Disinformation Eradication - Ignorance Amputation Pt. 1

[jetgraphics]

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NASP/message/951

Disinformation Eradication - Ignorance Amputation

If you are like most people, you are the product of generations of propaganda and disinformation. To dispel indoctrination requires an effort on your part to open your mind to reasoning that will initially appear foreign and uncomfortable. In fact, you may never feel the same about a "person" or "persons".

Let's start with some basic legal concepts.

Can you determine the (legal) difference between the following pairs?

national v. citizen
sovereign v. subject
individual v. person
inhabitant v. resident
domicile v. residence
natural liberty v. civil liberty
personal liberty v. civil liberty
private property v. estate (real and personal property)
absolute ownership v. qualified ownership

If you do not know the legal difference, you will not understand that Americans are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights (aka natural and personal liberty), and when of legal age and status can absolutely own themselves, their labor, the fruits of their labor and all that they lawfully acquire or produce. Upon their private property, where they have a domicile, they exercise absolute power over their land and home and possessions. Upon the public roads and waterways, they exercise the right of locomotion, the freedom to travel, without hindrance or prior permission. And they and their private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. Because rights can never be subject to taxation by a government pledged to secure them.

In short, Americans were born with the birthright of sovereignty - and promptly lose it by "voluntary" surrender to the Collective State.

In support, I offer the following reasons.

First Line of Reason

Genesis 26: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28: And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

DOMINION - Generally accepted definition of "dominion" is perfect control in right of ownership. The word implies both title and possession and appears to require a complete retention of control over disposition. -Sovereignty; as the dominion of the seas or over a territory.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p.486

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.


MAN, individually, is endowed by His Creator with the undisputed right to make decisions, and act. He has perfect control, possession and title to all the particular earth that he acquires by harmless and lawful means. He is a sovereign.

What changed, that one group of men can demand another to serve them?

Second Line of Reason

" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
--- Declaration of Independence, 1776

" 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


America's governments recognize that MAN has the natural liberty to act as he thinks fit, and as long as he doesn't injure another's rights (harmless action). Those who have not given consent, nor submitted themselves, are not objects nor subjects of government. But they are promised by servant government that their inalienable rights will be respected and protected.

What has changed, that men no longer have absolute freedom to think, decide, and act, but must comply with law that imposes prior restraint? What has changed that men are punished as criminals, when there is no damaged person or property?

Third Line of Reason

Where does Man exercise natural liberty (pursue happiness) ?

"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


Within his domain of private property, man is free to act without prior restraint, or permission (license). Outside of his private property and dominion, a man is not sovereign, free, and independent of other men. He has no freedom to trespass upon the private property of other men.

From the Communist manifesto:
"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."

Amendment V, US Constitution 1789
... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

"Private property" is protected by constitution, but abolished by communism and socialism. What has happened to absolute ownership of land and houses, that should be secure from being taken for public use without just compensation? Did we consent to the surrender of our private property rights?

Fourth Line of Reason

Liberty is more complex than freedom. Liberty is divided into four types.

LIBERTY. Freedom from restraint. The power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature.
2. Liberty is divided into civil, natural, personal, and political.
6. Personal liberty is the independence of our actions of all other will than our own. Wolff, Ins. Nat. 77. It consists in the power of locomotion, of changing situation, or removing one's person to whatever place one's inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint, unless by due course of law. 1 Bl. Com. 134.
--- Bouvier's Dictionary

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.


A man's personal liberty is the right to move, outside of his own domain and situation, without restraint, unless he interferes in the equal exercise of the same rights by other men.

What has changed that man must now get permission (license) before he can travel upon public roads? Why must he register his vehicle with the State?

Fifth Line of Reason

Natural rights are superior to "human rights".

INHERENT POWERS - Those which are enjoyed by the possessors of natural right, without having been received from another. Such are the powers of a people to establish a form of government, of a father to control his children.
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p. 1170

ABSOLUTE RIGHTS - ... which are such as appertain and belong to particular men, merely as individuals or single persons...

NATURAL RIGHTS - ... are the rights of life, liberty, privacy, and good reputation.
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p. 1324

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Man's absolute rights, liberties, privacy, and reputation are not to be injured or violated without warrant, supported by a complaint by an injured party, who shall make said complaint under penalty of perjury for false accusation.

A man's private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation.

What empowers government to take our lands and houses, for failure to pay ad valorem taxes, and not pay us just compensation? What empowers the government to do unwarranted searches and seizures?

[jetgraphics]

Disinformation Eradication - Ignorance Amputation Pt. 2

Sixth Line of Reason

Exercising government granted privileges and immunities may impose a loss of inalienable rights.

"The right of holding state office is a civil or political right, which may be surrendered to the government or to society in order to secure the protection of other rights ([State] Bill of Rights, art. 3), or the government may
abridge or take away such rights for sufficient cause; for, though such rights may be considered natural rights (Bill of Rights, art. 2) yet they [political rights] are not of the class of natural rights which are held to be inalienable, like the rights of conscience (Bill of Rights, art. 4)"
- - Hale v. Everett, 53 N.H. 9 (N.H. 1868)

[Note: civil and political rights (liberties) are not in the same class of natural rights (inalienable), and surrender "other rights" when exercised. They are grants from government, and not endowed by our Creator.]

Those who exercise civil rights or civil liberties must apply for license (ask permission).

" Civil liberty is the power to do whatever is permitted by the constitution of the state and the laws of the land. It is no other than natural liberty, so far restrained by human laws, and no further, operating equally upon all the citizens, as is necessary and expedient for the general advantage of the public." 1 Black. Com. 125; Paley's Mor. Phil. B. 6, c.5; Swifts Syst. 12
--- Bouvier's Law Dictionary

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

A sovereign man who is within his inherent rights regarding his domain and his right of travel is not violating the person or property of another, committing a tort, a trespass, or otherwise required to obtain prior permission from competent authority.

Everyone else must obtain permission from competent authority to travel, work, marry, own dogs, build their homes, engage in business, and so on.

In addition, those who submit, as citizens, accept the burdens and duties that come with that election.

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, ... under 45 years of age who are, ...citizens of the United States ...


Seventh Line of Reason

Exclusions, Exceptions, and Opponents

"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

For proof that there are people who are not citizens, read Article IV :

"The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from Justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states;...."
[Article IV of the Articles of Confederation (1777)]

(This clause may explain why few Americans are ever exposed to the Articles of Confederation. Young fresh minds might ask embarrassing questions in their "Social Studies".)

What is a pauper (one of the excepted classes)?

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


How poor is that?

INDIGENT - In a general sense, one who is needy and poor, or one who has not sufficient property to furnish him a living nor anyone able to support him to whom he is entitled to look for support. Term commonly used to refer to one's financial ability, and ordinarily indicates one who is destitute of means of comfortable subsistence so as to be in want. Powers v. State, 194 Kan. 820, 402 P.2d 328, 332.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. p. 773


An indigent has no money nor property to support himself. But an indigent is not a pauper until he is supported by public charity.

What's so bad about pauperization?

"State code 124 Sections 6, and 7, authorizing the overseer of the poor to commit to the workhouse able-bodied persons, not having the means to support themselves, and who live a dissolute and vagrant life, and do not work sufficiently to support themselves, are not repugnant to the constitution, giving every man an inalienable right to defend his life and liberty."
In re Nott, 11 Me. (2 Fairf.) 208. (Me. 1834)


In short, the State has the power to direct you to work in exchange for the charity you get. Sounds like legalized slavery, doesn't it? If you are a pauper, you are subject to the orders of the overseer..

"Act May 29, 1879, providing for the committal to the industrial school of dependent infant girls, who are beggars, wanderers, homeless, or without proper parental care, in no way violates the right of personal liberty, and is constitutional."
Ex parte Ferrier, 103 Ill. 367, 42 Am. Rep. 10 (Ill. 1882)


Remember the exclusions: pauper and vagabond?

"An act providing for the care and custody of the person and the estate of habitual drunkards is not unconstitutional, as depriving a citizen of the right to enjoy, control, and dispose of his property, and to make contracts."
Devin v. Scott, 34 Ind. 67 (Ind. 1870)

STATUS CRIME - A class of crime which consists not in proscribed action or inaction, but in the accused's having a certain personal condition or being a person of a specified character. And example of a status crime is vagrancy. Status crimes are constitutionally suspect.
Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed, p. 1410

SOCIALISM - A political and economic theory advocating collective ownership of the means of production and control of distribution. It is based upon the belief that all, while contributing to the good of the community, are equally entitled to the care and protection which the community can provide.
--- Webster's dictionary


Socialism denies absolute ownership, private property, and therefore individual sovereignty. Social Security entitlements are synonymous with gifts (charity from the public treasury), and all participants are paupers at
law. Socialism imposes the obligation to work for the benefit of others (the collective).

A man who has no property, nor means of support, accepts or is eligible to accept charity from the public treasury is excepted from the privileges and immunities of the free citizens, and since he has no private property, has no inalienable rights and powers associated with sovereign status. As a voluntary pauper, he is object of and subject to the authority of government. And that authority predates the U.S. Constitution.

It is no coincidence that most States define the term "resident" to be synonymous with vagabond.

Why is a resident residing at a residence different from a free inhabitant dwelling at his domicile?

"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

"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

"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


A free inhabitant / American national / sovereign has a domicile (legal permanent home). A U.S. citizen / resident (transient) has a residence (less than a legal permanent home). A "legal residence" is not a legal home. Ergo, the government is empowered to restrict such transients, and require of them to seek permission, unlike the free people (non-residents).


Eighth Line of Reason

Condemnations of usury

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/I-Am-Anti-Socialist/message/220

Ezekiel 18:13 Hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken increase: shall he then live? he shall not live: he hath done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him.

USURY - Usury (from the Latin usus meaning "used") was defined originally as charging a fee for the use of money. This usually meant interest on loans, although charging a fee for changing money (as at a bureau de change) is included in the original meaning. After moderate-interest loans became an accepted part of the business world in the early modern age, the word has come to refer to the charging of unreasonable or relatively high rates of interest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury

A man cannot support a claim of innocence, and expect protection from Providence, if he is a usurer. By scripture, he's self condemned, and his tormentor is not held liable. (Government really does "Trust in God"!)

Is it a coincidence that usurers will not contract with the unnumbered? No one who is lacking a social security number is allowed to open an interest bearing account in any Federal Reserve bank, nor open a stock account. Coincidentally, if one has no number (SSN/TIN), one cannot be held criminally liable for "willful failure to file". The Socialist individual income tax** was always voluntary, but few know how they volunteered.

(** The corporate income tax on earnings from usury and limited liability are uniform, and thus a constitutional excise tax. The graduated Socialist wage taxes - Social Security and the Individual Income taxes - are based upon compact, and are outside the purview of the constitution.)

=============

By these lines of reason, one should be able to come to the conclusion that America's heritage is sovereignty, freedom and independence of her people.

And that heritage was unwittingly lost, by voluntary participation in national socialism, compacts with usurers, and subjugation to servant government.

[jetgraphics]

Disinformation Eradication - Ignorance Amputation Pt. 3

=============
Can you now determine the difference between the following pairs?

national v. citizen
sovereign v. subject
individual v. person
inhabitant v. resident
domicile v. residence
natural liberty v. civil liberty
personal liberty v. civil liberty
private property v. estate (real and personal property)
absolute ownership v. qualified ownership


Most Americans are led to believe that at birth they are U.S. citizens, who can only reside in a residence in a state (no domicile), and are subject to and object of the myriad laws, rules and regulations. They dutifully enroll into voluntary servitude via application for a Social Security Account, which is only available to "U.S. citizens" and "U.S. residents". They spend their whole lives working for the benefit of other beneficiaries, in and out of the government. They must get permission (license) to travel (drive), marry, enter occupations, build a home, fly, transmit radio signals, and own a dog. They are required to register their real and personal property, and pay tribute (tax) for the privilege of holding said property. Failure to pay tribute will result in confiscation of property, and in some cases, severe punishment. As good little socialist serfs, their lives and liberty are at the mercy of the government.

What proof exist to support that conclusion?
Observation of the present situation.

Because a citizen / subject may be ordered to sit for jury duty - or suffer punishment. Because a citizen / subject can be conscripted, ordered to fight, and if necessary, die on command - or suffer punishment. Because a citizen / subject can be denied the privilege to travel, unless he first acquires permission (license), registers his automobile, and contracts for insurance (admiralty/maritime contract). And let us not forget the greatest abuse - the "income tax" on his wages.

And yet, the government records show that the Supreme Court has also held that the Right to Work and the Right to Contract are constitutionally protected. The following citations illustrate the consistent thinking of the Court:

"It has been well said that, 'the property which every man has is his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of the most sacred property.' Butchers' Union Co., supra, at 757. Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property partaking of the nature of each is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms of property."
Coopage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1, at 14 (1915)


"The right to labor and to its protection from unlawful interference is a constitutional as well as a common-law right. Every man has a natural right to the fruits of his own industry."
48 Am Jur 2d, Section 2, p. 80


"The liberty mentioned in that [14th] amendment means, not only the right of the citizen to be free from mere physical restraint of his person, as by incarceration, but the term is deemed to embrace the right of the citizen to be free in the enjoyment of all his faculties; to be free to use them in all lawful ways; to live and work where he will; to earn his livelyhood by any lawful calling; to pursue any livelihood or avocation; and for that purpose to enter into all contracts which may be proper, necessary, and essential to his carrying out to a successful conclusion the purposes above mentioned."
Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 673, at 539 (1897).

"There is a clear distinction in this particular case between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his constitutional right as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land (*common law) long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights. "
Hale vs Henkel, 201 U.S. 43.


"The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but, the individual's rights to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed."
Redfield vs Fisher, 292 P. 813, at 819.


So what changes the individual's sacred right to life, liberty and private property?

Consent.

Every American who unwittingly signed a government document or application wherein he claims citizenship, residency, and other impairments to his status, has surrendered all the blessings of liberty that his forefathers fought and died for.

One of the best kept secrets (in plain sight) is American nationality. Unlike the fraud of U.S. citizenship, nationality is a characteristic of birth. Everyone born of American parents within the boundaries of the United States of America, are American nationals. All are "native Americans". However, the agents for the State swiftly persuade the parents to claim that their child(ren) are "citizens", must be certified so, and thus must apply for the "benefit" of participation in national socialism (Social Security).

In my own research into nationality, I found that the government carefully skirts the issue - only refers to "U.S. nationals" as those in territories or possessions of the United States. Little mention is ever made of American nationals. (I found only one law in the complete 50 titles of U.S. Code, 1992 edition, that mentioned American nationals.)

There is a gaping hole in their laws, rules and regulations regarding Americans who are NOT their citizens. And rightly so. For American nationals are the sovereign people whom the government serves, and the servant governments have no power over them and their property.

For example, conscription, listed in Title 50, U.S. code, is only applicable to U.S. citizens and residents. No mention is made of American nationals or of free inhabitants.

Likewise, no state statute ever mentions taxing or regulating private property. All their statutes refer to real and personal property (estate).
[For more info on private property versus estate, see: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NASP/message/454 ]

Herein lies the paradox -
All the abuses and usurpations we may object to can be traced back to our own consent.

I have never found one case where an American national, domiciled upon private property, within the boundaries of the U.S.A., was molested in person or property, nor charged with any violation of income tax codes, traffic codes, or other socialist violations. In every case, there was prima facie evidence that the accused had some connection with the government, whether military (oath), license (civil liberty), pauper (socialist), or citizen (political liberty) - or - a connection with agents of usury (Federal Reserve corporation), via bank account, mortgage, or other compact.

Without our collective consent, the Collective State would shrink to the strict and narrow confines of the specific delegation of authority, expressed in the organic documents that created the governments in these united States.

What specifically expresses the truth that American people are sovereign?

United States Constitution, Article 4, Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion.

"GOVERNMENT (Republican Form of Government)- One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people ... directly..."
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 695


Why should you believe that the government admits that the non-citizen, non-resident, free inhabitant is a sovereign? Or that he directly exercises sovereignty? And that his sovereignty is superior to the servant government?

People are supreme, not the state.
Waring v. the Mayor of Savannah, 60 GA at 93.

The people of the state, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the king by his own prerogative.
Lansing v. Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9, (NY)

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

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)

Now you know how they can pass mountains of laws that are inapplicable to the sovereign people. Read the law carefully, and if the legislature uses "person" or "persons", the law excludes the sovereign people.

14th Amendment, Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

If "persons" exclude the sovereign people, the 14th amendment cannot impose citizenship on them. All American people were endowed with the magnificent birthright of sovereignty, freedom and independence. Sovereign people cannot be persons "born" as subject citizens of the United States government. It would be involuntary servitude and unconstitutional.
U.S. citizenship at birth implies that the person was not endowed with sovereign potential, nor born of sovereign parents.
Did our parents not know they were sovereign? Or were they tricked, deceived, and defrauded?

Lastly, to cap this essay, I refer you to the Virginia Constitution, 1776.

SEC. 6. That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people, in assembly, ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage, and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses, without their own consent, or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assembled, for the public good.


All men ... cannot be taxed without their own consent.
All men ... cannot be deprived of their property for public uses without their own consent.
All men ... cannot be bound by any law that is not for the public good.

[jetgraphics]

TRESPASS
http://gold-silver.us/forum/index.php?topic=1494.msg15221#msg15221
FASCISM
http://gold-silver.us/forum/index.php?topic=1494.msg14478#msg14478
U.S. v. U.S.A.
http://gold-silver.us/forum/index.php?topic=640.msg14469#msg14469

FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES ACT OF 1976
§ 1603. Definitions
For purposes of this chapter --
(a) A "foreign state", ...
(3) which is neither a citizen of a State of the United States
as defined in section 1332 (c) and (d) of this title, nor created
under the laws of any third country.

(An American national, free inhabitant, non-citizen of a State of the U.S., nor under the laws of any third country appears to fit the definition. If ever I get a domicile, one of the first things I will do is contact the State department of the State and Federal government, to inform them of my status, and ask for their assistance to prevent any future misunderstandings with "Public Servants.")

And the sole mention of American nationals, in the 1992 edition of the 50 titles of the U.S. Code:

Title 8, U.S.C.S 1502 - Certificate of nationality issued by the Secretary of State for person not a naturalized citizen of the United States for use in proceedings of a foreign state.

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

REPUBLICAN FORM and SOVEREIGN PEOPLE
http://gold-silver.us/forum/index.php?topic=1264.msg12246#msg12246

[iOWNme]

Took me a bit to make it through all of that! Great post jet!

I am in the process of amputating my ignorance. But it grew for 30+ years, so it takes a bit to wack it off!!


Do you follow the PAC stuff? What is your opinion on it? (changing 'citizenship' to 'state national')

[jetgraphics]

(changing 'citizenship' to 'state national')

If they can show where that state is a nation, then one can be a state national.

The last time I checked, there was a United States of America - not 50 nations.

[iOWNme]

(changing 'citizenship' to 'state national')

If they can show where that state is a nation, then one can be a state national.

The last time I checked, there was a United States of America - not 50 nations.


Please explain.

I think the States somewhere along the line consented (just like us) to all kinds of crap, that basically changed their 'status' as well. I see if very similiar to what has happened to the peoples 'standing'.

?

[jetgraphics]

In 1776, there were 13 colonies... who declared independence.

Each state was an independent sovereignty, but not a nation - capable of individually securing itself from attack, within or without. The UNION (not unlike the fasces) took 13 weak states and welded them into a formidable force.

Technically, a Virginian is an American (national), not a Virginian national.

A similar situation exists when a single household, which may be sovereign, unites with its neighbors to create a fortified village.

But this distracts us from the over riding issue - the dissolution of the United States of America, via national socialism, and the creation of the United Socialist States of America - heading for collapse.

Which will be followed by the rise of the People's Democratic Socialist Republic of America, wherein no state nor individual can assert sovereignty, freedom nor independence.

[undgrd]

jetgraphics, is there a reason the sixth edition is sighted as opposed to the most recent ninth edition? Are there significant changes from the seventh edition forward?

Thanks

[jetgraphics]

jetgraphics, is there a reason the sixth edition is sighted as opposed to the most recent ninth edition? Are there significant changes from the seventh edition forward?

I was given a copy of the sixth edition, so I use it.
:-)

[jetgraphics]

[Bump Flag On]
Recent events remind me to point out that the "founding generation" understood their predicament - submission to a king - and wanted anything but that.

Ditto for the parliamentarian style of democracy - where the executive and legislative power is merged.

Under the original premise - government was to secure rights - and the laws were to reflect that. The balance of power was to slow the progress of government, so that reflection and wisdom would fashion the laws of the land.

However, under national socialism, enacted in 1935, but not fully implemented, government mutated into bestowing privileges - with long strings attached. Now, there's rushed legislation, filled with all manner of bribery and corruption, so that the People's Democratic Socialist Republic will be unstoppable.

Though some might think that restoring individual sovereign status is akin to anarchy, that is diametrically opposite. Sovereignty is the source of law. Each sovereign makes his own law - within his own domain.

In the past, no servant government would dare dictate how or what you do within your private domain. What you ate, how you traveled, what your toilet flushed, how much water your shower head passed was not within the scope of their jurisdiction. But all that changed, by consent.

Until that consent is withdrawn, no objection can stand.
After consent is withdrawn, no damage is evident.

Point of disagreement - such glib answers do not take into account the ravages of 3 generations of socialism, speculation, inflation, indoctrination, and degradation. For an average American national to extricate himself and his family, establish a domicile, and live free is beyond their reach.

The solution, a very old one, is to cooperate, compromise and form mutual defense societies, wherein resources are pooled so that the individual's rights can be restored, exercised and secured.
Of course, TPTB have attacked any semblance of unified power to oppose them. Just look at how they succeeded in destroying the stability of the American family.

Once upon a time, American families were stable - not just the husband and wife - but the interlocking extended family. Folks could rely upon blood kin and relations to help them over tough times. Sure, it wasn't always easy to get along with personalities and individual quirks, but at least it worked.

Today, we're taught to mock those who live in multi-generational situations. As if it is something "wrong" for parents, grandparents, grandchildren, and relations to live under one roof! Even the housing industry builds nothing but designs suited to "nuclear" families - that barely stay 5 to 10 years.

Sigh.

Cynically, I expect it to get worse before it gets better.
Hopefully, I wish that folks could escape "the socialist plantation" and find freedom outside of national socialism.

[jetgraphics]

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.

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

Confusing the jurisdiction of the United States by deliberately using United States of America is not a good rebuttal.

A native of a State, is also an American national - not to be confused with a "U.S. national" (as defined in the Code as one from one of the territories or possessions of the United States - not U.S.A.).

And as previously posted, there is only ONE citation mentioning the elusive American national in the 50 titles of U.S. code (1992 edition).

The style manual (which is not law) specifically notes that designating a native of a state one should use those forms. However, since any native of an American State is an American national, it is moot. However, if you wish to also identify one's birthplace, feel free to use their format.

[jetgraphics]

Please note: The 50 states united are the "United States of America".
The "United States" (federal government) generally refers to Congress, and its two other branches - executive and judicial.
Confusing the jurisdiction of the United States by deliberately using United States of America is not a good rebuttal.

(United States)/(United States of America) ... Whichever .... Its jurisdiction is limited to a 10 mile square plus land ceded by the several States for the purposes of forts, post offices and the like.
There is a vast difference between the USA and the US.



A native of a State, is also an American national - not to be confused with a "U.S. national" (as defined in the Code as one from one of the territories or possessions of the United States - not U.S.A.). I find it a good policy to not let others define my own status ... and I do not recognize American nationality. The reasons are
1) the U.S. has never been a sovereign country (it is a federation not a nation)
2) There has never been a country "America" in the history of mankind
3) America, having been discovered in 1492, places a limit of a mere five centuries that this American nationality could exist .. rather recent in historical terms
4) I have been cautioned against having more than one master ... I believe it is a biblical caution.
(1) Are you using U.S. to refer to the U.S.A.?
(2) The term "America" is a shortened form for the 'United States of America'. It was established, in 1777, as a confederacy.
(3) America, as in the continents of North and South America, in your example, does not refer to the nation known as America, founded in 1776.
(4) And you are presuming mastership from what?




The style manual (which is not law) specifically notes that designating a native of a state one should use those forms. However, since any native of an American State is an American national, it is moot. However, if you wish to also identify one's birthplace, feel free to use their format.
Funny thing about law .. it is declared at some point in time. That is what makes it law. The Style Manual has been published and I recognize it as law (in this instance).
I may be in error. But I have not found any reference to the Style manual in my copy of the 50 title of the United States Code. Of course, it could have been enacted in Statute and never codified.
As such, it may have bearing on the U.S. government with respect to its correspondence, but as a matter of law, it probably has little bearing. No one's rights or property would be injured by using the incorrect form... or do you think that is incorrect.



And how do you go about redefining one of the several States as an American State?
There has been much obfuscation concerning nationalities. Most people think in terms of their European (or African) ancestry as their nationality. Most people don't think very clearly on the subject.
I am a native American, but not a member of any American Indian tribe / nation.
I was born within the boundaries of a State in union with 49 other states, known as the United States of America.
Since there are the United States of Mexico, it is not unreasonable to identify a State as an American State for clarity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_states_of_mexico

[sirgonzo420]

Since the "United States of Mexico" was brought up - Palani, do you think of the States that comprise the "United States of Mexico" as individual countries/nations?


Just wondering.

[sirgonzo420]

Since the "United States of Mexico" was brought up - Palani, do you think of the States that comprise the "United States of Mexico" as individual countries/nations?


Just wondering.


There are 31 individual countries comprising the Mexican federation. These 31 countries are sovereign. The Mexican federation is not sovereign. Neither is the United States of America. Neither is Canada, the U.K, the E.U. or the Swiss federations.

Federations are not sovereign. They are just committees.


Yes, but to truly be a sovereign nation/country, does it not help to be recognized as such by other nations?

France is a nation, right?

I'd bet France doesn't recognize Texas, Ohio, Wyoming, or any Mexican state as a "sovereign country"....

Not saying you are wrong; I'm just saying that states being sovereign instead of merely political subdivisions of a federation appears to be something that no longer has practical applicability.

I don't think I can get very far on a Kentucky passport.....

[sirgonzo420]

Travel to the underlying sovereign country should be fairly simple. I am a friendly alien.


It SHOULD be fairly simple but I don't think it IS simple.

Sometimes, the other party wants to see a passport.

No passport, no entry.

For example, I believe virtually all cruise lines now require valid passports to go on their cruises.

[sirgonzo420]

It SHOULD be fairly simple but I don't think it IS simple.

Sometimes, the other party wants to see a passport.

No passport, no entry.

For example, I believe virtually all cruise lines now require valid passports to go on their cruises.


Isn't that discrimination? Is it worse to have to sit on the back of the bus or to be denied passage on the bus? Are cruise lines considered public transportation?

I would guess you had better have a remedy lined up for this eventuality. If you have a valid ticket and are refused passage then give them a counter offer ($50 million in damages), complete admin procedure (notice, fault and default) and put a lien on the boat. See how admiralty law would handle this one.


Hahaha!

[jetgraphics]

The style defined by the Articles of Confederation is "The United States of America" not the "United States of America". See the difference? Follow this route and even you appear to get confused by the style conventions and nuances.

Articles of Confederation, 1777
Article I.The Stile of this confederacy shall be "The United States of America".

Preamble, USCON, 1787
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

By your reasoning, since "the" is styled differently from "The", the USCON obviously refers to some other nation / confederation that happens to be called the "United States of America". (and long before the 14th amendment, too!)

If that's your opinion, then we have no common ground of symbolic communication, and nothing further to discuss.