Lawful Declaration of Exclusion

Today all so-called government institutions are sub-corporations of USA INC and are bound by the Law of Contracts aka the Uniform Commercial Code.
no consent no contract

Many employees of the ‘government’ or the military are being controlled by carrot and stick policies. If they get people to submit to their requests (often stated as demands) they will be rewarded. If they fail, it is possible that they will be fined or otherwise punished. The ‘system’ refers to this carrot and stick strategy as “incentives and disincentives”. These policies have been inserted into many of our institutions as a means of coercing the population into complying with policies they object to and/or are not in their best interests.

Below is a 4X6 notice which can be used to inform any government or military employee that you do not consent to contracting with them and are under no lawful obligation to do so. If the government employee understands the information on the card, he or she can then use it to exclude himself/herself from the ‘stick’ or disincentive policies of their employers . . . as any consent or contract they secure signed under misrepresentation, coercion or duress is not enforceable.

Use it only if you understand it well enough to explain it and always maintain a polite demeanor throughout your encounter with the government employee. You do not wish to be classified as an “enemy combatant”.

Print two copies and keep one.

For more information read the LAWFULLY YOURS guide.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

This is a notice of non-consent

1) The rules defining your job obligations are written by corporations known as the CITY OF, COUNTY OF, STATE OF or FEDERAL AGENCIES (including the DEPT OF DEFENSE). Because of that FACT, these rules only apply to non-human legal “persons” . . . unless I consent. As I am not a non-human legal “person” and do not consent, they cannot be lawfully applied to me. This notice requires you to lawfully exclude me from any rule (or law) you are attempting to apply.

2) The ‘rules’ regarding your job performance, that are written into the contract(s) you voluntarily signed, are restricted to the parties of that contract per the Uniform Commercial Code. As a non-signatory, I am not obligated to adhere to their terms.  Therefore you are not violating the terms of your contract(s) by excluding me.

3) Should any of the corporate entities listed above attempt to inflict fines, fees or penalties upon you – because you did not UNLAWFULLY apply their rules, restrictions or terms to me without my consent – please provide them with a copy of this signed declaration/notice so you can exclude yourself from any potential punitive consequences.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

This signed notice of non-consent by a living flesh and blood (man) or (woman) prohibits the unlawful implementation of fines, penalties or restrictions against you regarding your interaction with me – unless you consent.

“. . . a vague law is a violation of due process because the law does not provide fair warning of a prohibition and fails to set standards for enforcement that would govern the exercise of the police power.”

__________________________________       __________
Signature                                                                                      Date

Notice to agent is notice to principal
Notice to principal is notice to agent

(A copy of this notice is preserved for future reference)

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

One response to “Lawful Declaration of Exclusion

  1. Thanks. Unfortunately, in my lengthy experience, all agents of the political subdivisions of U.S. Inc. and it corollary judicial extortion system will simply ignore any docs / demurrers submitted when pressed for a tax or even a criminal charge. They never respond to defenses like ” the attacking party has not submitted any evidence showing legal / lawful standing, authority or jurisdiction.” They just keep attacking, arresting, extorting. Judges look the other way … refuse to grant evidentiary jurisdictional hearings. This, of course is simple terrorism. A simple syllogism, below:

    I advance to you the following postulates as a basis to begin this trial for ‘littering’ my own yard … a criminal charge which the CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE has pursued with vindictive vigor in order to incarcerate me for 60 days, and bulldoze my private home.

    * In a ‘civilized’ society, all men are created equal in the eyes of the law.

    * Thus, In a ‘civilized’ society, NO man is another man’s slave without his consent or contract.

    * Thus, In a ‘civilized’ society, It follows that no man must submit to another man’s rules, codes, acts, statutes unless there is CONsent or a CONtract.

    * On Earth, in our civilized societies, man is subject to two types of law – Common Law and Civil Law. See also here.

    * Civil laws are man made laws, typically created by those in government who have taken an oath to protect the rights, freedom and property of The People.

    * Common laws are basic fundamental unwritten laws which men and women – in a ‘civilized’ society agree to. The Golden Rule, for example.

    * Thus, In a ‘civilized’ society, one who has NOT given over his/her CONsent to the government, and who is not in any type of CONtract with said government, is only subject to arrest for violation of fundamental COMMON law; to wit: 1) Battery, 2) Damage to another’s property, and 3) Continuous Breach of the Peace.

    * The un-rebutted record shows that Richard is self-governed, i.e., he has not given over his CONsent to the CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE, not does he have any voluntary CONtract with the CITY.

    * Accordingly the CITY – as a public fictional entity or corporation – has no jurisdiction over Richard unless they have evidence that he has committed a violation of COMMON law.

    * The un-rebutted record shows that CITY has charged a fictional ‘strawman’, “BRUCE TOSKI” with an alleged violation of one of their civil municipal codes concerning ‘bulk trash’.

    * The CITY admits that “BRUCE TOSKI” is a fictional entity or persona created by one of their agencies / political subdivisions or affiliates.

    * The CITY – via BSO – served Richard with a summons for the criminal charge of littering.

    * The un-rebutted record shows that there is no bulk trash on Richard’s property.

    * Under COMMON law, one could not advance a criminal charge for ‘littering’ unless said litter posed a threat to the SAFETY of the society / community.

    * The CITY has refused to submit any evidence of any litter posing such a threat … because there is NONE.

    * Accordingly the CITY has no standing, authority or jurisdiction to advance such a charge against Richard.

    * Since the CITY refuses to submit any wet-ink document substantiating the creation of “BRUCE TOSKI” that defendant is nolle prosequi.

    * It follows that the CITY’s charge should be discharged and the CITY should be assessed costs for this vindictive prosecution.

    James Madison: “Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society”

    P.S. Unfortunately I can’t find one scholarly tome or one case that supports this simple syllogism. Please advise if ya come across one.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s