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: 19
<< 16  17  18   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 01:36 PM
I have seen more success with canadians doing a manner of this than americans and thats only because canada is more established in an out spoken common law here we have it in th bill of rights but the courts are down playing it to case law and have turned civil law. YOU HAVE TO WATCH OUT ON THE METHODS AS TO NOT MIS REPRESENT YOURSELF, meaning dont mix up methods without knowing what your doing. Like using common law on the admirality side of the bar ( usa ). I saw one post correcting themselves to be a "human being" but I have seen this arround

human being See MONSTER.
—Ballentine's Law Dictionary (1930)

monster A human being by birth, but in some part resembling a lower animal. A monster hath no inheritable blood, and cannot be heir to any land.
—Ballentine's Law Dictionary (1930)

this a good topic and if valdated can be the path to liberation !!!

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 04:00 PM
reply to post by picrat

What part of Canada are you from. Get in touch with me.

posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 04:52 AM

*If anyone needs to look up a legal definition/term just send me a u2u and I will respond*

I've made this post a few other times on multiple threads, but I am going to post it here too:

Alright, I am going to start with the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence to lay the groundwork for what I believe to be the original idea of citizenship in these united states:

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

First off I would like to talk about the concept of "Rights." The biggest question is,"where do our 'Rights' come from?" I have heard many responses from people, everything from the Constitution, to the President, to the Military. To set the record straight it is important to note that we were endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights.

Online Dictionary

en·dow (n-dou)
tr.v. en·dowed, en·dow·ing, en·dows
1. To provide with property, income, or a source of income.
a. To equip or supply with a talent or quality: Nature endowed you with a beautiful singing voice.
b. To imagine as having a usually favorable trait or quality: endowed the family pet with human intelligence.

So we were equipped by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights. Now the concept of a "Creator" is the concept of an absolute, highest authority. That there is no man, nor institution of man, with the authority necessary to strip you of your Rights...unless of course you volunteer them away for which you have every Right to do so.

So think of this in terms of jurisdiction, we the people fall under the jurisdiction of our Creator and Natural Law, with the Government falling under our jurisdiction because they derive their just Powers from us.

So what happened? The answer to that question is actually quite simple because it all goes back to the Fourteenth Amendment Section 1.

The Fourteenth Amendment "Civil Rights"

The Fourteenth Amendment was proposed on June 13, 1866, and ratified on July 9, 1868.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I have a copy of Black's Law Dictionary, Third Pocket Edition, so lets take a look at some of these terms:

jurisdiction, n. 1. A government's general power to exercise authority over all persons and things within its territory.

privilege. 1. A special legal right, exemption, or immunity granted to a person or class of persons; an exception to a duty.

grant, vb. 1.To give or confer (something), with or without compensation. 2. To formally transfer (real property) by deed or other writing. 3. To permit or agree to. 4 To approve, warrant, or order (a request, motion, etc.).

Now it is interesting to note that the Fourteenth Amendment was originally meant for the slaves that had been freed right after the Civil War. It was designed for them a new citizenship that placed them under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. Black US Citizens were some of the first people in the United States to have gun permits, marriage licenses and voter registration. Reason being is because the unalienable Rights that sovereign white men enjoyed were being granted to the newly freed slaves.

Now in regard to marriage licenses, if two white people "got married" it was considered a Common Law marriage:

common-law marriage. A marriage that takes legal effect, without license or ceremony, when two people capable of marrying live together as spouses, intend to be married, and hold themselves out to others as a married couple.

When to black people got married it was considered "animal husbandry." But when a white person wanted to marry a black person they had to have "State permission" because of the two different citizenship statuses at play.

Also, a marriage license is a contract and the children between the two parties being wed are considered the "the contract bearing fruit." The children of such contracts became the lawful property of the State who had a vested interest in the education of their property.

So, in a nutshell, we have used our right to contract to unknowingly volunteer ourselves as Fourteenth Amendment citizens.

If you have a marriage license.

If you have a driver's license.

If you have a gun permit.

If you have a Social Security Number.

If you are a registered voter.

You are volunteering yourself as a US Citizen under the jurisdiction of the Fourteenth Amendment and you do not have "unalienable Rights." You have "privileges" and "immunities" GRANTED to you by the Federal Government.

And what the Federal Government Granteth they can taketh away.

I saw a previous post where someone stated that Black's Law Dictionary is not real, or is false? Whoever posted that posted blatant disinformation. I bought my copy of Black's Law Dictionary, Third Pocket Edition at Barnes & Noble in the Law section.

How silly.

[edit on 2/17/2010 by dalan.]

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 05:48 AM

Originally posted by 727eng
reply to post by sizzle

There is a good book called "The Web Of Debt--the shocking truth about our money system" written by Ellen Hodgson Brown. This book also refrences The wizard of Oz as really being a story about the money system at the turn of the century.

I'm a newbie on the forum and I was looking for a thread discussing this book. I did a search for "Ellen Hodgson Brown." This is the only result that came back.

I'm reading the book now and I'm very impressed with what she's saying. We will not succeed in restoring civil liberties until we get control of money. I would love to see this lady more visible in the public discourse. She is speaking at a conference next month. I hope this will help. Here is the link:

posted on May, 28 2010 @ 04:50 AM
All External Sources, unless specifically noted, come from this linked copy of the US Constitution.
Any references to State Constitutions can be obtained by using " Constitution" in Google...Or if you prefer to keep Google from saving all of your IP info & search-terms/results forever in their databases, you can use the Scroogle Scraper at :
In all cases where bold or italic emphasis appears within any External Source box, the emphasis is mine. during this whole posting, there's two main points to keep in mind:

#1: WE are the employers! The Consitution Preamble, excerpted:

We the People of the United States... ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. the Contract of Employment for our servant Government. Notice that this gives We the People power over the government! This is a lawfully binding contract, even under the lesser-weight Statutes & Codes (well, "lesser weight" than the Supreme Law of the Land itself), such as the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code), which describes every consideration necessary to constitute a leaglly binding & legally enforcable contract.
Before any territory can become ratified as a State, it must also have a Constitution of its own, not acting in conflict with the US Constitution. Look up the Constitutions of any State you want...You may notice that most (if not all) State Constitutions include a clause that specifies that "All political power originates from the People," or something paraphrased with this intent. As such, it's really We the People who, in exercising our own political power, delegate certain specific & limited Powers to our servant Officers. If WE do not grant them certain Powers, THEY have no lawful authority to exercise them.

#2: THEY are the employees! They knowingly & willingly bind themselves Lawfully to the Constitution during their time of employment:

Article 2, Section 1, Clauses 8 & 9:
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."


Article 6, Clause 3:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

For example, a little history on the Oath of Office for all Congressional Offices:

The Constitution specifies no details for the oath of office for Congress.
The first Congress developed this requirement into a simple, 14-word oath:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States."
The Civil War led President Lincoln to develop an expanded oath for all federal civilian employees (April 1861).
The current oath was enacted in 1884:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Notice that there is no differential specified as to whether the Oath is required for "elected" offices or "appointed" offices...In other words, if they are to wield any lawful authority or draw a paycheck from the government as a Civil Officer, they must take the Oath! Any government official that does not take the Oath is commiting the Felony Offense of "Impersonating a Federal Official!"
What was it that Bush Jr. did? Oh, yeah...He said that he hired a new batch of Federal Law Enforcers that didn't require taking the Oath...

Even if he hired mercenaries, he cannot lawfully grant them any authority to enforce the law under government authority...If the President doesn't have the "immunity" to violate Law, then there is no "immunity" that he can pass down the chain-of-command, either. If any of these mercenaries violate any Civil or Individual Rights on any Citizen, as enumerated under the Law, then the President is held accountable, just as much as the mercenaries would be.

So why do we let them constantly & consistantly violate their contract of employment? Why do we even listen to them when they constantly grant themselves "immunities from prosecution," believe any lies about "sovereign immunity," or even believe for one second that any of them (or even all of them combined) can grant such immunities to...for example...AT&T for helping them illegally spy on us? If it is not an authority we give to our Officers, then they cannot legally or lawfully pass that authority to anyone else either! What gives them any legal or lawful authority to violate Civil & Individual Rights as enumerated in the Bill of Rights or the Common Law? After all, the entire Constitution & Bill of Rights were constructed as to set Common Law as the Supreme Law of the Land in the first place.

No, they have no such authority or immunity...As quoted in Article 2, Section 4 of the US Constitution:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

"High Crimes" & "Misdemeanors" is pretty self-evident...Even a simple parking ticket can be grounds for Removal; Notice that the Constitution does not say "may be removed," it says "shall be removed.

Oh, I admit that there are some immunities, at least for Congress, but these immunities have their limits also. Excerpted from Article 1, Section 6, clause 1:

...They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same...

So what about the rampant bribery (even making it into MSM (Main Stream Media) news reports!) that takes place in the numerous "back-room, closed-door" sessions? All they're doing is bribing each other with our tax monies! By this Clause in Article 1, they can even be arrested on-the-spot & removed from Office! After all, we have the indication of this bribery as a matter of well-known & publicly documented (& in many cases, even open admission to the public!), easily-retrieved evidence!
However, they've pretty much twisted the official government "definition" of what constitutes "Treason." To them, it seems all you have to do is voice any dissent & they may press into the definition of Treason, but by the Contract of Employment (ie: the Constitution), we & they must abide by the definition specifically included:

Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Notice that there is nothing that includes attacks upon the government itself in the Constitutional definition of Treason...This was deliberately left out, because including the government itself would have voided one of our Natural Rights, as stated in this excerpt of paragraph 2 in the Declaration of Independance:

...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness...

And yet, what about all of the money received from special interest groups & corporations? Notice that none of these groups or corps are required to take an Oath of Office, so they are free to bribe our government officials...In short, they have no compunctions against lobbying with their money to "invest" in the violation of our Laws & Rights; When such groups work against our Lawful Rights & our Laws, they become enemies of the People. But by accepting these bribes, our Officers are giving them "aid & Comfort" & "adhering" to these enemies...Treason AND Bribery! Another reason that members of Congress can be arrested on-the-spot!

---------Concluded Below----------

posted on May, 28 2010 @ 04:50 AM
------Concluded From Above-------

Originally posted by Mary Rose
We will not succeed in restoring civil liberties until we get control of money.

Yeah, speaking of money, Federal Reserve Notes don't qualify as money...Not since Nixon "de-coupled" the Gold/Silver Standard from them. Besides all of that, there's no Constitutional authority for the Federal Government to legally define what "legal tender" is...Only that (Article 1, Section 10, clause 1, excerpted):

No State shall... ...make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts

Also, there's nothing in the Constitution that restricts the People to accepting only Gold/Silver (or even Fed Notes, for that matter). Therefore, Ron Paul's proposals to adopt "competitive currencies" is perfectly legal & "in pursuance of" the Constitution.

How about their bypassing Lawfully-established Procedures over Legislation? Such as the "Palimentary Procedures" threatened by the Senate, in order to pass the Health Care Reform? And their use of "Reconciliation?" The Constitution not only delegates certain specified Powers, but also the limitations on those Powers, by Article 1, Section 1:

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Only the Powers "herein granted" are lawfully authorized. Anything that results from bypassing this Due Process is in itself a violation of Law...Therefore it cannot be enacted or enforced as Law.

BTW, I've never heard of Congress actually declaring an official War...So why is the President striving to escalate American-initiated "war" over in the Middle East (or anywhere else, for that matter)? There are over 190 nations in this world & we have military occupying or actually fighting in more than 130 of them! Yet, there are 2 Clauses in the Constitution bear some examination. First, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water

And Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States

Let's see if I miss anything here: Congress did not declare War, but the President is acting as Commander-in-Chief without being called into Service to do so? Even, as acting President, Obama still has not fullfilled the "Natural Born Citizen" qualifications as required by Law before sitting in the Oval Office? So if he won't prove his qualifications as required by Law & he assumes Office anyway, doesn't that automatically make him a criminal imposter already? And without officially being "called into the actual Service" as Commander-in-Chief, isn't that also a different Felony offense? If he had no authority to assume the Office, then he wouldn't have authority to conduct war, even if Congress did declare one!
What about Peolsi, during the last Bush Administration? She agreed that potential crimes that Bush may have committed could be discussed in Congress, but "Impeachment is off-the-table?" Maybe I missed it, but there's no authority that I could find in the Constitution that allows anyone to take Impeachment "off-the-table." Can anyone else find that authority? I can't.
It's true that the Senate has the sole Power of Impeachment, as specified in Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6, but We the People have Power over the Senate too! Two of our options include immediate on-the-spot arrest if there's evidence of "Treason, Felony or other Breech of the Peace;" The other option is to simply vote them out...But this option still carries our implicit acceptance of how many other Laws they may violate before the next voting cycle.
I've heard of a good description that defines Politics as "the Art of Compromise." If this is true (& to all indications coming from the government, it is true), then there's no room for practicing "politics" within American government...Simply because the only thing politicians really compromise is the Law of the Land. Do we really want to hire people that compromise our Law?!
In short, the most effective non-violent means to restore the US Government to what it was meant to be is Civil Disobedience (that is, to not obey them) while we fire them all & levy charges under indictment as specified in our Contract of Employment (ie: the Constitution), then hire/elect people more trustworthy to work in OUR offices. Yes, those Offices belong to us & they can sit in them only at our sufferage.

"National Interests," my fundament! National Interests are specified & defined by the US Constitution, not by those who sit in the Offices created under it.

Self-enforcement of the Constitution is not up to THEM, they've proven that already. Enforcement is up to We the People, who ordained & established our Contract with them. These are offices WE THE PEOPLE created to serve us...Not the self-serving illegal imposters that now sit in our Offices. This is why I do not agree with any new imposition of "term limits" that are not already specified within the Constitution...Any more term limitations would force out the (very few) good officers with the bad. We must rely on our personal judgement when it comes to "limiting terms" as we cast our ballots.
This is one of our Civil Duties, after all. but even on the local level, it only takes a certain, small percentage of voting citizens to demand a Special Election...Including a vote for Recall on the ballot. This can be accomplished in just a matter of days...Which means We the People don't even have to wait for the next election cycle to vote the bums out! Probably best to start locally within your own city, then expand into county & State levels. From there, the Feds won't have any real backing to oppose We the People.
Yet, in the meantime, if We the People can start taking back our own communities, life should begin to show improvement almost immediately, because the community government has enough clout to kick out (even arrest & indict for trial!) Federal Agents lawfully, if the local judge issues Cease & Desist orders! With the most powerful local Offices re-populated with We the People, that will be the easy part...Then if the whole community are deputized by the Sheriff, there's plenty of manpower available to enforce those court orders!

Here are some links that describe this idea in much more detail than I can here.
Restore America Plan, Real or Not? (5-part video)

Followed by Restore America Plan - Alternatives (7-part video)

Each video is about 10 minutes or less. Each part is available from the web address listed here at the start: At the top-left corner (above the actual video window) is the name "soverignboy," followed by a drop-down text box that will list all of the parts of the video. To continue the videos in order, just listen to the current video, then select the next part in the series.

This total of 12 videos is basically a response to the Guardians of the Free Republics website ( & the Restore America Plan found there.

So really now...Since I've only barely scratched the surface of a very large iceburg, is there any doubts left that the government is nothing less (& nothing more) than a vast & continually-growing criminal consortium?

new topics

top topics
<< 16  17  18   >>

log in