John Quade explains the difference between a citizen and a soveriegn.

[Bigjon]

John Quade
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9xayBdBn_Q

2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XG_xN666t4&feature=related

3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3CLtHw1qrc&feature=related

4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRcJ3Bu4rz8&feature=related

5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I97tumEbBHU&feature=related

6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_oz6kSnEZc&feature=related

7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ze7Bx_xQq4Y&feature=related

[Bigjon]

1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I37F1Wzmoi8&feature=related

2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0dqLz3xsTI&feature=related

3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JSc6aV725k&feature=related

4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcSiVe2pWzA&feature=related

5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DrkhnXRQSY&feature=related

[Bigjon]

6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7v5_rO9Ci1M&feature=related

7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdU3BOvuckA&feature=related

I give up. This fucking editor won't let me link these url's.

[Bigjon]

John Quade on Abatements
http://usa-the-republic.com/audio/jurisprudentia/MP3/abatements_(MP3).mp3

[iOWNme]

WOW.

Only made it through the first 2, but i really like it so far.


I find when it comes to these types of presentations there are really 2 different kinds of approaches:

1- very technical
2- purely from the heart


Both have their merits. But when someone is truly fired up about their convictions, it really shows how important these types of philosophies/beliefs are. No matter if you totally agree, or choose not to.

Good post!

[iOWNme]

Just finished the citizen v sovereign vid...

I really like his connections between religion and law, and i dont follow any organized religion. What year was this? I learned about ecclesiastical jurisdiction, something i had no clue about!

If people only realized what they have bestowed on them from birthright, like John Q says, NOBODY in their right mind would give that up.

Thanks!

[Bigjon]

It was way back in 1993 and they thought they were making headway. I didn't know about any of this til just the last couple of years and didn't take it seriously until I watched John Q. He really has a way of putting his message across.

[jetgraphics]

Sadly, when I heard him start down the path of "which kind of citizen" and "adhesion contracts", I dreaded the worst.

This line of argument (old, wrong) fails to accurately account for the surrender of inalienable rights.
It may be true that a 14th amendment U.S. citizen "residing" in a state has no domicile. But any citizen is an impaired status at law.
Proof?
The right to life, liberty and property is surrendered / waived once one volunteers to be their citizen... as evidenced by the legal obligation of ALL able bodied male CITIZENS (between 17 and 45) to train, fight, and die, on command... as the militia... from 1777 (whoa!).
Political liberty (citizenship) is a step down in status, so that the public servants are inferior to the sovereign people (who are NOT subject citizens).

And participation in Socialist InSecurity is pauperization - which is NOT a contract for specific performance, by any stretch of the imagination. (Paupers are an excepted class, noted in Article IV of Confederation, 1777).

And the "Certificate of Title" is another "old argument" that is off point. A title is not a piece of paper - but a collection of facts that establish ownership:
1. Right to own, 2. Alienated title (right to own) by lawful money, and 3. No superior claim exists.

The State issues the "Certificate of Title" to establish the privilege to hold estate, because the "poor" socialist has no right to own, has not alienated title with lawful money (since 1933), and as an enumerated socialist (human resource), his property is claimed by another. The State is not at fault - the owner is.

I had to quit viewing after that gem.

[The Great Ag]

This line of argument (old, wrong) fails to accurately account for the surrender of inalienable rights.
Hey, JG:
Usually I agree with what you write, but how can one surrender inalienable rights?
From Black's Law Dictionary 3rd ed:

Inalienable: Not subject to alienation; the characteristic of those things which cannot be bought or sold or transferred from one person to another, such as rivers and public highways, and certain personal rights; e.g. liberty.
Even if I DEMAND gov't officials take away my inalienable rights, they legally cannot. . .unless they want to undue thousands of years of law. Inalienable rights exist for every human, regardless of birth or condition. Inalienable rights exist because of the Creator/God; whereas, in contradistinction, alienable rights, are granted by gov't and can be revoked willy nilly.

As you know, but for those who do not, CONstitutional rights CAN be waived. Full disclosure of waiver is NOT needed, merely an action can waive rights, ergo, applying and receiving a SS# waives many CONstitutional rights but no disclosure is given, or the acceptance and use of FRNs waives the right to a common law trial. One needs at least $21 lawful dollars to reserve one's rights to a common law trial (absolute private property).

When you right "surrender of inalienable rights" I believe you are mistaken. I have read your book The Patriot Primer #2 (which is an excellent book and I recommend it be read with its companion The Patriot Primer #1and the waiver of inalienable rights is not answered either. Am I missing something in my legal studies?

The Great Ag

[jetgraphics]

This line of argument (old, wrong) fails to accurately account for the surrender of inalienable rights.
Hey, JG:
Usually I agree with what you write, but how can one surrender inalienable rights?
From Black's Law Dictionary 3rd ed:

Inalienable: Not subject to alienation; the characteristic of those things which cannot be bought or sold or transferred from one person to another, such as rivers and public highways, and certain personal rights; e.g. liberty.
Even if I DEMAND gov't officials take away my inalienable rights, they legally cannot. . .unless they want to undue thousands of years of law. Inalienable rights exist for every human, regardless of birth or condition. Inalienable rights exist because of the Creator/God; whereas, in contradistinction, alienable rights, are granted by gov't and can be revoked willy nilly.

As you know, but for those who do not, CONstitutional rights CAN be waived. Full disclosure of waiver is NOT needed, merely an action can waive rights, ergo, applying and receiving a SS# waives many CONstitutional rights but no disclosure is given, or the acceptance and use of FRNs waives the right to a common law trial. One needs at least $21 lawful dollars to reserve one's rights to a common law trial (absolute private property).

When you right "surrender of inalienable rights" I believe you are mistaken. I have read your book The Patriot Primer #2 (which is an excellent book and I recommend it be read with its companion The Patriot Primer #1and the waiver of inalienable rights is not answered either. Am I missing something in my legal studies?

I base the statement of surrender on the legal status of the militia.
By definition, starting in 1777, all able bodied MALE CITIZENS are obligated to train, fight and if necessary, die, on command.

That is a violation of the right to life, liberty, etc.

Since the only "voluntary" aspect of the definition is citizen, I conclude that ALL CITIZENS have surrendered their inalienable rights in exchange for political liberties.

The Declaration of Independence, and the governments instituted pursuant to it, cannot have it both ways : the inalienable right to life, and a compulsory obligation to surrender same.

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".

"Enforcement" = compulsory
"Selective Service" = conscription = constitutional

All male citizens are the militia, obligated to train, fight and die on command. That is the reason why conscription is 100% constitutional.
(And that women citizens got a great deal - the privilege of political liberty without the obligation to fight and die for it.)

Consent is the root of all our miseries.

[The Great Ag]

I base the statement of surrender on the legal status of the militia.
By definition, starting in 1777, all able bodied MALE CITIZENS are obligated to train, fight and if necessary, die, on command.

That is a violation of the right to life, liberty, etc.

Since the only "voluntary" aspect of the definition is citizen, I conclude that ALL CITIZENS have surrendered their inalienable rights in exchange for political liberties.

That sort of thinking is certainly tautological, isn't it? Inalienable rights CANNOT be surrendered, BUT citizenship is voluntary (it says so on the label), and citizenship has obligations which require the surrendering of inalienable rights, but inalienable rights cannot be surrendered. . .Circles within circles!

Consent is the key. The Supreme Court of the US can dictate and the appropriate officals can enforce, but if I am not willing to participate in their schemes, the best they can do is lock me up (for failing to do my duty) or kill me. Lord knows they would try and do both.

The absolute only way out is to NOT give CONSENT to citizenship.

Ah, but are the majority of people capable of doing so? I do not believe so. History shows this to be true.

Which is greater: the preservation of the state or the individual? Clearly the US Supreme Court has an opinion. When a wrong has been committed and the courts do NOT support the law, then only the right of force will rue the day. Each human must make his/her own decisions and accept the consequences of those actions. Ultimately that is taking FULL responsibility for self.

The Great Ag

[Carl]

That sort of thinking is certainly tautological, isn't it? Inalienable rights CANNOT be surrendered, BUT citizenship is voluntary (it says so on the label), and citizenship has obligations which require the surrendering of inalienable rights, but inalienable rights cannot be surrendered. . .Circles within circles!

Consent is the key. The Supreme Court of the US can dictate and the appropriate officals can enforce, but if I am not willing to participate in their schemes, the best they can do is lock me up (for failing to do my duty) or kill me. Lord knows they would try and do both.

The absolute only way out is to NOT give CONSENT to citizenship.

Ah, but are the majority of people capable of doing so? I do not believe so. History shows this to be true.

Which is greater: the preservation of the state or the individual? Clearly the US Supreme Court has an opinion. When a wrong has been committed and the courts do NOT support the law, then only the right of force will rue the day. Each human must make his/her own decisions and accept the consequences of those actions. Ultimately that is taking FULL responsibility for self.

The Great Ag


A most exceptional point, I commend you upon the depth of understanding displayed within your succint reasoning.

.