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.


Treason by Design

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 10:25 AM

Originally posted by drmeola

The Makeup of the Union,

Under international and constitutional law all [S]tates that are in the American union----which are also referred to as republics---are separate sovereignties, countries and nations.

When President Lincoln got Russia to send its Atlantic and Pacific Naval Fleets to Union ports to help stop the States demanding their was game over for State Sovereignty. That's when the US Civil Flag ceased flying over Federal buildings, and the gold border around the US Flag started being used.

Military Rule. End of Free people.

US States are no longer sovereign. They can't control anything within their borders. REAL ID act created Nationalized Drivers Licenses....ObamaCare created Nationalized healthcare...State militaries are now Federal....State Teachers and Police are now funded directly by the Federal Government.

California letting all those illegals enter their State so they could be counted in the California could get more House of Representative seats to steal more Federal Appropriations from States with REAL American citizens.....that was a Federal Order to bailout a insolvent NON-SOVEREIGN State.

posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 05:13 PM
reply to post by Pervius

Thank you for your post, however, if you did some study you would find out how mistaken on several points you are.

The Defacto not of right, color of law ie perceived.
The De Jure of right, common law.

Lincoln prior proclamation 100 was the elected President, afterwards he became the Commander and Chief, his declaration was never removed prior his assignation and the United States have been operating under Marshal Law ever since. The so called civil war never ended it simply became a silent war, we live with presumed rights and not actual rights, under Marshal Law they allow us to pretend to be free, allowing voting and if you haven't heard lately some states have let if slip that they were considering putting off until further notice Federal Elections, guess what that can only occur under Marshal Law.
This is just a small part of the lawful truth they have kept from you.

The 10th guarantees States Rights including its Sovereignties this they could NOT change no matter what other Amendments follow, however the citizens are a different story.

The 14th usurped citizen Nationality making all people within citizen/nationals of the United States and SUBJECT to.

Prior this enactment they/congress passed the means to correct status for a Democratic/defacto system to work it must be Voluntary, by our actions we accept this form of governance over the Republican/de jure guaranteed by the Constitution.

Both systems operate side by side, Democratic voluntary and the Republican form with its common law.

This is why so many patriot groups are clueless and have no standing in law, you can not replace something that already exists. The Republic has not gone any where, it is an individuals choice by which laws he/she wants to be represented by, this choice is made on your 18th birthday, of course they do not tell you this and by that time most have already applied for a drivers license or permit and before that your parents have applied for both birth certificate and Social Security numbers. This SS number use to be requested in high school to apply for it, but too many have learned the truth so now its done at birth.

The good news you can still correct your status lawfully removing oneself from the Defacto and placing yourself back into the Republic and its common law.
The process has been perfected by PAC and for over 12 years have been correcting individuals status. This status is recognized at all levels from the President to the patrol officer on the street. NO OTHERS can claim this. Again it is a lawful choice, remain a slave or become free from all their BS.

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 09:16 AM
Candidates are running around like crazy like always when elections are near, when are people going to start their education and realize its all a game. This thread should be viral, especial during election time.

Everyday people are protesting in the streets, crying about jobs, the government, Federal Reserve and so much more, when they could put their energy in learning the truth correcting their status and simply washing their hands of all the BS put out by the defacto.

Correct your status, join the republic guarantied in the Constitution that so many people cry out about but have no lawful understanding of.

Freedom is knocking at your door, take the first steps and begin to learn what so many of us have been denied.

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 09:49 AM
reply to post by drmeola

i am not an american but i have always believed that when texas joined the union there was a clause in the agreement that if they should so wish , they could opt out of the union and form twelve separate states .
now i don't know if this is still the case ,and just what advantage that would give them if any at all .

posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 08:05 PM
All States/Countries retain the right to leave/succeed from the Union except the original 13. But with many stipulations in place, put them aside, think how we got the land grant to America from King George to begin with. It took a war with the lose of many, so now think about a single State pick any one of them, like a lot of land beyond the original given from King George was either purchased or concurred. So again one State/Country surrounded by and facing all of the U.S Military power and political pressure would quickly be concurred and then titled as a Territory of the U.S instead of a Sovereign State.

To understand that short paragraph you have to continue your law studies on Territories and what that means, the Louisiana Purchase, and since each State has a different agreement with the Defacto system when joining the Union to begin with to find exactly what is needed to succeed.

So what is the answer, simple, the citizens of each State must leave the defacto democracy and correct their status, rejoining the existing de jure republic. The defacto only stays in power because its citizens have volunteered for it, no longer volunteer and lawfully be granted leave from it, then just like Rome the Union defacto will be no more and the Union de jure Republic guaranteed in the Constitution will once again stand tall as our founders intended.

edit on 15-2-2012 by drmeola because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 07:44 AM
Elections coming soon again, people just can't wait to commit treason against their rightful form of governance. Yet day after day on ATS all I see is masses of people talking about Aliens and their favorite candidates. When are people going to wake up and start educating themselves on the truth on the law and stop this Patriotard blather BS.

posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 11:38 AM
reply to post by drmeola

Excellent thread, I am glad someone brought PAC to ATS.

This is the single most important topic that could resurrect our dead republic.

posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 09:08 PM
Thank you for raising my blood pressure. My doctor did suggest I get my heart rate up and I can assure you that the writings of Lysander Spooner and associated comments have done that for me.

I'd like to ask Mr. Spooner about some of the court cases from the early 1900's and World War II, but he's been dead for 125 years. Things have changed since U. S. Grant.

I would also like to check my copy of the law dictionary for the terms that the author says he is using to prove his points, but Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1856 edition just isn't on my shelves.

And what can be done about the claim that the 14th Amendment is repugnant to the Constitution? It is part of the Constitution.

And what is the most repugnant part of the 14th? Why, Section 2, which we are assured is too difficult for normal people to understand, so the article chops it up into little pieces and tells us what they think it means.

I think better of you then that, so here it is.

But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Here's a translation, if you even need one, which I doubt.

If a state denies a male US citizen over the age of 21 the right to vote (unless it's for some crime), the state will lose a proportionate amount of representation.

This was to put pressure on the states to allow blacks to vote. It is not a crime to register to vote or to vote in a federal election. Any theory that leads to this conclusion is so suspect that a demand for serious evidence is required.

By the way, the article stresses the 14th Amendment was purportedly passed. If it wasn't passed, don't you think some lawyer would have made a succesful court case out of it by now?

There are more objections, but the OP's link won't let me cut and paste. I have to work from memory.

May I suggest that when your cases and definitions are a hundred years old and more, that you try a reassesment and bring your theories up to date?

posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 10:40 PM
I read the pdf and saved a copy of it... Now here is the question that I have...
How do I give up my citizenship to the Federal Government and keep my citizenship in my state government?

and another that just came to mind...
If I can accomplish the goal of the first question, am I then no longer held under the jurisdiction of federal enforcement agencys under international law?

Please someone if you could provide links to help me find this or just answear this and help set me in the path that would be very appreciated.

EDIT: I guess I should say assuming all of this pans out, It is late and I can not began to open this can of worms and dive in deep enough to do the appropriate amount of research without giving up all sleep and going into work in some sort of a zombie mode.
edit on 29-4-2012 by matt47274 because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 11:01 PM

Originally posted by drmeola

Treason by design,

This treatise will ask and answer such questions like: Are you a Traitor? Consenting to Government. Citizens explained according to law.

The Makeup of the Union,

Under international and constitutional law all [S]tates that are in the American union----which are also referred to as republics---are separate sovereignties, countries and nations. To assist in explaining this let us view the first set of legal definitions which are as follows:

Country. By country is meant the state of which one is a member; Every man's country is in general the state in which he happens to have been born.

And accordingly,

Nations. Nations or states are independent bodies politic; societies of men united together for the purpose of promoting their mutual safety and advantage by the joint efforts of their combined strength... i.e., your state/republic/country.

Ergo: Lawful "nationality" defined---pursuant to international law----is:

Nationality. The state of a person in relation to the nation in which he was born... i.e., your state reflects your nationality, e.g., Iowan, Ohioan, etc.

As you can plainly see, a county is a state, and a nation is somewhat synonymous with state. All states i.e., several states of America make-up the [U]nited States of America (Union) the incorporated unit makes-up the United States (the State of the Union).

Before this time, did you realize that the United States is not your nation? Doubtful, as most of us have been educated in the governmental (public) school system. Perhaps you are seeing some of the reasons why they do not teach law to the children in school.

This is just a small section of the document, the document contains footnotes and law book references. And now your eyes have begun to open to the truth, they have been keeping from us for the past 150 years.

What you will also discover is that Voting is a Crime, sounds nuts read the document and the laws that clearly say so. at this link you will find a collection of pdf's put out by PAC to further your study in the law.
edit on 30-10-2011 by drmeola because: to add ATS link

Hey if you repeat something often enough, people will catch on. As per voting being a crime, ehh how so again? As a Citizen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, I vote in Pennsylvania elections, as well as vote in elections to send a Representative and Senator to the Federal(treaty) Congress to represent the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in these United States of America.

The real traitors are those who use the words "the" instead of the correct usage of "these".

posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 01:15 AM
reply to post by matt47274

Dear matt47274,

Taking legal advice over the internet is a dangerous pastime, but following the advice of people who say you can declare yourself a "sovereign citizen," or somehow declare yourself unaffected by American laws while living here, is absolutely nuts.

How do I give up my citizenship to the Federal Government and keep my citizenship in my state government?
Here's how the State Department tells you to do it.


A person wishing to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship must voluntarily and with intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship:

1.appear in person before a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer, a foreign country (normally at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate); and
3.sign an oath of renunciation
Renunciations that do not meet the conditions described above have no legal effect. Because of the provisions of section 349(a)(5), Americans cannot effectively renounce their citizenship by mail, through an agent, or while in the United States.
Now you're in a foreign country, and you're not an American citizen. How do you plan on getting through Customs and back into the country? Are you going to sneak across the Mexican border? Maybe you'll be able to make it to a sanctuary city where you won't get turned in.

If you're not a native-born American, but simply naturalized, you can get rid of your naturalization. In that case you go back to your status before you were naturalized, maybe a Legal Permanent Resident. (Research that to see what your rights might be.)

(A) Citizens of the U.S . Occasionally, a citizen of the U.S. will want to become a permanent resident in order to renounce citizenship, to protest a particular political issue, to seek a (perceived) benefit not otherwise available, or for some other reason. Regardless of the reason, a citizen cannot apply for, and USCIS cannot entertain, an application for adjustment of status from citizen to LPR. ( Note: When a naturalized citizen is denaturalized, he or she reverts to the status held prior to the naturalization, which is usually that of lawful permanent resident. However, this process is not an adjustment to LPR, it is instead a loss of the naturalization.)

If I can accomplish the goal of the first question, am I then no longer held under the jurisdiction of federal enforcement agencys under international law?
I don't see how you can possibly win this one. Ask yourself if there is anyone the FBI is not allowed to arrest in this country. (I'm assuming you're not a foreign diplomat.

With respect,

posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 06:58 AM
Bouvier's Law Dictionary resnum=9&ved=0CGYQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q&f=false volume 1 Volume 2

Thread explains dual citizenship:

The one linked in the opening post is my main thread with about 50 links to further your study.

(except for participation in rebellion, or other crime) it does not say (unless it's for some crime) there is a very different meaning in words used in law as to the common speech, each word is as written do not assume it says or means something it does not.

The 14th (purportedly passed) was used because it was NOT ratified correctly, but the argument for that has passed so today yes it is part of the Constitution as it applies to today's system.

All posters first let me say thank you.

The question you are asking are very good and have been asked many times, what we have to remember is my threads are on law and each word must be compared to a law dictionary not our common language.

Anyone claiming sovereign citizen or citizen in any shape or form run from, they have no understanding in law.

Renunciation: BAD very bad this takes you out of the Union and could make one Stateless, this is NOT what PAC does and do not recommend that path to anyone.

The correct procedure would be Expatriation, however we do NOT expatriate to any country outside of the Union this is the key to freedom within the Union.
Explained further here:

Please remember we can teach you things never before seen by the average person and in 15 years of Status Corrections not one issue has ever come up involving the defacto system.

If you take the time to learn and study will help you with every question but please do not assume something as in thinking we are speaking about renunciation, sovereign or any other miss beliefs that have been around in the movement since none of them have standing in law. Congress passed the ONLY lawful means and the ONLY one recognized by the Union prior the passing of the 14th this had to be done to make everything appear lawful by its voluntary aspects. If it was not setup to be voluntary it would in fact be totally outlawed by the Supreme Court.

A few things you might just now be waking up to, one till now did you know that America or the United States in any form was and is NOT a Country? It is a Union of several States in law the word States is in fact a Country.

Constitution law that no law school will ever teach you but we will.

We the People, Who are we the people? If you answer you and I, then you have a lot of studying to do for sure. Remember the constitution is a contract a legal document and every word within has a specific meaning. From as far back as Vattel's Law of Nations to the Federalist papers and many more prove without a doubt that (We the People) have always meant the popular group, rulers, those in charge it has never meant the people of the population such as you and I. We have all been brainwashed to think otherwise, along with many other things taught in the public fool system or University of the defacto system because they have purposely kept law from us.

Will stop here and let you all read up on the links and will address any other questions as they are posted.
Thank you again for your interest in law.

posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 07:22 AM
For the individuals that say people using (the) instead of (these) or what ever their point my be in trying to change this one word within the document as I have seen many so called patriot groups do its obvious they have never read the constitution for every first print version clearly states The United States. Our minds are easily tricked into seeing things that are just not there, and is why there are many assumptions in our understanding of things. In fact after searching through many web sites could not even find ONE that read these United States.

posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 07:33 AM
reply to post by charles1952

Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856 edition

RESIDENCE. The place of one's domicil. (q. v.) There is a difference between a man's residence and his domicil. He may have his domicil in Philadelphia, and still he may have a residence in New York; for although a man can have but one domicil, he may have several residences. A residence is generally tran-sient in its nature, it becomes a domicil when it is taken up animo manendi. Roberts; Ecc. R. 75.

2. Residence is prima facie evidence of national character, but this may at all times be explained. When it is for a special purpose and transient in its nature, it does not destroy the national character.

ANIMUS MANENDI. The intention of remaining. To acquire a domicil, the party must have his abode in one place, with the intention of remaining there; for without such intention no new domicil can be gained, and the old will not be lost. See Domicile.


RESIDENT, persons. A person coming into a place with intention to establish his domicil or permanent residence, and who in consequence actually remains there. Time is not so essential as the intent, executed by making or beginning an actual establishment, though it be abandoned in a longer, or shorter period.

DOMICIL. The place where a person has fixed his ordinary dwelling, without a present intention of removal. 10 Mass. 488; 8 Cranch, 278; Ersk. Pr. of Law of Scotl. B. 1, tit. 2, s. 9; Denisart, tit. Domicile, 1, 7, 18, 19; Voet, Pandect, lib. 5, tit. 1, 92, 97; 5 Madd. Ch. R. 379; Merl. Rep. tit. Domicile; 1 Binn. 349, n.; 4 Humph. 346. The law of domicil is of great importance in those countries where the maxim "actor sequitur forum rei" is applied to the full extent. Code Civil, art. 102, &c.; 1 Toullier, 318.

2. A man cannot be without a domicil, for he is not supposed to have abandoned his last domicil until he has acquired a new one. 5 Ves. 587; 3 Robins. 191; 1 Binn. 349, n.; 10 Pick. 77. Though by the Roman law a man might abandon his domicil, and, until be acquired a. new one, he was without a domicil. By fixing his residence at two different places a man may have two domicils at one and the same time; as, for example, if a foreigner, coming to this country, should establish two houses, one in New York and the, other in New Orleans, and pass one-half of the year in each; he would, for most purposes, have two domicils. But it is to be observed that circumstances which might be held sufficient to establish a commercial domicil in time of war, and a matrimonial, or forensic or political domicil in time of peace, might not be such as would establish a principal or testamentary domicil, for there is a wide difference in applying the law of domicil to contracts and to wills. Phill. on Dom. xx; 11 Pick. 410 10 Mass. 488; 4 Wash. C. C. R. 514.

3. There are three kinds of domicils, namely: 1. The domicil of origin. domicilium originis vel naturale. 2. The domicil by operation of law, or necessary domicil. 3. Domicil of choice.

4. - §1. By domicil of origin is understood the home of a man's parents, not the place where, the parents being on a visit or journey, a child happens to be born. 2 B. & P. 231, note; 3 Ves. 198. Domicil of origin is to be distinguished from the accidental place of birth. 1 Binn. 349.

5. - §2. There are two classes of persons who acquire domicil by operation of law. 1st. Those who are under the control of another, and to whom the law gives the domicil of another. Among these are, 1. The wife. 2. The minor. 3. The lunatic, &c. 2d. Those on whom the state affixes a domicil. Among this class are found, 1. The officer. 2. The prisoner, &c.

posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 07:50 AM
reply to post by dalan.

7. - 2d. The law affixes a domicil. 1. Public officers, such as the president of the United States, the secretaries and such other officers whose public duties require a temporary residence at the capital, retain their domicils. Ambassadors preserve the domicils which they have in their respective countries, and this privilege extends to the ambassador's family. Officers, soldiers, and marines, in the service of the United States, do not lose their domicils while thus employed. 2. A prisoner does not acquire a domicil where the prison is, nor lose his old. 1 Milw. R. 191, 2.

8. - §3. The domicil of origin, which has already been explained, remains until another has been acquired. In order to change such domicil; there must be an actual removal with an intention to reside in the place to which the party removes. 3 Wash. C. C. R. 546. A mere intention to remove, unless such intention is carried into effect, is not sufficient. 5 Greenl. R. 143. When he changes it, he acquires a domicil in the. place of his new residence, and loses his original domicil. But upon a return with an intention to reside, his original domicil is restored. 3 Rawle, 312; 1 Gallis. 274, 284; 5 Rob. Adm. R. 99.

BODY POLITIC, government, corporations. When applied to the government this phrase signifies the state.

2. As to the persons who compose the body politic, they take collectively the name, of people, or nation; and individually they are citizens, when considered in relation to their political rights, and subjects as being submitted to the laws of the state.

3. When it refers to corporations, the term body politic means that the members of such corporations shall be considered as an artificial person.

NATIONALITY. The state of a person in relation to the nation in which he was born.

2. A man retains his nationality of origin during bis minority, but, as in the case of his domicil of origin, he may change his nationality upon attaining full age; he cannot, however, renounce his allegiance without permission of the government. See Citizen; Domicil; Expatriation; Naturalization; Foelix, Du Dr. Intern. prive, n. 26; 8 Cranch, 263; 8 Cranch, 253; Chit. Law of Nat. 31 2 Gall. 485; 1 Gall. 545.

NATIONS. Nations or states are independent bodies politic; societies of men united together for the purpose of promoting their mutual safety and advantage by the joint efforts of their combined strength.

STATE, government. This word is used in various senses. In its most enlarged sense, it signifies a self-sufficient body of persons united together in one community for the defence of their rights, and to do right and justice to foreigners. In this sense, the state means the whole people united into one body politic; (q. v.) and the state, and the people of the state, are equivalent expressions. 1 Pet. Cond. Rep. 37 to 39; 3 Dall. 93; 2 Dall. 425; 2 Wilson's Lect. 120; Dane's Appx. §50, p. 63 1 Story, Const. §361. In a more limited sense, the word `state' expresses merely the positive or actual organization of the legislative, or judicial powers; thus the actual government of the state is designated by the name of the state; hence the expression, the state has passed such a law, or prohibited such an act. State also means the section of territory occupied by a state, as the state of Pennsylvania.

2. By the word state is also meant, more particularly, one of the commonwealths which form the United States of America.

COUNTRY. By country is meant the state of which one is a member.

2. Every man's country is in general the state in which he happens to have been born, though there are some exceptions. See Domicil; Inhabitant. But a man has the natural right to expatriate himself, i. e. to abandon his country, or his right of citizenship acquired by means of naturalization in any country in which he may have taken up his residence. See Allegiance; Citizen; Expatriation. in another sense, country is the same as pais. (q. v.)

posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 05:57 PM
reply to post by charles1952

I have only skimmed your response thus far and will fully read it at the moment that I finish typing this. I just wanted to first say thank you for the direct and quick response in what looks to be the answearing of the qustions I posed. I must now clarify that I had asked those in a kind of by the seat of the pants fashion, mostly with the intrest to see what kind of responses I would gain. I truly have no intrest in giving up my citizenship.

I had just gotten to this thread as my last thread of the night I was going to investegate into and must admit I did not even fully read what the OP had written, instead I went to the .pdf and read it. Now granted I know that law dictionaries from so long ago have lost a lot of relavince and that what I was reading was written with a purpose that would make the info contained questionable, but I did find it an intresting read. I also can say that it gave me a couple intresting thoughts to ponder on later.

Now this is where I must admit my ignorance showed through last night in typing the reply I did, and for that I am sorry. I should not use ats to solicite answears to questions I know to be silly. Rest assured I will be more concious in the future to what I type here, and be even more certain I never take legal advice from the internet I have a prosecuter as a budy and a final year law school student I direct my legal questions to. Anyways now I am off to read your post in its entirety.

posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 09:36 PM
reply to post by matt47274

Dear matt47274,

Of course you're welcome, but may I encourage you to take it easy around here. I almost never have a perfectly polished and reasoned reply. It's perfectly all right to say "Hey guys! This is my thinking so far, can anyone check me out on it?" Go ahead and write a lot, pretend it's a converstaion and not an essay exam.

When it comes time to needing a real answer, go to your State Bar Association and ask for the name of a lawyer who is a specialist in your field and is willing to give free thirty-minute consultations. Your friends are good for a general start on legal questions, but when you've got to know, ask a pro.

With respect,

posted on May, 1 2012 @ 08:24 AM
Thank you all for the postings,

To answer some common questions since they have come up over the years and noticed a few within this thread.

First and always trust but verify.
Second and an very important the law definitions never change, they add or use different wording to keep not only the average person but even the lawyers themselves from fully understanding its intent.
The link for the law dictionary I posted is one of the oldest it is also the one used by most judges for the simple fact the law never changes its intent.

Also keep in mind that the Constitution is a contract and to best understand it we use the dictionary in print closest to the signing of the document/contract, and why we use Bouvier's.

Another question is jurisdiction, if you think about it comes very easy to understand.
FBI, Federal Bureau of Investigations the words speak for themselves, Federal this is the jurisdiction they over see since all citizens are members of the body politic of DC they have jurisdiction over them. However corrected status places you in the Republic which is de jure common law jurisdiction and NOT Federal this explains why even the FBI can make no claims upon one with status. Except for those that violate the common law ie murder rape ext.. with status you are only responsible for damages caused by your actions as long as no damage or physical harm and you do not violate another's rights then you have never broken the law. Every wonder why the elitist never seem to get into trouble with the law? Many think its because of their wealth, truth be told NO it is their status, all of them are State Nationals the ones whom hold true power over the defacto and you as well can hold that power and be the true lawful leaders in the Union.

For those who wish to remain citizens we welcome you to learn and get educated with us, status is NOT for everyone and many will not be able to make this move. However all can help educate others especially the younger generation so they do not become slaves and further the defacto NWO madness.

Another rule of thumb, NEVER study case law, there is way to much BAD case law on the books and will distract from true solid law.

Lawyers and Attorneys both work to keep the better interest of the Defacto and NOT the clients best interest no matter what they say. My back ground 2 years of pre law, over one year on the police force till I woke up to the politics and told my superiors to shove it. Many family members still in law enforcement some very high level, two doctors and yes two attorneys one is not just a regular lawyer, but a high level attorney for HLS. So lets just say even with all their education and after studying real law, have taught them a thing or two and all have come back and said how the hell did I find out about all this and that yes I was correct but would say little else about it . Told them about PAC, State Nationals have even been visited by Attorney Generals from several States/Countries because they know the truth as they ware two hats one of the common law for those with status and the defacto that all know about.

Lawyers learn procedures they do NOT learn law until much further into their careers, some go off into corporate law others contract law, and many whom work for the courts has said they even thought we operated under Admiralty law. Yes laugh but that is how stupid even the court employees are kept, after spending time educating these individuals they quickly in a matter of months learn more truth about law then 4 years in law school.
Study the materials learn real solid law and in no time you will learn more law then any lawyer/attorney BAR member out there this is where the real power is and trust me once you have the knowledge and confidence and sit down in the courthouse hallways with a prosecutor and start sharing the things you learned they will quickly drop all charges because they do NOT want that information out in open court. This works with or without status and you can play their game with their ball on their court and win.

It is after all a game and just like any sport its more fun watching it live then on TV so spend time hanging out at the courthouse watch the game get comfortable with the setting this gives you confidence and once you learn solid law start to speak with some of these so called attorneys in the hallways you might teach them a thing or two. Remember its a game but you need to know the rules of the game in order to play, yes you will need to learn some procedures because these vary from State to State and all that will be covered.

With status all this goes away since you will no longer be under their jurisdiction and never have to step foot on one of their courts to play again. All law but the common is private law and pertains ONLY to citizens with their many permits instead of total freedom as granted by God.

posted on May, 1 2012 @ 08:46 PM
reply to post by drmeola

I wish I could give you a million stars.

posted on May, 1 2012 @ 09:21 PM
My conscience doesn't allow me to leave this thread without a warning. The gentlest way I can put it is that drmeola has advanced an interesting theory based on pre-civil war legal theories. It is kind of fun to look through these ancient writings to see things which have been discarded in the last century and a half. Some little bits of the theory here and there may still be true, but so much has changed.

These theories are interesting in the same way as Mayan calendars predicting the end of everything in 2012 are interesting. Fun reading , but if you ever need to know something legal please go to someone who has a law degree and has succesfully applied these principles in courts beyond municipal courts. You can sometimes get past a local judge who doesn't want to be bothered by some one spouting off mumbo-jumbo for an hour. But you should be talking to someone who has won at federal District Court, or state Supreme Court, or at least several well-fought trials.

(And yes, I have much more than two years of pre-law)

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in