Attention ATS! Know The Hidden Meanings Behind the Laws in America, Before it is Too Late!

Here are some points to ponder:

Citizen vs citizen

By birth, we are each a Citizen of the State of California,
or a Citizen of the State of Arizona, or a Citizen of whatever
Union State wherein we were born and, at the same time, we are
all Citizens of the United States of America, and are not subject
to any Acts of Congress, other than the 18 powers specifically
enumerated in the Constitution for the United States of America.
People who are born, or who reside, within the federal District
of Columbia, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, the
Northern Mariana Islands, any territory, on any naval base or
dockyard, within forts, or within insular possessions, are called
U.S. citizens and are subject to Acts of Congress. Within the
law, words have meanings that are not the same meanings that are
accepted in common usage. Our Constitution is the Constitution
for the United States of America. The U.S. Constitution is the
Constitution of Puerto Rico.

1040 for "Aliens"

A form 1040 is the income tax return for a nonresident alien
citizen of the U.S. Virgin Islands, residing within one of the 50
States of the several States in the Union known as the United
States of America. If you volunteer that you are a U.S. citizen,
you have become a U.S. citizen. If you write or print your name
on a line labeled "taxpayer," you have become a taxpayer. Since
these forms are affidavits which you submit under penalty of
perjury, you commit a crime every time you fill one out and sign,
stating that you are what you are not. The federal government is
delighted by your ignorance, and will gladly accept your returns
and your money. As proof, refer to the Virgin Islands Tax Guide,
which states:

"All references to the District Director or to the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue should be interpreted to
mean the Director of the Virgin Islands Bureau of Internal
Revenue. All references to the Internal Revenue Service,
the Federal depository and similar references should be
interpreted as the BIR, and so forth. Any questions in
interpreting Federal forms for use in the Virgin Islands
should be referred to the BIR."

www.supremelaw.org...

Hi All,
I did hear from SO. He gave me a link for the UCC. However it is limited. It gives you a certain portion and you have to purchase the rest. But, there are a lot of helpful links, that I find interesting, in connection with this site. Here is the link:
www.law.cornell.edu...

reply to post by pstrron


That is an awesome story. So sorry for what you have endured.
But there might be a bright side on your behalf. You might not be under slave-status. Not sure. Have you thought of documenting your birth in a family bible?
You might need some legal counsel on this. Wish I knew more. Very best to you.

while i basically agree with you, sizzle, we do however, need some type of order to function in a civilized way. yes, there are people that are going to take advantage of that and profit from it. but we can't walk around all the time with guns and take out people who we think have screwed us. so we have to relie on some type of law and order. and i think that when some of the extreme measures were tried as you have pointed out in some of your conclusions, they have ended up in court and cooler heads have prevailed. but it doesn't mean that we as a nation should let down our guard. common sense still can win out over irrationallity. good post

I just wanted to take a second to reiterate on the discussion of the Social Security Enactment and it's (supposed) connection with 666.

Personally, I do not think that this is the mark of the beast. Although it definitely had a lot of people frightened in it's early origins. Much like we are today about the verichip and the RFID. If I read the Bible passages correctly, that mention 666 and the mark of the beast;

666 is mentioned as being the number of the name of the beast.

Then we are admonished not to accept a mark either in our hand nor our forehead, that will enable us to be able to buy or sell.

personally, I do not see the SS number fulfilling the entirety of these admonitions.

Originally posted by jimmyx
while i basically agree with you, sizzle, we do however, need some type of order to function in a civilized way. yes, there are people that are going to take advantage of that and profit from it. but we can't walk around all the time with guns and take out people who we think have screwed us. so we have to relie on some type of law and order. and i think that when some of the extreme measures were tried as you have pointed out in some of your conclusions, they have ended up in court and cooler heads have prevailed. but it doesn't mean that we as a nation should let down our guard. common sense still can win out over irrationallity. good post

I firmly believe in law and order. I hope that I have not said anything to indicate otherwise. But I think that it needs more availability to the public. Such as; why can't we have access to the UCC without purchasing it?
And I also think that the laws need to be more clear. The way that some of these laws are written, the average person does not understand them. And you can't help but wonder if it is intentional.

Originally posted by jimmyx
while i basically agree with you, sizzle, we do however, need some type of order to function in a civilized way.

Originally posted by sizzle
I firmly believe in law and order.

The Founding Fathers had realized that, even though governments will always seek total control over the People, that there was a need for government. For the first time in history, they conceived a form of government that would be least onerous to the People. The Constitution evolved from a series of previous documents, beginning with the Magna Carta, then to the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation & then onto the Constitution & the Bill of Rights: As such, they also reasoned that if something of concern was not specific within the Constitution, the People & the government must "back-track" along this evolutionary path until they find the appropriate guidelines within the earlier documents.

So, as it stands, the Constitution is the current Supreme Law of the Land, secondary to (inspired from & an extension of) the Natural Laws as set forth by the Creator. As such, any "lesser law" cannot run counter to or attempt to supercede the Constitution without becoming automatically invalid! So it is through the Constitution itself that the Founding Fathers established Rule by Law as opposed to Law by the Rulers.

Stop & consider the following points within the Constitution:
It's been ruled by the Supreme Court (I don't remember & can't re-locate the actual court citation for this case) that no one can be held legally-bound by the terms of the Constitution...Unless they actually sign it (as the Founding Fathers did) or legally declare themselves to be bound to it.
However, within the Constitution itself, Article 2, Section 1, Clauses 8 & 9 (concerning the President) as well as Article 6, Clause 3 (concerning, quite literally, all other Offices of all three branches on State & Federal levels) does accomplish just that--Requiring the entire government structure to legally bind themselves to the Constitution before anyone assumes any Office! By such Oath/Affirmation, they not only are bound by all of the Constitution itself, but can still be held accountable for other crimes as well (as per Article 2, Section 4), even if such crimes are not related to their Authority in Office!
The punishment is called Impeachment. Let's look at that:

Impeachment
Impeachment, in the U.S. and Great Britain, proceeding by a legislature for the removal from office of a public official charged with misconduct in office. Impeachment comprises both the act of formulating the accusation and the resulting trial of the charges; it is frequently but erroneously taken to mean only the removal from office of an accused public official. An impeachment trial may result in either an acquittal or in a verdict of guilty. In the latter case the impeached official is removed from office; if the charges warrant such action, the official is also remanded to the proper authorities for trial before a court. Source: Funk and Wagnall's Encyclopedia

So this means that any Officer is not only fired from their job with prejudice, but is also required to be tried for their crimes...Also consider that the mere charge of "Breech of Constitutional Oath of Office," being that it's the Supreme Law of the Land that is the contract itself, is automatically considered to be a Felony Level Offense!

With the evidence cited as a matter of public record, gathered over a decades-long history, just the fact that such a large "structure of laws" has been enacted without Constitutionally-approved "due process" forms an extremely large case against the government on the whole. Not only the would the Unconstitutionality of historical actions could be rendered void in an instant, but the current incarnation of the government can be held as "accomplices" to the previous government (by illegally enforcing previous Unconstitutional acts) as well as charged with their own crimes!

According to the definition of a "republic" form of government (as per Article 4, Section 4), not even the People have the ability to "vote away" any of their unalienable Rights & the First Amendment also prevents the government from doing so! By "supporting & spreading democracy" in the USA & across the world, and under consideration of the government's Oaths & duties, this alone constitutes yet another Felony Offense!

So with the Constitution alone, with no consideration of the "technically voided" legal structure that has been enacted, is more than enough for the People to "throw the book" at the government as a whole...Indeed, once their own legal structure comes into play, it allows the People to literally dump nearly the whole Library of Congress on them! The modern equivilant of the biblical version of "stoning the offender" because it's not likely that anyone could survive such a deluge!
---------------------
Earlier in this thread it was mentioned that everything from birth certificates to the social security cards have been nothing less than a "contract" the renders the signers subject to the Unconstitutionality of the "corporate government." Then if the judiciary declares that the signer did not "read the fine print" & "ignorance of the law is no excuse" as a reason to keep those contracts valid, then what about this?

Those contracts (birth certificates, social security, etc.) never really had the "fine print" actually printed on the contract itself, did they? Wouldn't that mean that those contracts were misrepresented right from the start, since the full terms of the contract were not made known to the signer when presented with those contracts? So wouldn't those contracts, being misrepresented, be voided due to misrepresentation of the contract & the fraudulent intent of those who created those contracts?
Who wants to join the race for the research to determine if the very same UCC Codes (or other bodies concerned with "Contract Laws") can invalid those contracts under these very same conditions?
**First to find out can be the first to post the proof right here in this thread!**

Even so, considering all of the above as a whole, would this not be logical & reasonable to conclude that all of those laws regulations, etc. would be held as completely invalid right from the start, since none of it ever had Constitutionally-approvable due process? Would this mean that the Social Security system was never valid? The Birth Certificate process was never valid? The Federal Reserve Act was never valid? The Patriot Act was never valid even though it passed legislation without the Due Process of debate & first checking for Constitutionality? After all, most of Congress never even read the thing in the first place!

Hey, I'm all for the idea of ridding our government of corrupted Officers & influences...But then, who are we going to "hire" to refill those Offices? Also, where else are all those newly-unemployed people going to find work now that too many jobs have already been "outsourced" or populated with illegal aliens?

reply to post by MidnightDStroyer


Thank you for the excellent post. There is an astounding lack of civic education which runs rampant through our halls of government. One would expect that, at the very least, the oaths of office would be indication enough of any public servants' obligation to those he or she represents or serves. But apparently, it is considered by most of them to be 'a quaint tradition'.

I have a strong prejudice against the whole 'run the country as a business' mentality which infects our MBA-indoctrinated leadership. I'm starting to believe that our nation would be best served if we only allow non-college educated people in office. They can't possibly be any more destructive to our civil-rights as the 'bottom-line' feeders that are there now.

all i can say is thar i am tempted to say we deserve what we get because we put up with it. however due to the deception based system that we live in i should probably conclude that anarchy while totatally irrational and ultimately detrimental really would be an obvious better choice than to continue on in this way of life. therefore i conclude that a revolution really is our only chance at regaining our god given rights and true freedom. while i do not look forward to the carnage that would be inherent in a civil war i am willing to go through with it , as i feel ALL of my fellow countrymen should be.


in short i am saying that not only do i hold myself and my ancestors responsible for the tyranny we continue to endure..............i hold all of you responsible as well........furthermore i feel that we should all hold one another ACCOUNTABLE in regards to what i have said and what we all know to be TRUE.


this is the bottom line!!!

p.s. btw i am not college educated as was referred to in the above post.

reply to post by sizzle


No worries Sizzle as I no longer reside in the US and all of those connected with the deal have passed on. In some ways it has given me tremendous freedom in not being attached to any family anymore. That can be considered the bright side. On the other hand you have no one to help should you need it. No man is an island but sometimes its forced upon you.

My avatar reflects my status, better to be a privateer and die a freeman than remain and die a slave. I have no land nor any bank accounts, all that I own is with me. I am the ships captain, the ship is my home and gives me the freedom of the sea. Though I don't raid ships for booty she is a privately owned commercial vessel. Those that have been bought and sold throughout the ages have found the freedom of the sea.

Now the question is: How can we free the bond servants in the US? They to were born into servitude but with a price on their heads via the gov.

reply to post by sizzle


Actually I haven't had a chance to read it all, yet. I'm just kind of aksing and posting as I go. There's alot to take in on this particular thread. Some of it I have heard of but alot of it is news to me. You'll forgive me if I question though. I never swallow any pill without proof positive. Not that I don't see your work as you do, somewhat of an attempt to awaken us to the truth of our system and laws. I just go by the old rule, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

Some of it is pretty clear to see though, we have just never had anyone shine a light on it. It's just things like the 666 thing thus far that I just have to really see the proof that it applies to all and not just some deadbeat dad.

I still can't get my mind around that Priest Rule thing though. Not that I'm insinuating any misleading on your part or anything. I can see (not that it's right) how it works out logicaly that the government could step into the picture and "claim" ownership of our childeren accourding to their "Laws," ; However I still can't reason it out how cleargy would have much to do with it? Seperation of Church/State and all.

Please get back to me on that one when you find out what Preist Rule is supposed to mean, I still haven't been able to find anything on that.

[edit on 30-4-2008 by lazy1981]

Originally posted by sizzle
reply to post by dixi2344

 

When it comes right down to it, what are you going to do, short of some type revolution or uprising. And on that note, I think the guv has gotten everyone much too complacent for that (or most people) not ALL.

[edit on 28-4-2008 by sizzle]

You hit the nail on the head. "Fat and happy!" America as a whole will never awaken to the smell of the BS and either demand real change or fight for it until we loose our Comcast, Walmart, and gobldy guck media crap that passes for journalism. We're all fat and happy with our disposable lifestyles and heads full of worthless propaganda from fox, msn, cbs, ect. Try and talk about real issues with most people today, they smile like idiots waiting to escape, they just don't care. But when their pension plan gets swallowed up, gas prices rise, or they can't find their 80 LB. bags of rice their reaction goes something like this, "like OMG what's wrong with the world today." I'll tell you what's wrong, people only care about what affects them at the moment and haven't a care inthe world for much else.

As long as big bro keeps those sort of people "fat & happy" America is screwed!

[edit on 30-4-2008 by lazy1981]

reply to post by sizzle


Is there any wayto get the needed vecines for your children minus the mercury or aluminum? I would hope that there has to be some doctors out there that are aware of this problem that still care about us and not making money.

reply to post by sizzle


Have you looked much into the Echelon Project? I think that you will find that one is a real gem. To my understanding it allows our government intel agencies to trade wire tap info ect. that we have on, say British citizens with British agencies in exchage for their wire taps ect. on American citizens. It side steps our privacy rights through the intel community.

reply to post by lazy1981


Hi,
you are starting to live up to your username, LOL! The SS # & 666 issue has been addressed several times.
Another member here has posted info on Priest Rule. You might have to go back a pge or two to find it. I even re-quoted him/her on it.

As soon as I get my second wind, I intend to go ahead with trying to inform people as much as I can. I am going to have to ask you to go back and find them to save me some time. Please.

Originally posted by sizzle
Do you really know what you are doing when you sign your child's birth certificate at the hospital? Read this:

Today, almost all mothers, black or white, unknowingly inform on their own babies. Take a look at the so-called "Birth Certificate" CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH where the mother signs and you will see the title of the box stating in small print:
"MOTHER OR OTHER INFORMANT". The word "OTHER" makes the mother "an informant."

No, seriously. That's on there because sometimes mothers die while giving birth, or if the Father (or Doctor) would have to sign.

reply to post by logician magician


I gave my source. Now, how about you give us yours.
How about it?

This subject matter discussed here is of upmost importance.. The bad thing is you can throw every law ever written on paper in the toilet because the biggest, baddest lawyers only care about the supreme court's decisions per individual law.

Everyone wants to know what the pres. candidates said or lied about, or who they slept with, The only issues are who they appoint and which regime represents me best.


Does any body else think it's strange to look for a leader in politics, arrogant and set in his ways, Our government is supposed to follow our wishes or represent us, not the other way around?

Originally posted by sizzle
reply to post by logician magician

 

I gave my source. Now, how about you give us yours.
How about it?

Look, an informant is merely a witness, and the Mother is the preferred witness because SHE GAVE BIRTH TO THE KID.

www.mass.gov/Eeohhs2/docs/ dph/vital_records/news_dec03supp.pdf

A signature shall be procured consistent with the following priorities:

1. 'Mother' or both 'Parents' are the preferred informant(s).

2. If mother is not available, then 'Father' is the next preferred informant.

3. If mother and father are not available, then the hospital administrator in charge of the birth registration unit is the next preferred informant.

Birth certificate preparers should make a reasonable effort to obtain a parent signature within 10 days of the birth. When a hospital administrator signs as informant, it is recommended that a notation be filed with the child's medical record, or other filing system, that indicates the reason
why a parent signature could not be obtained.

From England and Wales:

Description of informant. The current list of eligible informants reads, in order of preference

(1) In all cases - mother

(2) Father - if he is married to mother

(3) Father and mother jointly where they are not married to one another

(4) A person present at the birth

(5) The owner or occupier of the house or institution

(6) The person in charge of the child

home.clara.net...

All of that stuff you are posting is COMPLETE BS.

Originally posted by sizzle

Legal or Illegal

All legal actions are pursued under
the "color of law"

Color of law means
"appears to be" law, but is not

"Because of what appears 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."
--United States Supreme Court in US. v. Minker ,
350 US 179 at 187 (1956)

www.usavsus.info...

This, 'color of law' stated here, has my attention. I intend to look into this further.

Not to mention that the USAVSUS site stole that entire page from Jordan Maxwell's site... (and this guy is in turn copying everything on that page and creating a new post for every section)...

Here is the US. v. Minker case
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

According to this guy, he actually believes the Supreme Court would actually rule that, "because of their respect for what appears to be law, [they] are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights due to ignorance."



The only place the word igorance shows up there is:

True, there can be no penalty incurred for contempt before there is a judicial order of enforcement. But the subpoena is in form an official command, and even though improvidently issued it has some coercive tendency, either because of ignorance of their rights on the part of those whom it purports to command or their natural respect for what appears to be an official command, or because of their reluctance to test the subpoena's validity by litigation."

That was really twisted around, as you can see.