PDA

View Full Version : Americans Squandered Their Birthright of Sovereignty



ozmirage
27th March 2016, 03:01
Things That May Make You Pee Yourself

Like most Americans, I had no clue as to the facts of our demise, having only been exposed to what I was "allowed" to know, thanks to the World's Greatest Propaganda Ministry bar none.

Only after READING LAW for myself, did I learn the truth.

If I told you what you will find in the law, you wouldn't believe me. Shucks, if I went back in time to 1990, and told myself, I wouldn't believe me, either. But if you do go to the courthouse law library, remember to wear knee pads and "Depends" (adult diapers) ... you may fall to your knees, weeping, or pee yourself.

So, you’re thinking, “What fact would make one pee oneself?”
Discovering shocking facts - many many shocking facts.
Discovering the lies we all have been indoctrinated to believe.
...
[] Governments instituted to secure rights cannot tax rights - only privileges they bestow. So what privileges did government grant that makes us liable to pay taxes to live, travel, work, buy, sell, own land and a house, enter occupations, run a business, own a car, own a gun, and so on?
[] All land is NOT real estate. Private property and real estate are mutually exclusive.
[] Dollar bills (paper) are not dollars (coin)
[] Legal tender is not lawful money
[] The public debt can never be repaid
[] The debt, denominated in dollars (gold coin) cannot be repaid with dollar bills (debt that’s part of the national debt). A minus added to a minus is more minus.
[] There is no law that compels one to enroll in FICA / Social Security before one can live or work in the USA.
[] No one born in the 50 united States was born within the jurisdiction of the “United States” nor was U.S. citizenship imposed on them. (Mandatory civic duties would mean they were born “slaves”)
[] Americans are endowed with the birthright of sovereignty, freedom and independence - and are swiftly tricked into signing it all away.
[] Americans were tricked into leaving the republican form of government and transferring to the socialist democratic form of government.
[] Americans were tricked into becoming servants to the servant government.
[] Via FICA, participants diminish to paupers at law, and status criminals, guilty until proven innocent.
[] Via FICA, Americans have become collateral on an impossible public debt, eternally enslaved to the creditors of the United States government.
[] Via FICA, recipients will never ever vote against increasing their own benefit, no matter what it costs the nation, nor support any candidate that will diminish their bribes.
[] A legal residence is not a legal home (domicile) but a transient abode, and residents are redefined to be synonymous with vagabonds - an excepted class - and status criminals.
[] Every president and congress, since 1933, has been socialist / collectivist and co-conspirators in the wholesale robbery of the American people. (Even Ronny Reagan was a left winger!)
[] Capitulation of the U.S. government to foreign usurers (international financial powers).
[] Capitulation of religious institutions to usurers, despite all scriptures condemning usury.
[] The Secretary of Treasury is the U.S. governor of the World Bank, IMF, and other financial institutions (usurers), and by law, shall not be paid by the U.S. government. (*Which means he doesn’t work for America - or at the least - has a conflict of interest!)
[] Confiscation of all privately held gold money, and the criminalization of the ownership of lawful money by “free” Americans (1933 - 1975).
[] Counterfeiting the coin of America, but only after reducing the penalty for counterfeiting in 1965 (thank you, CONGRESS!)
[] Transformation of the American military from a force to secure American liberty to an international mercenary force to protect the socialist-usurer alliance that rules the planet.
[] Every monument named after a socialist politician post-1933 is an insult to the founding generation and the sacrifices they made to endow their posterity with sovereignty, freedom and independence.
[] Worst of all, Americans have been tricked into giving consent to all this, so that the servant government can remain blameless. A host of interlocking self interest groups have thus conspired together to make it easy to become corrupted and perverted. And that’s enough to fill anyone’s diaper to the max.

And now, our only remedy is to withdraw consent, restore our status, and correct the record, where possible. After that hurdle, American nationals / American sovereigns have to endeavor to preserve the republican form and the perpetual union of 50 states, created to secure our rights. For if the union is dissolved by a civil war between socialist and usurer factions, the results will not be pleasant nor beneficial to the survivors. All this will take investigation, education and self-realization that without our consent, they cannot rule us. And by law, they have no power over us, without our consent.

...
Most states (and the federal government) only publish CODE on the internet. They do not publish the STATUTES. Those are usually only available in law libraries.
...
Never rely solely on the CODE. Always go back to the underlying STATUTE to verify what the nature and scope of the law is.

What may you do after you've researched the law?
You might decide to

[a] leave Social Security;
[b] cancel all interest bearing accounts and investments;
[c] withdraw from citizenship;
[d] acquire a domicile (private property, absolutely owned) and
[e] restore your status as an American national / free inhabitant / non-resident / sovereign.

There was a time when it was common knowledge that Americans were sovereign.
.................................................. ...............
ALIEN, n. An American sovereign in his probationary state.
- - - - “The Devil’s Dictionary” (1906), by Ambrose Bierce
.................................................. ...............
(available from Gutenberg.org)

His audience knew what an “American sovereign” was, to understand the joke.

To this day, the courtroom resounds with the language that recognizes that the government works for the sovereign people (not the citizens). The judge asks the prosecutor, "What do the people say on this matter?"
For the government is the servant of the sovereign people. Otherwise, the judge would ask, "What do the citizens say on this matter?"

If you were trained to pledge allegiance to "your" sovereign government, you were trained to be a subject. You were deliberately indoctrinated to surrender your birthright of sovereignty, freedom and independence, that your ancestors fought and died to endow you with. That is a tragedy.

We were born to be Kings and Queens, monarchs of our lives and destinies. Our enemies have perverted generations, and polluted our language so that we may not recognize our tormentors. But I hope that someday, enough Americans awaken to their lost heritage. For when that day arrives, the heavens will rock with their exultation.

Eram
27th March 2016, 06:53
Hi Ozmirage,

I think it is mighty fascinating that there exists a lawful exit out of the mess that the US people are in.

On a practical level, I do have some questions:


I understand that you have withdrawn from citizenship.
How does that work out in reality? Does the government leave you alone in every way?
How does your life differ from people who are in the citizen matrix?


What (in your opinion) would happen if more and more people would withdraw from citizenship? 20.000 over a time span of a month. Or one million in one day. :)
How would the system react to that? (denial and brute force are the first things that come to mind here)


Thank you.

ozmirage
27th March 2016, 07:38
Hi Ozmirage,

I think it is mighty fascinating that there exists a lawful exit out of the mess that the US people are in.

On a practical level, I do have some questions:


I understand that you have withdrawn from citizenship.
How does that work out in reality? Does the government leave you alone in every way?
How does your life differ from people who are in the citizen matrix?


What (in your opinion) would happen if more and more people would withdraw from citizenship? 20.000 over a time span of a month. Or one million in one day. :)
How would the system react to that? (denial and brute force are the first things that come to mind here)


Thank you.
The servant government leaves American nationals alone, for the most part.

In the 1993 edition of the 1992 US Code (50 titles), I found only ONE reference to American nationals.


Title 8, USC Sec. 1502. Certificate of nationality issued by the Secretary of State for person not a naturalized citizen of the United States for use in proceedings of a foreign state.

“ The Secretary of State is authorized to issue, in his discretion and in accordance with rules and regulations prescribed by him, a certificate of nationality for any person not a naturalized citizen of the United States who presents satisfactory evidence that he is an American national and that such certificate is needed for use in judicial or administrative proceedings in a foreign state. Such certificate shall be solely for the use in the case for which it was issued and shall be transmitted by the Secretary of State through appropriate channels to the judicial or administrative officers of the foreign state in which it is to be used.”

That is ALL that the Federal government will say about American nationals.
(An American national is NOT synonymous with a U.S. national, defined in Title 8 of the U.S. code.)

P.S.- the State department will graciously issue passports for non-citizen American nationals.

TAXES


"The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws..."
- - - Economy Plumbing & Heating v. U.S., 470 F2d. 585 (1972)

As the Declaration of Independence reminds us, governments are instituted to secure rights. They were never delegated power to infringe, tax or diminish those rights it was created to secure.


"The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but, the individual's rights to live and own property are NATURAL RIGHTS for the enjoyment of which an excise [tax] cannot be imposed."
Redfield vs Fisher, 292 P. 813, at 819.

" The right to labor and to its protection from unlawful interference is a constitutional as well as a common-law right. Every man has a NATURAL RIGHT to the fruits of his own industry."
48 Am Jur 2d, Section 2, p. 80


" Any claim that this statute is a taxing statute would be immediately open to severe constitutional objections. If it could be said that the state had the POWER TO TAX A RIGHT, this would enable the state to DESTROY RIGHTS guaranteed by the constitutions through the use of oppressive taxation. The question herein, is one of the state taxing the right of travel by the ordinary modes of the day, and whether this is a legitimate object of state taxation. The views advanced herein are neither novel nor unsupported by authority. The question of the taxing power of the states has been repeatedly considered by the High Court. The right of the states to impede or embarrass the constitutional operations of the the U.S. Government or the Rights which the citizens hold under it, has been uniformly denied."
McCulloch v. Maryland 4 Wheat 316.

Governments instituted to secure (endowed) rights have no power to tax rights. They can tax only government privileges.

Ask your public servant to explain exactly WHAT government privilege imposes an income tax on you.


‘The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and PRIVILEGES which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of the tax.’
- - - F. Morse Hubbard, Treasury Department legislative draftsman. House Congressional Record March 27th 1943, page 2580.

‘When a court refers to an income tax being in the nature of an excise, it is merely stating that the tax is not on the property itself, but rather it is a fee for the PRIVILEGE of receiving gain from the property. The tax is based upon the amount of the gain, not the value of the property.’
- - - John R. Luckey, Legislative Attorney with the Library of Congress, ‘Frequently Asked Questions Concerning The Federal Income Tax’ (C.R.S. Report for Congress 92-303A (1992)).

‘The terms ‘excise tax’ and ‘PRIVILEGE TAX’ are synonymous. The two are often used interchangeably.’
- - - American Airways v. Wallace 57 F.2d 877, 880

Nontaxpayers have rights. Taxpayers have privileges.

CONSEQUENCES

Assuming that 97% of Americans decide to WITHDRAW CONSENT, we can assume that the tax receipts would drop 97% (or more). Also, there would be a 97% reduction in the number of subject citizens to be governed. It's not all bad. A 97% reduction in government is better than a 100% reduction from total collapse.

The 3% of selfless civil servants delegated power to secure rights, would be hard pressed to get into mischief.

There are other consequences that are politically unpalatable. With the loss of "human resources" pledged as collateral on the debt, the Federal Reserve Notes (dollar bills) would cease to be legal tender, as unnumbered Americans could object to their tender. Voiding the public debt for fraud also voids government bonds and notes (dollar bills). This would have the effect of making billionaires into zero-aires overnight. As you can imagine, all socialist programs would be unfunded, including Social Security and pensions.

Based on the amount of gold in Fort Knox (assuming it is still there), there's only about $9 per capita, when coined. Silver is not stockpiled, so we'd have only a year's mining output, which comes out around $3 per capita. Obviously "something" would have to give with respect to the money system. Based on the current GDP, we may see a 5000:1 price reduction.
Ex: $250,000 house => $49.99 house
(Not too far off from "MONOPOLY" prices)

Remember, CONgress has no power to create money, nor give that power to anyone else. CONgress has the power to coin money (stamp bullion) - not create bullion. And if CONgress had the power to create money, why would it need the power to borrow money?

If no government nor bank can create a medium of exchange, guess WHO does have the power?
And when you figure that out, you will better understand their silence on the issue.

As to the fear of a civil war / martial law / violent reprisal, there is not much one can do to stop rogues and predators. However, the honorable public servants obedient to the law would not be enemies of the sovereign people.

ozmirage
27th March 2016, 07:51
Skeptics may wish to argue that "REALITY" matters more than "the LAW."

However, since most Americans have never read law - nor does CONgress, routinely enacting legislation unread - it is a common mistake to think the law is fouled up.

It is our own ignorance that trips us up.
. . .

“It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.”
- - - George Washington; "Sentiments on a Peace Establishment" in a letter to Alexander Hamilton (2 May 1783); published in The Writings of George Washington (1938), edited by John C. Fitzpatrick, Vol. 26, p. 289.

[... Every citizen ... owes a portion of his property ... and services in defense ... in the militia ... from 18 to 50 years of age... ]

Make no mistake!
• The Declaration says : YOU have an endowed right to life.
• But citizens have no inalienable (endowed) right to life.
• The Declaration says : YOU have an endowed right to natural and personal liberty.
• But citizens have only civil and political liberty.
• The Declaration says : YOU have an endowed right to absolutely own private property (upon which you can pursue happiness without permission of a superior).
• But citizens have no private property, absolutely owned... a portion can be claimed by the government.

If you've consented to be a citizen, you have NO ENDOWED RIGHTS.
Zip. Nada. Bumpkiss. Empty Set. Nought.
Any presumption to the contrary is an error not supported by law nor court ruling.

The government can order you to train, fight, and die, on command.
The government can take a portion of your property -or wages - or whatever - as it sees fit.
All authorized by your consent to be a CITIZEN (state or U.S.).
(The USCON complies with this, too. People have rights and powers. Citizens have privileges and immunities. And they’re mutually exclusive.)
. . . . . . . . . .
The Supreme Court has held, in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit "enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, MILITIA, on the jury, etc." In Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918), the Supreme Court ruled that the military draft was not "involuntary servitude".

Since the militia only include male CITIZENS, and not all people (who apparently retain their rights), citizenship must be voluntary. But once one volunteers, those civic duties become mandatory.

Now that we know it is our consent to be citizens that waives our right to life and liberty, it is futile to argue over the loss of other inconsequential rights.

Complaining about consent already given is as useful as a volunteer on a suicide mission, blurting out "They want me to do WHAT?! - That could get me KILLED!"
. . . . . . . . . .
>> No inalienable (endowed) right to life <<
>> No liberty nor private property <<
>> BECAUSE citizens are consenting subjects! <<
= = He who consents cannot complain - SHUT UP, sit down, and obey. = =

Of course, you were dutifully informed of your consent, in your government approved education, right?

OOPS.

ozmirage
27th March 2016, 08:00
Someone asked the question : Who is most responsible for the public debt?

"Most responsible?"
[] Usurers.
Usury and compound interest are responsible for the impossible to repay public debt.

“Next most responsible?”
[] Government Idiocy
... clause 4, 14th amendment forbids challenging the validity of the public debt - even when it is obviously fraudulent.

_Why fraudulent?_
[] Congress has no power to create money - only coin money (stamp bullion) or borrow money.
As of Mar 2016, the public debt is over 19 Trillion dollars - not "dollar bills."

Pursuant to existing law, 19 Trillion dollars computes to 950 billion ounces of gold, stamped into coin.
Problem #1 : Fort Knox allegedly holds 147.4 million ounces.
Problem #2 : World wide supply (est) is only 5.6 billion ounces.
So exactly how did CONGRESS borrow the 944 billion ounces of gold dollars that do not exist?
[crickets chirping]
...
So if Congress didn't borrow 950 trillion ounces of gold stamped into DOLLARS, what did it borrow? At interest?
[crickets chirping]
...
I may be missing something, but it is obvious that Congress did not borrow 950 billion ounces of gold stamped into 19 trillion dollars, and anyone claiming to be a creditor is part of the fraud. They could not have lent "dollars" (gold) to Congress.
...
(Dollar bills are not dollars. They are worthless IOUs, since 1933.)
...
What do you think is really going on?
(wink, wink, nod, nod)

Eram
27th March 2016, 08:49
Hmm,

I notice that there is a gap between your writings and what I'm able to understand from it.
It's almost like two different languages that meet.
I'm not sure, but I'm willing to bet that this goes for the majority of the people who read this thread.

How can this be solved?

Is there a chance that you are willing to make an effort to choose your words in a manor that is becomes more easy to understand for people who are not used to law jargon?

I think it would improve the chances for a fruitful dialogue. :)

ozmirage
27th March 2016, 09:23
Hmm,

I notice that there is a gap between your writings and what I'm able to understand from it.
It's almost like two different languages that meet.
I'm not sure, but I'm willing to bet that this goes for the majority of the people who read this thread.

How can this be solved?

Is there a chance that you are willing to make an effort to choose your words in a manor that is becomes more easy to understand for people who are not used to law jargon?

I think it would improve the chances for a fruitful dialogue. :)
Unfortunately, colloquial English does not match well with certain legal terms and principles. Worse, terms are often redefined.
Consider the confusion over "republic","constitutional republic" and "republican form of government."

In law, one has to be excruciatingly accurate.

I will try to make a simplified
READER’S DIGEST OF LAW (AMERICAN)
...
Law simplified into one sentence:
"All law is for the protection of property rights, all else is policy and policy requires consent."

★ Government recognizes and explicitly protects private property ownership.
★ Government recognizes and explicitly protects natural rights, natural liberty and personal liberty from trespass.

Declaration of Independence (1776):
=> Job #1 = secure rights (endowed by our Creator)
=> Job #2 = govern those who consent
. . . (Caveat - consent waives job #1)
=> All Americans are created equal before the law - no one has higher status. This is also the source of the Republican form of government and the sovereignty of the American national / free inhabitant.

PEOPLE : Have powers and are endowed with rights such as life, liberty (natural and personal), and absolute ownership of their private property. Americans are free to live, own, travel, work, and do not need permission (license) from servant government.

CITIZENS : Granted privileges and immunities, to exercise civil and political liberties, in exchange for surrendering endowed rights by consent. As subjects, they are not free to live, own, travel, work, and do need permission (license) from their master, the government.

GOVERNMENTS : Created by compact to secure rights - they do not have rights - they have delegated powers. They do not grant rights - they bestow privileges and immunities on those who consent to be governed.

ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION (1777) :
=> Created a perpetual UNION of member states and their governments
=> Delegated certain powers to the United States, in Congress assembled

USCON (1787) :
=> The United States, in Congress assembled, was reorganized into three branches, allegedly to balance power, but required the State officers to swear an oath to the supremacy of the U.S. constitution.
=> People have rights and powers (protected by government)
=> Citizens have privileges and immunities (granted by government)

In other words, the institution of government was to secure rights, via prosecution of deliberate trespass and adjudication of accidental trespass. And govern (i.e., rule, regulate, restrict) only those who consent.
★ Anything more is suspect.
★ Anything less is unacceptable.

Offended by the current socialist democratic benevolent totalitarian police state that your consent empowers?
Until consent is withdrawn, no remedy exists.
After consent is withdrawn, no remedy is needed.
... ... .. .. ... ... .. .. ... ... .. ..
Note: The USCON guarantees a republican form, but the source of the republican form is the Declaration of Independence, ergo, the Declaration is incorporated into the USCON by reference, and is part of the SUPREME LAW of the LAND.

Do not believe me - I am not infallible. Go read the law (statutes) in the public record, available at any county courthouse law library. Verify that servant government has not violated the endowed rights of the sovereign people, and limits its governance to those who gave consent... the subject citizens, who have surrendered their sacred rights in exchange for political and civil liberties.

samildamach
27th March 2016, 09:28
The whole subject is fascinating a complicated and so very simple all at the same time.I highly recommend looking up straw man as a starting point with reference to your birth certificate .

ozmirage
27th March 2016, 09:36
The whole subject is fascinating a complicated and so very simple all at the same time.I highly recommend looking up straw man as a starting point with reference to your birth certificate .
That's patriot mythology, debunked way back in the 1990s.

The real basis for alleged abuse is CONSENT of the governed.

Re-read what George Washington said about American citizens and mandatory militia duty... the obligation to train, fight, and die, on command.

- - - -


Articles of Confederation, VI. (1777)
...every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined MILITIA, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.

Art. 1, Sec. 8, USCON (1789)
Congress shall have power ... To provide for calling forth the MILITIA to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

Title 10 USC Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The MILITIA of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, CITIZENS of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Title 50 USC Sec. 453. Registration (Selective Service)
(a)...it shall be the duty of every male CITIZEN of the United States, and every other male person RESIDING in the United States, who, on the day or days fixed for the first or any subsequent registration, is between the ages of eighteen and twenty-six, to present himself for and submit to registration at such time or times and place or places, and in such manner, as shall be determined by proclamation of the President and by rules and regulations prescribed hereunder.

Another reference about citizenship and the drop in status from mandatory civic duties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

“The great draft riot in New York City in July 1863 involved Irish immigrants who had been signed up as citizens to swell the vote of the city's Democratic political machine, not realizing it made them liable for the draft.”

The Supreme Court has held, in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit "enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, MILITIA, on the jury, etc." In Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918), the Supreme Court ruled that the military draft was not "involuntary servitude".

Since 1777, the MILITIA were defined as all able bodied male citizens, between 17 and 45. They were obligated to train, fight, and die, on command. That is the reason why conscription (“the draft”) is 100% constitutional.

But citizenship MUST be voluntary, otherwise militia duty violates the Declaration of Independence, wherein all men are endowed with the right to LIFE and LIBERTY as well as the 13th amendment to the U.S. constitution.

Once you've waived your endowed rights to life and liberty, why grouse over the loss of other rights?

ozmirage
27th March 2016, 09:45
There was once a nation....

There was once a nation, founded on the ideal of self government. Not a participatory democratic form, mind you. But that each individual governed himself - as a sovereign - master of his own domain.

Of course, when beset by predators, it helps to cooperate and unite in mutual defense. A subset of civic minded folks offered their services to “help” secure rights - you know - prosecute deliberate trespass and adjudicate accidental trespass.

This subset, was drawn from not more than 3 to 5% of the populace, who had successfully revolted against their former sovereign. These “public servants” stepped down in status, accepted mandatory civic duties, in exchange for political liberty (voting and holding office). Not only were they oathbound to the compact (constitution), but they were held to a higher standard of behavior. Service is a privilege, not a right, and the people, the real masters, had the right to refuse service from those they disapproved of.

To insure that only genuine patriots served, volunteers had to register their property, pay taxes, serve in the militia between the ages of 17 and 45, and surrender their liberty and life, in defense of the country and the people. This made sense. If one is to decide on who and how the public funds are to be used to secure rights, ante up your share and your hide. Cowards need not apply.

America’s governments were thus instituted with two delegations of power : to secure rights (endowed by our Creator) and to govern those who consent (subjects).

Frankly, legislatures didn’t have much to do, after enacting the laws that secured rights, as in prosecute deliberate injury to person or property, and adjudicate civil cases. And with a small budget, limited taxing powers (remember, no government instituted to secure rights can tax rights), and few subjects to rule, government work was no way to get rich.

After only two generations, those selfless “patriots” realized that they had a “raw deal,” and decided to change the percentages in their favor. They ended the stringent prerequisites for voting, and extended suffrage to any warm blooded male, regardless. This had several beneficial consequences :

1. It reduced the odds for being called up for militia duty, as more were now bound to serve;
2. It increased the number of consenting subjects and taxpayers, that the “democratically elected” government could govern, rule, regulate, restrict, and skin alive;
3. It fostered partisanship, and the rise of “tax and bribe” politics; and
4. It shifted the character of a candidate from “public servant” to “panderer.”

Generations passed. Having erased the memory of the fall from sovereignty, that subjugation of citizenship entailed, the perverted government lured women into demanding the “right to vote.” Of course, political liberty is a government privilege, not a right, since it is dependent upon a government existing. Furthermore, the grant of suffrage was unequal, since the women were not equally obligated to serve and put their lives on the line. In other words, women kept their superior protected status, and were more than happy to grab as much corruption as they could.

Not surprising, soon after women’s suffrage, the government embarked on several disastrous violations of liberty (i.e., “Progressivism” and government meddling) of which the major one was Prohibition - the ban on the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages.

As stated before, the power of the government to govern those who consent, and to hold public servants to a higher standard of behavior did authorize the ban - if it was limited to “persons liable.” Of course, since the vast majority of Americans unknowingly had become “persons liable,” by their consent, no legal grounds existed to stop it.

Remember, in the organic documents that formed the nation’s governments, men were endowed with rights and liberties, which meant they had absolute ownership of themselves, their labor, their property and the liberty (natural and personal) that came with that status. The servant government had no delegation of power to tax, ban, proscribe, prohibit, or regulate any aspect of their private livelihood or enterprise as long as no one’s rights were trespassed... EXCEPT by their consent.

Which explains why “public education” seemed to have omitted the fact that Americans could not be “born citizens” without being “born subject slaves.” Citizens have mandatory civic duties. To be born a citizen, violates the 13th amendment, since such mandatory duties would be involuntary servitude.

Even the imposition of national socialism, via the Federal Insurance Contribution Act / Social Security Act of 1935, was by consent. No law compels participation, nor punishes those who do not participate.

Sadly, few Americans are cognizant of their consent in the matter. During the years of the Viet Nam unWar, many “Draft Dodgers” refused their voluntary obligation to train, fight and die, on command, part of militia duty that was law of the land since 1777. Of course, such duty was limited to citizens (volunteers) and residents (privileged transients). American nationals, domiciled within the boundaries of the U.S.A. were not so obligated, and the law does not presume to trespass upon their rights, powers, liberties, and immunities.

As we witness the collapse of the united States of America, preyed upon by internal forces of its own creation and sufferance, one might ask : “Could things have been different?”
I believe they could be different, and can be, too.

The laws in harmony with the republican form are still on the books. There are still protections for inhabitants with domiciles who are not consenting subjects. There are still no mandatory duties for non-citizen / non-resident American nationals. All the abusive laws appear to be strictly limited in scope and venue to those who have given consent. Granted, most Americans are clueless and ignorant of that fact, but there is still hope.

I am skeptical that enough minds can change before the outbreak of chaos, and am pessimistic as to the course of the conflagration. There won’t be any “winners” - just “losers.”

Even after the smoke and dust settles, on that day after the end of the final collapse, there is hope. If Americans can rediscover the fundamental principles that founded America, in 1776, there is a chance that the republican form of government will not perish from the face of the earth.

Eram
27th March 2016, 09:50
Yes, I understand that the law uses certain words and that it is a slippery slope to try and translate it into a more readably substance.

That is not really my issue.

If we assume (for the sake of arguments) that you and others who have done the hard labor of studying the law in this respect, are correct in the notion that one can withdraw citizenship, then I'd like to discuss the scenario's that we can derive from that. I'm certain that we can discuss such scenario's in a language that we can all understand.

In other words:
It is one thing to find a legal way out of the system that the US citizens live by and are subjected to. It is another thing to bring this into practice as a solution for all. Then we have to start thinking about every possible bump in the road.

Such a discussion could (and I think should) be held without constantly go back to legal, difficult to understand texts.

ozmirage
27th March 2016, 10:05
Yes, I understand that the law uses certain words and that it is a slippery slope to try and translate it into a more readably substance.

That is not really my issue.

If we assume (for the sake of arguments) that you and others who have done the hard labor of studying the law in this respect, are correct in the notion that one can withdraw citizenship, then I'd like to discuss the scenario's that we can derive from that. I'm certain that we can discuss such scenario's in a language that we can all understand.

In other words:
It is one thing to find a legal way out of the system that the US citizens live by and are subjected to. It is another thing to bring this into practice as a solution for all. Then we have to start thinking about every possible bump in the road.

Such a discussion could (and I think should) be held without constantly go back to legal, difficult to understand texts.

If I may make an analogy to "1984" - American socialists have been indoctrinated to speak and think with DOUBLE BAD terminology that interferes with comprehension.

Translating legal speak into double bad language is not the remedy to ignorance of the law.

Reading law is initially painful and laborious. But, in time, you gain confidence and a better understanding.

Here’s an example of convoluted legalese:
From the Official Code of Georgia Annotated-

OCGA 40-2-1. As used in this chapter, the term:
(2) "Resident" means a person who has a permanent home or abode in Georgia to which, whenever he is absent, he has the intention of returning. For the purposes of this chapter, there is a rebuttable presumption that any person who, except for infrequent, brief absences, has been present in the state for 30 or more days is a resident.

--- This is a prime example of the art of legal word twisting.
Note how the phrasing sounds like the definition for domicile.

Resident = "a person" + "permanent home".

If you quickly read the section, you might presume that it means one who is in the state 30 or more days is a resident, for motor vehicle code purposes.

But if you dissect it, the meaning is just the opposite.
"A person" + "permanent home" + "present for 30 or more days" = rebuttable presumption that HE IS A RESIDENT.

In plain English, a Georgia resident is one who has a permanent home but is in the state LESS than 30 days out of a year (A transient). If one is present in the state 30 or more days out of a year, he can REBUT THE PRESUMPTION that he is a resident.

If one is NOT a resident, but has a legal and permanent home in Georgia, is he not an inhabitant (domiciled) at his permanent home?

And non-residents are not obligated to get permission (license).

D'Oh!

Here are the pertinent definitions


"INHABITANT - One who resides actually and permanently in a given place, and has his domicile there."
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p.782

"DOMICILE - A person's legal home. That place where a man has his true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment, and to which whenever he is absent he has the intention of returning."
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p.484

"RESIDENCE - Place where one actually lives ... Residence implies something more than physical presence and something less than domicile. The terms 'resident' and 'residence' have no precise legal meaning... [One can have many residences but only one domicile]
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p.1308, 1309

"RESIDENT - ...when used as a noun, means a dweller, habitant, or occupant; one who resides or dwells in a place for a period of more, or less duration...
Resident has many meanings in law, largely determined by statutory context in which it is used."
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p.1309
A "legal residence" is NOT a permanent legal home (domicile).

Why is being an inhabitant important?

"The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states ... shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states; ...."
[Article IV of the Articles of Confederation (1777)]

Free inhabitants - who are not subject citizens - are recognized as having endowed rights that government was instituted to secure. They are the sovereign people.

If you are listed in the public records as a RESIDENT, you are NOT an inhabitant. And if you are a citizen, you are a subject.
Isn't it curious that only RESIDENTS are required or eligible to get permission (license)?

Does government make the distinction?
YES.

" No inhabitant of this state shall be molested in person or property ... on account of religious opinions..."
- - - Georgia Constitution, Article 1, Sec.1, Paragraph 4

"... private property shall not be taken or damaged for public purposes without just and adequate compensation being first paid.'
- - - Georgia Constitution, Article 1, Sec.3, Paragraph 1
No inhabitant, domiciled in Georgia, who believes that participation in socialism is a violation of his religious beliefs is to be molested, nor is his private property liable to be taken without compensation first being paid.

I think you can guess what is NOT mentioned as subject to being taxed in the Georgia constitution.

Oh, but what about RESIDENTS?

“ Citizens, protection of. All citizens of the United States, resident in this state, are hereby declared citizens of this state ; and it shall be the duty of the General Assembly to enact such laws as will protect them in the full enjoyment of the rights, privileges, and immunities due to such citizenship.”
- - - Georgia Constitution, Article 1, Sec.3, Paragraph 7
All U.S. citizens (subjects) resident in the state (not as inhabitants) are declared subject citizens of the state, as well. Isn't that SPECIAL?

Eram
27th March 2016, 10:39
I don't think that this is going to work out for me (and I imagine others as well).

I am seriously interested in this subject and the fact that you seem to be able to live outside the system of citizenship, but if all your posts are laced with this legal jargon, then I have to accept defeat and withdraw from the thread and (for now) the whole subject.

Last attempt.
If you would be so kind, please answer the questions that I asked in my first post in this thread in understandable language. :)




I understand that you have withdrawn from citizenship.
How does that work out in reality? Does the government leave you alone in every way?
How does your life differ from people who are in the citizen matrix?


What (in your opinion) would happen if more and more people would withdraw from citizenship? 20.000 over a time span of a month. Or one million in one day. :)
How would the system react to that? (denial and brute force are the first things that come to mind here)

Radi
27th March 2016, 12:22
I think when there is a wish, there is a way!

check this info :
(How do you Lawfully regain status as a Sovereign Human Being? Understand and Use Contracts)

http://reclaim-your-sovereignty.blogspot.bg/2013/03/how-individual-australians-can.html

,,What are you? A Human Being with Infinite Potential

As a human being, you are charged with the responsibility of living your life somewhere within the limits of the Laws of Nature. Within these limits you have absolutely infinite creative potential to learn, live and love your way through the universe to become your best self and achieve your destiny whatever that may be. You literally can achieve most anything that any other human being has ever achieved before or something completely new. You are Unique and Eternal, so DREAM BIG!

Who are you? You are the Product of your Values, Beliefs, Actions and Contracts

Many of us currently define ourselves by the name given to us at birth, or by our job, or by being a member of a society, or by a single achievement, or even worse… by the size of our bank account. However, as Human Beings with infinite creative potential we are so much more than these simple definitions. So do yourself a favour and take some time to thoughtfully define yourself by identifying and listing your Core Values and Beliefs. Achieving the life you’ve always dreamt of starts here.

What is Sovereignty? Complete Responsibility for Yourself and the Consequences of Your Actions

All human beings are Sovereign entities, however the vast majority have been deceived into giving up their rights and Sovereign Power to access Government benefits, or to honour the memory of relatives and ancestors whom fought and died for the system, or simply because the government says so. Until you re-claim your Sovereignty you are subject to the statutes and rules of the society (Commonwealth) created by the Sovereign power people submit to. ''

and check this 2 pdf files for some more info on the topic.

http://www.yourstrawman.com/Strawman.pdf

https://exodus200.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/strawman.pdf

:)

zen deik
27th March 2016, 14:27
Sounds like the republic of Texas.....

raregem
27th March 2016, 15:14
Hmm,

I notice that there is a gap between your writings and what I'm able to understand from it.
It's almost like two different languages that meet.
I'm not sure, but I'm willing to bet that this goes for the majority of the people who read this thread.

How can this be solved?

Is there a chance that you are willing to make an effort to choose your words in a manor that is becomes more easy to understand for people who are not used to law jargon?

I think it would improve the chances for a fruitful dialogue. :)

Thank you for this question.
I was close to leaving...I still cannot wrap my brain around such wording for law. Seems convoluted to the point to truly confuse the people. Words are very strategic and trickster in legal writings. These "laws" are not even true according to the writings here. Meaning: what the average "sovereign" Joes believe as truth and protection are twisted now for control and human ownership. Not the same.
Thanks OzMirage for such efforts, depth and scope . I do hope I can get the "Dummies" version......

sirdipswitch
27th March 2016, 16:43
Precisely why our founding fathers did not want lawyers to hold public office.

They are highly adept at confusion.:wizard:

Lost N Found
27th March 2016, 18:48
Ozmirage, I would like to make an observation here. I have studied all of the stuff you are posting. I have read the USC The CFR, The UCC and delved into the law libraries so deep it has made me sick. I have all of the pertinent information at my fingertips all the time and here is what I have found after years of study. NONE OF THIS CRAP IS REAL LAW, THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY REAL LAWS WRITTEN SINCE 1861. COMMON LAW WAS FOR THE PEOPLE The Constitution does not give us any rights it was not written to do that. It was written to give a government certain writes and to keep them in check. The Bill of rights was placed there for the people and to keep check on the government. Common law was brought over from England and given to the American Nationals, Actually the free inhabitants on the land of the continental states.

So that is just a taste, Our Republic government cruised along until king Lincoln became president. In 1861 the southern states walked out of congress Sine Die and the government (true government) could not re convene. So good old Lincoln created the first corporation and made the left over congress into a board of directors. That all went along during the Civil War and afterwards the reconstruction period happened where The king came up with the 14th amendment Illegally I might add and made everyone a UNITED STATES CITIZEN. Now we all got to be employees of the Corporation. How wonderful. So all those funky not LAWs called statutes, Codes, Policies are only written for Corporate employees. Check out the Act of 1871 and the continuation of the corporation. The Bankruptcy of 1933 and so on.

Yes there are ways to remove yourself from the corporation of the UNITED STATES INC. OR THE United States of America INC or whatever the criminals decide to call themselves/ But unless you completely stop doing commerce you will never get out. There are some things one can do and I have done some. So maybe we ought to be talking about what is real and what is not ???????????????

Steven

ozmirage
27th March 2016, 19:00
Ozmirage, I would like to make an observation here. I have studied all of the stuff you are posting. I have read the USC The CFR, The UCC and delved into the law libraries so deep it has made me sick. I have all of the pertinent information at my fingertips all the time and here is what I have found after years of study. NONE OF THIS CRAP IS REAL LAW, THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY REAL LAWS WRITTEN SINCE 1861. COMMON LAW WAS FOR THE PEOPLE The Constitution does not give us any rights it was not written to do that. It was written to give a government certain writes and to keep them in check. The Bill of rights was placed there for the people and to keep check on the government. Common law was brought over from England and given to the American Nationals, Actually the free inhabitants on the land of the continental states.

So that is just a taste, Our Republic government cruised along until king Lincoln became president. In 1861 the southern states walked out of congress Sine Die and the government (true government) could not re convene. So good old Lincoln created the first corporation and made the left over congress into a board of directors. That all went along during the Civil War and afterwards the reconstruction period happened where The king came up with the 14th amendment Illegally I might add and made everyone a UNITED STATES CITIZEN. Now we all got to be employees of the Corporation. How wonderful. So all those funky not LAWs called statutes, Codes, Policies are only written for Corporate employees. Check out the Act of 1871 and the continuation of the corporation. The Bankruptcy of 1933 and so on.

Yes there are ways to remove yourself from the corporation of the UNITED STATES INC. OR THE United States of America INC or whatever the criminals decide to call themselves/ But unless you completely stop doing commerce you will never get out. There are some things one can do and I have done some. So maybe we ought to be talking about what is real and what is not ???????????????

Steven
I disagree.

Please re-read the quote from George Washington, written prior to the USCON.

If you do not perceive that a citizen has NO endowed rights, while American people are sovereigns with endowed rights, you will not understand.

The mythologists blame everything and everyone else but CONSENT of the GOVERNED.

The "State Citizens" made the same mistake.

[American] People have endowed rights and are sovereigns.
[American] Citizens have government privileges and are subjects.

That's the LAW OF THE LAND.

Non Taurus Cacas.

(P.S. - a "republic" is NOT synonymous with a "republican form of government.")

ozmirage
27th March 2016, 19:08
Last attempt.
If you would be so kind, please answer the questions that I asked in my first post in this thread in understandable language. :)




I understand that you have withdrawn from citizenship.
How does that work out in reality? Does the government leave you alone in every way?
How does your life differ from people who are in the citizen matrix?


What (in your opinion) would happen if more and more people would withdraw from citizenship? 20.000 over a time span of a month. Or one million in one day. :)
How would the system react to that? (denial and brute force are the first things that come to mind here)



If I may reformat the questions - - -
How does not being a subject of government differ from being a subject of government?
_ My endowed rights are secure

Does the government trespass upon your rights and liberties?
_ No

How is life different?
_ Not a slave

If Americans withdraw consent, in large enough numbers, what happens to "the system"?
_ It collapses

ozmirage
27th March 2016, 19:18
Instead of trying to persuade people of the benefits of the republican form of government and the endowments of the Declaration of Independence, I will play Devil's Advocate and spell out what Americans consented to.

Declaration of Pauperization and Socialist Slavery

• We believe that governments are instituted among men so that the majority can outvote the minority and take their property.
• We believe in compulsory labor for the benefit of another because slavery is good.
• We believe that submission to the State will provide the highest standard of living for those whom the State rewards.
• We believe that no one has an absolute right to life, to liberty, to land, or any other property without permission of the State, administered by benevolent overseers that the majority votes into office.
• We believe power trumps morality, and protests supersede common sense.
• We believe that we owe allegiance, labor and obedience to the State, and that the people serve the State and its leaders. And we are ecstatic at the prospect of the People’s Democratic Socialist Republic of America, sans that pesky charter of negative liberties.
• We do not want a republican form of government where the people are sovereigns and the government serves them.
• We do not want natural liberty - absolute freedom - over our private property absolutely owned.
• We do not want personal liberty - the right to travel - without first getting permission (license) from the government.
• We do not want to endow our children with our property - we want to give it to the State and let them decide who is deserving of it.
• We believe that guns are dangerous, and by banning guns, people will be safe from criminals in or out of government.
• We believe that no one has the right to exclude others from his property, or prevent the deserving needy from taking what they need.
• We believe that one must get permission from the State and carry identification papers or other means to insure that the State can account for one’s activities.
• We believe that prior restraint and strict regulation is more convenient than only prosecuting deliberate injury after the fact.
• We believe that a common belief system that tolerates predation, imposed by incessant propaganda is superior to religious dogma that teaches the law of love is superior to the law of the jungle.
• We believe that the State knows best, and its legislated limits on poisoning is better than justice for injured parties, who suffered from legal levels of poisoning.
• We believe that no one has a right to life without the permission of the State and/or his fellow citizens, and misbehavior is to be punished with outlawry or death.
• We are too stupid, pity us.

War is peace - ignorance is strength - freedom is slavery - debt is money - censorship is security - lies are truth - facts don’t matter - only MY opinion matters (as long as it agrees with Big Brother!)

Eram
27th March 2016, 19:30
Huh? There's no valid need to reformat my questions! :P


Perhaps trickery was involved to create the state of "master- slave" that the US is now in, but I can't imagine that the people who own the power now will sit bye and watch when people withdraw consent.
Not in a million years.

ozmirage
27th March 2016, 20:08
The world's greatest propaganda ministry has almost eradicated any memory of America's unique republican form.

You will find that external references to the republican form lead one astray.
Ex: WIKIPEDIA - Search on republican form and WIKI links back to "republic."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

A republic (from Latin: res publica) is a sovereign state or country which is organised with a form of government in which power resides in elected individuals representing the citizen body...
The "Free Dictionary" also redirects back to "republic."

That form of government in which the administration of affairs is open to all the citizens. A political unit or "state," independent of its form of government.

Under the illusion of democracy, Americans mindlessly embrace submission to the all powerful government, believing that by participation, they are the "bosses." (SMH)

Even the so-called "Opposition" is entirely enraptured by the notion that it is "THEIR" government to rule and control... and swallow historical revisions that vilify the honorable statesmen who served.

In reality, the sovereign people are not parties to the compacts that created the servant governments.


"But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in Court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The States are the parties to it. And they may complain...."
- - -Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. Mayor and Alderman, City of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438, 520 (1854) Supreme Court of Georgia

Caveat - the following represents over 20 years of research into "obscure" references to the [whispered] republican form of government.

REPUBLICAN FORM REFERENCE ARCHIVE

“The republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the Rights of mankind.”
- - - Thomas Jefferson
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson

“I firmly believe that the benevolent Creator designed the republican Form of Government for Man.”
- - - Samuel Adams;
Statement of (14 April 1785), quoted in The Writings of Samuel Adams (1904) edited by Harry A. Cushing
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Samuel_Adams

"What I do say is that no man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. I say this is the leading principle, the sheet-anchor of American republicanism. Our Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
- - - Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois (1854)
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abraham_lincoln

As Lincoln reminds us, under the republican form, promised by the USCON, instituted by the Declaration of Independence, NO MAN (nor American government) is good enough to govern you without your consent. Without your consent, all that government is authorized to do is secure endowed (sacred) rights (prosecute trespass; adjudicate disputes; defend against enemies, foreign or domestic).

" When a change of government takes place, from a monarchial to a republican government, the old form is dissolved. Those who lived under it, and did not choose to become members of the new, had a right to refuse their allegiance to it, and to retire elsewhere. By being a part of the society subject to the old government, they had not entered into any engagement to become subject to any new form the majority might think proper to adopt. That the majority shall prevail is a rule posterior to the formation of government, and results from it. It is not a rule binding upon mankind in their natural state. There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent."
- - - CRUDEN v. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E. 70.

Without consent, no majority can rule nor govern, only secure endowed rights.

All endowed rights and liberties are from the Creator, not government, and thus cannot be subject to a majority vote, or any other infringement.

" Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable."
- - - 16 Corpus Juris Secundum, Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.

NATURAL RIGHTS - ... are the rights of life, liberty, privacy, and good reputation.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p. 1324

Americans are endowed with natural rights and liberties (natural and personal) that are not subject to infringement by servant government, instituted to secure those rights.
- - -

“... at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects, and have none to govern but themselves. . .
“... In Europe, the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here, it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and, at most, stand in the same relation to their sovereign in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns.”
- - - Justice John Jay, Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/2/419#writing-USSC_CR_0002_0419_Z

In America, however, the case is widely different. Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.
- - - Glass vs The Sloop Betsey, 3 Dall 6 (1794)

- - -
In the republican form of government, the people are sovereigns (unless they consent otherwise) served by (not ruled by) servant government. Their rights and liberties existed before constitutional government (which is why the republican form is NOT a constitutional republic - nor can a constitutional government institute a republican form).


DEFINITIONS

Here are THREE definitions that describe aspects associated with the REPUBLICAN FORM
...

COMMONWEALTH - ...It generally designates, when so employed, a republican form of government, - one in which the welfare and rights of the entire mass of people are the main consideration, rather than the privileges of a class or the will of the monarch...
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 278

SUBJECT - One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws.
...Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1425

GOVERNMENT (Republican Form of Government)- One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people... directly...
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 695
...
Restating, in the references to a “republican form” we can see the following characteristics of it:
[] People directly exercise sovereignty (over themselves and their private property, absolutely owned)
[] People are not subjects of a sovereign (citizens are subjects, by definition)
[] The welfare and rights of the entire mass of people are the main consideration

RELATED TO SOVEREIGN PEOPLE (non-citizen Nationals)

"The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states, ... shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states ..."
[Article IV of the Articles of Confederation (1777)]

“Free inhabitants” = sovereigns

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion. . .”
- - - United States Constitution, Article 4, Section 4.

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the PEOPLE.”
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the PEOPLE.”
- - - Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution

What rights and what powers?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
- - - Declaration of Independence, 1776

Note: PEOPLE (sovereigns) have rights and powers (endowed by our Creator).
Citizens (subjects) have privileges and immunities (granted by the government).

Citizens are NOT sovereigns


CITIZEN - ... Citizens are members of a political community who, in their associative capacity, have established or SUBMITTED themselves to the dominion of government for the promotion of the general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. p.244

"... the term 'citizen,' in the United States, is analogous to the term "SUBJECT" in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government. ... he who before was a "subject of the King" is now a citizen of the State."
- - - State v. Manuel, 20 N.C. 144 (1838)

Article 4, Section 2 - State citizens
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

- - - - - -

REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT. . . The fourth section of the fourth article of the constitution, directs that "the United States shall guaranty to every state in the Union a republican form of government." The form of government is to be guarantied, WHICH SUPPOSES A FORM ALREADY ESTABLISHED, and this is the republican form of government the United States have undertaken to protect.
- - - Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 6th edition, 1856
. . .
The republican form existed BEFORE the USCON, thus it cannot be a “constitutional republic.”
. . .
Under the subsection: CONSTITUTION
Sec. 4. The guarantee of a republican form of government to every "state" means to its people and not to its government: Texas v. White. 7 Wall. (U. S.) 700, 19 L. Ed. 227. Where it was also held that this clause was sufficient authority for the reconstruction, after the Civil War of the governments of the states included within the Confederacy. No precise definition of what constitutes a republican government under this clause has been judicially declared; . . . Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 162, 22 L. Ed. 027
- - - Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 8th ed. (1914), P.635

The republican form is guaranteed to the PEOPLE (sovereigns) not to the state governments (oath bound subjects of the U.S. government).
- - - -
As long as the republican form is guaranteed, the form of the servant government is immaterial.
- - - -
The day when there are no longer any sovereign Americans, is the day that the republican form is eradicated from the face of the earth.


RESTATEMENT

REPUBLICAN FORM - that form of government wherein the people directly exercise sovereignty, and are served -not ruled- by government (and its subject citizens). The sovereign people retain possession of all their endowed and inalienable rights, powers, and liberties, and no democratic majority can vote them away. The servant government exercises power to secure rights, and only by special delegation via consent, may it govern. Though not perfect, it is the best form, securing the maximum liberty and freedom to its sovereign people.

Under the republican form of government, the American is endowed with (natural) rights, (natural and personal) liberties, absolute ownership (private property), and government was instituted to secure those endowed rights... unless he consents to be governed under the constitutionally limited indirect democratic form of government. Then all bets are off, for if he consents, then he waives endowed rights in exchange for government’s privileges and immunities, and voluntarily accepts mandatory civic duties that would otherwise violate endowed rights, liberties, and powers.

Lost N Found
27th March 2016, 20:10
Ozmirage, I would like to make an observation here. I have studied all of the stuff you are posting. I have read the USC The CFR, The UCC and delved into the law libraries so deep it has made me sick. I have all of the pertinent information at my fingertips all the time and here is what I have found after years of study. NONE OF THIS CRAP IS REAL LAW, THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY REAL LAWS WRITTEN SINCE 1861. COMMON LAW WAS FOR THE PEOPLE The Constitution does not give us any rights it was not written to do that. It was written to give a government certain writes and to keep them in check. The Bill of rights was placed there for the people and to keep check on the government. Common law was brought over from England and given to the American Nationals, Actually the free inhabitants on the land of the continental states.

So that is just a taste, Our Republic government cruised along until king Lincoln became president. In 1861 the southern states walked out of congress Sine Die and the government (true government) could not re convene. So good old Lincoln created the first corporation and made the left over congress into a board of directors. That all went along during the Civil War and afterwards the reconstruction period happened where The king came up with the 14th amendment Illegally I might add and made everyone a UNITED STATES CITIZEN. Now we all got to be employees of the Corporation. How wonderful. So all those funky not LAWs called statutes, Codes, Policies are only written for Corporate employees. Check out the Act of 1871 and the continuation of the corporation. The Bankruptcy of 1933 and so on.

Yes there are ways to remove yourself from the corporation of the UNITED STATES INC. OR THE United States of America INC or whatever the criminals decide to call themselves/ But unless you completely stop doing commerce you will never get out. There are some things one can do and I have done some. So maybe we ought to be talking about what is real and what is not ???????????????

Steven
I disagree.

Please re-read the quote from George Washington, written prior to the USCON.

If you do not perceive that a citizen has NO endowed rights, while American people are sovereigns with endowed rights, you will not understand.

The mythologists blame everything and everyone else but CONSENT of the GOVERNED.

The "State Citizens" made the same mistake.

[American] People have endowed rights and are sovereigns.
[American] Citizens have government privileges and are subjects.

That's the LAW OF THE LAND.

Non Taurus Cacas.

(P.S. - a "republic" is NOT synonymous with a "republican form of government.")

Well I might agree with you somewhat but I don't think we can use the term "THE LAW OF THE LAND" today simply because that has and was taken away from us when the UCC laws or here again not real law but commercial codes and statutes, were enforced on us through deceit and lies. Admiralty and Maritime laws , which are of the Sea is what replaced Common Law which is the law of the land. Our birth certificates are placed into trusts and turned into security instruments by the State government and the federal government which are really not governments for the people by the people and of the people.

Here are the 4 great laws supposedly still in play but not followed in this country
1. The Declaration of Independence 1776
2. The Northwest Ordinance Treaty
3. The Articles of Confederation
4. The Constitution for the united states of America

Notice I say the "The Constitution for instead of. The Constitution of the UNITED STATES is nothing more than a charter for a corporation that was all changed in 1871.

Now you speak of George Washington, Well sure he said alot of things about Americans and he even called us citizens and way back then we were citizens of few states of America. But then again George was a british agent and created the regional districts rather than free united states and you can look that one up also.

Question, You talk about how we give our CONSENT. How do we give our consent? is it freely given or is it deceitfully taken from us through lies by the corporation?
Yes we are sovereigns and the rights we inherent are God Given and no man can take those away.
To call ones self a Sovereign Citizen is an oxymoron. One cannot be a sovereign and Citizen both

You are right in saying that a Citizen has no rights simply because to be a citizen today is to be an employee or slave to the District of Columbia. Now if you fill out one of those forms to VOTE you actually are consenting to be one of the citizens are you not. Okay that's one form of consent and you are not told what that really means now are you. Another form of consent is buying a drivers License. Paying a third party for a Marriage License. Filling out any government form can give your consent to the Corporation. This stuff permeates our society and it all happened without us ever knowing what was happening. So FRAUD had been perpetuated upon us and we are Oblivious are we not?

So your comment about blaming everything and everyone else but CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED should be maybe reworded to the fact that we or our consent is taken by deceit and Lies and if we knew what was happening we would not give that consent now would we?

ozmirage
27th March 2016, 20:14
For those who would rather remain enslaved.

“Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say 'what should be the reward of such sacrifices?' Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!”
- - - Samuel Adams

For those who would not remain enslaved.

“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”
- - - Patrick Henry

ozmirage
27th March 2016, 20:29
Ozmirage, I would like to make an observation here. I have studied all of the stuff you are posting. I have read the USC The CFR, The UCC and delved into the law libraries so deep it has made me sick. I have all of the pertinent information at my fingertips all the time and here is what I have found after years of study. NONE OF THIS CRAP IS REAL LAW, THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY REAL LAWS WRITTEN SINCE 1861. COMMON LAW WAS FOR THE PEOPLE The Constitution does not give us any rights it was not written to do that. It was written to give a government certain writes and to keep them in check. The Bill of rights was placed there for the people and to keep check on the government. Common law was brought over from England and given to the American Nationals, Actually the free inhabitants on the land of the continental states.

So that is just a taste, Our Republic government cruised along until king Lincoln became president. In 1861 the southern states walked out of congress Sine Die and the government (true government) could not re convene. So good old Lincoln created the first corporation and made the left over congress into a board of directors. That all went along during the Civil War and afterwards the reconstruction period happened where The king came up with the 14th amendment Illegally I might add and made everyone a UNITED STATES CITIZEN. Now we all got to be employees of the Corporation. How wonderful. So all those funky not LAWs called statutes, Codes, Policies are only written for Corporate employees. Check out the Act of 1871 and the continuation of the corporation. The Bankruptcy of 1933 and so on.

Yes there are ways to remove yourself from the corporation of the UNITED STATES INC. OR THE United States of America INC or whatever the criminals decide to call themselves/ But unless you completely stop doing commerce you will never get out. There are some things one can do and I have done some. So maybe we ought to be talking about what is real and what is not ???????????????

Steven
I disagree.

Please re-read the quote from George Washington, written prior to the USCON.

If you do not perceive that a citizen has NO endowed rights, while American people are sovereigns with endowed rights, you will not understand.

The mythologists blame everything and everyone else but CONSENT of the GOVERNED.

The "State Citizens" made the same mistake.

[American] People have endowed rights and are sovereigns.
[American] Citizens have government privileges and are subjects.

That's the LAW OF THE LAND.

Non Taurus Cacas.

(P.S. - a "republic" is NOT synonymous with a "republican form of government.")

Well I might agree with you somewhat but I don't think we can use the term "THE LAW OF THE LAND" today simply because that has and was taken away from us when the UCC laws or here again not real law but commercial codes and statutes, were enforced on us through deceit and lies. Admiralty and Maritime laws , which are of the Sea is what replaced Common Law which is the law of the land. Our birth certificates are placed into trusts and turned into security instruments by the State government and the federal government which are really not governments for the people by the people and of the people.

Here are the 4 great laws supposedly still in play but not followed in this country
1. The Declaration of Independence 1776
2. The Northwest Ordinance Treaty
3. The Articles of Confederation
4. The Constitution for the united states of America

Notice I say the "The Constitution for instead of. The Constitution of the UNITED STATES is nothing more than a charter for a corporation that was all changed in 1871.

Now you speak of George Washington, Well sure he said alot of things about Americans and he even called us citizens and way back then we were citizens of few states of America. But then again George was a british agent and created the regional districts rather than free united states and you can look that one up also.

Question, You talk about how we give our CONSENT. How do we give our consent? is it freely given or is it deceitfully taken from us through lies by the corporation?
Yes we are sovereigns and the rights we inherent are God Given and no man can take those away.
To call ones self a Sovereign Citizen is an oxymoron. One cannot be a sovereign and Citizen both

You are right in saying that a Citizen has no rights simply because to be a citizen today is to be an employee or slave to the District of Columbia. Now if you fill out one of those forms to VOTE you actually are consenting to be one of the citizens are you not. Okay that's one form of consent and you are not told what that really means now are you. Another form of consent is buying a drivers License. Paying a third party for a Marriage License. Filling out any government form can give your consent to the Corporation. This stuff permeates our society and it all happened without us ever knowing what was happening. So FRAUD had been perpetuated upon us and we are Oblivious are we not?

So your comment about blaming everything and everyone else but CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED should be maybe reworded to the fact that we or our consent is taken by deceit and Lies and if we knew what was happening we would not give that consent now would we?

It is not the job of the SERVANT to instruct the MASTER, nor prevent him from foolishness.
(wink, wink, nod, nod)

AS to the other nonsense (and patriot mythology), it is wholly off point. Ignorance of the law is no defense.

Stop and think - if one has militia duty, one has no RIGHT to life, liberty, etc, etc.
And militia duty was part of the law since DAY ONE.
(Read the early constitutions)

The law still supports the republican form - for those who have the standing to claim it.

Government is not a sovereign, but a servant to the sovereign people.

"In common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the [word] are ordinarily construed to exclude it."
Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 667, 61 L.Ed2. 153, 99 S.Ct. 2529 (1979)
(quoting United States v. Cooper Corp. 312 U.S. 600, 604, 85 L.Ed. 1071, 61S.Ct. 742 (1941)).

"A Sovereign cannot be named in any statute as merely a 'person' or 'any person'".
Wills v. Michigan State Police, 105 L.Ed. 45 (1989)

“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

City of Dallas v. Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944, 945-46
(Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1922):

“The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, either municipal, state or federal, or even from the Constitution. They exist inherently in every man, by endowment of the Creator, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution, AND RESTRICTED ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY HAVE BEEN VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED BY THE CITIZENSHIP to the agencies of government. The people's rights are not derived from the government, but the government's authority comes from the people. The Constitution but states again these rights already existing, and when legislative encroachment by the nation, state, or municipality invade these original and permanent rights, it is the duty of the courts to so declare, and to afford the necessary relief. The fewer restrictions that surround the individual liberties of the citizen, except those for the preservation of the public health, safety, and morals, the more contented the people and the more successful the democracy.”
- - - City of Dallas v. Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944, 945-46; (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1922)
...

NOW, in support of the point that government certainly knows that there are subject “persons” versus “everybody” please note these samples of laws from Title 18.

Coincidentally, when government wishes a law to be applicable to everyone, it uses the phrase, "Whoever ...". When the law is not applicable to everyone, it uses the phrase, "Any person who ....".


U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 51 › § 1111
18 U.S. Code § 1111 - Murder
WHOEVER is guilty of murder in the first degree shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for life;
WHOEVER is guilty of murder in the second degree, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 7 › § 113
18 U.S. Code § 113 - Assaults within maritime and territorial jurisdiction
(a) WHOEVER, within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, is guilty of an assault shall be punished as follows:
{list of variations of assault}

Title 18 USC § 111. Assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain
officers or employees
(a) In General.-- WHOEVER--
(1) forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any person designated in section 1114 of this title while engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties;

Does government KNOW the difference?


Title 18 USC § 228. Failure to pay legal child support obligations
(a) Offense.-- ANY PERSON WHO--
(1) willfully fails to pay a support obligation with respect to a child who resides in another State, if such obligation has remained unpaid for a period longer than 1 year, or is greater than $5,000...


“Person” does not include the “sovereign.”
The average person (indoctrinated serf) would not know that the second law had limited applicability to subject persons who had enrolled into national socialism and thus gave their consent to be bound to obedience.

Another cogent example is the "GUN FREE SCHOOL ZONE."
"Everybody" knows that "it's against the law" to have a gun in a school zone.

Here's the pertinent code cite - - -
...

Title 18 USC Sec. 922 (q)(2)
(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm
(i) on PRIVATE PROPERTY not part of school grounds;
...
First off, the FEDERAL law only restricts possession of guns involved in INTERSTATE commerce - buying and selling of firearms on or near school grounds.
Secondly, if YOUR body is private property (unattached to school grounds) carrying a firearm, you are not in violation of this law. Your RIGHT to bear arms is not infringed. (If you do not absolutely own yourself, who does?)
Third, the "arms sale criminal" has to know or believe he's on "school grounds."

Yet "everybody knows" that there's a gun ban on school grounds.

Do not believe me - READ THE LAW YOURSELF.

All American statutes are riddled with exceptions, exclusions, and trap doors so government does not ACCIDENTALLY trespass upon the sovereign people's rights and liberties.

Even when not explicitly stated, the law allows the sovereign people a remedy.


SHALL - As used in statutes, contracts, or the like, this word is generally imperative or mandatory... But it may be construed as merely permissive or directory (as equivalent to "may"), to carry out the legislative intention and in cases where no right or benefit depends on its being taken in the imperative sense, and where no public or private right is impaired by its interpretation in the other sense.
- - - Blacks Law dictionary, Sixth ed., p.1375

MAY - Word "may" usually is employed to imply permissive, optional or discretional, and not mandatory action or conduct... In construction of statutes and presumably of federal rules word "may" as opposed to "shall" is indicative of discretion or choice between two or more alternatives, but context is which word appears must be controlling factor.
- - - Blacks Law dictionary, Sixth ed., p.979

If a law states, "It shall be unlawful..." and you can show that if the law was mandatory in your case it would violate a PRIVATE RIGHT, the law can be construed to mean "It may be unlawful..." and merely optional, permissive or directory, without penalty for disobedience.

(This exclusion is in addition to exemptions, exclusions, and clauses based on the law not violating endowed rights and liberties of the sovereign people. Of course, if one has waived rights by CONSENT, this remedy does not apply.)

Lost N Found
27th March 2016, 21:49
Okay, OZMirage I am going to say this once and only once. You have a rich knowledge in the CODES, STATUTES AND REGULATIONS of the UNITED STATES INC. The Corporation that controls the STATES which are nothing more than Franchises of the UNITED STATES INC Corporation. For some reason you have brought forth the idea that CODE means LAW.

Once again I have to state this clearly, NO REAL LAW HAS BEEN ENACTED SINCE 1861. There has not been a Lawful congress since the southern states walked out Sine die. Again According to The Constitution for the united states of America only Congress can make LAWs. So if we only have a board of directors acting as a congress under color of law then no real LAWs can be enacted so all those CODES, STATUTES, RULES AND REGULATIONS, POLICIES are nothing more than CORPORATION RULES FOR THEIR OWN EMPLOYEES TO GO BY. Let me take this just a bit further McDonalds is a Corporation, I am sure they have rules, policies and regulations for their employees to work by. Am I right at this point? Okay here is another example SEARS, is a CORPORATION They also have rules and regulations, policies or CODES if you will for there employees to go by. Do they then send a jackbooted police force with the word Sears on their vest to steal your property and force you to pay a fee for protection (taxes)? Hey I am sure they have plenty of BAR attorneys that write their regulations for the CORPORATION.

OH HERE IS A REAL GOOD ONE, you actually thing that "Ignorance of the law is no excuse"? I ask What Law? Do you actually think that any acting judge or lawyer today knows the 62 million codes and regulations and statutes and policies Here is another pee in your pants thing to know, There are no real Judges or lawyers, The police are nothing more than a force of jackboot working for the Corporation They are all actors in this illusion we all live in.

USC stands for United States CODE. I do not see the word LAW in that. CFR stands for CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS again I do not see the word LAW in that either. UCC stands for UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE. no word such as LAW their either. Here are some more misnomers for all Local crap PLANNING AND ZONING CODES. see any word that says LAW there? BUILDING CODES where is the word LAW. Now go to the State franchise and what do we get to see STATE STATUTES STATE CODES STATE POLICIES. Oh my no word about LAW.

Now as I said once before we have no new laws and haven't had any since 1861 because we haven't had a lawful congress according to the Constitution For the United States of America. There is no remedy in these codes and statutes and for everyone I have known to try and find one no one has ever found one.Sure it is said that FDR after declaring bankruptcy for the UNITED STATES INC in 1933 and then stealing all of our gold and committing our labor and property to the banks by the way the Federal Reserve bank which is a private banking system, supposedly gave us remedy with HJR 192 but that is a fallacy also because I have never known anyone to get remedy. So ignorance of the Law does not really work simply because we have no law today. Common Law was the real Law and it was simple and to the point.

Now here is what I totally agree with you on. I will stand with anyone and never bow my knees to this criminal organization that pretends to be in control. I will always have reverence for the men and women that have fought for our freedoms, I am one of those myself. And I will fight for any ones right to speak freely no matter what they may have to say. I just want to help open folds eyes and hearts.
We all need to stand together or we die individually. Just a paraphrase.

What you say brother is right for where you are and what you have learned so don't get me wrong please, I just been there and then there and then there over and over until it burned holes and I did pee myself and still do when I see new stuff. We all need to know so that is the real ignorance is no excuse to me when there are so many out here trying to give as much as they can.

Thank you brother
Steven

LivioRazlo
27th March 2016, 22:55
There is literally so much information here, it's going to take some time for me to do some research and process all of it.

Many thanks my friend, this actually ties in to the website/app crossover I am building to free humanity.

I look forward to working with you in the future.

Wes

ozmirage
28th March 2016, 03:00
Okay, OZMirage I am going to say this once and only once. You have a rich knowledge in the CODES, STATUTES AND REGULATIONS of the UNITED STATES INC. The Corporation that controls the STATES which are nothing more than Franchises of the UNITED STATES INC Corporation. For some reason you have brought forth the idea that CODE means LAW.

OZ: No, I haven't stated any such thing. Some of my examples from Title 18 - which is positive law - match the underlying statutes.

Once again I have to state this clearly, NO REAL LAW HAS BEEN ENACTED SINCE 1861. There has not been a Lawful congress since the southern states walked out Sine die.

OZ: That's "patriot mythology." Nonsense. Untrue. Heifer dung.

Again According to The Constitution for the united states of America only Congress can make LAWs. So if we only have a board of directors acting as a congress under color of law then no real LAWs can be enacted so all those CODES, STATUTES, RULES AND REGULATIONS, POLICIES are nothing more than CORPORATION RULES FOR THEIR OWN EMPLOYEES TO GO BY. Let me take this just a bit further McDonalds is a Corporation, I am sure they have rules, policies and regulations for their employees to work by. Am I right at this point? Okay here is another example SEARS, is a CORPORATION They also have rules and regulations, policies or CODES if you will for there employees to go by. Do they then send a jackbooted police force with the word Sears on their vest to steal your property and force you to pay a fee for protection (taxes)? Hey I am sure they have plenty of BAR attorneys that write their regulations for the CORPORATION.

OZ: Mythologists peddled the nonsense that "United States" changed into a corporation. All American governments were corporations, based on compacts (constitutions). AS to the fact that government does TAKE from its subject citizens, I refer you back to GEOWASH, and his statement that all citizens owe a portion of their property to the government. Citizens have no private property rights. If they did, they wouldn't owe a portion to the government.


OH HERE IS A REAL GOOD ONE, you actually thing that "Ignorance of the law is no excuse"? I ask What Law? Do you actually think that any acting judge or lawyer today knows the 62 million codes and regulations and statutes and policies Here is another pee in your pants thing to know, There are no real Judges or lawyers, The police are nothing more than a force of jackboot working for the Corporation

OZ: All American governments are corporations. . . based on compact . . . from day one. And they were not sovereigns, but servants to the sovereign people. As to the other claims - those are fabrications.

They are all actors in this illusion we all live in.

OZ: I sense you are upset. That is a common reaction. But as GeoWash stated, if you've given consent to be a subject citizen, all bets are off. And if you signed up with FICA, you're toast.

USC stands for United States CODE. I do not see the word LAW in that. CFR stands for CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS again I do not see the word LAW in that either. UCC stands for UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE. no word such as LAW their either. Here are some more misnomers for all Local crap PLANNING AND ZONING CODES. see any word that says LAW there? BUILDING CODES where is the word LAW. Now go to the State franchise and what do we get to see STATE STATUTES STATE CODES STATE POLICIES. Oh my no word about LAW.

OZ: That is because the STATUTES at LARGE are published yearly, from which is gleaned portions codified for convenience. If you only read CODE, and not STATUTES, you may get the wrong impression.


Now as I said once before we have no new laws and haven't had any since 1861 because we haven't had a lawful congress according to the Constitution For the United States of America.

OZ: There is no such requirement in the USCON to support your assertion. And it has no bearing on the guarantee of the republican form of government.

There is no remedy in these codes and statutes and for everyone I have known to try and find one no one has ever found one.

OZ: Looking for the republican form in the rules and regulations of the democracy is a futile task. Might as well look for the Magna Carta in the CFR or Georgia Statutes.

Sure it is said that FDR after declaring bankruptcy for the UNITED STATES INC in 1933 and then stealing all of our gold and committing our labor and property to the banks by the way the Federal Reserve bank which is a private banking system, supposedly gave us remedy with HJR 192 but that is a fallacy also because I have never known anyone to get remedy. So ignorance of the Law does not really work simply because we have no law today. Common Law was the real Law and it was simple and to the point.

OZ: Many "New Patriots" have a mistaken view about the "Common Law."
I do not have the reference at my disposal, but I recall one (paraphrased) "The common law is too harsh for a democracy." In another, I found a reference in the Federalist Papers, that before the USCON, Georgia had common law courts. But at the ratification of the USCON, all common law courts in Georgia were abolished. The only promise is the RULES of the common law (7th amendment) and that requires the value in controversy to exceed 20 dollars (not bills). Since 1933, no "dollars" have circulated and no one with a SocSec account is worth more than $20. (See Pauper's Oath).


Now here is what I totally agree with you on. I will stand with anyone and never bow my knees to this criminal organization that pretends to be in control. I will always have reverence for the men and women that have fought for our freedoms, I am one of those myself. And I will fight for any ones right to speak freely no matter what they may have to say. I just want to help open folds eyes and hearts.
We all need to stand together or we die individually. Just a paraphrase.

What you say brother is right for where you are and what you have learned so don't get me wrong please, I just been there and then there and then there over and over until it burned holes and I did pee myself and still do when I see new stuff. We all need to know so that is the real ignorance is no excuse to me when there are so many out here trying to give as much as they can.

Thank you brother
Steven
When I first got into the "New Patriot Movement," there were plenty of disinformation agents as well as sincere folks. Frankly, what you were led to believe is NOT in the law (statutes).

One thing that most new patriot folks don't understand is the nasty status of "EXCEPTED CLASSES."

Way back in time - before socialism - before FICA - before 1935, there was the dreaded PAUPER'S OATH.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauper%27s_oath
Historically, especially during the Great Depression, the pauper's oath was required as a prerequisite for receiving welfare or other forms of government relief in the United States.

One pauper's oath used when establishing indigent status under United States Federal law is as follows:
“ I do solemnly swear that I have not any property, real or personal, exceeding $20, except such as is by law exempt from being taken on civil process for debt; and that I have no property in any way conveyed or concealed, or in any way disposed of, for my future use or benefit. So help me God.".............
In case you did not catch all the subtle ramifications, allow me to expound:
1. Exceeding $20 parallels the 7th amendment's requirement for the value in controversy to EXCEED $20 in order to trigger access to the RULES of the common law. (Common law is nice to free peoples. )
2. Recipients of public charity had to swear that they owned NOTHING more than $20 worth or they were ineligible.
3. As paupers, they were also "status criminals," excepted from constitutional protections.

Coincidentally, after FICA, FDR abolished the Pauper's oath for recipients of "Relief" and other "benefits."
Of course, the people didn't realize that by signing up for FICA, they were pauperized, literally owning nothing more than $20. As "contributors," all their labor and property were pledged as collateral on the public debt.

Government is so nice - they let us keep the stuff - as long as we make a "return of income" and pay skim to the D.C. lords. But ultimately, "they" have first dibs on everything... by our consent.

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender.aspx
" Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in gold, silver or any other commodity, and receive no backing by anything. This has been the case since 1933. The notes have no value for themselves, but for what they will buy. In another sense, because they are legal tender, Federal Reserve notes are "backed" by all the goods and services in the economy."[The site coyly avoids mentioning that FICA is the means by which all YOUR goods and labor back their worthless IOUs.]

So, do you think that folks in the 1930s would have willingly signed up with FICA if FDR didn't lie and say that "Relief is not charity!"

(In reply to my query, the Congressional Research Service stated that entitlements are synonymous with gifts from the public treasury. That's legal speak for "we're not going to admit that recipients are paupers at law.")
STATUS CRIME - A class of crime which consists not in proscribed action or inaction, but in the accused's having a certain personal condition or being a person of a specified character. An example of a status crime is VAGRANCY. Status crimes are constitutionally suspect.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed., p.1410(Such crimes were instituted by the ARTICLES of CONFEDERATION, not the USCON. But since the Articles are incorporated by reference into the USCON, they are still binding on CONgress. Likewise, via the promise of the republican form, the Declaration of Independence is incorporated into the “Supreme Law of the Land.”)


" VAGRANT - At common law, wandering or going about from place to place by idle person who has no lawful or visible means of support and who subsisted on CHARITY and did not work, though able to do so.... One who is apt to become a PUBLIC CHARGE through his own laziness."
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed., p. 1549
Coincidentally, most if not all STATES define "resident" to be synonymous with transient / vagrant. And if you're signed up with FICA / Socialist InSecurity, you're eligible for PUBLIC CHARITY (entitlements), thus making you a STATUS CRIMINAL.

D'Oh!

MORE INFO:
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/NASP/conversations/messages/2228


Mythology Retrospective
. . .
Back in the day, there was a gentleman named Phil Marsh, selling a book, titled "The Compleat Patriot." I personally heard him explain how "compleat" meant "completely complete" - a most auspicious adjective.

Of course, that was not true. Mr Marsh, like most mythologists, concocted plausible explanations to cover the lack of facts in their bold and brash claims about law in these united States. They rely on our ignorance or apathy and let such things pass unchallenged.

FYI : Compleat is merely an archaic spelling of complete.
...
Do not fall for mythology. Do not believe me. Check and verify claims, references, definitions, authorities, and laws. No one is infallible. Mistakes can permeate even the best presentation.
Strive for 100% veracity and accuracy.

COMMON LAW
A lot of old timers pushed the notion that Americans had lost their Common law. Unfortunately, few understood what the common law was.
One citation mentioned that it was the prerogative of a sovereign.
OKAY.
American governments are not sovereigns.
OOPS.
. . .
COMMON LAW REFERENCES
“The general theory of the common law is, that all wrongs are divisible into two species; first, civil or private wrongs; secondly, criminal or public wrongs. The former are to be redressed by private suits, or remedies instituted by the parties injured. The latter are redressed by the state, acting in its sovereign capacity. The general description of private wrongs is, that they comprehend those injuries which affect the rights and property of the individual, and terminate there; that of public wrongs of offences is, that they comprehend such acts as injure, not merely individuals, but the community at large, by endangering the peace, the comfort, the good order, the policy, and even the existence of society.”
- - - - Joseph Story and the Theory of the Common Law, from the Encyclopedia Americana

COMMON LAW -"The system of jurisprudence, which originated in England and was later applied in the United States, which is based on judicial precedent rather than legislative enactments; it is contrasted with civil law (the descendent of Roman Law prevalent in other western [European] countries). ... generally derived from principles rather than rules; it does not consist of absolute, fixed, and inflexible rules, but rather the broad and comprehensible principles based on justice, reason and common sense."
Ballantine’s Law dictionary, p.37
LAW OF THE LAND -"Phrase first used in MAGNA CARTA referring to the then established law of the Kingdom as opposed to Roman or civil law. Refers today to fundamental principles of justice commensurate with due process of law those rights which the legislature cannot abolish or significantly limit, because they are so fundamental to our system of liberty and justice; The United States Constitution establishes itself, and the laws made under its authority, and treaties of the United States, as the supreme Law of the land [U.S. Constitution: Art.6 Sec.2]."
Ballantine’s Law dictionary, p.117Note: Both the Declaration of Independence, and the Articles of Confederation are incorporated by reference into the USCON, thus making them part of the supreme Law of the Land.

LAW, COMMON. The common law is that which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. It has never received the sanction of the legislature, by an express act, which is the criterion by which it is distinguished from the statute law. It has never been reduced to writing; by this expression, however, it is not meant that all those laws are at present merely oral, or communicated from former ages to the present solely by word of mouth, but that the evidence of our common law is contained in our books of Reports, and depends on the general practice and judicial adjudications of our courts.
2. The common law is derived from two sources, the common law of England, and the practice and decision of our own courts. In some states the English common law has been adopted by statute. There is no general rule to ascertain what part of the English common law is valid and binding.
- - - Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856 ed.
" Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable."
- - - 16 Corpus Juris Secundum, Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.The servant government is delegated power to secure endowed rights, via prosecution of those who injure others.
There is no law that says : “You shall not injure in this or that manner.” The law simply punishes those who deliberately injure the person, liberty or property of others, regardless of the means or mode. These punitive laws are the ones derived from the English common law. (Malum in Se - evil in of itself)

But the government has power to govern those who consent, and who have waived rights as part of that consent. Consenting persons are liable for laws that may involve strict obedience to rules, and resemble the civil law of European countries. (Malum Prohibitum) And for those who descended to status criminals, via FICA and contracts with usurers, they may be mistreated and presumed guilty until proven innocent. (Ezekiel 18:13 KJV)

Now, a brief reference to a genuine sovereign prerogative of the American - the power to inflict capital punishment without benefit of trial.

Please recall that posted private property can be defended with DEADLY FORCE and not be punishable as a felony.
"Private property - No Trespassing - Trespassers will be Shot" is prima facie evidence of the HARSHNESS of the common law.
Obviously, we do not want our public servants to act in such a manner. They are constrained by due process to ascertain guilt or innocence, and proceed accordingly, in compliance with the statutes enacted.
Or do you wish the servant to be HARSH and just shoot trespassers without due process?

FYI:
TRESPASS
TRESPASS v. - (Law) To commit an unlawful injury to the person, property, or rights of another, with actual or implied force or violence, especially to enter onto another's land wrongfully.

TRESPASS n. 2. (Law)
a. The act of trespassing.
b. A suit brought for trespassing.

TRESPASS - An unlawful interference with one's person, property, or rights... Any unauthorized intrusion or invasion of private premises or land of another. Antkiewicz v. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co., 91 Mich. App. 389, 283 N.W. 2d 749, 753
- - - Black's Law dictionary, Sixth Ed. P. 1502Trespass is the CRIMINAL injury to the person, property, or rights (which include natural and personal liberties) of another.

I hope this helps clarify things.

Lost N Found
28th March 2016, 03:45
Well thank you brother for such a well researched explanation of how we got to this point in such a wonderful country. I still see that you are using all the corporation rhetoric and such a very well explained anthology it is. Now that you have accused me of being a Mythologist I suppost that there is no hope for any of us in this tyrannical, socialist, communistic, and lets not forget Nazi-est government we all live under. Remember now The government was created by the people but according to your research we have all given our consent for them to steal our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness

Yes here is some truth you do give. It we sign up for the social security or FICA as you call it we are giving our consent to be a slave on the plantation. As I have said you have quite a rich study of the Codes and possible some history. We all seem to be searching for the truth and maybe you are right in a way of saying that all government are incorporated but we did start with an unincorporated government and that my friend is where we should go back to. Now Mythology or not, My studies lead me in a slightly different direction from yours but then again they may be in the same direction. So I will post something for all to read hear it is a bit long but it does give a good explanation and it gives one places to look for yourself So thanks again OZmirage for your input to this thread. I am glad to see this kind of stuff. Here you all go.

US Legal History

U.S. Law is Private Merchant Law, leaving the people as Surety and Debtor on the bankruptcy.
Law is contract, universally and in the U.S., so we must follow the progression of contractual agreements which constitute the underlying U.S. Law. (We cannot address all individual laws and cases or you would not have time in a life to review it, even though ignorance of the millions of laws, statutes, codes, etc… is no excuse in Private Admiralty Jurisdictions.)
In basically chronological order, the following progression of contracts, and our interpretation of them follows:
1. The USA, a corporation of the English Crown, is bankrupt, and has been since at least 1788. The Articles of Confederation states in Article 12: “All bills of credit emitted, monies borrowed, and debts contracted by, or under the authority of Congress, before the assembling of the United States, in pursuance of the present confederation, shall be deemed as considered a charge against the United States, for payment and satisfaction whereof the said United States, and the public faith are hereby solemnly pledged.” The “Founding Fathers,” as constitutors, acknowledged and reorganized the debt in the US Constitution 1787, Article VI, hence “constitution.” Bankruptcy occurred on January 1, 1788 based on 21 loans that the United States of America received from the King of England dating from February 28, 1778 through July 5, 1782, the repayment of which had been ratified by Congress on January 22, 1783. The United States Bank, created in 1791, was a private bank, with 18,000 of 25,000 shares owned by England.
2. No de jure, constitutional Congress has existed since March 27, 1861 when seven (7) Southern States walked out of Congress leaving Congress without a quorum for adjourning and therefore ending sine die. That which is called “Congress” today assembles and acts under the authority of the President acting in capacity of being Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces, under emergency war-powers rule, i.e. “law of necessity,” i.e. no law (see 12 Stat 319, which has never been repealed and exists in Title 50 USC §§ 212, 213, 215, Appendix 16, 26 CFR Chapter 1 § 303.1-6(a), and 31 CFR Chapter 5 § 500.701 Penalties).
3. Since the above-referenced date, March 27, 1861, Americans have been under Fascist rule via presidential executive order under the aforementioned Emergency War Powers, 12 USC 95 a,
b. Every “citizen of the United States” is now “legally” established as an “enemy” via the Amendatory Act of March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, amending Trading With Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, H.R. 4960, Public Law No. 91.
4. December 6th, 1865, the 14th Amendment was proclaimed as ratified (even though it never properly was, see below). The 14th Amendment, (which is private Roman Catholic Ecclesiastical Trust Law), constitutes a constructive, cestui que trust, a public charitable trust, “PCT,” that was expressly designed to bring every corporate franchise artificial person called a “citizen of the United States” into an inseparable merging with the government until the two are united (with the power inhering in the government, not the people). A cestui que trust is fundamentally different from a regular trust, which is express in nature and consists of a contractual indenture involving three (3) parties: Grantor (Creator or Trustor), Trustee, and Beneficiaries. In an express trust, legal ownership is transferred by written contract between Grantor and Trustee in which the Grantor surrenders ownership of property to the legal person, the Trust, to be managed by the Trustee on behalf of those who are to benefit from the arrangement, the Beneficiaries. A cestui que trust, on the other hand, differs from an express trust in several crucial ways:
a. It is not formed by express contract, i.e. overt agreement expressed in writing, but by legal construction, i.e. fiat.
b. A cestui que trust has no Grantor, but, being a constructive trust created by operation of law, i.e. by make-believe, has only co-trustees and co beneficiaries. The co-trustees are the parties with the duties for managing property for the “public good,” i.e. for the benefit of those designated as co beneficiaries.
5. The Legislative Act of February 21, 1871, Forty-first Congress, Session III, Chapter 62, page 419, chartered a Federal company entitled “United States,” a/k/a “US Inc.,” a “Commercial Agency” originally designated as “Washington, D.C.,” in accordance with the so-called 14th Amendment, which the record indicates was never ratified (see Utah Supreme Court Cases, Dyett v Turner, (1968) 439 P2d 266, 267; State v Phillips, (1975) 540 P 2d 936; as well as Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 448, 59 S. Ct. 972; 28 Tulane Law Review, 22; 11 South Carolina Law Quarterly 484; Congressional Record, June 13, 1967, pp. 15641-15646). A “citizen of the United States” is a civilly dead entity operating as a co-trustee and co-beneficiary of the PCT, the constructive, cestui que trust of US Inc. under the 14th Amendment, which upholds the debt of the USA and US Inc. in Section 4.
6. In conformity with the above-referenced creation of United States (1871) and the 14th Amendment, the Legislature of each State created a limited-liability corporation, chartered in a private, military, international, commercial, admiralty/maritime jurisdiction, entitled “STATE OF…” e.g. “STATE OF CALIFORNIA,” as evidenced by, inter alia, the change in the seal and the creation of a new constitution, e.g. Constitution of the State of California (1879), concerning which, re California:
a. A general partnership agreement, hereinafter “General Partnership,” exists between the California Republic (1849), and STATE OF CALIFORNIA (1879), with STATE OF CALIFORNIA acting as governmental controller.
b. STATE OF CALIFORNIA now acts as an agent/instrumentality of United States, collecting whole life insurance premiums, known as “taxes,” for the International Monetary Fund, based, inter alia, upon the Limited Liability Act of 1851 and the bankruptcy of United States of 1933, (see House Joint Resolution 192 of June 5, 1933; Public Law 73-10; Perry v. U.S. (1935), 294 U.S. 330-381, 79 L Ed 912; 31 USC 5112, 5119).
7. Inasmuch as all law is contract, the contract involved in a constructive trust is an implied contract. An implied contract can be ratified by two (2) means:
a. Acquiescence by silence, i.e. the “government” asserts its intentions concerning your life, rights, and property and you assent, don’t rebut, and compliantly go along with what they claim. In 1871 the Government changed the nature of its contract with the people from law as defined by the original Constitution of 1787 that recognizes law (common law), admiralty (on the sea only), and equity (functioning by voluntary contract between all participating parties), and began relating to people as if they were “citizens of the Unites States” within/under the private, commercial, international, military jurisdiction of the new de facto corporation, i.e. US Inc. They offered people a “new deal,” and almost everyone bought it (based on naïve and foolish trust and assuming that everything was OK).
The people were thereby denied access to law and placed on the ship of state of US Inc. where the captain’s word is law and no one has any rights. As Jefferson phrased the matter, “As government grows, liberty recedes.”
b. You expressly accept “benefits” offered by the government, and thereby finalize the contract by deed. This is similar to finalizing a contract with a restaurant by sitting down at a table, reading a menu, and then ordering and consuming a meal. By your deeds you affirm to the restaurant that you will pay for the meal in accordance with the price stated on the menu. No written contract is signed, but a contract is formed nevertheless.
8. By the above two (2) means people give implied assent that they are bound by an alleged contract with US Inc. in accordance with the terms and conditions that inhere in being treated as a “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment, and are therefore placed into permanent legal status as a Debtor and Surety for U.S. Inc.. In such a position, people leave the ground of sovereignty and all capacity for asserting their unalienable rights in favor of being presumed as having exercised their sovereignty and free-will autonomy for the purpose of going along with the government’s assertion that they sacrifice everything for the “public good,” (i.e. the PCT). By so doing people lose their standing in law, (i.e. they “die a civil death in the law.”) They are placed in the legal position of mortmain (i.e. as if deceased) and are shorn of capacity for asserting their rights, since the presumption is that they have already exercised those rights for the purpose of being placed in the position they are in, i.e. property of the government with a lien against you and everything your life labor could ever create, including your children. The private being (the real individual) is sacrificed for the good of the public (the imaginary collective).
9. When people die such a civil death in they law they are like ghosts, and thereby incapable of managing their own affairs and enjoying their unalienable rights. Like the estate of a decedent, they are then managed by the executors/administrators of the estate, in probate. Such is the condition of every “citizen of the United States” today in law, managed by the government agencies acting as executors/administrators of their estates in bankruptcy, legal incapacity, and civil death as assets of the bankrupt US. The US is property of the private Real Parties of Interest, the Creditors in bankruptcy.
10. The 14th Amendment was allegedly established for the purpose of creating a citizenship for the liberated blacks, and other disenfranchised people, who otherwise had no citizenship because they could not comply with the requirements for state citizenship. What actually happened was that the blacks were taken off of the Southern slave plantations and placed into the slave plantation of US Inc., a far worse lot. The government then gradually absorbed everyone else — including state citizens — into the same condition.
11. 1871-1913. Officers of the actual government held office in dual capacity, (i.e. in both USA and US Inc. status).
12. 1912. Bonds issued by US Inc. came due but US Inc. did not have the resources for paying their creditors (the seven families that founded the Federal Reserve Bank), so US Inc.’s owner (the actual government) was required to pay the balance. The national government was also without sufficient funds to meet US Inc.’s obligations, so the creditors settled for all of the assets of both US Inc. and the national government instead of foreclosure on and liquidation of the entire country. By so doing, they expropriated the nation — both USA and US Inc. Sic transit America.
13. 1912. US Inc. forms an agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank (It is important to note that both of these entities are private corporations which removes the general allegations of treason or fraud from this relationship). Through this agreement, US Inc. must function in debt, even though they have neither funds nor resources for financing their operation.
14. 1912. The first corporate only Senators are seated in the next election year by popular vote of the US Inc. registered voters. The original-jurisdiction national Senators of the States did not assume office that year and at least one third of the nation’s Senators seats were lawfully and voluntarily vacant.
15. February 3rd, 1913. US Inc. passes its 16th Amendment and Congress orders the Secretary of State to enter it as ratified even though the States had not ratified it according to Law. The Secretary complied. It should be noted that this would not have been lawful if it were a national Constitution amendment, however it was perfectly legal within the colorable, de facto corporation. It should also be noted that where the national Constitution already had a 16th Amendment and where the Supreme Court says that the new 16th Amendment did not do anything, this corporate Amendment must simply be a space filler entered such that US Inc.’s Constitution (1871) would have the same number of Amendments as that of the national Constitution (1787).
16. April 8th, 1913. US Inc. passes its 17th Amendment and Congress orders it to be entered as ratified in the exact same manner as they did with US Inc.’s 16th Amendment. This Amendment changes where US Inc.’s Senators are elected. This Amendment is not even lawfully possible as a national Constitution Amendment for several reasons, not the least of which is that the Amendment would have required that Congress first pass an Amendment that stated that they had the power to say where Senators are elected before they could even deliberate on such a subject matter, after which they would then have to have competent ratifications performed on such Amendments in accord with Constitutional limits, not as was done with US Inc.’s 16th Amendment.
17. December 23, 1913. The Congress, (late at night with only a small cadre of supporters present), passed the Federal Reserve Act, surrendering the creation and management of the nation’s currency into the hands of a cartel of private — and mostly foreign — bankers. Currency is the single most essential and critical commodity in the world, embodying more law and principles of commerce than any other. Since all interactions are “commerce,” and the medium of doing business in commerce is currency, money is in a very significant sense the measure of all things.
By abandoning control and management of the money supply, the nation surrendered all capacity for claiming sovereignty. The government lost its independent treasury (one of the requirements in law for national sovereignty). The United States Government became a mere fiefdom, or administrative arm, of the bankers, who now owned the store.
Passage of the Federal Reserve Act was a major milestone on the “road to serfdom” that this entire progression outlines. The conspiratorial nature of matters is exemplified in comments by one of the major actors in the triumph of the Federal Reserve, Edward Mandell House, who had this to say in a private meeting with President Woodrow Wilson:
“[Very] soon, every American will be required to register their biological property in a national system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will effect our security as a chargeback for our fiat paper currency. Every American will be forced to register or suffer being able to work and earn a living. They will be our chattel, and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions. Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, forever to remain economic slaves through taxation, secured by their pledges. They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be none the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two should figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability. After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debt to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap to us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor to this fraud which we will call “Social Insurance.” Without realizing it, every American will insure us for any loss we may incur and in this manner, every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and, we will employ the high office of the President of our dummy corporation to foment this plot against America.”
18. 1917. Corporate-only Senators begin participating in all matters with those Senators who still had original jurisdiction government capacity, as a result of which all activities of the government were performed in corporate capacity only.
19. 1917. President Wilson was re-elected by the Electoral College, but only US Inc.’s Senate performed the Senate confirmation necessary for seating the national President. There was no national government Senate confirmation; no national seats were seated and all remained vacant.
Note: the national President is also the Military’s Commander in Chief, and under the nation’s status of being ruled by the private, commercial, martial law rule of the Bankers and English Crown, the business needs of the nation have remained under US Inc. control since 1871, (i.e. ever since US Inc. was incorporated and made operational over such matters).
20. 1917-1944. All national government seats are and remain vacant, and US Inc. continues maintaining the business needs of the government under martial-law rule.
21. June 5, 1933. US Inc. declares bankruptcy under House Joint Resolution, “HJR,” 192.
22. 1935. The Social Security Act is passed.
23. On application, the new Social Security Administration (hereinafter “SSA”) creates a private Trust with a trust name that sounds like the name of the applicant except the Trust’s name is spelled with all capital letters. SSA makes the applicant a co-trustee of the namesake Trust, designates the SSA General Trust Fund as the Beneficiary of the namesake trust, and assigns the Trust a Social Security General Trust Fund Account number regarding the applicant for accounting and identification purposes.
24. 1938. In Erie Railroad v. Tompkins, 1938, 304 U.S. 64-92, the U.S. Supreme Court sets the presumption re the status and capacity of an individual as that of General Capacity/General Partnership relationship with the namesake Trust, as if the two (2) entities — individual and namesake Trust — were one-in-the-same person.
25. 1944. In the Bretton Woods Agreement, US Inc. is quit-claimed into the newly formed International Monetary Fund (hereinafter “IMF”) in exchange for the power allowing US Inc.’s President the right of naming (seating and controlling) the governors and general managers of the International Monetary Fund, The World Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the Inter-American Bank also formed in that agreement (codified at United States Code Title 22 § 286). It must be noted that this Act created an unlawful conflict of interest between US Inc. (with its new foreign owner) and its purpose of carrying out the business needs of the national government. This is the cause of our use of the term “original-jurisdiction” government. With the new foreign owner of US Inc. a conflict of interest is created between the national government and US Inc., even though the contracted purpose of US Inc. has not changed on its face.
26. Since 1953 – 1975 at least, MKULTRA (Mind Control, etc.), CIA, and Military are unlawfully engaging in human experimentation with and without the knowledge of the subjects. Military airborne toxins are sprayed on large cities without warning for the purpose of studying distribution and effect patterns, and other more sinister purposes (see numerous cites on the Internet re “chem-trails”). Cite: Joint Hearing before the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 95th Congress, 1st Session, August 3, 1977.
27. 1962. At the National Governor’s Conference in Lexington, Kentucky; US Inc. informs the governors (under the guise of “public necessity”) that they must all form, or reform existing, private corporations under US Inc. (in their State’s interest), so that the people will not discover what the State governments are doing with the people’s money (dabbling in foreign notes, i.e. Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs), bonds, and evidences of debt), which activity is forbidden from State governments by their own State Constitutions, which information would likely cause a people’s revolt ending in the State official’s being, at worst, killed and at least replaced. The proposed incorporation deadline was 1968.
28. 1970. By this time, each State revised its Constitution and Statutes and formed private corporate entities of the name “STATE OF (X)” (where “(X)” is representative of the common State name), and then vacated their original jurisdiction government seats in favor of foreign ownership and control under the mandate of US Inc.
29. It appears that this was all done so a General Partnership could be presumed as existing between “The State” (of the national Union of States) and “STATE OF (X)”, a private corporation. Said STATE OF (X), as General Partner, then assumes the role of governmental operator/controller. This scenario is further proven by the fact that these corporate entities cannot handle gold and silver coin of the United States of America in commercial transactions without violating the Par Value Modifications Act and the Foreign Currency Exchange Act.
30. September 5, 1996, U.S. Patent & Trademark Office application number 709471 is filed, consisting of a plan for marking the alleged “human property” of US Inc., (i.e. every “citizen of the United States”) reminiscent of the Biblical reference in the nature of the Mark of the Beast. This plan is a violation of foundational law.
31. April 19th, 1994. Federal agents attack, burn, and raze the compound, killing approximately 100 of the members of the sect, without any lawful cause for the action.
32. 50 USC 1520 et seq. demonstrates that there exists an agenda for using Americans (Sovereign and otherwise) as biological test subjects. This is a fundamental breach of an alleged Constitutional contract.
33. President Clinton pushes for a mandatory Health Care Bill for the purpose of placing the physical bodies of all Americans under control of US Inc., with international identification attached, for the purpose of tagging the populace, as per the Biblical prophesy of the Mark of the Beast. The computer that would handle the tracking is even identified with the acronym: B.E.A.S.T.
What the above progression depicts is the systematic growth of the power, scope, and pervasive control of Government exercised against the American people by foreign, criminal, and hostile powers.
This same dreary gestalt constitutes the nature of man’s history on this planet as far back as the eye can see. Civilizations rise, fall, and disappear, replaced by new ones that — based upon being founded on, and functioning in accordance with, wrong principles — are foredoomed for extinction, as were all of their predecessors and as all future civilizations will be until mankind finally learns and ceases “beating a dead horse” by structuring law, commerce, religion, and social organization in general on principles that are existentially impossible.
The above progression has proceeded in America by implementing such strategy as:
1. Relentlessly instilling in people the foundational idea that governments in general are absolutely essential in the society of man and that the Government in America is the people’s friend and servant, (i.e. a “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”) These premises are untrue — self-serving cons by those who want the power.
2. Creating governmentally owned corporate franchises, such as a “citizen of the United States” and one’s all-capital-letter name, with which people are deceived into identifying.
3. Regarding every citizen of the United States as contractually being:
a. A corporate citizen, i.e. a corporate franchise;
b. A co-trustee (with duties) and co-beneficiary (with privileges) of the 14th Amendment Public Charitable cestui que Trust;
c. Pledged as an asset in the bankruptcy of US Inc., and therefore a co-surety for the debts of US Inc.;
d. An enemy of the Creditors;
e. Chattel property of the Bankers and Power Elite;
f. A slave with no capacity for asserting any rights, no standing in law, and no capacity for contracting.
4. Functioning on the presumption that the individual being, with autonomy and free will, knowingly, intentionally, and voluntarily contracted into the situation of being united — like heads and tails of a coin — with a corporate entity created and owned by the Government.
As per the established maxim of law, “As a thing is bound, so it is unbound,” the way out of the problem is within and through the problem. This is accomplished by understanding what the problem is, (i.e. its structure and character, just as solving the problem of a plugged drain is accomplished by realizing that the problem is the plugged drain, whereby the solution consists of unplugging the drain.) “Know the truth and the truth shall make you free.”
The United States Library of Congress now has between 2,000,000 and 3,000,000 books on law. Any law library is a daunting place, possessing row after row of shelves with books full of fine print. Making knowledge of such “law” even more unattainable is not only that what passes for law today perpetually changes, altered by every new Court Case/Opinion, Legislative enactment, and all of the ever-changing Policies, Rules, and Regulations of Administrative Agencies, but an immense amount of the world’s law today (as actually implemented) is unwritten and inaccessible.
This is not only because Judges operate in General Equity in which the ultimate Arbiter of a matter is the “conscience of the court” (i.e. how the judge feels about something that day), but because almost all of the world’s law is the private Law Merchant of the Creditors in bankruptcy of the world’s Nations, essentially all of which are insolvent and in receivership to the Bankers. [3] This private Law Merchant is of ancient origin, and is implemented today by men whose identities are unknown to the mass of mankind.
In the face of this undependability of law we may ask some fundamental and ingenuous questions:
1. Is there such a thing as genuine law that is timeless, stable, and dependable?
2. If so, can such universal law be effectively invoked and utilized in practice today? How can I use it to ensure my inalienable sovereign birth rights to life and happiness?
3. If genuine law exists, why is it not taught and uniformly utilized instead of the chaotic and colorable charade that dominates the legal field today?
4. Can we integrate said universal law with the ephemeral, desultory “law” that now enslaves the overwhelming majority of people on this planet?
Fortunately, affirmative answers regarding all of the above questions. Answering them, and providing clear understanding and effective, practical ways for utilizing genuine law, is the subject of this website.
[3] All wars of the 20th Century, in fact the last 100 years or so, are the result of the losing country's not having had an Articles of Agreement with the International Bankers. Phrased another way. Before a war, the country that was the eventual loser of the war did not have such Agreement and after the country was defeated, it did.

ozmirage
28th March 2016, 03:47
For those who want to get started, but can't get to a courthouse law library, consider writing polite questionnaires to one's "public servants."
(congresscritters, state attorney generals, etc)

SAMPLE QUESTIONS
1. What law compels all Americans in the USA to enroll and participate in FICA?

2. What law punishes any American in the USA who does not participate in FICA?

3. What law punishes any American business that hires unnumbered Americans?

4. What is the official procedure to volunteer out of FICA?

5. What revenue taxable privileges am I exercising when I do not participate in FICA that would incur an income tax on my wages?

6. When and how did I give consent that waived my endowed rights, imposed mandatory civic duties, and made me a subject, because it would be unconstitutional to impose them at birth, via involuntary U.S. citizenship, in the 50 states united or in any place subject to their jurisdiction?

7. If fraud was used to acquire my consent to be governed, is it not my right to denounce that fraud, and withdraw consent?

8. If Federal Reserve Notes are worthless, how are they underwritten by 300+ million “human resources”, and who will the creditor foreclose upon when sufficient number of Americans withdraw consent from FICA?

9. If all Americans are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights and liberties that government was instituted to secure, what should the servant government do to its officers guilty of complicity in fraudulently abolishing endowed rights in exchange for government privileges and public charity?

10. If the U.S. Constitution guarantees a republican form of government, whose source is the Declaration of Independence, then the Declaration is the supreme law of the land, by reference. By what delegated power or authority does constitutional government violate the natural rights, liberties, and absolute ownership rights of the American people, endowed by their Creator?

11. Is absolute ownership of private property still recognized?

12. What constitutes enough evidence to support and defend private property ownership?

13. What is the minimum amount of private property to qualify as a domicile?

. . .
Their stock replies usually are: "We will get back to you when we find the law."
I've been waiting over 20 years.

. . .
SHORT VERSION - - -
Ask for copies of any laws that:
1. Govern you without your consent;
2. Impose involuntary servitude in the 50 states united;
3. Require enrollment into FICA;
4. Impose an excise tax on any endowed right; and
5. Restrict or regulate personal liberty.

Yetti
28th March 2016, 04:15
Thanks Ozmirage !. All you put above sounds like our government is actually breaking the law big time, the question here is: for a regular folk who live check by check like millions around, how can us protect ourselves from the phony govt. we have in order to be free again? like the tax issue, I'm very piss off about the income tax (more I work the more they take) and the property tax. Why should I pay taxes on my own property, or isn't mine? if I totally paid for?

ozmirage
28th March 2016, 04:50
The government was created by the people but according to your research we have all given our consent for them to steal our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness... [remainder snipped for convenience]
If you misunderstood me, let me clarify things.
The republican form of government was not "created" by the people... it was an endowment of our Creator.
The constitutionally limited indirect democratic form of government was created by the "people of the United States" - not the private people nor the "people of the States united."

The "People of the United States" in the Preamble, did not refer to the people of the United States of America.
---

"But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in Court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The States are the parties to it. And they may complain...."
- - -Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. Mayor and Alderman, City of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438, 520 (1854) Supreme Court of Georgia
---

"The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government and not for the government of the individual States."
- - -John Barron v. The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 7 Peters 204, (1822).
---
Remember, not all Americans could vote, and ratify that constitution. Those who could not vote, could not be presumed to give consent. Therefore, if we are the "private people" we're not parties to that compact, and if we are people of the individual States, we are not the "people of the United States" who are the authors of that compact. The terms only can be applied to those who consent (and make an oath to it).

Articles of Confederation (1777)

I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America".
II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

---
The authors of the U.S. constitution and obligated parties were NOT the American people, but a subset, and by consent, bound to obedience.


" When a change of government takes place, from a monarchial to a republican government, the old form is dissolved. Those who lived under it, and did not choose to become members of the new, had a right to refuse their allegiance to it, and to retire elsewhere. By being a part of the society subject to the old government, they had not entered into any engagement to become subject to any new form the majority might think proper to adopt. That the majority shall prevail is a rule posterior to the formation of government, and results from it. It is not a rule binding upon mankind in their natural state. There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent."
- - - CRUDEN v. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E. 70.

I lack the time and inclination to debunk the mythology posted, but simply point out that beyond securing rights, the servant government can not act without explicit consent of the governed.

The republican form of government is not dependent upon the form of the servant government. The republican form is satisfied by the guarantee that endowed rights would be secured.

Those who consented to be part of the democratic form may have an issue with the points you raised, but they are immaterial with respect to the sovereign Americans who have not consented to be governed.

WHAT RIGHTS?
As George Washington pointed out, citizens have no endowed rights to life, liberty nor property. . . BY CONSENT.

So, no, they didn't "steal our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness..."

The law, since 1777, was clear on those points.
That Americans did not bother to read their own laws nor comprehend what their consent entailed is a whole different issue.

The fact remains, that within the vast body of statutes, etc, you will not find a violation of the republican form of government.

In particular, you will not find a violation of PRIVATE PROPERTY;
nor of the unconditional sovereignty of the FREE INHABITANT, domiciled within the borders of the united States of America;
nor of the endowed rights, liberties, and powers retained by the people who did not consent to be governed.
(and restated in the 9th and 10th amendments)

But if one is a citizen, a resident, enrolled in FICA, holding qualified ownership of estate and contracting with usurers, all bets are off. Sit down. Shut up. And obey.

FOUNDERS' WISDOM - - -

http://www.nhinet.org/ccs/docs/va-1776.htm
For a glimpse into the understanding of “representatives” in the Founders' generation:
Virginia Constitution, 1776.

SEC. 6. That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people, in assembly, ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage, and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses, without their own consent, or that of their representatives so elected*, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assembled, for the public good.

● All men ... cannot be taxed without their own consent.
● All men ... cannot be deprived of their property for public uses without their own consent.
● All men ... cannot be bound by any law that is not for the public good.

{*only tax paying property owners could vote, ergo, not all Virginians gave consent to be bound by all laws.}

To this day, the government is careful to craft laws that don't trespass upon the liberties and private property rights of the sovereign people - what few remain. And anyone of the sovereign people in full possession of all endowed rights, powers and liberties is not injured by the lack of “representation” in servant government.

ozmirage
28th March 2016, 04:57
Thanks Ozmirage !. All you put above sounds like our government is actually breaking the law big time, the question here is: for a regular folk who live check by check like millions around, how can us protect ourselves from the phony govt. we have in order to be free again? like the tax issue, I'm very piss off about the income tax (more I work the more they take) and the property tax. Why should I pay taxes on my own property, or isn't mine? if I totally paid for?
Your consent, via citizenship, FICA, and bank accounts, is what has put you into perpetual servitude in the glorious socialist paradise / aka / benevolent totalitarian police state we all know and love.

If you check your own state's constitution and statutes, you should find that :
a) private property is explicitly protected but qualified ownership of estate is subject to taxation and regulation;
b) free inhabitants domiciled in the state (non-residents) are not obligated to get permission (licenses) nor register their private property;
c) non consenting people retain their endowed (natural) rights and liberties (natural and personal), and all related powers.

But those who are consenting citizens / residents / human resources, it's a rough time for you.

ozmirage
28th March 2016, 05:21
THE DIRT ON "DIRT"
=\=\=\=
Land is something we all need to live. From the land, we take our water, food, and build shelter. Without land, we would not survive. There are those who argue that ephemeral man cannot "own" land, but that is a lie.

What they want you to surrender is your right to land, and your right to exclude others from your land, and the exclusive right to the fruits of your labor on that land.

HOW?
The biggest con in America.

All land is NOT real estate.
..................

LAND. ... The land is one thing, and the estate in land is another thing, for an estate in land is a time in land or land for a time.
- - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.877

.................

Estate in land is "another thing". Estate is time in land or land for a time. Remember that.

................

"OWNERSHIP - ... Ownership of property is either absolute or qualified. The ownership of property is absolute when a single person has the absolute dominion over it... The ownership is qualified when it is shared with one or more persons, when the time of enjoyment is deferred or limited, or when the use is restricted."
- - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p. 1106

................

Ownership is qualified (not absolute) when it is shared, or time is limited, or use is restricted.

Remember, estate is land for a time.

What is estate?

...................

"ESTATE - The degree, quantity, nature and extent of interest which a person has in real and personal property. An estate in lands, tenements, and hereditaments signifies such interest as the tenant has therein."
Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.547

"REAL ESTATE .... is synonymous with real property"
Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1263

"REAL PROPERTY ... A general term for lands, tenements, heriditaments; which on the death of the owner intestate, passes to his heir."
Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1218

.......................
Estate is interest in "real and personal property", which boils down to qualified ownership.

What is NOT qualified ownership?
.....................

PRIVATE PROPERTY - As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels.
- - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217

.....................

Land and house that is absolutely owned is private property.

What Is Interest?
........................

INTEREST - ...More particularly it means a right to have the advantage of accruing from anything ; any right in the nature of property, but LESS THAN TITLE.
Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.812

........................

TITLE - "The formal right of ownership of property..."
Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1485

.......................

Real estate / Real property refers to "lands, tenements, heriditaments" a person or tenant has NO formal right of ownership of property - only the advantages from it.

..................

PROPERTY TAX - "An ad valorem tax, usually levied by a city or county, on the value of real or personal property that the taxpayer owns on a specified date."
Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1218

.................

Hmmm ... real property = real estate = estate.

Unpaid taxes on "real estate" can result in confiscation, whereas private property is defined as being protected from being taken for public use without just compensation. Sadly, most Americans record their "title deed" with the Real Estate registry. Coincidentally, there is no law compelling the recording of private property. But all "real estate" transactions may be recorded!

Ironically, most folks are misled to assume that they can only trade in real estate.
..............

FEE SIMPLE - ... an absolute estate... Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p. 615

DEED - A conveyance of realty. Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.414

REALTY - A brief term for real property or real estate. Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1264

..............

A "Title Deed" refers to realty, or real estate, which is an interest in real property, but only for a time, and is not a title to private property held absolutely.

To illustrate further:

From the Texas Constitution:

ARTICLE 8 - TAXATION AND REVENUE
Sec. 1. EQUALITY AND UNIFORMITY; TAX IN PROPORTION TO
VALUE; TAXATION OF TANGIBLE AND INTANGIBLE PROPERTY;
OCCUPATION TAXES; INCOME TAX; EXEMPTION OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS.

(a) Taxation shall be equal and uniform.

(b) All real property and tangible personal property in this State, unless exempt as required or permitted by this Constitution, whether owned by natural persons or corporations, other than municipal, shall be taxed in proportion to its value, which shall be ascertained as may be provided by law.

The Texas constitution states that all real and personal property is subject to their taxing power.
...................

PROPERTY TAX - An ad valorem tax, usually levied by a city or county, on the value of real or personal property that the taxpayer owns on a specified date.
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth ed., p.1218

..................

That definition agrees with the Texas constitution.

In short, the constitutional government of Texas has never, ever infringed upon the private property rights of the people. The constitution specifically lists estate as the property type subject to their power, their rules, and their taxes.

When I did a computer search on the words "private property", the only place private property is mentioned, is in the section dealing with water works. In Article 11- Sec.12, Texas Constitution
................


Sec. 12. EXPENDITURES FOR RELOCATION OR REPLACEMENT OF SANITATION SEWER OR WATER LATERALS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.

The legislature by general law may authorize a city or town to expend public funds for the relocation or replacement of sanitation sewer laterals or water laterals on PRIVATE PROPERTY if the relocation or replacement is done in conjunction with or immediately following the replacement or relocation of sanitation sewer mains or water mains serving the property. The law must authorize the city or town to affix, with the CONSENT OF THE OWNER of the PRIVATE PROPERTY, a lien on the property for the cost of relocating or replacing the laterals on the property and must provide that the cost shall be assessed against the property with repayment by the property owner to be amortized over a period not to exceed five years at a rate of interest to be set as provided by the law. The lien may not be enforced until after five years have expired since the date the lien was affixed.

............

Without consent of the owner, the State or local government cannot affix a lien, nor assess against the property, nor compel repayment.
But you can bet that "real estate" would have a lien on it, in a New York minute.

In short, private property is still protected by government.

NOTE: Do not be fooled by mythology regarding "allodial title" and "allodium."
No constitution protects allodial title - only private property.
Ditto, for the "Land patent" scammers.

.............
Addendum

Pennsylvania Constitution,
Article 1, Section 1,
Inherent Rights of Mankind

All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness.

Section 10.
...nor shall private property be taken or applied to public use, without authority of law and without just compensation being first made or secured.

Sub-chapter TT. LAND USE PLANNING, Sec. 7.771. Commonwealth land use policies.
sub-section (c) The constitutional private property rights of Pennsylvanians must be preserved and respected.
...............................

" No inhabitant of this state shall be molested in person or property ... on account of religious opinions..."
- - - Georgia Constitution, Article 1, Sec.1, Paragraph 4

"... private property shall not be taken or damaged for public purposes without just and adequate compensation being first paid.'
- - - Georgia Constitution, Article 1, Sec.3, Paragraph 1
..............................

As always, check your own state constitution and statutes to verify that private property is still protected, and inhabitants (non-residents) are in full possession of their endowed rights, liberties, and powers.

Ewan
28th March 2016, 14:42
Just wanted to isolate this by quote for skim readers. Deserves a round of applause imo.


This same dreary gestalt constitutes the nature of man’s history on this planet as far back as the eye can see. Civilizations rise, fall, and disappear, replaced by new ones that — based upon being founded on, and functioning in accordance with, wrong principles — are foredoomed for extinction, as were all of their predecessors and as all future civilizations will be until mankind finally learns and ceases “beating a dead horse” by structuring law, commerce, religion, and social organization in general on principles that are existentially impossible.

rgray222
29th March 2016, 01:37
When I first saw the title of the thread I did not take it very seriously. Thought it was probably frivolous, in a moment of boredom I decided to have a look. Glad I did.

Just wanted to say thanks for a well thought out thread. Everything I have read (so far) makes a lot of sense. I will have to save the link and read it in-depth when I have time.

Ewan
29th March 2016, 08:52
That's a good point. I too ignored the topic initially. You might want to consider a title change Ozmirage?

ozmirage
30th March 2016, 01:09
How do you edit a title ?






Reply from Bill: Just PM the mods with the title change you'd like. It's super-easy for us to do, and we're always happy to do that, but members don't have the access to edit titles themselves. (A moment's thought will tell you why... it could easily create chaos. :) )

ozmirage
30th March 2016, 13:58
Now that you have accused me of being a Mythologist.

OZ: Being a victim of mythologists is not the same as BEING a mythologist (fabricating nonsense).

[NOT] US Legal History

U.S. Law is Private Merchant Law, leaving the people as Surety and Debtor on the bankruptcy.

OZ: Typical mythology - state a conclusion without facts in support.
And NO, "People" are not sureties.
Consenting "Citizens" are sureties.


Law is contract, universally and in the U.S., so we must follow the progression of contractual agreements which constitute the underlying U.S. Law.

OZ: No, all law is not contract. A statute that punishes a murderer does not require consent of the murderer.

LAW - A set of rules or principles of a legal system.


In basically chronological order, the following progression of contracts, and our interpretation of them follows:
1. The USA, a corporation of the English Crown, is bankrupt, and has been since at least 1788.

OZ: typical myth format - state a bogus conclusion without supporting facts.
>> No evidence of incorporation under English law
>> No evidence of outstanding debt

then add some snippet of data / fact, as if that supports the previous fraud

The Articles of Confederation states in Article 12: “All bills of credit emitted, monies borrowed, and debts contracted by, or under the authority of Congress, before the assembling of the United States, in pursuance of the present confederation, shall be deemed as considered a charge against the United States, for payment and satisfaction whereof the said United States, and the public faith are hereby solemnly pledged.”


OZ: Next fraud:
The “Founding Fathers,” as constitutors, acknowledged and reorganized the debt in the US Constitution 1787, Article VI, hence “constitution.”

OZ: There is no evidence that the term “constitutors” has any connection with “constitution.”

Playing word games is a tactic of mythologists.

CON - To swindle (a victim) by first winning his or her confidence; dupe.

CONSTITUTOR, civil law. He who promised by a simple pact to pay the debt of another; and this is always a principal obligation.

CONSTITUTION - The system of fundamental laws and principles that prescribes the nature, functions, and limits of a government or another institution.

CONSTITUTE - To set up or establish according to law or provision.

CONSTITUTION - Constitution. The organic and fundamental law of a nation or state, which may be written or unwritten, establishing the character and conception of its government, laying the basic principles to which its internal life is to be conformed, organizing the government, and regulating, distributing, and limiting the functions of its different departments, and prescribing the extent and manner of the exercise of sovereign powers. A charter of government deriving its whole authority from the governed.
- - - Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p. 311


Bankruptcy occurred on January 1, 1788 based on 21 loans that the United States of America received from the King of England dating from February 28, 1778 through July 5, 1782, the repayment of which had been ratified by Congress on January 22, 1783.

OZ: What 21 loans? Where are the records? What sums?

The only reference I could find regarding a loan to the USA, was in 1783:
http://www.britannia.com/history/docs/contractg3.html
But it is from the FRENCH KING... unless England uses livres and has its Treasury in Paris.



The United States Bank, created in 1791, was a private bank, with 18,000 of 25,000 shares owned by England.

OZ: And this supports what claim? And where else would America get its bullion for its coinage if not European banks? There were no domestic sources of gold and silver sufficient for "constitutional" money. The first gold strike was in Dahlonega, Georgia, in 1828.


Must I go on and on?
Mythologists state fabricated claims, and then create convoluted explanations to support them.

I wasted years being misled by mythologists.
Don't be fooled, too.

CHECK EVERY CLAIM AND SUPPORTING REFERENCE.

ozmirage
30th March 2016, 14:51
WHY AMERICANS ARE (potential) SOVEREIGNS?

The "Great" Revolution of 1776 was the elevation of each individual from subjugation to a sovereign to full equality - no one was more "noble" than another by class or birth. Thus any change in status was not up, but down. Once you fixate on that point, the rest follows.
...

1. If you absolutely own land, thereon you are the lord and master, and can exercise natural liberty. There is where you exercise direct sovereignty.
2. If you are domiciled (permanent, legal home), you have a "right" to be here. You are not a transient (resident) who needs permission lest he trespasses.
3. If you have the right to be here, you have the right to travel the public roads and waterways without needing permission.
4. If you are an American national, American sovereign, free inhabitant, you have natural and personal liberty, then you are at the summit of status. You are a social equal of any other monarch on earth. Government is your servant, not your master. All others hold a lower status, being subjects.

Unfortunately, most Americans consented to be socialist serfs, subjects of a benevolent totalitarian police state, obligated to perform mandatory civic duties, and have descended to status criminals.

REFERENCES IN SUPPORT

Absolute ownership of land - - -


PRIVATE PROPERTY - As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels."
- - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217.

...
Sovereignty and property are inseparable. A king without a domain is merely a traveling prince. Many make the mistake of claiming to be "sovereigns" without evidence of a domicile upon private property.

But what proof exists that Americans can be sovereigns under American law?


The people of the state, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the king by his own prerogative.
Lansing v. Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9, (NY)

It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states.
Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt 16 How. 416, 14 L.Ed. 997

In America, however, the case is widely different. Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.
[ Glass vs The Sloop Betsey, 3 Dall 6 (1794)]

Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.
[Yick Wo vs Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)]

"In every government there necessarily exists a power from which there is no appeal, and which, for that reason, may be formed absolute and uncontrollable. The person or assembly in whom this power resides is called the sovereign or supreme power of the state. With us, the sovereignty of the Union is in the people." - Charles Pinckney, 1788

“It will be sufficient to observe briefly that the sovereignties in Europe, and particularly in England, exist on feudal principles. That system considers the Prince as the sovereign, and the people as his subjects; it regards his person as the object of allegiance, and excludes the idea of his being on an equal footing with a subject, either in a court of justice or elsewhere... No such ideas obtain here; at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects, and have none to govern but themselves[.]

“From the differences existing between feudal sovereignties and governments founded on compacts, it necessarily follows that their respective prerogatives must differ. Sovereignty is the right to govern; a nation or State sovereign is the person or persons in whom that resides. In Europe, the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here, it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and, at most, stand in the same relation to their sovereign in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns."
- - - Justice John Jay in Chisholm v. Georgia (2 U.S. 419 (1793))
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/2/419#writing-USSC_CR_0002_0419_Z

American people are the sovereigns, served by government.
American citizens are the subjects of government - by consent.


NATURAL LIBERTY ?

Natural liberty versus civil liberty


" NATURAL LIBERTY is the right which nature gives to all mankind, of disposing of their persons and property after the manner they judge most consonant to their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature, and that they do not in any way abuse it to the prejudice of other men."
- - - Bouvier's Law Dictionary

NATURAL LIBERTY - The power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, unless by the law of nature. The right which nature gives to all mankind of disposing of their persons and property after the manner in which they judge most consistent with their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature, and so as not to interfere in the equal exercise of the same rights by other men. 1 Blackstone's Commentaries, 123,
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth edition, p. 919.
. . .
Natural liberty = absolute freedom and dominion over their persons and property... as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others.
. . .

" CIVIL LIBERTY is the power to do whatever is PERMITTED by the constitution of the state and the laws of the land. It is no other than natural liberty, so far RESTRAINED BY HUMAN LAWS, and no further, operating equally upon all the citizens, as is necessary and expedient for the general advantage of the public." 1 Black. Com. 125; Paley's Mor. Phil. B. 6, c.5; Swifts Syst. 12
--- Bouvier's Law Dictionary

LICENSE - A personal privilege to do some particular act or series of acts on land without possessing any estate or interest therein, and is ordinarily revocable at the will of the licensor and is not assignable... The PERMISSION by competent authority to do an act which, without such permission, would be illegal, a trespass, a tort, or otherwise not allowed.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary
. . .
Those who have "rights" (natural liberty) need no permission.
Those who need permission, have no "rights."
. . .
PERSONAL LIBERTY - - -


PERSONAL LIBERTY - The right or power of locomotion; of changing situation, or moving one's person to whatsoever place one's own inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint, unless by due course of law. 1 Bl. Comm. 125.
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p. 919

" PERSONAL LIBERTY largely consists of the Right of locomotion to go where and when one pleases only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or AUTOMOBILE, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct."
- - - II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135.


If you absolutely own yourself, your labor, and have liberty, the exercise of those rights is not illegal, nor a trespass, nor a tort, and therefore cannot be subject to the servant government unless you consented to be governed.


DOMICILE

"INHABITANT - One who resides actually and permanently in a given place, and has his domicile there."
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p.782

"DOMICILE - A person's legal home. That place where a man has his true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment, and to which whenever he is absent he has the intention of returning."
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p.484

An inhabitant (non-resident) has a permanent, legal home (domicile).
A resident has a residence (not a domicile).


"RESIDENCE - Place where one actually lives ... Residence implies something more than physical presence and something less than domicile. The terms 'resident' and 'residence' have no precise legal meaning... [One can have many residences but only one domicile]
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p.1308, 1309

"RESIDENT - ...when used as a noun, means a dweller, habitant, or occupant; one who resides or dwells in a place for a period of more, or less duration...
Resident has many meanings in law, largely determined by statutory context in which it is used."
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p.1309

FYI : A "resident" is often redefined to be synonymous with a vagrant or vagabond - one who has no permanent home, traveling from place to place.


VAGABOND. A vagrant or homeless wanderer without means of honest livelihood. Neering v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 383 111. 366, 50 N.E.2d 497, 502. One who wanders from place to place, having no fixed dwelling, or, if he has one, not abiding in it; a wanderer, especially such a person who is lazy and generally worthless and without means of honest livelihood. See also Vagrant.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed., p. 1549

VAGRANT - At common law, wandering or going about from place to place by idle person who has no lawful or visible means of support and who subsisted on CHARITY and did not work, though able to do so.... One who is apt to become a PUBLIC CHARGE through his own laziness.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed., p. 1549

PAUPER - One so poor that he must be supported at public expense.
- - - Black's Law dictionary, 6th ed., p. 1128
.......
Translation into English:
"Accepting charity from the public treasury makes one a pauper."

Make no mistake - if you accept public charity (SOCIAL SECURITY) and thus become a public charge, you are a STATUS CRIMINAL. If you have no domicile (legal home) or if you have one, not abiding in it, you, too, are a STATUS CRIMINAL.


STATUS CRIME - A class of crime which consists not in proscribed action or inaction, but in the accused's having a certain personal condition or being a person of a specified character. An example of a status crime is VAGRANCY. Status crimes are constitutionally suspect.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed., p.1410

"The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states, PAUPERS, VAGABONDS and fugitives from Justice EXCEPTED, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states; ...."
[Article IV of the Articles of Confederation (1777)]


- - - -
If you're a resident citizen, signed up with FICA and are eligible for public charity, and only reside at a residence, congratulations, you have descended to the lowest status at law - excepted class.

WELCOME TO THE PEOPLE'S DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF AMERICA.

Lost N Found
31st March 2016, 21:18
Well I just keep getting the history and everything mixed up. Geez here is an interesting video interview with Judge Anna Von Rietz. May be worth some time to listen to what she has to say about all this criminal corporation of a government

http://www.ascensionwithearth.com/2016/03/anna-von-reitz-update-interview-about.html#more

Just some more of stuff.
steven

ozmirage
4th April 2016, 01:09
Well I just keep getting the history and everything mixed up. Geez here is an interesting video interview with Judge Anna Von Rietz. May be worth some time to listen to what she has to say about all this criminal corporation of a government

http://www.ascensionwithearth.com/2016/03/anna-von-reitz-update-interview-about.html#more

Just some more of stuff.
steven
It's retread patriot mythology, mish mashed together.
- - -

- - -
RECOURSE AND REMEDY
=\=\=\=\=
Pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, American people are endowed with inalienable rights, liberties, powers, etc, that government was instituted to secure. However, if one consents to be governed, those endowments are waived / surrendered.

If one is unhappy with the consequences of one’s consent to be a subject citizen, pauperized socialist, and in perpetual debt to usurers, the remedy of the indirect democratic form is unlikely to produce a satisfactory result. The majority can outvote the minority and dispossess them of their property, liberty, and there’s little one can do about it. “Takers” outvote the “Taken.”

Restating, if one is unhappy with the voluntary servitude of socialist democracy, there is only one viable remedy - withdraw consent. Once restored to the republican form of government, with endowed rights that government was instituted to secure - not tax, infringe nor trespass - one can live free.

Do Not Believe Me - go read law and verify that your state still explicitly protects PRIVATE PROPERTY and honors inherent / endowed / sacred rights to life, liberty, and absolute ownership.
BUT
If one has consented to be a subject citizen / resident / socialist, all bets are off.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
To illustrate:

A Restatement of the Declaration of Independence, and the attributes of the republican form of government

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=00&div=0&chpt=1

Pennsylvania Constitution,
Article 1, Section 1. Inherent Rights of Mankind

All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness.

Section 2. Political powers.
All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper.

Section 10.
...nor shall private property be taken or applied to public use, without authority of law and without just compensation being first made or secured.

Sub-chapter TT. LAND USE PLANNING, Sec. 7.771. Commonwealth land use policies.
sub-section (c) The constitutional private property rights of Pennsylvanians must be preserved and respected.


RFOG:
__ The people in a republican form are - born equal - none are higher.
__ The people in a republican form have -
. . . Endowed Rights / Inherent Rights / Sacred Rights
. . . Including natural rights, natural and personal liberty, and absolute ownership of private property, as well as other powers and privileges.
__ The people in a republican form have dominion / sovereignty over their person, liberty, private property, and thus are sovereigns without subjects.

__ The governments are instituted to secure these endowed / inherent / sacred rights.
__ The governments can only govern / rule those who consent to be governed. Therefore, government is not sovereign but a servant. Absent consent, all government is authorized to do is secure rights via prosecution of criminals, adjudication of disputes, and defending against enemies, foreign or domestic.

(Note: private property and real estate are mutually exclusive. Estate is held with qualified ownership, a taxable privilege.)

Now, for the SWITCHEROO - - -


PENNSYLVANIA GENERAL ASSEMBLY
TITLE 51, PART II, CHAPTER 3
THE MILITIA
Sec. 301. Formation.
Enactment. Chapter 3 was added August 1, 1975, P.L.233, No.92, effective January 1, 1976.
§ 301. Formation.
(a) Pennsylvania militia.--The militia of this Commonwealth shall consist of:
(1) all able-bodied citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied persons who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, residing within this Commonwealth, who are at least 17 years six months of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than 55 years of age; and

(2) such other persons as may, upon their own application, be enlisted or commissioned therein.

(b) Pennsylvania naval militia.--The naval militia of this Commonwealth, when organized pursuant to rules and regulations promulgated by the Governor, shall consist of those persons as may, upon their own application, be enlisted or commissioned therein.

DFOG:
Those who consent to be governed (i.e. citizens), surrender endowed rights, liberties, powers, and privileges in exchange for civil and political liberties. This is demonstrated by imposition of mandatory civic duties, such as militia duty, that void rights to life and liberty, and the obligation to pay a portion of one’s property to the state, that voids absolute ownership (private property).

INTERESTING - though “all able-bodied citizens” are the militia, “OTHER PERSONS” (non-citizens?) may volunteer to be enlisted or commissioned into the militia.

The point?
Pennsylvania's state constitution recognizes the sovereignty, freedom and independence of the American non-citizen national domiciled within its borders.
BUT,
if one is a citizen, the state can compel one to train, fight, and die on command, as part of militia duty. (Selective Service is 100% constitutional - and voluntary)

This has been part of American law since 1776, and the Declaration of Independence, when subjects of the King declared their independence and ceased being subjects.
All American governments are created by compact (thus are corporations), and the terms of those compacts only bind those who swear an oath to them.

As to the myriad claims of conspiracy by 'foreign powers' ranging from the Knights Templar, The Pope, Mossad, Communists, Jesuits, English monarchy, Islam, Esquires, Yoga masters, Rosicrucians, Usurers, and Masons, I think one had best not be distracted from reading actual law.

Frankly, if the republican form was left to prosper unimpeded, it would spark world wide conflagration and the destruction of the powers that be.

shaberon
4th April 2016, 04:40
This is my first post here, as a result of scouring the internet on related subjects and finding, largely, the same wall of text copy/pasted across the blogosphere and running into dead ends or issues with it.

Yes, the thread deserves a better title or maybe a relaunch, as it is a clear refutation of things that are taking root in public consciousness, and it affects everyone. Not only that, but laws and property generally last longer than anyone.

And it does come down to specific meanings of words instead of sensationalism.

Around the net, I started seeing things parroted such as certain executive orders from 1933--which have since been repealed. There are claims that an act of 1871 establishing government for the D. C. area--which has been modified several times--did something nefarious to the whole federal apparatus, which it does not even relate to. They cite a Tomkins vs. Erie Railroad case, which, upon examination, has little to do with what they want it to.

Since law is "obscure and incomprehensible" to most, but these myths are largely what you're going to find upon casual examination--refuting them clearly and concisely is among the most useful things that can be done. Due to chicanery, and the fact of the laws being hidden in plain sight, most everyone conflates the terms, citizen, resident, inhabitant, domiciled national; and because there are important differences, it will be much more helpful to present this in a useful, public way, than to either leave it sitting in a book that no one will ever read, or to have the instinctual feeling of injustice swept into the blind alleys of specious claims.

Once placed into popular understanding--who in the world would ever consent to being a governed citizen??

ozmirage
4th April 2016, 17:24
Once placed into popular understanding--who in the world would ever consent to being a governed citizen??
If you think about it as if you're one of the "THREE PERCENT" who had just won the Revolutionary War, it is logical.
These guys wanted to make sure only civic minded, brave, and unselfish people would be "public servants." They did not want democracy (mob rule) and its attendant vices ("tax and bribe" schemes).
So it was set up that only property owners who had paid taxes and were liable to serve 33+ years in the militia would be citizens / servants.
The rest could go about their business, at liberty, and untroubled by politics.

By the 1820s, the Founding generation was supplanted by those who wished to institute a more pliant democracy, and milk it for all its worth. It's been downhill, ever since.

shaberon
4th April 2016, 20:52
Exactly. The Revolution was not even supported by many, and of those who did, it was a minority who did it for the "experiment" of the republican form. My lifelong weakness has probably been in relating to this minority, and kind of assuming or hoping that everyone else did, too, and that was very naive.

Even at the time, they were already swarmed by Federalists who wanted a powerful central government and rapprochement with Britain. I've generally thought the last great president was Andrew "I killed the bank" Jackson, who also personally killed twenty men in duels, but aside from his anti-bank campaign I have not really studied his politics.

The corollaries of the protections originally written into the law, and apparently still there, are enforcement and the courts--do these people have a clue? In my meager experience, for example, I have personally been told by enforcement that "we only have to tell the truth on the witness stand". And once something is legislated and enforced, it all boils down to only what a court will uphold.


That mostly pertains to criminal cases; civil cases are not juried and not usually involved with the same type of enforcement. Not everyone commits crimes, but most of them are hooked into property and taxes and so forth.

The Regulators had attacked the British troops before the war started, mostly over the outrageous fees being charged for deed transfers. Now that we have an outrageous fee, tax, and enforceable court-supported rules for many more kinds of things, I'm very much wanting to move towards a velvet reform that prevents another bloody scenario.

In modern terms, my parents would be thrown in jail, for allowing the relatively free kind of childhood that we commonly enjoyed not that long ago.

ozmirage
4th April 2016, 22:12
Exactly. The Revolution was not even supported by many, and of those who did, it was a minority who did it for the "experiment" of the republican form. My lifelong weakness has probably been in relating to this minority, and kind of assuming or hoping that everyone else did, too, and that was very naive.

Even at the time, they were already swarmed by Federalists who wanted a powerful central government and rapprochement with Britain. I've generally thought the last great president was Andrew "I killed the bank" Jackson, who also personally killed twenty men in duels, but aside from his anti-bank campaign I have not really studied his politics.

The corollaries of the protections originally written into the law, and apparently still there, are enforcement and the courts--do these people have a clue? In my meager experience, for example, I have personally been told by enforcement that "we only have to tell the truth on the witness stand". And once something is legislated and enforced, it all boils down to only what a court will uphold.


That mostly pertains to criminal cases; civil cases are not juried and not usually involved with the same type of enforcement. Not everyone commits crimes, but most of them are hooked into property and taxes and so forth.

The Regulators had attacked the British troops before the war started, mostly over the outrageous fees being charged for deed transfers. Now that we have an outrageous fee, tax, and enforceable court-supported rules for many more kinds of things, I'm very much wanting to move towards a velvet reform that prevents another bloody scenario.

In modern terms, my parents would be thrown in jail, for allowing the relatively free kind of childhood that we commonly enjoyed not that long ago.
Your observations correctly highlight the problem - ignorance of the people.

Most cannot determine the (legal) difference between the following pairs:

1. national v. citizen
2. sovereign v. subject
3. individual v. person
4. inhabitant v. resident
5. domicile v. residence
6. natural liberty v. civil liberty
7. personal liberty v. political liberty
8. private property v. estate (real and personal property)
9. absolute ownership v. qualified ownership
...
If you do not know the legal difference, you will not understand what has happened to the United States of America and the republican form of government promised to the American people. (See: Art.4, Sec.4, USCON)

A simple illustration can be found in the constitutions of any state.
Therein, you'll find explicit protection for private property rights.
BUT, you will also find that the taxing power is limited to real estate / real property. Everyone assumes that private property and real estate are synonymous. In fact, they're mutually exclusive.
Real estate / real property / estate is held with qualified ownership, a revenue taxable privilege.
Private property is held with absolute ownership, an endowed right.

Not knowing which is which, leads one to make mistake after mistake.


http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=68

Pennsylvania General Assembly
Title 68 Real and Personal Property, Sec 2103. Definitions.
"Real property." Land and all structures and fixtures thereon and all estates and interests in land, including easements, covenants and leaseholders.

At first glance, one might think that real property = all land and all structures.
But look again.
Clever omission : “Land” does not equate to “All land”.
“All estates” + “all interests” but no mention of private property (absolute ownership).



PRIVATE PROPERTY - As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels.
- - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217

OWNERSHIP - ... Ownership of property is either absolute or qualified. The ownership of property is absolute when a single person has the absolute dominion over it... The ownership is qualified when it is shared with one or more persons, when the time of enjoyment is deferred or limited, or when the use is restricted.
- - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p. 1106

LAND. ... The land is one thing, and the ESTATE in land is another thing, for an ESTATE in land is a time in land or land for a time.
- - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.877

ESTATE - The degree, quantity, nature and extent of interest which a person has in real and personal property. An estate in lands, tenements, and hereditaments signifies such interest as the tenant has therein.
- - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.547

REAL ESTATE .... is synonymous with real property.
- - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., From p.1263

REAL PROPERTY ... A general term for lands, tenements, heriditaments; which on the death of the owner intestate, passes to his heir.
- - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed.,p.1218

INTEREST - ...More particularly it means a right to have the advantage of accruing from anything ; any right in the nature of property, but less than title.
- - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p. 812

Estate = real and personal property = real estate = qualified ownership

Though "private property" may be condemned under eminent domain (with just compensation), real estate may be condemned for failure to pay taxes, and the owner gets no just compensation.

The Bottom Line - there is no need for a "Velvet Reform" when the republican form is already "the law of the land."
All it takes is education and an informed decision to withdraw consent.

shaberon
5th April 2016, 06:24
Wall of text incoming.

I have visited some of my state statutes frequently in the past; today I looked at the constitution, which I don't think I have ever seen before, and it appears to have been written by a kindergartner with a crayon in the mouth. They seem to have conflated the terms, people, person, human, and have very little or no reference to citizen, resident, or inhabitant. Please point out any errors I may be making. If this is a supreme law, it should have precise definitions for everything in it.

What is the singular of people? It has none, or as a singular it is an aggregate. If it cannot refer to an individual human being...it's kind of useless. "People" means, a nation, that is, a population of human beings who share a common culture, usually based around language. A nation is not a country or state. Can I be a member of an English speaking nation? Hardly. They speak it in Asia, Africa, almost anywhere, but beyond a vocabulary, I have little in common with any of them culturally. I'm going to have a really hard time, identifying my nation or people. Many in the local area claim to speak English, but are barely understandable, so I would doubt those are "my" people either. Many do not even speak English, and so would not be defined as people.

A person, which has a plural, persons, includes human beings, but also corporations and other organizations and entities. So, person is not specific enough. Now, for brevity, "being" is redundant and unnecessary, so could we just use a basic word that means specifically one thing--human, which has a plural, humans, and an aggregate, humanity. In the original draft 1776, the word human(s) only occurs in limited use. At this time, corporations were heavily restricted and routinely dissolved, and in this original language most likely were not persons? This interpretation seemed to have come in later, after abolition, with legislation obligating "all persons to receive equal protection under the law", which, apparently, was used to help a freed slave one time, and from then on, corporations co-opted the term so it would mean "all humans, corporations, and legal entities receive equal protection." A state would be a person, but a people or nation, is not.

Note: this constitution was revised in 1868 and again in 1971, mostly by keeping the original text and adding a few new things.

A state is a sovereign political entity, or subdivision of a federation. The United States is not a federation that was subdivided, it is a union of several sovereign states, and how can there be two sovereigns of the same area? At the moment I am calling the state a sovereign, as that seems to be widely included in the definition, and nothing in this constitution tells me that an individual human is a sovereign in any way. I realize that's the focus of the thread, individual sovereignty, however I am not finding that within this particular document. If I can prove it's a poorly written mishmash to 3/5 of the legislators, we can replace it! The "people" are expressed as sovereigns but if, as a human, you cannot relate to the culture, then you would sadly lack sovereignty, and in any case, it does not specify an individual.

From here on, quotes of many of the beginning parts of the constitution are blocked, and my responses are indented. <--it was when I wrote, sorry it did not post in this format but I think you can spot the difference

NORTH CAROLINA STATE CONSTITUTION

PREAMBLE

We, the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for the preservation of the American Union and the existence of our civil, political and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those blessings to us and our posterity, do, for the more certain security thereof and for the better government of this State, ordain and establish this Constitution.

Supreme law of the political entity located within the borders of NC. We, the nation in said space, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations...

Stop. We have a sovereign ruler of nations? Is it the pope? Who? Some man ("Him") who preserved the union, could be Lincoln or General Grant? Well, be grateful to this mysterious leader of one world culture all you want. Depend on him for blessings all you need. I don't, and although I share the English language with many of my neighbors, I do not share a religion, or the pork and beef slaughtering habits of their daily life, so I must conclude I am not a member of this people/nation, nor grateful to or dependent upon its elusive sovereign. Suggest striking the preamble.

ARTICLE I

DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

That the great, general, and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, and that the relations of this State to the Union and government of the United States and those of the people of this State to the rest of the American people may be defined and affirmed, we do declare that:

Section 1. The equality and rights of persons.

We hold it to be self-evident that all persons are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, the enjoyment of the fruits of their own labor, and the pursuit of happiness.

Eh. It's persons now, not people or humans. As rendered in 1776, I would not think this included corporations which were doomed to death in twenty years, or anything other than humans. I hold it to be perfectly evident that humans are in no way equal, however, the intent seems to be that no hereditary titles make one human socially superior, having greater rights to, or being sovereign over another. So I suppose the rights of humans are equal.

My creator was my parents, I don't know about you. They endowed (?) me with rights that cannot be surrendered or transferred: life, liberty, enjoyment of fruits of my labor, pursuit of happiness...among others, which would be really useful to go ahead and list here in this first part. If not so enumerated, I assume I have been endowed with any other inalienable rights I can think of, unless restricted somewhere, which if needs must, should be restricted here for simplicity.

Sec. 2. Sovereignty of the people.

All political power is vested in and derived from the people; all government of right originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.

So the people, myself perhaps not included, hold all--not part or parcel--of the state government's political power. This people or nation therefore is the sovereign, not the state or federal government, especially if we remove the meaningless preamble; if not, the people/nation have an unidentified further sovereign, but the state/government does not. Getting dizzy. The people rule the government, but are in turn under this Ruler of Nations, not necessarily "all" nations, but at least two.

Sec. 3. Internal government of the State.

The people of this State have the inherent, sole, and exclusive right of regulating the internal government and police thereof, and of altering or abolishing their Constitution and form of government whenever it may be necessary to their safety and happiness; but every such right shall be exercised in pursuance of law and consistently with the Constitution of the United States.

It seems vitally necessary for the safety and happiness of this people/nation to alter the constitution and abolish the form of government. I would, if I could figure out how as a human person I was somehow a part of the aggregate "people".

Sec. 4. Secession prohibited.

This State shall ever remain a member of the American Union; the people thereof are part of the American nation; there is no right on the part of this State to secede; and all attempts, from whatever source or upon whatever pretext, to dissolve this Union or to sever this Nation, shall be resisted with the whole power of the State.

Would strike this fourth section along with the preamble. At least now I know the people (culture) are part of the American nation (culture). But tying a state to a permanent union or whatever it is, that's an utterly retarded surrender.

Sec. 5. Allegiance to the United States.

Every citizen of this State owes paramount allegiance to the Constitution and government of the United States, and no law or ordinance of the State in contravention or subversion thereof can have any binding force.

So this does not apply to people, persons, or humans, only citizens, and the only time that citizens are mentioned. Isn't the state the one supposed to have the U. S. loyalty? Where does it mention that?? Allegiance--is that an ally, or one who has a liege lord?

Sec. 8. Representation and taxation.

The people of this State shall not be taxed or made subject to the payment of any impost or duty without the consent of themselves or their representatives in the General Assembly, freely given.

Again it speaks to a nation/people (culture), not to persons or humans, and even so, how is anyone your representative without your consent? If I retain an attorney at large, is that not my representative? Can he enter the General Assembly?

Sec. 12. Right of assembly and petition.

The people have a right to assemble together to consult for their common good, to instruct their representatives, and to apply to the General Assembly for redress of grievances; but secret political societies are dangerous to the liberties of a free people and shall not be tolerated.

The people have a right to instruct representatives, is this then the equivalent of representatives having the right to instruct people? Seems a bit backwards in practice. And if something is a secret, you must be unknowingly tolerating it.

Sec. 13. Religious liberty.

All persons have a natural and inalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences, and no human authority shall, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience.

So corporations have the right to worship the Sovereign Ruler of Nations. Oh, and finally you mention human, at least as an adjective. Leaving room for a corporate authority, or any other non-human kind, to interfere with and control this unalienable right.

Sec. 14. Freedom of speech and press.

Freedom of speech and of the press are two of the great bulwarks of liberty and therefore shall never be restrained, but every person shall be held responsible for their abuse.

Fourteen sections in and I finally find something that sounds pretty reasonable and fair. A person, such as a corporation or any other legal entity, can be held responsible for the abuse of free speech or the press in this state. Ding!

Sec. 15. Education.

The people have a right to the privilege of education, and it is the duty of the State to guard and maintain that right.

A right to a privilege? Is this alienable?

Sec. 17. Slavery and involuntary servitude.

Slavery is forever prohibited. Involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the parties have been adjudged guilty, is forever prohibited.

Well, involuntary servitude seems to be a condition that many of us are in so most likely we were judged guilty about something, but I missed that part.

Sec. 18. Court shall be open.

All courts shall be open; every person for an injury done him in his lands, goods, person, or reputation shall have remedy by due course of law; and right and justice shall be administered without favor, denial, or delay.

Swift justice should you impugn the reputation of a corporation or other legal entity, but I could probably develop arguments based on easily seen truths that would adjust their reputation to what it should be.

Sec. 19. Law of the land; equal protection of the laws.

No person shall be taken, imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties, or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner deprived of his life, liberty, or property, but by the law of the land. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws; nor shall any person be subjected to discrimination by the State because of race, color, religion, or national origin.

Same type of clause that allowed businesses to pre-empt what was, at least in the popular concept, supposed to protect the former slaves at the federal level.

Sec. 29. Treason against the State.

Treason against the State shall consist only of levying war against it or adhering to its enemies by giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. No conviction of treason or attainder shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture.

Make a broad enough definition of "enemy of the state" and "aid and comfort", and we're all pretty treasonous.

Sec. 34. Perpetuities and monopolies.

Perpetuities and monopolies are contrary to the genius of a free state and shall not be allowed.

They're not allowed? Are you absolutely sure about this??

Sec. 35. Recurrence to fundamental principles.

A frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is absolutely necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty.

We might be able to go somewhere with this, but it's very abstract, and not very actionable.

Sec. 36. Other rights of the people.

The enumeration of rights in this Article shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.

After over 200 years to work on something this basic and small, why is it so hard to put these rights all in one place??

ozmirage
5th April 2016, 07:49
It helps to know before hand that any mention of CITIZEN means 'consenting subject' whereas PEOPLE may include sovereigns as well as subjects, depending on the context.
FWIW - the republican form 'buzz words' are :
People, liberties (natural and personal), (natural) rights, private property, and such.
Democratic 'buzz words' are:
Citizens, privileges, immunities, electors, candidates, public officers, civic duties, and such.

MY ADDITIONS IN RED


Wall of text incoming.
[MUCH SNIPPERY]

A state would be a person, but a people or nation, is not.

STATE - A people* permanently occupying a fixed territory bound together by common-law habits and custom into one body politic exercising, through the medium of an organized government, independent sovereignty and control over all persons and things within its boundaries, capable of making war and peace and entering into international relations with other communities of the globe.
-In its largest sense, a "state" is a body politic or a society of men.
-The section of territory occupied by one of the United States.
-One of the component commonwealths or states of the United States of America.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p.1407
Depending on context - - -
*PEOPLE = STATE
Geography = state
Government = state
Any reference to a "sovereign state" cannot refer to the government, which is an agent for the sovereign people. (See: Chisholm v. Georgia)
- - -
Also note the distinction between one of the 50 states united versus the "United States" (federal government)


NORTH CAROLINA STATE CONSTITUTION

PREAMBLE

We, the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for the preservation of the American Union and the existence of our civil, political and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those blessings to us and our posterity, do, for the more certain security thereof and for the better government of this State, ordain and establish this Constitution.

NOTE: "The people ..." is a reference to those subject citizens who initiated or submitted to the terms of the compact / constitution. It cannot refer to those who DID NOT CONSENT.

ARTICLE I

DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

That the great, general, and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, and that the relations of this State to the Union and government of the United States and those of the people of this State to the rest of the American people may be defined and affirmed, we do declare that:

Section 1. The equality and rights of persons.

We hold it to be self-evident that all persons are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, the enjoyment of the fruits of their own labor, and the pursuit of happiness.

NOTE: One's body is one's person. Once your soul leaves, it's dead meat. The point is that under American law no one can be born HIGHER than equal. And that they have endowed / inherent / inalienable rights. These rights are mutually exclusive with government granted privileges (often called "civil rights").
"Pursuit of happiness" is a euphemism for private property ownership. One cannot "pursue happiness" on another's property without their consent. Ergo, to have a RIGHT to pursue happiness, one must be on one's own private property.


Sec. 2. Sovereignty of the people.

All political power is vested in and derived from the people; all government of right originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.

NOTE: Though sovereignty is derived from the people (sovereigns), those who SERVE in government or are probationary servants (citizens) are SUBJECTS.

Sec. 3. Internal government of the State.

The people of this State have the inherent, sole, and exclusive right of regulating the internal government and police thereof, and of altering or abolishing their Constitution and form of government whenever it may be necessary to their safety and happiness; but every such right shall be exercised in pursuance of law and consistently with the Constitution of the United States.

NOTE: This is another reference to CITIZENS interacting in a democratic form. Not applicable to the republican form.

Sec. 4. Secession prohibited.

This State shall ever remain a member of the American Union; the people thereof are part of the American nation; there is no right on the part of this State to secede; and all attempts, from whatever source or upon whatever pretext, to dissolve this Union or to sever this Nation, shall be resisted with the whole power of the State.

NOTE: The sovereign people are the ultimate beneficiaries of the republican form of government, and who are served by those in the democratic form (state governments, subject citizens). There is no benefit to the sovereigns when the servants secede... weakening the UNION, etc, etc.

Sec. 5. Allegiance to the United States.

Every citizen of this State owes paramount allegiance to the Constitution and government of the United States, and no law or ordinance of the State in contravention or subversion thereof can have any binding force.

NOTE: This is a reference to subject citizens in the democratic form. They are not sovereigns, but subjects.

Sec. 8. Representation and taxation.

The people of this State shall not be taxed or made subject to the payment of any impost or duty without the consent of themselves or their representatives in the General Assembly, freely given.

NOTE: CONSTITUENT : One that authorizes another to act as a representative.

A duly registered citizen elector authorizes the winning candidate to enact legislation that is BINDING ON HIM... even if he voted for the losing candidate. [OUCH]

A lawyer, acting as one's attorney / representative is not one's "representative" in the legislation.

Sec. 12. Right of assembly and petition.

The people have a right to assemble together to consult for their common good, to instruct their representatives, and to apply to the General Assembly for redress of grievances; but secret political societies are dangerous to the liberties of a free people and shall not be tolerated.

NOTE: This is double talk. In terms of the democracy, the "representative" is the legislator. In terms of the republican form, the "representative" is the public servant one authorizes to act on your behalf. For example, if you're robbed, you don't file a complaint with the legislation. You file a complaint with the SHERIFF (or other official), who then acts as YOUR representative in seeking justice. If in a foreign country, the ambassador is your representative who aids you in securing rights.

Sec. 13. Religious liberty.

All persons have a natural and inalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences, and no human authority shall, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience.

NOTE: the term "persons" may include corporations - for issues involving corporations. In this context, it's a reference to human beings.

Sec. 15. Education.

The people have a right to the privilege of education, and it is the duty of the State to guard and maintain that right.

A right to a privilege? Is this alienable?
NOTE: A privilege is not an endowed right. Anyone who accepts the benefit of the privilege of public education is obligated to the government.

Sec. 17. Slavery and involuntary servitude.

Slavery is forever prohibited. Involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the parties have been adjudged guilty, is forever prohibited.

Well, involuntary servitude seems to be a condition that many of us are in so most likely we were judged guilty about something, but I missed that part.

NOTE: Though you may believe you're compelled, you really volunteered. You didn't realize that citizenship, status, and FICA were all means to establish consent to be governed. OOPS.


Sec. 19. Law of the land; equal protection of the laws.

No person shall be taken, imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties, or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner deprived of his life, liberty, or property, but by the law of the land. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws; nor shall any person be subjected to discrimination by the State because of race, color, religion, or national origin.

Same type of clause that allowed businesses to pre-empt what was, at least in the popular concept, supposed to protect the former slaves at the federal level.

NOTE: This doesn't exactly refer to private property, since it mixes freehold in.

Sec. 36. Other rights of the people.

The enumeration of rights in this Article shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.

After over 200 years to work on something this basic and small, why is it so hard to put these rights all in one place??

Lawyers have expended great effort to make law incomprehensible to the sheeple.
The more convoluted, the more suspect it is.

Take the Declaration of Independence, and its statement that we're endowed with rights and liberties.
What rights?
What liberties?
In government controlled education factories, we're not informed.

In reading court cites and definitions, one can see that the "RIGHT TO LIFE" may involve any harmless activity in support of that right - working, trading, transporting goods and services, building a house, farming, etc, etc.
This right also includes the right to defend one's life and property from attack.

The right to liberty is also vast but not well known.
According to American law, liberty has four types: natural, personal, civil and political.

● Natural = absolute freedom (on one's own property or unclaimed land)
● Personal = right of locomotion (freedom to travel on public roads and waterways)
● Civil = permission from government (licenses, permits)
● Political = participation in government (voting, holding office)
The former two are endowed rights, the latter two are government privileges.

"Give me liberty or give me death!" was not a reference to government privileges.

http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_l.htm

LIBERTY. 1. Freedom from restraint. The power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature.
2. Liberty is divided into civil, natural, personal, and political.
...
It is vital to know the difference, because “the system” only stresses the liberties granted by government, and stands mute on the liberties we are endowed with. You do not see an “American Natural Liberties Union” stalwartly defending natural liberties - because most Americans were tricked into surrendering natural liberty.



" Natural liberty is the right which nature gives to all mankind, of disposing of their persons and PROPERTY after the manner they judge most consonant to their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature, and that they do not in any way abuse it to the prejudice of other men."
- - - Bouvier's Law Dictionary

Natural liberty is basically the sovereignty of the owners of private property, the right to do whatever they wish with their own property, and as long as they do not trespass upon the rights of another, there’s nothing to involve the government.
....

PERSONAL LIBERTY - The right or power of locomotion; of changing situation, or moving one's person to whatsoever place one's own inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint, unless by due course of law. 1 Bl. Comm. 125.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p. 919

TRAVEL - Within the meaning of a constitutional right to travel, means migration with intent to settle and abide.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p.1500

" Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable." 16 Corpus Juris Secundum , Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.

" Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion to go where and when one pleases only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135.

Personal liberty is basically the natural right to freely travel upon the public roads and waterways, and not be subject to interference, as long as he does not interfere another’s right to travel. BUT, it may also be expanded upon, to include natural rights. In short, the government cannot redefine it to limit it in any way.


BTW - if you think NC has a "bad" constitution, Alabama has it beat.
Alabama's Constitution, written in 1901, is 40 times longer than the U.S. Constitution and has been amended more than 700 times.


Some more expansions on the "pursuit of happiness" - - -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_Liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_Happiness

Lost N Found
5th April 2016, 22:20
Well I just keep getting the history and everything mixed up. Geez here is an interesting video interview with Judge Anna Von Rietz. May be worth some time to listen to what she has to say about all this criminal corporation of a government

http://www.ascensionwithearth.com/2016/03/anna-von-reitz-update-interview-about.html#more

Just some more of stuff.
steven
It's retread patriot mythology, mish mashed together.
- - -

- - -
RECOURSE AND REMEDY
=\=\=\=\=
Pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, American people are endowed with inalienable rights, liberties, powers, etc, that government was instituted to secure. However, if one consents to be governed, those endowments are waived / surrendered.

If one is unhappy with the consequences of one’s consent to be a subject citizen, pauperized socialist, and in perpetual debt to usurers, the remedy of the indirect democratic form is unlikely to produce a satisfactory result. The majority can outvote the minority and dispossess them of their property, liberty, and there’s little one can do about it. “Takers” outvote the “Taken.”

Restating, if one is unhappy with the voluntary servitude of socialist democracy, there is only one viable remedy - withdraw consent. Once restored to the republican form of government, with endowed rights that government was instituted to secure - not tax, infringe nor trespass - one can live free.

Do Not Believe Me - go read law and verify that your state still explicitly protects PRIVATE PROPERTY and honors inherent / endowed / sacred rights to life, liberty, and absolute ownership.
BUT
If one has consented to be a subject citizen / resident / socialist, all bets are off.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
To illustrate:

A Restatement of the Declaration of Independence, and the attributes of the republican form of government

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=00&div=0&chpt=1

Pennsylvania Constitution,
Article 1, Section 1. Inherent Rights of Mankind

All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness.

Section 2. Political powers.
All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper.

Section 10.
...nor shall private property be taken or applied to public use, without authority of law and without just compensation being first made or secured.

Sub-chapter TT. LAND USE PLANNING, Sec. 7.771. Commonwealth land use policies.
sub-section (c) The constitutional private property rights of Pennsylvanians must be preserved and respected.


RFOG:
__ The people in a republican form are - born equal - none are higher.
__ The people in a republican form have -
. . . Endowed Rights / Inherent Rights / Sacred Rights
. . . Including natural rights, natural and personal liberty, and absolute ownership of private property, as well as other powers and privileges.
__ The people in a republican form have dominion / sovereignty over their person, liberty, private property, and thus are sovereigns without subjects.

__ The governments are instituted to secure these endowed / inherent / sacred rights.
__ The governments can only govern / rule those who consent to be governed. Therefore, government is not sovereign but a servant. Absent consent, all government is authorized to do is secure rights via prosecution of criminals, adjudication of disputes, and defending against enemies, foreign or domestic.

(Note: private property and real estate are mutually exclusive. Estate is held with qualified ownership, a taxable privilege.)

Now, for the SWITCHEROO - - -


PENNSYLVANIA GENERAL ASSEMBLY
TITLE 51, PART II, CHAPTER 3
THE MILITIA
Sec. 301. Formation.
Enactment. Chapter 3 was added August 1, 1975, P.L.233, No.92, effective January 1, 1976.
§ 301. Formation.
(a) Pennsylvania militia.--The militia of this Commonwealth shall consist of:
(1) all able-bodied citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied persons who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, residing within this Commonwealth, who are at least 17 years six months of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than 55 years of age; and

(2) such other persons as may, upon their own application, be enlisted or commissioned therein.

(b) Pennsylvania naval militia.--The naval militia of this Commonwealth, when organized pursuant to rules and regulations promulgated by the Governor, shall consist of those persons as may, upon their own application, be enlisted or commissioned therein.

DFOG:
Those who consent to be governed (i.e. citizens), surrender endowed rights, liberties, powers, and privileges in exchange for civil and political liberties. This is demonstrated by imposition of mandatory civic duties, such as militia duty, that void rights to life and liberty, and the obligation to pay a portion of one’s property to the state, that voids absolute ownership (private property).

INTERESTING - though “all able-bodied citizens” are the militia, “OTHER PERSONS” (non-citizens?) may volunteer to be enlisted or commissioned into the militia.

The point?
Pennsylvania's state constitution recognizes the sovereignty, freedom and independence of the American non-citizen national domiciled within its borders.
BUT,
if one is a citizen, the state can compel one to train, fight, and die on command, as part of militia duty. (Selective Service is 100% constitutional - and voluntary)

This has been part of American law since 1776, and the Declaration of Independence, when subjects of the King declared their independence and ceased being subjects.
All American governments are created by compact (thus are corporations), and the terms of those compacts only bind those who swear an oath to them.

As to the myriad claims of conspiracy by 'foreign powers' ranging from the Knights Templar, The Pope, Mossad, Communists, Jesuits, English monarchy, Islam, Esquires, Yoga masters, Rosicrucians, Usurers, and Masons, I think one had best not be distracted from reading actual law.

Frankly, if the republican form was left to prosper unimpeded, it would spark world wide conflagration and the destruction of the powers that be.

Hey mr. know it all about law and the Republic of the united States of America. How about giving us all the absolute truth of how we got to this state of our nation. Instead of just accusing anyone that wants to refute your (I am the know it all) rhetoric by useing some unfounded and ignorant phrase like "Retread Patriot Mythology" That really means absolutely nothing. Why not have a real conversation about what has happened and is happening in this Corporate nightmare we live in today. If anyone actually bothers to do the research most of what I have stated prior is right in front of our eyes.

Now you keep spitting out the fact that if every one just did not accept the Social security FICA and stopped giving their consent that they could be the sovereigns that we all started out to be in this country. You are right in one small part but you are leaving so much of the big picture out it is damaging to the greater majority of folks that may be waking up to this mess.

You really should be explaining if you know how we got here today and who started it all against us. Please do that and stop telling anyone that just wants a discourse on this subject that they are some kind of retread patriot mythologist. That phrase in itself makes you seem like some kind of troll or provokatuer. I am not trying to be nasty or anything to you because you are puting out some truth and good stuff but please if you will let others put there input into this very important topic without calling them some kind of Mythologist.

I would like you to show us all how you have become a complete sovereign in this country and how you do not partake in any commercial dealings. Question. 1 do you grow your own foods and not partake in any stores? 2. do you not pay any utilities for electric, water, gas or any of that sort of stuff. 3. do you not drive a car or mode of transportation without having a drivers license or registration on the mode of transportation you use? 4. Do you not have any monetary currency to support your self. Obviously you are telling everyone here to do away with bank accounts and such so how do you do it? 5. Are you using FRN' Still? or do you mine your own gold and silver? Most STATES a franchise of the Corp orated government will not recognize that kind of currency in the commercial market of groceries and all the rest of the crap we have to purchase in this country. 6 Do you think you own the land you live on, do you have allodial title to the property, Do you have any allodial title to your Birth certificate or the automobiles you drive" Do you have any real title to anything" If you can't truthfully answer any of these questions then you are not a soveriegn but rather just another slave on the plantation.

Do you pay Property tax on the property you live on? Do you fill out one of those 1040 forms and send it to your favorite Instant Robbery Squad every year? SHOW ME THE LAW THAT SAYS THAT CORPORATION CAN COLLECT ANYTHING FROM YOU?

I have said this once before, There are no real Laws in this country and have not been since 1861. Look that up brother There are laws and statutes and policies and ordinances and regulations all made for the Corporations. Notice I used the small l for laws. The real Laws are capital L Can.t find that in the USC, CFR, UCC. The positive law you talk about is bogus. The Statutes at Large may be the only thing that could come close to real Law but then again that could be just another ploy by the corporations to commit fraud on all of us.

I trully hope you continue to give more of this to the folks that may not or never heard of this deceit. As I said you are giving some of the truth but you are leaving so much out. It can be harmful. Please show us all how you are a sovereign and how you accomplished it.

If you choose to continue to call me or anyone else that wants a truthful and knowledgeable discourse on this subject some kind of retread patriot Mythologist then I feel sorry for you brother. Please enjoy your imaginary self enfranchisement. and that cave of nothing you may be living in.

Just a thought and personal opinion from what you have so lovely called a retread patriot.
Lost N Found

ozmirage
5th April 2016, 23:23
Hey mr. know it all about law and the Republic of the united States of America.

Thank you for the kind words of praise. Once you descend to personal attacks, you've lost.

And the "Republic of the united States of America" is NOT synonymous with the republican form.



How about giving us all the absolute truth of how we got to this state of our nation.

[NOTE: There is no "absolute truth." There are facts and conclusions. For example, it is true that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. But the fact that the earth rotates, makes the sun APPEAR to rise and set.]

Instead of just accusing anyone that wants to refute your (I am the know it all) rhetoric by useing some unfounded and ignorant phrase like "Retread Patriot Mythology" That really means absolutely nothing. Why not have a real conversation about what has happened and is happening in this Corporate nightmare we live in today. If anyone actually bothers to do the research most of what I have stated prior is right in front of our eyes.

Now you keep spitting out the fact that if every one just did not accept the Social security FICA and stopped giving their consent that they could be the sovereigns that we all started out to be in this country. You are right in one small part but you are leaving so much of the big picture out it is damaging to the greater majority of folks that may be waking up to this mess.

You really should be explaining if you know how we got here today and who started it all against us. Please do that and stop telling anyone that just wants a discourse on this subject that they are some kind of retread patriot mythologist. That phrase in itself makes you seem like some kind of troll or provokatuer.

[If you would please read from the beginning, it is explained, over and over. CONSENT to be governed is the root cause.]

I am not trying to be nasty or anything to you because you are puting out some truth and good stuff but please if you will let others put there input into this very important topic without calling them some kind of Mythologist.

[I spent years and $$$ and time in jail because of MYTHOLOGISTS, so please forgive my lack of tolerance for nonsense peddled to those who won't bother to READ LAW for themselves.]

I would like you to show us all how you have become a complete sovereign in this country and how you do not partake in any commercial dealings.


Define "complete" sovereign, please?

To the best of my knowledge, one is sovereign over one's body, labor and production, unless consent was given.
As to being an inhabitant, one must absolutely own a domicile.
I lack a domicile, and thus being a resident, am not "completely" sovereign.
I left SocSec in 1992-3, and have not been bothered by government on that regard.
Before I was visually impaired, I traveled via private automobile without license nor tag.
Once stopped, the officer took my passport, ran the name, came back and handed me my passport and said, "Have a nice day."



Question. 1 do you grow your own foods and not partake in any stores?
2. do you not pay any utilities for electric, water, gas or any of that sort of stuff. 3. do you not drive a car or mode of transportation without having a drivers license or registration on the mode of transportation you use?
4. Do you not have any monetary currency to support your self. Obviously you are telling everyone here to do away with bank accounts and such so how do you do it?
5. Are you using FRN' Still? or do you mine your own gold and silver? Most STATES a franchise of the Corp orated government will not recognize that kind of currency in the commercial market of groceries and all the rest of the crap we have to purchase in this country.
6 Do you think you own the land you live on, do you have allodial title to the property, Do you have any allodial title to your Birth certificate or the automobiles you drive" Do you have any real title to anything" If you can't truthfully answer any of these questions then you are not a soveriegn but rather just another slave on the plantation.

I see that you wish to argue patriot mythology (allodial title, birth certificate) and I won't.
There is no law nor citation that equates private property with allodium.
And in the few cites I looked up regarding the birth certificate, it is not some commercial instrument, but a "convenience" to establish birth and nationality. If one lacks a b.c., one can use affidavits from two witnesses to establish one's birth and nationality.

The use of FRNs is a privilege and they do not alienate title. So if one wishes to establish absolute ownership, it would be beneficial to use lawful money in excess of $20 dollars (i.e. $21 in silver). However there are alternative means, via due notice and filing for a court order, ex parte.



Do you pay Property tax on the property you live on? Do you fill out one of those 1040 forms and send it to your favorite Instant Robbery Squad every year? SHOW ME THE LAW THAT SAYS THAT CORPORATION CAN COLLECT ANYTHING FROM YOU?

[NOTE: have you ever bothered to read the "rules of the bank" you agreed to when you signed the "Signature Card"?]

If this link will work, it is a copy of an application for a VISA Card wherein the applicant AGREES to provide an annual financial statement in the form the bank requests....
https://xa.yimg.com/df/NASP/Bank_Agreement_1040.jpg?token=UIKwh3g2XCqUgpYPpZNZ tD6sOtFEVFVQevAWjTX9zIWoUN4VUglGXSWymtZc02RVPRC6jw 2dZtJpnSXd8acxJFboa74rklNVGmlRjkGQInmUpCTsGgU&type=download

It's in the NASP files section, Bank Agreement 1040.
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/NASP/files

Anecdote:
All the people I personally know who were hassled by the Eye Are Us had two things in common: SSN and an open, interest bearing bank account.
All the people I personally know who were left alone (despite doing foolish filings of patriot boilerplate, etc) had two things in common : NO SSN and NO personal bank account.
End of anecdote.
(If one has no SSN/TIN, one cannot file forms with the Eye Are Us, for they will not accept unnumbered forms. And one cannot be charged with willful failure to file, can one?)

And if you will please note, that I also pointed out that the Sec'y of Treasury IS the U.S. governor of the "Bank" that one has AGREED with.
(From original post:
The Secretary of Treasury is the U.S. governor of the World Bank, IMF, and other financial institutions (usurers), and by law, shall not be paid by the U.S. government. (*Which means he doesn’t work for America - or at the least - has a conflict of interest!))


I have said this once before, There are no real Laws in this country and have not been since 1861.
That is a non-fact.
Those who refuse to recognize their consent is the basis for all the crap they suffer embrace such nonsense.
Being prosecuted and convicted under such laws refutes the notion that they're not real.



Look that up brother There are laws and statutes and policies and ordinances and regulations all made for the Corporations.

[NOTE: All American governments were corporations from day one.]

Notice I used the small l for laws. The real Laws are capital L Can.t find that in the USC, CFR, UCC. The positive law you talk about is bogus. The Statutes at Large may be the only thing that could come close to real Law but then again that could be just another ploy by the corporations to commit fraud on all of us.

I trully hope you continue to give more of this to the folks that may not or never heard of this deceit. As I said you are giving some of the truth but you are leaving so much out. It can be harmful. Please show us all how you are a sovereign and how you accomplished it.

If you choose to continue to call me or anyone else that wants a truthful and knowledgeable discourse on this subject some kind of retread patriot Mythologist then I feel sorry for you brother. Please enjoy your imaginary self enfranchisement. and that cave of nothing you may be living in.

Just a thought and personal opinion from what you have so lovely called a retread patriot.
Lost N Found

You have a penchant for insinuating things that are not there. At no time did I claim you were "retread." I was referring to the link and its content. Are you the author of that material?

If you cannot comprehend written language, that may be part of your problem.

In the most succinct and simple language, we're endowed with rights and liberties that are secured by government UNLESS WE CONSENT.

No law imposes citizenship, nor participation in FICA, nor compels us to contract with Usurers. That we're misled to do so is indicative of our lack of knowledge of law.

Re-read George Washington's letter.
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?89658-Things-That-May-Make-You-Pee-Yourself&p=1056061&viewfull=1#post1056061

If he is not lying, he's clearly stating that if one is a CITIZEN, one has
NO RIGHTS,
NO LIBERTIES,
NO PRIVATE PROPERTY.

All one has are government granted privileges and immunities (i.e. civil and political rights).

What MORE can you lose?

Oh, right, you can sell your soul to usurers.

REFERENCE:
Pee yourself #002

If you noticed that the EMERGENCY declared in 1933 transferred power to the SECRETARY OF TREASURY, congratulations. You paid attention.

Now, read this:

According to page 494 of the U.S. Government Manual, 1993/1994 edition:

"In addition, the Secretary (of Treasury) has many responsibilities as chief financial officer of the Government. The Secretary serves as Chairman pro tempore of the Economic Policy council and as U.S. Governor of the International Monetary Fund, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the Inter-American Development Bank, and the African Development Bank."

Federal Law (22 USC 286a(a)) requires the President to appoint the U.S. Governor of the International Monetary Fund. This appointment is given to the Secretary of the Treasury (see "Legislative History" of Public Law 94-564, page 5942 where Congress is explaining how they are implementing the Bretton-Woods Treaty). If the President appoints someone to an official office required by law, and that position requires him to control you with powers pre-approved by Congress implemented by a Treaty, don't you think his salary would be paid by his employer?


Title 22 USC Sec. 286(a)(d) Compensation for services
(1) No person shall be entitled to receive any salary or other compensation from the United States for services as a Governor, executive director, councillor, alternate, or associate.
(2) The United States executive director of the Fund shall not be COMPENSATED BY THE FUND at a rate in excess of the rate provided for an individual occupying a position at level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5. The United States alternate executive director of the Fund shall not be compensated by the Fund at a rate in excess of the rate provided for an individual occupying a position at level V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of title 5.


22 U.S. Code § 286d - Federal Reserve banks as depositories
Any Federal Reserve bank which is requested to do so by the Fund or the Bank shall act as its depository or as its FISCAL AGENT, and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System shall supervise and direct the carrying out of these functions by the Federal Reserve banks.


NOW YOU KNOW WHO DOES NOT PAY The Secretary of treasury, U.S. governor of the IMF, World Bank, African Development bank, etc. Whose rules are promulgated in Title 26 (aka “Income Tax”). And with whom you have an agreement, via FICA and your bank signature card.

References:
http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/memdir/members.aspx
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/22/7/XV/286a

ozmirage
5th April 2016, 23:36
Militia Refresher

Here is what the LAW says about “the militia” -


Articles of Confederation, VI. (1777)
...every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined MILITIA, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.

Art. 1, Sec. 8, USCON (1789)
Congress shall have power ... To provide for calling forth the MILITIA to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

Title 10 USC Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The MILITIA of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, CITIZENS of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Title 50 USC Sec. 453. Registration (Selective Service)
(a)...it shall be the duty of every male CITIZEN of the United States, and every other male person RESIDING in the United States, who, on the day or days fixed for the first or any subsequent registration, is between the ages of eighteen and twenty-six, to present himself for and submit to registration at such time or times and place or places, and in such manner, as shall be determined by proclamation of the President and by rules and regulations prescribed hereunder.

Militia duty
From Bouvier's Law dictionary, 1856 ed.

AGE.... In the United States, at twenty-five, a man [citizen] may be elected a representative in congress; at thirty, a senator; and at thirty-five, he may be chosen president. He is liable to serve in the militia from eighteen to forty-five inclusive, unless exempted for some particular reason.

The Supreme Court has held, in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit "enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, MILITIA, on the jury, etc." In Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918), the Supreme Court ruled that the military draft was not "involuntary servitude".

Another reference about citizenship and the drop in status from mandatory civic duties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

“The great draft riot in New York City in July 1863 involved Irish immigrants who had been signed up as citizens to swell the vote of the city's Democratic political machine, not realizing it made them liable for the draft.”
...

Since 1777, the MILITIA were defined as all able bodied male citizens, between 17 and 45 (currently). They were obligated to train, fight, and die, on command. That is the reason why conscription (“the draft”) is 100% constitutional.

But citizenship MUST be voluntary, otherwise militia duty violates the Declaration of Independence, wherein all men are endowed with the right to LIFE and LIBERTY as well as the republican form of government, and the 13th amendment to the U.S. constitution.

Once you have given consent, you're TOAST.

ozmirage
6th April 2016, 00:28
I'm very much wanting to move towards a velvet reform that prevents another bloody scenario...
In modern terms, my parents would be thrown in jail, for allowing the relatively free kind of childhood that we commonly enjoyed not that long ago.
Your observations correctly highlight the problem - ignorance of the people.

Most cannot determine the (legal) difference between the following pairs:

1. national v. citizen
2. sovereign v. subject
3. individual v. person
4. inhabitant v. resident
5. domicile v. residence
6. natural liberty v. civil liberty
7. personal liberty v. political liberty
8. private property v. estate (real and personal property)
9. absolute ownership v. qualified ownership
...
If you do not know the legal difference, you will not understand what has happened to the United States of America and the republican form of government promised to the American people. (See: Art.4, Sec.4, USCON)

A simple illustration can be found in the constitutions of any state.
Therein, you'll find explicit protection for private property rights.
BUT, you will also find that the taxing power is limited to real estate / real property. Everyone assumes that private property and real estate are synonymous. In fact, they're mutually exclusive.
Real estate / real property / estate is held with qualified ownership, a revenue taxable privilege.
Private property is held with absolute ownership, an endowed right.

Not knowing which is which, leads one to make mistake after mistake.


http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=68

Pennsylvania General Assembly
Title 68 Real and Personal Property, Sec 2103. Definitions.
"Real property." Land and all structures and fixtures thereon and all estates and interests in land, including easements, covenants and leaseholders.

At first glance, one might think that real property = all land and all structures.
But look again.
Clever omission : “Land” does not equate to “All land”.
“All estates” + “all interests” but no mention of private property (absolute ownership).



PRIVATE PROPERTY - As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels.
- - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217

OWNERSHIP - ... Ownership of property is either absolute or qualified. The ownership of property is absolute when a single person has the absolute dominion over it... The ownership is qualified when it is shared with one or more persons, when the time of enjoyment is deferred or limited, or when the use is restricted.
- - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p. 1106

LAND. ... The land is one thing, and the ESTATE in land is another thing, for an ESTATE in land is a time in land or land for a time.
- - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.877

ESTATE - The degree, quantity, nature and extent of interest which a person has in real and personal property. An estate in lands, tenements, and hereditaments signifies such interest as the tenant has therein.
- - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.547

REAL ESTATE .... is synonymous with real property.
- - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., From p.1263

REAL PROPERTY ... A general term for lands, tenements, heriditaments; which on the death of the owner intestate, passes to his heir.
- - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed.,p.1218

INTEREST - ...More particularly it means a right to have the advantage of accruing from anything ; any right in the nature of property, but less than title.
- - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p. 812

Estate = real and personal property = real estate = qualified ownership

Though "private property" may be condemned under eminent domain (with just compensation), real estate may be condemned for failure to pay taxes, and the owner gets no just compensation.

The Bottom Line - there is no need for a "Velvet Reform" when the republican form is already "the law of the land."
All it takes is education and an informed decision to withdraw consent.


Word Twistery
Some folks have been misled regarding “allodial title” and “allodium”...


ALLODIUM - "Land held absolutely in one's own right , and not of any lord or superior; land not subject to feudal duties or burdens.
An estate held by absolute ownership, without recognizing any superior to whom any duty is due on account thereof. "
- - - Blacks Law Dictionary 6th edition pg. 76

“An estate held by absolute ownership” does not change the meaning of estate from qualified ownership. Substituting proper meaning, it should read: “An estate held by absolute qualified ownership.” No real change in meaning.

“Not subject to feudal duties or burdens” to “superiors” is not synonymous with “not subject to or obligated to pay taxes to public servants”. If they worded it, “not subject to or obligated to pay taxes to ANYONE,” that would sound like private property.

Those who are subject citizens may owe a duty to the servant government, regardless of allodium. However, PRIVATE PROPERTY absolutely owned, is not subject to taxation or restriction. I have yet to find one constitutional delegation of authority that trespasses upon private property except in the pursuit of justice, for an injured party.

Restating, private property and estate are mutually exclusive. Any terms that relate to estate do not relate to private property, and vice versa.

ozmirage
6th April 2016, 01:07
Concise reference of the difference between the republican form and the democratic form.

RFOG:
[] Natural rights
[] Natural liberty
[] Personal liberty
[] Absolute ownership
[] Sovereign, served by government
. . .
DFOG:
[] Civil rights
[] Civil liberty
[] Political liberty
[] Qualified ownership
[] Subject of the government

Lost N Found
6th April 2016, 01:34
Well I see that you cannot prove how you are a sovereign and how you continue to push the USC and even the UCC Lets see now USC stands for UNITED STATES CODE AND UCC STANDS FOR UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE WHICH IS THE law OF THE SEA NOT THE LAND. is it any wonder that we have no rememdy? So yes you say you did not accuse me of being a retread patriot Mythologist but you really did and you have literally called all that may have a different opinion of this sad state of affairs the same. Now you asked me to define complete sovereign. I would ask you that question first since you seem to think that you are one. I cannot be a sovereign or a complete sovereign as an assumed citizen of this country which I am not in reality. We all are suckered into that through adheshion contracts and that my friend is how they coerce and decieve us into the consent. It is pure fraud with no end Example. When you first went down and signed up for a SSN so you could get a job, did you know that you were giving your consent to be a US Citizen under the employ of the District of Columbia? When you went down to fill out the paperwork and sign your name to the forms for a drivers license did you know that you were signing a form that gave your consent to be under the rules and regulations of the Corporation of the UNITED STATES INC.? No I suppose not.

you talk about consent but you fail to tell us that our consent was coerced and decieved from us under the guise of lies. The very first social security act was and still is a one page document and it clearly stated that it was voluntary. When you go to the USC today and you have to look in other places or titles from where it was places originally, It is so massive that the average person would not even begin to read let alone understand any of it. The Voluntary part is buried so deep that you may never find it. I read and studied all of this crap brother and I even sent a letter to the social security administration to tell them that they no longer had power of attorney over my account. They sent me a boiler plate letter back and told me that I could not quit the social security rules and regulations. I even went so far as to recend the number they had assigned to me but they told me that I could not do that. Now her is something real to piss your self about. That number is not yours it belongs to the social security admin and they can get it back anytime they want. Just look on the back on that card you may hold and it is spelled out for you right there. So to summarize that bull crap. We were all coerced into our consent. We did not know and most still do not know. All the forms and licenses our nothing more than fraud of coercion. We all have been sucker punched and did not even know it.

Yes you can go ahead and spew your stuff out for folks to read and hopefully they will gain enough to research themselves. If you have the remedy and know how to make it work please tell us all. You really did not answer my questions about being a sovereign but rather danced around them with pretty rhetoric. sure it seems really neat but it does not answer the questions.

If you are going to come here and spit this stuff out at least have the courtesy to tell all of us that this is only your opinions of the research you have done and thank you for giving things and places we can go to do our own research. Also you might have the humbleness to tell us all that maybe you tried something and it did not worl. I will not go back to your beginning simply because I have read enough of you know it all attitude to understand that you know very little of what you are talking about and just enough to gather folks that may not know anything as of yet. I have posted pieces that are from folks that know so much more than you propose and have been research this for a lot longer than you but you call them a retread patriot Mythology. That seems to be your main response to any other opinions besides your own. I do not see this as an attack on you personally but rather a inquiry into this thread and why you have brought it here. I would hope that you explain that to all that may be reading here. I do believe that this is very important for all of us to gather some wisdom and knowledge. When it is proposed with very little humbleness and a lot of ego it becomes something that is exactly how the elite corporations push on us all. Please I sincerely hope that you are not part of that and that you sincerely want to help with knowledge of all of this.

So you can tear this all apart if that is your wish, I really do not care. When someone refuses to see other avenues and perhaps the truth, and I can't even say that any of this is truth, I have to move away. I will say this, I have studied and researched this for years as you say you have and I have talked with so many people on this topic and it all seems to come to the same stuff from all the folks that I do communicate with. There is always new stuff and it is up to us as individuals to verify for ourselves what is and isn't So continue and be kind friend. I will not bother you anymore here

Lost N Found

ozmirage
6th April 2016, 03:29
There are two types of Patriot Mythologists:

1) Those who sincerely believe lies; and
2) Those who know they are liars.
When I first began my exploration of law I was misled to become a mythologist, based on lies I believed. After actually reading the law, and discovering that the patriot mythology was fabricated disinformation, I changed my mind, and direction.
I strongly dislike being lied to, regardless of which type.

And I hope you do not believe me, for I am not above making mistakes.
Go read law for yourself, and verify the citations and definitions.


Well I see that you cannot prove how you are a sovereign and how you continue to push the USC and even the UCC Lets see now USC stands for UNITED STATES CODE AND UCC STANDS FOR UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE

USC and UCC do mean those things. But that does not support your other conclusions nor inferences.

WHICH IS THE law OF THE SEA NOT THE LAND

No such fact in evidence to support that conclusion.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land..."
Art. 6, USCON

is it any wonder that we have no rememdy? So yes you say you did not accuse me of being a retread patriot Mythologist but you really did and you have literally called all that may have a different opinion of this sad state of affairs the same.

Again, you fail to comprehend. I said we're all victims of the world's greatest propaganda ministry that promulgates mythology that has fooled you. That you took personal affront is your doing. The facts are facts. They do not change because you disbelieve them.

Now you asked me to define complete sovereign. I would ask you that question first since you seem to think that you are one.

As I stated, all Americans are sovereigns until they consent otherwise. As to being an inhabitant, I currently lack a domicile. If you have a secret definition for "complete" sovereign, show us.

I cannot be a sovereign or a complete sovereign as an assumed citizen of this country which I am not in reality.

No citizen is a sovereign. Patriot mythologists who promulgate the "sovereign citizen" nonsense have been doing a disservice. Ditto, for the "State Citizen" gang. There is no such thing as a partial versus complete sovereign. Either you're sovereign or you're not. No citizen is sovereign. As to what you're sovereign over - that depends on your particular situation.

We all are suckered into that through [1] adheshion contracts and that my friend is how they coerce and decieve us into the consent. It is pure fraud with no end Example. When you first went down and signed up for a SSN so you could get a job, did you know that you were giving your consent to be a US Citizen [2] under the employ of the District of Columbia?

1. Adhesion contracts are moldy patriot mythology.
2. Participation in FICA does not make you a U.S. citizen employed by the District of Columbia.
3. There is no obligation on CONgress to pay entitlements.
4. However, being a PAUPER (eligible for public charity) does make one a status criminal, and thus excepted.

When you went down to fill out the paperwork and sign your name to the forms for a drivers license did you know that you were signing a form that gave your consent to be under the rules and regulations of the Corporation of the UNITED STATES INC.? No I suppose not.

No facts support that conclusion.
The only people who can apply for a driver's license are RESIDENTS. No inhabitant non-resident can get permission / license. Nor does he need permission.

you talk about consent but you fail to tell us that our consent was coerced and decieved from us under the guise of lies.

Who lied to you? Did you ask questions? Did you bother to read the fine print?

The very first social security act was and still is a one page document and it clearly stated that it was voluntary.

You claim to have read the statute? One page? Show the part where it is voluntary.
I'll help you start - - -
a 29 page pdf file.
http://constitution.org/tax/us-ss/ss/SSA1935.pdf

74TH CONGRESS. SESS. I. CH. 531. AUGUST 14, 1935.
AN ACT
To provide for the general welfare by establishing a system of Federal old-age
benefits, and by enabling the several States to make more adequate provision
for aged persons, blind persons, dependent and crippled children, maternal
and child welfare, public health, and the administration of their unemployment
compensation laws ; to establish a Social Security Board ; to raise revenue ;
and for other purposes .

SECTION 1. For the purpose of enabling each State to furnish financial assistance, as far as practicable under the conditions in such State, to aged needy individuals, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1936, the sum of $49,750,000, and there is hereby authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year thereafter a sum sufficient to carry out the purposes of this title.



When you go to the USC today and you have to look in other places or titles from where it was places originally, It is so massive that the average person would not even begin to read let alone understand any of it.

The Voluntary part is buried so deep that you may never find it. I read and studied all of this crap brother and I even sent a letter to the social security administration to tell them that they no longer had power of attorney over my account. They sent me a boiler plate letter back and told me that I could not quit the social security rules and regulations. I even went so far as to recend the number they had assigned to me but they told me that I could not do that. Now her is something real to piss your self about. That number is not yours it belongs to the social security admin and they can get it back anytime they want. Just look on the back on that card you may hold and it is spelled out for you right there. So to summarize that bull crap. We were all coerced into our consent. We did not know and most still do not know. All the forms and licenses our nothing more than fraud of coercion. We all have been sucker punched and did not even know it.

Perhaps you did not realize that you were requesting the wrong thing. The account and number is how they track participants in the "tax and bribe" scam. The most you can do is cease participating. You cannot force them to change their records.

Yes you can go ahead and spew your stuff out for folks to read and hopefully they will gain enough to research themselves. If you have the remedy and know how to make it work please tell us all. You really did not answer my questions about being a sovereign but rather danced around them with pretty rhetoric. sure it seems really neat but it does not answer the questions.

I am not sure you even know that you don't know what you're saying.
The facts are clear : Americans are endowed with rights until they consent otherwise.
You mix mythology and uncorroborated conclusions and presume they are "truth" regardless of the facts.

If you are going to come here and spit this stuff out at least have the courtesy to tell all of us that this is only your opinions of the research you have done and thank you for giving things and places we can go to do our own research.

Did you not notice the copious references and links?

Also you might have the humbleness to tell us all that maybe you tried something and it did not worl.

From what you write, it is you that have suffered failure and blame "the conspiracy." I have been left alone, for the most part, once I corrected the public record. (In one case it required a Writ of Error Coram Nobis - but that is beyond the scope of this discussion)

I will not go back to your beginning simply because I have read enough of you know it all attitude to understand that you know very little of what you are talking about and just enough to gather folks that may not know anything as of yet.

You have accused me of not knowing, when you fail to provide any facts to corroborate your "truths" which I have repeatedly refuted as mythology.
As George Washington's letter points out - your truths are not true.

I have posted pieces that are from folks that know so much more than you propose and have been research this for a lot longer than you but you call them a retread patriot Mythology. That seems to be your main response to any other opinions besides your own. I do not see this as an attack on you personally but rather a inquiry into this thread and why you have brought it here. I would hope that you explain that to all that may be reading here. I do believe that this is very important for all of us to gather some wisdom and knowledge. When it is proposed with very little humbleness and a lot of ego it becomes something that is exactly how the elite corporations push on us all. Please I sincerely hope that you are not part of that and that you sincerely want to help with knowledge of all of this.

Ad hominem attacks notwithstanding, feel free to post LAW that REFUTES what I have stated.
Oh, right, YOU claim that there is NO LAW since 1861.
And you're lecturing us that law does not exist so any law that refutes your belief cannot be real. Isn't that a circular argument?

So you can tear this all apart if that is your wish, I really do not care. When someone refuses to see other avenues and perhaps the truth, and I can't even say that any of this is truth, I have to move away.

What you believe as truth has no basis in fact. That's a fact.

I will say this, I have studied and researched this for years as you say you have and I have talked with so many people on this topic and it all seems to come to the same stuff from all the folks that I do communicate with. There is always new stuff and it is up to us as individuals to verify for ourselves what is and isn't So continue and be kind friend. I will not bother you anymore here

Lost N Found
You may have studied mythology and talked with other true believers, but you have not studied law.
Nor do you appear to understand what a republican form is, nor its source.

I can find no definition of an incomplete sovereign, so we'll have to settle for these:

SOVEREIGN - "...Having undisputed right to make decisions and act accordingly".
New Webster's Dictionary And Thesaurus, p. 950.

SOVEREIGN - A person, body or state in which independent and supreme authority is vested...
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1395.

GOVERNMENT (Republican Form of Government)- One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people ... directly ...
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 695

As to the status of SOVEREIGN Americans - - -

“... at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects, and have none to govern but themselves. . .
“... In Europe, the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here, it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and, at most, stand in the same relation to their sovereign in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns.”
- - - Justice John Jay, Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/2/419#writing-USSC_CR_0002_0419_Z

In America, however, the case is widely different. Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.
- - - Glass vs The Sloop Betsey, 3 Dall 6 (1794)
- - -
In the republican form of government, the people are sovereigns (unless they consent otherwise) served by (not ruled by) servant government. Their rights and liberties existed before constitutional government (which is why the republican form is NOT a constitutional republic - nor can a constitutional government institute a republican form).

Frankly, the form of the servant government is immaterial, as long as it guarantees a republican form to the sovereign people.


= = = =
Online references:
Black's Law Dictionary (second ed)
https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_R2c8AAAAIAAJ
The sixth ed link has gone bad.
Bouvier's Law Dictionary
http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier.htm


http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html
http://www.scribd.com/doc/13672493/-Property-Rights-The-Hidden-Issue-of-Social-Security-Reform-Cato-Social-Security-Choice-Paper-No-19

"One of the most enduring myths of Social Security is that a worker has a legal right to his Social Security benefits. Many workers assume that, if they pay Social Security taxes into the system, they have some sort of legal guarantee to the system's benefits. The truth is exactly the opposite. It has long been law that there is no legal right to Social Security. In two important cases, Helvering v. Davis and Flemming v. Nestor, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Social Security taxes are simply taxes and convey no property or contractual rights to Social Security benefits."

Socialist InSecurity is NOT an adhesion contract.
Entitlements / benefits are charity from the public treasury.
That makes participants into PAUPERS at law (status criminals).

Do not believe me - write a polite questionnaire to your congressman for the definition of "entitlements." When I did, I got a reply from the Congressional Research Service stating that entitlements were synonymous with "gifts."
Gifts from the public treasury !!!!
LOL

shaberon
6th April 2016, 04:44
I am also taking from Black's, minus the extra stuff such as pages and case references, and please excuse my heavy-handed chopping of quotes. The first thing I find is circularity, which is inadmissable. First definition of state is people, and then first definition of people is state.

STATE - A people* permanently occupying a fixed territory bound together by common-law habits and custom into one body politic exercising, through the medium of an organized government, independent sovereignty and control over all persons and things within its boundaries, capable of making war and peace and entering into international relations with other communities of the globe.
-In its largest sense, a "state" is a body politic or a society of men.
-The section of territory occupied by one of the United States.
-One of the component commonwealths or states of the United States of America.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p.1407


PEOPLE. A state; as the people of the state of New York. A nation in its collective and political capacity.

In a more restricted sense, and as generally used in constitutional law, the entire body of those citizens of a state or nation who are invested with political power for political purposes, that is, the qualified voters or electors.

The word "people" may have various significations according to the connection in which it is used. When we speak of the rights of the people, or of the government of
the people by law, or of the people as a non-political aggregate, we mean all the inhabitants of the state or nation, without distinction as to sex, age, or otherwise. But when reference is made to the people as the repository of sovereignty, or as the source of governmental power, or to popular government, we are in fact speaking of that selected and limited class of citizens to whom the constitution accords the elective franchise and the right of participation in the offices of government.

So in the restricted sense generally used in constitutional law, the people are: citizens!

NOTE: "The people ..." is a reference to those subject citizens who initiated or submitted to the terms of the compact / constitution. It cannot refer to those who DID NOT CONSENT.


"Pursuit of happiness" is a euphemism for private property ownership. One cannot "pursue happiness" on another's property without their consent. Ergo, to have a RIGHT to pursue happiness, one must be on one's own private property.

Here I believe the original wording was simply "pursuit of property". But why should we euphemize when this should be in clear, plain language? What I am finding so far from this standardized dictionary is that the meanings are altered from general usage (where a people or a nation is a culture), and not only that, it is totally conflated within itself. From a scientific point of view, at least, definitions cannot be circular, and you cannot use interchangeable synonymous terms and then mean them in a "special case" without specifying the case.


Sec. 2. Sovereignty of the people.

All political power is vested in and derived from the people; all government of right originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.

NOTE: Though sovereignty is derived from the people (sovereigns), those who SERVE in government or are probationary servants (citizens) are SUBJECTS.

We have just found that, in constitutional law, people = citizens.

SOVEREIGN. A person, body, or state in which independent and supreme authority is vested; a chief ruler with supreme power; a king or other ruler with limited power.

SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY OF STATE FROM LIABILITY. Exists when the state is engaged in a governmental function.

SOVEREIGN PEOPLE. The political body, consisting of the entire number of citizens and qualified electors, who, in their collective capacity, possess the powers of sovereignty and exercise them through their chosen representatives.

SOVEREIGN RIGHT. A right which the state alone, or some of its governmental agencies, can possess, and which it possesses in the character of a sovereign, for the common benefit, and to enable it to carry out its proper functions; dis-
tinguished from such "proprietary" rights as a state, like any private person, may have in property or demands which it owns.

Sec. 3. Internal government of the State.

The people of this State have the inherent, sole, and exclusive right of regulating the internal government and police thereof, and of altering or abolishing their Constitution and form of government whenever it may be necessary to their safety and happiness; but every such right shall be exercised in pursuance of law and consistently with the Constitution of the United States.

NOTE: This is another reference to CITIZENS interacting in a democratic form. Not applicable to the republican form.

I must ask: is the republican form in any way related to this constitution, if, in constitutional law, people = citizens?


For example, if you're robbed, you don't file a complaint with the legislation. You file a complaint with the SHERIFF (or other official), who then acts as YOUR representative in seeking justice. If in a foreign country, the ambassador is your representative who aids you in securing rights.

As a tangent, in terms of how a court operates justice and how the sheriff will not even attempt to initiate the process: one time my house was broken into. I was very certain that I knew who did it, and when the sheriff got me to say that the person had prior access (been inside with my permission), they were unable to prosecute based on forensics (i. e., the person would basically have to confess). They had recently attempted to prosecute a break-in where the person had cut themselves and left several, perfectly good bloody fingerprints--but this evidence would not stand, because the person had prior access (!).


NOTE: the term "persons" may include corporations - for issues involving corporations. In this context, it's a reference to human beings.

I gather that in statutes, corporations are persons, but in acts, only humans are persons--but see what they say re the 14th amendment, which is an act, no? Nothing in that context would suggest it applied to artificial persons.

PERSON. A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the right to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes.

Term may include artificial beings, as corporations...under statutes, forbidding the taking of property without due process of law and giving to all persons the equal protection of the laws...Corporations are "persons" as that word is used
in the first clause of the XIVth Amendment. But a corporation of another state is not a "person" within the jurisdiction of the state until it has complied with the conditions of admission to do business in the state.

It has been held that when the word person is used in a legislative act, natural persons will be intended unless something appear in the context to show that it applies to artificial persons, but as a rule corporations will be considered persons within the statutes unless the intention of the legislature is manifestly to exclude
them.

A county is a person in a legal sense, but a sovereign is not.

A person is such, not because he is human, but because rights and duties are ascribed to him. The person is the legal subject or substance of which the rights and duties are attributes. An individual human being considered as having such attributes is what lawyers call a natural person.

NATION. A people, or aggregation of men, existing in the form of an organized jural society, usually inhabiting a distinct portion of the earth, speaking the same language, using the same customs, possessing historic continuity, and distin-
guished from other like groups by their racial origin and characteristics, and generally, but not necessarily, living under the same government and
sovereignty.

The words "nation" and "people" are frequently used as synonyms, but there is a great difference between them. A nation is an aggregation of men speaking the same language, having the same customs, and endowed with certain moral qualities which distinguish them from other groups of a like nature. It would follow from this definition that a nation is destined to form only one state, and that it constitutes one indivisible whole. Nevertheless, the history of every age presents us with nations divided into several states. Thus, Italy was for centuries divided
among several different governments. The people is the collection of all citizens without distinction of rank or order. All men living under the same government
compose the people of the state. In relation to the state, the citizens constitute the people; in relation to the human race, they constitute the nation. A free nation is one not subject to a foreign government, whatever be the constitution
of the state ; a people is free when all the citizens can participate in a certain measure in the direction and in the examination of public affairs. The people is the political body brought into existence by community of laws, and the people may perish with these laws. The nation is the moral body, independent of political revolutions, because it is constituted by inborn qualities which render it indis-
soluble. The state is the people organized into a political body.

In American constitutional law the word "state" is applied to the several members of the American Union, while the word "nation" is applied to the whole body of the people embraced within the jurisdiction of the federal government.


INHABITANT. One who resides actually and permanently in a given place, and has his domicile there. The words 'inhabitant,' 'citizen,' and 'resident,'
as employed in different constitutions to define the qualifitations of electors, mean substantially the same thing; and one is an inhabitant, resident, or citizen at
the place where he has his domicile or home. But the terms "resident" and "inhabitant" have also been held not synonymous, the latter implying a more fixed
and permanent abode than the former, and importing privileges and duties to which a mere resident would not be subject.

CITIZEN. A member of a free city or jural society, (civitas,) possessing all the rights and privileges which can be enjoyed by any person under its constitution and government, and subject to the corresponding duties. "Citizens" are mem-
bers of community inspired to common goal, who, in associated relations, submit themselves to rules of conduct for the promotion of general welfare
and conservation of individual as well as collective rights.

A member of the civil state entitled to all its privileges. One of the sovereign people. A constituent member of the sovereignty synonymous with the people.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.



Now...a citizen is one of the sovereign people! At the same time as being part of a civil state entitled to privileges. That's how it's defined in a law dictionary, as both things, even though, I understand them to be opposites.

Such an abstruse, conflated document would appear to be void.

ozmirage
6th April 2016, 08:25
I am also taking from Black's, minus the extra stuff such as pages and case references, and please excuse my heavy-handed chopping of quotes. The first thing I find is circularity, which is inadmissable. First definition of state is people, and then first definition of people is state.

STATE - A people* permanently occupying a fixed territory bound together by common-law habits and custom into one body politic exercising, through the medium of an organized government, independent sovereignty and control over all persons and things within its boundaries, capable of making war and peace and entering into international relations with other communities of the globe.
-In its largest sense, a "state" is a body politic or a society of men.
-The section of territory occupied by one of the United States.
-One of the component commonwealths or states of the United States of America.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p.1407


PEOPLE. A state; as the people of the state of New York. A nation in its collective and political capacity.

In a more restricted sense, and as generally used in constitutional law, the entire body of those citizens of a state or nation who are invested with political power for political purposes, that is, the qualified voters or electors.

The word "people" may have various significations according to the connection in which it is used. When we speak of the rights of the people, or of the government of
the people by law, or of the people as a non-political aggregate, we mean all the inhabitants of the state or nation, without distinction as to sex, age, or otherwise. But when reference is made to the people as the repository of sovereignty, or as the source of governmental power, or to popular government, we are in fact speaking of that selected and limited class of citizens to whom the constitution accords the elective franchise and the right of participation in the offices of government.

So in the restricted sense generally used in constitutional law, the people are: citizens!

NOTE: "The people ..." is a reference to those subject citizens who initiated or submitted to the terms of the compact / constitution. It cannot refer to those who DID NOT CONSENT.


"Pursuit of happiness" is a euphemism for private property ownership. One cannot "pursue happiness" on another's property without their consent. Ergo, to have a RIGHT to pursue happiness, one must be on one's own private property.

Here I believe the original wording was simply "pursuit of property". But why should we euphemize when this should be in clear, plain language? What I am finding so far from this standardized dictionary is that the meanings are altered from general usage (where a people or a nation is a culture), and not only that, it is totally conflated within itself. From a scientific point of view, at least, definitions cannot be circular, and you cannot use interchangeable synonymous terms and then mean them in a "special case" without specifying the case.

In the article on natural rights, it explains that Jefferson was influenced by LOCKE:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_Liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_Happiness
In 1689, Locke argued in his Two Treatises of Government that political society existed for the sake of protecting "property", which he defined as a person's "life, liberty, and estate".

This showed up here:

" That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."
— Virginia Declaration of Rights

Benjamin Franklin was in agreement with Thomas Jefferson in downplaying protection of "property" as a goal of government.

(I suspect that they did not want to antagonize non-property owners, hence the euphemism)

Sec. 2. Sovereignty of the people.

All political power is vested in and derived from the people; all government of right originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.

NOTE: Though sovereignty is derived from the people (sovereigns), those who SERVE in government or are probationary servants (citizens) are SUBJECTS.

We have just found that, in constitutional law, people = citizens.
[WHICH REFERS BACK TO THE DEMOCRATIC FORM]

SOVEREIGN. A person, body, or state in which independent and supreme authority is vested; a chief ruler with supreme power; a king or other ruler with limited power.

SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY OF STATE FROM LIABILITY. Exists when the state is engaged in a governmental function.

SOVEREIGN PEOPLE. The political body, consisting of the entire number of citizens and qualified electors, who, in their collective capacity, possess the powers of sovereignty and exercise them through their chosen representatives.

[This is a reference to a democratic form]

SOVEREIGN RIGHT. A right which the state alone, or some of its governmental agencies, can possess, and which it possesses in the character of a sovereign, for the common benefit, and to enable it to carry out its proper functions; dis-
tinguished from such "proprietary" rights as a state, like any private person, may have in property or demands which it owns.

Sec. 3. Internal government of the State.

The people of this State have the inherent, sole, and exclusive right of regulating the internal government and police thereof, and of altering or abolishing their Constitution and form of government whenever it may be necessary to their safety and happiness; but every such right shall be exercised in pursuance of law and consistently with the Constitution of the United States.

NOTE: This is another reference to CITIZENS interacting in a democratic form. Not applicable to the republican form.

I must ask: is the republican form in any way related to this constitution, if, in constitutional law, people = citizens?

NO.
The republican form existed BEFORE the Articles and the Constitution.

REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT. . . The fourth section of the fourth article of the constitution, directs that "the United States shall guaranty to every state in the Union a republican form of government." The form of government is to be guarantied, WHICH SUPPOSES A FORM ALREADY ESTABLISHED, and this is the republican form of government the United States have undertaken to protect.
- - - Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 6th edition, 1856



For example, if you're robbed, you don't file a complaint with the legislation. You file a complaint with the SHERIFF (or other official), who then acts as YOUR representative in seeking justice. If in a foreign country, the ambassador is your representative who aids you in securing rights.

As a tangent, in terms of how a court operates justice and how the sheriff will not even attempt to initiate the process: one time my house was broken into. I was very certain that I knew who did it, and when the sheriff got me to say that the person had prior access (been inside with my permission), they were unable to prosecute based on forensics (i. e., the person would basically have to confess). They had recently attempted to prosecute a break-in where the person had cut themselves and left several, perfectly good bloody fingerprints--but this evidence would not stand, because the person had prior access (!).


NOTE: the term "persons" may include corporations - for issues involving corporations. In this context, it's a reference to human beings.

I gather that in statutes, corporations are persons, but in acts, only humans are persons--but see what they say re the 14th amendment, which is an act, no? Nothing in that context would suggest it applied to artificial persons.

PERSON. A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the right to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes.

Term may include artificial beings, as corporations...under statutes, forbidding the taking of property without due process of law and giving to all persons the equal protection of the laws...Corporations are "persons" as that word is used
in the first clause of the XIVth Amendment. But a corporation of another state is not a "person" within the jurisdiction of the state until it has complied with the conditions of admission to do business in the state.

It has been held that when the word person is used in a legislative act, natural persons will be intended unless something appear in the context to show that it applies to artificial persons, but as a rule corporations will be considered persons within the statutes unless the intention of the legislature is manifestly to exclude
them.

A county is a person in a legal sense, but a sovereign is not.

A person is such, not because he is human, but because rights and duties are ascribed to him. The person is the legal subject or substance of which the rights and duties are attributes. An individual human being considered as having such attributes is what lawyers call a natural person.

NATION. A people, or aggregation of men, existing in the form of an organized jural society, usually inhabiting a distinct portion of the earth, speaking the same language, using the same customs, possessing historic continuity, and distin-
guished from other like groups by their racial origin and characteristics, and generally, but not necessarily, living under the same government and
sovereignty.

The words "nation" and "people" are frequently used as synonyms, but there is a great difference between them. A nation is an aggregation of men speaking the same language, having the same customs, and endowed with certain moral qualities which distinguish them from other groups of a like nature. It would follow from this definition that a nation is destined to form only one state, and that it constitutes one indivisible whole. Nevertheless, the history of every age presents us with nations divided into several states. Thus, Italy was for centuries divided
among several different governments. The people is the collection of all citizens without distinction of rank or order. All men living under the same government
compose the people of the state. In relation to the state, the citizens constitute the people; in relation to the human race, they constitute the nation. A free nation is one not subject to a foreign government, whatever be the constitution
of the state ; a people is free when all the citizens can participate in a certain measure in the direction and in the examination of public affairs. The people is the political body brought into existence by community of laws, and the people may perish with these laws. The nation is the moral body, independent of political revolutions, because it is constituted by inborn qualities which render it indis-
soluble. The state is the people organized into a political body.

In American constitutional law the word "state" is applied to the several members of the American Union, while the word "nation" is applied to the whole body of the people embraced within the jurisdiction of the federal government.

Not always the case - - -
Under the subsection: CONSTITUTION
Sec. 4. The guarantee of a republican form of government to every "state" means to its people and not to its government: Texas v. White. 7 Wall. (U. S.) 700, 19 L. Ed. 227.
- - - Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 8th ed. (1914),P.635

In this instance, state = people.



INHABITANT. One who resides actually and permanently in a given place, and has his domicile there. The words 'inhabitant,' 'citizen,' and 'resident,'
as employed in different constitutions to define the qualifitations of electors, mean substantially the same thing; and one is an inhabitant, resident, or citizen at
the place where he has his domicile or home. But the terms "resident" and "inhabitant" have also been held not synonymous, the latter implying a more fixed
and permanent abode than the former, and importing privileges and duties to which a mere resident would not be subject.

CITIZEN. A member of a free city or jural society, (civitas,) possessing all the rights and privileges which can be enjoyed by any person under its constitution and government, and subject to the corresponding duties. "Citizens" are mem-
bers of community inspired to common goal, who, in associated relations, submit themselves to rules of conduct for the promotion of general welfare
and conservation of individual as well as collective rights.

A member of the civil state entitled to all its privileges. One of the sovereign people. A constituent member of the sovereignty synonymous with the people.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

This is a reference to the 14th amendment, which if applied in the united States, would violate the 13th amendment. Remember, citizenship comes with MANDATORY civic duties. To impose them at birth would be a violation of the republican form of government.


Now...a citizen is one of the sovereign people! At the same time as being part of a civil state entitled to privileges. That's how it's defined in a law dictionary, as both things, even though, I understand them to be opposites.

A citizen is part of the "collective sovereignty" of a democracy. Which is to say, not really a sovereign at all.

DEMOCRACY - That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy."
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 432

Any reference to collective sovereignty is for the democratic form.



Such an abstruse, conflated document would appear to be void.

No doubt, the word slingers twisted words every which way but lose.

When you see contradictory definitions or oxymorons, you're getting close to the meat.

People who are sovereigns cannot be part of a collective sovereignty of citizens. Citizens, by definition, are subjects bound to perform mandatory civic duties.
There is no real "collective" sovereignty because the majority will overrides the minority will.

The "Term Warfare" that seeks to eradicate the republican form, has been going on for a long long time.

Focusing just on property - - -
In the republican form, Americans can absolutely own private property.
In the democratic form, Americans cannot... citizens can be compelled to surrender a portion of their property to support the state.

The USCON explicitly protects private property (5th amendment).
Most state constitutions also explicitly protect private property.
Yet we know that estate (real property) is subject to ad valorem taxation. And confiscation for failure to pay taxes is not compensated justly.

If private property does not exist, why expressly protect it?
It must exist because private property ownership is an aspect of the republican form, guaranteed to each state (the individually sovereign people).

Sovereignty and property are inseparable. A king without a domain is merely a traveling prince. (He may retain sovereignty over his person and possessions, but he needs permission while residing on the property of others)

All sovereign prerogatives are derived from absolute ownership - of one's person (body), labor, the fruits of that labor, and that which one trades for, etc, etc.
Direct exercise of sovereignty is also limited to that which the sovereign absolutely owns.

Restating the situation, concisely - - -
RFOG:
{source: Declaration of Independence}
[] Natural rights
[] Natural liberty
[] Personal liberty
[] Absolute ownership
[] Sovereign, served by government
(Owes nothing to the government)
. . .
DFOG:
{source: compact / constitution}
[] Civil rights
[] Civil liberty
[] Political liberty
[] Qualified ownership
[] Subject of the government, by consent
(Owes mandatory civic duties, etc)

IMHO, there is a sinister reason to eradicate the republican form and private property rights.

From the Communist manifesto:

"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/

shaberon
7th April 2016, 23:17
No doubt, the word slingers twisted words every which way but lose.

When you see contradictory definitions or oxymorons, you're getting close to the meat.


IMHO, there is a sinister reason to eradicate the republican form and private property rights.

From the Communist manifesto:

"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/[/QUOTE]


I would say this emanated from London and has been pretty successful. In it's Eastern branch, it operates the simple way: violence. In the Western branch, it operates through soft kill (manipulation). Capitalism is just the seed-bed for Communism; doesn't matter the form of government.

The wordsmithing is unacceptable. You can't...make a rule saying "persons" in acts means "natural persons" but "persons" in statutes means "natural and artificial persons"...and then turn around and say "except for the act of the 14th amendment".

I'm going to hazard a guess that "constitutional law" is a business practice, and therefor not something that actually has anything to do with upholding the republican form of government.

ozmirage
9th April 2016, 21:42
As stated before, 99% of the government's power to govern us and rule us is by consent. The other 1% is from money madness. (Or some might argue the opposite - that 99% of their power over us is from money madness)

If you're interested to learn more about the topic of Money Madness:
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?89905-Money-Madness

What happens when a majority of Americans :

Withdraw consent?
Start using their endowed right to contract and issue private liberty money?
Won't contract with usurers?

Best of all, what happens when Americans return to the republican form of government?

Bitter Medicine - Cures what ails America
• [] 97% reduction in Federal Budget
• [] Ban enforcing contracts for usury in American courts
• [] Repatriation of all military personnel and material from foreign bases
• [] Collapse / Repeal of national socialism / Socialist InSecurity
• [] End the State of Emergency
• [] Simplify government to securing rights; adjudicating disputes; and little else
• [] No recipient of public funds can vote in any election for a period no less than two years from last disbursement (Beggars can’t be choosers)
• [] Provide legal recognition for private promissory notes as mediums of exchange, as tender in payment of debt, and severely punish counterfeiters, etc., etc.
• [] No privilege of limited liability (i.e., investors, board members and officers of corporations, etc, are 100% liable) - eliminates the need for regulations and bureaucracy to administer and enforce.

Of course, the implementation of THIS would cause "the Powers" to be the ones peeing themselves.

shaberon
10th April 2016, 22:09
One thing that still stands out is coinage.

It's issued by the Treasury. Of course, the Constitution defines money based around the Silver Dollar and...there is no use of it. If enough people were to hoard say, a bunch of quarters...and woke up one day and said, ok, a loaf of bread is fifty cents---and refused to convert FRNs...maybe its feet would unfold underneath it and it would continue standing in place.

Paper money was once Treasury backed as well but changed in appearance when privatized. Once I saw a collector's piece of paper money from around 1921 when the space for "Treasury" had been occupied by something else, beside which, someone had written with a pen in what looked like the script of the time: "Bolshevik". So on one line, the titles for both branches of Communist takeover.

The American Treasury money is still available, it's just--coinage.

ozmirage
10th April 2016, 23:22
One thing that still stands out is coinage.

[1] It's issued by the Treasury.
[2] Of course, the Constitution defines money based around the Silver Dollar and...there is no use of it. If enough people were to hoard say, a bunch of [3] quarters...and woke up one day and said, ok, a loaf of bread is fifty cents---and refused to convert FRNs...maybe its feet would unfold underneath it and it would continue standing in place.

[4] Paper money was once Treasury backed as well but changed in appearance when privatized. Once I saw a collector's piece of paper money from around 1921 when the space for "Treasury" had been occupied by something else, beside which, someone had written with a pen in what looked like the script of the time: "Bolshevik". So on one line, the titles for both branches of Communist takeover.

[5]The American Treasury money is still available, it's just--coinage.
[1] Coins come from the MINT. Treasury is where they're stored.
[2] Silver and gold coin.
[3] Fractional coin is not legal tender for sums over $20 [niggle flag off] - and counterfeits were authorized in the Coinage Act of 1965.
[4] Notes are debt. They are never "backed." You may be thinking of certificates (receipts), which do correspond to real coin in the vault.
[5] No lawful money (gold or silver coin) has circulated since 1933.


The confusion over money tokens is quite common. This is due, in part, to the pervasive propaganda that equates a debt-credit security to a real money token.

In reality, an I.O.U. for "one car" does not equal "one car" - especially when the issuer of the I.O.U. says he won't redeem it.

shaberon
11th April 2016, 00:22
Are they not supplied by the Mint as an order from the Treasury? And not by the issuance of bonds?

There were silver coins issued until 1964, and remain in circulation. I suppose you could call a zinc-copper coin a counterfeit. Same Silver Dollars and Gold Eagles are still issued, I don't know if anything would stop me from spending a $10 Eagle as ten dollars, although I certainly can't redeem a $10 FRN for one, or 40 quarters either.

FRNs are tender for debts, on which basis they could be refused for a spontaneous purchase. Coinage--debased and fractional it may be--at least is not the property of the Fed, nor a source of revenue for them; unless I missed something else.

ozmirage
11th April 2016, 02:13
Are they not supplied by the Mint as an order from the Treasury? And not by the issuance of bonds?
Originally part of the State Department, the Mint was made an independent agency in 1799. It converted precious metals into standard coin for anyone's account with no seigniorage charge beyond the refining costs. Under the Coinage Act of 1873 (aka "Crime of '73"), the Mint became part of the Department of the Treasury.



There were silver coins issued until 1964, and remain in circulation. I suppose you could call a zinc-copper coin a counterfeit. Same Silver Dollars and Gold Eagles are still issued, I don't know if anything would stop me from spending a $10 Eagle as ten dollars, although I certainly can't redeem a $10 FRN for one, or 40 quarters either.
There were fractional (sub $1) silver coin, but silver dollars were demonetized by the Coinage Act of 1873.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coinage_Act_of_1873

In 1933, FDR confiscated all privately owned lawful money (gold coin) and criminalized the possession of it by "free" Americans.
Since silver was demonetized, it basically ended access to lawful money by "free" Americans.



FRNs are tender for debts, on which basis they could be refused for a spontaneous purchase. Coinage--debased and fractional it may be--at least is not the property of the Fed, nor a source of revenue for them; unless I missed something else.

TENDER - An offer of money ... Legal tender is that kind of coin, money, or circulating medium which the law compels a creditor to accept in payment of his debt, when tendered by the debtor in the right amount.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. p. 1467

[Note: FRNs are legal tender on the obligated party of those notes - the Federal government. . . AND the 320 million enumerated socialists.]


"Federal reserve notes are legal tender in absence of objection thereto."
MacLeod v. Hoover (1925) 159 La 244, 105 So. 305

All duly enumerated American socialists cannot object to the tender of the notes that THEY are obligated parties to ("contributors").
(thanks to FICA)

An excerpt from another post somewhere:
FYI : The "dollar bill" is NOT FIAT.
Fiat is paper currency that has value because the government says so.

BUT
The "dollar bill" has no value, saith the government. (Gold Reserve Act of 1934)
NOT fiat.

Then WHAT is it?
It's a note (debt).

Notes are never "backed." Notes are promises to pay IN THE FUTURE. If the money was in the vault, they'd be CERTIFICATES (receipts).

Congress repudiated their promise to redeem their notes, in 1933.

How do they have "legal tender" value?

[Here it comes]

Uncle Sammy put his arms around Mr and Mrs America and said, "If you folks would be so kind as to pledge all your labor and property as collateral on these notes, I'd be so grateful that I'd give you a "benefit" !"

Mr and Mrs America thought, "Hmmm, what kind of benefit?"
Uncle Sammy said, "Entitlements! Free money!"
Mr and Mrs America said, "Alright, where do we sign?"

Thus the sheeple signed up to be chattel pledged as collateral on all that bad debt issued by the bankrupted Congress, since 1933.

[head smack]

In other words, if the currency was fiat, a collapse of government would only mean the money was worthless. But under FICA, a financial collapse of the government means the creditor can attach YOU and YOURS.

Can you say "chattel slavery"?

By your consent.

Addendum
- - - -
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender.aspx

". . .Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in gold, silver or any other commodity, and receive no backing by anything. This has been the case since 1933. The notes have no value for themselves. . ."

Art. 1, Sec. 10, USCON :

No State shall .... coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any ... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Since 1933, and the "Emergency" no one has been paying their debts, pursuant to law.

genevieve
11th April 2016, 16:34
My two-bits: ;)

Lawful money is still defined by the Coinage Act of 1792 as a dollar of silver.
No one can PAY with Fed Reserve Notes.
We haven't PAID for anything since 1965 when silver coins were removed
from circulation.

Peace Love Joy & Harmony,
genevieve


P.S. I've been loving this discussion. Thank you all for your generous sharing. I wish I had more time to write/join in.

P.P.S. ozmirage: I'd be interested in reading more about why you think that Anna von Reitz is spouting more patriot crap.

shaberon
12th April 2016, 02:27
I understand that the decrees of 1933 removed most of the privately-held precious metals, so someone could sit on them for a while at $20/oz. and then re-valuate it a little further along to boost their I. M. F. reserves.

Most of the emergency powers (1933 and others) have been repealed or sharply curtailed since then so--what are the permanent effects? An ongoing, unrenounced "state of emergency", with no particular powers to back it up? Or just the fact that FRNs are no longer convertible to anything of value...thus debts can't be discharged by paying lawful money.

ozmirage
13th April 2016, 06:57
P.P.S. ozmirage: I'd be interested in reading more about why you think that Anna von Reitz is spouting more patriot crap.
Based on this site:
http://www.americanlawoftheland.com/announcements/am-i-a-real-judge

The Continental United States — the actual geographically defined states with physical borders, etc.,– were given jurisdiction over the land, and their Citizens known as American State Citizens are the ones protected by The Constitution for the united States of America and vested with all powers of the civil government on the land.

The Federal United States was created (and limited) by The Constitution for the united States of America and given jurisdiction over the international jurisdiction of the sea.
No American government has "jurisdiction over the land" that is absolutely owned as private property.

No "American State Citizen" is superior to any citizen. Only the sovereign people are superior to the government. (See: Chisholm v. Georgia)

The guarantee of the republican form is to the PEOPLE not to the citizens of the united States of America.

One can conclude that she has zErO understanding of the republican form of government.

I cannot discern if she is incompetent or merely a disinformation agent.

Restating the cogent facts:

Americans are born equal before the law - none are higher. One can only DESCEND in status.
Americans have ENDOWED rights (natural rights, natural liberty, personal liberty, absolute ownership, etc, etc) that government was instituted to secure.
Americans who consent to be governed, WAIVE endowed rights because they are obligated to perform mandatory civic duties.


If one has given consent to be governed, SHUT UP, sit down, and obey.

Any other option does not exist.

The mythologists cannot accept that their own CONSENT has brought them misery. They concoct convoluted explanations and remedies that have no basis in the law.

I learned I was a slave, in 1992. I was mad at government. Later, after reading law, I realized I had consented, then I was mad at myself.

Incensed by the corrupt, socialist democratic form of government?
Don't protest, riot, or play partisan politics.
Until consent is withdrawn, no remedy exists.
After consent is withdrawn, no remedy is necessary.

ozmirage
13th April 2016, 07:08
I understand that the decrees of 1933 removed most of the privately-held precious metals, so someone could sit on them for a while at $20/oz. and then re-valuate it a little further along to boost their I. M. F. reserves.

Most of the emergency powers (1933 and others) have been repealed or sharply curtailed since then so--what are the permanent effects? An ongoing, unrenounced "state of emergency", with no particular powers to back it up? Or just the fact that FRNs are no longer convertible to anything of value...thus debts can't be discharged by paying lawful money.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_emergency#United_States

As of October 2014, thirty states of emergency remain in effect, one reaching as far back as the Roosevelt Administration.

United States, Senate Report 93-549 states: "That since March 09, 1933 the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency." Proclamation No. 2039 declared by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on March 9, 1933. This declared national emergency has never been revoked and has been codified into the US Code (12 U.S.C. 95a and b).

Sounds harmless, right?

Title 12 USC sec. 95(a), 95(b) grants pre-approved powers to the president and the secretary of treasury during this “emergency.” BTW - the secretary of treasury is also the U.S. governor of the World Bank, IMF, etc, etc, and shall not be paid by the U.S. government. Title 22 USC Sec. 286a(d)1. He is paid by the fiduciary agent - the Federal Reserve corporation. Connect the dots?

This is why the president can issue "Executive Orders" that do not need Congressional approval nor are empowered by any particular legislation.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/12/2/IV/95a

12 U.S.C. Sec. 95a.
(A) investigate, regulate, or prohibit, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit or payments between, by, through, or to any banking institution, and the importing, exporting, hoarding, melting, or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion, currency or securities, ...

{Translation : you “free” Americans cannot “hoard” gold or silver bullion.... due to the EMERGENCY (bankruptcy).}


(3) As used in this subdivision the term “United States” means the United States and any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof ...
{14th amendment wording! Cannot apply to “foreign” sovereignties like the States united or the free people.}

{"The United States and the State of California are two separate sovereignties, each dominant in its own sphere."
- - - Redding v. Los Angeles (1947), 81 C.A.2d 888, 185 P.2d 430.}


12 U.S. Code § 95b. The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March 4, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by section 95a of this title, are approved and confirmed.

{Translation : the “SECRETARY OF TREASURY” -aka- U.S. Governor of the “Bank” and “Fund” - who is not paid by the US Gubmint - has been already approved to act or issue any orders, rules, etc., by the honorable U.S. Congress.}
Whatever he does, cannot be objected to by Congress.
[The other shoe drops]



If you didn't quite notice it, your consent to the EMERGENCY is found in your assertion of :

[] U.S. citizenship / residency - placing you in the jurisdiction of the foreign corporation (U.S. government)
[] FICA (only available to U.S. citizens / U.S. residents)
[] Bank signature card, whereupon you agree to abide by the rules of the bank, thus the Federal Reserve banking system, and thus the U.S. governor of the "Bank," the Secretary of Treasury.

Pursuant to Title 12 USC sec. 95b, the Sec'y of Treasury now "owns" you and yours.
BY YOUR CONSENT.

They ADMIT IT!
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender.aspx
"Federal Reserve notes are "backed" by all the goods and services in the economy."
...
Did Congress ever mention that YOU were “human resources” pledged as a surety on their profligate spending?
Were you informed that you and your property were surrendered to the bankrupt government, as collateral on the worthless IOUs issued by "your" government?
And that you no longer had an "rights"?

ozmirage
13th April 2016, 07:13
I didn't want to dilute this in the firehose spray of verbiage in the previous post...

Senate Report 93-549
https://archive.org/stream/senate-report-93-549/senate-report-93-549_djvu.txt

War and Emergency Powers Acts
"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years (as of the report 1933-1973), freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency."

FREEDOMS ... GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION ... HAVE BEEN ABRIDGED BY LAWS ... UNDER EMERGENCY RULE ...

Constitutional U.S.A. (1787 - 1933) R.I.P.

genevieve
13th April 2016, 15:51
Hmmm. Perhaps Anna isn't as much a word monger as you seem to be.
Her use of "citizen" seems sloppy, hopefully not meant to be deceptive.

I'd be interested to know if/how you've withdrawn your consent.

Thanks, ozmirage!


Peace Love Joy & Harmony,
genevieve

shaberon
13th April 2016, 17:43
I was referring to National Emergencies Act, 1976: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Emergencies_Act

as terminating prior emergencies and limiting a president's capability of acting ad hoc.

True, we keep having emergencies since then. But it does seem to say that the 1933 emergency is over.

ozmirage
14th April 2016, 01:41
I was referring to National Emergencies Act, 1976: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Emergencies_Act

as terminating prior emergencies and limiting a president's capability of acting ad hoc.

True, we keep having emergencies since then. But it does seem to say that the 1933 emergency is over.
No, it's not over. Read 12 USC Sec. 95a, b. They have not been repealed.
From WIKI:

Certain emergency authorities were exempted from the act at the time of its passage:

10 USC 2304(a) (1) (allowing exemption of national defense contracts from competitive bidding)
10 USC 3313, 6386(c) and 8313 (regulating the promotion, retirement and separation of military officers)
12 USC 95(a) (regulating transactions in foreign gold and silver)
40 USC 278(b) (regulating federal property purchases and contracts)
41 USC 15 and 203 (limiting the assignment of claims against the federal government)
50 USC 1431-1435 (enabling the President to make national defense contracts outside of otherwise applicable rules)

The U.S. government is technically under the control of a foreign financial power, whose fiduciary agent is the Federal Reserve Corporation. (P.S. the fiduciary of the UN is the FED)

Art. 1, Sec. 10 plainly states that only gold and silver coin pay debt.
Since 1933, few, if any Americans PAID DEBT.
What do you call someone who does not pay debt?
BANKRUPT.
Guess who has authority to administer people in bankruptcy?

Guess who also changed the term "bankrupt" to "debtor"?

I strongly urge everyone to READ the law, so you can see for yourself that AMERICA has been "over" since 1933.

That's why I suggest wearing knee pads and adult diapers when visiting the courthouse. You may fall to your knees, weeping, or pee yourself.

ozmirage
14th April 2016, 01:49
Hmmm. Perhaps Anna isn't as much a word monger as you seem to be.
Her use of "citizen" seems sloppy, hopefully not meant to be deceptive.

[A citizen, by definition, is a SUBJECT, obligated to perform mandatory civic duties, whether a STATE citizen or a U.S. citizen. American PEOPLE are sovereigns without subjects... unless they consent otherwise]

I'd be interested to know if/how you've withdrawn your consent.

After first inquiring, by mail, for the official process to cancel one's account and number with FICA, and receiving no response, I unilaterally declared, in 1993, that I do not participate in that abomination on religious grounds.

When asked for "my number" I explain that I have no number nor account, and that's the end of it. They generally put down "no SSN" on their paperwork.

Whether the SocSec admin keeps a record of it or not is not my problem. I do not consent, nor do I accept any benefits associated with participation in FICA.

Anecdote: I was informed by a correspondent who had access to CREDIT scores that a certain agency does a yearly search on a number once associated with me to verify that there is no activity logged. Curious, eh?

ozmirage
14th April 2016, 02:15
HOW TO AVOID BEING FOOLED
. . .
When reading any American law ask yourself:
● Is this law securing the rights of an injured party?
● Is this law imposed upon only those who gave consent?
● Is this law internal to the administration of the government?
. . .

It is an axiom of American law that no private right (i.e. sacred right / inherent right) is subject to taxation, restriction, or infringement.
Two exceptions :

(a) by consent of the governed, or
(b) in pursuit of justice on behalf of an injured party.

The exemption extends to all facets of natural rights, natural liberty, personal liberty and absolute ownership of private property.

Of course, if you waived / surrendered endowed rights, liberties, and absolute ownership, then you cannot expect government to honor and secure non-existent rights.

ozmirage
14th April 2016, 03:10
HIT OR MYTH?
=\=\=\=\=
Any reference to collective sovereignty, citizenship, governance, controlling the government, constitutional rights (privileges), voting, public office, administering the government, licenses, registration, privileges or immunities is a reference to participation in the indirect democratic form of government... by your consent.

Any reference to socialism, collectivism, social compact, fair share, compulsory charity, expropriation of property for the benefit of another, entitlements, benefits, public charity, is tied to one’s consent, via participation in FICA / Socialist InSecurity.

People in the republican form of government, have endowed rights and are (individually) sovereigns, not citizens. They do not participate in the indirect democratic form, nor are they bound by it. They are ineligible to participate in FICA, nor would they wish to. The servant government cannot impose taxes on (natural) rights, nor infringe (natural and personal) liberties, nor trespass upon private property rights. Absent consent, all that the government is authorized to do is secure rights (adjudicate disputes, prosecute deliberate injuries (felonies), and defend against enemies, foreign or domestic).

Anything more is suspect.
Anything less is unacceptable.

People who have rights need no permission, because they belong here.
People who need permission have no rights, because they’re trespassers.

thunder24
14th April 2016, 03:41
Skeptics may wish to argue that "REALITY" matters more than "the LAW."...

Any presumption to the contrary is an error not supported by law nor court ruling.


why do i need support of law or court ruling to be soverign... ?

if you use precedence by letters, intention, and americas original wording it seems you are still useing that which is not yours but someone elses...

you were born there for you are...

side note...wow good homework and documentation

ozmirage
14th April 2016, 03:47
Skeptics may wish to argue that "REALITY" matters more than "the LAW."...

Any presumption to the contrary is an error not supported by law nor court ruling.


why do i need support of law or court ruling to be soverign... ?

if you use precedence by letters, intention, and americas original wording it seems you are still useing that which is not yours but someone elses...

you were born there for you are...

side note...wow good homework and documentation

WHY?

SUBJECT - One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws.
. . . Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1425

Since America is the only nation with a republican form, if you're located in any other country, you are a subject - not a sovereign.

You have no endowed rights, liberties, etc. You only have the "human rights" that the government recognizes and nothing more. You must pay and obey. . . or suffer the consequences.

thunder24
14th April 2016, 03:54
Skeptics may wish to argue that "REALITY" matters more than "the LAW."...

Any presumption to the contrary is an error not supported by law nor court ruling.


why do i need support of law or court ruling to be soverign... ?

if you use precedence by letters, intention, and americas original wording it seems you are still useing that which is not yours but someone elses...

you were born there for you are...

side note...wow good homework and documentation

WHY?

SUBJECT - One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws.
. . . Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1425

Since America is the only nation with a republican form, if you're located in any other country, you are a subject - not a sovereign.

You have no endowed rights, liberties, etc. You only have the "human rights" that the government recognizes and nothing more. You must pay and obey. . . or suffer the consequences.

so ur saying if you know all of "their" wording, that you won't suffer the consequences?

I have what ever i want.. and still suffere consequences... who says I will enjoy these endowed rights just because i can argue and/or word my communications in an accepted form to those that "give" me endowed rights... why are you saying , and by saying i mean quoteing, that i must be subject or citizen? or am i miss understanding that typed word?

again this is all what someone else has put in place that is being argued..not what i say i am...and still if following whats on the books that has been presented, you or one is subject to someone elses words and understandings?!

so since im soverign im subject to my self? i can live with that

ozmirage
14th April 2016, 04:44
so ur saying if you know all of "their" wording, that you won't suffer the consequences?

NO

I have what ever i want.. and still suffere consequences... who says I will enjoy these endowed rights just because i can argue and/or word my communications in an accepted form to those that "give" me endowed rights...

Endowed rights are not given by government, but protected by government.


why are you saying , and by saying i mean quoteing, that i must be subject or citizen? or am i miss understanding that typed word?

In all other countries, one is a SUBJECT of the sovereign government.
Only in American, can one be SOVEREIGN and served by government.


again this is all what someone else has put in place that is being argued..not what i say i am...and still if following whats on the books that has been presented, you or one is subject to someone elses words and understandings?!

so since im soverign im subject to my self? i can live with that
Claiming to be sovereign and being sovereign are not synonymous.

What is it like being a subject?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116329/
If you watched “Fly Away Home” about an adventure with Canadian geese, you would have seen evidence of it.

At one point the Canadian Game Warden is speaking to a group of students, and he says, “These are the Queen’s geese.”

No Canadian subject of Her Majesty is capable of absolute ownership - not even of the wild animals who are on their “private property.”

Subjects cannot absolutely own.

In contrast, Americans ARE sovereign (until they consent otherwise).
They have endowed / sacred / inherent rights, independent of the government.
And government has admitted that fact.


“... at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects, and have none to govern but themselves. . .
“... In Europe, the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here, it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and, at most, stand in the same relation to their sovereign in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns.”
- - - Justice John Jay, Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/2/419#writing-USSC_CR_0002_0419_Z

American people are sovereigns.
The government is not sovereign, but an agent for the sovereign people.
UNLESS one has consented otherwise.
(Re-read the definition of subject - one who owes allegiance to a sovereign. American sovereigns do not owe allegiance to the servant government. The government owes allegiance to the people.)


" Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable."
- - - 16 Corpus Juris Secundum, Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.

NATURAL RIGHTS - ... are the rights of life, liberty, privacy, and good reputation.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p. 1324

PRIVATE PROPERTY - As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels.
- - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217

Among the endowed rights are life, liberty, absolute ownership of person, labor, house and lands. And these rights are not subject to a vote nor an election. Nor can they be taxed.


"The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but, the individual's rights to live and own property are NATURAL RIGHTS for the enjoyment of which an excise [tax] cannot be imposed."
Redfield vs Fisher, 292 P. 813, at 819.

" The right to labor and to its protection from unlawful interference is a constitutional as well as a common-law right. Every man has a NATURAL RIGHT to the fruits of his own industry."
48 Am Jur 2d, Section 2, p. 80

" Any claim that this statute is a taxing statute would be immediately open to severe constitutional objections. If it could be said that the state had the POWER TO TAX A RIGHT, this would enable the state to DESTROY RIGHTS guaranteed by the constitutions through the use of oppressive taxation. The question herein, is one of the state taxing the right of travel by the ordinary modes of the day, and whether this is a legitimate object of state taxation. The views advanced herein are neither novel nor unsupported by authority. The question of the taxing power of the states has been repeatedly considered by the High Court. The right of the states to impede or embarrass the constitutional operations of the the U.S. Government or the Rights which the citizens hold under it, has been uniformly denied."
McCulloch v. Maryland 4 Wheat 316.

No natural right nor liberty is subject to taxation.
Isn't that astounding?
Americans are sovereign, free and independent, not subject to any excise for the exercise of endowed rights, liberties and absolute ownership.

It is tragic that Americans were tricked into surrendering such a magnificent birthright.

thunder24
14th April 2016, 04:58
so ur saying if you know all of "their" wording, that you won't suffer the consequences?

NO

I have what ever i want.. and still suffere consequences... who says I will enjoy these endowed rights just because i can argue and/or word my communications in an accepted form to those that "give" me endowed rights...

Endowed rights are not given by government, but protected by government.


why are you saying , and by saying i mean quoteing, that i must be subject or citizen? or am i miss understanding that typed word?

In all other countries, one is a SUBJECT of the sovereign government.
Only in American, can one be SOVEREIGN and served by government.


again this is all what someone else has put in place that is being argued..not what i say i am...and still if following whats on the books that has been presented, you or one is subject to someone elses words and understandings?!

so since im soverign im subject to my self? i can live with that
Claiming to be sovereign and being sovereign are not synonymous.



It is tragic that Americans were tricked into surrendering such a magnificent birthright.

all have that birthright because theywere born regardless of location...

what government has ever protected soveriegn rights?
what is an example of the government serving a soverign in america

again its useing a system's definitions and terms to claims ones own is it not?

Mitm
14th April 2016, 05:41
We dont need to withdraw our citizenships, we are flesh, we are MAN, all the other stuff only pertains to our legal person, our "identity", it is not real, none of it is. All we have to do is get together and maybe purchase some land, and then just take care of eachother, create food forests, build shelter, create our own schools, it is all do-able, all it takes is for us to get off our arses and tell the government to "shove it"

ozmirage
14th April 2016, 07:24
[1] all have that birthright because theywere born regardless of location...

[2] what government has ever protected soveriegn rights?
[3] what is an example of the government serving a soverign in america

[4] again its useing a system's definitions and terms to claims ones own is it not?
[1] The Declaration of Independence does state that all men are endowed. However, no other nation adopted the D.o.I. as their basis for law, hence no other nation has a "republican form" where the people ARE SOVEREIGN.

Check out the French Revolution and its organic documents. Their Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen retained submission of the individual to the sovereign State.

[2] All state governments in the USA. And the federal government.
Ex: Check your own state constitution and statutes to verify that private property rights are still secure.
(Estate and private property are mutually exclusive)

[3] Any prosecution of a felony where the victim was a sovereign is an example.

[4] If you wish to use your own definitions and not the legal references in a discussion about law, I think that would be a mistake.


For what it is worth, I do not find fault with endowed rights, liberties and absolute ownership protected by a "big, bad government."
Do you?

As long as the government does not trespass upon the endowed rights of those who did not consent, there is really no problem.

But for those who consented, claimed citizenship, signed up with FICA, opened interest bearing bank accounts, etc, etc, they're subjects, without endowed rights. No harm, no foul. He who consents cannot object.

Ah, but if FRAUD was used to get that consent, one does have the legal RIGHT to denounce the fraud, vitiate the agreement(s) and withdraw consent. But you only get one bite at that apple. Because if you consent a second time - - - .

ozmirage
14th April 2016, 07:33
We dont need to withdraw our citizenships, we are flesh, we are MAN, all the other stuff only pertains to our legal person, our "identity", it is not real, none of it is. All we have to do is get together and maybe purchase some land, and then just take care of eachother, create food forests, build shelter, create our own schools, it is all do-able, all it takes is for us to get off our arses and tell the government to "shove it"
In the common vernacular, you're trying to have your cake and eat it, too.

In American law, a citizen IS a subject, and is compelled to perform mandatory civic duties. It has been part of the law from day one.

Look up militia duty in all the early state constitutions and in the Articles of Confederation.


Articles of Confederation, VI. (1777)
...every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined MILITIA, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.

Title 10 USC Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The MILITIA of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, CITIZENS of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
...............
MILITIA = ALL MALE CITIZENS (who qualify)
. . .

“It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.”
- - - George Washington; "Sentiments on a Peace Establishment" in a letter to Alexander Hamilton (2 May 1783); published in The Writings of George Washington (1938), edited by John C. Fitzpatrick, Vol. 26, p. 289.

[... Every citizen ... owes a portion of his property ... and services in defense ... in the militia ... from 18 to 50 years of age... ]

If you consent to citizenship, you have no endowed rights. Period.
No right to life.
No right to absolutely own private property.
No right to liberty.
That's the LAW.

And it is also the LAW that the American nationals, domiciled upon private property within the boundaries of these united States of America, are endowed with rights, liberties, and absolute ownership rights that government was instituted to secure.

What a magnificent heritage!

- - - - -
I suggest reading the thread from the beginning, since I am repeating myself.

shaberon
14th April 2016, 22:57
No, it's not over. Read 12 USC Sec. 95a, b. They have not been repealed.
From WIKI:
[QUOTE]Certain emergency authorities were exempted from the act at the time of its passage:

10 USC 2304(a) (1) (allowing exemption of national defense contracts from competitive bidding)
10 USC 3313, 6386(c) and 8313 (regulating the promotion, retirement and separation of military officers)
12 USC 95(a) (regulating transactions in foreign gold and silver)
40 USC 278(b) (regulating federal property purchases and contracts)
41 USC 15 and 203 (limiting the assignment of claims against the federal government)
50 USC 1431-1435 (enabling the President to make national defense contracts outside of otherwise applicable rules)

In the case of emergency banking powers, apparently this is because they were specifically studied for another year until amended by an Act of Congress:

http://uscode.house.gov/statutes/pl/95/223.pdf

Which seems to have been pointed out by someone in 1996 as part of a dispute:

http://constitution.org/pub/nam6205a.txt

I'm guessing the 1977 edition is where the powers stand. Being an amendment, it would be much easier to read if the changes were copy/pasted into the original.

thunder24
14th April 2016, 23:49
again you are useing someone elses imposed system and definitions ...

one can be sovereign by law or by individual decree, does not mean that you won't still deal with reprecussions from whatever 'authority' decides to weild its authority... but just because it decides to weild that authority still doesn't man your not sovereign, and as far as argueing something out of law or ones "own definition" does not change the fact that I am and there for am soveriegn...

If one wants to go into the legal system and argue these things ...good for you... but you are useing something or someone elses laws and definitions to do so, thus not your system but someone elses... and since the law is what the judge says it is in any court room, you are still subject to them...no matter what you argue...

why take someone elses rules and regulations and try to turn it on them...since it is not yours you will not win... and a dismissal is not a win under their system... you may think you won a moral victory but under the system and by definition it is not a win...

ozmirage
15th April 2016, 00:01
No, it's not over. Read 12 USC Sec. 95a, b. They have not been repealed.
From WIKI:

Certain emergency authorities were exempted from the act at the time of its passage:

10 USC 2304(a) (1) (allowing exemption of national defense contracts from competitive bidding)
10 USC 3313, 6386(c) and 8313 (regulating the promotion, retirement and separation of military officers)
12 USC 95(a) (regulating transactions in foreign gold and silver)
40 USC 278(b) (regulating federal property purchases and contracts)
41 USC 15 and 203 (limiting the assignment of claims against the federal government)
50 USC 1431-1435 (enabling the President to make national defense contracts outside of otherwise applicable rules)

In the case of emergency banking powers, apparently this is because they were specifically studied for another year until amended by an Act of Congress:

http://uscode.house.gov/statutes/pl/95/223.pdf

Which seems to have been pointed out by someone in 1996 as part of a dispute:

http://constitution.org/pub/nam6205a.txt

I'm guessing the 1977 edition is where the powers stand. Being an amendment, it would be much easier to read if the changes were copy/pasted into the original.

In reading the amendments, there is NOTHING in them that changes the BASIC FACT - the U.S. is kaput.

Redemption of Federal Reserve notes pursuant to 12 USC Sec. 411 is not resumed.
That means worthless IOUs still circulate as 'current monies' instead of lawful money as required by the USCON.

If Art. 1, Sec. 8 and Sec. 10 no longer apply, let's get the STATES to agree to amend the USCON and get it over with.... or simply admit that since 1933, the servant has ignored the terms of his compact by YOUR CONSENT, and they are NOT going to fix the mess - EVER.

ozmirage
15th April 2016, 00:19
again you are useing someone elses imposed system and definitions.

[Would you prefer Esperanto? Ithkuil?]
one can be sovereign by law
[Possible]
or by individual decree,
[Unlikely]
does not mean that you won't still deal with reprecussions from whatever 'authority' decides to weild its authority
[Give an example, please]
... but just because it decides to weild that authority still doesn't man your not sovereign, and as far as argueing something out of law or ones "own definition" does not change the fact that I am and there for am soveriegn...

If one wants to go into the legal system and argue these things ...good for you... but you are useing something or someone elses laws and definitions to do so, thus not your system but someone elses... and since the law is what the judge says it is in any court room,
[The "code" may be interpreted by the Judge, but not the STATUTE. Many make the mistake of arguing code.]
you are still subject to them...no matter what you argue...
[Anyone who violates the rights of another is subject to justice. No argument. But as to the malum prohibitum laws based on consent, no sovereign is subject to them. That's the law. THEIR LAW.]
why take someone elses rules and regulations and try to turn it on them...since it is not yours you will not win... and a dismissal is not a win under their system... you may think you won a moral victory but under the system and by definition it is not a win...
I can't quite understand your point of contention - the law clearly recognizes sovereign prerogatives : private property, private rights, natural liberty, etc, etc.
It isn't going to "wield authority" that does not exist.

If you have evidence that government officials did trespass upon endowed rights, please present it.

I have not read all law suits, but in every instance I checked where someone claimed sovereignty, they weren't. Which refutes your position that mere ASSERTION of sovereignty is sufficient.

Furthermore, if you are in a country that does NOT have a republican form, and you "declare sovereignty," you're going to find yourself in a "teachable moment" and probably lose your land, property, liberty, etc.

RESTATING THE POINT -
I can find no constitutional clause nor statute that -
__ Taxes private property
__ Infringes natural liberty
__ Infringes natural rights
__ Infringes personal liberty

However, if one has no private property, nor domicile, then one is a resident / transient and the law does treat such persons as privileged. The government can certainly tax, regulate and restrict its own privileges granted to consenting citizens, residents, and socialists.

ozmirage
15th April 2016, 00:43
WHY SELF PROCLAIMED SOVEREIGNS AREN'T SOVEREIGN
=\=\=\=\=


SOVEREIGN - "...Having undisputed right to make decisions and act accordingly".
New Webster's Dictionary And Thesaurus, p. 950.

SOVEREIGN - A person, body or state in which independent and supreme authority is vested...
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1395.

Over what things can a sovereign American national exercise independent and supreme authority?

Other people?
No.
Other people's property?
No.
Other people's liberty?
No.

The only things that a sovereign American can exercise dominion over are his own private property and liberty.

PRIVATE PROPERTY - As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels."
- - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217.

‘The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right…’ And ‘It has been well said that ‘the property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his owns hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property.’’
- - - U.S. Supreme Court, Butcher’s Union Co. v Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1883)

"The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but, the individual's rights to live and own property are NATURAL RIGHTS for the enjoyment of which an excise [tax] cannot be imposed."
- - - Redfield vs Fisher, 292 P. 813, at 819.

" PERSONAL LIBERTY largely consists of the Right of locomotion to go where and when one pleases only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or AUTOMOBILE, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct."
- - - II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135.



What can absolutely belong to an individual?
His person (body), his labor, his chattels, his land, his house...
What can't government tax nor prohibit?
Natural rights, private property ownership, exercise of liberties, etc.

Now, a brief reference to a genuine sovereign prerogative of the American - the power to inflict capital punishment without benefit of trial.

Please recall that posted private property can be defended with DEADLY FORCE and not be punishable as a felony.
"Private property - No Trespassing - Trespassers will be Shot" is prima facie evidence of sovereignty.

TRESPASS

TRESPASS v. - (Law) To commit an unlawful injury to the person, property, or rights of another, with actual or implied force or violence, especially to enter onto another's land wrongfully.

TRESPASS n. (Law)
a. The act of trespassing.
b. A suit brought for trespassing.

TRESPASS - An unlawful interference with one's person, property, or rights... Any unauthorized intrusion or invasion of private premises or land of another. Antkiewicz v. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co., 91 Mich. App. 389, 283 N.W. 2d 749, 753
- - - Black's Law dictionary, Sixth Ed. P. 1502

Trespass is the CRIMINAL injury to the person, property, or rights (which include natural and personal liberties) of another.

NO public servant dares trespass, for he would suffer for it - possibly die from it.

Of course, these protections only apply to endowed RIGHTS - not government granted privileges.

If one has natural liberty, personal liberty, and absolute ownership, what MORE can one want?

But if one does not have a domicile, upon private property, one is not an inhabitant, nor has any place to be sovereign over. He requires permission of the landlord, and that refutes any claim of sovereignty and therefore the exercise of sovereign prerogatives.

In the cases I looked into, self-proclaimed sovereigns were not owners of private property and thus had no domain to be sovereign over. Sovereignty and property are inseparable.
A king without a kingdom is no king.

I hope this helps clarify things.

shaberon
15th April 2016, 03:15
In reading the amendments, there is NOTHING in them that changes the BASIC FACT - the U.S. is kaput.

Redemption of Federal Reserve notes pursuant to 12 USC Sec. 411 is not resumed.
That means worthless IOUs still circulate as 'current monies' instead of lawful money as required by the USCON.

If Art. 1, Sec. 8 and Sec. 10 no longer apply, let's get the STATES to agree to amend the USCON and get it over with.... or simply admit that since 1933, the servant has ignored the terms of his compact by YOUR CONSENT, and they are NOT going to fix the mess - EVER.

Just pointing out that some of the powers were reduced. Which by no means mitigates the fact that the lack of lawful money, and the disappearance of land as private property, strongly empowers private international groups at the expense of all individuals.

I'm being pretty nice to the Constitution(s) in trying to work from within them, but no qualms with either a serious overhaul, or, to just look at it from a state level...what exactly do we need a big union for?

ozmirage
15th April 2016, 03:33
... What exactly do we need a big union for?
Short answer: Secure rights.

The larger the union, the less likely it is to be attacked.

Remember "Divide and Conquer"
...
The enemies of America desire us to break apart, so they can more easily prey upon us.

The infestation of government by predators is the reason why government has become warped.

The only remedy that would throttle the abuses of the democratic form is the return to the republican form. Once sufficient numbers of Americans withdraw from the socialist democracy, it would implode from lack of revenues and lack of subjects to govern.
And hopefully, the predators would no longer find it profitable to pervert the government, what little remains.

genevieve
15th April 2016, 07:12
ozmirage--

You offer so much that's so interesting! Thank you!

I'm in the process of reclaiming my property and most of what you share has been on my mind for quite some time.

You wrote about Trespass/ing, and I was wondering if you might have something to say about the concept of your very own body being "land" because it comes from the earth. And because the essence/beingness of you is domiciled in/on your earth, you are your land, your property, your domicile. And you are sovereign.

This idea surprisingly caused me to perceive myself more clearly as (however corny it sounds) a spiritual being having a human experience and dwelling in a human body.

Got any thoughts?


Peace Love Joy & Harmony,
genevieve

ozmirage
15th April 2016, 20:56
[1] You wrote about Trespass/ing, and I was wondering if you might have something to say about the concept of your very own body being "land" because it comes from the earth. And because the essence/beingness of you is domiciled in/on your earth, you are your land, your property, your domicile.

[2] And you are sovereign.

[3] This idea surprisingly caused me to perceive myself more clearly as (however corny it sounds) a spiritual being having a human experience and dwelling in a human body.

[1] If chattel slavery means owning a person, then your body is chattel. And that you absolutely own your self as private property.
It may be beneficial to make a small notice (button?) that states, "I am private property, no trespassing, trespassers will be shot."

[2] I currently lack a domicile so I cannot exercise sovereign prerogatives over a domain. However, I am not a subject of government, via consent. I hesitate to claim sovereignty because that is misunderstood. Best answer : I have not given consent to be governed, and leave it at that.

[3] You are correct. Once your spirit self leaves the flesh, it ceases to be yours.

Mike Gorman
15th April 2016, 22:33
I have seen a lot of the 'Sovereign' movement materials, and this idea that you can somehow claim complete separation from the laws governing citizens, that you can withdraw consent and thereby become a discrete and god created individual immune from the need to license, pay taxes and travel 'unmolested' by peace officers is bogus. Like a lot of information, there are kernels of truth contained-in the sense that we all 'consent' to be governed, by virtue of our collective rule of law, and democratic processes (in the case of the U.K/USA/Australia/New Zealand Et Al) - but the implication that you can extricate yourself from being subject to law and government is a bit of a stretch. Sure, you can decide to go off-grid, live completely independently, like a fellow in Western Australia decided to do, he called it 'Hutt River Provence' (look it up it is still going) he issues his own stamps and currency, makes his own rules- but it is not strictly speaking true sovereign independence he can still be imprisoned and so-forth; I'm not sure how he went with income tax I'll have to check. Interesting ideas, but the 'powers that be' have a large private army, and police force to compel you to their will, until we all truly awaken to our genuine political consciousness and understand we actually do provide consent to Leviathan we will continue to be ruled by the shadow people.

ozmirage
16th April 2016, 01:21
I have seen a lot of the 'Sovereign' movement materials, and this idea that you can somehow claim complete separation from the laws governing citizens, that you can withdraw consent and thereby become a discrete and god created individual immune from the need to license, pay taxes and travel 'unmolested' by peace officers is bogus.

[There are many who self-proclaim themselves sovereigns, without fully extricating themselves nor acquiring a domicile upon private property. Those poor souls are often well publicized to discourage the sheeple from standing upright.]

Like a lot of information, there are kernels of truth contained-in the sense that we all 'consent' to be governed, by virtue of our collective rule of law, and democratic processes (in the case of the U.K/USA/Australia/New Zealand Et Al) - but the implication that you can extricate yourself from being subject to law and government is a bit of a stretch. Sure, you can decide to go off-grid, live completely independently, like a fellow in Western Australia

[Australians are subjects of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, and cannot be sovereigns.]

decided to do, he called it 'Hutt River Provence' (look it up it is still going) he issues his own stamps and currency, makes his own rules- but it is not strictly speaking true sovereign independence he can still be imprisoned and so-forth; I'm not sure how he went with income tax I'll have to check.
Interesting ideas, but the 'powers that be' have a large private army, and police force to compel you to their will, until we all truly awaken to our genuine political consciousness and understand we actually do provide consent to Leviathan we will continue to be ruled by the shadow people.

In any other country but the USA, your objections are valid.
But in the USA, the government is not the sovereign.
I repeat - the government is not the sovereign.
If the government is not the sovereign, then who is?
. . .
Remember, only the USA has a republican form of government.
(Not synonymous with "republic")
It is not a "democracy" nor even an indirect democracy.
. . .

SOVEREIGN PEOPLE
"The people of the state, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the king by his own prerogative."
Lansing v. Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9, (NY)

"It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states."
Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt 16 How. 416, 14 L.Ed. 997

In America, however, the case is widely different. Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.
[ Glass vs The Sloop Betsey, 3 Dall 6 (1794)]


“It will be sufficient to observe briefly that the sovereignties in Europe, and particularly in England, exist on feudal principles. That system considers the Prince as the sovereign, and the people as his subjects; it regards his person as the object of allegiance, and excludes the idea of his being on an equal footing with a subject, either in a court of justice or elsewhere... No such ideas obtain here; at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects, and have none to govern but themselves[.]

“From the differences existing between feudal sovereignties and governments founded on compacts, it necessarily follows that their respective prerogatives must differ. Sovereignty is the right to govern; a nation or State sovereign is the person or persons in whom that resides. In Europe, the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here, it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and, at most, stand in the same relation to their sovereign in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns."
- - - Justice John Jay in Chisholm v. Georgia (2 U.S. 419 (1793))https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/2/419#writing-USSC_CR_0002_0419_Z

● DEVOLVE - To pass on or delegate to another.
● REGENT - One who rules during the minority, absence, or disability of a monarch.
● SOVEREIGN - One that exercises supreme, permanent authority, especially in a nation or other governmental unit.

The sovereign American people have the right to govern - themselves. They descend to servants, when in the government. And to be eligible to serve in the government, they must assert citizenship - which entails accepting mandatory civic duties which amount to a surrender of endowed rights to life, liberty and absolute ownership of private property.

CONSENT

"What I do say is that no man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. I say this is the leading principle, the sheet-anchor of American republicanism. Our Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
- - - Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois (1854)http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abraham_lincoln

" When a change of government takes place, from a monarchial to a republican government, the old form is dissolved. Those who lived under it, and did not choose to become members of the new, had a right to refuse their allegiance to it, and to retire elsewhere. By being a part of the society subject to the old government, they had not entered into any engagement to become subject to any new form the majority might think proper to adopt. That the majority shall prevail is a rule posterior to the formation of government, and results from it. It is not a rule binding upon mankind in their natural state. There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent."
- - - CRUDEN v. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E. 70.Absent consent, the American non-citizen national is not bound to obedience to the institutions formed by his fellowmen.

BUT
CITIZENS
ARE
SUBJECTS

CITIZEN - ... Citizens are members of a political community who, in their associative capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of government for the promotion of the general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. p.244

"... the term 'citizen,' in the United States, is analogous to the term "subject" in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government. ... he who before was a "subject of the King" is now a citizen of the State."
- - - State v. Manuel, 20 N.C. 144 (1838)

SUBJECT - One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws.
. . . Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1425Recapping, American people are sovereigns without subjects, whereas citizens are subjects, bound to obey.

This is the birthright of every American - to be sovereign, free and independent.
It's no surprise that the world is arrayed against her.
And her enemies spared no expense in eradicating any memory of the republican form and the unconditional sovereignty of the American people.

But the law in harmony with the republican form is still on the books... for now.

If there is no such thing as an American sovereign one may wonder what Mr. Bierce was referring to in this:
.................................................. ...............
ALIEN, n. An American sovereign in his probationary state.
- - - - “The Devil’s Dictionary” (1906), by Ambrose Bierce
.................................................. ...............
(available from Gutenberg.org)

ozmirage
16th April 2016, 01:38
“The republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the Rights of mankind.”
- - - Thomas Jefferson
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson

“I firmly believe that the benevolent Creator designed the republican Form of Government for Man.”
- - - Samuel Adams;
Statement of (14 April 1785), quoted in The Writings of Samuel Adams (1904) edited by Harry A. Cushing
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Samuel_Adams

The monarchs, democrats, warlords, and dictators of the world are opposed to the rights of the individual, overtly or covertly. They want their cake and yours, too. They're benevolent, in that they allow you to regrow your skin before they skin you alive, over and over, but they want your gratitude, as well as your obedience.

For those who would rather be disarmed and remain enslaved in the benevolent totalitarian police state.


“Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say 'what should be the reward of such sacrifices?' Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!”
- - - Samuel Adams
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Samuel_Adams

For those who would not remain enslaved.


“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”
- - - Patrick Henry
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Patrick_Henry

shaberon
17th April 2016, 05:43
Sovereignty mostly comes down to the issue of land.

As a non-slave, anyone can be a sovereign of their body, but when that body is not on its sovereign land, it is trespassing, which is an act of war. Your choice is to make a peace offering to the sovereign you have trespassed, or suffer the consequences of whatever they decide to do to you.

In the United States, land was brought into the country by international treaties with the United States as its sovereign owner. Originally, it would transfer areas of land as private property to sovereign individuals. When this happened, it was bequeathed to the heirs and assigns of the original owner, forever.

Through time the land fell under the disguise of equity deeds and real estate, and most people surrendered their personal sovereignty. Theoretically if one can establish a chain that connects one's land ownership to the original patent, you could then establish it as a private, sovereign domain, since it was made to be that way, forever, according to international treaty. However, since your right to contract still stands, property appurtenant to the land (such as a house) will remain in its contract (such as a mortgage).

There may be advantages to establishing a private, sovereign domain, but it would never put you above the law. If there is evidence you have committed a trespass, you could still be hunted down and possibly killed on your property.

In most other countries, the land all belongs to the crown or government...I don't know of an exception. This means that everyone trespasses permanently; are at war with their sovereign.

I am not sure how many states need to be united to secure their protection. From foreign armies, one might be enough; from foreign powers taking over from within, fifty is not enough. There always has been a standing secessionist movement in Texas, which was a Republic, that did not surrender its right of secession in joining the union.

ozmirage
17th April 2016, 10:09
Sovereignty mostly comes down to the issue of land.

[CORRECT]

As a non-slave, anyone can be a sovereign of their body, but when that body is not on its sovereign land, it is trespassing, which is an act of war. Your choice is to make a peace offering to the sovereign you have trespassed, or suffer the consequences of whatever they decide to do to you.

In the United States, land was brought into the country by international treaties with the United States as its sovereign owner.

[WRONG. The U.S. government was never the sovereign owner of land. As a corporation, it can only have qualified ownership. As a servant, it can only hold title as a trustee for the people.]

Originally, it would transfer areas of land as private property to sovereign individuals. When this happened, it was bequeathed to the heirs and assigns of the original owner, forever.

[Transferring ownership is one thing. Type of private ownership is another. It can be absolute -or- qualified.]

Through time the land fell under the disguise of equity deeds and real estate, and most people surrendered their personal sovereignty. Theoretically if one can establish a chain that connects one's land ownership to the original patent, you could then establish it as a private, sovereign domain, since it was made to be that way, forever, according to international treaty.

[Land patents do not prove type of ownership - only that land that was once in the public domain was transferred to the private domain.]

However, since your right to contract still stands, property appurtenant to the land (such as a house) will remain in its contract (such as a mortgage).

There may be advantages to establishing a private, sovereign domain, but it would never put you above the law. If there is evidence you have committed a trespass, you could still be hunted down and possibly killed on your property.

[The officials had better have a constitutional warrant, supported by sworn oath or affirmation - so that any liar is going to prison !]

In most other countries, the land all belongs to the crown or government...I don't know of an exception. This means that everyone trespasses permanently; are at war with their sovereign.

[In other countries, so-called private ownership is a privilege, subject to taxation and restriction. There is no "war with the sovereign" unless the occupant violates his agreement.]

I am not sure how many states need to be united to secure their protection. From foreign armies, one might be enough; from foreign powers taking over from within, fifty is not enough. There always has been a standing secessionist movement in Texas, which was a Republic, that did not surrender its right of secession in joining the union.

[If Texas seceded, it would be easy pickings for a take over - insufficient industrial base to survive a protracted war.]


As best as I can determine, three facts need to be in evidence to support absolute ownership by an individual:
__ Right to own (legal age, not encumbered, etc)
__ Alienated title with lawful money or other legal means
__ No superior claim exists

(Some of this was gleaned from U.S. admiralty rules on establishing allodial title of property won at auction)

You should investigate your own state's laws on the topic, but I suspect that they will not be much different than what I found in Georgia.

Official Code of Georgia Annotated states:

O.C.G.A. 44-2-1. Where and when deeds recorded; priority as to.
" Every deed conveying land shall be recorded in the office of the clerk of the superior court of the county where the land is located. A deed may be recorded at any time; but a prior unrecorded deed loses its priority over a subsequent recorded deed from the same vendor when the purchaser takes such deed without notice of the existence of the prior deed."

The word "shall," on first reading, gives one the impression that it is mandatory. End of discussion. The proponents of private property and freedom are obviously ignorant, misled, and confused, say the pundits.

But there's another side to this word play...


" There is no Georgia statute compelling the recording of a deed."
- - - Encyclopedia of Georgia Law, 8 A, p. 265, Sec. 132

Is this not contradictory?

What makes BOTH the statute and the encyclopedia right?

What if "shall" didn't mean "shall"? Go review the following little section on law pertaining to mandatory versus directory statutes.
................

SHALL - As used in statutes, contracts, or the like, this word is generally imperative or mandatory... But it may be construed as merely permissive or directory (as equivalent to "may"), to carry out the legislative intention and in cases where no right of benefit depends on its being taken in the imperative sense, and where no public or private right is impaired by its interpretation in the other sense. Black's Law, Sixth ed., p.1375
..............

There's the key: shall (mandatory) means may (directory) if a private or public right is impaired by its interpretation as shall.

Clever politicos.... They write a "law" in a form to persuade you that you are obligated to perform to it, but in truth, they have not. You are under no obligation nor is there a consequence for not obeying a directory statute.

And there's more to it than meets the eyes.


" Sole purpose and effect of recording of deed is to afford third parties constructive notice of the existence of the deed.”
- - - City Whsle. Co. v. Harper, 100 Ga.App. 151, 110 S.E. 2d 561 (1959)

The court ruling is clear and to the point. The sole purpose for recording deeds is to give notice.

Back to the THREE facts - - -

[1] To have the right to own, one should be of legal age (over 21), unimpaired, and competent. For an absolute right to own, it is now apparent that one should not be a participant in national socialism. All enumerated participants have pledged their property as collateral and became paupers at law to be eligible for entitlements (charity). Likewise, if one is exercising political liberty - voting and holding office - one must register their property as estate. (See earliest constitutions regarding the privilege to vote and hold office - limited to property owners who paid their taxes.) (Avoid joint tenancy and community property!)

[2] Alienation of title (the collection of facts that establish ownership) by lawful money (gold / silver dollars) also includes gift or bequest (if the previous owner held it absolutely). No mortgages allowed (two or more claimants makes ownership qualified). (Minimum $21 would preserve the right to the rules of the common law, pursuant to the 7th amendment)

[3] No superior claim can be established by giving due notice in the local county newspaper of record. Thirty days before the final transaction, place a legal notice (which should include a reply box number provided by the newspaper) wherein you describe the property and request that all claimants must come forward within 30 days or forever waive their claims. After 30 days, the newspaper will issue an affidavit to the claims or lack thereof.

Do not record the transaction with the "real estate clerk" !
Private property transactions are PRIVATE.

If one needs more legal protection, one might file for a ruling, ex parte, that the land in question is private property, based on providing the aforementioned 3 facts to the court.


ADDENDUM:
America is one of the few countries that does not bar foreigners from buying land as private property. Of course, the idea is for these "Aliens" to become sovereign Americans, by expatriating and thus ending their allegiance to the foreign sovereign.
(Hence the joke by Mr Bierce about probationary sovereigns)

shaberon
18th April 2016, 03:30
In the United States, land was brought into the country by international treaties with the United States as its sovereign owner.

[WRONG. The U.S. government was never the sovereign owner of land. As a corporation, it can only have qualified ownership. As a servant, it can only hold title as a trustee for the people.]

Originally, it would transfer areas of land as private property to sovereign individuals. When this happened, it was bequeathed to the heirs and assigns of the original owner, forever.

[Transferring ownership is one thing. Type of private ownership is another. It can be absolute -or- qualified.]

Through time the land fell under the disguise of equity deeds and real estate, and most people surrendered their personal sovereignty. Theoretically if one can establish a chain that connects one's land ownership to the original patent, you could then establish it as a private, sovereign domain, since it was made to be that way, forever, according to international treaty.

[Land patents do not prove type of ownership - only that land that was once in the public domain was transferred to the private domain.]



If the land belonged to a corporation, how exactly is this in the public domain?

Here are quotes from the Louisiana Purchase:

And whereas in pursuance of the Treaty and particularly of the third article the French Republic has an incontestible title to the domain and to the possession of the said Territory--The First Consul of the French Republic desiring to give to the Unit ed States a strong proof of his friendship doth hereby cede to the United States in the name of the French Republic for ever and in full Sovereignty the said territory with all its rights and appurtenances as fully and in the Same manner as they have bee n acquired by the French Republic in virtue of the above mentioned Treaty concluded with his Catholic Majesty.

(the United States received full sovereignty of the territory; it is unclear to me whether this refers to U. S. government, or to the people of the United States. If it means, ceded to the government, would that be saying that the gift of full sovereignty, was instantly transmuted into qualified ownership?)

In the cession made by the preceding article are included the adjacent Islands belonging to Louisiana all public lots and Squares, vacant lands and all public buildings, fortifications, barracks and other edifices which are not private property.

(so any private property in this area was never given to the USG or people--but this means that there must be sovereignly held private property in France, or they would not need to make the exception)

The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States and admitted as soon as possible according to the principles of the federal Constitution to the enjoyment of all these rights, advantages and immunities of citizens of the United States, and in the mean time they shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property and the Religion which they profess.

(inhabitants endowed rights were immediately protected, until they become citizens)

So--if there was private property in Louisiana, it never became part of the United States or a state, at least at first--it could have remained as private property to this day, or gotten fouled in qualified ownership.

Then, if anything that was owned by the United States, or a state, was automatically under qualified ownership--and a land grant or patent does not establish private ownership--there was no private property to give, and no one got any.

I'm also a little concerned that there might not be any sovereign people in the state, for the government to derive its power from.

ozmirage
18th April 2016, 07:12
In the United States, land was brought into the country by international treaties with the United States as its sovereign owner.

[WRONG. The U.S. government was never the sovereign owner of land. As a corporation, it can only have qualified ownership. As a servant, it can only hold title as a trustee for the people.]

Originally, it would transfer areas of land as private property to sovereign individuals. When this happened, it was bequeathed to the heirs and assigns of the original owner, forever.

[Transferring ownership is one thing. Type of private ownership is another. It can be absolute -or- qualified.]

Through time the land fell under the disguise of equity deeds and real estate, and most people surrendered their personal sovereignty. Theoretically if one can establish a chain that connects one's land ownership to the original patent, you could then establish it as a private, sovereign domain, since it was made to be that way, forever, according to international treaty.

[Land patents do not prove type of ownership - only that land that was once in the public domain was transferred to the private domain.]



If the land belonged to a corporation, how exactly is this in the public domain?

PUBLIC DOMAIN embraces all lands, the title to which is in the United States, including as well land occupied for the purposes of federal buildings, arsenals, dock-yards, etc., as land of an agricultural or mineral character not yet granted to private owners.
- - - Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth ed., P.483

Here are quotes from the Louisiana Purchase:

And whereas in pursuance of the Treaty and particularly of the third article the French Republic has an incontestible title to the domain and to the possession of the said Territory--The First Consul of the French Republic desiring to give to the Unit ed States a strong proof of his friendship doth hereby cede to the United States in the name of the French Republic for ever and in full Sovereignty the said territory with all its rights and appurtenances as fully and in the Same manner as they have bee n acquired by the French Republic in virtue of the above mentioned Treaty concluded with his Catholic Majesty.

(the United States received full sovereignty of the territory; it is unclear to me whether this refers to U. S. government, or to the people of the United States. If it means, ceded to the government, would that be saying that the gift of full sovereignty, was instantly transmuted into qualified ownership?)

In the cession made by the preceding article are included the adjacent Islands belonging to Louisiana all public lots and Squares, vacant lands and all public buildings, fortifications, barracks and other edifices which are not private property.

(so any private property in this area was never given to the USG or people--but this means that there must be sovereignly held private property in France, or they would not need to make the exception)

The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States and admitted as soon as possible according to the principles of the federal Constitution to the enjoyment of all these rights, advantages and immunities of citizens of the United States, and in the mean time they shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property and the Religion which they profess.

(inhabitants endowed rights were immediately protected, until they become citizens)
"The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states... shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states ..."
[Article IV of the Articles of Confederation (1777)]

So--if there was private property in Louisiana, it never became part of the United States or a state, at least at first--it could have remained as private property to this day, or gotten fouled in qualified ownership.

[For the purposes of jurisdiction, the property WAS part of the USA. As to absolute ownership, the owners retained ownership unless they consented otherwise.]

Then, if anything that was owned by the United States, or a state, was automatically under qualified ownership--and a land grant or patent does not establish private ownership
[Whoa. A land patent or grant does establish private ownership - but it does not establish if the ownership is absolute or qualified.]

--there was no private property to give, and no one got any.
[Mixing things up.]

I'm also a little concerned that there might not be any sovereign people in the state, for the government to derive its power [TO GOVERN] from.
You're getting unnecessarily confused over the notion of sovereignty and the delegated powers of government.

Under the republican form, the people have endowed rights which include absolute ownership of private property.

The governments instituted to secure those rights exercise powers - adjudicate disputes, prosecute crime, defend against enemies, foreign and domestic. Their jurisdiction and venue is limited by boundaries within which they exercise these powers.

So, in one sense, the extent of a State government's constitutionally limited power is where it is "sovereign." Though it is not a "sovereign" but an agent for the sovereign people. (Confused?)

And those who consented to be governed, drop to subjects owing allegiance to their "sovereign" government. (Better?)

American governments have delegated power to (a) secure rights, endowed or granted. But the authority to govern / rule / control comes from (b) consent of the governed.

And when the United States government used taxpayer funds for the Louisiana Purchase, it was not acting as a "sovereign," but as an agent for the States united, who in turn are agents for their sovereign people.

The U.S. paid fifty million francs ($11,250,000 USD) and a cancellation of debts worth eighteen million francs ($3,750,000 USD) for a total of sixty-eight million francs ($15,000,000 USD).

Since the government used public monies, it was held in trust for the people. Trustees cannot absolutely own, since they are bound by the terms of their compacts.

It's also why no creditor can foreclose on the bankrupt government and confiscate Washington, D.C. or other federal properties. Of course, "human resources" pledged as collateral are not so protected.

shaberon
18th April 2016, 19:57
I think the least confusing and simplest core of it comes to: real property.

Absolute ownership of private property goes to Roman law, so they had it France, then Louisiana, then it was sold to the U. S., and was still private property.

But if land absolutely owned as private property is an estate, then you have no real property, which includes a bundle of rights, which estate, does not.

ozmirage
18th April 2016, 21:54
I think the least confusing and simplest core of it comes to: real property.
[REAL PROPERTY REFERS TO ESTATE, NOT PRIVATE PROPERTY]

Absolute ownership of private property goes to Roman law,
[Citation, please]
so they had it France, then Louisiana, then it was sold to the U. S., and was still private property.

But if land absolutely owned as private property is an estate, then you have no real property, which includes a bundle of rights, which estate, does not.
Whoa: real property = estate = real estate

The world’s view of private property :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property

“....Private property is a legal designation of the ownership of property by non-governmental legal entities. Private property is distinguishable from public property, which is owned by a state entity; and collective property, which is owned by a group of non-governmental entities.”

A non-government legal entity can own “private property,” as distinguished from government ownership of “public property.”

America’s view of private property:


"PRIVATE PROPERTY - As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels."
- - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217.

"OWNERSHIP - ... Ownership of property is either absolute or qualified. The ownership of property is absolute when a single person has the absolute dominion over it... The ownership is qualified when it is shared with one or more persons, when the time of enjoyment is deferred or limited, or when the use is restricted. "
- - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p. 1106

NOTE: Only in American law is private property absolutely owned. In other nations, "private property" only refers to property not owned by government. But that so-called "private property" is subject to regulation, restriction, taxation, confiscation and condemnation. If people in other countries could absolutely own, they'd be sovereigns instead of subjects.

. . .

LAND. ... The land is one thing, and the ESTATE in land is another thing, for an ESTATE in land is a time in land or land for a time.
- - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.877

ESTATE - The degree, quantity, nature and extent of interest which a person has in real and personal property. An estate in lands, tenements, and hereditaments signifies such interest as the tenant has therein.
- - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.547

REAL ESTATE .... is synonymous with real property.
- - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., From p.1263

REAL PROPERTY ... A general term for lands, tenements, heriditaments; which on the death of the owner intestate, passes to his heir.
- - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed.,p.1218

Pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, governments are instituted to secure endowed rights such as absolute ownership of private property.
So when one dies and bequeaths his property to his heirs, any estate tax is evidence that the ownership was NOT private property nor was the transfer an endowment (a protected right).

MORE REMINDERS
...

"A good man leaveth an inheritance to his children's children..."
Proverbs 13:22

What about inheritance and government?


"Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child."
Exodus 22:22

"And oppress not the widow, nor the fatherless..."
Zechariah 7:10

It is not considered moral to dissipate an inheritance so as to deprive the heirs. Nor is it considered moral to deprive the heirs and the widows of their husband's property.
So what good is government doing, when it taxes the “estate” of the deceased?
No good.

...
The use of Biblical quotes is not to imply that they are part of the secular law, but to illustrate that one may argue against consenting to secular laws on religious grounds.

= = = = = = =
In reading law, one gets the notion that "they" would prefer that the sheeple never, ever comprehend the distinctions between private property ownership and estate ownership.

In support of private property ownership:
Declaration of Independence, natural liberty, natural rights, personal liberty.

In support of qualified ownership:
Constitution, citizenship, civic duties, civil liberty, and political liberty.

Beware the switcheroo.

shaberon
18th April 2016, 23:12
I think the least confusing and simplest core of it comes to: real property.
[REAL PROPERTY REFERS TO ESTATE, NOT PRIVATE PROPERTY]

Absolute ownership of private property goes to Roman law,
[Citation, please]
so they had it France, then Louisiana, then it was sold to the U. S., and was still private property.

But if land absolutely owned as private property is an estate, then you have no real property, which includes a bundle of rights, which estate, does not.
Whoa: real property = estate = real estate




Webster's definition:
Definition of dominium

plural -s

1
Roman law : absolute ownership of corporeal property by a person subject only to the power of the state and including the right to use and enjoy, the right to take profit therefrom, and the right of disposal.


That real estate is a subset of real property (minus the bundle of rights) appears to be out of a Real Estate 101 lesson that any realtor would go through:

http://study.com/academy/lesson/real-estate-vs-real-property-differences-terms.html

http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/100214/what-difference-between-real-estate-and-real-property.asp

In this argument, the author contends that English law fee simple was an estate and not absolute ownership, compared to the Roman system:

http://famguardian.org/publications/propertyrights/R3allod.html

I realize that none of that stuff is as crisp as Acts & Statutes. But it tells me so far that real property is not real estate, other than by synonym or association. It's just the subset of property that is permanent/fixed, as opposed to movable chattels.

Of course, since synonyms such as "shall" and "may" are conflated by the system and upheld by courts, someone could have sneezed, and all the real property in the world became estates. I don't quite see where real property is real estate except for Black's saying they are synonyms, and if they tell you that, there's probably a bucket full of exceptions.

Right now, I'd settle for an example of absolutely privately owned land, by an individual. Maybe in Roman law, such a thing was still subject to taxation, so in America, it would not be? But where does this mysterious thing exist?

ozmirage
18th April 2016, 23:36
I think the least confusing and simplest core of it comes to: real property.
[REAL PROPERTY REFERS TO ESTATE, NOT PRIVATE PROPERTY]

Absolute ownership of private property goes to Roman law,
[Citation, please]
so they had it France, then Louisiana, then it was sold to the U. S., and was still private property.

But if land absolutely owned as private property is an estate, then you have no real property, which includes a bundle of rights, which estate, does not.
Whoa: real property = estate = real estate




Webster's definition:
Definition of dominium

plural -s Roman law : absolute ownership of corporeal property by a person subject only to the power of the state and including the right to use and enjoy, the right to take profit therefrom, and the right of disposal.

That real estate is a subset of real property (minus the bundle of rights) appears to be out of a Real Estate 101 lesson that any realtor would go through:

http://study.com/academy/lesson/real-estate-vs-real-property-differences-terms.html

http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/100214/what-difference-between-real-estate-and-real-property.asp

In this argument, the author contends that English law fee simple was an estate and not absolute ownership, compared to the Roman system:

http://famguardian.org/publications/propertyrights/R3allod.html

I realize that none of that stuff is as crisp as Acts & Statutes. But it tells me so far that real property is not real estate, other than by synonym or association. It's just the subset of property that is permanent/fixed, as opposed to movable chattels.

Of course, since synonyms such as "shall" and "may" are conflated by the system and upheld by courts, someone could have sneezed, and all the real property in the world became estates. I don't quite see where real property is real estate except for Black's saying they are synonyms, and if they tell you that, there's probably a bucket full of exceptions.

Right now, I'd settle for an example of absolutely privately owned land, by an individual. Maybe in Roman law, such a thing was still subject to taxation, so in America, it would not be? But where does this mysterious thing exist?

In reading tax law, there are no statutes imposing tax levies on endowed rights - only excises on privileges.

The next question - is there any evidence that absolute ownership is an ENDOWED RIGHT?

Yes:

" Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable."
- - - 16 Corpus Juris Secundum , Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.

PRIVATE PROPERTY - As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels."
- - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217.

If government can tax it or take it without paying just compensation, it's NOT private property.

And frankly, I am not sure that the government is delegated any power to take private property from sovereign Americans who did not consent to be governed. The definition of eminent domain claims that the government has sovereignty - which is in contradiction to Chisholm v. Georgia, wherein Justice John Jay says the government is the agent for the sovereign people, not their sovereign. This discrepancy also shows up in cases where property owners refused to give in, and were left alone.

As to the existence of non-taxed private property, one might look into any abandoned property that the government never sold off for back taxes or otherwise condemned and re-sold it. Or ask the tax assessor for a list of properties not subject to the ad valorem tax.

shaberon
20th April 2016, 06:06
That sounds like the best idea. If you ask the tax office, they would be compelled to answer, probably very slowly. I'll guess straight away that this is not an internet searchable field.

But if we had a list of actual, specific examples, we would be better off than having a list of legal terms which theoretically might work. I can imagine there's been a few cases where people were able to stop eminent domain. Owning a taxed estate is still considered absolute ownership, so if an untaxed real property can be found, I would be very impressed.

Governments and churches can have them of course; and there are partial exemptions for things like Homestead acts or disabled veterans, but nowhere can you apply for complete immunity by being an individual living on private property. Now, the stealthiest vehicle used by the corporations to dominate the world is a charitable trust. Unlike other trusts which have strict rules on withdrawing funds (e. g., when you turn 18 you get $50,000), a charitable trust can expend its funds in any way under a broad umbrella of "its purposes".

How about that--you receive money freely as charitable donations and can spend it with the vaguest of accounting for what happened to it. "2016 spent $750,000 on education". That pox could be a crate of machine guns mowing down nuns.

As individuals, can we not run a charitable trust for our own benefit, and easily qualify for some tax exempt land? My charity is to feed and house my friend, and we need this house and land to accomplish our purpose. Just a thought.

After some more digging, I find property tax used in the colonies, also in the original states. Once the Federalists achieved a powerful central government, they absorbed the war debts of the states--this actually led to a period where several states abolished property tax. But that was because they had adequate revenue from other sources; nothing to do with rights. Still have yet to find any example of tax being waived over a claim of private property, and if that means you never really own land because it could be seized for tax delinquency, then we're still in the same situation as anyone under Roman law.

ozmirage
21st April 2016, 02:11
. . . if an untaxed real property can be found, I would be very impressed.

Governments and churches can have them of course; and there are partial exemptions for things like Homestead acts or disabled veterans, but nowhere can you apply for complete immunity by being an individual living on private property. Now, the stealthiest vehicle used by the corporations to dominate the world is a charitable trust. Unlike other trusts which have strict rules on withdrawing funds (e. g., when you turn 18 you get $50,000), a charitable trust can expend its funds in any way under a broad umbrella of "its purposes".

How about that--you receive money freely as charitable donations and can spend it with the vaguest of accounting for what happened to it. "2016 spent $750,000 on education". That pox could be a crate of machine guns mowing down nuns.

As individuals, can we not run a charitable trust for our own benefit, and easily qualify for some tax exempt land? My charity is to feed and house my friend, and we need this house and land to accomplish our purpose. Just a thought.

After some more digging, I find property tax used in the colonies, also in the original states. Once the Federalists achieved a powerful central government, they absorbed the war debts of the states--this actually led to a period where several states abolished property tax. But that was because they had adequate revenue from other sources; nothing to do with rights. Still have yet to find any example of tax being waived over a claim of private property, and if that means you never really own land because it could be seized for tax delinquency, then we're still in the same situation as anyone under Roman law.
Do you understand WHY a servant government is not subject to tax?
Do you understand WHY a church is not subject to a tax?

In America, ALL TAXES are limited to privileges. Even "head tax" liability is limited to "tax payers" and not "all people."

No government instituted to SECURE ENDOWED RIGHTS can tax endowed rights.
(See: http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?89658-Things-That-May-Make-You-Pee-Yourself&p=1056060&viewfull=1#post1056060)

I stipulate that government often mislabels its privileges as "RIGHTS" and then taxes them. Ex: Right to vote and hold office. Thus people were misled to accept taxation of "rights" when in fact, they were never endowed rights, but privileges.

No government taxes itself, because it is exercising delegated powers, not privileges.
No church is taxed, because it is not exercising a government granted privilege.

If you ask the WRONG question, you won't get the RIGHT answer.

Ask for a copy of the law that compels ALL property owners to register their property as real estate and / or with the tax assessor. And if property is not registered (voluntarily) can the the tax assessor unilaterally impose a tax upon it?
Ask for a copy of the law that grants such a power.


" There is no Georgia statute compelling the recording of a deed."
- - - Encyclopedia of Georgia Law, 8 A, p. 265, Sec. 132

I suspect that any statute or code that implies recording is mandatory, is not really mandatory, and uses obfuscation to hide that fact.

Excerpt from = =
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/NASP/conversations/topics/517


He brought out a copy of the Township Zoning and Building Code in which he pointed out the following:

"No building shall be built, altered or remodeled without first obtaining a building permit duely issued by the Zoning Enforcement Officer upon application."

I thank him for agreeing with me that I was not required by law to submit an application to him for a building permit before converting my garage into an apartment.

He stood there silent for about 10 seconds and then said to me. "What part of "NO BUILDING SHALL BE BUILT without a permit" don't you understand?" Oh, I said I understand it all but do you? What do you mean, of course I understand the Building Code I enforce it daily on every person "in this Township".

I responded by saying, but I am not "in this Township" in respect to this section of the Building Code UNTIL I submit an application to you for a building permit.

What do you mean by that he asked?

I said, let me ask you a question and perhaps your answer will reveal to you what I mean.

I then ask, If no building can be altered without first obtaining a building permit from you can you tell me how I can obtain such permit? Certainly he said, you MUST submit an application to me for the permit.

I then ask him to see the law that requires a man to submit an application for any thing, including a building permit. He pointed to the section of the code that he had pointed out to me before.

I told him that the section he was pointing out did not require any man to submit an application for a building permit, it only stated that no building could be built, altered or remodel without first obtaining a permit UPON APPLICATION. I asked him to put the last two word at the beginning of the sentence and read it again. UPON APPLICATION, no building can be built...."

Re-stating:

"UPON APPLICATION, No building shall be built, altered or remodeled without first obtaining a building permit duly issued by the Zoning Enforcement Officer."
.........................
But there is no statute compelling application.
The “smoke and mirrors” of contrived consent.

ozmirage
21st April 2016, 03:52
BEST SWITCHEROO

We're informed by the Declaration of Independence that governments are instituted to secure endowed / sacred rights (endowed by OUR CREATOR - not government).


" Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable."
- - - 16 Corpus Juris Secundum, Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.

Restating, the absolute ownership of land, houses, chattels by individuals is a SACRED RIGHT.

And yet millions are misled to register their property as estate subject to taxation, by their various tricks and scams.

How / when we lost our absolute ownership rights is summed up with one word: CONSENT.

Though Americans are endowed with inherent / sacred rights to life, to liberty and to absolutely own, we're also encouraged to surrender those rights for privileges (mislabeled as "rights"), and thus spend our lives in perpetual servitude to the servant (and his new master).

Since all facts are in the public record, available at any county courthouse law library, one cannot denounce the servant for his role in this.
Or can we?

I cannot stress how important it is for everyone to READ LAW and ask pertinent questions of their public servants. Unless you do, you're going to be a victim of the world's greatest propaganda ministry. Only by reading the law, comprehending what it says, and challenging the errant servants, can one discern who is really at fault.

Voluntary bankrupted self proclaimed criminal slaves have no grounds to revolt.
Stop volunteering!
Then see if the servant government misbehaves.

A government instituted to secure endowed rights cannot possibly function when the majority of the people surrendered their endowed rights.

shaberon
21st April 2016, 22:13
Hmm. So, we probably couldn't ask an assessor about un-taxed private properties. If you recorded the property in the first place--you just asked to use some government services, and surrendered your private ownership.

Doing a little "fair use" of someone else's argument, does this seem correct:

So what is the property tax?

It is an indirect tax, levied because you have voluntarily used government services, and also because your property has been classified as a commercial piece of property.

There is no law requiring a real property owner to record his property with the County Recorder. Don´t believe me. Go ask your Recorder or County Counsel. Therefore, when you do record your property, you are using government services which you are not required to use. Your property tax goes to pay for those services.

When you record your property, you enter into a Trustor/Trustee relationship, in which your real property has been transferred into a government trust, and you are given authorized permission to use their property (warranty deed).

Further, your property tax is based on a commercial classification which has been assigned to your real property. I guarantee you that your property has been classified as either agricultural, industrial, or residential. Each of these is commercial in nature (the legal definition of "resident" is a class of government official; residential is a house in which a government official lives).

There are three ways to lawfully opt out of property taxes: obtain allodial title, un-record your property, or have your real property re-classified as private.

Allodial title means supreme ownership. In the united States of America, all property is allodial in nature. This means that all property is subject to supreme ownership by the people. This also means that federal government activities which take private or public land to use for environmental or biosphere purposes, are illegally stolen from the people, who are their rightful owners.

If you can obtain allodial title to your real property, you will have effectively created an envelope in which you reign supreme (e.g. the King has allodial title to the castle and the kingdom). No zoning ordinances, easements, bureaucratic regulations, state or federal law have any effect on property held in allodium. Literally, you have created a kingdom in the midst of bureaucratic chaos, and you will never again receive any property tax assessments.

Needless to say, the government does not want you to obtain allodial title to your property, and they will actively work to prevent you from doing so.

There are three main steps toward acquiring allodial title. First, the property must be completely paid off. No mortgage, lien. or other attachment can exist.

Second, you must go to the County Recorder and do a title search. Do it yourself; do not have an attorney (vested interest) or title company representative do it for you, because nobody has as much interest as you in the results. Do the search yourself. You must search back to the original land grants, ensuring that there are no hidden clouds on the title. Once you have completed a successful title search, file for a federal land patent on the land on which the property is located (if the property is in one of the original thirteen states, you will need to go to the state for a land patent - no federal land patents exist for these states).

Now comes the hardest part. Every piece of recorded real property is used to collateralize government loans, so your real property has public debt attached to it. You need to find out the amount of the public debt (approximately seven times the annual property tax) and the holder of the debt, then pay it off.

The government doesn´t want you to accomplish this, so they will work against you. I suggest you burn the research candle at both ends, so to speak. Contact the County Recorder in the county where the property is located. Contact the Department of the Interior in Washington, D.C. Be prepared in both instances to meet with clerks who do not know what you are talking about. Ask for supervisors until you get someone who can help you.

If you can successfully identify and pay off the public debt on your real property, contact us at Freedom Bound (888-385-3733) and we will help you with the final filings with the County Clerk to obtain allodial title.

The process of un-recording your property is easier, though not quite as solid. It is based on the fact that you are assessed a tax based upon using government services (County Recorder) to which you are not entitled or mandated. The process involves transferring ownership to another party, notifying the County Recorder that a transfer has been completed, then having the property - after a reasonable time period has passed - transferred back into your name. If done correctly, the property is not recorded anymore, and there will be no further tax assessments.

A man in Massachusetts had 160 acres and wanted to give two of them to his son. He called the Tax Assessor and asked him to reduce his assessment to 158 acres. The Assessor did so.

The son never recorded his two acres. twelve and a half years passed. The son now wanted to borrow money on his two acres. The bank said they would loan him the money, but only if he recorded the property first. He wanted the money, so he recorded the property. Two weeks later, he received a property tax statement - for the current year only! The past twelve years went un-assessed - no tax!

If you want to pursue this option, I suggest you contact the Peoples Rights Academy (www.peoples-rights.com or 302-645-8253). They have a very good guaranteed program which will help you to do this.

The final method of opting out of property tax is one which I developed a couple of years ago. It involves the classification of property, on which the assessed tax is based.

Property which is taxed is always identified by one of three commercial classifications: residential, industrial or agricultural. Private property cannot be taxed!

Contact your Tax Assessor and ask for a written explanation of the numbered codes appearing on your property tax statement. Once you have deciphered the statement, you will find your property classified by one of the above commercial designations.

Write a letter to your Tax Assessor, explaining that you have discovered an error in your tax statement. Do not mention the tax itself, as the error in question relates only to the classification. Explain that your property has mistakenly been classified as ____________ (agricultural, industrial, residential), and to please correct the classification to read "private." Ask the Assessor to notify you by mail once the matter has been handled. Be polite and sign the letter, using words like "Sincerely", "Best wishes", etc. There is no reason be belligerent at this point.

If the Assessor honors your wishes, you will never see a property tax statement again. If, as is more likely, the Assessor writes back, refusing to adjust his records, you may now open up discussion as to why not. Ask whether you have the right to own private property. He will say yes, of course. Ask why he refuses to classify it as private property. He will either explain to you that he cannot tax property unless it is classified pursuant to constitutional limitations (residential, industrial, agricultural), or he will reveal to you that you do not really own the property (in which case he has admitted to fraud, nullifying the transfer of property in the first place, since you were not aware of what you were doing at the time).

In either case, once the Assessor brings up taxation, you can now make the argument that your real property has been re-classified, without your permission, for the sole purpose of taxation. This is the firm basis for a lawsuit.

There is a Tax Assessor (not a clerk, the actual Assessor) in Tennessee who has admitted that he cannot tax private property. He can, if necessary, be subpoenaed to testify. There is a private Citizen in Tennessee, who has not received a penny in property tax assessments on his private land (160 acres or so) for over fifteen years! If you need it for a court case, he will sign an affidavit so stating. In other words, the precedent exists and therefore, if you pursue it, you cannot lose!

This method is relatively new (I came up with it a couple of years ago) and so it has little track record. However, it is based upon sound law and I invite you to try it out on your real property. Please let me know how it goes.

[Note: since this refers to an organization, and allodial title, still seems iffy]

ozmirage
22nd April 2016, 04:45
The following contains a mix of facts and myths. I do not question the sincerity of myth peddlers - many do not that they do not know. But try and find actual LAW (or an authority) in support of their claims, and it becomes clear that most do not really know.


Hmm. So, we probably couldn't ask an assessor about un-taxed private properties. If you recorded the property in the first place--you just asked to use some government services, and surrendered your private ownership.

Doing a little "fair use" of someone else's argument, does this seem correct:
[NO]

- - - -
So what is the property tax?

It is an indirect tax, levied because you have voluntarily used government services, and also because your property has been classified as a commercial piece of property.

WRONG - THE TAX IS LEVIED BECAUSE THE OWNER IS OBLIGATED TO GIVE A PORTION TO THE STATE.

There is no law requiring a real property owner to record his property with the County Recorder. Don´t believe me. Go ask your Recorder or County Counsel. Therefore, when you do record your property, you are using government services which you are not required to use. Your property tax goes to pay for those services.
When you record your property, you enter into a Trustor/Trustee relationship, in which your real property has been transferred into a government trust, and you are given authorized permission to use their property (warranty deed).

[MYTHOLOGY]

Further, your property tax is based on a commercial classification which has been assigned to your real property. I guarantee you that your property has been classified as either agricultural, industrial, or residential. Each of these is commercial in nature (the legal definition of "resident" is a class of government official; residential is a house in which a government official lives).

There are three ways to lawfully opt out of property taxes: obtain
[1] allodial title,
[NO]

[2] un-record your property,
[Yes, unrecord the property as real estate]

[3] or have your real property re-classified as private.
[Private property is the right classification, though not sure that the government can record it in a public record for estate.]

Allodial title means supreme ownership.
[NO. Mythology]

In the united States of America, all property is allodial in nature.
[NO]

This means that all property is subject to supreme ownership by the people. This also means that federal government activities which take private or public land to use for environmental or biosphere purposes, are illegally stolen from the people, who are their rightful owners.

If you can obtain allodial title to your real property
[OXYMORON. Real property = estate, not private property]

, you will have effectively created an envelope in which you reign supreme (e.g. the King has allodial title to the castle and the kingdom).
[No facts in evidence to support conclusion. No constitution protects allodial title.]

No zoning ordinances, easements, bureaucratic regulations, state or federal law have any effect on property held in allodium. Literally, you have created a kingdom in the midst of bureaucratic chaos, and you will never again receive any property tax assessments.

Needless to say, the government does not want you to obtain allodial title to your property, and they will actively work to prevent you from doing so.

There are three main steps toward acquiring allodial title. First, the property must be completely paid off. No mortgage, lien. or other attachment can exist.
[True. No superior claim must exist.]

Second, you must go to the County Recorder and do a title search. Do it yourself; do not have an attorney (vested interest) or title company representative do it for you, because nobody has as much interest as you in the results. Do the search yourself. You must search back to the original land grants, ensuring that there are no hidden clouds on the title. Once you have completed a successful title search, file for a federal land patent on the land on which the property is located (if the property is in one of the original thirteen states, you will need to go to the state for a land patent - no federal land patents exist for these states).
[LAND PATENT IS USELESS AS PROOF OF THE TYPE OF OWNERSHIP]

Now comes the hardest part. Every piece of recorded real property is used to collateralize government loans, so your real property has public debt attached to it. You need to find out the amount of the public debt (approximately seven times the annual property tax) and the holder of the debt, then pay it off.
[MYTHOLOGY. Try and find a statute or law that supports this assertion. I can't find any - maybe you can.]

The government doesn´t want you to accomplish this, so they will work against you. I suggest you burn the research candle at both ends, so to speak. Contact the County Recorder in the county where the property is located. Contact the Department of the Interior in Washington, D.C. Be prepared in both instances to meet with clerks who do not know what you are talking about. Ask for supervisors until you get someone who can help you.

If you can successfully identify and pay off the public debt on your real property, contact us at Freedom Bound (888-385-3733) and we will help you with the final filings with the County Clerk to obtain allodial title.

The process of un-recording your property is easier, though not quite as solid. It is based on the fact that you are assessed a tax based upon using government services (County Recorder) to which you are not entitled or mandated.
[NONFACT]

The process involves transferring ownership to another party, notifying the County Recorder that a transfer has been completed, then having the property - after a reasonable time period has passed - transferred back into your name. If done correctly, the property is not recorded anymore, and there will be no further tax assessments.
[REASONABLE PROCESS]

A man in Massachusetts had 160 acres and wanted to give two of them to his son. He called the Tax Assessor and asked him to reduce his assessment to 158 acres. The Assessor did so.

The son never recorded his two acres. twelve and a half years passed. The son now wanted to borrow money on his two acres. The bank said they would loan him the money, but only if he recorded the property first. He wanted the money, so he recorded the property. Two weeks later, he received a property tax statement - for the current year only! The past twelve years went un-assessed - no tax!
[ANECDOTE - no facts presented in support thereof.]

If you want to pursue this option, I suggest you contact the Peoples Rights Academy (www.peoples-rights.com or 302-645-8253). They have a very good guaranteed program which will help you to do this.

The final method of opting out of property tax is one which I developed a couple of years ago. It involves the classification of property, on which the assessed tax is based.

Property which is taxed is always identified by one of three commercial classifications: residential, industrial or agricultural.
Private property cannot be taxed!
[TRUE]

Contact your Tax Assessor and ask for a written explanation of the numbered codes appearing on your property tax statement. Once you have deciphered the statement, you will find your property classified by one of the above commercial designations.

Write a letter to your Tax Assessor, explaining that you have discovered an error in your tax statement. Do not mention the tax itself, as the error in question relates only to the classification. Explain that your property has mistakenly been classified as ____________ (agricultural, industrial, residential), and to please correct the classification to read "private." Ask the Assessor to notify you by mail once the matter has been handled. Be polite and sign the letter, using words like "Sincerely", "Best wishes", etc. There is no reason be belligerent at this point.

If the Assessor honors your wishes, you will never see a property tax statement again. If, as is more likely, the Assessor writes back, refusing to adjust his records, you may now open up discussion as to why not. Ask whether you have the right to own private property. He will say yes, of course. Ask why he refuses to classify it as private property. He will either explain to you that he cannot tax property unless it is classified pursuant to constitutional limitations (residential, industrial, agricultural), or he will reveal to you that you do not really own the property (in which case he has admitted to fraud, nullifying the transfer of property in the first place, since you were not aware of what you were doing at the time).

In either case, once the Assessor brings up taxation, you can now make the argument that your real property has been re-classified, without your permission, for the sole purpose of taxation. This is the firm basis for a lawsuit.
[WRONG. If the owner is a citizen, he cannot own private property absolutely.]

There is a Tax Assessor (not a clerk, the actual Assessor) in Tennessee who has admitted that he cannot tax private property.
[Any state constitution that protects private property supports that conclusion.]

He can, if necessary, be subpoenaed to testify. There is a private Citizen in Tennessee, who has not received a penny in property tax assessments on his private land (160 acres or so) for over fifteen years! If you need it for a court case, he will sign an affidavit so stating. In other words, the precedent exists and therefore, if you pursue it, you cannot lose!
[A "citizen", private or otherwise, cannot absolutely own. But if the "private person" is a non-citizen national, then he can absolutely own.]

This method is relatively new (I came up with it a couple of years ago) and so it has little track record. However, it is based upon sound law and I invite you to try it out on your real property. Please let me know how it goes.

[Note: since this refers to an organization, and allodial title, still seems iffy]
The previous material is chock full of mythology, but it is true that private property ownership is an endowed right not subject to taxation. And that Americans do have the endowed right to absolute ownership.
B
U
T
Citizens, state, U.S, or "private" cannot absolutely own property.
. . .

“It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.”
- - - George Washington; "Sentiments on a Peace Establishment" in a letter to Alexander Hamilton (2 May 1783); published in The Writings of George Washington (1938), edited by John C. Fitzpatrick, Vol. 26, p. 289.

[... Every citizen ... owes a portion of his property ... and services in defense ... in the militia ... from 18 to 50 years of age... ]

As to the particular state's statutes regarding the obligation of a citizen to pay an ad valorem tax, I can't comment.


DIRECT TAX - One that is imposed directly upon property, according to its value. It is generally spoken of as a property tax or an ad valorem tax. Distinguishable from an indirect tax which is levied upon some right or privilege.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, sixth ed., p. 461

PROPERTY TAX - An ad valorem tax, usually levied by a city or county, on the value of real or personal property that the taxpayer owns on a specified date.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth ed., p.1218

AD VALOREM TAX - According to value. A tax imposed on the value of property. The more common ad valorem tax is that imposed by states, counties,
and cities on REAL ESTATE. Ad valorem taxes, can, however, be imposed upon PERSONAL PROPERTY; e.g., a motor vehicle tax may be imposed upon the value of an automobile and is therefore deductible as a tax. A tax levied on property or an article of commerce in proportion to its value, as determined by assessment or appraisal. Callaway v. City of Overland Park, 211 Kan. 646, 508 P .2d 902, 907.
Duties are either ad valorem or specific; the former when the duty is laid in the form of a percentage on the value of the property; the latter where it is imposed as a fixed sum on each article of a class without regard to its value.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, sixth ed., P.51

LAND. ... The land is one thing, and the ESTATE in land is another thing, for an ESTATE in land is a time in land or land for a time.
- - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.877

Note: "Land for a time." That's qualified ownership - time of enjoyment is limited. Not private property. Not protected. Not a right.


ALLODIUM - "Land held absolutely in one's own right , and not of any lord or superior; land not subject to feudal duties or burdens.
An estate held by absolute ownership, without recognizing any superior to whom any duty is due on account thereof. "
- - - Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th edition, pg. 76
No constitution protects allodium nor allodial title.

“An estate held by absolute ownership” does not change the meaning of estate from qualified ownership. Substituting proper meaning, it should read: “An estate held by absolute qualified ownership.” No real change in meaning.
“Not subject to feudal duties or burdens” to “superiors” is not synonymous with “not subject to or obligated to pay taxes to public servants”. If they worded it, “not subject to or obligated to pay taxes to ANYONE,” that would sound like private property.

Those who are subject citizens may owe a duty to the servant government, regardless of allodium. However, PRIVATE PROPERTY absolutely owned, is not subject to taxation or restriction. I have yet to find one constitutional delegation of authority that trespasses upon private property except in the pursuit of justice, for an injured party.

I hope this helps clarify things.

ozmirage
26th April 2016, 08:51
What Law Compels?
=:=:=:=:=:==:=:=:=:=:=
In America, under the republican form, what law compels a free American to get permission and / or pay a tax to:
__ Work
__ Operate a business
__ Travel upon the public roads
__ Own a private automobile
__ Own land, absolutely
__ Defend one’s life and property with any weapon he deems necessary
__ Trade in healthcare

And if no law compels, but merely suggests, what happens when Americans withdraw consent, do not obey, fail to comply, and will not pay?
__ End of the bankrupt socialist democratic form of government.
__ End of the Federal Reserve Note (“dollar bill”).
__ End of all public charity and pensions.

Do you have a plan to deal with that collapse?
It’s coming, regardless of the trigger.

ozmirage
29th April 2016, 15:54
FOUR SCORE

Four Terms That Destroy The NWO
{If understood completely}
1. Individual Sovereignty
2. Endowed Rights & Liberties
3. Absolute Ownership
4. Liberty Money
:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:
Four Predators preying upon American people
A. Limited liability (corporations)
B. Usurers (interest)
C. Slavers (socialists)
D. Democrats* (mob rule) (*not the democratic party)
<><><><><><><><><>
Four Dangers
I. Ignorance of the republican form of government
II. Consenting to be governed
III. Contracting for usury
IV. Participating in national socialism
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Four Reasons for Government
1. To secure endowed rights
2. To adjudicate disputes
3. To prosecute criminals
4. To defend against enemies, foreign or domestic
=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=

gripreaper
15th May 2016, 14:48
I've ignored this thread, due to the gorilla marketing nature of the title, which has nothing to do with the contents of this thread. Once I realized this thread had contents which I am acutely familiar with, I still did not engage it due to the title. Once I realized that the topic was the most important topic of our time, I read most of it.

I would respectfully request that you change the title of this thread, as the contents of this thread are too important to be obscured by any implications of the failure of our core impulses in relation to discharge of waste materials from the body.

At any rate, I will start with some questions:

1. Is it your assertion, that all one needs to do in order to remove themselves from the statutory citizenship is to contact the Social Security Administration and "opt out" of the benefits and privileges of being a US citizen?

2. If not, could you please expand, or direct me to the post where you explained this, how one can fully extricate themselves from US Corporate Citizenship?

3. Once extricated, can you please help me to understand my status? Do I need to claim my status as an organic state Citizen, from the original state constitution in which I am currently residing, or the state in which I was born? Do I need to contact the Vatican and ask for forgiveness, or the City of London, or Washington DC?

4. Once extricated from US Citizenship, how does one interface with commerce, and provide for their own sustenance, considering all currency is debt based and all assets are possessionary? Will you be able to access the beneficial interest as a shareholder of the estate trust of this beautiful country?

5. Once extricated, will the IRS leave you alone, and can you travel around this country unimpeded? When you get pulled over, will the officer go look on his computer at a database, come back and apologize for stopping you, and encourage you to continue on your way?

5. Can a naturalized soul live within the federal districts, and still interface with the corporate franchise citizens, without risking reprisal from the owners of the franchise citizens? In other words, can we still talk to our neighbors?

Thanks in advance for your answers. I find that this inquiry and this discourse is currently the most important subject matter to be considered by those who choose to claim sovereignty over their own thoughts and actions, and who wish to husband their energy and life force for other than the vampiring interlopers who have stolen this planet, absconded with the truth, and put in place a system of slavery.

Bill Ryan
15th May 2016, 14:54
I would respectfully request that you change the title of this thread, as the contents of this thread are too important to be obscured by any implications of the failure of our core impulses in relation to discharge of waste materials from the body.



Thanks, and I'd fully agree! :highfive:

I'd also not read the thread, as I had absolutely no idea what it was about (and still don't). A thread title really should ideally describe the theme.

Any suggestions for a rename? Only mods can do this (for reasons that may be understandable with a moment's thought) — but it's dead simple to do, and takes about 20 seconds flat. :star:

gripreaper
15th May 2016, 15:02
Any suggestions for a rename?

I'd let ozmirage make that final assessment, but it appears that he is advocating the removal of one's US Citizenship as a corporate franchise, and standing sovereign outside their jurisdiction.

So, in my mind the title should be something like. Extricating from US Citizenship and how to maintain your new Status.

Bill Ryan
15th May 2016, 15:13
Any suggestions for a rename?

I'd let ozmirage make that final assessment, but it appears that he is advocating the removal of one's US Citizenship as a corporate franchise, and standing sovereign outside their jurisdiction.

So, in my mind the title should be something like. Extricating from US Citizenship and how to maintain your new Status.

Thanks! Done. That's very helpful. :thumbsup:

If anyone strenuously objects (or suggests an edit to that) it can be very simply renamed again. I also moved the thread from Politics to Personal Sovereignty, if that's the basic theme.

Basho
15th May 2016, 17:22
Hey gripreaper, good to see you back posting again! I've always enjoyed your take on things & the information you share. This is a subject that I have great interest in but I get really tired of mucking through all the legalese that is inevitable when researching these topics. Your posts help make it easier for me to digest & comprehend, so I'm looking forward to more of your input :thumbsup:

ozmirage
15th May 2016, 20:09
1. Is it your assertion, that all one needs to do in order to remove themselves from the statutory citizenship is to contact the Social Security Administration and "opt out" of the benefits and privileges of being a US citizen?

2. If not, could you please expand, or direct me to the post where you explained this, how one can fully extricate themselves from US Corporate Citizenship?
[Full extrication is dependent upon what privileges one has exercised. One must do some research.]

3. Once extricated, can you please help me to understand my status? Do I need to claim my status as an organic state Citizen, from the original state constitution in which I am currently residing, or the state in which I was born? Do I need to contact the Vatican and ask for forgiveness, or the City of London, or Washington DC?

4. Once extricated from US Citizenship, how does one interface with commerce, and provide for their own sustenance, considering all currency is debt based and all assets are possessionary? Will you be able to access the beneficial interest as a shareholder of the estate trust of this beautiful country?

5. Once extricated, will the IRS leave you alone, and can you travel around this country unimpeded? When you get pulled over, will the officer go look on his computer at a database, come back and apologize for stopping you, and encourage you to continue on your way?

5. Can a naturalized soul live within the federal districts, and still interface with the corporate franchise citizens, without risking reprisal from the owners of the franchise citizens? In other words, can we still talk to our neighbors?

[1] No. But Form SS-5 is only available to U.S. citizens / U.S. residents. American nationals domiciled in the uSA are ineligible to participate. Nor would they wish to.
[2] There is no such thing as U.S. Corporate citizenship, as distinguished from U.S. citizenship.
[3] There is no advantage to being an organic State Citizen. All citizenship is submission to the State.
[4] You can trade with FRNs, but you do not alienate title (nor pay debt) with them. Ergo, you may have a problem defending RIGHTS.
[5] Eye Are Us has no problem with unnumbered Americans who exercise endowed rights. However those who are exercising revenue taxable privileges should pay all taxes levied.

Re: Travel v. Driving. Depends. I've been stopped, showed my passport was sent on my merry way, after a check that no outstanding warrants were present. BUT. It is important that your vehicle be private property and not 'in commerce.'

(Best tactic - a friend got a court order, ex parte, that his vehicle was private property, and put a copy of that order on the side window of his car. When pulled over, he directs "Officer Friendly" to read said order, and avoid contempt.)
[5+1] Naturalized refers to citizenship, not nationality. Nationality is a characteristic of one's parents and birthplace. Any national can become a U.S. citizen (naturalized), but the American national need not go through the "naturalization" process.
Likewise, a foreign national ("alien") who acquires an American domicile (private property) and expatriates, becomes an American sovereign / free inhabitant.

This was part of the "joke" :
.................................................. ...............
ALIEN, n. An American sovereign in his probationary state.
- - - - “The Devil’s Dictionary” (1906), by Ambrose Bierce
.................................................. ...............

. . .

In American law, there are sovereigns without subjects (aka "free inhabitants") and subjects ("citizens"). Regardless of what branch of government one is subject to, state or federal, a citizen is NOT a sovereign.

Paytriot Mythology has flooded the internet to such a degree that many are wholly confused and misled to come to the wrong conclusions.


❏ In America, if you have endowed rights, you’re under the republican form of government.
❏ If instead of endowed rights, you have mandatory civic duties, you’re under the constitutionally limited indirect democracy that serves the people in the republican form of government.
❏ If you have socialist obligations, you’ve volunteered into the socialist democratic form, via FICA.
❏ If you have contracts with usurers, you’re exercising a revenue taxable privilege, because usury is an abomination, denounced for “only” 3500 years.

BUSTING LOOSE
● Withdrawing consent from usury, socialism, and submission to the State, and returning to the republican form would restore endowed rights, liberties, and absolute ownership. In addition, if one engaged in trade using private mediums of exchange (private promissory notes, etc), it would impact usurers, as well as eliminate the need for compulsory charity of socialism.

[From the FIRST POST]
What may you do after you've researched the law?
You might decide to:

[a] leave Social Security;
[b] cancel all interest bearing accounts and investments;
[c] withdraw from citizenship;
[d] acquire a domicile (private property, absolutely owned) and
[e] restore your status as an American national / free inhabitant / non-resident / sovereign.

ozmirage
15th May 2016, 20:30
Any suggestions for a rename?

I'd let ozmirage make that final assessment, but it appears that he is advocating the removal of one's US Citizenship as a corporate franchise, and standing sovereign outside their jurisdiction. NO.

So, in my mind the title should be something like. Extricating from US Citizenship and how to maintain your new Status.
No. But that saddens me that after reading the thread one does not recognize what the subject matter is.
I realize that folks are filtering the words through that translator embedded by generations of indoctrination. Don't presume / assume any meaning that is not self evident.

A sovereign is not "outside their jurisdiction."
A sovereign is within the jurisdiction of the servant government instituted to SECURE HIS ENDOWED RIGHTS.
BUT
One who consents to be governed ("citizen") is now governed (ruled) and obligated to perform mandatory civic duties which amount to the surrender of ENDOWED RIGHTS.
And if one signs up for public charity (entitlements via FICA), one descends to STATUS CRIMINAL, guilty until proven innocent.

An appropriate title (but not succinct) would be:
How much you've been misled, indoctrinated and bamboozled so you would volunteer out of the Republican Form of Government - the world's greatest form of government.


Drat, already used "Republican Form of Government" here:
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?90212-Republican-Form-of-Government

Bill Ryan
15th May 2016, 20:48
that saddens me that after reading the thread one does not recognize what the subject matter is.

The thread title should succinctly describe the subject. In a bookstore, I want to know what the book's about before I buy it and read it. :)




An appropriate title (but not succinct) would be:
How much you've been misled, indoctrinated and bamboozled so you would volunteer out of the Republican Form of Government - the world's greatest form of government.



Right, that's way too long. :) Keywords of interest should also ideally be near the beginning of the title, as on many people's small screens the thread title gets cut off.

It's in one's own interests to have search keywords in the title as well, which makes a thread much easier to find a year or two later (using Advanced Search (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/search.php?search_type=1) for keywords in thread titles).

Just let us know what the best title should be, and we'll very happily change it.

:focus:

ozmirage
15th May 2016, 21:03
Just let us know what the best title should be, and we'll very happily change it.

Can you add these to the KEYWORD FIELD:
Rights, Law, Politics, History, America, Citizen, Subject, Sovereign, National, Slave, Collectivism, Liberty, Endowed Rights, Consent, Private Property, Socialism, Pauperization, Republican form, Democratic form, Socialist Democratic Form.

TITLE:
Americans Squandered Their Birthright of Sovereignty

gripreaper
15th May 2016, 21:17
Thanks for you replies ozmirage, please be patient with us and our understanding, or "overstanding" as it is sometimes called.

Too many of us were hoodwinked into FICA and Social Security, have been US Citizen's our entire lives, have no private property and are using Federal Reserve Notes as a medium of exchange to provide for our needs, while being subject to the mandates of Federal codes and regulations, and a court system which is administrative of these codes, which has no justice.

In the above post you highlight these bullet points.


[a] leave Social Security;
[b] cancel all interest bearing accounts and investments;
[c] withdraw from citizenship;
[d] acquire a domicile (private property, absolutely owned) and
[e] restore your status as an American national / free inhabitant / non-resident / sovereign.

This is, in essence, the question I was asking, HOW to do these things for those who would choose, now that they are aware of their status. That is the part that so much of the patriot community fails to answer.


Withdrawing consent from usury, socialism, and submission to the State, and returning to the republican form would restore endowed rights, liberties, and absolute ownership.

This would have to be based on the notion that a Republican Form of government exists and is enforceable. Freedom and Sovereignty really began to take root at the time of the Magna Carta, because the people got so sick of tyranny that they took the elite out into the streets and put their heads in the guillotine, and demanded rights. Something similar was attempted to happen when this alleged Republican form of government you speak of was attempted to be instituted by the 13 colonies and the Articles of Confederation.

You see, most of the delegates were white European masonic land owners who held slaves, who wrote the Constitution for THEMSELVES AND THEIR posterity, not for us. Some of the other delegates agreed that we would never "buy it" and that is why they added the Bill of Rights. There is no servant government for sovereigns with ENDOWED rights. Who endowed these alleged rights? Tyranny never died and ever went away.

So, the East India company, and the Hudson Bay Company (not sure of the name) were franchises of the City of London, agents for the Vatican. We never really had this government of which you allude. We no longer have common law, which has been abandoned, and those who choose to stand sovereign stand naked out in the public square. All commerce is run by Admiralty, and all title is held with the Vatican.

It's not as easy to claim a land patent, since all land has encumbrances to the state attached to them, and you would have to clear those before you get a land patent. Then, you are no longer part of the fire district and you better watch out that no one tries to burn your house down for holding a land patent. (See branch davidian's and Waco).

ozmirage, in thesis you are wanting something which does not exist, only in spirit, as mankind has not adopted sovereignty, or any form of governance which would support his sovereignty. I don't know what web page you are copy and pasting from, but I'd be careful. If you wish to jump the fence and leave the plantation, be prepared for your peers to try and pull you back in, attack you for leaving, and the old plantation owner trying to make your life miserable. Just ask the sovereign Indian's how things are going out on the Reservation, where they are sovereign Nations.

I realize most Indians have succumbed to citizenship, and no longer have their status. I also realize there may be a dozen people who have successfully extricated themselves from US Citizenship, and are comfortably providing for their own needs, unfettered, on private property, not harming anyone, and therefore do not need a government, republican or otherwise, or need to participate in commerce as defined by the UCC. These are few, and I hope their numbers increase exponentially over time.

Help us to do that.

ozmirage
15th May 2016, 21:42
This would have to be based on the notion that a Republican Form of government exists and is enforceable.
I can't speak to the other parts, as long as you accept the mistaken belief that the RFOG is not already in American law.

The law that is in harmony with the REPUBLICAN FORM is still on the books. The sovereign American, free inhabitant, domiciled upon private property within the boundaries of these united States of America retains his endowment of rights (inalienable and natural) and liberties (natural and personal), and oath bound government is his servant, not his master.

I have not read all law, but I have yet to find a law that trespasses upon the natural and personal liberty of the American national / free inhabitant domiciled upon private property within the boundaries of the united States of America.

However, there ARE voluminous rules, regulations, taxes, and penalties imposed on U.S. citizens / residents, duly enumerated (via FICA), engaged in usury, who reside at residences, registered as real estate, and are obligated to get permission (license) and / or pay taxes to live, work, travel, buy, sell, operate a business, transmit radio, fly a plane, trade in healthcare, buy medicine, cut hair, build a house, hunt, fish, marry, and / or own a dog.

In short, if one has not given consent to be governed, all that servant government can do is secure rights, adjudicate disputes, prosecute those who deliberately injure the person and property of another, and defend against enemies, foreign or domestic. But once consent is given, all bets are off.

In America, if you have endowed rights, you’re under the republican form of government. If instead of endowed rights, you have mandatory civic duties, you’re under the constitutionally limited indirect democracy that serves the people in the republican form of government. If you have socialist obligations, you’ve volunteered into the socialist democratic form, via FICA.

(That's the SHORT ANSWER)

The long answer requires you to take the effort to go READ LAW *(statutes, not code), and see for yourself that government never, ever, ever trespasses upon RIGHTS.

I repeat, no constitutional government can violate endowed rights without consent of the governed.

And even when the law fails to explicitly exclude endowed rights (or other terms associated with them - like private property, etc), they have given us a CATCH ALL trapdoor:


SHALL - As used in statutes, contracts, or the like, this word is generally imperative or mandatory... But it may be construed as merely permissive or directory (as equivalent to "may"), to carry out the legislative intention and in cases where no right or benefit depends on its being taken in the imperative sense, and where no public or private right is impaired by its interpretation in the other sense.
- - - Blacks Law dictionary, Sixth ed., p.1375

MAY - Word "may" usually is employed to imply permissive, optional or discretional, and not mandatory action or conduct... In construction of statutes and presumably of federal rules word "may" as opposed to "shall" is indicative of discretion or choice between two or more alternatives, but context is which word appears must be controlling factor.
- - - Blacks Law dictionary, Sixth ed., p.979

If a law states, "It shall be unlawful..." and you can show that if the law was mandatory in your case it would violate a PRIVATE RIGHT, the law can be construed to mean "It may be unlawful..." and merely optional, permissive or directory, without penalty for disobedience.

(This exclusion is in addition to exemptions, exclusions, and clauses based on the law not violating endowed rights and liberties of the sovereign people.)

And if you noted in previous posts, that American people are sovereigns, whereas the government is NOT sovereign, then the following also reinforces the point that the republican form is still the law of the land.


"In common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the [word] are ordinarily construed to exclude it."
Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 667, 61 L.Ed2. 153, 99 S.Ct. 2529 (1979)
(quoting United States v. Cooper Corp. 312 U.S. 600, 604, 85 L.Ed. 1071, 61S.Ct. 742 (1941)).

"A Sovereign cannot be named in any statute as merely a 'person' or 'any person'".
Wills v. Michigan State Police, 105 L.Ed. 45 (1989)

“. . . 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


Does government KNOW the difference?
YES.

Coincidentally, when government wishes a law to be applicable to everyone, it uses the phrase, "Whoever ...". When the law is not applicable to everyone, it uses the phrase, "Any person who ....".


Title 18 USC § 111. Assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain
officers or employees
(a) In General.-- Whoever--
(1) forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any person designated in section 1114 of this title while engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties;

Contrast with:

Title 18 USC § 228. Failure to pay legal child support obligations
(a) Offense.-- Any person who--
(1) willfully fails to pay a support obligation with respect to a child who resides in another State, if such obligation has remained unpaid for a period longer than 1 year, or is greater than $5,000...

The average person (indoctrinated serf) would not know that the second law had limited applicability to subject persons who had enrolled into national socialism and thus gave their consent to be bound to obedience.

gripreaper
15th May 2016, 22:07
The law that is in harmony with the REPUBLICAN FORM is still on the books. The sovereign American, free inhabitant, domiciled upon private property within the boundaries of these united States of America retains his endowment of rights (inalienable and natural) and liberties (natural and personal), and oath bound government is his servant, not his master.

I have not read all law, but I have yet to find a law that trespasses upon the natural and personal liberty of the American national / free inhabitant domiciled upon private property within the boundaries of the united States of America.

I'm saying that the tyrants don't agree that they need a law to stop them from trespassing on sovereign Americans. You seem to have been around long enough to know some of the history, but let me just point out a few. Remember Leroy Schweitzer? He was a sovereign American who died in prison. How could they do that? How about David Koresh? He was a sovereign American with a land patent, and they came onto his private property with tanks and burned 82 men, women and children ALIVE in his private property! Billy Faust is dead, shot in cold blood.

Our early history is also fraught with such events against the sovereign Indian's, such as Wounded Knee. They slaughtered the Indians in cold blood by the thousands.

So, please don't tell me that you can file a few papers with the Social Security Administration, remove your Federal Reserve Notes from an interest bearing account, and get a land patent for your land and stand firm on the status of some original organic Republic, and the tyrants will just leave you alone. This contract, was breached and any fiduciary trust was also breached.


However, there ARE voluminous rules, regulations, taxes, and penalties imposed on U.S. citizens / residents, duly enumerated (via FICA), engaged in usury, who reside at residences, registered as real estate, and are obligated to get permission (license) and / or pay taxes to live, work, travel, buy, sell, operate a business, transmit radio, fly a plane, trade in healthcare, buy medicine, cut hair, build a house, hunt, fish, marry, and / or own a dog.

I totally agree 100%, and until you can rally more souls to claim their sovereignty and stand against tyranny, all of the paper the Republic is written on is not worth it to wipe your ass.

It's time to quit hanging our hat on some time in the past when we allegedly had endowed rights under a Republican form of government, and face the truth of our current situation, and make provisions to RESTORE what little bit of that form may still exist. THIS you and I can agree upon.

ozmirage
16th May 2016, 00:14
I'm saying that the tyrants don't agree that they need a law to stop them from trespassing on
[1] sovereign Americans. You seem to have been around long enough to know some of the history, but let me just point out a few. Remember
[2] Leroy Schweitzer? He was a sovereign American who died in prison. How could they do that? How about
[3] David Koresh? He was a sovereign American with a land patent, and they came onto his private property with tanks and burned 82 men, women and children ALIVE in his private property!
[4] Billy Faust is dead, shot in cold blood.
[1] Many who claim to be sovereigns are not, lacking a domicile.
Sovereignty and property are inseparable.
As to the requirement to have a domicile comes from the Theory of the Common Law (Joseph Story) wherein it states that sovereignty and property are inseparable. A king without a kingdom / domain is merely a 'traveling prince.'
If you do not have a domicile, you are subject to the landlord, and thus NOT a sovereign.
[2] Don't know anything about him or his conviction.

[3] David Koresh was "not" a sovereign, and a land patent is not proof of absolute ownership of private property (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?89658-Americans-Squandered-Their-Birthright-of-Sovereignty&p=1062806&viewfull=1#post1062806). Ditto, for "allodial title."

[4] Don't know who Billy Faust is, or his status.

. . .

“It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.”
- - - George Washington; "Sentiments on a Peace Establishment" in a letter to Alexander Hamilton (2 May 1783); published in The Writings of George Washington (1938), edited by John C. Fitzpatrick, Vol. 26, p. 289.

[... Every citizen ... owes a portion of his property ... and services in defense ... in the militia ... from 18 to 50 years of age... ]

Now that we know it is our consent to be citizens that waives our right to life and liberty and absolute ownership of private property, it is futile to argue over the loss of other inconsequential rights and liberties such as those lost to national socialism (via FICA) and to usurers, via compact . . . (wink, wink, nod, nod)

Complaining about consent already given is as useful as a volunteer on a suicide mission, blurting out: "They want me to do WHAT?! - That could get me KILLED!"

As previously posted:
The sovereign American, free inhabitant, domiciled upon private property within the boundaries of these united States of America retains his endowment of rights (inalienable and natural) and liberties (natural and personal), and oath bound government is his servant, not his master.

In all the years I have been researching law and corresponding with "new Patriots" I have yet to meet one who qualified as a free inhabitant, domiciled upon private property, absolutely owned by an individual.
Some are half in / half out. Some are merely "residents" residing at residences. Some are off the tax rolls, having recorded their property as religious ministries. Some are legitimate "free American nationals" but not sovereigns.

It's a sad commentary on America - those who have the financial means to "go sovereign" are the least likely to "rock the boat" and those who have no means have the greatest desire to "go sovereign" but cannot afford buying land and house- - myself included. If I knew 20 years ago, what I know now, I might have avoided that dilemma. (20-20 hindsight)

gripreaper
16th May 2016, 00:31
In all the years I have been researching law and corresponding with "new Patriots" I have yet to meet one who qualified as a free inhabitant, domiciled upon private property, absolutely owned by an individual.
Some are half in / half out. Some are merely "residents" residing at residences. Some are off the tax rolls, having recorded their property as religious ministries. Some are legitimate "free American nationals" but not sovereigns.

It's a sad commentary on America - those who have the financial means to "go sovereign" are the least likely to "rock the boat" and those who have no means have the greatest desire to "go sovereign" but cannot afford buying land and house- - myself included. If I knew 20 years ago, what I know now, I might have avoided that dilemma. (20-20 hindsight)

Yeah, my dilemma as well. Those alien interlopers who would choose to enslave have had thousands of years to hone their craft, and the sentient souls of planet earth have had the same amount of time to acquiesce.

Thanks for pointing out that there is remedy, should we choose to accept it. Although it is not a walk in the park, and requires a sincere desire as well as education, and a strong will, bringing this truth out into the light of day is our most ardent task.

ozmirage
16th May 2016, 00:48
So, please don't tell me that you can file a few papers with the Social Security Administration, remove your Federal Reserve Notes from an interest bearing account, and get a land patent for your land and stand firm on the status of some original organic Republic, and the tyrants will just leave you alone. This contract, was breached and any fiduciary trust was also breached.
If you've read this thread, at no time do I state that one can :

File papers with Soc/Sec
Remove FRNS from bank
Get land patent
Stand firm on some organic republic.


This is what YOU infer / believe. This prevents you from grasping the facts before you.

I suspect you've been exposed to plenty of patriot mythology, and that will make it very difficult to perceive facts.

As I said, repeatedly, READ LAW, not the opinions of others who concoct wild explanations. Also, write polite questionnaires to public servants for explanation. You may be pleasantly surprised.

1. When I wrote to my congress critter, and others, for the "official" procedure to leave Soc Sec I received SILENCE in reply. There is no "official" way to leave Soc Sec. But since Soc Sec is a ministry for disbursing charity, and their records are how they track participants, it requires YOUR CONSENT to make it stick. Starting in 1992-3, I ceased participating on religious grounds. When asked for "my" number, I simply state that it is against my religious beliefs to participate in that abomination. So they put down: "NO SSN" on their paper work. Even when arrested, they put down "NO SSN."

2. Removing FRNS from the bank is not the issue. It's your SIGNATURE on their SIGNATURE CARD wherein you agree to abide by the RULES OF THE BANK. And if you didn't know, the U.S. Governor of "the Bank" and "the Fund" is our friend, the Sec'y of Treasury, whose regulations are promulgated in Title 26 US Code (aka Income Tax). And unnumbered Americans cannot open personal bank accounts with Fed Res banks - bless their hearts.

3. Land patents do not prove what type of ownership is involved. No state or federal constitution trespasses upon PRIVATE PROPERTY rights. Qualified ownership of estate is NOT absolute ownership by an individual. Ditto, for Allodium.

4. A republic is not synonymous with a republican form. The People's Republic of China is a republic, but it is NOT a republican form. Not 1 in 100,000 Americans can accurately define the RFOG or its source. (And I am including the vast majority of "new patriots" in that group)

Frankly, the government pretends not to know what it is guaranteeing.

CONSTITUTION, Art. 4, Sec. 4 (Republican Form) - No precise definition of what constitutes a republican government under this clause has been judicially declared;
. . . Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 162, 22 L. Ed. 027
- - - Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 8th ed. (1914), P.635.


GOVERNMENT (Republican Form of Government)- One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people... directly...
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 695

Q:Where do such people exercise "sovereignty" directly?
A: Over that which they absolutely own / have dominion over.
In other words, PRIVATE PROPERTY, absolutely owned.

Since 1933, and the confiscation of lawful money, it has become very difficult to establish absolute ownership by alienating title with lawful money (gold or silver coin). And since 1935, participants in FICA have surrendered their property rights and became underwriters (contributors) to the national debt.

BUT
If one does buy land (and house) for at least $21 in lawful money, the law does recognize your rights to the rules of the common law (see 7th amendment).

Check your own state constitution and statutes to verify that inhabitants (non-residents) domiciled upon private property (not estate) are protected. Also verify that natural rights and liberty (natural and personal) are still expressly protected.


PRIVATE PROPERTY - As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels."
- - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217.

Amendment V, US Constitution 1789
... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

"... private property shall not be taken or damaged for public purposes without just and adequate compensation being first paid.”
- - - Georgia Constitution, Article 1, Sec.3, Paragraph 1


" PERSONAL LIBERTY, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or NATURAL Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable."
- - - 16 Corpus Juris Secundum, Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987...

NATURAL RIGHTS - ... are the rights of life, liberty, privacy, and good reputation.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p. 1324

Note: Qualified ownership of estate is not an endowed right, but a revenue taxable privilege. Failure to pay one's ad valorem tax on estate will result in confiscation and without just compensation.


"What I do say is that no man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. I say this is the leading principle, the sheet-anchor of American republicanism. Our Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
- - - Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois (1854)
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abraham_lincoln

As Lincoln reminds us, under the republican form, promised by the USCON, instituted by the Declaration of Independence, NO MAN (nor American government) is good enough to govern you without your consent. Without your consent, all that government is authorized to do is secure endowed (sacred) rights (prosecute trespass; adjudicate disputes; defend against enemies, foreign or domestic).

BUT, as George Washington reminded us, if you consent to be a CITIZEN, none of these endowed rights remain intact. For all citizens owe a portion of their property, and their services, to the STATE.

ozmirage
16th May 2016, 01:03
Abbreviated sound bite reference

RFOG:
{source: Declaration of Independence}
[] Natural rights
[] Natural liberty
[] Personal liberty
[] Absolute ownership
[] Sovereign, served by government
(Owes nothing to the government)

. . .

DFOG:
{source: compact / constitution}
[] Civil rights
[] Civil liberty
[] Political liberty
[] Qualified ownership
[] Subject of the government, by consent
(Owes mandatory civic duties, etc)

If you understand the legal definitions of these terms, you should be able to verify that the governments still abide by the rules and secure rights of those who still have them.

If I am not mistaken, there is no need to "change" the government other than withdrawing consent from it. When sufficient numbers do so, it will trigger a collapse of the socialist democratic form.

turiya
17th May 2016, 02:45
If you understand the legal definitions of these terms, you should be able to verify that the governments still abide by the rules and secure rights of those who still have them.

Pirates don't abide by any rules. They don't abide by their own rules.
Its all water under the bridge... things are about to change big time.

Until then, just understand what's at play... It's human psychology that people have been conditioned, hypnotized, auto-hypnotized, to feel isolated and separated from one another. Its been that way from the very beginning - since the fall of man.

If you don't want to be bothered by what comes with the use of a SSN, then stop using the number.

If you want to work without having to show an employer a Social Security Number that thinks its a requirement, then work for yourself.
If you don't like what comes with owning a piece of property, then don't own property. You can't take it with you anyways. We're here just for a very short time. Find out what it is that you can take with you when you go.

Get back to the Earth as much as possible. Garden, grow mushrooms, get to know people you can barter with. Keep your customers close & personal.

Just live your live as simply as you can.
Don't expect to live a convenient life within a system that is highly corrupt & fraudulent.
Stop using a credit card, as a convenience.
Stop using a debit card, as a convenience.
Stop expecting things that you think you should have, or should be getting from someone else, from some idea of what & how government should be.

Stop volunteering into a system that is rigged against those that want something from it.
Stop doing what you're doing.
Stop thinking & using words & their definitions to find your freedom, peace of mind, sovereignty from them. The battle of words will only take you into a corrupted courtroom setting to deal with corrupted judges, corrupted attorneys and an opposing force. If you like conflict, then by all means ignore what I am say.

All words are lies!
No need to trust government. Just trust yourself.
Life, then becomes very peaceful & enjoyable.

ozmirage
17th May 2016, 15:53
If you understand the legal definitions of these terms, you should be able to verify that the governments still abide by the rules and secure rights of those who still have them.

Pirates don't abide by any rules. They don't abide by their own rules.
[Show me one example where ENDOWED RIGHTS and / or PRIVATE PROPERTY was trespassed by government. All I can find are examples of voluntary slaves losing privileges.]

Its all water under the bridge... things are about to change big time.
[Change from what to what? America already has the best form of government - the republican form. But its people volunteered out of it, as far back as 1820s, into the democratic form of government. Are you hoping for a benevolent socialist democracy to replace the benevolent totalitarian police state socialist democracy we currently have?]

Until then, just understand what's at play... It's human psychology that people have been conditioned, hypnotized, auto-hypnotized, to feel isolated and separated from one another. Its been that way from the very beginning - since the fall of man.

If you don't want to be bothered by what comes with the use of a SSN, then stop using the number.
[Incomplete. Stop using privileges associated with participation in FICA / national socialism.]

If you want to work without having to show an employer a Social Security Number that thinks its a requirement, then work for yourself.
If you don't like what comes with owning a piece of property, then don't own property.
[Do not confuse qualified ownership of estate - a taxable privilege - with absolute ownership of private property - an endowed right.]

You can't take it with you anyways. We're here just for a very short time. Find out what it is that you can take with you when you go.

Get back to the Earth as much as possible. Garden, grow mushrooms, get to know people you can barter with. Keep your customers close & personal.

Just live your live as simply as you can.
Don't expect to live a convenient life within a system that is highly corrupt & fraudulent.
[And if you consent to it, whose fault is it?]
Stop using a credit card, as a convenience.
Stop using a debit card, as a convenience.
Stop expecting things that you think you should have, or should be getting from someone else, from some idea of what & how government should be.

Stop volunteering into a system that is rigged against those that want something from it.
Stop doing what you're doing.
Stop thinking & using words & their definitions to find your freedom, peace of mind, sovereignty from them.
[WRONG. Learn the true legal definitions of the words.]

The battle of words will only take you into a corrupted courtroom setting to deal with corrupted judges, corrupted attorneys and an opposing force. If you like conflict, then by all means ignore what I am say.

All words are lies!
[This is an indication of madness. And refutes everything you wrote.]
No need to trust government. Just trust yourself.
Life, then becomes very peaceful & enjoyable.

I must disagree with the conclusions presented. We're all victims of the world's greatest propaganda ministry, so it's not surprising that one may be confused.

I learned that I was a slave, in 1992. I was angry at government. After researching law, I learned that I had consented to be a slave, and was angry at myself.

Ignorance of law is no defense. Nor can one hope to extricate themselves from voluntary slavery by closing one's eyes, and clicking one's heels together, three times, repeating "it's all lies."

Pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, government has two jobs:

[1] Secure (endowed) rights, and
[2] Govern (rule) those who consent.

Caveat - consent waives job #1.
So if you've consented to be governed, SHUT UP, sit down, and obey.

But if you were tricked, you had better make the effort to find out how and when you gave consent, and then decide if you wish to continue as a voluntary slave or WITHDRAW CONSENT.

Make no mistake - America's enemies are found in every other nation, whose governments RULE their subject peoples. If America's republican form was to revive and prevail, it would trigger world wide revolution, toppling every other regime on the planet. The republican form is anathema to every monarchy, democracy, oligarchy, totalitarian police state, theocracy, and military dictatorship that demands submission of the masses.

It is a sad fact that not 1 in 100,000 Americans can accurately define the republican form or its source. Most believe it to be a reference to 'a republic' or a 'constitutional republic.' And that's what the propaganda ministry wants. For if ever a sizable number of Americans learned the facts, the predators in charge would find themselves [censored, bleeped, and expletive deleted].

Do not celebrate voluntary slavery nor defend it in ignorance and arrogance.

ON FREEDOM

“ Oh, yeah, that's right. That's what's it's all about, all right. But talkin' about it and bein' it, that's two different things. I mean, it's real hard to be free when you are bought and sold in the marketplace. Of course, don't ever tell anybody that they're not free, 'cause then they're gonna get real busy KILLIN' AND MAIMIN' to prove to you that they are. Oh, yeah, they're gonna talk to you, and talk to you, and talk to you about individual freedom. But they see a free individual, it's gonna scare 'em.”
--- George Hanson (Easy Rider, 1969)

Lost N Found
18th May 2016, 02:22
Gee mr. mirage, how about you give us all the web site where you are copying and pasting from and just where you have obtained all your amazing wisdom and wizardry from so we can all go there and partake in your self delusional teachings.

I do have a question or two for you. 1) do you have a SSN, Did you get one when you were born or did you fill out one of those SS-5 forms. 2) Do you have a Birth certificate with your name in all caps across the front of it? and if so have you cashed it in or do you still hold to your delusional path of "retread patriot Mythology"?.
3) do you drive around in a mode of transportation and still purchace a drivers license. do you pay for the Registration. Or do you just walk everywhere with your cane in hand.
4) Do you have an interest bearing account at some bank? That you had to give an SSN before you could open it.
5) Are you a sovereign.
6) Do you hold a BAR card my know it all about law or is it LAW, Can you actually show all of us that there is real law today?
and by the way mr mirage, if you bring up the USC and put a bunch of that crap here, it is not law, it is only codes and statutes writen by Corporations for Corporate employees. So please do not give me the old tired same crude of the statutes and whatever else you might be copying and pasting from some web site that you have used forever.

Now I know you are going to come back here and use part of my sentence structure and then plaster some almighty comment in red but you never answer folks questions but rather just try to vilify and minimize. You really don't seem to know what is going on in this world today. You continue to fall back into the 17th or 18th century and trully believe that we still have a republic. You do tell us partial truths but you seem to want all to believe exactly like you and unfortunatly your dream world does not work for most.

You say you don't know Billy Foust, He was a dear friend of mine and he studied all that same stuff you are spouting. He did go further and did know exactly what these lawless pirates do. They abide by no law, The steal and rape and murder to take anything. And please do not give me the same old junk about giving your consent. no free human will willingly give consent to some one that wants to take everything or kill you. If you have really studied this rotten system we all dwell in today you would perhaps start telling us how to avoid these pitfalls and perhaps provide some real solutions instead of holding yourself up as a poor soul that states he was awakened back in 1992 and began to study law. I ask, what law did you study that you so pationatly call real law. Sounds to me like maybe you feel like you were totally taken to the cleaners by your own government or what you call a government.

If you truly do the research you would know that we have no governments or real governments anywhere on this world. Do the tracking bud, everything is a Corporation and please don;t tell me that all governments are suppost to be corporations, That is an outright lie and I see that you know enough to know that.

If that is the way you actually think then Sears or McDonalds can come to your house or domicile and take anything they want because it could be written into their corporate by-laws for their employees and by gum you went and purchased one of their happy meals and that made you an employee. Oh I am so sorry but ignorance of the law is no excuse. You forgot to read that reciept you got when you bought the meal didn't you. Says right here on the back that when you purchace this you are agreeing to become an employ.

Well you are right mr mirage. When you fill out the form for SSN you agree to be an employee or the other shifty word for it is US CITIZEN. and how many folks know that is exactly what they are doing. So fill out a form any damn form and sign your name to it and guess what you give your consent weather you want to or not and you don't even know it do you mr mirage.

Believe it or not mr mirage there are a whole heck of lot of folks out here that have studied this crap and more than likely a lot longer than your sorry little life. So when you try to vilify and minimize anyone by using your worn out phrase of "retread patriot Mythology" it just shows that you don't really want to answer or perhaps can't answer a real question with a real answer or even provide some beginning solution.

Sorry for ranting on with this but when you say you don't know folks that have given their lives to do just that for us and when you say that those 82 men, women and children gave there consent to be murdered and when you insinuate that the Weavers gave their consent to be murdered on their private property then you sir are do a major disservice to people that did stand up against the tyranny that we all face today and there is no law my mirage. Well I suppose I can't say that truthfully. Because you and I do believe that we should live by a law and that my friend is a republic government. But the criminals that are in control and the PTB do not abide by any law and they will murder you for anything

I have read your posts and I have followed this thread and I see you in contradiction so perhaps you who use that tired out phrase may actually be the one or one of those. Can't say for sure because I really don't know where you came up with it and what you might even think it means

Can say this, I am sorry that you got so hurt back in 1992 and it seems that you may still be angry about it all but please, With all the knowledge you seem to portray, provide some real help. There are so many that hunt for the truth and just to spread your own truth is a great gift to give to all.

Hello

Fiberglut
18th May 2016, 04:50
Frank O'Collins said it best when he portrayed TPTB as " bat**** crazy". They no longer follow their own so called laws and largely make them up on the fly. Frank, BTW, no longer makes public commentary" suggesting, at least to me that TPTB have effectively silenced him. We live in a world run by psychopaths, and since the rule of law is clearly broken, I believe it is misguided and disingenuous to suggest a sovereign argument of "I did not consent" would be an effective strategy to utilize against the psychopathic ruling "elite".

Fiberglut
18th May 2016, 05:21
Ozmirage, don't take these words too personally, but I must add that I believe Janis Joplin said it best when she sang
"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose". This paradigm is not accidental; it is meant to test us.

ozmirage
18th May 2016, 16:29
Gee mr. mirage, how about you give us all the web site
[I've been posting here (https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/NASP/info) for 15+ years.]

where you are copying and pasting from and just where you have obtained all your amazing wisdom and wizardry from so we can all go there and partake in your self delusional teachings.
[I admit that when I first started, in 1989, I was misled by paytriot mythologists, but once I restricted my search to LAW and related authorities, it was quite unequivocal.]

I do have a question or two for you.
1) do you have a SSN, Did you get one when you were born or did you fill out one of those SS-5 forms.
[There is a numbered record held by SocSec admin. Since I ceased participating, it is not "mine." ]

2) Do you have a Birth certificate with your name in all caps across the front of it? and if so have you cashed it in or do you still hold to your delusional path of "retread patriot Mythology"?.
[I have found no legal reference that a b.c. is anything more than a convenience for applying for particular benefits, such as citizenship, passports, etc. Absent a b.c., one can use affidavits from TWO witnesses to one's birth and parentage. There is no evidence of "all caps names" having any force or effect of law, nor "cashing it in."
If you have a court citation, statute or law, please let me know so I can research it myself.]

3) do you drive around in a mode of transportation and still purchace a drivers license. do you pay for the Registration. Or do you just walk everywhere with your cane in hand.
[Before I became visually impaired, I "traveled" in my private automobile. In the few run-ins with "Officer Friendly" I tendered my passport. After he ran the name and found no outstanding warrants, returned passport to me and said, "have a nice day." I also have corroborated various others who did "Travel" as a right.]
4) Do you have an interest bearing account at some bank? That you had to give an SSN before you could open it.
[No. That would be usury, an abomination and a violation of my religious beliefs.]
5) Are you a sovereign.
[Lacking a domicile, all I can claim are endowed rights as a freeman. In the event I acquire a domicile upon private property, I will be able to exercise sovereign prerogatives.]
6) Do you hold a BAR card my know it all about law or is it LAW, Can you actually show all of us that there is real law today?
[No BAR card. And your beliefs about "law" do not match the law.]

and by the way mr mirage, if you bring up the USC and put a bunch of that crap here, it is not law, it is only codes and statutes writen by Corporations for Corporate employees.
[If you believe that nonsense, we have nothing to discuss. FWIW - codes are compiled from statutes at law, as a convenience, but may not be complete. Always go back to the statutes.]


So please do not give me the old tired same crude of the statutes and whatever else you might be copying and pasting from some web site that you have used forever.
[As I have repeatedly written, I am not infallible. If you have FACTS that refute the data and conclusions posted, please present them. But if you make statements like 'law is crap and not really law,' you're being misled by the WGPM's disinformation agents.]

Now I know you are going to come back here and use part of my sentence structure and then plaster some almighty comment in red but you never answer folks questions but rather just try to vilify and minimize.

[If I have given offense, I humbly beg your pardon.
I do not tolerate paytriot mythology, have wasted much $$$ and time on it, in the beginning (early 1990s). Only after I took time to READ THE LAW and not opinions of fabulists and con-men did things "click."]
You really don't seem to know what is going on in this world today. You continue to fall back into the 17th or 18th century and trully believe that we still have a republic.
[If you believe I wrote such nonsense, please re-read what I have repeatedly posted. A republican form is NOT synonymous with "a republic." Nor is it a "constitutional republic." ]

You do tell us partial truths but you seem to want all to believe exactly like you and unfortunatly your dream world does not work for most.
[A fact is not a partial truth. If you have FACTS that refute my facts, please present them.]


You say you don't know Billy Foust, He was a dear friend of mine and he studied all that same stuff you are spouting. He did go further and did know exactly what these lawless pirates do. They abide by no law, The steal and rape and murder to take anything. And please do not give me the same old junk about giving your consent. no free human will willingly give consent to some one that wants to take everything or kill you. If you have really studied this rotten system we all dwell in today you would perhaps start telling us how to avoid these pitfalls and perhaps provide some real solutions instead of holding yourself up as a poor soul that states he was awakened back in 1992 and began to study law. I ask, what law did you study that you so pationatly call real law. Sounds to me like maybe you feel like you were totally taken to the cleaners by your own government or what you call a government.

If you truly do the research you would know that we have no governments or real governments anywhere on this world.
[That conclusion is patriot mythology.]

Do the tracking bud, everything is a Corporation and please don;t tell me that all governments are suppost to be corporations, That is an outright lie and I see that you know enough to know that.
Corporation Sole - a series of holders of a single office (e.g. the King or Queen or a bishop).]

If that is the way you actually think then Sears or McDonalds can come to your house or domicile and take anything they want because it could be written into their corporate by-laws for their employees and by gum you went and purchased one of their happy meals and that made you an employee. Oh I am so sorry but ignorance of the law is no excuse. You forgot to read that reciept you got when you bought the meal didn't you. Says right here on the back that when you purchace this you are agreeing to become an employ.
[Babbling nonsense does not refute my facts posted. With all due respect, you really have no clue.]

Well you are right mr mirage. When you fill out the form for SSN you agree to be an employee or the other shifty word for it is US CITIZEN.
[Actually, that is not true. It's old mythology. Participation in FICA is for access to ENTITLEMENTS - aka - public charity. As a pauper, one becomes a status criminal, excluded from the protections of the original charter / constitution. This has been part of the law since 1777. But mythologists tend to miss that. Ditto, for FDR's abolition of the Pauper's Oath as a prerequisite.
More info:
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/NASP/conversations/topics/361
]

and how many folks know that is exactly what they are doing. So fill out a form any damn form and sign your name to it and guess what you give your consent weather you want to or not and you don't even know it do you mr mirage.

Believe it or not mr mirage there are a whole heck of lot of folks out here that have studied this crap and more than likely a lot longer than your sorry little life.
[I know that many study opinions of others, but few read the law, itself.]

So when you try to vilify and minimize anyone by using your worn out phrase of "retread patriot Mythology" it just shows that you don't really want to answer or perhaps can't answer a real question with a real answer or even provide some beginning solution.

Sorry for ranting on with this but when you say you don't know folks that have given their lives to do just that for us and when you say that those 82 men, women and children gave there consent to be murdered and when you insinuate that the Weavers gave their consent to be murdered on their private property then you sir are do a major disservice to people that did stand up against the tyranny that we all face today and there is no law my mirage.
[You have insinuated much from nothing I wrote. If it helps you to support your beliefs, I can understand it. But repeated ad hominem attacks only weaken your argument. FACTS trump beliefs, and if you have FACTS, please present them.]

Well I suppose I can't say that truthfully. Because you and I do believe that we should live by a law and that my friend is a republic government.
[Again, I have never equated the republican form to a 'republic.' The People's Republic of China is a republic but it is NOT a republican form.]

But the criminals that are in control and the PTB do not abide by any law and they will murder you for anything

I have read your posts and I have followed this thread and I see you in contradiction
[Please specify which facts are contradictory.]

so perhaps you who use that tired out phrase may actually be the one or one of those. Can't say for sure because I really don't know where you came up with it and what you might even think it means

Can say this, I am sorry that you got so hurt back in 1992 and it seems that you may still be angry about it all but please, With all the knowledge you seem to portray, provide some real help. There are so many that hunt for the truth and just to spread your own truth is a great gift to give to all.
[FACTS are not necessarily the same as TRUTHS. It is true that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. But the FACT is that the earth ROTATES so it appears that the sun is moving. IF you base your view of the universe on appearances of truth, but not FACTS, you will be mistaken.]

Hello

The repeated ad hominem attacks are impressive. But facts are more impressive.
If my animosity toward patriot mythology is perceived as a personal attack, I apologize. Those who peddled nonsense are at fault, not the victims.

Please go read the law for yourself. I am not infallible. But if you maintain that there is no law or that there are only corporations, not governments, you will not perceive reality.

Here's a short example of how a BELIEF is not the LAW.

Everybody KNOWS there is a gun ban on school property.

..............

18 USC Sec. 922 (q)
(I) the Congress has the power, under the interstate commerce clause and other provisions of the Constitution, to enact measures to ensure the integrity and safety of the Nations schools by enactment of this subsection.
(2)
(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm
(i) on private property not part of school grounds;

................

Let us stop here, and ponder what this code is telling us.
That Congress only has the constitutional power to intrude because of INTERSTATE COMMERCE !
(So they claim...)
And that your neighborhood school is part of INTERSTATE COMMERCE of the USA.
(So they claim...)
And that any individual (who is not private property) possessing a firearm that has moved in INTERSTATE COMMERCE or is a school zone (Interstate commerce) is in violation.

[Several colorful expletives deleted, as well as rude noises and blood squirting from eyes]

Oh, but if YOU are private property (an endowed right), your private property gun is not in interstate commerce, nor part of school grounds.
PHEW.... Thought one's right to bear arms was being infringed.

It shall be unlawful for any individual who is NOT private property to knowingly possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.

That’s the so-called “Gun Free Zone” law.

Does it really apply to "Free Americans"?
Or only those who consent?

ozmirage
18th May 2016, 17:01
Ozmirage, don't take these words too personally, but I must add that I believe Janis Joplin said it best when she sang
"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose". This paradigm is not accidental; it is meant to test us.
If you wish to believe you can't be free unless you're reduced to nothing, please do not rattle your chains.

The law says otherwise.

-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-


"What I do say is that no man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. I say this is the leading principle, the sheet-anchor of American republicanism. Our Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
- - - Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois (1854)
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abraham_lincoln

As Lincoln reminds us, under the republican form, promised by the USCON, instituted by the Declaration of Independence, NO MAN (nor American government) is good enough to govern you without your consent. Without your consent, all that government is authorized to do is secure endowed (sacred) rights (prosecute trespass; adjudicate disputes; defend against enemies, foreign or domestic).

Pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, government has two jobs:
▸ [1] secure (endowed) rights and
▸ [2] govern those who consent.

CAVEAT : consent waives job #1 !

In reading the law, I continually find reference after reference that the government cannot infringe, tax or trespass upon ENDOWED RIGHTS. (Two exceptions : by consent, or in pursuit of justice on behalf of an injured party)


"The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws..."
Economy Plumbing & Heating v. U.S., 470 F2d. 585 (1972)

"The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax."
--House Congressional Record, March 27, 1943, page 2580.

Point: The republican form is still the law of the land, and endowed rights are still protected.
Point: BUT if one has transferred to the democratic form and exercises privileges, those endowed rights are waived / surrendered.

. . .

“. . . The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, either municipal, state or federal, or even from the Constitution. They exist inherently in every man, by endowment of the Creator, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution, and restricted only to the extent that they have been VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED BY THE CITIZENSHIP to the agencies of government. The people's rights are not derived from the government, but the government's authority comes from the people. The Constitution but states again these rights already existing, and when legislative encroachment by the nation, state, or municipality invade these original and permanent rights, it is the duty of the courts to so declare, and to afford the necessary relief. The fewer restrictions that surround the individual liberties of the citizen, except those for the preservation of the public health, safety, and morals, the more contented the people and the more successful the democracy.”
- - - City of Dallas v. Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944, 945-46 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1922)
. . .

To paraphrase "The Planet of the Apes":

DR. ZAIUS: The Republican Form was once a paradise. Your breed desecrated it ages ago.
TAYLOR: It still doesn't give me the why...a country where socialist slaves evolved from free men? There's got to be an answer.
DR. ZAIUS: Don't look for it, Taylor! You may not like what you'll find.

{Upon discovery that they had given consent to their enslavement.}

TAYLOR: You Maniacs! You Gave it Up! Oh, Damn You! G-d damn You Socialists and Usurers All to Hell!
(And all their accomplices, collaborators, quislings, and useful idiots)



" Natural liberty is the right which nature gives to all mankind, of disposing of their persons and property after the manner they judge most consonant to their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature, and that they do not in any way abuse it to the prejudice of other men."
- - - Bouvier's Law Dictionary

NATURAL LIBERTY - The power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, unless by the law of nature. The right which nature gives to all mankind of disposing of their persons and property after the manner in which they judge most consistent with their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature, and so as not to interfere in the equal exercise of the same rights by other men. 1 Blackstone's Commentaries, 123,
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth edition, p. 919.

"The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but, the individual's rights to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise [tax] cannot be imposed."
- - - Redfield vs Fisher, 292 P. 813, at 819.


RFOG:
{source: Declaration of Independence}
[] Natural rights
[] Natural liberty
[] Personal liberty
[] Absolute ownership
[] Sovereign, served by government
(Owes nothing to the government)

Restated:
American nationals, free inhabitants, sovereign people, absolutely own themselves, their labor, have the power of acting as they think fit, without any restraint or control, unless by the law of nature, upon their private property (absolutely owned) and upon unclaimed property. They have the right of locomotion upon the public roads and waterways.
(Everywhere else one needs permission, or it is a trespass!).

ozmirage
18th May 2016, 17:20
I believe it is misguided and disingenuous to suggest a sovereign argument of "I did not consent" would be an effective strategy to utilize against the psychopathic ruling "elite".
You may be right. But you're conflating two different ideas. A sovereign (domiciled upon private property) is not an argument, as is "I did not consent to be governed."

Laws that secure rights (prosecute criminal injury) do not require consent of the governed, or the accused.
Laws that prosecute disobedience to policy, DO require consent of the governed.

It may be immaterial, but bear with me on the following.

(If he beget a son that) Hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken increase: shall he then live? he shall not live: he hath done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him.
Ezekiel 18:13 (KJV)

If I understand this, it states that usurers are abominations under a death sentence, and the blame for his death is upon his own hands - not the one who kills him.

You may also recall that the sole account of Jesus getting violent is when he whips the usurers (money changers) out of the temple. Remember, Jesus forgives those who crucify him, but whips the usurers. (Feel free to research the abomination of usury on your own)

Coincidentally, I think the government does "Trust in God" and as long as they restrict their abuse to enumerated usurers, God will NOT intervene and inflict "Divine Wrath" on behalf of the suffering masses. Government does refrain from harassing those who are "outside" the system, as evidenced by the Amish, Mennonites, and other sects who refuse FICA and usury.

Another coincidence is that Islam categorically forbids usury, and government acts strangely impotent with respect to them. Is there a connection?

Maybe the "psychopaths" fear those who can rightly claim Divine Wrath on their behalf.

Fiberglut
18th May 2016, 19:12
Oz,
I do not in theory disagree with what you write. In fact, we are largely on the same page philosophically speaking, and I must say that I admire your courage for "walking the talk". I for one, lack that courage as I do not believe that TPTB have any respect for divine law (they are largely a Satanic cult when all is said and done). Perhaps I am just a coward with his own vested interest in a satanic system; unwilling to explore life as a "freeman", at least as of this moment.

Basho
18th May 2016, 20:16
Forgive me for being so naive but my feeling is, that getting deep into legalese to extricate oneself from this system of bondage, creates even more feters in my being than what I stared with. It's more of a burden to me to play this so called game of extraction, than to say fvck it I'm free. Without any paperwork.

Thanks for all the information you've shared but ignorance is bliss for me in this situation. Ill continue spending my free time searching for freedom within rather than burdening myself with more information on the faint possibility of the system granting me external freedom..

Lost N Found
19th May 2016, 01:22
Well shucks I guess I was right and the FACT that you came back with your red letter comments kind of says so doesn't mr mirage. You cannot tell me that you have taken yourself out of the FICA world. Well I can be wrong to some degree if you have quit working in this society and you have no bank accounts but WAIT!! if you are using FRN's to buy your commodities then you are way still in the system of debt are you not? Oh and by the way, you say that the SSN is not yours anymore, Well here is some news bud, The SSN never was yours, Says so on the back of the card, Ever read that? But by golly they sure put it on your BC and it is on so many things through out your life. So I sent an affidavit to that organization and told them that they do not have Power of Attorney over my trust account anymore and it is a trust account weather you believe it or not. So they sent me a form letter back saying that I could not extracate myself from their system.

Mind you my affidavit never stated that I wanted to do that but rather I just told them that I was firing them from being a trustee. So you see They don't care and you will not be able to quit being in their system never never never as long as you are physically breathing. If you can and have done that please show all of us how to do it okay? And do not tell us that just because you stopped using the number you think you are not in that system anymore.

More questions because you still haven't satisfactorily answered the first ones.
You say that you can't be a sovereign because you do not have a domicile. Question - do you live in a building of any sort or do you live out in the woods on public land?
You call yourself a freeman. Well guess what mr mirage That in itself is a Retread patriot mythology. The only freemen I know are dead in this system of the world today. If you are doing anything in the commerce of this world you are under the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) which if you bother to research you might find that is the only LAWs that exist and that my friend is not divine law of any kind but rather a man made set of codes and policies that supposedly governs the entire world today. You keep talking about LAW but you keep using the UNITED STATES CODE as a reference.

Now you tell me all about facts Well here is a Fact The USC is nothing more than Statutes Codes, policies and regulations It is not law but you want to call it LAW and that is what you have studied, is it not? Have you studied Common law and found that it is all equitable and Admiralty and Maritime LAW which is a LAW of the Sea which again is nothing more than the UCC. It all has to do with MONEY MY FRIEND AND NOTHING TO DO WITH DIVINE LAW AS OUR CREATOR ENDOWED TO US WHEN WE ARE BORN. So who really runs the world? and where are the laws You still haven't proven what is real law and how it differs from the USC.

I would say this mr ghost, The one and only law that comes really into play and it is not used is DO NO HARM TO OTHERS. now common law in this respect said i "if there is no harm done or a victim then the law had not been broke. That is just a paraphrase but it is to the point. So then if you or I actually cause harm to another by taking their private property (and let me tell you private property includes you yourself and anything you have worked for by giving of your self) then the law is violated is it not.

It is said that your freedom ends at the beginning of your neighbors nose. Could this be why Jesus said in the scriptures "Love your neighbor as you love yourself"?
So tell me mr ghost what is LAW and where is it today in this world. Is it only where you reside and your only web site that you get all your info from Yeh! Yahoo. Forgot There is so much wisdom and understanding there

Fact, If you are on this forum and you go to yahoo to read all your facts and you live in some place weather you own or rent then you cannot be a freeman or a soveriegn. Simply because you have and live in the commercial world and are governed by the UCC.

Now not making a cut on this forum or even Yahoo. This Forum probably has more real info about what you might be trying to put forth that yahoo but it all is just a commercial endevor and the sad FACT is, that we all are trying to find some truth in this mafioso run world. Now you can give your studied knowledge to anyone that will listen and that is something good I say but please please please at least don't make it seem like you might be the only one with all the knowledge.

Just saying there my friend we all are searching and we all need to do our own research and we all need to come to our own conclusions about what we find and understand. You do an alright job of providing information that you have come across and may even think it is all gospel but you have to give others a bennifit of doubt. We are all in this boat together and I for one will not throw someone overboard just so the rest can live. I be the first one to jump overboard to allow others to live and that is something that the Divine has given in a divine law to me.

Now see, I may be contradicting also but just wanted you to know that I have done the same rabbit holes as you seem to have and I have hit the ends of the tunnels and moved off into others and it just seems to me that the rabbit holes are never ending so what do you think happens when you keep playing bumper car on those locked doors and what you might or may call a government does not give a damn about your little no account life to the PTB?

Hello

ozmirage
19th May 2016, 02:16
Well shucks I guess I was right and the FACT that you came back with your red letter comments kind of says so doesn't mr mirage. You cannot tell me that you have taken yourself out of the FICA world. Well I can be wrong to some degree if you have quit working in this society and you have no bank accounts but WAIT!! if you are using FRN's to buy your commodities then you are way still in the system of debt are you not?

More questions because you still haven't satisfactorily answered the first ones.
You say that you can't be a sovereign because you do not have a domicile. Question - do you live in a building of any sort or do you live out in the woods on public land?
You call yourself a freeman. Well guess what mr mirage That in itself is a Retread patriot mythology. The only freemen I know are dead in this system of the world today. If you are doing anything in the commerce of this world you are under the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) which if you bother to research you might find that is the only LAWs that exist and that my friend is not divine law of any kind but rather a man made set of codes and policies that supposedly governs the entire world today. You keep talking about LAW but you keep using the UNITED STATES CODE as a reference.

Now you tell me all about facts Well here is a Fact The USC is nothing more than Statutes Codes, policies and regulations It is not law but you want to call it LAW and that is what you have studied, is it not? Have you studied Common law and found that it is all equitable and Admiralty and Maritime LAW which is a LAW of the Sea which again is nothing more than the UCC. It all has to do with MONEY MY FRIEND AND NOTHING TO DO WITH DIVINE LAW AS OUR CREATOR ENDOWED TO US WHEN WE ARE BORN. So who really runs the world? and where are the laws You still haven't proven what is real law and how it differs from the USC.

I would say this mr ghost, The one and only law that comes really into play and it is not used is DO NO HARM TO OTHERS. now common law in this respect said i "if there is no harm done or a victim then the law had not been broke. That is just a paraphrase but it is to the point. So then if you or I actually cause harm to another by taking their private property (and let me tell you private property includes you yourself and anything you have worked for by giving of your self) then the law is violated is it not.

It is said that your freedom ends at the beginning of your neighbors nose. Could this be why Jesus said in the scriptures "Love your neighbor as you love yourself"?
So tell me mr ghost what is LAW and where is it today in this world. Is it only where you reside and your only web site that you get all your info from Yeh! Yahoo. Forgot There is so much wisdom and understanding there

Fact, If you are on this forum and you go to yahoo to read all your facts and you live in some place weather you own or rent then you cannot be a freeman or a soveriegn. Simply because you have and live in the commercial world and are governed by the UCC.

Now not making a cut on this forum or even Yahoo. This Forum probably has more real info about what you might be trying to put forth that yahoo but it all is just a commercial endevor and the sad FACT is, that we all are trying to find some truth in this mafioso run world. Now you can give your studied knowledge to anyone that will listen and that is something good I say but please please please at least don't make it seem like you might be the only one with all the knowledge.

Just saying there my friend we all are searching and we all need to do our own research and we all need to come to our own conclusions about what we find and understand. You do an alright job of providing information that you have come across and may even think it is all gospel but you have to give others a bennifit of doubt. We are all in this boat together and I for one will not throw someone overboard just so the rest can live. I be the first one to jump overboard to allow others to live and that is something that the Divine has given in a divine law to me.

Now see, I may be contradicting also but just wanted you to know that I have done the same rabbit holes as you seem to have and I have hit the ends of the tunnels and moved off into others and it just seems to me that the rabbit holes are never ending so what do you think happens when you keep playing bumper car on those locked doors and what you might or may call a government does not give a damn about your little no account life to the PTB?

Hello
Thank you for the kind words of support.
Since you resorted to personal invective, ad hominem, and lacked any factual rebuttal, you have acquiesced. Capitulation graciously accepted.

Stating "I'm right" and ad hominem attacks do not equate to facts. Your conclusions may be heartfelt but there are no facts in support. You have failed to provide facts to refute what I have repeatedly posted.

The facts I have repeatedly posted show that the LAW, as written, from 1776 onward, support the fact that there are TWO statuses recognized:
__ Sovereign, and
__ Subject.

To have retained endowed rights and not consented to be governed is not quite but almost sovereign. Once one acquires a domicile (on private property), one can exercise sovereign prerogatives. Otherwise, one must comply with the requirements imposed by the landlord.

Those who consented to be governed, surrender / waive endowed rights, by virtue of imposed mandatory civic duties, which may include militia duty - the obligation to train, fight, and die, on command.

The effect of pauperization from participation in FICA is a more recent impairment, but does not overshadow the most debilitating impairment from consent to be a citizen.

The bulk of your post is a mash up of old patriot mythology concocted to explain that which no one would recognize - the effects of one's CONSENT to be GOVERNED, and the decline in status from being a status criminal (pauper, vagabond).

Since you sincerely believe that the code is not part of the law, we will have to agree to disagree.

You stated:

Well here is a Fact The USC is nothing more than Statutes Codes, policies and regulations It is not law but you want to call it LAW and that is what you have studied, is it not?


United States Code - a consolidation and codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States; is prepared and published by a unit of the United States House of Representatives.

It is apparent that we can have no further dialog on the subject matter. You do not believe law exists except what you say it is, and I disagree with that conclusion.

As to your claim of knowledge of the "Common law," that is suspect, because it is not what you claim it to be.


LAW, COMMON. The common law is that which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. It has never received the sanction of the legislature, by an express act, which is the criterion by which it is distinguished from the statute law. It has never been reduced to writing; by this expression, however, it is not meant that all those laws are at present merely oral, or communicated from former ages to the present solely by word of mouth, but that the evidence of our common law is contained in our books of Reports, and depends on the general practice and judicial adjudications of our courts.
2. The common law is derived from two sources, the common law of England, and the practice and decision of our own courts. In some states the English common law has been adopted by statute. There is no general rule to ascertain what part of the English common law is valid and binding.
- - - Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856 ed.


COMMON LAW -"The system of jurisprudence, which originated in England and was later applied in the United States, which is based on judicial precedent rather than legislative enactments; it is contrasted with civil law (the descendent of Roman Law prevalent in other western [European] countries). ... generally derived from principles rather than rules; it does not consist of absolute, fixed, and inflexible rules, but rather the broad and comprehensible principles based on justice, reason and common sense."
Ballantine’s Law dictionary, p.37


LAW OF THE LAND -"Phrase first used in MAGNA CARTA referring to the then established law of the Kingdom as opposed to Roman or civil law. Refers today to fundamental principles of justice commensurate with due process of law those rights which the legislature cannot abolish or significantly limit, because they are so fundamental to our system of liberty and justice; The
United States Constitution establishes itself, and the laws made under its authority, and treaties of the United States, as the supreme Law of the land [U.S. Constitution: Art.6 Sec.2]."
Ballantine’s Law dictionary, p.117


COMMON LAW
“The general theory of the common law is, that all wrongs are divisible into two species; first, civil or private wrongs; secondly, criminal or public wrongs. The former are to be redressed by private suits, or remedies instituted by the parties injured. The latter are redressed by the state, acting in its sovereign capacity. The general description of private wrongs is, that they comprehend those injuries which affect the rights and property of the individual, and terminate there; that of public wrongs of offences is, that they comprehend such acts as injure, not merely individuals, but the community at large, by endangering the peace, the comfort, the good order, the policy, and even the existence of society.”
- - - - Joseph Story and the Theory of the Common Law, from the Encyclopedia Americana

Based on reading the Federalist Papers, you will find it mentioned that Georgia had nothing but common law courts. After the ratification of the USCON, all common law courts in Georgia were abolished (Encyclopedia of Georgia Law). This is due, in part, to the fact that the common law is only available to sovereigns, and no state government is sovereign, when its officers have to swear a dual oath, with the US Constitution being supreme. Also, no compact government can enforce "the common law" (unwritten) so all common law crimes were enacted as statutory crimes (murder, mayhem, burglary, extortion, etc.)
Finally, pursuant to the seventh amendment, one can only demand the RULES of the common law, in controversies where the value exceeds 20 dollars (coin).

(This does not detract from the sovereign people's authority to enforce the common law regarding trespass, as evidence in the right to defend private property with deadly force. Or do you dispute that posting "Private property - No Trespassing - Trespassers will be Shot!" is not part of the common law.)

Furthermore, the FACT that is evident when one reads American law (that you refuse to accept as law) is that though it appears that the statutes are STRICT inflexible rules, the published law is riddled with exceptions, codicils, trap doors, and exclusions to prevent trespass upon endowed rights of the sovereign people.

And even when not explicitly stated, there are implied exceptions that one can use, via "shall" and "may."
(Mentioned here:http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?89658-Americans-Squandered-Their-Birthright-of-Sovereignty&p=1056194&viewfull=1#post1056194)

An example of an exclusion related to the republican form: the infamous school zone gun ban.


Title 18 USC Sec. 922 (q)(2)
(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm
(i) on PRIVATE PROPERTY not part of school grounds;

If you absolutely own yourself, your clothes and your firearm, you are private property not part of school grounds.

(FYI : Title 18 is positive law.)

Since you are repeatedly bringing up arguments already refuted, there can be no further communication on this matter. Welcome to "the ignored list."

ozmirage
19th May 2016, 03:24
Forgive me for being so naive but my feeling is, that getting deep into legalese to extricate oneself from this system of bondage, creates even more feters in my being than what I stared with. It's more of a burden to me to play this so called game of extraction, than to say fvck it I'm free. Without any paperwork.

Thanks for all the information you've shared but ignorance is bliss for me in this situation. Ill continue spending my free time searching for freedom within rather than burdening myself with more information on the faint possibility of the system granting me external freedom..
The urging to read law and get deep into it, is because we all need some foundation.

One can simplify the two status and forms:
RFOG:
{source: Declaration of Independence}
[] Natural rights
[] Natural liberty
[] Personal liberty
[] Absolute ownership
[] Sovereign, served by government
(Owes nothing to the government)
. . .
DFOG:
{source: compact / constitution}
[] Civil rights
[] Civil liberty
[] Political liberty
[] Qualified ownership
[] Subject of the government, by consent
(Owes mandatory civic duties, etc)
. . .
When reading any American law ask yourself:
● Is this law securing the rights of an injured party?
● Is this law imposed upon only those who gave consent?
● Is this law internal to the administration of the government?
. . .
But if you do not know the sources and authorities that support these concepts, you'd be at a loss.

For example, there are some who argue that one owes their "fair share" to the government for its support.


". . . There is a clear distinction in this particular case between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his constitutional right as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. HIS RIGHTS ARE SUCH AS EXISTED BY THE LAW OF THE LAND (*COMMON LAW) LONG ANTECEDENT TO THE ORGANIZATION OF THE STATE, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights. "
- - - Hale vs Henkel, 201 U.S. 43.
Ironically, if one has been following previous posts, one would grimace at the claim that " The individual may stand upon his constitutional right as a citizen."

A) Citizens do not have endowed rights, having surrendered them.
B) Government granted privileges may be called constitutional rights, but they're not endowed rights.
Of course, if one is aware of the double speak, one can see that references to "an individual" is not synonymous with "a citizen." And that a non-citizen individual DOES have endowed rights that existed before the organization of the State. And that such an individual does not own anything to the public as long as he does not trespass upon their rights.
BUT
AS George Washington's letter reminds us - all citizens owe a duty and a portion of their property to the STATE. However, this particular case is a demand for private papers, which are NOT covered under the civic obligations imposed for citizens.

The government's budget devoted to "securing endowed rights" via the judiciary is a small fraction compared to the portion devoted to "governing those who consent" and who "participate in the entitlement programs." In the event that a majority withdraw consent from national socialism and the democratic form, the resulting decline in revenues would not impact the execution of duties to secure endowed rights. But everything else would be impossible to fund.

ozmirage
20th May 2016, 05:00
Capitalism is actually part of the REPUBLICAN FORM

Yet, some claim that “capitalism” is corrupt.
. . .
There is nothing "corrupt" about an individual absolutely owning himself, his labor and the fruits of his labor.
. . .
In fact, absolute ownership is the foundation of the sovereignty, freedom and liberty of the American.
. . .
However, what most people are led to believe about “capitalism” is wholly incorrect.


CAPITALISM - An economic system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are privately owned and operated for private profit.
- - - WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY

PRIVATE PROPERTY - "As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels."
- - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217

If you concatenate capitalism with private property, you can see the "inconvenient truth".

- Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are absolutely owned by individuals and operated for their individual profit. -

This definition does NOT include usury, gambling, speculation, extortion, or other predatory practices usually attributed to "capitalism." Stock corporations and banks are creatures of government, granted the privilege to exist, hence they’re not exercising a right.


"The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but, the individual's rights to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise [tax] cannot be imposed."
- - - Redfield vs Fisher, 292 P. 813, at 819.

True capitalism is an endowed right, derived from the birthright to absolutely own one’s person, labor and property. False capitalism is a smokescreen to hide predators and usurers, operating by permission of the State.

• A farmer who absolutely owns his farm is a true capitalist.
• A businessman who absolutely owns his business is a true capitalist.
• A stockholder of a corporation is engaged in usury, which preys upon true capitalism.
. . .
. . .
And since the government routinely "takes" property and does not pay just compensation (no lawful money since 1933), no one has absolute ownership (thanks to FICA).

--------------
Communism, Socialism and Collectivism, in general

From the Communist manifesto:
"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."

(In other words, good socialists do not absolutely own themselves, their labor, the fruits of that labor, and any property they acquire. They need State permission.)

If you comprehend this, you may better understand the tragedy that has befallen America, since 1933.

DSKlausler
20th May 2016, 13:13
Good day OzMirage,

I accept all that you have said – seriously – via my own research a while back. I was very, very angry – I still am, but have accepted that it’s my own damn fault.

May we address a plan in the simplest of actions – for your average human dwelling upon these united States of America?

Given (in common vernacular, and certainly not an exhaustive list):

Born in a hospital; Birth Certificate stamped and signed (by biological parents).
SSN registration completed (by biological parents).
Parents likely identifying the child upon their IRS offerings.
Common stuff through early life – public school.
Usage of Federal Reserve Notes throughout.
Signature at bank (interest bearing).
Signature at Department of Transportation - “Driver’s License”.
“Employment” – signature on W-4.
“Paid” in Federal Reserve Notes throughout.
Signature on every paycheck.
Signature on “Voter Registration”.
Signature on Credit Card account – let’s just say $5,000 is owed.
Signature on vehicle “loan” at bank – let’s just say $20,000 is owed.
Signature on various insurance accounts.
Signature on apartment lease.
Signature on IRS offerings (1040x).
Signature on home “loan” at bank – let’s just say $100,000 is owed.
Signature on “Marriage License”.
Signature on children’s Birth Certificate.
Let’s just say $10,000 FRNs are in the bank; and $10,000 FRNs at home (large amounts for the common American I’m sure).

No doubt many, many other attachments exist.

To fully remove oneself, where does one begin?

Prepare for formal extrication?
Reserve “cash”?
Recruit helper or “friend”?


Sincerely,

Dave

ozmirage
20th May 2016, 18:41
RED HIGHLIGHT = PROBLEM

Good day OzMirage,

I accept all that you have said – seriously – via my own research a while back. I was very, very angry – I still am, but have accepted that it’s my own damn fault.

May we address a plan in the simplest of actions – for your average human dwelling upon these united States of America?

Given (in common vernacular, and certainly not an exhaustive list):

Born in a hospital; Birth Certificate stamped and signed (by biological parents).
SSN registration completed (by biological parents).
Parents likely identifying the child upon their IRS offerings.
Common stuff through early life – public school.
Usage of Federal Reserve Notes throughout.
Signature at bank (interest bearing).
Signature at Department of Transportation - “Driver’s License”.
“Employment” – signature on W-4.
“Paid” in Federal Reserve Notes throughout.
Signature on every paycheck.
Signature on “Voter Registration”.
Signature on Credit Card account – let’s just say $5,000 is owed.
Signature on vehicle “loan” at bank – let’s just say $20,000 is owed.
Signature on various insurance accounts.
Signature on apartment lease.
Signature on IRS offerings (1040x).
Signature on home “loan” at bank – let’s just say $100,000 is owed.
Signature on “Marriage License”.
Signature on children’s Birth Certificate.
Let’s just say $10,000 FRNs are in the bank; and $10,000 FRNs at home (large amounts for the common American I’m sure).

No doubt many, many other attachments exist.

To fully remove oneself, where does one begin?

Prepare for formal extrication?
Reserve “cash”?
Recruit helper or “friend”?

Most imperial entanglements involving the exercise of privileges requires one to CEASE exercising privileges.
In some cases, notice is needed. Case in point - voter registration. When I checked GA Law, voter registration was "good" for 50 years. One had to file a form to unregister - which I did.

A marriage license is only binding on those who have no "right to marry." Check local state laws on the prerequisites, as well as recognition of common law marriages. (Remember, a sovereign is a "state" but not within the venue of the government "state" for purposes of regulation.)

Being a debtor / bankrupt under this "emergency" is a tough nut to crack.
You cannot be eligible for contracts for usury (debtor or creditor) and also be 'out.'
You'd have to pay off all outstanding debts so you may convert your property ownership from qualified to absolute. If you're a creditor (usurer), that, too, is a revenue taxable privilege.

If you must interact with their banking system, you might look into setting up a business with an EIN, to open a commercial account. Since there is no interest, there is no reportable income, etc, etc. However, current rules require the applicant for an EIN to have a SSN. But the eventual user of the EIN does not have to be the applicant.

The account and number with FICA / Socialist InSecurity is their means to track participants. If you cease being a participant, it's no longer "your" number and account. But you must be sure to cease exercising ALL privileges associated with participation in national socialism. (In the past, I received irate phone calls from "new patriots" who were incensed that they were hassled because they were still getting food stamps, scholarships, loans and other assistance.)

The soundbite version:
__ Cancel all contracts / personal accounts with instrumentalities of the Federal Reserve that involve SSN.
__ Acquire a domicile upon private property (if you wish to exercise sovereign prerogatives) so you're not at the mercy of a landlord.
__ Withdraw from all privileges, and give notice, where needed, of your change from citizen / resident to non-resident inhabitant domiciled within the united States of America.

Caveat - those who feel that it is not worth it to leave, due to being of an age or condition eligible to receive entitlements, etc., should consider making plans in the event that the government collapses, wiping out the entitlement system.

The pervasive dependency upon American government was no mistake. Reversing 83+ years of public policy by becoming self reliant and prosperous 'outside of the reservation' is a daunting task.

In answer to questions of my religious affiliation, I joke that I am "punk Amish." Which is quite appropriate, in that I withdrew from "the English" but have not forsaken technology. I also seek to be prosperous by the production of surplus goods and services - not a recipient of public charity nor predatory privileges.

I am no prophet, but the rapidly declining conditions in the USA lead me to suspect that "the System" is setting us up for a period of chaos, as various interest groups engage in battle for dominance. If that is the case, the wisest course of action would be to relocate to an area far from the combat zone, establish a frugal, resilient and autonomous domicile, hopefully with others, to form a cooperative community to weather the conflagration.

I have a personal preference for a religious community, not unlike a monastic retreat. Having a ministry own the property, is a well known means to not have tax liability. And churches can get EINs for opening a commercial bank account. If the community builds defensive walls, like a cloister - to shut out the outside world, it is not threatening to the local community. Ditto, for any emphasis on self reliance and autonomy.

Finding like minded folks is a challenge, as is finding financial resources, and frankly, I do not expect that the republican form will endure the coming chaos.
But I won't cease spreading the word and preserving the republican form of government to the best of my ability.

DSKlausler
24th May 2016, 11:33
Good morning OzMirage,

Thank you for the reply.




The soundbite version:
__ Cancel all contracts / personal accounts with instrumentalities of the Federal Reserve that involve SSN.
__ Acquire a domicile upon private property (if you wish to exercise sovereign prerogatives) so you're not at the mercy of a landlord.
__ Withdraw from all privileges, and give notice, where needed, of your change from citizen / resident to non-resident inhabitant domiciled within the united States of America.



The details of "Cancel all..." and "Withdraw from all..." are formidable. Have you accomplished such things?

Additionally, it would seem that these steps include terminating any existing relationships (SSN & W-4 & FICA) with an "employer." To continue to "work" for an "employer," would the route of EIN be feasible? I guess, at the base, for me anyway, I need some method of supporting myself. If barter is the only option, then what, I offer to program a computer for this corporation in exchange for a food card? The CFO may not go for that.

Even if I could "Acquire a domicile...", I still need some method for upkeep - the cost of maintenance. Barter with the professional services in the area? Possible. Would I be able to purchase electric service, or water service? The domicile would have no [USPS] "address," correct?

Again, it seems that an EIN or perhaps a Trust of some type would necessarily be the intermediary in all these relationships.

Sincerely,

Dave

ozmirage
25th May 2016, 01:44
The soundbite version:
__ Cancel all contracts / personal accounts with instrumentalities of the Federal Reserve that involve SSN.
__ Acquire a domicile upon private property (if you wish to exercise sovereign prerogatives) so you're not at the mercy of a landlord.
__ Withdraw from all privileges, and give notice, where needed, of your change from citizen / resident to non-resident inhabitant domiciled within the united States of America.



The details of "Cancel all..." and "Withdraw from all..." are formidable. Have you accomplished such things?
[Yes, to the best of my knowledge. ]

Additionally, it would seem that these steps include terminating any existing relationships (SSN & W-4 & FICA) with an "employer."

To continue to "work" for an "employer," would the route of EIN be feasible? I guess, at the base, for me anyway, I need some method of supporting myself. If barter is the only option, then what, I offer to program a computer for this corporation in exchange for a food card? The CFO may not go for that.
[Being an "employee" may be a problem since most "employers" are advised to ignore the law and obey hear say. Some get around this by being businesses / contractors. Others may contract, via a TEMP service that is amenable to your situation.]

Even if I could "Acquire a domicile...", I still need some method for upkeep - the cost of maintenance.
[Depends on the type of structure. Ephemeral code compliant houses would not be a wise investment.]
Barter with the professional services in the area? Possible. Would I be able to purchase electric service, or water service? The domicile would have no [USPS] "address," correct?

[You may use FRNs to buy / sell, but FRNs do not alienate title to private property. If one wishes to establish ownership of certain items, then use lawful money - gold or silver coin. As to USPS address, the issue is not whether the building has an address, but if YOU have an address. One can get mail "care of" any place one wishes. But to claim an "address" in federal jurisdiction is something else.]

Again, it seems that an EIN or perhaps a Trust of some type would necessarily be the intermediary in all these relationships.
[An EIN is a useful means to access banking services, via a commercial non-interest bearing account.]


If you need government permission / license, you're not dealing with an endowed right.

"EMPLOYEEEEEEEE"
You may need to contact or investigate - - -

• The Social Security Administration to verify that there is no law which requires an individual to obtain a social security number.
• Social Security is a voluntary system in that no one is required to obtain a social security number.
• There is no IRS penalty imposed on a corporation by the IRS if the failure to show a social security number or TIN for an employee is due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect.
• The employer must request the employee to provide the employer with a social security number or TIN. If the employee refuses to provide the number (regardless of whether it is a religious issue or for any other reason) and the employer fails to include that information in his returns without the social security number, then the §6721(c)(1)(B) $50.00 penalty applies.
• The Internal Revenue Code only makes it appear to require that which is actually voluntary.
• That the IRS does not have the authority to require an employer to provide or deny employment or services to anyone who refuses to disclose a social security number or TIN. This is a matter between the individual and the employer.

Yet we all have heard the horror stories of the Eye Are Us crashing down on employers and employees.

SSN + Bank account
[Anecdote flag on]

• All the people I personally know who were hassled by the Eye Are Us had two things in common: SSN and an open, interest bearing bank account.
• All the people I personally know who were left alone, also had two things in common: NO SSN and NO interest bearing bank account.

No instrumentality of the Federal Reserve banking system will open an interest bearing account for an unnumbered American - bless their hearts. *(Usury is a capital offense, saith Ezekiel 18:13 KJV)

One might conclude that without the "signature card" where the account holder AGREES to abide by the "Rules of the Bank" (and therefore, the U.S. governor of "The Bank"), there is no nexus.

If you examine the news stories of "tax protesters" who get prosecuted, invariably you will find the "smoking gun" of a filed form (w/ SSN or TIN) and some connection with a personal bank account - foreign or domestic.

USPS note:
I haven't verified this recently -but-
Check out the [old] return receipt cards for DOMESTIC (GREEN) and nondomestic (PINK).

On the Green Domestic return card, it states:
Name, Address, City, State, Zipcode

On the Pink non-domestic / international return card, it states:
Addressee, Street and number, City, State, Zipcode

An “Address” is in Federal jurisdiction (*your mailbox) - not the zipcode. Any mailbox is "federal territory" for jurisdiction purposes. It has nothing to do with zipcodes. "Residents" have "addresses."

Also check out non-domestic drop shipment general delivery mail. (4 cents per ounce)
John Doe, c/o General Delivery, Main Post Office, City, State, ZIP, USA

The United States Postal Service corporation serves the Postal Service of the United States of America.
'Nuff said on the matter.

ozmirage
25th May 2016, 01:56
Pink international reply card
http://imgur.com/sOiE9qA

DSKlausler
25th May 2016, 12:13
The details of "Cancel all..." and "Withdraw from all..." are formidable. Have you accomplished such things?

[Yes, to the best of my knowledge. ]


OzMirage:

Would you care to elaborate on the steps undertaken?

Thanks again,

Dave

ozmirage
25th May 2016, 16:00
The details of "Cancel all..." and "Withdraw from all..." are formidable. Have you accomplished such things?

[Yes, to the best of my knowledge. ]


OzMirage:

Would you care to elaborate on the steps undertaken?

Read all the law books at the county courthouse, wrote thousands of letters, attended lectures ....
JUST KIDDING.

Think.
Do research.
Ask questions of public servants.
Ask more questions.

If you need permission (license) and / or pay a tax, it's probably a government privilege.
If it was a former right, turned into a privilege, ask how and why that happened.

If you decide to no longer exercise the privilege investigate what may be needed to show you've stopped exercising the privilege.

A common obstacle is that "constitutional rights" are actually government privileges and are not really rights. You want to exercise endowed rights, that are immune from taxation and regulation.

What endowed rights to life, and all harmless activities in support thereof, natural liberties or personal liberties, or absolute ownership of private property can one retain if one is COMPELLED to perform mandatory civic duties, pay a portion of one's property, and get permission (license) to enter certain occupations, travel, operate a business, fly a plane, drive a car, hunt, fish, contract marriage, and / or own a dog?

You'll have to ask your public servants for an explanation.

REFERENCE - - -

ORIGINAL DELEGATION OF POWER
Governments are instituted among men [Americans] to SECURE endowed rights and liberties - - -
> Natural rights
> Natural liberty
> Personal liberty
> Absolute ownership of private property

According to John Locke there are three natural rights:
1) Life: everyone is entitled to live once they are born.
2) Liberty: everyone is entitled to do anything they want to so long as it doesn't conflict with the first right.
3) Estate* (Property): everyone is entitled to own all they create or gain through gift or trade so long as it doesn't conflict with the first two rights.(*In American law, absolute ownership is known as private property, whereas qualified ownership is known as estate.)

Thomas Paine elaborated on natural rights in his work “Rights of Man” (1791), emphasizing that rights cannot be granted by any charter because this would legally imply they can also be revoked and under such circumstances they would be reduced to privileges:

“. . . It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect — that of taking rights away. Rights are inherently in all the inhabitants; but charters, by annulling those rights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few. ... They...consequently are instruments of injustice.”
“ The fact therefore must be that the individuals themselves, each in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a compact with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist.”
- - - Thomas Paine As Thomas Jefferson wrote, in the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Job #1 : Secure (endowed) rights, and
Job #2 : Govern those who consent.
CAVEAT : Consent waives rights.


BUT - - -
Until consent is given, endowed rights are in force and effect.

NATURAL RIGHTS - the ENDOWMENT of our CREATOR
. . .

NATURAL RIGHTS - ... are the rights of life, liberty, privacy, and good reputation.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p. 1324

According to American law, liberty has four types: natural, personal, civil and political.

● Natural = absolute freedom (on one's own property or unclaimed land)
● Personal = right of locomotion (freedom to travel on public roads and waterways)
● Civil = permission from government (licenses, permits)
● Political = participation in government (voting, holding office)
The former two are endowed rights, the latter two are government privileges.

http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_l.htm
LIBERTY. 1. Freedom from restraint. The power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature.
2. Liberty is divided into [I]civil, natural, personal, and political.


NATURAL LIBERTY - The power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, unless by the law of nature. The right which nature gives to all mankind of disposing of their persons and property after the manner in which they judge most consistent with their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature, and so as not to interfere in the equal exercise of the same rights by other men. 1 Blackstone's Commentaries, 123,
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth edition, p. 919.This is an example of directly exercising sovereignty - absolute freedom upon one’s domain - and only restrained by the law of nature (and not violating the person or property of another).

PERSONAL LIBERTY - The right or power of locomotion; of changing situation, or moving one's person to whatsoever place one's own inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint, unless by due course of law. 1 Bl. Comm. 125.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p. 919

TRAVEL - Within the meaning of a constitutional right to travel, means migration with intent to settle and abide.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p.1500

" Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable."
- - - 16 Corpus Juris Secundum, Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.These natural rights and liberties are not dependent upon government, nor a majority vote.

PRIVATE PROPERTY - "As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels."
- - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217Absolute ownership by the individual of his person, his labor, the fruits of his labor and lands he acquires is part of the endowment from his Creator.

" Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion to go where and when one pleases only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or AUTOMOBILE, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct."
- - - II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135.This is the republican form of government, the birthright of sovereignty, freedom and independence, our Forefathers fought to provide for their posterity.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Natural Rights, Natural Liberties, Personal Liberties, Absolute Ownership... lost to consent. No one will give these back to you, if you've surrendered them.

You have to do the research and learn how and when you gave consent to be governed. For if you keep exercising privileges, that voids your claim to have withdrawn consent.

If freedom was easy, why would it be so hard to keep?

ozmirage
26th May 2016, 20:49
“WE, The PEOPLE?”

Americans have been misled to think that THEY (Americans, collectively) created their government. They’re told that electing officials who make laws is “self-government.” They’re misled to assume they’re born subject citizens, with mandatory duties, in contradiction to the promised republican form of government, stated in the Declaration of Independence.

In reality, American nationals are endowed by their Creator with rights and liberties and powers that government was instituted to secure. That’s the “republican form of government.” It exists by the endowment of the Creator. It has no elected officers nor institutions.

The servant government instituted to secure rights (adjudicate disputes, prosecute criminals, defend against enemies, foreign or domestic) has no power to govern (rule) those who did not consent to be governed. It can only serve, not unlike a regent to a sovereign.

The servant government is NOT delegated power to govern by the whole (collective people), but by a subset (subject citizens) who swear an oath to abide by the terms of the compact. The author of that compact is not the obligated party on that compact. The obligated parties are subject to and object of the terms of that compact, and all laws enacted in compliance with that compact.

In short, under the republican form, sovereign people have endowed rights until they consent otherwise.
Only by that consent, may government rule its subjects. Under the democratic form, consenting subject citizens have “constitutional rights” (government privileges) in lieu of endowed rights, that were surrendered by virtue of the mandatory civic duties that abrogate endowed rights to life, liberty and property ownership.

ozmirage
9th July 2016, 02:22
A lengthy explanation of STATUS CRIMES is posted HERE:
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?91740-A-more-legalistic-view-of-our-money--Split-from-No-Jim-Willie-the-next-world-money-will-NOT-be-gold-backed.-&p=1080433&viewfull=1#post1080433

It goes into more detail on the HOW and WHY government "went strange" in 1933.

Summed up:
We consented to become subjects and paupers and status criminals and excepted from the rights, powers, privileges and immunities of the FREE PEOPLE.

To combat that change, we need to investigate, research, and prove to ourselves that our state constitutions and statutes DO support the claim that
__ American nationals / free inhabitants
__ Domiciled upon Private property, within these united States
__ Retain all ENDOWMENTS (rights, powers, liberties, immunities, etc)
__ That government was instituted to secure... unless we consent otherwise.

Thus we can be confident that withdrawing consent (gained by fraud) is our right and recognized by American law.

You may need to inquire with your own state's officers to determine what constitutes a minimum domicile in your own state. I suspect that only private property (not estate - real and personal property) qualifies.
All state constitutions and the U.S. constitution explicitly protect PRIVATE PROPERTY ownership (an endowed right). None protect qualified ownership of estate (a privilege subject to ad valorem taxes).

ozmirage
21st August 2016, 08:45
RESIDENT EVIL
How do we know what is really evil?

Under the republican form of government, wherein the American people are endowed with rights [natural], liberties [natural and personal], absolute ownership [private property], evil is opposed to or preys upon the person, liberty, or property of the American people.

Known Predators:

[] Usurers - masters of money madness, rob and steal with government protection
[] Collectivists - slavers and thieves, using government as their instrumentality
[] Parasites - “entitled masses” - the allies of the collectivists
[] Islam - A political system of totalitarianism masquerading as a religion
[] Invaders - People who have no respect for American law, people, their liberties or their property, and intend that their progeny inherit your lands
[] Collaborators - who sell us out, for a cut of the action (ex: politicians)
[] Privileged groups - monopolies, stock corporations, insurance underwriters (gamblers), engaging in usury, and /or with limited liability

When 99% of Americans are cooperating with their enemies, it is impractical to expect anything but TOTAL INSANITY.

Common Sense Remedies
. . . . First Stage . . . .

INDIVIDUAL REMEDIES
__ Withdraw consent from submission to the State (ex: citizenship)
__ Withdraw consent from voluntary socialism and its privileges (ex: entitlements, benefits, loans, grants, etc)
__ Withdraw consent from usury (close all interest bearing accounts, etc)
__ Acquire a domicile upon which one can exercise endowed rights
__ Exercise endowments free of taxation, regulation or infringement
. . . . Second Stage . . . .

COLLECTIVE CONSEQUENCES
__ When sufficient number of Americans have withdrawn consent, the decline in revenues and of people to govern will have an impact upon the government and those still obligated to pay and obey
__ Government will down size, shedding employees, closing agencies, etc.
__ As revenues shrink, public charity will decline or cease entirely, adversely affecting all recipients (and administrators)
__ A decline in bribes (foreign aid, etc) will trigger repercussions that will require swift repatriation of American material and personnel from foreign bases (and end all unWars)
__ A collapse of the banking system and a repudiation of the fraudulent public debt will wipe out the Federal Reserve Note (“dollar bill”) making billionaires into zero-aires (a billion zeroes = zero)
__ When government reorganizes to only perform its basic mission (“secure endowed rights”), and ceases to grant privileges, whole industries and professions will be shaken up (total deregulation; full responsibility attaches to group members)
__ A general break down in civil order will inevitably follow, as those who benefitted from the “old ways” are wroth at those who caused it, as well as rival power blocs who will jockey for power
__ Those will be unpleasant times, so prepare accordingly

- The Litmus Test -

Anyone who supports the republican form, respects the endowed rights of the people, and can comply with “What’s yours is yours, what’s mine is mine, don’t trespass!” is your ally.

Anyone else is suspect. For they want to either make you serve them, obey them, fund them, or take what is yours for themselves and their progeny. They will use every trick, argument, threat, or religious dogma to get you to “go along” with their evil ways.

bogeyman
21st August 2016, 09:04
An America is a label given to you as a part of recent history. It is where a individual or groups of people are at a specific geographic location on the surface of the Earth. Natives of these lands didn't refer to themselves as Americas that was given to them. Is an America label given to say this is my way of life, or this is where I live? You are who you are and live in most cases according to the way you have been taught to live, which can alter according to your travels, geographic location, and environment. Try to avoid being label otherwise you could lose yourself, and who you really are. Your a living creature on the surface of the Earth, and each living creature of our type have connections with one another for we all need to breath, we all need to eat, we all need to drink and so forth.

ozmirage
21st August 2016, 12:57
An America is a label given to you as a part of recent history. It is where a individual or groups of people are at a specific geographic location on the surface of the Earth. Natives of these lands didn't refer to themselves as Americas that was given to them. Is an America label given to say this is my way of life, or this is where I live? You are who you are and live in most cases according to the way you have been taught to live, which can alter according to your travels, geographic location, and environment. Try to avoid being label otherwise you could lose yourself, and who you really are. Your a living creature on the surface of the Earth, and each living creature of our type have connections with one another for we all need to breath, we all need to eat, we all need to drink and so forth.
We certainly are living creatures and according to American law, we are endowed by our Creator with inherent / sacred / inalienable rights to LIFE, LIBERTY, and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.

Which boils down to natural rights, natural and personal liberty, and absolute ownership.

And American governments were instituted to SECURE those endowed rights, ergo, cannot trespass, tax or infringe upon those endowed rights.

ONLY BY CONSENT of the governed does the government have any authority to go beyond securing rights (adjudicating disputes, punishing criminals, defending against enemies, foreign or domestic).

I like a government that helps secure my rights, and leaves me alone otherwise. That's the promised republican form of government our Founders fought and died to give to us "sovereigns without subjects" ... and it's unique among all other nations. (In all other nations, the people are subjects of their respective governments)

But if you gave consent to be governed, wuh woh, Scooby.
Now, you're part of the People's Democratic Socialist Republic of America.

- - - - -
Back link to post about "Sovereigns without subjects"
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?89658-Americans-Squandered-Their-Birthright-of-Sovereignty&p=1061120&viewfull=1#post1061120