George Armstrong Custer (career at the U.S. Military Academy – West Point almost ended)

One must remember that: 1.) a valid CONTRACT is an agreement voluntarily entered into with full disclosure by both parties; 2.) when you enter into a CONTRACT with someone (whether written, verbal, implied or presumed), your natural rights under the Common Law and guaranteed by the Constitution no longer apply. An ancient Roman maxim of laws states, “The contract is the law of the case.”

OATH: An oath is the basis of all law. An oath is a CONTRACT.


George Armstrong Custer (cadet at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point): True Story

George Custer’s career as a soldier almost ended at West Point. As a brand new cadet he committed some minor infraction (I believe it was visiting a local tavern when he was supposed to be on-campus.) He was charged with this and other offenses and was tried by court-martial, which is a specialized form of Maritime-Admiralty law, now called the “Uniform Code of Military Justice” (UCMJ). The witnesses were stacked against him and he seemed sure to be found “guilty” for which the required punishment then was dismissal from the U.S. Military Academy.

When one of the hearing officers mentioned that he had signed a contract with the U.S. Military stating that he would obey all its rules, George stated that he had NEVER signed any such contract. The court-martial fell into confusion and was delayed for several days while Custer’s records could be located and brought into court. Indeed, Custer was correct: he had never signed such a contract and was therefore NOT bound by military law. (His rights under the Common Law, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights remained intact.) The case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by the court-martial. He continued on at West Point, but only after he signed the contract placing him under Military law.


  1. kenneth johnson · · Reply

    Let’s us presume I fully understand I was given a legal PERSON at birth as a benefit to enter into commerce. Let’s also presume all contracts with corporations are regulated by the UCC, including so called contracts with IRS as an example. I do believe its critical to add a condition to my persons mark/signature, such as to preserve my rights (not reserve them) but keep them intact. Will the court use clean hands and honor my conditional signature? Such that, i can require an injured party to appear, should there be a dispute. Also, will the courts also use clean hands and interpret shall as may in statute, because otherwise, i would not be contracting at all, but merely a slave?

    1. You can change your status from a “person” (an agent of the state) to a “living man” in several ways. First, by filing a UCC-1 statement with your state government (and perhaps federal government); by submitting to the same a written and notarized “Affidavit of Truth” stating that you are a “living man” (and being ready to REBUT any challenges to your affidavit) AND forever thereafter accepting absolutely NO BENEFITS of any kind from the government; by signing NO government documents/contracts, plus many more. Note: Legislated acts (also called statutes) are NOT true LAW; they “assume the force of Law” ONLY if you CONSENT (by word, action, deed or even your silence). Government agents will make the PRESUMPTION that you have consented to any particular statute, so you must REBUT that presumption with a notarized “Affidavit of Truth”. Remember, “silence is consent”.
      As to your question of whether the courts will look upon you “with clean hands”, my response is: “ARE YOU JOKING?” In today’s courts you enter as a DEBTOR (defendant) as opposed to the “accused”. You will be lucky if the judge merely screams at and threatens you!!! Contempt of court is most likely if you continue to assert yourself. “Judges” today are simply DEBT COLLECTORS whose job is to issue fines to help pay off the national debt. This is NOT the United States for America (the Union of sovereign states); this is the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, the corporation and you are but an agent/employee of that corporation. Even a private “attorney” takes an oath that his first duty is to the court; and NOT to his client. A “lawyer” was someone, knowledgable in the Common Law, who assisted you in court; the word “attorney” is derived from the French word “attorn” – meaning to transfer property from one party to another.

  2. […] via George Armstrong Custer (career at the U.S. Military Academy – West Point almost ended) — LAW Bl… […]

    1. Do you have a question or specific comment?

  3. gitardood · · Reply

    little do most people know they’re all under Maritime Admiralty Law especially since 1933 when the system of birth registration was instituted. When the Dept of Vital Statistics (or whatever yours is called) is notified in writing by the attending physician and your mother, recording the event of your birth, the D of VS upon receipt creates a “birth certificate” but it’s the birth of a LEGAL PERSON / FICTION / CORPORATE ENTITY as defined under PERSON in Black’s Law Dictionary. Thus they’ve without full disclosure transformed the birth of a living soul into the birth / berth of a commercial vehicle. In essence because the people don’t know this, everytime they sign something with that all capitals corporate entity NAME (as it appears on your driver’s licence, SSN /SIN ,etc) they’re claiming that they’re a corporation / legal person instead of a living soul. I’ve written quite a lot in my blog posts about this. Thus when you go to court you’re in commerce / admiralty and are viewed as that PERSON – unless you’ve taken the time to comprehend what’s transpired and taken steps to rectify this mess.

    1. The form your mother signs after you are born is called by several names: “Notice of Live Birth”, “Application for Birth Certificate”, etc. It announces to the world of commerce that a new “product” has been created; and is a contract in which your parents waive ownership of the child, with the state become the real owner. (The term “mother” is never used on the form. Instead, she signs her name above the word “Informant”.) The parents retain “equitable title” (via the Birth Certificate), meaning they have the USE of you, but not ownership. Since you are using the state’s property, you must take care of that property (food, clothes, shelter, education, etc.) Should you FAIL to properly care for the child, the state can seize its property – thus, the “Department of Social Services” or whatever can enter your home and do whatever it wants with your child. This happened to some people I know. Their 3 sons were seized by Social Services. But “Notices of Live Birth” were completed only for the first 2 sons; the parents intentionally refused to fill out and sign the form for the 3rd son.The parents went to court, where the father demanded that his “property” be returned immediately. The judge agreed since Social Services could not prove ownership of the child. (He later got his other 2 sons returned, but only after a lengthy court battle.)

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

%d bloggers like this: