the basis that:

a) Citizenship extends from assumed Preamble or Fourteenth Amendment U.S.

citizenship [see Cook v. Tait, 265 US 47 (1924) and Helvering v. Gerhardt, 304 US 405

(1937)] and is a contractual relationship with government through the U.S. Constitution.

The terms and conditions of this citizenship is spelled out by statute and attaches admiralty

jurisdiction through various treaties into which the United States has entered;

b) The birth certificate (which confers membership in an eleemosynary corporateestate - the Federal Reserve Corporation) allows government to bring actions against

individuals as if they were a corporate entity or an article of commerce experiencing

commercial profit or gain in interstate commerce;

c) Jurisdiction of State and/or Federal governments attaches through the use of

negotiable instruments and commercial paper as established by the commercial contract

law promulgated in the' Uniform Commercial Code. It is construed that Federal Reserve

Notes, bills, notes, checks, securities, Inland Bills of Exchange, etc. are being used

commercially for profit and gain (enrichment) which then constitutes a "revenue taxable

activity" and Title 26 attachment; and

d) Common Mercantile Law, of Commercial Contract Law applicable to Negotiable

Instruments (where issuance of the negotiable instruments such as Federal Reserve Notes)

constitutes evidence of receipt and beneficial use of such commercial paper (known as the

Consideration Doctrine). Use thereof, therefore, attaches Equity jurisdiction and liability for

payment of the outstanding debt government (citizens?) owes the Federal Reserve

Corporation as measured by each "person's" taxable income.

By use and re-circulation of Federal Reserve Notes governmental jurisdiction is conferred

over an individual because the Consideration Doctrine as expressed through the Negotiable

Instruments Law (made uniform from one state to the next and completed in 1896) became

incorporated into the contemporary Uniform Commercial Code. The use of Federal Reserve Notes,as legal tender for all debts, are bills of credit [see Justice Henry Baldwin in "A general View of the

Origin and Nature of the Constitution and Government of the U.S.," 11 L.Ed. 873 (1837)], and as

such, are distributed by banks which under the Instrumentality Doctrine, the Courts have ruled are

instrumentalities of the federal government through the Federal Reserve Corporation.

"N atio na l b an ks a re in str um en ta litie s o f th e f ed era l g ov er nm en t. "

D a vis v . E lm ir a S av in gs , 161 US 275 @283 (1896).

This has been expanded to include all state and federally chartered member banks of the

Federal Reserve via the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, and any member banks of FDIC and FSLIC

insurance programs and all financial institutions where there is any federal regulatory interest which

now includes all depository institutions through the Monetary Control Act of 1980.

The governments monopoly currency instruments have resulted in the federal government

using it's police powers to engage in Unfair Trade Practices with its engagement of Commercial

activities to the extent that people have been forced into using Federal Reserve Notes as a matter of

practical necessity caused by the federal government's removal of all currency competitors from the

marketplace under penal statutes and physical duress.

As a result of such practice and exercise of power by state and federal governments, deceitful




misrepresentations by government are attempting to enslave uninformed and unaware parties to

equity contract obligations for the undesirable privilege of being regulated by these governments

pursuant to the enrichment of the Federal Reserve Corporate empire.

13. DRIVER'S LICENSE

Possessing a driver's license supposedly carries with it certain rights, entitlements, and

benefits, some of which include but are not limited to the following:

a) The privilege of using the paved roads (state right-of-ways) for purposes of

transacting interstate commerce for profit and/or gain pursuant to trade, commerce,

business, and/or industry (using the public roads as a place of business);

b) Any and all benefits and privileges (including choice of remedies) provided to

"drivers" by administrative, legislative, or judicial bodies of the state or federal governments;

and

c) Any and all benefits and privileges extended citizens of any particular State

or the United States such as -

i) Being eligible for applying for or receiving insurance or limited liability

commercial contracts.

ii) Use of the driver's license for identification purposes for such things as

bank loans, check cashing, voter registration, and other such purposes.

Being told that the obtaining of a driver's license as a prerequisite to exercise one's God-given

right to travel by driving his automobile stems from gross misconception that comes from deceitful

misrepresentation (fraud) by the State. Undue influence is a strong contributing factor (under guise

of legislation and its influence on the media). Such influence has extended to many through their

'participation (by State enticement) in State instituted Driver's Education programs administered in

the public school system.

Driver's license and vehicle registrations are administered by the Department ofRevenue. The

money paid for both driver's licenses and vehicle registrations are taxes administered by the

Department of Revenue .. In the case of vehicle registration, the so-called license plate or tag

constitutes a receipt indicating that the tax has been paid and then is nothing more than a public

display of that fact when attached to the automobile.

There has been or is confusion of the police power with the power of taxation that usually

arises in cases where the police power has affixed a penalty to a certain act, or requires licenses foroccupations to be obtained and a certain sum paid therefore. The power used in the instant case

cannot, however, be the power of taxation because an attempt to levy a tax upon a right might be

open to constitutional objection.

Each law relating to the police power of a state involves the following questions: 1) Is there

a threatened danger? 2) Does the regulation involve a constitutional (inalienable) right? and 3) Is

the regulation reasonable?

Ben ef it s A c c ep te d = Ju risd ic tion - P ag e 2 5



-l-

Is there a threatened danger?

The answer to this question is a resounding NO, not when the vehicle is carefully managed.

The automobile can stop quickly and has quick response to guidance.

"T he a uto mo bile is n ot in he re ntly d an ge ro us . "

C oh en s v . M e ad or . 89 S E 8 76 .

B la ir v . B r oa dmo r e. 93 SE 632.

To deprive all individuals of the right to use the road in the ordinary course of life and

business because one might, in the future, become dangerous would be a deprivation not only of the

right to travel, but also of the right to due process.

- 11-

Does the regulation involve a constitutional (inalienable) right?

The State possesses the police power to protect the public health, morals, and safety by any

legislation appropriate to that end which does not encroach upon the rights guaranteed by the

national constitution (see Missouri K & T Railroad company v. Haber, 169 US 628).

Rights founded inlaw or statute are mere legal rights. However, inalienable rights are not

granted by government through codes or statutes and can only inhere in and exist between mortal

beings.

Inalienable Rights, then, are claims of the people that inhere in the nature of man himself.

Rights can only inhere in and exist between mortal beings, not between government and man, nor

goverfl!Ilent and government. Government can give Civil rights, orwhat are more commonly referred

to as privileges, to any entity it creates - as in the case of corporations, but because government is

.not a mortal being, it cannot give that which it does not itself possess, and government possesses noinalienable rights.

''A n unconstitu tional law is vo id , and is as no law . A n o ffense created by it is no l a

crim e. A conviction under it is no t mere ly erroneous, bu t is illegal or vo id , and

can no t be a le gal cau se o f im priso nm en t. "

Ex pa rt e S iebo ld . J 00 US 37 J .

The general police power is reserved to the States, subject to the limitation that it may not

trespass on the rights and powers vested in the national government (Re: Huff, 197 US 488). In

addition, in exercising the police powers ofa State, there are no limits except the restrictions outlined

inthe written constitution (McLeon v. Arkansas, 211 US 539; Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 US

11, 1 Thayer. Constitutional Law 720).

The use of police power relating to the driver's license abridges or infringes upon the

inalienable right of personal liberty, the right to contract, the right to free exercise of religion, and the

right to be free of government established religions.

Personal liberty is defined as:

" Fr ee do m fr om p hy sic al a nd p er so na l r es tr ai nt; ... fr ee do m

Bene fi ts Accep ted = Ju risd ic tio n - P ag e 2 6



to go where o ne choo ses ... "

" ... r ig ht to tr av el ... "

... fre ed om to m ove abo ut as o ne p le ase s ... "

M u nn v . Illi no is . 94 US 1 42 .

S la ug hte r H ou se C as es , 16Wall ac e 1 06 .

B u tc he r~< ;Un io n C omp an y v . S la ug ht er H o us e C omp an y. 111 U S 75 7.

It is ludicrous on one hand to say a person ha s the freedom of movement and on the other tosay that government has the authority to restrict that freedom of movement by foot, horse,

automobile, or whatever. However, it also goes without saying that government may exercise its

authority to insure each person is capable of exercising said right.

"... th e p o we r o f lo co mo tio n, o f c ha ngin g o ne 's s itu atio n, o f r em ov in g o ne 's p er so n

to w ha te ve r p la ce o ne 's in clin atio n m ay d ir ec t ... "

. 1 B la . C om . 134; H are , C on st. L aw 777.

Any FREEMAN, who claims his rights, cannot be forced to comply with penal offenses.

Under the Common Law, there can be no constructive offenses (United States v. Lacher, 134 US

624; Todd v. United States, 158 US 282). It should be understood that a constructive offense is

nothing more than an act which mayor may not be performed; the doing of that which a penal law

forbids to be done, or omitting to do what it commands.

Penal statutes are essentially those actions which impose a penalty or punishment arbitrarily

extracted for some act or commission thereof on the part of some person (Black's Law Dictionary,

5th Edition, pg. 1019). Such statutes operate to compel a performance (Black's, supra @ pg. 1020)

and inflict a punishment by statute for its violation (The Strathairly, 124 US 571).

Besides the right to liberty, an individual has an unlimited right to contract, or not to contract.

The God of Israel entered into a permanent and binding contract with the Israelites which forbid

Israelites from contracting with governments which would lead His people away from Him. This.contract, being divine innature is recognized even by the Courts as being applicable (see 96 Stat.

1211). Also, under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, the State nor anyone else may

interfere with how one exercises their religion unless in doing so, they pose a menace to society.

Interweaved with this covenant with the God of Israel is the commandment to the Israelites to shy

away from the establishment of government created religions. Such State created religions include

insurance, contracts oflimited liability, permits to do those things which one has a natural, inherent

right to do, and other such things.

-rn-ls the regulation reasonable?

When government attempts to prosecute an individual for exercising an inalienable right, are

they acting criminally?

'T he ind ividu al ... is en titled to carryon his p rivate bu siness in his o wn w ay. H is

power 10 con trac t is un lim ited . H e o wes n o d uty to the State o r to his ne ighbo rs to

d ivu lge his bu siness, or to o pen his do ors to an in ves tigatio n so far as it m ay len d

to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the State , sin ce he rece ives nothing

there from ... He owes no thing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon

t he ir r ig hts . "

B e n ef it s A c c ep te d = J urisd ic tio n - P ag e 2 7



H ole v . /fe nkle , 2 1 ( ) U S -I.1 .

Corporations engaged in mercantile equity fall under the purview of a State's admiralty

jurisdiction under the vce, and the public at large must be protected from their activities - as they

are engaged in business for profit. Police powers relating to licenses, privileges, and the use of the

roads pertain to enfranchised. entities.

When dealing with the use of the public roads, we are told to begin with the premise that the

use of the road is a "privilege" and not a "right" and that it must be so or control will be impossible.

For years, this position has been accepted without question. The Police have informed the people

that the use of the public roads is a "privilege." But where is the authority for this misconception of

law? Where is one judicial decision that finds that the use of the road in the ordinary manner is a

"privilege?" Where has the legislatures declared that the use of the road in the ordinary manner shall

be a "privilege?" Where is the authority for this misapplication of law?

RIGHT orPRIVILEGE

It will be necessary to review early cases and legal authorities to reach a lawfully correct

theory dealing with this right or "privilege." I will attempt to reach a sound conclusion as to what

is a "right to use the road" and what is a "privilege to use the road." Once reaching thisdetermination, these positions will then be applied to modern case decisions.

"W here rights se cured (n ot gran ted ) by the co nstitu tio n are in vo lved , there can be

n o rule m akin g o r le gislation w hic h w ould abrogate the m. tt

Mir an da v . S ta te o {A riz on a, 384 US 436 @ 491.

"The claim an d ex ercise o f a co nstitu tio nal right can not be co nverted in to a c rim e. "

M ille r v. U nite d State s. 2 30 F. 2d 486 @ 489.

"There can be no sanction or penalty im posed upon one because of this exercise o f

c on stitu ti on al r ig hts . "

S he re r v . C ul le n, 481 F. 946.

Streets and highways are established and maintained primarily for the purpose of travel and

transportation by the public. Such travel may be for business or pleasure.

"The use o f the highw ay for the purpose o f travel and transportation is no t a m ere

p riv il eg e, b ut a c om mo n ah dfu nd am en ta l r ig ht to w hic h the p u blic a nd in divid ua ls

c an no t righ tfu lly be d ep riv ed . "

C hic ago M oto r C oac h v. C hic ago , 169 NE 22.

L ig ar e v . C hic ag o, 28 N E 934.

B oo ne v. C la rk, 214 SW 607.

25 AM Jur. (1st ) H ig hway s, S ec . 163.

'The right of the citizen to trave l upon the public highways and to transport his

property thereon, either by horse draw n carriage or by au tom obile , is not a m ere

privilege which a city may prohibit to perm it at w ill, bu t a com mon right which he

has un der the right to life , liberty, an d the p ursu it o f hap pin ess. "

T ho mp so n v . Smith , 154 SE 57 9.i

The distinction between a "right" to use the public roads and a "privilege" to use the public

roads is drawn upon the line of "using the road as a place of business, " and the various State courts

have held so. But what have the U.S. Courts held on this point?

Benefits Accepted x: Iurisd iction - P age 28



"F ir st. It is w ell e sta blis he d la w th at th e h ig hw ays o f th e sta te a re p ub lic p ro pe rty,

that the ir p rim ary an d p referre d u se is fo r p riva te p urp ose s, an d tha t th eir u se fu r

pu rposes o f gain is special and extraord inary which, generally at least, the

le gisla tu re m ay p ro hib it o r c on ditio n a s it s ee s fit. "

S te ph en so n v . B in fo rd , 287 U S 2 51 .

P ac ka rd v . B a nto n . 264 U S 140 @ 144 a nd c as es c ite d.

F ro st a nd F. T ru ck in g C o mp an y v . R ai lr oa d C o mm is si on , 271 U S 592 .

R ail ro ad C o mm is si on v . In ze r- Cit y F u rw ar di ng C om p an y, 57 SW 290.

P ar le tt C oo p er at iv e v . T id ew at er L in es . 165 A . 313.

S o, w hat is a privileged use of the roads? It should be obvious even to the "learned" that an

attem pt to use the public roads as a place of business is a privilege. T he distinction m ust be draw n

between . ..

1) Traveling upon and transporting one's own property upon the public

roads, w hich is our R ight; and

2) U sing the public roads as a place of business or a plain instrum entality

o f b us in es s, w hic h is a p riv ile ge .

"(l'he ro ad s). .. are c on stru cte d a nd m ain tain ed at p ublic e xp en se , a nd n o p erso n

therefore, can insis t that he has, or may acqu ire , a vested right to their u se inc ar ry in g o n a c om me rc ia l b usin es s. "

E x Pa rt e S te r li ng , 53SW 2d. 294.

B a rn ey v . R ai lr oa d C om m is si on er s. 17 P 2d 82.

S te ph en so n v . B in fo rd , s up ra .

"W hen the public highw ays are m ade a p lace o f bu stness , the state has a right to

re gu late the ir u se in the in tere st o f sa fe ty an d co nve nien ce o f the p ub lic as w ell as

th e p r es er va tio n o f th e h ig hw ays . "

B a rn ey v . R a il ro ad C o mm is sio n er s, s up ra .

''It 's (th e S ta te 's) r ig ht to r eg ula te s uc h u se is b as ed u po n th e n a tu re o f th e b us in es s

a nd th e u se o f th e h ig hw ay s in c on ne ctio n th er ew ith ."

Ibid.

"W e k n ow o f n o in he re nt r ig ht in o ne to u se th e h ig hw ays fo r c om me rc ia l p ur po se s.

T he h ig hw ay s a re p r im arily fo r th e u se o f th e p ub lic , a nd in th e in te re st o f th e p ub lic ,

the sta te m ay p ro hibit o r regu late ... the u se o f the h igh ways fo r g ain . "

R obe rtso n v. D ep t. o f P ublic W o rks.

1 80 W a sh . 133 @147.

The re s ho uld b e c on sid era ble a uth ority o n a s ub je ct a s imp orta nt a s th is d ep riv atio n o f l ib erty

of individuals "using the roads in the ordinary course oflife and business. II H ow ever, it should be

noted that extensive research has not turned up one case or authority acknow ledging the S tate's

power to co nv ert th e in div id ual's rig ht to trav el u po n th e p ublic ro ad s into a " priv ileg e. II Therefore,

it is concluded that the individual does have a "right" to travel and transport his property upon the

p ub lic hig hw ay s, an d th e e xercise o f th is rig ht is n ot a " priv ileg e. II

The Freedom of M ovem ent Doctrine [as it relates to United States v. Lam b, 385 US 475

(1966); and "The Right to Travel" by Jaffee in 35 Foreign A ffairs @ 17 (1956)] is essential to

sustaining one's life and liberty, and it is necessary to one's pursuit of happiness. A lso, the right to

trav el a nd freed om o f mov emen t relate s to tre aties o r H uman R ig hts a s a m atter o fIn te rn atio nal L aw .

The U .S. State Departm ent has defined the right to travel and the right to em ploym ent as being

B e n ef it s A c ce p te d = J urisd ictio n - Page 29



among th e mu ltip le ente nte mean ings of=human rights." "T reaties have the effect o f ove rrulin g S ta te

and Federal Law s ... This is not generally know n" (C hief Justice W arren B urger, N ew Y ork T im es

M ag azin e o f S eptem ber 22 , 1 98 5.

PERTINENT DEFINITIONS

I "'traver. I do not 'drive.'"

"T ra ve l- T ojo urn ey o r to p ass thro ugh o r o ve r; as a c ou ntry, d istric t, ro ad , e tc . T o

go fro m o ne p lac e to a no the r, w hethe r o n fo ot, o n ho rse ba ck, o r in an y c on ve ya nc ea s a tr ain , a n a uto mo bile , c ar ria ge . s hip , o r a ir cr aft; m ak e a j ou rn ey."

C en tu ry D ic ti on ar y. p g. 2 03 4.

"D river - One Emploved in conducting a coach, carriage , wagon , or o ther

vehi c le . .. "

B ou vi er 's Law D i ct io n ar y. 1914E d., p g. 94 0.

Today, w e assum e that a "traveler" is a "driver" and a "driver" is an "operator." H ow ever,

this is not the case:

"It w ill be o bse rve d fro m the lan gu age o f the o rd in an ce that a d istin ctio n is to be

drawn between the term s 'op erato r and d river;' the 'o perato r' o f the service car

being the person w ho is licen sed to have the car u po n the stree ts in the bu sin ess o f

c ar ry in g p as se nge rs fo r h ir e; w hile the 'd rive r' is the o ne w ho actu ally drives the

c ar. H ow ever, in the a ctu al p ro se cu tio n o f bu sin ess, it was possible fo r.th e s am e

p erso n to be bo th 'o pera to r' a nd 'd rive r. "'

Newbil l v. Un io n In d emn ify C omp an y.

60 SW 2d. 658.

T o fu rth er c la rify th e d efin itio n o f a n "o pe ra to r, IIthe court observed that this w as a vehicle

"for hire," and that it w as in the "business of carrying passengers." T his definition w ould seem to

describe a person w ho w as using the road as a place of business, or in other w ords, a person engaged

in the "privilege" of using the roads for gain . Is it possible that the w ord "traffic" is another w ord

.w hich is to be strictly co nstru ed to th e con du cting of b usin ess?

"T ra ffic - C om me rc e, tr ad e, s ale , o r e xc ha ng e o f m er cha nd is e, bills , m on ey , a nd the

like. The passing of goods and com modities from one person to another fo r an

e qu iva le nt in go od s o r m on ey. "

Bou vi er 's Law D i ct io n ar y. 1914 E d., p g. 3 307 .

T he definition refers only to those "conducting business." N o m ention is m ade of one w ho

is tra ve lin g in h is a utomob ile . T his d efin itio n is o f o ne whd is en gag ed in the passin g o f a commodity

o r g oo ds in e xc ha ng e fo r mon ey , i.e ., v eh ic le s fo r h ire , fo r in sta nc e.

F urth ermore , th e word s "tra ffic " a nd "tra ve l" mus t h av e a d iffe ren t m ea nin g whic h th e c ou rts

recogruze. This difference is recognized in E x Parte D ickey, 85 SE 781.

"... i n a dd iti on to th is , c ab s, h ac kn ey c oa ch es , omnib us es , t ax ic ab s, a nd h ac ks , w he n

u nn ec es sa rily n um er ou s, in te rfe re w ith the o rd in ar y tr affic a nd tr av el a nd o bs tr uc t

them."

T he court, by using both w ords, signified its recognition of a distinction betw een the tw o.

B ut w hat w as the distinction? W e have already defined both w ords, but to clear up any doubt:

"T he w or d 'tr affic ' is m an ife stly u se d he re in a s ec on da ry s en se , a nd ha s r efe re nc e

B en efits A cce pted = Ju risd ic tio n - Page 30



to the bu sin es s a /tr an sp or ta tio n r athe r thu u t(} its pr im ar y m cu nin g o f iu te rc ha ng »

o f c om mo ditie s. "

Allen v. Cityo[Bellingham. 163 P . 18.

H ere the S uprem e C ou rt of th e State o fW a sh ing ton has d efin ed the w ord "traffic" (in eith er

its prim ary o r second ary sen se) in reference to b usiness, an d n ot to m ere travel!!! S o it is clear th at

th e wo rd " tra ffic " is b us in es s re la te d a nd th er efo re , it is not a "privilege." The net result being that

"traffic" is b ro ug ht u nd er the (p olice) po wer o f the leg islatu re. T he w ord has no ap plication to on e

w ho is not using the roads as a place of business.

T he re fo re , b ein g re qu ir ed to o bta in a lic en se is r e fle ctiv e o f th e " pr iv ile ge " in vo lv ed . A lic en se

IS -

"The perm ission , by competen t authority to do an act which, w ithout such

p erm issio n, w ou ld be ille gal, a tre sp ass, o r a to rt. "

.People v. Henderson . 218 NW 2d . 2@ 4.

"L ea ve to d o a thin g w hic h lic en so r c ou ld p re ve nt."

W e ste rn E le ctr ic C o. v . P ac en t R ep ro du ce r C or p., 42 F. 2d . 116 @ 118.

'~ perm it, granted by an appropriate governmental body, generally for

c on sid eratio n, to a p erso n, firm , o r a ko rp ora lio n, to p u rsu e so me o cc up atio n o r toc arry o n so me bu sin ess w hich is su bje ct to regu la tio n u nd er the p olice p ow er. "

Rosenblat t v . Calif S ta te B d . o [P ha rm ac y, 158 P . 2 d. 199 @ 203.

A driv er's licen se is, th en, a comm ercial con tract w ith the S tate seal upo n it, regu lated b y the

"traffic code" which is a body of regulatory law within the custom of merchants - who deal in

commerce.

Again-

"W he re r igh ts s ec ur ed by the U nite d Sta te s C on stitu tio n a re in vo lve d, the re c an b e

n o ru le m akin g o r le gislatio n whic h w ou ld abro gate the m. "

M ir an da . s up ra .

T hu s, th e le gisla tu re d oe s n ot h av e th e p ow er to a bro ga te a n in div id ua l's n atu ra l rig ht to tra ve l

u po n th e p ub lic ro ad s b y e na ctin g le gisla tio n fo rc in g sa id in div id ua ls to w aiv e th eir rig ht a nd c on ve rt

th at rig ht in to a p riv ile ge . F urth erm ore , it w as p re vio usly e sta blish ed th at th is " priv ile ge " h as b ee n

d efin ed a s " co nd uc tin g b usin ess in th e stre ets'y or "o pe ra tin g fo r h ire v eh ic le s." T he le gisla tu re h as

attem pted, by leg islative fiat, to d epriv e ind ividu als o f their rig ht to use the road s in the ordinary

c ou rse o f life a nd b usin ess w ith ou t a ffo rd in g sa id in div id ua ls th e sa fe gu ard o f d ue p ro ce ss. T his h as

b ee n a cc omp lis he d u nd er s up po se d r eg ula tio n.

REGULATION

''In a dd itio n to the r eq uir em en t tha t r egu la tio ns go ve rn in g th e u se o f the h ig hw aysmust not be vio lative o f constitu tional guarantees, the prime essen tials o f su ch

r eg ula tio n a re r ea so n ab le ne ss , im pa rtia lity , a nd d efin ite ne ss o r c er ta in ty . "

25 A m. Ju r. (Ist) H ig hw ay s, S ec . 2 60 .

and,

"M oreo ve r, a d istin ctio n m ust be o bs erved betw een the regu la tio n o f an ac tivity

which m ay be engaged in as a matter o f right, and one carried on by government

s u ff er a nc e o f p e rm is si on ,"

Benifrts Accepted = J urisd ictio n - Page 31



Davis II. A!ilssachLlselfs. 167 US 43.

Packard v. Banton. supra.

One c an sa y fo r ce rtain th at th ese reg ulatio ns c erta in ly are im pa rtial as th ey a re b ein g a pp lied

to all - even those beyond the lim its of the legislative pow er. H ow ever, it m ust also be considered

wheth er s uc h re gu la tio ns a re re as on ab le a nd non -v io la tiv e o f c o ns titu tio na l g ua ra nte es . T o d ete rm in e

.th e "re aso nab len ess" o f th e sta tu te re qu irin g all in div id uals to b e lic en sed , h ow ev er, tw o q ues tio ns

m ust be asked:

1) D oes the statute accom plish its goal?

( The answer is a resounding NO!!!

T he a ttemp te d e xp la na tio n fo r th is re gu la tio n is lito i ns ure th e s afe ty o f th e p ub lic b y in su rin g,

a s much a s p ossib le , th at a ll are c ompe ten t a nd q ua lifie d." H owev er, o ne c an k eep h is lic en se w ith ou t

ever retesting from the tim e he/she is first licensed until the day he/she dies w ithout regard to the

com petency of the person by m erely renew ing said license before it expires. So, is it therefore

possible to com pletely skirt the goal of this attem pted regulation, thus proving that th is regulatio n

d oes n ot ac comp lish its g oal.

2) Is the statute reasonable?

A gain, the answ er is a resounding NO! !!

T his s tatu te ca nn ot b e d eterm in ed to b e re aso na ble b eca use it re qu ires in div id ua ls to g iv e u p

their right to liberty and accept a privilege. Th e pu rported goal of this statute could be m et by m uch

less o pp ress iv e reg ulatio ns, id e st, comp ete ncy tests a nd c ertific ates o f c ompe ten cy b efo re u sin g a n

automobile upon the public roads. Isn't that what we have now? The answer is NO!!! The real

purp ose of th is license is m uch m ore insid ious. When one signs the license he gives his/her im plied

consent to give up his/her constitutional right to travel and accept and exercise a privilege. A fter

signing the license, th e in dividual has given the state his/her im plied consent to be prosecuted forco nstru ctiv e c rim es an d q uas i-crim in al a ctio ns whe re th ere is n o d am ag ed p arty .

These p ro secu ti on s take p la ce w ithou t a ff ord ing indiv idua ls th e con stit utiona l gua rante es such

as the right to a trial by jury of twelve persons and the right to counsel as well as the normal

safeguards such as proof of intent, a corpus delicti, and a grand jury indictment. These

u ncon stitu tio na l p ro se cu tio ns ta ke p la ce b ec au se in div id ua ls a re e xe rc is in g a p riv ile ge a nd h as g iv en

his/her im plied consent to legislative enactm ents designed to control interstate commerce - a

regulable enterprise under the police/power of the state. It must be therefore concluded that

individuals are forced to give up constitutional guarantees to exercise their right to travel upon the

p ub lic h ig hw ay s in th e o rd in ary c ou rs e o f life an d b usin ess.

SURRENDER OF RIGHTS

An individual cannot be forced to give up his/her rights in the nam e of regulation.

"... the o nly lim itatio ns fo un d re strictin g th e righ t o f the state to c on ditio n the u se o f

the p ublic highw ays as a mean s of vehicular transp ortation for com pensatio n are

1) that m e state m ust n ot ex ac t o f tho se itp er mits to u se th e h ig hways fo r h au lin gfo r

ga in tha t th ey sha ll su rr en der an y o f th eir in he re nt u . s . C on stitu tio nal R ights as a

c on ditio n p re ce de nt to o btain in g p erm is sio n fo r su ch u se ... "

B en efits A cc ep ted :: J urisd ic tio n - Page 32



I

1Wevv. Lawson, J.l3 So. 619.

•)'teplienson v. Bin/ill 'd, supra.

If one cannot be placed in the position of being forced to surrender rights to exercise a

privilege, how much more must this theory apply to one exercising a right?

"Wefind it intolerable that oneconstitutional right should have to be surrendered

in order to assert another. "

Simons v. United States, 390 US 389.

Because the state requires one to give up rights to exercise his/her privilege of driving, the

regulation cannot stand under either police power, due process, or regulation, but must be exposed

as a statute which is oppressive and one which deprives the individual of rights guaranteed by the

Constitution for the United States.

TAXING POWER

Any claim that this statute requiring all individuals traveling within the State to possess a

driver's license is a taxing statute would be immediately open to severe constitutional objections. If

it could be said that the State had the power to tax a right, this would enable the state to destroy

rights guaranteed by the constitutions through the use of oppressive taxation. The question hereinis one of the State taxing the right of travel by the ordinary modes of the day, and whether this is a

legitimate object of State taxation.

The views advanced herein are neither novel nor unsupported by authority. The question of

the taxing power of the State has been repeatedly considered by the High Court. The right of the

States to impede or embarrass the constitutional operations of the U.S. government or the rights

which individuals hold under it has been uniformly denied (see McCulloch v. State of Maryland, 4

Wheat 316). The power to tax involves the power to destroy, and if the State is given the power to

destroy. Rights through taxation, the framers of the Constitution wrote that document in vain.~.,

"... it may be said that a tax of one dol/ar for passing through the state ... cannot

sensibly affect anyfunction ofgovernment or deprive a citizen of any valuable right.

But if a state can tax... a passenger one dollar, it can tax him a thousand dollars."

Crandell v. State of Nevada, 6 Wallace 35 @ 46.

and,

"1 / the right of passing through a state by a citizen 0/ the United States is one

guaranteed by the Constitution, it must be sacredfrom state taxation."

Ibid. @47.

Therefore, the Right to Travel must be kept sacred from all forms of state taxation and if this

argument is used by the State as a defense to the enforcement of this statute, then this argument mustalso fail.

CONVERSION OF A RIGHT TO A CRIME

As previously demonstrated, an individual has the Right to travel and to transport his property

upon the public highways in the ordinary course of life and business. However, if one exercises this

Right to travel (without first giving up the Right and converting the Right into a privilege). said

individual is. by statute, guilty of a crime. This amounts to converting the exercise of a Constitutional




.R ig ht in to a c rim e! !! B ec au se a n Isra elite 's re lig io us b eliefs fo rb id th e e nte rin g in to c on tra cts w ith

g ov ernm en ts, the F irst Am endment R ig ht to free exercise of relig io n also b ecomes a crim e.

"The claim and exercise 0/ a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime. "

Miller v. United States. 230 F . 486 @ 489.

and,

"The state cannot diminish rights of thepeople."

Hurtado v. State o[CaJi(. 110 US 516.

and, the ole standby,

"Where rights secu;'ed by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making

or legislation which would abrogate them. "

Miranda, supra.

It can b e con clu ded that the S tate's po lice powers are lim ited to interfere in any m an ner w ith

on e's rig ht to freely trav el. T he p olice powers o f the S tate em brace regulation s desig ned to p rom ote

p ub lic c on ve nie nc e o r g en era l p ro sp erity a s w ell a s re gu la tio ns d es ig ne d to p romo te th e p ub lic h ea lth

or safety. T herefore, the validity o f a p olice regu latio n m ust d epen d up on th e circumstances of each

case, and the character of the regulation - w hether arbitrary or reasonable and w hether it is reallyd es ig ne d to a cc omp lis h a le gitima te p ub lic p urp os e (s ee Ch ic ag o Bu rlin gto n & Qu in cy Ra ilro ad Co .

v . D ra in a!!e C omm is sio ne rs, 2 00 US 5 61 @ 5 92 ; and M utual L oan C om pan y v. M an tell, 22 2 U S 22 5

@232 .

T he S tate's d ub io us attem pt to licen se an d restrict o ne's rig ht to travel an d freely m ov e th eir

p erso n a nd p ro pe rty c an h ard ly b e c on sid ere d p erso na lly b en efic ia l o r a le gitim ate u se o f th e S ta te 's

po li ce powers .

14. CITIZENSHIP

Very few Americ an s k now o f o r u nd ers ta nd th e c on trac tu al n atu re o f c itiz en sh ip . C itiz en sh ip

is d erived as a con tractual b enefit from "corpo rate" ch arters o f th e state and natio nal go vernments

(th eir c on stitu tio ns ), a nd th e te rm s a nd c on ditio ns o f th at citiz en sh ip a re en um era te d in t he s ta tu tes

enacted at bo th the state an d fed eral lev els. S aid b enefits includ e bu t are n ot lim ited to:

a) E lection to pu blic o ffice;

b) U tilization of po lice p ow er statu tes to en force rem ed ies;

c) U tilization of cou rts to adjud icate m atters;

d ) U tiliza tio n o f p ub lic o ffic es , p ub lic o ffic ers , a nd p ub lic p ro grams;

e ) A pp lic atio n o f S ta te d riv er's lic en se ;

f) App li ca ti on o f vo te r's r eg is tr ati on ;

g) R ecep tion o f b enefits from state/fed eral ADC;

h ) R eceptio n of ben efits from S tate child su pp ort prog ram s;

i) Rec ep tio n o f b en efits from s ta te /fe dera l o ld a ge re tireme nt b en efits ;

j) R eception of any state or federal aid program s; and

k ) P ro te ctio n d eriv ed from fe de ra l, s ta te , o r lo ca l sta tu te s.

T hose of u s w ho h ave had S ocial S ecurity (w hich is v irtually all o f'u s) fo isted up on us o r hav e

no t effectiv ely rescind ed ou r "number o f the b east" o nly h ave "civ il rig hts." T hese "civil rig ht" are

Ben ef it s A c c ep te d = Ju risd ic tio n - Page 34



actually concurrent privileges and immunities granted under the Roman Civil Law that was

established by the federal government through the Fourteenth Amendment. Under the organic

Constitution for the United States of 1789, citizenship was to come from the common law citizenship

of the State in which one was domiciled. With the abolition of the common law, there is no common

law citizenship [see Erie Railroad v. Tompkins, 304 US 64 (1938)]. All citizenship comes from the

Fourteenth Amendment and is based on a body of customs known as Law Merchant or mercantile

equity [IR Legal Ref. Guide @ p. 58 (10) 0-200].

With the repeal of the gold standard dollar (HJR 192), all persons are assumed to operate oncredit under corporate capacity rather than as private, un-enfranchised individuals (common law

citizens). This acts as a nexus to create this Law Merchant commercial jurisdiction.

(

Fourteenth Amendment citizenship is voluntary. Those not wishing to be "residents/citizens"

are in function and in fact in the status of "inhabitants. ", i

\

We have all had much encouragement to be "good citizens" to register to vote, claim

citizenship, get a driver's license, etc. Such encouragement from its very inception was designed to

induce folks to become politically enfranchised by accepting "benefits" of citizenship (in contract law,

this is called "consideration" for which one owes reciprocity). By pursuing, accepting, andlor

enjoying the "benefits" of citizenship, one owes the duties of said citizenship and must submit to the"house rules" [terms of the contract (statutes)].

All Americans by inherent right (given by God and secured by the Constitutions for the United

States and each individual State) to do those things (vote, travel, etc.) that government has

encouraged us to accept as privilege so no special permission from government (consideration) was

necessary.

Citizenship enfranchisement gives rise to admiralty jurisdiction wherein one becomes

adhesively attached to internal revenue statutes [see Cook v. Tait, 265 US 47 (1924)].

Also,

"Taxpayersenjoy thebenefits andprotection of laws ofthe UnitedStates: They are

under a duty tosupport its government, and are not beyond the reach of the taxing

power."

Helveringv. Gerhardt, 304 US405@420(1937).

Due to citizenship, political benefits affect interstate commerce; and as such, one becomes an

"article of commerce" and mere chattel property (see Edwards v. California, 314 US 160).

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

As Americans having been born into and living in a "democratized society," we have all gotten

ourselves caught-up in "invisible" contracts as described above, either knowingly or more often than

not, Unknowingly. And as mentioned at the beginning of this discussion, many, if not all of these

contracts, we as individuals involve ourselves in, were created by others outside of our control (such

as our parents). Never-the-less, these "invisible contracts" exist, and by their existence, we become

bonded into a system of law appropriately called "Contract Law." Thus, various governmental

jurisdictional attributes attach to us bringing us into irreconcilable conflict with the Holy Scriptures,

especially for those of us who are Christians and desire to follow God's Holy Word explicitly. One

Benefits Accepted = Ju risdiaio n - Page 35



i

cannot be subject to "man's" government and God's law simultaneously, for they me in irreconcilable

contlict with each other. We must therefore notify "marl's" government of our position and thereby

rescind, revoke, nullify and make void, all laws that are in conflict with God's Laws. We can do this

simply by giving the proper heads of "man's" government notice of our recission.

The purpose of rescinding a contract is two-fold. This is especially true when dealing with

"government" contracts. The first purpose, of course, is to get rid of the contract and its attendant

obligations. The second purpose, and possibly the most important, however, is to establish "state

of mind."

The recission nullifies the contract from day one, from the time the contract was first entered

into. However, even though the ccntract has been nullified, your "state of mind" hasn't been

established until such time as the contract is actually rescinded.

One's" state of mind" is critical in most recission's. So, it is important that the state of mind

you establish by your recission is your state of mind. The information contained in this discussion

contains enough information to construct effective recission's. On the other hand, the compiler of

this discussion has recission's, notices, and waivers on computer disk that can be personalized based

on the information contained herein. They conform to the requirements of the Uniform CommercialCode. They also establish the fraud involved in the normal interpretation of the statutes "requiring"

anyone who travels to have a driver's license and anyone who works to have a social security number

(the notice of defect).

Many folks, for several different reasons, don't like affidavits and notary public's. Thus the

juris on these Notice's, Waiver's, and Recission's, etc., can conform to Biblical standards.

The Uniform Commercial Code states that a recission sent by certified mail, return receipt

requested, is a ll that is necessary to properly "notify" a party. Recording the recission at the county

recorder isn't necessary under the VCC, but it does make it a "public record," which carries more

weight in a legal proceeding.

*******************************************************************

For the readers edification, following is a cover-letter that the compiler of this report has

himself used. As can be seen from the language employed, this letter does not "ask" permission to

do or not to do anything - it "declares", therefore, further aiding at establishing "state of mind ".

Documents

Benefits Accepted = Jurisdiction