Life, Law,
and the UCC
Underlying Principles
by Brian Lucas
Part 1
This article is about freedom, i.e. how to live free of the scourge of government usurpation and immunize yourself against the plague of the legal system, with its attorneys, courts, judges, agencies, police, etc. To establish this situation effectively you must have a basic understanding of fundamental principles that operate in life in general and in law in particular, as well as understand practical means for utilizing the knowledge in a manner that is easily comprehensible and doable.
The reason for concentrating on law is that it is unique among all of man’s domains of activity. Namely, law is force—“official” exercises of deadly violence—and is therefore not merely another academic discipline. Indeed “law” can be defined as “the rules utilized by a government involving the use of deadly force.” Because law involves life and death applications of ideas and principles, it is essential for survival and well being that we understand what these ideas and principles are and how they must be used for safeguarding one’s “life, fortune, and sacred honor.”
I. The Current State of the Law in America
Several years ago this author contacted WestLaw, Lexus, and several other issuers and publishers of materials bearing on law, requesting the purchase of several CDs involving State and Federal law. The uniform answer from all issuers was that they would rent the CDs but not sell them. Upon asking the reason for their unwillingness to sell the material, their answer was startling: the law changes so frequently and dramatically that continual updates are needed for the CDs. In fact, the representatives stated that attorneys must determine the current status of the law before going to court that day in order to know what the law is that can be used and relied on.
The response to all of these representatives was, “Suppose natural law behaved in such an erratic manner?” All agreed that the result would be chaos and perpetual unreliability. Does that answer not likewise reflect the state of the legal/court system in the United States today? Anyone with actual experience with the courts knows that the laws are complex, ever-changing, ultimately unknowable in totality of scope and dependability, and generally unreliable. All of this occurs with people’s lives and destinies attached.
It is well-known that the United States Library of Congress now has between 2,000,000 and 3,000,000 books on law. Any law library is a daunting place, possessing row after row of shelves with books full of fine print. Making knowledge of such “law” even more unattainable is not only that what passes for law today perpetually changes, altered by every new court case/opinion, legislative enactment, and all of the ever-changing policies, rules, and regulations of administrative agencies, but an immense amount of the world’s law today, as actually implemented, is unwritten and inaccessible. This is not only because judges operate in general equity in which the ultimate arbiter of a matter is the “conscience of the court” (i.e. how the judge feels about something that day), but because almost all of the world’s law is the private Law Merchant of the Creditors in bankruptcy of the world’s nations, essentially all of which are insolvent and in receivership to the Bankers.[1][1] This private Law Merchant is of ancient origin, and is implemented today by men whose identities are unknown to the mass of mankind.
In the face of this undependability of law we may ask some fundamental and ingenuous questions:
1. Is there such a thing as genuine law that is timeless, stable, and dependable?
2. If so, can such universal law be effectively invoked and utilized in practice today?
3. If genuine law exists, why is it not taught and uniformly utilized instead of the chaotic and colorable charade that dominates the legal field today?
4. Can we integrate said universal law with the ephemeral, desultory “law” that now enslaves the overwhelming majority of people on this planet?
Fortunately, affirmative answers re all of the above questions. Answering them, and providing clear understanding and effective, practical ways for utilizing genuine law, is the subject of this article.
II. Fundamental Principles.
Preceding and more fundamental than any codifications of man-made law is the underlying context within which all such law exists and is rendered operational. These “pre-law” principles consist of various intrinsic and timeless truths that are universal and inviolable regardless of the particulars of any law concocted by governments that might be superimposed over, against, and on top of such innate aspects of life. These existential/ethical principles and truths are:
1. All existence originates and emerges from, and consists and expresses the essence, substance, nature, character, reality, and laws of being of, the prior, originating Source of itself. In other words, it is axiomatic that everything is an expression of, and one with, that which caused, generated, and begets it, and also that all that exists functions in accordance with the laws that make it what it is. What something is, and the laws by which it subsists and functions, are merely different aspects of, or perspectives on, the same reality. The universe is a cosmos, not a chaos; every aspect of everything that exists manifesting sublime order and intelligence. This fact, combined with the fact that laws of existence are comprehensible, or at least codifiable, by man is the implicit basis of all of the science, technology, philosophy, and endeavors of man.
The implicit assumption of inherent coherence underlying all aspects of man’s life, including law, and implies such fundamental ethical and existential consequences as:
a. Existing within and as an intrinsic aspect of every thought, word spoken, and act committed, is corresponding liability/accountability for that thought, word, and deed. This is not only an ethical truth, but also an existential fact. From the perspective of cause/effect natural law, no one can escape liability and accountability for his thoughts, words, and deeds. All contrary ideas are illusory. Man deceives himself, and proceeds in self-delusion contrary to reality and its laws, by believing that he can, by some clever means or on the basis of any of an infinite number of possible sources of authority (e.g. one’s boss, some government, religious leaders, “authority figures,” or some other “assigned author”), escape personal liability and accountability for everything he thinks, speaks, writes, and does.
This principle formed the basis of the precedent of the Nuremberg Trials after World War II. Nazi officials who allegedly administered “death camps” were not excused of responsibility by pleading “I was just following orders,” or “I was just doing my duty.” This precedent would appear largely lost on “officials” today.
b. Existing within and as an intrinsic aspect of every thought, word, and deed are the precise action/reaction consequences thereof. The exact results of anything one thinks, feels, says, writes, and does are structured within them at origin and inception. Ends are always the exact product of the particular means used for achieving them. The ends never “justify the means” because all ends are a function of whatever means are deployed in bringing them about. Were this not true, no basis could exist for any science, technology, or sane human endeavor. To achieve a precise result, the unique means necessary to produce it must be utilized. Different means always produce different ends, regardless of how similar any appearance to the contrary might be.
2. It is a free will universe. Man is a free-will being and the irreducible unit of experience, autonomy, self-responsibility, and free choice. It is free will that gives significance to man’s life, making everyone responsible, accountable, and liable for everything he thinks, speaks, writes, and does and at the same time able and obligated to fashion his own destiny. People create themselves, their own fate, everything that they are and that happens to them. The free-will thought/decision upon which one acts is the prime origin of all events in the life of man. Each individual free-will being himself/herself is solely and uniquely responsible for who and what he/she is, and everything that unique being speaks, writes, does, and experiences. Thinking creates destiny.
One may reasonably postulate that the greatest source of man’s suffering and problems, in individual and social/institutional life, is not realizing this crucial, central fact. Instead, people blame, project, believe, and attribute the responsible, genuine source of their own thoughts and actions falsely on an unlimited number of things outside of, and other than, themselves. Many people even believe that man is some kind of stimulus/response tropism devoid of autonomy, self-originating choice, and capacity for creating.
Some of the consequences and ramifications of this foundational premise are as follows:
a. One can accurately and ethically speak only for oneself. Only each unique and unfathomable sentient being knows that being’s own unique truth and possesses the responsibility and right for proclaiming it, in accordance with his unique priorities and perspective in time and space.
b. One can experience the behavior, actions, and appearance of another being but not that being’s inner experience, feelings, and sensations. In the words of the Bible, “Man looketh upon the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh upon the heart.” In his book, The Politics of Experience, C. D. Laing brilliantly elaborates on this aspect of man and his relationship with others.
c. The prime cause of all events and actions in the life of man is the free-will thought/decision/act of some unique man or woman. Human events do not cause themselves—individual people cause them. Documents do not write themselves—some particular being writes them, as well as acts on them or not as each particular actor decides of his/her own free will. Individual free-will thought/action is the “cause” referenced in the phrase “nature and cause” in the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
d. Man can act in a win/win or win/lose manner. A win/win interaction is an expression of peace, dignity, love, unity-harmony, mutual good faith, absence of malice and deceit, and all of the other ingredients in contract law required for a valid contract enforceable at law. Free consent of all contracting parties is essential. A win/lose interaction is an expression of separation, conflict, and disharmony, and never results in a genuine contract the “winner” claims exists. In actuality, a “win/lose” interaction is non-existent, since even the “winner” loses in the end. Such an apparent victor causes harm to others, creation, and himself. He may think he wins, but in accordance with the inexorable laws of existence he “reaps what he sows,” incurs the corresponding karma (action/reaction or cause/effect consequences of every deed) by his harmful acts. The “Golden Rule” in existential terms might be expressed: “One who harms others harms himself,” or “That which someone does unto someone else shall be done unto him.” “He who lives by the sword dies by the sword.”
3. Manifest existence is the interplay of opposites. What we call “creation,” i.e. something manifest and perceptible as opposed to the “nothingness” of the eternal, uncreated, non-dual, absolute, is relative, ever-changing duality. Duality implies a “split,” as it were, in the One, so that what can be perceived is what it is by virtue of its relationships with other aspects of manifestation. That which is called “up” is so only in relation to what is called “down.” Similarly, dark is the absence of light. “Right” is what it is by virtue of perceiving its opposite, which is “left.” Good is considered as being so based upon contrasting it with an opposite value, which, from some relative perspective, is considered as less good, or not good, i.e. “evil.” All coins have a heads and tails side, just as every manifest thing has two sides. The bottom and top of any given thing exist simultaneously.
Therefore, in manifest existence, i.e. the ever-changing Relative, what something “is,” and whatever values might be attached to it, are a function of the perspective and evaluation of the particular perceiver/evaluator. To a giant who is 20’ tall, a man 6’ 6” tall is a midget; to a midget 3’ tall, the 6’ 6” man is a giant. “All things are in relation,” and indeed, they are what they are by virtue of their relationship with other things, as subjectively perceived and evaluated by some unique observer/knower in a matrix of manifestation from which that particular aspect of creation may be observed.
Because everyone is not only profoundly unique in nature, but necessarily cannot occupy any order and position in the total scheme of things other than what/where he is, and cannot be identical concerning these parameters with anyone else, everyone necessarily perceives existence differently than anyone else. That which someone sees one way, another will view in a different manner. What one considers as right will be thought of as wrong by another. That which some consider “good” will be regarded as “evil” by others. This relativism engenders Shakespeare’s comment in Hamlet, “There’s nothing good or bad but thinking makes it so.” There is no point in railing against this aspect of life as “moral relativism,” or concluding that as a result “anything goes,” since while values are possible only from the point of view of a given perspective, there are fundamental elements of man and life that all have in common. Only from this vantage point can any basis be presumed for assigning universal values to particular modes of behavior. Perhaps the most fundamental of these values is derived from the very nature of man and life as described by the next principle.
4. The nature of life is to grow, progress, and evolve towards its fulfillment, towards ever-fuller realization of its own unbounded divinity and infinity. In order to be able to live to further life, something must first and foremost be able to live. This is why “survival is the first law of life.” With that comes absolute right to engage in any just, lawful, or necessary measures for self-defense, as the steward of one’s own life. Survival, however, is dynamic. It is not stagnant, but embodies direction consisting of a drive for more, different, and better. This is why problems are not solved on the level of the problem, and survival thrives on progress, which, in turn, thrives on solutions. Dwelling on and wallowing in problems creates and reinforces them while not creating solutions.
All life seeks fields of greater happiness. No one must be taught that he wishes happiness, or that he prefers such a condition in comparison with its relative opposite, unhappiness and suffering. Consequently, if one understands this universal nature is innate in all people, one may live the Golden Rule, and therefore experience a life of harmony (good) rather than dissonance (evil).
5. The map is not the territory; the name is not the thing named; the symbol/idea/word is not the substantive thing being abstractly expressed. One cannot spend the word “money” nor eat the word “pizza.” This is the essence and prime principle of semantics. Although this principle may be self-evident, it does not prevent many people from mistaking the two. “Some people eat the menu and leave the dinner,” as the late Gregory Bateson phrased the matter.
6. All truth is subjective. The nature, depth, structure, and complexity of each man and woman is unfathomable, and each man and woman experiences life in a unique manner. In addition, manifest existence is process in pattern—flows, interactions, and transformations of inscrutable energy moving at astronomical speeds in the vastness of empty space, emerging from and re-merging back into the absolute, unmanifest. The eternal, unbounded, absolute is unmanifest and possesses no properties ascertainable and definable by and in terms of the relative manifest it begets. Both source and manifestation are thereby infinite and unfathomable, and each man and woman is a unique aspect/expression of both. The manifest is unique in exact configuration at each precise moment anew, with each configuration unrepeatable, i.e. never the same as it ever was at any time, neither into the unlimited past nor as it ever will again be throughout the unendingness of time. Inasmuch as each man and woman is a unique expression of both the unbounded/unfathomable absolute and the ever-changing/non-repeating manifest, the particular perspective and experience of each man and woman, i.e. his/her truth, will likewise be unique for each conscious unit of experience and perceived and understood in a manner and perspective that is unique, and subjective, for each.
Moreover, because man’s inherent nature is the knower and experiencer, everyone subjectively considers that what he is doing, thinking, or feeling is justified from his own perspective. This perspective is unique to him and cannot be identically shared by anyone else. This should be a source of tolerance and deference between people.
7. Man is a goal-oriented being. Everything man does is for some purpose, i.e. for achieving some objective. This is borne of the above-described drive in all life for more happiness, abundance, achievement, power, peace, and bliss. It is self-evident that at any given instant, an infinite number of thoughts, feelings, perspectives, priorities, and actions are possible for man. It is equally self-evident that no one can act on more than a (relatively small) finite number of these infinite possibilities at the same time. The innate thrust/energy of life, however, is for more—towards full realization of its own infinite and divine nature.
Because everyone is unique in nature, structure, experiences, position in space/time, etc., the perspectives, needs, desires, and priorities of everyone are likewise unique, and thereby function to channel life’s innate drive for more into directions that each being considers as being most beneficial for furthering the growth, progress, and fulfillment of that unique being. All achievements in the life of man are therefore steps, or even milestones, on this path towards fulfillment. The ultimate goal is paved by innumerable finite goals realized on one’s life’s course, all of which are chosen for the purpose of maximizing achievement, progress, and happiness. No one knowingly behaves in ways that retard and thwart the inherent life-drive within him for his own success and ultimate fulfillment. Man acts in accordance with his situation and state of being at any given time in the manner that he deems best further his interests, and would consider alternative courses of action as at best useless and at worst destructive of his own desired ends. In other words, if one knew an alternative that was superior re obtaining an objective he would adopt it.
8. In every living being is to be observed supreme self-love. This is simply life loving itself, providing the impetus for safeguarding and furthering its innate drive for growth and fulfillment. Without self-love life would long ago have disappeared for want of impetus to preserve itself. Primal self-love makes sense of the world.
9. “All law is contract.” or “Contract makes the law.” All law of every kind, including the laws of being, laws of thought, natural law, and every species of man-made law that is, was, and ever will be or could be, is contract. The essence and foundation of a contract is agreement. People, things, and processes relate in mutual agreement that certain things are true, operational, expected, committed, and, if this-or-that happens such-and-such will occur. Each of the ten (10) Articles of Amendment of the Constitution, i.e. the so-called “Bill of Rights,” express principles of commercial law. For instance, the term “nature” in the phrase “nature and cause” in the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution refers to the underlying contract (whether “civil” meaning money/specific performance or “criminal” meaning a contract of indebtedness of an aggressor to his victim for the wrongs or damages done), along with the proof (of default on the contract or commission of the criminal acts). Moreover, every document or instrument involved must be executed by identified free-will beings each taking personal responsibility for the truth, accuracy, relevance, and verifiability of each and every thing alleged that can adversely affect another, under oath by affidavit certified and sworn on the commercial liability of the affiant sworn true, correct, and complete. This is the “nature” to which the term refers.
Perhaps the foundational presumption (and possibly the only valid one) is that every individual free-will being is the unit of responsibility, accountability, and sovereignty. Were this premise not regarded as axiomatic, no basis for any law could exist in society, as no one could be held liable for anything. Most of the remainder of the presumptions of law on which the system functions are self-serving and specious.
All governmental law operates on presumptions, such as the presumption that you freely assent to, i.e. ratify, implied adhesion contracts in which the terms and conditions are created and enforced by the government without realistic capacity of the “ruled” to prevail against the stronger party. “Adhesion contract” is defined in law as:
“Standardized contract form offered to consumers [citizens] of goods and services [government laws, statutes, and benefits] on essentially “take it or leave it” basis without affording consumer realistic opportunity to bargain and under such conditions that consumer cannot obtain desired product or services except by acquiescing in form contract [i.e. what the government says things are]. Distinctive feature of adhesion contract is that weaker party has no realistic choice as to its terms.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, page 38.
One thing that renders the system hopelessly problematic unless one understands the game, is that one of the system’s presumptions of law is that no one in the system is required to divulge the presumptions (undisclosed) under which the system functions. Rebutting mere “law” and “facts” does not access, nor does it neutralize, the presumptions of law that constitute the system’s power over you. These presumptions must be negated if you are to have any chance of prevailing against the system.
10. Love is the realization in consciousness of the eternal and innate unity/harmony of all manifest things with each other and their common source. By definition, that which we regard as the opposite of love, i.e. “hate,” is the result of non-realization of this unity/harmony. Hate is, therefore, borne of and characterized by conscious absorption in the illusion of separation. From this fundamental illusion of separation all of man’s ills and conflicts emerge, i.e. the whole gamut of human problems, discords, and suffering: need and lack, failure, disunity, insufficiency, requirement, judgment, divine condemnation, conditionality, superiority, and ignorance.
One’s happiness and grief are a function of the extent that one understands and lives in accordance with the above ten (10) universal principles/truths. Indeed, virtually all of life can be resolved down to a single duality concerning life, i.e. whether one loves or does not love. The corresponding ethical choice concerning one’s dealing with one’s fellow man is, accordingly, whether one relates sincerely from the heart towards others in accordance with the genuine intent of interacting on a win/win basis or whether one attempts to further one’s innate life drive for more by relating in a win/lose manner.
The alleged “necessity” for religions is a function of non-realization of the simple truth that whatever life, existence, consciousness, and their Source and essence are, one is an expression of and is inherently and unalterably one with that Source and essence, and cannot be otherwise. (No one can ever not exist.) Similarly, the purported “necessity” for governments is founded on the fact that some men interact with others on a win/lose basis, and government must “fight fire with fire” by functioning by similar win/lose means. Those occupying positions in a “government” consider “winning” vis-à-vis the “governed” as dominating people’s lives by enforcing win/lose exchanges. In other words, a “government,” in order to treat the symptoms of man’s alleged ethical and existential deficiencies deals with supposed wrongdoers by application of destructive, physical force. The fact that governments purportedly exist for the purpose of protecting people, property, and rights from assault and destruction by those who play win/lose games, and resolve disputes between people by being an impersonal, independent and fair arbiter of conflicts, is all a function of the fact that people don’t realize their unity with each other in and from their common Source, and thereby do not love each other enough not to transgress against each other in the first place.[2][2]
A government’s nature as an organization that functions for the purpose of preventing and rectifying wrongdoing gives rise to all of man’s law and the principle on which that law is adjudicated: The court is the substitute for the dueling field. An arbitration tribunal is intended as being a “civilized” means for resolving disputes in an orderly and dignified manner instead of letting disputants resort to violence between themselves for settling differences.
The alleged justification for the existence of governments and their authority for establishing laws, courts, police, armies, and legal systems, is based on presumptions such as the following:
a. Man’s cultural, social, and communal life is hopelessly adversarial, rendering the existence of some kind of government necessary;
b. Most people have neither the ability nor fundamental priority for resolving disputes harmoniously among each other;
c. When left alone mankind is incapable of developing free means for upholding law and order and resolving disputes, rendering an independent and over-arching coercion monopoly necessary;
d. A non-involved third party possesses authority for expropriating the right of arbitrating disagreements; and,
e. Such a third party arbitrator can successfully achieve just resolution of the dispute.
Once the axiomatic presumption that governments are necessary is adopted—usually implicitly and unconsciously, without thorough, sincere, and rational thought that analyzes whether the premise is sound or not—all of the game from that point on is what kind of government should exist and how it should be structured, manned, financed, and operated. Discussion and advocacy of the various shapes, forms, and functions of government are perfectly acceptable, i.e. “politically correct.” Whenever one points out that the emperor has no clothes, however, and no governments should exist at all because all of them are organizations through which some men rule (exploit, plunder, dominate, and enslave) others by deadly, physical force—without ethical authority, devoid of adequate knowledge, and in the absence of capacity for achieving genuine, self-existing results—all hell breaks loose. Such primal sanity triggers deep-seated cognitive dissonance and is instantly branded as “anarchy,” “extreme,” and “unworkable.” In the words of the psychologist David Viscott, “When truth is proclaimed in a hostile environment it is labeled ‘insane.’” Clear perception and understanding of the truth, however, is the opposite of insanity. And, to paraphrase Gertrude Stein, “the truth is the truth is the truth.”
If man, both individually and collectively, does not establish life and law on the truth (the real way things are), then man is engaging in the futile effort of attempting to achieve sound and enduring results by actualizing principles that are neither real nor ethical. The result of the folly is foregone disintegration and destruction. The point of this article is that because our current civilization—and especially its law—functions on the basis of largely specious principles, it is on its way to ruin. Our task, if we would establish our affairs on a firm foundation and not be swept along with the herd like lemmings to the sea, is for understanding true principles and securing our fate by structuring our lives and affairs by correct actualization of those principles.
Part 2
For many people it might come as a surprise (in many cases a pleasant one) if they were informed that essentially all of the law of the world is founded on, derived from, and is a function of ten simple, essential, and fundamental Commercial Maxims—seven (7) basic ones plus three (3) corollaries. These foundational principles/axioms underlie all of man’s law. Notwithstanding the vastness and complexity of the law today, it is safe to say that all of the world’s law is fundamentally a function of the ten Commercial Maxims. Although the dazzling complexity and ever-changing forms, parameters, and labels obfuscate this fact, the essence of the matter remains intact.
The Commercial Maxims constitute the basic rules involved in preventing and resolving disputes, including relating in life and commercial affairs as if disputes might arise and written proof of one’s position, in time and content, must be securely established. Although commerce is usually thought of as “buying, selling, and trading,” all of man’s interactions with his fellow man are considered as being “commerce.” Commerce encompasses all relationships between people. Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, for instance, defines “commerce” as follows:
Commerce. “The exchange of goods, productions, or property of any kind; the buying, selling, and exchanging of articles…. Intercourse by way of trade and traffic between different peoples or states…including not only the purchase, sale, and exchange of commodities, but also the instrumentalities and agencies by which it is promoted and the means and appliances by which it is carried on, and transportation of persons as well as of goods, both by land and sea…. Also interchange of ideas, sentiments, etc., as between man and man.” Page 244.
The Commercial Maxims codify the fundamental principles/maxims of law and commerce upon which man’s law and governments have operated on this planet for at least the past 4-6 thousand years. They constitute, as it were, the rules of the game. Part of the grief of mankind today is that the vast, overwhelming percentage of the populace does not know the basic rules of the game they are playing and are hence incapable of playing it. If one who does not know the rules of a game is playing that game with others who are masters of the rules, the outcome is a foregone conclusion: the one who knows the rules wins the game while the one who does not know the rules necessarily loses. Such is the state of the world.
Elucidating the underlying, fundamental rules so that one understands what is going on helps greatly in “leveling the playing field.” These rules, therefore, are set forth below with the understanding that they operate within the context and setting of the universal Underlying Principles discussed in Part One. The Commercial Maxims are the most basic, enduring, and minimalist codification of universal, real law extant on earth. They are very simple, largely self-evident, and based on common sense. The Jews, for instance, have studied, analyzed, practiced, and refined Commercial Law, founded on these Maxims, for thousands of years. This continuous, relentless, single-minded absorption in the law over millennia has “worked the bugs out.” Every angle, facet, ramification, application, and nuance of practice of Commercial Law has been seasoned over time, and is deeply and thoroughly known by those who “own, run, and rule the world.”
Indeed, the “Elite” are precisely where they are because they do know this fundamental law, because it is real, that it must work, always works, and it is impossible for it not to work, since it is grounded in natural law. Those who do not know and use the law by which everything functions necessarily and always lose. This esoteric truth must be obscured and concealed from the “masses” by every means possible. Otherwise, those who would rule mankind would have no way of obtaining their positions of power, privilege, and plunder (all of which are frauds). By knowing and using the law themselves and keeping the knowledge of such law from the masses, the people are deliberately rendered defenseless, confused, emasculated, dependent, helpless “sheeple,” considered as existing for the purpose of being exploited, herded, sheered, gelded, and slaughtered at will.
The Powers That Be thus achieve and operate their monopoly on “law” (the very thought is absurd, like stating one has a monopoly on light or life), by propagandizing the lie that law is so complex, esoteric, obtuse, vast, and confusing that only they and their hatchet men called “attorneys” and “judges” can administer it. The law is “mystified,” made into some kind of quasi-religious cult, operated by a high priesthood that alone has the knowledge and authority for operating the resulting “legal system” that rules the life of man. Law must be transformed into a “closed union shop” such as the Bar Association, into whose hands the people must entrust their “lives, fortunes, and sacred honor” without availability of alternative sources of remedy and redress of grievances. Where can one go for relief when the fox guards the henhouse?
If the so-called “Rulers of the World” did not withhold from general understanding the knowledge that the foundational principles of real law are few in number and easily mastered by everyone, and that all of the documents and instruments used in all law and commerce are likewise few in number and comprehensible to laymen, such con men would have to abandon their aristocratic “titles of nobility” and find real jobs based on genuine productivity, contribution, and “win-win” interactions with their fellow man. It is empowering and exhilarating to understand that the ever-changing, monstrous vastness of “law” can be distilled into a handful of universal principles that can be contained on a 3” X 5” card, and that all of the legal documents and instruments functioning today can be mastered by nearly anyone.
Attorneys and Judges deliberately conceal the fact that the only significance inhering in court cases and statutes consists of the simple and universal principles of commercial law codified by the Maxims. All legal documents, proceedings, and processes are obscured by re-naming and mislabeling said documents and processes in accordance with whatever degrees of multiplicity and complexity are needed for preserving its inaccessible aloofness. Law is made diffuse, enormously complex, and allegedly far beyond the ken of regular folks. With knowledge of the truth underlying all of that misdirection and deception, i.e. seeing through the Wizard’s Light Show, you can understand what is happening and place yourself in a position of mastery of the situation instead of being relegated to the status of a confused, helpless victim forever in the dark and at the mercy of those who exploit your ignorance of the rules and processes by which law (i.e. organized, deadly force) operates. In short, “Know the truth and the truth shall make you free.”
As mentioned above, the word "commerce" encompasses all interactions and interchanges between people, including exchanges of such "non-commercial" things as "ideas, sentiments, etc." The fundamental principles and precepts of universal commercial law that have for millennia formed the underpinnings of civilized law on this planet are both biblical and non-biblical, i.e. their truth and validity is a function of themselves and the long-accepted usage and practice by many cultures and peoples, in diverse forms, throughout the world for thousands of years. These fundamental Maxims of Commerce, which underlie all commercial documents, instruments, and processes, are enumerated herewith (with biblical references in parenthesis):
1) A workman is worthy of his hire (Exodus 20:15; Lev. 19:13; Matt. 10:10; Luke 10:7; II Tim. 2:6. Legal maxim: “It is against equity for freemen not to have the free disposal of their own property.”).
2) All are equal under the Law (God's Law--Ethical and Natural Law). (Exodus 21:23-25; Lev. 24:17-21; Deut. 1:17, 19:21; Matt., 22:36-40; Luke 10:17; Col. 3:25. Legal maxims: “No one is above the law.”; “Commerce, by the law of nations, ought to be common, and not to be converted into a monopoly and the private gain of a few.”).
3) In Commerce truth is sovereign (Exodus 20:16; Ps. 117:2; Matt. 6:33, John 8:32; II Cor. 13:8. Legal maxim: “To lie is to go against the mind.” Oriental proverb: “Of all that is good, sublimity is supreme.”).
4) Truth is expressed by means of an affidavit (Lev. 5:4-5; Lev. 6:3-5; Lev 19:11-13; Num. 30:2; Matt. 5:33; James 5:12).
5) An unrebutted affidavit stands as the truth in Commerce (1 Pet. 1:25; Heb. 6:13-15. Legal maxim: “He who does not deny, admits.”).
6) An unrebutted affidavit becomes the judgment in Commerce (Heb. 6:16-17. Any proceeding in a court, tribunal, or arbitration forum consists of a contest, or “duel,” of commercial affidavits wherein the points remaining unrebutted in the end stand as the truth and the matters to which the judgment of the law is applied.).
7) A matter must be expressed to be resolved (Heb. 4:16; Phil. 4:6; Eph. 6:19-21. Legal maxim: “He who fails to assert his rights has none.”).
8) He who leaves the field of battle first loses by default (Book of Job; Matt. 10:22. Legal maxim: “He who does not repel a wrong when he can, occasions it.”).
9) Sacrifice is the measure of credibility (One who is not damaged, put at risk, or willing to swear an oath that he consents to claim against his commercial liability in the event that any of his statements or actions is groundless or unlawful, has no basis to assert claims or charges and forfeits all credibility and right to claim authority.) (Acts 7, life/death of Stephen, maxim: “He who bears the burden ought also to derive the benefit.”).
10) A lien or claim can be satisfied only through rebuttal by Counteraffidavit point-for-point, resolution by jury, or payment (Gen. 2-3; Matt. 4; Revelation. Legal maxim: “If the plaintiff does not prove his case, the defendant is absolved.”).
Perhaps the simplest way of expounding on the nature and validity of Commercial Law is to comment on each of the Maxims in the order given.
1) A workman is worthy of his hire (Exodus 20:15; Lev. 19:13; Matt. 10:10; Luke 10:7; II Tim. 2:6).
The eighth Commandment, "Thou shalt not steal" (Exodus 20:15), signifies the absolute right of every man to all honorably acquired property. This basic human right originates fundamentally from the inherent, unalienable right of self-ownership and the free-will nature of man. If a man is the sovereign owner/steward of himself, and exercises his free will for engaging in ethical use of faculties that result in his accumulation of property, said property ownership is, ethically and existentially, inviolably the man's own as distinguished from the property of anyone else. No one has a higher claim on said property nor any right to steal it by any means, whether by force or fraud.
Were this fundamental property right not universal and inviolate, no coherent basis for interrelating could exist in the society of man. Man is a purposeful, goal-oriented being, capable of abstract thought and free choice. People engage in thinking, use of faculties, and expenditure of time and life-diminishing energy for the purpose of achieving rationally cognized results. There are an infinite number of possibilities of thought and action. Inasmuch as man's manifest existence is finite, i.e. contained within boundaries, man must use his machinery of thought and being in the ways that he comprehends as best further his well being, life progress, consciously chosen duty, and priorities born of his world view. The I Ching comments on this principle in Hexagram 60, "Limitation":
"Therefore what concerns us here is the problem of clearly defining these discriminations, which are, so to speak, the backbone of morality. Unlimited possibilities are not suited to man; if they existed, his life would only dissolve in the boundless. To become strong, a man's life needs the limitations ordained by duty and voluntarily accepted. The individual attains significance as a free spirit only by surrounding himself with these limitations and by determining for himself what his duty is."[3][1]
If someone does not think, act, and exert life-diminishing time and energy for the purpose of achieving specifically cognized goals, he cannot legitimately expect to realize the ends he desires. It is both a biblical and Zen maxim that: "He who does not work shall not eat." The Bhagavad-Gita states in Chapter 3, Verse 8:
"Do your allotted duty. Action is indeed superior to inaction. Even the survival of your body would not be possible without action."[4][2]
A Chinese proverb phrases the matter more caustically: "Some people sit around waiting for a roasted chicken to fly into their mouths."
Negating the legitimacy of property ownership by claiming that someone who works is not thereby entitled to the anticipated rewards of his efforts makes a mockery of man's nature and life, as well as ethical and natural law. A man engages in a particular course of action for the purpose of achieving anticipated results and if he did not thus expect his efforts to accomplish the desired goals he would not act in the manner he considers to be the best and most efficient possible means for achieving them. If his actions did not express his best possible judgment it is safe to assume that he would be indulging in alternatives that he considered as being superior. Moreover, man utilizes cause/effect natural law throughout all his goal-oriented actions, i.e. the one acting attempts to discern the most effective and efficient means possible to accomplish his goals. Invoking particular natural-law processes brings about the precise consequences of whatever processes are used.
It is self-evident that stealing is a violation of ethical law inasmuch as the one who performs the life-diminishing labor for acquiring the property necessarily has the highest, if not exclusive, claim thereon. He is the one who decided, thought, acted, and utilized his faculties, not someone else. Who can claim a greater right to someone's property than the one who acquired ownership by expenditure of thought, effort, time, and energy? Stealing a man's property is literally stealing a part of his life, since the time, energy, and effort the man expended in earning the property is irretrievably gone and not the efforts of gods or men can return the life-diminishing labor he expended in acquiring the property (even if the same or similar property is subsequently bestowed upon the man). In the words of a Zen master, “An evil done can never be undone.”
All governments exist by virtue of promulgating an endless panoply of alleged "higher" reasons why the "government" is entitled to the fruits of people's earnings instead of the earners thereof. The terse Libertarian maxim is correct: "Taxation is theft." As eloquently expressed by Bastiat in The Law, when the law, which is force and can be legitimately used only in defense of just rights to life and property, is perverted into an instrument of aggression, slavery, theft, and plunder, it has destroyed its own object. Man’s history on this planet has universally shown that the governmental approach to law is a catastrophe since it trashes ethical and natural law, structures degeneracy through perpetrating fraud, deceit, violence, lies, and every manner of crime in the name of law and justice, thereby obviating all hope for coherence, integrity, and peace in the social order. All of this is borne of efforts to structure organized and “respectable” ways to abrogate the First Maxim and expropriate the fruits of the labor of others.
The conundrum, of course, is that while on the one hand a substantial portion of mankind may be incapable of self-government (a hypothesis that is only an arbitrary postulate), no externally imposed government can compensate for the lack. The best that can result from a man-made government, i.e. a legal-force institution, is that restraints on human action, interference in people’s exercises of free will, are used for the purpose of protecting life and property. In do doing, however, a government uses organized force for imposing some contrived, abstract, finite, and arbitrary order onto the natural condition that would otherwise exist if people were left free. Through state rulership, artificial palliatives, superficial behavior/conditions borne of coercively re-configuring the manifest expression of life, are proffered either as “solutions” (which they are not and never can be), or at least superior to leaving people free.
Whenever society has a government with some alleged overarching "right" to steal wealth instead of everyone in the culture honorably gaining through constructive/productive use of faculties and quid-pro-quo honorable exchanges, the society is "legally" structured on a hopelessly self-contradictory, unethical, and schizophrenic basis. Organizing life in such a way pre-ordains the civilization to disintegration by systematically rupturing both natural and ethical law. Only the real thing is the real thing. Plastic models of how things “should” be, superimposed by force, neither are the real thing nor can cause its spontaneous manifestation.
A man-made government is therefore an outside-in/top-down artificial order and set of processes imposed by physical force over and against the self-existing transcendence of an organic, inside-out/ground-up holistic unfolding of life. As stated, the catch-22 of man’s condition is that while a substantial proportion of the populace of this planet has not awakened and spiritually evolved to the place that they are naturally able to govern themselves, any kind of “other governing” organization that might be structured as compensation for the lack is a fraudulent, invasive, distorting, falsifying, and a disruptive failure method. Any such “other-governing” utilized as compensation for lack of sufficient inner/existential development not only cannot bring about what can ensue only by virtue of self-existing suchness spontaneously manifesting transcendence in its natural fullness and integrity, but all such approaches necessarily stifle, destroy, suppress, and obviate the possibility for the desired situation to manifest. The bottom line of the matter is that the problem, and its solution, is inner, spiritual, and existential, not political. Namely, the cause of the problem is insufficient consciousness, development, and love; the cure is more of those things. Only the actual reality can be and engender a true, self-existing condition that satisfies the heart and soul of man and fulfills life.
Since all governments exist by non-disclosure, there is therefore no true meeting of the minds between the people and the government, i.e. there is no actual agreement. Such a situation is institutionalized lying—perjury by omission and misrepresentation. No government ever does, or can, provide full disclosure of all of the rights, privileges, and immunities the people forfeit in exchange for submitting to government rule, nor does—or can—any government articulate what honorable goods and services are provided by the government as valuable consideration, so that the resulting interaction can constitute a bona fide contract enforceable at law. If no genuine agreement exists—or can exist—from the outset, no valid contract can exist. The situation is a fraudulent, criminal con game that establishes a condition of “mixed war” whereby the government is inherently and permanently at war with the “governed.” Governments can exist only by deceit, misrepresentation, and concealment of material fact in contract, and cannot otherwise exist at all. Establishing any kind of human government, i.e. an organization on the basis of which some men (those occupying positions of “authority” in the institution) may “legally” take things of value from others without open, honorable, good-faith, quid-pro-quo exchange, i.e. “win/win” interactions, inherently abrogates the First Maxim. All governmental power is discretionary, and must be or it is not power. Discretionary power is privilege, which is fraud.
The point of this discourse, including what might be considered a “digression” into the nature of law and government, is that this First Maxim is in a sense the foundation of everything. It is the essence of the Golden Rule, the entire basis of law and justice, the core and point of a contract and all contract law, and the basis in society of peace, stability, coherence, and sanity. When that which poses as “law” is the institutionalized abrogation of this First Maxim, confusion, frustration, futility, and ultimate ruin are the inevitable results. Such a pattern characterizes the history of man’s civilizations on this planet.
2) All are equal under the Law (God's Law--Moral and Natural Law). (Deut. 1:17; Luke 10:17; Col. 3:25).
It should be self-evident that every man, by virtue of simply existing, is subject to the laws by which he exists. Everyone is obviously equally the product of and inherently obedient to the laws of being, thought, and nature. Nothing can exist without expressing the laws through which and on the basis of it exists and functions.
Similarly, since all relationships are contractual, everyone is likewise bound by ethical law. The equal-exchange principle upon which the inherent balance and cause/effect nature of existence subsists also applies in the life of man. Otherwise, there is no basis for stating that ethics exist, or that man is an ethical being, or that ethics in human life can have any basis of discernment at all. If two people relate and one can validly say: "I have a legitimate right to take from you, cause loss to you, without correspondingly enriching you by giving you something of equal or greater value in exchange," on what basis can he prove the validity for his "special" right of engaging in win/lose interactions? Is it because one claims to be "better," or more "deserving" than the one from whom he wants to gain something for nothing? Thousands and thousands of such "reasons" have been promulgated throughout human history, especially concerning "government's" alleged right to take without giving in exchange. A few such "reasons" are:
· I'm an aristocrat.
· I'm a part of the ruling elite. My nature and destiny is to rule.
· I'm better (e.g. smarter, wiser, holier, more noble, more deserving) than you.
· I represent God.
· I represent higher truth.
· I represent natural law.
· I'm acting for the good of society (or the "General Will," or "law and order," or "the greatest good for the greatest number," etc.).
· I'm authorized by law (whatever that is).
· I'm authorized by government (e.g. "I have a license to kill").
· "I proclaim that might is right, justice the interest of the stronger," Plato (i.e. "might makes right and I've got the guns").
· I'm authorized by treaty (Between whom? With what authority? With what binding relevance to the victimized party?).
· I'm poor and needy so I deserve it.
· "Equality" and "social justice" (whatever those are) should prevail in society.
Once again, one begins with a cognized and concocted end (the desire for power) and then provides the alleged justification after the fact for validating his actions. In this case, the essence of the matter is: "I want to steal your property or rights instead of productively earning what I want or need." The reasons proffered for legitimizing the crime can be any of an infinite number of high-sounding non-sequiturs. If man had extended a fraction of the thought, energy, creativity, and ingenuity in working for the purpose of succeeding by honorable means instead of by cheating of his fellow man, we would not be in the mess we are in today.
3) In Commerce truth is sovereign (Exodus 20:16; Ps. 117:2; John 8:32; II Cor. 13:8).
The word "truth" can be defined in two distinct ways:
1) The actual state of existence, i.e. what things are and the way they function in and as themselves, in their actual reality—the thing in itself. Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language, defines what might be designated as “Truth”:
"True state of facts or things."
2) An abstract representation or mapping of some aspect of reality that can be objectively discerned and verified as "accurate," as per Webster's, supra:
"Conformity to fact or reality; exact accordance with that which is, or has been, or shall be. The truth of history constitutes its whole value. We rely on the truth of the scriptural prophecies. The duty of a court of justice is to discover the truth. Witnesses are sworn to declare the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."
One of the most important of all philosophical and epistemological questions was asked by Pontius Pilot: "What is truth?" I.e., what is the relationship, the correlation, between reality as it actually is and that which transpires within a particular human mind? Given the state of man on this planet the question has a vast spectrum of answers and possibilities. Some people attempt to be scrupulously accurate in what they think and believe concerning reality. Other people are so deluded that a point is reached whereby they are labeled "insane" due to vast gulf between what they consider as being real and the way other people experience existence.
Consequently, notwithstanding the degree that whatever someone thinks, feels, believes, says, or acts upon may be "objectively" verifiable by other people, with or without technical instruments used as extensions/surrogates of the senses, truth must be considered as subjective concerning man's interactions with others. Everyone perceives and experiences existence through the state and functioning of his unique nature, mind, body, nervous system, state of development, and world view.
It is supremely essential that man act truthfully as the basis upon which he lives, acts, and relates with others. As the requirement involves oneself, only the truth, i.e. actual reality as it is, provides a dependable basis for living one's life. If someone falsely believes there is a fortune in gold buried in some specific location and spends money on that basis he could be financially ruined through having spent all his money on chasing a delusion. If one relates with others on the basis of false information, speaking other than one’s actual perspective and intent, harm can accrue to all concerned. In other words, the map (truth) must be a faithful representation of the territory (Truth).
Exodus 20:16, the ninth Commandment, states: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." Lies are weapons and can destroy lives. People can believe and act on what they are told, and both kill and be killed on a false basis, such as by marching off to war on the basis of what their "leaders" tell them. The Bible is especially harsh on those who bear false witness. In Israel, the penalty in Orthodox circles for bearing false witness is death. In the United States, the penalty can be social and commercial ostracism for life. Who wants to deal with someone who lies? Multi-billion dollar diamond deals close with a handshake and a few words exchanged. Lying in such a context is implicitly understood as utterly unthinkable.
The core of the matter is that if truth were not sovereign in Commerce ("commerce" meaning all human intercourse of any kind, i.e. money, property, and otherwise) there would be no way society could exist and function. There would be no dependability in human relations, nor any rules, nor basis of ethics, nor grounds for any remedy and recourse. No contracts could be executed, nor any terms and conditions set forth on which anyone could rely. All society would disintegrate for want of any fundamental basis for interrelating.
This third Maxim is in a very real sense the most fundamental of all the principles of law, and constitutes the focal point around which everything else revolves. It is the fulcrum upon which all else hinges in order to function and possess validity. It is entirely reasonable to regard truth as the most important of all things. Truth is extolled in all valid systems of philosophy, religion, and law. Lao-tzu, for instance, phrased the matter as follows:
Man at his best, like water,
Serves as he goes along:
Like water he seeks his own level,
The common level of life,
Loves living close to the earth,
Living clear down in his heart,
Loves kinship with his neighbors,
The pick of words that tell the truth,
... The fair profit of able dealing,
The right timing of useful deeds,
And for blocking no one's way
No one blames him.[5][3] [Emphasis added.]
It is possible that more court cases revolve around whether someone is telling the truth than everything else put together. The remainder of the Maxims pertains largely to practical application—how and when to speak one's truth and appropriate remedies and recourses available in the event of someone does not tell the truth.
4) Truth is expressed by means of an affidavit (Lev. 5:4-5; Lev. 6:3-5; Lev 19:11-13; Num. 30:2; Matt. 5:33; James 5:12).
As stated above, man's truth is subjective. Each individual perceives existence from the "inside out" as it were, experiencing whatever he does through his unique nature and machinery of consciousness, from his own particular perspective in time and space. Truth, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
If someone expresses his subjective truth and others verify the same truth in their own subjective terms, the truth is labeled as an "objective fact," i.e. the abstract map is perceived by others as accurately representing the territory. That which is uttered conceptually may be dependably acted upon concretely and the results are realized as they are symbolically represented.
Inasmuch as everyone has free will and is the non-reducible unit of experience, choice, responsibility, and self-government, only each particular being can speak his/her own truth and has the right and obligation to do so. No one is obligated, or qualified, to express the truth of another, as per the famous line in Tennyson’s book, The Courtship of Miles Standish: “Why don’t you speak for yourself, John.”
Law requires a universally accepted means whereby someone may assert his subjective truth in a manner that all understand is intended as being uttered without equivocation, concealment, deception, or insincerity. An "affidavit," especially an affidavit "sworn true, correct, and complete," has evolved over time as the accepted process by which someone expresses his truth in the most solemn, absolute, ceremonial means possible, past which nothing exists. An affidavit, as a solemn and sworn statement of truth, automatically renders the affiant subject to charges of perjury if anything concerning which he swears in his affidavit is false.
Black's Law Dictionary, 5th edition, defines "Affidavit" and "Oath" as follows:
"Affidavit. A written or printed declaration or statement of facts, made voluntarily, and confirmed by the oath or affirmation of the party making it, taken before a person having authority to administer such oath or affirmation." pp. 28-29.
"Oath. Any form of attestation by which a person signifies that he is bound in conscience to perform an act faithfully and truly.... An affirmation of truth of a statement, which renders one willfully asserting untrue statements punishable for perjury. An outward pledge by the person taking it that his attestation or promise is made under an immediate sense of responsibility to God. A solemn appeal to the Supreme Being in attestation of the truth of some statement. An external pledge or asseveration, made in verification of statements made, or to be made, coupled with an appeal to a sacred or venerated object, in evidence of the serious and reverent state of mind of the party, or with an invocation to a supreme being to witness the words of the party, and to visit him with punishment if they be false...." p. 555.
So that a document can be regarded as an “affidavit” it must contain the characteristics and properties itemized below. I.e., an affidavit:
1. States facts (truth) on the basis of firsthand, personal knowledge, not conjecture, theory, or hearsay. The facts stated must express direct knowledge of the affiant (not “information and belief,” which is hearsay).
2. Cannot be argumentative.
3. Must not draw conclusions of law.
4. Can be executed and served at any time without notice to the adverse party. Because an affidavit is not subject to cross-examination, it is an ex parte proceeding.
5. Must be certified (witnessed) by someone authorized to take oaths, usually a notary public.[6][4] If it is not sworn before someone authorized to administer oaths it will not be considered as being an affidavit.
6. Constitutes one of three kinds of testimony, the other two being deposition and direct oral examination, and stands as uncontroverted evidence if not timely rebutted point-for-point by proper counteraffidavit executed by the adverse party.
7. Must be executed by being sworn true, correct, and complete, i.e. under oath, defining the degree and nature of the commercial liability being staked by the affiant for the veracity, accuracy, relevance, and verifiability of everything stated in the affidavit.
8. Can be invalidated or nullified only by being rebutted point-for-point by counteraffidavit sworn true, correct, and complete.
9. Stands as the truth concerning each point that is not rebutted by counteraffidavit as above; the entire affidavit stands as the truth if not answered at all (see Maxim Five).
10. Stands in full as the judgment (application) of the law if completely unrebutted by counteraffidavit as above; invokes execution of the law concerning the points in the affidavit that are not expressly rebutted by the counteraffiant (see Maxim Six).
Without a “competent witness,” i.e. personal testimony, no court has any power to act. Judgments may be made solely on evidence, but all evidence requires competent witnesses for attesting to its validity, i.e. for the purpose of verifying the evidence submitted. Without a competent witness, a judgment is void.
In court, an adverse party has the right of cross-examination. When testimony is issued via affidavit, the adverse party has the right (and obligation, if he/she desires not to have the affiant’s affidavit stand as the truth and judgment of the law) to respond to the affidavit point-for-point via counteraffidavit sworn true, correct, and complete.
Regardless of the form in which testimony is introduced into a proceeding or dispute, once a “competent witness” has submitted testimony, by affidavit or otherwise, the adverse party must:
1. Disprove stated facts or prove alternative facts;
2. Prove application of law to stated or alternative facts.
In the event that the adverse party fails to comply with the above two (2) essentials, the “testimony” of the “competent witness” becomes established as uncontroverted evidence.
For the most part (almost always), no attorney can be a “competent witnesses” because (1) he does not have firsthand knowledge of facts, and (2) he does not submit whatever he says under oath, i.e. via affidavit sworn true, correct, and complete. Attorneys act under authority of the corporate, limited-liability “system,” not in their own right as unlimited-liability beings. Furthermore, they relate second-hand information, i.e. what is told them by others. Legally, therefore, what attorneys state is hearsay. Their utterances are not the result of what they experience directly and concerning which they can attest on the basis of direct, firsthand, personal knowledge.[7][5]
In addition to the above, an affidavit must, or to the greatest extents possible should:
1. Be a seven-point instrument, i.e. include all of the seven (7) points that are essential for any legal/commercial document to be 100% complete and valid, and therefore invincible.
2. Have all paragraphs numbered, for the purpose of, inter alia, identifying particular points/passages for future reference.
3. Have a form number on the bottom, unique to each affidavit, constituting a basis of unambiguous future reference and enhancing its admissibility as evidence in court.
4. Be written in clean, clear, matter-of-fact, minimalist style: “just the facts, ma’am.”
5. Be written in the present tense.
6. Avoid using pronouns and the words, “to” and “or,” which are ambiguous. The less ambiguity, the less need/excuse exists for a third party, such as a judge, to intervene in the matter to “interpret” the text.
7. Use as few adjectives and adverbs as possible, since they color matters and try to tell people what to think. Often the more nakedly words and terms are expressed, the more definitive and ironclad the result.
8. Be signed in red ink, signifying blood. Signing in red ink demonstrates that you, as the affiant, are pledging your unlimited liability (“the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”) on the veracity, relevance, accuracy, and verifiability of everything that you assert. It proclaims that you are stating your truth in the capacity of being a living, biological being and not as a corporate fiction functioning in limited liability (a commercial, lawful, and existential fraud because it arbitrarily limits the alleged liability of a legal person by fiat and force).
9. Be notarized, with the notary constituting third party witness (one of the essential seven (7) points referenced above).
10. Have as much “commercial paperwork,” i.e. exhibits and attachments, supporting the affiant’s assertions, as possible. Obviously, the more incontrovertible the substantiation the better.
5) An unrebutted affidavit stands as the truth in commerce. (1 Pet. 1:25; Heb. 6:13-15. Legal maxim: “He who does not deny, admits.”).
In court, when oral testimony is given, the adverse party must disprove the facts that have been stated under oath, or prove alternative facts, and likewise prove the application of law re the stated facts. When testimony is provided by all adverse parties, i.e. by all disputants, under affidavit sworn true, correct, and complete, then what is actually occurring is a duel of commercial affidavits.
A properly executed affidavit sworn true, correct, and complete is one of the essential ingredients that must be included within a 7-point instrument so that the resulting document can be invincible. One must always keep in mind the following essentials of the commercial process:
1. All commercial documents must be executed by affidavit sworn true, correct, and complete, although for the sake of streamlining commercial paperwork this process is rendered implied and not express. The force and effect remain the same, since those who execute commercial paperwork can be held liable for the accuracy, validity, and verifiability of what is stated in the document.
2. Every document one sends and receives in law and commerce is a paper soldier, i.e. a dueling combatant in the judicial arena that is an abstract and verbal substitute for a real dueling field. Soldiers do battle for the purpose of winning vis-à-vis an opposing side. Law involves a winner and a loser; commerce involves someone paying and someone being paid. In both cases, the lives, rights, and property of people are involved in the interaction, signifying that anything that anyone executes that can adversely affect somebody else must be asserted with liability and accountability. Otherwise, anyone can make any allegations, claims, and charges against anyone for anything and no penalties accrue for any specious action.
3. If one’s paper soldiers would be invincible combatants and not paper tigers, they must be seven-point instruments, all of which must be present in order that the result be sound and devoid of weaknesses. One of these essential seven (7) points is the necessity for being executed via affidavit sworn true, correct, and complete, with the signer’s commercial liability staked on the validity, veracity, relevance, and verifiability of everything that the signer claims/charges/alleges that might result in someone else experiencing loss.
4. As mentioned above, neither attorneys nor government agents—unless speaking for themselves with firsthand, personal knowledge—can ever execute a document by affidavit sworn true, correct, and complete. This is because such persons deal in hearsay and as agents of other people and the system, not for/as themselves. This is a fundamental weakness/defect in all of their paperwork, which those who are not encumbered by acting as agents of the public are not inflicted. Nothing prevents a private party, if he is speaking for and as himself, from executing all his paperwork by affidavit sworn true, correct, and complete, and thereby by such means alone overcoming the paper soldiers of those whose paperwork is defective by virtue of the omission.
5. All attorneys and agents of the government executed paperwork by declaring “true and correct under penalty of perjury.” “True and correct” is not “true, correct, and complete.” In fact, declaring “true and correct” is perjury by omission, granting the alleging party carte blanche for asserting off-point irrelevancies. Indeed, all attorneys, the whole system, and everything that passes for “law” today functions by this means. The game is alleging any old thing, no matter how untrue, absurd, and bizarre, and then tricking the receiver of the nonsense into denying, i.e. traversing, and thereby enjoining the argument on the alleging party’s ground and departing from the affected party’s ground of truth.
In commerce, when someone executes an affidavit sworn true, correct, and complete that affects someone else, the affected party must rebut point-for-point by counteraffidavit sworn true, correct, and complete. Whatever points are unrebutted stand as the truth. When this occurs in a court trial, there might be, for instance, ten (10) counts leveled against the defendant. If the defendant successfully rebuts, i.e. neutralizes, seven (7) of the counts, it is the three (3) that remain that stand as the truth. From this scenario the following Commercial Maxim logically follows.
6) An unrebutted affidavit becomes the judgment in Commerce (Heb. 6:16-17).
This point is now rendered self-evident. At the end of the duel, when the truth has been decided on the basis of the loser having not rebutted particular accusations, claims, charges, and the like, what stands as the truth is that concerning which the judgment of the law is applied. The defendant must then pay the appropriate price for whatever wrongs/debts are determined as valid by his having not successfully rebutted them.
7) A matter must be expressed to be resolved (Heb. 4:16; Phil. 4:6; Eph. 6:19-21. Legal maxim: “He who fails to assert his rights has none.”).
This Maxim and the following one are corollaries. By means of utilizing them one may accomplish virtually anything in the world of law and commerce, certainly in the way of self-defense. Such success is achieved by knowing the principles/rules and applying them in practice.
One must first of all never forget that all law is contract. Furthermore, contracts are very often (in fact probably more often than not) ratified by saying and doing nothing, i.e. default, than by any express words and action. If you speak your mind contractually in the proper manner, a contract between you and any party coming after you can be finalized in which the tables have been turned and what began with you on the defensive and your opponent as the aggressor is reversed 180o and you are the commercial and financial victor, with your opponent rendered impotent in law and obligated contractually/commercially for paying you the sums of money established in the terms and conditions of the finalized contract. This is accomplished by the means outlined under the following Maxim.
8) He who leaves the field of battle first loses by default (Book of Job; Matt. 10:22. Legal maxim: “He who does not repel a wrong when he can, occasions it.”).
As example of the nature and power of the Commercial Maxims, we can make an analogy of a court trial and a tennis match. Both occur in a context called a “court”—a tennis court and a court of law. In a trial, if one stands mute and does not answer/rebut the charges of which he is accused, then all charges leveled against him stand as the truth. Silence is deemed as acquiescence/consent. This course of action is akin to standing on a tennis court and not hitting any of your opponent’s balls back.
If, however, you are in court and become involved in the trial, i.e. a duel involving answering, denying, rebutting, and explaining, you are traversing, which is in tennis the equivalent of endeavoring to return all of your opponent’s volleys in a manner that he cannot then return the ball to you. Certainly the possibility exists that one can win such a match, but never without exertion and the loss of many points.
A third strategy exists, which would be disallowed in tennis but can be invoked when dealing with the system. That strategy would consist, in tennis, of placing a