Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts

Friday, February 15, 2013

An Introduction to the Republic of Texas



An Introduction to the
Republic of Texas

The major media outlets have referred to the Republic of Texas as a "movement. " The truth is that the Republic of Texas is a NATION, and has been such since 1836 when it was established by the People of Texas, who won independence from Mexico. The "movement " that exists is the People of Texas working to lawfully reclaim the soil of Texas from the United States which has held Texas as a captured nation since 1865.
The congress of the United States failed from 1836 until 1845 to annex Texas to the U.S. as a state because they did not have the authority under their constitution to do so. They finally passed a resolution (an agreement which is only a statement of intent and has no force of law) to annex Texas. In 1861, the People of Texas, by popular vote, exercised their right under the resolution to withdraw from the agreement. They, as a separate and independent nation, formed an alliance with the southern States of the United States. They did not become a confederate state, but were merely allied with them. After the civil war, the Union Army came to the Southern States and also to Texas and took over by military force and rule. There was never another document done to lawfully bring Texas into the Union of States. It was simply taken over and run by the military.
On March 30, 1870, the congress of the United States passed a special act allowing Texas to be represented in congress. This is the deception that has led everyone to believe that Texas was indeed part of the United States. The fact that Texas is not, and never has been, lawfully a part of the United States is one that is not palatable to many because of our emotional ties to the beliefs we have held all our lives. But belief does not change fact! When we come to learn the facts of how the People of Texas have had their freedoms eroded by involuntary servitude to unlawful governments, and when we realize that we have the chance once again to be truly free to own property and exercise our rights to " Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness," we can begin to overcome those emotional ties in favor of the excitement of the possibility of being truly FREE as God and our forefathers intended.
As you review the information on this website, you will see the work that has been done to proclaim to the world that we have found out who we are - Free people of a Sovereign Nation - and you will also see what has been done to reclaim our sovereignty and independence.



 RELATED LINKS



 YOUTUBE 



 TWITTER

Sunday, February 3, 2013

ARBITRARY POWER VS. FREEDOM



ARBITRARY POWER VS. FREEDOM
May 29, 1998
   It has been said that governments are the inherent enemies of the people. Inevitably, governments seek to control. To control the people: through agencies, bureaucracies and the police power. The main political problem we face today is not how to prevent the police power from becoming arbitrary and tyrannical, since it has already happened, but how to stop the tyranny and the arbitrary use of the police power in our country.
   We must realize that arbitrary power has seldom been introduced into any country all at once. It must be introduced by slow degrees, step by step, or the people would see it approaching. The barriers and fences of the people's liberty must be plucked one-by-one, and some plausible pretenses must be found for removing or deceiving, one after another, those sentries who are posted by the constitution of a free country for warning the people of their danger. When those preparatory steps are once made, the people will then see slavery and arbitrary power making long strides over their land; but it will be too late to think of preventing or avoiding the impending ruin. It is already upon us. But it is never too late to begin the fight to restore our freedom and abolish the slavery of arbitrary power.
   Through a constitution, the People delegate certain authorities and responsibilities to the government. No one can delegate authority they do not have. Therefore, it is indisputable truth that ALL POLITICAL POWER IS INHERENT IN THE PEOPLE. Today, when a concerted effort is made to obliterate this point, it cannot be repeated too often that the Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals - that it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government - that it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the Citizen's protection against the government.
   Today there seem to be no constitutional restraints on government. In fact, people in the Federal Government have been violating the limitations of the constitution almost since the beginning. Some major changes took place in the operation of the government during and after the Civil War and again in 1933, when the American People were classified as enemies of the government and the licensing and regulation really began. The government is no longer the servant of the people and the watchdog of their rights, but has become a collection of agencies and bureaucracies exercising arbitrary power over every area of our lives.
   A famous man once said: "Power and the law are not synonymous. In truth they are frequently in opposition and irreconcilable. There is God's Law from which all equitable laws of man emerge and by which men must live if they are not to die in oppression, chaos, and despair. Divorced from God's eternal and immutable Law, established before the founding of the suns, man's power is evil no matter the noble words with which it is employed or the motives urged when enforcing it. Men of good will, mindful therefore of the Law laid down by God, will oppose governments whose rule is by men, and, if they wish to survive as a nation they will destroy that government which attempts to adjudicate by the whim or power of venal judges."
   People in the government of the United States have operated just as governments have operated throughout history. Their goal always seems to be to gain more Power and Control over the People, and more Territory. This lust for power caused these men to perpetrate a great fraud upon the People of Texas.
   It began in the early 1800's. The People of Texas rebelled against the unconstitutional and tyrannical acts of the Mexican government. They tried for years to assert their lawful rights within the framework of that government. For this they were imprisoned and killed. Finally, they saw that they had no choice but to assert their rights by force. Many brave men died in that battle against tyranny, but Texas won her independence from Mexico.
   In 1835, the People of Texas formed a Provisional Government as the first step in the fight for independence and freedom. Then, in 1836 a constitution was written forming a permanent, "republican form of government." That government was instituted by the Constitution for the Republic of Texas and by the People of Texas.
   Winning the battle for independence, though, was just the beginning of the struggle of the new nation. The new government was heavily in debt from the war with Mexico, and this debt, along with the lack of money to pay it and very little money to operate on was a tremendous struggle for our early leaders.
   It's no wonder that promises from the United States fell on receptive ears, and the move was on to take Texas into the union as a State of the United States. For nine (9) long years men in the congress of the United States tried to bring Texas into the union according to their constitution, but failed. John Quincy Adams led the battle to not allow the statehood of Texas, because he understood that congress did not have the delegated authority to bring another nation into that union.
   In 1844 a Treaty of Annexation was proposed to the Senate, and failed by a vote of 35 to 16. Finally, in 1845, the so-called annexation of Texas was done by an unlawful (unconstitutional) act of the congress of the United States. Since they could not lawfully bring Texas into the union, they passed a "joint resolution" approving the Annexation, which supposedly made Texas a State of the United States. One of the provisions of this arrangement was that the People of Texas could withdraw from this agreement at any time.
   After many broken promises and many other problems between Texas and the United States government, the People in Texas, by popular vote, exercised their option to withdraw from the annexation agreement. On February 23rd, 1861 the vote was taken and seventy five (75) percent of the people of Texas voted to withdraw from their association with the United States. The vote was 45,738 for withdrawal, and 15,072 against withdrawal.
   I am convinced that the People of Texas, at that time, did not understand their true relationship with the United States, that they were not truly a State, but merely acting like a State because of an unlawful agreement. It is clear in the constitutions of Texas, and in the first laws made in Texas, that Texas totally retained the sovereignty of her soil, and no soil was ceded to the United States. The words "secede" and "secession" have been used regarding the actions of the People of Texas in 1861. Even in the Archives of the Texas State Library, the recorded vote was entitled "Voting Record of Texas counties for and against Secession." I suppose that in light of the fact that there were States of the Union that were seceding in that same time period, that the People of Texas looked at their action as the same thing. But you first have to "cede the soil" to be able to "secede." So when the vote was taken to withdraw from the arrangement, it was truly a withdrawal, not a "secession," and Texas was, as a matter of fact and law, a sovereign nation, The Republic of Texas.
   In 1865, Texas became a captured Nation of War, after the Civil War. The U.S. Military forces came in and governed the Nation of Texas. It was called "Re-construction." On March 30, 1870, by special act of the U.S. congress, they "allowed" Texas to be represented in Congress. If Texas were truly a State of the Union, why would a special act, allowing their representatives, be necessary?
   Many scoff at the idea that Texas was illegally and unlawfully annexed as a State of the United States. Even if that argument were not true, the fact remains that Texas withdrew from that arrangement in 1861. There has never been a record produced showing that the People of Texas, exercising their inherent political authority, ever voted since that time to join the United States. On the contrary, the People of Texas were duped by fraud and deception into believing that Texas was a State rather than a sovereign nation.
   Our problem is now twofold. As I said in the beginning, the Federal Government is totally outside the limits of its delegated authority, and THEY DON'T BELONG IN TEXAS ANYWAY!!
   The undeniable issue is Freedom. What is Freedom? To some, freedom means the opportunity to do what they want to do; to many it means not to do what they do not want to do. Do we not really have freedom today? In our society, we can do almost anything we want to do .... as long as we have the government's permission. You get a license to have your own business; you get a license to travel from one place to another; you get a license just to work in many industries; you get a license to get married; you get a license to catch a fish!! You must even REGISTER to vote, which amounts to a license to vote! Is this freedom?
   Here is how license is defined in Bouvier's Law Dictionary in the mid 1800's:
   LICENSE, contracts. A right given by some competent authority to do an act, which without such authority would be illegal. The instrument or writing which secures this right, is also called a license.
   How did the things we have a natural, God given right to do come to require a license? Remember when I mentioned 1933? In March of 1933, the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 was amended to include the American People, thus making them the enemies of the government. Now let's look at another interesting definition from Bouvier's dictionary:
   LICENSE, International law. An authority given by one of two belligerent parties, to the citizens or subjects of the other, to carry on a specified trade. 2. The effects of the license are to suspend or relax the rules of war to the extent of the authority given. It is the assumption of a state of peace to the extent of the license...
   To be an enemy, you must have an enemy. Does that mean that the United States Government declared themselves to be the enemy of the people when they declared the people to be their enemy? OF COURSE IT DOES! How can we possibly expect to have freedom while being regulated and licensed to death by an ENEMY?
   This brings us back to my statement about what freedom is. Either to do what you want to do, or be free not to do what you do not want to do. What I want to do is live my life without the Government's permission. This does not mean that I am ANTI- GOVERNMENT, it means that I am against UNLAWFUL, OPPRESSIVE, TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT.
   This is why we want to restore the Sovereignty of Texas as a nation. To rid ourselves of our DECLARED ENEMY, who is here by DECEPTION, DECEIT, FRAUD, MILITARY FORCE and ARBITRARY POLICE POWER. We want to restore our country to the simplicity of the Common Law, where no man has a natural right to commit aggression on the rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him. What is ominous is the ease with which some people go from saying that they don't like something to saying that the government should forbid it. When you go down that road, don't expect freedom to survive very long.
   There is no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for anyone to live without breaking laws.
   Common Law - Self Responsibility - Freedom. These are inseparable. Many people voice concerns and fears at not having man made laws. "I don't want someone driving a hundred miles and hour and killing me!" "I think everyone should have to have their car inspected, so that no one will be driving an unsafe car that might hurt me." What they are really saying is, "I am responsible but you might not be." Folks, if I want Freedom and Self Responsibility, I MUST LET YOU HAVE IT. If you want Freedom and Self Responsibility, YOU MUST LET ME HAVE IT. There must be freedom for ALL if there is to be freedom for ANYONE!
   The simple fact is that there ARE irresponsible people in our society. There ARE people who are going to hurt other people. There ARE people who are going to break the law, no matter what it is. Another simple fact is that laws do not prevent crime! Laws only define crime. The only thing that prevents crime is either the moral judgment of the self-responsible individual or the fear of JUSTICE and PUNISHMENT for crime.
   We must restore justice in Texas! How do we go about that? Some say: "Why don't we fix the system we have?." Well folks, I don't believe that we can restore justice by trying to reform our DECLARED ENEMY, which is the current de facto government of the STATE OF TEXAS - merely a sub-corporation and puppet of the foreign UNITED STATES Government. They do not want justice, they want POWER AND CONTROL. We must restore the Sovereignty of our beloved Texas as a nation and return to the Common Law. We must establish the People's Courts of Common Law. The only way we are going to restore justice is through the people. Liberty and justice has never come from government. Liberty and justice has always come from the PEOPLE!
   We must educate the people of Texas, so that they will know that they have lost freedom, liberty and justice and so that they will understand what these things really mean. Thomas Jefferson said, "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." We must spread the word, that we don't really own our property, that the oppressive government agencies are operating without the delegated authority of the people, that almost ALL government officials are violating their oaths of office, wherein they swore to protect the rights of the people and uphold the constitution. That some so-called government agencies are not really government agencies at all, the IRS and BATF being prime examples. They are nothing more than foreign entities oppressing, extorting money from, and exercising arbitrary police power over all of us with absolutely no lawful authority to do so.
   We must spread the word that all these actions are being condoned and assisted by the very people in Texas we elected to protect us from our enemies. The people in the government of the STATE OF TEXAS are violating their oaths and evading their responsibilities to the People of Texas by allowing the fraud to be continued: that we are a part of another country and by allowing a foreign government and foreign entities to oppress us, control us, and confiscate the fruit of our labor by theft.
   We must, through the POLITICAL POWER of the PEOPLE, and through a Constitutional Convention, Alter or Abolish the current DECLARED ENEMY GOVERNMENT, as is our inherent political right, and form a government operating within the bounds of the contract with the people, responsive to the needs of the people, and above all a government that recognizes its true and only purpose, TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF EVERY INDIVIDUAL; from ALL enemies, both foreign and domestic, above all else.
   Most of us feel the we must have a nation led by a government that conforms to the Laws of God. That immutable law mentioned earlier. There has been much talk about this, but it seems that different people attach different meanings to this. There have been those in our midst who would be the sole interpreter of God's Laws for everyone and impose their version upon all the people, which amounts to a National Religion. This must not and cannot be allowed. The only way to have a government truly led by our Creator, is to fill it with men of integrity, who serve Almighty God from their heart, and put the well being of the People ahead of their own personal wishes and desires. Men who will be fair and just in all their dealings. Men who tell the truth. It is within the power and the responsibility of the People to establish such a government, to define it, and to be ever vigilant to maintain their government under a watchful eye.
   I've been saying what we want and what we must do. But, who are the WE that I am talking about? Who are the People of the Republic of Texas? We are people from all walks of life. There are no racial, religious or philosophical boundaries. We are simply People who understand the extent to which our freedoms and liberties have been eroded over the past 150 years. We are people who are aware of the social and economic problems that exist and want to find a better way to solve these problems than with taxation and intrusive government. We believe in the principles of Freedom, Self-Responsibility, Common Law and Justice. We believe that we should have the freedom to travel, work, live and play without the government licensing and regulating our behavior. We believe that we should and can accomplish these things in our own Sovereign Nation, free from the Oppressive, Arbitrary Police Power of the de facto governments currently attempting to rule over us.
   The time to act is now! Because the time is short. We must have as many join us in our fight for freedom as we can get. Every one of us has a responsibility and a duty to ourselves and each other to promote the Republic of Texas and our fight for FREEDOM on a daily basis. Talk to your friends. Talk to those you meet from day to day. Bring them to meetings. WE MUST INCREASE OUR NUMBERS IN ORDER TO EXERCISE OUR POLITICAL POWER! When you wake up in the morning, ask yourself "What can I do today to help the Republic succeed?"  Since we believe in FREEDOM, LIBERTY and JUSTICE for ALL, it's our job to SPREAD THE NEWS!! God bless each and every one of you, and God Bless The Republic of Texas!!
 

   Jesse Enloe
   President Provisional Government
   Republic of Texas


 RELATED LINKS



 YOUTUBE 



 TWITTER

What is Common Law?



What is Common Law?
by Jesse Enloe
October 9, 1997
   For many this is a difficult question, since our society has been taught during our entire lifetimes that the laws we must obey are the laws made by legislature. The first step in understanding Common Law is in understanding what it is not. It is not statutory law, which is the law made and written by men. Although statutes should be based on the Common Law, if they are to exist, many are not. Many people want to get a book where the Common Law is stated in the manner that men have written statutes.
What I mean is, they want to be specifically told what is and what is not against the law. There is only one book that I know of that can be used as the "source book" for Common Law that applies to every natural person born to life on earth. That book is the Bible. Now, before some of you get ruffled about that statement please consider the rest of this article.
Simply defined, the Common Law is that law that is Common to ALL individuals on this planet. How could there be such law? Where could a law come from that could apply to everyone? The basic premise that answers this question is in the belief that there is a Supreme Creator of life on this planet and that He is the lawgiver. If this premise is true, then surely, whether we recognize Him or not, the law that He established is immutable law.
For those who do not believe that there is a Supreme Creator, there is still very logical reasoning behind the concept of Common Law. That is that the basic principles of the law set forth in the Bible can be seen in every system of law on Earth. Let's take a look at the Ten Commandments as set forth in the Bible. As you will see, the law here is basically in two categories:
1. Verses 1 through 11 speak of one's relationship to God.
2. Verses 12 through 17 speak of one's relationship with other individuals and society in general.
Exodus - Chapter 20: Verses 1-17 1. And God spake all these words, saying, 2. I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.3. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 4. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: 5. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; 6. And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. 7. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. 8. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10. But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. 12. Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. 13. Thou shalt not kill. 14. Thou shalt not commit adultery. 15. Thou shalt not steal. 16. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. 17. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
When we speak of the Common Law in the Republic of Texas, we also must consider the freedom of the expression of one's particular faith or belief. In fact, we must allow freedom for anyone to believe whatever his/her conscience dictates whether we agree with it or not. Thus, the first four Commandments must be left to the understanding, interpretation and belief of each individual and their own relationship, or non-relationship, with God. The remaining six Commandments, however, directly affect each and every individual alive and affect society as a whole.
Who, in their right mind, would argue that murder, adultery, theft and lying are not wrong - in ANY society! The reason for the tenth commandment is that these things begin in one's heart. If one covets the possessions of another, it can lead to one of the crimes just mentioned. Who could argue that everyone following these Commandments would not produce a crime free society? Obviously that's a little too much to hope for, since we know the inherent fallibility of the human race. So we must have something to go by to have an ordered society where the rights of every individual are protected by a law that applies to everyone. This law must have direct correlation to the inalienable rights given to each individual at birth. Thus, the Law of the Bible, the Divine Law, is the very essence of the Common Law.
For those who do not choose to use the Bible as the source for the Common Law, another definition, man's definition is offered: "The Common Law is based on common usage and customs of the society." This is why the law, as described above, fits here too. It is, or should be, understood by everyone that murder, adultery, theft and lying are crimes against the rights of others.
For those who do choose the Bible as their source, of course there are the Ten Commandments. The Law is also re-stated in the New Testament. One such reference is found in Romans chapter 13 verses 8, 9 and 10 as follows: 8. Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. 9. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 10. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
In the Republic of Texas we define the Common Law simply in this manner:
"Do no harm to another, Do no harm to another's property, and Your word is your bond [meaning honor all contracts, verbal or written, and don't lie]."
It would be difficult, if not impossible, to think of a crime against another that would not fit into one of these categories. What does not fit into the Common Law is when behavior that does no harm to anyone is defined by men as a crime.
For example, a person traveling on a roadway who does not make a complete stop at a "Stop Sign." If there are no other people traveling in the vicinity, and no one is harmed, in the Common Law no crime has been committed. If, however, you cause an accident with another traveler because you failed to observe the traveling rights of the one who was already in the intersection and harm them or their property, then a Common Law crime has occurred. This is why there are common sense procedures that should be followed in our society, but not to the extent of paying tribute to some governmental body when no one has been harmed!
One of the biggest reasons it is so hard to understand the Common Law as opposed to Statutory Law, is that men make laws in an attempt to REGULATE THE BEHAVIOR OF OTHERS TO PREVENT CRIME [Statutory Law]. The truth is, however, that NO LAW CAN PREVENT CRIME. Laws only DEFINE CRIME. The only thing that can prevent crime is the morality of the individual [a conscious decision not to commit crime] or the fear of JUSTICE and PUNISHMENT for crime. Thus, the defining of the Law is an entirely different matter from the enforcement of the Law.
The book "The Law" by the French writer Frederick Bastiat is one of the best there is at explaining why we need law and what the force of law is. Please consider this excerpt from his book:
"Life, liberty and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place. What then is Law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.
"Each of us has a natural right, from God, to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them depend upon the preservation of the other two.
"If every person has the right to defend, even by force, his person, his liberty and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right, its reason for existing, its lawfulness, is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty or property of another individual then the common force, for the same reason, cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty or property of individuals or groups."
Our society today depends upon the written statutes to define what is against the law and what the punishment is. The problem is that so many of the statutes written by men go far beyond the basic purpose of law and attempt to define every possible behavior or action. What's wrong with this is that there are as many variations on behavior as there are people. Another thing that's wrong with this is that many things are defined as crimes for no other purpose than extorting money, freedom or property from the People by unscrupulous men who have gained positions of "power" in the government. As stated in Bastiat's book, when the legal system exceeds their basic purpose, to protect individual rights, it becomes a system of legalized plunder. Look at what we have today.
So what is the proper enforcement of the Common Law? To answer this question we must realize who has the power to enforce the Law. Bastiat also tells us this when he uses the words "common force." The power to enforce the Law comes from the People. It is based on their individual right to protect themselves and their individual right to justice. The organization of this right is customarily in men selected by the people to "keep the peace" [enforce the law] and a council of men selected to make judgments as to violations of the law and the punishment [justice] to be imposed.
From the days of the Magna Carta, which is said to be the first attempt at writing the Common Law in English, this "council" has been called a "jury." We in the Republic of Texas believe that the Common Law, as it relates to individual actions, should only be administered by the lawfully elected Sheriff of the county, and by a lawfully selected jury of 12 in Courts of the People, set up by the People. Since the actions and actual crimes can be so varied and contain so many different factors, such as willful intent as opposed to accidental or negligent, each case must be looked at individually by the jury to judge the law, the facts and the rules of evidence.
If the system of justice and law is given into the hands of the elected "government" the door is open to all of the abuses of the rights of the People that seem so common today and always happen when the government goes unchecked. The jury is, in fact, the very thing that must be used to check the government, and not allow individual rights to be abused. It is a universal principle that no one should ever suffer the loss of life, liberty or property except by due process of the administration of the law of the land. This is where we must all understand that the Law of the Land in Texas and in the united States of America is the COMMON LAW.
Think about it. We call a constitution the "Law of the Land." But it is a COMMON LAW DOCUMENT. Was it created by statute? Was it created by a government? No. It was created by the will of the People exercising their collective right to self preservation of their individual rights.
So, how do we sum up the Common Law? Depending on your particular faith or belief it is either the Law set forth by the God of the Bible to apply to all who live and dwell upon the Earth, or simply the law that is common to all for the protection of the rights that are common to every individual against abuse by others. These two ways of saying it are totally compatible and, either way, it is the law that defines crimes against individuals and is administered by the collective force as organized by the People.
Once again, when someone is harmed in any manner, their body or their property, it is for a jury to decide the issue. A jury that are the judges of the entire case, not a jury whose hands and consciences are tied by one man, called a "Judge," that tells them how they must decide based on HIS interpretation of statutes. If we want to restore FREEDOM, LIBERTY AND JUSTICE in our land, we must return to the Common Law, Common Law Procedures, trial by a jury, and instill the FEAR OF PUNISHMENT in those who lack the individual morality to refrain from the abuse of the rights of another.
Respectfully Submitted,
 

        Jesse Enloe
        Vice President (Now President)
        Republic of Texas
        Provisional Government


 RELATED LINKS



 YOUTUBE 



 TWITTER


States "require" License, Title and Registration



States "require" License, Title and Registration
How do they do that?
by Jerre Kneip
[This article was printed in The Free Press, Kerrville, Texas on June 26, 1998 and is submitted for publication here. Even though it is well established by documented evidence that Texas is not lawfully a state of the American Union, I thought it would be well to for everyone to see how the United States and State of Texas governments are abrogating the rights of the people when it comes to the right to travel without interference from the government.
Jesse Enloe.]
That the people of the United States of America have the right to move about the country by whatever means of conveyance they choose, without interference by the government, has been long and well established by the courts from the Supreme Court on down. So, how is it that the State Legislatures can enact, and the counties and municipalities enforce, laws requiring Certificates of Title, Registration of automobiles, Licensing of "Drivers," compulsory liability insurance, and a myriad of other regulations and restrictions upon the people?
The answer is, "By carefully and cleverly crafting the law so that the people are led to believe that such laws apply to everyone."
State courts and the Supreme Court of the United States have repeatedly held that "traveling" is a right. In the case City of San Antonio v. Fetzer, 241 SW 1034, the court held, "The streets of the cities of this country belong to the public. Primarily, every member of the public has a natural right to the free use of such streets in the normal pursuit of his private or personal business or pleasure.
... The right of the public at large to the free use of the streets is paramount to the natural right of the individual. ... The power of the city in exercising such control is limited only by the Constitution and general laws of the state, ... But neither the Legislature nor the city commissioners has the power to take away or unreasonably abridge, the natural rights of the citizen to the use of the streets in the manner and for the purpose we have set forth above."
In the cases Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 377 Ill. 200, 169 NE 22 ALR 834, Ligare v. Chicago, 139 Ill. 46, 28 NE 834 and Boone v. Clark, 214 SW 607; 25 Am Jur 1st Highways, Sec. 163 the courts said, "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege but a common and fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived."
In Thompson v. Smith, 157 SE 579, the court stated, "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by a carriage or automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
In Kent v. Dulles 357, U.S. 116, 125, the Supreme Court of the United States said, "The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment."
Again the Supreme Court, in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491 said, "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
Finally, (but certainly not exhaustively) the Supreme Court said in Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2nd 436, 489, "The claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a Crime."
So how do they do it?
Every state issues "Drivers" licenses, Certificates of Title and Auto Registrations. Examination of the Texas Transportation Code (Acts of the 74th Legislature, 1995) reveals how it is done and is probably typical of the Codes of other States.
The first clue is in the title "Transportation Code." The word "transportation" is defined by Blacks Law Dictionary, 5th Edition: "Transportation. The movement of goods or persons from one place to another by a carrier [for hire]." In keeping with this definition, the titles making up the Code are Title 1. General Provisions, Title 2. General Provisions Relating to Carriers, Title 3. Aviation, Title 4. Navigation, Title 5. Railroads, Title 6. Roadways and Title 7. Vehicles and Traffic. As stated in the enactment clause, these titles make up "An act relating to the adoption of a not-substantive revision of status relating to transportation..." By legal definition, the act relates to the movement of goods and persons by carriers for hire.
The sections generally applied to the ordinary citizen who uses his automobile to travel for private business or pleasure are contained in Title 7. Vehicles and Traffic. Blacks Law (6th. Ed.) defines Vehicle: "Term refers to every device in, upon, or by which a person or property is or may be transported upon a highway." Traffic is defined as "Commerce; Trade." So we know from the outset that Title 7 is dealing with "persons" and "vehicles" engaged in a commercial activity. This fact becomes more obvious as we delve further into the Code.
Other useful definitions from Blacks Law are: Carrier: "Individual or organization engaged in transporting passengers or goods for hire"; Passenger: "In general, a person who gives compensation to another for transportation."
Title 7 begins with Chapter 501. Certificate of Title Act. All of the rules relating to Certificate of Title are contained in this chapter. Section 501.002 provides a number of definitions. Of particular interest is subsection "(14) Motor vehicle means: (A) any motor driven or propelled vehicle required to be registered under the laws of this state." So now we know that if an automobile is not required to be registered it does not come under the definition of "motor vehicle" for purposes of this chapter on Certificate of Title.
Section 501.004. Applicability describes what this chapter applies to. Subsection (a) says, "This chapter applies to a motor vehicle owned by the state or a political subdivision of the state." Subsection (b) says that the chapter does not apply to farm trailers, auto accessories, vehicles owned by the United States, or cars on loan to a political subdivision (such as school districts) use for driver education. So, if your automobile is not owned by the state or a political subdivision of the state, then the chapter of Certificate of Title does not apply. So much for chapter 501.
Chapter 502 is entitled Registration of Vehicles. Section 502.001. Definitions says, "In this chapter:" then defines a number of terms. Note that these definitions apply to "this chapter" and in some cases are different from those in other chapters. Of particular interest are: "(2) 'Commercial motor vehicle' means a motor vehicle, other than a motorcycle, designed or use primarily to transport property. The term includes a passenger car reconstructed and used primarily for delivery purposes. The term does not include a passenger car used to deliver the United States mail.; (13) 'Motor vehicle' means a vehicle that is self-propelled [different from that in 501]; (17) 'Passenger car' means a motor vehicle, other than a motorcycle, golf cart, light truck, or bus, designed or used primarily for the transportation of persons; and (24) 'Vehicle' means a device in or by which a person or property is or may be transported or drawn on a public highway..."
The clincher comes in Section 502.152 Certificate of Title Required for Registration. Subsection (a) says, "The department may not register or renew the registration of a motor vehicle for which a certificate of title is required under Chapter 501 unless the owner; (1) obtains a certificate of title for the vehicle..." Since Chapter 501 applies only to vehicles owned by the state or political subdivisions of the state, only those are required to obtain a certificate of title. All others without certificate of title may not be registered.  Of course, if you should voluntarily obtain a certificate of title, then you can register your automobile and the rest of the rules apply.
Chapter 521 relates to Drivers Licenses and Certificates. Now we get into a serious play on words. In chapter 501 we found that a "motor vehicle" is one required to be registered; in 502 it is a "vehicle" that is self-propelled; also in 502, vehicle means a device for transportation of persons or property. "Section 521.001 Definitions (a) In this chapter (6) "License" means an authorization to operate a motor vehicle that is issued under or granted by the laws of this state. The term includes: (A) a driver's license." The terms operate" and "motor vehicle" are not defined in chapter 521; however, subsection (b) says, "A word or phrase that is not defined by this chapter but is defined by Subtitle C has the meaning in this chapter that is assigned by that subtitle."
Subtitle C. Rules of the Road contains Chapter 541. Definitions. In section 541.001 Persons. In this subtitle (1) "Operator" means, as used in reference to a vehicle, a person who drives or has physical control of a vehicle. At Section 541.201. "Vehicles in this subtitle (11) "Motor vehicle" means a self propelled vehicle..." and (22) "Vehicle" means a device that can be used to transport or draw persons or property on a highway. Therefore, a driver's license is required of one who is engaged in the commercial activity of "operating" a "vehicle" for the purpose of transportation of goods or persons for hire.
Significantly, the terms "automobile" and "travel" are not mentioned in the Transportation Code precisely because they are not commercial terms and therefore are not subject to the code.
Now we come to the devious, down-right diabolical scheme employed by the Legislature, the law enforcement agencies of the Executive branch and the Judiciary to deceive the people into participation in their Transportation Code.
Under the Constitution of the United States, Article 1, Section 10, the right of the people to contract is protected. If the owner of an automobile to be used for private business or travel should voluntarily apply for a certificate of title and register the automobile as a "motor vehicle" then the law properly presumes that the owner's intent is to engage in transportation and the requirements of the Transportation Code apply.
Of course, the contract is invalid because it is not entered into willingly, knowingly and intentionally. In fact, if full disclosure of the terms and conditions of the contract were fully explained by the state and its agencies and agents, few would enter into the contract, thus depriving the state of that huge source of revenue, and incidentally, the control of the people's actions in their use of the public highways and streets.
Perhaps the reader may want to ask his State Representative and State Senator why full disclosure is not required when an automobile owner enters into a contract with the state by making application for certificate of title and then registering the automobile.


 RELATED LINKS



 YOUTUBE 



 TWITTER

Friday, February 1, 2013

What is a Straw Man?
We all need to know the
answer to this question!

What/Who is the Straw Man?
by Jesse Enloe - July 28, 1999
Straw man, as defined in Black's Law Dictionary, 6th 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]
There's no telling when the deception really started, but one of the first major events was the incorporation of the United States in 1871, with the final act occurring in 1878. It appears from the Statutes at Large that this was only the incorporation of the District of Columbia, but in the final act the phrase "District of Columbia or United States" is used making the phrases interchangeable and allowing the United States to operate as a corporation.
The so-called government is not the government created by the Constitution, it is a Corporation operating in COMMERCE for a PROFIT. Every transaction is now considered by the US, INC. to be a commercial transaction by fictional entities (fictions at law).
What is a Fiction at Law?
A fiction at law, or legal fiction, is an artificially created entity that is only contemplated in law. In other words, it is not real except in the eyes of the law written by men.
Legal fictions are the opposite of natural entities, such as people. A created legal fiction is endowed by the law to have some privileges that resemble the rights that people have, such as the right to hold property and to sue and be sued.
The most common legal fictions are corporations and trusts. These have been around for quite some time with their main purpose being to limit the liability of the people holding the corporation or trust, allowing them to NOT be personally responsible for their actions.
Legal Fictions are not compatible with the Common Law, which is the law our land was founded upon. In common law, everyone is responsible for his own actions and is held accountable and responsible for any wrongdoing (harming another in any way)
What does this have to do with me?
In 1933, the governors of all the states met to discuss the "emergency" declared by FDR and to support the new process that was being established. The "government" was in bankruptcy and had to be funded in its state of bankruptcy.
The governors made a "pledge" to the U.S., INC. to fund it. The pledge was that the assets and the energy of the people would back the "government" and secure the debt. But there was one little problem.
Natural living people cannot mix with legal fictions (corporations) so it was necessary to create a "bridge" between the fictions and the people to bring the people under and make them subservient to the "government" corporation.
When the governors made the pledge, they agreed to the birth certificates of the people with the U.S. Department of Commerce. The birth certificate is the security instrument (collateral) used to back up the pledge. The legal fiction was created by using the name on the birth certificate and writing it in all capital letters, the designation for a legal fiction. Then, because of the "pledge" YOU were determined to be the surety for the legal fiction.
Surety means: The one who is responsible to pay. So, when the government or any corporation uses any process whatsoever they are using it against the legal fiction, which they want YOU to think IS YOU. But when your name is written in all capital letters, IT IS NOT YOUR NAME!!. It is the designation of a legal fiction that is an entirely separate entity. A living human cannot be a legal fiction, and a legal fiction cannot be a living human. One is real or natural, the other is created by "law."
Whenever a government agency (such as a court) determines liability it is a liability of the legal fiction or Straw Man since everything is done in commerce. You are presumed, as evidenced by the pledge of your governor, to be the surety for the Straw Man and you must pay the liability.
REMEMBER: Every transaction is presumed by the "government" to be a transaction in commerce by a legal fiction.
What's the Answer?
The only way out of this is to defeat the presumption that you are the surety for the Straw Man (legal fiction).
The "Redemption Process", otherwise called the "Acceptance for Value" process, is the most promising way to defeat this presumption, using the Uniform Commercial Code, which is the "law" that the fictional commercial world operates under.
The first step is to "Capture the Straw Man." Filing a UCC-1 financing statement to secure a claim against the all capitalized legal fiction, or Straw Man, does this.
The next step is to accept your birth certificate for value and become the Holder in Due Course of that document. You will also want to accept for value your Drivers License and the Social Security Number that was assigned to the Straw Man.
The UCC-1 claim and the acceptance of these documents will REDEEM you from the commercial system and establish documented evidence to defeat the presumption that you are the surety for the Straw Man.
When the birth certificate is accepted for value, YOU become the Holder in Due Course and the Governor's position in the equation is also changed. Since the Governor is the GUARANTOR of the pledge when you are no longer the surety he/she becomes the surety for the Straw Man. It is my understanding that when this happens the Governor must then post a bond equal to the value you placed on your acceptance.
It's very much like if the Governor co-signed on a loan for a car for you and you stopped making the payments, the bank then looks to HIM for the payments.
I don't know about you, but personally I LOVE THIS IDEA!!! Now if I get a traffic ticket, I can just let the Governor pay the fine, since he is the surety for the Straw Man and is liable for all debts/fines/judgments incurred by the Straw Man. This is not intended to be an instruction on how to use the Redemption Process, but merely to give a basic understanding of the "fictional commercial world" we have been operating in, and how they have "bridged the gap" between this and the real live people and drawn us into their Babylonian system as a surety for a legal fiction. It is also the intention of this writing to establish in your mind that IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT YOU DEFEAT THE PRESUMPTION THAT YOU ARE THE SURETY FOR THE STRAW MAN (Legal Fiction).
How to contact the Republic of Texas:
24 Hour Information Line:
(972) 988-6660
Internet:
http://texasrepublic.com

[To download this brochure, CLICK HERE]


 RELATED LINKS



 YOUTUBE 



 TWITTER

register

P R E S U M P T I O N: It's the Name of the Game



P R E S U M P T I O N: It's the Name of the Game
By Jesse Enloe
    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 on a particular party. [Emphasis added; my comments in brackets.]
    The above statements regarding presumption are taken from various law dictionaries and show us how presumption is defined in law and understood by the courts. To continue this discussion we must look at the nature of the "government" and the courts today and then 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 reconvene. 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, I know, but read on.
    The "United States", after it evaporated in 1861, was put back together by force of arms. We are constantly told that America 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.
     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 defined in Black's Law Dictionary, 6th 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.
     For the understanding of those that may be new to this entire concept: the Straw Man has a name that is different from yours, but still 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 person's 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 (e.g., John Doe). We were never taught to write people's names in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. Did the people in the courts go to a different school than we did? Are they uneducated? Are they all just making the same mistake? Or is this aberration intentional? I think this is the case.
     Anytime you see "your name" in all capital letters, IT IS NOT YOUR NAME!! 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 me say it one more time: Anytime you see "your name" in all capital letters IT IS NOT YOUR NAME!! 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 I can say is, they might need further education. They might need to actually study the LAW and the EVIDENCE and not rely on presumption in 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 initiate the presumption that there is a new entity operating in commerce?
     At the same time the "Birth Certificate" is generated, the newborn 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, I will 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:
  1. Application for Driver's License,
  2. Application for Marriage Certificate,
  3. Mortgage papers and Deeds of Trust on property,
  4. Other licenses or permits that are applied for,
  5. Voters Registration
  6. Filing a 1040 form with the IRS
  7. Responding to documents addressed to the Straw Man (in all capital letters),
  8. Registering your new Automobile as a Motor Vehicle,
  9. Opening a bank account, etc. ad infinitum.

     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 and 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.
     Have you ever seen a court document with a heading 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 J.P 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 Daniel 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 D. DOE.
     My proper Christian and surname are John Daniel Doe; I was born live to Robert Doe and Mary Doe in the community of Dallas, county of Dallas, 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 D. 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. You MUST file a claim in civil court for the return of the property that was lawfully 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!!
     There are many people who are now struggling against the "jurisdiction" of the corporate courts. Many methods have been tried and are being tried. We must remember that the administrative judges of the commercial courts have a lot of experience at validating their presumptions. The first thing they want to do is validate their presumption that they have jurisdiction because you are the surety for the defendant, the Straw Man. Of course, they allow you to think that you ARE the defendant, but that is not possible because a legal fiction court can only have legal fictions as defendants.
     They know every trick in or out of the book to trap you into becoming the "defendant," thereby validating their presumption. I heard of one case where the man was successfully challenging jurisdiction until the judge said, "Will the Defendant please take the toothpick out of his mouth?" When the man removed the toothpick from his mouth he placed himself squarely into the jurisdiction of the court because his action validated the presumption that he was the defendant.
     THE PRESUMPTION THAT YOU ARE THE SURETY FOR THE STRAW MAN MUST BE DEFEATED if you are to have any semblance of the freedom God created you to enjoy and the forefathers of the United States and the forefathers of Texas intended for you to have.
     The nexus they have created for us to operate in is complex and complete. The third paragraph of page 3 lists just nine of the "contracts" or agreements that all of us unknowingly enter into that create and validate the Straw Man presumption. Now, in reality, by true Law, these contracts and agreements are null and void from the beginning due to lack of full disclosure. This lack of full disclosure equates to fraud, and fraud vitiates (eliminates) any contract ab initio (from the beginning).
     One way to begin to rebut and defeat the presumption is by the use of a NOTICE. One example of such a notice is attached to this narrative for your review. (Attachment "A")
     This notice presents declarations and facts to rebut the corporate government's presumption of your status. There are other ways to rebut and defeat the presumption.
     The method that many are using today is the process called Commercial Redemption. This process utilizes the Uniform Commercial Code and its provisions for filing a security interest with the Secretary of State.  When a living soul files a UCC-1 [financial statement] on the Straw Man for which he is presumed to be the surety, he moves from being the surety to the position of Creditor.
     When one Accepts his Birth Certificate for Value (Acceptance for Value Process), he completes the removal of himself as the surety for the Straw Man, and redeems the title to himself by becoming the "Holder in Due Course" of the title (Birth Certificate).
     This process causes Legal Freedom.  It uses the commercial code that the bankers promoted with the intention of controlling all commerce - and thus, all people - to change one's position from presumed "surety" to that of Creditor and Holder in Due Course.  Thus, when this process is correctly completed one regains the natural freedom given by his Creator and Legal Freedom within the artificial commercial society in which we live.
     In order to use the Commercial Redemption process, one must become educated in the process. There is much material available on this process all over Texas and all over the United States. Many seminars and workshop are being held to educate people about this process. I would urge people to thoroughly research and study this process before using it and be advised that there is conflicting information being disseminated. As with any information, it is up to the one learning to become educated and confident in the proper use of such information.
     There are many who try to debunk the Commercial Redemption process with all kinds of arguments which I consider to be erroneous. I, for one, am completely and totally convinced of the truth and veracity of the information presented in this narrative regarding the Straw Man and the presumptions of the corporate government based on the Straw Man.
     There are some who seek to use the Commercial Redemption process as a "Commercial Get-Revenge-and-Get-Rich" process.  I don't believe this is the proper application of the process.  I personally believe that if we can use this process to stop unlawful processes of corporate government against us, and truly REDEEM ourselves from the commercial world of international bankers and their control of our lives, we have accomplished the biggest part of the struggle for freedom.
     There is probably more we will learn as we continue in our struggle for the Freedom we are so glibly told that we already have, and we must continue to be open minded and learn all we can.
     I heartily encourage each and every one of you to learn all you can about the artificial commercial society we live in, how it impacts and affects us, how we can work to be free as we desire to be, and how to work towards defeating the presumptions that are enslaving us all.  It is my desire that all the people of Texas, and those of the States of the American Union, will learn the truth about the presumptions of the corporate government, learn that there is no lawful Constitutional government in existence today and learn to regain their freedom and liberty under God, our Creator.
     In parting, I wish to include some words from that great patriot, Thomas Jefferson: "...the Federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body , working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little to-day and a little to-morrow, and advancing it's noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one. ... when all government ... in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."
Thomas Jefferson
The ultimate tragedy is that his words apply to the entire so-called ìfederal governmentî and all of its outside-the-constitution agencies and bureaucracies, not just the judiciary. Respectfully Submitted,
Jesse Enloe, President
Republic of Texas Provisional Government



 RELATED LINKS



 YOUTUBE 



 TWITTER