The New Paradigm
vol. III, Number 13

Dear Friends,

The consensus seems to be, Let The New Paradigm continue! A number of you responded [to vol. III #12] with very welcome positive comments about tnp, and expressed the wish that it continue. Thank you all very much for your support and encouragement. I have added comments received to the Kudos page, which has over the months and years grown to rather spectacular proportions. I'm a bit overwhelmed when I browse through it. Again, thank you all for your warm support and confirmation. You have no idea how valuable that has been to me throughout the life of The New Paradigm.

Now, in an effort to make up for lost time, I have another offering for you: a project I have wanted to undertake for some time, partly to draw your attention back to something you may have overlooked, and partly to set an example in the Critiques section of the Free Digital Library. The idea in the latter case is that articles or, as we say, Works, submitted to the FDL Community Archive, should be subject to criticism or praise by others who either like them or don't, and that such critiques should also take their place within the corpus of the Library. That is my intent for what follows.

For e-mail subscription clients, I am making some changes in this edition of The New Paradigm. Normally (i.e. in the past) the e-mail edition has been distributed as a plain text document, because not all e-mail clients are equipped to parse Rich Text Format (RTF) or HTML documents, and my wish is that tnp be accessible alike to everyone. However, what follows includes a number of quotes with somewhat exacting typographic properties, mainly involving various styles of emphasis which will not translate properly if restricted to the *asterisk-bracketed* emphasis style I have been using in the plain text editions of the past. Therefore, I am distributing this edition of The New Paradigm in RTF rather than plain text, and hope those of you who are unable to parse RTF will be able to make out the document nevertheless. If not, you may read the HTML version on the Web at The New Paradigm. This will be an experiment. Please let me know, anyone, if any of you have any difficulties with the RTF file. If not, I may make RTF the standard tnp [e-mail edition] format.

Additionally, there is a Post Script to the HTML edition which I am not including in the e-mail edition, for the reason that to include it I feel will make the e-mail edition too bulky. E-mail subscribers may find the entire HTML edition at the link in the preceding paragraph, or jump to the Post Script here. And now... onward!

"A Memorandum of Law on the Name," at the time attributed to Lightbringer, made its first appearance in The New Paradigm (vol. III) #9, 10, and 11, August 19, 2000.

Thursday, July 03, 2003 11:39, I received notice from Michael Edward, who has written under the pen name of Anthony Wayne since 1990, that "A Memorandum of Law on the Name" had been plagiarized from a work he had authored, which made its appearaance in late 1999 on the Christian Common Law Institute website at Lawgiver.Org (no longer on the internet), under the title, "It's all in the NAME"; and that his (Michael Edward's) original work is still available as a free .PDF download at http://ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?ARCHIVE=&TOPIC_ID=28.

Michael Edward also made the claim that other unnamed works published in the "Lightbringer on Law" section of the Freedom Digital Library were plagiarized from his work. Lightbringer's response to these allegations is reproduced elsewhere in the Freedom Digital Library.

The bottom line is that Lightbringer does not contest Michael Edward's claim to original authorship of the work, "It's all in the NAME," and acknowledges that he (Lightbringer) is not its author. Lightbringer also claims unequivocally that "the remaining of the articles in discussion [i.e. the works attributed to Lightbringer in the 'Lightbringer on Law' section of the Freedom Digital Library] are mine from inception to finality, in toto."

Michael Edward has demanded that the subject of what follows, the work "A Memorandum of Law on the Name," be removed from this site, and that quotes from it reproduced in this work, "Critique of 'A Memorandum of Law'," be attributed instead to "It's all in the NAME" by Michael Edward. So be it. Be advised herewith that all references hereinafter to the eroneously titled work "A Memorandum of Law on the Name" refer instead to "It's all in the NAME" by Michael Edward, edited and revised by Lightbringer.

The preceding prefatory remarks concluded, my original essay, "Critique of 'A Memorandum of Law'," (which I suppose should be conceptually retitled, "Critique of 'It's all in the NAME'") follows in its original form, dated 13 November 2000. The reader may be relied upon to make the mental substitution of "It's all in the NAME" for "A Memorandum of Law on the Name;" and "Michael Edward" for "Lightbringer," in all instances where these terms are encountered in what follows.

...and has so far drawn no commentary or feedback. The blunt truth may be that it has failed to grip - not an entirely surprising circumstance for a document of such length, with a dry, unamusing title like "A Memorandum of Law." Although not necessarily the stuff of "gripping adventure," "A Memorandum of Law on the Name" is a document of considerable legal impact and significance, and unless explicitly rebutted, point-for-point, stands as truth in commercial law. If so, the truth it sets forth carries with it some far-reaching implications indeed, for individuals such as you and me. Actually, what follows is more a rough-and-ready synopsis than a critique. You'll have to evaluate it for yourself; I hope this helps.

The "Memorandum" starts out, without preamble, with a survey of grammatical references pertaining to the question of why persons named in legal documents invariably appear in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, instead of, as we were all taught in school is the correct form, as capitalized proper nouns. That is, a person named John P. Jones will find his name on, say, his Driver License represented as JOHN P. JONES. Why?

"Why not?" the incurious may be inclined to ask, and dismiss the question from their minds. In the "real world," perhaps, names are not as important as the essence of that which is named. "Call me whatever you like, except 'Late for Lunch'" is a casual way of expressing the significance of names in at least some circumstances. Not so in the domain of law, however, in which names, and the precise meanings of words, are of crucial importance at all times. There is even a maxim of law about this:

Ad recte docendum oportet, primum inquirere nomina, quia rerum cognitio a nominibus rerum dependet. In order rightly to comprehend a thing, inquire first into the names, for a right knowledge of things depends upon their names.
[Quoted in "A Memorandum of Law on the Name" by Lightbringer.]

Why should this be so? Because: law is a contract among natural persons, in which is spelled out in exacting detail the terms under which potentially lethal force shall legitimately be brought to bear within civil society. A natural person is "A human being, as distinguished from an artificial person created by law." [Black's Law Dictionary] A natural person, in other words, is created by "God;" an artificial person may be created by one or more natural persons, or even by another artificial person. This is important!

Law is precise. Every letter, capitalization, punctuation mark, etc., in a legal document is utilized for a specific reason and has legal (i.e. deadly force) consequences. If, for instance, one attempts to file articles of incorporation in the office of a Secretary of State, if the exact title of the corporation – down to every jot and tittle – is not exactly the same each and every time the corporation is referenced in the documents to be filed, the Secretary of State will refuse the filing. This is because each time the name of the corporation is referenced it must be set forth identically in order to express the same legal entity. The tiniest difference in the name of the corporation identifies an entirely different legal person.
[Lightbringer, op. cit.]

Therefore: the natural person named John P. Jones is neither legally nor lawfully the same entity as the artificial person named JOHN P. JONES. Think about that for a moment. And while you're at it, consider this: Why should there be an artificial person with a different but similar name to that of the natural person to whom it is presumptively linked? A presumption is held to be true in the absence of evidence or rebuttal demonstrating it to be false. Anyone may presume anything - so long as the presumption is not challenged. So again, why should there be two persons, one natural and one artificial, where "common sense" suggests the need for only one: the natural person John P. Jones?

Ah.... Here we descend into some of the darker labyrinths of law, and it might be well for us to arm ourselves beforehand with a clear distinction between the terms legal and lawful. Lightbringer writes:

The generic Constitution references genuine law, e.g. no law "impairing the obligation of contracts," Article I, Section 10, Clause 1. The present civil authorities and their courts use the word "legal." Is there a difference in the meanings? The following is quoted from A Dictionary of Law, 1893:

"Lawful. In accordance with the law of the land; according to the law; permitted, sanctioned, or justified by law. "Lawful" properly implies a thing conformable to or enjoined by law; "Legal", a thing in the form or after the manner of law or binding by law. A writ or warrant issuing from any court, under color of law, is a "legal" process however defective. See legal."
[Bold emphasis added]

"Legal. Latin legalis. Pertaining to the understanding, the exposition, the administration, the science and the practice of law: as, the legal profession, legal advice; legal blanks, newspaper. Implied or imputed in law. Opposed to actual. "Legal" looks more to the letter [form / appearance], and "Lawful" to the spirit [substance / content], of the law. "Legal" is more appropriate for conformity to positive rules of law; "Lawful" for accord with ethical principle. "Legal" imports rather that the forms [appearances] of law are observed, that the proceeding is correct in method, that rules prescribed have been obeyed; "Lawful" that the right is actful in substance, that moral quality is secured. "Legal" is the antithesis of equitable, and the equivalent of constructive. 2 Abbott's Law Dic. 24."
[Bold emphasis added]

Legal matters administrate, conform to, and follow rules. They are equitable in nature and are implied (presumed) rather than actual (express). A legal process can be defective in law. This accords with the previous discussions of legal fictions and color of law. To be legal, a matter does not follow the law. Instead, it conforms to and follows the rules or form of law. This may help you to understand why the Federal and State Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure are cited in every court petition so as to conform to legal requirements of the specific juristic persons named, e.g., "STATE OF GEORGIA" or "U.S. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT," that rule the courts.

Lawful matters are ethically enjoined in the law of the land – the law of the people – and are actual in nature, not implied. This is why whatever true law was upheld by the generic Constitution has no bearing or authority in the present day legal courts. It is impossible for anyone in "authority" today to access, or even take cognizance of, true law since "authority" is the "law of necessity," 12 USC 95.

Therefore, it would appear that the meaning of the word "legal" is "color of law," a term which Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition (page 241) defines as:

"Color of law. The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under 'color of law.'"

[Ibid. All emphasis in original.]

Heads up, now, Folks; this bears upon your daily life in the "real world," and on mine. A law may be legal, yet not lawful. It may be the color of law, yet in fact be a criminal "[m]isuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state...." Does anyone you know, or have ever heard of, fit that description?

Lightbringer's "Memorandum" brings the following historical fact to our attention: on 27 March 1861 the delegations of seven southern States walked out of the Second Session of the 36th Congress, with the consequence that there was no longer a quorum as Constitutionally required in order for Congress to act, i.e. to vote. Accordingly, writes Lightbringer, "Congress was adjourned sine die, or 'without day'. This meant that there was no lawful quorum to set a specific day and time to reconvene which, according to Robert's Rules of Order, dissolved Congress. This dissolution automatically took place because there were no provisions within the Constitution allowing the passage of any Congressional vote without a quorum of the States."

Congress was reconvened, however, in April 1861, by President Abraham Lincoln's Executive Order #2. Lincoln was acting in the capacity of Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, and he convened Congress under the authority of Martial Law, not under Constitutional due process. From that day to this, according to Lightbringer, there has not sat a lawful Congress, or a lawful President of the United States. Lightbringer goes into details; I get to skip over them and just hit the high points. One point he stresses at some length is that Martial Law is the "law of necessity," which is in fact no law at all.

Every President of the United States since Lincoln has functioned by Executive Orders issued from a military, martial law jurisdiction with the only "law" being the "law of necessity," i.e. the War Powers. The War Powers are nothing new. Indeed, they have been operational from the instant the first man thought he would "hide from God," try to cheat ethical and natural law by overreaching, invade the space and territory of others, covet other people's land or property, steal the fruits of their labors, and attempt to succeed in life by win / lose games. All existing "authority" in the United States today derives exclusively from the War Powers.
[Ibid.]

Which is to say, is it not? that the de facto "law of the land," and the "authority" of "government" in America, is precisely, neither more nor less nor other than what Mao Zedong wrote not so many years ago in his Little Red Book: "Political power comes out of the barrel of a gun." This is not a recent development; it has been in uninterrupted effect (in America, not China) since April 1861, according to Lightbringer's "Memorandum of Law." Think about that next time you have occasion to "Pledge Allegiance to the Flag," or stand with hand over heart for the "Star Spangled Banner." Eh? Is this really true? Well, is it? Isn't it? I'm certainly not in any position to offer a rebuttal. Are you?

Now, back to our original question, Why should there be two persons, e.g. the natural John P. Jones, and the artificial JOHN P. JONES? The crux of the issue is that the UNITED STATES (another all-caps artificial person) is bankrupt and, so to speak, "owes its soul to the Company Store." This was formalized in House Joint Resolution (HJR) 192, June 5, 1933, 73rd Congress, First Session, Public Law 73-10, which suspended the Gold Standard, and states in part:

"...every provision contained in or made with respect to any obligation which purports to give the obligee a right to require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency, or in an amount in money of the United States measured thereby, is declared to be against public policy."
[Quoted by Lightbringer, op. cit.]

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, again by Executive Order 5 April 1933, siezed all privately and publicly held bullion and gold coins in America, which were handed over to the "Company Store," the privately held Federal Reserve, under terms of bankruptcy. Since then the UNITED STATES has had no gold with which to back its currency, and its only available asset for collateralizing the endlessly mounting "loans" it must secure to remain "afloat" are literally the "blood, sweat, and toil" of its "citizens."

In "the Amendatory Act of March 9, 1933 (The Banking Relief Act)," writes Lightbringer, "...every citizen of the United States was made an enemy of the Government, i.e. the Federal Reserve/IMF, et al, Creditors in bankruptcy who have conquered the country by their great paper-money banking swindle." He adds here a footnote: "The Federal Reserve Bank, i.e. the "Central Bank," places Government IOUs, i.e. Treasury Notes, on deposit in the Federal Reserve bank, credits the Government account for the amount of the IOU, charges interest to the Government (paid by taxpayers), and the Government has checkbook money to spend. The cost to the bank for these bookkeeping entries is nothing."

The way these fraudulent "loans" are collateralized is a masterpiece of deception, duplicity, and theft.

Since the early 1960's, State governments – themselves specially created, juristic, corporate persons signified by all-caps names – have issued birth certificates to "persons" with all caps names. This is not a lawful record of your physical birth, but rather the birth of the juristic, all-caps name. It may appear to be your true name, but since no proper name is ever written in all caps (either lawfully or grammatically) it does not identify who you are. The birth certificate is the government's self-created document of title for its new "property," i.e. the deed to the juristic-name artificial person whose all-caps name "mirrors" your true name. The birth certificate brings the new all-capital-letters vessel into colorable admiralty / maritime law, the same way a ship is berthed.
[Ibid.]

Parenthetically, I was born before the early 1960s, and my birth certificate represents my name correctly in upper and lower case letters; so I'm not sure exactly where I fit into this scheme. This is a circumstance Lightbringer fails to address. However, certainly every other legal document I "own," and the birth certificates of each of my children, is in the name of an all-caps artificial person, not in my name, or theirs.

Anyway, and again leaving out considerable detail, these birth certificates function as title deeds to the artificial person named, all "his" or "her" "property," and life-long productivity, which are assumed as indebtedness to the Creditors in bankruptcy of the UNITED STATES. This is what, according to Lightbringer, the Fed accepts as collateral on the phony "loans" it extends to the artificial person UNITED STATES. It "works," so long as the "citizens" do not catch on to the fraudulence of the assumption that the all-caps artificial person named on the document(s) is the same as the natural person who gets stuck with "paying the bill," i.e. "taxes." They are not the same. The natural person doesen't owe anything to anyone - least of all to the artificial person UNITED STATES - beyond his or her lawfully contracted debts, which absolutely does not include any so-called "taxes." Ah, that is, unless the natural person acquiesces in the assumption of identity with the artificial person, and consequently, by default, assumes the artificial person's "debts" - which total essentially whatever the Creditors can wring out of "him" or "her," "cradle to grave."

The significance of the all-caps NAME of the artificial person is that, being a creation of the artificial person STATE, "he" or "she" falls legitimately under the STATE's jurisdiction. However, no natural person is within any such artificial jurisdiction. And since all the STATES have, like the UNITED STATES, taken on artificial juristic names, as have the COURTS; and since all so-called "governments," whether FEDERAL, STATE, or COUNTY, function ultimately under color of law, not lawfully, therefore no natural person is legitimately bound by any of their so-called "laws." Lightbringer concludes:

A result of the federal bankruptcy was the creation of the "UNITED STATES," which was made a part of the legal reorganization. The name of each STATE was also converted to its respective, all-caps legal person, e.g. STATE OF DELAWARE. These new legal persons were then used to create more legal persons, such as corporations, with all-capital letters names, as well. Once this was accomplished, the con really began to pick up speed.

All areas of government and all alleged "courts of law," are de facto, "color of law and right" institutions. The "CIRCUIT COURT OF WAYNE COUNTY" and the "U.S. DISTRICT COURT" can recognize and deal only with other legal persons. This is why your lawful name is never entered in their records. The all-caps legal person is used instead. Jurisdiction in such sham courts covers only other artificial persons. The proper jurisdiction for a lawful being is a Constitutionally sanctioned, common-law-venue court. Unfortunately, such jurisdiction was "shelved" in 1938 and is no longer available. The only courts today are statutory commercial tribunals collecting tribute (plunder) from [sic; I assume he means "for"] the alleged Creditors who think they have conquered the country on their way to ruling the world.

We have all been duped and the billboard is right before our own eyes. The use of all caps to write a proper name is absolutely no mistake, and we should not fall for the con and permit ourselves to rush mindlessly over the cliff into oblivion like lemmings to the sea by falling for a grand malevolent deception.
[Ibid.]

Unfortunately, Lightbringer doesn't go into any detail about what to do about any of this. But then, given the length of his thesis, perhaps it is enough to chew on until he graces us with an additional offering. Taken all together, I must say Lightbringer's "A Memorandum of Law on the Name" is a masterful work of legal research and penetrating analysis. You'll have to check all this out for yourself, of course; that's just my take on it.

"Critique of 'A Memorandum of Law'"
copyright 2000 by J. Harmon Grahn.
Verbatim copying and redistribution are permitted
in any medium provided this notice is preserved.

Now after all that, I can imagine some consternation in some circles. "No laws?" I can hear some exclaim, "What do you mean, 'No laws'? We've got to have laws!" Really? Well, there haven't been any in America since 1861, unless someone can prove otherwise. How have you managed? Do you mean to say you prefer color of law to true law?

Come to that, what is true law anyway? What is the foundational basis for anyone, or any group, or mob, or constituency, to impose their will upon anyone else, in the form of, "Do as we say, or we'll kill you!"? "Democracy?" "Majority rule?" What if the "majority" happen to be a congregation of cannibals, who all agree it would be a "good idea" to invite a certain one among them for dinner - and that certain one would prefer to decline the invitation? "Sorry, friend," they say, "you've got to come to dinner with us. We live in a Democracy, you know."

The bottom line, as I see it, is that no natural person, no matter how grand, or exalted, or group of natural persons, no matter how large, or powerful, is the Creator of any other natural person. All natural persons are here by the agency of That Which Creates "All That Is." This shared and common Source gives no one, singly, or in any number, priority over anyone else. A group of natural persons can create an organization, or a corporation, and give it a name, and treat it like a person, i.e. an artificial person - as in fact is routinely done in human society. However, it is clear that no artificial person, of any description, of any size, of any strength, can possibly have lawful priority over any natural person, whatsoever. True, the strong can destroy the weak; the large can smash the small; the numerous can oppress the few; and with craft and guile, and somnambulant acquiescense, vice-versa; the armed can murder the defenseless. However, there is no way any of these cases can masquerade as law. In this context, it may be fairly stated that, not only has there been no law in America since 1861, there has been no law prior to 1861 either, in America, or anywhere else, within historical human memory on planet Earth.

So, the human condition, sometimes called the human predicament, is at bottom so simple, and so obvious: either the constituents of human society are characterized by mutual love and respect, or they are not. If they are not, no law is possible; if they are, no law is necessary. That is all.

Love & Light,
Harmon

P.S.: For readers of the HTML version of this document.

The consciousness of humanity is rising; the "old paradigm" is shifting into the "new," and the artificial systems of deceit, murder, and theft are in the process of dissolving by their own self-destruction. This process of decay and renewal is progressing rapidly now, and accelerating. For awhile, many people may find themselves in chaotic situations, filled with drama and uncertainty. If such circumstances should overtake you, my wish for you is that you remain calm, unruffled, and poised in the certainty that there is nothing to fear. It may be that the familiar forms of social structure will collapse, and/or transform in unpredictable ways. For some time, until people learn to love and trust one another with greater assurance, some may feel the need to identify themselves to one another, and to document their identity in some way, as "traditional" documentation may cease to have meaning. If so, perhaps the following "Affidavit of Identity," in some form or variation, may be useful - if for no other purpose than to identify oneself to one's Self. What follows may be copied, stored, shared, in whole or in part, modified in any way, for any purpose, freely, without attribution, and without restriction of any kind, provided the notice to that effect at the bottom of the Affidavit is included.

I, the natural person "John P. (Paul) Jones" do hereby declare the following statements to be true, correct, and complete, to the best of My knowledge and belief.

1. As attested by the fact of My own Existence, I declare that I share the Willfully Created Purpose and Presence of "All That Is." I make no claim for My Self which is not likewise at least potentially applicable to every other Created Existing Being or Entity in Cosmos, or within the domain of "All That Is;" nor do I acknowledge either the "superiority" of any similarly Created Existing Being, or Entity, "above" or "over" My Self, or My "superiority" "above" or "over" any similarly Created Existing Being, or Entity, within the domain of "All That Is." I AM a Peer with every Created Existing Entity in Cosmos, and every Created Existing Entity is a Peer with Me, simply by virtue of the mutually shared Cosmic fact that We Exist.

2. All My relationships with identifiably other Existing Entities in Cosmos are factual, or alleged, or presumed contracts between or among Peers, and are characterized by one, or the other, but not both, of two possible conditions. All such contracts or agreements are either

   1. by mutual understanding, consent, and agreement, or

   2. they involve nondisclosure of terms of contract, deception, fraud, coercion, or the overtly or covertly imposed will of one Existing Entity upon another.

   Relationships of the first kind, i.e. entered into and maintained by mutual understanding, consent, and agreement, I regard as "legitimate relationships," or "binding contracts," and I bind My Self by the terms of mutual agreement, or contract, in all such relationships. Relationships of the second kind, i.e. formed through the operation of coercion, deception, misrepresentation, fraud, nondisclosure, misunderstanding, or anything other than fully disclosed, mutually understood, willful agreement, I regard as "illegitimate relationships," and I am neither bound by or to, nor do I hold any identifiably other Existing Entity as bound by or to, any such relationship. Further, I hereby declare all alleged or presumed "contracts" of the second kind described in this paragraph, between My Self and any identifiably other Existing Entity, as null, void, and without force or substance, from their inception.

3. The relationship between any "government" and any "citizen" is an agreement, formally known as a contract. If there is no agreement, there is no contract, no "applicable law." This is so because all "governments" are artificial persons and legal fictions created by and for natural persons with absolute Cosmic priority over all legally fictitious creations. Law, in particular, is an agreement / contract among natural persons about how physical, possibly lethal force, will be legitimately employed within a civil society; a matter whose importance cannot be overemphasized.

4. An agreement can exist only among parties with full and clear understanding of all terms of agreement. Fraud, nondisclosure, obfuscation, and incomprehensible complexity, singly or together, render any alleged or presumed "agreement" null and void, for they make impossible a common understanding among all parties. This is fundamental to commercial contract law, and to common sense.

5. Today, without even considering matters of official corruption, deliberate dishonesty, deception or misuse of delegated authority, government and law are so complex, convoluted, massive, voluminous, and characterized by obscure, clandestine relationships, that it is fundamentally impossible for anyone to understand the basis of agreement between any citizen and any government or government agency.

6. If there is no legitimate agreement between "government" and "citizens," effectively there is no legitimate government. The de facto, alleged "government" is in effect the instrument of an unidentified gang of usurpers in possession and control of "all the guns," "all the money," "all the lawyers," "all the courts," and at least 98% of the media of mass communication, operating with an unknown, and unknowable, agenda. If a so-called "citizen" "votes," what is the ultimate consequence of that action? If a "citizen" pays "taxes," how will that money be spent? If a "citizen" pleads his or her case before a "court of law," what assurance has he or she that "justice will prevail?" So long as there is no clear basis for agreement, these and parallel questions have no satisfactory answers.

7. The above considerations relate to an "idealized" situation in which all government agencies, and all government agents, are presumed to be honest, sincere, forthcoming, dedicated, knowledgeable, competent, and unswervingly loyal to their constituents, the citizens. These considerations spring from nothing more sinister than the gigantic size and impenetrable complexity of the tightly interwoven fabric of contemporary government bureaucracy. However, it is impossible for an impartial observer to overlook the widespread incidence of deliberate government abuse of power, deception, duplicity, corruption, fraud, coercion and miscarriage of so-called "justice," massively documented throughout the world, and throughout human history.

8. Therefore, I, "John P. Jones," AM reluctantly left with the inescapable conclusion that, effectively, there is no legitimate government anywhere, whatsoever. We live on an untamed frontier without law, without order, in which those pretending to "govern" do so, not "with the consent of the governed," but by dint of dictatorial fiat; and whatever peace, harmony and civil behavior may be found in contemporary society is attributable solely and entirely to the natural good will of most people, most of the time. It exists not because of, but in spite of the unknown entity or entities masquerading as "legitimate government."

9. Accordingly, with malice toward none, but with resolute determination to exercise My Cosmic Existence (which intrinsically owes nothing to any Existing Peer, if not by mutual agreement), unfettered and unencumbered by non-binding, nonconsensual, alleged, or presumed "contracts" between My Self and all fundamentally illegitimate so-called "governments," I do hereby rebut, repudiate, annul, deny, and declare null and void, from their inception, any alleged or presumed "contract," whether bearing My signature or not, alleged, or claimed, or presumed to exist between My Self, "John P. Jones," and any so-called "government," "government agency," "government officer," "agent," or "representative" whatsoever; on the ground of incomprehensible complexity, obfuscation, nondisclosure, constructive or deliberate fraud, deception, coercion, threat, and / or duress.

10. I further declare that all alleged contracts, legal documents, or instruments alleged, or claimed, or presumed to exist with or in relation to the artificial person represented as "JOHN PAUL JONES" or "JOHN P. JONES" or "J.P. JONES" or "JOHNNY JONES" (i.e. spelled in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS) are legally inapplicable to Me, the natural person "John P. Jones," because they refer to an entirely different fictional legal entity, fabricated for undisclosed, unknown, and therefore constructively fraudulent reasons by various agencies of so-called "government;" none of which "government agencies," being without exception themselves legal fictions, have any jurisdiction whatsoever over Me, the natural person "John P. Jones."

11. I further declare that any "government" or "quasi-government" instrument, document or convention I may use, including but not limited to, "Birth Certificate," "Passport," "Driver License," "Automobile Registration," "Insurance Policy," "Business License," "Federal Reserve Notes," "Social Security Account Number," "Bank Account," "Utility Service," "Postal Address," "Postal ('Zip') Code," "Street Address," etc. in no way either constitutes or evidences a binding, consensual "contractual agreement" between My Self and any agency of "government;" but are used against My Will, under threat of duress and / or coercion, or because no alternative to such use is to my knowledge available to Me. I do not willingly make use of any "government service," nor am I or My interests represented by any "government office" or "officer," whether elected, or appointed, or hired, and therefore I AM not obligated for any so-called "taxes" or any other so-called "civic obligations." In short, my relationship with "government" in any shape, manner, or form is either

    1. nonexistent, and explicitly not adversarial; or

    2. coerced and imposed against My Will by the actuality or threat of overwhelming force.

    I do not deny the "right" or "ability" of "government" to "govern" those who submit to, or acquiesce in, such "governance;" I only deny that I submit to it, acknowledge its legitimacy or jurisdiction, or am in any way bound by it, or owe it any part of My substance, effort, or allegiance.

12. I further declare My Cosmic rights to life, liberty, and the right to acquire and own property, estate, holdings, and wealth, on behalf of My Self, My Family, and / or My chosen Associates, by My efforts and in legitimate agreement and cooperation with identifiably other Existing Entities of My choice in Cosmos; unencumbered by the illegitimate claims of "government" on the basis of any presumed nonconsensual "contractual agreement" alleged or presumed to exist between My Self and said "government;" for I declare that no such "contractual agreement" exists or has any legitimacy or force. I further declare My Cosmic Right to defend My life, liberty, property, and / or Associates, by whatever means I may, as prompted by circumstance. I declare that the only legitimate interference in My affairs I brook, or willingly acknowledge, is in the event I responsibly, through action or inaction, interfere with, abridge, encumber, prejudice, or compromise the Cosmic rights to life, liberty, or property of a Peer, or through fraud, deliberate misrepresentation, or nonperformance, fail to honor My legitimate contracts or agreements.

13. To any and all who may take an interest in My affairs, be aware: I AM a Sovereign Cosmic Entity, and I deal with all whom I may encounter as Peers and as Sovereign Cosmic Entities. Specifically to those who regard themselves as "government agents," know that I do not regard you as such, because the so-called "government" you represent only exists by virtue of null, void, and non-binding so-called "contracts" or colorable "laws" that have no applicability whatsoever to Me. I honor and respect all Peers as Individual Existing Entities; not as more; not as less. Any dispute or claim against Me will be given full hearing in the venue of My Sovereign Presence. I recognize the legitimacy of no other jurisdiction.

14. This Declaration of Truth constitutes Notice and My Affidavit of Identity in Cosmos. Insofar as it is possible to express truth in words, the above statements are true, correct, and complete, to the best of My knowledge and belief. Until and unless this Affidavit is rebutted by counter-affidavit, point-for-point, it stands as truth in commercial law, wherein truth is sovereign. Should any single point of this Affidavit be successfully rebutted, all remaining points not similarly rebutted stand as truth in commercial law. So I affirm and declare, before the Creative Presence and Domain of "All That Is."

Signed: John P. Jones
Date: Month dd, yyyy

John P. Jones
nnnn Street, Apt. nnn
Town, State nnnnn

This Affidavit may be reproduced, without attribution,
in whole or in part, adapted, modified, by any means, for any purpose,
provided this statement is included.