Letter by Alfred Adask from Jail
I do not believe slavery is the relevant issue under the 13th Amendment. If we were slaves, we couldn't be held personally accountable for our implied "choice" to "serve" as a fiduciary. Slaves have no choice. The key is involuntary servitude which presupposes the capacity (the freedom) to volunteer, (or not) in the first place, to serve as a fiduciary.
My current (foolish) bet is that the vast majority of "presumptions" on which the courts rely to oppress us are probably implied trust relationships which the courts conjure up and make "appear" based on the parties' alleged conduct rather than express agreement. Note that the meanings of the words "implied" and "presumed" are not so different. To say one word could easily implicate the other. If so, the "presumptions" could easily he "code" or synonyms for "implied trust relationships" (which are then "construed" by the courts in "constructive trusts" also known as "court orders").
If this conjecture is valid, it almost has to hinge on the prime presumption that a particular defendant voluntarily entered into an implied trust relationship wherein he acts as "trustee" to the plaintiffs role as "beneficiary". As long as the defendant doesn't expressly reject his role as implied (unarticulated)trustee, he is presumed to have voluntarily taken on the associated fiduciary obligations and is thus liable to prosecution for breach, unjust enrichment, etc.
I can't easily imagine how this strategy could exist without the presumption that the defendant volunteered to be a fiduciary. Thus, the key seems to he that the defendant deny he voluntarily entered into an implied trust relationship with the plaintiff. Without a voluntary entrance into an implied trust, the court may not "construe" a constructive trust/court order wherein the defendant is "officially" designated as trustee obligated to "serve" the plaintiff-beneficiary. If the court of equity proceeds to impose fiduciary obligations on the defendant without the defendant's (presumed) voluntary acceptance of appointment as implied trustee, the court has subjected the defendant to "INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE"-- a constitutional No-No under the 13th Amendment.
I suspect the Oath issue is not simply about the judge, but about the defendant and/or plaintiff. The judge's constitutional oath probably only applies when the case and parties manage to "appear" in a constitutional venue. It takes two to tango. If YOU can't manage to act and "appear" in a constitutional capacity, I doubt that the judge has any obligation to obey his constitutional oath. This commentary is pure conjecture on my part. The oath issue is not necessarily relevant IF we are dealing with implied trusts.
IF the court operates on the presumption that the plaintiff and defendant are bound together in an implied trust relationship, that implied relationship in equity may be analogous to an express contractual relationship at law. The judge is prohibited by the constitution from "impairing the obligation of contracts". But contracts have been redefined to allow mere promises to serve as considerations in contracts (rather than lawful money). I doubt that any modem "contracts" (without lawful consideration) are true contracts, but are instead TRUSTS. Similarly, I have reason to suspect that the term "civil contract" may be synonymous with TRUST. I am willing to bet that the Judge's constitutional oath not only prohibits him from "impairing the obligation of contracts" ---- but also(through one subterfuge or another) from impairing the obligation of TRUSTS. IF so, the only question is this:
Does an implied (or express) trust relationship exist between the plaintiff (implied beneficiary) and defendant (implied trustee)?
If the judge "finds" that such relationship exists based on only the conduct of the parties, then the judge is BOUND by his constitutional oath to enforce the "terms" of the implied (or express) trust. Thus,
The whole process hinges on the fact that:
Admittedly, I am reaching and jumping to conclusions (my favorite sport) and my conclusions are fantastic. But you must admit it does walk like a duck and it quacks. Perhaps I have identified a new species of duck, the IMPLIED DUCK? If this conjecture is valid, the first line of defense is to expressly DENY the existence of a trust relationship with the plaintiff.
Make the denial under OATH -- by sworn testimony or affidavit. Who will swear under oath to the contrary? Who will TESTIFY that a trust relationship was established by mere IMPLICATION with a defendant who denies under oath that he ever INTENDED in fact or by implication to enter into a trust relationship with the plaintiff?
Again -- no involuntary servitude. The fact that I might unwittingly allege that you and I have entered into an IMPLIED trust relationship only works if it is presumed that you silently assented to serve as trustee in that implied relationship. As soon as you stand up and expressly deny (probably under oath) that you ever intended, agreed or volunteered to serve as my trustee -- who can prove to the contrary? It is much like being married -- both parties must consent. If one of the parties doesn't say "I do", there is NO marriage relationship. One "I do" is not enough.
The difference is that in an IMPLIED trust relationship, if the two parties happen to visit a church at the same time, and happen to walk up to the front of the church at the same time, and maybe swap a kiss or just hold hands in the vicinity of the altar, it can be PRESUMED by the court that the two parties entered into an IMPLIED trust relationship of marriage -- even though neither party said "I do" or actually intended to marry. And next thing you know, some poor slob is being forced to pay alimony or child support and he doesn't have a clue why.
13th AMENDMENT vs. 14th AMENDMENT
As I see it, we are PRESUMED to be a U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment residing IN a territorial state of the national democracy (like "STATE OF OREGON") as opposed to living ON a state of the union (like "Oregon" or "Kansas") as found/referenced in the 13th Amendment. The 13th Amendment is so very important -- it controls the PLACE where you live, act, etc.; the PLACE where you are presumed to live and act controls which JURISDICTION you fall into:
If you compare the 13th and the 14th Amendments you'll see that they each refer to TWO different entities called "United States". The 13th Amendment prohibits slavery or involuntary servitude "within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction". The indefinite pronoun "their" is plural in implication and tells us that the term referenced ("United States") is plural. Thus, in the 13th, slavery and involuntary servitude are ONLY prohibited "WITHIN" (not "in") the several (now 50) states of the Union called "United States".
But the 14th Amendment differs radically in that:
The proof of the 14th Amendment's SINGULAR "United States" is found in that Amendment's first sentence which reads "All persons born or naturalized IN the United States and subject to THE jurisdiction thereof..." If you will check Black's Law Dictionary (7th Ed.) you'll read that "in" means "under or subject to." Thus, in legaleze, "in" does not describe a physical location, but is instead a statement of personal jurisdiction. "Within", on the other hand, signifies a geographical PLACE located "within" some fixed, physical borders.
Thus to be "in" the United States means you are personally subject to that jurisdiction, while being "within" the United States only means that you are present at that location but not necessarily subject to that jurisdiction. For example, an ambassador from France could be "within" the United States while he is at New York or Boston, but his status as ambassador would prevent him from ever being "in" the United States and personally SUBJECT to that jurisdiction.
The 14th Amendment refers to "the jurisdiction thereof." See it? The article "the" is singular and references "the jurisdiction of the United States". Thus THAT "United States" is NOT the SEVERAL "United States" found in the 13th Amendment. Instead, the "United States" of the 14th Amendment is a singular, NATIONAL (nation-wide) entity which (so far as I can tell) is the Congress (and maybe the Executive Branch -- but NOT the Art. III Judiciary).
"Oregon" is a state of the Union as found in the 13th Amendment. The "STATE OF OREGON" is a territorial state of the singular, national "United States" The salient distinction between the 13th and the 14th Amendments is this: slavery and involuntary servitude are ONLY prohibited WITHIN the several states of the Union (Oregon, Kansas, etc.) but hot prohibited "in the territorial states of the national, singular "United States" like the "STATE OF OREGON, STATE OF KANSAS", etc. Get the point? Involuntary servitude -- and even slavery -- are quite all right "in" the singular "United States" and its territorial states. Fascinating implications, hmmmm?
So if you want to defeat the involuntary servitude of implied trust relationships and/or constructive trusts, you must first establish that you live, work or act only "within" one of several "United States" of the Union. If you agree or merely assent to the court's presumption that you are a 14th Amendment "person" acting "in" the singular, national "United States", you will have NO STANDING to protest the involuntary servitude of implied and constructive trusts.
For example, use of a zip code or soc. sec. number will at least allow the courts to presume you are a 14th Amendment "person" acting "in" (subject to) the singular "United States" and/or one of its territorial states (like "STATE OF OREGON"). Drivers licenses, birth certificates, checking accounts, credit cards and a host of other instruments will likewise allow the presumption that you are a 14th Amendment "person" acting "in" (subject to) the singular "United States".
The fact that there are so many devices which create the presumption of "personhood" may seem discouraging to most people. After all, how can you possibly give up the use of these things in everyday life, escape "personhood", and still lead a semi-prosperous life? The average man would rather accept the burden of involuntary servitude than risk losing his Master Card and checking account, etc., etc.
But, I suspect that the plethora of devices that bind us to the 14th Amendment "personhood" and subject us to involuntary servitude may be evidence that none of these devices are FATAL to any individual refusal to accept involuntary servitude of implied trusts. If the government could absolutely impose 14th Amendment "citizenship" on all of us, why do they need all the extra devices, tricks, and presumptions? The multiplicity of devices implies that no single device is sufficient to absolutely condemn us to status as a 14th "person". This, in turn, implies that it may be possible to overcome the presumptions of 14th "personhood" created by SSN, drivers license, credit cards, etc. If these presumptions can be overcome, it will be by affidavit (and perhaps by conduct). And I think those presumptions can at least be expressly challenged in a way government will be loath to confront.
For example. I am now incarcerated for violating my fiduciary obligations imposed by:
The whole process works so long as I assent to the presumption that our "common law marriage" took place "in" the "STATE OF TEXAS" and/or the 14th Amendment's singular "United States". But what if I assert under oath that our alleged marriage didn't take place? First, there is no implied trust and, probably, no subject matter for the court to construe into a constructive trust/court order. Case against me might disappear.
What if I assert under oath that I live and act only "on" the land of Texas--a state of the Union, guaranteed a republican form of government by Art 4 Sect 4, and no involuntary servitude by the 13th Amendment? Who will argue to the contrary? Who will testify under oath or submit affidavit that I did not live and act within the boundaries of "Texas" (a state of the Union) but instead acted "in" the "STATE OF TEXAS" (a territorial state of the national democracy AKA singular "United States")?
Assuming my conjecture is roughly correct, I don't doubt that I can still be out-foxed by some clever lawyer or bamboozled by some corrupt judge. But will they want to take that risk? Will they want to risk creating a public record of this strategy at the trial court and then at the appellate courts? Maybe. But if I'm correct, probably not. So I plan to test my strategy with a series of Habeas Corpus petitions, and then, if they don't work, in a trial in front of a jury. And then, if I'm convicted, in a series of appeals.
Please see this Update 01/09/03 to find out how you can help.
(Isaiah 33:22) For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king; he will save us.
Copyright 1996, 2014, by Gregory Allan; All rights reserved.