I read this before I read, "How I Clobbered Every Bureaucratic Cash-Confiscatory Agency Known to Man". The writing is very similar to "How I Clobbered...". There is alot of information here, so I recommend first skimming through it to pick out interesting part before trying to tackle the whole thing.
Quote:
“The individual may stand upon his Constitutional rights 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 duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no 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 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 immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.” id.
Note the line, "He owes no duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property."
Also note the reference to "public". This term refers to the government, with the opposite, "private", referring to the sovereign citizens. Law has a separate definition for many words, which makes it challenging to read for those who do not know this.
Quote:
Another way to understand the conflict created by this new concept of a citizen of the United States is to understand the premise chain of authority. The Declaration of Independence stated that all men were created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. So if one visualizes this, then the chain of authority which created the Federal corporation known as the United States would look like this:
Creator (God)
|
Man/Woman (Individual-Sovereign-Citizen)
|
Constitution (Charter)
|
United States (Federal Corporation)
|
“citizen” of the United States (subject to the jurisdiction thereof)
Here you can see the pecking order. We can be in two categories, either "sovereign Citizens" or "citizens of the United States".
The case of In re Merriam’s Estate, which was affirmed in the Supreme Court in United States v. Perkins, lays down a solid foundation for something far more ominous that the mere fact that the United States is a corporation:
“It is suggested that the United States is to be regarded as a domestic corporation, [*485] so far as the State of New York is concerned. We think this contention has no support in reason or authority. A domestic corporation is the creature of this state created by its legislature, or located here and created by or under the laws of the United States. (Code of Civil Pro., § 3343, sub. 18.) The United States is a government and body politic and corporate, ordained and established by the American people acting through the sovereignty of all the states.” In re Merriam’s Estate, 36 N.E. 505 (1894).
In 19 CJS § 883 one finds the statement that “The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a State.” The above case is cited as the authority. That the United States is a foreign corporation is exactly what the court held. By affirming the decision, the United States Supreme Court concurred in U.S. v. Perkins, 163 U.S. 625 (1896).
And it continues:
Quote:
There is no arguing to the contrary. The United States is a foreign corporation. In fact, if one reads Title 28 USCS § 297, the “compact states” of subsection (a) are clearly defined as “countries” in subsection (b). So if the United States is a foreign corporation in relation to a group of “countries,” then what are the ramifications to those who have dual citizenship, especially when the foreign corporation formally enters into bankruptcy and becomes pledged to a third party creditor?
By "dual citizenship", he means being both "sovereign Citizen" and "citizen of the United States" (being both above and below the jurisdiction of the Corporate Federal Democracy).
Here, the essay goes back in time to talk about what the Constitution really is.
Quote:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Upon signing this document the People, through those authorized to sign on their behalf, had created a Trust. This Trust document or Trust instrument called for a Constitutional Republic form of government in trust. The “Trust” was known as the “United States.” The Trust created a government controlled by the Trust. This is a concept that must sink in for the reader who has before now never given much consideration to what was “created” in Philadelphia in 1789.
A. A Trust is a contract with someone else, called a trustee, who you ask to manage your assets. The trust management of your assets could be during your lifetime or after you die. The most common is called a "Living Trust", which simply is a written trust contract that you sign during your lifetime, which takes effect immediately. Your assets may be transferred to the Trust either during your lifetime or after you die, depending on your choice.
Hmm...contract law again. This contract law stuff must be very important!
So, who are the parties that are defined in the Trust contract?
Quote:
Resting on the premises that the “United States” is in fact a Trust means the other parties must be identified in their respective roles. As stated above, the People (through their representatives of the sovereign states) are the creator, or settlor. The trustees are those officials to be elected or appointed as set out in the terms and conditions of the Trust instrument. The Trust Instrument, the Constitution, called for government officials, set up within the trust as trustees, having specifically defined responsibilities and functions. The “People,” in addition to being the settlor, were named as the beneficiaries. They are clearly defined as such by the language of the preamble which lists the trust instrument as being ordained for the People, as well as all descendants down the line to the remotest generation (e.g. to ourselves and our Posterity).
So, to translate the Trust into common language, "We the People of the united States trust the government officials that we elect with the management of the land of the united States and everything on it. When we die, our children will become in our place. We the People, or our children, may decide to not trust the management at any time, relieve them of their management duties, and manage the land of the united States ourselves."
The essay continues to show how the Trust may have been dissolved when the State of Texas was forced to join the United States, causing other States to rebel and secede from the union. And what did the remaining union do? They forced the seceding States back into the union. Does this sound like a properly functioning Trust? No, this sounds like someone hijacked the Trust...and maybe you'll be suprised at who the president was.
Quote:
Whether trust or corporation, that government ceased to function as per the terms of the trust instrument. John Locke’s Essays on Civil Government speak to the term sine die (sunset). He said the best way to end a government is not to meet. What followed was an absolutely unarguable military dictatorship by President Lincoln. He arrested state legislators for debating the war, he issued an arrest warrant for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for daring to issue an opinion that his decision to suspend Habeaus Corpus was unlawful, and he allowed for mass executions of peaceful dissenters without any trial whatsoever. A sobering history of this war, suspiciously overlooked by academics for decades, can be found in the book When in the Course of Human Events; Arguing the Case for Southern Secession, by Charles Adams, Rowman and Littlefield (2000).
What followed the Civil War was the Reconstruction. This, too, is a topic of study in and of itself. But what transpires in this time frame is the adoption of three new amendments, the creation and definition of a new kind of “citizen,” and a conspicuous Congressional Act in 1871 called the District of Columbia Organic Act. This act charters a municipal corporation which, if one follows the subsequent acts and laws passed, he or she will discover becomes the “United States.”
So much for Lincoln being a hero for fighting the banks. The essay doesn't go into this topic, but in other writings you will find the possibility that the current existing martial law actually started when the States seceded from the union (their Congressmen refused to come to the next session of Congress) thus dissolving the Trust. A new government was formed that looked just like the old one, except it didn't have to play by the same rules since the contract was gone. Were the Trustors/Beneficiaries paying attention?
Now we get into Executive Orders, "national emergencies", and Emergency Powers:
Quote:
Stated within a written document received September 17, 1997, from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, Office of the Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Richard L. Shiffin, in response to a FOIA, was the following:
“A fact that is frequently overlooked is that Executive orders and proclamations of the President normally have no direct effect upon private persons or their property, and instead, normally constitute only directives or instructions of officers or employees of the Federal Government.
The exception is those cases in which the President is expressly authorized or required by laws enacted by the Congress to issue an Executive order or proclamation dealing with the legal rights or obligations of members of the public. Such as issuance of Selective Service Regulations, establishment of boards to investigate certain labor disputes, and establishment of quotas or fees with respect to certain imports into this country.”
If the President issued an order that literally forced a person to give up his property to the state, from where did he believe he was vested with a grant of authority? One need only backtrack through the United States Statutes at Large and one can read quite plainly that the Congress purported to grant this authority by passage of the Emergency War Powers Act:
“Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress hereby declares that a serious emergency exists and that it is imperatively necessary speedily to put into effect remedies of uniform national application.” H.R. 1491, 73rd Congress, March 9, 1933.
What was the emergency? Were we at war? Was there invasion imminent? In fact we were at war and had been under attack since the United States incorporated in 1871 and began dealing in bonds. The banks which bought out those loans in 1911 turned around and called them in a year later. By 1913 the Federal Reserve Act and the purported 16th Amendment were in place in United States law. By 1917 the Congress passed the Trading with the Enemy Act (H.R. 4960, Public, No. 91, 40 Stat. L. 411). This allowed the United States to trade with its enemies in a time of war. The act carefully stipulated the grant of broad regulatory powers granted the President as applying to “(c) Such other individuals, or body or class of individuals, as may be natives, citizens, or subjects of any nation with which the United States is at war, other than citizens of the United States…”
By 1929 the stock market crashed and we were in a depression. Just after Roosevelt’s inauguration, Congress passed the Amendatory Act (48 Stat. 1, H.R. 1491) commonly referred to as the Emergency War Powers Act (see Senate Report 93-549, Pgs. 187 & 594). The Congress, in Chapter 1, Title 1, Section 1(b) and Section 2, amended the Trading with the Enemy Act in Section 5, Subdivision (b) by extending the President’s broad grant of regulatory powers to include enforcement against “…any person within the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof…”
By operation of law the American people just became an “enemy.” How can the American people be an enemy of the United States? Recall by this time the United States is a corporation. That corporation is in serious financial trouble.
So the chain of events look like this:
1. Sovereign Citizens are tricked into also being citizens of the United States.
2. The United States becomes a Corporation, which declares bankruptcy.
3. The corporation declares the bankruptcy to be an emergency, so they give themselves temporary Emergency Powers.
4. The Emergency Powers allows for Executive Orders to apply to the citizens of the United States (not sovereigns).
5. The Trading with the Enemy Act (once amended) allowed citizens of the United States to be considered enemies of the United States.
Here the essay finally gets down the the real trick, how the sovereign Citizens are tricked into being "14th Amendment Citizens" or "citizens of the United States":
Quote:
Today anyone who partakes in a federal benefit program is considered federal personnel [see 5 USC 552a(13)]. One’s participation in Social Security makes that person a federal employee, which was the only type of person ever intended to be subject of the Income Tax under the Public Salary Tax Act of 1913. So looking back at the original thirteenth amendment, if one replaced the word “citizen” with “federal employee” one is liable to quickly see the problem. Everyone loses their “citizenship” under this amendment. Everyone, congressmen, appointed officials, cops, lawyers, janitors, teachers, even drug dealers. Why? Because everyone is acting as a “citizen” by taking part in the Social Security system and the bankruptcy. By virtue of that participation each one is accepting perks from a foreign power, i.e. the privilege of engaging in commerce by means of a currency system owned by a foreign power.
Quote:
Money is a component of sovereignty, and he who owns it is the true sovereign. Anyone using a federal reserve note cannot make the claim of ownership of the note. If he could he wouldn’t be liable for an income tax.
Quote:
In this list of humorous quotations was one that was more ominous. It is attributed to former President Ronald Reagan, who said “The taxpayer is someone who works for the federal government but doesn’t have to take a civil service examination.”
So was that supposed to be a joke?
Here the essay exposes the strawman created by signing the Social Security contract:
Quote:
What was created and defined by the adoption of the fourteenth amendment? What new kind of citizen was born? In reality, nothing was changed. No new citizen was created because the truths held evident in 1776 are as true today as they were then. Even after the bankruptcy was declared in 1933, a divided Supreme Court in Ashton v. Cameron County was settled on one issue. A sovereign state was not capable of even voluntarily joining into a bankruptcy. If the sovereignty of such a state is only existent because it is empowered by its sovereign Citizens then those Citizens are incapable of being debtors in the Chapter 11 U.S. Corp. Such a Citizen could swear an oath and pledge himself to an office of trust in the United States but he would lose such citizenship if he pledged allegiance to the bankruptcy and accepted privileges arising there from. Those who masterminded the Federal Reserve and the Social Security Act of 1935 knew this conundrum all too well. It is for these reasons that births began to be “registered” and names began appearing in all CAPITAL LETTERS. If one goes to the U.S. Government Style Manual, Chapter 3, Capitalization, at § 3.2, one can find the prescribed rules for proper names.
“Proper Names are capitalized. [Examples give are] Rome, Brussels, John Macadam, Macadam family, Italy, Anglo-Saxon.”
There is no text, manual, or book of any kind this writer has found that prescribes, under the rules of English grammar, the complete capitalization of every letter of a proper name. If you are one who has learned that Social Security is a trust and that the all capital letter name is the name of a trust (a fictitious entity or person under the law) then you know already who the fourteenth amendment “citizen” is. If you don’t then go pull out the social security card in your wallet. Printed on that card is the name of the federal employee who is subject to the jurisdiction thereof and is liable for income tax. Why? Because he is a federal employee that the former president and movie actor quoted above was blatantly identifying. This federal employee is paid in federal reserve notes. This is the debtor, that entity the folks in redemption refer to as the “strawman.” Does it make sense now how you are the creditor under the UCC-1 financing statement? If not, then you need to go back to page one of this essay and start reading again. Then go read the Ashton case word for word, both the majority and the minority opinions. If you still don’t get it then you sure as heck shouldn’t go into court and try to make this case yet.
And here the essay talks about a "de jure" system and how the central Corporate Federal Democracy is actually just an fiction, an illusion, whose only power is tricking people into believing it has power:
Quote:
So many in the patriot movement, so disillusioned on the one hand with the shape government is in, get filled with a sort of liberty euphoria when they discover the 1041 tax form, or the UCC-1, or the land patent. They find out that they do not really need a driver’s license at all and want to run out and take the plates off their car and start operating in the de jure system again. Well, that is fine except for one thing. The majority out there don’t know that a de jure system even exists. Your local clerk at the Department of Transportation not only has no idea that there really is more than one kind of citizenship, he will actually call you names for daring to suggest it (don’t laugh, this actually happened in Saint Paul last February). Does the Secretary of State even know? If you want to know for sure, write her and ask her. Does Jesse Ventura know he is likely nothing more than the elected head of a corporation under the umbrella of the bankrupt federal corporation called the United States Government? Maybe.
So, what is "de jure"? Again, we must remember that this is "law language", which has been intentionally made to have different meanings from our common language.
DE JURE. Rightfully; lawfully; by legal title.Contrasted with de facto, (which see.) 4 Bla. Com. 77
Of right: distinguished with de gratia (by favor). By law: distinguished with de æquitate (by equity).
The term is various applied; as, a king or officer de jure, or a wife de jure.
A government de jure, but not de facto, is one deemed lawful, which has been supplanted; a government de jure and also de facto is one deemed lawful, which is present or established; a government de facto is one deemed unlawful, but which is present or established. Any established government, be it deemed lawful or not, is a government de facto. Austin, Jur. sec. vi. 336. See De Facto.
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Third Revision (8th Edition)(1914), Volume I, page 768.
de jure (dë jürë). By right, by lawful right; rightfully; complying with the law in all respects; valid in law.
Law Dictionary, James A. Ballentine, Second Edition, 1948, page 351.
De Jure. Of right; legitimate, lawful; by right and just title. In this sense contrary of de facto, (which see.) It may also be contrasted with de gratia, in which case it means “as a matter of right,” as de gratia means “by grace or favor.” Again it may be contrasted with de æquitate; here meaning “by law,” as the latter means “by equity.” See Government.
Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition (1951) page 481.
de jure (dë joor’e, dä-, di-) [[L]] by right or legal establishment [de jure government]: cf. de facto.
Webster’s New World Dictionary, 3rd College Ed. (1988), page 364.
Therefore, in legalese:
De Jure = lawful
De Facto = unlawful
What he is saying is that a lawful system is still in operation, hidden from our view by the unlawful system. Will we find it in the "de facto" government courtrooms? Will they help us find it? I doubt it.
From what I understand so far, if you are a "sovereign Citizen" and not a "citizen of the United States", then none of the UCC applies to you. The only law that applies to you is the Constitution, and your State Constitution (if it covers something not already included in the Constitution).
Wed Jun 13, 2007 10:00 am
madthumbs
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 Posts: 8235 Location: Fingerlakes - NY usa
Restore LIBERTY PART 2
Sun Jul 06, 2008 8:06 am
Sponsor
alexclaton VIP
Joined: 05 Mar 2006 Posts: 684 Location: Hell on earth
as much as i agree with this there are still problems... one ive yet to see anyone show how this works in amerika... talkin with cops is like trying to talk gang members outta terrorizing ur neighborhood... only time ive ever heard of thugs being put in their place is when the neighborhood took up arms and put the fukkers in their place....
ie there is no nonviolent means of doing so... even mary who wrote that book said she wound up moving to canaduh because it was nolonger working here in the police state we know as amerika!
ive been over this info a lot, however im finding it hard to find useful applications for it in amerika... like i said noone has shown useful ways for me to do these things that works...
the courts are a scam, i will never go back again... they lie to your face and literally take hearsay as evidence... how are u supposed to beat that.... why should i have to learn all the ins and outs of a game i have absolutely no interest in playing or paying in the first place?
i cannot find how tos on these and everytime i do they wanna charge me... if i was able to simply figure everything out on my own i wouldnt need the net or anything else for that matter.... the ppl who tout this info claim they wanna help out everyone but then insist we needa figure it out on our own... also what works in one place may not work in another... like i said b4 i only seem to hear of positive outcomes in canaduh... in amerika they rape ur ass... (in some cases literally)
i am requesting positive ways of useing this that i can experiment with in the field...
I seem to recall someone mentioning that there are no go zones that police will not go into.
I think it was here:
Line By Line: Police
If you hate the system don't use it. When you make one of your own keep it under the wraps. Agorism is something that I am looking into because the state falls apart when you hit it in its pocket.
