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.


Constitution Lesson One, finding Freedom

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on May, 1 2012 @ 10:49 PM
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Star for you, it appears you are doing all you can correctly and can stand on your own in their court, in a lot of ways you are correct. My only concern is that if you do get a ticket or summons of sorts you will spend a lot of time defending your position and this may in fact lead to dismissal depending on the mood of the court on that day.

The difference is with status you no longer need to defend your position once the government grants you leave and you never have to waist time in their playground.

But what you say is true especially that you can not have your cake and eat it too if you opt out of all contracts with the defacto it must be ALL and not pick and choose.

Excellent job and I applaud you in your efforts and wish you the very best of luck.
Please continue to bring forth your knowledge as many will not be able to correct status since they have been to deeply contracted and dependant upon the system.

No I did not take any offense or think you were being argumentative was just clearing the air for other readers that may get that assumption/impression.

Thank you as always for your responses and look forward to reading more.

posted on May, 1 2012 @ 11:59 PM
reply to post by drmeola

Forgive me for what may now seem at this point argumentative, or at the very least quibbling, but words are my passion, and I am compelled to point out that I would never say that "you can't have your cake and eat it too". Quite logically speaking the only way anyone can eat cake is to have it first. What I might say is that you can't eat your cake and have it too.

In terms of tickets and defending my position, I have really never had this problem as what I do is challenge jurisdiction which then forces my accusers to defend their position, and prove on record they actually have jurisdiction.

Several years back I was cash poor and though I really did not want to sell the DVD collection I had so lovingly built through buying over 300 store bought DVD's, I needed the cash to keep me afloat in my efforts to break away from a tyrannical system. So, I stood on a sidewalk where many other street vendors sell their wares and was doing quite well in selling my collection. Then two police officers rolled up and demanded I pack up my stuff and move along. I had not noticed until this moment that all the vendors had scurried away. I respectfully told the cops "I'm sorry, I don't understand." Their reaction was to repeat themselves only louder and more forcefully. I responded by getting even quieter, but also repeating myself.

The cops jumped out of their car and one shoved me against the wall and began to handcuff me. I said: "Are you detaining me?" The "officer" looked at me like I was stupid and said "Yes". I replied: "I'm sorry, I don't understand". The cop put his hand on his baton and said: "Say that again! Say that again!" I sighed and shut up long enough to let these clowns calm down a bit. While I was in cuffs, both officers worked mightily to get me to admit to once having a drivers license. I politely refused to do so and said: "I respectfully request you call the Sheriff's". "The Sheriff's?" They both said, looking a lot like this:

One of them asked why. I explained that I wanted someone with actual jurisdiction present. This, of course, agitated these two clowns, but something changed in their demeanor. The one who handcuffed me was no longer looking at me like I was stupid. The other police officer asked for my Social Security Number. I told him I did not own any such number. He saw right through my game of semantics and rolled his eyes and said: "Okay, what about the one that was issued to you by the federal government?" I smiled appreciating his cleverness and said: "It is my understanding that such a number is to be used for one purpose and one purpose only and is not in any way a fiat national...." He interrupted and said: "Okay, okay, okay. Never mind." I again respectfully requested they called the Sheriff but got no response as both walked a few feet away and began talking in hushed tones with each other.

Finally, the walked back over to me, and I was beginning to lose my patience. I said: "Listen, this is now the third time I am respectfully requesting the Sheriff's, why won't you comply?" The one who handcuffed me said: "We don't need to call the Sheriff's". I said: "Why not?" He answered: "Because we're not arresting you." I said: "Then what am I doing in these handcuffs." He said: "We're going to take them off in just a second", then he went into the drivers side of his cruiser, as the other handcuffed me. Then the one in the cruiser stepped out with a ticket book and said: "What I am about to do and say I have no doubt you will want to argue with, but before you do, just let me say my spiel and then you can say yours, fair enough?" I agreed to this and let him say his spiel. "By signing this you are not admitting to any blah blah blah...." When he was done, he paused to let me say my "spiel".

All I said was: "What about granting jurisdiction?" He replied: "No. We get that you are challenging our jurisdiction, but by signing this you are not granting us any jurisdiction." I answered: "But I am granting someone jurisdiction with this". The other responded: "Yes, the court, but that's what you want isn't it? Your day in court?" The other one said: "It seems to me that with everything that's come out of your mouth you should have no problem beating this in court". The other said: "I have no doubt you'll beat this in court." I replied: "If you believe this, then why are you even bothering with the citation?" They both looked at me, then each other, then around the area and suddenly it occurred to me why they were citing me. It was all just a dog and pony show for all the other vendors who had scurried off, but were probably watching as I stood there being harassed by two police "officers".

To be continued...
edit on 2-5-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 2 2012 @ 12:22 AM

Making a long story short - I know, too late - I signed the ticket and wrote it was under duress and at arms length, of which the officers expected. There was a little bit of a conversation between us, of which I had originally written down put then stupidly posted the latter post before the former, and in doing so I had to edit out that effort in order to have the former post in the correct chronological order. Sigh.

Anyway, I went to court about five weeks later. My fingers are getting a bit tired, so here is the abridged version of what I all ready wrote but had to delete due to my own stupidity.

I informed the ADA that I was challenging jurisdiction, but this clown scoffed at me and so when the judge got to my case he read the charge against me and asked me if I understood the charge. I told him I did not. He asked if I wanted a translator. I told him I spoke English fluently. He then re-read the charge against me and again asked me if I understood the charge. I again told him I did not. Perplexed he asked me what was so hard to understand about it. I told him that I did not understand how any legislature found the authority to prohibit street vending.

He looked annoyed and said: "Don't think for one single second that I am going to allow you to bring the federal Constitution into my court room." I answered: "Oh, don't worry your honor, I am not going to bring the federal Constitution into the Peoples court." He looked a tad annoyed at my correction, but answered: "Good." I then said: "I am, however, going to bring in the State Constitution." He looked at me with what appeared to be a suppressed smile and said: "Okay, what have you got." Here is what I cited from the California State Constitution:

SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.

The judges smile got bigger and more genuine and he asked me if I was asking for a dismissal of the charge. I explained that I was challenging the jurisdiction and that failing any proof on record of such jurisdiction that the judge had no other authority than to dismiss, but then I asked him to strike the ordinance down. This request is what prolonged my time in this court. In the end, I was unable to convince the judge to strike the ordinance down, but of course, got my dismissal.

Another incident involved me being cited for "driving without a license". I entered the traffic court and again challenged the jurisdiction. This experience had no smiling judge that seemed to genuinely like me, and lasted a bit longer than the other, but even as angry as this traffic court judge was at my challenges, in the end, he dismissed the citation and demanded I leave his court room and to never show my face in it again.

I do not mean to imply that all of this is really simple and easy. It is not. Indeed, because of my current position, I struggle greatly to survive the system that has closed itself to me. I did not pick any fight with the government, they picked the fight with me. I would gladly surrender if anyone would offer some decent term of surrender, but no one has, so I continue to struggle and and to fight the good fight. Maybe even if some equitable term of surrender was offered I wouldn't be so greedy, but I swear to God there are days when I am certain I would take any equitable term of surrender just because sometimes it is better to survive than not survive.

I've said it before, I'll say it again, because bares repeating: Fighting for freedom ain't easy, if it were everyone would do it.

posted on May, 2 2012 @ 09:07 AM
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Thank you, Jean Paul Zodeaux, you are very correct in that if it were easy, everyone would be doing it, and the truth is, most just line up and pay, never questioning whether they have any Rights, of whether the sitting authority even has proper jurisdiction over your venue. I find that placing the Local LEOs on notice that I am a Sovereign, and will happily waste their time, if they deem it necessary to waste mine, and will fight each and every ticket, and will place written affidavits of claim in their files, and with Civilian Review Board. Star and Flag.

posted on May, 2 2012 @ 10:10 AM
Morning all Jean like always star and applaud you wish we have more like yourself in the Union, I see your in California that is great for the simple reason it is one place in the Union that you can do exactly what you are doing using California codes and constitution to support your stance. Great job.

In other States/Countries in the Union they are not as lucky do to the statues and constitutions makes things a little more difficult but not impossible, it comes down to standing your ground and using the correct verbiage to defend your position and this varies from State to State so everyone please read up on your own constitutions and procedures so you can make a stand as Jean has done.

Autowrench, my only comment of a negative nature to your post is the use of the word Sovereign and encourage you to please start looking such words up in the law dictionaries many free on the web, for there is no such thing as a sovereign citizen does not exist in law or in nature, in law and nature the sovereignty has always been with the state/land. You must own in allodia/allodial title land and have subjects to rule over to be considered sovereign that is the law sorry and why the sovereign movement has no standing they simple do not understand the laws involved when making such claims.

Much like the man on the land BS, these individuals think we operate under Admiralty Law but we do not. More can be studied on these and other miss beliefs here:

edit on 2-5-2012 by drmeola because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 2 2012 @ 10:41 AM

Hey Jean, read over this pdf link it can help you and anyone else in this fight for freedom. Would love to make a new thread with this link but in the process of try to abridge a short version feel to much would be missed as few individuals really read over links provide within a posting or thread. Would love for your input on this what I feel to be a very important document.

Thank you in advance looking forward to your response.

posted on May, 4 2012 @ 12:47 PM
We must admit that, so far, we have not lived up to the high ideals of our constitution, and we have failed miserably in our vows to protect it, and we don’t even see this as true because of the manipulations of those who hold the purse strings.

If we were to take an honest look at what we call the Federal Reserve Bank, the Internal Revenue Service, and income tax, and the unconstitutional amendments to the constitution which allowed them to be created, we might see and understand that the “Fed” isn’t even a government institution and is wholly owned and controlled by those who hold the purse strings, and that every dollar paid in federal income tax goes completely tax free to these international bankers who finance both sides of every war, and that we, the taxpayers spend billions of dollars every year to finance the international bankers unbelievably powerful enforcement and collection agency we call the I.R.S.

In short our social agreement we call our society has been slowly, secretly, and deceptively manipulated into a pyramid-like ponzi scheme that those who hold the purse strings have used to steal the wealth and power of the American people.

The more restrictive our laws become, the more powerful those who hold the purse strings become. Is it our belief that our elected government officials hold and control the purse strings?

If we follow the money trail, realizing that our elected officials are not really elected by what we believe to be a democratic process, but by cleverly manipulated and manufactured “public opinion”, then we will see that the greatest majority of “campaign contributions” come from, and inevitably go back to those who hold the purse strings.

If we follow this money trail, in either direction, we will eventually be led to international banks in countries whose banking laws have been set up to protect and insure the privacy of those who hold the purse strings.

Our elected officials, for the most part, mean well and, for the most part, are doing everything in their power to solve the problems that face our country and our world. Unfortunately they are basically powerless, and have been purposely manipulated into positions of powerlessness by those who hold the purse strings who have used the leverage acquired by large campaign contributions over long periods of time to manipulate our lawmakers into passing the laws that have transferred the power of the American people into their own hands.

In short, those who hold the purse strings have set up the political rules to guarantee themselves victorious in a political game of monopoly. And though politicians may mean well, especially when they first begin their political journeys, they must eventually sacrifice their honesty and integrity in order to survive in the political “arena”.

If politicians, who have high ideals and a true desire to institute change, and truly serve the American people, are not willing to sacrifice their honesty and integrity, and refuse to play the game by the rules, which in effect demand corruption, they won’t last very long in the political arena.

In this way, slowly, secretly, and deceptively, our once great social agreement we call constitution has been manipulated and changed into a myriad of social disagreements and divided human issues into arenas, like the old coliseums of Rome, in which the American people have become gladiators fighting for one side or the other over issues that have basically been manufactured by puppet masters as diversions meant to keep us from opening our eyes and seeing our world as it truly is.

We have become so focused on the effects of the corrupting dis-eases of our society that we have turned our attention away from the cause of these dis-eases, just like the social disagreement we call medicine, and seek only to change or treat the symptoms of our dysfunctions.

How long will we allow our attention to be diverted away from cause (our beliefs) and focus solely on the effects of those causes? How far will we allow ourselves to be divided as individuals as well as a species? How far will we allow ourselves to be manipulated into traitors of our once great social agreement? How long will we allow ourselves to attack rather than defend our constitution?

We decide.

posted on May, 4 2012 @ 12:54 PM
We decide every time we place the need to be “right” over the importance of truth, honesty and integrity. We decide every time we make a choice that is not authentic to our own belief in honesty and integrity, a choice which makes us a “winner” and someone else a “loser” because that’s the way the “game” was designed to be played.

We decide every time we take an oath to protect the constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic, and then turn a blind eye away from its constant attack simply because we have been taught to believe slavery is freedom.

We decide every time we allow a technology meant for the edification of man to be turned into a weapon meant for the destruction of man.

We decide every time we discover an archaeological signpost, like the pyramids, and refuse to see them for what they are, and set about to determine ways in which they may be forced to fit into the box of beliefs of “mainstream science”.

We decide every time we send someone to prison for a perceived injustice that we ourselves have committed, or might have committed if we were in his or her shoes.

We decide every time we exceed the posted speed limit, and then ticket or fine someone else for doing so, or fix a ticket for a friend or ask someone to fix a ticket for us.

We decide every time we scoff at a Ufologist, or Conspiracy Theorist, or the man standing on the corner of a busy city street holding a sign that says “Repent – The end is near” because we believe our beliefs to be “better” than his.

We decide every time we choose to abandon our high ideals of equitable social change and bow to the pressure of our “constituents” because we know that if we don’t, we most certainly won’t be re-elected.

We decide every time we sign a vow of secrecy in the interest of national security, not realizing that this secrecy is not in the best interest of the American people, but in the best interest of social disagreement, war, terrorism, and those who profit from our disagreements.

This is not an indictment of the American people, nor any people. It is simply the observations of an impartial observer who has learned not to judge or condemn, but observe from a perspective of emotional detachment.

It is not that I do not experience emotions but that I have learned to recognize and accept my emotions for what they are; energy in motion, and I have learned to use my emotions rather than allowing them to use me.

This is simply a wakeup call meant to awaken us from a nightmare of our own creation. Neither is this a call to revolution, nor is it meant to foment political or social unrest. It is meant to influence us to take a look at ourselves, and define ourselves honestly, without judgment or condemnation, see ourselves as we truly are in this moment and ask ourselves if this is who we truly wish to be.

If anything I have said here inadvertently pricks your conscience, then the answer to this question is no, and you would be much better served by going within and finding out why you felt the prick, than by going outside and attacking the source of nothing more than information meant to help you.

Going within is responsive and going without is instinctive, and if we don’t go within, we choose to go without, and yet, this is your choice to make, and though I may seek to guide, I cannot make choices for anyone but myself. And since I have learned the true meaning of freedom, I respect and honor your free will right to choose, even if that choice is to attack me.

Because we have abandoned the meta-physical sciences of awareness, we have abandoned our ability to become aware of the greatest part of ourselves that is basically All That Is. To harm another is to harm yourself because you are All That Is. This is basically the meaning of Unity, Singularity, Infinity, God.

This is what the most revered of our ancestors have tried to teach us, and this is what our new experiences in science are trying to confirm, and this is what we refuse to open our “eyes” and “see”.

I Am Master of my world, however, I am not master of yours. Only you can be that. I am not a charismatic leader, but a simple servant and messenger. I am a little fish in a big pond and my purpose is to shine the Light of the Source into whatever locality of the pond in which I find myself. Since I know that the pond is infinitely big, I know and accept the fact that I will always be a little fish in a big pond, until I Am Not, and when I Am Not, I will have become the pond.
This is all a function of perspective.

posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 09:44 AM
People are so distracted by all this madness, when is enough, enough? When are people going to start spending the time studying the laws that will free them? And when are those outside the Union going to start finding the lawful path in their countries to do the same? Instead people spend hours on end talking about ETs, religious idea's, spirituality ext......people say they are awake and they want the truth and facts, yet thousands flock to the snakes it is sad and frustrating since 1998 PAC has been shutting down these snakes and teaching the hard facts so were are all these so called people claiming their awake? Talk about a joke.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in