Tag Archives: persons

Beware of ‘presumptions’ – they’re everywhere!

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.

uniform-commercial-code-3

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. Continue reading

Federalism, “personage” and freedom

CLINTON GAVE US THE FREEDOM TO CHOOSE OUR “LEGAL CHARACTER”, BUT DIDN’T BOTHER TO TELL US!

By AL Whitney © copyround 2015 Permission is granted for redistribution if linked to original and AntiCorruption Society.com is acknowledged.

white house - federalismOn August 10, 1999 President Clinton, as CEO of USA INC, signed an Executive Order called “Federalism” that few people know about.

NOTE: Since March, 1933 USA INC has been kept in a permanent state of “national emergency” by those sitting in the White House. (See: Senate Report 93-549) This report officially validates that during a state of emergency or war, the office of the President can exert unlimited power, as demonstrated by the thousands of Executive Orders, Signing Statements, and secret Presidential Policy Directives, etc. that they have signed since 1933. During the state of emergency Congress is powerless, which explains why they have so many hearings which result only in recommendations, never in policy changes. President Clinton’s (who, like all Presidents, was just another a puppet for the Federal Reserve banksters)

EO 13132 redefined freedom as it applies to the “people of the States”. Executive Order 13132:

Federalism

Section 2 (d) The people of the States are free, subject only to restrictions in the Constitution itself or in constitutionally authorized Acts of Congress, to define the moral, political, and legal character of their lives.

While this information is readily available to anyone who knows to look for it, it is not taught in our schools, including our law schools. The freedom to choose your political and legal character is everything: Continue reading

Twelve Presumptions of the Court

judgeWHEN YOU WALK INTO A COURTROOM JUDGE’S JURISDICTION, AT LEAST TWELVE PRESUMPTIONS ARE ALREADY IN FORCE – WITHOUT YOUR KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT!

by AL Whitney (C) copyround 2014
Permission is granted for redistribution if linked to original and the AntiCorruption Society is acknowledged

Cannon Law researcher Frank O’Collins (one-heaven.org) ferreted out these presumptions and helped make them available to the general population. We cannot forget that our so-called ‘courts’ are run by a private guild by the name of the British Accreditation Regency.  See: The BAR Card.

From the book Fruit from a Poisonous Tree (page 58) by attorney Melvin Stamper, JD:
“The scheme also provided for the control of the courts via the 1913 creation of the American Bar Association, whose parent organization was the European International Bar Association, which was the creation of Rothschild. This allowed the International Bankers to control the practice of law, in that the only ones permitted to practice before the courts were those who were educated under their brand of law, which was only Admiralty and Contract law. Common law of the people was to be replaced as it gave the natural man many jurisdictional protections from the bankers’ legislation.”


THE TWELVE PRESUMPTIONS OF COURT

Canon 3228

A Roman Court does not operate according to any true rule of law, but by presumptions of the law. Therefore, if presumptions presented by the private Bar Guild are not rebutted they become fact and are therefore said to stand true [Or as “truth in commerce”]. There are twelve (12) key presumptions asserted by the private Bar Guilds which if unchallenged stand true being Public Record, Public Service, Public Oath, Immunity, Summons, Custody, Court of Guardians, Court of Trustees, Government as Executor/Beneficiary, Executor De Son Tort, Incompetence, and Guilt:

1.     The Presumption of Public Record is that any matter brought before a lower Roman Courts is a matter for the public record when in fact it is presumed by the members of the private Bar Guild that the matter is a private Bar Guild business matter. Unless openly rebuked and rejected by stating clearly the matter is to be on the Public Record, the matter remains a private Bar Guild matter completely under private Bar Guild rules; and

2.     The Presumption of Public Service is that all the members of the Private Bar Guild who have all sworn a solemn secret absolute oath to their Guild then act as public agents of the Government, or “public officials” by making additional oaths of public office that openly and deliberately contradict their private “superior” oaths to their own Guild. Unless openly rebuked and rejected, the claim stands that these private Bar Guild members are legitimate public servants and therefore trustees under public oath; and

3.     The Presumption of Public Oath is that all members of the Private Bar Guild acting in the capacity of “public officials” who have sworn a solemn public oath remain bound by that oath and therefore bound to serve honestly, impartiality and fairly as dictated by their oath. Unless openly challenged and demanded, the presumption stands that the Private Bar Guild members have functioned under their public oath in contradiction to their Guild oath. If challenged, such individuals must recuse themselves as having a conflict of interest and cannot possibly stand under a public oath; and

4.     The Presumption of Immunity is that key members of the Private Bar Guild in the capacity of “public officials” acting as judges, prosecutors and magistrates who have sworn a solemn public oath in good faith are immune from personal claims of injury and liability. Unless openly challenged and their oath demanded, the presumption stands that the members of the Private Bar Guild as public trustees acting as judges, prosecutors and magistrates are immune from any personal accountability for their actions; and

Continue reading