Tell me, are you a person, citizen, resident, corporation or a HUMAN BEING?

reply to post by ugie1028


Hey now, you are not helping. Wait a minute, yes you are.

Let us look again at the 1st Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

One thing going on right now with the movement in regards to this sovereignty movement is the rights of religion. Did you know that you have to petition the government to get your rights as a Church?

This is one thing that scares the hell out of me. The government makes the decision what a Church is. How does that comply with the 1st Amendment?

Thanks for your comment.

God Bless and Peace.

reply to post by endisnighe


I don't need a church for one. For i am sovereign, and do not need to attend an official place of prayer. I look within, for the soul, the one-ness, the god-self.

I am one,

I am me,

I am free.

only those who confine themselves in doubt, or believe in another power that dictates them, will never ever truly be free.

the divine is not beyond you... its within you.

reply to post by ugie1028


Where is your God. Is he real? Does he exist? Do you even believe there is a higher power?

That is your choice, not mine or the government's.

So common sense that all it took was one sentence.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

How about:

Why do we have to pay for water? Why does it have to be purified? We didn't have purified water for many thousands of years then all of a sudden we need it. Yes diseases can spread through it, but why massive networks of water? Why not local source water? Is it to clean up pollution by corporations? Designed to make more money off a person? If I were thirsty could I go onto someones land and drink from their river? How is it possible for people to own the place where water sits? Why can you buy a home but not own the water beneath the home? Corporations say you aren't entitled. Government says Corporations own the water. But, corporations are people and the government is me. How do they get the right over me?

reply to post by endisnighe


I get what you mean. It should be to each is own...

but its far from it unfortunately.

reply to post by ExPostFacto


Mineral rights, water rights, land rights.

Oooooh. I have a cousin that thought it would be great if they got their road blacktopped out to their house.

I only laughed when she said this ten years ago. 4 years ago they blacktopped, at the same time they expanded the sewer and water service. They told her that she could no longer have her own well or own sewage system.

Why?

You tell me. I know why, it has all to do with control. Shhhh. She did what I said, she bathes with the city water and uses the well water for drinking. Once per year she tests the well water. She got some bad news last year, there was some chlorine in the sample. Found out she had a drainage area that was allowing city water to leach into the well area.

oops.

Test your city water once. Find out what is in it. Tell the testing facility it is your well, this way they will not fudge the numbers. I once sent in two samples, they were from the same place. Completely sterile when samples taken. One was labeled well and the other was labeled city, which one do you think they said was the best?

reply to post by endisnighe


That is interesting I assume they said city water was better? Or at least that would fit with the plot of this thread.

reply to post by ExPostFacto



The tests we took, proved there was nothing wrong with the well water.

The tests did prove there was chemicals in the city supply.


[edit on 4/6/2010 by endisnighe]

reply to post by endisnighe


Flesh and Blood Living Soul

NOT a person, resident, U.S. citizen, corporate fiction, subject, british slave nor any other "thing" or "entity" the "corporate government" may use to describe "IT'S" subjects and slaves!!!!!

Originally posted by endisnighe

Human Being-my definition, an entity that has life, that has a SOUL, that
has unalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness
(Property).

well, you're missing some points here;

1. life is not a right, it is a must worship, it is duty. society of rights is society of privileges, and it is brainwashed to us as justice&freedom by PTB. It is lie. Forget rights, conscious human beings don't need laws to interact, evolve, progress, live peacefully and freely in harmony with nature.

for real human beings, only society of must, of duties (as opposed to society of rights) will work. it is a very important sociological point you should intellectually dig into before replying too quickly : as long as you'll fight for "rights" you'll go nowhere but where the PTB want you to go.

2. the pursuit of happiness is as well brainwashed to us by corps. happiness is just a state of mind. the key is control: control your mind, you'll see happiness is easy to control & indulge and that it is nothing to pursuit. Even the opposite: it is used as the root of jealousy and hatred : the root of wars.

as human beings we are to be in control of our minds. This is the very revolution awaiting us, the key to absolute freedom which a society of rights will never provide.

"from which right I must follow your laws since the freedom of my thoughts was made before that ?" translated from a french song from Tryo ("les soldats de plomb" "the tin soldiers")

Originally posted by Doomsday 2029
#3.) The Real Problem: Technology

Technology is slowly taking the humanity out of the human... and the machine that humans serve, are slowly turning into robots. My biggest beef is with technology and science... because these are the two things that humans grown dependent on. While both subjects are wonderful... I just wish humanity could find a way to break their dependence on Technology & Science (and live more spiritually)

Well said. We all love technology, to a point... Honestly, with all the impersonal ways to communicate these days humanity within humans is doing down the drain. Instead of getting up from your desk at the office and having a conversation with your friend Bill across the room, you'll sit and chat on some instant message program. Where is the human interaction? I am sick and tired of [the lack of] it all. Not to mention it's very hard to express emotion through an instant message, text, email what have you. People have gotten into fights, including myself, with others because people cannot realize sarcasm, or a joke over the internet/texting.

I too would love to see us all live more spiritually in-tuned, but allow science to keep on keeping on as well.

I'm all for technology until some robot is physically picking me up, taking me to the bathroom and wiping my @ss for me. Then we will have known it has gone too far... actually I hope before that point we realize it's gone too far, but who knows?

And endisnighe, I am like you very much. I have OCD, been diagnosed very young actually, but don't look at it as a handicap! It can be very helpful, but I agree also very annoying at times. It causes me anxiety all the time, but it also allows me to think in such manners that help me express my ideals in analytical terms, which I find helpful. Plus, it doesn't hurt that my OCD helps me keep organized

[edit on 6/4/2010 by highlyoriginal]

reply to post by endisnighe


The following transcript may offer a mystical perspective, as to why people who are pursuing a path of truth and independence are sensing greater and greater tension from a corrupt government that is desperately crafting self-centered agendas which seek to suppress truth and enchain sovereignty.

“Q’uo, Newton’s Third Law of Motion states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In a similar vein, the central theme of the Baghavad Gita consists of a metaphorical battle between the lower, self-serving, sense-enslaved forces of past habits and conditioning versus the higher forces of discrimination, freedom, love and unity.”

“As the so-called higher forces are called into action in this metaphorical battle—that is, as the self begins to awaken and desires to seek the truth—the so-called lower self is stirred and agitated and called to battle. The more that attempts are made to evolve into a higher and more humble understanding, the harder the lower self works to defeat those efforts.”

“Q’uo, on the level of pure, undifferentiated, unmanifest unity, there are no dynamic forces at play. But to whatever extent that the seeker is working within the illusions of duality and opposing forces, is there a counter-pull to attempts at evolution? In other words, as attempts are made to know and become the light, is there a corresponding intensification of the darkness within?”

www.llresearch.org...

[edit on 6-4-2010 by seasoul]

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by Doomsday 2029

 

I am a technical guy, I like lists and outlines on how to progress or how to complete an endeavor. Some call me OCD (obsessive compulsive disorder) handicapped.

I make lists of everything I do. At least things that have many steps.
God Bless and Peace.

I have to do the same thing, even to the point of making lists for the next day, or writing down all the time. I don't think it is OCD, but it helps me process things. Any luck figuring it out?

"we're not your sinners. our voices are for real. realized and wont be bought. we're gonna burn your death masks beautiful."

I am ME. and that includes not buying into this

I am a mental rebel. but I am old and I have no children. I understand the real struggle. I support you

Now, to think you are free... Examine what is actually free.

As far as i have learned, only wild animals are free. And possibly the highest of high politicos. Not the politicians, but the so-called handlers.

GHWB said it when we must enforce the rule of law and not the jungle. Exactly 10 years before 9/11. I'm sure you've all seen that video.

Another decent link would be to Mary Elizabeth Croft. She is Canadian, yet its still relevant.

www.scribd.com...

She also has a few small e-books that are free about spiritual economics. Whether its real or not, it makes for very interesting reading.

If you haven't already, it will definitely make you wonder why everything that you sign up for has a very difficult to understand legal agreement. Most usually never read the whole thing.

My personal theory is that the economic meltdown is contrived in order to restore faith in that legal fiction. When you "sign" up for what you need, that pretty much creates ownership by another proprietor. Whoever that may be.

Another thing that is quite interesting is how the pope claimed the world, and we are all subject to catholic rule. I need help with definitive links to that. I did read that much, and I think it was about the 1200's that pope did it.

It brings to question why the pope still has any influence and an imam is completely marginalized. Who is demonizing these other faiths?

reply to post by seasoul


“Q’uo, on the level of pure, undifferentiated, unmanifest unity, there are no dynamic forces at play. But to whatever extent that the seeker is working within the illusions of duality and opposing forces, is there a counter-pull to attempts at evolution? In other words, as attempts are made to know and become the light, is there a corresponding intensification of the darkness within?”

I found this passage in particular from your post (which was excellent! ) to be very in tune with how I feel. Thanks for sharing it!

I'd also like to leave those interested with a few links on the OPs topic, I am a huge advocate of the Freeman perspective when dealing with matters of personal sovereignty and so-called "rights", bestowed on you by a government that represents, and thus should be seen as, you! I implore all with an open mind to take a look.

www.tpuc.org...
www.thinkfree.ca...
worldfreemansociety.org...

Also, anything by Rob Menard (I highly recommend 'Bursting Bubbles of Government Deception') is always a good starting point.

I think that what the OP is getting at is definition and how it is used to entrap you.

From Black's law dictionary 6th edition;

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius; A maxim of statutory interpretation meaning that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. Burgin v. Forbes, 293 Ky. 456, 169 S.W.2d 321, 325; Newblock v. Bowles, 170 Okl. 487, 40 P.2d 1097, 1100. Mention of one thing implies exclusion of another. When certain persons or things are specified in a law, contract, or will, an intention to exclude all others from its operation may be inferred. Under this maxim, if statute specifies one exception to a general rule or assumes to specify the effects of a certain provision, other exceptions or effects are excluded. Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition (emphasis mine)

AND

Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius; /inklũwzh(iy)ow yanáyəs ést əksklũwzh(iy)ow oltíriyəs/. The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another. The certain designation of one person is an absolute exclusion of all others. Burgin v. Forbes, 293 Ky. 456, 169 S.W.2d 321, 325. Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition (emphasis mine)

Lawyers are british agents, traitors to be exact, and they know it too.

Know thyself.

[edit on 6-4-2010 by daddio]

reply to post by endisnighe


As always a great thread. S & F!

So I will tell you what I know about this situation, and I have a decent amount of knowledge of this subject. One of my best friends just graduated from the University of Arizona law school and we had a debate on the nature of our rights.

The debate centered around a study that I am conducting involving the concept of jury nullification, which is honestly our last hope, and I will get to that in a minute.

So here we go.....

The very first manifestation of rights in America came from what we imported from English common law through the Magna Carta.
But we are not a pure common law system.
The system of law we have is technically a civil law system based on statutes and that is not how the Constitution was originally designed.
This redesign was done after the Civil War and is the reason that a person is now a corporation.
We have basically been under a state of martial law since Lincoln declared it in 1863, I think....

That is why all of these signing statements are valid.
We have been operating, constitutionally, in a state of emergency since that date in 1863.
When one of the states of emergency comes to an end, then another is declared.
I think that Obama did it stealthily with the Swine Flu epidemic.

So let's talk about law for a sec.

There are two kinds of law common law and civil law, but yet...

This is confusing because there are two kinds of courtrooms:

Criminal and Civil.

Why does this fit into the definition of a person?

Because our rights are derived from a series of Supreme Court decisions where original jurisdiction over we the people was decided.
The Supreme Court took our rights away from God given and made them derived from statute. They are legislated.
And it all started so innocently...

A big decision is Baron v. Baltimore.

This case stated that the Bill of Rights never applied to the states, and on the surface this looks like a bad thing, but it is not because it strengthened states rights.
State constitutions were written with the Bill of Rights as their basis. According to that decision, there is no need to enforce a federally mandated Bill of Rights, it was already in the state's constitutions.
Well then how come we are subjects of the Federal Government?

Because of the 14th Amendment.
The 14th Amendment is an adhesion contract of sorts. We never agreed to it and because of it, we are mandated as being "citizens" rather than "sovereigns". That means that as citizens we are subject to rightS derived from statute, and not sovereigns with inherent rights from God.

This is where it gets tricky.

Because of the Thompkins v. Erie Railroad decision, we have a bizarre mix of common law and civil law.
In a common law SYSTEM stare decisis is practiced, meaning that judges make the law based on previous judgments or decisions by juries or other judges, and these decisions must NEVER contradict one another.

In a civil law SYSTEM jurisprudence constante is practiced, meaning that judges can do whatever they want to do in a courtroom, but they should make their decisions consistent.
They SHOULD. They are not obligated.
They are literally Kings in their courtroom.
Like captains on a ship.
That is the reason that people claim the fringe on the flag is a sign of Admiralty Law. If you look in EVERY courtroom in the US, state or federal, or any Federal Government institution, then you will see the gold fringe.

We have a civil law system masquerading as a common law system.

The official answer is that only Louisiana has a civil law system, but that is a misdirection.

We have common law systems in some states, my state of Georgia included, but the 14th Amendment trumps all because of the due process clause.
We are literally property of the Federal Government.

That is why children MUST be given free healthcare. They are employees of this government, even as a child, because a trust is set up in their name at the Social Security Administration and the future interest on that trust (taxes) is sold in the open market by way of T-bills and T-notes. Securities.
This is how the federal government collects money.

I know that this seems tangential, but the appropriate answer to OP would take several posts to answer and will go in several different directions.

I am laying a groundwork to lead to a specific answer, but it will take a second.

Look this over, while I connect the links to the cases.

But for now check this out...

I have to go to the Doc, but when I return if you wish, then I will discuss the 14th, 15th, 16th, and 17th Amendments and how they lead to the takeover of the sovereign by the federal government.

IT IS ALL ABOUT JURISDICTION, THE DEFINITION OF A CORPORATION, AND THE UNIFORM COMMERCE CODE.

I find the subject of Corporate Personalization to be one of those linchpin facts that outlines the core problem with the US government.

The fact that with every subject that finds its way into the halls of congress (health care for instance) they need to consider the needs of both human beings and these corporate entities (i.e. insurance companies) seems to me contrary to the point of human civilization. Furthermore, these entities have the right to fight for their existence regardless of whether a society has outgrown its need for them.

While I understand that a large corporation represents a large group of people and its demise means hundreds of lost jobs, the needs of a few hundred, even thousand people shouldn't trump that of humanity as a whole. Take toxic dumping for example, sure it's cheaper for the company but bad for the ecosystem.

For those who don't know the history of Corporate Personhood, it really began with the 14th amendment that freed the slaves. The corporations (which were few at the time) almost instantly began arguing that they should have the same rights as individuals.

Of the 150 cases involving the 14th Amendment heard by the Supreme Court between 1873 and 1896, 15 involved blacks and 135 involved business entities. From 1886-1912 two cases restrained or annulled State action involving Negroes, and 39 cases restrained or annulled State action against corporations.

I highly recommend the documentary The Corporation for further information.

K