Ares
26th December 2013, 06:43 AM
The word “
person
” in legal terminology is perceived as a general word, which normally
includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings. See e.g. 1 U.S.C. sec.
1.
Church of Scientology v U.S. Dept. of Justice (1979) 612 F. 2d 417, 425.
One of the very first of state statutes will have a section listed entitled “Definitions”.
Carefully study this section of the statutes and you will find a portion that reads si
milar to this
excerpt: In construing these statutes and each and every word, phrase, or part hereof, where the
context will permit;
(1)
The singular includes the plural and vice versa.
(2)
Gender
-
specific language includes the other gender and neuter.
(3)
The word “
p
erson
” includes individuals, children, firms, association, joint
adventures, partnerships, estates, trusts, business trusts, syndicates, fiduciaries,
corporations, and all other groups or combinations.
Note: However, the definitions do not list man or wom
an
–
therefore, they are excluded
from all the statutes!!!
Under the rule of construction “expression unius est exclusion alterius,” where a statute
or constitution enumerates the things on which it is to operate or forbids certain things, it is
ordinaril
y to be construed as excluding from its operation all those not expressly mentioned.
Generally words in a statute should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. When a
statute does not specifically define words, such words should be construed in their
common or
ordinary sense to the effect that the rules used in construing statutes are also applica
ble in the
construction of the Constitution. It is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that words of
common usage when used in a statute should be
constructed in their plain and ordinary sense.
If you carefully read the statute laws enacted by your state legislature you will find that
they are all written with phrases similar to these examples:
1.
A person commits the offense of failure to carry a lice
nse if the person . . . .
2.
A person commits the offense of failure to register a vehicle if the person . . . .
3.
A person commits the offense of driving uninsured if the person . . . .
4.
A person commits the offense of fishing if the person . . . .
Office of The Person
Page
2
of
11
5.
A person c
ommits the offense of breathing if the person . . . .
Notice that only “
persons
”
can commit these state legislature
-
created crimes. A crime is by
definition an offense committed against the “state”. If you commit an offense against a human, it
is called
a tort. Examples of torts would be any personal injury, slander, or defamation of
character.
So how does someone become a “
person
” and subject to regulation by state statutes and
laws? There is only one way. You must ask the state for permission to vol
unteer to become a
state person. You must volunteer because the U.S. Constitution forbids the state from
compelling you into slavery. This is found in the 13
th
and 14
th
Amendments.
13
th
Amendment:
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a
punishment for a
crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the UNITED States or
any place subject to their jurisdiction, found in section one.
14
th
Amendment, Section 1
:
All persons born or naturalized in the United State
s, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the UNITED STATES and of the state wherein
they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens
of the UNITED STATES
; nor shall any
St
ate deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws.
You become a state
-
created statutory “
person
” by taking up residency with the state and
steppin
g into the office of “
person
”. You must hold an “
office
” within the state government in
order for that state government to regulate and control you. First comes the legislatively
-
created
office, then comes their control. If you do not have an office in
state government, the
legislature’s control over you would also be prohibited by the Declaration of Rights section,
usually found to be either Section I or II of the State Constitution.
The most common office held in a state is therefore the office known
as “
person
”. Your
state legislature created this office as a way to control people. It is an office most people occupy
without even knowing that they are doing so.
The legislature cannot lawfully control you because you are a flesh and blood human
being
. God alone created you and by “Right of Creation”, He alone can control you. It is the
nature of law that what one creates, one controls. This natural law is the force that binds a
creature to its creator. The way the state gets around God’s law and t
hereby controls the people
Office of The Person
Page
3
of
11
is by creating only an office, and not a real human. This office is titled as “person” and then the
legislature claims that you are filling that office. Legislators erroneously now think that they can
make laws that also contro
l men. They create entire bodies of laws, motor vehicle code, building
code, compulsory education laws, and so on ad nauseum. They still cannot control men or
women, but they can now
control the office they created. And look who is sitting in that offi
ce
... Person(s).
Then they create government departments to administer regulations to these offices.
Within these administrative departments of state government are hundreds of other state
-
created
offices. There is everything from the office of janitor
to the office of governor. But these
administrative departments cannot function properly unless they have subjects to regulate. The
legislature obtains these subjects by creating an office that nobody even realizes to be an official
state office.
They
have created the office of “
person
”.
The state creates many other offices such as police officer, prosecutor, judge, etc. and
everyone understands this concept. However, what most people fail to recognize and understand
is the most common state office of
all, the office of “
person
”. Anyone filling one of these state
offices is subject to regulation by their creator, the state legislature. Through the state
-
created
office of “
person
”, the state gains its authority to regulate, control and judge you, the
real
human.
What they have done is apply the natural law principle, “What one creates, one
controls.”
A look in Webster’s dictionary reveals the origin of the word “
person
.” It literally
means, “the mask an actor wears.”
The legislature creates the off
ice of “
person
” which is a mask. They cannot create real
people; only God can do that. But they can create the “
office
” of “
person
”, which is merely a
mask, and then they persuade a flesh and blood human being to put on that mask by offering a
fictitious
privilege, such as a driver license. Now the legislature has gained complete control
over both the mask and the actor behind the mask..
A resident is another state office holder. All state residents hold an office in the state
government. But not ever
yone who is a resident also holds the office of “person”.
Some residents hold the office of judge and they are not person(s).
Some residents hold the office of prosecutor and they are not person(s).
Office of The Person
Page
4
of
11
Some residents hold the office of police officer and
they are not person(s).
Some residents hold the office of legislator and they are not person(s).
Some residents are administrators and bureaucrats and they are not person(s).
Some residents are attorney(s) and they are not person(s).
An attorney is a
state officer of the court and is firmly part of the judicial branch. The
attorney will tell you that they are “licensed” to practice law by the state Supreme Court.
Therefore, it is unlawful for any attorney to hold any position or office outside of the
judicial
branch. There can be no attorney legislators, no attorney mayors, no attorneys as police,
and
no
attorneys as governor.
Yes, I know it happens all the time; however, this practice of multiple
office
-
holding by attorneys is prohibited by the Con
stitution and is a felony in most states. If
you read farther into your state constitution you will find a clause stating this
–
the “Separation
of Powers”
–
which will essentially read as follows:
Branches of government
–
The powers of the state governm
ent shall be divided into
legislative executive and judicial branches. No person
belonging to one branch shall exercise
any powers appertaining to either of the other branches unless expressly provided herein.
Therefore, a police officer cannot arrest a
prosecutor, a prosecutor cannot prosecute a
sitting judge, a judge cannot order the legislature to perform, and so on.
Because these “
offices
” are not “
persons
”, the state will not, and cannot prosecute them;
therefore, they enjoy almost complete protecti
on by the state in the performance of their duties.
This is why it is impossible to sue or file charges against most government employees. If their
crimes should rise to the level where they “shock the community” and cause alarm in the people,
then they
will be terminated from their office or state employment and
then
they are arrested,
now as a common “person”, and charged for their crimes. Simply put, the state will not eat its
own.
The reason all state residents hold an office is so the state can con
trol everything. It
wants to create every single office so that all areas of your life are under the complete control of
the state. Each office has prescribed duties and responsibilities and all these offices are regulated
and governed by the state. If
you read the fine print when you apply for a state license or
privilege, you will see that you must sign a declaration that you are in fact a “resident” of that
state. “
Persons
” is a subset of “resident”, judge is a subset of “resident”, and legislators a
nd
Office of The Person
Page
5
of
11
police officers are subsets of “resident”. If you hold any office in the state, you are a “resident”
and subject to all legislative decrees in the form of statutes.
They will say, “All men are free”, because that is a true statement. They will always
say
that we are “free men”. But they will never tell you that
legislator
-
created “offices” that you are
occupying are not free. What they do
not
say is that holding any state office binds free men into
slavery for the state. They are ever ready to tric
k you into accepting the state office of “
person
,”
and once you are filling that office, you cease to be a free man. You become regulated creatures,
called “persons,” totally created by the legislature. You will hear “free men” mentioned all the
time, bu
t you will never hear about “free persons.”
If you build your life in an office created by the legislature, it will be built on shifting
sands. The office can be changed and manipulated at any time to conform to the whims of the
legislature. When you h
old the office of “
person
” created by the legislature, your office isn’t
fixed. Your duties and responsibilities are ever changing. Each legislative session binds a
“person” to ever more burdens and requirements in the form of more rules and statutes.
M
ost state constitutions have a section that declares the fundamental power of the people:
Political power
–
All political power is inherent in the people. The enunciation herein of
certain Rights shall not be construed to deny or impair others retained b
y the people. Notice that
this says “people” ... it does not say “
persons
.” This statement declares beyond any doubt that
the people are Sovereign over their created government. This is natural law and the natural flow
of delegated power.
A Sovereign is
a private, non
-
resident, non
-
domestic, non
-
person, non
-
individual person,
NOT SUBJECT to any real or imaginary statutory regulations of quasi
-
laws enacted by any state
legislature which was created by the people.
When a Sovereign is pulled over by the pol
ice, roll down your window and say, “You are
speaking to a Sovereign political power holder. I do not consent to you detaining me. Why are
you detaining me against my will?”
Now the state office of “policeman” knows that “He”, policeman, is talking to a
flesh and
blood Sovereign. The police officer cannot cite a Sovereign because the state legislature can
only regulate what they create. And the state does not create Sovereign political power holders.
It is very important to lay the proper foundation r
ight from the beginning. Let the police officers
know that you are a Sovereign. Remain in your proper office of Sovereign political power
Office of The Person
Page
6
of
11
holder. Do not leave it. Do not be persuaded by police officer pressure or tricks to put on the
mask of a state “
p
erson
.”
Why aren’t Sovereigns subject to the state’s charges? Because of the concept of office.
The state is attempting to prosecute only a particular office known as “
person
.” If you are not in
that state
-
created office of “
person
,” the state statutes
simply do not apply to you. This is
common sense. For example, if you are not in the state of Wisconsin, then Wisconsin rules do
not apply to you. For the state to control someone, they have to first create the office. Then they
must coerce a warm
-
blo
oded creature to come fill that office. They want
you
to fill that office.
Here is the often
-
expressed understanding from the United States Supreme Court that in
common usage, the term “person” does not include the Sovereign. Statutes employing the
“per
son are ordinarily construed to exclude the Sovereign.”
Wilson v. Omaha Tribe
, 442 U.S.
600, 604 (1941). See also,
United States v. Mine Workers
, 330 U.S. 258, 275 (1947).
The idea that the word “
person
” ordinarily excludes the Sovereign can also be tra
ced to
the “familiar principles that the King is not bound by any act of Parliament unless he be named
therein by special and particular words.”
Dollar Savings Bank v. United States
, 19 Wall 227,
239 (1874). As this passage suggests, however, this interp
retive principle applies only to the
enacting Sovereign,
United States v. California,
297 U.S. 175, 186 (1936). See also
Jefferson
County Pharmaceutical Assn., Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories
, 460 U.S. 150, 161, n 21 (1983).
Furthermore, as explained in
Unit
ed States v. Herron
, 20 Wall, 251, 255 (1874), even the
principle as applied to the enacting Sovereign is not without limitations. “Where an act of
Parliament is made for the public good, as for the advancement of religion and justice or to
prevent injury
and wrong, the king is bound by such act, though not particularly named therein,
but where a statute is general and thereby any prerogat
ive, right, title, or interest is divested or
taken from the king in such case the king is not bound, unless the statut
e is made to extend to
him by express words.”
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Holmes explained: “A Sovereign is exempt from suit, not
because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that
there can be no legal Right
as against the authority that makes the law on which the Right
depends.”
Kawananakoa v. Polyblank
, 205 U.S. 349, 353, 27 S. Ct. 526, 527, 51 L. Ed. 834
(1907).
Office of The Person
Page
7
of
11
The majority of American states fully embrace the Sovereign immunity theory as well as
the fe
deral government. See Restatement (Second) of torts 895B, comment at 400 (1979). The
following U.S. Supreme Court case makes clear all these principals. I shall have occasion
incidentally to evince how true it is that states and governments were made fo
r man, and at the
same time, how true it is that his creatures and servants have first deceived, next vilified, and at
last oppressed their master and maker.
A state, useful and valuable as the contrivance is, is the inferior contrivance of man, and
from
his native dignity derives all its acquired importance. Let a state be considered as
subordinate to the people. But let everything else be subordinate to the state. The latter part of
his position is equally necessary with the former. For in the practi
ce and, even at length in the
science of politics, there has very frequently been a strong current against the natural order of
things, and an inconsiderate or an interested disposition to sacrifice the end to the means. As the
government has claimed prec
edence over the people, so, in the same inverted course of things,
the government has often claimed precedence over the state; and to this perversion in the second
degree, many of the volumes of confusion concerning Sovereignty owe their existence.
The
mi
nisters, dignified very properly by the appellation of the magistrates, have wished, and have
succeeded in their wish, to be considered as the Sovereigns of the state. This second degree of
perversion is confined to the old world and begins to diminish ev
en there, but the first degree is
still to prevalent even in the Several states of which our union is composed. By a state, I mean a
complete body of free persons united together for their common benefit, to enjoy peaceably what
is their own, and to do ju
stice to others. It is an artificial person. It has its affairs and the
interests; it has its rules; it has its Rights; and it has its obligations. It may acquire property
distinct from that of its members. It may incur debts to be discharged out of th
e public stock, not
out of the private fortunes of individuals. It may be bound by contracts and for damages arising
from the breach of those contracts. In all our contemplations, however, concerning this feigned
and artificial person, we should never fo
rget that in truth and nature, those who think and speak
and act are “men.” Is the foregoing description of a state a true description? It will not be
questioned, but it is. It will be sufficient to observe briefly that the Sovereignties in Europe, and
particularly in England, exist on feudal principles. That system considers the prince as the
Sovereign, and the people as his subjects; it regards his person as the object of allegiance and
excludes the idea of his being on an equal footing with a subject
, either in a court of justice or
Office of The Person
Page
8
of
11
elsewhere.
That system contemplates him as being the fountain of honor and authority; and from
his grace and grant derives all franchise, immunities and privileges. It is easy to perceive that
such a Sovereign could not
be amenable to a court of justice or subjected to judicial control and
actual constraint. It was of necessity, therefore, that suability became incompatible with such
Sovereignty. Besides, the prince having all the executive powers, the judgment of the c
ourts
would in fact be only monitory, not mandatory to him, and a capacity to be advised is a distinct
thing from a capacity to be sued. The same feudal ideas run through all their jurisprudence and
constantly remind us of the distinction between the prin
ce and the subject.
No such ideas exist here (speaking of America). At the Revolution, the Sovereignty
devolved on the people and they are truly the Sovereigns of the country. But they are Sovereigns
without subjects (unless the African slaves among us
may be so called) and have none to govern
but themselves. The citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens and as joint tenants in the
Sovereignty.
Chisholm v. Georgia
(February Term, 1793) 2 U.S. 419 2D all. 419, 1 L Ed 440.
There are many ways you
can give up your Sovereign power and accept the role of “
person
.”
One is by receiving state benefits. Another is by asking permission in the form of a license or
permit from the state.
One of the subtlest ways of accepting the role of “
person
” is to a
nswer the questions as a
bureaucrat knocks on your door and wants to know why your children aren’t registered in school,
or a police officer pulls you over and starts asking questions. You immediately fill the office of
“
person
” if you start answering que
stions. It is for this reason that you should ignore or refuse
to “answer” their questions and instead act like a true Sovereign, a King or Queen, and ask only
your own questions of them.
You are
not
a “
person
” subject to their laws. If they persist and
haul you into their court
unlawfully, your response to the judge is simple and direct. You the Sovereign must tell him:
•
I have no need to answer you in this matter.
•
It is none of your business whether I understand my Rights or whether I
understand your
fictitious charges.
•
It is none of your business whether I want counsel.
•
The reason it is none of your business is because I am not a “
person
” regulated by
the state. I do not hold any position of office where I am subjected to the
legislature.
Office of The Person
Page
9
of
11
•
The stat
e legislature does not dictate what I do.
•
I am a free Sovereign “Man” (or “Woman”) and I am a political power holder as
lawfully decreed in the State Constitution at Article I (or II) and that constitution
is controlling over you.
You must NEVER retain or
hire an attorney, a state officer of the court, to speak or file
written documents for you. Use an attorney (if you must)
only
for counsel and advice about their
“legal” system. If you retain an attorney to represent you and speak in your place, you beco
me
“NON COMPOS MENTIS” (not mentally competent) and you are then considered a ward of the
court. You LOSE all your Rights, and you will not be permitted to do anything herein. The
judge knows that as long as he remains in his office, he is backed by the
awesome power of the
state, its lawyers, armed police and prisons. The judge will try to force you to abandon your
Sovereignty sanctuary by threatening you with jail. No matter what happens, if you remain
faithful to your Sovereignty, the judge and the s
tate may not lawfully move against you. The
state did not create the office of Sovereign political power holder; therefore, they do not regulate
and control those in the office of Sovereign. They cannot ascribe penalties for breach of that
particular off
ice. The reason they have no authority over the office of the Sovereign is because
they did not create it and the Sovereign people did not delegate to them any such power.
When
challenged, simply remind them that they do not regulate any office of the So
vereign and that
their statutes only apply to those state employees in legislator
-
created offices.
This Sovereign individual paradigm is explained by the following U.S. Supreme Court
case: “The individual may stand upon his constitutional Rights as a citi
zen. 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 submit his books and papers for an examination) to the State since he receives
nothing therefrom beyond the protection of h
is 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
a refusal to incriminate himself and the immunity of himself and his property from
arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he
does not trespass upon their Rights.”
Hale v. Henkel
, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1
905).
Office of The Person
Page
10
of
11
Let us analyze this case. It says, “The individual may stand upon his constitutional
Rights.” It does not say, “Sit on his Rights.” There is a principle here. “If you don’t use ‘em,
you lose ‘em.” You have to assert your Rights, demand them, “st
and upon” them.
Next it says, “He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way.” It says
“private business”
–
you have a Right to operate a private business. Then it says “in his own
way.” It doesn’t say “in the government’s way.”
Then
it says, “His power to contract is unlimited.” As a Sovereign individual, your
power to contract is unlimited. In common law there are certain criteria that determine the
validity of contracts. They are not important here except that any contract that w
ould harm
others or violate their Rights would be invalid. For example, a “contract” to kill someone is not
a valid contract. Apart from this obvious qualification, your power to contract is unlimited.
Next it says, “He owes no such duty (to submit his b
ooks and papers for an examination)
to the State since he receives nothing therefrom beyond the protection of his life and property.”
The court case contrasted the duty of the corporation (an entity created by government
permission
–
feudal paradigm) to t
he duty of the Sovereign individual. The Sovereign individual
doesn’t need and didn’t receive permission from the government, hence has no duty to the
government.
Then it says, “His Rights are such as existed by the law of the land (Common Law) long
ant
ecedent to the organization of the State.” This is very important. The Supreme Court
recognized that humans have inherent Rights. The Constitution for The United States of
America (including the Bill of Rights) does not grant us Rights. We have fundame
ntal Rights,
irrespective of what the Constitution says. The Constitution acknowledges some of our Rights
and Amendment IX states, “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain Rights shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the pe
ople.” The important point is that our
Rights antecede [come before, are senior to] the organization of the state.
Next the Supreme Court says, “And [his rights] can only be taken from him by due
process of law and in accordance with the Constitution.” Do
es it say the government can take
away your Rights? No! Your Rights can
only
be taken away “by due process of law, and in
accordance with the Constitution.” Due process of law involves procedures and safeguards such
as trial by jury. “Trial by jury” me
ans
inter alia
... the jury judges both the law and fact.
Then the case says, “Among his Rights are a refusal to incriminate himself and the
immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law.”
These are some of th
e Rights of a Sovereign individual. Sovereign individuals need not report
anything about themselves or their business to
anyone
.
Finally, the Supreme Court says, “He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not
trespass upon their Rights.” The Sover
eign individual does not have to pay taxes. If you should
discuss
Hale v. Henkel
with a run
-
of
-
the
-
mill attorney, he or she will tell you that the case is
“old” and that it has been “overturned.” If you ask that attorney for a citation of the case or cas
es
that overturned it, there will not be a meaningful response. Upon researching
Hale v. Henkel
, it
was found:
“We know that
Hale v. Henkel
was
decided in 1905 in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Since it was the Supreme Court, the case is binding on all courts
of the land, until another
Supreme Court case says it isn’t. Has another Supreme Court case overturned
Hale v. Henkel
?
The answer is NO. As a matter of fact, since 1905, the Supreme Court has cited
Hale v. Henkel
a
total of 144 times. A fact more astou
nding is that since 1905,
Hale v. Henkel
has been cited by
all the federal and state appellate court systems a total of over 1,600 times. None of the various
issues of this case has
ever
been overturned.
So if the state through the “office” of the judge c
ontinues to threaten or does imprison
you, they are trying to force you into the state
-
created office of “
person
.” As long as you
continue to claim your Rightful office of Sovereign, the State lacks all jurisdiction over you. The
state needs someone fil
ling the office of “
person
” in order to continue prosecuting a case in their
courts. Do
not
sign their papers or cooperate with them because most things about your life are
private and are not the state’s business to evaluate. Here is the Sovereign Peopl
es’ command in
the constitution that the state respect their privacy:
Right of Privacy
–
Every man or woman has the Right to be let alone and free from
government intrusion into their private life except as otherwise provided herein. This section
shall no
t be construed to limit the public’s Right of access to public records and meetings as
provided by law
http://www.freedom-school.com/office-of-the-person.pdf
person
” in legal terminology is perceived as a general word, which normally
includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings. See e.g. 1 U.S.C. sec.
1.
Church of Scientology v U.S. Dept. of Justice (1979) 612 F. 2d 417, 425.
One of the very first of state statutes will have a section listed entitled “Definitions”.
Carefully study this section of the statutes and you will find a portion that reads si
milar to this
excerpt: In construing these statutes and each and every word, phrase, or part hereof, where the
context will permit;
(1)
The singular includes the plural and vice versa.
(2)
Gender
-
specific language includes the other gender and neuter.
(3)
The word “
p
erson
” includes individuals, children, firms, association, joint
adventures, partnerships, estates, trusts, business trusts, syndicates, fiduciaries,
corporations, and all other groups or combinations.
Note: However, the definitions do not list man or wom
an
–
therefore, they are excluded
from all the statutes!!!
Under the rule of construction “expression unius est exclusion alterius,” where a statute
or constitution enumerates the things on which it is to operate or forbids certain things, it is
ordinaril
y to be construed as excluding from its operation all those not expressly mentioned.
Generally words in a statute should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. When a
statute does not specifically define words, such words should be construed in their
common or
ordinary sense to the effect that the rules used in construing statutes are also applica
ble in the
construction of the Constitution. It is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that words of
common usage when used in a statute should be
constructed in their plain and ordinary sense.
If you carefully read the statute laws enacted by your state legislature you will find that
they are all written with phrases similar to these examples:
1.
A person commits the offense of failure to carry a lice
nse if the person . . . .
2.
A person commits the offense of failure to register a vehicle if the person . . . .
3.
A person commits the offense of driving uninsured if the person . . . .
4.
A person commits the offense of fishing if the person . . . .
Office of The Person
Page
2
of
11
5.
A person c
ommits the offense of breathing if the person . . . .
Notice that only “
persons
”
can commit these state legislature
-
created crimes. A crime is by
definition an offense committed against the “state”. If you commit an offense against a human, it
is called
a tort. Examples of torts would be any personal injury, slander, or defamation of
character.
So how does someone become a “
person
” and subject to regulation by state statutes and
laws? There is only one way. You must ask the state for permission to vol
unteer to become a
state person. You must volunteer because the U.S. Constitution forbids the state from
compelling you into slavery. This is found in the 13
th
and 14
th
Amendments.
13
th
Amendment:
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a
punishment for a
crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the UNITED States or
any place subject to their jurisdiction, found in section one.
14
th
Amendment, Section 1
:
All persons born or naturalized in the United State
s, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the UNITED STATES and of the state wherein
they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens
of the UNITED STATES
; nor shall any
St
ate deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws.
You become a state
-
created statutory “
person
” by taking up residency with the state and
steppin
g into the office of “
person
”. You must hold an “
office
” within the state government in
order for that state government to regulate and control you. First comes the legislatively
-
created
office, then comes their control. If you do not have an office in
state government, the
legislature’s control over you would also be prohibited by the Declaration of Rights section,
usually found to be either Section I or II of the State Constitution.
The most common office held in a state is therefore the office known
as “
person
”. Your
state legislature created this office as a way to control people. It is an office most people occupy
without even knowing that they are doing so.
The legislature cannot lawfully control you because you are a flesh and blood human
being
. God alone created you and by “Right of Creation”, He alone can control you. It is the
nature of law that what one creates, one controls. This natural law is the force that binds a
creature to its creator. The way the state gets around God’s law and t
hereby controls the people
Office of The Person
Page
3
of
11
is by creating only an office, and not a real human. This office is titled as “person” and then the
legislature claims that you are filling that office. Legislators erroneously now think that they can
make laws that also contro
l men. They create entire bodies of laws, motor vehicle code, building
code, compulsory education laws, and so on ad nauseum. They still cannot control men or
women, but they can now
control the office they created. And look who is sitting in that offi
ce
... Person(s).
Then they create government departments to administer regulations to these offices.
Within these administrative departments of state government are hundreds of other state
-
created
offices. There is everything from the office of janitor
to the office of governor. But these
administrative departments cannot function properly unless they have subjects to regulate. The
legislature obtains these subjects by creating an office that nobody even realizes to be an official
state office.
They
have created the office of “
person
”.
The state creates many other offices such as police officer, prosecutor, judge, etc. and
everyone understands this concept. However, what most people fail to recognize and understand
is the most common state office of
all, the office of “
person
”. Anyone filling one of these state
offices is subject to regulation by their creator, the state legislature. Through the state
-
created
office of “
person
”, the state gains its authority to regulate, control and judge you, the
real
human.
What they have done is apply the natural law principle, “What one creates, one
controls.”
A look in Webster’s dictionary reveals the origin of the word “
person
.” It literally
means, “the mask an actor wears.”
The legislature creates the off
ice of “
person
” which is a mask. They cannot create real
people; only God can do that. But they can create the “
office
” of “
person
”, which is merely a
mask, and then they persuade a flesh and blood human being to put on that mask by offering a
fictitious
privilege, such as a driver license. Now the legislature has gained complete control
over both the mask and the actor behind the mask..
A resident is another state office holder. All state residents hold an office in the state
government. But not ever
yone who is a resident also holds the office of “person”.
Some residents hold the office of judge and they are not person(s).
Some residents hold the office of prosecutor and they are not person(s).
Office of The Person
Page
4
of
11
Some residents hold the office of police officer and
they are not person(s).
Some residents hold the office of legislator and they are not person(s).
Some residents are administrators and bureaucrats and they are not person(s).
Some residents are attorney(s) and they are not person(s).
An attorney is a
state officer of the court and is firmly part of the judicial branch. The
attorney will tell you that they are “licensed” to practice law by the state Supreme Court.
Therefore, it is unlawful for any attorney to hold any position or office outside of the
judicial
branch. There can be no attorney legislators, no attorney mayors, no attorneys as police,
and
no
attorneys as governor.
Yes, I know it happens all the time; however, this practice of multiple
office
-
holding by attorneys is prohibited by the Con
stitution and is a felony in most states. If
you read farther into your state constitution you will find a clause stating this
–
the “Separation
of Powers”
–
which will essentially read as follows:
Branches of government
–
The powers of the state governm
ent shall be divided into
legislative executive and judicial branches. No person
belonging to one branch shall exercise
any powers appertaining to either of the other branches unless expressly provided herein.
Therefore, a police officer cannot arrest a
prosecutor, a prosecutor cannot prosecute a
sitting judge, a judge cannot order the legislature to perform, and so on.
Because these “
offices
” are not “
persons
”, the state will not, and cannot prosecute them;
therefore, they enjoy almost complete protecti
on by the state in the performance of their duties.
This is why it is impossible to sue or file charges against most government employees. If their
crimes should rise to the level where they “shock the community” and cause alarm in the people,
then they
will be terminated from their office or state employment and
then
they are arrested,
now as a common “person”, and charged for their crimes. Simply put, the state will not eat its
own.
The reason all state residents hold an office is so the state can con
trol everything. It
wants to create every single office so that all areas of your life are under the complete control of
the state. Each office has prescribed duties and responsibilities and all these offices are regulated
and governed by the state. If
you read the fine print when you apply for a state license or
privilege, you will see that you must sign a declaration that you are in fact a “resident” of that
state. “
Persons
” is a subset of “resident”, judge is a subset of “resident”, and legislators a
nd
Office of The Person
Page
5
of
11
police officers are subsets of “resident”. If you hold any office in the state, you are a “resident”
and subject to all legislative decrees in the form of statutes.
They will say, “All men are free”, because that is a true statement. They will always
say
that we are “free men”. But they will never tell you that
legislator
-
created “offices” that you are
occupying are not free. What they do
not
say is that holding any state office binds free men into
slavery for the state. They are ever ready to tric
k you into accepting the state office of “
person
,”
and once you are filling that office, you cease to be a free man. You become regulated creatures,
called “persons,” totally created by the legislature. You will hear “free men” mentioned all the
time, bu
t you will never hear about “free persons.”
If you build your life in an office created by the legislature, it will be built on shifting
sands. The office can be changed and manipulated at any time to conform to the whims of the
legislature. When you h
old the office of “
person
” created by the legislature, your office isn’t
fixed. Your duties and responsibilities are ever changing. Each legislative session binds a
“person” to ever more burdens and requirements in the form of more rules and statutes.
M
ost state constitutions have a section that declares the fundamental power of the people:
Political power
–
All political power is inherent in the people. The enunciation herein of
certain Rights shall not be construed to deny or impair others retained b
y the people. Notice that
this says “people” ... it does not say “
persons
.” This statement declares beyond any doubt that
the people are Sovereign over their created government. This is natural law and the natural flow
of delegated power.
A Sovereign is
a private, non
-
resident, non
-
domestic, non
-
person, non
-
individual person,
NOT SUBJECT to any real or imaginary statutory regulations of quasi
-
laws enacted by any state
legislature which was created by the people.
When a Sovereign is pulled over by the pol
ice, roll down your window and say, “You are
speaking to a Sovereign political power holder. I do not consent to you detaining me. Why are
you detaining me against my will?”
Now the state office of “policeman” knows that “He”, policeman, is talking to a
flesh and
blood Sovereign. The police officer cannot cite a Sovereign because the state legislature can
only regulate what they create. And the state does not create Sovereign political power holders.
It is very important to lay the proper foundation r
ight from the beginning. Let the police officers
know that you are a Sovereign. Remain in your proper office of Sovereign political power
Office of The Person
Page
6
of
11
holder. Do not leave it. Do not be persuaded by police officer pressure or tricks to put on the
mask of a state “
p
erson
.”
Why aren’t Sovereigns subject to the state’s charges? Because of the concept of office.
The state is attempting to prosecute only a particular office known as “
person
.” If you are not in
that state
-
created office of “
person
,” the state statutes
simply do not apply to you. This is
common sense. For example, if you are not in the state of Wisconsin, then Wisconsin rules do
not apply to you. For the state to control someone, they have to first create the office. Then they
must coerce a warm
-
blo
oded creature to come fill that office. They want
you
to fill that office.
Here is the often
-
expressed understanding from the United States Supreme Court that in
common usage, the term “person” does not include the Sovereign. Statutes employing the
“per
son are ordinarily construed to exclude the Sovereign.”
Wilson v. Omaha Tribe
, 442 U.S.
600, 604 (1941). See also,
United States v. Mine Workers
, 330 U.S. 258, 275 (1947).
The idea that the word “
person
” ordinarily excludes the Sovereign can also be tra
ced to
the “familiar principles that the King is not bound by any act of Parliament unless he be named
therein by special and particular words.”
Dollar Savings Bank v. United States
, 19 Wall 227,
239 (1874). As this passage suggests, however, this interp
retive principle applies only to the
enacting Sovereign,
United States v. California,
297 U.S. 175, 186 (1936). See also
Jefferson
County Pharmaceutical Assn., Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories
, 460 U.S. 150, 161, n 21 (1983).
Furthermore, as explained in
Unit
ed States v. Herron
, 20 Wall, 251, 255 (1874), even the
principle as applied to the enacting Sovereign is not without limitations. “Where an act of
Parliament is made for the public good, as for the advancement of religion and justice or to
prevent injury
and wrong, the king is bound by such act, though not particularly named therein,
but where a statute is general and thereby any prerogat
ive, right, title, or interest is divested or
taken from the king in such case the king is not bound, unless the statut
e is made to extend to
him by express words.”
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Holmes explained: “A Sovereign is exempt from suit, not
because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that
there can be no legal Right
as against the authority that makes the law on which the Right
depends.”
Kawananakoa v. Polyblank
, 205 U.S. 349, 353, 27 S. Ct. 526, 527, 51 L. Ed. 834
(1907).
Office of The Person
Page
7
of
11
The majority of American states fully embrace the Sovereign immunity theory as well as
the fe
deral government. See Restatement (Second) of torts 895B, comment at 400 (1979). The
following U.S. Supreme Court case makes clear all these principals. I shall have occasion
incidentally to evince how true it is that states and governments were made fo
r man, and at the
same time, how true it is that his creatures and servants have first deceived, next vilified, and at
last oppressed their master and maker.
A state, useful and valuable as the contrivance is, is the inferior contrivance of man, and
from
his native dignity derives all its acquired importance. Let a state be considered as
subordinate to the people. But let everything else be subordinate to the state. The latter part of
his position is equally necessary with the former. For in the practi
ce and, even at length in the
science of politics, there has very frequently been a strong current against the natural order of
things, and an inconsiderate or an interested disposition to sacrifice the end to the means. As the
government has claimed prec
edence over the people, so, in the same inverted course of things,
the government has often claimed precedence over the state; and to this perversion in the second
degree, many of the volumes of confusion concerning Sovereignty owe their existence.
The
mi
nisters, dignified very properly by the appellation of the magistrates, have wished, and have
succeeded in their wish, to be considered as the Sovereigns of the state. This second degree of
perversion is confined to the old world and begins to diminish ev
en there, but the first degree is
still to prevalent even in the Several states of which our union is composed. By a state, I mean a
complete body of free persons united together for their common benefit, to enjoy peaceably what
is their own, and to do ju
stice to others. It is an artificial person. It has its affairs and the
interests; it has its rules; it has its Rights; and it has its obligations. It may acquire property
distinct from that of its members. It may incur debts to be discharged out of th
e public stock, not
out of the private fortunes of individuals. It may be bound by contracts and for damages arising
from the breach of those contracts. In all our contemplations, however, concerning this feigned
and artificial person, we should never fo
rget that in truth and nature, those who think and speak
and act are “men.” Is the foregoing description of a state a true description? It will not be
questioned, but it is. It will be sufficient to observe briefly that the Sovereignties in Europe, and
particularly in England, exist on feudal principles. That system considers the prince as the
Sovereign, and the people as his subjects; it regards his person as the object of allegiance and
excludes the idea of his being on an equal footing with a subject
, either in a court of justice or
Office of The Person
Page
8
of
11
elsewhere.
That system contemplates him as being the fountain of honor and authority; and from
his grace and grant derives all franchise, immunities and privileges. It is easy to perceive that
such a Sovereign could not
be amenable to a court of justice or subjected to judicial control and
actual constraint. It was of necessity, therefore, that suability became incompatible with such
Sovereignty. Besides, the prince having all the executive powers, the judgment of the c
ourts
would in fact be only monitory, not mandatory to him, and a capacity to be advised is a distinct
thing from a capacity to be sued. The same feudal ideas run through all their jurisprudence and
constantly remind us of the distinction between the prin
ce and the subject.
No such ideas exist here (speaking of America). At the Revolution, the Sovereignty
devolved on the people and they are truly the Sovereigns of the country. But they are Sovereigns
without subjects (unless the African slaves among us
may be so called) and have none to govern
but themselves. The citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens and as joint tenants in the
Sovereignty.
Chisholm v. Georgia
(February Term, 1793) 2 U.S. 419 2D all. 419, 1 L Ed 440.
There are many ways you
can give up your Sovereign power and accept the role of “
person
.”
One is by receiving state benefits. Another is by asking permission in the form of a license or
permit from the state.
One of the subtlest ways of accepting the role of “
person
” is to a
nswer the questions as a
bureaucrat knocks on your door and wants to know why your children aren’t registered in school,
or a police officer pulls you over and starts asking questions. You immediately fill the office of
“
person
” if you start answering que
stions. It is for this reason that you should ignore or refuse
to “answer” their questions and instead act like a true Sovereign, a King or Queen, and ask only
your own questions of them.
You are
not
a “
person
” subject to their laws. If they persist and
haul you into their court
unlawfully, your response to the judge is simple and direct. You the Sovereign must tell him:
•
I have no need to answer you in this matter.
•
It is none of your business whether I understand my Rights or whether I
understand your
fictitious charges.
•
It is none of your business whether I want counsel.
•
The reason it is none of your business is because I am not a “
person
” regulated by
the state. I do not hold any position of office where I am subjected to the
legislature.
Office of The Person
Page
9
of
11
•
The stat
e legislature does not dictate what I do.
•
I am a free Sovereign “Man” (or “Woman”) and I am a political power holder as
lawfully decreed in the State Constitution at Article I (or II) and that constitution
is controlling over you.
You must NEVER retain or
hire an attorney, a state officer of the court, to speak or file
written documents for you. Use an attorney (if you must)
only
for counsel and advice about their
“legal” system. If you retain an attorney to represent you and speak in your place, you beco
me
“NON COMPOS MENTIS” (not mentally competent) and you are then considered a ward of the
court. You LOSE all your Rights, and you will not be permitted to do anything herein. The
judge knows that as long as he remains in his office, he is backed by the
awesome power of the
state, its lawyers, armed police and prisons. The judge will try to force you to abandon your
Sovereignty sanctuary by threatening you with jail. No matter what happens, if you remain
faithful to your Sovereignty, the judge and the s
tate may not lawfully move against you. The
state did not create the office of Sovereign political power holder; therefore, they do not regulate
and control those in the office of Sovereign. They cannot ascribe penalties for breach of that
particular off
ice. The reason they have no authority over the office of the Sovereign is because
they did not create it and the Sovereign people did not delegate to them any such power.
When
challenged, simply remind them that they do not regulate any office of the So
vereign and that
their statutes only apply to those state employees in legislator
-
created offices.
This Sovereign individual paradigm is explained by the following U.S. Supreme Court
case: “The individual may stand upon his constitutional Rights as a citi
zen. 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 submit his books and papers for an examination) to the State since he receives
nothing therefrom beyond the protection of h
is 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
a refusal to incriminate himself and the immunity of himself and his property from
arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he
does not trespass upon their Rights.”
Hale v. Henkel
, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1
905).
Office of The Person
Page
10
of
11
Let us analyze this case. It says, “The individual may stand upon his constitutional
Rights.” It does not say, “Sit on his Rights.” There is a principle here. “If you don’t use ‘em,
you lose ‘em.” You have to assert your Rights, demand them, “st
and upon” them.
Next it says, “He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way.” It says
“private business”
–
you have a Right to operate a private business. Then it says “in his own
way.” It doesn’t say “in the government’s way.”
Then
it says, “His power to contract is unlimited.” As a Sovereign individual, your
power to contract is unlimited. In common law there are certain criteria that determine the
validity of contracts. They are not important here except that any contract that w
ould harm
others or violate their Rights would be invalid. For example, a “contract” to kill someone is not
a valid contract. Apart from this obvious qualification, your power to contract is unlimited.
Next it says, “He owes no such duty (to submit his b
ooks and papers for an examination)
to the State since he receives nothing therefrom beyond the protection of his life and property.”
The court case contrasted the duty of the corporation (an entity created by government
permission
–
feudal paradigm) to t
he duty of the Sovereign individual. The Sovereign individual
doesn’t need and didn’t receive permission from the government, hence has no duty to the
government.
Then it says, “His Rights are such as existed by the law of the land (Common Law) long
ant
ecedent to the organization of the State.” This is very important. The Supreme Court
recognized that humans have inherent Rights. The Constitution for The United States of
America (including the Bill of Rights) does not grant us Rights. We have fundame
ntal Rights,
irrespective of what the Constitution says. The Constitution acknowledges some of our Rights
and Amendment IX states, “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain Rights shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the pe
ople.” The important point is that our
Rights antecede [come before, are senior to] the organization of the state.
Next the Supreme Court says, “And [his rights] can only be taken from him by due
process of law and in accordance with the Constitution.” Do
es it say the government can take
away your Rights? No! Your Rights can
only
be taken away “by due process of law, and in
accordance with the Constitution.” Due process of law involves procedures and safeguards such
as trial by jury. “Trial by jury” me
ans
inter alia
... the jury judges both the law and fact.
Then the case says, “Among his Rights are a refusal to incriminate himself and the
immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law.”
These are some of th
e Rights of a Sovereign individual. Sovereign individuals need not report
anything about themselves or their business to
anyone
.
Finally, the Supreme Court says, “He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not
trespass upon their Rights.” The Sover
eign individual does not have to pay taxes. If you should
discuss
Hale v. Henkel
with a run
-
of
-
the
-
mill attorney, he or she will tell you that the case is
“old” and that it has been “overturned.” If you ask that attorney for a citation of the case or cas
es
that overturned it, there will not be a meaningful response. Upon researching
Hale v. Henkel
, it
was found:
“We know that
Hale v. Henkel
was
decided in 1905 in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Since it was the Supreme Court, the case is binding on all courts
of the land, until another
Supreme Court case says it isn’t. Has another Supreme Court case overturned
Hale v. Henkel
?
The answer is NO. As a matter of fact, since 1905, the Supreme Court has cited
Hale v. Henkel
a
total of 144 times. A fact more astou
nding is that since 1905,
Hale v. Henkel
has been cited by
all the federal and state appellate court systems a total of over 1,600 times. None of the various
issues of this case has
ever
been overturned.
So if the state through the “office” of the judge c
ontinues to threaten or does imprison
you, they are trying to force you into the state
-
created office of “
person
.” As long as you
continue to claim your Rightful office of Sovereign, the State lacks all jurisdiction over you. The
state needs someone fil
ling the office of “
person
” in order to continue prosecuting a case in their
courts. Do
not
sign their papers or cooperate with them because most things about your life are
private and are not the state’s business to evaluate. Here is the Sovereign Peopl
es’ command in
the constitution that the state respect their privacy:
Right of Privacy
–
Every man or woman has the Right to be let alone and free from
government intrusion into their private life except as otherwise provided herein. This section
shall no
t be construed to limit the public’s Right of access to public records and meetings as
provided by law
http://www.freedom-school.com/office-of-the-person.pdf