+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Birth Certificates, Debt, and Sovereignty

  1. Link to Post #1
    United States On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    23rd August 2016
    Thanked 2,844 times in 572 posts

    Default Birth Certificates, Debt, and Sovereignty

    I was researching sovereignty when I was pregnant with my daughter. I feel badly for not following through with it. I didn't understand it well enough, did not feel confidently in living the sovereign life in a happy and healthy way (ie being able to successfully defend myself and pursue an abundant life), and I became concerned that as a consequence my daughter would be unable to prosper without my following the "rules".....

    I watched this and I feel like - dang! Trying not to feel angry with myself for not following through before my daughter was born.

  2. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to The Freedom Train For This Post:

    A Voice from the Mountains (22nd March 2017), Bruno (22nd March 2017), Denise/Dizi (25th March 2020), Desire (22nd March 2017), Icare (18th January 2022), Michelle Marie (22nd March 2017), Star Tsar (22nd March 2017)

  3. Link to Post #2
    United States On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    23rd August 2016
    Thanked 2,844 times in 572 posts

    Default Re: Birth Certificates, Debt, and Sovereignty

  4. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to The Freedom Train For This Post:

    A Voice from the Mountains (22nd March 2017), Bruno (22nd March 2017), Denise/Dizi (25th March 2020), Michelle Marie (22nd March 2017), Star Tsar (22nd March 2017)

  5. Link to Post #3
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    26th May 2010
    Albuquerque, NM, USA
    Thanked 21,672 times in 2,385 posts

    Default Re: Birth Certificates, Debt, and Sovereignty

    Quote Posted by The Freedom Train (here)
    I'd be interested in knowing the final result of this charge. Did the state drop it? Did he eventually go to trial? Was he convicted? Did he prevail?

    I give the man credit for sticking to his convictions and standing up to the person wearing the black robe. That person, who I am confident is not a judge of general jurisdiction, but rather, a magistrate or justice of the peace (essentially and administrator), had no idea how to handle this "sovereign." This man, standing alone, presents no threat to the State. But, the State cannot tolerate the sovereign movement. One sovereign becomes two, then 20, then 2,000 then 100,000. The State must nip the sovereign movement in the bud and thus it makes examples of those who challenge its authority. (Also, he's wearing the red, white and green colors for a reason.)
    Last edited by Satori; 22nd March 2017 at 18:57.

  6. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Satori For This Post:

    A Voice from the Mountains (22nd March 2017), Denise/Dizi (25th March 2020), Icare (18th January 2022)

  7. Link to Post #4
    United States On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    23rd August 2016
    Thanked 2,844 times in 572 posts

    Default Re: Birth Certificates, Debt, and Sovereignty

    Quote Posted by Satori (here)
    I'd be interested in knowing the final result of this charge. Did the state drop it? Did he eventually go to trial? Was he convicted? Did he prevail?

    I give the man credit for sticking to his convictions and standing up to the person wearing the black rope. That person, who I am confident is not a judge of general jurisdiction, but rather, a magistrate or justice of the peace (essentially and administrator), had no idea how to handle this "sovereign." This man, standing alone, presents no threat to the State. But, the State cannot tolerate the sovereign movement. One sovereign becomes two, then 20, then 2,000 then 100,000. The State must nip the sovereign movement in the bud and thus it makes examples of those who challenge its authority. (Also, he's wearing the red, white and green colors for a reason.)
    Indeed. And this is why I shied away from following the sovereignty path myself. I did not feel confidently about defending myself in these kinds of situations. I found quite a few youtube videos in the sidebar of the mountain man one where people who are attempting to assert their sovereignty fail miserably. This next clip is just sad.

    And here are compilations of soverign people getting "owned" as per whoever put them together. Apparently there is quite a lot of contempt out there for sovereigns. I guess probably because people who have not decided to go the sovereign route feel like - well hey WTF we have to put up with this ****ty system who says you are above it?

    As for the mountain man, I do not know what his fate is.

    According to this youtube video (not in support of sovereigns), sovereign people are considered by US police to be more of a threat than Islamic terrorists. Apparently the sovereign movement was started by a "Christian white supremacist" group called Posse Comitatus in the 60's.

    I am feeling very conflicted about all of this.

    1) I see many points made by the sovereign movement to be valid.

    2) I see that wishing to avoid the common laws while continuing to live in the US is a problematic, if futile effort.

    3) I do not like the idea of being aligned with "supremacists"

    4) The actions of many sovereigns I think gives the basic ideals of freedom from oppression a bad name.

    Here is a 60 minutes take on the movement. What I find to be rather amusing is the interview between Alfred Adask (https://adask.wordpress.com/) a self proclaimed sovereign and proponent of the movement, and the 60 minutes interviewer.

    60 minutes: "Why is the sovereign citizen movement growing?"

    Adask: "What's driving people to it is they're beginning to understand that the government has moved away from fundamental principles this nation was built on."

    60 minutes: dour expression

    Adask: "Where are the limits in limited government? The sovereignty movement is attempting to rediscover those limits and re-assert them."


    60 minutes: "You don't like this government very much do you?"

    Adask: "I think the government has gone far beyond its constitutional limits. They think hey, we're not obligated, we're the government we can do anything. And some people are saying, no I don't think you can."
    Last edited by The Freedom Train; 22nd March 2017 at 19:25.

  8. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to The Freedom Train For This Post:

    Denise/Dizi (25th March 2020), Nasu (24th March 2017), Satori (22nd March 2017)

  9. Link to Post #5
    United States On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    23rd August 2016
    Thanked 2,844 times in 572 posts

    Default Re: Birth Certificates, Debt, and Sovereignty


    "Sovereign citizens in the United States number about 300,000 adherents, of which a third are viewed as “hard core.”

    Sovereign citizens are anti-government extremists who believe that even though they physically reside in the United States, they are separate or “sovereign” from the country. As a result, they believe they don’t have to answer to any government authority, including courts, taxing entities, motor vehicle departments, or law enforcement. According to the FBI, who investigates cases related to the groups, “Not every action taken in the name of the sovereign citizen ideology is a crime, but the list of illegal actions committed by these groups, cells, and individuals is extensive.” The FBI lists them among the nation’s top domestic terror threats.

    In the past several years, sovereign citizens have been involved in criminal activities nationwide with great frequency. Some sovereigns were involved with attacks against government officials (e.g., law enforcement, judges, prosecutors and tax authorities), undertaking fraudulent transactions and issuing fictitious instruments, carrying out financial fraud, creating counterfeit currency, impersonating officers and diplomats and engaging in tax evasion, among other unlawful acts.

    Here, I discuss the Sovereign group’s ideology, the perceived benefits of being a sovereign, a profile of the movement’s structure and characteristics of its membership, sovereign citizen tactics and activities, where these individuals operate and selected responses to the extremist elements of this movement.


    Current sovereign ideology is spawned, in part, from varied doctrines, embracing extremist elements of diverse groups, including: anti-tax protesters, militias, Christian Identity and Posse Comitatus. Noteworthy, though, a significant segment of sovereigns do not follow any religious doctrine as part of their sovereign stance.

    There is no unanimity regarding the ideology of sovereign citizens, although most believe in the illegitimacy of government, and autonomy in relation to government regulation (e.g., no need to pay taxes, obtain licenses, or pay fees). Most believe that the current U.S. government (“de facto”) was formed in 19th century through a usurpation of the “de jure” natural law government. More specifically, in their view, the 14th Amendment, which emancipated the slaves, concurrently created a special form of citizenship.

    Presently, the government is perceived as forcing U.S.-based residents to obtain birth certificates, Social Security numbers and pay taxes so that a formal, subservient relationship is established between the governments and its subjects. Sovereign citizen adherents attempt to break the bind between the government and themselves by refusing to participate in government activities and formally renouncing their citizenship, filing documents with courts and offices of the secretary of state to that effect, along with failing to pay taxes, obtain driver’s licenses, and other federal, state and locally-imposed requirements. Under federal law, an individual may formally relinquish his citizenship by declaring as such at an overseas embassy or consulate, although sovereigns rarely do so.

    Some sovereigns view that the state has no authority over them unless the sovereign citizen makes an outward overture to be within the rubric of the “illegitimate” government system. While trying to distance themselves from the state and its instrumentalities, sovereigns also create a nexus with the state by filing bogus documents and multiple lawsuits seeking large amounts of damages. The wrath of such suits, sometimes referred to as “paper terrorism,” may include police officers, judges, county clerks, or others who the sovereign views treated them unfairly. The resources required to deal with these suits can be quite burdensome to the victim. Additionally, sovereigns may file documents and forms with respective state secretaries of states seeking to have apostilles (documents issued by the state that signify that the certain documents were filed with the state) generated.

    Another precept shared by sovereigns is redemption. In 1933, the U.S. government left the gold standard. In doing so, sovereigns argue, that U.S. currency became worthless, and necessitated the government to use persons (citizens) as collateral to conduct international trade and cover sovereign debts.

    The process of issuing birth certificates and Social Security cards, sovereigns believe, enables the U.S. government to create credits for itself, while also establishing accounts worth several hundred thousand dollars to millions of dollars that sovereigns can access at one point. Such “U.S. Treasury Direct Accounts,” are created in the names of third parties, or “Strawman,” which the sovereign will ultimately access.

    Sovereigns believe they can access a strawman account by filing documents with the Department of Treasury. Subsequently, the sovereign informs creditors of its debts (e.g., mortgages that the sovereign obtained) that payment for the loan will be made by the Department of Treasury, and then submits fraudulent financial instruments (e.g., fraudulent bonds or bills of exchange) to its creditor.

    Additionally, sovereigns often use Uniform Commercial Code forms in an attempt to legitimize fraudulent commercial transactions. Such pseudo-legal activities aim to create a veneer of legitimacy to transactions that are clearly fraudulent and without basis or accord with economic realities.

    Other components of sovereign citizen ideology include the belief that lawyers are not deemed citizens. They came to this stance from an unsuccessful constitutional amendment to prohibit persons with nobility (often lawyers) to possess citizenship. Likewise, sovereign believe that government officials, particularly, police officers, must sign an “Oath of Office,” dictating their duties. Also, to some sovereigns, admiralty/maritime law has a special merit in the legal realm. As such, sovereigns tend to file baseless maritime liens quite expansively against their opponents.

    In sum, sovereigns believe that federal, state and local governments operate without any authority. Thus, to the sovereign, government has no legitimacy or jurisdiction over them. And so, sovereigns believe that interactions and requests with government and its representatives can be ignored. Additionally, sovereigns may take a highly antagonistic outlook towards government, particularly law enforcement, judges and prosecutors, resulting, at times, at threats or actual acts of violence. While the doctrines embraced by sovereigns may appear nonsensical and baseless, the fact that the movement has hundreds of thousands of supporters indicates their precepts have resonance with parts of the population.

    Perceived Benefits of Being a Sovereign

    To believers, the benefits of being a sovereign are manifold. A sovereign is wealthier than otherwise as he neither pays taxes nor abides by costly laws and regulations. Likewise, their belief that they can access a “Strawman” account valued in the hundreds of thousands of dollars enables them to believe that they possess riches that can be used to eliminate their debts.

    Moreover, sovereigns believe they can ignore the requests of any government official, including police. Additionally, sovereigns claim to possess the ideological basis to threaten government officials (e.g., law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, county/state clerks, etc.) without perceived negative implications. Analogously, they establish sovereign or quasi-state organizations (e.g., fictitious separate nations, law enforcement agencies, common law courts, grand juries) without regard to their acceptability or permissibility under U.S. law.

    These adherents have a sense of fellowship with other sovereigns. Also attractive is the air of superiority they exhibit by viewing themselves as being in the “know.” The movement’s gurus prosper from business ventures touting the benefits of sovereign citizenry, including consulting services, seminars, books and CDs.

    Sovereign Citizen Movement’s Structure and Membership

    The structure of the sovereign citizen movement includes informal groups (or followers), often led by self-appointed ideologues espousing diverse doctrines to whoever will heed their call. Frequently, these ideals are shared at seminars or consulting services that relate to becoming a sovereign, eliminating debts, or engaging in paper terrorism. The success of these self-designated leaders tends to be short-lived since they are ultimately convicted of varied criminal acts arising from their failure to pay taxes, filing fraudulent financial instruments, or other crimes.

    Too, sovereigns include followers who comprise small cabals, connected by family lines or other social networks. These schemers may practice the sovereign citizen perspective on a full-time basis, or otherwise. Lastly, lone wolves may embrace sovereign citizenry, and likewise, utilize its doctrines prominently, haphazardly, or anything in between.

    It is estimated that the movement includes some 300,000 people, one-third of which are described as “hard core.” These followers are not formal “members,” of any group. Sovereign citizen adherents are comprised primarily of men, but some women as well (typically if her spouse is involved). Also, sovereigns include members from all races (although predominantly white except for an increasing number of African-Americans, or self-described Moors), broad socio-economic spectrum (but often blue collar without a college education) and diverse age groups.

    Sovereigns may experience some financial constraints, political marginalization, or other estrangement from government, which influences their worldview. In the main, sovereign doctrine does not include any religiosity, except for those sovereigns who adhere to a faith-based linked group. Few sovereigns appear to embrace hate-based ideals unless they concurrently align themselves with hate groups. The movement also has supporters in prisons. Interestingly, too, a handful of current or former law enforcement personnel have declared themselves as sovereign actions.

    Support for movement has even spread overseas to Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the United Kingdom. According to one estimate, there are some 30,000 sovereigns in Canada, which on a per capita basis, is comparable with U.S. figures.

    Sovereign Citizen Tactics and Activities

    Sovereign citizen tactics and activities are diverse. These actions may involve harassment of government officials, exploitation of gullible third parties and leveraging their pseudo-legal ideologies to commit fraud and other criminal activities. For illustrative purposes, sovereign activities encompass one or more of the following acts:
    • Conducting paper terrorism (e.g., the filing of bogus or legitimate court documents against government officials, seeking specific performance or financial recovery)
    • Filing bogus liens and other nuisance filings on real and personal property
    • Submitting harassing filings, such as involuntary bankruptcy
    • Establishing fake organizations, nations, tribes and false documents (e.g., license plates, vehicle registration, driver’s licenses, and passports)
    • Forming illegitimate law enforcement agencies
    • Purporting to be a diplomat
    • Creating fictitious financial instruments to pay debts
    • Conducting fraudulent schemes in relation to finance, real estate, insurance, and immigration, among others
    • Participating in mortgage and foreclosure scams
    • Occupying vacant and abandoned property
    • Undertaking threats, takeovers, and acts of violence vis-à-vis government and private sector institutions and their employees
    • Seeking to establish common law grand juries and courts with the object to issue true bills or bounties against government employees, often police
    • Attempting to file suspicious activity reports and currency transaction report against someone who has aggrieved the sovereign

    Threats Against Law Enforcement

    As sovereign citizens may embrace a highly aggressive posture towards government, and law enforcement in particular, police should be wary of the extremist elements of this movement. Hard-core sovereigns may threaten law enforcement with violence or carry out such acts, as well as interfere with an officer’s daily activities (e.g., conducting traffic stops and responding to calls for service). Among the most prominent examples of sovereign citizen violence against law enforcement in recent years are the:
    • 2014 murder of two Alaska State Troopers by Nathaniel Kangas
    • 2014 killing of two Las Vegas Police Department officers by the couple Jerad and Amanda Miller
    • 2012 killing of two sheriff’s deputies in Louisiana by a family-linked sovereign citizen cabal
    • 2010 killing of two West Memphis police officers by teenager Joe Kane
    • In addition to the murdered police officers mentioned above, sovereign citizens have killed law enforcement officers in various settings including:
    • During traffic stops (e.g., Christopher Boone Lacy shot and killed California Highway patrol officer Kenyon Youngstrom in California in 2012)
    • Responding to a house fire (e.g., Curtis Holley shot and killed Leon County Sheriff’s Deputy Christopher Smith in Florida in 2014)
    • Attempting to defuse a bomb (e.g., Woodburn Police Department Captain Tom Tennant and Oregon State Trooper Bill Hakim died from an explosive device placed at a bank in Oregon by father-son sovereigns Bruce and Joshua Turnridge in 2008)
    • Trying to convince a family to comply with a request to widen a public road near their home (e.g., Steven Bixby shot and killed Abbeville County Sheriff’s Deputy Danny Wilson and South Carolina Magistrate’s Constable Donnie Outzts in South Carolina in 2003)

    Where Do You Find Sovereign Citizens?

    Where do find someone who embraces sovereign citizen perspectives? The notion that individuals of this ideological ilk are phantoms without numerous online and offline footprints is without basis, as the following examples indicate.

    Sovereign citizens have been found to conduct seminars, offer programs and offer courses at self-styled “law schools” with curriculum that includes: quick fix solutions to debt problems, the steps to follow to become a sovereign citizen and ways of accessing one’s “Strawman” account. Sovereign citizen gurus and devotees have been known to have websites, blogs, a presence on traditional and specialized social media and Internet radio programs. Too, sovereign ideals are disseminated through the sale of merchandise (e.g., print and electronic books, CDs and audio and videotapes,) through websites, including online marketplaces, such as Amazon.com.

    Given the propensity of sovereigns to engage in “paper terrorism,” they can serve as litigants against government agencies, officials and private citizens in relation to some perceived infraction or injustice. Additionally, sovereigns submit filings with government agencies that relate to no longer being deemed a citizen, trying to access their “Strawman” account, encumbering real and personal property of third parties and obtaining “apostilles,” from secretary of state offices.

    Tense interactions with other government entities and officials may arise, such as with the Department of Motor Vehicles (e.g., returning driver’s license and car registration), Department of Transportation (e.g., not complying with a right-of-way or easement for a public road), sheriff’s department (e.g., being combative in relation to receipt of an eviction notice) and other law enforcement agencies (e.g., follow up on a traffic stop or call for service). During traffic stops, sovereigns may videotape their interactions while not complying with officer requests, such as giving a driver’s license, car registration and proof of insurance.

    Responding to Sovereign Citizens

    Embracing sovereign citizen ideologies is not a crime. However, crimes carried out by sovereign citizens – as with anyone – should be viewed as a concern. There are a variety of steps that can be pursued to reduce the threat of sovereign citizen criminal activity.

    First, heightened awareness about the group, its ideology and tactics is crucial as the movement is not well known or understood. Second, the use of informants and undercover agents in targeting those sovereigns aligned with criminal activity should be pursued. A case in point was the use of an undercover agent in relation to a Las Vegas-based cabal that planned to kidnap and kill a police officer. Third, accessing intelligence and law enforcement databases and networks that cover sovereign citizens and their operations are beneficial so that current threats are understood, shared and responded to appropriately.

    Fourth, review of currency transaction reports and suspicious activity reports relating to sovereign citizens are helpful in adducing possible criminality. Fifth, leveraging data and insights of joint terrorism task forces, fusion centers and regional information sharing services about the criminal elements of this movement can undermine the nefarious components of the movement. Sixth, checking to see if a sovereign citizen involved in criminal activity is on the Terrorist Screening Center’s Terrorist Screening Database, the U.S. government’s database of known or suspected terrorists, enables police to better gauge risk.

    Seventh, using community-oriented policing to ensure that respective locales do not become vulnerable to the criminal aspects of sovereign citizen activities. Eighth, outreach to private security, the private sector, non-profits, media and public on the phenomenon of sovereign citizenry leverages the participation of multiple communities. Ninth, encouraging tips from the public in relation to suspicious activity or other incongruous conduct can prove beneficial in crime prevention. Tenth, offering counter-narratives to sovereign citizen dogma that contains untruths or misleading principles will aid in undermining the growth of the movement.


    As the sovereign citizen movement appears to gain traction in the United States and abroad, a close look at its complex ideology, diverse activities and its criminal nexus is merited now and in the coming years."

  10. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to The Freedom Train For This Post:

    Icare (18th January 2022), Nasu (24th March 2017), Satori (23rd March 2017)

  11. Link to Post #6
    United States Avalon Member Denise/Dizi's Avatar
    Join Date
    2nd July 2017
    Thanked 12,822 times in 1,647 posts

    Default Re: Birth Certificates, Debt, and Sovereignty

    I think we should bump this thread.. It looks like it went dead in 2017...

    I think we should begin to truly talk about how people can become sovereign. But before I start adding to this thread, I want to make sure people are even truly interested in such things... Now seems a good time to reignite such things doesn't it? To put our energy somewhere?

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Denise/Dizi For This Post:

    Icare (18th January 2022), Satori (25th March 2020)

  13. Link to Post #7
    United States Avalon Member ozmirage's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th January 2016
    Jawjah, OOSA
    Thanked 2,346 times in 626 posts

    Default Re: Birth Certificates, Debt, and Sovereignty

    Sadly, there are too many disinformation posts about "sovereign citizens" - which is an oxymoron - not unlike a vegetarian cannibal. It isn't helped by the fact that the world's greatest propaganda ministry has misled Americans for generations.

    In law, there are sovereign people, who have endowed rights that governments were instituted to secure (aka "the republican form of government")
    And there are subject citizens, who by consent to be governed, devolved in status, and have mandatory civic duties that abrogate endowed rights. (Ex: militia duty - the obligation to train, fight, and die on command - obviously voids any right to life or liberty)
    “... 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 in Chisholm v. Georgia (2 U.S. 419 (1793))

    Justice John Jay says government is an agent for the sovereign people, not sovereign over them. They govern themselves.
    Honest Abe
    "What I do say is that no man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. I say this is the leading principle, the sheet-anchor of American republicanism. Our Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
    - - - Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois (1854)

    Absent consent, all government is authorized to do is SECURE rights - endowed (sacred) rights to life, liberty, absolute ownership, and so on and so forth.

    “ Our theory of government and governmental powers is wholly at variance with that urged by appellant herein. The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, either municipal, state or federal, or even from the Constitution. They exist inherently in every man, by endowment of the Creator, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution, and restricted only to the extent that they have been VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED BY THE CITIZENSHIP to the agencies of government. The people's rights are not derived from the government, but the government's authority comes from the people. The Constitution but states again these rights already existing, and when legislative encroachment by the nation, state, or municipality invade these original and permanent rights, it is the duty of the courts to so declare, and to afford the necessary relief. The fewer restrictions that surround the individual liberties of the citizen, except those for the preservation of the public health, safety, and morals, the more contented the people and the more successful the democracy.”
    - - - City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944
    . . .
    The rights of the individual / national / non-citizen / inhabitant / non-resident are not derived from government, but are Creator endowed... (i.e., republican form of government)
    But once consent to be governed is granted, via citizenship, that endowment has been surrendered / waived by the citizenry. Why? Because mandatory civic duties abrogate endowed natural rights, natural and personal liberty, absolute ownership of private property, etc, etc. That’s the consequence of migrating to their democratic form of government, where a majority can legally persecute a minority.

    Now you have to ask the government to explain exactly from whom did they get the delegated power to impose citizenship upon infants who cannot consent, and thus via mandatory civic duties, ABROGATE THE ENDOWED RIGHTS that governments were instituted to secure.
    . . .

    FYI : The three major ways Americans consent to be governed -
    [1] Citizenship, state or federal
    [2] Socialism, via participation in FICA (socialist insecurity)
    [3] Contracts for usury (interest), with signed "signature cards" wherein you agree to abide by the "Rules of the Bank." (Try and get a copy of the rules you agreed to - very enlightening)
    - - - -

    As far as I can determine, a birth certificate has no legal force or effect, other than being a convenience for petitioning for some privilege or benefit. One can substitute two affidavits from witnesses who can attest to one's parentage and birthplace.
    Ditto, for a passport. I can't recall the exact citation, but the court decision basically stated that a passport is not proof of citizenship if the holder objects. It is evidence of nationality, though.


    Pursuant to Title 12 USC Sec 411, a Federal Reserve Note (dollar bill) is an obligation (debt) of the U.S. gubmint, denominated in dollars, and was to be redeemed in lawful money. That ended in 1933, with the State of Emergency declared by "Saint" Roosevelt - the destroyer of constitutional government.

    Since 1933, no dollars (gold nor silver coin) have circulated in any reasonable amount that would substantiate alienating title to private property (which is mutually exclusive with real estate - held with qualified ownership). Coincidentally, abolition of private property is the major tenet of the Communist Manifesto.

    IMHO, the Peoples Democratic Socialist Republic of America supplanted the constitutional government since 1933 and the "emergency."

    Senate Report 93-549
    War and Emergency Powers Acts
    United States, Senate Report 93-549 states: "That since March 09, 1933 the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency." Proclamation No. 2039 declared by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on March 9, 1933. This declared national emergency has never been revoked and has been codified into the US Code (12 U.S.C. sec. 95a and b).

    "A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years (as of the report 1933-1973), freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency."

    Constitutional U.S.A. (1789 - 1933) R.I.P.

    If fraud was used to induce your consent, you have the right (and one time ticket out of Dodge) to denounce the fraud, renounce consent, and cease exercising ALL PRIVILEGES ASSOCIATED WITH THAT CONSENT.
    It may take a little research to determine what privileges you mistakenly thought were "rights" and what to do to sever any connection to them. Unfortunately, everyone is a unique case. And once out, never ever sign up for their privileges - for if you do, you cannot claim fraud ever again. You know better.

    Restating the three major ways Americans consent -
    [1] citizenship, state or federal (& residency)
    [2] socialism, via participation in FICA (socialist insecurity)
    [3] usury (interest), by contracts with usurers, wherein you agree to abide by "their rules." (Ex: The bank signature card wherein you agree to abide by the "Rules of the Bank.")
    I have not read all law, and am not infallible, but I have yet to find ONE LAW that violates the natural rights, natural or personal liberty, private property or inherent powers of the non-citizen American national, free inhabitant, domiciled upon his private property within the boundaries of the United States of America. Such are the blessings of the republican form of government.

    But I have found volumes of laws that restrain, regulate and tax the poor U.S. citizen / resident residing at a residence, duly enrolled and enumerated, obligated to get permission (license) or pay a tax to live, work, travel, buy, sell, hire, fire, build a house, fly a plane, transmit, hunt, fish, marry, or own a dog... to name just a few. Such are the problems with the [socialist] democratic form of government one has consented to be part of.

    Remember, if one needs permission (license) for something that our ancestors did without permission - that's proof that a right has been transformed into a privilege.

    Did anything change the republican form since 1776?
    . . .
    “If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final.”
    - - - Calvin Coolidge, Speech on the Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence (1926)
    . . .
    According to Mr Coolidge, the existence of Creator endowed rights is not open to argument. Ergo, the republican form is still secured by the States united and the United States in Congress assembled.
    . . .

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

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

    Icare (18th January 2022)

  15. Link to Post #8
    United States Avalon Member ozmirage's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th January 2016
    Jawjah, OOSA
    Thanked 2,346 times in 626 posts

    Thumbs up Re: Birth Certificates, Debt, and Sovereignty


    Notice to [party]

    I, [name], hereby give notice that unless you are acting to secure rights of an injured party, any actions you take to infringe, tax or trespass upon my rights, powers, and or liberties, shall be deemed a violation of your oath of office. If you lack such an oath, you shall be presumed to be exercising power under color of law, and be held liable, criminally and civilly, for your actions, as well as your supervisors and administrators who gave such unlawful orders to you.

    If you do have oaths to the constitutions, I hereby hold you to your word to help secure my rights, and give aid and assistance, even if by my mistake, I inadvertently surrendered rights. If by mistake, I require that I be informed of how and when I consented to the surrender of my inalienable rights, powers and liberties. I have never knowingly, willingly or intentionally waived my endowed rights, powers, nor my liberties, and any such presumption is hereby rebutted, on the grounds that fraud, constructive fraud, misrepresentation and / or withholding of material facts was used to induce my assent. Any mistaken exercise of privileges derived from that fraud are not grounds to presume consent, and upon notice, such mistakes shall be timely corrected to the best of my ability.

    As stated in the Declaration of Independence (which applies to American governments), all men (American people) are created equal (no one has a higher status). Thus Americans are sovereign (highest status at law) until they consent to descend in status. Governments instituted to secure rights do not have a delegation of power to trespass upon rights, unless to secure the rights of an injured party (in pursuit of justice) or by consent of the governed. No public servant is superior, nor a leader, of the sovereign people he serves. Any oath bound public servant is obligated to be truthful, not deceive nor lie.
    PERJURY - 1. (Law) The deliberate, willful giving of false, misleading, or incomplete testimony under oath.
    2. The breach of an oath or promise.
    (A breach of one's oath of office is therefore perjury.)

    As further stated in the Declaration of Independence, governments are instituted among men (American people) to secure those rights and liberties endowed by their Creator. As one of the American people, endowed with natural and personal liberty among my inalienable rights, no public servant has the delegated power to trespass upon those liberties or my private property, without my consent, or in the pursuit of justice on behalf of an injured party, in accordance with the due process established by the constitutions of these united States of America.

    By this, you have been given due notice. Trespass at your peril.

    American national, free inhabitant, domiciled in [**** state] one of the united States of America.

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

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

    Icare (18th January 2022)

  17. Link to Post #9
    United States Avalon Member ozmirage's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th January 2016
    Jawjah, OOSA
    Thanked 2,346 times in 626 posts

    Default Re: Birth Certificates, Debt, and Sovereignty

    Did you know you are a STATUS CRIMINAL?

    Most Americans are unaware that when they signed up with FICA / Socialist Insecurity, they became "status criminals". This explains why the government tends to treat us like we're guilty until proven innocent.
    "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
    {Sad joke: between 1777 and 1935, vagrants were punished under "constitutionally suspect" law. But after socialism, the government ceased prosecuting them. Which is how we got the "homeless" problem. Guess why?}
    " 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
    "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)]
    According to the Congressional Research Service, entitlements are synonymous with "gifts". "Gifts" from the public treasury are charity, and thus all eligible parties are pauperized. Which may explain why FDR abolished the requirement for a Pauper's Oath, after Socialist InSecurity.

    Since ALL enumerated "human resources" are paupers and vagabonds (no domiciles, only residences), the government ceased prosecuting vagrancy. Because they would have to prosecute EVERYONE.

    And it is no surprise that most (if not all) states have redefined the term "resident" to be synonymous with vagabond - one who has no permanent home or abode, or if he has one, he is mostly not there. And as vagrants, "residents" need government permission (license) to live, work, travel, hunt, fish, marry, own a dog, run a business, etc, etc.

    Check your own state's laws for definitions for resident (one who has a residence - which is LESS THAN A DOMICILE), and compare them with the definition for inhabitant (one who has a domicile - a permanent legal home).

    Skeptics may argue that the Articles were superseded by the USCON. That's not correct. In fact, the Articles were incorporated by reference, into the USCON, by Article 6. If you carefully read the Articles, you should find that no power granted under the Articles was expanded or diminished under the USCON. So exactly what was superseded? And it's no surprise why the Articles are rarely taught in government authorized indoctrination centers (public schools). They would trigger embarrassing questions - such as this one surely does:
    "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)]
    Who are these "free inhabitants" who are not "free citizens"? Could they be the "sovereign people" who have not consented to be governed, and retain all endowed rights?
    And what about those excepted classes? Are they superseded? NOPE.

    In support of that fact, is found in the definition of "status crimes" which
    directly connect to the pre-constitutional exclusion.
    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."
    One may be an indigent, but not a pauper, as long as one does not accept public charity.
    According to the Congressional Research Service, "entitlements" are synonymous with GIFTS. Gifts are NOT remuneration, nor compensation for goods or services. Gifts are CHARITY.

    All Americans enrolled in Social Security become ELIGIBLE for PUBLIC CHARITY because they are PAUPERS AT LAW.
    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
    FYI : most, if not all states redefine "resident" to be synonymous with "vagabond."
    (This is why the state can require LICENSES from residents / vagabonds / vagrants.)

    "Constitutional" violations of inalienable rights
    " State code 124 Sections 6, and 7, authorizing the overseer of the poor
    to commit to the workhouse able-bodied persons, not having the means to support themselves, and who live a dissolute and vagrant life, and do not work sufficiently to support themselves, are not repugnant to the
    constitution, giving every man an inalienable right to defend his life and
    In re Nott, 11 Me. (2 Fairf.) 208. (Me. 1834)
    Translation: compelled labor and restricted liberty is constitutional - when
    dealing with paupers and vagabonds.
    "Act May 29, 1879, providing for the committal to the industrial school
    of dependent infant girls, who are beggars, wanderers, homeless, or without proper parental care, in no way violates the right of personal liberty, and is constitutional."
    Ex parte Ferrier, 103 Ill. 367, 42 Am. Rep. 10 (Ill. 1882)
    Remember the exclusions: pauper and vagabond?
    Compelled labor and restricted liberty are constitutional - when dealing with
    paupers and vagabonds.
    " An act providing for the care and custody of the person and the estate
    of habitual drunkards is not unconstitutional, as depriving a citizen of the
    right to enjoy, control, and dispose of his property, and to make contracts."
    Devin v. Scott, 34 Ind. 67 (Ind. 1870)
    Translation: taking custody of the person and property of a drunkard (impaired person) is not unconstitutional.
    How long does that authority last?

    " ... where a minor child is abandoned by the parent, to be supported by the town, such parent shall be deemed a pauper, and be subject to the same rules and regulations as a pauper, [this statute] is not in conflict with those provisions of the constitution of the United States or of the state of Connecticut which guaranty security to the person."
    McCarthy v. Hinman, 35 Conn. 538 (Conn. 1869)
    Translation: parent who surrenders a child to the state becomes a pauper. And
    parent (as well as child) becomes subject to the (Collective) State. Did you
    "voluntarily" enroll your children into national socialism? At birth? To get more "freebies"?
    Now you know why you can't spank your children. They're no longer yours.


    FDR abolished the Pauper’s Oath, once Americans signed up with FICA.
    Historically, especially during the Great Depression, the pauper's oath was required as a prerequisite for receiving welfare or other forms of government relief in the United States.
    "I do solemnly swear that I have not any property, real or personal, exceeding $20, except such as is by law exempt from being taken on civil process for debt; and that I have no property in any way conveyed or concealed, or in any way disposed of, for my future use or benefit. So help me God."
    Since 1933, no dollars have circulated (“dollar bills” are not dollars). Everyone who signed up, became paupers at law, and absolutely own NOTHING to trigger the protections of the rules of the common law (7th amendment).

    Pauperization Implied
    In reading the FICA code, one will find exemptions for religious and secular organizations that provide for their members. The question not raised, is HOW did the rest of America become wards of the State, incapable of providing for themselves? HOW did the government presume that EVERYONE was now dependent upon the government, as the benefactor of last resort?

    My suspicions lie in several key facts:
    [] The extraction of lawful money from circulation, in 1933, by FDR. Without lawful money, no one can pay debt. (See: Art. 1, Sec. 10, USCON). Those who do not pay their debts are known as bankrupts - and bankrupts ARE under the aegis of the Federal government (See: Art. 1, Sec. 8, USCON).
    [] State of Emergency, declared by FDR, in 1933. Via Emergency, the government could side step constitutional limitations and requirements.
    [] Suspension of redemption of Federal Reserve Notes. Worthless IOUs do not alienate title. Thus no one can prove they have a “right” to that which they possess. It is now a “privilege” to own, subject to taxation and restriction.
    [] Deception - FDR told the nation that “Relief” (Welfare) was an entitlement - not charity. (Americans were well aware of the stigma of pauperization, and its drop in legal status). However, after FICA, FDR abolished the requirement for the Pauper’s Oath as a prerequisite for receiving public “entitlements”. (Congressional Research Service says that “entitlements” are synonymous with “gifts”. Gifts from the public treasury are charity - which makes all enumerated recipients into paupers at law.)
    The net result is a nation of “voluntary” paupers, deadbeats, bankrupts, and ne’er-do-wells, that the overworked munificent State must care for, for their own good... and impose ever more restrictive rules and regulations, ever higher taxes, and abolition of rights that their forefathers fought and died to endow their progeny with.
    The only viable remedy is to WITHDRAW CONSENT, and re-establish one’s status under the republican form of government. By acquiring a domicile, a lawful and permanent home, one is at no risk of becoming a vagrant / vagabond. As an inhabitant (non-resident), natural and personal liberties are restored. Non-residents are not required to get permission (license) to exercise their rights to life, liberty and property ownership.
    The secret of life is that there is no secret of life.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

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