I am going to go through some “codes”, laws and scripture verses to illustrate that the “Law” does not flow from the bottom up. It flows from the top down. Also, I shall discuss this issue about “Common Law” and where it exists in this “flow”.
We know that equity and/or courts of chancery was merged with common law. [1] [2] And, the reason it was merged with common law, is because common law is a court of law. And in that court of law, it goes to the decision making and “fairness” of “equal consideration” [3], whether it be in contract law or in the preponderance of evidence.
Now in Criminal Code under common law — which is your “case law”/Stare Decisis — that’s where they decide there is a certain “fairness” and “reasonableness” in bringing “charges”. But in contract law, it’s supposed to be under arbitration, [4] and the only reason “criminal charges” would be brought is because somebody violated the contract and refused arbitration and therefore, caused and the only reason “criminal charges” would be brought is because somebody violated the contract and refused arbitration and therefore, caused absolute detriment, harm, loss, or injury upon the other contractor and therefore, he was not being “fair” and “reasonable” about it.
Regarding “jurisdictions”, and putting aside “Roberts Rules of Order” for now, I want to point out that we have 1.) the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), then we have 2.) U.S. Code (USC) and finally, we have 3.) the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).
Further, we have “equity” and then we have “common law”. We have two (2) courts. One being “Court of Equity” and then other being “Court of Common Law” and again, the Court of Equity and Court of Common Law were merged because, under Common Law there was already a merger of the concept of being fair and reasonable. So, “they” believed the best way to do that is “equal consideration”, which is in contract form.
The concept for this was, say a man committed a “crime” and it would be detrimental to the livelihood of his family to have him be in prison well, he could voluntarily create a remedy outside of the “Civil Law” for a “Private Contract” with the “victim” to be in servitude (voluntary servitude) to make up and recompense for the harm, loss, damage and injury to them.
So, let’s take a look at it. Again, flowing down from the “top” down, we find the UCC. And in UCC § 1-103 we find that it is titled: “Construction of Uniform Commercial Code to Promote its Purposes and Policies: Applicability of Supplemental Principles of Law”. So right here, we must state that this is not “law”, rather, simply “code” and specifically “commercial code”. This means, that it is “subject” (to something else) because as it says right there in the title, there’s an “applicability of supplemental principles of law”. Well, this is “the Law of Nations”, otherwise known as the principles of the “Law of Nature”.
In detail and to expand, UCC § 1-103 goes on with: “(a) The Uniform Commercial Code must be liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying purposes…” Well see, right there it is saying that the “Supplemental Principals” or its “construction material(s)” already existed and were already present which allowed the flow to continue downward so as the UCC could be created/built.
supplemental (adj.): provided in addition to what is already present or available to complete or enhance it.
UCC § 1-103 goes on with “and policies, which are: (1) to simplify, clarify, and modernize the law governing commercial transactions; …” So, not “the people”, not spirited, flesh and blood men and women with a beating heart, but simply contracts they enter into In Personam, using a legal fiction/“NAME”/“ENTITY”.
Further, UCC § 1-103 reads: “(2) to permit the continued expansion of commercial practices through custom, usage, and agreement…” — So again, with this use of the word “agreement”, that is simply another term for “transaction” previously mentioned. It is just a different term prior to the actual transaction that simplifies and clarifies the “terms and conditions” therein. — “…of the parties; and (3) to make uniform the law among the various jurisdictions.”
So, these “terms and conditions” that make the “agreement” of the party, that allow the transactions to go forward, that “simplify” and “clarify” through those “terms and conditions” well, that is a “contracting part”. That is “equal consideration” in contract.
Now, when you involve a third person, into that contract that is not actually in that contract in the proper capacity that you implied, if you’re violating their rights, then they therein get equal consideration as well. Not just of the one part. But of equal consideration of the whole of the two parties or multiple parties. Meaning, that in their Commercial Code, each person that’s violating commits a violation. Therefore, they are equal consideration for each violation.
UCC § 1-103 continues… “(3) to make uniform the law among the various jurisdictions”… well, that “uniformity” comes from the principles of the “Laws of Nature”, even at the highest level of “International Law,” which is still just commercial in its origins — Admiralty/Maritime for the protections of commercial merchants and their wares and goods in contracts with other entities.
Now of course said “merchants” have to transport those goods, but that’s all it’s about. It is all an “insurance”. And again, that’s “the Law of Nations” (Emerich de Vattel, 1758). That’s why they have those flags on the vessels. That flag is the same thing as a stamp. That stamp, it’s the same thing as a Federal Reserve Note (FRN). Look at 18 USC § 8 – Obligation or Other Security of the United States. They mention all in the same category:
Bonds [i.e., “bail bonds], certificates of indebtedness, national bank currency, Federal Reserve notes, Federal Reserve bank notes, coupons, United States notes, Treasury notes, gold certificates, silver certificates, fractional notes, certificates of deposit, bills, checks, or drafts for money, drawn by or upon authorized officers of the United States, stamps and other representatives of value, of whatever denomination, issued under any Act of Congress, and canceled United States stamps.
Why is this? Well, because they are all “of like kind”.
So again, this… “to make the uniform, make uniform the law among the various jurisdictions”… this means the law itself… “owe no man anything”. In other words, don’t be causing a death, loss, harm, damage or injury against another man. Because you see, that’s what you do in these “contracts” when you “defer a debt” in hopes that in the future, you’ll be able to pay it back with interest by borrowing from the same entity that’s demanding the interest. This is an impossibility. You’re gonna go farther in debt yourself!
UCC § 1-103 – “(b) unless displaced…” — this is why they have “Disposition Hearings”, it’s a “displacement” — “…by the particular provisions…” — that’s “particular”, not “generally” or “specific” — “…of the Uniform Commercial Code, the principles of law and equity, including the law merchant…” — that’s Admiralty/Maritime — …and the law relative to capacity to contract, principal and agent, estoppel, fraud, misrepresentation,… — This is the misidentification through the “Enumeration at Birth” [SSA’s RM 10205.50] that everybody tries to ignore. But, I always point out that it is in fact, a “misidentification”. Because, you cannot “identify” a new born infant as a “resident” unless newborn infant itself, is already a “legally defined”, “legal fiction” under a “legal entity” and not a principle of the Law of Nature. This goes to the “Ejusdem Generis” [5]. See, we are not talking about “particular” here, but “specific”. The adjective versus the noun.
UCC § 1-103 – “duress, coercion, mistake, bankruptcy, and other validating or invalidating cause — So now we have the “nature” and the “cause” — “supplement its provisions”.
Well, MY “nature” says:
“Before I formed the in the womb, I knew thee. Before you were born, I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”
~ Jeremiah 1:5
[that’s “born”, not “birthed”]
So, seeing as the FACT is, I was “born” and NOT “Birthed” and, materially speaking, I was formed in womb and NOT any repugnant ideology of a so-called “Date of Birth”, the following applies:
maxim of: “Qui Prior Est Tempore Potior Est Jure”
(he who is earlier in time is stronger in law)
Therefore, I have zero “apologies” here because that tells me that no “nation”, no “State” [15 USC § 267] or otherwise, can “sanction” what “he” ordained me – ordained me to “speak boldly”, as I ought to. Based upon the fact that I studied and showed myself “worthy” and “approved”. And I’m not ashamed of my workmanship. And I am only rightly dividing the word of truth.
And “I AM COMPETENT TO HANDLE MY AFFAIRS” and the meaning of being Authorized Representative in accord with “UCC § 3-402 (b) (1)”, as I am NOT an “Infant of Unknown Parentage” [Code of the District of Columbia § 7–231.10].
Now, let’s look at the next one which is another Uniform Commercial Code it says:
“Territorial Applicability; Parties’ Power to Choose Applicable Law”. And this is UCC § 1-301.
Again, that’s “Territorial Applicability; Parties’ — the Federal code again, 18 USC § 7 – Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction of the United States defined. Yes indeed. That’s “Special Maritime” meaning, “Merchant Law” or, “Lex Mercatoria”. Amazing Maritime special maritime territorial jurisdiction for 18 USC § 8 – Obligation or Other Security of the United States… which would be for “vessels of the United States”… through that “resident” presumption and assumption of the “Enumeration at Birth” [SSA’s RM 10205.50], where they grant the so-called “privilege” of “United States citizen”, known as the “United States business”[15 USC § 4724], and therefore can only be “seen” and “heard” (i.e., “court appearance”) in “contract” form and not in its true nature, which is “me”, the adjective!
Back to UCC § 1-301 – “Territorial Applicability;…” Just as it’s “supplemental applicability”, is of the principles of law. “…Parties’ Power to Choose Applicable Law”.
So, we have three choices. “Roberts Rules of Order”, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) or, an “Administrative Law” setting which came about through the Administrative Procedures Act which, is unconstitutional and therefore, doesn’t support the Federal Civil Procedures Act. It can’t possibly follow Roberts Rules of Order…which is too “seek the Council of God”. So, you can correlate how that is “supplemental” and “supreme” to the “applicability” of any of those procedures.
UCC § 1-301 – “a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, when a transaction bears…” see here, when your mother “bore” you and you were cast forth from her womb and waters, and came into this world as a “man” that was “discharged” of her waters, because she bore the labor pains. Naturally! In the course of the “natural life” that she was so inspired to follow!
UCC § 1-301 – “…a reasonable relation to this state…” again, “Enumeration at Birth” which is a misrepresentation and a mistake! “…and also, to another state or nation the parties may agree that the law either of this state or of such other state or nation shall govern their rights and duties.”
So, what about equity? See, if one is going to follow a “court of law”, that would be a court of “common law” under one of those “nations”. But there’s a Superior Court called the Court of Equity. And if you’re not going to start there well, “he who seeks equity must first bring equity”. So, if you’re going to bring the common law, are you really seeking equity? No, you bring in common law.
Now, I agree, “Equity imputes an intent to fulfill an obligation”. But, it only imputes that intent. So again, let’s look at the contract and see what it actually is, and then discern whether it can be actually permitted. Or, if it’s impossible because of the mistake or misrepresentation. Because, upon the correction and accuracy of the misrepresentation or mistake, it can no longer be followed. It is no longer applicable. Because there is still remaining something superior.
UCC § 1-301 – “(b) In the absence of an agreement effective under subsection (a)…” So, in that, let’s remember, in UCC § 1-103, we talked about the “validity”, the “validating” or “invalidating” cause in the “construction”, we talked about the “cause” which is “valid” or “invalidated”.
So, when we get here to “territorial applicability, parties power to choose applicable law”, and at (b)… an agreement effective… we can state clearly that if in fact, if I was deceived in the “choice of law”, and now I know better well, even in contract law, it states I have that right to recession afforded to me. To do such corrections of mistakes and misapplications, misappropriations, misidentifications.
UCC § 1-301 – “…and except…” Well, there we have an “exception”. Everything has an exception. There’s an exception to every “rule”.
UCC § 1-301 – “…as provided in subsection (c), [the Uniform Commercial Code] applies to transactions bearingan appropriate relation to this state.” Well, the “inappropriate relation” that invalidates the appropriations made therefrom, is the fact that I am not a “resident”, have never been a “resident”, I am not a “United States business”, and I’ve never been a “United States business”.
So, it is now an impossibility and an “unconscionable contract”, now that I know the truth, that a “resident”— “Residents of the Zone” — in those “economic trade zones” known as the “Zoning Improvement Plan” of 1963 (i.e., ZIP™), “Foreign Trade Zones”, is under a program of economic warfare which, I do not wish to involve myself in any “Battle of the Forms” under UCC § 2-207. Because, it invalidates my choice of supplemental nature [UCC § 1-301.] to be free to say… , “bugger off. You are not my parent under your Un-Clean-Handed Parens Patriae doctrine. I am not a false patriot and I’m not going to be a false patronymic idol worshipper”.
UCC § 1-301 – “(c) If one of the following provisions of [the Uniform Commercial Code] specifies the applicable law, that provision governs, and a contrary agreement is effective only to the extent permitted by the law so specified:”
What I want to point out here, is that, “they” do not show the one we just looked at in the header of this UCC § 1-301 where it says, “Choose the Applicable Law”. So, we go back here under (b) of this UCC § 1-301 to where it says, “principals of law and equity”. Because, this is the UCC § 1-103 – “construction”. Yet, “they” failed to mention it here in this UCC § 1-301. So, you better be aware of it so you can use it as the “exception” that is not mentioned. Because, these are all gonna contain “exceptions” as it states.
Let’s take a look at the next one which is under the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) as it “connects” the UCC to Common Law. Specifically, 48 CFR §52.212-5 Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders — Commercial Products and Commercial Services.
So, the “statutes” themselves, at the State level are “contract clauses” with “terms and conditions” in them and they are implementing “Federal acquisitions”. The State [15 USC § 267] cannot make a claim for State property without a “Federal interest” in it. Because, under the 5th Amendment, they cannot acquire property without paying for it — “just compensation”. And, it must be for the “military”. Very simple.
Now the next one which is: 29 CFR § 4.133 – Beneficiary of Contract Services which, is actually under Subtitle A – Office of the Secretary of Labor, Part 4 – Labor Standards for Federal Service Contracts.
Well, these “contracts”, if you’re using an address, it is not a “Federal Service Contract” for “Public Accommodation”. Because, if you have a private contract, then you get to pick and choose your venue. And that means you must be totally private. If you’re running an LLC, well that’s not private. Because, with an LLC, you subject yourself, under the laws of the United States which is a corporate entity to use one of their corporate legal constructions instead of a trust. And, which is not the same as “under the laws of the United States of America”.
[28 U.S. Code § 1746(1)]
Now right in front of this 29 CFR § 4.133, above that, we find: “Particular Application of Contract Coverage Principles”, and above that, we see: “Subpart C—Application of the McNamara-O’Hara Service Contract Act”. So, even in contracts, those “principles” carry down. And again, the law does not work “from the bottom up”. Just like a river flows, it flows from the top down. That’s why they call it “currency”. That’s why they use terms like “levy” and “bank”, etc. Because “they” know the “principles” flow from the top down.
So, regarding this 29 CFR § 4.133 – “Beneficiary of Contract Services”, this is where I’m going to point out that say, there is some “person” that is actually in a “Federal contract” employment situation. Say like a “teacher” for the “public education system”. Well, that is indeed a “Federal system”.
29 CFR § 4.133 – “(a) The Act does not say to whom the services under a covered contract must be furnished…” So, here we have “the beginning” where the “contract” starts. In the “equal consideration”, “equal benefit” portion of that contract, they state that there are certain “benefits” that will be “allowed”. One of those is “full coverage” for things like dental and healthcare. But, those contract “terms and conditions” don’t allow for benefits if you still have to “pay in” and are not actually receiving it as the benefit while still being forced into contract and not being allowed to take the third party benefit position. Rather, one would be in a state of being “displaced” and “disposed” into contract. And, that is forced contract. Even in the financial sense, let alone labor.
Going back to this “teacher”, imagine that she is retired and disabled from the labor portion. Yes, “they” are trying to say that she’s “still under a forced contract”. Well again “they” cannot force contract.
29 CFR § 4.133 – “So far as its language is concerned, it is enough if the contract is “entered into” by and with the Government and if its principal purpose is “to furnish services in the United States through the use of service employees”. Well, this is the “Public Accommodation”. And if one is involved in a Federal contract anywhere along the line, and I don’t care if you’re just “doing your job”, it is provided by the Federal government, not by the State [15 USC § 267]. If the State is placating/claiming that it provided the “job” well, it is still dependent upon Federal funds in order to provide it.
29 CFR § 4.133 – “It is clear that Congress intended…” So again, we see clearly that is Federal arm and not the State. “…to cover at least contracts for services of direct benefit to the Government, its property, or its civilian or military personnel for whose needs it is necessary — and not bound by contract, but of necessity — “…or desirable for the Government to make provision for such services.”
So, in order for the “government” to entice people into “employment”, they offer them benefits. Well, are they truly “benefits”? Or, are they traps to get people into contracts because they don’t know the terms and conditions and how to make them equally considerate and beneficial?
29 CFR § 4.133 – “For example, the legislative history makes specific reference to such contracts as those for furnishing food service and laundry and dry cleaning service for personnel at military installations.” Now, the military installations, they also provide for “travel expense” and “commissary expense” if they have to have those services provided elsewhere outside of the military installations, right?
29 CFR § 4.133 – “Furthermore, there is no limitation in the Act regarding the beneficiary of the services…” Again, that is “no limitations”. Meaning, there must be an “exception” to this that says, “I have to pay/obey”. There must be an exception because even in equity, equity imputes or deems that the beneficiary is the true owner. So, how can you “charge” the owner for business services when he’s the one that gave you the bloody “job”? Well, you cannot! It’s an unrighteous, unlawful, illegal demand. Particularly under a system where you have a deferment of debt and cannot pay in such a way.
29 CFR § 4.133 – “…nor is there any indication that only contracts for services of direct benefit to the Government, as distinguished from the general public, are subject to the Act. Therefore, where the principal purpose of the Government contract is to provide services through the use of service employees, the contract is covered by the Act,…” Son if you’re using public accommodation through the use of “service employees”, and I don’t care if it’s a restaurant, a movie theater, skating rink, the local courthouse, the library, Social Security Administration… it doesn’t matter.
If they are indemnified “by” and “of” each other in that contract, then that indemnification has an “extension supplemental” to the contract so that it may reach the third party beneficiary, not actually directly involved in the contract as an eligible participant in the contract.
29 CFR § 4.133 – “…regardless of the direct beneficiary of the services or the source of the funds from which the contractor is paid for the service, and irrespective of whether the contractor performs the work in its own establishment, on a Government installation, or elsewhere.” …As I just explained.
29 CFR § 4.133– “(a)… The fact that the contract requires or permits the contractor to provide the services directly to individual personnel as a concessionaire,…” — remember, it is “military”. And it is about “concessions” on or off the military installation — “…rather than through the contracting agency, does not negate coverage by the Act.”
29 CFR § 4.133 – “(b) The Department of Labor, pursuant to section 4(b) of the Act, exempts from the provisions of the Act certain kinds of concession contracts providing services to the general public, as provided herein. Specifically, concession contracts (such as those entered into by the National Park Service)…” — So those “camp grounds”… they are “not subject”. You entered into a contract “Generally” with the National Park services. — “…principally for the furnishing of food, lodging, automobile fuel, souvenirs, newspaper stands, and recreational equipment to the general public,…” — So, It says “such as those entered into by the National Park Service”.
Meaning, you have your “national services”, and they are specifically “concession contracts”, principally for food, lodging, automobile fuel, souvenirs, etc. Meaning, you are not actually entering into Federal contract.
So, you have to know your rights whilst overstanding that there’s a “Federal contract” in place with that campground for example, that they have already entered into, and you are simply using that public service contract and public accommodation as a “Third Party Beneficiary” “…as distinguished from the United States Government or its personnel, are exempt.” As are you exempt. Just like a particular concession contract is exempt; you are exempt to the contract. Just like some guy involved in running a campground through a National Park Service contract with the government.
29 CFR § 4.133 – “This exemption is necessary and proper in the public interest and is in accord…” — “Accord and Satisfaction” [UCC § 3-311] of a contract that is already in place. “With the remedial purpose of the Act.” — “remedial” meaning, “remedy” and that is the equity. Equity is “Trust Law”. You have to be able to know your position as a “Third Party Beneficiary”, or if you’re actually involved in the contract, or if you actually want to start partaking in the contract so you can assert your civilian rights.
29 CFR § 4.133 – “Where concession contracts, however, include substantial requirements for services other than those stated, those services are not exempt.” Well, that’s because there’s a substantial requirement… “necessity in life”. You have to provide clean water. You have to provide safety and shelter at those campgrounds. You cannot just say… “well, I’m going to open a campground and my contract with them is exempt and I don’t have to provide those thongs”. No, that’s part of the national parks contract for those concessions. So, when customers go to the campground say, they use them for their benefit. And they are there to help keep them clean and maintain those campgrounds as a tenant. That’s the landlord tenant part of it.
29 CFR § 4.133 – “Those services are not exempt. The exemption provided does not affect the concession contractors obligation to comply with the labor standards provisions of any other statute, such as the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 327 et seq.), the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. 276a et seq.; see part 5 of this title) and the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. 201et seq.).” Now, you’re getting into HIPAA and OSHA and not just by providing the water, you have to provide “clean water”.
Let’s get on to the next one which is: 29 CFR § 4.101 – Official Rulings and Interpretations in This Subpartwhich again, us under Title 29—Labor.
29 CFR § 4.101 – “(a) purpose of this subpart is to provide, pursuant to the authority cited in § 4.102, official rulings and interpretations with respect to the application of the McNamara-O’Hara Service Contract Act — which evidently says that it applies across the board. There are certain exemptions and exceptions, but it applies across the board. — “…for the guidance of the agencies of the United States and the District of Columbia which may enter into and administer contracts…” — “Roberts Rules of Order” to administer contracts at the State level but, follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. — “…subject to its provisions, the persons desiring to enter into such contracts with these agencies, and the contractors, subcontractors, and employees who perform work under such contracts.”
Yes indeed, “the persons desiring to enter into such contracts…” again, that “resident”, that “united States citizen” was the entrance into a contract forum without our recognition, our consent nor, our desire. Just all due to indoctrination that we have to go out and get a “job”. And in order to get a job, you got to get a state ID or driver’s license. “You better get the driver’s license so you can drive back and forth to work” Nope! It’s all implied. Not “law”.
29 CFR § 4.101 – “(b) These rulings and interpretations are intended to indicate…” — meaning, do not “regulate” or “enforce” because they have no power. — “…the construction of the law and regulations which the Department of Labor believes…” — sure, tell me about “belief” — “…to be correct. And which will be followed in the administration of the Act.” So, it is in fact under the administrative procedures, and they are administrating acts of contract labor.
29 CFR § 4.101 – “…unless and until directed otherwise by Act of Congress or by authoritative ruling of the courts, or if it is concluded upon reexamination of an interpretation that it is incorrect.”
29 CFR § 4.101 – “The Department of Labor (and not the contracting agencies) has the primary and final authority and responsibility for administering and interpreting the Act, including making determinations of coverage.”Hmm… so why are we going to anyone else?
See, everybody wants to go to the “administrative courts” ignorant to the fact that it is just a labor contract under a contract form of “resident” determination for income tax purposes as a contract term and condition for a statute that can only be implemented by commercial products and services. See, they have the contract terms and conditions there to enter in those commercial products and services.
Now, one of these “commercial products and services” is from a military installation known as the “hospital”. A hospital where you are born through what’s called “inpatient hospital treatment” and that is defined as a “spell of illness” [42 USCS § 1395x (a)] where mom goes into hospital bearing labor pains. But instead of bearing the labor pains in that documentation correctly, what they “bear” is the construction of a legal entity. nothing else! Then they say, “it’s the cost of living”.
29 CFR § 4.101 – “(c) Court decisions arising under the Act (as well as under related remedial labor standards laws such as the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act, the Davis-Bacon Act, the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act, and the Fair Labor Standards Act) which support policies and interpretations contained in this part are cited where it is believed that they may be helpful.” — again this filthy “belief” term — “On matters which have not been authoritatively determined by the courts, it is necessary for the Secretary of Labor and the Administrator…”— i.e., the “keeper of the minutes” as we find in Roberts Rules of Order, the Administrative Procedures Act, etc., all which make it very clear that an “Administrator” must follow the FRCP in their “civil administration” — “…to reach conclusions as to the meaning and the application of provisions of the law in order to carry out their — not “my” — responsibilities of administration and enforcement (Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944)).
29 CFR § 4.101 – “(c) In order that these positions may be made known to persons who may be affected by them, official interpretations and rulings are issued by the Administrator with the advice of the Solicitor of Labor, as authorized by the Secretary (Secretary’s Order…” — i.e., not an “executive order” and not a “statute”. — “…Employment Standards…. These interpretations are a proper exercise of the Secretary’s authority.” — Meaning, they are interpreting the meaning of minutes of the meeting as recorded. They are recording them and then interpreting those.
29 CFR § 4.101 – “(c) …References to pertinent legislative history, decisions of the Comptroller General and of the Attorney General, and Administrative Law Judges‘ decisions are also made in this part where it appears they will contribute to a better understanding of the stated interpretations and policies.
29 CFR § 4.101 – “(d) The interpretations of the law — Again, this is not “law”. This is “interpretation” of law. — contained in this part are official interpretations which may be relied upon.” Yes, You “may rely upon” just as You may not once these so-called “official interpretations” are proven incorrect as in that repugnant “Enumeration at Birth” which is absolutely incorrect!
See, no one can be “born in the United States”, as it is a legal fiction in and of itself. It has no “territorial jurisdiction” in geological terminology as it is ONLY located in Washington DC, which does have the geological reference. So, if anyone wants to play games and say I am “wrong”, I demand You show me through “Findings of Facts and Conclusions of law” as per Yor FRCP Rule 52, where any other geological reference of “the United States” would be other than Washington, DC. With its “Office of the CEO” being the so-called “White House” being located at: 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20500 and, it’s “Office of the Secretary of the Treasury” being at: 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20220.
That’s “the United States”. That’s what is supposed to have “authority” over “the people”? That’s who the chattel, “taxpayers”, “registered voters, “United States citizens” bow down to and pay tribute to as a “patriarch” under Your repugnant “Parens Patriae ” doctrine and that “Enumeration at Birth” [SSA’s RM 10205.50]? Well, I must inform You, I know of no evidence that exists that states this man is any of those repugnant “things” or “creatures” and this man shall maintain this standing until be provided evidence to the contrary.
Further, seeing as both of those two “offices” are within the “Federal Zone”, neither are “ZIP™ exempt [per: DMM 602 1.3e] as I am. And I know of no evidence that exists and this man shall maintain this standing until be provided evidence to the contrary.
29 CFR § 4.101 – “(d) … The Supreme Court has recognized that such interpretations of the Act “provide a practical guide to before its amendments in 1972 and 1976. and employees…” — meaning, a man/woman must first deem themselves an “employer” and/or “employee” in order to operate on the system of belief that this whole thing serves as a “practical guide” to them. And so again, it is not an “enforcement”, nor is it applicable. It is merely a “practical guide”.
29 CFR § 4.101 – “(d) … as to how the office representing the public interest in its enforcement will seek to apply it” — that’s “it/its” — “… and constitute a body of experience and informed judgment to which courts and litigants may properly resort for guidance”
[Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944)].”
29 CFR § 4.101 – “(d) … Interpretations of the agency charged with administering an Act are generallyafforded deference by the courts. [Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 433-34 (1971); Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1 (1965).] Some of the interpretations in this part relating to the application of the Act are interpretations of provisions which appeared in the original Act before its amendments in 1972 and 1976. Accordingly, the Department of Labor considers these interpretations to be correct, since there were no amendments of the statutory provisions which they interpret. [United States v. Davison Fuel & Dock Co., 371 F.2d 705, 711-12 (C.A. 4, 1967).]”
29 CFR § 4.101 – “(e) The interpretations contained herein shall be in effect until they are modified, rescinded, or withdrawn. This part supersedes and replaces certain interpretations previously published in the Federal Register and Code of Federal Regulations as part 4 of this chapter. Prior opinions, rulings, and interpretations and prior enforcement policies…” — i.e., not “laws” but just “policy”. In other words, you must have a “contract”! — “… which are not inconsistent with the interpretations in this part or with the Act as amended are continued in effect; all other opinions, rulings, interpretations, and enforcement policies on the subjects discussed in the interpretations in this part, to the extent they are inconsistent with the rules herein stated, are superseded, rescinded, and withdrawn.”
So, if one seeks to be a “private” man, with certain “Natural/God-given rights” which are inalienable, one must show that there is something that supersedes this “voluntary” involvement and the “transactions” and “commerce” that goes along with it. And, that “something” is the “rescission” [UCC § 2-209. Modification, Rescission and Waiver] of this “voluntary” involvement/relationship. “Withdraw” and stand in one’s square and not turn back to “sin” which is that action of doing a “penance” which, is a voluntary self-punishment and an outward expression of repentance for having done wrong. Again, this comes from studying and holding knowledge of truth, to shew thyself to be “worthy and approved”.
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God [NOT “government/society”],
a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth”.
~ 2 Timothy 2:15
29 CFR § 4.101 – “(f) Principles governing the application of the Act as set forth in this subpart are clarified or amplified in particular instances by illustrations and examples based on specific fact situations. Since such illustrations and examples cannot and are not intended to be exhaustive, or to provide guidance on everyproblem which may arise under the Act, no inference should be drawn from the fact that a subject or illustration is omitted.”
In other words, I get to present the fact that I find something “incorrect” and present a new “case” and have it reviewed for that “incorrectness” and work from there. Which in fact and in deed, reconstitutes that “contract”, as per the Maxim of:
“Equity Imputes an Intention to Fulfill an Obligation”
Equity courts came into existence to do justice. They strongly believed that a person must be prepared to do what is right and fair. An old saying goes “one must be just before one professes to be generous. Equity considered acts of parties. Thus, where a person is under an obligation to do a certain act and he does some other act which is capable of being regarded as an act in fulfillment of his obligation, the latter will be so regarded, because it is right to put the most favorable construction on a man’s acts and to presume that he be generous.
* * * Note how that beautifully expressed Maxim uses the term “man” and not any repugnant legalese term such as “person, “child”, Citizen, Resident, Taxpayer”, etc.? * * *
Further, if I can fulfill those certain parts all the way up through and become an “oath taker” and licensure then I will do so. But if not, guess what? “Supplemental Remedial Actions”
[UCC § 1-201, UCC PART 7. REMEDIES] are to be taken as a necessity of law providing certain “safe harbor exceptions” [42 CFR § 1001.952 – Exceptions] in “equity” and not “common law”. Because in equity, I would not be able to avoid “common law”, but rather, I’d be able to avoid the “contracts” under “common law” that just might actually entice me, under things like threat, duress and coercion, into something other than “true crime”.
29 CFR § 4.101 – “(g) It should not be assumed that the lack of discussion of a particular subject in this subpart indicates the adoption of any particular position by the Department of Labor with respect to such matter or to constitute an interpretation, practice, or enforcement policy.”
So, in other words, that says” “…should not be assumed that the lack of discussion indicates or constitutes any enforcement”. So just because I haven’t “mentioned” it before, that does not mean that “they” can say: “…well, since you’ve taken it on and accepted it voluntarily for so long, we’re just doing our job, and you are a citizen, and you are a resident, and we need you to give us that information”.
No, I don’t. I don’t have an “ID”. I have no ID that is “my property”. Just like that SSN card that people use. That is not their “property” and it states that plainly on the back side of that repugnant SSN card!
“They” ask: “What’s your name”? I say: “I don’t have a name”. I have no “exclusive rights” and our Certificate of Assumed Name from Minnesota [MN Stat. 333] states that clearly as well.
“They” can go right ahead and be the “Finder” all they want an and try to “find” that name on me, the man! Indeed, “they” can get that legal fiction “name” from other people, but that’s second-hand knowledge and that’s known as “hearsay”. Because they only know me as “eric”. And that again is a noun and not an adjective. And when I turn around and question “them” supplementally, if they know me as a living spirit in the body of a man, then that fact alone will supersede the noun.
Finder. An intermediary who contracts to find, introduce and bring together parties to a business opportunity, leaving ultimate negotiations and consummation of business transaction to the principals. Business Development Services, Inc. v. Field Container Corp., 96 Ill. App.3d 834, 52 Ill. Dec. 405, 412, 422 N.E.2d 86, 93. With respect to a securities issue, refers to one who brings together an issuer and an underwriter; in connection with mergers, refers to one who brings two companies together. May also refer to one who secures mortgage financing for borrower; or one who locates a particular type of executive or professional for a corporation; or one who locates a particular type of business acquisition for a corporation. ~ Black’s Law 6th Ed.
29 CFR § 4.101 – “(g) … If doubt arises or a question exists, inquiries with respect to matters other than safety and health standards should be directed to the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC 20210, or any regional office of the Wage and Hour Division. Safety and health inquiries should be addressed to the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC 20210, or to any OSHA regional office. A full description of the facts and any relevant documents should be submitted if an official ruling is desired.”
So, while it can be “presumed” that upon “Enumeration at Birth” [SSA’s RM 10205.50], there was the creation of a legal entity and, that legal entity was considered to be a “United States citizen” entered into a “labor contract” by presumption of the “Enumeration at Birth” that said he was already “pre-qualified”. All without giving equal consideration to the common law where he could “contract privately”. And therefore, he was presumed all of his life to be under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).
So, if you want to understand and use “common law”, that’s fine. But you must grasp the fact that common law is merely “the door” to equity, and you do not “stand” in common law. What happens in common law, is other men and women that want to bring charges of a “criminal activity”, have standing to do so if they have a preponderance of evidence that you have cause a loss, injury, harm, or trespass upon them and/or their property. And that has nothing to do with “commerce”. That’s common law.
Now, when you’re dealing with “commerce”, you don’t use common law other than to show the fact that there’s a contract and it’s inaccurate. So, if “they” want to keep going forward all the while knowing there is in fact an inaccuracy, now you can get into the tort law of common law.
But again, that only comes from equity. So, if “they” want to demand there is a contract which includes an obligation to fulfill and/or perform some act, well, show me what my obligation is. If “they” cannot show me that the obligation holds true ONLY as a “Resident” or “United States citizen”, then “they” are the ones that fail. Not me.
So, “supplemental principles of law”, otherwise known as “the Law of Nations”, otherwise known as the principles of “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”… in man’s nature, there exists an innate ability to come up with this concept of “religion”. So, as a spirited man who subscribes to no “religion” but can take the good from “religions”, I utilize the King James Version of the Bible for THEIR “intents and purposes”. Because that’s the one they use in their “courts”.
See, this “door to equity” is to show them that their “contracts” have something that is superior which is, their own “terms and conditions”. And like I said, if you want equity, you must first come with equity.
“This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed — i.e., if they wanna believe, they’re so “correct” — in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.” ~ Titus 3:8
So, while that guy who is supposed to maintain that campground for the National Park services, he is supposed to do so in good faith. This is the doctrine of the United States, and everything is done in “Good Faith” with a fiduciary relationship attached to it. This is the “Full Faith and Credit of the United States (Article IV, Section 1).
Again, back to Titus 3:8: “These things are good and profitable unto men.” Well, this correlates with another one of my favorite verses Colossians 3:23 & 24, which reads: “23 And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men; 24 Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ.”
Also, another relative verse is: “And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar‘s, and unto God the things which be God’s.” ~ Luke 20:25
So again, constantly affirming “his” will. It’s a faithful saying, that if we do believe in God, we would think of God at all times in our fellow man, owing no man anything. So that when we do get into a contractual situation with them, we do give them equal consideration and benefit. And we don’t cause harm, death and damage because it will come back to bite us too.
Now regarding this “…the reward of the inheritance” mentioned in Colossians 3:24 well, that’s my “inheritance” and I don’t need the material world for my inheritance. I don’t need the contract to prove that I have an inheritance. It’s already there. This is your “merits” and this goes to the concept that “faith is dead without good works”.
So next is Matthew 5:16 which says: “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.”
Well, I would not do these “good works” without claiming and constantly affirming the Almighty God. That’s his will. And, I can only do this, what I’m doing today, because every breath I get, is received from him. Every breath I take is an act of God. And I don’t want you to believe me. I don’t want you to believe the neighbor. I don’t want you to believe the “government”, and I don’t want you to believe your mother. I want you to “study to show yourself “worthy and proven” whilst knowing that you do NOT have to be “ashamed” of your work, so that you can rightly divide the word of truth.
Then the next one. His genes 214 through 17 it says. What does it profit my brethren though? A man saying he has faith and have not works, Can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, depart in peace, be warmed and filled, notwithstanding you give them not those things which are needful to him, to the body, what does it profit? Even so, faith is 1/2 not works is dead. Being alone. If you have your cup and it’s full and somebody comes along and needs it desperately, I don’t care how much my cup is full, I’m going to give them some. I know I’ve already filled my cup; I can do it again. Particular if my cup is overflowing. Even if my cup is only three quarters full and I know I came with emptiness, I know I gained 3/4, I’ll give them something.
Now in James 2:14-17, we find: “14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, 16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? 17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.”
So, if I have my cup, and somebody comes along and needs it desperately, I don’t care how much my cup is full, I’m gonna give him some. I know I’ve already filled my cup. I can do it again. Particularly, if my cup is overflowing. Even if my cup is only 3/4 full and I know I came with emptiness, I know I gained 3/4. I’ll give him some.
Now in Ephesians 2:10, we find: “ For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.”
So, we are “his workmanship”. Not the “government’s” or the “State’s”. Not the community’s, the “public’s”, the “nation’s” etc. So, if we study to show ourselves “worthy and approved” of his workmanship and we don’t need to be “ashamed”. We can go forth and rightly “divide that word of truth”.
See, this is a “faithful saying”. That I will constantly affirm that, “he who believed in God, must be careful to maintain good works and do so, by realizing we are his workmanship”. So, why would I want to detract from such a great gift?
Next is Ephesians 2:8-9: “8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.”
Well, THIS is the “Provision of Grace”, the “Providence of Grace”. This is what we are provided above any“provision of law”. This is what “trickles down”. This is where “they” got “their law”. It trickled down from the top. It does not start at the bottom in the Un-Clean-Handed “congress” legislating “codes” and “statutes” which, are nothing but corporate bylaws and rules of the company. None of their “laws” can boast to be the “origin”. They all trickle down from the top!
Next is James 2:26: “For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.”
So, for all those men and women out there going around professing that they are doing all these “great fatherly works” in “helping people” but, they don’t do so in the faith which, they prove all the time. Because at the same time, they are tearing people down, and calling people names and using ad hominem attacks, saying crap like… “he doesn’t deserve the respect because, he’s not doing what I’m doing”. Well, if they want to “lead” everybody but don’t know that common law is not where it “starts” nor “ends”. But rather it is what sits in the middle. Then I say… “God speed… brother”!
Now, Hebrews 13:16: “But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.”
So, forget not that your “actions speak louder than your words”. So, people will know who you are by your “works”. That is what will show them whether you do things in faith or not. That will show them whether you do things with them in “Good Faith” when they walk away and feel like they received a benefit and can show that benefit in reality.
But, for those who professing their own works whilst glorifying themselves to a false patriarchy – Daddy. Boy. Daddy-Boy. – well see, my “sacrifice” is to the Most High, God, 上帝the Creator, Source… and I do not sacrifice to any man or any filthy rag you call a “flag” or, any fictitious “Nation-State”. Because again, my sacrifice is to God and God only! So, if a man does take my body, that’s not a “sacrifice” to that other so-called “man”. That’s a sacrifice to God. Because, I will stand in the word of God with every last living breath I have.
So finally, if you want equity, you must first come with equity. Not common law. You don’t start at the bottom. You come with the greatest thing there is, the breath of life. You come with the word of God as “a prophet unto the nations”, showing them where they got their precious codes, statutes and commercial/corporate bylaws from, by being able to dispense the Article I courts and the administrative law courts and the Article III courts of common law. Because, I didn’t commit any “crime”. Therefore, it doesn’t belong in the common law courts either. It doesn’t belong in administrative courts. It belongs in the highest court and none of you are my “judge”. And my body is a sacrifice, so if you don’t meet me in the court of God, then it is You whom are the “heathens”. Because I’ll stand my square.
So again, take my body because, you will never take my spirit. You will never take my equity. Call me all the names you want. Just remember, I love you. And, if you don’t love me that’s okay! I don’t care if you hate me, I don’t care if you don’t respect me. That’s on you.
With Peace, Love and the Divine Grace, as a Spirited Pacifist,
i leave you with your Creator’s Blessings… Caveat Emptor!
王狮子 / eric ©
Authorized Representative of the Represented person, All Rights Reserved as per UCC § 1-308
and done so without the United States as per 28 USC § 1746 (1) and 8 USC § 1101
authored and executed without the United States [28 USC § 1746 (1)],
on the 14th day of the 8th month of 2024 (current Æra)
FOOTNAOTES:
[1] UNC School of Law: “The Fusion of Law and Equity in United States Courts”
https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?httpsredir=1&article=1153&context=nclr
[2] HARVARD LAW SCHOOL: “Equity and Law: Fusion and Fission“ – https://hls.harvard.edu/bibliography/equity-and-law-fusion-and-fission/
[3] consideration: is a promise, performance, or forbearance bargained by a promisor in exchange for their promise. Consideration is the main element of a contract. Without consideration by both parties, a contract cannot be enforceable. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/consideration
[4] arbitration: is a formal method of dispute resolution involving a neutral third party who makes a binding decision.
[5] Ejusdem Generis: Latin for “of the same kind.” The statutory and constitutional construction principle of “ejusdem generis” states that where general words or phrases follow a number of specific words or phrases, the general words are specifically construed as limited and apply only to persons or things of the same kind or class as those expressly mentioned. Ejusdem generis is an interpretive guide for a contract under New York law. The rule is used only to help determine whether there is intent; if intent is found, ejusdem generis does not subvert intent. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ejusdem_generis
* * * MORE evidence that “You” do NOT “own” the Certificate of Birth (CoB) Nor, are you that “PERSON” created via the Repugnant Enumeration at Birth! feat. Jake Ehrlich Sr. (famous lawyer): on Johnny Carson (1964)
https://odysee.com/@SansMemetics:6/more-evidence-(amongst-a-huge-pile)-that:8
