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.


Do you have your rights?

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 15 2011 @ 01:15 PM
I have included many quotes in this thread and have purposefully tried to keep my own opinions out as much as possible to attempt to try to present facts through case law.

Do you have your rights?

Remember back when you first learned about the Constitution in about the 3rd grade. The teacher happily taught you about all these freedoms you had and just how great America was because of this. They would tell you about all these great freedoms that your supposed to have such as the freedom of speech to say and publish absolutely anything you would like or the freedom of/from religion. The lifestyle this teacher was explaining gives people unlimited freedom as long as they are NOT infringing on the rights of others. No Victim No Crime. I'm also sure that most in this country realize that the constitution does not give people their rights it simply specifically says what the government can't do in order to secure these rights.

”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.”
[Deceleration of Independence]

So all human beings are given their rights from THEIR CREATOR not from their governments. Governments are there for the purpose described below...

“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 to 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.”
[Declaration of Independence]

These documents also describe a number of other things the government is not allowed to do such as a direct tax (income) or not allowing Titles of Nobility.

“No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken...
...No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”
[Constitution for the united states of America ; Section 9]

Continuing on they also specifically say that governments are not allowed to emit Bills of Credit or use anything but silver and gold...

“No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.”
[Constitution for the united states of America ; Section 10]

Thomas Jefferson, unlike the majority of Americans today, knew how big of a tragedy it would be if banks controlled the money and used a fiat currency. This quote rings a lot of bells when applying it to the Federal Reserve and what they have done to our economy over the past 100 years.

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies . . . If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around . . . will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered . . . The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."
[Thomas Jefferson - The Debate Over The Recharter Of The Bank Bill (1809)]

"Very soon, every American will be required to register their biological property in a national system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda which will affect our security as a charge back for our fiat paper currency (Federal Reserve Notes). Every American will be forced to register or suffer being able to earn a fer living. They will be our chattel, and we will hold security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions. Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading (birth certificate) to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent (exchanging your energy for worthless debt instruments), forever to remain economic slaves through taxation, secured by their pledges (your social security card). They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be none the wiser, f not one man in a million could ever figure or our plans and if by accident one or two should figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability. After all, this is the only logical way to fund the government, by floating liens and debt to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap to us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor to this fraud which we will call "Social Insurance. " Without realizing it, every American will insure us for any loss we may incur and in this manner every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and without any hope f or their redemption and we will employ the high office of the President of our dummy corporation to foment this plot against America."
[Edward Mandell House (1913)]

“There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States...In this country the sovereignty resides in the people, and Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it. All else is withheld.”
[Juilliard v Greenman, 110 U.S. 421 (1884)]

Sovereign n. 1. A person, body, or state vested with independent and supreme authority, 2. The ruler of an independent state.
[Blacks Law Dictionary 8th Edition]

“The idea prevails with some, indeed it has found expression in arguments at the bar that we have in this country substantially two national governments: one to be maintained under the Constitution(Sovereign), with all of its restrictions: the other to be maintained by Congress(corporate side) outside the independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to... I take leave to say that, if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court a radical and mischievous change in our system of government will result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism. It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of a government outside the supreme law of the land finds lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the Constitution.”
[Downes v Bidwell 182 U.S. 244 (1901)]

I'm sure many here on ATS have heard about the straw-man/sovereign. If you haven't I hope this thread gives a good idea of what is going on in our government today. Again if you remember back to grade school when you were taught to write your name it was supposed to look like this: John Doe. Now go look at your Social Security card, drivers license, marriage license, voter registration, or any legal or financial document and you will notice that your name ALWAYS appears like this: JOHN DOE. Most have always simply dismissed this justifying it by saying they use capital letters to avoid the confusion that lower case can cause but this is incorrect. When a name is in all caps it refers to a corporation or a dead person. What has happened is all government license like social security is essentially a contract that created a corporation that was named after the name on your birth certificate. Corporations are not people and they do not have rights endowed to them by their creator but are subject to corporate law. So every time you the human being place your signature(John Doe) on a document that also contains your corporation name (JOHN DOE) you are contracting with it stating you are liable and must follow the same laws as the corporation does thus effectively eliminating all your guaranteed constitutional rights via contract.
In order to get these contracts the government will also want to make sure that your are a “U.S. Citizen” which is a certain type of citizenship that surrenders your natural rights. I will delve into this in just minute.

“Corporations are also of all grades, and made for varied objects; all governments are corporations, created by usage and common consent, or grants or charters, which create a body politic for prescribed purposes; but whether they are private, local or general, in their objects, for the enjoyment of property, or the exercise of power, they are all governed by the same rules of law, as to the construction and the obligation of the instrument by which the incorporation is made. One universal rule of law protects persons and property”
[Proprietors of Charles River Bridge v. Proprietors of Warren Bridge, 36 U.S. 420 (1837)]

“The privelages and immunities of citizen of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal Constitution against the powers of the Federal Government.”
[Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581 (1899)]

In this quote it shows us that they replace your rights for privileges and benefits which usually are injurious to your God given rights

“The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship of the agencies of government.”
[City of Dallas v. Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944]

“Anyone who partakes of the benefits or privileges of a given statue, or anyone who even places himself into a position where he may avail himself of those benefits at will cannot reach constitutional grounds to redress grievances in the courts against the given statute.”
[Ashwander v T.V.A., 297 U.S. 288, 346, 56 S. Ct. 466, 482, 80 L.Ed. 688 (1936)]

This makes it very obvious to say that anyone who partakes in benefits of a given statue such as Social Security cannot use Constitutional means to protect themselves from unjust laws formed as the terms and conditions for the SS contract.

“...still the obligation to pay taxes is not penal. It is a statutory liability, quasi contractual in nature, enforceable, if there is no exclusive statutory remedy, in the civil courts by the common-law action of debt or indebitatus assumpsit.”
[Milwaukee v White, 296 U.S. 268 (1935)]

“The right to associate or not associate with others solely on the basis of individual choice, but being absolute, may conflict with a societal interest in requiring one to associate with others, or to prohibit one from associating with others, in order to accomplish what the state deems to be common good. The supreme Court though rarely called upon to examine this aspect of the right to freedom of association, has nevertheless established certain basic rules which will cover many situations involving forced or prohibited associations. Thus were a sufficiently compelling state interest outside the political spectrum, can be accomplished only by requiring individuals to associate together for the common good, then such forced association is constitutional. But the Supreme Court has made it clear that compelling an individual to become a member of an organization which financially supports, in more than an insignificant way, political personages or goals which the individual does not wish to support, is an infringement of the individual's constitutional right to freedom of association. The First Amendment prevents the government, except in the most compelling circumstances, from wielding its power to interfere with its employees' freedom to believe and associate, or to not believe and not associate; it is not merely a tenure provision that protects public employees from actual or constructive discharge. Thus, First Amendment principles prohibit a state from compelling any individual to associate with a political party as a condition of retaining public employment.”
[American Jurisprudence 2d, Constitutional law, §546: Forced and Prohibited Associations]

“...railroad benefits, like social security benefits, are not contractual and may be altered or even eliminated at any time.”
[United States Railroad Retirement Board v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166 (1980)]

“Thus, the Court has frequently held that domicile or residence, more substantial than mere presence in transit or sojourn, is an adequate basis for taxation, including income, property, and death taxes. Since the Fourteenth Amendment makes one a citizen of the state where in he resides, the fact of residence creates universally reciprocal duties of protection by the state of allegiance and support by the citizen. The latter obviously includes a duty to pay taxes, and their nature and measure is largely a political matter.”
[Miller Brothers Co. v. Maryland, 347 U.S. 340 (1954)]

Next I will talk about the whole matter of being a “U.S. Citizen” and just exactly what that means. It is also important for one to know the all federal territory like the District of Columbia is considered a foreign entity in regards to all the states of the union. So take a look at a few of the definitions found in the USC and lets see how they apply to us.

Definition : “United States” 28 USC §3002(15)
“(15)”United States” means -
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B)an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C)an instrumentality of the United States”

Definition : “United States person” 26 USC §7701(a)(30)
“The term “United States person” means—
(A) a citizen or resident of the United States,
(B) a domestic partnership,
(C) a domestic corporation,
(D) any estate (other than a foreign estate, within the meaning of paragraph (31)), and
(E) any trust if—
(i) a court within the United States is able to exercise primary supervision over the administration of the trust, and
(ii)one or more United States persons have the authority to control all substantial decisions of the trust.”

Definition : “individual” 5 USC §552a(a)(2)
“the term “individual” means a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence;”

"In common usage, the term "person" does not include the sovereign, and statutes employing it will ordinarily not be construed to do so." U . S . v. United Mine Workers, 330 US 25 8 ( 1 947) , 91 L.Ed 8 84,
67 S .Ct. 677.

"Since in common usage, the term person does not include a Sovereign, statutes not implying the phrases are ordinarily construed to exclude it." 1 U.S.C.S. 1 , n 1 2 , United States vs. Fox , 94 U . S . 3 1 5 .

So by being a “US Citizen” you are effectively part of the federal corporation and if you are a “person” or “individual” you are a corporation as well that is contracted under that federal one and NOT a sovereign. Take a look at the next quote from congress discussing the difference of “includes” and “including”.

Treasury Decision 3980, Vol. 29, January-December, 1927, pgs. 64 and 65 defines the words includes and including as: “(1) To comprise, comprehend, or embrace…(2) To enclose within; contain; confine…But granting that the word ‘including’ is a term of enlargement, it is clear that it only performs that office by introducing the specific elements constituting the enlargement.  It thus, and thus only, enlarges the otherwise more limited, preceding general language…The word ‘including’ is obviously used in the sense of its synonyms, comprising; comprehending; embracing.”
“Includes is a word of limitation.  Where a general term in Statute is followed by the word, ‘including’ the primary import of the specific words following the quoted words is to indicate restriction rather than enlargement.  Powers ex re. Covon v. Charron R.I., 135 A. 2nd 829, 832 Definitions-Words and Phrases pages 156-156, Words and Phrases under ‘limitations’.”

“Expressio unius est exclusio alterlus.” Which means 'the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another'.
Maxim of Law

So “includes” is a word of limitation. And “including” is a word of enlargement meaning there is more too it. So now do you live in a State?

Definition : “State” 42 USC §1301(a)(3)
“The term 'State', except where otherwise provided, includes the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and when used in titles IV, V, VII, XI, XIX and XXI includes the Virgin Islands and Guam. Such term when used in titles III, IX, and XII also includes the Virgin Islands. Such term when used in title v. and in part B of this title also includes American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. Such term when used in titles XIX and XXI also includes the Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa. In the case of Puerto Rico, th Virgin Islands, and Guam, titles, X, and XIV, and title XVI (as in effect without regard to the amendment made by section 301 of he Social Security Amendments of 1972) shall continue to apply, and the term 'State' when used in such titles (but not in title XVI as in effect pursuant to such amendment after December 31, 1973) includes Puerto Rico, he Virgin Islands, and Guam. Such term when used in title XX also includes the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands. Such term when used in title IV also includes American Samoa.”

Sounds to me like the definition of State according to the USC is strictly limited to federal territory ONLY and not the states of the union. They also threw this law in there for any US Citizen not residing in federal territory is considered to be domiciled in District of Columbia for purpose of court jurisdiction... How convenient is that now they have full jurisdiction over you.

Definition : “persons residing outside United States” 26 USC §7701(a)(39)
“If any citizen or resident of the United States does not reside in (and is not found in) any United States judicial district, such citizen or resident shall be treated as residing in the District of Columbia for purposes of any provision of this title relating to—
(A) jurisdiction of courts, or
(B) enforcement of summons.”

“Dulocracy: A government where servants and slaves have so much license and privilege that they domineer.”
[Black's Law Dictionary]

The main purpose of this thread is to get people to realize how much the government, private corporations and financial institutions have been systematically taking away their rights and exploiting the founding principles of this country. I have barely grazed the surface with this thread but there is mountains of information readily available on this subject and it is imperative that Americans, at the bare minimum, become educated about the true history of America.

Thanks to the following Websites and E-book's for making this information avalible
Barefoot's World
Detax Canada
The Global Sovereigns Handbook
Redemption Manual 4.5 (sorry no link)

posted on May, 15 2011 @ 03:15 PM
reply to post by xSe7eNx

Very nice post. S&F, and do you realize that YOU must file a UCC-1 to start the process to undo all this BS? Many people have taken this route and it is an uphill battle, MORE PEOPLE NEED TO DO THIS!!

This is the ONLY way we are going to get our country back!!

I will post more later, ProtoplasmicTraveler would also be interested in this thread as he as well has done extensive research into this BS.

posted on May, 15 2011 @ 03:28 PM

Originally posted by daddio
reply to post by xSe7eNx

Very nice post. S&F, and do you realize that YOU must file a UCC-1 to start the process to undo all this BS? Many people have taken this route and it is an uphill battle, MORE PEOPLE NEED TO DO THIS!!

This is the ONLY way we are going to get our country back!!

I will post more later, ProtoplasmicTraveler would also be interested in this thread as he as well has done extensive research into this BS.

Yes I've researched this topic quite extensively I am aware of the filing of UCC-1. Some people say you can file a UCC-1 and basically take control of your straw-man without eliminating all licenses and other contracts but signing your name with reservation of rights is very important UCC 1-308 formerly UCC 1-207 . You are right that it is and will be a major uphill battle but this is the way to reclaim our country without having to lead to violence. Unfortunately TPTB have spent a long time making sure their system is extremely difficult to know good enough to get out. I am hoping this thread can turn into a collective effort to further this goal and do more research till all the details can be discovered and expose true corruption. This is one of those topics that is not merely just theory but is based upon cold hard FACTS and these criminals need to be exposed and people need to reclaim their freedoms. I hope Proto makes a visit i have the up most respect for him and value his opinions.

posted on May, 15 2011 @ 04:25 PM
Star and Flag buddy. Just imagine the potential of this country if it was actually run for the people by the people. Instead it is for the rich by the rich. Thomas Jefferson would be mightily disappoint.

posted on May, 15 2011 @ 05:42 PM
Long post. The one thing I do know is that you should always know your rights.

new topics

top topics

log in