Chapter 2 - Theory of Commercial Lien Strategy

 

Introduction

To effectively use the Commercial Lien Strategy, you should have a good grasp of the principles of law involved. Immediately following this Introduction is an essay, written from a Christian/Theistic perspective, explaining the foundations of the common law. (The author has not copyrighted this material, and wishes to remain anonymous. The same author also composed several of the briefs listed in Appendix B).

 

This explanation will, no doubt, be very different from anything you have been taught. In fact, licensed attorneys may have the hardest time understanding this, because they have been taught to think only in a certain way. An intelligent lay reader will probably understand the following article without much trouble.

 

Most of us have been hypnotized into believing that the meaningless scribbles of "legislators," "Presidents," etc., constitute "the law." After reading this chapter, one thing should be absolutely clear to you. The law is whatever you give your consent to. This insight frees you from being a "victim" and a "subject," and restores you to your rightful position of power and sovereignty. (Always remember, though, that Territorial Gangsters [TG’s] have all sorts of ways to obtain your "consent"! Standing up for your rights always involves risk.)

 

THE COMMERCIAL AFFIDAVIT PROCESS

by an anonymous Christian patriot

 

A Powerful Weapon

The Commercial Affidavit Process — or "CAP" — is perhaps one of the most powerful devices available to the common man for righting wrongs and accomplishing justice. The process is not new, as some may believe. At its foundation are the laws of commerce which spring from the eternal, immutable Laws of God, and those laws have been in force since the beginning of human existence. Provoke the use of the Commercial Affidavit Process against you and you provoke the wrath of all that is just and right.

 

Today, those who are availing themselves of the CAP system are equipping themselves with a very powerful equalizer. Make no mistake! The CAP is a very lethal weapon in the war against injustice. It is capable of righting wrongs while eliminating the "cost factor" that deprives thousands of people from getting justice. The expression "equal under the law" again has real meaning, thanks to CAP. When the CAP methodology is properly loaded and sighted on a wrongdoer, success is "as good as in the bag." The Process is powerful and dangerous to those who are in the line of fire. There is no escape: either acquiesce and justly recompense or suffer the awful consequences. And, those consequences can be calamitous as will be shown.

 

The Foundation Of Law

There are basically three classes of laws: The Laws of God, which encompass the Laws of Nature; The Law of the Land, also referred to as the Common Law; and lastly there is Private Law, or man-made law, also referred to as Contract Law.

 

Our Founding Fathers believed that it was self-evident that the God of Nature is the sovereign of the universe and everything in it (as well as mankind) and that He had endowed all mankind with "certain unalienable rights" making them self-directing sovereigns, which means that any governments instituted among men derive their just powers (only) from the consent of the governed, who are the source of earthly power and authority. Hence any attempt to exercise any powers NOT conveyed by the People is unjust and unauthorized, and any act done pursuant to such usurpation of power is void.

 

They were further convinced that God’s temporal law for mankind was expressed in the law of the land. Common law is common-sense law. It is simple, straightforward and self evident, primarily because it is based on God’s Laws. It is the foundational law of the union of States.

 

The Founding Fathers authorized three legal systems in the Constitution, first Common Law, secondly Equity Law, and thirdly Admiralty Law, which is the law of the sea. Gradually Common Law has been displaced by Equity Law until today the Common Law is rarely heard of or understood because it has been covered up and hidden away by the legal profession for very understandable business reasons. Such people are pursuing their own private agenda. In fact the Common Law is generally looked upon as obscene, example: to have a common law marriage is considered to be unclean. Why? The first marriage license in the United States was issued in 1863. The question is not whether some third party should or should not perform the service; it is whether sovereigns must get permission from their servants (the government) before they can be married.

 

Private Law

Private Law is that law which comes into being when people enter into agreements creating the rules and terms by which they agree to be bound together.

 

State and federal constitutions are examples of private law. They come under the heading of contract law because they are contracts that establish governments and are designed to protect the People from the government. To keep the government under control, the People were very precise in the language they used to make it perfectly clear exactly what powers were being delegated AND that any powers not specifically delegated were reserved (by the People) to the states or the People.

It should be remembered that the People are the sovereigns of State governments and the States are the sovereigns of the federal government. Thus the People, either directly or indirectly, are the sovereigns over both governments. The States have been given specific and limited power. They also made sure there were provisions that safeguarded the People’s right to abolish or change that government and to create a different one if they chose.

 

Public Law is a form of private law that results when laws are made in proper application of the delegated authority conveyed to the legislators. Title 18 (the Federal Criminal Code) is an example of public law. It was drafted to grant unto non-citizens the protections and defenses Citizens have under common law; Title 18 does not apply to sovereign Citizens, who answer directly to violations of GOD’s Laws.

 

Administrative Law is one term used to describe private law that comes into existence when someone acquires dominion over others and can dictate to them what the law is. Title 26 (the Internal Revenue Code) in an example of Administrative Law; it and the other federal titles classified by congress as "non-public" (administrative) laws, thus apply only to subjects of the federal government.

 

In 1938 the United States abandoned Public Law and adopted an unconstitutional system called Public Policy. An understanding of this distinction is so vital that the definitions of these terms follow:

Public Law

That portion of law which deals with the powers, rights, duties, capacities and incapacities of government and its delegated authority. Those laws which are concerned with a government in its political capacity, considered in its quasi-private personality, i.e., as capable of holding or exercising rights or acquiring and dealing with property in the character of an individual.

 

Public Policy

The rules and procedures (policy) of a sovereign over its subjects. It holds that no subject can lawfully do that which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against the public good as defined by the sovereign. Public policy is set by legislative acts and, pursuant thereto, by judicial and administrative promulgating of rules and regulations.

 

Such rules and regulations are therefore not laws but rather terms imposed by contract agreements. It’s the contracts themselves which make these rules and regulations binding. If you are not a party to those contracts, not a subject (property) of the government, you can make yourself a party by volunteering to comply. But once you decide to play the game you are compelled by the rules of that game to continue to play. Once compelled, the best out is to reassert your sovereign rights. The very concept of Public Policy and its inherent usurpation of power from the sovereign People is so addictive and has become so widely accepted by bureaucrats in all levels of government that they act as if they were the masters of the People.

 

This shift in government was instituted with the Supreme Court’s decision in the Erie Railroad case, as a result of which, all Supreme Court decisions prior to that time are being treated as no longer relevant in equity court proceedings. And so another milestone was reached in the conspiracy to overthrow the rights of the People.

 

This Administrative Law is much like Roman Law which is also called Civil Law. Conceptually, Roman or Civil Law, which is practiced in most of Europe, is diametrically opposite to the Common Law.

Under Roman or Civil Law you are guilty until proven innocent and have only those rights your master the government chooses to grant you; and what your master giveth, he can take away. Under the Common Law as practiced in America, you are innocent until proven guilty and retain all rights not delegated to government.

 

We are seeing more and more of this Roman class of laws in this country: if you are charged you are treated as being guilty until proven innocent. If that is happening to you, it’s because of your legal status — or what "they" perceive as your legal status. If your legal status is that of being a sovereign Citizen your unalienable rights are being violated!

 

Principles Of Law Making

In the days before the turn of the century in America, the custom was for those studying law to study the Bible and the laws contained therein so that those principles would occupy a preeminent place in the minds of those practicing law. This is not the case today; rather the opposite is true. The eternal truths contained in the Bible have been lost from the view of those who need them the most. It is still the best place to learn about laws generally, as well as other eternal truths. The concept of a system of laws not founded upon those eternal truths is tantamount to building a house on quick sand.

In America, the sovereign power resides in and comes only from the People. "We the People" are the sovereigns. All the power and authority the government has ... was given to it by the People! If we don’t have the right to do a thing, then we cannot delegate such a right to any government! ("We cannot give to anyone or anything any power or authority we do not have!")

 

Is it not in controversion to this principle that representatives of the People — legislators or bureaucrats or judges — pretend they can make laws to implement powers We the People did not and cannot give them? It is self-evident! Yet they pretend they can do virtually anything they or even a majority of them merely agree among themselves (vote) to do; they publish interpretations of laws and promulgate rules based on those interpretations; or they render decisions that are clearly antithetical to the concepts set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as the Founding Fathers understood and expounded them; and thereby they violate their sworn oath to defend and uphold the Constitution.

 

They know that few if any who discover such usurpation will have the perseverance, let alone the financial means and time required to find a qualified, willing attorney to utilize the court system to expose their usurpation and bring them to account and thus rectify their malfunction.

They also promote and rely on the general MISCONCEPTION that any statute passed by a legislature is valid. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail! This is succinctly stated as follows:

 

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed ...

"Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it ... No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." 16 Am Jur 2nd §177

 

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional act of the Legislature protects no one. It is said that all persons are presumed to know the law, meaning that ignorance of the law excuses no one; if any person acts under an unconstitutional statute, he does so at his peril and must take the consequences." 16 Am Jur 2d §178

 

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 at 491.

 

In order for a law to be proper, it must be just. It must protect equally the rights of all without violating the rights of any. There is nothing mysterious about proper law; it is based on reasonableness and common sense, and is harmonious with the Laws of God.

 

Check a law against this measure to see if it fits the mold of eternal truth and justice: say to yourself, "Would I be unwilling to have this law applied to myself or my closest friend?" If such application seems repugnant to you, if it seems unfair or unjust, then there is probably something wrong with that law. God knows that people’s political standards are a reliable reflection of their moral standards and that the laws which they support are a good test of how they wish to be judged (Matthew 7:1). People can clearly see that taking money from some one by force is a crime when done by individuals, but they may fail to recognize the criminality of the same act when done by government.

 

For example, how would you feel if you had a particular "entitlement" and the government told you that you were authorized to collect a portion of this government handout from each of your neighbors? Let’s suppose that your "entitlement" is food stamps: instead of giving you stamps, the government gives you a list of people from whom you are "authorized" to collect the money to buy the food. How would you feel if they told you it was all right to force your neighbors to give you the money? And every time you needed more food, you had to do it all over again? Would that be right? If not, why? Would changing the name of the collector make it right? Would it go against your grain to do so? How would your neighbors feel when you presented your "authorization"? How would you feel if your neighbors were coming to collect FROM YOU for some other "entitlement" program they were "authorized" to collect?

 

The Commercial Affidavit Process is a pre-common law process. It is also referred to as a "commercial law process," not to be confused with the [Uniform] Commercial Code and other manipulated and complicated rules and regulations. It is a pre-common law process because until there is a disagreement, there is no dispute. All that is being done is the establishment of claims and obligations. The purpose of the CAP is to make claims and determine if the accused agrees or not. If the Accused does not contest the claims there is no dispute to be adjudicated thus the appropriate damages are consensually agreed-upon. Thus it is pre-judicial. It may also be completely non-judicial if it is properly (composed of unrebuttable truth) and successfully implemented.

 

The term "commercial" as used herein refers to any dealings people have among themselves. Thus the "laws of commerce" refers to the just rules of procedure governing human relationships, the self-evident principles of right and wrong which are the foundation of the common law.

The foundation of COMMERCIAL LAW rests solidly on the bedrock of justice and common sense. These laws are so sound and so universally accepted that they cannot with impunity be overturned, overwritten or tampered with in any way: they are founded on eternal truths, needing no proof from anyone to justify their validity (i.e., self-evident); they are immutable; they provide equal justice to all parties of interest and thus are completely fair. That is the KEY to their power. All other just laws spring from this foundation. (By contrast, corrupted laws are mere shadows of these true and correct principles.)

 

Justice is delivered quickly, simply, fairly and conclusively with the Commercial Affidavit Process. This may be a terrible disappointment to wrong-doers who are confident they can get away with their illegitimate activities. Those who are subverting just laws, setting them aside, covering them up, creating shadow-law or colorable law and just generally using self-serving laws to subject and plunder their fellow man are in for a rude awakening. In summary, the Common Law grows out of the laws of commerce which themselves are based upon self-evident truths. Such truths are commonly expressed as maxims.

 

Maxims In Law

Maxims are as much a part of the laws of human relations (commerce) as a foundation is a part of a building. They are fundamental and immutable, having their basis in God’s Laws. No one of sound mind argues against them. They are the bedrock of logic, of reason, of common sense, of truth. They are fundamental principles upon which all that is right, just and true is founded. They are the standards to measure the correctness of any course or action.

 

The word "maxim" is defined as an expression of an absolute truth or principle. Maxims are so powerful and unequivocal that they are the foundation of all human relationships. They have the power to cut to the heart of a matter in a heartbeat with reason, logic, and authority. They cover every topic imaginable and every aspect of our lives. They are not easily misunderstood, misapplied, or subverted; they are universally accepted for what they are: self-evident TRUTHS.

Maxims might be considered the redundant backup system when all else fails.

Anyone who is not schooled in the logic of maxims is easily confused for the want of such understanding. The legal profession has a vested interest in keeping the People ignorant of these principles: protecting the need for their "priestcraft." Priestcraft is "the craft of specialists who work to create the illusion their craft is too complex to be understood by anyone else."

It doesn’t take a law degree to understand maxims.

 

The light of truth in maxims cannot be extinguished through the evil works and craftiness of men. They may be forgotten by many, intentionally concealed by some, but they still exist, no matter what, and they won’t go away!

 

Below are maxims that surround the rightfulness and lawfulness of the Commercial Affidavit Process. This by no means is an exhaustive list:

Regarding Justice . . .

 

— All are equal under the Law.

— A matter must be expressed to be resolved.

— Claims made without accountability are void.

— Might does not make right.

— Force, perjury or subornation of perjury, voids all.

— Fraud vitiates the most solemn promise.

— While the battle continues, he who first leaves the field or refuses to contend loses by default.

— You are free to make any decision you wish, but you are never free to escape the consequences of your decisions.

— A laborer is worthy of his hire.

— Thou shalt not steal.

— Notice to the agent is notice to the principal and notice to the principal is notice to the agent.

— Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

Regarding Truth . . .

— Truth stands supreme.

— Truth affects but cannot be affected.

— Truth is expressed in the form of an affidavit.

— Truth will out.

— An unrebutted affidavit stands as the truth.

— An affidavit must be rebutted point-for-point.

— Thou shall not bear false witness.

— Ignorance is no respecter, it affects all without regard to position or title.

Regarding Sovereignty . . .

— It is self-evident that all men are endowed by their creator (God) with equal and unalienable rights.

— The created cannot be greater than its creator.

— A man can give to another no more than he himself has.

— A man may not with impunity infringe upon another man’s rights.

— The People are Sovereign.

— In America the government is the servant of the "sovereign" People.

Regarding Power and Authority . . .

— We cannot give to anyone or anything any power or authority we do not have.

 

Failed Legal System

Although the court system MAY have an essential part to play once the Commercial Affidavit has been served AND ANSWERED, that system is not and cannot be invoked until the charges in the affidavit have been answered by (1) acquiescence, (2) rebuttal or (3) default: until that point, THERE IS NO DISAGREEMENT TO ADJUDICATE. A disagreement could arise only from a rebuttal.

But even though it would be feasible to involve the court system to adjudicate such disagreement, no one seeking JUSTICE really would want to do so because the court system has become extremely costly, very slow and corrupted by the conniving convolutions of man-made rules and legalisms and by the natural inclinations of those who live from the legal system to promote the financial success of the legal business!

 

If any adjudication is found necessary (only in the event of rebuttal) it will be done by a common law jury invoked at the discretion of the Claimant (see "RESOLUTION BY JURY" below). In stark contrast to the equity court system of today, the CAP system is so effective in exposing the truth, in rendering and enforcing justice, that it is a lethal weapon in the war for the freedoms and liberties — the unalienable rights — of the People.

 

Private Matter

The Commercial Affidavit Process places the full power of justice back in the hands of the common man. It cannot be overstated that the whole Commercial Affidavit Process is not dependent on the court system. It functions quite well on its own outside the current legal system.

It needs to be thoroughly understood that because it is driven by SWORN TRUTH, the Commercial Affidavit Process is outside the jurisdiction of any equity court. It is a private contract matter. Should an attempt be made to involve an equity court it would result in a trespass against the Affiant’s rights: those interfering individuals, who were unlawfully involved, would themselves become one of the accused. An equity court has no jurisdiction whatsoever, for the CAP is strictly a non-judicial or pre-judicial process between individuals and is private.

 

This alone presents a very real dilemma for those who are accustomed to using the legal system to work wrongs and trespass against others with seeming impunity. They can’t hide behind a legal system that only dispenses justice to those who can afford to play the game. Those who are used to shielding themselves under "sovereign immunity" protections, hiding behind legions of attorneys and judges, and using other "legal tricks" now have none of this protection.

NO judge, court, law, or government can invalidate these commercial processes, i.e., an affidavit or complaint or a lien based thereon because no third party can invalidate someone’s affidavit of truth. A judge CANNOT interfere with, tamper with, or in any way modify testimony without disintegrating the truth-seeking process of his profession, destroying the very fabric of his own occupation and abrogating the First Amendment which was established to protect truth. For a judge to interfere with testimony is to commit professional suicide and to invite countless civil and criminal repercussions. ANYONE who tampers with testimony is a threat to the peace and security of society, violating its laws and acting as its enemy and is therefore justifiably subject to the appropriate penalties. The Commercial Affidavit Process is by its very nature private, and strictly between parties of interest, only. It is unequivocally non-judicial.

 

Sworn Truth

The foundation of the law, commerce and the whole legal system consists in telling the truth ("I solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth ...") either by testimony, by deposition or by affidavit. Every honorable judge requires those who appear before him to be sworn to tell the truth and is compelled by the high principles of his profession to protect and seek out the truth.

A Commercial Affidavit is an Affidavit of Truth. It is the sworn testimony of the Affiant who solemnly swears that the facts contained therein are true, correct and certain. Every claim made in the Affidavit is backed up by documentary evidence that is provable without any contrivance.

 

Meeting The Demands

If (as is usually the case) the Accused recognizes the charges are true and/or decides (correctly) that the wisest thing to do is meet the demands rather than face the staggering punitive damages which accompany the issuance of the Criminal Complaint, the Accused has the option of simply meeting the demands for redress as required by or negotiated with the Claimant. If the Accused has the good sense to meet the demands of the Claimant, then the wrongs have been satisfactorily redressed; and that is the end of the issue: all charges are resolved; the Commercial Affidavit Process is closed.

 

Anyone is free to use the CAP system; but it is a two-edged sword: it cuts both ways! Anyone who undertakes it MUST follow the maxim, "Be honest with yourself," because, especially under the Commercial Affidavit Process, "Truth will out!" Consequently it is extremely important to ensure that everything in the affidavit is true and unrebuttable.

 

Acquiescence

When one is the Accused in a commercial affidavit process properly (truthfully) done, by far THE WISEST COURSE IS TO REDRESS THE CLAIMANT AS DEMANDED — whatever must be done to accomplish it.

 

Should the Accused be misguided into choosing ANY response other than acquiescence, the Criminal Complaint will issue accompanied by the Commercial Lien based on the Complaint’s ledger of charges, counts, redresses demanded and ADDING (1) PUNITIVE DAMAGES and (2) INCARCERATION as provided in the applicable federal and/or State criminal codes. Although it is extremely unlikely in the face of a properly done affidavit, should the Accused believe that Affiant’s charges are somehow in error, he or she may (DURING THE GRACE PERIOD ONLY) rebut any such charge; however, (1) such response will NOT avoid issuance of the Trial Criminal Complaint; (2) the Commercial Lien will still issue for any charges not rebutted AND (3) a second Commercial Lien will issue for any rebutted charges about which the Common Law Jury thereby convened remains unpersuaded! Hence REBUTTAL (unless 100% successful — which is highly unlikely) WILL NOT AVOID the horrendous PUNITIVE DAMAGES and INCARCERATION provided by law.

 

Rebuttal

The sworn Affidavit will stand as truth if not timely rebutted by the Accused. In the instant case, thirty (30) days.

 

The only one who can rebut a Commercial Affidavit is the Accused who alone, by his own affidavit, must speak for himself and only for himself. If the Accused uses someone else to speak for him, the third party must speak for and in behalf of the Accused as if he were the Accused; and the Accused still stands completely liable as if he himself were speaking. If however, the third party is identified as separated from the Accused, he also becomes a co-party with the Accused as an accomplice, thus a co-conspirator having no immunity whatsoever.

 

Every charge or claim contained in the Claimant’s Affidavit must be rebutted point-for-point by the Accused. The Accused’s rebuttal must be done in the form of an Affidavit of Truth. That means it must be SWORN TESTIMONY and must be signed by at least two witnesses. The Accused/Affiant must swear to the truth, the correctness and the certainty of his or her rebuttals within that affidavit, thereby assuming complete liability for the statements contained in it and must be prepared to prove his or her statements, preferably with documentation that is unimpeachable.

Failure to follow the correct process of rebutting the charges or ANY ATTEMPT TO PRESENT REBUTTAL EVIDENCE THAT IS NOT SWORN AS BOTH TRUE and "THE WHOLE TRUTH" INVALIDATES such response as if no evidence or rebuttal were given at all. SUCH FAILURE IS FATAL TO THE DEFENSE!

 

If a proper rebuttal is offered, any of several conclusions may result:

 

1. If any or all charges are rebutted, those charges will (at Claimant’s discretion) be resolved as described under "RESOLUTION BY JURY."

 

2. Any charges not rebutted or redressed will result in a DEFAULT CONVICTION for those charges and the issuance of a "non-trial" criminal complaint which will be covered under "CRIMINAL LIABILITY."

 

Resolution By Jury

The Claimant may accept or reject Accused’s rebuttal of any charge, point-for-point. Claimant’s acceptance of the rebuttal of any point resolves that point. At the discretion of the Claimant ALL UNACCEPTED POINTS may be either resolved by another affidavit on those points, repeating the process. The fallout of all the Affidavits are resolved by a common-law jury. If and when the jury system is used, the Claimant will draft the Criminal Complaint, subpoena a jury, and the process will move to a full-blown, common-law criminal trial.

 

If the matter goes to a common-law criminal trial, the trial will be held under the rules of common law. These rules are significantly different from those in an equity court proceeding. In common-law trials, technical rules are virtually non-existent. Like its name, the rules of common-law trials are from common sense. The procedure is very simple and straightforward. It’s designed to arrive at the true facts, assess guilt and render a just verdict without undue delays or fancy maneuvering, thus eliminating delays intended to forestall or get the Accused acquitted on some technicality. The jury is the real boss. It decides what is relevant and what is not. The jurors hear what they want to hear and exclude what they feel is not relevant. The Claimant or his appointee becomes the prosecutor, and the Accused or his appointee becomes the defense attorney. The parties of interest (the Claimant and the Accused) may have anyone they want as counsel, professional or not.

 

The risk faced by the Accused is very real. A common-law court only recognizes common law, and it applies common-law decisions. Equity court decisions and rules that conflict with the common law are without standing in common-law proceedings.

 

In the Commercial Affidavit Process, the claimants are almost always sovereign Citizens. As such they have legal standing at common law. The Accused are usually "subject citizens" being charged with crimes against "sovereign Citizens." Typically the acts committed have been done under colorable law with colorable authority or colorable jurisdiction, in which case is patently unconstitutional and therefore void, leaving the Accused defenseless: so a second Commercial Lien will issue for those redresses and punitive damages of which the jury has not exonerated the Accused.

 

Due Process

In order to meet the demands of due process, the parties must have reasonable time to express their versions of the controversy ("In order for a matter to be resolved, it must be expressed.") Therefore a grace period must be allowed, commonly referred to as "commercial grace." Many court jurisdictions allow only 20 days, which may be sufficient; but the Claimant in his discretion believes that 30 days is more reasonable. At the Claimant’s discretion, even more time may be granted without notice; HOWEVER, that does not relieve the defense of the obligation to respond within the time of commercial grace given — default falls by declaration in thirty (30) days.

How important is it to TIMELY answer the accusations made in a Sworn Affidavit of Truth? IT IS VITALLY IMPORTANT! If the Accused fail to properly and timely answer, he stands to lose all and will have foreclosed to himself any future possibility of redressing or rebutting those charges. The primary objective is to insure justice quickly and with a minimum of difficulty. Failure to timely answer is fatal to the outcome. It is equivalent to abandoning the battlefield and causes loss by default ("While the battle continues, he who first leaves the field or refuses to contend loses by default.")

 

The Accused, having started the contest by violating and trespassing upon the Affiant’s rights, cannot with impunity leave the contest. The victory and the spoils goes to him who stays and is the last to leave the battle. The loser loses and in so doing, grants the spoils to the victor. There is no recovery for the loser; notwithstanding any new battle which may ensue, the loss still stands; it can’t be set aside. Consequently, the Accused’s failure to redress or rebut charges contained in a Commercial Affidavit is tantamount to abandoning the battlefield: thus losing by default.

Some in government, by trying to hide behind some rule or procedure that requires Claimants to follow some predetermined course or time limit, commit a fatal error! They are usually relying on some statute or other inferior level of protection, which might apply to those who are subject to such jurisdiction, but not to sovereign Citizens. When "estoppel by acquiescence" caused by failure to timely answer enters the picture, as it surely will in this setting, the result has a far-reaching impact on the future of each Accused.

 

Criminal Liability

Responding to the Commercial Affidavit is critically important: the Accused is usually being charged with very serious crimes that carry very heavy, punitive penalties. The law has always viewed trespassing upon unalienable rights as being an offense so serious that it is beyond satisfaction merely by payment of the approximate money damages demanded.

The Affidavit is a commercial complaint, but it is not yet a "criminal" complaint. The main distinction is that by resolving the charges during the Affidavit stage, the Accused can get off by simply redressing the grievances as specified in the Affidavit or as mutually negotiated. If the Accused recognizes his or her errors and wants to redress the Claimant but does not have the ability to do so within the time limit, the Accused may contact the Claimant and express that desire with a written statement to that effect. Then arrangements can be made to stop any further action. If some such arrangements are not made, then the CRIMINAL COMPLAINT issues adding PUNITIVE DAMAGES and JAIL TIME!

 

The Criminal Complaint is in reality a ledger in which those details which were omitted in the Affidavit are (now) spelled out. It lists the causes of action, the number of counts, redresses demanded and the MASSIVE CIVIL PENALTIES (which occur when unalienable rights are violated), thus compounding the problems for the Accused: now, on top of the redresses being demanded, massive PUNITIVE DAMAGES are added as well! Normally this increases the cost to the Accused by a factor of at least a hundred if not a thousand fold. The effects of the criminal complaint invariably destroy all prospects for the future of the Accused!

 

An S.E.C. Security

When the Commercial Affidavit has matured, (after 30 days) it is evidence of a debt and/or obligations. In order for it to be classed as a security, it must carry the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (S.E.C.) TRACER FLAG on it from the very beginning. As a security it must conform to the rules governing securities and must be identified and monitored as such from the beginning.

 

A Ledger Identifying The Penalties

Since the Criminal Complaint is in reality a ledger in which the causes of action and the number of counts are listed and the civil penalties (punitive damages) determined, the criminal complaint acts as a punishment tool for wrongdoers who will not repent.

 

Should the Accused be so foolish as to ALLOW the Criminal Compliant to be activated (i.e., fail to answer by redressment or rebuttal), the war is over: all that remains is collecting the spoils of battle. The Accused has lost and lost in a very big way. In all probability the Accused will never recover from the consequences.

 

This is true is because THE "TRIAL" WAS GOING ON DURING THE 30 DAYS. To compare the Commercial Affidavit Process to a conventional trial would look like this: The Commercial Affidavit presents the prosecutor’s case in one fell swoop. The moment the Accused is served, the defense process begins. THE ACCUSED THEN HAS 30 DAYS TO MAKE A CASE. IF during that time the Accused make no defense nor redress of the charges, he or she then stands convicted by default! The "trial" is now over. The Criminal Complaint is only a formality to calculate the punitive damages against the Accused which thus have been awarded to the Claimant.

 

Accompanying the Criminal Complaint is the COMMERCIAL LIEN which issued by CONSENSUAL DEFAULT against all the assets of the Accused. This effectively gives the Claimant lien rights against all of the property of the Accused. Such a lien may be filed in the county recorder’s office; however, this filing is not a necessity, but, a convenience. Any common law commercial lien will stand by law for one hundred years or until the damages have been collected. In most cases that means practically forever because the Accused does not, and probably never will have enough property to satisfy the damages thus assessed.

 

Now the full power of the legal enforcement system can be brought to bear to collect the damages owed by the Accused. The Sheriff is empowered to seize pay checks, cars, homes: anything and everything.

 

Loss Of Government Employment

The Accused is in fact a convicted felon: unbondable by any insurance company, subject by law to immediate termination if employed by the government and forever barred from holding public office.

 

Jail

The Criminal Complaint is turned over to the appropriate Prosecuting Attorney, who must institute a sentencing hearing wherein a judge will impose the incarceration (jail-time) prescribed in the appropriate criminal codes for the offenses of which the Accused stands convicted. Should any such authority fail to prosecute sentencing against the convicted party, the mildest charge then faced by such authority is Felony Misprision; but such Prosecuting Attorney could also be charged with conspiracy to aid and abet the convicted party in commission of the same offenses.

Under our current political situation, where the enemies of the People often occupy positions of power and authority and those same people can prevent or slow the wheels of justice, there are still many ways to publish the convictions and misdeeds of parties so convicted that can be even more humiliating to the convicted than the normal methods of publishing the results of their conviction.

 

Summary

The fundamental purpose, and one of the major objectives of the Commercial Affidavit Process is to educate wrongdoers to the fact they have abused the unalienable rights of a sovereign Citizen and cannot get away with it, and to give them an opportunity (commercial grace) to repent and undo the wrongs they have done. Unlike the typical criminal trial where the Accused no longer has the option of simply redressing the wrongs he or she has done, the Commercial Affidavit Process DOES give the Accused that option!

 

Further, the CAP is designed to educate wrongdoers that they are being used by the conspirators in the war against the People. Thus they may see for themselves what is really going on and decide which side they choose to serve.

 

Role of the Courts

An affidavit is someone’s solemn expression of truth. The foundation of the law, commerce, and the whole legal system consists of telling the truth ("I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth . . . "), either by testimony, deposition, and/or by affidavit.

 

Every honorable judge requires those who appear before him to be sworn to tell the truth, and is compelled by the high principles of his profession to protect truth and do nothing to tamper with that truth, either directly or indirectly, either in person or by proxy, or by subornation of an affiant or other person.

 

A judge CANNOT interfere with, tamper with, or in any way modify testimony without disintegrating the truth-seeking process in his sacred profession and destroying the fabric of his own occupation. To do so abrogates the First Amendment, which was established to protect truth. It is committing professional suicide, as well as inviting countless civil and criminal repercussions.

 

ANY judge who tampers with testimony, deposition, or affidavit, is a threat to the Commercial Peace and Dignity of the County, State, and United States of America, thereby violating the laws of all those political subdivisions and acting in the nature of a foreign enemy agent (A MIXED WAR), justifiably subject to penalties of TREASON.

 

WHOEVER acts against Commercial Affidavits without executing the necessary Commercial Paperwork under affidavit is subject to being charged criminally. Said charges begin with FRAUD, which is gaining at the expense of the loss of another using trickery or deception, and the charges expand from there to include all those violations that extend to and are a natural outgrowth of such fraud.

 

Commercial processes are fundamentally non-judicial and pre-judicial. NO judge, court, law, or government can invalidate these commercial processes; i.e., an affidavit or a lien or complaint based thereon, because no third party can invalidate someone’s affidavit of truth. To act against such affidavit is to create a situation and or enhance the condition of A MIXED WAR. No one can rebut an affiant except a party (e.g., a lien debtor) who alone, by his own affidavit, must speak for himself if challenged. Only someone himself knows his truth and has the right and responsibility to assert it.

 

The MIXED WAR situation and or condition is that where those in authority have violated their oaths of office, violated the fundamental law they took an oath to uphold and protect, violated the codes, statutes and regulations that govern them thereby they disregarded the peace and safety of the community by their actions, acting for undisclosed foreign agents or governments, against those whom they swore to protect [see Black’s Law Dictionary on War]. Simply, an act or acts of TREASON in a secret war against the people.

 

Notes on the Above Article

What you have read gives you the theoretical foundation for most of this manual. Practically, there are difficulties with the strategy described above. Conducting a common-law criminal trial is not easy, as the author noted. The court system has, for practical purposes, extinguished that option. Thus, territorial gangsters are often shielded from criminal prosecution. However, the one aspect of the strategy that can still be effective is Commercial Liens. As of this writing, it seems that no judge can extinguish such a lien if it is properly executed.

 

Constitutions as Enforceable Contracts

The Commercial Lien Strategy depends upon one "maxim" as its linchpin: the idea of a constitution as a specific performance contract between a governing official and the people in a particular jurisdiction. Some writers (such as Lysander Spooner) have denounced the U.S. Constitution as a fraud, on the grounds that it is not an enforceable contract (see Report #TL07: The Constitution of No Authority available at this website).

 

The Commercial Lien Strategy, by contrast, holds that constitutions are enforceable contracts. The instruments of contract? OATHS OF OFFICE. The Commercial Lien Strategy assumes that, when an official signs an oath, he/she signs a contract to exercise the powers of office within the limitations of the constitution and the laws. On paper, there are sanctions against officials who violate their oaths.

 

"Whoever, having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true, is guilty of perjury and shall be fined no more than $2,000.00 or imprisoned not more than five years or both." 18 U.S.C. §1621

 

In practice, it is very difficult to prosecute a malfeasant public official. However, such officials may be exposed to great personal, commercial liability for violating their oaths of office.

Apparently, many government officials realize this. Alfred Adask, editor/publisher of The AntiShyster, writes:

 

"A friend of mine recently asked the [Texas] Secretary of State for copies of Governor’s and AG’s oaths, but received no response for nearly two months. Finally, he received a copy of the AG [Dan] Morales’s oath which was dated January, 1991, but was not file stamped until March 26, 1993. Very suspicious. Governor [Anne] Richard’s oath is yet to be found by the Secretary of State. Likewise, very suspicious.

 

"It appears possible (probable?) that the Governor and AG had not taken their oaths of office for two years after they were elected. If so, they were (are?) probably in office illegally. It would follow then, that anything they’d done or signed in an official capacity in the last two years might also be unlawful and without legal merit.

 

"The potential for legal havoc could be huge. Laws signed by the Governor during the last two years might not be lawful; the entire Executive branch of the Texas State government might be without lawful authority to enforce any law or regulation; innumerable criminal convictions might be reversed. All of the civil court cases prosecuted by Attorney General Morales and the entire AG’s office (which derives its authority from the AG’s oath) might also be unlawful.

 

"Of course, it’s virtually impossible that the courts will rule that all official acts of Texas for the last two years are unlawful. But whether those official acts are bogus or not, there is an infinitely more important question:

 

"Why weren’t the oaths of the Governor and Attorney General of Texas — the two most important officials in the Executive branch of our state’s government — on file at the Secretary of State’s office?

 

"Why? Some sort of clerical error?

 

"I don’t think so. I think the oaths were missing because they didn’t exist . . . [Emphasis added]

"So perhaps some officials simply choose to be ‘oathless’ in an attempt to ‘cover their butts’ from being sued (or ‘liened on’) for not ‘upholding and defending’ the state constitution? Could be."

Bonding of Government Officials

Some pro se litigants postulate the requirement that government officials be "bonded." As far as anyone knows, this theory has not been tested in court. Nonetheless, some readers of this manual may wish to research this topic further. Therefore, what follows is a brief exposition of the theory.

The "bonding" theory states that most elected officials and government administrators (perhaps even lawyers), are legally required to be "bonded." That is, they must purchase a "performance bond" (a kind of insurance policy) which guarantees that the official will perform the duties required by his office.

 

In the event the government official fails to perform his duties, any party injured by this breach of contract can recover the cost of his damages from the bonding company.

 

According to these pro se litigants, despite the legal requirement that government officials be bonded, many, perhaps most, are not. Therefore, the "bonding requirement" strategy is based on first determining if a given official is legally required to be bonded. Then, if he is bonded — and evidence can be shown to the bonding company that he is failing to meet the performance requirements of his bond — the bonding company may revoke the bond or raise his premium, which should help "encourage" the wayward official to obey the law.

 

Further, if the bond is required by law in order to hold a particular office, once that bond is lost, it’s possible that the office must also be surrendered.

 

If the official is not bonded, then the lien process includes notifying the government official of this legal deficiency. If he does not correct the deficiency (purchase a performance bond) within 90 days, then anyone damaged by his actions can file a commercial lien on the government official for all of his personal property.

 

Also (according to this theory) a government official’s bond is dependent upon his legal immunity, and that immunity is to some extent based on having a legal Oath of Office on file (usually with the Secretary of State). If his Oath of Office is insufficient to meet the Constitutional or statutory requirements, he may lose his immunity and his bond. If he loses his bond, he becomes personally liable ("lienable") for any illegal act he commits in office.

 

 

 

Chapter 3