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.


Are you a citizen and is there a legal government?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on May, 9 2010 @ 09:29 PM
Legal definition of a citizen can be quite the ordeal trying to find out all the repurcussions involved with stating you are a citizen in the US or US of A.

Here is a good link to a discussion on the matter-App C-Your government's definition of citizen.

Now, this discussion can get quite intense so I am going to just use the old school definition of citizen. When a society is created where a government is formed, the sole purpose of the government is to protect the right of it's citizens, where the citizen agrees to the laws placed upon them as the governed.

Now, in several court cases, including one from Wisconsin, the courts have held that the government is NOT responsible for the protection of the citizen.

So tell me, if the government is no longer responsible for your protection, are they your government?

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 09:51 PM
I'm going to go with no on this one.

I am pretty much entirely convinced that the US Government is more akin to a Corporation in it's current form and only a Government by de facto; which explains why the Government seems to have lost all regard for the citizenry.

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 09:56 PM
reply to post by Namaste

Thanks for your comment.

I am going to include this link-Homeland Stupidity Mark Stevens Delusions

This video at the link will open the question I have asked in this thread, to another whole slew of questions.

If you have the time, it is one helluva wake up.

edit to add-I watched it at the link, a more complete lecture. But here is one on YouTube.

[edit on 5/9/2010 by endisnighe]

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 10:37 PM
I've absorbed a vast amount of information on this very topic. Marc Stevens seems to be a very intelligent Man.
The whole Free-Man-on-the-Land topic is very interesting to me. Though I am unsure where I stand on it currently. I have half a mind to just stop pursuing anything involving Government because it has become such an enigma.

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 10:47 PM
reply to post by Namaste

Well, this guy is a lawyer. He goes over techniques used in court that are on the up and up for different type cases.

I have given up on the declaration and stuff on the sovereign movement. Just going to use their very own rules and laws against them if I ever have the need. Thanks again for the comment.

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 10:56 PM
I am with you there.

What do you think about this? We never signed the constitution. That being said, is it binding?

[edit on 9-5-2010 by Namaste]

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 11:11 PM
reply to post by Namaste

Hell no, I do not remember giving anyone the right to take from me to give to another.

I like this guys idea on when going to court. He never brought up the point of questioning the court's jurisdiction. That one, if a judge ever goes on without a jurisdictional hearing, the case will be thrown out automatically on appeal.

One of his techniques is to ask at the beginning of any trial is to ask the prosecutor to prove they are the state and what their standing is. Everything must be proven in a case. If you do not question the evidence, it is assumed to be true. So every assertion by the prosecutor, even their own standing as a injured party must be questioned. Once the prosecutor begins to assert they represent the state, the very idea that the state exists comes into question. If a state (government does not have the duty to protect someone) then they actually do not exist as the state; hence this thread.

Just trying to get the ideas and arguments that work against this corrupt system out there.

If the state does not have any power without a jury finding one guilty, they lose their power over us.

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 11:49 PM
"Are you a citizen and is there a legal government?"

1) No, and
2) No.

Do I consider myself a citizen of the US? No. Why not? Because I never signed this "social contract" I hear about, or agreed for any of these "leaders" (cough cough... crickets chirping) to "represent" me. The way I look at it I live here, under these "authorities" who unfortunately already count me amongst "their" property whether I like it or not. So I don't consider myself theirs, whether they like that or not. I just live here.

I have a legal system behind me, too. It's called "I don't give a damn" and "I'll break your laws." And if you say, oh, then they'll take you to jail! I have a legal system for that too. It's called "come and get me" and "no, I don't have no stinkin ID."

posted on May, 10 2010 @ 09:24 AM
reply to post by bsbray11

Thanks for the comment. The video in my second comment will help in dealing with some issues if you ever have to deal with the government.


posted on May, 10 2010 @ 09:40 AM
I am a legal citizen of the United States, I have my "Papers".
If you hold a legal US Passport, you are seen by the entire world as a US Citizen.
Do I think that the US holds my "best intrest" at heart, of course not.
I know that this is a one sided agreement with the US having no responsibility to me, but I am subject to the full weight of the US Government. Sounds like a good deal, Unh !

posted on May, 10 2010 @ 09:40 AM
This raises a question...

Am I the President of my own, personal government?

(and all that comes with the title)

posted on May, 10 2010 @ 10:16 AM
reply to post by brokedown

That is the whole argument. In court cases the government admits and has set precedent that they have no responsibility of protecting us. Yet we have to follow their rules, yet they do not.

Oh the madness. Thanks for the comment.

reply to post by Signals

In the lecture in the video on the link in my second comment, Mark Stevens goes over a scam that a person in Minnesota was doing. The scammer was having people going to the Clerk of Courts filing paperwork on filing of holding office as a Citizen.

The vid is pretty informative and raises a lot of questions.

Thanks for the comment.

posted on May, 10 2010 @ 10:58 AM
All these arguments are merely social constructions, sure enough, the united states only exists when people agree in the sense they "believe" it as such. God doesn't exist but many people "believe" it exists, now the odds of God enforcing a law against you seem like a metaphysical argument while the state has real means such as guns and badges they say give them the power to monopolize force, same with the "military" it might not exist except when people call upon it to protect borders they "believe" in or want to defend, but none of it exists in the same manner as say a "law of gravity" might exist in a predictable generalization of science.

Moralists and dogmatists or Ideologues are hypnotized by things that don't exist and often forget that they assume and agree with each other that most people agree with them, that maybe why the can sound insane or just ignorant when they speculate. They are just arguing in favor of their favorite "belief system" or otherwise known as BS.

Some ideas deserve more interest than others, some are more generalizable but not very scientific.

Creating hard money backed by something of value rather than a promise of repayment has more value than a merely metaphysical currency as we live with today, currency seems as much like a BS as any unbacked scientific theory that cannot be falsifiable. It almost seems meaningless in the current centralized form of existence.

posted on May, 10 2010 @ 11:29 AM
reply to post by endisnighe

Absolutely love your threads endisnighe!
Always thought provoking.

With that being said, I am a legal citizen of my state.
According to my "license", the state has given...I mean charged me for.

I don't have a National ID, because its not issued to me. Yet.
I don't know what I'd do, when that situation arises.

So therefore, I am a legal citizen of my state in the United States of America.

You see, I believe this gov't is tyrannical in nature and devious in meaning.
There is NO form of constitutionality in anything they've done since 1913...or so.
Meaning, in my personal opinion, I believe the form of gov't we see now is unconstitutional, and therefore illegal.
I abide by my state's constitution to the fullest extent of its laws.

I am no FMOTL either.

If there was anything that first set off my opinion of this govt's illegality, it was the formation of the UN.

That was a long time ago.
According to the gov't, we are a nation within the United Nations.


Therefore, that, is illegal.

All the comments on this post are entirely based on pure opinions only and do not express the views of this site, or the affiliated parties involved.

posted on May, 10 2010 @ 12:07 PM
reply to post by havok

Thanks for the kudos.

The link in the OP goes over a lot of court cases and the authors perceptions when going over the repercussions of the federalists and the anti federalists positions.

I am REALLY thinking of trying to rid myself of any contracts like the SS crap.

Just looking at my SS card it states on it-

This number has been established for


Who is this entity that is spelled in all capital letters? Is it me, or is it an entity that has been created in a contract with the federal government to make me a citizen of the corporate United States.

Yes, I am beginning to understand the meaning of people NOT saying they are a citizen of the United States.

I am a sovereign of the Republic of Wisconsin in the Jurisdiction of the United States of America. I wonder if that is worded properly?

From the article-

The 14th Amendment created a type of federal "citizenship" which is analogous to ownership.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the meaning of the first sentence of the 14th Amendment in Elk v. Wilkins in 1884 (112 US 94) "The persons declared to be citizens are `all persons born or naturalized in the united states, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."

14 CJS section 4 quotes State v. Manuel 20 NC 122: "... the term `citizen' in the United States, is analogous to the term `subject' in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government."

U.S. v. Rhodes, 27 Federal Cases 785, 794: "The amendment [fourteenth] reversed and annulled the original policy of the constitution"

Hague v. CIO, 307 US 496, 520: "... the first eight amendments have uniformly been held not be protected from state action by the privileges and immunities clause" [of the fourteenth amendment]

That's right! the US Supreme Court says that Fourteenth Amendment citizens are not protected by the Bill of Rights.

State Citizens have their same rights in all the states because your Federal Constitution in Article 4, Section 2 guarantees that "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States." The Supreme Court in Colgate v. Harvey 296 US 404, 429 clarified that rights of state citizenship are in contradistinction to the rights of US citizenship: "The rights of a citizen under one may be quite different from those which he has under the other ..."

Lots of good information on that link.

Now, a question that just occurred to me, the stripping of US citizenship they are attempting in legislation now. I wonder if they are using the information contained here for this purpose? Where these people are 14th Amendment citizens and not State Republic citizens and if they will be using the court precedents set forth in this link?

Thanks for the comment.

posted on May, 10 2010 @ 09:10 PM
So I suppose the question is; can we sign our State Constitution's?

posted on May, 10 2010 @ 09:11 PM
By the way; S&F for you!




posted on May, 10 2010 @ 09:28 PM
reply to post by Namaste

I think it is more that we never sign on to any damn contract with the feds. I think using the All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice after EVERY signature on anything to do with the government, hell for that matter anything we sign.

§ 1-308. Performance or Acceptance Under Reservation of Rights.

(a) A party that with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as "without prejudice," "under protest," or the like are sufficient.

(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to an accord and satisfaction.

posted on May, 10 2010 @ 10:10 PM
reply to post by endisnighe

I think it is more that we never sign on to any damn contract with the feds.

Or with anyone else for that matter, unless you are clear on what has been agreed upon. That said, this statement of yours comes much closer to the reality of the situation we all face today. Since ignorance of the law is no excuse, it is important to know the law, and part of that law is law of contract.

The elements of any contract include:

1.) Mutual consent; a meeting of the minds.

2.) Offer and acceptance; it is important to note that any counter offer made on a contract, does not signify any acceptance, but rather a rejection of the contract as is.

3.) Mutual consideration; there must be an agreed even exchange in order for the contract to be valid.

4.) Performance or delivery; most breach of contracts are found when one party of the contract has failed to either perform or deliver the agreed upon acts made clear in the contract.

5.) Good faith; no amount of obfuscation or misdirection can overcome the principle behind good faith. Making an offer to a person to sell a '99 Mustang in an automotive paper, and then making a contract to sell it to a person, does not mean one can then expect to unload their 11 year old horse, and declare a debt owed for that horse because a contract was made to purchase a '99 Mustang.

6.) No violation of public policy; if the terms of the contract are contrary to existing law, or even legislation for that matter, the contract becomes unenforceable.

There is also the consideration of oral contracts. While it is a truism that oral contracts are not worth the paper they're written on, an oral contract can indeed be enforced when both parties admit such a contract exists. For example, if a police officer pulls you over and asks you to get out of your vehicle, and you comply, an oral contract validating that police officers jurisdiction has just been made. If, in a court, you admit that you did comply with the police officers demands, then this oral contract has a better chance of being enforced. However, as true as that is, it is also true that jurisdiction can be challenged at any time.

Hmmmmm what to do, what to do, what to do....

posted on May, 10 2010 @ 11:25 PM
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Exactly, with your argument on contractual law.

Let me see if I get all the aspects.

Let us look at Social Security for instance.

I was told to sign up for Selective Service while younger and that was when I received my Socialist number. I was threatened that I could become in trouble for not signing up for this in regards to the military.

I was not informed of all the aspects of said contract.

I was coerced to sign said contract.

The contract takes my past currency and assets and gives me much depreciated assets later on.

A "Meeting of the Minds" (Mutual Consent)- this was broken.
Offer and Acceptance- this was broken
Mutual Consideration- this was broken
Performance or Delivery- this was broken
Good Faith- this was broken
No Violation of Public Policy- this could be considered to be broken

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in