OUR ENTIRE LEGAL SYSTEM IS BUILT ON ‘PRESUMPTIONS’ THAT WE HAVE TO LEARN HOW TO RECOGNIZE AND REBUT.
As a result of the Bankruptcy of America in 1933, everything changed. The changes that started in the 30s were formalized in the 50s-60s, when the Uniform Commercial Code was installed (by stealth) into each state.
From attorney Melvin Stamper’s book Fruit from a Poisonous Tree (pg 62):
In the 1950s, the Uniform Commercial Code was adopted in most of the States as a means of unifying the generally accepted procedures for handling the new legal system of dealing with commercial fictions as though they were real. Security instruments replaced substance as collateral for debts. Security instruments could be supported by presumptive adhesion contracts. Debt instruments with collateral and accommodating parties could be used instead of money. Money and the need for money was disappearing, and a uniform system of law had to be put in place to allow the courts to uphold the security instruments that depended on commercial fictions as a basis for compelling payment or performance. All this was accomplished by the mid-1960s.
The commercial code is merely a codification of accepted and required procedures which all people engaged in commercial activity must follow. The basic principles of commerce had been settled thousands of years ago, but were refined as commerce become more sophisticated over the years. In the 1900s, the age-old principles of commerce shifted from substance to form. Presumption became a major element of the law. Without giving a degree of force to legal presumption, the new direction in enforcing commercial claims could not be supported in Equity/Admiralty courts and had no chance in common law. If the claimants were required to produce their claims every time they tried to collect from the people, they would seldom be successful. The principles articulated in the commercial code combine the methods of dealing with substantive commercial activity with presumptive commercial activity. These principles work as well for us as they do for the entrenched powers. The rules are neutral and respect neither side of a dispute, as they are ancient in origin.
The entrenched powers that engineered the scheme for the people to register their property and person with the United States and its instrumentalities gained control of the peoples’ property and right to property through registration and licensing. The United States became the trustee of the titles to everything. The definition of “property” is the interest one has in a thing. The thing is the principal. The property is the interest in the thing. Profits (interest) made from the property of another belong to the owner of the thing. The International Bankers made profits by pledging as surety the registered property of the people in commercial markets, but the profits do not belong to the Bankers. The profits belong to the owners of the thing. That is always the people. The corporation government shows only ownership of paper – titles to things. The substance cannot appear in the fiction. Sometimes the fiction is manufactured to appear as substance, but fiction can never become substance; it is an illusion. This is why the proper spelling of your name in upper and lower case is never used in court documents. The ALL CAPS spelling represents the legal fiction, which the government holds title to and jurisdiction over, as it is the creation of the government. The substance cannot appear in the fiction. What will happen when you appear and claim the name ascribed on the complaint? You and the fiction become one and the same; you have changed masks from a natural person to an artificial one.
There is no way out of the deceptive traps of “presumptive adhesion contracts” other than to formally rebut the presumptions that seemingly tie us to them. We must define our legal characters as living flesh and blood men and women and rebut the presumption that we are nothing more than legal fictions. And the best way to do that is to publish your Notice of Condition Precedent.
For those who are not yet convinced of the importance of “defining your legal character”, please listen to this courtroom debate between a live man and a nasty deceptive judge in Florida: