Page 2 of 2

Re: Brackets use: the words describing

Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2015 5:57 am
by Wizlawz
editor wrote:You use the brackets to protect yourself. Because it is the words from your own mouth, and the written words to which you attach your signature, that determines your lawful character.

The contents of someone else's records, whether or not those records are accurate, does not in and of itself cause you a damage. True, an inaccurate record may create a situation in which you are more likely to be damaged, but until and unless a damage actually occurs, you have no cause of action.

In the case of such government records, you may be right. That is, in fact, the kind of idea upon which The Lawful Path was founded-- the discovery, reporting, and use of such things. This forum is a clearinghouse for ideas and procedures and I encourage this type of discussion.

I also want to point out that the "government" is no longer public. We are a conquered people, ultimately under the control of a private criminal syndicate which is posing as a lawful government. This syndicate maintains, to a varying degree, the illusion of lawful public government. It relies on the skillful manipulation of public opinion to control much larger numbers than could otherwise be controlled with guns. Modern government generally behaves lawfully only to the extent to which the people hold them accountable. The bounds of this extent has a name-- it's called "Public Policy". To this end, you could say we are really conquered by our own ignorance, greed, sloth, and above all, apathy.

This is why I continue to maintain The Lawful Path. As more people are educated about lawful principles, I hope to see the scales of Public Policy tilt toward lawful process.

Until then, "they" will come forward with their fraudulent records, and you will continue to be required to demonstrate your lawful character. One of the weapons in your arsenal are.... brackets.

aye , but how does one enforce the use of brackets upon those gov. agencies.

now sure it is their records and not mine, i agree, but things were made clear by me, and as far as i know the gov agencies must follow the rules /laws / letter of their office and are unable or rather not suppose to use their own personal judgement; if they can ignore the brackets they can do the same witha non-statutory abatement.

and as a Citizen of the Saints, Ambassador for the Christ and Public Minister under Superior Court / Supreme Court how do we enforce the Higher Law upon them as they enforce their law upon us in any given /specific situation at the moment of time it is in effect.

Re: Brackets use: the words describing

Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2015 3:47 pm
by notmartha
The original citations I provided in regards to brackets were from the Government Printing Office Styles Manual, the agents’ of STATE go-to source. There are multiple uses of brackets, and if you don’t qualify your usage, they can see them as they see fit. Even if you do qualify your use, they will likely still ignore, but we can just do the best we can.

I can think of a few options.

You can say, “I made a mistake”, and file a revised form without the info you originally wanted omitted, but you will lose whatever benefit the use of that info provided.

You can give agent notice that the information in their system is in error, and that they will not be acting in good faith if they knowingly use false information. Be sure to mention “Fraud”, and their "Misrepresentation of a Material Fact". Refer them to Title 18 § 1001 While I don’t encourage People to take the benefit of statutes, I have no problem pointing at STATE’s crap to apply it to them..
18 USC § 1001 (2011)

§1001. Statements or entries generally

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.

(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party's counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.

(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to—

(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or

(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.
You can wait for an injury to take place and go after them (pseudo)criminally and civilly. (Editor is correct in that fraud without damage is not actionable. See cases below.)

Here are some case citations for your perusal:

"Any misrepresentation intended to deceive and which does deceive is a fraud, and any innocent and mistaken misrepresentation of a material fact is a fraud in law." Lewis v. Citizens and Southern National Bank, 229 S.E.2d 765.

"One who acts with reckless indifference to whether a representation is true or false is chargeable with knowledge of its falsity." U.S. v. Beecroft (1979), 608 F.2d 753.

"Liability for negligent misrepresentation may attach only where plaintiff establishes that defendant breached duty owed to him." Alfus v. Pyramid Technology Corp., 745 F.Supp. 1511.

"As true of negligence, responsibility for negligent misrepresentation rests upon the existence of a legal duty, imposed by contract, statute, or otherwise, owed by defendant to the injured person." Eddy v. Sharp (1988), 245 Cal.Rptr. 211, 199 C.A.3d 858.

"Action lies for a false and fraudulent representation whereby another has suffered damage." Marshall v. Buchanan (1868), 35 C. 264.

"Misrepresentation of fact required to support fraud action is material if it induced plaintiff to alter position to his detriment." Okun v. Morton (1988), 250 Cal.Rptr. 220, 203 C.A.3d 805, rev. den.

"Actionable fraud requires a negligent or intentional misrepresentation of a material fact." Jacobs v. Freeman (1980), 163 Cal.Rptr. 680, 104 C.A.3d 177.

"Misrepresentation is not actionable unless plaintiff relied upon it, and there is no reliance if an independent investigation is made which, if performed with reasonable diligence, would disclose truth." Carroll v. Dungey (1963), 35 Cal.Rptr. 681, 223 C.A.2d 247.

"Elements of cause of action for constructive fraud are fiduciary relationship, non-disclosure, intent to deceive, and reliance and resulting injury." Younan v. Equifax, Inc. (1980), 169 Cal.Rptr. 478.

"Fraud without damage furnishes no ground for action, nor is fraud without a damage a defense." Baird v. Gilmore-Skoubye Steel Contractors (1963), 31 Cal.Rptr. 590, 217 C.A.2d 439; Legg v. Ford (1960), 8 Cal.Rptr. 392, 185 C.A.2d 534; Bernson v. Bowman (1960), 6 Cal.Rptr. 455, 182 C.A.2d 697.

"Fraud without damage is not actionable and one is not entitled to any relief thereon unless damage is alleged and proved." Agnew v. Parks (1959), 343 P.2d 118, 172 C.A.2d 756.

"Fraudulent misrepresentations without damage do not support an action." Lane v. Davis (1959), 342 P.2d 267, 172 C.A.2d 302.

"Deception which does not cause loss is not fraud in a legal sense." Hill v. Wrather (1958), 323 P.2d 567, 158 C.A.2d 818.

"Fraudulent misrepresentation which does not result in damage is not actionable." Adkins v. Wyckoff (1957), 313 P.2d 592, 152 C.A.2d 684.

"Fraudulent misrepresentation without damage do not support an action [of fraud]." Baker v. Littman (1956), 292 P.2d 595, 138 C.A.2d 510.

"Fraud without damage is not actionable, and averment of damage is essential to good complaint." Smith v. Los Angeles Bookbinders Union No. 63 (1955), 284 P.2d 194, 133 C.A.2d 486.

Re: Brackets use: the words describing

Posted: Fri Apr 10, 2015 6:17 am
by editor
notmartha, thank you for these

Re: Brackets use: the words describing

Posted: Sat Apr 11, 2015 12:25 am
by Wizlawz
notmartha wrote:qualify your usage
so would i have to put this in front of all brackets used? :

18 USC § 1001 (2011), 8.19. = this is probably wrong because as you can see i just added the 8.19. =


[U.S. Government Printing Office Style Manual]
[Chapter 8 - Punctuation]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office,]

what would be the correct way to reference or qualify the usage?

Re: Brackets use: the words describing

Posted: Sat Apr 11, 2015 3:56 am
by editor
I already know what notmartha is going to tell you, because I think we agree on this.

Best to not use the government's statutes if at all possible, especially when in reference to yourself. So, rather than reference a statute, just define your intent in using the brackets:

"Information contained herein which is enclosed in brackets is intended to be extraneous, explanatory, and interpolated matter, with no force and effect in law. You are not authorized to include any such information within your official records."

Re: Brackets use: the words describing

Posted: Sat Apr 11, 2015 8:12 am
by Wizlawz
aye ok.

i thank the both of you for this information, help, and patience

may our father who is in heaven bless you and continue to fortify you while he invokes you to help others and maintain his gospel.

Peace and Grace unto you from our Father who is in Heaven, Father of our Lord and Sovereign Saviour King Jesus the Christ

= Revelation 10, KJV 1611 =

Re: Brackets use: the words describing

Posted: Sat Apr 11, 2015 12:40 pm
by notmartha
I too think it wise to use only the spirit of their statutes, but also find it prudent to dumb it down a bit. The objective is to communicate a thought that will move them to action, so I try to keep it simple. I would write something like this:
I have placed certain information in brackets to indicate that it is matter to be omitted. I intend for it to be left out and do not authorize anyone to include it. Willful failure to omit any matter I enclose in brackets is a gross misrepresentation of material facts, and fraud.
This covers the spirit of U.S. GPO Style Manual 8.20., Black’s definition of “omitted”, and USC Title 18 § 1001.

Re: Brackets use: the words describing

Posted: Sun Apr 12, 2015 1:38 am
by editor
Well done, notmartha. Thank you.

Re: Brackets use: the words describing

Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2015 11:58 am
by notmartha
Wizlawz wrote: i thank the both of you for this information, help, and patience
editor wrote:Well done, notmartha. Thank you.
Glad to help.
Wizlawz wrote:Peace and Grace unto you from our Father who is in Heaven, Father of our Lord and Sovereign Saviour King Jesus the Christ
Unto you as well, Wizlawz. Have a blessed day.