What is your relationship with the entity known as “government”?



How about, your relationship to “a corporation”?



Turns out, the US Government, often masquerades as a corporation! And because of that, they get away with a lot of stuff they “shouldn’t” be getting away with!



Almost the entirety of federal law, is based on an “implied contract” that is entered into at the moment of birth (or more precisely, when the social security number is assigned and an entry of the baby’s legal name IN CAPITAL LETTERS is entered into the US government database).



This “contract”, is not a social contract, nor is it a contract based on the Constitution of the United States. It is an implied contract, based on the presumption of United States Citizenship. The federal government is in fact “masquerading as a corporation” in this situation.



The majority of federal law, depends upon this point. If the “presumption” of an “implied contract” is found to be invalid for legal reasons, then no part of it is enforceable in a court of law.



Including and specifically, the tax code! But other things too... we're talking about implied contracts.



The contract law that applies in this case, is called the Uniform Commercial Code. It describes the way contracts work, “uniformly” in all 50 states, as well the United States.



The United States of America Inc, is an incorporated entity registered in the State of Delaware, ever since 1998. As such, it has “agencies”, which may be administrative in nature (ie statutory jurisdiction), or may exist in other forms. These agencies are “corporate” entities, in the sense that they carry out the policy and will of the United States of America Inc.



Why did the US only register as a corporation in 1998? Why didn’t they do it a hundred years ago?



The answer to that, is that the tax protesters found a clever new way to challenge the validity of the tax code. And, the Incorporation in 1998, is an effort by the federal government, to plug the leak. Unfortunately for them, it didn’t work. Here’s why.



Consider some examples: when you buy bus fare in Los Angeles, through the automated system, you get a little ticket that allows you to ride one way for three hours. On the back of that ticket, is the contract, and the government agency’s claim is, that this contract is an “implied contract” that binds you to the Terms and Conditions listed.



But – did anyone ask you whether you agreed to that? Did anyone even SHOW you the Terms and Conditions before foisting this “implied contract” on you? No! They’re posted NOWHERE. The very first time you find out about them, is when you buy the ticket – AFTER you buy the ticket. They’re trying to tell you, that the purchase of the ticket constitutes your acceptance of the “implied contract”. And, they do in fact enforce on that basis.



Then, to add insult to injury, it says right there on the ticket, “Terms and Conditions May Be Changed Without Notice”. That means they can make up anything they want, whenever they want, and make it stick. Because YOU agreed to it when you bought the ticket. And that, is an implied contract.



How do you protect yourself from these “implied contracts”?



And, why are they even important? Why should you even care if you’re a good law abiding citizen?



Well, the answer to that, lies in your concept of Sovereignty, and your relationship to your government. Constitutionally, you have certain Rights that are guaranteed to be upheld by the government, HOWEVER, the generalized contract law is set up in such a way that you can WAIVE some of these Rights if you’re not careful. You can do that AUTOMATICALLY even by doing something as simple as signing your name to a traffic ticket. The danger ranges from “minimal” (fines resulting in additional fines), to “moderate” (fines culminating in jail time), to “severe” (power of attorney placing your fate in someone else’s hands).



Under the contract law of the Uniform Commercial Code, a contract is PRESUMED TO EXIST unless it is challenged.



That is very different from the Constitution of the United States, in which a person is presumed INNOCENT until proven guilty, and the burden of proof rests on the accuser.



Under the contract law that prevails in all 50 States AND the United States, an “implied contract” is presumed to exist unless it is specifically challenged.



And, challenging the existence of a contract, has to be done UP FRONT. In other words, there are constraints around it – once you sign your name to something (especially something that involves waiving your Constitutional Rights), it’s too late!



However, it turns out, that if you sign your name in a particular WAY, you can reserve all your Constitutional Rights, and protect yourself from the “Terms and Conditions” in an implied contract. What you do is, you invoked Section 1-207 of the Uniform Commercial Code, which states that Constitutional Rights may not be prejudiced without the consent of the parties. By signing “Without Prejudice UCC 1-207” above your name, you are notifying the AGENCY of the other party, that you are reserving all your Constitutional Rights, no matter what it may say in the “implied contract” (which can change “without notice and behind your back”).



The officer or agent in question, will probably still proceed with “enforcement” according to training and instruction – BUT – there is remedy at some later point, IF you state up front that you are reserving your Rights. Without such statement, the Courts assume that you are WAIVING your Rights, as per whatever it says in the “implied contract”.



NOTE however, that all manner of fringe groups have suddenly "discovered" the relationship between the Constitution and the Uniform Commercial Code, and for that reason, police officers are instructed to treat anyone with the "protection signature" as a potential terrorist! Yep, that's right - if you sign the words "Without Prejudice" above your name, on your driver's license or even a traffic ticket, be prepared to be handcuffed on the spot, and arrested at gunpoint. HERE is a simple example of what the cops are saying these days:



http://www.policelink.com/topics/585...rejudice/posts



Why is this important? The Constitution, spins out criminal law – so, if there’s no crime, and no criminal intent, there’s no foul. And, the burden of proof is on the accuser, so unless they can show that you’ve committed a crime, they have no case.



However, “agency” law, is not criminal law. It is CONTRACT law – it is based on an “implied contract” that exists between you and the federal government. This contract has its “fundamental assumption” in the US citizenship of the individual. If you, as a defendant in contract court, stipulate to the existence of a contract by challenging the AMOUNT in question, or the particular LAW in question, you’re screwed before you even start. Because then, the court can “assume” the existence of the contract, and therefore you’ll be judged according to the “Terms and Conditions”.



What you need to do, is challenge the EXISTENCE of the contract in the first place. And there are several ways to do that.



One is, that an “unconscionable” contract, or one signed under duress, is considered invalid.



“Unconscionable” means, a contract that no reasonable party would enter into.



So, for example, every baby born in the United States, at the moment of birth, is saddled with a debt of 47,000 dollars. And, at that point in time, the US Government (Inc) comes along and says, “you entered into an implied contract the minute we gave you a social security number, and therefore you owe this money”. Now, WHO in their right mind, would sign up for a contract that immediately puts them 50 grand in the hole? No one! That would be “unconscionable”, right? Sure it would.



There are many fine points in this logic. For example, the Constitution only gives the government the Power to spend money in certain enumerated areas, and the Establishment Clause gives the government the Power to establish all the laws necessary to support that activity – BUT, they spend money on everything under the sun, even things they’re not supposed to. How do they get away with that? It’s because, NO ONE CHALLENGES THEM! They’re “changing the Terms and Conditions without notice”, and unless someone specifically challenges them, they can get away with it, under the “implied contract” presumed to exist in Courts of Law, which are administrative AGENCIES of the entity called The United States.



The Supreme Court, has mistakenly chosen to ALIGN the Uniform Commercial Code and the Constitution, as much as possible, but we’ve just seen that these documents are FUNDAMENTALLY different. In one, the defendant is innocent until proven guilty, and in the other, the contract is presumed to exist unless specifically challenged. The Court has created “fictitious persons”, like the corporate strawman tracing back to Southern Pacific Railroad v. Santa Clara County, to give corporate entities the same Rights as natural persons –



BUT, in the Constitution, neither the government nor corporations, have ANY Rights. None whatsoever! Zip. Zilch. Zero. The government has NO Rights – it only has Powers. (Read the Constitution, you’ll find this to be true). The government, doesn’t even have the Right to EXIST! It exists at the good graces of the States and the citizenry that support it.



The “implied contract” being foisted on each United States Citizen by their government, says something different though – and this is in fact how the Federal Government magically creates Rights for itself – they are “strawman” Rights, very similar to the strawman Rights given to a corporate entity by SPR v SCC. By masquerading as a corporation, the government can acquire these Rights just like a corporation can.



So, essentially, the government is trying to “wave its hands” over your relationship with them, by masquerading as a corporation and invoking the Uniform Commercial Code to foist an “implied contract” on you, which is enforceable in a Court of Law (that being an administrative agency of the very same government!) – and this is how they get around “asking you first”.



Because according to the Constitution, they’re supposed to “ask you first” before they exceed scope in any way. But they don’t do that, and this is the legal mechanism by which they “get away with it”.



And, there is much more to protecting yourself, than merely signing your name in a certain way – but, that’s a start, and a good one. If you reserve your Constitutional Rights every time you sign your name to ANYTHING, you can challenge it later on, without fear that you have waived any of your Rights. If you fail to assert your Rights, AT THE TIME OF SIGNING, you become “subject” to the Terms and Conditions.



Why should you care about this? Well, if I have to answer that, then you really SHOULD care about it!



But there is also a deeper point. The primary purpose of the Federal Government is the Common Defence. And that concept, is clearly more than just geographic in nature – especially these days, with “de-localized” communications and interaction. The Constitution, is set up in such a way that it is ultimately the People, who tell the government what to do. But in the absence of SPECIFIC constraints, there is an “implied contract” in place.



The States, have the Power to FORBID the Federal Government to do certain things. This power is granted to them in the Constitution, with the words “forbidden to it by the States”. The mechanism in this case, would be a Constitutional Amendment, or a Constitutional Convention according to Article V of the Constitution.



The Congress (the People’s “other” representatives) can also over-ride Presidential vetos, and as long as their will is Constitutional (ie passes muster with the Supreme Court), it becomes the law of the land, and even the President must conform to it. Doing otherwise, would create a Constitutional crisis and effectively nullify the adherence to the document.



But the whole point is, the People have to stand up! The political will has to be there. If that fails, then NEITHER mechanism will work – neither the States pushing up through Article I Section 9, nor the People pushing up via their Congressional representatives.



A word of advice though - if you wish to use the Uniform Commercial Code in court, you better know exactly what you're doing! Most lawyers, don't know enough to make a case stick. It's up to YOU, as an individual, to know the law. And, people who are interested in their sovereignty, and consider it to be valuable, will need to take matters into their own hands, including but not limited to, suing city officials and police officers, and even placing liens on their personal property! This is absolutely a game of hardball, the US gubmint will NOT lie down willingly for protests of this sort - BUT - experience (LONG experience) has shown two things:



a) they are in the wrong, and they KNOW they can not win, ultimately - so what they do is, make it as hard as possible for you to "get there", into a position where you're actually winning the case - which is POSSIBLE, but again, you really have to know what you're doing, and...



in most cases, they will simply GIVE UP, and not pursue the original case, and that is mainly a matter of time and expense mostly - and therefore, you KNOW that they ultimately realize it's going to be "not in their best interests" to pursue something like this, and so, if you're willing to be patient and get arrested once or twice, you CAN ultimately emerge victorious AND FREE.



So, if the FREE part means anything to you.... well, you know the rest.