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.


it's a fact....all levels of government are me find the weak link..

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 10:26 PM
what is happening in our countries/cities/towns is a big has many facets....

some being...

the strawman...
a false/implied/non binding social contract...called a constitution..
a corporate take over....
no individual consent or binding contracts...
rogue gov/corp..not bound by it's own rules...
little or no recourse... more real "money"(silver/gold)

there are many more but these seem to be the big ones...

i can eliminate my strawman....give back b.c and ssn...and file a ucc-1
i can remove my consent by declaration...make videos and write letters...
i can choose to not be a part of the corporation....see previous.
i can choose to contract or not...
i can remove myself but still follow the doing no harm...and if i do ...i make the person whole again..
i can use barter and silver and gold....

yet i can do all of these.....legally and lawfully....and still be the subject of unwanted infringement by the state....

so how do i stay here in america....but not align myself with the evil state and corporation? why am i being forced to do so? how is that protecting my interests? or my right to life, liberty ,and property as i see fit?...

i should not have to move to be left alone....

posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 10:53 PM
Yes, indeed all governments in the [corporate] US are Corporations. Even the Federal Government is a federal corporation, and is stated as such in 28 USC §3002 (15)(A)

The State and municipal governments you have referenced fall under Sub paragraphs (B) and (C) of the above definition. In this thread :Supreme Court rules in favor of Obamacare in King v. Burwell , I allude to how 'State of ______' corporations are instrumentalities of the Federal Government, and why barring any general applicability of statute through publication of implementing regulations in the federal register, many of the "Laws of the Land" do not apply to states of the Union and the non-citizen nationals who reside there.

OP, you alluded to the idea that if you are not part of the 'corporation' then you cannot be bound by their policy [Statute]. This too is correct for the most part within civil statutory law, criminal law is another matter and is generally applicable... It boils down to 'status', simply, one's civil statutory status. That voluntary declaration, that everyone gets so patriotic about: "I am a(n) 'US Citizen'!" Almost everyone hears that term and they gratifyingly think of the 14th amendment to our constitution... and, they would be wrong.

There are two distinct and mutually exclusive contexts of law; the constitutional context and the statutory context. It is because of this dichotomy that men and women check the 'US Citizen' box of government forms, they believe it is the 'citizen' enumerated in the constitution. But, as we will see a statutory 'US Citizen' cannot be and is not the same as a constitutional 'citizen'.

So, what is a 'US Citizen'? This term is found in title 8 USC. 8 USC §1401

Now, we have seen that the 'United States' IS a federal corporation... by simple logic on can presume that in this particular case a 'US Citizen' IS a federal 'employee'. What other legal connotations go with 'United States'?

We see in title 26 USC that the 'United States' "when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia." Seems straight forward, but lets take a look at the definition for 'State' right below it. We see that the term 'State' ONLY includes the District of Columbia, and NOT any of the states of the Union. What these definitions illustrate is extremely important to realize and understand that what is written in statute must be interpreted as it is written. The legal maxim applicable here is "Expressio unius est exclusio alterius" or "the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. [Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, Page 581.]
26 USC §7701
Rules of Statutory Construction
Interpretat ion Guide
Codified Cannons and the Common Law of Interpretation
Statutory Interpretation

So, where does this leave us? Currently, we have some inkling that a 'US Citizen' is a federal employee, and the 'United States' only includes the District of Columbia, and that DC is a 'State'.

Still with me? Okay. Where else is 'State' Defined or the definition expanded? We see in 4 USC §110 (d) that the term “State” includes any Territory or possession of the United States. Good, so we have expanded what a 'State' is, but have yet to see it be defined to include ANY state of the Union.

A good starting place in understanding why, states of the Union are very very rarely listed in statute is to read the definition of 'Foreign States' in Blacks Law dictionary. In the 6th Edition it is on page 648. States of the Union are not 'Territory' as referenced above, they are independent and sovereign states. We can see this in the 86 Corpus Juris Secundum legal encyclopedia, territories. Likewise states of the Union retain their status as independent and foreign nations with respect to the federal government EXCEPT in matters of external affairs as delegated to them by the federal government [corporate capacity]. Reference Bank of Agusta v. Earle, 38 U.S. (13 Pet.) 519; 10 L.Ed. 274 (1839) and People ex re. Atty. Gen. V. NAglee, 1 Cal. 234 (1850).

But, how does this tie into the constitution? Well, the 14th amendment identifies one as a 'citizen of the United States'. HOWEVER, the 'United States' in the constitution is the nation that is the 'United States of America' made up of the states of the Union and Excludes federal territory and possessions and instrumentalities. We can see this in the following:

"The term "United States" may be used in any one of several senses. [1] It may be merely the name of a sovereign* occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. [2] It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, or [3] it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution."

[Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)]

In these [legal?] 'senses' we can reasonable deduce that territory and states [of the Union] are distinct and exclusive as are the associated 'United States' ... i.e. the Corporation has territory [called the Federal Zone], the Nation has independent sovereign states. AND most importantly, that constitutional and statutory contexts are also separate.

Whew, a lot to chew on, and we haven't even scratched the surface yet.

posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 11:16 PM
OP, Reading some more of your posts, I caution pursuing many of the ideas associated with 'sovereign citizens'. That is a good way to get in trouble. All the jurisprudence one needs to 'opt-out' is in statute, in the code of federal regulations, in the USC, in Supreme court cases, in understanding terminology, in the CJS.

This is my opinion and not to be construed as leagl advise: Doing anything with a UCC-1 and trying monetize one's 'strawman' is dangerous. Properly declaringr ' Civil Status' and if so decided, then withdrawal from social security (Form SS-521) and ABOLISH fiduciary responsibility to the 'strawman' [SSN] with IRS Form 56.




What is your Status? [Rhetorical] I know and declare mine daily.

"Constitutional but NOT Statutory 'citizen'. A 'national' per 8 USC 1101(a)(22), born and domiciled in a state of the Union. NOT an 'alien' per 26 USC 7701(b)(1)(A) or an 'Individual' per 26 CFR 1.441-1(c)(3). A 'Stateless Person' per Newman-Green v. Alfonso Larrain, 490 U.S. 826 (1989). I retain constitutional diversity of 'citizenship' per Art III, Sec 2, but not statutory diversity 'Citizenship' per 28 USC 1332.


ETA: In regard to naturalization and it's oath... Naturalization only confers 'nationality', NOT Citizenship. Ref: 8 USC 1101 (a)(23). Likewise a 'national' is simply one who owes allegiance to a state [of the Union] 8 USC 1101 (a)(21), AND is separate and distinct from a 'national of the United States' 8 USC 1101 (a)(22). The oath is part of the 'by any means whatsoever' and though ceremonially significant, is not a declaration of allegiance to the 'United States' corporation but a declaration of allegiance to the United States of America and to the state of the Union in which they will reside. With nationality comes constitutional diversity of citizenship, but it it not conferred in naturalization is my understanding. To sum, naturalization confers the status of a statutory 'national' but not the status of a statutory 'citizen'.
edit on 29-7-2015 by J.B. Aloha because: See ETA

posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 01:26 AM
If you listen to what governments talk about - what is it?

It is about business. Governments are about business.

posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 07:31 AM
definition of charter was already posted by hellobruce

your charter 726085994%26ssbinary%3Dtrue

it speaks of the document incorporating (making into a "body"/company) denver (as in your oath of office)

OR, it could be the Judicial Guidelines for that judicial district or circuit.

either way.

the problem lies in the fact that the government believes it has the right to ascend to the throne of the universe..........natural law replaced with mans law......... just because we say so..........
INSANITY and it must be stopped

new topics

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in