“A voluntary acceptance of the benefit of a transaction is equivalent to a consent to all the obligations arising from it, so far as the facts are known, or ought to be known, to the person accepting.” (Civ. Code, sec.1589; Simmons v.Bedell, 122 Cal. 341, [68 Am. St. Rep. 35, 55 P. 3].)”
Now that works mostly under the UCC (Law Merchant). Under common law, all obligations have to be FULLY disclosed. Which means that when they come to “collect” on that obligation, they also are subject to the UCC. So you can demand they identify themselves and their authority as a holder in due course. Which stops most gov’t agencies cold. Only sheeple waive that right.
So I’d ask the cop or gov’t agency (after he/they try to charge me with some statutory or code violation, or send me a demand for payment) “I don’t understand. Is this about an obligation that I incurred when I accepted some gov’t benefit?” And if he said NO, then I’d say ‘good bye’. And if he said YES, then I’d demand that he identify the benefit and his authority from the benefit provider to enforce it.
And if he refuses to answer, you can CONTRACT him on your terms; i.e. “I’ll take that as a NO.  So since you’re not enforcing an obligation arising from my acceptance of some benefit, we have nothing to talk about. Good bye.”
It only makes sense; If I’m liable because of some benefit I accepted, then they’re liable to identify that benefit upon request. If they don’t, they failed to identify their authority to enforce that liability upon me, and can’t proceed with any charges. YEP, we can play the game of commerce too 🙂
Especially since “The entire taxing and monetary system are hereby, placed under the UCC.” [The Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966]
ADHESION CONTRACT: “ a contract between two parties, where the terms and conditions of the contract are set by one of the parties, and the other party has little or no ability to negotiate more favorable terms and is thus placed in a “take it or leave it” position.
This is it, people. We KNOW that they’re all MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS domiciled in District of Columbia, so the ONLY authority they have over people on the land, is by CONTRACT, ADHESION CONTRACT or regulating COMMERCE. So IDENTIFYING which BENEFIT they claim obliges you to obey their codes and statutes, should be the MAIN defense for people on the land.
Remember that even RESIDENCY and using Federal Reserve Notes, are benefits of their corporate Democracy. Of course, this should work best PRIOR to someone identifying as one of their corporate subjects, such as JOHN DOE.
I mean, refusing to divulge a contract, if there is one, amounts to MALICE and bad faith, which INVALIDATES that contract, and which makes them liable to have any conviction overturned, and owing you $$$ in damages. You could even take them into equity right away, by filing a COUNTER CLAIM, alleging malice and bad faith due to refusal to identify the commercial authority they claim.
BTW, one of the MAIN adhesion contracts that they derive their authority from, is when you’re a US Citizen (via a Birth Certificate), as those are their corporate SUBJECTS. So if they ask if you’re a US citizen, the answer should be “Define the ‘US’ or ‘United States’ and THEN I’ll tell you if I’m a citizen of that. As far as I know, United States means the 50 states of the Union”.
Comment by Thomas Anderson

That PAPER BC trust is the U.S. citizen not the living man or woman. Please try to convey actual facts. There is a huge presumption that you are blurring the line with. No joinder of PAPER and flesh, no contract. That is “The Prison for your Mind” that Morpheus speaks of in the 1st MATRIX movie. Break out of “Prison” and break their presumption. JOHN is not john and never can be.

Comment by Jacques Sanchara Jaikaran 

Hi, Folks: The greatest problem from which we suffer is “lack of knowledge.”

A man cannot contract with what does not exist – a legal fiction, viz a viz a corporation etc. Can anyone prove to me that a corporation can contract with people? The phrase United States does not mean the 50 States of the Union.

1864— the “acting Congress” passed an Act changing the meaning of “state, States and United States” to mean “the territories and District of Columbia”.  (13 Stat. 223, 306, ch. 173, sec. 182, June 30, 1864. This Act has not been repealed.

The words “The entire taxing and monetary system are hereby, placed under the UCC” will not be found in The 1966 Federal Tax Lien Act.

They can be found, however, in the “Legislative History of The Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966.”

We should all strive to communicate with unfaltering accuracy. everything is in the “word.”

Jacques ~

Comment by Manx

by Thomas Anderson   THANK YOU !  All these  pronouns make making sense of anything spoken or written pure idiocy with idiots connecting-the-dots  “Mr. Smith, you are found guilty. Do you have anything to say?”
Mr. Smith has to smear himself with “you”, become “you”, and thereby take the liabilities of “you” upon himself.

“I agree” “you are guilty”, your Honor, Bailiff put “you” in Jail !”

The joinder is when on person steps into the capacity/role of surety &  accommodating party [general partnership if you will], that adhesion takes place!  By Consent, no less.

OR, alternately:

When someone takes a benefit to which they are not entitled to keep, the taker of the Benefit is converted into a Trustee.  To avoid de san tort beneficiary, we must hold original title receipts/certificates as grantees from which benefits flow.

Beatty v. Guggenheim Exploration Co. (1919) 225 NY 380 is a US trusts law case, concerning the test for the imposition of a constructive trust. It is best known for a quote from the leading opinion by Justice Cardozo.

The constructive trust is the formula through which the conscience of equity finds expression. When property has been acquired in such circumstances that the holder of the legal title may not in good conscience retain the beneficial interest, equity converts him into a trustee.

Comment by troy joseph 
Now a days the man with the guns wins. These teachings are all very well information and intention, but when dealing with souless psycopaths this will not help as some very intelligent men have been locked up!! If he had more guns than the other guy he would have his freedom. This is how it works in mafia-land. Plus people getting shot before even having the chance to speak.
Comment by Dexter

Remember this is their job, these judges and police officer’s have hear every story imaginable, beside they are trained to deal with the public.

Yes, just because you know something, doesn’t mean the other person does, or if they do can they stop doing their job and do the right thing, peer pressure.

A very difficult place to hold class is on the side of the road, you need to flesh out what this individual knows in just a few seconds, if they don’t know you’re traveling and not driving (Shapiro v. Thompson) then best to go along with the program, you can negotiate paper.

Comment by troy joseph 
The program told me to buy as many weapons as possible. Because negotiating with paper keeps you in jail !
Like Thomas Deegan and aRndy Due, and many many others. People getting murdered in cold blood, wake up! They never had a chance to speak let alone file any papers. These MFs want to put their hand on their weapon.I’ll have mine drawn already. If they wanna play wild wild west, lets go. And for doing what??
Walking down the street? Or something they fabricate?? This is a very very dangerous country. PURELY MAFIA CONTROLLED

About David Robinson

REVISED: David Robinson is an Author and Journalist living in the mid-coast area of Maine. He is a Graduate and Alumni of the Brunswick Police Academy. He served as a JUROR seated on the Cumberland County, Maine, Grand Jury for the first four-month session of 2014. Publisher Robinson served 3 months of a 4-month sentence for Conspiracy to defraud the United States, at the FCI Berlin minimum security Satellite Camp in Berlin New Hampshire, as retaliation after he and a friend sued the IRS, unsuccessfully, for Unfair Trade Practices, under Title 15 of the US Code. +++ Maine Lawsuit Against The IRS: For Unfair Trade Practices ( +++ Failure to File & Conspiracy: United States vs. Messier & Robinson - No. 2:14-cr-00083-DBH ( +++ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District Court of Maine / REPLY BRIEF OF ROBINSON ( +++ Books by David E. Robinson (
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

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