Lawful Jurisdiction over man/woman derives from causing unreasonable harm to a living soul. If there is no human victim, there is no jurisdiction. The law pertains to the real world of living men and women. Lawful jurisdiction is subject to the “due process” of the Common Law whereby no crime is attributable to a man or woman unless they cause “intentional and measurable” harm to another man or woman, not reasonably caused by self defense. To prove a crime of harm there must be an “injured party” willing and able to “swear under oath” to the facts of that harm, “upon penalty of perjury” in a properly convened de jure “Court of Record” (Common Law court with a jury of one’s peers), or witness testimony equally-bound, or irrefutable evidence. In any detention/seizure/arrest, the accuser must have “probable cause” and/or a “reasonable suspicion” that the accused is committing, or is about to commit, a crime against a human victim. The accuser bears the burden of proof. Any forced detention/seizure/arrest without a human victim, by any Public Servant, is coercion, duress, treason, and a breach of their Oath and fiduciary duty as Trustee.

No legal or lawful matter can proceed without jurisdiction.

“Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven.” Hagens v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533.

“Jurisdiction, once challenged, is to be proven, not by the court, but by the party attempting to assert jurisdiction. The burden of proof of jurisdiction lies with the asserter.” See McNutt v. GMAC, 298 US 178. And Maxfield’s Lessee v. Levy, 4 US 308.

“Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action.” Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026.

“There is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction.” Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215.

“Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, even on final determination.” Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 2nd 906 at 910.

Only you can challenge jurisdiction when you do not consent.

A simple jurisdictional challenge can quickly stop any legal matter:

“As the Director and Beneficiary of my legal person/corporation/trust, I give you 21 days to respond in writing providing proof of claim with evidence as to your legal or lawful jurisdiction over me, failing which you will become liable for any damages I may suffer.”

Memorise this powerful sentence, or keep a note of it.

You can say this to legal actors face-to-face, or write it on their legal “offer” document (any legal ticket, fee, penalty, tax, summons etc.). This removes their presumption of jurisdiction and places the burden of proof on the claimant where it belongs. You may need to do this three times, adding “I do not consent to proceed until your jurisdiction is proven with evidence.” Legal actors in commerce do not have legal or lawful jurisdiction so they will be evasive. When they fail to respond you can serve a notice of default for the record. You can also charge them for any damages you suffer, although do not expect them to be honourable.


Posted by admin in Resources

Australian Consumer Law and AGS Fact Sheet 12

Well, well, well.

Where do we start?
Australian Government Solicitors Fact Sheet 12, mysteriously GONE from their website. Thanks to web archiving tools, we found it again.

Fact_sheet_No_12 (pdf)

From Fact Sheet 12:
Commonwealth government bodies are bound by the ACL as a law of the Commonwealth in the same way that they were  previously bound by the consumer protection provisions of the TPA. That is, the ACL binds the Crown in right of the Commonwealth to the extent that it is carrying on a business, either directly or by an authority of the Commonwealth, as if the Crown were a corporation: CCA, s 2A.

All of the govco are corporate entities BOUND by the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.

There is a LOT to explore in this document, but here are just a few snippets. (will add more as time permits).

Volume 4
Schedule 2 – The Australian Consumer Law
Chapter 3
Part 3‑2Consumer transactions

Division 1Consumer guarantees

Subdivision A—Guarantees relating to the supply of goods

53  Guarantee as to undisclosed securities etc.

             (1)  If:

                     (a)  a person (the supplier) supplies goods to a consumer; and

                     (b)  the supply is not a supply of limited title;

there is a guarantee that:

                     (c)  the goods are free from any security, charge or encumbrance:

                              (i)  that was not disclosed to the consumer, in writing, before the consumer agreed to the supply; or

                             (ii)  that was not created by or with the express consent of the consumer; and

                     (d)  the goods will remain free from such a security, charge or encumbrance until the time when the property in the goods passes to the consumer.

             (2)  A supplier does not fail to comply with the guarantee only because of the existence of a floating charge over the supplier’s assets unless and until the charge becomes fixed and enforceable by the person to whom the charge is given.

Note:          Section 339 of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 affects the meaning of the references in this subsection to a floating charge and a fixed charge.

Now, when the Registrar supplies the Birth Certificate (after the “Informant”/Grantor unintentionally grants the child to the State), did they disclose there was therefore a Trust created, upon which securities, bonds would be created and traded?


Chapter 3Specific protections

Part 3‑1Unfair practices

Division 1False or misleading representations etc.

29  False or misleading representations about goods or services

             (1)  A person must not, in trade or commerce, in connection with the supply or possible supply of goods or services or in connection with the promotion by any means of the supply or use of goods or services:

                     (a)  make a false or misleading representation that goods are of a particular standard, quality, value, grade, composition, style or model or have had a particular history or particular previous use; or

                     (b)  make a false or misleading representation that services are of a particular standard, quality, value or grade; or

                     (c)  make a false or misleading representation that goods are new; or

                     (d)  make a false or misleading representation that a particular person has agreed to acquire goods or services; or

                     (e)  make a false or misleading representation that purports to be a testimonial by any person relating to goods or services; or

                      (f)  make a false or misleading representation concerning:

                              (i)  a testimonial by any person; or

                             (ii)  a representation that purports to be such a testimonial;

                            relating to goods or services; or

                     (g)  make a false or misleading representation that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, performance characteristics, accessories, uses or benefits; or

                     (h)  make a false or misleading representation that the person making the representation has a sponsorship, approval or affiliation; or

                      (i)  make a false or misleading representation with respect to the price of goods or services; or

                      (j)  make a false or misleading representation concerning the availability of facilities for the repair of goods or of spare parts for goods; or

                     (k)  make a false or misleading representation concerning the place of origin of goods; or

                      (l)  make a false or misleading representation concerning the need for any goods or services; or

                    (m)  make a false or misleading representation concerning the existence, exclusion or effect of any condition, warranty, guarantee, right or remedy (including a guarantee under Division 1 of Part 3‑2); or

                     (n)  make a false or misleading representation concerning a requirement to pay for a contractual right that:

                              (i)  is wholly or partly equivalent to any condition, warranty, guarantee, right or remedy (including a guarantee under Division 1 of Part 3‑2); and

                             (ii)  a person has under a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory (other than an unwritten law).

Note 1:       A pecuniary penalty may be imposed for a contravention of this subsection.

Note 2:       For rules relating to representations as to the country of origin of goods, see Part 5‑3.

             (2)  For the purposes of applying subsection (1) in relation to a proceeding concerning a representation of a kind referred to in subsection (1)(e) or (f), the representation is taken to be misleading unless evidence is adduced to the contrary.

             (3)  To avoid doubt, subsection (2) does not:

                     (a)  have the effect that, merely because such evidence to the contrary is adduced, the representation is not misleading; or

                     (b)  have the effect of placing on any person an onus of proving that the representation is not misleading.

Now, if it was not disclosed to a man that he may travel freely without hindrance under the Commonwealth, but was led to believe, coerced into purchasing a drivers license and vehicle registration, but they are both NOT required when travelling in a private capacity.


Schedule 2, Section 40 (see listed on Fact Sheet 12)

40  Assertion of right to payment for unsolicited goods or services

             (1)  A person must not, in trade or commerce, assert a right to payment from another person for unsolicited goods unless the person has reasonable cause to believe that there is a right to the payment.

Note:          A pecuniary penalty may be imposed for a contravention of this subsection.

             (2)  A person must not, in trade or commerce, assert a right to payment from another person for unsolicited services unless the person has reasonable cause to believe that there is a right to the payment.

Note:          A pecuniary penalty may be imposed for a contravention of this subsection.

             (3)  A person must not, in trade or commerce, send to another person an invoice or other document that:

                     (a)  states the amount of a payment, or sets out the charge, for unsolicited goods or unsolicited services; and

                     (b)  does not contain a warning statement that complies with the requirements set out in the regulations;

unless the person has reasonable cause to believe that there is a right to the payment or charge.

Note:          A pecuniary penalty may be imposed for a contravention of this subsection.

             (4)  In a proceeding against a person in relation to a contravention of this section, the person bears the onus of proving that the person had reasonable cause to believe that there was a right to the payment or charge.

Now, after sending a full set of Notices, establishing via an Estoppel, the supplier (Council) has no reasonable cause to believe that there is a right to payment.


Posted by admin in Resources

The person

Western Australia Constitution Act 1889 Section 75 Interpretation
Person includes a corporation or association of persons.”

Legal Definition of legal person
: a body of persons or an entity (as a corporation) considered as having many of the rights and responsibilities of a natural person and especially the capacity to sue and be sued”

Legal Definition of natural person
: a human being as distinguished from a person (as a corporation) created by operation of law”

Posted by admin in Resources
Challenge council authority

Challenge council authority

There is a process that has been used to challenge a “local council”, that so far, appears to have been very successful.
It’s a process of sending 3 documents: Notice of Conditional Acceptance, followed by a Notice of Default and then finalised in law, with a Letter of Estoppel. A Fee Schedule should also be included.

The documents must be in the correct format, and all 3 Notices must be sent for the process to have any chance of being effective. There are NO GUARANTEES that others may have the same success. Many years of research and learning about legalities and law allowed me to get a decent grasp on what systems they have put in place, and how those systems, entities, processes get away with what they do. Basically, they get away with it because they have not been challenged using a language they acknowledge. Lex Mercatoria invokes Common Law, and when used in formally written Notices, excellent results have been achieved.

Friday 4th November 2022.
The documents are now available from the Private Members Association beta website launched at

Quo Warranto

“In old English practice. A writ, in the nature of a writ of right for the king, against him who claimed or usurped any office, franchise, or liberty; to inquire by what authority he supported his claim, in order to determine the right It lay also in case of non-user, or long neglect of a franchise, or misuser or abuse of it; being a writ commanding the defendant to show by what warrant he exercises such a franchise, having never had any grant of it or having forfeited it by neglect or abuse. 3 Bl. Comm. 262. In England, and quite generally throughout the United States, this writ has given place to an “Information in the nature of a quo warranto,” which, though in form a criminal proceeding, is in effect a civil remedy similar to the old writ, and is the method now usually employed for trying the title to a corporate or other franchise, or to a public or corporate office.”
Black’s Law Dictionary 2nd edition

In a nutshell – they must PROVE their authority back to the Crown. If they are collecting money/rates/fees/etc that are supposedly for the “Government” which is supposedly working for the Commonwealth, which is headed up by, now, King Charles III, then they MUST provide evidence they are a bona fide creditor of the Commonwealth under the Crown.

For now I will just share a copy of documents used for an “Infringement”. The exact same process with almost identical wording has been used now by several people, and all of those “Infringements” have “gone away”. HOWEVER, there is more to it than just sending the documents!

You MUST understand (“understand” [agreeing to contract] is a word I must avoid but I want to get this out quickly!), you MUST comprehend what the documents say, AND who you are, AND that any future interactions will be on your terms. You can only do that once you are confident in who you are, and you probably don’t know at this stage, that you are not who you thought you were. More on that later.

Back to the Notices to Council.
I have not yet, but will, be sending them another letter (not a Notice) and I will be offering a contribution towards services provided eg. rubbish removals and emergency services etc. The content of that letter could be included in your Estoppel, and mine would read along the lines…

However, now that all previous Contracts and Obligations have been terminated, I am willing to contribute to services provided by SHIRE OF ABC ABN 12 345 678 901 (the business), $x/yr. I shall be willing to contribute a more substantial contribution once the SHIRE OF ABC ABN 12 345 678 901 is replaced with a true Council of The People, who represents The People, is reinstated pursuant to our Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, and is a true Commonwealth entity, of and For The People.

Upon reflection, as much as we want this information shared, it MUST be understood before using it. To not have a firm grasp on every part of the documents is likely to get people into more trouble than not. For that reason we will be launching a Private Members Club, so that members will be able to share Zoom nights, ask questions, see and write documents in a small closed group, so that, hopefully, anyone using the documents will know exactly what they are doing and how to move forward.
We have 1000% confidence in the documents, we just need to make sure that anyone using them succeeds. If used correctly, they will succeed. Releasing the documents publicly will undoubtedly see people getting into strife, and that is what we do not want.


Posted by admin in Resources

Quo Warranto

From Black’s Law Dictionary 2nd edition online.

“In old English practice. A writ, in the nature of a writ of right for the king, against him who claimed or usurped any office, franchise, or liberty; to inquire by what authority he supported his claim, in order to determine the right It lay also in case of non-user, or long neglect of a franchise, or misuser or abuse of it; being a writ commanding the defendant to show by what warrant he exercises such a franchise, having never had any grant of it or having forfeited it by neglect or abuse. 3 Bl. Comm. 262. In England, and quite generally throughout the United States, this writ has given place to an “Information in the nature of a quo warranto,” which, though in form a criminal proceeding, is in effect a civil remedy similar to the old writ, and is the method now usually employed for trying the title to a corporate or other franchise, or to a public or corporate office.”


If you’d like to spread the word, share the information, please consider buying a hoody or Tshirt.

Posted by admin in Resources

Lex Mercatoria

From Black’s Law Dictionary 2nd Edition online

“A system of customs or rules relative to bills of exchange, partnership, and other mercantile matters, and which, under the name of the “lex mercatoria,” or “law-merchant,” has been ingrafted into and made a part of, the common law.”

Posted by admin in Resources

The “Strawman” – STRAMINEUS HOMO

From Stop The Pirates

Start understanding the way things really work.
Discharge Almost Any Debt with Proper Use of the UCC ?
You can discharge Secured Loans, Credit Card Debt, Student Loans, Auto Loans, Assessments, Citations, Debts, Demands, Fines, Penalties, Tax Liens and Judgments. Debt Discharge and “Accepted for Value” is based on understanding how you’ve been mislead and learning what to do about it. You just have to know How to Do It! On April 5, 1933, then President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, under Executive Order, issued April 5, 1933, declared: “All persons are required to deliver on or before May 1, 1933 all Gold Coin, Gold Bullion, and Gold Certificates now owned by them to a Federal Reserve Bank, branch or agency, or to any member bank of the Federal Reserve System.”

The order (proclamation) issued by Roosevelt was an undisciplined act of treason. Two months after the Executive Order, on June 5, 1933, the Senate and House of Representatives, 73d Congress, 1st session, at 4:30 P.M. approve House Joint Resolution 192 (HJR-192) A Joint Resolution to suspend the Gold Standard and abrogate the Gold Clause, Joint resolution to assure uniform value to the coins and currencies of the United States.

HJR-192 states, in part, that “Every provision contained in or made with respect to any obligation which purports to give the oblige a right to require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency, or in any amount of money of the United States measured thereby, is declared to be against public policy, and no such provision shall be contained in or made with respect to any obligation hereafter incurred. Every obligation, heretofore or hereafter incurred, whether or not any such provisions is contained therein or made with respect thereto, shall be discharged upon payment, dollar for dollar, in any such coin or currency which at the time of payment is legal tender for public and private debts.”

HJR-192 goes on to state: “As used in this resolution, the term ‘obligation’ means an obligation (including every obligation of and to the United States, excepting currency) payable in money of the United States; and the term ‘coin or currency’ means coin or currency of the United States, including Federal Reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve banks and national banking associations.”

HJR-192 superseded Public Law (that which passes as law today is only “color of law”), replacing it with public policy. This eliminated our ability to PAY our debts, allowing only for their DISCHARGE. When we use any commercial paper (checks, drafts, warrants, federal reserve notes, etc.), and accept it as money, we simply pass the unpaid debt attached to the paper on to others, by way of our purchases and transactions. This unpaid debt, under public policy, now carries a public liability for its collection. In other words, all debt is now public.

The United States government, in order to provide necessary goods and services, created a commercial bond (promissory note), by pledging the property, labor, life and body of its citizens, as payment for the debt (bankruptcy). This commercial bond made chattel (property) out of every man, woman and child in the United States. We became nothing more than “human resources” and collateral for the debt. The United States government -actually the elected and appointed administrators of government -took (and still do, to this day) certified copies of all our birth certificates and placed them in the United States Department of Commerce … as registered securities. These securities, each of which carries an estimated $1,000,000 (one million) dollar value, have been (and still are) circulated around the world as collateral for loans, entries on the asset side of ledgers, etc., just like any other security. There’s just one problem, we didn’t authorize it. The United States is a District of Columbia corporation. In Volume 20: Corpus Juris Section 1785 we find “The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a State”

(see: NY re: Merriam 36 N.E. 505 1441 S. 0.1973, 14 L. Ed. 287). Since a corporation is a fictitious “person” (it can not speak, see, touch, smell, etc.), it can not, by itself, function in the real world. It needs a conduit, a transmitting utility, a liaison of some sort, to “connect” the fictional person, and fictional world in which it exists, to the real world.

LIVING people exist in a real world, not a fictional, virtual world. But government does exist in a fictional world, and can only deal directly with other fictional or virtual persons, agencies, states, etc. In order for a fictional person to deal with real people there must be a connection, a liaison, and a go-between. This can be something as simple as a contract. When both “persons,” the real and the fictional, agree to the terms of a contract, there is a connection, intercourse, dealings, there is a communication, an exchange. There is business! But there is another way for fictional government to deal with the real man and woman: through the use of a representative, a liaison, and the go-between. Who is this go-between, this liaison that connects fictional government to real men and women? It’s a government created shadow, a fictional man or woman … with the same name as ours.

STRAMINEUS HOMO: Latin: A man of straw, one of no substance, put forward as bail or surety. This definition comes from Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th. Edition, page 1421. Following the definition of STRAMINEUS HOMO in Black’s we find the next word, Strawman. STRAWMAN: A front, a third party who is put up in name only to take part in a transaction. Nominal party to a transaction; one who acts as an agent for another for the purposes of taking title to real property and executing whatever documents and instruments the principal may direct. Person who purchases property for another to conceal identity of real purchaser or to accomplish some purpose otherwise not allowed. Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines the term “strawman” as: 1: a weak or imaginary opposition set up only to be easily confuted 2: a person set up to serve as a cover for a usually questionable transaction. The Strawman can be summed up as an imaginary, passive stand-in for the real participant; a front; a blind; a person regarded as a nonentity. The Strawman is a “shadow”, a go-between. For quite some time a rather large number of people in this country have known that a man or woman’s name, written in ALL CAPS, or last name first, does not identify real, living people. Taking this one step further, the rules of grammar for the English language have no provisions for the abbreviation of people’s names, i.e. initials are not to be used. As an example, John Adam Smith is correct. ANYTHING else is not correct. Not Smith, John Adam or Smith, John A. or J. Smith or J. A. Smith or JOHN ADAM SMITH or SMITH, JOHN or any other variation. NOTHING, other than John Adam Smith identifies the real, living man. All other appellations identify either a deceased man or a fictitious man: such as a corporation or a STRAWMAN.

Over the years government, through its “public” school system, has managed to pull the wool over our eyes and keep US ignorant of some very important facts. Because all facets of the media (print, radio, television) have an ever-increasing influence in our lives, and because media is controlled (with the issuance of licenses, etc.) by government and its agencies, we have slowly and systematically been led to believe that any form/appellation of our names is, in fact, still us: as long as the spelling is correct. WRONG!

Everything, Since June 1933, Operates in COMMERCE! Commerce is based on agreement, on contract. Government has an implied agreement with the STRAWMAN (government’s creation) and the STRAWMAN is subject to government rule, as we illustrated above. But when we, the real flesh and blood man and woman, step into their “process” we become the “surety” for the fictitious

STRAWMAN. Reality and fiction are reversed. We then become liable for the debts, liabilities and obligations of the STRAWMAN, relinquishing our real (protected) character as we stand up for the fictional STRAWMAN. So that we can once again place the STRAWMAN in the fictional world and ourselves in the real world (with all our “shields” in place against fictional government) we must send a nonnegotiable (private) “Charge Back” and a nonnegotiable “Bill of Exchange” to the United States Secretary of Treasury, along with a copy of our birth certificate, the evidence, the MCO, of the STRAWMAN. By doing this we discharge our portion of the public debt, releasing us, the real man or woman, from the debts, liabilities and obligations of the STRAWMAN. Those debts, liabilities and obligations exist in the fictional commercial world of “book entries”, on computers and/or in paper ledgers. It is a world of “digits” and “notes”, not of money and substance. Property of the real man once again becomes tax exempt and free from levy, as it must be in accord with HJR-192.

Sending the nonnegotiable Charge Back and Bill of Exchange accesses our Treasury Direct Account (TDA). What is our Treasury Direct Account? According to one theorist, it is a pledge that was made for each birth certificate in the amount of $630,000 (another pegs it at $1,000,000). Thus everybody and everything in the United States is simply collateral for the bonds issued by the U.S. government.

This $1,000,000 (one million) account is for the STRAWMAN, the fictional “person” with the name in all caps and/or last name first. It is there for the purpose of making book entries, to move figures, “digits” from one side of ledgers to the other. Without constant movement a shark will die and quite ironically, like the shark, there must also be constant movement in commerce, or it too will die. Figures, digits, the entries in ledgers must move from asset side to debit side and back again, or commerce dies.

The fictional person of government can only function in a fictional commercial world, one where there is no real money, only fictional funds … mere entries, figures, and digits.

A presentment from fictional government – whether traffic citation or criminal charges – is a negative, commercial “claim” against the

STRAWMAN. This “claim” takes place in the commercial, fictional world of government. “Digits” move from one side of your STRAWMAN account to the other, or to a different account. This is today’s commerce. Playing the Commerce Game In the past we have addressed these “claims” by fighting them in court, with one “legal process” or another, and failed. We have played the futile, legalistic, dog-and-pony show – a very clever distraction – while the commerce game played on. But what if we refused to play dog-and-pony, and played the commerce game instead? What if we learned how to control the flow and movement of entries, figures, and digits, for our own benefit? Is that possible? How can the real man in the real world, function in the fictional world in which the commerce game exists?

When in commerce do as commerce does, use the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The UCC-1 Financing Statement is the one contract in the world that can NOT be broken and it’s the foundation of the Accepted for Value process. The power of this document is awesome.

Since the TDA exists for the STRAWMAN -who, until now, has been controlled by government – We can gain control (and ownership) of the STRAWMAN by first activating the TDA and then filing an UCC-1 Financing Statement. This does two things for us. First, by activating the TDA we gain limited control over the funds in the account. This allows us to also move entries, figures, and digits … for our benefit. Secondly, by properly filing an UCC-1 Financing Statement we can become the holder in due course of the STRAWMAN. This gives us virtual ownership of the government created entity. Remember earlier we mentioned that a presentment from government or one of its agents or agencies was a negative commercial claim against the STRAWMAN (and the STRAWMAN’s account, the TDA)? Remember we told you entries, figures, and digits moved from one side of the account to the other, or to a different account? Well now, with the STRAWMAN under our control, government has no access to the TDA and they also lose their go-between, their liaison, their “connection” to the real, living man and woman. From now on, when presented with a “claim” (presentment) from government, we will agree with it (this removes the “controversy”) and we will ACCEPT IT FOR VALUE. By doing this we remove the negative claim against our account and become the “holder in due course” of the presentment. As holder in due course you can require the sworn testimony of the presenter of the “claim” (under penalty of perjury) and request the account be properly adjusted.

It’s a commercial undertaking, and the basic procedure is not complicated. In fact, it’s fairly simple. We just have to remember a few things, like: this is commerce, and we play by the rules of commerce. We accept the “claim”, become the holder in due course, and challenge whether or not the presenter of the claim had/has the proper authority (the Order) to make the claim (debit our account) in the first place. When they cannot produce the Order (they never can, it was never issued) we request the account be properly adjusted and the charge, the “claim” is discharged and goes away.

If they don’t adjust the account a request is made for the bookkeeping records showing where the funds in question were assigned. This is done by requesting the Fiduciary Tax Estimate and the Fiduciary Tax Return for this claim. Since the claim has been accepted for value and is prepaid, and our TDA account is exempt from levy, the request for the Fiduciary Tax Estimate and the Fiduciary Tax Return is valid because the information is necessary in determining who is delinquent and/or making claims on the account. If there is no record of the Fiduciary Tax Estimate and the Fiduciary Tax Return, we then request the individual tax estimates and individual tax returns to determine if there is any delinquency.

If we receive no favorable response to the above requests, we will then file a currency report on the amount claimed/assessed against our account and begin the commercial process that will force them to either do what’s required or lose everything they own – except for the clothing they are wearing at the time. This is the power of contracts (commerce) and it should be mentioned, at least this one time, that a contract overrides the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and any other document other than another contract. We should also mention that no process of law – “color” of law under present codes, statutes, rules, regulations, ordinances, etc. – can operate upon you, no agent and/or agency of government (including courts) can gain jurisdiction over you, WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT. You, (we) are not within their fictional commercial venue.

The Accepted for Value process, however, gives us the ability to deal with “them” -through the use of our transmitting utility/go-between, the Strawman -and hold them accountable in their own commercial world, for any action(s) they attempt to take against us. Without a proper Order, and now we know they’re not in possession of such a document, they must leave us alone … or pay the consequences. Yes, this process IS powerful — and one had better learn it well – should one choose to utilize it.

Posted by admin in Resources

Challenge a Summons

Further to the travelling across and within the Commonwealth, some travellers were subsequently arrested under “suspicion of failing to obey a direction” or similar.
If you (or rather the legal fiction/drivers licence entity) have received a threat of a Summons to appear in a Court, ie received a message to contact an agent of WAPOL, or were contacted by phone to visit a WAPOL Station, you could use the 3 Notice process to hopefully have claims withdrawn, dropped. This method is untested on a Summons, no guarantees are given or implied. It was used when a summons was “anticipated”, through text or phone from someone purporting to be a policy enforcer.

This is not legal advice, please do your own research and decide your own path if you have been the recipient of a “Summons”.

The Summons or claim is always addressed to the legal fiction, not the living man/woman, Subject of the Commonwealth.

Below is a document that can be used to challenge any claim against you, the living man/woman. This is a minimum of 3 document process, and all 3 documents must be sent by Registered Mail.

Do not attempt this process unless you understand the documents and are confident with the process, possible repercussions or implications.

First document – Notice of Conditional Acceptance + Fee Schedule
LetterDawsonSummonsPublic blank (pdf)
LetterDawsonSummonsPublicExample dummy details for reference (pdf)

All correspondence should be sent by Registered Mail. Take photos of the documents before sending. Complete pdf of the Notices to gov actors to Stand as a Subject of the Commonwealth here. It is STRONGLY recommended that these letters are sent, regardless if you have received a “Notice”/”fine”/”Summons”.

The document provided has details for the business Western Australian Police. Substitute the appropriate business details in your location by doing an ABN lookup.

Second document – Notice of Default (14-28 days after first Notice)
Was sent, no rebuttal. Apologies a public version hasn’t been made to publish, they take long enough to write, then to make another version to share is very time consuming!

Third document – Letter of Estoppel (14-28 days after Notice of Default)
Was sent. The threat of summons went away, no further action was taken, no correspondence was received at all.


The authors of documents posted to this website assume no responsibility or liability for the content of the information provided and the information is not a substitute for advice from a legal or medical expert.
For further information seek out the advice of a relevant expert.
No guarantees are given or implied.
Posted by admin in Resources

Stand as a Subject of the Commonwealth

This is not legal advice but an example of a process used.
After sending the documents below you are then standing, and you should stand when engaging with any agents of the corporatised “government”, as a Subject of the Commonwealth, a private entity, not as the ALL CAPS entity attached to the living man or woman through the Birth Certificate and Drivers License the “person”. The ALL CAPS entity is bound by Private contract law, “Statutory Regulations, Acts” etc but waives all rights under true Common Law. By standing as a Subject of the Commonwealth, you stand with all rights reserved under Common Law.

NoticeToGovActorsPublicFullSet (780kb pdf file)

View it on BitChute

When approached on the street (after you’ve sent Notices to “government” actors)
eg. When asked for your name, you should respond Josephine. Your name is Josephine.

Your “surname” is the name assigned through the Birth Certificate, a contract with the “government”. If you give “your name” as Josephine BLOGGS (Birth Certificate and drivers license “name”) you are standing as that sole corporate entity, not as the living man or living woman born from your mother.

You are Josephine, born of the family Bloggs – not “Josephine BLOGGS”, “J. BLOGGS”, but Josephine, born of the family Bloggs – AND – you are a Subject of the Commonwealth, a Private Entity (not the sole corporation entity created by the Birth Certificate which contracts you into the system of administration), not an “Australian Citizen”, nor a “person”. You are a living man or woman, an individual, all rights reserved, all benefits and privileges waived. That is, you reserve all of your human rights under Common Law and waive any “rights”, privileges, and penalties which are shackled to the sole corporate entity through Private Contract Law (thanks to the UNIDROIT agreement). A “license” or registration is a contract. With it comes privileges and penalties, according to the contract/s.



Posted by admin in Resources, 0 comments

The Nuremberg Code

The Nuremberg Code Made 10 Declarations which were published in the section of the verdict entitled “Permissible medical experiments”:
1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is a must. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment. The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment. government mandate,mandates,illegal,legality,court system.
4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

Posted by admin in Resources