Government: A Neighborhood Association Analogy 3/24/2017

Government: A Neighborhood Association Analogy
by John-Henry Hill, M.D., Ph.D.
September 5, 2014
Revised: March 24, 2017

“The contract makes the Law.”
“An undisputed affidavit of claim stands as truth in commerce.”
“An unrebutted affidavit stands as the truth and a fact of Law in the case.”

In America, the right of the people to determine their own form and jurisdictions of government is the foundational basis of the legitimacy of governments: for their states and the United States of America. All legitimate government is based on individual consent OR contract.

In fact, governments are CORPORATIONS created by the people to conduct certain limited functions – and nothing more. Our own Constitution created a legal TRUST among the various states. The United States government was a new corporation to act as the Trustee (with a president, VP, treasurer, secretary, and board of directors – the Congress) created to manage that trust (contract) created by the various states that ratified the Constitution – a contract among the various states as a trust. Further, according to ancient tradition (much of it written into the Bible as religious law and later civil law), just as the Creator is always the owner and master of that which he creates, the various ratifying states are forever the owners and masters of their creation – the federal government called the “united States of America”. Two ancient maxims of law apply: “The Master rules over his Slave; the Slave can never rule his Master.” and “The Creator always remains superior to his creation.” Since the people created the states, the people as the “masters” over the states’ governments. And since the states created the federal government, the states are “masters” over the federal government. Consequently, the people are the “masters” over the states’ and federal government.

Several clarifications are necessary at this point:
1.) The Constitution can NOT possibly be a contract between the People and the various ratifying states for the simple reason that the states – NOT the People – agreed by ratification to the Constitution as a contract among the various states, creating a TRUST. These ratifying various states were the Grantors (Trustors) and the people were the Beneficiaries.
2.) The Constitution can NOT possibly be a contract between the states and the new federal government called the “united States of America” because the federal government did NOT even exist until AFTER the contract known as the Constitution was ratified. And how can an entity that does NOT yet exist (in this case, the federal government) enter into a contract (the Constitution) that subsequently brings that entity (the federal government) into existence? An entity that does NOT yet exist can NOT possibly enter into a contract.
These various ratifying states were the grantors (creators) of the trust called the “united States of America”; the then current People in America and their descendants (“posterity”) were the sole beneficiaries. Just a few years after the United States were created (the term “United States” used to be PLEURAL; never SINGULAR), the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed in numerous cases that the U.S. government was a corporation; that each of the individual states was its own sovereign country; AND that each state was a “foreign nation” with respect to the other states and with respect to the federal government.

The Neighborhood Association Analogy
If some of the owners of 50 separate houses (50 different families living in 50 separate homes within a neighborhood) decided to create a neighborhood homeowners association (let’s call it the ABC Neighborhood Association (ABC-NA, for short), they lawfully could do so under Natural Law and the still-existing American Common Law “unlimited right to contract” (as guaranteed by the Constitution). They could write up a contract creating a trust and/or a corporation detailing its purpose, its governing authority (the trustees or officers of ABC-NA), the powers, obligations and limitations on the powers of the governing authority; and the obligations of the homeowners who actually signed the contract (the grantors) and all of the family members of those who signed (the beneficiaries). Assuming the homeowners were not complete idiots, they would insist on clauses limiting their liability for damages caused by other ABC-NA members and/or the ABC-NA trustees, along with strict limits on restrictive rules (“policies”), fees and fines that could be enacted or imposed in the future by officers (trustees) of the ABC-NA. (Most such neighborhood association agreements contain clauses which bind any future owner of a house purchased from an ABC-NA member – so be certain to ask about such clauses and insist on a notarized affidavit from the seller stating that no such contract exists.)
In our example, let us state that 45 homeowners signed the ABC-NA contract, while 5 homeowners declined to contract for whatever reason. The ABC-NA contract could specify such items as lawn care requirements by homeowners, acceptable paint colors on houses, height of fences between neighbors, to name just a few. Let’s presume further that the ABC-NA officers (the trustees) were also allowed to issue fines for violations of these rules. Further, let’s say that one homeowner within the ABC-NA donated some extra land to the ABC-NA and the ABC-NA members decided to build a neighborhood swimming pool, with each member household (45 of the 50) required to pay its proportional share for the pool’s construction, plus an annual fee for maintenance. The ABC-NA then hires some people to care for the swimming pool. (This example is not as fanciful as it may at first appear; I lived in such a neighborhood in Virginia, just outside Washington, D.C., that created such a neighborhood association – which I refused to join.) Later the ABC-NA members might create new rules, such as a 15 mph speed limit within the neighborhood (even though the town-established speed limit was 30 mph); and hire a private security company to watch over their homes and to enforce this new 15 mph speed limit – requiring another annual fee per ABC-NA member household. The contract is valid because the joining members knowingly and willingly CONSENTED to the contract by signing it, accompanied by a “consideration” exchanged by the joining member. “Consideration” in commercial-contract law is simply the exchange of something of value by all the parties to the contract. For example, the ABC-NA members voluntarily consented to waive some of their property “rights” (where “property” is defined as such things as the man’s own body, his land and house, and some money to pay certain fees) in exchange for certain “benefits” such as the use of the swimming pool, more pleasant-looking and possibly safer neighborhood, etc.
Obviously, if they so desired the member families of the ABC-NA could pressure its officers (trustees) to restrict the use of the swimming pool to those 45 member families – plus maybe a limited number of their “guests”. The ABC-NA officers could enact a rule (legislate an act or private statute – called a “policy”) stating that none of the 5 non-member families could use the swimming pool; or perhaps impose a $25 per day per person fee on these 5 non-member families. The terms or rules specified within the contract would be considered (under public law, the Common Law, and ancient Commercial Law) to be “PRIVATE LAW”; more familiarly called “rules” or “policies”, applicable ONLY to those homeowners (and their family members) who signed the contract, thereby giving their CONSENT to be under the jurisdiction of the ABC-NA. So far, so good . . . until a controversy arises.
Controversy #1:
Many of the neighbors complain to the ABC-NA board of directors (officers as trustees) that the pool maintenance people are doing a very poor job and/or that the private security personnel are getting “too bossy”. Can the ABC-NA board create (i.e., legislate) new “rules” for the pool cleaners and security personnel to follow? As long this new “legislation” does not violate any pre-existing contracts with these employees or the ABC-NA contract, the answer is YES. Just as any company such as Wal-Mart or McDonalds may “legislate” rules and policies that its employees must obey, so too can the ABC-NA with its employees and members.
Controversy #2:
One day a member of the ABC-NA decides to paint his house purple, with bright yellow doors and window trim. His neighbors are aghast and cite the ABC-NA contract, which does not list these colors as “acceptable”. He could appeal to the ABC-NA officers for a “waiver”, but his neighbors still insist that he repaint the house using some “acceptable” colors as listed within the contract. Now, this man violated no legislated federal, state or town act or statute, ordinance, regulation or by-law, so can he not paint his house any color he wishes? The answer is NO. Since he had full disclosure of the terms of the contract and voluntarily agreed to those terms by signing it, he is bound by the terms of that contract. “The contract makes the law.” – which in this case is “private law” among the parties who gave their consent by signing the contract — ONLY they are bound by this “private law” of the ABC-NA. This man agreed (consented) to waive some of his property rights in exchange for certain benefits, such as the use of the swimming pool, private security, a more attractive neighborhood, and supposedly safer streets for his children to walk on. If the ABC-NA decided to fine him, he would be required to pay the ABC-NA that fine AND repaint his house. Could the town police arrest him or issue him a summons (“ticket”) for his violation of the ABC-NA rules? Absolutely NOT. He violated no public law (“ordinance”), so the town police lack “subject matter jurisdiction”; he violated only the “private law” (the contract) of the ABC-NA. Several ancient Maxims of Law state, The contract makes the Law.”; “Consent makes the law. A contract is a private law between the parties, which can acquire the force [of law] only by consent.”; and “Consent makes the law: the terms of a contract, lawful in its purpose, constitute the law as between the parties.” If this homeowner refused to repaint his house or pay the fine demanded by the ABC-NA, the ABC-NA could file a “civil action” under Commercial Law in a regular public district court of law. At the extreme, the ABC-NA also could create a “commercial lien” on ALL of his current and future assets, “freezing” those assets for 99 years. He could not withdraw money from his bank account, sell his car in order to buy a new car, sell his home, use any of his assets as collateral for loans, and so on.
If the ABC-NA filed a CIVIL claim against this man in a typical district court of today, town-legislated acts, statutes, ordinances, regulations, by-laws, etc would NOT apply in that government court. The ONLY facts that could be considered would be the terms of the contract he signed and whether he breached that contract. In such a case, he most likely would lose automatically with a “summary judgment” issued by the judge in the government Commercial Court. He would have no right to a trial by jury, since the contract is “private law” under Commercial Law; and under Commercial Law, he waived his rights to a trial by jury by contracting with ABC-NA. The judge could rule that he immediately pay the “fine” levied by ABC-NA, repaint his house, and probably pay all court costs, plus the legal fees incurred by ABC-NA. If the man still refused to comply, the judge could cite him for “contempt of court” and even put him jail – since his contempt of court violated the “private law” of the government courts, to which the government courts PRESUME that you are under their jurisdiction, UNLESS you explicitly state in a written, signed, sworn and notarized “affidavit of truth” the facts and events involved; that you are a man acting in your “private capacity” (as opposed to being a “citizen”, “defendant”, “resident”, “person”, “subject”, etc.) demanding your unalienable, pre-Constitutional natural rights. Further, you write explicitly in your “affidavit of truth” that you “assume full and unlimited commercial liability” (using precisely this phrase) for all statements in your affidavit of truth and its future consequences – meaning that you waive ALL protections of your assets available under legislated acts (statutes) of Commercial Law, thereby placing ALL of your assets at risk should your statements be proved false by your opponent. Why is this statement so vital? Under the ancient maxim of law, “Claims made without accountability are void.” Thus, in order to have any credibility, the claimant must put himself at risk by “assuming full and unlimited commercial liability” for any claims proved to be false. In fact, in the Common Law and Commercial Law (as opposed to statutory law as legislated acts), the more one places himself at risk in any claim, the greater the presumption that his claim is truthful.)
If the Clerk of the District Court REFUSES to accept it, you should write on the affidavit and its envelope: “FILE ON DEMAND” which FORCES them by law to accept it and officially file it; plus get a copy to the appropriate judge of the case. The court clerk and/or judge NOT doing so creates a number of serious criminal and civil violations of law (e.g., obstruction of justice; fraud; infringement or abrogation of your rights; criminal mischief; perjury; lack of due diligence in enforcing the law; and many others – criminal and civil, for which that Clerk of the Court could be fired, criminally prosecuted (possibly resulting in imprisonment and large fines), and subject to civil law suits by you, with “damages” (as a large amount of money) to be paid to you by that Clerk of the Court, even involving the court placing liens and levies (seizures) of all of that Clerk’s assets and property of any kind – sometimes even by auctioning off the opponent’s car, house, other property, as well as seizure of all current and future assets of any value – in order to “make you whole” by compensating you monetarily.
Also, you should have stated explicitly that your opponents (the board members of ABC-NA) have 14 days to respond in writing to your affidavit. NOT as officers of ABC-NA, but must respond via affidavit as men and women acting in their “private capacities” (thereby waiving the “limited liability” or “limited immunity” resulting from their holding a public office – which requires they purchase a bond (to pay those injured by their mistakes). This sentence (i.e., that you “assume full and unlimited commercial liability”)in forms the court that my opponents are being challenged by a man willing to risk everything he owns in order to present the truth, thereby greatly increasing my credibility in court under Commercial Law. If they present themselves as “officers of the ABC-NA” corporation, then under Commercial Law they each possess “limited liability” and thereby assume little to no personal risk, so their credibility is greatly reduced – the ABC-NA corporation assumes the liability and even that is limited. However, in fact, they are required to present themselves in the “private capacities”.
As a preface to the next several paragraphs, several ancient Maxims of Law come into play. The first maxim states, ”No one is bound to arm his adversary.” which in law means that if your opponent is ignorant of the law, you are NOT required to educate him in any way. Therefore, you should NOT and need NOT inform them that they need to respond in writing via their own signed, sworn under oath and notarized “affidavits of truth” in which they (acting in their “private capacities” as private men and women; NOT as officers of ABC-NA) explicitly state that they “assume full and unlimited commercial liability” (using precisely this phrase) for all statements in their affidavits of truth and their future consequences Also, you should NOT and need NOT inform them of that phrase regarding their affidavits, they need to REBUT “point-by-point” absolutely ALL of your statements in your affidavit (preferably accompanied by documentary evidence they possess and can attach to their affidavits). Additionally, long before you appear in court, you MUST deliver a copy of your “Affidavit of Truth” DIRECTLY to each of your opponents (by certified mail – return receipt requested, by a county sheriff or police officer or some other agent (government or private) with your own witnesses present and to then file it with the Clerk of the District Court. Finally, you should NOT and need NOT inform your opponents that if they do NOT respond within the time you allotted (14 days) with their own sworn affidavits in which they REBUT every statement “point-by-point” in your “Affidavit of Truth”, then under American and international Commercial Law, they have AGREED that everything you stated in your affidavit was the TRUTH. The most applicable ancient Maxim of Law states, “An unrebutted affidavit stands as the truth in Law.”
You have already won! By not replying or not replying in the proper manner during the specified time period, they have AGREED with you! The controversy is over! And when there is NO controversy, government courts have no jurisdiction – so the case against you is dismissed. THERE IS NO DISAGREEMENT TO ADJUDICATE. So, when you and our opponents eventually do arrive in court, you simply inform the judge to your opponents’ failure to respond by sworn affidavits in the 14 days allotted and thus they have lost the case by default. Case dismissed.
You should also have many copies of a PRE-PREPARED “Affidavit of Delivery” to be signed and dated by YOU and EVERYONE involved in or witnessing the actual delivery in-person of your “Affidavit of Truth” to each of your opponents. Copies of ALL of these “Affidavits of Delivery” then also need to be delivered to all of your opponents, the Clerk of the Court (placed on file for the judge), with copies for yourself.
However, in this controversy if the officers of the ABC-NA reply to the man’s Affidavit of Truth with their own personal Affidavits of Truth; and therein REBUT every statement of the man, PLUS present as evidence the contract he signed to join the ABC-NA, the judge will most probably issue a “summary judgment” in favor of the ABC-NA and against the man. Once again, “The contract makes the law.” The judge might even order a private company to repaint the man’s house (at the homeowner’s expense) and place a “lien” on the homeowner’s assets (“freezing” all his assets) until he has paid everyone in full.
Controversy #3:
A few months later a NON-member of the ABC-NA decides to paint his house bright yellow, with bright orange doors and window trim. He never signed the ABC-NA contract, nor did he purchase his house from a previous ABC-NA member. The neighbors once again are aghast and cite the ABC-NA contract, which does not list these colors as “acceptable”. He also has erected a tall fence on his property line, has torn up his lawn and replaced it with a rock garden and drives the town’s legal 30 mph in his neighborhood – for which he has accumulated numerous “speeding tickets” issued by the private security company personnel. He is soon confronted by the ABC-NA officers who issue him multiple fines for his infractions of their rules; and is stopped on several occasions by the neighborhood security personnel who even threaten to arrest him for not paying the fines for the “speeding tickets” issued to him.
Now, this man violated no federal, state or town statute, ordinance or by-law, so can he not paint his house any color he wishes? The answer is YES. The same is true for his fence, rock garden and driving 30 mph through the neighborhood. Is he required to pay the “speeding ticket” fines to the ABC-NA? NO. He NEVER agreed to waive any of his property rights in exchange for certain benefits, such as the use of the swimming pool, private security, a more attractive neighborhood, and supposedly safer streets for his children to walk on. If the ABC-NA decided to fine him, he would NOT be required to pay the ABC-NA that fine, repaint his house or follow any of their demands. Could the town police arrest him or issue him a summons (“ticket”) for his violation of the ABC-NA rules. Absolutely NOT. He violated no public law; and he did not violate the “private law” (the contract) of the ABC-NA, since he never signed the contract. And the ancient maxim of law states, “The contract makes the Law.” Since he did NOT sign the ABC-NA contract, the ABC-NA’s private law (rules, policies, regulations) does NOT apply to him.
Now, judges usually prefer negotiated compromises to litigation, but let us presume that the ABC-NA insisted on taking the issue to court. The sole argument (often used by government agencies) that the ABC-NA could possibly make would be that, because this homeowner accepted some of the “benefits” offered by the ABC-NA (such as neighborhood security patrols, a “more attractive neighborhood”, a “safer neighborhood” for his children due to its 15 mph “speed limit” and the availability (if he so chose) of use of the swimming pool), then the homeowner was bound by ABC-NA contract and its obligations. Such an assertion is a one-sided contract or “adhesion contract”, where agreement to the contract is PRESUMED. And in law there is a maxim: “An unrebutted presumption becomes a fact in Law.” However, once the man – by presenting a notarized affidavit of truth (as above) – challenges this presumption made by the ABC-NA, the “burden of proof” shifts to ABC-NA, wherein it must provide evidence that the man, by word or action, had implicitly or explicitly agreed to the contract.
Now, had this man by his ACTIONS appeared to abide by any of the ABD-NA rules after its requests (by repainting his house another color, lowering the height of his fence, replanting some grass, accepting and/or paying the “speeding tickets” issued by the neighborhood security officers, by using the swimming pool (a “benefit” received, etc.), such actions could be considered as creating a contract with ABC—NA. In fact, merely accepting a “speeding tickets” from the neighborhood security officer might be interpreted as an “implied contract”. And if he SIGNED and/or PAID the “fine” for such a ticket, he would have affirmed by his signature and/or payment that such a contract existed AND that he was under the “private law” jurisdiction of the ABC-NA.
The best defense for this homeowner would be a written, notarized affidavit of truth (sent to each ABC-NA officer in their private capacity; and NOT as an officer of ABC-NA), the county clerk; plus one copy for his own records) delivered soon after the formation of the ABC-NA – but still valid at any time later on – that he was NOT part of the ABC-NA; did NOT wish to receive any “benefits” of that organization; was NOT bound by any of its rules or policies; and assumed NO financial liability for any of its expenses, fees, etc. Included in that affidavit he should also have included a sentence stating that he expected a written response with 14 days. Had he written and mailed such an affidavit, he most likely would NOT have received any responses from the officers of ABC-NA in either their corporate officer capacities OR their private capacities, since the officers of ABC-NA possess NO contract signed by this man. At any later date had the ABC-NA issued him any fines, warnings, threats, etc., he could then have written a formal claim of violation of his rights (injuries) and a demand for damages (financial restitution) to “make him whole”. He could then follow that up with an affidavit of default on those ABC-NA officers as private individuals. He could then publicize their default in several local newspapers, keeping copies for his records. By doing this small amount of paperwork, he would have created a “commercial lien” without the need for an attorney or the courts. Next, by simply registering that “commercial lien” with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, (SEC), he would have converted those commercial liens into “negotiable instruments” (like any stock or bond) which he could have sold to any investor (“lien creditor”)– such as an investment bank, insurance company, etc. By writing and delivering a few simple documents, this man has “frozen” ALL assets of his opponents, turning the officers of ABC-NA (as private men and women) into “Lien Debtors” for the next 99 years, each owing him perhaps $50 million U.S. dollars and perhaps $350 million total. The effects of the ABC-NA officers, in their private capacities, would be to “freeze” all their assets, so that nothing they owned could be sold, given away or used as collateral for a loan.
Such a commercial lien is valid for 99 years and is almost impossible to remove without the permission of the “lien creditor”. It can NOT be challenged in any equity or admiralty court. It can be challenged only in a true “court of record” (a Common Law court) with a 12-person trial by jury, BUT demand for a trial by jury MUST be made in the accused’s (officers of ABC-NA) first point-by-point responses as their own notarized affidavits of rebuttal to the homeowner’s first written, notarized affidavit of truth. If the accused does NOT respond by notarized affidavit with point-by-point rebuttals, then it is PRESUMED in law that the accused has agreed that all statements within the homeowner’s initial affidavit are the truth; and thus these statements become facts in law. “An unrebutted presumption becomes a fact in Law.” and An unrebutted affidavit stands as the truth.” At this point, NO court may intervene. The case is over. The accused (officers of ABC-NA), by their non-responses, have agreed to all of the homeowner’s claims. And this agreement means that there is NO controversy. And where there is NO controversy, government courts have NO jurisdiction. THERE IS NO DISAGREEMENT FOR ANY COURT TO ADJUDICATE.

Consequently, with agreement of the parties and no controversy, NO court can claim jurisdiction; and NO court in the world can lawfully intervene in this case and attempt to void, nullify or revoke the commercial lien.

The statement bears repeating: their non-response means their agreement, so that there is NO controversy – and NO court can presume jurisdiction and thus intervene in a situation unless there exists a controversy in law.

“The judgment of a court of record [a court operating under the Common Law only; NO statutes allowed] whose jurisdiction is final, is as conclusive on all the world as the judgment of this court [the U.S. Supreme Court] would be. It is as conclusive on this court [the U.S. Supreme Court] as it is on other courts. It puts an end to inquiry concerning the fact, by deciding it.” U.S. Supreme Court decision in Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet., at 202-203. [cited by SCHNECKLOTH v. BUSTAMONTE, 412 U.S. 218, 255 (1973)]  

Note the date of this decision: 1973; NOT some “ancient” decision (before 1938 according to Erie Rail Road. v Tompkins)  which courts frequently ignore

John-Henry Hill, M.D.
retired physician/medical researcher/programmer


%d bloggers like this: