by The Informer
The myths abound about the straw man. He does exist but he is not your creation. You cannot be a “natural person.” No matter what anyone else says the term “natural person” is still an artificial entity. The word “natural” separates him from the artificial corporation also called a “person.” You are either a MAN or WOMAN.
In law the word “person,” no matter how identified, is still an artificial entity. Source for this statement of mine is found in American Law and Procedure Vol. XIII, Jurisprudence and Legal Institutions, LaSalle Extension University, authored by Professor James Dewit Andrews of Albany Law School and Ruskin University. Here is a direct quote;
“The word `person’ (persona) DOES NOT in the language OF THE LAW, as in ORDINARY language, designate the physical MAN.” “In fact, LAW, by its power of abstraction CREATES PERSONS, as we shall see that it creates things, which do not exist in nature.” “A moment’s reflection enables one to see that MAN and PERSON CANNOT BE synonymous, for there cannot be an artificial MAN, though there are artificial persons. Thus the conclusion is easily reached that the law itself often CREATES AN ENTITY or a being which is called a person; the law cannot create an artificial MAN, but it can and frequently does invest him with artificial attributes; this is his personality, which we see and by which we are affected.”
Now if you notice the word the professor uses, persona? Well when you say you are in proper person, you admit to being an artificial being called a “person.” Please note that all statutes contain the term “person” and not MAN. All statutes can only apply to persons. So now you should be starting to see that “person” is liable. Not what you do that “makes you liable” it is the person, which is the artificial entity that creates the liability. Does not the IRC say “any person liable?” Person is the liability and it that artificial being listed as a person in statute that makes so much that the artificial person is liable, NOT the MAN. But you admit you are the person and never challenge it. How could you, you don’t know what I have just told you till now.
So, as James Montgomery and I have always stated “Don’t take our word for it, check it out yourself. We don’t want to be labeled as guru’s, just MEN interested in your education, the same as Big Al does. You may also visit the web site Against the Grain at www.atgpress.com/ to see that I posted in great detail the works of the professor on “person” and all its ramifications.
Another party created the straw man, not you or your parents. So let us examine the term “accepted for value.” Go to UCC 1-201 (44) definitions. Then look to UCC 1-205 and 1-209. These are the keys to understanding what I am describing. First when YOU accept the value laid on the straw man by any government agency you take on the position of surety. I wish I could go into greater detail on Surety but I can’t so try to obtain Richardson’s Commercial Law, A textbook for schools, colleges and private reference, dated 1907, published by H.M. Rowe Company , Baltimore. Also on Surety obtain the Hornbook Series by Laurence Simpson Professor of Law, N.Y. U. on The Law of Suretyship. This quote will cause you to think and is only one sentence from the 568 page law book.
“Since all contractual relations depend upon consent, a surety’s offer can be accepted only by one with whom there is reasonable ground to believe the offeror intended to contract.”
Now that you are the surety you are bound by contract with the one making the claim on the straw man, NOT the straw man. So the value placed of 1000 dollars, by say the IRS, then you have accepted under a course of trade or business 1-205, and what does the IRC state about Trade or business in its definitions? Compare to the Uniform Laws Annotated and the Uniform Commercial Code, notice the similarity. Now you cannot claim a natural MAN character, but are now thrust into the commercial business as a “natural person” (artificial character).. Now you have no claim against the straw man, not of your creation, because no consideration has passed between the two of you, nor can you produce the contract signed by the straw man, SEE ABOVE, and you, that enables you to execute a UCC-1 Form.
The State of North Dakota just returned all UCC -1 Forms stamped VOID across it’s face. I understand Oklahoma is doing the same thing.
Now another problem arises and Howard Griswold found maxims of law stating that you cannot contract with yourself. Common sense tells us that is an impossibility. Now how can you contract with the straw man? You can’t. Therefore, how can you file a UCC-1 against your alter ego that was created by someone else. Oh because he is you? No if he was you and he created the debt then he is the agent and you the principle. Oooooh, guess what you just admitted to under agent principle? You got it, the principle, unless immediately objecting became also responsible for the agent (straw man’s) debt.
What is the maxim of law on silence under principle/agent law? Come on people use common sense. All these gurus that THINK they know the UCC are only going so far. They don’t understand it at all. Just what they THINK it says at first blush. I have been at this since 1987/88 and have given seminars on it. When I heard of this I said well people do your thing and when you listen to others without first checking it out yourself, it’s your problem. They had my sister so convinced that she pleaded with me to file the UCC -1 Form and do the thing. Well I could not let my sister go down the tubes, as some have already been arrested for this, so I proceeded to tell her what I am telling you here and told her to read certain portions of the UCC and read portions of Richardson’s Commercial Law and from an 1888 Commercial Law book for teaching colleges that I have. Oh I could go into writing a small book on just why this will not work, but I will spare you the boredom. Well she stopped cold in her tracks and said a big sigh of relief that she had not gone any further. Especially since she knows of two people that have been arrested. This smacks of the same thing that the Schiff, Marsh, Leroy and Others that have a following. They all wind up in jail. The Montana freemen stuff is now just hitting home. Pete Stern and at least 5 other people are listed in Pete’s indictment. One has already been convicted.
When you fool with the bankers expect to get bit because they have a monopoly which is protected by the government corporation and its corporate law merchant private courts.