This piece explores the inherent right of individuals to practice law without a license, emphasizing that the legal system cannot monopolize this fundamental liberty. It references key court rulings affirming that the practice of law is a common right, along with the distinctions between "Attorney in Fact" and "Attorney at Law." The piece critiques the corporate nature of the United States and its impact on individual rights. Additionally, biblical teachings are invoked to underline the moral obligation to advocate for the voiceless, calling for a reclaiming of justice for all.
This explanation clarifies the distinction between state citizens and nationals in the context of U.S. law, emphasizing that individuals born in a state are primarily state citizens with allegiance to their state, not to the federal United States, which is defined as a federal corporation occupying only 10 square miles. It highlights the absence of explicit references to "state citizen" in official documentation and how this ambiguity may be intentionally designed to centralize federal control. Understanding these distinctions can illuminate the complexities of citizenship and legal identity within the U.S. legal framework.
Claiming your estate and becoming a secured party is essential not for owning assets but for controlling them privately. When you properly establish yourself as the executor, authorized representative, and trustee of the "U.S. citizen" ens legis, you gain priority control over the estate, placing a lien on all assets as evidenced by a "security agreement" in accordance with UCC 9-509. This process ensures you have legal authority over the assets tied to your estate. Here’s a comprehensive explanation:
Discover the hidden connections between major institutions like Bank of America, Chase, Wells Fargo, and the IRS, all linked under the corporate structure of Northern Trust Corporation. Uncover how these financial giants, along with the American Bar Association, intertwine to control significant aspects of the legal and financial landscape. Explore the influence of these entities and the impact on the perception of government agencies and banks.
House Joint Resolution 192 of 1933 Public Law 73-10 and the Removal of Gold from America: a long time ago, back in 1933, the government had a big money problem. They couldn’t pay their bills, so they declared bankruptcy. To fix things, they created new rules. One of these was called Executive Order 6102, which made “U.S. citizens” turn in their gold coins and bars. In exchange, they received paper money called Federal Reserve Notes. But here’s the key part: this rule only applied to “U.S. citizens,” not to private citizens who knew they were different from that legal status.
Most people didn’t know the difference between the public and private sides of the law, so they unknowingly volunteered to give up their gold. By not understanding the difference, they became their ens legis, also known as their “straw man” “U.S. citizen,” or “trust,” or “bank,” or “corporation,” or “individual.” It is the fake version of themselves whether they consciously know it or know. The “U.S. citizen” is a “legal person” and a fiction—an entity. By volunteering to turn in their gold, these people also agreed to use Federal Reserve Notes instead of “lawful money,” which is gold and silver-backed. They entered into a contract without even realizing it, and contract is law and enforceable.
In California, the creation and existence of a debtor and creditor relationship are governed by Law, statutes, and/or case law. It could be the Uniform Commercial Code, United States Code, California Civil Code, or Commercial Code, and depends on the situation, parties, and their respective location(s). These relationships are fundamental to the legal and financial system, impacting contracts, secured transactions, and obligations.
Certificates of Non Citizen Nationality The Department of State occasionally receives requests for certificates of non-citizen national status pursuant to […]
Trinsey v. Pagliaro
Categories
In Trinsey, the court stated that “[s]tatements of counsel in their briefs or argument while enlightening to the Court are […]