- Child Support, State, Contracts and Commerce
- 21/11/2017 Make a Comment
- Contributed by: Johnno ( 1 article in 2017 )
What is happening in today's Courts ["Family Law" Courts included] is very simple. It's all commerce ! It's all about "contract law".
The "United States" is a Federal corporation [see 28 USC 3002(15)(A)]. It is nothing more than a fictitious corporate business entity doing business for profit through the use of contracts. All 50 "States" in the "United States" are founding members of the Federal corporation known as the "United States". This makes all 50 "States" corporate agents for the "United States". The "States" are all fictitious business entities, as well. For example, the "State of California" cannot answer questions, or perform any other physical action to prove its presence. Hence, it is a "fictitious entity" because it does not exist to the sovereign man. It is a fictitious "person", doing business for profit (as is evidenced by the fact that every "State" has a "Treasury") through contracts (Where there is no contract, there is no obligation. See Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 364 U.S. 64 [1938]).
For example, if you're ever charged in a Court in the "State of California" (or any other "State"), look at the paperwork. It says the "State of California vs. You". You have the right to face all of your accusers. Therefore, since the "person" known as the "State of California" is the "person" who brought the charges, call the "person" known as the "State of California" foreward to answer your questions, and watch the judge's face. He'll almost choke over his own tongue to tell you that the "attorney" is "representing" the "State of California".
Here's where it gets interesting. It is established that the "State of California" (and all other "States") is nothing more than a business. In order for a business to have a claim against a sovereign man, the business must be able to do two very important things. It must be able to show that it had the sovereign under contract, and it must be able to state a claim against the sovereign upon which relief may be granted. If the "attorney" that is representing the "State" cannot show a contract between you and him/the "State", nor can he/the "State" state a claim against you upon which relief may be granted, then he/the "State" is nothing more than a third party debt collector, and you can refuse to "do business" with him/the "State".
The same is true of the judge, because he is an "agent" for the "State" as well. If the judge cannot show a contract between you and he, and state a claim against you upon which relief may be granted, then he is nothing more than a third party debt collector, and you may refuse to do business with him just as you can with any other "business" (or its "agents").
This is where alot of people are making mistakes. The "State" (all 50 of them) does not have jurisdiction over you, unless you give them permission so to do! You don't have to go into their "Courts". You can demand the judge to show a contract and state a claim against you upon which relief may be granted, else dismiss the case with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
The "United States" was a federal corporation. Therefore, if you replace the words "United States" with "federal corporation" in the above mentioned statute, it would read that "United States" means a "federal corporation", an "agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of that federal corporation", or an "instrumentality" of that "federal corporation." Any Agent, Agency, Department, etc, "of" the "United States" is a part of that federal corporation, and they are acting for it.
The "United States" is not a "government". WE THE PEOPLE are the government. WE THE PEOPLE are the SOVEREIGN. The state or United States is not a SOVEREIGN that fraudulently claims "SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY". You and I have SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY. The government does not. Time for people to answer divorce complaints and motions with motions stating
Since everything involves commerce and contract law, any arrears for child support (which are reported to credit reporting agencies that must follow the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) are subject to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, since child support is a common commercial, civil debt. See, U.S. Courts of Appeals cases, U.S. v. Lewko, U.S. v. Sage, U.S. v. Bongiorno, U.S. v. Parker, U.S. v. King, U.S., etc.
The "United States", and the states as subdivisions or instrumentalities thereunder, is a federal corporate company, plain and simple. It does business for profit, and it uses contracts to do so. You don't have to "do business" with the "United States" against your will any more than you have to do business with IBM, AT&T, or any other corporation.
You can refuse to do business with them, and if they don't have you under contract, you have no obligation to perform for them whatsoever.
There is a VERY REAL difference between the "United States", and the "united States of America". One is a Country, the other is a corporate Company. Another fine example is the Post Office. The law allows for the creation of a "Post Office", but there is no provision for a "Postal Service". The "United States Postal Service" is NOT the "Post Office. It is a corporation doing business for profit through contracts (implied and express). It's just that simple.
Lawyers are defined as "officers of the court". Therefore, they are an arm of the corporate state judiciary. When a private party (e.g., exwife) hires an "officer of the court" to represent them against you in a divorce, the first thing you MUST do is respond to their lawsuit for divorce and financial damages by filing a motion to dismiss and void for failure to state a claim based on the fact that the lawyer and the state are not parties. If they are, you want to see the contract that links you to the state or the lawyer. If they won't show you, they are perpetrating a massive criminal fraud.
You can perform the experiment yourself. Physically ask the "person" known as "Department of Revenue" a question and see if he physically answers you. You won't get an answer, and the reason you won't get an answer is because the "Department of Revenue" can't answer you because he is not a real "person". He is a "fictitious" entity created by the State, and is doing business for profit through contracts. His agents have to speak for him because a fiction can't speak himself. It's like asking Bugs Bunny a question, and actually expecting a non existent rabbit to answer you. It is a fictitious creation, and it cannot answer you.
If you look at your paperwork in Court, you're either being charged by the "State of XXXXXXXXX", or the "United States", or another person in the Court in and for the "State of XXXXXXXXX" or the "United States". Here's an example. If "John Doe" charges you in a State District Court in the "State of Florida", the matter is between you and John Doe only . What does the fictitious entity known as the "State of Florida" have to do with it? The "State of Florida" is not a party to any contract with you, and it cannot state a claim against you upon which relief may be granted. Therefore, its agent Courts are powerless against you until you knowingly, willingly, and intentionally enter into a contractual agreement with the "State of Florida" to let its Court adjudicate the matter for you.
Here's the simplest way to look at it. If "A" agrees to sell me his 500 horsepower 2005 LS7 Corvette for $40,000.00, is "B" entitled to any of the $40,000.00? No? Why not? BECAUSE HE WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE CONTRACT. The agreement was between "A" and myself only, and "B" had nothing to do with it, and no right to interfere. However, if "B" takes $20,000.00 of the money, and "A" doesn't do anything about it because he is afraid of "B", then "B" gets a free $20,000.00 that he was not entitled to, but, by "A's" failure to act, "B" is deemed to have taken the money by permission because "A" did not assert his rights. Are you beginning to see how the "Courts" work now?
Is there any "case law" to support this. Yes. Check the case of Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64. In said case, a man was struck by an object sticking off of a train. The man sued the company that owned the train, but the Supreme Court held that, because Tompkins did not have a contract to do business with Erie Railroad Company, that Erie Railroad Company was not liable to Tompkins. The Supreme Court effectively held in that case that the Courts in America would, from that point forth, no longer rule according to Public Law (common law), but according to Public Policy (contract/admiralty law). This (Public Policy) is where the Uniform Commercial Code ("UCC") comes from. The Supreme Court in Erie effectively held that where there is no contract, there is no case/obligation to perform. The UCC is in harmony with that principle and upholds it 100%. Child support falls under the UCC because child support is a common commercial, civil debt.
This is why you hear some judges say "If you mention the Constitution again, I'll hold you in contempt!" How can the judge say that if he has an Oath of Office to uphold the Constitution as the supreme Law of the Land as required by the Constitution at Article 6 Clauses 2 and 3? It may be because you CONTRACTED with the judge to enter into his Admiralty jurisdiction, and by doing so you agreed to GIVE UP your Constitutional common law rights. Article I Section 10 of the Constitution says that no State shall make or pass any law impairing the obligations of contract.
Once you've entered into a contract with the judge/State, NO ONE may interfere with that contract. However, if you haven't made any such agreement, then the judge must have a claim against you upon which relief may be granted before he has the required jurisdiction over you to have the authority to hold you in "contempt" and put you in jail.
However, in order to have that contractual relationship, the judge must have taken an oath and hold a bond. The bond is a contract between WE THE PEOPLE and the government official, prohibiting said government official from violating the PEOPLE'S rights. These bonds for government officials usually state that they are a device acting as a contract between the government official and the PEOPLE, and is a device to protect the PEOPLE from violations of their fundamentally secured rights by the particular government official. If a judge, or any other government official (e.g., child support enforcement caseworker, prosecutor, lawyer, etc.) refuses to produce such BOND or cannot produce the BOND, they must either immediately remove themselves from the case, or face felony official misconduct charges, other criminal charges, and lawsuits.
The first thing everyone must do in family courts is to DEMAND, in writing and by motion, that the judge produce his bond and his oath of office. If he doesn't produce either one or both, then he cannot proceed in the case against you.
If he does proceed, you can immediately sue him, claiming he has no bond and/or failed to take an oath and is therefore acting in only his personal capacity. He is therefore liable in damages to you for being a trespasser/interloper of your rights.
If the government official, judge, lawyer, etc. attempt to tell you that they have insurance coverage instead of a BOND, it is not good enough. They must have that BOND as a contract with WE THE PEOPLE, or they are to be considered criminals defrauding you and others.
It's all smoke and mirrors. It's all IN COMMERCE.
The "United States" is a Federal corporation [see 28 USC 3002(15)(A)]. It is nothing more than a fictitious corporate business entity doing business for profit through the use of contracts. All 50 "States" in the "United States" are founding members of the Federal corporation known as the "United States". This makes all 50 "States" corporate agents for the "United States". The "States" are all fictitious business entities, as well. For example, the "State of California" cannot answer questions, or perform any other physical action to prove its presence. Hence, it is a "fictitious entity" because it does not exist to the sovereign man. It is a fictitious "person", doing business for profit (as is evidenced by the fact that every "State" has a "Treasury") through contracts (Where there is no contract, there is no obligation. See Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 364 U.S. 64 [1938]).
For example, if you're ever charged in a Court in the "State of California" (or any other "State"), look at the paperwork. It says the "State of California vs. You". You have the right to face all of your accusers. Therefore, since the "person" known as the "State of California" is the "person" who brought the charges, call the "person" known as the "State of California" foreward to answer your questions, and watch the judge's face. He'll almost choke over his own tongue to tell you that the "attorney" is "representing" the "State of California".
Here's where it gets interesting. It is established that the "State of California" (and all other "States") is nothing more than a business. In order for a business to have a claim against a sovereign man, the business must be able to do two very important things. It must be able to show that it had the sovereign under contract, and it must be able to state a claim against the sovereign upon which relief may be granted. If the "attorney" that is representing the "State" cannot show a contract between you and him/the "State", nor can he/the "State" state a claim against you upon which relief may be granted, then he/the "State" is nothing more than a third party debt collector, and you can refuse to "do business" with him/the "State".
The same is true of the judge, because he is an "agent" for the "State" as well. If the judge cannot show a contract between you and he, and state a claim against you upon which relief may be granted, then he is nothing more than a third party debt collector, and you may refuse to do business with him just as you can with any other "business" (or its "agents").
This is where alot of people are making mistakes. The "State" (all 50 of them) does not have jurisdiction over you, unless you give them permission so to do! You don't have to go into their "Courts". You can demand the judge to show a contract and state a claim against you upon which relief may be granted, else dismiss the case with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
The "United States" was a federal corporation. Therefore, if you replace the words "United States" with "federal corporation" in the above mentioned statute, it would read that "United States" means a "federal corporation", an "agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of that federal corporation", or an "instrumentality" of that "federal corporation." Any Agent, Agency, Department, etc, "of" the "United States" is a part of that federal corporation, and they are acting for it.
The "United States" is not a "government". WE THE PEOPLE are the government. WE THE PEOPLE are the SOVEREIGN. The state or United States is not a SOVEREIGN that fraudulently claims "SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY". You and I have SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY. The government does not. Time for people to answer divorce complaints and motions with motions stating
"failure to state a claim because I have sovereign immunity from suit as part of the body politic, and I am under no contract from the corporate state government. If I am under some sort of contract, please show me the document, along with the specific performance, consideration, and the parties that ties me into the corporate state body so I can determine how much these parties will pay me for unlawfully interfering with all of my fundamentally secured rights."
Since everything involves commerce and contract law, any arrears for child support (which are reported to credit reporting agencies that must follow the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) are subject to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, since child support is a common commercial, civil debt. See, U.S. Courts of Appeals cases, U.S. v. Lewko, U.S. v. Sage, U.S. v. Bongiorno, U.S. v. Parker, U.S. v. King, U.S., etc.
The "United States", and the states as subdivisions or instrumentalities thereunder, is a federal corporate company, plain and simple. It does business for profit, and it uses contracts to do so. You don't have to "do business" with the "United States" against your will any more than you have to do business with IBM, AT&T, or any other corporation.
You can refuse to do business with them, and if they don't have you under contract, you have no obligation to perform for them whatsoever.
There is a VERY REAL difference between the "United States", and the "united States of America". One is a Country, the other is a corporate Company. Another fine example is the Post Office. The law allows for the creation of a "Post Office", but there is no provision for a "Postal Service". The "United States Postal Service" is NOT the "Post Office. It is a corporation doing business for profit through contracts (implied and express). It's just that simple.
Lawyers are defined as "officers of the court". Therefore, they are an arm of the corporate state judiciary. When a private party (e.g., exwife) hires an "officer of the court" to represent them against you in a divorce, the first thing you MUST do is respond to their lawsuit for divorce and financial damages by filing a motion to dismiss and void for failure to state a claim based on the fact that the lawyer and the state are not parties. If they are, you want to see the contract that links you to the state or the lawyer. If they won't show you, they are perpetrating a massive criminal fraud.
You can perform the experiment yourself. Physically ask the "person" known as "Department of Revenue" a question and see if he physically answers you. You won't get an answer, and the reason you won't get an answer is because the "Department of Revenue" can't answer you because he is not a real "person". He is a "fictitious" entity created by the State, and is doing business for profit through contracts. His agents have to speak for him because a fiction can't speak himself. It's like asking Bugs Bunny a question, and actually expecting a non existent rabbit to answer you. It is a fictitious creation, and it cannot answer you.
If you look at your paperwork in Court, you're either being charged by the "State of XXXXXXXXX", or the "United States", or another person in the Court in and for the "State of XXXXXXXXX" or the "United States". Here's an example. If "John Doe" charges you in a State District Court in the "State of Florida", the matter is between you and John Doe only . What does the fictitious entity known as the "State of Florida" have to do with it? The "State of Florida" is not a party to any contract with you, and it cannot state a claim against you upon which relief may be granted. Therefore, its agent Courts are powerless against you until you knowingly, willingly, and intentionally enter into a contractual agreement with the "State of Florida" to let its Court adjudicate the matter for you.
Here's the simplest way to look at it. If "A" agrees to sell me his 500 horsepower 2005 LS7 Corvette for $40,000.00, is "B" entitled to any of the $40,000.00? No? Why not? BECAUSE HE WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE CONTRACT. The agreement was between "A" and myself only, and "B" had nothing to do with it, and no right to interfere. However, if "B" takes $20,000.00 of the money, and "A" doesn't do anything about it because he is afraid of "B", then "B" gets a free $20,000.00 that he was not entitled to, but, by "A's" failure to act, "B" is deemed to have taken the money by permission because "A" did not assert his rights. Are you beginning to see how the "Courts" work now?
Is there any "case law" to support this. Yes. Check the case of Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64. In said case, a man was struck by an object sticking off of a train. The man sued the company that owned the train, but the Supreme Court held that, because Tompkins did not have a contract to do business with Erie Railroad Company, that Erie Railroad Company was not liable to Tompkins. The Supreme Court effectively held in that case that the Courts in America would, from that point forth, no longer rule according to Public Law (common law), but according to Public Policy (contract/admiralty law). This (Public Policy) is where the Uniform Commercial Code ("UCC") comes from. The Supreme Court in Erie effectively held that where there is no contract, there is no case/obligation to perform. The UCC is in harmony with that principle and upholds it 100%. Child support falls under the UCC because child support is a common commercial, civil debt.
This is why you hear some judges say "If you mention the Constitution again, I'll hold you in contempt!" How can the judge say that if he has an Oath of Office to uphold the Constitution as the supreme Law of the Land as required by the Constitution at Article 6 Clauses 2 and 3? It may be because you CONTRACTED with the judge to enter into his Admiralty jurisdiction, and by doing so you agreed to GIVE UP your Constitutional common law rights. Article I Section 10 of the Constitution says that no State shall make or pass any law impairing the obligations of contract.
Once you've entered into a contract with the judge/State, NO ONE may interfere with that contract. However, if you haven't made any such agreement, then the judge must have a claim against you upon which relief may be granted before he has the required jurisdiction over you to have the authority to hold you in "contempt" and put you in jail.
However, in order to have that contractual relationship, the judge must have taken an oath and hold a bond. The bond is a contract between WE THE PEOPLE and the government official, prohibiting said government official from violating the PEOPLE'S rights. These bonds for government officials usually state that they are a device acting as a contract between the government official and the PEOPLE, and is a device to protect the PEOPLE from violations of their fundamentally secured rights by the particular government official. If a judge, or any other government official (e.g., child support enforcement caseworker, prosecutor, lawyer, etc.) refuses to produce such BOND or cannot produce the BOND, they must either immediately remove themselves from the case, or face felony official misconduct charges, other criminal charges, and lawsuits.
The first thing everyone must do in family courts is to DEMAND, in writing and by motion, that the judge produce his bond and his oath of office. If he doesn't produce either one or both, then he cannot proceed in the case against you.
If he does proceed, you can immediately sue him, claiming he has no bond and/or failed to take an oath and is therefore acting in only his personal capacity. He is therefore liable in damages to you for being a trespasser/interloper of your rights.
If the government official, judge, lawyer, etc. attempt to tell you that they have insurance coverage instead of a BOND, it is not good enough. They must have that BOND as a contract with WE THE PEOPLE, or they are to be considered criminals defrauding you and others.
It's all smoke and mirrors. It's all IN COMMERCE.
1Will not be visible to public.
2Receive notification of other comments posted for this article. To cease notification after having posted click here.
3To make a link clickable in the comments box enclose in link tags - ie.<link>Link</link>.
4To show an image enclose the image URL in tags - ie.. Note: image may be resized if too large
To further have your say, head to our forum Click Here
To contribute a news article Click Here
To view or contribute a Quote Click Here