Some rights of a free man/woman arising out of our British Anglo-Saxon heritage are: All people are by nature free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. (Article 1, California Constitution - based upon English Common Law.)
From the Magna Charta (1215): The right to be not jailed or fined by the court except by the word of two or more witnesses who come under their name (not as an officer), or by the law of the land. (The Anglo-Saxon Common Law). The forbidding of anyone with a law badge to lay charges (pleas) in the court. The Grand Jury protection against false charges and the right to a trial by a jury of peers. The right of access to the justice system and to rights. The right not to be outlawed except by your actions of maliciously doing damage to another person and/or their property and by a jury of peers. Outlawed means to be out of the protection of common law justice and common law rights.
Right to travel, which in essence is the right to go to church, or use the highways to take one's goods or produce to market. There are many other rights and freedoms that can be identified with these that are rapidly being eroded and crushed under the steam roller called the New World Order.
As American Citizens, we have lost many of our basic God-given rights by the devious tactics promoted by the international banks, and put in place by their lackey traitorous lawyer politicians; and, by so-called laws enacted by the black-robed thugs of the judiciary.
You should be aware that the black robes you see parading around our courthouses have in their direct ancestry the cannibal (human flesh-eating priests of Baal) cult priests of Molech who measured out their weird sense of justice to the peasant classes and slaves of the Roman Empire while burning their infants in sacrificial fires. This cult came into the Roman Empire, and thus, London through the Phoenicians originating as the Canaanites of ancient Palestine. Now you should understand why we have had most of our laws against morality eliminated (homosexuality, abortion, euthanasia, child and all sorts of other forms of pornography), the protection of potentially devastating communicable diseases so that they may spread without restraint, the protection of criminals and the complete disregard for victims, the imposition of Roman Law - the legal system of despots, etc., etc.; and, all this without benefit or control of duly elected legislators.
The Saxon common law provided justice through the jury system. The court represented the dead, imbeciles, and infants (ages 0 through 18) and crimes against the common good (the realm). The alleged crime was presented to a Grand Jury (usually 25 people) (Magna Charta Section 20) who decided upon the authenticity of the claim and who laid the charge if warranted (indictment). It was the sheriff's responsibility to call the juries (petty and grand), to keep order in a court, and carry out the orders of the court. The sheriff was completely independent of other political bodies. Otherwise, the complaining party filed the suit at the court house (the main purpose being that of keeping permanent records in civil matters) and the defendant had so many days to pay damages or ask for a jury trial.
Unless major changes in several aspects of current modes and mind sets were to come about, the old Anglo-Saxon system would likely be too impractical in our urbanized world; therefore, the compromise developed by the States in establishing their judicial system seems to be an acceptable model. The election of judges by the people and the ability to enact recall (impeachment) against wayward judges. One of the primary cautions of this system would be to insure that the election areas are small enough to counter influence brokering by campaign contributions and constitutional restrictions on campaign spending. It also would seem prudent to require a law degree and an additional major in jurisprudence to qualify to run for the office of judge. The jurisprudence course should contain a good working knowledge of Anglo-Saxon Common Law and judges should be required to maintain the intent and philosophical reason of that legal system through oath of office. A constitutional clause should stand to protect a natural person's right to elect trial by judge and /or jury.
The international bankers have usurped our lawful money system and replaced it with debt paper known as the Versailles or Breton Woods system. This vile system has been used by plunderers of nations and empires since antiquity. The basis of the system is usury or interest. A reasonable amount of interest is acceptable when property is leased for another to use; however, the banks lend or lease nothing to the Government, except a number in a computer. They extract plunder through income and other taxes, control and stripping of raw materials, and control over foodstuffs and manufactures (and, thus over the basic needs of everyday life.)
Congress and State Legislatures have used "assumpsit contract" as a primary means to deprive American Citizens of basic rights. A contract is a vehicle for the exchange of property. Property can be Real (land, house, etc.), Chattel (car, clothing, jewelry, etc.), and/or Personal (labor, skills, intellectual knowledge, etc.). Normally, a contract has to be in writing or witnessed if it's a verbal contract; and, terms have to be fully revealed and understandable to all parties involved to be valid. English law made provision for unwitnessed contracts by applying a common sense approach to the circumstances surrounding the exchange, or intended exchange of property. This was called "assumpsit" (assumed). If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.
How was this used to deprive Americans of their rights? Government Acts, such as the Income Tax (1913) and subsequent Income Tax Acts, the Motor Vehicle Acts, The Marriage Acts, and several others were written to be constitutional and in compliance to the non-violation of rights of Americans; but with a trap for the unwary (most of us). Cases in such matters have been taken to the Supreme Court of the United States (who, by the way, have no legitimate right of existence since 1933). They only make decisions based upon arguments presented. The contract issue versus the Law of the Land, or the intent of the Law of the Land has always been excluded from such cases.
Special definitions were written into those Acts that precluded natural persons; but, if an American assumed, by his common (generic) understanding of certain words that he were liable for or covered by the requirements of that Act and did certain things, he would unknowingly make a contract (an assumpsit contract) placing himself under the requirements of that Act.
The three Acts we will concentrate on here seem the most abusive now:
(1.) The Income Tax Act uses a special definition for "person." If an American assumes that he is covered by that definition and files an income tax return and pays an income tax, he becomes a legal entity called a "taxpayer" and is subject to the Income Tax Act and Regulations as interpreted by the Internal Revenue Service. These are the terms of the contract and rights or laws have no bearing on your relations with the Internal Revenue Service.
A permit means permission from an owner of property to use his/her property for their purposes - private or commercial. A license is a waiver of prosecution for doing something unlawful. The statutory law concerning that license is the terms of the license contract. For a permit, one may, or may not have to pay something for that use, since the owner may sell or give away his property. A permit tells others that you have a right to use someone else's property and it is proof that a contract is in place. The owner of the property may explain certain terms for the use and care of his property while you are using it. Those terms become the terms of the contract in the issue of a permit.
(2.) The original licensing of a motor vehicle operator was for one who used the highways to make a living; although, the language of the statutory law would leave one to believe that "proficiency" was the issue. If that were the issue, proficiency certificates would have been in order - not licenses; however, proficiency certificates don't imply a contract - or indicate a signed confession of guilt for doing something unlawful. Obviously, the latter was the real aim of licenses - the outlawing of the license applicant so that military or admiralty law could be imposed instead of the cumbersome (to the politicians with an agenda) common law.
Travel upon the American highways was without toll or post; however, the government could extract a rental or lease payment from those who used public property to make their living. Remember, public property is the people's property held in trust under the name of the State. The trickery has been the people's acceptance of driver's licenses, which puts them under assumpsit contract and the use and rental agreement originally meant for commercial drivers. The Roman or Napoleonic legal system (guilty until you prove your innocence, charges by police, fines going to the government as a form of taxation, forced purchase of insurance, etc.) is built into the Motor Vehicle Codes and becomes the terms of the contract. There may not be anything wrong with a need for a driving proficiency exam and a presentable certificate of proficiency; but, there is no need whatsoever for a driver's license. Why would or should one need a license from some bureaucrat to use one's own property, the public roads? Fuel taxes pay for highways.
(3.) Under what circumstances does the state get into the licensing of marriage? The government has the responsibility to maintain permanent records of marriages and witness the verbal contract between marriage partners (solemnization). Until recent times, marriages were recorded in Family Bibles. Natural people belonged to the Creator; and, it was in His Church that permission was granted to a man and woman to produce new offspring for His Glory within the Holy Sacrament of matrimony. When did the State government assume the role of Creator? What has taken place under this scheme of the Socialist International and the New World Order is that by a couple accepting a State marriage license, all offsprings of that marriage, belongs to the State government, and the bearing couple only have the privilege of raising them for the government. Now, you know why Social Services do certain things and why you may have difficulty in other areas such as education, discipline, etc.
Apparently, the ideas from the early feudal system leads to the present imposition of licensing marriages. The basis of the idea is that a woman contracts herself into a feudal serf position to the husband; and, the husband accepts his wife as a feudal serf. The act of contracting oneself into feudal servitude was outlawed by Queen Elizabeth 1 circa 1611.
This view of the marriage contract gives the State governments leave to hypothecate the need for a license. Because both the husband and wife sign confessions of guilt (the marriage license) which is entered into public record, they are "outlawed" and their children become "wards of the court." Wayward husbands who have problems supporting ex-wives and/or children are chastised under prison (admiralty) authority; and that idea would have been derived out of the feudal system's requirements for a lord to support and protect his vassals.
Contracts are voidable if the terms were not properly revealed at the time of the making of the contract or the contract was made and directed by coercion (threat and fear). Assumpsit contract may be a bit more difficult to void as the whole legal system is/has been geared up to protect these dastardly incursions into the people's rights. Your ignorance of their schemes is their best protection. Pay close attention to details and all words.
By U.S. Senator James M. Inhofe (R - Oklahoma)
| Index | Links | Home |