DEFINITION: Fiction
PROOF: Court/Administrative State PRESUMPTION of CIVIL Citizen**+D public capacityPUB is ILLEGAL, FTSIG-uses this article
https://ftsig.org/proof-court-administrative-state-presumption-of-civil-citizend-public-capacitypub-is-illegal/
FICTIO. In Roman law, a fiction; an assumption or supposition of the law.
“Fictio” In the old Roman law was properly a term of pleading, and signified a false averment on the part of the plaintiff which the defendant was not allowed to traverse; as that the plaintiff was a Roman citizen, when in truth he was a foreigner. The object of the fiction was to give the court jurisdiction. Maine, Anc.Law, 25.
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 751]
FICTIO CEDIT VERITATI. FICTIO JURIS NON EST UBI VERITAS. Fiction yields to truth. Where there is truth, fiction of law exists not. 11 Co. 51.
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 751]
FICTIO EST CONTRA VERITATEM, SED PRO VERITATE HABETUR. Fiction is against – the
truth, but it is to be esteemed truth.
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 751]
FICTIO JURIS NON EST UBI VERITAS. Where truth is, fiction of law does not exist.
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 751]
FICTIO LEGIS INIQUE OPERATUR ALICUI,DAMNUM VEL INJURIAM. A legal fiction does
not properly work loss or injury. 2 Coke, 35; 3 Coke, 36; Broom, Max. 129; Gilb. 223. Fiction of
law is wrongful if it works loss or injury to any one.
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 751]
FICTIO LEGIS NEMINEM LJEDIT. A fiction of law injures no one. 2 Rolle, 502: 3 B1.Comm. 43;
Low v. Little, 17 Johns. N.Y. 348.
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 751]
FICTION. An assumption or supposition of law that something which is or may be false is true, or that a state of facts exists which has never really taken place. New Hampshire Strafford Bank v. Cornell, 2 N.H. 324; Hibberd v. Smith, 67 Cal. 547, 4 P. 473, 56 Am.Rep. 726; Murphy v. Murphy, 190 Iowa 874, 179 N.W. 530, 533. An assumption, for purposes of justice, of a fact that does not or may not exist. Dodo v. Stocker, 74 Colo. 95,219 P. 222, 223.
A rule of law which assumes as true, and will not allow to be disproved, something which is false, but not impossible. Best, Ev. 419.
These assumptions are of an innocent or even beneflcial character, and are made for the advancement of the ends of justice. They secure this end chiefly by the extension of procedure from cases to which it is applicable to other cases to which it is not strictly applicable, the ground of lnag plicability being some difference of an imn.aterial character. Brown.
Fictions are to be distinguished from presumptions of law. By the former, something known to be false or unreal is assumed as true; by the latter, an Inference is set up which may be and probably is true, but which, at any rate the law will not permit to be controverted. It may also be said that a presumption is a rule of law prescribed for the purpose of getting at a certain conclusion, though arbitrary, where the subject Is lntrinsically liable to doubt from the remoteness, discrepancy, or actual defect of proofs.
Fictions are also to be dlstinguished from estoppels: an estoppel being the rule by which a person is precluded from asserting a fact by previous conduct inconsistent therewith on his own part or the part of those under whom he claims, or by an adjudication upon his rights which he cannot be allowed to question.
Best distlnguishes legal fictions from presumptions juris et de lure, and divides them Into three kinds, –affirmative or positive fictions, negative fictions, and fictions by relation. Best, Pres. p. 27, 8 24.
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 751]
FICTION OF LAW. Something known to be false is assumed to be true. Ryan v. Motor Credit Co., 130 N.J.Eq. 531, 23 A.2d 607, 621.
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 751]
Proof that there is a “Straw Man”, Form #05.042, Section 7.2:
7.2 The “straw man” is a public office and a “fiction of law”
The U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged that a frequent source of unconstitutional activity by government actors is to create fictitious offices when it held:
“An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
[Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1885)]
An unlawfully created public office is sometimes called a “fiction of law”. All those engaged in franchises are public officers in the government. The fictitious public office and/or “trade or business” (26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26)) to which all the government’s enforcement rights attach is also called a “fiction of law” by some judges. Here is the definition:
“Fiction of law. An assumption or supposition of law that something which is or may be false is true, or that a state of facts exists which has never really taken place. An assumption [PRESUMPTION], for purposes of justice, of a fact that does not or may not exist. A rule of law which assumes as true, and will not allow to be disproved, something which is false, but not impossible. Ryan v. Motor Credit Co., 30 N.J.Eq. 531, 23 A.2d. 607, 621. These assumptions are of an innocent or even beneficial character, and are made for the advancement of the ends of justice. They secure this end chiefly by the extension of procedure from cases to which it is applicable to other cases to which it is not strictly applicable, the ground of inapplicability being some difference of an immaterial character. See also Legal fiction.”
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 623]
The key elements of all fictions of law from the above are:
- A PRESUMPTION of the existence or truth of an otherwise nonexistent thing.
- The presumptions are of an INNOCENT or BENEFICIAL character to ALL parties concerned, not just ONE party.
- The presumptions are made for the advancement of the ends of justice, which is legally defined as the right to be LEFT ALONE by EVERYONE, including the government.
- All of the above goals are satisfied against BOTH parties to the dispute, not just the government. Otherwise, the constitutional requirement for equal protection and equal treatment has been transgressed.
The fictitious public office that forms the heart of the modern SCAM income tax clearly does not satisfy the elements of being a “fiction of law” because:
- All presumptions that violate due process of law or result in an injury to EITHER party affected by the presumption are unconstitutional. See:
Presumption: Chief Weapon for Unlawfully Enlarging Federal Jurisdiction, Form #05.017 http://sedm.org/presumption - The presumption does not benefit BOTH parties to a dispute that involves it. It ONLY benefits the government at the expense of innocent nontaxpayers and EXCLUSIVELY PRIVATE parties.
- The presumption of the existence of the BOGUS office does NOT advance justice for BOTH parties to any dispute involving it. The legal definition of justice is the RIGHT TO BE LEFT ALONE. The presumption of the existence of the BOGUS office ensures that those who do not want to volunteer for the office but who are the subject of FALSE information returns are NEVER left alone and are continually harassed illegally by the IRS. Here is the legal definition of “justice” so you can see for yourself:
“PAULSEN, ETHICS (Thilly’s translation), chap. 9.
Justice, as a moral habit, is that tendency of the will and mode of conduct which refrains from disturbing the lives and interests of others [INCLUDING us], and, as far as possible, hinders such interference on the part of others. This virtue springs from the individual’s respect for his fellows as ends in themselves and as his co equals. The different spheres of interests may be roughly classified as follows: body and life; the family, or the extended individual life; property, or the totality of the instruments of action; honor, or the ideal existence; and finally freedom, or the possibility of fashioning one’s life as an end in itself. The law defends these different spheres, thus giving rise to a corresponding number of spheres of rights, each being protected by a prohibition. . . . To violate the rights, to interfere with the interests of others, is injustice. All injustice is ultimately directed against the life of the neighbor; it is an open avowal that the latter is not an end in itself, having the same value as the individual’s own life. The general formula of the duty of justice may therefore be stated as follows: Do no wrong yourself, and permit no wrong to be done, so far as lies in your power; or, expressed positively: Respect and protect the right.”
[Readings on the History and System of the Common Law, Second Edition, Roscoe Pound, 1925, p. 2, p. 2]
Therefore it is clearly a CRUEL FRAUD for any judge to justify his PRESUMPTION of the existence of the BOGUS public office that is the subject of the excise tax by calling it a “fiction of law”.
If you want to see an example of WHY this fiction of law was created as a way to usurp jurisdiction, read the following U.S. Supreme Court cite:
“It is true, that the person who accepts an office may be supposed to enter into a compact to be answerable to the government, which he serves, for any violation of his duty; and, having taken the oath of office, he would unquestionably be liable, in such case, to a prosecution for perjury in the Federal Courts. But because one man, by his own act, renders himself amenable to a particular jurisdiction, shall another man, who has not incurred a similar obligation, be implicated? If, in other words, it is sufficient to vest a jurisdiction in this court, that a Federal Officer is concerned; if it is a sufficient proof of a case arising under a law of the United States to affect other persons, that such officer is bound, by law, to discharge his duty with fidelity; a source of jurisdiction is opened, which must inevitably overflow and destroy all the barriers between the judicial authorities of the State and the general government. Any thing which can prevent a Federal Officer from the punctual, as well as from an impartial, performance of his duty; an assault and battery; or the recovery of a debt, as well as the offer of a bribe, may be made a foundation of the jurisdiction of this court; and, considering the constant disposition of power to extend the sphere of its influence, fictions will be resorted to, when real cases cease to occur. A mere fiction, that the defendant is in the custody of the marshal, has rendered the jurisdiction of the King’s Bench universal in all personal actions.“
[United States v. Worrall, 2 U.S. 384 (1798)
SOURCE: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3339893669697439168]
The reason for the controversy in the above case was that a bribe occurred on state land by a nonresident domiciled in the state, and therefore that federal law did not apply. In the above case, the court admitted that a “fiction” was resorted to usurp jurisdiction because no legal authority could be found. The fact that the defendant was in custody created the jurisdiction. It didn’t exist before they ILLEGALLY KIDNAPPED him. Notice also that they mention an implied “compact” or contract related to the office being exercised, and that THAT compact was the source of their jurisdiction over the officer who was bribed. This is the SAME contract to which all those who engage in a statutory “trade or business” are party to.
[SOURCE: http://sedm.org/strawman]