The "Voice of the People" is a scam

[ozmirage]

Posted by Tintin (here)
Time and technology constraints don't permit me here to be able to make time to contribute as I may wish to but I will endeavour to, and fairly soon.

In the meantime I'll share a thread that I started many years ago now dealing with Michael Tsarion's somewhat controversial take on the Constitution titled: The Constitution Con: A sad tale of parchment idolatory.
Whatever one may take away from this there's certainly some food for those of a more quizzical bent.

Source: https://www.michaeltsarion.com/constitution-con.html

Thread: The Constitution Con | Michael Tsarion
Link: https://projectavalon.net/forum4/sho...ichael-Tsarion

Extracted:

"Madison was the only delegate to keep records of proceedings at the Convention. However, his notes were not made public until four years after his death. Prior to their public release the notes had been thoroughly edited.

The con is evident from the Constitution's Preamble, as we said. In fact the "People" referred to are not citizens of America, No! They are the elites who rule from within a legally separate precinct known as the District of Columbia.

This district is under federal control and the government operating from within it is, legally speaking, a foreign institution. The term "We the People" denotes this separate ruling elite.

It refers to the imperious overlords who have granted the Constitution to the masses within the "United States of America" - the non-sovereign nation under their control. Therefore, the entity mentioned in the first line of the Preamble is not the same entity mentioned in the last line. Let's read it again and uncover the cunning artifice of its authors:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

This is what the Preamble subtextually infers:

"WE THE RULING ARISTOCRACY, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution FOR THE SLAVES WITHOUT RIGHTS, UNDER OUR FEDERAL CONTROL".

Because "People" is capitalized it is a proper noun referring to a specific body of people - Kenneth W. Royce (Hologram of Liberty)

That is a prime example of retconned new patriot mythology. (bogus)

The District of Columbia didn't exist until AFTER the ratification of the USCON.
And the folks who retained endowed rights were NOT the citizens ["People of the United States"] who ordained the new compact.

It's a popular N.P. belief that State Citizens are superior to US citizens. However, any citizen is a subject of their sovereign government. (mandatory civic duties abrogate all endowed rights)

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

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

---

"The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government and not for the government of the individual States."
- - -John Barron v. The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 7 Peters 204, (1822).

---
Remember, not all Americans could vote, and ratify that constitution. Those who could not vote, could not be presumed to give consent. Therefore, if we are the "private people" we're not parties to that compact, and if we are people of the individual States (USA), we are not the "people of the United States" who are parties to that compact.

Do you recall how and when you consented to the terms of that compact constitution?

LAST POINT
Most folks are unaware that under the Articles of Confederation (1777), there was a distinction between the United States of America and the United States, in Congress assembled.

Article I. The Stile of this confederacy shall be "The United States of America".

Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

Please note: The 50 states united are the "United States of America"... "this confederation"... The "United States" (federal government) refers to Congress, and its two other branches - executive and judicial.

So the preamble was quite accurate in defining the "new" compact constitution of the "United States" (Congress), for the benefit of the United States of America (and the sovereign people within them). Our own lack of knowledge is at fault, if we presumed otherwise.


In short, there is no "ruling Elite" without our CONSENT to be governed by them.
DO NOT BELIEVE ME - GO READ THE LAW FOR YOURSELF.

[ozmirage]

For most Americans, there are many opportunities to give consent, and assert one is a subject of the sovereign government. Every government document wherein you declare yourself to be a U.S. citizen, for example.
Why don't those documents just say they're only for "citizens"?

They NEED your repeated consent to maintain the fraud.

THREE CONSENTS
_ _ Citizenship (voting & holding office) [voter rolls, jury pool, etc] obligated to support and defend the government [pay taxes, militia duty];
_ _ Socialism (FICA), SSN used to open bank accounts, access "entitlements" etc; public charity (pauperization), and obligation to support other socialists (“income tax on wages”); and
_ _ Signature card : “agree to abide by the rules of the bank” makes one subject to the authority of the Sec’y of Treasury (aka “U.S. governor of the World Bank and IMF”), which attaches “his” rules to your privileges to not pay your debts with lawful money and to engage in usury (gain, interest).

IN SHORT, if the record shows you’re still exercising any privileges associated with citizenship, socialism, and usury, any claims to the contrary will not prevail, despite any "patriot boilerplate" filings into the public record.

[ozmirage]

for those who like legal "boilerplate"
- - -|||||- - -
NOTICE (a REMEDY)

I, <NAME>, as one of the sovereign people with all endowed rights intact, hereby give notice that I am not subject to nor object of the authority, rules, regulations, taxes, etc, of <AGENCY> and please correct the record to reflect that fact. Failure to do so is prima facie evidence of a trespass and grounds for civil and criminal prosecution. No government (or its servants) instituted to secure endowed rights can trespass those rights under color of law, fraud, expediency, or other grounds.

I have never knowingly, willingly or intentionally consented to be governed, surrendered my Creator's endowment, or exercised any revenue taxable privilege. Any presumption of consent is rebutted on the grounds it was acquired by fraud, constructive fraud, misrepresentation or withholding of material facts. Any mistakes on my part, based on being deceived, are not deliberate actions, but innocently made, and I ask your pardon and assistance in correcting the matter. And if you are an oath bound public servant, I do not absolve you of your duty to me, to help secure my endowed rights from trespass.

SIGNED, this <number> day of <month> of <year>,
<NAME>

- - -|||||- - -
TO inquire about a particular law or statute.
- - -|||||- - -
Dear {Sir, Madam, or Fill in Name},

I am in need of an answer, with respect to {law or code citation}.

If I understand correctly, the U.S. Constitution (1789) is the supreme law of the land. And pursuant to Article 4, Section 4, a republican form of government is guaranteed to the people of these states united. And since the republican form was instituted by the Declaration of Independence (1776), wherein it states that governments are instituted for two functions : (1) secure endowed rights, and (2) govern [rule] those who consent, any law that is not explicitly securing rights of an injured party, is based on consent.

Could you please explain to me whose injured rights are being secured by {law or code}.

Absent an injured party, could you please explain to me how and when I gave consent to be governed by {law or code}.

For if I have not knowingly, willingly and intentionally consented to be subject to this, then the imposition of this violates my endowed rights which you are oath bound to secure. No government instituted to secure endowed rights is delegated power to infringe them, overtly or covertly.

Thank you,

s/ Iyam Knot Yoorserf

[Nasu]

Posted by ozmirage (here)

Posted by Nasu (here)
I can see no other purpose for government other than administering the will of the community and perhaps diplomacy between service and resource providers and other communities.

Pray tell, what "will" of what majority is involved in securing endowed rights democratically?

What diplomacy is involved in adjudicating disputes (civil actions)?

What diplomacy is needed in prosecuting criminals?

Why would a popularity contest winner be more suited to be a public servant?
Even pirate ship crews voted for their captains.

Endowed rights sound like a very debatable topic. Water for example would seem like an endowed right for all humans, but good luck finding free, clean water theses days. Endowed by whom? God? Which God, when? Personally I think rights are something created by man and woman and either kept or lost, through a multitude of factors, war for example.

As for civil actions, diplomacy, or the need for representation has for a very long time been a corner stone to civilization. This goes for prosecuting criminality, such as when an individual claims to be innocent of such a crime. in essence the accused is merely breaking a rule or law created by such a civilization, sometimes for just reasons, sometimes to benefit others. Without such representation, many innocents would suffer for crimes they did not commit but were unable for a variety of reasons, education being just one, to convince the ruling and accusing authorities.

Jay walking as a crime was lobbied for and created by the US car industry to avoid installing costly safety features such as seat belts, for example. In many parts of the US this law still remains, long after said features are now themselves governed by law.

I agree no popularity contest should select a public servant, however, even at the lowest level, interviews play a vital role when hiring, an unpopular but effective candidate will sadly fare worse than a popular but much less qualified candidate, the right or wrong of this could be debated for ever.

Yes even pirate crews would vote for their captains and rules to live by. An unpopular captain would not get the vote, for good or ill. As I said, at a local and small level, I think democracy has a place.....x....... N

[ozmirage]

Posted by Nasu (here)

Posted by ozmirage (here)

Posted by Nasu (here)
I can see no other purpose for government other than administering the will of the community and perhaps diplomacy between service and resource providers and other communities.

Pray tell, what "will" of what majority is involved in securing endowed rights democratically?

What diplomacy is involved in adjudicating disputes (civil actions)?

What diplomacy is needed in prosecuting criminals?

Why would a popularity contest winner be more suited to be a public servant?
Even pirate ship crews voted for their captains.

Endowed rights sound like a very debatable topic. Water for example would seem an endowed right, but good luck finding free clean water theses days.

As for civil actions, diplomacy, or the need for representation has for a very long time been a corner stone to civilization. This goes for prosecuting criminality, which is in essence merely breaking a rule or law created by such a civilization.

I agree no popularity contest should select a public servant, however, even at the lowest level, interviews play a vital role when hiring, an unpopular but effective candidate will sadly fare worse than a popular but much less qualified candidate, the right or wrong of this could be debated for ever.

Yes even pirate crews would vote for their captains and rules to live by. As I said, at a local and small level, I think democracy has a place.....x....... N

Endowed rights sound like a very debatable topic. . . nope.

See : https://projectavalon.net/forum4/sho...=1#post1596431

Endowments are well established in American law.
That the propaganda ministry has us confused is part of the problem.
. . .
The endowed right to absolutely own land, means you can absolutely own the water on and in that land.
Nature’s distilled water is available as rain, collected into cisterns.
. . .
Governments are institutions that provide the means to secure rights. They derive from the ancient principle expressed by the fasces : a bundle of “weak” sticks become unbreakable, when united. The greater the union, the greater the power.
. . .
Civilization’s cornerstone isn’t the judiciary nor diplomacy nor representation.

CIVILIZATION - An advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions.

Inherent in the definition is the cooperation of individuals - to secure rights - to perpetuate and propagate - to combine efforts in civil engineering - to multiply output - to achieve things that exceed the efforts of one man over one lifetime - and benefit the most people for the least expenditure in resources.

Empirically, the goal is survival, individually and collectively. The use of tools, knowledge and technology to provide more with less so more can enjoy underpins civilization. Prosperity is based upon prodigious production, equitable trade and enjoyment of surplus usable goods and services.
A great civilization is the result of cooperation, in defense, and in creative production, as well as the luxury of time to delve into activities beyond subsistence and survival.

The nemesis of any civilization is the predator, his allies, collaborators, the parasite, and the mindless destroyer, the vandal. Unfortunately, prosperous people and nations are targets for these predators, parasites, and plunderers.

If humanity is to survive and thrive, cooperation in the defense of inherent rights from predators, parasites, and poltroons is essential. And we must abandon money madness - seeking to "make money." Real prosperity is based on production of surplus, and that means we all need to get busy.

[Nasu]

Thank you for your reply. Although endowed rights are well established in US law, laws change over time. For example the second amendment to the constitution ends with the phrase, shall not be infringed. Show me one state or county within the US that has not infringed in some measurable way on such "rights". The rest of the constitution and amendments have suffered a similar fate.

Aside from that I mostly agree with you, I think. Maybe it's just me but I find your long posts which reference past laws very confusing to comprehend.

Are you saying we do have a voice, or are you saying we don't? I'm not quite sure. Either way I enjoy reading your posts. Voice or no voice, we share more in common than not.

Time corrupts everything, perhaps it's human nature.

The fasces of ancient Rome hid the fact that the top tier elite ran things, with or without the strength of the masses who held them on their shoulders. Such is the way with our current lot, 99% ruled by 1%. Strong together, yes, but divided by race, religion, politics, income and education. So not strong at all, the 1% at least have a cohesive goal, we share little in common aside from suffering and thus are weak by comparison.

I agree that we are all duped into the ever constant search for money, in this time, in this world, nothing else can guarantee our children's dinner.......x...... N

[Ernie Nemeth]

I think that is the fundamental point that Oz continues to emphasize: we are confused about our rights, and about what is the difference between rights and privileges.

Any endowed rights are moot if they are not recognized, understood, and claimed.

We have been poorly served by our education systems, as this topic is absolutely required knowledge.

How can a sovereign be a sovereign if they do not know they were born that way. And that every time they give consent they disavow their endowed rights, by definition.

[ozmirage]

Posted by Nasu (here)
Thank you for your reply. Although endowed rights are well established in US law, laws change over time. For example the second amendment to the constitution ends with the phrase, shall not be infringed. Show me one state or county within the US that has not infringed in some measurable way on such "rights". The rest of the constitution and amendments have suffered a similar fate.

Aside from that I mostly agree with you, I think. Maybe it's just me but I find your long posts which reference past laws very confusing to comprehend.

Are you saying we do have a voice, or are you saying we don't? I'm not quite sure. Either way I enjoy reading your posts. Voice or no voice, we share more in common than not.

Time corrupts everything, perhaps it's human nature.

The fasces of ancient Rome hid the fact that the top tier elite ran things, with or without the strength of the masses who held them on their shoulders. Such is the way with our current lot, 99% ruled by 1%. Strong together, yes, but divided by race, religion, politics, income and education. So not strong at all, the 1% at least have a cohesive goal, we share little in common aside from suffering and thus are weak by comparison.

I agree that we are all duped into the ever constant search for money, in this time, in this world, nothing else can guarantee our children's dinner.......x...... N

SOVEREIGN PEOPLE do not participate in the democratic form. Ergo, there is no "voice" to express. The sovereign people are like passengers on the Ship of State, cared for by the staff (citizens) who are under the authority of the officers and captain.
- - - - - -

Re: Second Amendment

It's a common mistake to assume that PEOPLE and MILITIAMEN are synonymous.
BUT remember who has mandatory civic duties? Which means citizen / militia have NO RIGHTS . . . ONLY PRIVILEGES. And militiamen can be "regulated" in the manner in which they bear arms.

So the 2nd amendment has been meaningless for citizens / militiamen. And the "people" who retained their right to bear arms are unaffected.
In short, the whole BILL OF RIGHTS was for the subject citizens to allay their fears that their surrender of endowments made them easy victims.
- - - - -
As to the republican form, nothing has changed that YET.
. . .

“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)

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Calvin_Coolidge
. . .
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.
. . .

DO NOT BELIEVE ME - go read the law available at any county courthouse law library.
It is vital for folks to read their own laws... before "they" erase them all.
= = = = =
NOT 1 IN 100,000 AMERICANS KNOW THIS

[ozmirage]

Posted by Ernie Nemeth (here)
I think that is the fundamental point that Oz continues to emphasize: we are confused about our rights, and about what is the difference between rights and privileges.

Any endowed rights are moot if they are not recognized, understood, and claimed.

We have been poorly served by our education systems, as this topic is absolutely required knowledge.

How can a sovereign be a sovereign if they do not know they were born that way. And that every time they give consent they disavow their endowed rights, by definition.

I was in my late 30's when circumstances compelled me to read law. Up till that point, I was a "true believer" of all that was instilled in me via the propaganda ministry. . . Academia, Movies & TV, literature, and so forth.

But if you do go to the courthouse law library, remember to wear knee pads and "Depends" (adult diapers) ... you may fall to your knees, weeping, or pee yourself.

I know if I went back in time to 1990, and told myself, I wouldn't believe me, either.

READING LAW IS HARD. But once you comprehend how the legal sleaze use negative Boolean logic and twisted grammar, then you can really get ill.

I could make summary statements that would shock most readers, who sincerely believe what they were told about America's government. However, that would probably make many turn away, in disgust, unwilling to believe it.

I learned I was a slave in 1990, and "they" could no longer pull the wool over my eyes. I was angry at government until I learned that I consented, and became angry at myself for being so stupid, etc, etc, etc. Only by reading law did I realize the "Twilight Zone" aspect of American history.

The government can truthfully declare "In God We Trust," knowing that they insulated themselves from "Divine Wrath" by our own ignorance of law (& the Bible).

What? Heifer Dung, you say.

If you don’t believe you’ve been thoroughly indoctrinated, consider this tidbit: usury has been condemned for over 3500 years, denounced by all religions, and declared an abomination in Ezekiel 18:13 KJV - in which usurers shall surely die, their blood be on their own hands.

SO when government "abuses" usurers, who are already "dead men walking" there is no risk of "Divine Wrath" on their behalf.

And according to the law, only duly enumerated "human resources" signed up with socialist insecurity can open a personal interest bearing bank account.
(No instrumentality of the Federal Reserve will open an account for an unnumbered American - bless their hearts).

No matter what pious dogma you hold dear, if you're a signatory to a signature card wherein you AGREED TO ABIDE BY THE RULES OF THE BANK, and are engaged in contracts that earn INTEREST *(usury), by all known religions, you're an apostate.

All the people I personally knew who were hassled by the Eye Are Us had two things in common : [] SSN & [] an open, interest bearing personal account.
However all the people I personally know who were left alone had no SSN nor interest bearing personal bank account - regardless of the new patriot nonsense they filed with government or the Eye Are Us.

But good luck trying to find the "smoking gun" in the law, itself. Most people believe the socialist insecurity is "insurance."

In 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. And that benefits are entirely at the discretion of Congress.

Federal Insurance CONTRIBUTIONS Act is not "insurance" for the participant, but merely a "tax and bribe" scam... as well as making the participant into an obligated party on the national debt.

CONTRIBUTION. The share of a loss payable by an insurer when contracts with two or more insurers cover the same loss.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed., p. 328

And the majority of socialist taxes are derived from voluntary participation in FICA / Social Security. No law compels participation and no law punishes non participants.

“The Social Security Act does not require an individual to have a Social Security Number (SSN) to live and work within the United States, nor does it require an SSN simply for the purpose of having one...”
- - - The Social Security Administration

http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/ScottSSNLetter.pdf
Get your own personalized letter from the SocSecAdmin . . .

Read the law for yourself . . .
SOCIAL SECURITY ACT OF 1935 FULL TEXT
https://www.ssa.gov/history/pdf/Down...%20Vol%201.pdf

"THEY" have had us completely confused for generations.

The question for public servants : who knows the truth and are they willing conspirators?
That question gives "them" nightmares.
When too many Americans ask that question, they know their days are [censored].

LAST SMALL POINT. . .

I'm a fan of science fiction and have read quite a lot. But there is one glaring omission - the republican form of government.
You can find innumerable stories, movies, TV, comics, etc, about democracy, monarchies, oligarchies, autocrats, hive minds, etc, etc.
But you will not find one snippet that mentions the REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT, wherein the people are sovereigns (born equal) with Creator endowed rights, and are NOT citizens of a planet, galactic confederation, etc, etc.
THAT illustrates how powerful the propaganda ministry truly is. It has effectively eradicated all mention of the RFOG from our resources.
So don't feel too bemused because you were their victim.

[ozmirage]

CRUCIAL POINT
One of the reasons why "official" government curriculum omits the Articles of Confederation (and lies about them over and over) is that certain sections will trigger "unsafe" questions.

And if you are unaware that all promises made under the Articles are binding on Congress under the USCON (Art6), you might not realize how important it is.

There is this thing called STATUS at law, that is not well known.
In careful reading of the law, one can see the distinctions between those who are sovereign and those who are subject. However, many are unaware of a third status : “excepted.”

Though it’s not mentioned in the USCON, status criminals are
an excepted class, without the promised protections afforded by the constitutions, state and federal.

I first learned of the excepted classes by reading the Articles of Confederation.

"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 excepted?
[] Paupers
[] Vagabonds

"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

" 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

{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?}

What are the characteristics of the excepted class?
__ Paupers are those who are so poor that they need public support. (Indigents are also poor, but they don’t accept public support and are not status criminals)
__ Vagabonds are those who have no home (transients), or if they do have a home, they are mostly not there. Vagrants are defined as a combination of vagabond and pauper - homeless people who also rely on public charity.

Is it a coincidence that states define “resident” to be synonymous with vagabond, a transient with no legal home (i.e., domicile)?
And it is no coincidence that FDR abolished the Pauper’s Oath as a prerequisite for “Relief” once Americans signed up with FICA. Anyone with an account and number is eligible for public charity making them paupers at law - status criminals.

In a nutshell, 99.999% of Americans have claimed a status that sets them OUTSIDE of the protections of the constitutions, state or federal. And this is how the government is able to operate with total disregard for those compacts... you gave them consent.

Toss in being an abomination via usury, and you're toast.

[ozmirage]

STATUS CRIMINALS continued


Recapping:

"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)]

PAUPER - One so poor that he must be supported at public expense.
- - - Black's Law dictionary, 6th ed., p. 1128

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.)

To sign up with Socialist InSecurity, one needs to file a Form SS-5 only available to U.S. Citizens / U.S. RESIDENTS.
So every duly enumerated participant in FICA is a pauper and a vagabond.
Thus practically ALL Americans have consented to be EXCEPTED from the status of FREE people.

(Crazy!)

In support of that fact, is found in the definition of "status crimes" which directly connect to the pre-constitutional exclusion.

"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 liberty."
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.

LOSING YOUR CHILDREN

" ... 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 the parent (as well as the child) becomes subject to the (Collective) State.

Did you "voluntarily" enroll your children into national socialism? At birth? Now you know why you can't spank your children. They're no longer ABSOLUTELY yours. And how a judge can “grant” custody of YOUR children to whomever he rules.
. . .
FDR abolished the Pauper’s Oath, once Americans signed up with FICA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauper%27s_oath

"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).

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?

By consent.
No law compels participation in FICA.
IT IS 100% VOLUNTARY.
D'Oh!

[Ernie Nemeth]

Personally, I have never followed the dictates of 'authority' (read people with guns who have the power to throw me in jail or kill me).

I do my own thing, I disregard any dictates that interfere with that motivation. Period.

Of course, many avenues are not open to me because of that stance, severely limiting my impact in this life, this time around.

[ozmirage]

Status Reference:

STATUS - ...The rights, duties, capacities, and incapacities which determine a person to a given class. A legal personal relationship, not temporary in its nature, nor terminable at the mere will of the parties, with which third persons and the state are concerned. Holzer v. Deutsche Reichsbahn Gesellschaft, 159 Misc. 830,290 N.Y.S. 181, 191.
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth ed., P. 1410

The social status of a citizen shall never be the subject of legislation.
Art. 1, Sec. 1, Para. 25, Constitution of the State of Georgia

No special law relating to the rights or status of private persons shall be enacted.
Art. 3, Sec. 4, Para. 4(b), Constitution of the State of Georgia

In light of these facts, regarding STATUS at law, and YOUR CONSENT, it is important that you properly identify who and what you are, and have the facts to substantiate your claim to sovereignty.

Pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, we know that each individual is endowed with the right to life, liberty and property ownership. . . unless surrendered. We also know that citizens surrender those rights, because they are obligated to perform civic duties, such as militia duty - the obligation to train, fight and die, on command.

For those who have not consented, nor contracted for usury or other abominations, they can exercise natural and personal liberty.

Two factors to establish one’s sovereign status within the USA:
1. American nationality - born within boundaries of the USA, of American parentage.
{This establishes your inalienable right to dwell in the USA, and support your right to life with harmless activity (i.e., work).}
2. Inhabitant (free) - has a domicile (permanent legal home), absolutely owned as private property.
{Upon your property you can exercise dominion. It also establishes your reciprocal right to travel upon public roads, since you grant easements for public roads located upon your private property.}

If you have no permanent, legal home, you may be presumed to be a resident with a residence. This will obligate you to get permission, lest you trespass.

Foreign nationals, who renounce their foreign allegiance, and establish a domicile in the USA, can assert sovereign prerogatives. (If they so choose, they can also seek naturalization, and become subject citizens.)
Undocumented foreigners are not prosecuted for failure to have a license, since being non-residents of the forum, they are excepted from compliance.

FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES ACT OF 1976

28 USC § 1603. Definitions
For purposes of this chapter --
(a) A "foreign state", ...
(b) An “agency or instrumentality of a foreign state” means any entity—
(3) which is neither a citizen of a State of the United States as defined in section 1332 (c) and (d) of this title, nor created under the laws of any third country.

(An American national, free inhabitant, non-citizen of a State of the U.S., nor under the laws of any third country appears to fit the definition.)

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

Title 8, USC Sec. 1502. Certificate of nationality issued by the Secretary of State for person not a naturalized citizen of the United States for use in proceedings of a foreign state.
“ The Secretary of State is authorized to issue, in his discretion and in accordance with rules and regulations prescribed by him, a certificate of nationality for any person not a naturalized citizen of the United States who presents satisfactory evidence that he is an AMERICAN NATIONAL and that such certificate is needed for use in judicial or administrative proceedings in a foreign state. Such certificate shall be solely for the use in the case for which it was issued and shall be transmitted by the Secretary of State through appropriate channels to the judicial or administrative officers of the foreign state in which it is to be used.”

That is ALL that the Federal government will say about American nationals. No mention of any civic duties, taxes, or compulsory regulations. And non-citizen, non-resident nationals are ineligible to participate in Socialist InSecurity, even if they wanted to.
(BTW - a domiciled American national is also a free inhabitant. Check your own state constitution and laws for the distinction between residents and inhabitants (non-residents).)

FYI - The U.S. government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state.

FEDERAL CORPORATIONS - The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state.
- - - Volume 19, Corpus Juris Secundum XVIII. Foreign Corporations, Sections 883,884

"The United States and the State of California are two separate sovereignties, each dominant in its own sphere."
- - - Redding v. Los Angeles (1947), 81 C.A.2d 888, 185 P.2d 430.

"We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of it's own..."
- - - United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

Hmmm, it doesn't look like too many Americans were born "subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign corporation."

14th amendment, Section 1. 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.

WHOA . . . Did you catch that citizens of the U.S. can only "reside?" U.S. citizens cannot be "inhabitants" with a domicile. They can only be "residents" with a residence.


Do states know the difference?

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

If an inhabitant non-citizen does not wish to partake in the glorious socialist benefits program because of his religious beliefs, the state will not molest him or his property.
THANK YOU!

“ Citizens, protection of. All citizens of the United States, resident in this state, are hereby declared citizens of this state ; and it shall be the duty of the General Assembly to enact such laws as will protect them in the full enjoyment of the rights, privileges, and immunities due to such citizenship.”
- - - Georgia Constitution, Article 1, Sec.3, Paragraph 7

Uh OH! U.S. citizens can only be RESIDENTS in the state.


And you should also know that the term "person" excludes the sovereign.

a) " 'in common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the [word] are normally construed to exclude it.' Wilson v Omaha Tribe, 442 US653 667, 61 L Ed 2d 153, 99 S Ct 2529 (1979) (quoting United States v Cooper Corp. 312 US 600, 604, 85 L Ed 1071, 61 S Ct 742 (1941). See also United States v Mine Workers, 330 US 258, 275, 91 L Ed 884, 67 S Ct 677 (1947)" Wills v Michigan State Police, 491 US 58, 105 L. Ed. 2d 45, 109 S.Ct. 2304

b) “a sovereign is not a person in a legal sense” In re Fox, 52 N. Y. 535, 11 Am. Rep. 751; U.S. v. Fox, 94 U.S. 315, 24 L. Ed. 192

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

. . .
So who were the parties who were born or naturalized in the foreign corporation, that were not sovereigns?
Former privately owned chattel slaves?
D'Oh.

If you do not believe that the government knows the difference between a subject person and a sovereign individual, read on. Coincidentally, when government wishes a law to be applicable to everyone, it uses the phrase, "Whoever ...". When the law is not applicable to everyone, it uses the phrase, "Any person who ....".

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

Contrast with:

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

The average person would not know that the second law had limited applicability to subject persons who had enrolled into national socialism and thus gave their consent to be bound.


The infamous NY Sullivan Act that bans unlicensed concealed carry of weapons appears to only apply to “persons”...
http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal...00_400.00.html

15. Any violation by any PERSON of any provision of this section is a class A misdemeanor.

We all know about the gun ban on School grounds, right? Doesn't apply to sovereign people, though.

Title 18 USC § 921 (firearms)
(a) As used in this chapter
(1) The term person and the term whoever include any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, or joint stock company.

Title 18 USC § 922 (firearms)
(a) It shall be unlawful
(1) for any person ...

Title 18 USC Sec. 922 (q)
(I) the Congress has the power, under the INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE ..., to enact measures to ensure the integrity and safety of the Nations schools by enactment of this subsection.
(2)
(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a SCHOOL ZONE.
(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm
(i) on private property not part of school grounds;

The sovereign people retain their rights to bear arms ANYWHERE... especially since they're absolutely owned (private property). But you subject citizens better not engage in INTERSTATE COMMERCE near school zones.
D'Oh...

[ozmirage]

Posted by Ernie Nemeth (here)
Personally, I have never followed the dictates of 'authority' (read people with guns who have the power to throw me in jail or kill me).

I do my own thing, I disregard any dictates that interfere with that motivation. Period.

Of course, many avenues are not open to me because of that stance, severely limiting my impact in this life, this time around.

Unfortunately, Canada is a subject of the English Monarchy, so Canadians cannot be "sovereigns."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada
Government : Federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy
• Monarch : Charles III

Ditto, for Australia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia
Government : Federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy
• Monarch : Charles III


Britania still rules.

[ozmirage]

Those who may wish to expand their knowledge of American law, might start HERE:

Can you determine the (legal) difference between the following pairs?
❏ national v. citizen
❏ sovereign v. subject
❏ inhabitant v. resident
❏ domicile v. residence
❏ natural liberty v. civil liberty
❏ personal liberty v. political liberty
❏ private property v. estate (real and personal property)
❏ 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)

{When you check your own state’s constitution and laws, pay attention to trigger words : inhabitant, domicile, private property, common law, natural liberty, personal liberty, rights, powers, immunities, and sovereignty. Pay attention to the obligated party identified in the statute. Also note when the statute explicitly recognizes that the common law or any right derived from the common law supersedes the statute.}

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 American national, free inhabitant, domiciled upon his private property within the boundaries of the United States of America.

But I have found volumes of laws that restrain, regulate and tax the poor U.S. citizen / resident residing at a residence (real estate), duly enrolled and enumerated, obligated to get permission (license) to live, work, travel, buy, sell ... to name just a few.

Thanks to your consent, your "right to life" becomes a government granted privilege, as does all other aspects of one's life. All that is not mandatory, is licensed (+ taxed) or forbidden. You need a license (or pay a tax) to live, work, travel, buy, sell, operate a business, enter occupations, own a car, transmit radio, fly a plane, own a boat, trade in healthcare, buy medicine, cut hair, build a house, hunt, fish, marry and own a dog.

Hopefully, this will spur a few readers to GO READ LAW. I am not infallible. Prove me wrong. Read the statutes and see the trapdoors left for those who have "common law rights" and "sovereign status."
And ask innocent questions of public servants.
Learn about the end of constitutional government in 1933.
But as long as the (un)constitutional government supports the republican form (as the current laws do), the "sovereign people" have no grounds to object - what few remain.

That's why your only real remedy is to WITHDRAW CONSENT, and restore your endowment as an American national / non-citizen / free inhabitant / non-resident, domiciled upon private property within one of the states of the United States of America.
There is no remedy in the socialist democracy, regardless of who wins the election.
Of course, if sufficient number of Americans DO restore their status, the Peoples Democratic Socialist Republics of America will collapse. Sigh.

[ozmirage]

As mentioned before, trapdoors are often placed in statutes, but omitted from code sections, so always go back to the original statute.

And even if the legal sleazes forget to put in the proper exclusions, NO LAW can "accidentally" violate endowed rights.

SHALL v. MAY

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

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

Translation: any use of "shall" in a law that violates a right if taken in the mandatory sense, can be construed to be "may" (discretionary, voluntary) so as not to violate a right.
All those "It shall be unlawful..." may be challenged if the law violates an endowed right without securing the rights of an injured party.

[ozmirage]

BEST COURSE OF ACTION

EDUCATION - learn enough about endowments and how you lost them.

WITHDRAW CONSENT - use their fraud as your tool to vitiate all agreements and compacts. Stop exercising all related privileges. Stop accepting any benefits.

RESTORE ENDOWMENT - restore your endowed right to life, liberty (natural and personal), inherent powers, absolute ownership, etc.

ACQUIRE PRIVATE PROPERTY - establish a domicile (permanent, legal home) upon land absolutely owned as private property. (Constitutionally protected, too)

FREE INHABITANT - as an American national with a domicile, one qualifies as a free inhabitant, one of the sovereign people, and explicitly protected under the republican form, the Articles of Confederation, and the US Constitution.
*(As one of the sovereign people, you are “foreign” to the other “sovereignties” - like the U.S. government and the State governments. They may be your servants, but they’re not your master. Don’t be fooled. If you have to ask for permission or license, it’s not a right. But if you do have rights, you don’t need permission. Look for the exceptions, exclusions, trap doors and Catch-22s.)

SECURITY - avoid entanglements with usurers, collectivist ideologues, and religious zealots. Furthermore, establish a fortified enclave to better deal with opportunistic thieves and scoundrels. Don’t rely on servant government for protection. At best, they can only prosecute after the fact.

INDEPENDENCE - acquire, build, or trade for access to necessities : clean air, potable water, nutritious food, fuel and energy, transportation, communications, entertainment, medical care and knowledge. The more independent you are, the less at risk you are from economic, political and ideological upheavals.

=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=

You can't dominate someone who's self sufficient. You can only dominate when you have something that someone else needs.
- - - Anonymous

“If America could be, once again, a nation of self-reliant farmers, craftsmen, hunters, ranchers, and artists, then the rich* would have little power to dominate others. Neither to serve nor to rule: That was the American dream.”
- - - Edward Abbey

{*I do not condemn those whose hard work and creativity enriched them. It’s the predators who gained wealth and power by preying on others, that is the problem.}

[ozmirage]

800 pound (362 kg) gorillla in the living room

The political remedy is NOT democracy, nor authoritarianism, totalitarian police states, nor collectivism. It's simply respect for rights - for governments to secure the endowed rights of their people, without needing to dominate, rob, or otherwise torment them.

BUT there IS another problem.

MONEY MADNESS is the belief that money has intrinsic value independent of the marketplace. This insanity skewers every newscast and political statement about “inflation”, “capital” and “consumption.”
[]
Money is not prosperity. A mountain of money is useless, worthless and meaningless unless there is something to sell - and - people are made to desire money. Sane people who do not believe in money madness are creative and productive, generating useful surplus goods and services, to equitably trade and enjoy. Doing more with less so more can enjoy is superior to doing less with more so few can enjoy.
[]
But how can we facilitate trade when barter is insufficient? The current money mad system is obviously flawed. Frankly, the money system is corrupted by those who understand how to manipulate the masses, and by keeping money scarce, drives up demand for usury - another abomination.
[]
As long as the laborers and businessmen cannot CREATE the medium of exchange, they are victims of those who DO create and control that medium.

Case in point : “economically distressed” nations (or neighborhoods) with a surplus of population, unmet needs, unemployment and lack of surplus production and distribution and trade.

Ask anyone “WHY?” and the usual answer is “no one has enough money!”

BUT inflation is caused by “too much money chasing too few goods.” How do we have a money token drought - and - inflation? Tax shift inflation, for one. Usury is another factor. Debt-credit currencies most assuredly.

What else is missing?

WHO controls the creation and distribution of new money, and by its scarcity, throttles trade?

When you answer THAT, you will know who is to blame.

ONE REMEDY : private creation and distribution of mediums of exchange to facilitate trade when barter is insufficient. Example : the humble coupon (private promissory note denominated in goods and or services - NOT MONEY). Any laborer or business that can emit coupons and use them in trade, can bypass the scarce money bottleneck and thus boost prosperity.

Thus business can self capitalize without borrowing from usurers. Thus unemployed labor can pre-sell future labor without needing public charity (socialism). Cut out the money, and you end inflation, eliminate parasites, and you boost prosperity, thus the standard of living.

Why?

Because prosperity is NOT based on wealth, but based on prodigious production of surplus usable goods and services, equitably traded and enjoyed. And that is not constrained by the false limits of a finite money token system that only enriches the usurers and their allies in government and industry.

[ozmirage]

THE REMEDY continued.

Since our eCONomy is based on money madness (with its inherent scarcity and dominance by usurers), all the contention between "Takers" and "Makers" is contrived.

Why ?

Under money madness, there are only three ways to acquire the scarce money tokens:

1. Trade (labor, property),
2. Charity (private, public),
3. Predation (crime, murder).

When the unemployed exhaust their resources and private charity, their last resort is crime. This is unacceptable, so the remedy of public charity is considered reasonable.

However, this is based on a total fraud created by the masters of money madness.
Compulsory charity (slavery) and confiscation of surplus (theft by government) are not viable solutions. That's why partisan politics has devolved into fights over who gets taxed and who gets bribed.

4. Alternative way - Liberty money*

The simple but politically incorrect remedy is not to TAKE from one to GIVE to another, but to recognize that only productive people have the power to CREATE the medium of exchange needed to trade their goods and services.

One example is the private promissory note (“coupon”) denominated in goods or services - not money. Once the productive people and businesses can issue their own mediums to facilitate trade, the bottleneck of scarce money tokens is eliminated. It also destroys the power of the money masters - bankers, underwriters, corporations and other miscreants. It also voids the need for public charity, since any unemployed laborer can trade using his promises to work in the future, in lieu of lawful money. As long as one keeps creditworthy, and satisfactorily discharges his notes, he’s able to spend as much as he’s able to work.

And once that system replaces the old, billionaires become zero-aires overnight. Which might explain why NO ONE DARE WHISPER THIS SOLUTION.

Only the productive become prosperous - not "investors" - not "bankers" - not "governments" (snicker, snicker).

Remember, no government instituted to secure endowed rights can tax them. Only government privileges are taxable. Once you stop using "their" privileged money token, you're outside of their taxing jurisdiction.

*(Liberty money - because it’s part of natural liberty of the sovereign to create a medium of exchange to facilitate trade when barter is insufficient. And it is not taxable.)