+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 1 5 8 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 152

Thread: Americans Squandered Their Birthright of Sovereignty

  1. Link to Post #81
    Australia Avalon Member
    Join Date
    14th November 2011
    Age
    46
    Posts
    117
    Thanks
    36
    Thanked 383 times in 89 posts

    Default Re: Americans Squandered Their Birthright of Sovereignty

    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"

  2. Link to Post #82
    United States Avalon Member ozmirage's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th January 2016
    Location
    Jawjah, OOSA
    Age
    64
    Posts
    447
    Thanks
    22
    Thanked 1,111 times in 340 posts

    Default Re: Americans Squandered Their Birthright of Sovereignty

    Quote Posted by thunder24 (here)
    [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 - - - .
    The secret of life is that there is no secret of life.

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to ozmirage For This Post:

    JRS (16th April 2016)

  4. Link to Post #83
    United States Avalon Member ozmirage's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th January 2016
    Location
    Jawjah, OOSA
    Age
    64
    Posts
    447
    Thanks
    22
    Thanked 1,111 times in 340 posts

    Default Re: Americans Squandered Their Birthright of Sovereignty

    Quote Posted by Mitm (here)
    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.
    Last edited by ozmirage; 14th April 2016 at 07:41.
    The secret of life is that there is no secret of life.

  5. Link to Post #84
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    1st April 2016
    Posts
    1,508
    Thanks
    2,099
    Thanked 4,856 times in 1,278 posts

    Default Re: Americans Squandered Their Birthright of Sovereignty

    [QUOTE=ozmirage;1060659]
    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.
    Last edited by shaberon; 14th April 2016 at 23:07.

  6. Link to Post #85
    Palestinian Territory Avalon Member thunder24's Avatar
    Join Date
    22nd February 2011
    Location
    Middle of the woods
    Posts
    2,172
    Thanks
    15,067
    Thanked 8,891 times in 1,818 posts

    Default Re: Americans Squandered Their Birthright of Sovereignty

    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...
    OBADIAH 1:21
    The Good things in life

    "...where ever you go, there you are..."

  7. Link to Post #86
    United States Avalon Member ozmirage's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th January 2016
    Location
    Jawjah, OOSA
    Age
    64
    Posts
    447
    Thanks
    22
    Thanked 1,111 times in 340 posts

    Default Re: Americans Squandered Their Birthright of Sovereignty

    Quote Posted by shaberon (here)
    Quote Posted by ozmirage (here)
    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.
    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.
    The secret of life is that there is no secret of life.

  8. Link to Post #87
    United States Avalon Member ozmirage's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th January 2016
    Location
    Jawjah, OOSA
    Age
    64
    Posts
    447
    Thanks
    22
    Thanked 1,111 times in 340 posts

    Default Re: Americans Squandered Their Birthright of Sovereignty

    Quote Posted by thunder24 (here)
    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.
    The secret of life is that there is no secret of life.

  9. Link to Post #88
    United States Avalon Member ozmirage's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th January 2016
    Location
    Jawjah, OOSA
    Age
    64
    Posts
    447
    Thanks
    22
    Thanked 1,111 times in 340 posts

    Default Re: Americans Squandered Their Birthright of Sovereignty

    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.
    Last edited by ozmirage; 15th April 2016 at 00:48.
    The secret of life is that there is no secret of life.

  10. Link to Post #89
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    1st April 2016
    Posts
    1,508
    Thanks
    2,099
    Thanked 4,856 times in 1,278 posts

    Default Re: Americans Squandered Their Birthright of Sovereignty

    Quote Posted by ozmirage (here)
    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?

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to shaberon For This Post:

    gnostic9 (15th April 2016)

  12. Link to Post #90
    United States Avalon Member ozmirage's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th January 2016
    Location
    Jawjah, OOSA
    Age
    64
    Posts
    447
    Thanks
    22
    Thanked 1,111 times in 340 posts

    Default Re: Americans Squandered Their Birthright of Sovereignty

    Quote Posted by shaberon (here)
    ... 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.
    The secret of life is that there is no secret of life.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to ozmirage For This Post:

    gnostic9 (15th April 2016)

  14. Link to Post #91
    Avalon Member genevieve's Avatar
    Join Date
    10th May 2012
    Age
    69
    Posts
    516
    Thanks
    23,060
    Thanked 1,839 times in 430 posts

    Default Re: Americans Squandered Their Birthright of Sovereignty

    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

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to genevieve For This Post:

    gnostic9 (15th April 2016)

  16. Link to Post #92
    United States Avalon Member ozmirage's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th January 2016
    Location
    Jawjah, OOSA
    Age
    64
    Posts
    447
    Thanks
    22
    Thanked 1,111 times in 340 posts

    Default Re: Americans Squandered Their Birthright of Sovereignty

    Quote Posted by genevieve (here)
    [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.
    The secret of life is that there is no secret of life.

  17. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ozmirage For This Post:

    genevieve (18th April 2016), gnostic9 (15th April 2016)

  18. Link to Post #93
    UK Avalon Member Mike Gorman's Avatar
    Join Date
    31st May 2010
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Posts
    1,047
    Thanks
    2,481
    Thanked 4,766 times in 929 posts

    Default Re: Americans Squandered Their Birthright of Sovereignty

    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.

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to Mike Gorman For This Post:

    gnostic9 (15th April 2016)

  20. Link to Post #94
    United States Avalon Member ozmirage's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th January 2016
    Location
    Jawjah, OOSA
    Age
    64
    Posts
    447
    Thanks
    22
    Thanked 1,111 times in 340 posts

    Default Re: Americans Squandered Their Birthright of Sovereignty

    Quote 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/supremec...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. 1425
    Recapping, 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)
    Last edited by ozmirage; 21st August 2016 at 13:14.
    The secret of life is that there is no secret of life.

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to ozmirage For This Post:

    genevieve (18th April 2016)

  22. Link to Post #95
    United States Avalon Member ozmirage's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th January 2016
    Location
    Jawjah, OOSA
    Age
    64
    Posts
    447
    Thanks
    22
    Thanked 1,111 times in 340 posts

    Default Re: Americans Squandered Their Birthright of Sovereignty

    “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
    The secret of life is that there is no secret of life.

  23. The Following User Says Thank You to ozmirage For This Post:

    genevieve (18th April 2016)

  24. Link to Post #96
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    1st April 2016
    Posts
    1,508
    Thanks
    2,099
    Thanked 4,856 times in 1,278 posts

    Default Re: Americans Squandered Their Birthright of Sovereignty

    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.

  25. The Following User Says Thank You to shaberon For This Post:

    genevieve (18th April 2016)

  26. Link to Post #97
    United States Avalon Member ozmirage's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th January 2016
    Location
    Jawjah, OOSA
    Age
    64
    Posts
    447
    Thanks
    22
    Thanked 1,111 times in 340 posts

    Default Re: Americans Squandered Their Birthright of Sovereignty

    Quote Posted by shaberon (here)
    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)
    Last edited by ozmirage; 17th April 2016 at 10:18.
    The secret of life is that there is no secret of life.

  27. The Following User Says Thank You to ozmirage For This Post:

    genevieve (18th April 2016)

  28. Link to Post #98
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    1st April 2016
    Posts
    1,508
    Thanks
    2,099
    Thanked 4,856 times in 1,278 posts

    Default Re: Americans Squandered Their Birthright of Sovereignty

    Quote Posted by ozmirage (here)

    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.

  29. The Following User Says Thank You to shaberon For This Post:

    genevieve (18th April 2016)

  30. Link to Post #99
    United States Avalon Member ozmirage's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th January 2016
    Location
    Jawjah, OOSA
    Age
    64
    Posts
    447
    Thanks
    22
    Thanked 1,111 times in 340 posts

    Default Re: Americans Squandered Their Birthright of Sovereignty

    Quote Posted by shaberon (here)
    Quote Posted by ozmirage (here)

    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.
    The secret of life is that there is no secret of life.

  31. The Following User Says Thank You to ozmirage For This Post:

    genevieve (18th April 2016)

  32. Link to Post #100
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    1st April 2016
    Posts
    1,508
    Thanks
    2,099
    Thanked 4,856 times in 1,278 posts

    Default Re: Americans Squandered Their Birthright of Sovereignty

    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.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 1 5 8 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts