Is Government Authority Fraud? A Deep Analysis of the Law, Equity, Magna Carta, Bill of Rights and Constitutional Reality

NAP - Expert
Jan 14
15 min read

A Deep Examination of the Two-Presumption Mechanisms used to Create Government Authority, Against Law, Equity, and Constitutional Protections

This analysis will be more understandable to those who have already done the course, but it is essential reading to learn more about your freedom and the constitutional protections that have been unlawfully disregarded in the way governments use conditioning to claim authority over you and the majority population.

To be clear, this is an analysis of current law and equity applicable in the UK, US and many other territories globally. It is not a conspiracy theory or a speculative analysis. This article answers the question "Is government authority based on deception or fraud, and how is this specifically verified by law and the constitution?"

Please verify everything contained here for yourself.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This analysis examines the two presumptions identified in the mechanism of government authority —(1) the presumption of agency contract and (2) the presumption of beneficial interest transfer—against established principles of law, equity, and constitutional protection.

Primary Questions Addressed:

Are the presumptions lawful by the system's own standards?
Do they constitute fraud in equity?
Do they constitute involuntary servitude?
Do they breach other active constitutional protections?

A peek at the Conclusions:

The presumptions fail to meet the legal requirements established by the system itself
The concealment of the mechanism's operation constitutes equitable fraud
The effect of the presumptions—compelled labour and extraction of property without consent—meets the definition of involuntary servitude
Multiple breaches of constitutional protections (Magna Carta, Bill of Rights 1689) are identifiable
The mechanism operates by conditioning and concealment rather than lawful consent

PART I: THE TWO PRESUMPTIONS IDENTIFIED

1.1 Presumption One: Agency Contract

What the Law Requires:

Valid contract with offer, acceptance, consideration, intention, certainty, capacity
Express or implied authority from principal to agent
Voluntary assumption of fiduciary duties

What Actually Exists:

No contract produced or producible
No express authority granted
No acceptance of fiduciary role
Presumption from conduct substitutes for contractual requirement

Validation: Nash v Inman [1908] 2 KB 1 confirms burden of proving contract falls on party asserting it exists. When challenged, no contract can be produced because none exists.

1.2 Presumption Two: Beneficial Interest Transfer

What the Law Requires:

Valid instrument satisfying three certainties (Knight v Knight (1840))
Clear intention to transfer
Identified property (beneficial interest)
Identified transferee (the person title)
Proper formality (writing for equitable interests per LPA 1925 s.53(1)(c))

What Actually Exists:

No instrument of transfer
No evidence of intention to transfer
No declaration meeting three certainties
Resulting trust arises automatically by operation of law (Westdeutsche v Islington [1996])

Validation: Where beneficial interest is not properly disposed of, "equity abhors a vacuum" and a resulting trust confirms beneficial interest remains with original holder.

1.3 Combined Effect: The Conversion

Together, the two presumptions effect a conversion:

Without Presumption 1: No pathway exists for statutes (which address "persons") to reach the living being
Without Presumption 2: Even if a pathway existed, there would be no beneficial interest in the person title for statutes to attach to
With Both Presumptions Operating: The living being's inalienable rights are converted to inherent rights (via the natural person role), then to granted rights (subject to statutory modification), and their beneficial interest (labour, property, liberty) becomes accessible through the person title

The Question: Is this conversion lawful?

PART II: ANALYSIS AGAINST CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS

2.1 Magna Carta (1215) — Clauses 39 and 40 (Still in Force)

Clause 39:

"No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land."

Clause 40:

"To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice."

Analysis:

Element of Clause 39	Application to Presumption Mechanism
"No free man shall be... stripped of his rights"	The mechanism strips inalienable rights by converting them to granted rights subject to statutory modification
"or possessions"	The fruits of labour (income) and property are claimed through the person title
"or deprived of his standing"	The living being's standing is subordinated to the statutory person
"except by the lawful judgment of his peers"	No judgment occurs; presumption substitutes
"or by the law of the land"	The "law of the land" requires instruments for such claims; none exist

Clause 39 Breach: The presumption mechanism strips rights and possessions without lawful judgment and without compliance with the law of the land's own requirements (valid contract, valid instrument of transfer).

Clause 40 Breach: When the living being challenges the presumption and is denied the right to have the foundational instruments produced, "right or justice" is denied.

Constitutional Significance:

UK Parliament confirms Clauses 39 and 40 remain in force
These provisions are "landmark documents in the development of civil liberties"
The phrase "due process of law" derives directly from "law of the land" (Edward III, 1354)

2.2 Bill of Rights 1689 (Still in Force)

Key Provisions:

Provision	Application
"That it is the right of the subjects to petition the King and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal"	Challenging the presumptions is a form of petition; dismissal as "pseudo-law" constitutes de facto prosecution
"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed"	Statutory penalties (including taxation) imposed through invalid presumption mechanism are excessive when the underlying obligation is unproven
"That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void"	Statutory claims against the person title, before any proven obligation, are claims "before conviction"
"Right to due process before deprivation"	Presumption is not process

Constitutional Significance:

UK Parliament confirms "main principles of the Bill of Rights are still in force today"
It established "freedom from government interference, the right of petition and just treatment of people by courts"
It served as model for US Bill of Rights and European Convention on Human Rights

2.3 US Constitutional Protections (For US Jurisdiction)

13th Amendment — Prohibition of Involuntary Servitude:

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States..."

5th Amendment — Due Process and Takings:

"...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

14th Amendment — Due Process (States):

"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

Analysis: See Parts III and IV below.

PART III: ANALYSIS — DOES THE MECHANISM CONSTITUTE FRAUD?

3.1 Elements of Fraudulent Concealment

Fraud by concealment requires:

Defendant concealed or failed to disclose material facts
Defendant had a duty to disclose (especially in fiduciary relationships or where superior knowledge exists)
Concealment was intentional (or with reckless disregard)
Defendant knew plaintiff was ignorant of facts and had no equal opportunity to discover them
Plaintiff was unaware and would have acted differently if informed
Plaintiff sustained damages as a result

3.2 Application to the Presumption Mechanism

Element	Application
Material facts concealed	(1) That "person" is a statutory construct separate from the living being; (2) That the connection operates by presumption, not contract; (3) That no valid agency appointment or beneficial interest transfer exists; (4) That the living being retains beneficial interest by resulting trust; (5) That presumption can be challenged
Duty to disclose	The state claims authority over persons; this creates a relationship requiring disclosure of the basis of that authority. "A party's superior knowledge thus imposes a duty to speak in certain transactions." (Mackintosh v Jack Matthews [1993])
Intentional concealment	The mechanism is not taught, explained, or disclosed in any education, registration, or administrative process. The concealment is systematic and generational
Plaintiff's ignorance	Living beings are conditioned from birth to identify AS the name, AS the person. They have no opportunity to discover the distinction through normal channels
Plaintiff would have acted differently	If informed that statutory participation is by consent (not by nature of existence), and that the connection can be challenged, living beings would have meaningful choice
Damages	Labour extracted (income tax), property claimed (taxes, forfeiture), liberty restricted (licensing, regulation), penalties imposed—all without proven contractual basis

3.3 The Equity Maxim: "Fraud Vitiates Everything"

Authority: Lazarus Estates v Beasley [1956] 1 QB 702

"Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilised system of jurisprudence."

"Fraud vitiates everything it touches, and is not merged in the written contract."

If the presumption mechanism operates through concealment of material facts—specifically, that no valid agency contract or beneficial interest transfer exists—then the entire arrangement is voidable.

3.4 Conditioning as Active Concealment

The mechanism does not merely fail to disclose—it actively conditions the contrary belief:

From birth, living beings are taught to identify AS the name
Education systems reinforce the identity
All administrative systems treat the living being AS the person
Anyone questioning the distinction is dismissed as "pseudo-law"
The true mechanism (presumption substituting for contract) is never presented

This is not passive non-disclosure. This is active creation of false impression, which equity treats as fraud:

"Active concealment may exist where a party 'while under no duty to speak, nevertheless does so, but does not speak honestly or makes misleading statements or suppresses facts which materially qualify those stated.'"

The entire educational and administrative apparatus "speaks" constantly about the relationship between individuals and the state—but never honestly discloses the presumptive nature of the mechanism.

3.5 Conclusion on Fraud

The mechanism constitutes equitable fraud through:

Systematic concealment of the true nature of the person/living being distinction
Active conditioning of the false belief that statutory participation is automatic
Failure to disclose that no valid contract or instrument of transfer exists
Superior knowledge held by the system, with no equal opportunity for discovery
Resulting damages (extraction of labour, property, liberty)

"Fraud vitiates everything it touches." The presumption arrangement, being founded on concealment, is voidable in equity.

PART IV: ANALYSIS — DOES THE MECHANISM CONSTITUTE INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE?

4.1 Definition of Involuntary Servitude

Legal Definition:

"Involuntary servitude is a legal and constitutional term for a person laboring against that person's will to benefit another, under some form of coercion." (Wikipedia, citing constitutional authorities)

"The term 'involuntary servitude' necessarily means a condition of servitude in which the victim is forced to work for the defendant by the use or threat of physical restraint or physical injury, or by the use or threat of coercion through law or the legal process." (United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931 (1988))

Key Elements:

Compulsion of labour against will
For the benefit of another
Under some form of coercion
Including "threat of coercion through law or legal process"

4.2 Application to the Presumption Mechanism

Element	Application
Compulsion of labour	Income tax claims the fruits of labour; penalties for non-compliance compel continued participation
Against will	Once the presumption is challenged, continuation is against will; before challenge, "will" is manufactured through conditioning rather than informed consent
For benefit of another	The extracted resources benefit the state and its operations
Coercion through legal process	Non-compliance with statutory obligations (taxes, licensing, etc.) results in penalties, seizure, imprisonment—all enforced through legal process

4.3 The Consent Problem

The fundamental defence to an involuntary servitude claim would be: "This is voluntary—you consented by participating."

But:

Consent obtained through conditioning is not informed consent
Consent based on concealment of material facts is vitiated by fraud
Consent presumed from conduct (when the underlying mechanism was never disclosed) is not genuine consent

As established in unconscionability doctrine:

"Unequal bargaining strength often results in coercive tactics, undermining genuine consent."

"One of the main characteristics of unconscionable contracts is that one of the parties signed the contract in a situation that involved pressure, lack of information, or because they were misled."

The presumption mechanism exhibits all these characteristics:

Complete inequality of knowledge (system knows mechanism; living being does not)
Lack of information (mechanism never disclosed)
Misleading conditioning (taught to believe statutory participation is automatic)
No meaningful choice (must participate or face penalties)

4.4 The "Law or Legal Process" Coercion

Kozminski established that coercion "through law or the legal process" constitutes involuntary servitude.

The mechanism operates precisely through legal process:

Registration creates the person title
Statutes impose obligations on the person
Enforcement proceeds through courts
Penalties include seizure and imprisonment

All of this occurs without the foundational instruments (contract, transfer) that the law itself requires. The legal process becomes the mechanism of coercion, compelling labour and extracting property based on presumption rather than proven obligation.

4.5 Historical Parallel: Peonage

The Supreme Court struck down peonage systems in Bailey v. Alabama (1911):

"The State may impose involuntary servitude as a punishment for crime, but it may not compel one man to labor for another in payment of a debt, by punishing him as a criminal if he does not perform the service or pay the debt."

The presumption mechanism creates analogous conditions:

Obligations are imposed through the person title
Non-performance is punished (penalties, seizure, imprisonment)
The living being is compelled to labour to satisfy these obligations
No proven contractual basis for the obligation exists

4.6 Inalienable Rights Cannot Be Alienated Without Consent

Constitutional Principle:

"Natural rights are inherent in all people by virtue of their being human and... certain of these rights are unalienable, meaning they cannot be surrendered to government under any circumstances." (Constitution Center)

"Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights." (Morrison v. State, 252 S.W.2d 97, 101)

The presumption mechanism purports to effect such surrender without consent:

Inalienable rights are converted to inherent rights (the natural person role)
Inherent rights are converted to granted rights (subject to statutory modification)
This conversion occurs through conditioning and presumption, not consent

If the conversion is not by consent, it is by compulsion. Compelled conversion of inalienable rights into subject status is the very definition of involuntary servitude—the reduction of a free being to a condition where their labour and liberty are claimed by another.

4.7 Conclusion on Involuntary Servitude

The mechanism constitutes involuntary servitude because:

Living beings are compelled to labour (the fruits of which are claimed through taxation)
For the benefit of another (the state)
Under coercion through legal process (statutory penalties, enforcement)
Without valid contractual basis (no agency contract, no transfer instrument)
Based on presumption rather than proven obligation
Where "consent" is manufactured through conditioning and concealment rather than informed choice

The 13th Amendment (US) and fundamental principles against servitude (UK) are breached when the mechanism is analysed according to its actual operation.

PART V: ANALYSIS — UNLAWFUL TAKING

5.1 The Takings Principle

5th Amendment (US):

"...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Common Law Principle:

"The Fifth Amendment's guarantee 'that private property shall not be taken for a public use without just compensation was designed to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.'"

5.2 What Is Taken Through the Presumption Mechanism

Taking	Mechanism
Fruits of labour (income)	Claimed through income tax on the "person"
Property	Claimed through property taxes, forfeiture provisions
Liberty	Restricted through licensing, regulation, compulsory processes
Time and energy	Compelled compliance with administrative requirements

5.3 Without Just Compensation

The takings occur without compensation—but more fundamentally, they occur without lawful basis:

No valid agency contract authorising claims through the person title
No valid transfer of beneficial interest to the person title
No proven jurisdiction over the living being's beneficial interest
Presumption substitutes for the instruments the law itself requires

If no lawful basis for the taking exists, the question of "just compensation" does not even arise—the taking is simply unlawful.

5.4 Due Process Failure

Requirement:

"Due process requires that before any deprivation of liberty, property, or rights, there must be proper establishment of the relationship that permits the claim."

Failure:

The relationship (agency) is presumed, not established by contract
The interest (beneficial) is presumed transferred, not transferred by instrument
When challenged, proof cannot be provided because the instruments do not exist

Presumption is not process. When challenged, presumption must yield to proof. The proof cannot be provided.

PART VI: THE CONDITIONING MECHANISM

6.1 How Conditioning Substitutes for Consent

The Sequence:

Birth registration creates the person title
From infancy, the living being is called by the name (the identifier of the person title)
Education systems reinforce the identity: the living being is taught they ARE the name
All administrative systems treat the living being AS the person
The distinction between living being and person title is never presented
The living being comes to believe they ARE the person—that statutory participation is automatic, inherent, inescapable
This belief, manufactured through conditioning, is treated as "consent"

6.2 Conditioning Is Not Consent

For consent to be valid:

The nature of what is being consented to must be disclosed
The consequences must be understood
There must be genuine choice to accept or decline
There must be absence of fraud, duress, or undue influence

Conditioning fails every element:

The nature of the mechanism (presumption substituting for contract) is concealed
The consequences (conversion of rights, extraction of labour) are not explained as choices
No choice is presented—participation is framed as automatic
The conditioning itself is a form of undue influence

6.3 Unconscionability

The Doctrine:

"Unconscionability refers to a legal doctrine that prevents the enforcement of contracts that are deemed excessively unfair or oppressive, often due to an imbalance in power between the parties involved."

"An absence of meaningful choice by the disadvantaged party is often used to prove unfair bargaining."

Application:

Complete imbalance of knowledge (system knows mechanism; living being does not)
No meaningful choice (participation framed as automatic)
Oppressive terms (entire labour and property subject to statutory claim)
Hidden terms (the presumptive nature never disclosed)

Even if a "contract" were argued to exist through conduct, it would be unconscionable and unenforceable due to the circumstances of its formation.

PART VII: CONCLUSIONS

7.1 Are the Presumptions Lawful?

NO. By the system's own standards:

Agency requires valid contract—none exists
Transfer of beneficial interest requires valid instrument—none exists
Fiduciary roles require acceptance—none was given
Presumptions are rebuttable—when challenged, proof must be provided
The proof cannot be provided because the foundational instruments do not exist

The presumptions substitute for what the law itself requires. They are not lawful by the law's own standards.

7.2 Do the Presumptions Constitute Fraud?

YES. In equity:

Material facts are concealed (the distinction, the presumptive mechanism, the absence of contract)
The system has superior knowledge and a duty to disclose arising from the relationship it claims
Conditioning actively creates false impression (that living being IS person, that participation is automatic)
The living being is ignorant and has no equal opportunity to discover the truth
Damages result (extraction of labour, property, liberty)

"Fraud vitiates everything it touches." The arrangement is voidable in equity.

7.3 Do the Presumptions Constitute Involuntary Servitude?

YES. By constitutional definition:

Living beings are compelled to labour for the benefit of the state
Compulsion operates through legal process (statutory penalties, enforcement)
No valid contractual basis for the obligation exists
"Consent" is manufactured through conditioning, not obtained through disclosure and choice
Inalienable rights are converted to subject status without actual consent

The 13th Amendment (US) and fundamental principles against servitude (UK) are breached.

7.4 Do the Presumptions Breach Constitutional Protections?

YES. Multiple breaches:

Protection	Breach
Magna Carta, Clause 39	Living beings are stripped of rights and possessions without lawful judgment and without compliance with the law of the land's own requirements
Magna Carta, Clause 40	Right and justice are denied when challenges to the presumption are dismissed without addressing the substantive question (produce the contract)
Bill of Rights 1689	Petitions (challenges) are dismissed; deprivation occurs without due process; excessive claims are made on unproven obligations
5th Amendment (US)	Property is taken without just compensation and without due process; no lawful basis for the taking exists
13th Amendment (US)	Involuntary servitude through legal coercion based on presumption rather than proven obligation
14th Amendment (US)	Deprivation of liberty and property without due process

7.5 The Nature of the Mechanism

The mechanism operates through:

Creation — Birth registration creates the person title (this is lawful; the state creates what it creates)
Conditioning — Living beings are taught to identify AS the person title (this conceals the distinction)
Presumption — Agency and beneficial interest transfer are presumed from conditioned conduct (this substitutes for what the law requires)
Enforcement — Statutory obligations are enforced against the person title, reaching the living being through the presumption (this lacks lawful foundation)

The effect is:

Conversion of inalienable rights to subject status
Extraction of labour and property
Control over liberty
All without valid consent, valid contract, or valid instrument

This is not governance by consent. This is governance by conditioning and concealment, operating through presumption that substitutes for the instruments the law itself requires.

7.6 What the Challenge Exposes

When a living being challenges the presumptions:

The agency contract cannot be produced (it does not exist)
The instrument of transfer cannot be produced (it does not exist)
The burden shifts to the claimant to prove what cannot be proven
The presumption fails

The challenge does not create a new legal position—it exposes that the required legal foundation was never established.

SUMMARY TABLE

Question	Answer	Primary Basis
Are presumptions lawful by system's own standards?	NO	Agency requires contract (none exists); transfer requires instrument (none exists)
Do they constitute fraud in equity?	YES	Concealment of material facts; conditioning creating false impression; "fraud vitiates everything"
Do they constitute involuntary servitude?	YES	Compelled labour through legal coercion without valid contractual basis; manufactured "consent"
Do they breach Magna Carta?	YES	Deprivation without lawful judgment; denial of right and justice
Do they breach Bill of Rights 1689?	YES	Deprivation without due process; dismissal of petitions
Do they breach US Constitution?	YES	Taking without due process; involuntary servitude; no lawful basis

FINAL OBSERVATION

The system operates precisely as described in the framework: through unrebutted presumption substituting for what the law itself requires.

When the presumption is challenged and the foundational instruments are demanded, they cannot be produced—not because of administrative failure, but because they were never created. The law's own requirements for agency (contract) and transfer of beneficial interest (instrument) have never been satisfied.

The challenge does not seek to defeat the law. It seeks to hold the law to its own stated requirements.

The result, when properly pursued, is confirmation of what was always true: beneficial interest never left the living being, the agency relationship was never validly contracted, and the presumption—when challenged—must yield to the absence of proof.

"Fraud vitiates everything it touches."

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude... shall exist."

"No free man shall be... stripped of his rights or possessions... except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land."

These are not aspirational statements. They are constitutional requirements. The presumption mechanism fails to satisfy them.

We have prepared this document for your consideration and understanding.

Useful Information? Donate Now