In what senses can we use the word law

SOURCE: Path to Freedom, Form #09.015, Section 4.13

“Shall the throne of iniquity, which devises evil by law, have fellowship with You?  They [CORRUPT lawyers and CORRUPT judges] gather together against the life of the righteous, and condemn innocent blood.  But the Lord has been my defense, and my God the rock of my refuge.  He has brought on them their own iniquity, and shall cut them off in their own wickedness; the Lord our God shall cut them off.”
[Psalm 94:20-23, Bible, NKJV]

“Law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the [PRIVATE, constitutionally protected] right of an individual.”
[Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819]

1. INTRODUCTION

A VERY important thing to learn is what is the LEGAL definition of “law” and what classifies as “law” generally? This article contains some authorities on this subject derived from many different places on this site.  We put this page in the menus to remind our members of the supreme importance of this subject.  If you would like an expanded version of this article in a format suitable for use as a memorandum of law in a legal proceeding, see:

To summarize the requirements to qualify as “law” in a governmental sense from this page:

1. It must apply equally to ALL.  It cannot compel INEQUALITY of treatment between any man or class of men.  See Form #05.033.
2. It cannot do collectively what people individually cannot NATURALLY do. In other words, in the words of Frederic Bastiat, it aggregates the individual right of self-defense into a collective body so that it can be delegated. A single human CANNOT delegate a right he does not individually ALSO possess, which indirectly implies that no GROUP of men called “government” can have any more COLLECTIVE rights under the collective entity rule than a single human being.  Click here for a video on the subject.
3. It cannot punish a citizen for an innocent action that was not a crime or not demonstrated to produce measurable harm.  The ability to PROVE such harm with evidence in court is called “standing”.
4. It cannot compel the redistribution of wealth between two private parties.  This is ESPECIALLY true if it is called a “tax”.
5. It cannot interfere with or impair the right of contracts between PRIVATE parties.  That means it cannot compel income tax withholding unless one or more of the parties to the withholding are ALREADY public officers in the government.
6. It cannot interfere with the use or enjoyment or CONTROL over private property, so long as the use injures no one.  Implicit in this requirement is that it cannot FAIL to recognize the right of private property or force the owner to donate it to a PUBLIC USE or PUBLIC PURPOSE.  In the common law, such an interference is called a “trespass”.
7. The rights it conveys must attach to LAND rather than the CIVIL STATUS (e.g. “taxpayer”, “citizen”, “resident”, etc.) of the people ON that land.  One can be ON land within a PHYSICAL state WITHOUT being legally “WITHIN” that state (a corporation) as an officer of the government or corporation (Form #05.042) called a “citizen” or “resident”. See:
   7.1 Your Exclusive Right to Declare or Establish Your Civil Status, Form #13.008.
   7.2 Foundations of Freedom, Form #12.021, Video 4 covers how LAND and STATUS are deliberately confused through equivocation in order to KIDNAP people’s identity (Form #05.046) and transport it illegally to federal territory.
   (“It is locality that is determinative of the application of the Constitution, in such matters as judicial procedure, and not the status of the people who live in it.” [Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922)])
8. It must provide a remedy AFTER an injury occurs.  It may not PREVENT injuries before they occur.  Anything that operates in a PREVENTIVE rather than CORRECTIVE mode is a franchise.  There is no standing in a REAL court to sue WITHOUT first demonstrating such an injury to the PRIVATE or NATURAL rights of the Plaintiff or VICTIM.
9. It cannot acquire the “force of law” from the consent of those it is enforced against.  In other words, it cannot be an agreement or contract.  All franchises and licensing, by the way, are types of contracts.
10. It does not include compacts or contracts between private people and governments.  Rights that are INALIENABLE cannot be contracted away, even WITH consent.  See Form #05.003.
11. It cannot, at any time, be called “voluntary”.  Congress and even the U.S. Supreme Court call the IRC Subtitle a “income tax” voluntary.  See Exhibits #05.025 and #05.051.
12. It does not include franchises, licenses, or civil statutory codes, all of which derive ALL of their force of law from your consent in choosing a civil domicile (Form #05.002).

Any violation of the above rules is what the Bible calls “devises evil by law” in Psalm 94:20-23 as indicated above.

The ONLY thing we are aware of that satisfies ALL of the above criteria is:

1. The criminal law.
2. The common law, which is based on EQUALITY of treatment of all parties.

Everything else only applies to a SUBSET of the society or class within society, and therefore does NOT apply equally to all.

“If the court sanctions the power of discriminating taxation, and nullifies the uniformity mandate of the Constitution,” as said by one who has been all his life a student of our institutions, “it will mark the hour when the sure decadence of our present government will commence.” [. . .] The legislation, in the discrimination it makes, is class legislation. Whenever a distinction is made in the burdens a law imposes or in the benefits it confers on any citizens by reason of their birth, or wealth, or religion, it is class legislation, and leads inevitably to oppression and abuses, and to general unrest and disturbance in society [e.g. wars, political conflict, violence, anarchy].”
[Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (Supreme Court 1895)]

“Where do wars and fights come from among you? Do they not come from your desires for pleasure [unearned money or “benefits”, privileges, or franchises, from the government] that war in your members [and your democratic governments]? You lust [after other people’s money] and do not have. You murder [the unborn to increase your standard of living] and covet [the unearned] and cannot obtain [except by empowering your government to STEAL for you!]. You fight and war [against the rich and the nontaxpayers to subsidize your idleness]. Yet you do not have because you do not ask [the Lord, but instead ask the deceitful government]. You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures. Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship [statutory “citizenship”] with the world [or the governments of the world] is enmity with God?  Whoever therefore wants to be a friend [STATUTORY “citizen”, “resident”, “inhabitant”, “person” franchisee] of the world [or the governments of the world] makes himself an enemy of God.”
[James 4:4, Bible, NKJV]

All of your freedom and autonomy derives from EQUALITY [between YOU and the government in court], and therefore the only thing that can be “law” in a truly and perfectly free society is the CRIMINAL law and the COMMON law.  We cover this extensively in Form #05.033 and Video 1 of our Foundations of Freedom Series, Form #12.021.  Everything that produces INEQUALITY MUST be voluntary AND God FORBIDS CHRISTIANS from volunteering in relation to governments or civil rulers!

“I [God] brought you up from Egypt [slavery] and brought you to the land of which I swore to your fathers; and I said, ‘I will never break My covenant with you. And you shall make no covenant [contract or franchise or agreement of ANY kind] with the inhabitants of this [corrupt pagan] land; you shall tear down their [man/government worshipping socialist] altars.‘ But you have not obeyed Me.  Why have you done this?

 “Therefore I also said, ‘I will not drive them out before you; but they will become as thorns [terrorists and persecutors] in your side and their gods will be a snare [slavery!] to you.’”

 So it was, when the Angel of the LORD spoke these words to all the children of Israel, that the people lifted up their voices and wept.
[Judges 2:1-4, Bible, NKJV]

________________________________________________

“You shall make no covenant [contract or franchise] with them [foreigners, pagans], nor with their [pagan government] gods [laws or judges]. They shall not dwell in your land [and you shall not dwell in theirs by becoming a “resident” or domiciliary in the process of contracting with them], lest they make you sin against Me [God].  For if you serve their [government] gods [under contract or agreement or franchise], it will surely be a snare to you.”
[Exodus 23:32-33, Bible, NKJV]

SATAN’S MAIN SOURCE OF STRENGTH is tempting people to GIVE UP EQUALITY and rights in exchange for privileges, franchises, or “benefits”.  That’s what the serpent did in the garden and that’s what every government since then has made a BUSINESS out of called a “franchise”.

“Again, the devil took Him [Jesus] up on an exceedingly high [civil/legal status above all other humans] mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory.  And he said to Him, “All these things [“BENEFITS”] I will give You if You will fall down [BELOW Satan but ABOVE other humans] and worship [serve as a PUBLIC OFFICER] me.”

Then Jesus said to him, “Away with you, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve.’”

Then the devil left Him, and behold, angels came and ministered to Him.”
[Matt. 4:8-11, Bible, NKJV]

If you want a dramatization of the above temptation, watch the following video on our site:

Devil’s Advocate: Lawyers

All civil societies are based on compact and therefore contract.  Since Christians cannot contract with secular governments or civil rulers as anything OTHER than a Merchant and NEVER a Buyer, they cannot become subject to man’s pagan civil franchise statutes and may be governed only by the common law and God’s law:

“Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.  It was entrusted by them, as far as was necessary for the purpose of forming a good government, to the Federal Convention; and the Convention executed their trust, by effectually separating the Legislative, Judicial, and Executive powers; which, in the contemplation of our Constitution, are each a branch of the sovereignty.  The well-being of the whole depends upon keeping each department within its limits.”
[Glass v. The Sloop Betsey, 3 U.S. 6, 3 Dall. 6, 1 L.Ed. 485 (1794)]

“There is but one law which, from its nature, needs unanimous consent. This is the social compact; for civil association is the most voluntary of all acts. Every man being born free and his own master, no one, under any pretext whatsoever, can make any man subject without his consent. To decide that the son of a slave is born a slave is to decide that he is not born a man.”
[The Social Contract or Principles of Political Right, Jean Jacques Rousseau, 1762, Book IV, Chapter 2]

“Then Haman said to King Ahasuerus, “There is a certain people [the Jews, who today are the equivalent of Christians] scattered and dispersed among the people in all the provinces of your kingdom; their [CIVIL] laws are different from all other people’s [because they are God’s laws!], and they do not keep the king’s [unjust] laws.  Therefore it is not fitting for the king to let them remain.  If it pleases the king, let a decree be written that they be destroyed, and I will pay ten thousand talents of silver into the hands of those who do the work, to bring it into the king’s treasuries.”
[Esther 3:8-9, Bible, NKJV]

“Those people who are not governed [ONLY] by GOD and His laws will be ruled by tyrants.”
[William Penn (after whom Pennsylvania was named)]

“A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature [God and His laws], and not as the gift of [the civil franchise statutes enforced by] their chief magistrate [or any government law].”
[Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:209, Papers 1:134]

---

2. LAW IS A DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY FROM THE TRUE SOVEREIGN: THE PEOPLE

What is the purpose of law?  First, let’s define it:

Law.  That which is laid down, ordained, or established.  A rule or method according to which phenomenon or actions co-exist or follow each other.  Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority[the “sovereign”], and having binding legal force.  United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. Guenther, 281 U.S. 34, 50 S.Ct. 165, 74 L.Ed. 683.  That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens subject to sanctions or legal consequences is a law.  Law is a solemn expression of the will of the supreme [sovereign] power of the State.  Calif.Civil Code, §22.

The “law” of a state is to be found in its statutory and constitutional enactments, as interpreted by its courts, and, in absence of statute law, in rulings of its courts.  Dauer’s Estate v. Zabel, 9 Mich.App. 176, 156 N.W.2d. 34, 37.
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 884]

In other words, the “sovereign” within any nation or state is the ruler of that state and makes all the rules and laws with the explicit intention to provide the most complete protection for his, her, or their rights to life, liberty, and property.  Different political systems have different sovereigns.  In England, which is a monarchy, the sovereign is the King so all laws are enacted by Parliament by or through his delegated authority.  In America, the “sovereign” is the People both individually and collectively, “We the People”, who created government to protect their collective and individual rights to life, liberty, and property.  Here is how the Supreme Court describes it:

“Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.”
[Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356; 6 S.Ct. 1064 (1886)]

Because the People in America are the sovereigns, because we are all equal under the law, and because we have no kings or rulers above us, and because all people have a natural, God-given, inviolable right to contract, then the Constitution was used as the vehicle by which the people got together to exercise their sovereignty and power to contract in order to delegate very limited and specific authority to the federal government.  Any act done and any law passed by the federal government which is not authorized by the Constitution is unlawful, because it is not authorized by the written contract called the Constitution that is the source of ALL of their delegated authority.  Again, here is how the Supreme Court describes our system of government, which it says is based on “compact”.

“In Europe, the executive is synonymous with the sovereign power of a state…where it is too commonly acquired by force or fraud, or both…In America, however the case is widely different.  Our government is founded upon compact [consent expressed in a written contract called a Constitution or in positive law].  Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.”
[Glass v. The Sloop Betsey, 3 (U.S.) Dall 6]

Below is the legal definition of “compact” to prove our point that the Constitution and all federal law written in furtherance of it are indeed a “contract”:

“Compact, n. An agreement or contract between persons, nations, or states.  Commonly applied to working agreements between and among states concerning matters of mutual concern.  A contract between parties, which creates obligations and rights capable of being enforced and contemplated as such between the parties, in their distinct and independent characters.  A mutual consent of parties concerned respecting some property or right that is the object of the stipulation, or something that is to be done or forborne.  See also Compact clause; Confederacy; Interstate compact; Treaty.”
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 281]

Enacting a mutual agreement into positive law and which takes the form of a Constitution, then, becomes the vehicle for proving the fact that the People collectively agreed and directly consented to allow the government to pass laws that will protect their rights.  When our federal government then passes laws or “acts”, the Congressional Record becomes the legal evidence or proof of all of the elected representatives who consented to the agreement.  Since we sent these representatives to Washington D.C. to represent our interests, then the result is that we indirectly consented to allow them to bind us to any new agreements or contracts (called statutes) written in furtherance of our interests.  If the statute or law passed by Congress will have an adverse impact on our rights, it can then be said that indirectly we consented or agreed to any adverse impact, because the majority voted in favor of their elected representatives.

Public servants then, are just the apparatus or tool or machinery that the sovereign People use for protecting their life, liberty, and property and thereby governing themselves.  It is ironic that the most important single force that law is there to protect from is disobedient public servants who want to usurp authority from the people.  Our federal government essentially is structured as an independent contractor to the sovereign states, and the contract is the Constitution.  The Contract delegated authority or jurisdiction only over foreign affairs and foreign commerce.  There are a few very minor exceptions to this general rule which we will discuss subsequently.  As the definition above shows, the apparatus and machinery of government is simply the “rudder” that steers the ship, but the Captain of the ship is the People individually and collectively.  In a true Republican Form of Government, the REAL government is the people individually and collectively, and not their public servants.

Law is therefore the contractual method used by the sovereign for delegating his authority to those under him and for governing and ruling the nation.  Frederic Bastiat in his book The Law, further helps us define and understand the purpose of law:

We must remember that law is force, and that, consequently, the proper functions of the law cannot lawfully extend beyond the proper functions of force.  When law and force keep a person within the bounds of justice, they impose nothing but a mere negation. They oblige him only to abstain from harming others. They violate neither his personality, his liberty nor his property. They safeguard all of these. They are defensive; they defend equally the rights of all.
[The Law, Frederic Bastiat, 1850; SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/Publications/TheLaw/TheLaw.htm]

So we can see that law is force and that it must apply equally to all if liberty is to be protected.  If it applies unequally to one class of persons over another, then it turns from being an instrument of liberty to an instrument of oppression and tyranny.

Many people think the purpose of law is to promote public policy.  According to Bastiat, the purpose of law is to remedy injustice after it occurs, and there is a world of difference between these two opposing views.  The law, in fact, is only there for public protection, but NOT for public advocacy of what some bureaucrat “thinks” would be good.  Law is a negative concept and not a positive concept.  Law is there to provide remedy for harm AFTER an injury occurs, not to encourage or mandate some FUTURE good.  Even the Bible agrees with this conclusion, where the Apostle Paul says:

For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
[Romans 13:9-10, Bible, NKJV]

________________________________________________________________________

“Do not strive with a man without cause, if he has done you no harm.”
[Prov. 3:30, Bible, NKJV]

Our interpretation of what the above scriptures are saying is that you should not confront, interfere with, strive, or oppose a man unless he has done you some personal harm or is about to cause you harm and you want to prevent it.  Your legal rights define and circumscribe the boundary over which he cannot cross without doing you harm.  The act of him doing you harm is referred to as “evil”.  The law is the vehicle for rebuking and correcting the evil and harm under such circumstances and that is its only legitimate purpose.  As we made plain in the introduction to Chapter 1, Christians are commanded in Eccl. 12:13-14 to “fear the Lord”, and “fearing the Lord” is defined in Prov. 8:13 as “hating evil”, which means eliminating and opposing it at every opportunity.  The process of acquiring knowledge about what is evil and hating evil is called “morality”, and it is the purpose of parenting and every good government to develop and encourage morality in everyone in society.

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, “where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?” And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
[George Washington in his Farewell Address; See also George Washington’s Farewell Address Presented by Pastor Garrett Lear]

Consequently, the purpose of the law from a spiritual and legal perspective is only to provide remedy for harm AFTER an injury occurs, not to encourage or mandate some FUTURE good, “benefit”, or even civil political objective.  Here is another excerpt from Bastiat’s book, The Law, that explains this assertion:

Law Is a Negative Concept

The harmlessness of the mission performed by law and lawful defense is self-evident; the usefulness is obvious; and the legitimacy cannot be disputed.

As a friend of mine once remarked, this negative concept of law is so true that the statement, the purpose of the law is to cause justice to reign, is not a rigorously accurate statement. It ought to be stated that the purpose of the law is to prevent injustice from reigning. In fact, it is injustice, instead of justice, that has an existence of its own. Justice is achieved only when injustice is absent.

But when the law, by means of its necessary agent, force, imposes upon men a regulation of labor, a method or a subject of education, a religious faith or creed – then the law is no longer negative; it acts positively upon people. It substitutes the will of the legislator for their own initiatives. When this happens, the people no longer need to discuss, to compare, to plan ahead; the law does all this for them. Intelligence becomes a useless prop for the people; they cease to be men; they lose their personality, their liberty, their property.

Try to imagine a regulation of labor imposed by force that is not a violation of liberty; a transfer of wealth imposed by force that is not a violation of property. If you cannot reconcile these contradictions, then you must conclude that the law cannot organize labor and industry without organizing injustice.
[The Law, Frederic Bastiat, 1850; SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/Publications/TheLaw/TheLaw.htm]

Thomas Jefferson, one of our founding fathers, agreed with this philosophy when he said:

“With all [our] blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens–a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another [prevent injustice, NOT promote justice], shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.“
[Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. ME 3:320]

The purpose of the law also cannot be to promote charity, because charity and force are incompatible.  Promoting charity with the law is promoting INjustice, which cannot be the proper role of law.  Law should only be used to prevent injustice.  Here is Bastiat’s perspective from The Law again:

The Law and Charity

You say: “There are persons who have no money,” and you turn to the law, but the law is not a breast that fills itself with milk. Nor are the lacteal veins of the law supplied with milk from a source outside the society. Nothing can enter the public treasury for the benefit of one citizen or one class unless other citizens and other classes have been forced to send it in. If every person draws from the treasury the amount that he has put in it, it is true that the law then plunders nobody. But this procedure does nothing for the persons who have no money. It does not promote equality of income. The law can be an instrument of equalization only as it takes from some persons and gives to other persons. When the law does this, it is an instrument of plunder.
[The Law, Frederic Bastiat, 1850; SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/Publications/TheLaw/TheLaw.htm]

Another word for plunder is theft.  Whenever the government or the people use the law as an instrument of theft, and the government as a Robinhood, then the purpose of government turns from punishing past injustice to:

1. Punishing success by making people who work harder and earn more pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. This discourages a proper work ethic.
2. Robbing the rich to give to those who have the most votes. This causes democracies to devolve into “mobocracies” eventually, as low income persons vote for persons who will rob the rich and give them something for nothing. (We already have this, in that older people vote consistently for politicians who will expand and protect their social security benefits, which aren’t a trust fund at all, but instead are a Ponzi scheme paid for by younger workers, moving money from hand-to-mouth).”
3. An agent of organized extortion and lawlessness.
4. A destabilizing force in society that undermines public trust and encourages political apathy (voter participation is the lowest it has been in years.. ever wonder why).

Here is what the Supreme Court had to say about this type of plunder:

“To lay with one hand the power of government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it on favored individuals.. is none the less robbery because it is done under the forms of law and is called taxation.  This is not legislation.  It is a decree under legislative forms.”
[Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655 (1874)]

“A tax, in the general understanding of the term and as used in the constitution, signifies an exaction for the support of the government. The word [tax] has never thought to connote the expropriation of money from one group for the benefit of another.“
[U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)]

The U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark case of Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895) said the following regarding what happens when the government becomes a Robinhood and tries to promote equality of result rather than equality of opportunity, as we describe in Form #05.033.  We end up with class warfare in society done using the force of law and a mobocracy mentality:

“The present assault upon capital [meaning PRIVATE PROPERTY, Form #12.025] is but the beginning.  It will be but the stepping stone to others larger and more sweeping, until our political contest will become war of the poor against the rich; a war of growing intensity and bitterness.

…

The legislation, in the discrimination it makes, is class legislation. Whenever a distinction is made in the burdens a law imposes or in the benefits it confers on any citizens by reason of their birth, or wealth, or religion, it is class legislation, and leads inevitably to oppression and abuses, and to general unrest and disturbance in society.”
[Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)]

Routine use of government as a means to plunder and rob from its people through taxation is the foundation of socialism.  Socialism, therefore, is a form of institutionalized or organized crime.  Socialism is also incompatible with Christianity, as discussed in Socialism:  The New American Civil Religion, Form #05.016, Section 4.2.  Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment taxes and other government entitlement programs are examples of socialist programs which amount to organized crime to the extent that participation in them is compulsory or mandatory.  For all practical purposes in today’s society, participation in these programs is mandatory for the average employee.  Therefore, our government has become an organized crime ring that can and should be prosecuted under RICO laws (18 U.S.C. §225) for racketeering and extortion.

---

3. HOW LAW PROTECTS THE SOVEREIGN PEOPLE: BY LIMITING GOVERNMENT POWER

The main purpose of law is to limit government power in order to protect and preserve freedom, choice, and the sovereignty of the people.

“When we consider the nature and theory of our institutions of government, the principles upon which they are supposed to rest, and review the history of their development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power.  Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.  And the law is the definition and limitation of power.”
[Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901) ]

An important implication of the use of law to limit government power is the following inferences unavoidably arising from it:

1. The purpose of law is to define and thereby limit government power.
2. All law acts as a delegation of authority order upon those serving in the government.
3. You cannot limit government power without definitions that are limiting.
4. A definition that does not limit the thing or class of thing defined is no definition at all from a legal perspective and causes anything that depends on that definition to be political rather than legal in nature. By political, we mean a function exercised ONLY by the LEGISLATIVE or EXECUTIVE branch.
5. Where the definitions in the law are clear, judges have no discretion to expand the meaning of words. Therefore the main method of expanding government power and creating what the supreme court calls “arbitrary power” is to use terms in the law that are vague, undefined, “general expressions”, or which don’t define the context implied.
6. We define “general expressions” as those which:
   6.1 The speaker is either not accountable or REFUSES to be accountable for the accuracy or truthfulness or definition of the word or expression.
   6.2 Fail to recognize that there are multiple contexts in which the word could be used.
   • CONSTITUTIONAL (States of the Union).
   • STATUTORY (federal territory).

   6.3 Are susceptible to two or more CONTEXTS or interpretations, one of which the government representative interpreting the context stands to benefit from handsomely. Thus, “equivocation” is undertaken, in which they TELL you they mean the CONSTITUTIONAL interpretation but after receiving your form or pleading, interpret it to mean the STATUTORY context.

   equivocation

   EQUIVOCA’TION, n. Ambiguity of speech; the use of words or expressions that are susceptible of a double signification. Hypocrites are often guilty of equivocation, and by this means lose the confidence of their fellow men. Equivocation is incompatible with the Christian character and profession.
   [SOURCE: http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,equivocation]

   ___________________________________________________________

   Equivocation (“to call by the same name”) is an informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words (words with multiple meanings).

   Albeit in common parlance it is used in a variety of contexts, when discussed as a fallacy, equivocation only occurs when the arguer makes a word or phrase employed in two (or more) different senses in an argument appear to have the same meaning throughout.

   It is therefore distinct from (semantic) ambiguity, which means that the context doesn’t make the meaning of the word or phrase clear, and amphiboly (or syntactical ambiguity), which refers to ambiguous sentence structure due to punctuation or syntax.
   [Wikipedia topic:  Equivocation, Downloaded 9/15/2015; SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation]

   6.4 PRESUME that all contexts are equivalent, meaning that CONSTITUTIONAL and STATUTORY are equivalent.
   6.5 Fail to identify the specific context implied.
   6.6 Fail to provide an actionable definition for the term that is useful as evidence in court.
   6.7 Government representatives actively interfere with or even penalize efforts by the applicant to define the context of the terms so that they can protect their right to make injurious presumptions about their meaning.

7. Any attempt to assert any authority by anyone in government to add anything they want to the definition of a thing in the law unavoidably creates a government of UNLIMITED power.
8. Anyone who can add anything to the definition of a word in the law that does not expressly appear SOMEWHERE in the law is exercising a LEGISLATIVE and POLITICAL function of the LEGISLATIVE branch and is NOT acting as a judge or a jurist.
9. The only people in government who can act in a LEGISLATIVE capacity are the LEGISLATIVE branch under our system of three branches of government: LEGISLATIVE, EXECUTIVE, and JUDICIAL.
10. Any attempt to combine or consolidate any of the powers of each of the three branches into the other branch results in tyranny.
    

    “When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty; because apprehensions may arise, lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical manner.

    Again, there is no liberty, if the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and executive. Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control; for the judge would be then the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with violence and oppression [sound familiar?].

    There would be an end of everything, were the same man or the same body, whether of the nobles or of the people, to exercise those three powers, that of enacting laws, that of executing the public resolutions, and of trying the causes of individuals.”

    [. . .]

    In what a situation must the poor subject be in those republics! The same body of magistrates are possessed, as executors of the laws, of the whole power they have given themselves in quality of legislators. They may plunder the state by their general determinations; and as they have likewise the judiciary power in their hands, every private citizen may be ruined by their particular decisions.”
    [The Spirit of Laws, Charles de Montesquieu, 1758, Book XI, Section 6;
    SOURCE: http://famguardian.orgPublicationsSpiritOfLawssol_11.htm]

---

4.   TWO METHODS OF CREATING “OBLIGATIONS” CLARIFY THE DEFINITION OF “LAW”

The legal definition of “law” can be easily discerned by examining HOW “obligations” are created.  The California Civil Code, Section 1427 defines what an obligation or duty is:

California Civil Code – CIV
DIVISION 3. OBLIGATIONS [1427 – 3272.9]
( Heading of Division 3 amended by Stats.   1988, Ch. 160, Sec. 14. )
PART 1. OBLIGATIONS IN GENERAL [1427 – 1543]  ( Part 1 enacted 1872. )
TITLE 1. DEFINITION OF OBLIGATIONS [1427 – [1428.]] ( Title 1 enacted 1872.)

An obligation is a legal duty, by which a person is bound to do or not to do a certain thing.

(Enacted 1872.)

The California Civil Code then describes how obligations may lawfully be created.  Section 22.2 of the California Civil Code (“CCC”) shows that the common law shall be the rule of decision in all the courts of this State. CCC section 1428 establishes that obligations are legal duties arising either from contract of the parties, or the operation of law (nothing else). CCC section 1708 states that the obligations imposed by operation of law are only to abstain from injuring the person or property of another, or infringing upon any of his or her rights.

California Civil Code – CIV
DEFINITIONS AND SOURCES OF LAW
(Heading added by Stats. 1951, Ch. 655, in conjunction with Sections 22, 22.1, and 22.2 )

22.2.  The common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to or inconsistent with the   Constitution of the United States, or the Constitution or laws of this State, is the rule of decision in all the courts of this State. (Added by Stats. 1951, Ch. 655.)

—————————————————————————————————————-

California Civil Code – CIV
DIVISION 3. OBLIGATIONS [1427 – 3272.9]
( Heading of Division 3 amended by Stats. 1988, Ch. 160, Sec. 14. )
PART 1. OBLIGATIONS IN GENERAL [1427 – 1543] ( Part 1 enacted 1872. )
TITLE 1. DEFINITION OF OBLIGATIONS [1427 – [1428.]] (Title 1 enacted 1872.)

[1428.]  Section Fourteen Hundred and Twenty-eight. An obligation arises either from:

One — The contract of the parties; or,

Two — The operation of law. An obligation arising from operation of law may be enforced in the manner provided by law, or by civil action or proceeding.

(Amended by Code Amendments 1873-74, Ch. 612.)

—————————————————————————————————————-

California Civil Code – CIV
DIVISION 3. OBLIGATIONS [1427 – 3272.9]
(Heading of Division 3 amended by Stats. 1988, Ch. 160, Sec. 14. )
PART 3. OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED BY LAW [1708 – 1725]
( Part 3 enacted 1872. )

Every person is bound, without contract, to abstain from injuring the person or property of another, or infringing upon any of his or her rights.

(Amended by Stats. 2002, Ch. 664, Sec. 38.5. Effective January 1, 2003.)

The phrase “operation of law” uses the word “law” and therefore implies REAL law.  REAL law in turn consists of ONLY the common law and the Constitution, as we prove in this document.

Based on the above provisions of the California Civil Code, when anyone from the government seeks to either administratively or judicially enforce a “duty” or “obligation”, such as in tax correspondence, they have the burden of proof to demonstrate.

1. That you expressly consented to a contract with them. This would include:
   • Written agreements.
   • Trusts
   • Statutory franchises.

     This class of obligations is what we call “private law” or “special law” throughout this document. It is NOT “law” in a classical sense.

2. That “operation of law” is involved. In other words, that:
   • You injured a specific, identified flesh and blood person. . . and
   • The injured party has standing to sue in a civil or common law action. . .and
   • The party against whom the enforcement action is imposed DOES NOT consent.

     THIS is what we refer to as “law” in this document.

They must meet the above burden of proof with legally admissible evidence and may not satisfy that burden with either a belief or a presumption.  Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 610, neither beliefs or opinions constitute legally admissible evidence.  Likewise, a presumption is not legally admissible evidence for the same reason.  We cover why presumptions are not evidence in:

In practice, they NEVER can meet the above burden of proof and consequently, you will always win when they send you a tax collection notice if you know what you are doing and have read this document!  That is PRECISELY why we claim and can prove that the present government is DE FACTO rather than DE JURE, as described in:

The first option above, contracts, is described in:

The first option, meaning contracts, is EXCLUDED from the definition of “law” based on the following.

Municipal law, thus understood, is properly defined to be “a rule of civil conduct prescribed by the supreme power in a state, commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong.”

[. . .]

It is also called a rule to distinguish it from a compact or agreement; for a compact is a promise proceeding from us, law is a command directed to us. The language of a compact is, “I will, or will not, do this”; that of a law is, “thou shalt, or shalt not, do it.” It is true there is an obligation which a compact carries with it, equal in point of conscience to that of a law; but then the original of the obligation is different. In compacts we ourselves determine and promise what shall be done, before we are obliged to do it; in laws. we are obliged to act without ourselves determining or promising anything at all. Upon these accounts law is defined to be “a rule.”

[Readings on the History and System of the Common Law, Second Edition, Roscoe Pound, 1925, p. 4]

Real “law” is what the above refers to as “a rule of civil conduct”.  By that definition, it can only refer to the common law.  Why?  Because domicile is a prerequisite to enforcing civil STATUTES and it is voluntary and requires consent in some form, as we prove in the following document:

Any enforcement action that does NOT satisfy the burden of proof or proceeds upon PRESUMPTION in satisfying the above is, by definition:

1. An “injustice”, because it violates your right to be left alone.
2. A violation of due process of law because it is NOT proceeding with evidence. PRESUMPTIONS are NOT “evidence” or a substitute for evidence.  See:
3. A purely private commercial transaction. As such, if the Plaintiff or the enforcer claim to be a “government”, they:
   • Are subject to the Clearfield Doctrine. See United States v. Winstar Corp. 518 U.S. 839 (1996) .
   • Are “purposefully availing themselves” of commerce in an otherwise legislatively but not constitutionally foreign jurisdiction. Hence they waive sovereign, official, and judicial immunity.
   • Waive sovereign, official, and judicial immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. Chapter 97.
     https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/part-IV/chapter-97
4. A non-governmental function. REAL government PROTECTS absolutely owned private property rather than making a business or “trade or business” out of converting it to PUBLIC property or property CONTROLLED by the public.
   

   “For the principal aim of society is to protect individuals in the enjoyment of those absolute rights, which were vested in them by the immutable laws of nature; but which could not be preserved in peace without the mutual assistance and intercourse, which is gained by the institution of friendly and social communities. Hence it follows, that the first and primary end of human laws is to maintain and regulate these absolute rights of individuals.””By the absolute rights of individuals we mean those which are so in their primary and strictest sense; such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy whether out of society or in it.” – Ibid.

   [William Blackstone, Commentaries (1765)]

   “Under basic rules of construction, statutory laws enacted by legislative bodies cannot impair rights given under a constitution. 194 B.R. at 925. “

   [In re Young, 235 B.R. 666 (Bankr.M.D.Fla., 1999)]

   “The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government.”
   [City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944]

   “Life, faculties, production— in other words individuality, liberty, property— that is man.  And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it.”
   [Frederic Bastiat (b. 1801 – d. 1850), The Law; http://famguardian.org/Publications/TheLaw/TheLaw.htm]

   [More at:  Unalienable Rights Course, Form #12.038; https://sedm.org/LibertyU/UnalienableRights.pdf]

5. A request by the Plaintiff and the GOVERNMENT court or administrative enforcer to procure absolutely owned private property.
   • That property is, at minimum, the “services” needed to respond to the ILLEGAL and even UNCONSTITUTIONAL enforcement action.
   • The property might also include any and all property or services that might be awarded as a consequence of the enforcement proceeding.
6. An attempt to make you into a Merchant under U.C.C. §2-104(1)who is SELLING absolutely owned private property to the Plaintiff or GOVERNMENT administrative enforcer.
7. A request or OFFER by the Plaintiff or GOVERNMENT administrative enforcer to become a Buyer under U.C.C. §2-103(1)(a)of your absolutely owned private property.
8. A request for you to specify any and all CONDITIONS you want to attach to the use, custody, or control of your absolutely owned private property.
   • As the absolute owner, you have a PRIVATE and CONSTITUTIONAL right to dictate any and ALL conditions you wish to attach to the use of your property.
     

     “PROPERTY. Rightful dominion over external objects; ownership; the unrestricted and exclusive right to a thing; the right to dispose of the substance of a thing in every legal way, to possess it, to use it and to exclude every one else from interfering with it. Mackeld. Rom. Law, § 265.

     Property is the highest right a man can have to anything; being used for that right which one has to lands or tenements, goods or chattels, which no way depends on another man’s courtesy. Jackson ex dem. Pearson v. Housel, 17 Johns. 281, 283.

     A right imparting to the owner a power of indefinite user, capable of being transmitted to universal successors by way of descent, and imparting to the owner the power of disposition, from himself and his successors per universitatem, and from all other persons who have a spes successions under any existing concession or disposition, in favor of such person or series of persons as he may choose, with the like capacities and powers as he had himself, and under such conditions as the municipal or particular law allows to be annexed to the dispositions of private persons. Aust. Jur. (Campbell’s Ed.) § 1103.

     The right of property is that sole and despotic dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in total exclusion of the right of any other individual in the universe. It consists in the free use, enjoyment and disposal of all a person’s acquisitions, without any control or diminution save only by the laws of the land. 1 Bl.Comm. 138; 2 Bl.Comm. 2, 15.

     The word is also commonly used to denote any external object over which, the right of property is exercised. In this sense i t is a very wide term, and includes every class of acquisitions which a man can own or have an interest in. See Scranton v. Wheeler, 179 D.S. 141, 21 Sup.Ct. 48, 45 L.Ed. 126; Lawrence v. Hennessey, 165 Mo. 659, 65 S.W. 717; Boston & L.R. Corp. v. Salem & L. R. Co., 2 Gray (Mass.), 35; National Tel. News Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co., 119 Fed. 294, 56 C.C.A. 198, 60 L.R.A. 805; Hamilton v. Rathbone, 175 U.S. 414, 20 Sup.Ct. 155, 44 L.Ed. 219; Stanton v. Lewis, 26 Conn. 449; Wilson v. Ward Lumber Co. (C. C.) 67 Fed. 674.

     —Absolute property . In respect to chattels personal property is said to be “absolute” where a man has, solely and exclusively, the right and also the occupation of any movable chattels, so permanent, but may at some times subsist and not at other times; such for example, as the property a man may have in wild animals which he has caught and keeps, and which are his only so long as he retains possession of them. 2 BL Comm. 389.—Real property . A general term for lands, tenements, and hereditaments; property which, on the death of the owner intestate, passes to his heir. Real property is either corporeal or incorporeal. See Code N. Y. § 462 — Separate property . The separate property of a married woman is that which she owns in her own right, which is liable only for her own debts, and which she can incumber and dispose of at her own will.—Special property. Property of a qualified, temporary, or limited nature; as distinguished from absolute, general, or unconditional property. Such is the property of a bailee in the article bailed, of a sheriff in goods temporarily in his hands under a levy, of the finder of lost goods while looking for the owner, of a person in wild animals which he has caught. Stief v. Hart, 1 N.Y. 24; Moulton v. Witherell, 52 Me. 242; Eisendrath v. Knauer, 64 111. 402; Phelps v. People, 72 N.Y. 357.
     [Black’s Law Dictionary, Second Edition, p. 955]

   • If you fail to specify the terms and conditions of the GRANT or RENTAL of your absolutely owned private property to the opposing party, you are PRESUMED to DONATE the property to the Plaintiff or GOVERNMENT enforcer.
     

     CONSENT. An agreement to something proposed, and differs from assent. (q.v.) Wolff, Ins. Nat. part 1, SSSS 27-30; Pard. Dr. Com. part 2, tit. 1, n. 1, 38 to 178. Consent supposes,

     1. a physical power to act; 2. a moral power of acting; 3. a serious, determined, and free use of these powers. Fonb. Eq. B; 1, c. 2, s. 1; Grot. de Jure Belli et Pacis, lib. 2, c. 11, s. 6.

     2. Consent is either express or implied. Express, when it is given viva voce, or in writing; implied, when it is manifested by signs, actions, or facts, or by inaction or silence, which raise a presumption that the consent has been given.

     [. . .]

     – 6. Courts of equity have established the rule, that when the true owner of property stands by, and knowingly suffers a stranger to sell the same as his own, without objection, this will be such implied consent as to render the sale valid against the true owner. Story on Ag. Sec. 91, Story on Eq. Jur. Sec. 385 to 390. And courts of law, unless restrained by technical formalities, act upon the principles of justice; as, for example, when a man permitted, without objection, the sale of his goods under an execution against another person. 6 Adolph. & El 11. 469; 9 Barn. & Cr. 586; 3 Barn. & Adolph. 318, note.
     [Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, 1848]

To ensure that you are NEVER victimized by the ILLEGAL or UNCONSTITUTIONAL enforcement actions of especially government or de facto government enforcement actions, we recommend the following resources and/or examples to use in your defense.  These documents identify YOU as the Merchant, the enforcer as the Buyer, and specify powerful “default terms and conditions” to the grant of your absolutely owned private property to them:

1. Tax Form Attachment, Form #04.201
   https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
2. Affidavit of Citizenship, Domicile, and Tax Status, Form #02.001
   https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
3. Injury Defense Franchise and Agreement, Form #06.027
   https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

---

5. AUTHORITIES ON “LAW”

“True Law is right reason in agreement with Nature, it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands and averts from wrong-doing by its prohibitions. And it does not lay its commands or prohibitions upon good men in vain, although neither have any effect upon the wicked. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to try to repeal a part of it, and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by Senate or People, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome or at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all times and all nations, and there will be one master and one rule, that is God, for He is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge.”
[Marcus Tullius Cicero, 106-43 B.C.; SOURCE: https://sedm.org/disclaimer.htm]

“Power and law are not synonymous. In truth, they are frequently in opposition and irreconcilable. There is God‘s Law from which all equitable laws of man emerge and by which men must live if they are not to die in oppression, chaos and despair. Divorced from God‘s eternal and immutable Law, established before the founding of the suns, man‘s power is evil no matter the noble words with which it is employed or the motives urged when enforcing it. Men of good will, mindful therefore of the Law laid down by God, will oppose governments whose rule is by men, and if they wish to survive as a nation they will destroy the [de facto] government which attempts to adjudicate by the whim of venal judges.”
[Marcus Tullius Cicero, 106-43 B.C.; SOURCE: https://sedm.org/disclaimer.htm]

“Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others [Form#05.033]. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law,’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.”
[Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819, From: Thomas Jefferson on Politics and Government, Section 1.2; SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/ThomasJefferson/jeff0100.htm]

“I cannot subscribe to the omnipotence of a State Legislature, or that it is absolute and without control; although its authority should not be expressly restrained by the Constitution, or fundamental law, of the State. The people of the United States erected their Constitutions, or forms of government, to establish justice, to promote the general welfare, to secure the blessings of liberty; and to protect their persons and property from violence. The purposes for which men enter into society will determine the nature and terms of the social compact; and as they are the foundation of the legislative power, they will decide what are the proper objects of it: The nature, and ends of legislative power will limit the exercise of it. This fundamental principle flows from the very nature of our free Republican governments, that no man should be compelled to do what the laws do not require; nor to refrain from acts which the laws permit. There are acts which the Federal, or State, Legislature cannot do, without exceeding their authority. There are certain vital principles in our free Republican governments, which will determine and over-rule an apparent and flagrant abuse of legislative power; as to authorize manifest injustice by positive law; or to take away that security for personal liberty, or private property, for the protection whereof of the government was established. An ACT of the Legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority. The obligation of a law in governments established on express compact, and on republican principles, must be determined by the nature of the power, on which it is founded. A few instances will suffice to explain what I mean. A law that punished a citizen for an innocent action, or, in other words, for an act, which, when done, was in violation of no existing law; a law that destroys, or impairs, the lawful private contracts of citizens; a law that makes a man a Judge in his own cause; or a law that takes property from A. and gives it to B: It is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a Legislature with SUCH powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it. The genius, the nature, and the spirit, of our State Governments, amount to a prohibition of such acts of legislation; and the general principles of law and reason forbid them. The Legislature may enjoin, permit, forbid, and punish; they may declare new crimes; and establish rules of conduct for all its citizens in future cases; they may command what is right, and prohibit what is wrong; but they cannot change innocence into guilt; or punish innocence as a crime; or violate the right of an antecedent lawful private contract; or the right of private property. To maintain that our Federal, or State, Legislature possesses such powers, if they had not been expressly restrained; would, in my opinion, be a political heresy, altogether inadmissible in our free republican governments.“
[Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798)]

_____________________________________________________________________

“To lay, with one hand, the power of the government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it upon favored individuals to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes, is none the less a robbery because it is done under the forms of law and is called taxation.  This is not legislation.  It is a decree under legislative forms.

Nor is it taxation.  ‘A tax,’ says Webster’s Dictionary, ‘is a rate or sum of money assessed on the person or property of a citizen by government for the use of the nation or State.’  ‘Taxes are burdens or charges imposed by the Legislature upon persons or property to raise money for public purposes.’  Cooley, Const. Lim., 479.

Coulter, J., in Northern Liberties v. St. John’s Church, 13 Pa.St. 104 says, very forcibly, ‘I think the common mind has everywhere taken in the understanding that taxes are a public imposition, levied by authority of the government for the purposes of carrying on the government in all its machinery and operations—that they are imposed for a public purpose.’  See, also Pray v. Northern Liberties, 31 Pa.St. 69; Matter of Mayor of N.Y., 11 Johns., 77; Camden v. Allen, 2 Dutch., 398; Sharpless v. Mayor, supra; Hanson v. Vernon, 27 Ia., 47; Whiting v. Fond du Lac, supra.”
[Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655 (1874)]

_____________________________________________________________________

“Law. That which is laid down, ordained, or established.  A rule or method according to which phenomenon or actions co-exist or follow each other.  Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority, and having binding legal force.  United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. Guenther, 281 U.S. 34, 50 S.Ct. 165, 74 L.Ed. 683.  That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens subject to sanctions or legal consequences is a law.  Law is a solemn expression of the will of the supreme power of the State.  Calif.Civil Code, §22.

The “law” of a state is to be found in its statutory and constitutional enactments, as interpreted by its courts, and, in absence of statute law, in rulings of its courts.  Dauer’s Estate v. Zabel, 9 Mich.App. 176, 156 N.W.2d 34, 37.”
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 884; SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/law.htm]
______________________________________________________________________

What Is Law?

What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Each of us has a natural right – from God – to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?

If every person has the right to defend – even by force – his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right – its reason for existing, its lawfulness – is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force – for the same reason – cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?

If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.

The Complete Perversion of the Law

But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.

How has this perversion of the law been accomplished? And what have been the results?

The law has been perverted by the influence of two entirely different causes: stupid greed and false philanthropy. Let us speak of the first.

A Fatal Tendency of Mankind

Self-preservation and self-development are common aspirations among all people. And if everyone enjoyed the unrestricted use of his faculties and the free disposition of the fruits of his labor, social progress would be ceaseless, uninterrupted, and unfailing.

But there is also another tendency that is common among people. When they can, they wish to live and prosper at the expense of others. This is no rash accusation. Nor does it come from a gloomy and uncharitable spirit. The annals of history bear witness to the truth of it: the incessant wars, mass migrations, religious persecutions, universal slavery, dishonesty in commerce, and monopolies. This fatal desire has its origin in the very nature of man – in that primitive, universal, and insuppressible instinct that impels him to satisfy his desires with the least possible pain.

Property and Plunder

Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor, by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property.

But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder.

Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain – and since labor is pain in itself – it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.

When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor.

It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.

But, generally, the law is made by one man or one class of men. And since law cannot operate without the sanction and support of a dominating force, this force must be entrusted to those who make the laws.

This fact, combined with the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least possible effort, explains the almost universal perversion of the law. Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds.
[The Law, Frederic Bastiat, SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/Publications/TheLaw/TheLaw.htm]

__________________________________________________________________

“No man in this country is so high that he is above the law.  No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity.  All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it.  It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives,” 106 U.S., at 220.  “Shall it be said… that the courts cannot give remedy when the Citizen has been deprived of his property by force, his estate seized and converted to the use of the government without any lawful authority, without any process of law, and without any compensation, because the president has ordered it and his officers are in possession?  If such be the law of this country, it sanctions a tyranny which has no existence in the monarchies of Europe, nor in any other government which has a just claim to well-regulated liberty and the protection of personal rights,” 106 U.S., at 220, 221.
[United States vs. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 1 S. Ct. 240 (1882); SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/law.htm]

___________________________________________________________________
We must remember that law is force, and that, consequently, the proper functions of the law cannot lawfully extend beyond the proper functions of force.  When law and force keep a person within the bounds of justice, they impose nothing but a mere negation. They oblige him only to abstain from harming others. They violate neither his personality, his liberty nor his property. They safeguard all of these. They are defensive; they defend equally the rights of all.
[The Law, Frederic Bastiat, 1850; SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/law.htm]
___________________________________________________________________

Law Is a Negative Concept

The harmlessness of the mission performed by law and lawful defense is self-evident; the usefulness is obvious; and the legitimacy cannot be disputed.

As a friend of mine once remarked, this negative concept of law is so true that the statement, the purpose of the law is to cause justice to reign, is not a rigorously accurate statement. It ought to be stated that the purpose of the law is to prevent injustice from reigning. In fact, it is injustice, instead of justice, that has an existence of its own. Justice is achieved only when injustice is absent.

But when the law, by means of its necessary agent, force, imposes upon men a regulation of labor, a method or a subject of education, a religious faith or creed – then the law is no longer negative; it acts positively upon people. It substitutes the will of the legislator for their own initiatives. When this happens, the people no longer need to discuss, to compare, to plan ahead; the law does all this for them. Intelligence becomes a useless prop for the people; they cease to be men; they lose their personality, their liberty, their property.

Try to imagine a regulation of labor imposed by force that is not a violation of liberty; a transfer of wealth imposed by force that is not a violation of property. If you cannot reconcile these contradictions, then you must conclude that the law cannot organize labor and industry without organizing injustice.
[The Law, Frederic Bastiat, 1850; SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/law.htm]

---

6. CORRECTIVE (past) or PREVENTIVE (future) Remedy?

The type of remedy that a so-called “law” provides determines whether it is law that applies equally to all or merely a voluntary franchise that only applies to those who have personally consented.

1. If it provides a remedy for a demonstrated past injury, then it is “law” in a classical sense. We call this CORRECTIVE justice.  An example of CORRECTIVE justice would be a murder conviction.
2. If it provides a remedy for a future injury that hasn’t yet occurred, it is a voluntary franchise. We call this PREVENTIVE justice.  An example of PREVENTIVE justice would be an injunction or restraining order.

The above assertions are a product of the legal definition of “standing”.  It is a fact that you cannot sue in a court of law without “standing” and if you don’t have it, your case will be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).  Therefore, you cannot sue in court, whether under statutes or under the common law, without STANDING.

“STANDING TO SUE DOCTRINE. Doctrine that in action in federal constitutional court by citizen against a government officer, complaining of alleged unlawful conduct there is no iusticiable controversy unless citizen shows that such conduct invades or will invade a private substantive legally protected interest of plaintiff citizen. Associated Industries of New York State v. Ickes, C.C.A.2, 134 F.2d 694, 702.”

[Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 1577]

The seminal case on standing is Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992).  It establishes that burden of proof to establish elements of standing include three elements, according to the U.S. Supreme Court:

1. The plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact”—an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, see , at 756; Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 508 (1975); Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U. S. 727, 740-741, n. 16 (1972);^[1] and (b) “actual or imminent, not `conjectural’ or `hypothetical,’ ” Whitmore, supra, at 155 (quoting Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U. S. 95, 102 (1983)).
2. There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of—the injury has to be “fairly. . . trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not . . . th[e] result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court.” Simon Eastern Ky. Welfare 561*561 Rights Organization, 426 U. S. 26, 41-42 (1976).
3. It must be “likely,” as opposed to merely “speculative,” that the injury will be “redressed by a favorable decision.” , at 38, 43.

The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing the above three elements. See FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas, 493 U. S. 215, 231 (1990); Warth, supra, at 508.

It is a fact that you cannot demonstrate an injury unless the injury ALREADY happened in the PAST.  It is also a fact, that there is no way to prove an injury with evidence that hasn’t yet happened.  Therefore, anything that acts upon the future or deals with injuries that haven’t yet happened is not “law” in a classical sense and requires consent in some form to implement.  Anything that requires consent is what we call a franchise.  Franchises are described in the following resources on our site:

1. Government Franchises Course, Form #12.012
   https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
2. Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030
   https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

An example of something that would not be “law” in a classical sense but a voluntary franchise is the case of Registered Sex Offenders.  After sex offenders are convicted and enter the jail, they are told that they will either not be released or will not be released EARLY UNLESS they consent to register their name whenever they move to a new place IN THE FUTURE.  Those who manifest that consent are called “Registered Sex Offenders”.  Those who don’t consent never get out of jail or take forever to get out of jail.  In effect, the sex offender is being compelled to surrender their PRIVATE constitutional right of privacy under the Fourth Amendment and the right to not incriminate themselves under the Fifth Amendment in exchange for the PUBLIC PRIVILEGE of being liberated from jail.  This is a violation of what the U.S. Supreme Court calls “The Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine”, which we describe at length in the following source:

If in fact rights protected by the Constitution are INALIENABLE as the Declaration of Independence says, then you aren’t allowed to legally consent to give them away and any attempt to compel you to do so is an UNJUST and an INJURY:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -“

[Declaration of Independence]

“Unalienable.  Inalienable; incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred.”

[Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 1693]

Not only can the government NOT compel or coerce you to surrender CONSTITUTIONAL rights as they do with Registered Sex Offenders, they also cannot use your failure to sign up for a franchise or pay or receive the “benefits” of said franchise (such as Social Security) as a basis for an injury and standing to sue in court.  The following case explains why:

“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;’ and to ‘secure,’ not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property [or income] which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations:

[1] First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor’s injury, and   that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor’s benefit [e.g. SOCIAL SECURITY, Medicare, and every other public “benefit”];

[2] second, that if he devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and

[3] third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.”

[Budd v. People of State of New York, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)]

The above paragraph establishes that the government cannot use a failure to participate as standing to sue for an injury:

[1] First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor’s injury, and   that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor’s benefit [e.g. SOCIAL SECURITY, Medicare, and every other public “benefit”];

All franchises MUST be voluntary and participation cannot be economically or commercially coerced by the government.  If it is, the participant is the target of illegal duress and they cannot be regarded as lawfully participating:

“An agreement [consensual contract] obtained by duress, coercion, or intimidation is invalid, since the party coerced is not exercising his free will, and the test is not so much the means by which the party is compelled to execute the agreement as the state of mind induced. [1]  Duress, like fraud, rarely becomes material, except where a contract or conveyance has been made which the maker wishes to avoid.  As a general rule, duress renders the contract or conveyance voidable, not void, at the option of the person coerced, [2]  and it is susceptible of ratification.  Like other voidable contracts, it is valid until it is avoided by the person entitled to avoid it. [3]  However, duress in the form of physical compulsion, in which a party is caused to appear to assent when he has no intention of doing so, is generally deemed to render the resulting purported contract void. [4]”

[American Jurisprudence 2d, Duress, §21 (1999)]

_______________

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Brown v. Pierce, 74 U.S. 205, 7 Wall 205, 19 L.Ed. 134

[2] Barnette v. Wells Fargo Nevada Nat’l Bank, 270 U.S. 438, 70 L.Ed. 669, 46 S.Ct. 326 (holding that acts induced by duress which operate solely on the mind, and fall short of actual physical compulsion, are not void at law, but are voidable only, at the election of him whose acts were induced by it); Faske v. Gershman, 30 Misc.2d. 442, 215 N.Y.S.2d. 144; Glenney v. Crane (Tex Civ App Houston (1st Dist)), 352 S.W.2d. 773, writ ref n r e (May 16, 1962); Carroll v. Fetty, 121 W.Va. 215, 2 S.E.2d. 521, cert den 308 U.S. 571, 84 L.Ed. 479, 60 S.Ct. 85.

[3] Faske v. Gershman, 30 Misc.2d. 442, 215 N.Y.S.2d. 144; Heider v. Unicume, 142 Or. 416, 20 P.2d. 384; Glenney v. Crane (Tex Civ App Houston (1st Dist)), 352 S.W.2d. 773, writ ref n r e (May 16, 1962)

[4] Restatement 2d, Contracts §174, stating that if conduct that appears to be a manifestation of assent by a party who does not intend to engage in that conduct is physically compelled by duress, the conduct is not effective as a manifestation of assent.

The inference is therefore inescapable that:

“In order to be “law” that applies equally to ALL, it must provide a remedy AFTER an injury occurs.  It may not PREVENT injuries before they occur.  Anything that operates in a PREVENTIVE rather than CORRECTIVE mode is a franchise.  There is no standing in a REAL court to sue WITHOUT first demonstrating such an injury to the PRIVATE or NATURAL rights of the Plaintiff or VICTIM.”

---

7. ABUSE OF LAW AS RELIGION

Religion is legally defined as follows:

“Religion.  Man’s relation to Divinity, to reverence, worship, obedience, and submission to mandates and precepts of supernatural or superior beings.  In its broadest sense includes all forms of belief in the existence of superior beings exercising power over human beings by volition, imposing rules of conduct, with future rewards and punishments.  Bond uniting man to God, and a virtue whose purpose is to render God worship due him as source of all being and principle of all government of things. Nikulnikoff v. Archbishop, etc., of Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church, 142 Misc. 894, 255 N.Y.S. 653, 663.”
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1292]

According to the above definition, every system of religion is based on:

1. The existence of a superior being.
2. Faith in the superior being.
3. Obedience to the laws of that superior being. This is called “worship”.
4. The nature of the superior being as the basis for the “government of all things”.
5. Supreme allegiance to the will of the superior being.

Principles of law can be abused to create a counterfeit state-sponsored religion which imitates God’s religion in every particular.  To see the full extent of how this has been done and all the symptoms, see Socialism:  The New American Civil Religion, Form #05.016, Section 14.2.  Right now, we will summarize how the above elements of religion can be “simulated” through abuse of the legal system by your covetous public servants:

1. Government franchises can be created which make those in government superior in relation to everyone else for all those who participate. People are recruited to join the church by being compelled to participate in these franchises because they are deprived of basic necessities needed to survive if they don’t.
2. “Presumption” can be used as a substitute for religious faith. A presumption is simply a belief that either is not or cannot be supported by legally admissible evidence.
3. Fear of punishments administered under the “presumed” but not actual authority of law can be used to ensure obedience toward and therefore “worship” of the superior being.
4. The superior being is the government, and thereby that superior being is the basis for the “government of all things”.
5. Allegiance to the government is supreme because very strong punishments follow for those who refuse obedience because their OTHER God forbids it.

This section will focus on steps 1 and 2 above, which is how presumption and law are abused to create a religion that at least “appears” to most people to be a legitimate government function.

Before you can fool people using the process above, you must first dumb them down from a legal perspective.  This is done by removing all aspects of legal education from the public school and junior college curricula so that only “priests” of a civil religion called “attorneys” will even come close to knowing the truth about what is going on.  This will bring the population of people who know down to a small enough level that they can easily be targeted and controlled by those in the government who license and regulate them without the need for police power, guns, or military force.  The legal field is so lucrative and most lawyers are so greedy that economic coercion alone is sufficient to keep the limited few who know the truth “gagged” from sharing it with others, lest their revenues dry up.

“The mouth which eats does not talk.”
[Chinese Proverb]

After you have dumbed down the masses, the sheep in the general public are easy to control through carefully targeted deception and propaganda for which the speakers are insulated from liability for their LIES.

1. The IRS has given itself free reign to literally lie to the public with impunity in their publications:
   

   Internal Revenue Manual
   Section 4.10.7.2.8  (05-14-1999)

   IRS Publications

   IRS Publications, issued by the Headquarters Office, explain the law in plain language for taxpayers and their advisors. They typically highlight changes in the law, provide examples illustrating Service positions, and include worksheets. Publications are nonbinding on the Service and do not necessarily cover all positions for a given issue. While a good source of general information, publications should not be cited to sustain a position.

2. IRS allows its agents to use pseudonyms other than their real legal name so that they are protected from accountability if they misrepresent the truth to the public. See:
3. Federal courts have given the IRS license to lie on their phone support, and in person. See:
4. Even the federal courts themselves routinely lie with impunity, because they are accountable to no one and the IRS doesn’t even listen to the courts below the U.S. Supreme Court anyway: Judges control the selection of grand juries and they abuse this authority to choose sheep who will do what they are told and never indict the judge himself because they are too ignorant, lazy, and uneducated to think for themselves and take a risk.
   

   Internal Revenue Manual
   4.10.7.2.9.8 (05-14-1999) Importance of Court Decisions

   1. Decisions made at various levels of the court system are considered to be interpretations of tax laws and may be used by either examiners or taxpayers to support a position.
   2. Certain court cases lend more weight to a position than others. A case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court becomes the law of the land and takes precedence over decisions of lower courts. The Internal Revenue Service must follow Supreme Court decisions. For examiners, Supreme Court decisions have the same weight as the Code.
   3. Decisions made by lower courts, such as Tax Court, District Courts, or Claims Court, are binding on the Service only for the particular taxpayer and the years litigated. Adverse decisions of lower courts do not require the Service to alter its position for other taxpayers.

Now that those in government who run the system have a license to lie with impunity, next you pass a “franchise code” that has the FORM and APPEARANCE of law, but which actually ISN’T law.  The U.S. Supreme Court referred to such a “code”, when it said:

“To lay, with one hand, the power of the government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it upon favored individuals to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes, is none the less a robbery because it is done under the forms of law and is called taxation.  This is not legislation.  It is a decree under legislative forms.

Nor is it taxation.  ‘A tax,’ says Webster’s Dictionary, ‘is a rate or sum of money assessed on the person or property of a citizen by government for the use of the nation or State.’  ‘Taxes are burdens or charges imposed by the Legislature upon persons or property to raise money for public purposes.’  Cooley, Const. Lim., 479.“
[Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655 (1874) ]

In that sense, franchise codes become a vehicle for propaganda focused solely on propagating false presumptions and beliefs about the liabilities of the average American toward the government.  To the legal layman and the average American however, such a ruse will at least “look” like law, but those who advance it know or at least SHOULD know that it isn’t.  If they don’t know, they are victims of propaganda and mental programming in law school and government publications.  Only a select few “priests” of the civil religion at the top of the civil religion who set up the fraud know the truth, and these few people are so well paid that they keep their mouths SHUT.

There are many ways to create a state-sponsored “bible” that looks like law and has the forms of law.  For instance, you can:

1. Create a franchise agreement that “activates” or becomes legally enforceable only with your individual and explicit consent in some form. In that sense, the code which embodies this private law behaves just like a state-sponsored bible:  It only applies to those who BELIEVE they are subject to it.  The self-serving deception and propaganda spread by the legal profession and the government are the main reason that anyone “believes” or “presumes” that they are subject to it.
2. Codify the codes pertaining to a subject into a single title in the U.S. Code and then REPEAL the whole darned thing, but surround the language with so much subtle legalese that the REPEAL will be undetectable to all but the most highly trained legal minds.
3. Enact the code into something other than “positive law”. This makes such a code “prima facie evidence”, meaning nothing more than a “presumption” that is NOT admissible as evidence of an obligation in a court of law.
   
   

   “Prima facie.  Lat. At first sight on the first appearance; on the face of it; so far as can be judged from the first disclosure; presumably; a fact presumed to be true unless disproved by some evidence to the contrary.  State ex rel. Herbert v. Whims, 68 Ohio.App. 39, 38 N.E.2d. 596, 499, 22 O.O. 110.  See also Presumption.”
   [Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1189]

Now let’s apply the above concepts to show how ALL THREE have been employed to create a civil religion of socialism using the Internal Revenue Code.

First, we establish that the Internal Revenue Code is an excise tax which applies to those engaged in an activity called a “trade or business”.  26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26) defines this activity as “the functions of a public office”.  The nature of this franchise is exhaustively described in the memorandum below:

Even the courts recognize that the Internal Revenue Code is a private law franchise agreement, when they said that it only pertains to franchisees called “taxpayers”:

“The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws…”
[Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236 (1922)]

“Revenue Laws relate to taxpayers [officers, employees, and elected officials of the Federal Government] and not to non-taxpayers [American Citizens/American Nationals not subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Government].  The latter are without their scope.  No procedures are prescribed for non-taxpayers and no attempt is made to annul any of their Rights or Remedies in due course of law.”
[Economy Plumbing & Heating v. U.S., 470 F.2d. 585 (1972)]

Based on the above article, the nature of the Internal Revenue Code as a franchise and an excise tax is carefully concealed by both the IRS and the courts in order so that people will not know that their express consent is required and exactly how that consent was provided.  If they knew that, they would all instantly abandon the activity and cease to be “taxpayers” or lawful subjects of IRS enforcement.

Next, we note that the entire Internal Revenue Code was REPEALED in 1939 and has never since been reenacted.  You can see the amazing evidence for yourself right from the horse’s mouth below:

Below is the text of the repeal extracted from the above:

Internal Revenue Code of 1939, Chapter 2, 53 Stat 1

Sec. 4.  Repeal and Savings Provisions.—(a) The Internal Revenue Title, as hereinafter set forth, is intended to include all general laws of the United States and parts of such laws, relating exclusively to internal revenue, in force on the 2d day of January 1939 (1) of a permanent nature and (2) of a temporary nature if embraced in said Internal Revenue Title.  In furtherance of that purpose, all such laws and parts of laws codified herein, to the extent they relate exclusively to internal revenue, are repealed, effective, except as provided in section 5, on the day following the date of enactment of this act.

(b) Such repeal shall not affect any act done or any right accruing or accrued, or any suit or proceeding had or commenced in any civil cause before the said repeal, but all rights and liabilities under said acts shall continue, and may be enforced in the same manner, as if said repeal had not been made; nor shall any office, position, employment board, or committee, be abolished by such repeal, but the same shall continue under the pertinent provisions of the Internal Revenue Title.

(c)  All offenses committed, and all penalties or forfeitures incurred under any statute hereby repealed, may be prosecuted and punished in the same manner and with the same effect as if this act had not been passed.

Sec. 5.  Continuance of Existing Law.—Any provision of law in force on the 2d day of January 1939 corresponding to a provision contained in the Internal Revenue Title shall remain in force until the corresponding provision under such Title takes effect.
[Revenue Act of 1939, 53 Stat. 1, Section 4, emphasis added]

The above repeal is also reflected in 26 U.S.C. §7851:

TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 80 > Subchapter B > § 7851
7851. Applicability of revenue laws

(a) General rules

Except as otherwise provided in any section of this title—

(1) Subtitle A

(A) Chapters 1, 2, 4,^[1] and 6 of this title [these are the chapters that make up Subtitle A] shall apply only with respect to taxable years [basically calendar years] beginning after December 31, 1953, and ending after the date of enactment of this title, and with respect to such taxable years, chapters 1 (except sections 143 and 144) and 2, and section 3801, of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 are hereby repealed.

Note the key word “and ending after the date of enactment of this title”.  That word “and” means that the taxable year must both begin after December 31, 1953 AND end after enactment of the title into law.  The Internal Revenue Code was enacted into law on August 16, 1954.

TITLE 26–INTERNAL REVENUE
CHAPTER I–INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
PART 1_INCOME TAXES–Table of Contents
Sec.1.0-1 Internal Revenue Code of 1954 and regulations.

(a) Enactment of law.

The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 which became law upon enactment of Public Law 591, 83d Congress, approved August 16, 1954, provides in part as follows:. . .

Therefore, only calendar years BOTH beginning after December 31, 1953 AND ending after August 16, 1954 are included, which means only in the calendar year 1954 is the Internal Revenue Code, Subtitle A enforceable.  If they had meant otherwise and had meant the code to apply to all years beyond 1954, they would have said “OR” rather than “AND”.

Next, we will look at how the Internal Revenue Code consists of nothing more than simply a “presumption” that is not admissible as evidence in any legal proceeding.  1 U.S.C. §204 lists all of the titles within the U.S. Code.  Of Title 26, it says that Title 26, the Internal Revenue Code, is “prima facie evidence”:

1 U.S.C. §204:  Codes and Supplements as evidence of the laws of United States and District of Columbia; citation of Codes and Supplements

Sec. 204. – Codes and Supplements as evidence of the laws of United States and District of Columbia; citation of Codes and Supplements

In all courts, tribunals, and public offices of the United States, at home or abroad, of the District of Columbia, and of each

State, Territory, or insular possession of the United States –

(a) United States Code. –

[1] The matter set forth in the edition of the Code of Laws of the United States current at any time shall, together with the then current supplement, if any, establish prima facie [by presumption] the laws of the United States, general and permanent in their nature, in force on the day preceding the commencement of the session following the last session the legislation of which is included:

[2] Provided, however, That whenever titles of such Code shall have been enacted into positive law the text thereof shall be legal evidence of the laws therein contained, in all the courts of the United States, the several States, and the Territories and insular possessions of the United States.

Of “prima facie”, Blacks’ Law Dictionary says:

“Prima facie.  Lat. At first sight on the first appearance; on the face of it; so far as can be judged from the first disclosure; presumably; a fact presumed to be true unless disproved by some evidence to the contrary.  State ex rel. Herbert v. Whims, 68 Ohio.App. 39, 38 N.E.2d. 596, 499, 22 O.O. 110.  See also Presumption.”
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1189]

1 U.S.C. §204 establishes a presumption and it is a statute.  That means it establishes a “statutory presumption”.  The U.S. Supreme Court has held that “statutory presumptions” are unconstitutional and that they are superseded by the presumption of innocence:

“The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law.”
[Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432, 453 (1895)]

_________________________________________________________________________________________

“It is apparent,’ this court said in the Bailey Case ( 219 U.S. 239 , 31 S. Ct. 145, 151) ‘that a constitutional prohibition cannot be transgressed indirectly by the creation of a statutory presumption any more than it can be violated by direct enactment. The power to create presumptions is not a means of escape from constitutional restrictions.”
[Heiner v. Donnan, 285 U.S. 312 (1932)]

Evidence that is “prima facie” means simply a presumption.  The following rules apply to presumptions:

1. The accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty with evidence.
2. Only evidence and facts can convict a person.
   

   “guilt must be proven by legally obtained evidence”

3. A “presumption” is not evidence, but simply a belief akin to a religion.
   

   A presumption is an assumption of fact that the law requires to be made from another fact or group of facts found or otherwise established in the action.  A presumption is not evidence.  A presumption is either conclusive or rebuttable.  Every rebuttable presumption is either (a) a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence or (b) a presumption affecting the burden of proof.  Calif.Evid.Code, §600.

   In all civil actions and proceedings not otherwise provided for by Act of Congress or by the Federal Rules of Evidence, a presumption imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of going forward with evidence to rebut or meet the presumption, but does not shift to such party the burden of proof in the sense of the risk of nonpersuasion, which remains throughout the trial upon the party on whom it was originally cast.  Federal Evidence Rule 301.

   See also Disputable presumption; inference; Juris et de jure; Presumptive evidence; Prima facie; Raise a presumption.
   [Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1185]

4. Beliefs and opinions are NOT admissible as evidence in any court.
   

   Federal Rules of Evidence

   Rule 610. Religious Beliefs or Opinions

   Evidence of the beliefs or opinions of a witness on matters of religion is not admissible for the purpose of showing that by reason of their nature the witness’ credibility is impaired or enhanced.
   [SOURCE: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule610]

5. Presumptions may not be imposed if they injure rights protected by the Constitution:
   

   (1) [8:4993] Conclusive presumptions affecting protected interests:  A conclusive presumption may be defeated where its application would impair a party’s constitutionally-protected liberty or property interests.  In such cases, conclusive presumptions have been held to violate a party’s due process and equal protection rights.  [Vlandis v. Kline (1973) 412 U.S. 441, 449, 93 S.Ct. 2230, 2235; Cleveland Bed. of Ed. v. LaFleur (1974) 414 US 632, 639-640, 94 S.Ct. 1208, 1215-presumption under Illinois law that unmarried fathers are unfit violates process]
   [Federal Civil Trials and Evidence, Rutter Group, paragraph 8:4993, p. 8K-34]

6. Presumptions are the OPPOSITE of “due process” of law and undermine and destroy it:
   

   “If any question of fact or liability be conclusively be presumed [rather than proven] against him, this is not due process of law.”

You can read more about the above in our memorandum below:

Consequently, it is unconstitutional for a judge to allow any provision of the Internal Revenue Code to be cited as legal evidence of an obligation.  The only thing that can be cited is the underlying revenue statutes from the Statutes At Large, because the code itself is a presumption.  That approach doesn’t work either, however, because 53 Stat. 1, Section 4 above repealed those statutes also.  Therefore, there is no law to which is admissible as evidence of any obligation and therefore:

1. The entire Internal Revenue Code is nothing but a system of beliefs and presumptions unsupported by evidence.
2. Any judge that elevates such a presumption to the level of evidence is enacting law into force, and no judge has legislative powers. This is a violation of the separation of powers doctrine.
3. All judicial proceedings involving the Internal Revenue Code amount to nothing more than church worship services or inquisitions for those who “believe” the code applies to them.
4. If the judge allows the government to cite a provision of the I.R.C. against a private litigant without providing legally admissible evidence from the Statutes at Large which ARE positive law, he is engaging in an act of religion and belief without any evidentiary support and which CANNOT be supported.
5. Anyone criminally convicted under any provision of the Internal Revenue Code is nothing more than a political prisoner or a person who is a heretic against the state sponsored religion.

The mechanisms for the state sponsored religion are subtle, but all the elements are there.  We will examine all of these elements in the following chapters because they are extensive.

---

8.  CIVIL STATUTES ARE NOT “LAW” AS DEFINED IN THE BIBLE[1]

In his wonderful course on justice and mercy that we highly recommend, Pastor Tim Keller analyzes the elements that make up “justice” from both a legal and a biblical perspective.

At 19:00 he begins covering biblical justice and introduces the subject by quoting Lev. 24:22:

“You shall have the same law for the stranger and for one from your own country; for I am the Lord your God.’”
[Lev. 24:22, Bible, NKJV]

The above scripture may seem innocuous at first until you consider what a biblical “stranger” is.  In legal terms, it means a “nonresident”.  A “nonresident”, in turn, is a transient wanderer who is not domiciled in the physical place that he or she is physically located.  To have the SAME law for both nonresident and domiciliary means they are BOTH treated equally by the government and the court.  This scripture therefore advocates equality of protection and treatment between nonresidents and domiciliaries.  We cover the subject of equality of protection and treatment in:

The legal implications of Lev. 24:22 is the following:

1. A biblical “stranger” is called a “nonresident” in the legal field.
2. A biblical stranger is therefore someone WITHOUT a civil domicile in the place he is physically located.
3. The Bible says in Lev. 24:22 that you must have the SAME “law” for both the stranger and the domiciliary.
4. The civil statutory code acquires the “force of law” only upon the consent of those who are subject to it. Hence, the main difference between the nonresident and the domiciliary is consent.
5. The only type of “law” that is the SAME for both nonresidents and domiciliaries is the common law and the criminal law, because:
   • Neither one of these two types of law requires consent of those they are enforced against.
   • Neither one requires a civil domicile to be enforceable. A mere physical or commercial presence is sufficient to enforce EITHER.

The conclusion is therefore inescapable that the only way the nonresident and the domiciliary can be treated EXACTLY equally in a biblical sense is if:

1. The only type of “law” God authorizes is the criminal law and the common law. This means that God Himself defines “law” as NOT including the civil statutes or protection franchises.
2. Anything OTHER than the criminal law and common law is not “law” but merely a compact or contract enforceable only against those who individually and expressly consent. Implicit in the idea of consent is the absence of duress, coercion, or force of any kind.  This means that the government offering civil statutes or “protection franchises” MUST:
   • NEVER call these statutes “law” but only an offer to contract with those who seek their “benefits”.
   • Only offer an opportunity to consent to those who are legally capable of lawfully consenting. Those in states of the Union whose rights are UNALIENABLE are legally incapable of consenting.
   • RECOGNIZE WHERE consent is impossible, which means among those whose PRIVATE or NATURAL rights are unalienable in states of the Union.
   • RECOGNIZE those who refuse to consent.
   • Provide a way administratively to express and register their non-consent and be acknowledged with legally admissible evidence that their withdrawal of consent has been registered..
   • PROTECT those who refuse to consent from retribution for not “volunteering”.
3. The civil statutory code may NOT be created, enacted, enforced, or offered against ANYONE OTHER than those who LAWFULLY consented and had the legal capacity to consent because they are either abroad or on federal territory, both of which are not protected by the Constitution. Why?  Because it is a “protection franchise” that DESTROYS equality of treatment of those who are subject to it.  We cover this in Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030.
4. Everyone in states of the Union MUST be conclusively presumed to NOT consent to ANY civil domicile and therefore be EQUAL under ALL “laws” within the venue.
5. Both private people AND those in government, or even the entire government are on an equal footing with each other in court. NONE enjoys any special advantage, which means no one in government may assert sovereign, official, or judicial immunity UNLESS PRIVATE people can as well.
6. Anyone who tries to enact, offer, or enforce ANY civil statutory “codes” and especially franchises is attempting what the U.S. Supreme Court calls “class legislation” that leads inevitably to strife in society:
   

   “The income tax law under consideration is marked by discriminating features which affect the whole law. It discriminates between those who receive an income of $4,000 and those who do not. It thus vitiates, in my judgment, by this arbitrary discrimination, the whole legislation. Hamilton says in one of his papers (the Continentalist): ‘The genius of liberty reprobates everything arbitrary or discretionary in taxation. It exacts that every man, by a definite and general rule, should know what proportion of his property the state demands; whatever liberty we may boast of in theory, it cannot exist in fact while [arbitrary] assessments continue.’ 1 Hamilton’s Works (Ed. 1885) 270. The legislation, in the discrimination it makes, is class legislation. Whenever a distinction is made in the burdens a law imposes or in the benefits it confers on any citizens by reason of their birth, or wealth, or religion, it is class legislation, and leads inevitably to oppression and abuses, and to general unrest and disturbance in society. It was hoped and believed that the great amendments to the constitution which followed the late Civil War had rendered such legislation impossible for all future time.”

   [Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)]

7. Any attempt to refer to the civil code as “law” in a biblical sense by anyone in the legal profession is a deception and a heresy. They are LYING!
8. The only proper way to refer to the civil statutory code is as “PRIVATE LAW” or “SPECIAL LAW”, but not merely “law”. Any other description leads to deception.
   

   “Private law.  That portion of the law which defines, regulates, enforces, and administers relationships among individuals, associations, and corporations.  As used in contradistinction to public law, the term means all that part of the law which is administered between citizen and citizen, or which is concerned with the definition, regulation, and enforcement of rights in cases where both the person in whom the right inheres and the person upon whom the obligation is incident are private individuals.  See also Private bill; Special law.  Compare Public Law.”
   [Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1196]

   “special law. One relating to particular persons or things; one made for individual cases or for particular places or districts; one operating upon a selected class, rather than upon the public generally.  A private law.  A law is “special” when it is different from others of the same general kind or designed for a particular purpose, or limited in range or confined to a prescribed field of action or operation.  A “special law” relates to either particular persons, places, or things or to persons, places, or things which, though not particularized, are separated by any method of selection from the whole class to which the law might, but not such legislation, be applied.  Utah Farm Bureau Ins. Co. v. Utah Ins. Guaranty Ass’n, Utah, 564 P.2d. 751, 754.  A special law applies only to an individual or a number of individuals out of a single class similarly situated and affected, or to a special locality.  Board of County Com’rs of Lemhi County v. Swensen, Idaho, 80 Idaho 198, 327 P.2d. 361, 362.  See also Private bill; Private law.  Compare General law; Public law.”
   [Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, pp. 1397-1398]

9. Anyone who advocates creating, offering, or enforcing the civil statutory code in any society corrupts society, usually for the sake of the love of money. In effect, they seek to turn the civil temple of government into a WHOREHOUSE.  Justice is only possible when those who administer it are impartial and have no financial conflict of interest.  The purpose of all franchises is to raise government revenue, usually for the “benefit” mainly of those in the government, and not for anyone else.
   

   “As expressed otherwise, the powers delegated to a public officer are held in trust for the people and are to be exercised in behalf of the government or of all citizens who may need the intervention of the officer. [2]  Furthermore, the view has been expressed that all public officers, within whatever branch and whatever level of government, and whatever be their private vocations, are trustees of the people, and accordingly labor under every disability and prohibition imposed by law upon trustees relative to the making of personal financial gain from a discharge of their trusts. [3]   That is, a public officer occupies a fiduciary relationship to the political entity on whose behalf he or she serves. [4]  and owes a fiduciary duty to the public. [5]   It has been said that the fiduciary responsibilities of a public officer cannot be less than those of a private individual. [6]   Furthermore, it has been stated that any enterprise undertaken by the public official which tends to weaken public confidence and undermine the sense of security for individual rights is against public policy.[7]“
   [63C American Jurisprudence 2d, Public Officers and Employees, §247 (1999)]

The above analysis is EXACTLY the approach we take in defining what “law” is in the following memorandum:

_______________

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Source:  Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Form #05.002, Section 10.3; https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm.

[2] State ex rel. Nagle v. Sullivan, 98 Mont. 425, 40 P.2d. 995, 99 A.L.R. 321; Jersey City v. Hague, 18 N.J. 584, 115 A.2d. 8.

[3] Georgia Dep’t of Human Resources v. Sistrunk, 249 Ga. 543, 291 S.E.2d. 524.  A public official is held in public trust.  Madlener v. Finley (1st Dist), 161 Ill.App.3d. 796, 113 Ill.Dec. 712, 515 N.E.2d. 697, app gr 117 Ill.Dec. 226, 520 N.E.2d. 387 and revd on other grounds 128 Ill.2d. 147, 131 Ill.Dec. 145, 538 N.E.2d. 520.

[4] Chicago Park Dist. v. Kenroy, Inc., 78 Ill.2d. 555, 37 Ill.Dec. 291, 402 N.E.2d. 181, appeal after remand (1st Dist) 107 Ill.App.3d. 222, 63 Ill.Dec. 134, 437 N.E.2d. 783.

[5] United States v. Holzer (CA7 Ill), 816 F.2d. 304 and vacated, remanded on other grounds  484 U.S. 807,  98 L.Ed. 2d 18,  108 S.Ct. 53, on remand (CA7 Ill) 840 F.2d. 1343, cert den  486 U.S. 1035,  100 L.Ed. 2d 608,  108 S.Ct. 2022 and (criticized on other grounds by United States v. Osser (CA3 Pa) 864 F.2d. 1056) and (superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in United States v. Little (CA5 Miss) 889 F.2d. 1367) and (among conflicting authorities on other grounds noted in United States v. Boylan (CA1 Mass) 898 F.2d. 230, 29 Fed.Rules.Evid.Serv. 1223).

[6] Chicago ex rel. Cohen v. Keane, 64 Ill.2d. 559, 2 Ill.Dec. 285, 357 N.E.2d. 452, later proceeding (1st Dist) 105 Ill.App.3d. 298, 61 Ill.Dec. 172, 434 N.E.2d. 325.

[7] Indiana State Ethics Comm’n v. Nelson (Ind App), 656 N.E.2d. 1172, reh gr (Ind App) 659 N.E.2d. 260, reh den (Jan 24, 1996) and transfer den (May 28, 1996).

9. TOO MUCH LAW CAUSES CRIME!

“The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.”
[Tacitus, Roman historian 55-117 A.D.]

Yes, that’s right. I, being of sound mind and aging body, do solemnly acclaim and justly affirm that I am a criminal. And, if I do my job correctly, by the time you finish reading this you will realize that not only are you a criminal also, but that it is almost impossible NOT to be a criminal in modern society; and, what you should do about it.

My premise is simply that government, not only at the federal level but in particular at the state and local level, has grown so gorged and bloated that it has become virtually impossible for any of us to remain “law-abiding citizens.” In order to be law-abiding, one must first know and understand the law.

“All persons in the United States are chargeable with knowledge of the Statutes-at-Large….It is well established that anyone who deals with the government assumes the risk that the agent acting in the government’s behalf has exceeded the bounds of his authority,”
[Bollow v. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, 650 F.2d. 1093 (9th Cir. 1981)]

Now I ask you, in today’s society how many people really know, let alone understand or even READ, “the law?” Moreover, how many policemen really know or, more importantly, understand the law?  Do the lawyers and judges, who are charged with the protection of America’s most sacred document, even understand the law?  Judging from the number of appealed judgments these days, it would appear that even these “protectors of justice” are unable to effectively untangle the thicket of jurisprudence created by the endless loads of fertilizer produced by the various legislatures.

Just the number of laws one would have to read and familiarize themselves with in order to become adequately knowledgeable makes the task near to impossible.  It would literally be a full time and lifetime job to read and learn ALL laws and there would be no time left to have a REAL life!  Why, we would all have to go to law school just to get to a proper starting point of understanding the law. Last year, in North Carolina alone, 519 new laws were passed by the General ASSembly. Sixty new laws took affect in the Old North State on January 1st of this year. Add these to the tens of thousands of laws already on the books and you begin to see the enormity of the endeavor to properly understand justice and how its principles are to be applied. And that is just in one state, folks. I wonder how many “new” laws have been instituted where you live this year?

Still skeptical? Take an afternoon and go to the nearest law library. Even the name “law library” should send a chill down any thinking person’s spine.  I am not talking about a corner of your local public library where you’ll find a shelf or two stocked with reference books about a particular subject. No, I mean a whole library devoted to cataloging all the things you and I are not allowed to do.  Whole rooms filled wall-to-wall and floor-to-ceiling with a seemingly endless array of laws, statutes, and regulations.  Shelf next to shelf, volume upon volume, and page after page, creating a twisting, turning maze of decisions, rulings, and appeals. This is where you go when you seek comprehension of the chains that fetter your pursuit of happiness. Have a seat and look around at what you must learn if you really want to be an honest, up-standing, law-abiding citizen.

“It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?

“It has been frequently remarked, with great propriety, that a voluminous code of laws is one of the inconveniences necessarily connected with the advantages of a free government. To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules [of statutory construction and interpretation] and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them; and it will readily be conceived from the variety of controversies which grow out of the folly and wickedness of mankind, that the records of those precedents must unavoidably swell to a very considerable bulk, and must demand long and laborious study to acquire a competent knowledge of them.”
[Federalist Paper No. 78, Alexander Hamilton]

Government has simply made it too easy to break the law for us not to be criminals. I mean, you are required to have a license or permit to do practically everything.  That means that you must go to a bureaucrat somewhere and ask their permission before you proceed or you become a criminal.  If you want to drive to work, you must first have a paper from the State that says you are allowed to operate a statutory “motor vehicle”, meaning a vehicle used in interstate commerce to effect transportation for hire.  If you want to improve your home, you are required to go downtown and stand before your elected rulers and beg their indulgence and literally pay them a bribe so that you can add that patio or finish your basement.  If you want to get a job to support your family, you cannot do so without a number supplied by the benevolent nannies that soil the seats of CONgress.  How long does this list have to be before you realize that if you have to ask permission to do everything, not only will you eventually slip up and become a criminal, but you have also ceased to be free?  With every new law enacted another little piece of liberty dies.

The Thirteenth Amendment outlaws INVOLUNTARY servitude, meaning slavery.  That means you own yourself.

“Every man has a natural right to the fruits of his own labor, is generally admitted; and no other person can rightfully deprive him of those fruits, and appropriate them against his will…”
[The Antelope, 23 U.S. 66, 10 Wheat 66, 6 L.Ed. 268 (1825)]

If in fact you own your own body and all the fruits of your labor, then they are PRIVATE property that cannot be licensed or regulated by the government without THEM getting YOUR permission.  That is the legal definition of “ownership” itself.  The fact that they DON’T ask for such permission can only be explained by the fact that you must have volunteered.  But how?

Ownership. Collection of rights to use and enjoy property, including right to transmit it to others. Trustees of Phillips Exeter Academy v. Exeter, 92 N.H. 473, 33 A.2d. 665, 673. The complete dominion, title, or proprietary right in a thing or claim. The entirety of the powers of use and disposal allowed by law.

The right of one or more persons to possess and use a thing to the exclusion of others. The right by which a thing belongs to someone in particular, to the exclusion of all other persons. The exclusive right of possession, enjoyment, and disposal; involving as an essential attribute the right to control, handle, and dispose.

Ownership of property is either absolute or qualified. The ownership of property is absolute when a single person has the absolute dominion over it, and may use it or dispose of it according to his pleasure, subject only to general laws. The ownership is qualified when it is shared with one or more persons, when the time of enjoyment is deferred or limited, or when the use is restricted. Calif. Civil Code, §§678-680.

There may be ownership of all inanimate things which are capable of appropriation or of manual delivery; of all domestic animals; of all obligations; of such products of labor or skill as the composition of an author, the goodwill of a business, trademarks and signs, and of rights created or granted by statute. Calif. Civil Code, §655.

In connection with burglary, “ownership” means any possession which is rightful as against the burglar.

See also Equitable ownership; Exclusive ownership; Hold; Incident of ownership; Interest; Interval ownership; Ostensible ownership; Owner; Possession; Title.

[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1106]

_______________________________________________________________________________________

“PROPERTY. Rightful dominion over external objects; ownership; the unrestricted and exclusive right to a thing; the right to dispose of the substance of a thing in every legal way, to possess it, to use it and to exclude every one else from interfering with it. Mackeld. Rom. Law, § 265.

Property is the highest right a man can have to anything; being used for that right which one has to lands or tenements, goods or chattels, which no way depends on another man’s courtesy. Jackson ex dem. Pearson v. Housel, 17 Johns. 281, 283.

A right imparting to the owner a power of indefinite user, capable of being transmitted to universal successors by way of descent, and imparting to the owner the power of disposition, from himself and his successors per universitatem, and from all other persons who have a spes successions under any existing concession or disposition, in favor of such person or series of persons as he may choose, with the like capacities and powers as he had himself, and under such conditions as the municipal or particular law allows to be annexed to the dispositions of private persons. Aust. Jur. (Campbell’s Ed.) § 1103.

The right of property is that sole and despotic dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in total exclusion of the right of any other individual in the universe. It consists in the free use, enjoyment and disposal of all a person’s acquisitions, without any control or diminution save only by the laws of the land. 1 Bl. Comm. 138; 2 Bl. Comm. 2, 15.

The word is also commonly used to denote any external object over which, the right of property is exercised. In this sense i t is a very wide term, and includes every class of acquisitions which a man can own or have an interest in. See Scranton v. Wheeler, 179 D. S. 141, 21 Sup. C t 48, 45 L. Ed. 126; Lawrence v. Hennessey, 165 Mo. 659, 65 S. W. 717; Boston & L. R. Corp. v. Salem & L. R. Co., 2 Gray (Mass.), 35; National Tel. News Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co., 119 Fed. 294, 56 C. C. A. 198, 60 L. R. A. 805; Hamilton v. Rathbone, 175 U. S. 414, 20 Sup. Ct. 155, 44 L. Ed. 219; Stanton v. Lewis, 26 Conn. 449;Wilson v. Ward Lumber Co. (C. C.) 67 Fed. 674.

—Absolute property . In respect to chattels personal property is said to be “absolute” where a man has, solely and exclusively, the right and also the occupation of any movable chattels, so permanent, but may at some times subsist and not at other times; such for example, as the property a man may have in wild animals which he has caught and keeps, and which are his only so long as he retains possession of them. 2 BL Comm. 389.—Real property . A general term for lands, tenements, and hereditaments; property which, on the death of the owner intestate, passes to his heir. Real property is either corporeal or incorporeal. See Code N. Y. § 462 — Separate property . The separate property of a married woman is that which she owns in her own right, which is liable only for her own debts, and which she can incumber and dispose of at her own will.—Special property. Property of a qualified, temporary, or limited nature; as distinguished from absolute, general, or unconditional property. Such is the property of a bailee in the article bailed, of a sheriff in goods temporarily in his hands under a levy, of the finder of lost goods while looking for the owner, of a person in wild animals which he has caught. Stief v. Hart, 1 N.Y. 24; Moulton  v. Witherell, 52 Me. 242; Eisendrath v. Knauer, 64 111. 402; Phelps v. People, 72 N.Y. 357.

[Black’s Law Dictionary, Second Edition, p. 955]

Why, then, do you need “permission” from anyone, including a government, to use property and exclude all others from using, controlling, or benefitting from the property, if you have absolute ownership over it?  The answer is you don’t, unless you are physically present AND domiciled where there are no constitutional rights, which means either abroad or on federal territory not within any constitutional state.  See:

Perhaps nothing exemplifies my point more so than a personal experience I had several years ago. I was invited by a friend to accompany him on a fishing expedition to one of the local lakes owned by the county where we both reside. Being the careful individual that I am, I researched the laws concerning wildlife management, as well as, the regulations adopted by the county. I found that if I only fished using live bait, the law did not require that I obtain a fishing license as long as I remained in the county of my residence.  I was very pleased with myself that I had found a way to save a few bucks on what promised to be an enjoyable outing.

However, the day was not to go unspoiled. Not long after we had launched our boat and found what we thought looked like a promising spot, we were approached by a game warden. I remained unconcerned as we chatted and I proudly showed him that I was only using live bait and therefore required no state sanction. He asked for proof of my residence, which I supplied via business cards and a recent tax bill that I was going to pay on my way home. It was then that he informed me that I was in violation of state law. I was beginning to protest that I was in full compliance of the wildlife management code when the warden told me he was not referring to the wildlife code. It was then that I learned I was in violation of state law for appearing in public and not possessing a picture ID. At that moment, the veil was lifted from my eyes as my day of personal enlightenment dawned.

I realized that every time I set foot off of my own property, I became a criminal. I violate the law each and every time I take a leisurely stroll around my neighborhood. In almost half a century on this earth, I have never been arrested, much less convicted of a crime; and yet, all I have to do to become a criminal in the eyes of the State is leave home! Why? Because I do not have a snapshot of myself, taken by a state-sanctioned bureaucrat, in my pocket when I go out in public. I must ask you, am I really free? Are you really free? Are your papers in order? Are you a criminal?  And even if you have such papers, don’t they really evidence a public office that you don’t lawfully serve in ANYWAY, so why do you need them?  See:

There are laws regulating everything from what color you can and cannot paint your house to what kind of sex in which two consenting adults are allowed to engage. Why is it like this? Crime is big business, that’s why. In fact, crime is government’s biggest industry!

Surprised to see me say that? It really isn’t all that odd when you consider that the State derives revenue on both sides of the law. Remember, all those licenses and permits you are required to obtain are accompanied by fees. While on the flip side, every breech of the never-ending, self-perpetuating, always-growing bureaucracy carries a fine. You are forced to pay in order to abide by the law so you can avoid having to pay for breaking the law.

Therefore, as the beast has grown, it has become the State’s own self interest that drives legislators to constantly search for new sources of revenue. That’s why 519 laws were passed in my home state last year. That is why 500 new laws will probably be passed this year, and again next year, and again the year after that. The only way a government can realize greater income than it does today is either by accelerating tax increases; or, by creating new ways for us to become criminals and providing the appropriately-priced bounties required to avoid becoming criminals.  THAT, in FACT, is why they call every new “law” they pass a “bill”:  They want more money from you!  That is also why, when they want to “accuse” you of a crime, they call it “charging you” with a crime:  They want to “charge” you more money.  Why not just call it “alleging” or “accusing” rather than “charging”?   It’s not a coincidence!  So you see, every new law not only nibbles away at your freedom while further gorging an already bloated beast Bureaucracy, it also becomes a new source of revenue for the State.

So, we are left with the question, “What can be done about it?” Take my advice, do yourself a favor and educate yourself. Do a little digging and find out all the different options made available to you, by your friends in government, for becoming a criminal. Then perhaps we will see the emergence of what is needed to reverse the encroachment of the law: Remove your domicile and politically and legally DISASSOCIATE with the state.  Thomas Jefferson talked about why this is necessary and even made it your DUTY to do so in his famous Declaration of Independence:

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

[Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, 1776]

The procedure for LAWFULLY disassociating are found in:

After you have legally and politically disassociated, you are absolved of:

1. Any and all attempts to enforce civil statutes against you.
2. The need to have a “residence”.
3. The need to subsidize the state with income taxes or fines.
4. The need to carry FAKE permission from the state called an “ID” to leave your home as a public officer and do business as such state civil officer.

Those who exercise their First Amendment right to civilly, legally, and politically disassociate from “the collective” called “the state” are referred to in this capacity as any one of the following:

1. “non-resident non-persons”
2. “nonresidents”.
3. “transient foreigners”.
4. “stateless persons”.
5. “in transitu”.
6. “transient”.
7. “sojourner”.
8. “civilly dead”.

After you civilly disassociate, then maybe they will begin to treat you with respect as the “customer” that you really are who has a right to NOT “do business” with them.  That customer is called a STATUTORY “citizen” or “resident”. For more details on “non-resident non-persons”, see:

1. Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Form #05.002
   DIRECT LINK: https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Domicile.pdf
   FORMS PAGE: https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
2. Non-Resident Non-Person Position, Form #05.020
   DIRECT LINK: https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/NonresidentNonPersonPosition.pdf
   FORMS PAGE: https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

Finally, remember that the solution to this conundrum is NOT to run for political office and become further enfranchised in order to reform the system.  This would only further expand the power of the state over you beyond the franchises you ALREADY ILLEGALLY participate in.  See:

10. HOW TO PREVENT ABUSES OR MISUSES OF THE WORD “LAW” BY GOVERNMENT WORKERS

This section is a defense against the following fraudulent tactics by those in government:

1. Foundations of Freedom Course, Video 4: Willful Government Deception and Propaganda, Form #12.021
2. Legal Deception, Propaganda, and Fraud, Form #05.014
3. Presumption: Chief Weapon for Unlawfully Enlarging Federal Jurisdiction, Form #05.017
4.  The Beginning of Wisdom is to Call Things By Their Proper Names (OFFSITE LINK) – Stefan Molyneux
5.  Mirror Image Rule (OFFSITE LINK)

The biblical reason for this section is explained in the following videos:

1. Oreilly Factor, April 8, 2015–John Piper of the Oklahoma Wesleyan University
2. Overcoming the World 2014 Conference: Against the World (OFFSITE LINK)-Ligonier Ministries. Click here for original source, minutes 15-24.
3. Words are Our Enemies’ Weapons, Part 1 (OFFSITE LINK)-Sheldon Emry
4. Words are Our Enemies’ Weapons, Part 2 (OFFSITE LINK)-Sheldon Emry
5. Roman Catholicism and the Battle Over Words (OFFSITE LINK)-Ligonier Ministries
6. The Keys to Freedom (OFFSITE LINK)-Bob Hamp

The legal purpose of these definitions is to prevent GOVERNMENT crime using words:

Word Crimes (OFFSITE LINK)

[. . .]

SEDM: DISCLAIMER/LICENSE AGREEMENT

4.  MEANING OF WORDS

4.3 Law

The term “law” is defined as follows:

“True Law is right reason in agreement with Nature, it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands and averts from wrong-doing by its prohibitions. And it does not lay its commands or prohibitions upon good men in vain, although neither have any effect upon the wicked. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to try to repeal a part of it, and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by Senate or People, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome or at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all times and all nations, and there will be one master and one rule, that is God, for He is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge.”
[Marcus Tullius Cicero, 106-43 B.C.]

“Power and law are not synonymous. In truth, they are frequently in opposition and irreconcilable. There is God‘s Law from which all equitable laws of man emerge and by which men must live if they are not to die in oppression, chaos and despair. Divorced from God‘s eternal and immutable Law, established before the founding of the suns, man‘s power is evil no matter the noble words with which it is employed or the motives urged when enforcing it. Men of good will, mindful therefore of the Law laid down by God, will oppose governments whose rule is by men, and if they wish to survive as a nation they will destroy the [de facto] government which attempts to adjudicate by the whim of venal judges.”
[Marcus Tullius Cicero, 106-43 B.C.]

“Law” is defined to EXCLUDE any and all civil statutory codes, franchises, or privileges in relation to any and all governments and to include ONLY the COMMON law, the CONSTITUTION (if trespassing government actors ONLY are involved), and the CRIMINAL law.

The Court developed, for its own governance in the cases confessedly within its jurisdiction, a series of rules under which it has avoided passing upon a large part of all the constitutional questions pressed upon it for decision. They are:

[. . .]

6. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits.FN7 Great Falls Mfg. Co. v. Attorney General, 124 U.S. 581, 8 S.Ct. 631, 31 L.Ed. 527; Wall v. Parrot Silver & Copper Co., 244 U.S. 407, 411, 412, 37 S.Ct. 609, 61 L.Ed. 1229; St. Louis Malleable Casting Co. v. Prendergast Construction Co., 260 U.S. 469, 43 S.Ct. 178, 67 L.Ed. 351.
FN7 Compare Electric Co. v. Dow, 166 U.S. 489, 17 S.Ct. 645, 41 L.Ed. 1088; Pierce v. Somerset Ry., 171 U.S. 641, 648, 19 S.Ct. 64, 43 L.Ed. 316; Leonard v. Vicksburg, etc., R. Co., 198 U.S. 416, 422, 25 S.Ct. 750, 49 L.Ed. 1108.
[Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 56 S.Ct. 466 (1936)]

_______________________________________________

[. . .]

It is also called a rule to distinguish it from a compact or agreement; for a compact is a promise proceeding from us, law is a command directed to us. The language of a compact is, “I will, or will not, do this”; that of a law is, “thou shalt, or shalt not, do it.” It is true there is an obligation which a compact carries with it, equal in point of conscience to that of a law; but then the original of the obligation is different. In compacts we ourselves determine and promise what shall be done, before we are obliged to do it; in laws. we are obliged to act without ourselves determining or promising anything at all. Upon these accounts law is defined to be “a rule.”
[Readings on the History and System of the Common Law, Second Edition, Roscoe Pound, 1925, p. 4]

“The words “privileges” and “immunities,” like the greater part of the legal phraseology of this country, have been carried over from the law of Great Britain, and recur constantly either as such or in equivalent expressions from the time of Magna Charta. For all practical purposes they are synonymous in meaning, and originally signified a peculiar right or private law conceded to particular persons or places whereby a certain individual or class of individuals was exempted from the rigor of the common law. Privilege or immunity is conferred upon any person when he is invested with a legal claim to the exercise of special or peculiar rights, authorizing him to enjoy some particular advantage or exemption. “
[The Privileges and Immunities of State Citizenship, Roger Howell, PhD, 1918, pp. 9-10;
SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/Publications/ThePrivAndImmOfStateCit/The_privileges_and_immunities_of_state_c.pdf] See Magill v. Browne, Fed.Cas. No. 8952, 16 Fed.Cas. 408; 6 Words and Phrases, 5583, 5584; A J. Lien, “Privileges and Immunities of Citizens of the United States,” in Columbia University Studies in History, Economics, and Public Law, vol. 54, p. 31.

_____________________________________________

“What, then, is [civil] legislation? It is an assumption [presumption] by one man, or body of men, of absolute, irresponsible dominion [because of abuse of sovereign immunity and the act of “CONSENT” by calling yourself a “citizen”] over all other men whom they call subject to their power. It is the assumption by one man, or body of men, of a right to subject all other men to their will and their service.  It is the assumption by one man, or body of men, of a right to abolish outright all the natural rights, all the natural liberty of all other men; to make all other men their slaves; to arbitrarily dictate to all other men what they may, and may not, do; what they may, and may not, have; what they may, and may not, be. It is, in short, the assumption of a right to banish the principle of human rights, the principle of justice itself, from off the earth, and set up their own personal will [society of men and not law], pleasure, and interest in its place. All this, and nothing less, is involved in the very idea that there can be any such thing as human [CIVIL] legislation that is obligatory upon those upon whom it is imposed [and ESPECIALLY those who never expressly consented in writing].”
[Natural Law, Chapter 1, Section IV, Lysander Spooner;
SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/PublishedAuthors/Indiv/SpoonerLysander/NaturalLaw.htm]

The above methods of REMOVING the protections of the common law and the constitution from the INALIENABLE rights [rights that CANNOT lawfully be given away, even WITH consent] that are protected by them has been described by the U.S. Congress as the ESSENCE of communism itself! This is especially true when you add games with legal words of art to remove even the STATUTORY limitations upon the conduct of the government. See Legal Deception, Propaganda, and Fraud, Form #05.014.

TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 23 > SUBCHAPTER IV > Sec. 841.
Sec. 841. – Findings and declarations of fact

The Congress finds and declares that the Communist Party of the United States [consisting of the IRS, DOJ, and a corrupted federal judiciary], although purportedly a political party, is in fact an instrumentality of a conspiracy to overthrow the [de jure] Government of the United States [and replace it with a de facto government ruled by the judiciary]. It constitutes an authoritarian dictatorship [IRS, DOJ, and corrupted federal judiciary in collusion] within a [constitutional] republic, demanding for itself the rights and [FRANCHISE] privileges [including immunity from prosecution for their wrongdoing in violation of Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 of the Constitution] accorded to political parties, but denying to all others the liberties [Bill of Rights] guaranteed by the Constitution [Form #10.002].  Unlike political parties, which evolve their policies and programs through public means, by the reconciliation of a wide variety of individual views, and submit those policies and programs to the electorate at large for approval or disapproval, the policies and programs of the Communist Party are secretly [by corrupt judges and the IRS in complete disregard of, Form #05.014, the tax franchise “codes”, Form #05.001] prescribed for it by the foreign leaders of the world Communist movement [the IRS and Federal Reserve]. Its members [the Congress, which was terrorized to do IRS bidding by the framing of Congressman Traficant] have no part in determining its goals, and are not permitted to voice dissent to party objectives. Unlike members of political parties, members of the Communist Party are recruited for indoctrination [in the public FOOL system by homosexuals, liberals, and socialists] with respect to its objectives and methods, and are organized, instructed, and disciplined [by the IRS and a corrupted judiciary] to carry into action slavishly the assignments given them by their hierarchical chieftains. Unlike political parties, the Communist Party [thanks to a corrupted federal judiciary] acknowledges no constitutional or statutory limitations upon its conduct or upon that of its members [ANARCHISTS!, Form #08.020].  The Communist Party is relatively small numerically, and gives scant indication of capacity ever to attain its ends by lawful political means. The peril inherent in its operation arises not from its numbers, but from its failure to acknowledge any limitation as to the nature of its activities, and its dedication to the proposition that the present constitutional Government of the United States ultimately must be brought to ruin by any available means, including resort to;force and violence [or using income taxes].  Holding that doctrine, its role as the agency of a hostile foreign power [the Federal Reserve and the American Bar Association (ABA)] renders its existence a clear present and continuing danger to the security of the United States.  It is the means whereby individuals are seduced [illegally KIDNAPPED via identity theft!, Form #05.046] into the service of the world Communist movement [using FALSE information returns and other PERJURIOUS government forms, Form #04.001], trained to do its bidding [by FALSE government publications and statements that the government is not accountable for the accuracy of, Form #05.007], and directed and controlled [using FRANCHISES illegally enforced upon NONRESIDENTS, Form #05.030] in the conspiratorial performance of their revolutionary services. Therefore, the Communist Party should be outlawed

The above corruption of our Constitutional Republic by the unconstitutional abuse of franchises, the violation of the rules of statutory construction, and interference with common law remedies was described by the U.S. Supreme Court as follows:

“These are words of weighty import. They involve consequences of the most momentous character. I take leave to say that if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system of government will be the result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism.

Although from the foundation of the Government this court has held steadily to the view that the Government of the United States was one of enumerated powers, and that no one of its branches, nor all of its branches combined, could constitutionally exercise powers not granted, or which were not necessarily implied from those expressly granted, Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304, 326, 331, we are now informed that Congress possesses powers outside of the Constitution, and may deal with new territory, 380*380 acquired by treaty or conquest, in the same manner as other nations have been accustomed to act with respect to territories acquired by them. In my opinion, Congress has no existence and can exercise no authority outside of the Constitution. Still less is it true that Congress can deal with new territories just as other nations have done or may do with their new territories. This nation is under the control of a written constitution, the supreme law of the land and the only source of the powers which our Government, or any branch or officer of it, may exert at any time or at any place. Monarchical and despotic governments, unrestrained by written constitutions, may do with newly acquired territories what this Government may not do consistently with our fundamental law. To say otherwise is to concede that Congress may, by action taken outside of the Constitution, engraft upon our republican institutions a colonial system such as exists under monarchical governments. Surely such a result was never contemplated by the fathers of the Constitution. If that instrument had contained a word suggesting the possibility of a result of that character it would never have been adopted by the People of the United States. The idea that this country may acquire territories anywhere upon the earth, by conquest or treaty, and hold them as mere colonies or provinces — the people inhabiting them to enjoy only such rights as Congress chooses to accord to them — is wholly inconsistent with the spirit and genius as well as with the words of the Constitution.“
[Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901), Justice Harlan, Dissenting]

Civil statutory codes, franchises, or privileges are referred to on this website as “private law”, but not “law”.  The word “public” precedes all uses of “law” when dealing with acts of government and hence, refers only to COMMON law and CRIMINAL law that applies equally to everyone, regardless of their consent.  Involvement in any and all “private law” franchises or privileges offered by any government ALWAYS undermines and threatens sovereignty, autonomy, and equality, turns government into an unconstitutional civil religion, and corrupts even the finest of people.  This is explained in:

Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030

Any use of the word “law” by any government actor directed at us or any member, if not clarified with the words “private” or “public” in front of the word “law” shall constitute:

1. A criminal attempt and conspiracy to recruit us to be a public officer called a “person”, “taxpayer”, “citizen”, “resident”, etc.
2. A solicitation of illegal bribes called “taxes” to treat us “AS IF” we are a public officer.
3. A criminal conspiracy to convert PRIVATE rights into PUBLIC rights and to violate the Bill of Rights.

The protection of PRIVATE rights mandated by the Bill of Rights BEGINS with and requires:

1. ALWAYS keeping PRIVATE and PUBLIC rights separated and never mixing them together.
2. Using unambiguous language about the TYPE of “right” that is being protected: PUBLIC or PRIVATE in every use of the word “right”. The way to avoid confusing PUBLIC and PRIVATE RIGHTS is to simply refer to PUBLIC rights as “privileges” and NEVER refer to them as “rights”.
3. Only converting PRIVATE rights to PUBLIC rights with the express written consent of the HUMAN owner.
4. Limiting the conversion to geographical places where rights are NOT unalienable. This means the conversion occurred either abroad or on government territory not within the exclusive jurisdiction of a Constitutional state. Otherwise, the Declaration of Independence, which is organic law, would be violated.
5. Keeping the rules for converting PRIVATE to PUBLIC so simple, unambiguous, and clear that a child could understanding them and always referring to these rules in every interaction between the government and those they are charged with protecting.
6. Ensuring that in every interaction (and ESPECIALLY ENFORCEMENT ACTION) between the government both administratively and in court, that any right the government claims to civilly enforce against, regulate, tax, or burden otherwise PRIVATE property is proven ON THE RECORD IN WRITING to originate from the rules documented in the previous step. This BURDEN OF PROOF must be met both ADMINISTRATIVELY and IN COURT BEFORE any enforcement action may be lawfully attempted by any government. It must be met by an IMPARTIAL decision maker with NO FINANCIAL interest in the outcome and not employed by the government or else a criminal financial conflict of interest will result. In other words, the government has to prove that it is NOT stealing before it can take property, that it is the lawful owner, and expressly HOW it became the lawful owner.
7. Enforcing the following CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTION against government jurisdiction to enforce unless and until the above requirements are met:
   

   “All rights and property are PRESUMED to be EXCLUSIVELY PRIVATE and beyond the control of government or the CIVIL statutory franchise codes unless and until the government meets the burden of proving, WITH EVIDENCE, on the record of the proceeding that:

   1. A SPECIFIC formerly PRIVATE owner consented IN WRITING to convert said property to PUBLIC property.
   2. The owner was either abroad, domiciled on, or at least PRESENT on federal territory NOT protected by the Constitution and therefore had the legal capacity to ALIENATE a Constitutional right or relieve a public servant of the fiduciary obligation to respect and protect the right. Those physically present but not necessarily domiciled in a constitutional but not statutory state protected by the constitution cannot lawfully alienate rights to a real, de jure government, even WITH their consent.
   3. If the government refuses to meet the above burden of proof, it shall be CONCLUSIVELY PRESUMED to be operating in a PRIVATE, corporate capacity on an EQUAL footing with every other private corporation and which is therefore NOT protected by official, judicial, or sovereign immunity.”

For a detailed exposition on the mandatory separation between PUBLIC and PRIVATE as indicated above, please see the following course on our site:

Separation Between Public and Private Course, Form #12.025

[SEDM Disclaimer, Section 4.8 Law; SOURCE: https://sedm.org/disclaimer.htm]

---

11. RESOURCES FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

1. Famous Quotes About Rights and Liberty, Form #08.001, Sections 5 and 17
FORMS PAGE: https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/FamousQuotes.pdf

2. Four Law Systems, Form #12.039
FORMS PAGE: https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: https://sedm.org/LibertyU/FourLawSystems.pdf

3. Requirement for Equal Protection and Equal Treatment, Form #05.033
FORMS PAGE: https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/EqualProtection.pdf

4. Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030
FORMS PAGE: https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Franchises.pdf

5. Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Online, Form #10.004, Cites by Topic: “law”
FORMS PAGE: https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/law.htm

6. Common Law Practice Guide, Litigation Tool #10.013
https://sedm.org/Litigation/LitIndex.htm

7. Authority and the Politics of Power (OFFSITE LINK)-Nike Research
http://nikeinsights.famguardian.org/forums/topic/authority-and-the-politics-of-power/

8. Why All Man-Made Law is Religious in Nature (OFFSITE LINK) -Family Guardian
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChurchVState/WhyAllManmadeLawRelig.htm

9. Its an Illusion -John Harris.  The REAL meaning of what the de facto government calls “law”
https://sedm.org/its-an-illusion-a-lecture-in-law-by-john-harris/

10. Why We Must Personally Learn, Follow, and Enforce the Law -SEDM
https://sedm.org/home/why-we-must-personally-learn-follow-and-enforce-the-law/

11. Philosophy of Law-Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_law

12. Sovereignty, Chapter 22: What is Law?-Rousas John Rushdoony, p. 129
https://sedm.org/sovereignty-rousas-rushdoony/

13. The Purpose of Law-Family Guardian Fellowship
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/Articles/PurposeOfLaw.htm

14. The Law is No More (OFFSITE LINK) – Pastor John Weaver
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vQitQtqufA

15.  The Necessity of God’s Law in Society (OFFSITE LINK) -Pastor John Weaver
https://youtu.be/wA6Mo4Ewg74

16. How Much Criminalization Will You Tolerate From Your Government?-Freedom Taker
https://youtu.be/EZTMKfTP6P0

17. The Government Mafia (OFFSITE LINK) -Clint Richardson
https://sedm.org/government-mafia/

18. Illegal Everything (OFFSITE LINK)-John Stossel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBiJB8YuDBQ

19. Buried in Law (OFFSITE LINK) -John Stossel, Fox News, 7-24/2014
https://youtu.be/B-xjjNurU50

20. What is “law”?, Nike Insights
https://nikeinsights.famguardian.org/forums/topic/what-is-law/

21. Westlaw Keycites under Key 15AK417:  Force of Law-court cases demonstrating how to prove if a regulation has the force and effect of law
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/ForceOfLaw-Keycite15AK417-20090122.pdf

22.  Courts Cannot Make Law (OFFSITE LINK)-Michael Anthony Peroutka Townhall

23.  How Judges Unconstitutionally “Make Law”, Litigation Tool #01.009
https://sedm.org/Litigation/01-General/HowJudgesMakeLaw.pdf

24.  Restoring the Rule of Law (OFFSITE LINK) -Governor Greg Abbott of Texas
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/GovtCorruption/Restoring_The_Rule_Of_Law_01082016.pdf

25.  Alternative Math-How the IRS Learns Law
https://sedm.org/alternative-math-how-the-irs-learns-math/

26.  Proof of Claim:  Your Main Defense Against Government Greed and Corruption, Form #09.073 -how to apply this information to challenging administrative or judicial enforcement jurisdiction
https://sedm.org/Forms/09-Procs/ProofOfClaim.pdf

27.  Lawfully Avoiding Government Obligations Course, Form #12.040- how to apply this information to challenging enforcement jurisdiction
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/AvoidGovernmentObligations.pdf

28.  The Natural and Artificial Right of Property Contrasted, Thomas Hodgskin, Letter the Third:  The Legal Right of Property-Online Library of Liberty