Are We Really Free? (not referring to this board, but in life itself)

[wondering]

I am presenting this article as food for thought. It must be noted that there are some points that I don't feel as strongly about as he does, however, I am leaving that out so that I might get some good, honest conversations going here, hopefully. The writers appear to be freelance, fly-by-night kinds so I will admit now, that this person can be as normal as you or me. Thanks for reading!

http://indieregister.wordpress.com/2010/04/03/are-we-really-free/#more-1280


Are we really free?

By William R. Toler

Americans, in general, often laud our freedoms. Usually, the freedoms most openly discussed and debated are those guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America.

But it begs to question: Are we really free, or do we just have the illusion of freedom?

Are you free when you have to ask permission to do something? A quick, logical answer would be no.

So, another question arises: Are permits constitutional? My answer is no.

Let’s start with the First Amendment, one of the most mentioned and debated of the lot. We are guaranteed, not given, the rights to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to assemble, freedom of religion and a redress of grievances.

If these rights were not infringed, there would be no permits for peaceful protests. Liberals who protest against what they see as unjust wars, and conservatives who protest higher taxation should not have to pay a fee and ask permission to exercise their God-given rights which are protected by the First Amendment.

One of the most daring offenders in denying these rights are public learning institutions. If these freedoms were permitted, The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education would not exist. However, it does exist because college campuses across the nation seem to have a problem with the freedoms outlined in the First Amendment. For 10 years, FIRE has been taking on public colleges and universities that have enacted “speech codes” and have stringent rules as to when and where students can exercise their rights, if at all.

As Evan Coyne Maloney showed in his documentary “Indoctrinate U,” some students — and even professors — are chastised for having opposing viewpoints. One student featured fought expulsion for being offensive. His offensive speech: a flyer for an upcoming speaker for the Young Republicans group. The flyer had a picture of the speaker, black conservative Mason Weaver, and part of the flyer read, “Author of the book ‘It’s OK to Leave the Plantation’.” Some brain-dead students were offended by the word “plantation” and the student was nearly expelled.

Now let’s move on the other contested freedom, that mentioned in the Second Amendment: the right of the people to keep and bear arms. As stated in the amendment that right “shall not be infringed.”

So, any form of gun control—except for using both hands—is unconstitutional. This would include permits, sales restrictions and carry laws. If we were in compliance with the amendment, everyone in the country could walk around with a .357 on their hip and/or a 12-guage strapped to their back. Why? Because of not only the right to “keep,” but the right to “bear arms.”

Before anyone gets the wrong idea, I do support restictions on felons, especially violent felons. At some point, a felon viloated the rights of another, so in turn the felon should be limited.

Most gun control advocates claim that strict laws keep guns out of the hands of “the bad guys.” Newsflash: weapons laws do nothing to deter gun crimes by those who commit them. Most of the guns they use are usually “illegal” to begin with. So all gun control really does is make the populous more vulnerable against criminals and despots.

The film “Innocents Betrayed”—produced by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership—goes into the history of gun control laws in the 20th Century. Those laws were enacted by tyrannical governments—including the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, China, Cambodia and Uganda—which destroyed more than 70 million lives through genocide.

Moving on to another often repeated mantra: The military fights for our freedoms. Nothing could be farther from the truth. No disrespect is meant to those serving. I have several friends who have donned a uniform of each of the four branches. But I have yet to see how they are fighting for my rights. They feel it is their patriotic duty to serve, just the same as I see it is my duty to inform the public of government misdeeds.

Want more?

Some would argue that while the 13th Amendment outlawed slavery, in a sense, the 14th made us all slaves…or at least indentured servants by stating that the “validity of the public debt…shall not be questioned.” Congress later passed—in 1913—both the Federal Reserve Act and the Income Tax Act.

In the past 100 years the federal government has grown exponentially and we now have a Nanny State. There are more regulations telling us what we can and can’t do, as if we can’t make decisions for ourselves.

Granted, we do have more “freedom” than those in other countries, but can it be better?

The decision is up to us.

[iOWNme]

You are only as free as where you are willing to draw your own line in the sand.

That line in the sand is a symbol for defending your creator endowed, unalienable rights with LETHAL force if needed.

Go try and exercise any of the Bill of Rights, and you will find out just how free you are. You can exercise any 1 of them, as long as you have a 'license'.

We have the 'illusion' of freedom, because we can go to the grocery store and choose from 32 flavors of bagels, or be cause we can pick from 100's of cell phone colored cases. But when it comes to 'political' freedom, we are given 2 choices to elect from. But we will NEVER select our own leader.

Govern yourself or be Governed.


The 13th Amendment DID NOT abolish slavery. It abolished 'Involuntary Servitude'. We all volunteer (consent) to slavery everyday.

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." - Goethe

Our slavery chains were painted Red,White and Blue, the Propaganda song was played to the tune of the Star Spangled Banner, and we were all sold down the river of serfdom.

We are dancing to the beating drums of the 4th Reich.......

[PDT]

Now let’s move on the other contested freedom, that mentioned in the Second Amendment: the right of the people to keep and bear arms. As stated in the amendment that right “shall not be infringed.”

So, any form of gun control—except for using both hands—is unconstitutional. This would include permits, sales restrictions and carry laws. If we were in compliance with the amendment, everyone in the country could walk around with a .357 on their hip and/or a 12-gauge strapped to their back. Why? Because of not only the right to “keep,” but the right to “bear arms.”

Before anyone gets the wrong idea, I do support restrictions on felons, especially violent felons. At some point, a felon violated the rights of another, so in turn the felon should be limited.


Doublethink.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink

Either you believe in freedom, or you don't.

[Becks1516]

IMO -

If you buy the Idea of a Creator ( God ... whatever )
Then by Default

Free Will, and all that other Free-Stuff becomes Contradictory

Lets Test the Above ...
Why would something that Created You
allow you to have say over it ?

But

ICBW

[uranian]

if you do something you don't want to do because of an externally imposed penalty, no you are not free. whether it's wear a tie, pay tax or anything else.

[UFM]

"You are free to do what we tell you." Does that answer your question?

[PDT]

IMO -

If you buy the Idea of a Creator ( God ... whatever )
Then by Default

Free Will, and all that other Free-Stuff becomes Contradictory

Lets Test the Above ...
Why would something that Created You
allow you to have say over it ?

But

ICBW


A Creator that makes a creation like Himself in some ways is not illogical or contradictory.

Parents often choose to allow offspring "say" over them...check out "Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care."

[Desolation LineTrimmer]

The film “Innocents Betrayed”—produced by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership—goes into the history of gun control laws in the 20th Century. Those laws were enacted by tyrannical governments—including the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, China, Cambodia and Uganda—which destroyed more than 70 million lives through genocide.

Wasn't it really the Weimar Republic rather than the Nazis that instituted harsh gun control measures? Otherwise good article.

[wondering]

The film “Innocents Betrayed”—produced by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership—goes into the history of gun control laws in the 20th Century. Those laws were enacted by tyrannical governments—including the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, China, Cambodia and Uganda—which destroyed more than 70 million lives through genocide.

Wasn't it really the Weimar Republic rather than the Nazis that instituted harsh gun control measures? Otherwise good article.


I am not really sure the exact details and I was not the writer of the article. I just found the article something to think on. I look at what we call freedom now and I have to laugh. Walking through Walmart and you go to exit the doors with the goods you just purchased and they insist on seeing your receipt. Now, I know their game so I go out the gardening area because there is less than about 25 feet from where you pay and you get out the door. When I see them asking to see others I simply get by them. I was told by one of the employees that it is the law that they can detain and check your receipt. I had to correct her and tell her that is only if you have a reasonable suspicion that customer has stolen something from them. Seriously, there is nothing to steal in the 25 feet to the door!

So I just keep looking at how it just seems like the smallest things but they are chipping away at our freedoms, like this situation at Walmart. I had nothing to hide from her. I didn't steal anything. It could be quicker in some instances to just show them the stupid receipt and get on with your life. It does seem that simple, but when you look at it on a grander scale, if everyone did a small act like this situation of checking everyone's receipt, we have lost more freedom that we could ever imagine because they are just small little things.

[Uncle Salty]

Moving on to another often repeated mantra: The military fights for our freedoms. Nothing could be farther from the truth. No disrespect is meant to those serving. I have several friends who have donned a uniform of each of the four branches. But I have yet to see how they are fighting for my rights. They feel it is their patriotic duty to serve, just the same as I see it is my duty to inform the public of government misdeeds.

Yeah, that is the biggest crock ever. So, what freedoms would I have lost if we didn't fight in Vietnam? Free speech? The second amendment? The right to vote?

And WWII. IF we didn't fight the Nazis, what freedoms would I have lost? Heck, Germany couldn't beat us on their homeland, how would they beat us coming all the way over from Europe.

The only people who take away our freedoms are the treasonous bastards in our government.

[Desolation LineTrimmer]

I think it is pretty clear we are not a free people any longer. Most people are employees. An employee is hardly free -- generally speaking. Look how many people are anonymous on these largely free discussion forums, and they have to be or face losing their jobs in many cases. I don't believe a free country can exist without small businesses and farms being the backbone of that country, which somewhat paradoxically would require government interference in the market place to protect family business.

[johnlvs2run]

I don't believe a free country can exist without small businesses and farms being the backbone of that country, which somewhat paradoxically would require government interference in the market place to protect family business.

As a former small business owner, I found the government to be greatly biased against small business.

For example I had to pay more than 50% in taxes, compared to many giant corporations that hardly paid any.

The government was the #1 obstacle to my business - they wanted to steal more from me than I earned.

[drafter]

I can't drive to work without worrying I'll be pulled over for something stupid. I can't do my job without being licensed and inspected. I can't "legally" carry a gun without a license. I can't catch my own food without a license. I'm already coerced by "law" to have all kinds of insurance I don't want or need and pretty soon the government will once again at the point of a gun try and force me to buy "health insurance". And on and on. Hell no I'm not free! Not even close.
"
I'm sure we'll hear, "but America is still the most free country on earth and you should move if you don't like it". Yes it may suck less than everywhere else there is to go but So what!, the "greatest and most free" crap sandwich on earth is still going to be a crap sandwich.

[Desolation LineTrimmer]

I don't believe a free country can exist without small businesses and farms being the backbone of that country, which somewhat paradoxically would require government interference in the market place to protect family business.

As a former small business owner, I found the government to be greatly biased against small business.

For example I had to pay more than 50% in taxes, compared to many giant corporations that hardly paid any.

The government was the #1 obstacle to my business - they wanted to steal more from me than I earned.


They wanted to put you out of business, and apparently they did.

[dysgenic]

I propose that not only are we not free now, we never have been. The more I look into it, the more I realize that the Constitution is and always was a smoke and mirrors pretense.
The thing that confuses the issue is that for a long time there was plenty of open space and unexploited resources in this country. It wasn't logistically practical for TPTB to oppress farmers living in the middle of nowhere. And they weren't as firmly entrenched then as they are now, either.

dys

[Horn]

People have to be able to own property tax free to be free, when that was lost freedom was lost.

We are forced to participate in the system because of it, approved of, or not.

[jetgraphics]

The author's sincere expression of his dismay over national socialism is overshadowed by the indoctrination of the propaganda ministry.

To the best of my knowledge, there are no laws that trespass upon the natural and personal liberty of the free inhabitants, American nationals, domiciled upon their private property within the boundaries of the U.S.A.

All the reams and reams of "oppressive" laws (rules, regulations, burdens) are explicitly limited to "persons liable", by their own consent.

That we are ignorant of how and when we gave that consent, is a sign of their victory. Indoctrination can pervert a once sovereign people into helpless serfs, fighting over the scraps thrown to them from the master's table.

[dysgenic]

The laws are meaningless to judges, police, and the courts. Irrelevant argument.




The author's sincere expression of his dismay over national socialism is overshadowed by the indoctrination of the propaganda ministry.

To the best of my knowledge, there are no laws that trespass upon the natural and personal liberty of the free inhabitants, American nationals, domiciled upon their private property within the boundaries of the U.S.A.

All the reams and reams of "oppressive" laws (rules, regulations, burdens) are explicitly limited to "persons liable", by their own consent.

That we are ignorant of how and when we gave that consent, is a sign of their victory. Indoctrination can pervert a once sovereign people into helpless serfs, fighting over the scraps thrown to them from the master's table.

[Ponce]

"The only freedom that you have are the ones that those holding a gun will give you"...... Ponce

I say the above because the written law is not the final word, but only a guidance to what the law makers are trying to say.

Like in this forum where rule #5 automatically kills all others rules.

[jetgraphics]

The laws are meaningless to judges, police, and the courts. Irrelevant argument.

Wrong on both counts.
The law IS the law. And argument is what the law is all about - resolving disputes so that each man gets his due (i.e., justice).

What you are not aware of, and it's not your fault, is that the law on the books is totally different from what you've been told is "the law."

See this post for more details:
http://gold-silver.us/forum/index.php?topic=1701.0

[Ponce]

LOL Mr. Dysgenic.........we both posted just about the same thing at the same time.

[dysgenic]

I am fully aware of the different types of laws, and most especially your arguments pertaining to them. I believe that your arguments in some ways are technically correct but inapplicable in real life, because like I said, judges, police, and courts don't care about the law.





The laws are meaningless to judges, police, and the courts. Irrelevant argument.

Wrong on both counts.
The law IS the law. And argument is what the law is all about - resolving disputes so that each man gets his due (i.e., justice).

What you are not aware of, and it's not your fault, is that the law on the books is totally different from what you've been told is "the law."

See this post for more details:
http://gold-silver.us/forum/index.php?topic=1701.0

[jetgraphics]

Now let’s move on the other contested freedom, that mentioned in the Second Amendment: the right of the people to keep and bear arms. As stated in the amendment that right “shall not be infringed.”

So, any form of gun control—except for using both hands—is unconstitutional.


Second Amendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. "

To most people, this amendment is assumed to mean citizens have the right to bear arms. And when government (municipal, state, or federal) passes laws that impair that assumed right, all "hail" breaks loose.

To decode the amendment, one needs to recognize that two distinct groups are being referenced: militia and people.

We should be aware that people are sovereign, while the militia are not.

Militia are defined as the male citizens liable for military duty, under command to fight, and die, if necessary, in defense of the people's inalienable right to life, liberty and property.

In other words, the militia have volunteered to be obligated to fight and die, on command. They do NOT have inalienable rights to life, liberty or property, if under the obligation to serve.

Therefore, the citizen militia, by consent, surrendered their inalienable right to life, liberty and private property, in exchange for political liberty. They may be regulated and restricted in the manner in which they bear arms.

Only the people who are NOT citizens / militia, have the "right" to bear arms, without the duty to fight and die on command. And sovereign Americans, free inhabitants, domiciled upon their private property are private property themselves. You should find that all gun bans do not extend to guns on private property (*real estate is NOT private property, by legal definition).

REFERENCES:
U.S. citizens obligated to train, fight, and die, on command

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

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

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

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


It would appear that the government DOES have the constitutional power to REGULATE and RESTRICT the manner in which arms are born by the obligated parties (voluntary citizens).

[Desolation LineTrimmer]

There is no such thing as guaranteed freedom for individuals. Even if you had no property tax you will still be required to pay highway tax once you left your farm. It seems if a person was born into money then they might be "free" in this radical individualist sense, but generally speaking there is no such thing as the autonomous individual. The closest thing to that were mountain men in the 18th century. The most one can really demand is community freedom from a larger entity like the federal government, but we are still going to be part of community, with its separate demands, some of which might impinge upon one's own desire or will, because otherwise you reduce others to slavery.

[dysgenic]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

I'd like to point out what the Amendment does not say in order to point out your errors:
1. It does not say that ONLY people that are not militia members or militia eligible are afforded the right.
2. It does not say that people need to be domiciled on private property in order to be afforded this right.
3. It does not say that government has the power to regulate this right (in fact it says the opposite).

If it does not say these things, it does not mean these things. It's very simple: the constitution means what it says that it means.

[woodman]

We are living in a system of hierachical organized criminal sydicates, many vying against each other for more turf but all of them playing us for fools in the grand confindence game that they all play. We are slaves and we are being milked and bilked of much of our energies by these parasitical governments. Government is organized crime and organized crime is a form of government. Criminals are attracted by government just as moths are drawn to the flame. What better way to take over the hen-house than for the fox to play the rooster?

You can claim all you want that it is only by our consent that we are ruled but this is not true. The only way we can deny them their share of our life force is by violence and this is always a losing proposition. The only question is whether or not we will lose more than we will gain. Pick up a gun and fight the government and you will die as surely as day follows night. If enough people finally see the truth then the equation will be different. The problem is so many of us are dependent upon this system and cannot function without it. How many of you who read this would be able to carry on a semblance of a decent living without the government? Maybe you are a teacher, a scientist, an accountant; you are dependent upon system in some way and might actually fight to keep it in force. Kind of like the Matrix:

The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you’re inside and look around. . . What do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. . . The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do. . . These people are still part of that system. . . And that makes them our enemy. You have to understand. . . Most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured. . . So hopelessly dependent on the system. . . That they will fight to protect it.”
—MORPHEUS, The Matrix

[jetgraphics]

If you understood the law, you'd come to a different conclusion.

I can't persuade you to climb out of the pit of ignorance. It's hard work. It's down right eyes-bleeding painful.

I am trying to reduce that pain, and give you the "Reader's Digest" version.

I discovered I was a slave, in 1992. I was angry at the government.
Later, I discovered I volunteered to be their slave. I was angry at myself.

I asked for God's help, and dedicated the rest of my time here, on Earth, to pass around what I have learned.

It's no conspiracy since it is in print, available in ANY county courthouse law library in America.

But millions of Americans refuse to read it... or are discouraged from reading it... or believe that "the authorities" would never, ever LIE to the people about law.

The law, summed up in one sentence:
"All law is the protection of property rights, all else is policy and policy requires consent."

That's it.

Declaration of Independence defines it in two jobs:
Job #1 - secure rights, and
Job #2 - govern those who consent.

And, if you have volunteered, you waived job #1.
He who consents cannot complain.

The vast majority of Americans have surrendered their endowment of individual sovereignty, freedom and independence, in exchange for political liberty, socialism, entitlements, usury, and a host of other nasty things. By that consent, the people are ruled instead of served.

From the standpoint of the law, every oppressed American has given consent to be oppressed.
Until that consent is withdrawn, nothing will change that oppression.
Once that consent is withdrawn, there is nothing to object to.
The laws on the books explicitly protect the person and property of the American people.

You won't believe me, so you must go read the law for yourself.





I am fully aware of the different types of laws, and most especially your arguments pertaining to them. I believe that your arguments in some ways are technically correct but inapplicable in real life, because like I said, judges, police, and courts don't care about the law.





The laws are meaningless to judges, police, and the courts. Irrelevant argument.

Wrong on both counts.
The law IS the law. And argument is what the law is all about - resolving disputes so that each man gets his due (i.e., justice).

What you are not aware of, and it's not your fault, is that the law on the books is totally different from what you've been told is "the law."

See this post for more details:
http://gold-silver.us/forum/index.php?topic=1701.0

[dysgenic]

We've already been around this mulberry bush. I don't consent. If I ever did consent, I hereby revoke that consent. Now what? You can't be so naaive as to believe that law enforcement will now respect my rights because I don't consent. Furthermore, are you saying that anyone that doesn't own property has consented to be governed by default? That doesn't work, either.



If you understood the law, you'd come to a different conclusion.

I can't persuade you to climb out of the pit of ignorance. It's hard work. It's down right eyes-bleeding painful.

I am trying to reduce that pain, and give you the "Reader's Digest" version.

I discovered I was a slave, in 1992. I was angry at the government.
Later, I discovered I volunteered to be their slave. I was angry at myself.

I asked for God's help, and dedicated the rest of my time here, on Earth, to pass around what I have learned.

It's no conspiracy since it is in print, available in ANY county courthouse law library in America.

But millions of Americans refuse to read it... or are discouraged from reading it... or believe that "the authorities" would never, ever LIE to the people about law.

The law, summed up in one sentence:
"All law is the protection of property rights, all else is policy and policy requires consent."

That's it.

Declaration of Independence defines it in two jobs:
Job #1 - secure rights, and
Job #2 - govern those who consent.

And, if you have volunteered, you waived job #1.
He who consents cannot complain.

The vast majority of Americans have surrendered their endowment of individual sovereignty, freedom and independence, in exchange for political liberty, socialism, entitlements, usury, and a host of other nasty things. By that consent, the people are ruled instead of served.

From the standpoint of the law, every oppressed American has given consent to be oppressed.
Until that consent is withdrawn, nothing will change that oppression.
Once that consent is withdrawn, there is nothing to object to.
The laws on the books explicitly protect the person and property of the American people.

You won't believe me, so you must go read the law for yourself.





I am fully aware of the different types of laws, and most especially your arguments pertaining to them. I believe that your arguments in some ways are technically correct but inapplicable in real life, because like I said, judges, police, and courts don't care about the law.





The laws are meaningless to judges, police, and the courts. Irrelevant argument.

Wrong on both counts.
The law IS the law. And argument is what the law is all about - resolving disputes so that each man gets his due (i.e., justice).

What you are not aware of, and it's not your fault, is that the law on the books is totally different from what you've been told is "the law."

See this post for more details:
http://gold-silver.us/forum/index.php?topic=1701.0

[Golden]

Yes and no.

[jetgraphics]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

I'd like to point out what the Amendment does not say in order to point out your errors:
1. It does not say that ONLY people that are not militia members or militia eligible are afforded the right.
2. It does not say that people need to be domiciled on private property in order to be afforded this right.
3. It does not say that government has the power to regulate this right (in fact it says the opposite).

If it does not say these things, it does not mean these things. It's very simple: the constitution means what it says that it means.


But if you do not comprehend the terms, you won't understand what it means.

All people (in America) are born with the endowment of their Creator, to rise to sovereignty, at legal age.
But most people (in America) are persuaded to surrender that endowment, and become subject citizens, obligated to perform.

The militia, from 1777, were obligated to TRAIN, FIGHT, and DIE, on command.
Obviously, that is a violation of the "right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness".
....
RIGHT?
....
Unless consent was given, before hand.

In the aforementioned definitions for militia, you shall see that the militia are all male citizens. Since no one can "consent" to be male, or "consent" to age, the only possible means of consent is CITIZENSHIP.
All the obligatory civic duties are based on one's consent to be a citizen.
No free American can be "born" a subject citizen in the United States of America.
That fact is kept hidden in plain sight.

Do not believe me - ask your authority figures to show you the LAW that imposes involuntary servitude upon all Americans born in the USA.

(Object to the 14th amendment, on the grounds that it only applies to "persons", and the term "persons" explicitly excludes the sovereign people.)

If you exclude the laws pertaining only to "persons" there is no law that imposes citizenship on "whoever is born within the boundaries of the USA".

Therefore the Second Amendment, if parsed in modern speech, would state:
All people have the right to bear arms, except those who consented to be citizens. And as citizens, they can be regulated and restricted in the manner in which they bear arms.

Remember, the USCON was authored by LAWYERS, not English majors.

[dysgenic]

There are 3 reasons that your argument doesn't work:

1. Show me the piece of paper that I signed consenting to be governed.
Now you are going to say that I consented based on my actions/taking of government services. Problem is, the terms of the contract were never disclosed to me and even if they where, it's not a valid contract anyway as I have no recourse if the other party breaks the contract.
2. EVEN IF I make the philosophical concession that I did in fact lawfully consent to be governed, what happens when I revoke that consent? I get my rights back, right?
3. The 'adhesion contracts' were predicated on coercion, anyway and are thus invalid.





"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

I'd like to point out what the Amendment does not say in order to point out your errors:
1. It does not say that ONLY people that are not militia members or militia eligible are afforded the right.
2. It does not say that people need to be domiciled on private property in order to be afforded this right.
3. It does not say that government has the power to regulate this right (in fact it says the opposite).

If it does not say these things, it does not mean these things. It's very simple: the constitution means what it says that it means.


But if you do not comprehend the terms, you won't understand what it means.

All people (in America) are born with the endowment of their Creator, to rise to sovereignty, at legal age.
But most people (in America) are persuaded to surrender that endowment, and become subject citizens, obligated to perform.

The militia, from 1777, were obligated to TRAIN, FIGHT, and DIE, on command.
Obviously, that is a violation of the "right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness".
....
RIGHT?
....
Unless consent was given, before hand.

In the aforementioned definitions for militia, you shall see that the militia are all male citizens. Since no one can "consent" to be male, or "consent" to age, the only possible means of consent is CITIZENSHIP.
All the obligatory civic duties are based on one's consent to be a citizen.
No free American can be "born" a subject citizen in the United States of America.
That fact is kept hidden in plain sight.

Do not believe me - ask your authority figures to show you the LAW that imposes involuntary servitude upon all Americans born in the USA.

(Object to the 14th amendment, on the grounds that it only applies to "persons", and the term "persons" explicitly excludes the sovereign people.)

If you exclude the laws pertaining only to "persons" there is no law that imposes citizenship on "whoever is born within the boundaries of the USA".

Therefore the Second Amendment, if parsed in modern speech, would state:
All people have the right to bear arms, except those who consented to be citizens. And as citizens, they can be regulated and restricted in the manner in which they bear arms.

Remember, the USCON was authored by LAWYERS, not English majors.

[jetgraphics]

We've already been around this mulberry bush. I don't consent. If I ever did consent, I hereby revoke that consent. Now what? You can't be so naaive as to believe that law enforcement will now respect my rights because I don't consent. Furthermore, are you saying that anyone that doesn't own property has consented to be governed by default? That doesn't work, either.


If you still exercise any privilege or immunity associated with consent, your withdrawal is not valid.

For example, if you claim to have withdrawn consent to participate in national socialism, but still use the SSN/TIN to open a bank account or engage in usury, you're not "out".
If you claim to have withdrawn consent to political liberty (citizenship) but are on the voter registration rolls, you're not "out".
If you claim to be a "resident" with a "residence" and do not have a domicile, you're not "out".
If you are "in", you're still obligated to get permission (license).

Which means that most folks who say they haven't given consent, are mistaken.

The law, convoluted as it may be, has no impact on American nationals, free inhabitants, domiciled upon their private property, absolutely owned, purchased with at least 21 silver dollars, protected by the rules of the common law, and thus fully endowed with natural and personal liberty.
(phew - - - what a mouthful)

But the vast majority of Americans have declared themselves (and signed on the dotted line) to be "U.S. citizens "(subjects), "U.S. residents" (transients), "Contributors" (via FICA) on the national debt, temporarily residing at residences (not domiciles), absent the legal status to absolutely own themselves, their labor or that which they acquire. In short, they're voluntary SLAVES.

That is what I discovered in 1992-93.

Unfortunately, by the time I discovered the importance of a domicile on private property, I was too financially challenged to establish it. Though I did keep "fighting" the system. I won some. I lost some.

But since 1993, I have been "out" as far as I can get.

I have no SSN. I do not exercise any privilege associated with national socialism and usury. I do not engage in political liberty. I haven't paid taxes since 1992, and no, the Eye Are Us is not after me. I am a non-taxpayer, being not a person liable. (And I made a nuisance of myself, picketing their offices, writing letters, and asking them to answer pertinent questions. Sigh. I was ignorant of the law, too.)

When I acquire enough resources to buy land and build a dwelling, I will have completed the last phase of my journey. Until then, I am merely a "traveling prince", a missionary, a citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven, and an ambassador for Christ Jesus.


There are 3 reasons that your argument doesn't work:

1. Show me the piece of paper that I signed consenting to be governed.
Now you are going to say that I consented based on my actions/taking of government services. Problem is, the terms of the contract were never disclosed to me and even if they where, it's not a valid contract anyway as I have no recourse if the other party breaks the contract.
2. EVEN IF I make the philosophical concession that I did in fact lawfully consent to be governed, what happens when I revoke that consent? I get my rights back, right?
3. The 'adhesion contracts' were predicated on coercion, anyway and are thus invalid.

1. Any "piece of paper" filed with the government, in which you claimed to be a citizen, a resident, etc, establishes your status at law.
2. Withdrawing consent, and renouncing all benefits of those privileges, will restore your status at law, to absolutely own yourself, your labor and the fruits of that labor. At least that is what the law on their books say.
3. They are not "adhesion contracts". They didn't contract to do diddly. You surrendered your birthright to engage in privileges, or worse, for entitlements. (See the exclusion for paupers, all through the pre-1933 law references)

When I wrote to a congresscritter about the property rights to entitlements, he passed my query to the Congressional Research Service. Their answer was succinct. There are no property rights to entitlements. They are entirely at the discretion of Congress. They are synonymous with "gifts" (!)

So if you were misled to assume that you paid into a "Trust Fund" and that you are owed "entitlements" and that you can't leave SocSec because of it, THEY WIN. Because there is no law that supports that belief.

Socialist InSecurity was the biggest CON, the biggest LIE, and the biggest trap ever sprung on the people in America. The only people eligible to receive entitlements (i.e. gifts) are those who have "the number" and an account with SocSec. Thus ALL enumerated participants are PAUPERS at law, eligible for charity from the public treasury.

That is how the servant became the master - - - by our consent and the trusting (or greedy) generation of the 1930s.


----
Addendum:
Form SS-5, application for an account and number with Social Security is limited to U.S. citizens and U.S. residents.
American nationals, and free inhabitants cannot apply - nor would they wish to.

[iOWNme]

This is a great thread!

I would like to interject between Dys and Jet...

Although it is mighty painful to admit Jet is spot on in his arguments. The Law is the Law. It is really that simple.

BUT,

Dys is only calculating in realistic terms, what would be accomplished by 'withdrawing' consent. And i believe he is right about the local thugs. Policy Enforcement doesnt have an IQ high enough to even comprehend the complexity of Legal v Lawful. So obviously this would be an uphill battle, and TPTB know that. Fear is their weapon. We all live in fear (i admit it) and that fear actually blinds the truth from us, and they know that too.

So this leads us to the next logical question:

Are we all going to try and 'win' or are we going to 'do what is right'. Maybe measuring our 'accomplishments' or 'wins' isnt the way to victory? That is the biggest name of the game when it comes to defending yourself. To defend yourself from DESPOTISM and TYRANNY takes an immense amount of personal responsibility. Something that wasnt exactly instilled in all of us. If we all would stand up and do whats right, THERE WOULD BE NO PLEA DEALS. I dont have the stats, but Im sure it is extremely high numbers of the people that plea down in any civil/criminal case. To even plea 'Not Guilty' is a form of consent! try pleading innocent, let me know what happens. :)

I struggle with this daily. Hell, by the hour sometimes. Doing what is right, claiming, standing and defending your creator endowed rights, is not easy. The reason it is not easy, is there is only 1 of you, and many of the usurpers. Now living in the socialist 4th Reich, your neighbors have no problem not only voting your rights away, but they will work feverishly night and day to support their 'team' and dont care how many Americans get violated to get what they want.

PEACE,

[woodman]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

I'd like to point out what the Amendment does not say in order to point out your errors:
1. It does not say that ONLY people that are not militia members or militia eligible are afforded the right.
2. It does not say that people need to be domiciled on private property in order to be afforded this right.
3. It does not say that government has the power to regulate this right (in fact it says the opposite).

If it does not say these things, it does not mean these things. It's very simple: the constitution means what it says that it means.


But if you do not comprehend the terms, you won't understand what it means.

All people (in America) are born with the endowment of their Creator, to rise to sovereignty, at legal age.
But most people (in America) are persuaded to surrender that endowment, and become subject citizens, obligated to perform.

The militia, from 1777, were obligated to TRAIN, FIGHT, and DIE, on command.
Obviously, that is a violation of the "right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness".
....
RIGHT?
....
Unless consent was given, before hand.

In the aforementioned definitions for militia, you shall see that the militia are all male citizens. Since no one can "consent" to be male, or "consent" to age, the only possible means of consent is CITIZENSHIP.
All the obligatory civic duties are based on one's consent to be a citizen.
No free American can be "born" a subject citizen in the United States of America.
That fact is kept hidden in plain sight.

Do not believe me - ask your authority figures to show you the LAW that imposes involuntary servitude upon all Americans born in the USA.

(Object to the 14th amendment, on the grounds that it only applies to "persons", and the term "persons" explicitly excludes the sovereign people.)

If you exclude the laws pertaining only to "persons" there is no law that imposes citizenship on "whoever is born within the boundaries of the USA".

Therefore the Second Amendment, if parsed in modern speech, would state:
All people have the right to bear arms, except those who consented to be citizens. And as citizens, they can be regulated and restricted in the manner in which they bear arms.

Remember, the USCON was authored by LAWYERS, not English majors.


Your arguement is ridiculous. Can you walk down the street and smoke a jay? Can you piss on your neighbor's lawn? Your dog can but you can't. Can you somehow get out of an unjust traffic ticket because of your lofty knowledge? No. You are a slave. You do not consent. Doesn't matter. You will be pounded down if you try to assert your freedom.

[iOWNme]

Your arguement is ridiculous. Can you walk down the street and smoke a jay? Can you piss on your neighbor's lawn? Your dog can but you can't. Can you somehow get out of an unjust traffic ticket because of your lofty knowledge? No. You are a slave. You do not consent. Doesn't matter. You will be pounded down if you try to assert your freedom.


This sounds like a reply full of fear.....

[Carl]

Freedom is just a state of mind. Liberty, however, requires our continued diligence and effort to be maintained.

By the way; the only people referred to as "American Nationals" are the people of American Samoa and "free inhabitants" is a term used to identify non-slave men living within a state prior to the Civil War. After the Civil War and the 14th and 15th Amendments, every man became a "free inhabitant". Woman were added with the 19th.

[jetgraphics]

Your arguement is ridiculous. Can you walk down the street and smoke a jay? Can you piss on your neighbor's lawn? Your dog can but you can't. Can you somehow get out of an unjust traffic ticket because of your lofty knowledge? No. You are a slave. You do not consent. Doesn't matter. You will be pounded down if you try to assert your freedom.

It's curious that the examples you raise, involve trespass upon another. Individual sovereignty is not construed to mean you get to stomp upon other people's liberties. It means that YOU are sovereign over YOUR person and private property.

And, yes, you can be immune from "Traffic tickets" (violations of rules) as long as there is no injured party, whose person or property was injured. But you cannot be "in" their system. (It's not unlike diplomatic immunity. You can't be charged for misdemeanors, but once you injure another, you're liable under criminal jurisdiction.)

If you're concerned about consuming natural substances, like smoking hemp, look up the legislative history on it. You may be surprised to learn from whence the authority to control it comes from.
(Hint : look up an obscure U.S. / U.K. Caribbean Basin treaty, and the curious "marijuana tax stamp".)

[jetgraphics]

Freedom is just a state of mind. Liberty, however, requires our continued diligence and effort to be maintained.

By the way; the only people referred to as "American Nationals" are the people of American Samoa and "free inhabitants" is a term used to identify non-slave men living within a state prior to the Civil War. After the Civil War and the 14th and 15th Amendments, every man became a "free inhabitant". Woman were added with the 19th.

You are confusing "U.S. nationals" as defined in Title 8.

American nationals, or nationals of the United States of America, are not the people of American Samoa, Guam, or other protectorates.

Nationality is a condition of birth and parentage. Citizenship is a political liberty.
A Canadian national can become a U.S. citizen. Likewise an American national can become a U.S. citizen - or not.

And the ban on involuntary servitude is NOT what makes one a free inhabitant.
An inhabitant has a domicile, absolutely owned.
A resident does not have a domicile.

Carefully read the 13th and 14th amendments. Check the singular and plural terms. Connect the dots.

---
addendum:
Freedom is not a "state of mind".
It is part of natural liberty.

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

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

Where can one exercise natural liberty, doing as one sees fit, without any restraint or control?
Upon one's private property - or upon unclaimed lands. Everywhere else is a trespass, and one needs permission (license).

Unfortunately, since 1935, duly enrolled and enumerated socialists lack the standing to absolutely own, and therefore do not have natural liberty and do not have FREEDOM to act without any restraint or control.

[Carl]

You are confusing "U.S. nationals" as defined in Title 8.

American nationals, or nationals of the United States of America, are not the people of American Samoa, Guam, or other protectorates.Not so according to the Department of the Interior who catagorizes Samoans as being American Nationals. Samoa is not listed under title 8 subsection 1401, however: (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe are listed as being nationals.


Nationality is a condition of birth and parentage. Citizenship is a political liberty. OK.



And the ban on involuntary servitude is NOT what makes one a free inhabitant. No, it does not make one a free inhabitant, most whites were already free inhabitants, it did, however, grant the status of free inhabitant specifically to blacks and others not otherwise included.


An inhabitant has a domicile, absolutely owned.
A resident does not have a domicile. Please site any and all evidence that supports this statement.
Every definition of "domicile" I can find states it's a place of residence, which consequently, makes those domiciled residents.

Here's a ]http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/inhabitant[/url]



Carefully read the 13th and 14th amendments. Check the singular and plural terms. Connect the dots. I've read the 13th and the 14th amendments, I try not to read conspiracy theories into them.

---

addendum:
Freedom is not a "state of mind".
It is part of natural liberty.

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

NATURAL LIBERTY - The power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, unless by the law of nature. The right which nature gives to all mankind of disposing of their persons and property after the manner in which they judge most consistent with their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature, and so as not to interfere in the equal exercise of the same rights by other men. 1 Blackstone's Commentaries, 123,
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth edition, p.919 As I stated, freedom is just a state of mind, which is why mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves.


Where can one exercise natural liberty, doing as one sees fit, without any restraint or control?
Upon one's private property - or upon unclaimed lands. Everywhere else is a trespass, and one needs permission (license).

Unfortunately, since 1935, duly enrolled and enumerated socialists lack the standing to absolutely own, and therefore do not have natural liberty and do not have FREEDOM to act without any restraint or control.

And you'll never have that FREEDOM to act without any restraint or control for as long as you chose to live within a social/civil society. However, you can exercise liberty, which entails taking responsibility for your actions.


.

[YukonCornelius]

I have this "liberal" buddy who I once told we have been losing our freedoms over the last century or longer to which he replied "name one freedom you have lost". I threw out a few civil, personal, social liberties that have been stomped on and told him to name a few we haven't lost...he was speechless.

To many people, freedoms have not been lost because they were never exercised in the first place. Therefore, the illusion of freedom to THEM is not what it is to many true conservatives/libertarians.constitutionalists. And the sad part is that THEY are the MASSES.

[woodman]

Your arguement is ridiculous. Can you walk down the street and smoke a jay? Can you piss on your neighbor's lawn? Your dog can but you can't. Can you somehow get out of an unjust traffic ticket because of your lofty knowledge? No. You are a slave. You do not consent. Doesn't matter. You will be pounded down if you try to assert your freedom.

It's curious that the examples you raise, involve trespass upon another. Individual sovereignty is not construed to mean you get to stomp upon other people's liberties. It means that YOU are sovereign over YOUR person and private property.

And, yes, you can be immune from "Traffic tickets" (violations of rules) as long as there is no injured party, whose person or property was injured. But you cannot be "in" their system. (It's not unlike diplomatic immunity. You can't be charged for misdemeanors, but once you injure another, you're liable under criminal jurisdiction.)

If you're concerned about consuming natural substances, like smoking hemp, look up the legislative history on it. You may be surprised to learn from whence the authority to control it comes from.
(Hint : look up an obscure U.S. / U.K. Caribbean Basin treaty, and the curious "marijuana tax stamp".)


You claim that every example I listed involved trespass upon another. This is a false statement. I used three examples; Only one, pissing on a neighbor's lawn, involved trespass and it was used only as an example. Your reply starts with a false-hood and cannot be taken seriously.

Nor am I speaking out of fear as you claim. I am speaking honestly and telling you that you suffer from delusion.

You cannot travel without permission of the government. You need a passport just to go to and from Canada. You cannot build a home or addition without a permit. You will not keep your property if you don't pay your property tax. You will be imprisoned and ruined if you do not pay income tax. If you drive without insurance your license and your freedom will be taken. I could go on and on. The point is: I hear you and a few others rail on and on about taking back your sovereignity and thus claiming your natural rights. Your claim is that through some mind boggling morass of legal principals that takes years to become familiar with and once finally becomiing an 'adept' you are some kind of 'free' being that can pass thru walls at will. Give me one example of a person who is immune to all the freedom killing laws that all of us other idiots must kow too.

You are living under some kind of delusion of freedom and are trying to bring others under your spell. Might as well try a tent revival. You are a slave.

[iOWNme]

You are living under some kind of delusion of freedom and are trying to bring others under your spell. Might as well try a tent revival. You are a slave.


Are these chains around your body or around your mind?

[Ponce]

In a court room it comes down as to who is a better liar.....the prosecuter or the defence.

The open and shut cases are done with before they reach the court room.

[jetgraphics]

An inhabitant has a domicile, absolutely owned.
A resident does not have a domicile.
Please site any and all evidence that supports this statement.
Every definition of "domicile" I can find states it's a place of residence, which consequently, makes those domiciled residents.

Here's a link for the legal definition of inhabitant: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/inhabitant
Though I like Bouvier's, in general, you have to remember that lawyers have been "twisting" words, for a long time.

The inhabitants of the United States may be classed into... white persons, and these are all citizens of the United States, unless they have lost that right. Bouvier's 1856

Now, consider this: before the adoption of the USCON, several states, between 1777 and 1789, extended citizenship to free black men, as long as they had the minimum estate ($21 iirc) as required of white citizens. After the ratification, those states had to amend their constitutions, and disenfranchise the FREE blacks. The free blacks retained their sovereign status over their domain, but could not "serve", as citizens.

If a government "grants" citizenship, it is NOT a right, but a privilege. A government doesn't grant nationality, which is a right.

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

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

An inhabitant has a domicile, which distinguishes it by being (a) legal home, and (b) permanent home.

As we all know, estate (real estate) is subject to taxation, because it is a privilege, not a right. And failure to pay property taxes, results in ejection from one's estate. That cannot be a "permanent" home, if it is dependent upon the government being bribed.

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

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

Though not explicitly stated, it appears that only private property absolutely owned by an individual can be a PERMANENT home. For property held with qualified ownership is limited and restricted, and cannot be presumed to be permanent.

Restating: private property ownership is a RIGHT, protected by government (see 5th amendment).
Qualified ownership of estate is a privilege, subject to the government.

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

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

Any "legal residence" is less than a domicile (a permanent, legal home). And in most (that I checked) jurisdictions, the term "resident" is defined to be synonymous with vagabond - one who has no permanent home, and is a transient... an excepted class (Art IV of Confederation).

The vast majority of Americans have signed documents filed into the public record, wherein they declare themselves to be impaired, without inalienable rights, having surrendered them in exchange for various government granted privileges and immunities. Those declarations give the "public servants" the means by which they determine what kind of treatment is to be rendered.

[dysgenic]

One thing that really bothers me about that this argument is the 'benefits' thing.
IN ORDER TO GET A 'BENEFIT', YOU HAVE TO ACTUALLY GET SOMETHING OUT OF IT'.
If you don't get something out of it, there is no benefit. Looked at from this perspective, most of the consent is irrelevant, anyway.

[jetgraphics]

You claim that every example I listed involved trespass upon another. This is a false statement. I used three examples; Only one, pissing on a neighbor's lawn, involved trespass and it was used only as an example. Your reply starts with a false-hood and cannot be taken seriously.
Your dog urinating on another's private property is a trespass, and if the owner wished, could bring charges against the owner - you.
Smoking a "jay" is a trespass - if the person doing the smoking has no standing in law, and needs permission (see : Marijuana Tax Stamp).

LICENSE - A personal privilege to do some particular act or series of acts on land without possessing any estate or interest therein, and is ordinarily revocable at the will of the licensor and is not assignable... The permission by competent authority to do an act which, without such permission, would be illegal, a trespass, a tort, or otherwise not allowed. - - - Black's Law Dictionary

The question few duly indoctrinated socialist Americans raise is this: how did the servant government become a competent authority over the sovereign people?

Ask them some time, politely, of course. You may be surprised at their candor.

I did, once in 1992, and the court officer wrote a handwritten reply: "Social Security Act of 1935..."

That's how I learned how I surrendered my "rights" in exchange for "privileges".


You cannot travel without permission of the government. You need a passport just to go to and from Canada.
Actually, that is not quite accurate. If you have the correct standing in law, you can travel on the public roads and waterways, without license. It's called personal liberty - the right of locomotion. Unfortunately, transients / residents do not have that right, and commit trespass if they do not have license.

Passports are not the only legal documents necessary to travel across borders. For U.S. citizens, they are.
You should carefully check the laws and treaties between the two respective parties. Generally, the foreign country issues a Visa to the entering party. The prerequisite for that Visa varies, an there are many exceptions, too numerous to note.

I know, for one thing, that before the Patriot Act, minimal proof of domicile or residency was acceptable at the Canadian border. But due to the emergency, those minimal proofs were upgraded.

I know of a gentleman, formerly of Indiana, who made his own ID - consisting of a notarized copy of his birth certificate, a photo, and an affidavit to the facts of his birth, parentage and domicile. And he routinely traveled across borders without passport. His exploits were confirmed by two corroborating witnesses.

Of course, that was enough for me. But you may need to read the law to be persuaded.

Ask yourself this question: who issues a passport for the Queen of England? She's not a British citizen, being the sovereign. On who's authority would such a passport be issued?

Does the Pope need a passport? Isn't the Pope the source of authority in the Vatican?

Ask the State department if sovereign Americans are so obligated. You won't believe me.


You cannot build a home or addition without a permit. You will not keep your property if you don't pay your property tax.
For holders of qualified estate, that is true. For those who absolutely own private property, that is not true.



You will be imprisoned and ruined if you do not pay income tax.
I have not been imprisoned for failure to pay income tax, since 1992. But since I am a non-taxpayer, I do not expect them to bother with me.



If you drive without insurance your license and your freedom will be taken.
"Driving" is to haul cargo or passengers for hire, in a "motor vehicle". To engage in private commerce on public roads does require obedience. But there are no laws prohibiting or impairing the right of locomotion of free inhabitants traveling in their private (not passenger) automobiles.

See reference below.



I could go on and on. The point is: I hear you and a few others rail on and on about taking back your sovereignity and thus claiming your natural rights. Your claim is that through some mind boggling morass of legal principals that takes years to become familiar with and once finally becomiing an 'adept' you are some kind of 'free' being that can pass thru walls at will. Give me one example of a person who is immune to all the freedom killing laws that all of us other idiots must kow too.

You are living under some kind of delusion of freedom and are trying to bring others under your spell. Might as well try a tent revival. You are a slave.
Yes, I agree that you are living under some kind of delusion, and you are a slave.
But you volunteered, according to the public record.

I suggest that you read the law, for yourself, and prove me wrong. I may have made a mistake, and would appreciate your assistance in this matter.


-------
References:


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


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


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

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


Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by ... automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

(Remember the Declaration of Independence?)

More reference material:
http://gold-silver.us/forum/index.php?topic=1689.msg15254#msg15254

[jetgraphics]

One thing that really bothers me about that this argument is the 'benefits' thing.
IN ORDER TO GET A 'BENEFIT', YOU HAVE TO ACTUALLY GET SOMETHING OUT OF IT'.
If you don't get something out of it, there is no benefit. Looked at from this perspective, most of the consent is irrelevant, anyway.



Article 1, Section 10: No State shall ... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts...

You ask "WHAT BENEFIT"?

Have you paid your debts with lawful money (gold or silver coin) ?

If you haven't, that's the benefit you exercise, that makes everything you do a privilege, subject to taxation and regulation.

Since 1933, and 1935, few Americans can claim that they alienated title with lawful money, and therefore cannot absolutely own that which they purchased.

[jetgraphics]

I know that few readers will take the time and effort in which to discover their heritage in the law.
Frankly, it may be too late.

Due to the impending implosion that will rock the economy, perhaps one should consider the following suggestions:

1. Relocate your domicile from the United States (federal jurisdiction) back to the United States of America (state jurisdiction). As a non-resident, non-citizen, free inhabitant American national, you may find things less annoying. [Check your own state's constitution and statutes for those "special" words of endearment: inhabitant, private property, liberty, and domicile]
2. Extricate yourself from all contracts for usury (get out of debt, don't be a creditor / investor). Usury is an abomination and mathematically impossible to pay in a finite money token system.
3. Extricate yourself from dependence upon their monetary system. Be prepared and have the means to provide the necessities for yourself and your kin. And generate a surplus with which you can trade.
4. Prepare for an extended period of deprivation and chaos, without resupply. [Hint: Proximity to navigable water and railroad tracks is desirable.]
5. If you have enough people, land, and resources, construct a fortified village. It may not be indestructible, but it will slow down those 4 and 2 legged predators.
6. If you don't have it, can't make it, you'll do without it.

G'night, y'all.

[dysgenic]

Yes, I have paid debts with FRNs. What did I get out of that? Also, there is coercion involved as well as most any company or government entity will not accept gold/silver as payment.






One thing that really bothers me about that this argument is the 'benefits' thing.
IN ORDER TO GET A 'BENEFIT', YOU HAVE TO ACTUALLY GET SOMETHING OUT OF IT'.
If you don't get something out of it, there is no benefit. Looked at from this perspective, most of the consent is irrelevant, anyway.



Article 1, Section 10: No State shall ... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts...

You ask "WHAT BENEFIT"?

Have you paid your debts with lawful money (gold or silver coin) ?

If you haven't, that's the benefit you exercise, that makes everything you do a privilege, subject to taxation and regulation.

Since 1933, and 1935, few Americans can claim that they alienated title with lawful money, and therefore cannot absolutely own that which they purchased.

[jetgraphics]

Yes, I have paid debts with FRNs. What did I get out of that? Also, there is coercion involved as well as most any company or government entity will not accept gold/silver as payment.

What do you call someone who doesn't pay their debts?
[your answer here]

What delegation in the USCON deals with people who cannot pay their debts?
[your answer here]

Bingo - that's the privilege...
The privilege is not to be held criminally liable for failure to pay debt with lawful money - an immunity granted by the bankrupted government to those generous, unselfish, civic minded, enumerated "human resources", who underwrite the bankrupt government, via FICA. [sarcasm flag off]

BTW - I have never found anyone who declined payment with gold or silver coin. Quite the opposite - the suggested price, in dollars, was far higher than the value of worthless FRNs that they would accept, in lieu of real dollars.

Since 1933, the nation has been drained of the legal standing to absolutely own anything. Thus the socialist / communist / collectivist pirates were able to bypass the constitutional limitations, and impose "voluntary" national socialism, in 1935.

What is so aggravating - it's all in the public record - in plain sight. But the generation of the 1930's closed their moral eyes and embraced the enemy of America, and sold themselves and their progeny into slavery.

Who to blame?
It's a "target rich" environment!

[Carl]

I know that few readers will take the time and effort in which to discover their heritage in the law.

1. Relocate your domicile from the United States (federal jurisdiction) back to the United States of America (state jurisdiction). As a non-resident, non-citizen, free inhabitant American national, you may find things less annoying. [Check your own state's constitution and statutes for those "special" words of endearment: inhabitant, private property, liberty, and domicile]

And I know you're just TOYA. But to give you the benefit of a doubt; explain the process one must take to legalese their way out of the system. Seeing as how you've stated that you've done it, it shouldn't be hard for you to relay the legalistic process you used to do it.

:citeplz

[FreeEnergy]

In society, you cannot possibly be "Free".

end of discussion.

In leu of all these "free" topics, I've started a new one: Why Americans are so unhappy (http://gold-silver.us/forum/index.php?topic=1872.0)

[jetgraphics]

I know that few readers will take the time and effort in which to discover their heritage in the law.

1. Relocate your domicile from the United States (federal jurisdiction) back to the United States of America (state jurisdiction). As a non-resident, non-citizen, free inhabitant American national, you may find things less annoying. [Check your own state's constitution and statutes for those "special" words of endearment: inhabitant, private property, liberty, and domicile]

And I know you're just TOYA. But to give you the benefit of a doubt; explain the process one must take to legalese their way out of the system. Seeing as how you've stated that you've done it, it shouldn't be hard for you to relay the legalistic process you used to do it.

Sure, it's easy.
First, you tell me all the government documents that you signed, wherein you declared yourself to be a citizen, resident, tax payer, person liable, etc.
Second, determine what privileges those documents bestowed upon you.
Third, renounce those privileges (stop exercising them).
Fourth, revoke your signature on those documents. (correct the record, where applicable.)

Examples:
Social Security.
You cannot have an interest bearing account with the Fed Rez without an account and number in it. So close all interest bearing accounts, before you "leave" SocSec.

Citizenship.
You cannot remain on the voting rolls if you are no longer a citizen. So withdraw from the rolls BEFORE you cease volunteering to be their subject citizen.

Is that clear?

[jetgraphics]

In society, you cannot possibly be "Free".
end of discussion.

WOW, they really welded on those paper chains... I am impressed.

Ask yourself this question: if natural liberty (true freedom) does not exist, why define it?

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

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

I admit that being limited by the law of nature (laws of physics, gravity, thermodynamics) is not absolute freedom - but it's pretty good.

[Carl]

Sure, it's easy.
First, you tell me all the government documents that you signed, wherein you declared yourself to be a citizen, resident, tax payer, person liable, etc.
Second, determine what privileges those documents bestowed upon you.
Third, renounce those privileges (stop exercising them).
Fourth, revoke your signature on those documents. (correct the record, where applicable.)

Examples:
Social Security.
You cannot have an interest bearing account with the Fed Rez without an account and number in it. So close all interest bearing accounts, before you "leave" SocSec.

Citizenship.
You cannot remain on the voting rolls if you are no longer a citizen. So withdraw from the rolls BEFORE you cease volunteering to be their subject citizen.

Is that clear?
What is clear is that you're making shit up as you go.

Explain in detail how one goes about "leaving social security", to include the paperwork that must be presented and filed. What is the relationship between the Fed, interesting bearing accounts and social security?

What "government documents" are you referring to and how does one go about the task of "renouncing privileges" and correcting records?

How does one go about removing oneself from the voter roles?

After one has removed one's self from all of these government entanglements, isn't one still subject to all the laws and taxes?

How does one go about obtaining property free and clear of government and banking entanglements?

[jetgraphics]

Sure, it's easy.
First, you tell me all the government documents that you signed, wherein you declared yourself to be a citizen, resident, tax payer, person liable, etc.
Second, determine what privileges those documents bestowed upon you.
Third, renounce those privileges (stop exercising them).
Fourth, revoke your signature on those documents. (correct the record, where applicable.)

Examples:
Social Security.
You cannot have an interest bearing account with the Fed Rez without an account and number in it. So close all interest bearing accounts, before you "leave" SocSec.

Citizenship.
You cannot remain on the voting rolls if you are no longer a citizen. So withdraw from the rolls BEFORE you cease volunteering to be their subject citizen.

Is that clear?
What is clear is that you're making sh*t up as you go.

It would appear that you resort to insults, when you do not understand.
If you do not wish to investigate your own documentation history, why should I?


Explain in detail how one goes about "leaving social security", to include the paperwork that must be presented and filed. What is the relationship between the Fed, interesting bearing accounts and social security?
Write to them and ask them.
When they won't reply, stop volunteering.
Cancel all activities that require a SocSec number - usury (banking), and so forth.
Do not ask for entitlements, food stamps, welfare, medicare, medicaid, school grants, loans, grants, etc.
If you have them, pay them all back.
Cease participating, and you will cease being liable to pay for them.
When I am asked for "the number", I reply: "It is against my religious beliefs to participate in that abomination."
They do not ask again.


What "government documents" are you referring to and how does one go about the task of "renouncing privileges" and correcting records?
List all the government documents that you have ever signed.
I don't know which ones you signed.
Make the list, and then ask me.



How does one go about removing oneself from the voter roles?
Call the election board and ask them.
In Georgia, you file a form. Other states have different rules.


After one has removed one's self from all of these government entanglements, isn't one still subject to all the laws and taxes?
Which laws?
Which taxes?
The constitutional laws either secure rights or govern those who consent. If you're no longer consenting, all that remains are the laws that protect property rights.
All constitutional taxes are limited to privileges. No rights are subject to taxation.


How does one go about obtaining [private] property free and clear of government and banking entanglements?
Don't borrow from banks.
Don't register private property as estate.
http://gold-silver.us/forum/index.php?topic=1257.msg12148#msg12148

[Carl]

It would appear that you resort to insults, when you do not understand.
If you do not wish to investigate your own documentation history, why should I? It's not insult, it's an observed fact.
My "documentation" is not at issue, your ability to answer a question without obfuscating is.



Write to them and ask them.
When they won't reply, stop volunteering.
Cancel all activities that require a SocSec number - usury (banking), and so forth.
Do not ask for entitlements, food stamps, welfare, medicare, medicaid, school grants, loans, grants, etc.
If you have them, pay them all back.
Cease participating, and you will cease being liable to pay for them.
When I am asked for "the number", I reply: "It is against my religious beliefs to participate in that abomination."
They do not ask again. And do you have any documented evidence that this juvinile approach works?


List all the government documents that you have ever signed.
I don't know which ones you signed.
Make the list, and then ask me. Again with the obfuscation. Give examples of the type of documents you are referring to and how you went about "renouncing privileges" and "correcting records" and I'll see if any of it is applicable to me.


Call the election board and ask them.
In Georgia, you file a form. Other states have different rules. So you're still listed with the election board except you're noted as a non-voter, and this accomplishes what exactly?



Which laws?
Which taxes?
The constitutional laws either secure rights or govern those who consent. If you're no longer consenting, all that remains are the laws that protect property rights.
All constitutional taxes are limited to privileges. No rights are subject to taxation.
What a load of crap. First, your entire premise about the constitution and "govern those who consent" is 100% ass backwards and totally out of context from what the Constitution actually states, and I've explained this to you already in another thread. How many people has the IRS imprisoned who foolishly believed that they had figured out a way around the IRS's ability to chuck their ass in jail for not paying their taxes?


Don't borrow from banks.
Don't register private property as estate. Do you have anything of substance to offer other than a play on words? Please explain the actual process one would take to register their private property as anything other than what the state deems to title it as?

[Hatha Sunahara]

Freedom (politically) is the absence of oppression. If you feel oppressed, you are lacking freedom.

And if you want to live in a civilized world you should follow the golden rule. Humans only need fair systems with fair rules to thrive. So watch out for the greedy people who will try to turn you into a slave in one form or another. Mostly by grabbing the rule-making apparatus, and making unfair rules. The more you feel obliged to obey those rules, the more oppressed you are.

The law is the law? Only when it is a just law and fairly enforced. You are free to break unjust laws, and you are free to persuade others to do so. You have the internet. Oppressors don't last long when their laws don't work.

Hatha

[iOWNme]

What a load of crap. First, your entire premise about the constitution and "govern those who consent" is 100% ass backwards and totally out of context from what the Constitution actually states, and I've explained this to you already in another thread. How many people has the IRS imprisoned who foolishly believed that they had figured out a way around the IRS's ability to chuck their ass in jail for not paying their taxes?


Hey, if the IRS did it, IT MUST BE LAWFUL.

Can you show me 1 person in prison from the IRS WHO WITHDREW THEIR CONSENT? Im not saying they dont exist, i have just never heard of it.

There are around 50+ million Americans who do not even file every year. Is there any chance that some of these people are 'not liable'?

[Carl]

The IRS is an unlawful organization that operates within the realm of the legal, wielding its subjective power in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Even the people who believe they are in dutiful compliance with the IRS are not safe. And into the face of that, there are fools preaching to the gullible that there are ways to skirt their system using legalese.

There are no magic "lawful formulas" that will save anyone from the use of subjective, arbitrary force that can be brought to bear upon anyone who, by the mere act of existing within their system, catches the attention of those who are legally appointed to, not only interpret the law but also, wield it.

And there is little that pisses me of more than someone peddling the notion that they possess some secret legalistic way to circumvent the arbitrary use of government legal force using the legalese of that system.

My point is, you either stand as a man in passive noncompliance, outside their system with the full knowledge that you can be subject to their ability to bring full legal force upon you at any given time or, you can fool yourself into believing that you’ve got their system all figured out, that you can get in their face and beat them at their own game, on their own playing field, using their laws that they can interpret to mean anything they decide they mean at any given time in any given circumstance.

And then there is revolution…………..when passive noncompliance is not enough.

[jetgraphics]

It would appear that you resort to insults, when you do not understand.
If you do not wish to investigate your own documentation history, why should I?
It's not insult, it's an observed fact.
My "documentation" is not at issue, your ability to answer a question without obfuscating is.

I stated a question: what documents did YOU sign. You ask me what documents I signed.
You refuse to answer my questions, and demand I answer yours.
I gave examples, you refuse to accept them.
The point I made is : YOU GAVE CONSENT - VIA SIGNED DOCUMENTS.
And you won't acknowledge your responsibility for your own enslavement, by consent.

Don't believe me - write a polite query to your representative and ask him for a copy of the law that compels all Americans to enroll into national socialism (FICA / Social Security).
If he won't produce it, will that persuade you that you VOLUNTARILY consented to participate in the entitlement program?

Please do not misunderstand me - if you WISH to remain a voluntary slave, by all means, continue on.
I have no interest in fomenting a slave rebellion.
All I advocate is that Americans learn of their heritage and endowment that was surrendered, in exchange for privileges and immunities.



Write to them and ask them.
When they won't reply, stop volunteering.
Cancel all activities that require a SocSec number - usury (banking), and so forth.
Do not ask for entitlements, food stamps, welfare, medicare, medicaid, school grants, loans, grants, etc.
If you have them, pay them all back.
Cease participating, and you will cease being liable to pay for them.
When I am asked for "the number", I reply: "It is against my religious beliefs to participate in that abomination."
They do not ask again.
And do you have any documented evidence that this juvinile approach works?

How about a prison ID bracelet that states "SSN: NONE"?
If a FEDERAL prison acknowledges that I do not participate, is that good enough?


List all the government documents that you have ever signed.
I don't know which ones you signed.
Make the list, and then ask me.
Again with the obfuscation. Give examples of the type of documents you are referring to and how you went about "renouncing privileges" and "correcting records" and I'll see if any of it is applicable to me.

Did you file a federal document to get a library card?
No. (Maybe, if in Washington, DC)
Did you file a federal document to get a SSN?
Yes. Form SS-5.
Did you file for any entitlement?
Food stamps. Welfare. Education grant. Loan.
Then you'd have to leave those specific programs.
Did you swear an oath to the USCON?
Then you're bound to obey the terms until you withdraw that oath.

If you do not know the difference between a right your Creator endowed you with, versus a privilege that government grants, then you will have difficulty in determining how to withdraw consent.

Here's a hint:
Your Creator endowed you with the right to life, liberty (natural and personal), and dominion over your private property (see: Genesis).
Pursuant to the organic documents, the servant government offered to help secure those rights. Therefore, you do not surrender any endowment when government helps secure those rights.
BUT.
If you ask for any privilege or immunity, you probably surrendered your inalienable rights. The degree of surrender depends on the privilege and immunity. To illustrate, a militia man, in active service, under the Uniform Code of Military Justice is certainly in a different category than someone not in the military.



Call the election board and ask them.
In Georgia, you file a form. Other states have different rules.
So you're still listed with the election board except you're noted as a non-voter, and this accomplishes what exactly?

No. That's not what happens. You are REMOVED from the rolls. They do not list non-voters on the Voter registration.


Which laws?
Which taxes?
The constitutional laws either secure rights or govern those who consent. If you're no longer consenting, all that remains are the laws that protect property rights.
All constitutional taxes are limited to privileges. No rights are subject to taxation.

What a load of crap. First, your entire premise about the constitution and "govern those who consent" is 100% ass backwards and totally out of context from what the Constitution actually states, and I've explained this to you already in another thread. How many people has the IRS imprisoned who foolishly believed that they had figured out a way around the IRS's ability to chuck their ass in jail for not paying their taxes?
Please present the clause in the USCON that obligates the private people to perform to it.

All the people that I personally know, who were hassled by the EYE ARE US had TWO things in common:
1. SSN and 2. Open, interest bearing account.
All the persons I personally know, myself included, who were not hassled, had TWO things in common:
1. NO SSN and 2. NO interest bearing accounts.

(Wesley Snipes filed a Form with his SSN, claiming to be a non-resident alien. If he didn't have an SSN/TIN, he could not have filed a Form, since the Eye Are Us will not accept unnumbered forms. They have no jurisdiction with respect to non-taxpayers.)


Don't borrow from banks.
Don't register private property as estate.
Do you have anything of substance to offer other than a play on words? Please explain the actual process one would take to register their private property as anything other than what the state deems to title it as?

If you consider a simple directive: do not register or do not borrow as a "play on words", can you please give us an example of stating the same thing that is not a "play on words"?

See: http://gold-silver.us/forum/index.php?topic=1257.msg12148#msg12148

[dysgenic]

The 'contract' that you describe is not lawful, no matter how you look at it. Coercion=no contract.





Yes, I have paid debts with FRNs. What did I get out of that? Also, there is coercion involved as well as most any company or government entity will not accept gold/silver as payment.

What do you call someone who doesn't pay their debts?
[your answer here]

What delegation in the USCON deals with people who cannot pay their debts?
[your answer here]

Bingo - that's the privilege...
The privilege is not to be held criminally liable for failure to pay debt with lawful money - an immunity granted by the bankrupted government to those generous, unselfish, civic minded, enumerated "human resources", who underwrite the bankrupt government, via FICA. [sarcasm flag off]

BTW - I have never found anyone who declined payment with gold or silver coin. Quite the opposite - the suggested price, in dollars, was far higher than the value of worthless FRNs that they would accept, in lieu of real dollars.

Since 1933, the nation has been drained of the legal standing to absolutely own anything. Thus the socialist / communist / collectivist pirates were able to bypass the constitutional limitations, and impose "voluntary" national socialism, in 1935.

What is so aggravating - it's all in the public record - in plain sight. But the generation of the 1930's closed their moral eyes and embraced the enemy of America, and sold themselves and their progeny into slavery.

Who to blame?
It's a "target rich" environment!

[woodman]

The IRS is an unlawful organization that operates within the realm of the legal, wielding its subjective power in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Even the people who believe they are in dutiful compliance with the IRS are not safe. And into the face of that, there are fools preaching to the gullible that there are ways to skirt their system using legalese.

There are no magic "lawful formulas" that will save anyone from the use of subjective, arbitrary force that can be brought to bear upon anyone who, by the mere act of existing within their system, catches the attention of those who are legally appointed to, not only interpret the law but also, wield it.

And there is little that pisses me of more than someone peddling the notion that they possess some secret legalistic way to circumvent the arbitrary use of government legal force using the legalese of that system.

My point is, you either stand as a man in passive noncompliance, outside their system with the full knowledge that you can be subject to their ability to bring full legal force upon you at any given time or, you can fool yourself into believing that you’ve got their system all figured out, that you can get in their face and beat them at their own game, on their own playing field, using their laws that they can interpret to mean anything they decide they mean at any given time in any given circumstance.

And then there is revolution…………..when passive noncompliance is not enough.



Excellent post Carl. This is my thinking, I wish I could have said it as well.

[jetgraphics]

Stop blaming the Eye Are Us.

At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people and they are truly the sovereigns of the country.
[Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 440, 463]

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

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

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

The people, in America, are the sovereigns.

IN contrast:

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

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

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

Citizens, by definition, are subjects. They are bound to perform duties. They are NOT sovereigns.

If American people are sovereign but U.S. citizens are subjects, how did "all Americans" become subject citizens at birth?

According to the 13th amendment, involuntary servitude was abolished in the United States of America... except after conviction. But civic duties are compulsory - with penalties for failure to perform.

The Supreme Court has held, in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit "enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc."

In Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918), the Supreme Court ruled that the military draft was not "involuntary servitude".

If compulsory military service is NOT INVOLUNTARY, then it must be voluntary servitude.

13th amendment prohibits involuntary servitude "within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

14th amendment imposes citizenship upon persons "born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

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

How did "all Americans" become citizens, at birth, of a foreign corporation? Wouldn't that make civic duties into involuntary servitude?

What?
You weren't informed that the United States = Congress, while the United States of America refers to the States united?

Articles of Confederation (1777)

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.

(Are you starting to get the picture?)

Quick reference to "sovereignty"

SOVEREIGN - "...Having undisputed right to make decisions and act accordingly".
New Webster's Dictionary And Thesaurus, p. 950.

SOVEREIGN - A person, body or state in which independent and supreme authority is vested...
Black's Law Dictionary Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1395.

SOVEREIGNTY - ...By "Sovereignty", in its largest sense is meant supreme, absolute, uncontrollable power, the absolute right to govern.
Black's Law Dictionary Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1396.

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

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

"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."
[14th Amendment, Section 1.]

Did that foreign corporation really pass any laws that obligated the sovereign American people?

Can't blame them, if you consented, as evidenced by all those signatures upon government forms, wherein you claimed to be their subject person.

Form SS-5, application for an account and number is limited to U.S. citizens and U.S. residents. American nationals, free inhabitants, domiciled within the boundaries of the United States of America are ineligible to apply.

http://www.ssa.gov/online/ss-5.pdf

[Carl]

Freedom is an individual state of mind and can be easily achieved simply by ignoring the negative and focusing on the positive.

But to live in liberty, the lawful framework within which individual freedoms are exercised, requires group effort.

The notion that an individual can create a lawful environment independent of the group and independent of the legal machinery that encapsulates them, and then to fully expect the legal to abide by that self proclaimed status, is delusional.

In other words Jet, all you're accomplishing with you self deluded individualistic efforts is concocting and justifying within your own mind an elaborate excuse for continuing to ignore the negative while focusing upon the positive, and the only thing you're doing here is trying to get others to join you in sharing your individualistic delusion.



.

[iOWNme]

Freedom is an individual state of mind and can be easily achieved simply by ignoring the negative and focusing on the positive.

But to live in liberty, the lawful framework within which individual freedoms are exercised, requires group effort.

The notion that an individual can create a lawful environment independent of the group and independent of the legal machinery that encapsulates them, and then to fully expect the legal to abide by that self proclaimed status, is delusional.

In other words Jet, all you're accomplishing with you self deluded individualistic efforts is concocting and justifying within your own mind an elaborate excuse for continuing to ignore the negative while focusing upon the positive, and the only thing you're doing here is trying to get others to join you in sharing your individualistic delusion.



.


Carl,

I would argue that Jet is in a very small minority of people who choose not to consent. He is not 'pushing' his agenda here, he is merely sharing information and what he has learned first hand, while doing battle in the fictional world.

I honestly cant see any reason that you would even care what he chooses to do with his time/life? It seems to me that one bases these assumptions on their own set of values. Well, who are any of us to determine what/who's values are important or meaningful?

This slavery system we live in is forced upon us. Jet is only doing what he considers is the right thing to do. The reality is most of what Jet posts is probably spot on. Now does that mean anyone in the Gooberment, IRS, Police, Justice System, etc will care or honor that? Maybe, maybe not. But again, are we going to continue to do what keeps us safe and alive? Or are we going to do what is right?

I believe Jet is doing what he knows is right. That takes a very strong minded individual, whether right or wrong, no doubt.

You act like he is trying to sell some 'Pay-Triot' book here or something. If he was PM'ing me to send him $$$ in exchange for valuable information, i might be a bit more suspicious. LOL

[Carl]

For the most part, I don't care what Jet writes, it's mostly misinformation and irrelevant anyway, and I’m adapt at filtering out the bullsh*t.

You don't need to dig into law or concoct elaborate legalistic plots to grasp the fact that the whole system is designed around keeping the productive enslaved to debt, government and the unproductive and all anyone has to do is point these obvious facts out.

What I do take exception with is his constant out of context mischaracterizations of the Constitution.

The Constitution, being the Supreme Law of the Land, provides the lawful framework upon which actions can be taken against the unlawful and unconstitutional acts of the federal government. We have a Constitutional, Lawful right to seek redress of grievances. As to the extent to which we must go in order to acquire that redress is entirely up to them. And, without the Constitution, we're nothing but a gang of anarchist terrorists making demands with no lawful standing.

Another thing I take exception to is his notion that one can seek and obtain, "through law", individual rights and immuities.

To me, this is the greater evil because it absolves government of wrong and places the burden of a person's freedom squarely upon their individual shoulders. In essence he, as well as John Quade, are saying that it is not the government's fault for creating the environment within which you're enslaved, it is your fault for not legally finagling your way out of it.

This type of legalistic crap does not stoke the embers of liberty; it smothers them in guilt and hopelessness. Guilt because these people have told you that it is your “individual” fault for remaining enslaved and hopelessness because the might of the entire government legal system has been demonstrated to be aligned against you and how could any single individual stand against that?...............but I was told I could.................

So no, I don't think Jet or John Quade or anyone else who preaches that individual escape through legalistic crap are providing a useful service at all.

[Golden]

My humble opinion is that both characters are correct each to certain degree.
No harm, no foul.
:)

[Libertarian_Guard]

In society, you cannot possibly be "Free".

end of discussion.


I'll play with your statement here and say that "In life, you cannot possibly be free"

My reason for substituting life for society, is because I'm wondering how many here would consider themselves 'free' if they were living as Tom Hanks did on a remote island, as in the movie Castaway. Now Tom Hanks did have Wilson, but I can't see how a ball would help make a society, and Tom had no obligation to the ball, except in his imagination.

I would be unable to use Treasure Island or Gilligan's Island as examples, since they eash had a small society.

[Brent]

You claim that every example I listed involved trespass upon another. This is a false statement. I used three examples; Only one, pissing on a neighbor's lawn, involved trespass and it was used only as an example. Your reply starts with a false-hood and cannot be taken seriously.

Nor am I speaking out of fear as you claim. I am speaking honestly and telling you that you suffer from delusion.

You cannot travel without permission of the government. You need a passport just to go to and from Canada. You cannot build a home or addition without a permit. You will not keep your property if you don't pay your property tax. You will be imprisoned and ruined if you do not pay income tax. If you drive without insurance your license and your freedom will be taken. I could go on and on. The point is: I hear you and a few others rail on and on about taking back your sovereignity and thus claiming your natural rights. Your claim is that through some mind boggling morass of legal principals that takes years to become familiar with and once finally becomiing an 'adept' you are some kind of 'free' being that can pass thru walls at will. Give me one example of a person who is immune to all the freedom killing laws that all of us other idiots must kow too.

You are living under some kind of delusion of freedom and are trying to bring others under your spell. Might as well try a tent revival. You are a slave.


Amen, I couldn't have said it better myself.