It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Attention ATS! Know The Hidden Meanings Behind the Laws in America, Before it is Too Late!

page: 16
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 04:31 AM

Originally posted by pstrron
...the Head Courters for the IRS is in Porto [RICO] because it is illegal for it to have any offices in the United States of America. All offices are operating illegally! But that is another rabbit hole.

Heh! It appears to me that you've been looking at the Supreme Law Firm. That's one of the points mentioned in their list of 31 Questions & Answers About the IRS...This is where I first saw that point raised.

Another point raised there is that the IRS is not even a legally-created agency, except as an enforcement arm during the Prohibition...And has had no legal authorization for continuing existence since Prohibition was repealed! As far as researching the IRS during Prohibition goes, they were less interested in busting individuals who just wanted to get a drink than they were going after the people who made & sold it. This is because the only legal income taxes were enforced on gains/profits...Not Wages/Salaries/Compensation. The Constitutional taxes were written for the privilege of doing business, not for merely earning a living.

1. Is the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) an organization within the U.S. Department of the Treasury?

Answer: No. The IRS is not an organization within the United States Department of the Treasury. The U.S. Department of the Treasury was organized by statutes now codified in Title 31 of the United States Code, abbreviated “31 U.S.C.” The only mention of the IRS anywhere in 31 U.S.C. §§ 301‑310 is an authorization for the President to appoint an Assistant General Counsel in the U.S. Department of the Treasury to be the Chief Counsel for the IRS. See 31 U.S.C. 301(f)(2).

At footnote 23 in the case of Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1979), the U.S. Supreme Court admitted that no organic Act for the IRS could be found, after they searched for such an Act all the way back to the Civil War, which ended in the year 1865 A.D. The Guarantee Clause in the U.S. Constitution guarantees the Rule of Law to all Americans (we are to be governed by Law and not by arbitrary bureaucrats). See Article IV, Section 4. Since there was no organic Act creating it, IRS is not a lawful organization.

[edit on 4-7-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]

posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 08:19 AM
reply to post by MidnightDStroyer

You gota love it, an illegal agency gets to operate just because the government can make a buck on the side without doing a thing. Actually I have been researching the IRS since 73. Found out how to opt out of the system but was in no position to do so at the time. It was only after 2001 that I was in the proper position and said good bye.

However, it was after 2001 that I discovered via ATS my other advantages. Though it has come with a price that I was willing to pay but few would. Freedom does have its price and it isn't free. Years ago I even had the congressional records regarding the IRS and the Federal Reserve Bank. We didn't have the internet then so it was all hard copies.

If the American public really knew what has been done to them they would first lay a pant load and then may God have mercy on any politician for they sure wouldn't. There would be lots of job openings in Washington. But the question is, would they really do what is necessary to regain their rights and freedoms? Sadly, I doubt it. In the early 90's I was screaming about it and informing everyone I knew. Was told to shut up and be quiet, they didn't want to hear it nor did they even care. Few ever do and those that seek the truth get called three bags full of (place very colorful and descriptive language here).

As for the IRS and the FED they both along with insurance fall under the RICO act. Insurance also comes under extortion when it was made mandatory. Banks come under out right fraud with credit cards as no service is rendered, no money has changed hands (required by law) yet they can require payment or take real property in exchange for non payment of a fictitious transaction.

In 1919 they issued FRN's (faux) money to replace real money (gold & silver). Gold and silver is the only money authorized by the Constitution but in 1933 when FDR declared the US bankrupt, FRN's could be made legal. We were already under a state of emergency effectively setting aside the Constitution. The people could now be fed a fiat currency while gold was removed from the public. This is only the tip of the tip of the ice burg. The US is going the way of the Titanic. We struck the burg years ago and taking on water fast. About the only thing left is the props swinging in the breeze.

posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 04:49 AM
Besides the illegally enforced taxes & the debt-based economy we've been saddled with due to constructed fraud, here's a different constructed fraud that links to our earlier discussion about Birth Certificates.

I had been posting in another thread & ran across a reply from peggy m to mybigunit...And it went like this:

Originally posted by peggy m
You did not mention the newer laws preventing a parent from "old fashioned" discipline. A parent now is threatened with jail or Social Service intervention if the child claims verbal or physical abuse. Then when the parent refrains from everything that could remotely resemble any form of abuse, the courts still rule against the parent when their child messes up, stating the child should have had more discipline! I throw my hands up trying to figure that one out.

This very same day, I had been browsing around the Supreme Law Firm press releases (admittedly, this one is pretty old) & found something disturbing: Ever wonder what happens to kids that CPS takes away from families? Does anyone ever see them again? Is there a link between Child Protective Service & the high numbers of missing children?

Source: Supreme Law Firm Press Releases, excerpted.

SUBJECT: Kidnap Rackets
DATE: November 29, 1997

The Supreme Law Firm is committed to a pro bono project which has us tracking an estimated 2,500 children who have been reported missing. We have been on (and off) this project for almost 2 years, ever since a client brought us in to defeat a sentence of 21 years in state prison, for conspiracy to kidnap; only problem was: he was the ONLY defendant!! ATF had extorted a confession from him, by screwing a silencer onto the barrel
of a 9mm and telling him he was GOING TO CONFESS to conspiracy to kidnap. We let the dust settle for >12 months, then filed a criminal complaint in state court against the state judge, the prosecutor, and the public defender, for deprivation of fundamental Rights, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 242 and 241. I was an eyewitness to those deprivations. The defendant had backed into a child kidnap racket in Arizona, when he was trying to locate his lost child.

The report out of Denver was a very important and very fresh lead. We have been told that a ground crew member observed a plane filled with minors, about to depart. When he started asking questions, a woman flashed a badge, said, "Social services!", and told him to get lost. He checked the manifest, and discovered it was headed for Paris. I believe
that plane was headed ultimately for Belgium, where a satanic cult was exposed by the Belgian Fire Department last year. They surrounded the courthouse, where the cult was being protected by local judges, and hosed it for hours -- making quite a splash on the front page as well.

We are closing, carefully and deliberately, on our working hypothesis, still active, that many of these 2,500 children were brought into the Child Protective Services ("CPS") program in Arizona, where their papers were doctored for purposes of persuading the Arizona Legislature to enact
huge increases in the CPS operating budgets.

During the past 5 months, CPS did get a $40 million INCREASE in their operating budget. Of course, the papers were wheeled into the Arizona Legislature, as proof of the increased demand for services, but the children were NOT wheeled into the Legislature, as proof of the increased demand. Go figure!!

The bad news, of course, is that many of these kids (and adults), have totally disappeared. We think they are being recycled into drug running, prostitution, pornography rackets, slavery in foreign countries, snuff films, sexual exploitation and -- are you sitting down? -- a murder racket killing these runaways and throwaways, for their live organs.

Remember, the Red Chinese military are now routinely murdering political prisoners for their live organs; they are getting about $30,000 per organ, and this black market has now reached North America. Congress has launched a formal investigation into this horrific black market, and Mr. Wu, a former Chinese journalist and whistle-blower, is touring America right now, telling everyone who will listen, the very same story.

More at the source & please recall that this particular press release is already 11 years old.

Now it seems to me that this fits well in this thread because of the current registration regulations concerning Birth Certificates that were discussed earlier in this thread...And it seems to me that every parent's primary concern should be to get those records updated, so that the names on their child's Birth Certificates are not entered as all capital letters & get it recorded at their County Records Office. Without this basic precaution, State laws can be used by CPS to literally "kidnap" children for any of the reasons (& more) that peggy m mentioned above...And how many of these children wind up with their faces on the side of milk cartons?

[edit on 27-7-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]

posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 03:08 PM
reply to post by MidnightDStroyer

Good find MD ! It falls in line with one of my previous posts in this thread about how when Blagojevich (Governor of Illinois) set up a special task force to locate hundreds of missing children that were removed from the custudy of their parents and placed in the custody of CPS.

I've always found it suspiscious that an agency that has the authority to remove children fron their parents somehow manages to lose these same children, and yet the goverment doesn't see fit to investigate CPS and put a hold on their authority until the situation is cleared up. Kinda lets us know how high up the conspiracy goes.

It's funny i remember it being all over the news when he set up that task force, but i have no memory of the findings being all over the news.

posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 12:23 AM
reply to post by MidnightDStroyer

Thank you MD, for that (once-again), eye-opening information. The thoughts of what our guv is capable of, is very frightening.
I also wish to thank you and Chise61, for maintaining this thread in my absence. I have been very busy with a new business project. It is consuming my ever-waking moment.

I do check in and read occasionally, but rarely have time to post. Hopefully I will get caught up soon.
Thanks to all for their involvement in this thread. Sizzle.

posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 03:33 AM
Well, related to the scheme against our children in my previous post, I found some other telling info: Government is far too large to support anything but absolute control over the People, going even further than Hitler's wildest dreams with eugenics & youth programs (Remember that much of Hitler's dreams & aspirations came to the USA with Operation Paperclip). Taking our children & heritage from us, they're beginning with conception (from our combining of DNA) to cradle to adulthood. The government has had to grow so large because there is no other way to implement & enforce all of these laws & agencies into a seamless whole to trap everyone...And they accomplish this through deception, elevating "color of law" over "Real Law."

The primary link comes from Pushing Hamburger: This is mostly a political-rant site, but they do their homework well & use documented truth to support their rants. The particular article (with quite a few inserted hyperlinks, which should be read in whole because I didn't include the hyperlinks from the Source below) I specifically refer to is Deception! So What Else is New?

A few excerpts:

Humanists believe everyone is basically good but our wise Founders knew better. They gave us a Constitution to put restraints on elected leaders of our Republic and as long as they stayed under the Constitution’s umbrella of protection and obeyed their oath of office, things would go well for our country. Ben Franklin said, “We’ve given you a Republic IF you can keep it.” The first great propaganda slogan for World War I was, “To make the world safe for democracy.” Deception. We should have been working to make the world safe FROM democracy!

...This caused me to remember a May 1986 conference in Portland, Oregon entitled, “Oregon’s Agenda for the 1990’s: Children Youth and Families.” and the Federalization of Children by gradual child abductions . At that conference, one person recommended their draft should be “purposely vague” so that people don’t pay attention to it and they can “write in what they want later” and they “wanted to write things in a way that the conservatives wouldn’t know what they were doing….” Deception!

On April 18, 1991, President George H.W. Bush announced his plan for AMERICA 2000, which would allow the federal government to play an even larger role in reforming public education, which had been especially failing the students since the creation of the centralized Department of Education under Democrat President Carter. It had been created at the behest of the National Education Association (N.E.A.) that is listed as a friend on the Communist Party USA's website...

The government caused the problem in education and then they offer another failed solution.

Then along comes Bush Jr. with his “No Child Left Behind” and knowing full well the powerful N.E.A., with its paid lobbyists, fight to block the much needed genuine reforms. Educators have chosen quite consciously to de-emphasize the teaching of intellectual skills in favor of the inculcation of social awareness. Even Catherine Barrett, the former president of the N.E.A., stated in a March 1972 Saturday Review that “we will need to recognize that the so-called ‘basic skills,’ which currently represent nearly the total effort in elementary schools, will be taught in one-quarter of the school day.” The rest of the day is used for indoctrination – weaning the children from traditional Western values taught in their homes by most parents and moving away from retention of facts and teaching them to become more “tolerant” world citizens...

...Contrary to the drivel many conservative talk show hosts use for President Reagan’s election, one of the reasons he was elected was because he promised to eliminate the Department of Education. He not only allowed it to continue but he signed an education treaty with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to merge the two education systems. Charlotte Iserbyt in her book The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America says the most important education agreements negotiated between The Carnegie Corporation and the Soviet Academy of Science, and those signed by President Reagan and Gorbachev in 1985, remain in effect to this day. Have you heard any of the conservative talk show hosts that think Reagan walked on water expose these agreements? Deception!...

[edit on 1-8-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]

posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 03:49 AM
but what is the catalyst, it surely must be huge to warrant this change in America.
ww3 ?
Financial crisis that will implode the economy sending protests into the streets?

There are other but I'll stick with those.

I believe it is all of the above !

posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 06:51 AM
reply to post by solo1

It's not so much as a change in America, except as it's a change from the original Constitutional Republic of America. Their final goal is CONTROL: And the way they accomplish this is to make everyone a potential criminal under a vast body of "laws" to make us afraid of them, even as they make themselves immune to those very same laws (Take note of the 2nd quote in my signature). In short, the real terrorists of the world work in government jobs!

They do this primarily because they're afraid of us: Once we recognize & accept the Natural Law as Set Forth by the Creator, they know from the history of human civilization that we should not/would not fear them. America truly was a NWO because it established Popular Sovereignty with a strict set of Laws & Rights that not even the People could remove from themselves.

The standard throughout history was "Rule by the Elite"...America truly was "The Great Experiment" in that, if diligently watched by the People & kept within the Constitutional boundaries on Power, may have actually spread throughout the whole world. An NWO by social consensus, which is the most probable way to unite us peacefully & willingly, instead of being dragged into it by force.

The most draconian nations in history have always been the ones to perpetrate the most heinous acts upon the masses, because of their fear of the Peoples' superior numbers. Such rulers live in paranoia that the People will realize that their rulership is based upon illusion & deception...And will always seek to breed the same paranoia among the People in order to maintain their rulership.

posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 07:55 AM
Well, I've found more info about the difference between State citizenship & federal citizenship...And how to separate yourself from fed while retaining the State. At the link below, there are warnings about the difficulty of doing this, the different ways that Constitutional Laws supersede "color of law" Statutes, the pros & cons of such separation and, most importantly, the fact that this article describes only the general guidelines--So you'll have to do your own research for the particulars that may apply to you as an individual. I've included a few excepts from the article for some of the most important points.

Warning! This is a long, multi-part post that pertains to other portions in this thread.

Source: On State Citizenship

I was born a first class citizen. I entered into contracts that, without my knowledge, made me a second class citizen. I am working on the legal process of restoring my first class citizenship status.
It was not until I learned how to use the law library in the county court house that I was able to confirm my status. I am not an attorney so this paper should not be considered as legal advice. It may be used for the basis of your own research.
If the federal government is defined by the Constitution, and the Constitution says that I am a sovereign, why do I feel like a subject?
What has happened to my sovereignty? Isn't the government sovereign over me? Are there any sovereign People left in the United States of America?
There are hundreds of thousands of sovereigns in the United States of America but I am not one of them. The sovereigns own their land in "allodium." That is, the government does not have a financial interest in the their land. Because of this they do not need to pay property tax (school tax, real estate tax).
Unless they accept benefits from or contract with the federal government, they do not have to pay Social Security tax, federal income tax, or resident individual state income tax. They do not need to register their cars or get a driver's license unless they drive commercially. They will not have to get a Health Security Card. They can own any kind of gun without a license or permit. They do not have to use the same court system that normal people do.
A state Citizen, also called a de jure Citizen, is an individual whose inalienable natural rights are recognized, secured, and protected by his/her state Constitution against State actions and against federal intrusion by the Constitution for the United States of America.

A federal citizen, also called: a 14th Amendment citizen, a citizen of the United States, a US citizen, a citizen of the District of Columbia, has civil rights that are almost equal to the natural rights that state Citizens have. I say almost because civil rights are created by Congress and can be taken away by Congress. Federal citizens are subjects of Congress, under their protection as a "resident" of a State, a person enfranchised to the federal government (the incorporated United States defined in Article I, section 8, clause 17 of the Constitution). The individual States may not deny to these persons any federal privileges or immunities that Congress has granted them. This specific class of citizen is a federal citizen under admiralty law (International Law). As such they do not have inalienable common rights recognized, secured and protected in the Constitutions of the States, or of the Constitution for the United States of America, such as "allodial" (absolute) rights to property, the rights to inheritance, the rights to work and contract, and the right to travel among others.

A federal citizen is a taxable entity like a corporation, and is subject to pay an excise tax for the privileges that Congress has granted him/her.
I was born in one of the several states, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth, so why am I not a state Citizen? The answer is that I was born a state Citizen but, I unknowingly gave it up to become a federal citizen so that I could receive benefits from the federal government. Some of the benefits that I received were: a Social Security Number, receiving mail sent to the state of PA, receiving mail with ZIP Codes, having FDIC insurance on the money left in a bank, and using Federal Reserve Notes (dollar bills) without protest. This sounds crazy. Would you give away sovereign powers for benefits like these?
If you have a Social Security Number (SSN), you are not a state Citizen. In the near future, I will send papers into the District of Columbia stating that I am recinding my application for a SSN. If I had known that applying for a SSN would affect my citizenship status, I would not have applied. I found out that Social Security is voluntary and that I can work without a SSN.
I also must warn you that reclaiming your state Citizenship status may have negative effects on your life. Besides the lack of benefits, such as unemployment checks, you are treated more harshly if you get convicted of a common law crime if you are a state Citizen. If you get convicted of rape and you are a federal citizen, you may get five years in an air conditioned prison with cable TV and three meals a day. If a state Citizen gets convicted, by a common law jury, of rape, he could be put to death.
How is it that someone who was born in and has lived in a state all his/her life can be treated like a citizen of the District of Columbia? There has been a series of steps that Congress has made to convert the state Citizens into federal citizens. Over the years, our laws have been made unreadable by the average intelligent person. The 14th Amendment was illegally passed creating a federal citizen who can not question the federal debt. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 turned over our money to a private banking cartel. Social Security created Social Security Districts (or territories) in which people with SSN lived. The Buck Act created federal areas inside the states.

The Buck Act wasn't familiar to me at first, but just to be fair to both sides of it, I also found the "negative view" that claims to debunk the Story of the Buck Act. Funny thing is, I can't find any "official text" in entirety of the Buck Act itself (probably could spend more time searching) which describes the creation of Federal Zones inside of State boundaries...But from what I've seen so far, all provisions of the Buck Act only are effective within the parameters of the Act itself & does not imply inclusion of any Powers that are not specifically enumerated within itself.

Well, to continue:

In 1865, the 13th Amendment abolished slavery and involuntary servitude except as punishment for a crime. The Supreme Court ruled that the 13th Amendment operated to free former slaves and prohibit slavery, but it in no way conferred citizenship to the former slaves, or to those of races other than white, because the founders of the Constitution were all of the white race.

The federal government did not have the authority to determine if former slaves could become a Citizen of one of the several states because the 9th and 10th Amendments said that powers not granted specifically to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the states or to the People. History shows that the Pennsylvania Commonwealth and New York State were nationalizing blacks as State Citizens. In other states blacks were not Citizens and therefore did not have standing in any court. The answer to this problem was the 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment used the term "citizen of the United States." The courts have ruled that this means federal citizenship which is similar to a citizen of the District of Columbia. Since the federal government didn't step in and tell Pennsylvania or New York that it couldn't make State Citizens out of former black slaves, an argument could be made that the 14th Amendment was written primarily to afford [voluntary] citizenship to those of the black race that were recently freed by the 13th Amendment (Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 71), and did not include Indians and others NOT born in and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (McKay v. Cambell, 2 Sawy. 129), Thus, the Amendment recognized that "an individual can be a Citizen of one of the several States without being a citizen of the United States," (U.S. v. Anthony, 24 Fed. Cas. 829, 830), or, "a citizen of the United States without being a Citizen of a State." (Slaughter-House Cases, supra; cf. U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542, 549 (1875)).

----------Continued Below---------

posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 07:58 AM
--------Continued From Above---------

Did the Courts really say that someone could be a Citizen of a State without being a citizen of the United States? Yes, they did. It's true that the cases cited above are old, some over 100 years old. None of these cases have ever been overturned by a more recent decision, so they are valid. A more recent case is Crosse v. Bd. of Supervisors, 221 A.2d 431 (1966) which says: "Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state." Citing U.S. v. Cruikshank, supra.

The courts presume you to be a federal citizen, without even telling you that there are different classes of citizens. It is up to you dispute this. "Unless the defendant can prove he is not a citizen of the United States, the IRS has the right to inquire and determine a tax liability." U.S. v. Slater, 545 Fed. Supp. 179,182 (1982).

In 1866, Congress passed the first civil rights act which only applied to the District of Columbia and other federal territories. In 1868, the 14th Amendment was proclaimed to be passed. At this point the number of subjects that the federal government had exclusive jurisdiction over increased to all of the former slaves that had not become state Citizens.

There are many reasons why I do not like the 14th Amendment. The first is that is was never ratified!

"I cannot believe that any court in full possession of all its faculties, would ever rule that the (14th) Amendment was properly approved and adopted." State v. Phillips, 540 P.2d. 936; Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d. 266. (The court in this case was the Utah Supreme Court.)

Further, in 1967, Congress tried to repeal the 14th Amendment on the ground that it is invalid, void, and unconstitutional. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- HOUSE, June 13, 1967, pg. 15641. The nine pages of argument that are recorded here detail the infirmities that prove that the 14th Amendment was never properly ratified, and thus is no law!
Privileges granted by the sovereign (governments) in their capacity to license (condone) what might otherwise be illegal are always taxable and regulatable. Rights such as those envisioned by the founding fathers are not taxable or regulatable because they are exercises of the common right that could be completely destroyed by government through taxation and/or regulation. These are maxims of law so well established that they are irrefutable. For example, look to Frost & Frost Trucking v. Railroad Commission of California, 271 U.S. 583, 70 L.Ed. 1101 (1925).
It is also a self-evident truth that the sovereign creator can never create an entity (government) and assign it more power than what the creator possesses to begin with. Further, the Constitution for the United States of America did not repeal the Articles of Confederation, it was only intended "to make a more perfect union." Therefore, it logically follows that the creator did not purposely intend to alter their status as MASTER to accept a role as SERVANT to its own creation. This is plainly shown throughout the Constitution, but especially set forth in the Tenth Amendment. (cf. United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941); Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958)).

I find this phrase to be a most compelling truth: "Further, the Constitution for the United States of America did not repeal the Articles of Confederation, it was only intended "to make a more perfect union.""
Constitutional lawyers have come to understand that, if any interpretation of the Constitution itself doesn't apply in a particular case, then they must back-track thorugh the "geneology" of the Constitution in order to find the actual roots of what law can be applied--But to also recognize that each document must take precedence over the earlier documents in this lineage. This "Order of Precedence" goes as follows: Constitution & Bill of Rights, other properly ratified Amendments, the Articles of Confederation, some may include the Declaration of Independence to set a "tone of intent," then go back to the Magna Carta. Each of these documents had their own role & purpose that eventually led to the Constitutional Republic of America.

"The right to tax and regulate the national citizenship is an inherent right under the rule of the Law of Nations, which is part of the law of the United States, as described in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17." The Luisitania, 251 F.715, 732. And, "This jurisdiction extends to citizens of the United States, wherever resident, for the exercise of the privileges and immunities and protections of [federal] citizenship." Cook v. Tait, (1924) 265 U.S. 37,44 S.Ct 447, 11 Virginia Law Review, 607."
The privileges and immunities [civil rights] of the 14th Amendment citizens were derived [taken] from....the Constitution, but are not identical to those referred to in Article IV, sect. 2 of the Constitution [which recognizes the existence of state Citizens who were not citizens of the United States because there was no such animal in 1787]. Plainly spoken, RIGHTS considered to be grants from our creator are clearly different from the "civil rights" that were granted by Congress to its own brand of franchised citizen in the 14th Amendment.

"A 'civil right' is a right given and protected by law [man's law], and a person's enjoyment thereof is regulated entirely by law that creates it." Nickell v. Rosenfield, (1927) 82 CA 369, 375, 255 P. 760.

Title 42 of the USC contains the Civil Rights laws. It says "Rights under 42 USCS section 1983 are for citizens of the United States and not of state. Wadleigh v. Newhall (1905, CC Cal) 136 F 941."

In summary, what we are talking about here is a Master-Servant relationship. Prior to the 14th Amendment, there were state Citizens and non-citizens. State Citizens were the masters in the relationship to government. After the 14th Amendment was declared to be passed, a new class of citizenship was created, which is both privileged and servant [subject] to the creator [the federal government].
In order for the federal government to tax a Citizen of one of the several states, it had to create some sort of contractual nexus. This contractual nexus is the Social Security Number (SSN).

In 1935, the federal government instituted Social Security. The Social Security Board then created 10 Social Security "Districts." The combination of these "Districts" resulted in a "Federal Area", a fictional jurisdiction, which covered all of the several states like a clear plastic overlay.
For purposes of further explanation, a Federal area can include the Social Security areas designated by the Social Security Administration; any public housing that has federal funding; a home that has a federal (or Federal reserve) loan; a road that has federal funding; schools and colleges (public or private) that receive (direct or indirectly) federal funding, and virtually everything that the federal government touches through any type of direct or indirect aid. See Springfield v. Kenny, 104 N.E. 2d. 65 (1951 app.) This "Federal area" is attached to anyone who has a Social Security number or any personal contact with the federal or State government. (That is, of course, with the exception of those who have been defrauded through the tenets of an Unrevealed Contract to "accept" compelled benefits. Which includes me and perhaps you.) Through this mechanism, the federal government usurped the Sovereignty of the People, as well as the Sovereignty of the several states by creating "Federal areas" within the authority of Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 in the Constitution for the United States of America which states:

"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States, and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United states, or of any particular State."

Therefore, all U.S. citizens [i.e. citizens of the District of Columbia] residing in one of the states of the Union, are classified as property and franchisees of the federal government, and as an "individual entity." See Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773.
Besides the municipal laws for federal territory like the District of Columbia, the Constitution specifies three other types of law: Common Law, Equity Law, and Admiralty Law.

Common Law is criminal law. Equity Law deals with written contracts and is civil law. Admiralty Law deals with international contracts and has both criminal and civil penalties.

A cursory review of the Uniform Commercial Code proves that it was codified to replace the Negotiable Instrument Laws. Further research reveals that the Negotiable Instrument Laws have their foundation in the jurisdiction of Admiralty Law (Maritime Law -- law of the sea), and, the U.C.C. has come to be known in law as the substantive common law. (Bank v. Moore, 201 Ala. 411, 78 So. 789) This substantive common law has also been directly tied to the jurisdiction of the Law Merchant [International Law]. (Miller v. Miller, 296 SW.2d 648).

----------Continued Below------

posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 08:02 AM
----------Continued From Above-----

Under the Common Law, every contract must be entered into knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally by both parties or it is void and unenforceable. Common Law contracts must also be based on substance. For example, contracts used to read, "For one dollar and other valuable considerations, I will paint your house, etc." That was a valid contract...the dollar was a genuine silver dollar. Now suppose you wrote a contract that said "For one Federal Reserve Note and other considerations..." And suppose, for example, I painted your house the wrong color. Could you go into a Common Law court and get justice? No, you could not. You see, a Federal Reserve Note is a "colorable" dollar, as it has no substance, and in a Common Law jurisdiction, that contract would be unenforceable.

The word colorable means something that appears to be genuine but is not. If it looks like a dollar, and spends like a dollar but is not redeemable for lawful money (silver or gold) it is colorable. If a federal Reserve Note is used in a contract, then the contract becomes a colorable contract. And colorable contracts must be enforced under a colorable jurisdiction. So by creating Federal Reserve Notes, the government had to create a jurisdiction to cover the kinds of contracts that use them. We now have what is called Statutory Jurisdiction which is not a genuine Admiralty Jurisdiction. It is colorable Admiralty Jurisdiction the judges are enforcing because we are using colorable money.

This government set up a "colorable" law system to fit the colorable currency. It used to be called the Law Merchant or the Law of Redeemable instruments because it dealt with paper that was redeemable in something of substance. But, once Federal Reserve Notes had become unredeemable, there had to be a system of law which was completely colorable from start to finish. This system of law was codified as the Uniform Commercial Code, and has been adopted in every state.

One difference between Common Law and the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) is that in Common Law, contracts must be entered into: knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally. Under the UCC, this is not so. First of all, contracts are unnecessary. Under this new law, "agreements" can be binding, and if you only exercise the benefits of an "agreement," it is presumed or implied that you intend to meet the obligations associated with those benefits. If you accept a benefit offered by government, then you are obligated to follow, to the letter, each and every statute involved with that benefit. The trick has been to get everybody exercising benefits that they don't believe they can live without.

One "benefit" that I accepted was the privilege of discharging debt with limited liability, instead of paying debt. When I pay a debt, I give substance for substance. If I buy a quart of milk with a silver dollar, that dollar bought the milk, and the milk bought the dollar -- substance for substance. But if I used a Federal Reserve Note to buy the milk, I have not paid for it. There is no substance in the Federal Reserve Note. It is worthless paper given in exchange for something of substantive value. Congress offers this benefit. Debt money, created by the federal United States, can be spent all over the continental united States; it will be legal tender for all debts, public and private, and the limited liability is that I cannot be sued for not paying my debts. It's as if they have said, "We're going to help you out, and you can discharge your debts instead of paying your debts." When I use this colorable money to discharge my debts, I cannot use a Common Law court. I can only use a colorable court. It would appear that I am stuck. If the only legal tender is colorable money, then if I use any legal tender, then the only court that is available to me is a colorable court. But there is a way out.

Volume 1, Section 207 of the Uniform Commercial Code states "The making of a valid Reservation of Rights preserves whatever rights the person then possesses, and prevents the loss of such rights by application of concepts of waiver or estoppel." (UCC 1-207.7) It also says "When a waivable right or claim is involved, the failure to make a reservation thereof, causes a loss of the right, and bars its assertion at a later date." (UCC 1-207.4) It also says "The Sufficiency of the Reservation--Any expression indicating an intention to reserve such rights, is sufficient, such as "without prejudice." (UCC 1-207.4)

Whenever I sign any legal paper that deals with Federal Reserve Notes--in any way, shape or manner--under my signature I write, or stamp: "Without Prejudice UCC 1-207." When I use "without prejudice UCC 1-207" in connection with my signature, I am saying: "I reserve my right not to be compelled to perform under any contract or commercial agreement that I did not enter knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally. And furthermore, I do not accept the liability of the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or commercial agreement." Some people use a rubber stamp that says "DISCHARGED WITHOUT PREJUDICE UCC 1-207" on every Federal Reserve Note that pass through their hands. I do not think this is necessary.

What is the compelled performance of an unrevealed commercial agreement? When I use Federal Reserve Notes instead of silver dollars, is it voluntary? No. There is no lawful money, so I have to use Federal Reserve Notes--I have to accept the benefit. The government has given me the benefit to discharge my debts with limited liability. Therefore discharging my debts instead of paying my debts is a compelled benefit.

In short, use of FRN's cannot be used to actually PAY OFF a debt, only DISCHARGE a debt...The distinction is subtle but tangible. It's also discussed in Remembering Who You Are: I warn you that this is a 96-page Adobe (PDF) document, but it's worth reading all of the way through.

If you are accused of breaking certain administrative laws, such as driving infractions, you do not have the right to even this type of jury trial. In Tax Court, you are actually suing the IRS which is presumed innocent until you prove that they are guilty. Because of this you do not have the right to have council of your choice. Only the defendant has the right to council. The judges are the most successful former prosecutors in Tax Court. Is this the way our legal system was supposed to work? No! In Common Law the jury determines both the facts and the law, the judge is an impartial referee, and the council for both the Plaintiff and defendant are working for their clients. If you know how the legal system works and you are a state Citizen, you will challenge the jurisdiction of the court and never go into anything but a Common Law court.

This is also indicated by a personally-witnessed event in jackinthebox's thread Man declares sovereignty, challenges jurisdiction of court, where a man challenges the court's jurisdiction...Apparently with significant results!

You may also find it disturbing to know how an administrative procedure can remove your children from you. In 1921 Congress passed the Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act that created the United States birth "registration" area (see Public Law 97, 67th Congress, Session I, Chapter 135, 1921.) That act allows you to register your children when they are born. If you do so, you will get a copy of the birth certificate. By registering your children, which is voluntary, they become Federal Children. This does several things: Your children become subjects of Congress (they lose their state citizenship). A copy of the birth certificate is sent to the Department of Vital Statistics in the state in which they were born. The original birth certificate is sent to the Department of Commerce in the District of Columbia. It then gets forwarded to an International Monetary Fund (IMF) building in Europe. Your child's future labor and properties are put up as collateral for the public debt.

Once a child is registered, a constructive trust is formed. The parent(s) usually become the trustee (the person managing the assets of the trust), the child becomes an asset of the trust, and the state becomes the principal beneficiary of the trust. See The Uniform Trustees' Powers Act (ORS 128.005(1)). If the beneficiary does not believe the trustee is managing the assets of the trust optimally, the beneficiary can go through an administrative procedure to change trustees. This is the way that bureaucrats can take children away from their parents if the bureaucrat does not like the way the child is cared for. You may say that there is nothing wrong with this. If a parent is neglecting a child, then the state should remove the child from the parents custody. Under common law a child can still be removed from the parent but it takes twelve jurors from that county to do so.

Part of the process of restoring my state Citizenship status is revoking my Birth Certificate through a process called REVOCATION OF SIGNATURE AND POWER OF ATTORNEY. If my Birth Certificate is not revoked, then the courts consider me to be a 14th Amendment federal citizen and my labor and all of my assets are put up as collateral for the public debt.

When the government communicates with corporations it spells the name of the corporation in all capital letters. If the government refers to you with your name in all capital letters, it is actually means to treat you like a corporation. A corporation is created by government. It has no rights. The government gives it privileges and the corporation must follow the rules of its creator. I am not a corporation! A state Citizen should challenge the government's assertion that he/she is a corporation. This applies to both postal matter and court documents.

---------Continued Below-------

[edit on 2-8-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]

posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 08:05 AM
---------Concluded From Above--------

We gave the federal government the right to regulate commerce. Since the government has started usurping our sovereignty, our language has been subtly modified to include commercial terms. Most people do not realize or care that they are using commercial terms but the courts do. If you describe your actions in commercial terms in a court, the judge will take silent notice of your status as being regulatable by the federal government. In the following examples, the commercial terms are all in upper case letters: instead of a birthing room, you are now born in a DELIVERY room. Instead of traveling in your car, you are DRIVING or OPERATING a MOTOR VEHICLE in TRAFFIC and you don't have guests in your car, you have PASSENGERS. Instead of a nativity you have a DATE OF BIRTH. You are not a worker but an EMPLOYEE. You don't own a house but a piece of REAL ESTATE.

Near the end of the article is a more detailed list of how & where to begin your research on reclaiming your State Citizenship. Again, it must be pointed out that there is no "one way" to accomplish this, but depends on your own specific State & circumstances. I've also found that it's not just a few People who are reclaiming their Rights as Sovereign Citizens...Hundreds are increasing to thousands & the cumulative effect on the Unconstitutional Government can be quite significant as these numbers increase. So, I'll end this (huge) post with another helpful link (The Jailhouse Lawyer) & a quote:
"Few will have the greatness to bend history; but each of us can work to change a small portion of events, and in the total of all those acts will be written the history of this generation ... It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is thus shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance."--Robert F. Kennedy

[edit on 2-8-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]

posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 04:59 AM
It has always been my contention that the most effective peaceful means to break the government's constructed fraud upon us can be performed through the 1st Amendment Right to Petition: However, I've also seen increasing evidence that the Supreme Court is actually refusing to judge in favor of the Constitution at all levels. The only other way that is specifically mentioned in the Constitution itself would involve the violence implied in the 2nd Amendment.

Since I've been researching the differences between Common Law & Statutory Law, I believe now that there's a way that everyone can bring to force with peaceful means! Break the government's bank! since the Federal Reserve is Unconstitutional in its existence & means of operations in the first place (ATS Search with the keywords "Federal Reserve" & "Fed Res"), it's the best method to peacefully enforce the Constitution on our Public Servants. After all, when we stop paying them, they have no financing to support their oppressions!

Not only do the Journals of the Continental Congress (1:105-113) outline one way, by simply refusing to pay any taxes until the government corrects itself...

If money is wanted by Rulers who have in any manner oppressed the People, they may retain it until their grievances are redressed, and thus peaceably procure relief, without trusting to despised petitions or disturbing
the public tranquility.

...even though it's become obvious that the courts (& especially the IRS) will deny us our Right to NOT support them when they become destructive to our Rights.

Another (peaceful) way is to use their own laws against them & sever our support structure from them: The use of Affidavits, as I've given mention to earlier. Here's a link to a website that provides all of the legal documents you will need, from guidelines for Affidavits, to Power of Attorney papers & much more...Admittedly, this website will charge you for providing commonly-used legal documentation, but it's a helluva lot less than if you tried to hire a lawyer to do it for you: And they've been prepared by lawyers in the first place. Also, these documents have been tailored to be compatible with each State in the Union!
Here's the link: Find Legal Forms

So if money is all that they love, all it would take to break them is to deny it to them...legally and Lawfully! It goes without saying that this will only work if performed by large numbers of People who have renounced their federal citizenship & reclaim their inherent Sovereignty.

posted on Aug, 9 2008 @ 01:56 AM
I've found some more resources for those who wish to retain their State (Republic) Citizenship & revoked their federal (Corporate) citizenship...Mostly on background info & example affidavits to accomplish the task.
Pacific Legal Foundation
Think Free Be Free: You have to register a username here, but they don't charge for the information you can see.
Free Republic
Natural Person
It's just so heartening for me to find increasing numbers of People actually waking up to government deception & taking steps against it! It actually gives me hope that humanity will finally join together willingly & openly someday, rather than be dragged kicking & screaming into abject slavery!

US Legal Forms: The link goes right to the page about affidavits.
1 Stop Legal: Also right to their affidavits page.
US Legal: Dictionary of Legal Terminology...Unlike Black's Law Dictionary, this one's free to use.
SSN Notice: A notice that asserts your right to withhold your SSN from those who ask for it illegally. The thing is, once you've successfully filed affidavit(s) that assert your Sovereignty, this form becomes useless because by that time you won't have an SSN.

NUNC PRO TUNC ESTOPPEL AT LAW AND PUBLIC NOTICE RESCISSION AFFIDAVIT: An example affidavit filed by a man in Iowa that covers pretty much the whole kitt-n-kabootle for reclaiming Sovereignty in a single affidavit. Tailored for your own State & your own particular circumstances, I think it would work well. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find any follow-up info on his results yet...It might be wise to check that out before trying it. At least, even though it's a bit of a long read, it's well worth the truth it contains.

posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 12:32 PM
There were some specific questions being brought up over in this thread that were getting off topic...So I'm posting replies here. This is probably the best thread to move to, in order to prevent any more derailing of the other thread.

Originally posted by Taledus
If child support cases deal with criminal actions for not paying child support, in statutory jurisdiction, then they are null and void if the defindant is not provided with the rules of the court, thus not understanding the charges?

"...they can't try you criminally if you don't understand the charge. That would be automatically a reversible error on appeal."

Basically, yes. The questions being asked in the "USAvsUS" paragraph you referenced were not really a question of the charges themselves, but of the court procedures that cover criminal jurisdiction of those charges under Statutory Law...But it also mentioned that there are no such procedures, at least procedures that are available to the public. The real root is that that we have the Right to be able to defend ourselves in court, but to do so we must have access to the court procedures pertaining to the particular charges brought to us. No procedures for us, no understanding of the charges.

But they also reiterate time & again (& so do I) that you really need to check it all out with a lawyer before you step into a courtroom...You really have to know where you're going in a courtroom or you'll wind up taking a fall faster than a blind man walking towards an open manhole.

Originally posted by Taledus
Some more questions...if someone gets thier birth certificate corrected, returns thier SS# card, and claims to be soverign, what about getting medical insurance? What do you do if you are sick and have no insurance due to not having a SS card...or even car insurance because every time I have gotten insurance they have required a SS#.

To correct the Birth Certificate, you must first get it changed into a Record of Live Birth...This way, your birth is officially recorded, but not registered. It's the registration process that deems you to be government property.

About the SS Card: It doesn't work to merely "claim your sovereignty" when you turn it in...You must use UCC 1-203 & UCC 1-207 (the Remedy & Recourse Clauses) to make it known that you were never given "full disclosure" to the imposed obligations that are inherent in that contract.

That webpage states several times that you must be humble & show respect to the judge, showing that you respect his superior knowledge of the law (such as it is).

Basically, use of an affidavit is known as a Statement of Fact, duly entered into record...Judges can forego having a witness personally show up in court, taking an affidavit as equal to a sworn tesitimony.

To reserve your Rights (as far as the SS Card goes), you must include the facts of Law (in this case, UCC 1-207) to state that you did not have full disclosure...If you're under the age of 18, then you must state that your parents didn't have disclosure, but you also have to wait until you're 18 to get rid of your SS Card anyway. You must include that fact that you never had full disclosure of the obligatory terms & conditions of the SS contract...And if you had been duly informed, you never would have given your signature.

You should also include statements of what those undisclosed terms were...Such as, the contract defined you as a 14th Amendment citizen when you didn't even understand that there was a difference from your Birthright (State) Citizenship. This & other facts about that contract that you've learned should all be included in your affidavit, along with other facts you've learned.

Notice that, to be "official," every affidavit must have the official witness of a Notary Public & filed with the appropriate offices...Most commonly, your County Records Office. Then also include a challenge for any Government Officer to contest against your facts with their facts: You must also impose at least a 30 day time limit on any answers to that challenge.

If there are any challenges to your affidavit, you'll have to respond in kind...Filing more affidavits that use the facts of Law in response to their challenge! For each time you may have to respond, reiterate that you'll impose a 30 day time limit for them to answer your facts. However, if any imposed time limit passes without any challenges, then your affidavit stands up as factual testimony in any courtroom. Even further, you can impose monetary penalties on anyone who tries to challenge your affidavit in a courtroom after the time limit is passed...Simply because any argument they try to use to drag you into court will be thrown out by the judge & you can thereby penalize them for unlawfully wasting time for you & the court!

I don't remember the exact source at the moment, but there's someone who has successfully charged $2000 per hour (& portion of an hour), plus any legal/court expenses incurred, against any & every individual "official" who tried to unlawfully waste their time in court! This may help cut down on how many times someone may try to drag you into court: After all, most courthouses are merely fund-raising organizations under "color of law" (ie: not Common Law Courts) & they will be loathe to bother anyone who can legally charge them with penalties!

Over here is a good example of an affidavit that someone has already used...It specifies for a Citizen of Iowa (No, this is not mine & that's not my name on it: I have yet to prepare mine & this happened to be the single best example I've found to date that I can work with), so you may have to consult an attorney to get it modified for your State & your needs, but this example pretty much covers all of the main points to rescind federal citizenship while still reserving all of your Common Law Rights & still interacting with Statutory Law when you need to. Let's face it, you'll still need to enter into contracts under commercial laws from time to time & it's best to reserve your Rights ahead of time (as well as including "All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice UCC 1-207 with your signature on any contracts).

Originally posted by Taledus
...what about getting medical insurance? What do you do if you are sick and have no insurance due to not having a SS card...or even car insurance because every time I have gotten insurance they have required a SS#.

Well, that's true that they will try to get your SS#. But it's illegal...They contract with the federal government & try to use "color of law" to get your SSN#. Whenever they try to do this, slap on of these on 'em! You can use it to get a job, because "employers" are not required by law to act as a tax-withholding agent! Do not fill out the W-4 Form...It's a contract that declares your voluntary status to pay taxes!

If you've already rescinded your federal citizenship (ie: turned in your SS Card), then you must ask them for a written statement that declares that they will not provide you with any insurance policy because you lack an SSN: Make sure that you get the signature of an actual Agent or Manager on the statement. The same holds true for auto-insurance: If you've already asserted your Right to Travel Freely (Affidavits, again!), they won't give you a policy without a Driver's License...This is because most States require Drivers to carry proof of insurance, so hand over the insurance company's statement instead of proof of insurance: If you have a trust fund (see below) that provides the equivalent of insurance then show that to the cop when he asks for your proof of insurance.

However, if you really have a need for some kind of insurance in the case of an emergency, you have to remember that you won't be able to get insurance from the government that you've been liberated from! So you have to provide for yourself...This is what it really means to reclaim your freedom, ya' know!

You'll have to set up some kind of self-perpetuating trust fund, specified to pay out for your particular needs: You may even have to set up multiple funds for different needs, but it can be accomplished with only one fund if you're careful. Be warned that the initial setup is going to take a sizable chunk of money.

Even if you have all of your needs covered through the specifications, be certain to include clauses that will name beneficiaries or heirs, just in case there's something left over after you're dead & the bills are all paid! If you leave that out, there's no telling who will get that money...Probably your State government or the law/financing firm that arranged for & holds your funds!

I also must reiterate that you can't just take my word for anything...Talk this out with a lawyer before you do anything. I won't be held responsible if you muck it up without seeking professional consultation. If you have trouble finding a Common Law lawyer (which seems likely), try searching for Article III Courts & lawyers in your area. They should be able to help you find an Article III lawyer for consultation.

posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 06:22 PM
reply to post by MidnightDStroyer

Thank you. You have provided me a better insight, even though I know I do need to consult a laywer. But one last question, with all the benefits of becomming a "Freeman", what are the draw-backs because I really don't see any from all the information I have found.

posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 11:17 PM
reply to post by Taledus

Freedom is liberating but not free. Since so many statutes change your status. You may be well advised to select the statutes you want to remove yourself from and stay in statutes you think the benefit is worth the bondage. This option is open to you through your right of contract as a natural person. At least its that way here in Canada.

posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 05:10 PM
reply to post by MidnightDStroyer

I cannot find anything on Google, but how do I change my Certificate of Birth into a Record of Live Birth?

posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 08:40 AM
reply to post by Taledus

The easiest way would be to write up an affidavit (& get it signed by a Notary Public) explaining that you & your parents were never given full disclosure of the full terms & conditions of the Birth Certificate contract & that you'd like to void it under UCC 1-207 (Remedy Clauses) because of "non-disclosure."
Remember that a Notary Public can only testify that he has taken your sworn Oath under Law that you believe everything in the affidavit as being the truth to the best of your knowledge: The Notary Public acts as witness to your Oath, not that the affidavit itself is truth...Which then stands up in a courtroom as your testimony under court Oath

Also, that you'd like to instead record the correct information with your Hall of Records (County Recorder and/or other "official" Records Offices) to be filed as a Record of Live Birth (At this point, remember to be sure that all names typed into the blanks are using a combination of upper & lower-case letters, not all capital letters). You should be able to do that either in the Records Office or at City Hall...And make sure that the Record of Live Birth also gets filed in the same places your affidavit gets filed & noted as an "attachment" to the affidavit.

All this does is put a little "legal separation" between you (the flesh-n-blood human being) & the legal fiction of you (as designated with all capital letters). The Record of Live Birth merely puts you in the legal position of being able to demand trial in an Article III Court & to be able to reserve your Rights on any contract you enter...As long as you also write "All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice UCC 1-207" right next to your signature on any/all contracts thereafter.

Once you're set up to provide for yourself without any Federal Benefits (such as Social Security & other Welfare Programs), you can rescind your "federal contract" later, which changes your Citizenship status from being a "federal citizen" under the 14th Amendment & reinforces your State Citizenship (Birthright Citizenship).

This is merely general info, which may vary in some details from State to State...Ask the lawyer if this would be the way & if not, which way to do it. If you can find a lawyer that works for an Article III Court (Constitutional Court, not a Commercial Court), then go with that...If not, do the best you can with a more "conventional" attorney. In any case, do it the way the lawyer says to do it, just in case I'm wrong or mistakenly left out something.

Besides Google, you can also try & for search engines. In both cases, you can usually get by with typing out your search parameters as an actual question. Also, Google is more strictly monitored by authorities than any other search engine. I've heard of a court trial where a man was on trial for murdering his wife by slow poisoning, but there was no real evidence...Until it was found out that he was searching Google for Anarchist websites to learn about making weapons, explosives & use of undetectable poisons. Between that & further forensics testing, it was found that he used small doses of anti-freeze, so he was convicted.

But then again, this happened before the US Government decided to expand their "data-mining" procedures, so watch out what you're searching for everywhere! If you start web-searching for obviously illegal information, don't come to me for help! I don't look around places that could get me labeled as a "terrorist," so neither should you!

However, everything I've been talking about here involves only searching for info on the Law & Legal Procedures, so if you stick to that, it should be safe...Until such time the PTB decide that people no longer have the Right to research the Law, that is...

[edit on 17-8-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]

posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 04:50 PM
reply to post by MidnightDStroyer

Thank you again for the additional information.

So far I have:

Truth Affadavit: going to get notorized and sent to Tennessee vital records concerning errors or certificate of birth, which is invalid and I will be submitting a Record of Live Birth to my local county office.

Truth Affadavit: going to get notorized and filed in county which is granting my flesh and blood power of attorney over my business.

Security Agreement: to get notorized and filed in county which hold my "agent" harmless when dealing with the STRAWMAN's business.

Truth Affadavit for Truth and Commerce and Contract: to be notorized and filed with county stating my common law right to commerce operated in truth.

Public Notice Rescission Affidavit: 35 pages to be notorized and filed with county expressing that I am not required to...a lot of stuff

I am going to do this all at once tomorrow...probably not a good idea though. All I have to do now is create my Record of Live Birth, which I am going to submit with the rest of the paperwork tomorrow to the county. I havn't used a lawyer to look over any of this stuff, but I should not have any problem considerring the way everything is worded. I am sure if they do not follow, they will respond within the alloted 30 days

top topics

<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in