Color of Law
"Color" means "An appearance, semblance, or simulacrum, as distinguished from that which is real. A prima facia or apparent right. Hence, a deceptive appearance, a plausible, assumed exterior, concealing a lack of reality; a disguise or pretext. See also colorable." Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, on page 240.
"Colorable" means "That which is in appearance only, and not in reality, what it purports to be, hence counterfeit feigned, having the appearance of truth." Windle v. Flinn, 196 Or. 654, 251 P.2d 136, 146.
"Color of Law" means "The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state is action taken under 'color of law.'" Atkins v. Lanning. D.C.Okl., 415 F. Supp. 186, 188.
If something is "color of law" then it is NOT law, it only looks like law. If you go to the website for the Office of Law Revision Counsel, you will see that most of the titles of the United States Code are "prima facia evidence of the laws of the United States".
"prima facia" means "At first sight; on the first appearance; on the face of it; so far as can be judged from the first disclosure; presumably; a fact presumed to be true unless disproved by some evidence to the contrary." State ex rel. Herbert v. Whims, 68 Ohio App. 39, 38 N.E.2d 596, 599, 22 O.O. 110. Black's Law Dictionary 5th Edition page 1071.
Prima facia and color of law both go hand in hand, because if a law is prima facia evidence of the laws of the United States, that means it is color of law, by definition. In other words the bureaucrat presumes that the law applies to you until you defeat their presumption.
If you read these prima facia, color of law statutes, you will find them using words like "person". I will use the color of law Title 26 USC as a typical way that they do it.
26 USC 7701 (a) (1) Person. The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.
In the Internal Revenue code they say that a "person" has to pay taxes and obey their filing requirement etc., and most people think that they are such a "person", so they do it, but there is a maxim of law that says something else.
Ejusdem Generis (eh-youse-dem generous) v adj. Latin for "of the same kind," used to interpret loosely written statutes. Where a law lists specific classes of persons or things and then refers to them in general, the general statements only apply to the same kind of persons or things specifically listed. Example: if a law refers to automobiles, trucks, tractors, motorcycles and other motor-powered vehicles, "vehicles" would not include airplanes, since the list was of land-based transportation.
Pursuant to the Maxim of Law ejusdem generis the word "individual" is another type of fictitious entity because the rest of the entities are fictitious entities and in the rules of statutory construction, a definition must contain the same type of entities, or it is void for vagueness. Therefore, an “individual” and a "person" are different names for a corporation.
Title 15 USC Section 44 even provides for an "unincorporated corporation".
When you do what a color of law statute says, you are deemed to have agreed to the terms of the contract, and ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
This is consistent with what the Courts are saying, a "Person" is:
a) “a variety of entities other than human beings.” Church of Scientology v U.S. Department of Justice, 612 F2d 417 (1979) at pg 418
b) ”...foreigners, not citizens...." United States v Otherson, 480 F. Supp. 1369 (1979) at pg 1373.
c) the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies...Title 1 U.S.C. Chapter 1 – Rules of Construction, Section 1
A sovereign is not a "person" in a legal sense and as far as a statute is concerned;
a) " 'in common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the [word] are normally construed to exclude it.' Wilson v Omaha Tribe, 442 US653 667, 61 L Ed 2d 153, 99 S Ct 2529 (1979) (quoting United States v Cooper Corp. 312 US 600, 604, 85 L Ed 1071, 61 S Ct 742 (1941). See also United States v Mine Workers, 330 US 258, 275, 91 L Ed 884, 67 S Ct 677 (1947)" Will v Michigan State Police, 491 US 58, 105 L. Ed. 2d 45, 109 S.Ct. 2304
b) “a sovereign is not a person in a legal sense” In re Fox, 52 N. Y. 535, 11 Am. Rep. 751; U.S. v. Fox, 94 U.S. 315, 24 L. Ed. 192
All of this is consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment because the Fourteenth Amendment talks about a "person" being a US citizen, and both of them are corporations.
Other terminologies which mean the same thing are "pretend legislation" and then it would also follow that offenses under "pretend legislation" would also be "pretend offenses". These terminologies are found in the Declaration of Independence(1776).
For any statute to be legimate, there are certain requirements. For example, it has to have a preamble, it has to be approved by both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and signed by the President, and there are other requirements as well. The lack of any of these would make it color of law. Remember, "color of law" means it does NOT have authority, therefore, you have to agree with it, - it is a contract. That is why it is "prima facia", which means it is "at first look". In other words, at first look the courts presume that the statute affects you but if you can show that you didn't agree to it in some way, then you are free to go.
Because the US Congress perjurers did their Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act, and also because state citizens are foreign to the United States, most people think that they have to go through a lot to prove that they did not agree to one of these so-called contracts, but the opposite is true.
Still don't believe that the courts view these colorable codes, rules and regulations as a contract?
"The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government."
City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944