Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by daddio
From the last "freedom school" link you provided....
Is this not a clue? The person giving you the advice is, in turn, telling you it is "void where prohibited by law".
And NONE of what you sourced or cited negates my previous warning to the members of ATS. The FBI does, indeed, as shown in my first post - consider "Sovereign citizens" - the people attempting to engage in these paperwork shenanigans - as domestic terrorists. Given that we live in a nation that has passed two Patriot Acts, a Military Commissions Act, and the NDAA... the potential price of curiosity or misadventure could well be much more costly than one might first imagine.
Obviously people can choose to investigate and do whatever they wish - but it is my belief they should make those decisions well informed and aware of the potential pitfalls.
Originally posted by daddio
reply to post by six67seven
Statutes, code, ordinance and regulation are just that....... made to REGULATE commerce, which is ALL that government CAN do, Regulate Commerce FOR the people. They can pass no legislation, Call it Law and then enforce it upon us without our consent!!! Again, give no name when asked WHO you are and there is no contract!!
ALL alleged "Law" is contract law. By surrendering your name, you are submitting to the power and the authority of someone else, "acting" outside of their delegated authority. Ask questions. Who ARE YOU to address ME? Where is the victim, what crime has been committed? If there is no injured party, no damaged property and no one elses rights to the same have been violated, then there IS no crime..PERIOD!!!
Originally posted by Wifibrains
I like this... I've been researching sovereignty for months and it seems it is there for the taking, we just don't. The name is key here. We think we are our name and forget its just a label. As soon as we admit to being the name in the system we are admitting to being property of the government, as the government owns the name/corporation, or is rather trustee of the corperation untill it's rightful owner claims it.
Here's one act that made them legally able to own us.
When registered at berth, our parents registered a vessel with no sole on board. The sole was considered lost at sea and the vessel kept in trust should the soul return and claim its vessel.
Originally posted by phroziac
The social security number trust fund bull# is bull#. Debunked on ats previously.
Look, im all for our rights, but im sick of people making crap up
What on earth proof do you have that a name in capitals is a legal fiction?
edit on 9-11-2012 by phroziac because: (no reason given)
Salomon's case is universally recognized as authority for the principle that a corporation is a separate legal entity [...]
Salomon's case established the independent corporate existence of a registered company, a principle of the greatest importance in company law. But if applied inflexibly, as was the case in Salomon, it can shield parties unreasonably, to the detriment of persons dealing with companies[...]
Corporate personality is essentially a metaphorical use of language clothing the formal group with a single legal identity by analogy with a natural person... [But] As Cardozo J said in the American case of Berkey v Third Avenue Rly [(1926) 244 NY 84 at 94-5]: "metaphors in law are to be narrowly watched, for starting as devices to liberate thought, they often end by enslaving it[...]
reply to post by Redarguo
Baron's Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition. "Strawman", "Person" and "Natural person". See also here...www.yourstrawman.com...
As for your other posts, I spent enough time in law school
I do apologize for not having been on here often anymore, I find it taxing to point out the lack of knowledge. As I have stated so many times before. ALL courts are administrative and have been deemed so by themselves in so many cases. I haven't the time or energy to keep posting court case after court case to prove a point. Law dictionaries change the definitions because human beings continue to wake up and and point out that God/Nature came first and THEN Man, government is a creation of man and therefore has no authority over man. Do unto others is the first and only law that can be applied. If you have ill intent, sure there is a victim then, but if you do not act, then the intent is the crime and can be taken care of.
THAT "Each citizen acts as a 'Private Attorney General who 'takes on the mantel of sovereign' " (Title 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, Wood v. Breier, 54 F.R.D. 7, 10-11 (E.D. Wis. 1972; Frankenhauser v. Rizzo, 59 F.R.D. 339 E.D. Pa. (1973). "It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error." (American Communications Association v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 442 (1950) and a Sovereign Citizen cannot be punished for sincerely held religious convictions, such as the belief that he is in fact born free and at lyberty to act as such. (Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991).
THAT "All acts of legislature apparently contrary to natural right and justice are, in our laws and must be in the nature of things, considered as void. The laws of nature are the laws of God; whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth. A legislature must not obstruct our obedience to him from whose punishments they cannot protect us. All human constitutions which contradict his laws, we are in conscience bound to disobey. Such have been the adjudications of our courts of justice." (Robin v. Hardaway, 1 Jefferson 109, 114 (1772)). THAT The Supreme Court has warned, "Because of what appear to be Lawful commands on the surface, many citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance." (U.S. v. Minker, 350 U.S. 179, 187), the general misconception among the public being that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes Law. THAT A statute is not a "law," (Flournoy v. First Nat. Bank of Shreveport, 197 La. 1067, 3 So.2d 244, 248), a concurrent or joint resolution of legislature is not "a law," (Koenig v. Flynn, 258 N.Y. 292, 179 N.E. 705, 707; Ward v. State, 176 Okl. 368, 56 P.2d 136, 137; State ex rel. Todd v. Yelle, 7 Wash.2d 443, 110 P.2d 162, 165), nor is 'Code' "Law" (In Re Self v Rhay, 61 Wn (2d) 261) these being defined by Black's Law Dictionary as rebuttable prima facie, or superficial, evidence of law, a facade, represented by 'public policy,' being color-able, or 'color of law,' being 'counterfeit or feigned' as defined.
"Color of Law" means "The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state is action taken under 'color of law.'" Atkins v. Lanning. D.C.Okl., 415 F. Supp. 186, 188.
THAT The "CERTIFICATE" issued to public trustee/servants in each State by the Supreme Court of each state IS NOT A License to practice Law as an occupation, nor to do business as a Law Firm, but rather authorizes only the practice of Law "IN COURTS" as a member of the State Judicial Branch of Government, to represent only “Wards of [the] court, Infants and persons of unsound mind..." (See Davis’ Committee v. Loney, 290 Ky. 644, 162 S.W. 2d 189, 190.” – Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., Corpus Juris Secundum Volume 7, Section 4.) while “Clients are also called ‘wards of the courts’ in regard to their relationship with their attorneys.” – 7 CJS § 2.
THAT Attorneys authorized to practice law in the courts to represent wards of the court, such as infants and persons of unsound mind, are not authorized to represent any private citizen nor any for profit business, such as the privately incorporated and federally funded STATE. Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol. 7, Sect. 4., as “…(A)n attorney occupies a dual position which imposes dual obligations..." the same being a conflict of interest. – 7 CJS § 4.
THAT Attorneys, Judges, and Justices, those who keep an Attorney on retainer to represent them as most all do, as "clients," being thus "wards of the court," are therefore as defined in Law "Infants or persons of unsound mind."