Are you a Sovereign or a Citizen?, page 3


Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 7 times


reply posted on 15-1-2011 @ 03:48 PM by 13th Zodiac
Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to
post by autowrench



But do you have any legal documentation to back up the legal principles that you profess or is it just the case that the police/court sees your licence and thinks “oh not one of those again, I can’t deal with this today, move along”?


Move along ! well if that is what you believe in and what actually happens ? That says that the system that you believe in and are pushing on us are a absolute joke .Now wonder the world is falling apart under the yolk of such buffoons .


reply posted on 15-1-2011 @ 04:07 PM by TKDRL
reply to post by Alethea





Person An entity recognized by the law as separate and independent, with legal rights and existence including the ability to sue and be sued, to sign contracts, to receive gifts, to appear in court either by themselves or by lawyer and, generally, other powers incidental to the full expression of the entity in law.


From canadian law, natural person, and human being are not in there at all hmm...



Person
n. 1) a human being. 2) a corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person. Counties and cities can be treated as a person in the same manner as a corporation. However, corporations, counties and cities cannot have the emotions of humans such as malice, and therefore are not liable for punitive damages unless there is a statute authorizing the award of punitive damages.


Natural person
n. a real human being, as distinguished from a corporation, which is often treated at law as a fictitious person.


Interesting. Human being not found in the law dictionary I found. WTF is that that I italicized? Is that a legal dictionary admitting to duping people?

Source for us law
edit on Sat, 15 Jan 2011 16:22:36 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 15-1-2011 @ 05:05 PM by aptness
The only ones doing “word trickery” are the people who believe and perpetuate this nonsense and delusion.

You make the claims that you derive your status from “common law,” but I have to wonder if you even know what the hell you’re talking about. It’s according to common law principles that, upon birth you are a citizen and owe allegiance to the sovereign (emperor, king, constitutional government, what have you).

In 1608, in what is called the Calvin’s Case, Sir Edward Coke, who was Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas in England, established the principle of birthright citizenship under common law. Coke noted that all persons born within any territory held by the King of England were to enjoy the benefits of English law as subjects of the King. A person born within the King’s dominion owed allegiance to the sovereign and in turn was entitled to the King's protection.

This is the same principle used in the United States to confer citizenship upon birth. In the landmark case United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), which reaffirmed this principle, the Supreme Court opinion’s, citing Justice Swayne in United States v. Rhodes (1866), noted—
All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England (...)

We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States.

It’s based on common law principles — that you claim you derive your status from — that you are a US citizen upon birth, if within the United States.

Even if you weren’t a US citizen, whenever in the jurisdiction of the United States, all persons are subject to US law. You can’t just make up a legal status to call and declare yourselves immune from US law.

Of course I don’t expect centuries of legal precedent and history to change your deluded minds, but I hope the rational members find this information to be useful.


reply posted on 15-1-2011 @ 08:57 PM by cupocoffee
The Republic for the united States of America has been re-inhabited:

www.republicfortheunitedstates.org...
www.bureauofrepublicrecords.org...

They are now issuing their own ID cards and everything.

Seems like very serious stuff for a bunch of "delusional", "mis-informed" people living a "fantasy"


reply posted on 15-1-2011 @ 10:46 PM by autowrench
reply to post by Mike_A



I have furnished both the local cops, and the county sheriff with my affidavit of "Claim of Right and Understanding." Nothing is filed, police all over are being trained for Freemans and Sovereigns. I have a friend who is an Ohio State cop, he told me this.


reply posted on 15-1-2011 @ 11:41 PM by Pauligirl
Originally posted by TKDRL. WTF is that that I italicized? Is that a legal dictionary admitting to duping people?

Source for us law
edit on Sat, 15 Jan 2011 16:22:36 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)


Just means that a corporation can do some things under the law that a person can do. Sue, be sued, enter contracts, buy and sell, all under the corporate name, rather than an individual name.


reply posted on 15-1-2011 @ 11:56 PM by cupocoffee
reply to post by autowrench



Hello autowrench,

You were saying you are a sovereign of the Republic of Ohio, does that mean you are involved with this group?

www.republicfortheunitedstates.org...

If so what is your opinion of Tim Turner and the rest of them? Charles Wright, Jim Fitzgerald, Nathan Peachey etc?

Could you elaborate on your experiences a bit more?

Thanks


reply posted on 16-1-2011 @ 12:59 AM by mistressSOPHIA
reply to post by MKULTRA



THE JUDGE HAS ABONDONED SHIP. I DISMISS THIS CASE WITH CAUSE AND PREDJUDICE!!!


reply posted on 16-1-2011 @ 01:29 AM by mistressSOPHIA
reply to post by nivekronnoco



all government, common laws and stautes ARE JUST MADE UP STUFF.. one day they dont exist.. then a group of PEOPLE get together and CREATE THEM, and impose them on other people.. what i think these officers and judges are RESPECTING when the SOVERIEGN FREEMAN arguement is used against them is that the individual is CREATING instead of SUBMITTING. once u submit you are at thier mercy.. but as long as YOU CREATE u are protected by the same POWERS that give them authority.. and if they deny you they deny thier powers
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^



A Really Sad Picture That I Saw Today, Left Me Speechless
  Posted 12 days ago with 148 member flags
Fact Check: First Lady\'s False Fairy Tale of Struggle
  Posted 6 days ago with 81 member flags
Coal miners say they were forced to attend Romney event and donate
  Posted 14 days ago with 71 member flags
Stephen King\'s Message
  Posted 10 days ago with 71 member flags
Paul Ryan Exposes Elite Agenda, "Shut Up" Says Banker
  Posted 10 days ago with 40 member flags