«PRESUMPTION It's the Name of the Game Presumption is a word that we must understand in today's world. In fact, it is imperative that we understand it ...»
It's the Name of the Game
Presumption is a word that we must understand in today's world. In fact, it is imperative that
we understand it and how the "government" and its "courts" use the principle of presumption
against the people.
Presumption, as used in law, is a conclusion derived from a particular set of facts based on
law, rather than probable reasoning. It is a rule of law which permits a court to assume a fact is true until such time as there is a preponderance (greater weight) of evidence, which disproves or outweighs (rebuts) the presumption.
Each presumption is based upon a particular set of apparent facts paired with established laws, logic or reasoning.
A presumption is rebuttable in that it can be refuted by factual evidence. One can present facts to persuade the judge that the presumption is not true. Examples: a child born of a husband and wife living together is presumed to be the natural child of the husband unless there is conclusive proof it is not: a person who has disappeared and not been heard from for seven years is presumed to be dead but the presumption could be rebutted if he/she is found alive: an accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty [at least that's the way it used to be], These are sometimes called rebuttable presumptions to distinguish them from, absolute, conclusive or irrebuttable presumptions in which rules of law and logic dictate that there is no possible way the presumption can be disproved. However, if a fact is absolute it is not truly a presumption at all - but a certainty.
Once a presumption is relied on by one party, however, the other party is normally allowed to offer evidence to disprove (rebut) the presumption. The presumption is known as a rebuttable presumption. In essence, then, what a presumption really does is place the obligation of
presenting evidence concerning a particular fact OR a particular part)'. [Emphasis added:
comments in brackets.] The above statements regarding presumption are taken from various law dictionaries and show us how presumption is defined in the law and understood by the courts. To continue this discussion we must look at the nature of the "government" and the courts today and :hen look at the actual presumptions they rely upon regarding the people.
In 1861 the legislators from the southern states walked out of congress and congress adjourned sine die. i.e.; with no time being set to re-convene. This effectively ended the Congress of the United States as established by the Constitution. The government of that day continued to operate, without a lawful congress in session, and literally POSED as the government rather than continuing as the lawful government of the United States. This problem has never been lawfully resolved; they still pose as the "government. This is a radical statement... but read on.
The "United States", after it evaporated in 1861, was put back together by force of arms. We are constantly told that the U.S. was established as a country where the people are free. How does that square with the fact that the people have been FORCED into a political union by a war? The fact is it doesn't square up at all.
PRESUMPTION - It's the Name of the Game 1/7 In 1871, after the Civil War, Congress passed the first act to allow the government to operate as a corporation. This was done under the guise of forming a government for the District of Columbia. The process was completed in 1878 by the final act allowing the "U.S.
Government" to act as a corporation, operating in commerce for a profit. (From Statutes at Large) The people, as a whole, have never objected to the "government" operating as a corporation in commerce. This, according to their legal definitions, validates the presumption that we accept the corporation of the UNITED STATES as the government of the united States.
Since the "government" is a corporate entity operating in commerce, the courts which have been formed by the corporation and are a part of the corporation must, by operation of commercial law, be operating in commerce also. They are COMMERCIAL COURTS and not Courts of Law. Their jurisdiction and authority have been conferred upon them by a corporation that poses as the government.
Corporations and commercial entities are legal fictions. They are created by man through man-made law and are the direct opposite of the natural creation of God - the people. The two cannot mix. A legal fiction can never become a natural living soul and a living soul can never become a legal fiction. The corporate government, therefore, had to create a "bridge" to bring the people under subjection to the corporation. So a legal fiction had to be created to represent each natural living soul in commerce.
This legal fiction, by operation of commercial law becomes a Straw Man for the living soul, represents him in commerce and the living soul becomes the surety for the Straw Man.
Straw man as found defined in Black's Law Dictionary. Sixth Edition: A "front": a third party who is put up in name only to take part in a transaction. Nominal party to a transaction: one who acts as an agent for another for the purpose of taking title to real property and executing whatever documents and instruments the principal may direct respecting the property. Person who purchases property for another to conceal identity of real purchaser, or to accomplish some purpose otherwise not allowed. [Emphasis added] Today the "government" operates on the presumption that all of us accept our role as surety for a legal fiction straw man because we validate their presumption on a daily basis by engaging in commerce (using Federal Reserve Notes) with the straw man as our representative.
One point that needs to be made for the understanding of those new to this entire concept, is that the Straw Man has a name that is different than yours but looks like it. Example: John Doe is presumed to be the surety for the legal fiction (straw man] JOHN DOE which represents John in commercial transactions (every transaction involving the use of Federal Reserve Notes.) Now. when you went to school were you ever taught to write a proper persons name in all capital letters? No? Then you are just like the rest of us. The proper English way to write the name of a proper person (living soul) is to capitalize the first letter and use lowercase letters for the rest of the name (John Doe). We were never taught to write names in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. Did the people in the courts go to a different school than we did? Are they uneducated? Their computers not functioning correctly? Are they all just making the same mistake? Or is this aberration intentional? Lacking anything to the contrary, believe this is the case.
PRESUMPTION - It's the Name of the Game 2/7 Anytime you see "your name" in all capital letters IT IS NOT YOUR NAME - it is not you! It is the name of the legal fiction, which acts as a Straw Man representing you in commercial transactions and for which you are presumed to be the SURETY. By the way, the surety is the one who pays. For emphasis - let's say it one more time: Anytime you see "your name" in all capital letters IT IS NOT YOUR NAME! it is not you! It is the name of a separate entity, a legal fiction, the Straw Man.
There are many educated people who believe that this argument is a lot of baloney. All that can be said is they might need further learning. They might need to actually study the LAW and the EVIDENCE and not rely on presumption and the daily operation of the "government" and our society in general.
This whole scheme starts when a natural person is born. A "Birth Certificate" is generated and sent to the State to be registered. It is then registered with the Department of Commerce, United States of America. Now why would a birth certificate be registered with the Department of Commerce if not to begin the presumption that there is a new entity operating in commerce?
Consider this: What is the difference between "birth" and "berth"? Sounds the same - yes?
Answer: a natural person experiences birth while a vessel is berthed.
At the same time the "Birth Certificate" is generated, the new born child is also enumerated:
assigned a number for the corporate government's accounting, tracking and control system.
It's called a Social Security Number. These two acts are the beginning of the creation of the legal fiction and provide evidence to validate the corporate government's presumption that we are acting as a surety for the legal fiction. Hereafter we'll refer to this legal fiction as the Straw Man because that's how the fiction operates in representing us in commerce.
There is further evidence that the corporate government uses to validate this presumption:
• Application for Driver License.
• Application for Marriage Certificate.
• Mortgage papers and a Deed of Trust on property.
• Licenses or permits that are applied for.
• Voters Registration.
• Filing a Form 1040 with the IRS.
• Responding to documents addressed to the Straw Man (in all capital letters).
• Registering your new automobile/car as a Motor Vehicle.
• Opening a bank account, etc., ad infinitum… (Considering the above - your name goes in in upper and lower case lettering and it come out in all upper case letters.) Now back to the courts. Remember they are commercial courts. Remember also that commercial entities and natural people (living souls) cannot mix because they are two totally different types of entities. Try mixing oil and water. You can pour them into the same container and stir vigorously and you still have pieces of oil interspersed in the water. They do not combine. Commercial courts have jurisdiction and authority over Commercial Entities (legal fictions) and not natural people. How do they bring us into these courts and take action against us? By coming against the Straw Man/Dummy Corporation.
PRESUMPTION - It's the Name of the Game 3/7 Have you ever seen a court document with a heading [caption] that looks like "Bill Green v.
John Doe"? No. It will be BILL GREEN v. JOHN DOE. When a person files a suit into a court - ANY court from a Justice of the Peace court all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, this is the way it is done. And it AUTOMATICALLY creates the presumption that both parties are sureties for the named legal entities or Straw Men. Now, if you answer this suit by using the court heading and filing your answer into the court, you validate the presumption that you are the surety for the Straw Man that has been sued. This places you and the Straw Man under the authority and jurisdiction of the court and nothing you say or do after that point will invalidate their presumption of jurisdiction.
You can, however, respond in such an instance, with a Notice. This is not legal advice, but merely an example for understanding.
Notice of Refusal and Return of Erroneously Served Papers John Henry Doe hereby returns papers erroneously and fraudulently served relating to cause number CC-98-111111-A, the papers including a PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION, which were served on the 12th day of August in the year 1998, the action issuing against an unknown and unidentified legal fiction. JOHN H. DOE.
My proper Christian and surname are John Henry Doe: I was born live to Robert Doe and Mary Doe in the community of Dallas, county of Dallas on the land known as Texas: I am commonly known as and conduct most private affairs merely as John Doe.
I do not know who or what the legal fiction JOHN D. DOE is, nor do I serve in the capacity of trustee, administrator, fiscal agent, surety, representative or in any other fiduciary capacity for the said JOHN H. DOE.
[End of Notice] The above notice contains statements of fact to rebut the presumption created by the Plaintiff who filed the suit that you are the surety for the "Straw Man. This notice would be sent to the Plaintiff or his attorney, with a copy being sent to the court in which the case was filed.
Now how does the corporate government use the principle of presumption in cases of commercial crime? By the way, have you ever heard the term "Commercial Crime" before?
Did you know that almost all crimes have been defined by the corporate government as Commercial Crimes? That is, in fact, the case. The method of operation, especially in the case of the corporate federal government, is this: They many times start with the seizure of some kind of property, cash, automobile, computers or something else. They do this with a warrant based on a belief that the property is being used in a criminal activity. This action is usually followed by an indictment and arrest. The "defendant" (Straw Man with you as surety) is then arraigned and a trial date is set.
This whole procedure is based on a legal presumption that you are a criminal and were in possession of property being used in criminal activity. This presumption MUST BE DEFEATED if you are to avoid conviction. There is only one way to defeat the primary presumption. Remember, the presumption was created when the property was seized.
Therefore you MUST file a claim in civil court for the return of the property that was lawfully PRESUMPTION - It's the Name of the Game 4/7 owned by you and was lawfully in your possession. If you are successful in this action, you will permanently defeat their presumption of criminal activity and they cannot proceed.
But you might say. "Wait a minute. I've always been told that you are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty"." Yes. That IS what we are told. In fact, it used to be that way.
But the presumption of innocence went out the window in 1933 when the Trading With The Enemy Act of 1917 was amended to INCLUDE the people of America as ENEMIES of the corporate U.S. Government. From that time until now, the presumption is that you are guilty until proven innocent. That is precisely the reason that the United States is now the WORLD LEADER IN NUMBER OF PEOPLE INCARCERATED! Over TWO MILLION people are now in jail in the United States and Texas. The United States has more political prisoners than any other country in the world - including China!
There are many people who are now struggling against the "jurisdiction" of corporate courts.