Americans Squandered Their Birthright of Sovereignty

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/supremec...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.

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/20...bout.html#more

Just some more of stuff.
steven

Quote:

---

Posted by Lost N Found

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/20...bout.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/...0&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.

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??

Quote:

---

Posted by shaberon

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Posted by shaberon

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/...ype=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.

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??

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

Quote:

---

Posted by shaberon

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,_...t_of_Happiness

Quote:

---

Posted by ozmirage

Quote:

---

Posted by Lost N Found

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/20...bout.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/...0&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

Quote:

---

Posted by Lost N Found

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.

Quote:

---

Posted by Lost N Found

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."

Quote:

---

Posted by Lost N Found

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.

Quote:

---

Posted by Lost N Found

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_Agr...&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!))

Quote:

---

Posted by Lost N Found

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.

Quote:

---

Posted by Lost N Found

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.
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...=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

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.

Quote:

---

Posted by ozmirage

Quote:

---

Posted by shaberon

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/...ype=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.

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

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

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.

Quote:

---

Posted by Lost N Found

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/supremec...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/-...ce-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

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.

Quote:

---

Posted by shaberon

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,_...t_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/mar...ist-manifesto/

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/mar...ist-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.

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:
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...-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.