Straumineous homo

Aina & Bones (
Thu, 02 Sep 1999 12:34:00 +0100

With respect to the mention made of extropian politics I wonder how many if any of you, who live in the USA, have begun or completed the process of owning yourselves legally. Recently I came across information which got the old hairs on the back of my neck to rise. It seems that as good as the entire population of the land of the free are OWNED by USA INC. and are little more than slaves.

It is possible to work ones way out of this but it is uphill and traps litter the path. Do any of you who live in the scandinavia are know if we are in a similar position here?

I include below (with permission) explanations of the position and a suggested way out I
have received which are obviously written by persons other than myself, in order to make clear to all what I am referring to.


On all legal documents, such as your driver's license, your name is printed in all capital letters in order to obscure the fact that it is the name of the trust. It is essentially the same as a corporation, like
"XEROX," which is a legal fiction. "JOHN DOE" is the name of the trust
created by the state on your "date of birth." You see your "date of birth" or "birth date" is not the same as your "birthday!" (the day on which you were born) Your "date of birth" is the date on which the trust was created, usually several days after your birthday. In order to avoid confusion, the state "calls" it the same date, but its not. Look on a copy of your state issued birth certificate which is evidence of the existence of the trust. You will see two different dates, the later one being your actual date of birth.

The entire history of the United States is nothing more than the history of the struggle for the control of the monetary system. On December 23, l913 the bankers finally got that permanent control with the passage of
"The Federal Reserve Act." This act created a second monetary system
consisting of privately issued and controlled debt instruments. (Federal Reserve Notes) On October 6, l917 they passed "The Trading with the Enemy Act" which outlawed the national currency which had been used up to that time. This national currency system was based upon substance, i.e., gold and silver. It took awhile but they finally got rid of it with "The Banking Relief Act" on March 9, l933. It has been all down hill from there.

When the basic nature of the monetary system changed, that is from one based upon "substance" (common law) to one based on "legal fiction" (public policy) they had to change the legal system to match. In 1938 the Supreme Court heard the case of "Erie Railroad v. Tompkins" and that gave them the opportunity to make the change. That case stated that
"there is no more federal common law." At that point it became all
"public policy" and "legal fiction!" "Courts of Law" became "legislative
tribunals," that is "Article One Courts." These "courts" just carry out the enforcement of "laws" passed by Congress. Period. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are not involved even though they may pay lip service to the idea!

All the legal documents that you have signed are adhesion contracts which legally bind you to the Federal United States. When you register to vote you sign a document that states that you swear, under penalty of perjury, that you are "A citizen of the United States." That "United States" is a bankrupt corporation, in receivership, for the benefit of its creditors, The World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Your birth certificate, driver's license and social security card, among others, are all like this. When you have these adhesion contracts you are reduced to the same legal status as a plantation slave, that is, you have no "rights," just "privileges" granted by the state.

You cannot "pay" for anything with a debt instrument like a Federal Reserve Note. You can only agree to defer payment indefinitely. Everything that is "purchased" with Federal Reserve Notes is owned by The Federal Reserve System. You own nothing, not even your body, which is pledged as "collateral" for the "national debt."

I hope this helps. This is a very long and complex subject which I have only touch on in this message.




What/Who is the Straw Man?
by Jesse Enloe - July 28, 1999

Straw man, as defined in Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition: 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 purpose of taking title to real property and executing whatever documents and instruments the principal may direct respecting the property. Person who purchases property for another to conceal identity of real purchaser, or to accomplish some purpose otherwise not allowed. [Emphasis added]

There's no telling when the deception really started, but one of the first major events was the incorporation of the United States in 1871, with the final act occurring in 1878. It appears from the Statutes at Large that this was only the incorporation of the District of Columbia, but in the final act the phrase "District of Columbia or United States" is used making the phrases interchangeable and allowing the United States to operate as a corporation.

The so-called government is not the government created by the Constitution, it is a Corporation operating in COMMERCE for a PROFIT. Every transaction is now considered by the US, INC. to be a commercial transaction by fictional entities (fictions at law).

What is a Fiction at Law?

A fiction at law, or legal fiction, is an artificially created entity that is only contemplated in law. In other words, it is not real except in the eyes of the law written by men.

Legal fiction's are the opposite of natural entities, such as people. A created legal fiction is endowed by the law to have some privileges that resemble the rights that people have, such as the right to hold property and to sue and be sued.

The most common legal fictions are corporations and trusts. These have been around for quite some time with their main purpose being to limit the liability of the people holding the corporation or trust, allowing them to NOT be personally responsible for their actions.

Legal Fictions are not compatible with the Common Law, which is the law our land was founded upon. In common law, everyone is responsible for his own actions and is held accountable and responsible for any wrongdoing (harming another in any way)

What does this have to do with me?

In 1933, the governors of all the states met to discuss the "emergency" declared by FDR and to support the new process that was being established. The "government" was in bankruptcy and had to be funded in its state of bankruptcy.

The governors made a "pledge" to the U.S., INC. to fund it. The pledge was that the assets and the energy of the people would back the
"government" and secure the debt. But there was one little problem.
Natural living people cannot mix with legal fictions (corporations) so it was necessary to create a "bridge" between the fictions and the people to bring the people under and make them subservient to the
"government" corporation.

When the governors made the pledge, they agreed to register the birth certificates of the people with the U.S. Department of Commerce. The birth certificate is the security instrument (collateral) used to back up the pledge. The legal fiction was created by using the name on the birth certificate and writing it in all capital letters, the designation for a legal fiction. Then, because of the "pledge" YOU were determined to be the surety for the legal fiction.

Surety means: The one who is responsible to pay.

So, when the government or any corporation uses any process whatsoever they are using it against the legal fiction, which they want YOU to think IS YOU. But when your name is written in all capital letters, IT IS NOT YOUR NAME!!. It is the designation of a legal fiction that is an entirely separate entity. A living human cannot be a legal fiction, and a legal fiction cannot be a living human. One is real or natural, the other is created by "law."

Whenever a government agency (such as a court) determines liability it is a liability of the legal fiction or Straw Man since everything is done in commerce. You are presumed, as evidenced by the pledge of your governor, to be the surety for the Straw Man and you must pay the liability.

REMEMBER: Every transaction is presumed by the "government" to be a transaction in commerce by a legal fiction.

What's the Answer?

The only way out of this is to defeat the presumption that you are the surety for the Straw Man (legal fiction).

The "Redemption Process", otherwise called the "Acceptance for Value" process, is the most promising way to defeat this presumption, using the Uniform Commercial Code which is the "law" that the fictional commercial world operates under.

The first step is to "Capture the Straw Man." This is done by filing a UCC-1 financing statement to secure a claim against the all capitalized legal fiction, or Straw Man.

The next step is to accept your birth certificate for value and become the Holder in Due Course of that document. You will also want to accept for value your Drivers License and the Social Security Number that was assigned to the Straw Man.

The UCC-1 claim and the acceptance of these documents will REDEEM you from the commercial system and establish documented evidence to defeat the presumption that you are the surety for the Straw Man.

When the birth certificate is accepted for value, YOU become the Holder in Due Course and the Governor's position in the equation is also changed. Since the Governor is the GUARANTOR of the pledge when you are no longer the surety he/she becomes the surety for the Straw Man. It is my understanding that when this happens the Governor must then post a bond equal to the value you placed on your acceptance.

It's very much like if the Governor co-signed on a loan for a car for you and you stopped making the payments, the bank then looks to HIM for the payments.

I don't know about you, but personally I LOVE THIS IDEA!!! Now if I get a traffic ticket, I can just let the Governor pay the fine, since he is the surety for the Straw Man and is liable for all debts/fines/judgments incurred by the Straw Man.

This is not intended to be an instruction on how to use the Redemption Process, but merely to give a basic understanding of the "fictional commercial world" we have been operating in, and how they have "bridged the gap" between this and the real live people and drawn us into their Babylonian system as a surety for a legal fiction.

It is also the intention of this writing to establish in your mind that IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT YOU DEFEAT THE PRESUMPTION THAT YOU ARE THE SURETY FOR THE STRAW MAN (Legal Fiction).


CAVEAT/DISCLAIMER: This scenario is not written by attorneys and is intended as a study guide only. It is not intended as advice in any sense, form or fashion. The rats are out of control and there is no way to predict how they will react. This should work, but every judge is different, some have more "attitude" than others. Some judges are down right vicious. This is not for the faint of heart. Do your own research and use your best judgment. You must have your UCC-1 correctly done and in place before you do this, should you chose to do so. In other words, YOU MUST HAVE PROPERLY RECLAIMED THE PLEDGE. You must also first do your UCC-11 search on the prosecuting attorneys, and it would be a very good idea to do an 11 on the judge, if you know who he is going to be. Sometimes the rats change judges on you.

Do not worry about traversing into the bar. Just go in and sit down. REMEMBER, they don't have jurisdiction until you give your name. You shouldn't have to worry about contempt, because they don't have jurisdiction, yet. If you give your name they will have jurisdiction and then you can worry. When your case is called, stand up and say "I am here in the matter of STATE OF TEXAS V. JOHN DOE."

The judge will invariably ask you your name or try get you to voluntarily give your name. Some of these judges are very clever and tricky. They know all of the traps. Do not give your name or you are a dead duck before you get started. Do not acquiesce by silence to your name if the judge asks if you are JOHN DOE. You might ask, "Why do you need to know?" The name the judge is addressing the straumineous homo or straw man -- the all caps legal entity. If you stand mute, YOU will create the presumption that you are the straumineous homo.

You might tell the judge, "I am the holder in due course of JOHN DOE." You might ask the judge, "If I give you my name, would that voluntarily be giving evidence or testimony that can be used against me; AND, can I be compelled to give evidence or testimony that can be used against me?" If the judge cannot get you to give your name voluntarily, he is stuck. He will try every dirty trick in the book to get your name.

On the other hand, if he does get your name out of you, you are a dead duck. The reason why it is so important for the judge to get your name voluntarily is so he can do business with you in his commercial court. There must be at least two parties for the contract and the parties must have names. I can guarantee you that you don't want to be a party to the contract.


Be alert, know what is happening, don't step in a trap or be led down a diversionary path.

The best course of action is always offensive. So, when the judge asks your name, take courage and ask the judge to give you his name. He may or may not give it. If he does give his name to you, he has just made a gift to you of his all cap name or straumineous homo and you have just become the holder in due course of his name. Remember, the holder in due course has all the rights and remedies, the debtor has none. If you give your name, guess what? That's right, the judge just became the holder in due course of your straw man, he is in total control of what happens next and you probably won't like it.

Now you know why David Miller's bullshit about give your name, waive the flag, and capture the court won't work. If you use Miller's theory, your straw man will get captured by the judge and you will go directly to jail, you will not pass go, you will not collect $200.00. I know, been there, done that, went to jail.

If the judge doesn't give his name and says something like, "You know who I am," or goes off on a tirade about the weather, or starts getting arrogant and intimidating, let him rage on and when he stops ask "Are you Richard Roe?" Remember that these judges have a name plate on the bench. He will most likely remain silent or continue to make threats and when he again stops say, "By your silence" or "by your refusal to answer, you have acquiesced that you are Richard Roe, do you object?"

He can either deny that he is Richard Roe or remain silent and acquiesce to the fact. Say, "LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT THE MAN SITTING ON THE BENCH HAS ACQUIESCED THAT HE IS IN FACT RICHARD ROE." Don't press the issue any farther. You must recognize when you have won and accept that.

When (and if) you get this far, ask him, "Do you have a claim against me?" The judge must answer no. The judge cannot sit in judgment in any kind of a court and prosecute the case. He must answer no. Then ask, "Do you know of anyone who has a claim against me?" The judge might say no, that he doesn't know of anyone who has a claim, and he might say, "The STATE OF TEXAS has a claim against you." If latter is the case, you then ask, "Is there anyone present that can prosecute a claim in some name other than their own?" If the prosecutor jumps up and says,
"I can prosecute a claim in the name of the STATE OF TEXAS," then tell
the judge that you want to put the prosecutor on the stand and under oath because you have some questions for him.

The prosecutor will not want to take the stand because he knows what the questions are going to be. They are the same questions, "Can you give me your name? Do you have a claim against me? Do you know of anyone who has a claim against me?" The prosecutor is not stupid enough to commit perjury under oath. He will not take the stand. If the prosecutor sits mute and does not answer say, "LET THE RECORD REFLECT that no one is present that can prosecute a claim in some name other than their own. Then ask for relief.

The key to all this is knowing what a claim is. A claim is simply a dispute over the title to property. If you have the straw man secured, you have the title. All you have to do to prove it is to show the UCC-1 financing statement and maybe the acceptance for value of the B.C. After you have gone through all of this you have just established that no one has a claim against you and if there is a claim there is no one present that can prosecute it. The corporation STATE OF TEXAS cannot have a claim because a corporation cannot be an injured party. In four simple words, THERE IS NO CLAIM.

When you get this far, if you get this far, state, "FOR THE RECORD, I have reason to believe and I do believe that these attorneys are unregistered foreign agent(s) [and name the prosecutor(s)] and are making false commercial claims with the specific intent to mislead the court. They are making, uttering, and attempting to pass fraudulent securities of the United States gainst my perfected proprietary property and security interests."

(hold up your UCC-1 financing statement. Hold up the certificate that you have received from the Secretary of State that they sent you in answer to your UCC-11 request on their (the attorneys) straw man that says their straw man is not registered. "This (or these) [and name them] unregistered foreign agent(s) have commensed this suit with UNCLEAN HANDS for their own UNJUST ENRICHMENT for the purpose of harvesting the FRUITS OF THE POISONOUS TREE.

They have knowingly committed numerous willful acts of barratry in strict violation of Article 38.12 of the Texas Penal Code and the State Bar Rules and are in violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act so evidenced at 22 U.S.C., Sections 611 and 612, are violating the emoulments clause of the Constitution. The acts of barratry are in excess of the requisite number of three counts necessary to cause disbarment. This court may choose not to take action and impose sanctions for the acts of barratry, BUT, the court is under obligation to uphold the laws of the United States, including, and not limited to, Misprision of Felony so evidenced at 18 U.S.C., Section 4 and must inform the U.S. District Attorney and the Attorney General of the United States of the acts of this (these) unregistered foreign agent(s).

FURTHERMORE, the judge of this court, as a conservator of the peace is obligated to have these unregistered foreign agents arrested, bound over, and held for investigation by the proper authorities for their crimes against the laws of the United States."

Then, if you want relief, you must ask for it, say, "I REQUEST THAT THE COURT IMMEDIATELY RELEASE THE ORDER/PROPERTY TO ME."

Sit down and enjoy the show. Try to stay out of the line of fire. There is no guarantee how the proceeding will go. It is impossible to predict. It will probably not go exactly as the above script. You must be alert, flexible, on your toes, and capable of adapting to sudden changes in the plot and wary for tricks that the judge will surely throw at you.

REMEMBER THE MAGIC QUESTIONS AND STAY ON POINT. And the point is, is there or is there not a claim? Do not lose sight of this very important point. It is the ONLY point. No claim, no jurisdiction. Period. End of story. It's that simple. Don't make it complicated.

Reduced to the simplest form and the lowest common denominator, the whole strategy is:

Can you give me your name?
Do you have a claim against me?
Do you know of anyone who has a claim against me? Please release the order of the court and property to me immediately.


Mr. Bones

"This is my 'depressed stance.' When you're depressed, it makes a lot
of difference how you stand. The worst thing you can do is straighten up and hold your head high because then you'll start to feel better. If you're going to get any joy out of being depressed, you've got to stand like this." Charlie Brown