DENIAL OF CORPORATE

EXISTENCE
STATUTORY RECOGNITION OF THE RIGHT OF
A MAN TO DENY CORPORATE EXISTENCE

Piercing the Corporate Veil

[A paper from a law researcher in Louisiana]
The term "Piercing the Corporate Veil" is a legal one which identifies the process
where a court removes the protection provided individual members of a corporation
for criminal activity, and makes these members responsible for their own actions. In
reality, according to the original meaning of corporations, is that these corporate
groups were established exactly for that reason; for unlawful purposes, primarily to
escape punishment for their crimes by placing the blame on a fictional organization
responsible to no one.

The "United States" government jumped on the corporate bandwagon the first part
of the 1870's by declaring themselves a separate entity from Constitutional
government. This, of course, followed the war between the states and the supposed
Fourteenth Amendment, which lawfully never was, but was accepted by the newly
formed corporation called the "United States."

The fact that the Constitution had already established a United States was
inconsequential to those traitors in Congress, because it was the Constitution itself
they wanted destroyed, and the war, instigated by the Jewish factions of Europe,
was fought for this purpose, and all the flowery fictions blamed for the war is pure
fantasy.

Corporations themselves are natural processes of society, that is, when a group of
people gather for a particular purpose, such as for forming a community they are a
corporation, and there can be no criminal intent attached thereto, but it is when
corporations are established with the power to declare themselves bankrupt that
makes them criminal. This is the situation of our "government" today; the richest,
most powerful nation on earth "bankrupt." Just the thought is ridiculous.

Corporations are legal fictions; that is, they do not exist except in the minds of men.
Anyone can create a fantasy in their own mind and make it do for them what they
please, but these fantasies cannot, nor do not extend to areas outside the realm of
personal capacity. Corporations are made of living, breathing men, all with the
same ideas and purposes, so we can look upon them with the same limitations as the
individual, and that is their jurisdiction is confined to the lawful area of their
creation.
A corporation, being a legal fiction, cannot think, it cannot act in any manner, even
to communication with natural man, and for this reason it must have somebody, or
bodies to speak and act for it, and the lawyers have set themselves up for this task.

The enormity of corporate enterprises is limited only by imagination, and they are
gold mines for the bar associations, which are corporations themselves. Even thieves
must leave an out for themselves, as they never know when the worm will turn, and
"dumb" burrowing rodents will have at least two exits from their dens. After years
of research, a few people locally have found, what we believe to be that "out" from
corporate jurisdiction which has been milking the citizens of this nation for well
over a century.

We have had great success with this "out," and the shocked looks and frenzies of
judges presented with this procedure show us that we are on the right track. As all
other "sure" things, however, we can't rest on our laurels and be smug with our
assumptions that it is fool proof.

We have to remember that it took the lawyer profession many years to come up
with their gimmicks, and they aren't going to fall over and play dead as we proceed
to break up their playhouses, and we know from experience that they know how to
play rough. The idea is to hit hard, fast, and as widespread as possible before they
can see what is happening, and that is why we need as much diversity and
geographical application as we can muster.

There is nothing complicated about the procedure of disclaiming corporation

existence, which is what all this is about; the difficulty lies overcoming a lifetime of
corporate propaganda, and we have had great difficulty in this area. We who work
with this procedure went through the same agonizing process before we realized
that it really works. We were looking for the complicated when the answer to our
problems was right under our noses all of the time.

I don't mean to write a book and omit the meat of my subject, but you will find that
some prosecutors and judges just haven't got the picture yet, and will ask your
source of information when you go before them, and you need a little background to
keep from being embarrassed. Again, try not to read difficulty into a perfectly
simple procedure, which is outlined below. Not having access to laws of other states
I can only quote from those to which I have access, and those are of Louisiana.

We have tried this system in Alabama and Florida, and know it works there (we
didn't even research the law books in those states before acting) and we have to
assume it will work nationally, as the corporation veil encompasses every nook and
cranny of the nation, and for this very reason we at present can't see where a
general withdrawal from their jurisdiction is possible. Every case must be decided
on its own until there are enough of us, and locations, to make the corporate masters
accept the fact that they can't fight it. Please read the two sections from the
 Louisiana Civil Codes, and the Louisiana Revised Statutes, below carefully; disect
them word by word and the message will come out loud and clear.

(Eldon’s note: Statute 445 was repealed around 1988; however, 429 is still around as
Revised Statute 15:429, and is posted on the internet by the Louisiana State
Government website: Revised Statute 15:429 )

Civil Codes of Louisiana Art. 445.

The statutes and regulations which corporations enact for their police and
discipline, are obligatory upon all their respective members who are bound
to obey them, provided such statutes contain nothing contrary to the laws, to
public liberty, or to the interest of others.

Louisiana Revised Statutes Art. 429.

Corporate existence presumed unless affidavit of denial filed before trial.

On trial of any criminal case it shall not be necessary to prove the

incorporation of any corporation mentioned in the indictment, unless the
defendant, before entering upon such trial, shall have filed his affidavit
specifically denying the existence of such corporation.

These two simple paragraphs say it all. If one is a member of a corporation he is

bound by corporate rules and regulations, and those outside those corporations are
not subject to their jurisdiction. The corporate status of an individual entering the
court is automatically assumed by the court unless they have notice to counter such
assumptions, and this is the purpose of the affidavit, an example of which I will
provide below.

All of the socialist programs, integration of the races, the grab of power at all
echelons of government, and all the other ills of this nation are corporate
"enterprises." One cannot escape the thumb of corporate authority until such time
as he has removed himself from the jurisdiction.

We can view government today as a corporate reality, where the Constitution is

merely a by word, or ruse of fiction, where the Congress is the board of governors,
the president is the corporate CEO, and the "courts" are mere corporate
arbitration boards, including the U.S. Supreme Court. When we pierce the
corporate veil and remove ourselves from that corrupt venture we become men
again and carry with us our natural laws and sovereignty, from whence the
corporations received their powers originally.

The corporations of which we are primarily concerned are these:

 UNITED STATES (CANADA , THE CROWN, THE QUEEN)
ALL BAR ASSOCIATIONS
EVERY STATE OF THE UNION (ANY PROVINCE)
EVERY COUNTY, PARISH OF Every State Of The Union (Or Province)
EVERY CITY, TOWN, BURG, OR OTHER CORPORATE SUBDIVISION
EVERY MEMBER OF CORPORATIONS, INCLUDING YOURSELF
UNTIL DENIAL OF THOSE CORPORATIONS ARE COMPLETE BY
AFFIDAVIT
EVERY DEPARTMENT OF FEDERAL, STATE, COUNTY, CITY, ETC.,
INCLUDING SHERIFF DEPARTMENTS, CITY - TOWN POLICE
DEPARTMENTS, JUDGES, PROSECUTORS, AND ALL OTHER
MUNICIPAL OFFICERS AND PERSONS
THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, INCLUDING STATE TAX
DIVISIONS, AND CITY INCOME TAX DEPARTMENTS WHERE THEY
EXIST (And, CCRA)

I will provide here a scenario (fictitious name and place) and a sample of
affidavit to overcome the final disposition of the case involved: John Preston
Hickman has just been stopped by a Tarrant City, Alabama cop by the name
of William C. Henly, for doing 45 in a 35 MPH zone. After the normal
procedures of checking drivers license, insurance, etc., Henly gives Hickman
a ticket, with an appearance date of June 15, 2000 in city court. John does it
right by not arguing with the cop, and doing as he has been told by the
officer, and accepting the ticket and even signing it as ordered by the cop.
Then John goes home and prepares himself an affidavit, which reads
something like this:

Eldon's Note: I have a sample Canadian affidavit of denial available on my

FTP download site. Find it as: genaffidavit.rtf

Affidavit of Denial of Corporation Existence

I, John Preston: Hickman, a living, breathing full liability man, declare in
my own handwriting that the following facts are true to the best of my
knowledge and belief.

I hereby deny that the following corporations exist: UNITED STATES, THE
STATE OF ALABAMA, THE COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, TARRANT
CITY, ALABAMA, THE TARRANT CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT,
WILLIAM C. HENLY, ALL BAR ASSOCIATIONS, THE TARRANT
CITY COURT, JOHN PRESTON HICKMAN, of 3102 WILLOW DRIVE,
TARRANT CITY, ALABAMA, and ALL OTHER CORPORATE
MEMBERS WHO ARE, OR WHO MAY BE ASSOCIATED WITH ANY
COMPLAINTS AGAINST MY NATURAL BODY.
If any man or woman desiring to answer this affidavit, please answer in the
manner of this affidavit, with notarized affidavit, using your Christian or
family name for signature, and mail to the below named notary, address
provided, within five (5) days or default will be obtained.

John Preston: Hickman

On the 25th day of May, 2000 a.d., a man who identified himself as John
Preston Hickman appeared before me, a notary, and attested to the truth of
this affidavit with his signature.

Wilson R. Nimbly, Notary Public

1423 Fairmon Drive
Tarrant City, Alabama 35217

Three copies of this affidavit should be (preferably) handwritten; one copy

forwarded to the Tarrant City Police Department in time to give them five
days to respond. One copy should be kept on you when you go to court, and,
thirty minutes before you enter the court, take the remaining two copies, file
one in their court, have the clerk stamp the other and keep with you in court
in case the prosecutor and judge have not received their copies.

Eldon's note: It may be better in Canada to serve by registered mail. Make

sure it is sent so as to allow time to get to the Clerk of the Court. Have the
affidavit sworn before a notary or a commissioner for oaths. Send at least
three copies, and the original.

The way it has gone for us in like situations here, when the "defendant's"
name is called, he stands and answers, and the judge will look to the
prosecutor and ask him the anticipated action of the charges. The prosecutor
(speaking in low tones) replies that the evidence is lacking for prosecution, or
something in that manner, and the judge dismisses the case.

This system has worked in many such cases, in a state tax case, where the
state was required to return the money taken from the bank accounts of a
husband and wife, with the tax "debt" being cleared from the records. I have
used it, personally, to place a $150,000.00 lien against a lawyer in
Birmingham, Alabama, which has been there for several years. He brought
suit in HIS court to have the lien removed, to no avail. Of course I never
answered his frivolous suit because I had already identified myself as a living
man, and not one of his fictions.

I used the affidavit to stop my phone company from adding AT&T charges
for their social engineering, and a couple of other minor purposes; all were
stopped cold. The amount of wins in this area, with no losses convinces us
that this procedure set up in 1925 by the state legislature of Louisiana is a
 very valid process, and should be effective, for any and all reasons, against
any corporation, public or private, within the United States. There is a case
pending against the Social Security administration, or involving social
security, and the results will be reported to those who receive this.

Tax liens are official legal charges against an individual, and the affidavit
works there also. Remember that IRS is a corporation unto itself, and even
though it is not directly connected to the U. S. Government, the fact that it
operates within this nation makes it liable to the affidavit. If a bank, for any
reason, gives a person's money to those whose signatures are not on the bank
card, are committing a crime, and the person giving that money to IRS, the
state, or anyone else is personally responsible to the depositor, and an
affidavit to that bank should result in the immediate redeposit of those funds.
The use of the affidavit is limited only by the imagination, and I think it is
about time we make it payback time for those bastards who have milked us
dry for the past several decades. I would like to know the results of all who
use this system and I will keep a permanent record of all transactions.

One man was hesitant to use this system because "judges just walk all over
those who challenge their jurisdiction." Well, with the affidavit we most
certainly challenging their jurisdiction, but not in general. Any rebuttal at all
is, in a way, challenging their jurisdiction, and that is what it is all about.

What we need to get straight right off is the fact that they DO have
jurisdiction in their corporate capacities, but that doesn't mean they can
bring noncorporate citizens into that jurisdiction, which is exactly what they
have done - through fraud. All we are doing with the affidavit is merely
showing them that their assumptions that all men are a part of their scheme
are very wrong, and that we have the law on our side that shows them to be
wrong.

Corporations, even though they are "legal" fictions, are still businesses;
businesses are commercial enterprises, and commercial enterprises are are
controlled by the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). udges will tell you
differently and they will be wrong. Corporations are established by the state,
whether federal or otherwise, (government is state) and all states of the
Union have accepted the UCC, which originally was established for the
District of Columbia, if my information is correct. The UCC is a complicated
mass of business jargon to the casual reader, but in reality our rights are
contained in the pages of those documents. Our right to contract, fair play in
contracts, business, and all other aspects of human commerce activities are
covered in the UCC.

While man, especially the Christian man, is born with the common law in his
heart, the English common law was derived from commerce and commercial
law itself. In the middle ages, open "fairs," or trading centers were set up in
England, and most likely in all other countries of Europe, where people could
bring their produce and goods to sell. People would come from all areas of
Europe to attend these fairs, or trading centers, and of course squabbling
was rampant and constant, so courts of arbitration were established to settle
these arguments, and render the exact law on any subject. These courts were
called "pied powder courts" because, it is said, that the courts settled
arguments before the dust of the well trampled ground could settle on their
feet.

If I remember correctly, admiralty and maritime law was derived from this,
and separation was made between law of the sea and law of the land, which
was included in our Constitution. For a judge to say that the isn't affected by
commercial law, or the UCC, is hogwash. I ask them if they aren't under
commercial law, then why did it cost me $150.00 to file a case their their
courts and

I still pay taxes to support them. Of course, the answer is evaded, and this is
another story. The bottom line of the affidavit denying the existence of
corporations is that it pierces the corporate veil by an individual, and for the
same purposes; the criminal activities of the courts themselves. We, as
individual sovereigns, have the right and the duty to questions our servants,
and if the refuse to be questioned then this only proves our contention that
they are crooks. It also makes them aliens to our way of life, because they are
upholding the policies of the bar associations, which are alien corporations,
instead of the law of this land. No lawyer, no judge, or other "judicial" agent
of this nation is licensed by the state; aka, we the people, to do business -
anywhere in the country. Yet, they treat us as aliens in our own venues. This
has to stop, and I mean to do everything within my power to help it along.

Ray Earnest

HOMEPAGE is: Click Here

Impeachment of 29 judges in Alaska filed in Senate + evidence

IRS is not a agency of the United States Government
IRS can't sue or be sued, No Official Bond
Judicial Notice
Drivers License Revoked Won 5-0
Discovery document - federal and State of Alaska
Bouviers 1856 Law Dictionary - Complete

If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than
the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your
counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your
chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our
countrymen.
 Samuel Adams, speech at the Philadelphia State House, August 1, 1776.

Current Texas Rules of Court recognize

a man’s right to deny corporate existence:
By a Texas Law Researcher
In "The State of Texas" there are 2 rules in the Texas Rules of Civil
Procedure. They are rule 52. ALLEGING A CORPORATION, and rule 93.
CERTAIN PLEAS TO BE VERIFIED. Rule 52 is straight forward about the
corporation status.

TRCP 52. ALLEGING A CORPORATION

“An allegation that a corporation is incorporated shall be taken as

true, unless denied by the affidavit of the adverse party, his agent or
attorney, whether such corporation is a public or private corporation
and however created.”

In an equity setting where there is a maritime contract in effect . Only like

entities can contract with each other. The entities I am talking about are
“persons”, entities in a subject to government position (citizens, body politic,
corporations, members, employee's and any other man made legal fiction).

Now we get to rule 93. This one is vague but interesting. In the Texas Rules of
Civil Procedure, this rule is mentioned in the section on the "Motion to
Abate", which is basically an old common law motion. I will reproduce the
important parts with my comment in parentheses. - This rule takes up a
whole page.

TRCP 93. CERTAIN PLEAS TO BE VERIFIED

“A pleading setting up any of the following matters, unless the truth

of such matters appear of record, shall be verified by affidavit.
1. That the plaintiff has not legal capacity to sue or that the
defendant has not the legal capacity to be sued. ( if you are not
a corporation you would lack capacity, just for fun look up
"civilly dead"or "civil death")
2. That the plaintiff is not entitled to recover in the capacity in
which he sues, or that the defendant is not liable in the capacity
in which he is sued.
(Note: Corporations, or members of a corporation as officers
or employees of a corporation) cannot sue a man who is of
unlimited liability status.)
3. omitted
4. That there is a defect of parties, plaintiff or defendant. (See
 Note in #2 above.)
5. omitted
6. That any party alleged in any pleading to be a corporation is
not incorporated as alleged. (See note in #2 above)“

Ok. You get the point. This rule goes on to talk about contracts without
consideration. It also talks about insurance claims. These pleadings are
basically denying “personam jurisdiction” and subject matter jurisdiction.

Here is one more interesting tidbit. The book to which I refer is "O'Connor's
Texas Rules Civil Trials 2000". Quoting Justice Michael O'Connor On page
XII:

"To reduce gender choices, I refer to trial judges as

the "trial court" and to parties as "it" - as though
all parties were corporations, which they often
are."
What is the significance of this? If you answer to the appelation of "person"
in response to a charge under any Statute or Act, you are considered a
corporate body without a free will mind.

Proof That Canadian Judges Consider All

Canadians
As Being Corporate Entities
Criminal Code of Canada - Notice to corporation

621. (1) The clerk of the court or the prosecutor may, where an indictment is
filed against a corporation, cause a notice of the indictment to be served on
the corporation.

Comment: This is the only place where indictments are authorised, and for
corporations, not for full liability People. The Common Law and the Magna
Carta allow ONLY "Good Men of the Neighbourhood" - a Grand Jury to
take a man to court.

Contents of notice

(2) A notice of an indictment referred to in subsection (1) shall set out the
nature and purport of the indictment and advise that, unless the corporation
appears on the date set out in the notice or the date fixed pursuant to
subsection 548(2.1), and enters a plea, a plea of not guilty will be entered for
the accused by the court, and that the trial of the indictment will be preceded
with as though the corporation had appeared and pleaded.
R.S. 1985, c, C-46, S. 621; 1997, c. 18, s.71

Comment: The entering of a plea by a judge is done frequently against

Canadians. This activity is only authorized in the Criminal Code of Canada
for an accused corporation.

This means that all Canadians are considered corporations or corporate

entities; or, the judges have unlawfully assumed authority for which there is
no basis. Since the civil codified system (Criminal Code of Canada) is ONLY
applicable to corporations or corporate entities, and not to full liability men
with God Given rights, that means that Canadians judges are arch-traitors
to the People of Canada when they unlawfully assume jurisdiction over them
by imagining that they are corporations, and should be facing the death
penalty, the penalty for TRAITORS.

Treason is not only aiding the enemy in time of war. It is the act of a servant
overthrowing the authority and rights of the master or sovereign. The
Canadian People are sovereign over all levels of government.

The REASONS for the Affidavit:

Protocols within the Code (Uniform Commercial Code - UCC)

The foundational maxims of the underlying commercial law, from which all
law and commerce
in the world today derive, are:

*A workman is worthy of his hire.

*All are equal under the law (moral and natural law). In commerce
truth is sovereign.

*Truth is expressed in the form of an affidavit.

*An unrebutted claim, charge, or affidavit stands as the truth in

commerce.

*An unrebutted affidavit becomes the judgement in commerce.

*All matters must be expressed to be resolved. He who leaves the field

of battle first loses by default.
 *Sacrifice is the measure of credibility (one who has not been
damaged by, given to, lost on account of,
or put at risk by another has no basis to make claims or charges
against him/her).

*A lien or claim can be satisfied only through rebuttal by counter

affidavit point-for-point,
resolution by jury, or payment.

The reason, this scenario prevails is because the world has been set up to run
precisely this way.
We (the slaves) were just not supposed to figure it out. Code is Set in Stone

For a greater expansion of the Maxims of Commercial Law, Click Here

It MUST be understood that in this fraud that

makes you a corporate entity, the Canadian (and
American) courts determine whether you are, or
are not a corporate member subject to the Crown,
or to the corporate UNITED STATES, in the PRE-
TRIAL HEARING.
That is, in fact, the so-called "TRIAL" where you
MUST have the above noted affidavit, and have it
read into the transcript. If you are charged under
any statute, the actual trial is an administrative
procedure of a dissident slave. Therefore, one must
be persistant in demanding that the affidavit
denying corporate existence be refuted point by
point, or demand that it stand as truth prior to the
termination of the pre-trial hearing. The result
should only be the quashing of the case for want of
proper jurisdiction; and, this upon your request
for a motion to quash.