Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive
Pin It

When these independent but united States of America were formed and openly declared their separation or independence from the British Crown, there was a Confederation of independent but united States. A Confederation or more accurately, a National (or Nationalist) Confederation wherein certain few and well defined powers were granted to the National Government in order to strengthen the ability of the independent but united States to conduct matters of international diplomacy and trade and to ensure that peace was maintained by and between the independent States, with only marginal powers being granted to conduct international warfare.

After the War for American Independence, this was ultimately changed to a Representative Constitutional Republic that was still by all considerations, a Nationalist union of independent and largely sovereign States within Continental America. Included in this documentation was a “Bill of Rights” … the rights of the independent States to declare their sovereign authority and the recognition of God-given rights (or rights granted by “the Creator”) and the inability of the national (now federal) system to infringe upon those individual Rights. Among the more notable of these in regards to the independent but united States of America was the Tenth Amendment which clearly states that all rights that are not specifically granted to the national government are reserved to the States and to the People.

The Bill of Rights should most likely be viewed as a Contractual Agreement by and between the governments of the independent but united States and the National Government … though this is certainly open to interpretation and will result in various opinions. What cannot be contested is that we, by the mere nature of our existence, have certain lawful and inalienable rights, among those being the rights to life and liberty … defending our persons and personal property and being a free (and independent) people. The Constitution itself governed how the independent but united States would be represented within the national system, making the entire process fairly clear and concise and in no need of excessive “interpretation” of “the law”. The Constitution strictly mandates that a Quorum is necessary for Congress in order that they may successfully legislate the actions of the National (now Federal) government.

Move forward roughly four score years … about eighty-five years or so, and the American War Between the States began. In order to avoid any distractions from the underlying point of this article, it should be presumed that the individual beliefs of each reader regarding the underlying cause(s) for the commencement of hostilities is accurate and for that matter, feel free to call it a Civil War rather than noting it more correctly as a secondary revolution involving completely separate nations. These points are in fact, secondary and honestly, entirely inconsequential to what would take place as part of the commencement of hostilities and as a result thereof. In short, whatever is believed was the cause, the intention of this article is to examine the effect. The reader should forget about the blatantly unconstitutional dismissal of the principle and ultimate suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, the unlawful detention of members of the press and other detractors of the actions and policies and other unconstitutional acts conducted before the commencement of hostilities and consider only the results.

On the twenty-seventh day of March in the year eighteen hundred and sixty-one, the Congressional representatives of seven Southern states walked out of the halls of Congress during an active Congressional session, leaving the Congress unable to establish a quorum even for the sake of enacting a recess of the Congress and a date and time for the re-convention of the Congressional body. Thus it was that the Congress was dismissed “sine die” or “without day”, and as can be verified by the Congressional records, that was the last time that Congress was lawfully in session. (in accordance with the Constitution and as opposed to “Legally” meaning in accordance with the law as it was since established, despite the lawful or unlawful nature of the establishment of that law) In Accordance with the rules as established and adapted, and concisely put together in “Robert’s Rules of Order as written in 1815, this effectively concluded the presence of a lawful congress and dissolved the Congress … it no longer, by established precedent (albeit parliamentary precedent) existed as a lawful body of representatives as it was incapable of forming a quorum even for the sake of reconvening.

Had there been any sense or desire for lawful action as opposed to merely legal action; after the Secession of the Southern States, the Congressional Representatives of the Union could (and should?) have resumed under the notion that since these independent States were now a separate and unique nation … ultimately thirteen States, … Congress could have resumed in a legal fashion as per the States remaining in the Union … though even during the period of “reconstruction”, the new and illegitimate Congress continued to function in a legal, though not lawful manner … and has continued as such until this very day.

Enter the Omniscient President

Lincoln, in all of his “infinite wisdom” determined, and perhaps rightfully so in this case, that the only viable means to get everything back in order, was through the introduction of what we now routinely accept as the “Executive Order”. Now it should be noted that this was not entirely uncalled for, or even entirely out of place considering the extenuating circumstances. Whether or not it should have become routine for each and every president ever since is another matter entirely, and again, the SCOTUS ruling that it was legal, does not by any means make it a lawful action. In fact, such actions were undertaken under “Color” … the Color of Law, the Color of Authority and/or the Color of Office, and were not long-term or lawful actions, though they may have been legal, again, given the extenuating circumstances at the time. However, this does not allow for handing the same powers down throughout the rest of history … unless of course it is ALL conducted under the presumption of a continued National Emergency and under the powers authorized by something like the War Powers Act or other Act instituted under the “immediate crisis” of any convenient “national emergency”.

The second Executive Order of Abraham Lincoln was issued in April of 1861 and ordered Congress back in session, though without a lawful quorum. Each President since Lincoln has functioned by Executive Orders issued from a military, martial law jurisdiction with the only “law” being the “law of necessity” … the War Powers. (See 12 USC 95) Since that time, no Congressional Session has ever met under lawful due process. Congress is now a legal fiction, that while legal, is not lawful in nature. Now it should be noted that this was not entirely uncalled for, or even entirely out of place considering the extenuating circumstances. Whether or not it should have become routine for each and every president ever since is another matter entirely, and again, the SCOTUS ruling that it was legal, does not by any means make it a lawful action. In fact, such actions were undertaken under “Color” … the Color of Law, the Color of Authority and/or the Color of Office, and were not long-term or lawful actions, though they may have been legal, again, given the extenuating circumstances at the time.

(After the Civil War, duly elected representatives from the Southern States were unlawfully (though not illegally) dismissed from Congress for contesting aspects of the Reconstruction and the creation of a Federalist system wherein the States were wholly subservient to the Federal System as opposed to the Nationalist system as had been created, wherein the National Government served only as a uniting factor of the States in order to strengthen limited foreign engagement, only to be replaced by “representatives” as approved by the then current Federal (no longer National) government)

Furthermore, no act of Congress, no legislation or any other government law is lawful in nature, and its legal standing is enforced (arbitrarily and subjectively) by laws that are legal, based solely on a legal fiction ruling over another legal fiction under the color of law. The only reason that any of this remains legal, is that the congress can now make whatever laws it wishes and they can be arbitrarily enforced insofar as the select Judges of SCOTUS agree that such laws are “legal” even if not lawful in reality. The only “legal” standing for government to demand that this color of law be followed, is through the threat of force and/or the unlawful detention of citizens, being held to account for a legal fiction that does not lawfully exist. (Government does after all, have what it takes to take what you have!)

From a lawful standing, every federal act and every federal stature and every federal law is de facto … in fact, it may be understood from Blacks Law (Fourth Edition) that the national government of these independent but united States of America is in fact a De Facto Government. Common Law from both American Common Law and English Common Law previously utilized within the United States effectively ended in 1861, though the legal (though still not lawful) process to implement this would be ongoing for another hundred years or so, with more revisions tossed in even today, as they become of importance. Common Law was formally “shelved” in 1938. From this point in 1861 on through to today, the US has been under the Color of Law and the Color of Authority. According to one comment made during the 1973 session of the Supreme Court of the United States; “In this country, the law in effect in all but a few States until mid-19th century, was the pre-existing English common law ...” and from Roe vs. Wade, 410 US 113. we see “It was not until after the War Between the States that legislation began generally to replace the common law.” There is in fact no Court of Common Law Jurisdiction and thus, the due process of the flesh and blood women and men cannot be given choice of jurisdiction in accordance with Due Process as guaranteed.

These independent but united States of America … or at least the (newly formed, de facto) national government thereof, was incorporated in the Organic Act of 1871 as a Corporation of the Federal District … what we know as Washington DC or Washington, (Federal) District of Colombia. This (now) National Government was still bound to the Constitution of these independent but united States of America as it had in fact been formed by a Contract … a Lawful and Legal Contract, by and between the independent but united States and their representative governments. The now Corporate National Government was restructured in 1878 and at the same time, actually trademarked the names “United States”, “U.S.” and a host of other names. These names, in all capital letters are used to denote the Legal Fiction of these entities. The individual States were not fully incorporated until sometime between 1962 and 1968, in part because of the Bankruptcy and debt of the USA and in part because of tax laws. It was at this time that States incorporated names such as STATE OF TEXAS or STATE OF FLORIDA and these were effectively known as a “State within a State” and were in fact, (additional) federal Districts, incorporated under the Corporate USA.

The formerly independent but united States became Federal Districts under the Buck Act. Further Federal Districts are through the Federal Reserve Bank (Which is a trust, not a bank, and is not part of the Federal Government, but the holder of the debt owed by the Corporate USA), ZIP Codes, States within the States as identified through the utilization of ZIP Codes, two letter State Abbreviations in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS … the name of an INDIVIDUAL IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS is the acronym of the flesh and blood human being. Any signature on any documentation with ALL CAP NAMES is a waiver of individual rights and an acceptance of the accord with the federal system as a federal citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment … you have ceded your rights and replaced them with government granted privilege. You are “legally” required to pay taxes, because you, by any single instance as noted herein (and numerous other factors making you a federal citizen), have waived your rights and accepted citizenship in the federal system under the federal government. Having utilized any of these or a hundred other “trips” or “traps”, you have ceded yourself by entering into an agreement and/or a contract with the government for a permission … a privilege. When an Agency of the STATE instigates an action against you, basic Constitutional Arguments are not successful in most courts as they are conducted under the Color of Law and generally, at least within Federal Courts, under the auspices of the GENERAL LAW OF CONTRACTS (The UCC or Uniform Commercial Code).

While the newly formed Corporate United States of America was bound by the restrictions placed upon it by the Constitution, despite the effect of now running the National Government as a Federal Government, but this would soon change. The National (now Federal) government was created by the Constitution and greatly restricted in accordance with Constitutional Due Process. Any law that does not have its origins based on the Constitution and in accordance with Constitutional Law, is not a valid law. While such laws may be “legal” in nature under de facto Law, they are not “lawful” and thus, are enforceable only through the threat of force and/or the illegal detainment of the flesh and blood man or woman in place of the Legal Fiction against whom such laws are enforced. If indeed the federal government is “restricted” in any way, it needs only lay claims to Article 1, section 10 regarding any obligations of contract and subsequently, under the Uniform Commercial Code effectively unrestricted in any such action as it may deem to be appropriate. (See Title 26 of the UCC. Consider Federal Areas, Federal Jurisdiction and all of the Privileges that you have already contracted out to, from, with and/or on behalf of the federal government through contracting with them for your privileges under the fourteenth amendment.)

Because the Federal Government (The United States of America) is a legal fiction and corporate entity, it is run under Contract law … the UCC, under the color of law. Shortly after this incorporation, the Bureau of Vital Statistics was formed, and required “Civil Certificates” for birth, marriage, death and other records, all of which fall under the United States Department of Commerce. During the Bankruptcy Proceedings under the Bankruptcies of the UNITED STATES allowed for the bankers to “call in their debts” which the United States was unable to pay. These banks, and the (Corporate) UNITED STATES, through the various Bankruptcy Acts and other related Acts, allows for the corporate government to function completely outside and free of any restraints of the Constitution of the independent but united States of America.

Civil Records” under the Color of Law are utilized to bring the government in as a third party to these matters wherein there are Civil Certificate requirements. A Civil Birth Certificate is issued by the STATE and registered with the US Census Bureau which is a Sub-Agency of the US Department of Commerce. Same with the Civil Wedding Certificate. In the case of the Birth Certificate, the given Christian name is replaced with the All Caps Name and registered with the Department of Commerce becoming a surety. In short, you become a surety … a guarantor to pay the debts of the federal system and the corporate USA. Through the introduction of the Maiden Name of the Mother, the infant is legally registered as a Ward of the State, granting the State the right to make claims for and on behalf of the child … to contract. In Linneman v. Linneman, we see that “Marriage is a three-party contract between the man, the woman, and the State.” (Linneman v. Linneman, 1 Ill. App. 2D 48, 50, 116 N.E.2d 182, 183 (1953) citing Van Koten v. Van Koten, 323 Ill. 323, 326, 154 N.E. 146 (1926) and further that, the State is like a silent partner in the family who is not active in the everyday running of the family but becomes active and exercises its power and authority only when necessary to protect some important interest of family life. So the government can even decide what is important to you and your family under the Color of Law.

It is the opinion of the author that virtually every “contracted privilege” by and between Legal Fictions is an “Unconscionable Contract” and thus, null and void … but if you are crazy enough to fight it, you are on your own. By rights, we are pretty much all buggered. This even includes foreigners … including those who do not believe that they are affected by American Law … as the Uniform Commercial Code is again, the GENERAL LAW OF CONTRACTS and most nations, outside of a few select “Axis of Evil” nation states, are part and parcel of the International UCC through their Securities and Exchange Commissions, Stock Exchanges, Centralized Banking System and other similar government institutions and/or non-governmental agencies.

I could continue this article into books if I had the time and the resources available to do so, but there are a few people on Writer Beat who have specifically requested some of this information. In short, if you are part of the system, there is very little chance of ever getting out of it effectively … and even if you do, you can rest assured the price will be a high one as I can personally testify!


CERTIFICATE: noun. Middle English certificat, from Middle Frenchm from Medieval Latin ceruficatum. From Late Latin, neuter of certificatus, past participle of certificare, to certify, 15th century. A document evidencing ownership or debt.

(Merriam Webster Dictionary (1998))

COLOR. An appearance, semblance, or simulacrum, as distinguished from that which is real. A prima facie or apparent right. Hence, a deceptive appearance; a plausible, assumed exterior, concealing a lack of reality; a disguise or pretext. Railroad Co. v. Allfree, 64 Iowa 500, 20 N.W. 779; Broughton v. Haywood, 61 N.C. 383; Wilt v. Bueter, 186 Ind. 98, 111 N.E. 926, 929.

A term of the ancient rhetoricians, and early adopted into the language of pleading. It was an apparent or prima facie right; and the meaning of the rule that pleadings in confession and avoidance should give color was that they should confess the matter adversely alleged, to such an extent, at least, as to admit some apparent right in the opposite party, which required to be encountered and avoided by the allegation of new matter. Color was either express, i. e., inserted in the pleading, or implied, which was naturally inherent in the structure of the pleading. Steph.P1. 233; Merten v. Bank, 5 Okl. 585, 49 P. 913. Wheeler v. Nickels, 168 Or. 604, 126 P.2d 32, 36.

COLOR OF AUTHORITY. That semblance or presumption of authority sustaining the acts of a public officer which is derived from his apparent title to the office or from a writ or other process in his hands apparently valid and regular. State v. Oates, 86 Wis. 634, 57 N.W. 296, 39 Am.St.Rep. 912.

COLOR OF LAW. The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. State v. Brechler, 185 Wis. 599, 202 N.W. 144, 148.

COLOR OF OFFICE. An act unjustly done by the countenance of an office, being grounded upon corruption, to which the, office is as a shadow and color. Plow. 64. Day v. National Bond & Investment Co., Mo.App., 99 S.W.2d 117, 119.

A claim or assumption of right to do an act by virtue of an office, made by a person who is legally destitute of any such right. Feller v. Gates, 40 Or. 543, 67 P. 416, 56 L.R.A. 630, 91 Am.St.Rep. 492; Citizens' Bank of Colquitt v. American Surety Co. of New York, 174 Ga. 852, 164 S.E. 817; Pontiac Trust Co. v. Newell, 266 Mich. 490, 254 N.W. 178, 181.

DE FACTO. In fact; actually; indeed; in reality. Ridout v. State, 161 Tenn. 248, 30 S.W.2d 255, 257, 71 A.L.R. 830. Thus, an office, position or status existing under a claim or color of right such as a deputy county clerk. Heron v. Gaylor, 49 N.M. 62, 157 P.2d 239, 241; deputy clerk of court. State v. Brandon, 186 S.C. 448, 197 S.E. 113, 115; corporate office. In re Hillmark Associates, D.C.N. Y., 47 F.Supp. 605, 606; corporation, Municipal Bond & Mortgage Corporation v. Bishop's Harbor Drainage Dist., 133 Fla. 430, 182 So. 794, 797; Ebeling v. Independent Rural Telephone Co., 187 Minn. 604, 246 N.W. 373; court, Marckel Co. v. Zitzow, 218 Minn. 305, 15 N.W.2d 777, 778; depositary, School Dist. No. 1, Itasco County, v. Afton, 173 Minn. 428, 217 N.W. 496, 499; deputy sheriff, alone v. Howell, 140 Fla. 693, 192 So. 224, 227; fire district commissioner, Petition of Board of Fire Com'rs of Columbia-Litchfield Fire Dist,. Sup., 29 N.Y.S.2d 605, 619; grand jury, McDonald v. Colden, 181 Misc. 407, 41 N.Y.S.2d 323, 3 27; guardian, State ex rel. Symons v. East Chicago State Bank, 106 Ind.App. 4, 17 N.E.2d 491, 494; judge, Annoni v. Bias Nadal's Heirs, C.C.A.Puerto Rico, 94 F.2d 513, 515; officer, Eaker v. Common School Dist. No. 73 of Butler County, Mo.App., 62 S.W.2d 778, 783; police officer, People ex ref. Mitchell v. Armspach, 314 Ill.App. 573, 41 N.E.2d 781; trustee, In re Wohl's Estate, 36 N.Y.S.2d 926,. 930.

DE FACTO GOVERNMENT. One that maintains itself by a display of force against the will of the rightful legal government and is successful, at least temporarily, in overturning the institutions of the rightful legal government by setting up its own in lieu thereof. Wortham v. Walker, 133 Tex. 255, 128 S.W.2d 1138, 1145.

DEMOCRACY. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. According to the theory of a pure democracy, every citizen should participate directly in the business of governing, and the legislative assembly should comprise the whole people. But the ultimate lodgment of the sovereignty being the distinguishing feature, the introduction of the representative system does not remove a government from this type. However, a government of the latter kind is sometimes specifically described as a "representative democracy." {In short, mob rule, such as can be seen at Schoolboard Meetings, and other “Townhalls” at the local level wherein a voice is ostensibly granted to the people}

Town form of government constitutes pure democracy as distinguished from representative government. Commonwealth v. Town of Hudson, 315 Mass. 335, 52 N.E.2d 566, 572.

Democracy is loosely used of governments in which the sovereign powers are exercised by all the people or, a large number of them, or specifically, in modern use, of a representative government where there is equality of rights without hereditary or arbitrary differences in rank or privilege; and is distinguished from aristocracy. * * * In modern representative democracies, as the United States and France, though the governing body, that is, the electorate, is a minority of the total population, the principle on which the government is based is popular sovereignty, which distinguishes them from aristocracies. Webster's New Int.Dict. {It should be noted that the US was never referred to as a democracy before the War Between the States and it did not begin appearing in textbooks until sometime around 1910 … though it appeared intermittently in some textbooks as early as 1904}

DEMOCRATIC. Of or pertaining to democracy, or to a political party called "democratic," particularly, in the United States, the Democratic party, which succeeded the Anti-federalist, or Republican, party.

DISTRICT. One of the portions into which an entire state or country, county, municipality or other political subdivision or geographical territory is divided, for judicial, political, or administrative purposes. Briggs v. Stevens, 119 Or. 138, 248 P. 169; State ex rel. Schur v. Payne, 57 Nev. 86, 63 P.2d 921, 925.

The United States are divided into judicial districts, in each of which is established a district court. They are also divided into election districts, collection districts, etc.

{It is imperative to establish Federal Districts in order that all of the people are under the authority of the Federal System as Federal Citizens under the fourteenth amendment rather than being denizens of a particular State within the National System of governance. As federal citizens under federal jurisdiction as noted in the fourteenth amendment, people “enjoy privileges of” and do not have God-given or Constitutionally protected rights, but “privileges” granted by the government. Federal Jurisdiction is suitable only for actions of one Legal Fiction against another Legal Fiction whereas the jurisdiction for a flesh and blood human being would be under a common-law-venue court and not under jurisdiction.}

The circuit or territory within which a person may be compelled to appear. Cowell. Circuit of authority; province. Enc. Lond.

FEDERAL. American Law. Belonging to the general government or union of the states. Founded on or organized under the constitution or laws of the United States.

The United States has been generally styled, in American political and judicial writings, a "federal government." The term has not been imposed by any specific constitutional authority, but only expresses the general sense and opinion upon the nature of the form of government. In recent years, there is observable a disposition to employ the term "national" in speaking of the government of the Union. Neither word settles anything as to the nature or powers of the government. "Federal" is somewhat more appropriate if the government is considered a union of the states; "national" is preferable if the view is adopted that the state governments and the Union are two distinct systems, each established by the people directly, one for local and the other for national purposes. See United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 23 L.Ed. 588; Abbott; Mills, Representative Government 301; Freeman, Fed. Gov't.

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. The system of government administered in a state formed by the union or confederation of several independent or quasi, independent states; also the composite state so formed.

In strict usage, there is a distinction between a confederation and a federal government. The former term denotes a league or permanent alliance between several states, each of which is fully sovereign and independent, and each of which retains its full dignity, organization, and sovereignty, though yielding to the central authority a controlling power for a few limited purposes, such as external and diplomatic relations. In this case, the component states are the units, with respect to the confederation, and the central government acts upon them, not upon the individual citizens. In a federal government, on the other hand, the allied states form a union,—not, indeed, to such an extent as to destroy their separate organization or deprive them of quasi sovereignty with respect to the administration of their purely local concerns, but so that the central power is erected into a true state or nation, possessing sovereignty both external and internal,—while the administration of national affairs is directed, and its effects felt, not by the separate states deliberating as units, but by the people of all, in their collective capacity, as citizens of the nation. The distinction is expressed, by the German writers, by the use of the two words "Staatenbund" and "Bundesstaat;" the former denoting a league or confederation of states, and the latter a federal government, or state formed by means of a league or confederation.

JURIS IGNORANTIA EST CUM JUS NOSTRUM IGNORAMUS. It is ignorance of the law when we do not know our own rights. Haven v. Foster, 9 Pick. (Mass.) 130, 19 Am.Dec. 353.

LAWFUL. Legal; warranted or authorized by the law; having the qualifications prescribed by law; not contrary to nor forbidden by the law. hio Automatic Sprinkler Co. v. Fender, 108 Ohio St. 149, 141 N.E. 269, 275; McDonnell v. Murnan Shipbuilding Corporation, 210 Ala. 611, 98 So. 887, 889; Hafner Mfg. Co. v. City of St. Louis, 262 Mo. 621, 172 S.W. 28, 33. {To be “Lawful”, a law must be subject to the effective Law of the Land … the Constitution, the law of the People … the Common Law … and they must be actual and not merely implied so as to be “ethical in nature”. Conversely, a matter between intangible or “Legal Fictions” can only be construed to be under the color of law, and while it may include actions such as are legal, they are not necessarily, by nature, Lawful. Thus, for something to be legal, it need merely be conducted under the Color of Law despite the actual Lawful nature of such Law.}

The principal distinction between the terms "lawful" and "legal" is that the former contemplates the substance of law, the latter the form of law. To say of an act that it is "lawful" implies that it is authorized, sanctioned, or at any rate not forbidden, by law. To say that it is "legal" implies that it is done or performed in accordance with the forms and usages of law, or in a technical manner.

In this sense "illegal" approaches the meaning of "invalid." For example, a contract or will, executed without the required formalities, might be said to be invalid or illegal, but could not be described as unlawful.

Further, the word "lawful" more clearly implies an ethical content than does "legal." The latter goes no further than to denote compliance, with positive, technical, or formal rules; while the former usually imports a moral substance or ethical permissibility. A further distinction is that the word "legal" is used as the synonym of "constructive," which "lawful" is not. Thus "legal fraud" is fraud implied or inferred by law, or made out by construction. "Lawful fraud" would be a contradiction of terms. Again, "legal" is used as the antithesis of "equitable." Thus, we speak of "legal assets," "legal estate," etc., but not of "lawful assets," or "lawful estate." But there are some connections in which the two words are used as exact equivalents. Thus, a "lawful" writ, warrant, or process is the same as a "legal" writ, warrant, or process.

LAWFUL MAN. A freeman, unattainted, and capable of bearing oath; a legaltis homo. {A Sovereign is NOT a “Person” United Mine Workers vs. United States, 330 U.S. 258. The plural of “Person” is “Persons” and not “People”, and Persons are Legal Fictions, not Flesh and Blood men and women.}


1. Conforming to the law; according to law; required or permitted by law; not forbidden or discountenanced by law; good and effectual in law. Freeman v. Fowler Packing Co., 135 Kan. 378, 11 P.2d 276, 277; General Motors Acceptance Corporation v. Schwartz, 118 N.J.L. 25, 190 A. 625, 627.

2. Proper or sufficient to be recognized by the law; cognizable in the courts; competent or adequate o fulfill the requirements of the law.

3. Cognizable in courts of law, as distinguished from courts of equity; construed or governed by the rules and principles of law, in contradistinction to rules of equity.

4. Posited by the courts as the inference or imputation of the law, as a matter of construction, rather than established by actual proof; e. g., legal malice. See Lawful.

5. Created by law. De Vita v. Pianisani, 127 Misc. 611, 217 N.Y.S. 438, 440. 6. Lawful; of or pertaining to law. Kinsley v. Herald & Globe Ass'n, 113 Vt. 272, 34 A.2d 99, 101, 148 A.L.R. 1164.

LEGAL ENTITY. Legal existence. Department of Banking v. Hedges, 136 Neb. 382, 286 N.W. 277, 281,

LEGAL FICTION. “n. A presumption of fact assumed by a court for convenience, consistency or to achieve justice.’

There is an old adage: Fictions arise from the law, and not law from fictions.

A legal fiction is an assumption that something that is (or may be) false or nonexistent, is true and real.

Legal Fictions are assumed or invented to help do justice.

(Source: Oran’s Dictionary of the Law, 1999, West Group Publishing)

LEGAL FICTION. Something assumed in law to be fact irrespective of the truth or accuracy of that assumption.

Example: … the legal fiction that a day has no fraction … Fields vs. Fairbanks North Star Borough, 818 P.2d658 (1991)

(Source: Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law, published 1996)

Mercantile Law. The goods and wares of a merchant or tradesman, kept for sale and traffic. Schnitzer v. Excelsior Powder Mfg. Co., Mo.App., 160 S.W. 282, 285. In a larger sense. The capital of a merchant or other person, including his merchandise, money, and credits, or, in other words, the entire property employed in business.

NATIONAL GOVERNMENT. The government of a whole nation, as distinguished from that of a local or territorial division of the nation, and also as distinguished from that of a league or confederation. "A national government is a government of the people of a single state or nation, united as a community by what is termed the 'social compact,' and possessing complete and perfect supremacy over persons and things, so far as they can be made the lawful objects of civil government. A federal government is distinguished from a national government, by its being the government of a community of independent and sovereign states, united by compact." Piqua Branch Bank v. Knoup, 6 Ohio St. 393.1

OF. A term denoting that from which anything proceeds; indicating origin, source, descent, and the like; as, he is of a race of kings; he is of noble blood. Stone v. Riggs, 43 Okl. 209, 142 P. 298, 299.

Associated with or connected with, usually in some causal relation, efficient, material, formal, or final. Harlan v. Industrial Accident Commission, 194 Cal. 352, 228 P. 654, 657.

The word has been held equivalent to after, 10 L.J.Q.B. 10; at, or belonging to, Davis v. State, 38 Ohio St. 506; in possession of, Bell County v. Hines, Tex.Civ.App., 219 S.W. 556, 557; Stokes v. Great Southern Lumber Co., D.C.Miss., 21 F.2d 185, 186; manufactured by, 2 Bing. N.C. 668; by, Hannum v. Kingsley, 107 Mass. 355; residing at, Porter v. Miller, 3 Wend. (N.Y.) 329; 8 A. & E. 232; from, State v. Wong Fong, 75 Mont. 81, 241 P. 1072, 1074; in, Kellogg v. Ford, 70 Or. 213, 139 P. 751, 752.

ORGANIC ACT. An act of congress conferring powers of government upon a territory. In re Lane, 10 S.Ct. 760, 135 U.S. 443, 34 L.Ed. 219. A statute by which a municipal corporation is organized and created is its "organic act" and the limit of its power, so that all acts beyond the scope of the powers there granted are void. Tharp v. Blake, Tex.Civ.App., 171 S.W. 549, 550.

PRIMA_FACIE, Lat. At first sight; on the first appearance; on the face of it; so far as can be judged from the first disclosure; presumably; a fact presumed to be true unless disproved by some evidence to the contrary. State ex rel. Herbert v. Whims, 68 Ohio App. 39, 38 N.E.2d 596, 599.

PRIMA FACIE CASE. Such as will suffice until contradicted and overcome by other evidence. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Wallace, 158 Or. 210, 75 P.2d 942, 947.

A case which has proceeded upon sufficient proof to that stage where it will support finding if evidence to contrary is disregarded. In re Hoagland's Estate, 126 Neb. 377, 253 N.W. 416.

A litigating party is said to have a prima facie case when the evidence in his favor is sufficiently strong for his opponent to be called on to answer it. A prima facie case, then, is one which is established by sufficient evidence, and can be overthrown only by rebutting evidence adduced on the other side. In some cases the only question to be considered is whether there is a prima facie case or no. Thus a grand jury are bound to find a true bill of indictment, if the evidence before them creates a prima facie case against the accused; and for this purpose, therefore, it is not necessary for them to hear the evidence for the defense. Mozley & Whitley. And see State v. Hardelein, 169 Mo. 579, 70 S.W. 130; State v. Lawlor, 28 Minn. 216, 9 N.W. 698.

PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE. Evidence good and sufficient on its face; such evidence as, in the judgment of the law, is sufficient to establish a given fact, or the group or chain of facts constituting the party's claim or defense, and which if not rebutted or contradicted, will remain sufficient. State v. Burlingame, 146 Mo. 207, 48 S.W. 72.

Evidence which suffices for the proof of a particular fact until contradicted and overcome by other evidence. Dodson v. Watson, 110 Tex. 355, 220 S.W. 771, 772, 11 A.L.R. 583.

Evidence which, standing alone and unexplained, would maintain the proposition and warrant the conclusion to support which it is introduced. Gilmore v. Modern Brotherhood of America, 186 Mo.App. 445, 171 S.W. 629, 632.

An inference or presumption of law, affirmative or negative of a fact, in the absence of proof, or until proof can be obtained or produced to overcome the inference. People v. Thacher, 1 Thomp. & C., N.Y., 167.

A litigating party is said to have a prima facie case when the evidence in his favor is sufficiently strong for his opponent to be called on to answer it. A prima facie case, then, is one which is established by sufficient evidence, and can be overthrown only by rebutting evidence adduced on the other side. Mozley & Whitley. State v. Lawlor, 28 Minn. 216, 9 N.W. 698.

A "prima facie case" is one which is apparently established by evidence adduced by plaintiff in support of his case up to the time such evidence stands unexplained and uncontradicted. Morrison v. Flowers, 308 Ill. 189, 139 N.E. 10, 12.

A "prima facie case" is one in which the evidence in favor of a proposition is sufficient to support a finding in its favor, if all of the evidence to the contrary be disregarded. Schallert v. Boggs, Tex.Civ.App., 204 S.W. 1061, 1062. See, also, Presumptive Evidence.

REPUBLIC. A commonwealth; that form of government in which the administration of affairs is open to all the citizens. In another sense, it signifies the state, independently of its form of government. 1 Toullier 28 and n., 202, note; State v. Harris, 2 Bailey (S.C.) 599; Co.Litt. 303.

REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT. A government in the republican form; a government of the people; a government by representatives chosen by the people. In re Duncan, 11 S.Ct. 573, 139 U.S. 449, 35 L.Ed. 219; Kadderly v. Portland, 44 Or. 118, 74 P. 710.

STATE, n. A people permanently occupying a fixed territory bound together by common-law habits and custom into one body politic exercising, through the medium of an organized government, independent sovereignty and control over all persons and things within its boundaries, capable of making war and peace and of entering into international relations with other communities of the globe. United States v. Kusche, D.C.Cal., 56 F. Supp. 201, 207, 208.

The organization of social life which exercises sovereign power in behalf of the people. Delany v. Moraitis, C.C.A.Md., 136 F. 2d 129, 130.

One of the component commonwealths or-States of the United States of America. The term is sometimes applied also to governmental agencies authorized by state, such as municipal corporations. George v. City of Portland, 114 Or. 418, 235 P. 681, 683, 39 A.L.R. 341.

The people of a state, in their collective capacity, considered as the party wronged by a criminal deed; the public; as in the title of a cause, "The State vs. A. B." {Is the whole of the people harmed by the harmless acts of a singular individual such as the utilization of marijuana, growing a garden in the front yard, trapping rainwater, placing a clothes line in the front yard or other similar and relatively benign actions?}

The section of territory occupied by one of the United States.

The circumstances or condition of a being or thing at a given time. State v. Inich, 55 Mont. 1, 173 P. 230, 234.

Foreign State

A foreign country or nation. The several United States are considered "foreign" to each other except as regards their relations as common members of the Union.

Unconscionable Contract. One which no sensible man not under delusion, duress, or in distress would make, and such as no honest and fair man would accept. Franklin Fire Ins. Co. v. Noll, 115 Ind.App. 289, 58 N.E.2d 947, 949, 950.


Title Two of the Code of Federal Regulations – GRANTS AND AGREEMENTS (Note, while this section deals with Grants and Agreements and even Jurisdiction, under which much of the law between Legal Fictions is conducted, you will need to utilize a FOIA request to attain this document. (See the government NARA Website for further information) Even with an FOIA request however, most of this section is still “Reserved” and/or “Omitted” and not granted to the General Populace … despite their being bound by this law under contractual agreement with the Federal Government)

Black’s Law (I prefer the ORIGINAL 4th … not the annotated and “updated” 4th but there is a selection available)

- A Law Dictionary by John Bouvier (Revised Sixth Edition, 1856

Organic Act of 1871

Paper Currency Act

The Sherman Act

Buck Act

Public Salary Tax Act of 1939 (In conjunction with 4 U.S.C.S. Sec. 111)

HJR 192

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 1938 and 1966

USC (Please note how much of the law is “Omitted” … not removed, not revised, just “Omitted” … so you cannot see it. Why would this be unless there was something to hide?)


The Portable UCC (American Bar Association or ABA Documentation)

The ABC’s of the UCC. Article 9 (ABA Documentation)

The New Article 9 (ABA Documentation)

Default Provisions of the Revised Article 9 (ABA Documentation)

ABC’s of the UCC. Article 8 (ABA Documentation)

The UCC and You … A Workbook … A very good reference material

Federal Reserve Commercial Code

Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976

Admiralty Maritime Jurisdiction

The Law of American Admiralty

Plea of Jurisdictional and Prosecutorial Error USC §2 §60 (Omitted)

Elements of Jurisdiction

Blackstones Commentary on the Common Law of England Adapted to the Constitution

14th Amendment

Trademark and Patent Records Office

Bretton Woods Agreement

2013 Digest of United States Practice In International Law

Federal Congressional Record

Emergency Powers Act

United States Bankruptcy Act of 1898

Codex Justinianus (Latin recommended … and primarily as a base understanding of Roman Law)

Corpus Juris Secundum … yeah I wish I still had my set but alas …)

Robert’s Rules of Order

1These definitions are from Black’s Law but the Jeffersonian definitions are effectively the opposite, so there may be some confusion and it is up to the reader to believe whichever version they may believe.


Let us know what you think please!

Pin It