A sanctuary of knowledge and provoking information providing documented proof of a system dominated by a few elite bloated egos and that a ancient solution of a Silver bullet nature exists.
Sunday, September 17, 2017
The Office of the Person....
The Office of the Person
The Official State Office Known As “PERSON"
What happens when Attorners, Members of the B.A.R. hold positions in State
Legislature? Every State House has an Office filled with B.A.R. Attorneys who
serve the B.A.R. DEBT Collectors for the Bankruptcy under the International
Monetary Fund - I.M.F. not the people. Here’s a description of part of the fraud
they perpetrate by wording all the Bills and Resolutions for the Commercial Codes
and Statutes they create.
This is the single most important lesson that you MUST learn. If you spend an hour
to learn this material you will be rewarded for the rest of your life.
The word "person" in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which
normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings. See e.
g. 1 U. S. C. sec 1. Church of Scientology v. U. S. Dept. of Justice (1979) 612 F. 2d
417, 425.
One of the very first of your STATE statutes will have a section listed entitled
"Definitions." Carefully study this section of the statutes and you will find a
portion that reads similar to this excerpt.
In construing these statutes and each and every word, phrase, or part hereof, where
the context will permit:
(1) The singular includes the plural and vice versa.
(2) Gender-specific language includes the other gender and neuter.
(3) The word "person" includes individuals, children, firms, associations, joint
adventures, partnerships, eSTATEs, trusts, business trusts, syndicates, fiduciaries,
corporations, and all other groups or combinations.
Note however, the definitions statute does not list man or woman -- therefore they
are excluded from all the statutes!
Under the rule of construction "expressio unius est exclusio alterius," where a
statute or Constitution enumerates the things on which it is to operate or forbids
certain things, it is ordinarily to be construed as excluding from its operation all
those not expressly mentioned.
Generally words in a statute should be given their plain and ordinary meaning.
When a statute does not specifically define words, such words should be construed
in their common or ordinary sense to the effect that the rules used in construing
statutes are also applicable in the construction of the Constitution. It is a
fundamental rule of statutory construction that words of common usage when used
in a statute should be construed in their plain and ordinary sense.
If you carefully read the statute laws enacted by your STATE legislature you will
also notice that they are all written with phrases similar to these five examples :
1. A person commits the offense of failure to carry a license if the person …
2. A person commits the offense of failure to register a vehicle if the person …
3. A person commits the offense of driving uninsured if the person …
4. A person commits the offense of fishing if the person …
5. A person commits the offense of breathing if the person …
Notice that only "persons" can commit these STATE legislature created crimes. A
crime is by definition an offense committed against the "STATE." If you commit
an offense against a human, it is called a tort. Examples of torts would be any
personal injury, slander, or defamation of character.
So how does someone become a "person" and subject to regulation by STATE
OF… statutes and laws?
There is only one way. Contract! You must ask the STATE for permission to
volunteer to become a STATE person. You must volunteer because the U. S.
Constitution forbids the STATE from compelling you into slavery. This is found in
their 13th and 14th Amendments of the de facto U.S. on D.C. as of 1871, not to be
mistaken for the Constitution of 1787-89.
13th Amendment
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for
crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the
United STATEs, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
14th Amendment:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the STATE wherein
they reside. No STATE shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any STATE
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor
deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
You become a STATE created statutory "person" by taking up residency with the
STATE and stepping into the office of "person." You must hold an "office" within
the STATE government in order for that STATE government to regulate and
control you. First comes the legislatively created office, then comes their control. If
you do not have an office in STATE government, the legislature's control over you
would also be prohibited by the Declaration of Rights section, usually found to be
either Section I or II, of the STATE Constitution.
The most common office held in a STATE is therefore the office known as
"person." Your STATE legislature created this office as a way to control people. It
is an office most people occupy without even knowing that they are doing so.
The legislature cannot lawfully control you because you are a flesh and blood
human being. God alone created you and by Right of Creation, He alone can
control you. It is the nature of Law, that what One creates, One controls. This
natural Law is the force that binds a creature to its creator. God created us and we
are, therefore, subject to His Laws, whether or not we acknowledge Him as our
Creator.
The way the STATE gets around God's Law and thereby controls the People is by
creating only an office, and not a real human. This office is titled as "person" and
then the legislature claims that you are filling that office. Legislators erroneously
now think that they can make laws that also control men. They create entire bodies
of laws - motor vehicle code, building code, compulsory education laws, and so on
ad nauseum. They still cannot control men or women, but they can now control the
office they created. And look who is sitting in that office -- YOU.
Then they create government departments to administer regulations to these
offices. Within these administrative departments of STATE government are
hundreds of other STATE created offices. There is everything from the office of
janitor to the office of governor. But these administrative departments cannot
function properly unless they have subjects to regulate.
The legislature obtains these subjects by creating an office that nobody even
realizes to be an official STATE office.
They have created the office of “person."
The STATE creates many other offices such as police officer, prosecutor, judge etc.
and everyone understands this concept. However, what most people fail to
recognize and understand is the most common STATE office of all, the office of
"person." Anyone filling one of these STATE offices is subject to regulation by
their creator, the STATE legislature. Through the STATE created office of
"person," the STATE gains its authority to regulate, control and judge you, the real
human. What they have done is apply the natural law principle, "what one creates,
one controls.”
A look in Webster's dictionary reveals the origin of the word "person." It literally
means "the mask an actor wears.”
The legislature creates the office of "person" which is a mask. They cannot create
real people, only God can do that. But they can create the "office" of "person,"
which is merely a mask, and then they persuade a flesh and blood human being to
put on that mask by offering a fictitious privilege, such as a driver license. Now the
legislature has gained complete control over both the mask and the actor behind the
mask.
A resident is another STATE office holder.
All STATE residents hold an office in the STATE government.
But not everyone who is a resident also holds the office of “person."
Some residents hold the office of judge and they are not persons.
Some residents hold the office of prosecutors and they are not persons.
Some residents hold the office of police office(rs) and they are not persons.
Some residents hold the office of legislators and they are not persons.
Some residents are administrators and bureaucrats and they also are not persons.
Some residents are attorneys and they also are not persons.
An attorney is a STATE officer of the court and is firmly part of the judicial
branch. The attorneys will all tell you that they are "licensed" to practice law by the
STATE Supreme Court. Therefore, it is unlawful for any attorney to hold any
position or office outside of the judicial branch. There can be no attorney
legislators - no attorney mayors - no attorneys as police - no attorneys as governor.
Yes, I know it happens all the time, however, this practice of multiple office
holding by attorneys is prohibited by the individual State and U.S. Constitutions
and is a felony in most STATEs.
If you read farther into your STATE constitution you will find a clause stating this,
the Separation of Powers, which will essentially read as follows:
Branches of government -- The powers of the STATE government shall be divided
into legislative, executive and judicial branches. No person belonging to one
branch shall exercise any powers appertaining to either of the other branches
unless expressly provided herein.
Therefore, a police officer cannot arrest a prosecutor, a prosecutor cannot prosecute
a sitting judge, a judge cannot order the legislature to perform and so on.
Because these "offices" are not persons, the STATE will not, and cannot prosecute
them, therefore they enjoy almost complete protection by the STATE in the
performance of their daily duties. This is why it is impossible to sue or file charges
against most government employees. If their crimes should rise to the level where
they "shock the community" and cause alarm in the people, then they will be
terminated from STATE employment and lose their absolute protection. If you
carefully pay attention to the news, you will notice that these government
employees are always terminated from their office or STATE employment and then
are they arrested, now as a common person, and charged for their crimes. Simply
put, the STATE will not eat its own.
The reason all STATE residents hold an office is so the STATE can control
everything. It wants to create every single office so that all areas of your life are
under the complete control of the STATE. Each office has prescribed duties and
responsibilities and all these offices are regulated and governed by the STATE. If
you read the fine print when you apply for a STATE license or privilege you will
see that you must sign a declaration that you are in fact a "resident" of that STATE.
"Person" is a subset of resident. Judge is a subset of resident. Legislator and police
officer are subsets of resident. If you hold any office in the STATE, you are a
resident and subject to all legislative decrees in the form of statutes.
If you read farther into your STATE constitution you will find a clause stating this,
the Separation of Powers, which will essentially read as follows:
Branches of government -- The powers of the STATE government shall be divided
into legislative, executive and judicial branches. No person belonging to one
branch shall exercise any powers appertaining to either of the other branches
unless expressly provided herein.
Therefore, a police officer cannot arrest a prosecutor, a prosecutor cannot prosecute
a sitting judge, a judge cannot order the legislature to perform and so on.
Because these "offices" are not persons, the STATE will not, and cannot prosecute
them, therefore they enjoy almost complete protection by the STATE in the
performance of their daily duties. This is why it is impossible to sue or file charges
against most government employees. If their crimes should rise to the level where
they "shock the community" and cause alarm in the people, then they will be
terminated from STATE employment and lose their absolute protection. If you
carefully pay attention to the news, you will notice that these government
employees are always terminated from their office or STATE employment and then
are they arrested, now as a common person, and charged for their crimes. Simply
put, the STATE will not eat its own.
The reason all STATE residents hold an office is so the STATE can control
everything. It wants to create every single office so that all areas of your life are
under the complete control of the STATE. Each office has prescribed duties and
responsibilities and all these offices are regulated and governed by the STATE. If
you read the fine print when you apply for a STATE license or privilege you will
see that you must sign a declaration that you are in fact a "resident" of that STATE.
"Person" is a subset of resident. Judge is a subset of resident. Legislator and police
officer are subsets of resident. If you hold any office in the STATE, you are a
resident and subject to all legislative decrees in the form of statutes.
A Sovereign is a private, non-resident, non-domestic, non-person, non-individual,
NOT SUBJECT to any real or imaginary statutory regulations or quasi laws
enacted by any STATE legislature which was created by the People.
When you are pulled over by the police, roll down your window and say, "You are
speaking to a Sovereign political power holder. I do not consent to you detaining
me. Why are you detaining me against my will?”
Now the STATE office of policeman knows that "IT" is talking to a flesh and blood
Sovereign. The police officer cannot cite a Sovereign because the STATE
legislature can only regulate what they create. And the STATE does not create
Sovereign political power holders. It is very important to lay the proper foundation,
Right from the beginning. Let the police officer know that you are a Sovereign.
Remain in your proper office of Sovereign political power holder. Do not leave it.
Do not be persuaded by police pressure or tricks to put on the mask of a STATE
“person."
Why aren't Sovereigns subject to the STATE's charges? Because of the concept of
office. The STATE is attempting to prosecute only a particular office known as
"person." If you are not in that STATE created office of "person," the STATE
statutes simply do not apply to you. This is common sense, for example, if you are
not in the STATE of Texas, then Texas laws do not apply to you. For the STATE to
control someone, they have to first create the office. Then they must coerce a
warm-blooded creature to come fill that office. They want you to fill that office.
Here is the often expressed understanding from the United States Supreme Court,
that "in common usage, the term "person" does not include the Sovereign,
statutes employing the word person are ordinarily construed to exclude the
Sovereign." Wilson v. Omaha Tribe, 442 U. S. 653, 667 (1979) (quoting United
States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U. S. 600, 604 (1941)). See also United States v. Mine
Workers, 330 U. S. 258, 275 (1947).
The idea that the word "person" ordinarily excludes the Sovereign can also be
traced to the "familiar principle that the King is not bound by any act of Parliament
unless he be named therein by special and particular words." Dollar Savings Bank
v. United STATEs, 19 Wall. 227, 239 (1874).
As this passage suggests, however, this interpretive principle applies only to "the
enacting Sovereign." United States v. California, 297 U. S. 175, 186 (1936). See
also Jefferson County Pharmaceutical Assn., Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, 460 U. S.
150, 161, n. 21 (1983).
Furthermore, as explained in United States v. Herron, 20 Wall. 251, 255 (1874),
even the principle as applied to the enacting Sovereign is not without limitations:
"Where an act of Parliament is made for the public good, as for the advancement of
religion and justice or to prevent injury and wrong, the king is bound by such act,
though not particularly named therein; but where a statute is general, and thereby
any prerogative, Right, title, or interest is divested or taken from the king, in such
case the king is not bound, unless the statute is made to extend to him by express
words.”
U. S. Supreme Court Justice Holmes explained:
"A Sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or
obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal
Right as against the authority that makes the law on which the Right depends."
Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U. S. 349, 353, 27 S. Ct. 526, 527, 51 L. Ed. 834
(1907).
The majority of American STATEs fully embrace the Sovereign immunity theory
as well as the federal government. See Restatement (Second) of Torts 895B,
comment at 400 (1979).
The following U. S. Supreme Court case makes clear all these principals.
I shall have occasion incidentally to evince, how true it is, that STATEs and
governments were made for man; and at the same time how true it is, that his
creatures and servants have first deceived, next vilified, and at last oppressed their
master and maker.
A STATE, useful and valuable as the contrivance is, is the inferior contrivance of
man; and from his native dignity derives all its acquired importance.
Let a STATE be considered as subordinate to the people: But let everything else be
subordinate to the STATE. The latter part of this position is equally necessary with
the former. For in the practice, and even at length, in the science of politics there
has very frequently been a strong current against the natural order of things, and an
inconsiderate or an interested disposition to sacrifice the end to the means. As the
STATE has claimed precedence of the people; so, in the same inverted course of
things, the government has often claimed precedence of the STATE; and to this
perversion in the second degree, many of the volumes of confusion concerning
Sovereignty owe their existence. The ministers, dignified very properly by the
appellation of the magistrates, have wished, and have succeeded in their wish, to
be considered as the Sovereigns of the STATE. This second degree of perversion is
confined to the old world, and begins to diminish even there: but the first degree is
still too prevalent even in the several STATES, of which our union is composed.
By a STATE I mean, a complete body of free persons united together for their
common benefit, to enjoy peaceably what is their own, and to do justice to others.
It is an artificial person. It has its affairs and its interests: It has its rules: It has its
Rights: and it has its obligations. It may acquire property distinct from that of its
members. It may incur debts to be discharged out of the public stock, not out of the
private fortunes of individuals. It may be bound by contracts; and for damages
arising from the breach of those contracts. In all our contemplations, however,
concerning this feigned and artificial person, we should never forget, that, in truth
and nature, those who think and speak and act, are men. Is the foregoing
description of a STATE a true description? It will not be questioned, but it is. ....
See Our Enemy The State
It will be sufficient to observe briefly, that the Sovereignties in Europe, and
particularly in England, exist on feudal principles. That system considers the prince
as the Sovereign, and the people as his subjects; it regards his person as the object
of allegiance, and excludes the idea of his being on an equal footing with a subject,
either in a court of justice or elsewhere. That system contemplates him as being the
fountain of honor and authority; and from his grace and grant derives all franchise,
immunities and privileges; it is easy to perceive that such a Sovereign could not be
amenable to a court of justice, or subjected to judicial control and actual constraint.
It was of necessity, therefore, that suability, became incompatible with such
Sovereignty. Besides, the prince having all the executive powers, the judgment of
the courts would, in fact, be only monitory, not mandatory to him, and a capacity to
be advised, is a distinct thing from a capacity to be sued. The same feudal ideas run
through all their jurisprudence, and constantly remind us of the distinction between
the prince and the subject.
"No such ideas obtain here (speaking of America): at the revolution, the
Sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the Sovereigns of the
country, but they are Sovereigns without subjects (unless the African slaves among
us may be so called) and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of
America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the Sovereignty."
Chisholm v. Georgia (February Term, 1793) 2 U. S. 419, 2 Dall. 419, 1 L. Ed 440.
There are many ways you can give up your Sovereign power and accept the role of
"person." One is by receiving STATE benefits. Another is by asking permission in
the form of a license or permit from the STATE.
One of the subtlest ways of accepting the role of "person," is to answer the
questions of bureaucrats. When a STATE bureaucrat knocks on your door and
wants to know why your children aren't registered in school, or a police officer
pulls you over and starts asking questions, you immediately fill the office of
"person" if you start answering their questions.
It is for this reason that you should ignore or refuse to "answer" their questions and
instead act like a true Sovereign, a King or Queen, and ask only your own
questions of them.
You are not a "person" subject to their laws.
If they persist and haul you into their court unlawfully, your response to the judge
is simple and direct, you the Sovereign, must tell him:
I have no need to answer you in this matter.
It is none of your business whether I understand my Rights or whether I understand
your fictitious charges.
It is none of your business whether I want counsel.
The reason it is none of your business is because I am not a person regulated by the
STATE. I do not hold any position or office where I am subject to the legislature.
The STATE legislature does not dictate what I do.
I am a free Sovereign "Man"(or woman) and I am a political power holder as
lawfully decreed in the STATE Constitution at article I (or II) and that constitution
is controlling over you.
You must NEVER retain or hire an attorney, a STATE officer of the court, to speak
or file written documents for you. Use an attorney (if you must) only for counsel
and advice about their "legal" system. If you retain an attorney to represent you
and speak in your place, you become "NON COMPOS MENTIS", not mentally
competent, and you are then considered a ward of the court. You LOSE all your
Rights, and you will not be permitted to do anything herein.
The judge knows that as long as he remains in his office, he is backed by the
awesome power of the STATE, its lawyers, police and prisons. The judge will try
to force you to abandon your Sovereign sanctuary by threatening you with jail. No
matter what happens, if you remain faithful to your Sovereignty, The judge and the
STATE may not lawfully move against you.
The STATE did not create the office of Sovereign political power holder.
Therefore, they do not regulate and control those in the office of Sovereign. They
cannot ascribe penalties for breach of that particular office. The reason they have
no authority over the office of the Sovereign is because they did not create it and
the Sovereign people did not delegate to them any such power.
When challenged, simply remind them that they do not regulate any office of the
Sovereign and that their statutes only apply to those STATE employees in
legislative created offices.
This Sovereign individual paradigm is explained by the following U. S. Supreme
Court case:
"The individual may stand upon his constitutional Rights as a citizen. He is entitled
to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited.
He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the
STATE, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and
property. His Rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long
antecedent to the organization of the STATE, and can only be taken from him by
due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his Rights are
a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from
arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public
so long as he does not trespass upon their Rights." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43 at
47 (1905).
Let us analyze this case. It says, "The individual may stand upon his constitutional
Rights." It does not say, "Sit on his Rights." There is a principle here: "If you don't
use 'em you lose 'em." You have to assert your Rights, demand them, "stand upon"
them.
Next it says, "He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way." It says
"private business" - you have a Right to operate a private business. Then it says "in
his own way." It doesn't say "in the government's way.”
Then it says, "His power to contract is unlimited." As a Sovereign individual, your
power to contract is unlimited. In common law there are certain criteria that
determine the validity of contracts. They are not important here, except that any
contract that would harm others or violate their Rights would be invalid. For
example, a "contract" to kill someone is not a valid contract. Apart from this
obvious qualification, your power to contract is unlimited.
Next it says, "He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an
examination] to the STATE, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the
protection of his life and property." The court case contrasted the duty of the
corporation (an entity created by government permission - feudal paradigm) to the
duty of the Sovereign individual. The Sovereign individual doesn't need and didn't
receive permission from the government, hence has no duty to the government.
Then it says, "His Rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law]
long antecedent to the organization of the STATE." This is very important. The
Supreme Court recognized that humans have inherent Rights. The U. S.
Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) does not grant us Rights. We have
fundamental Rights, irrespective of what the Constitution says. The Constitution
acknowledges some of our Rights. And Amendment IX STATEs, "The
enumeration in the Constitution, of certain Rights, shall not be construed to deny or
disparage others retained by the people." The important point is that our Rights
antecede (come before, are senior to) the organization of the STATE.
Next the Supreme Court says, "And [his Rights] can only be taken from him by
due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution." Does it say the
government can take away your Rights? No! Your Rights can only be taken away
"by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution." "Due process of
law" involves procedures and safeguards such as trial by jury. "Trial By Jury"
means, inter alia, the jury judges both law and fact.
Then the case says, "Among his Rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the
immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant
of the law." These are some of the Rights of a Sovereign individual. Sovereign
individuals need not report anything about themselves or their businesses to
anyone.
Finally, the Supreme Court says, "He owes nothing to the public so long as he does
not trespass upon their Rights." The Sovereign individual does not have to pay
taxes.
If you should discuss Hale v. Henkel with a run-of-the-mill attorney, he or she will
tell you that the case is "old" and that it has been "overturned." If you ask that
attorney for a citation of the case or cases that overturned Hale v. Henkel, there
will not be a meaningful response. We have researched Hale v. Henkel and here is
what we found :
"We know that Hale v. Henkel was decided in 1905 in the U. S. Supreme Court.
Since it was the Supreme Court, the case is binding on all courts of the land, until
another Supreme Court case says it isn't. Has another Supreme Court case
overturned Hale v. Henkel? The answer is NO. As a matter of fact, since 1905, the
Supreme Court has cited Hale v. Henkel a total of 144 times. A fact more
astounding is that since 1905, Hale v. Henkel has been cited by all of the federal
and STATE appellate court systems a total of over 1600 times. None of the various
issues of this case has ever been overruled.
So if the STATE through the office of the judge continues to threaten or does
imprison you, they are trying to force you into the STATE created office of
"person." As long as you continue to claim your Rightful office of Sovereign, the
STATE lacks all jurisdiction over you. The STATE needs someone filling the office
of "person" in order to continue prosecuting a case in their courts.
A few weeks in jail puts intense pressure upon most "persons." Jail means the loss
of job opportunities, separation from loved ones, and the piling up of debts. Judges
will apply this pressure when they attempt to arraign you. When brought in chains
before a crowded courtroom the issue of counsel will quickly come up and you can
tell the court you are In Propria Persona or simply "PRO PER", as yourself and you
need no other.
Do not sign their papers or cooperate with them because most things about your
life are private and are not the STATE's business to evaluate. Here is the Sovereign
People's command in the constitution that the STATE respect their privacy:
Right of privacy -- Every man or woman has the Right to be let alone and free
from governmental intrusion into their private life except as otherwise provided
herein. This section shall not be construed to limit the public's Right of access to
public records and meetings as provided by law. See U.S. Constitution, Ninth
Amendment
If the judge is stupid enough to actually follow through with his threats and send
you to jail, you will soon be released without even being arraigned and all charges
will be dropped. You will then have documented prima facie grounds for false
arrest and false imprisonment charges against him personally.
Now that you know the hidden evil in the word "person", try to stop using it in
everyday conversation. Simply use the correct term, MAN or WOMAN. Train
yourself, your family and your friends to never use the derogatory word "person"
ever again.
This can be your first step in the journey to get yourself free from all STATE
control.
~~~~~
The “14th Amendment U.S. citizenship status”
The Denizen - Inhabitant - Occupant - Foreigner - Resident - Alien
A foreigner allowed certain rights in the adopted country.
An inhabitant of a place, or one who dwells in a place, whether local, regional or
national.
A person with rights between those of a citizen and a resident alien.
Free Negro, a non-slave black person in the United States, prior to the abolition of
slavery.
Unassimilated Native American considered a citizen of a tribal domestic nation but
not of the United States or any state.
The de facto U.S. Corporation on D.C. created a “citizenship” for the freed “black”
slaves because they were never considered to be people, as were the “whites.”
Citizenship was unequivocally granted to African Americans in 1868 with
ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, but it would be
almost another 100 years before African Americans were accorded full protection
under the law and discrimination outlawed.
The Naturalization Act of 1790 limited naturalization (and citizenship) to "free
white persons," ruling out slaves and free blacks, as well. However, free blacks
were accorded a quasi-citizenship in some northern states, being allowed to vote
and hold property, but this gradually diminished after 1800. And contrary to what
some might believe, free blacks endured significant racial discrimination in the
North.If there was ever any doubt as to whether or not African Americans were
entitled to citizenship, the Dred Scott decision of 1857 specifically set forth that
African slaves (and their descendants) could never be citizens and had no
citizenship rights. That decision, however, only fueled the fire.
While the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation signed by President Lincoln did free
the slaves in Southern states and many fought in the Union Army, it was the
Thirteenth Amendment passed in 1864 that outlawed slavery throughout the United
States; it did not, however, confer rights of citizenship.
Following the Civil War, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the “14th Amendment,”
ratified in 1868, did grant citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the
United States, but it did not end racial discrimination. The Civil Rights Act of 1875
was intended to end segregation but was rarely enforced; and in 1883 the Act was
ruled unconstitutional on the grounds that state governments had no power to
prohibit discrimination by private individuals and organizations, paving the way
for Jim Crow laws and confining African Americans to the status of second-class
citizens. Many of the provisions set forth in the Civil Rights Act of 1875 were later
restored in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The “14th Amendment” was enacted to Grant Slaves Citizenship, or for illegals
running to the border to have that baby in America. What was the intent of the
Amendment? Restore Blacks to full citizenship that the original Constitution
denied them or to all Hispanics to run for the border when they are 8 1/2 months
pregnant to achieve citizenship for their baby? If people would actually look at the
case decisions both the prevailing and the descending opinions, Americans would
understand the law and it’s original intent.
In 1865–1866, southern states and localities enacted black Codes to regulate the
status and conduct of the newly freed slaves. The codes deprived blacks of many
basic rights accorded to whites, including full rights to own property, to testify in
court in cases in which whites were parties, to make contracts, to travel, to preach,
to assemble, to speak, and to bear arms. To Republicans, the Black Codes were
only the latest southern attack on individual rights. Before the war, southern states
had suppressed fundamental rights, including free speech and press, in order to
protect the institution of slavery. Although the Supreme Court had ruled in 1833
that guarantees of the Bill of Rights did not limit the states (Barron v. Baltimore),
many Republicans thought state officials were obligated to respect those
guarantees. The Court in Scott v. Sandford (1857) had held that blacks, including
free blacks, were not citizens under the Constitution and therefore were entitled to
none of the rights and privileges it secured. Republicans also rejected Scott and
thought the newly freed slaves should be citizens entitled to all the rights of
citizens (See Citizenship).
The Fourteenth Amendment was proposed by Congress in 1866 and ratified by the
states in 1868. It reflected Republican determination that southern states should not
be readmitted to the Union and Congress without additional guarantees. Section 1
made all persons born within the nation citizens both of the United States and of
the states where they resided (thereby reversing Scott) and prohibited states from
abridging privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States and from
depriving persons of due process of law or equal protection of the laws. Section 2
reduced the representation of any state that deprived a part of its male population
of the right to vote, an indirect attempt to protect the voting rights of blacks. Other
sections protected the federal war debt, prohibited payment of the Confederate
debt, and disabled from holding office those who had sworn to uphold the
Constitution but who had engaged in rebellion. Section 5 empowered Congress “to
enforce, by appropriate legislation,” the preceding sections.15
The first major interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s effect came in the
Slaughterhouse Cases (1873), in which the Court held that the basic civil rights and
liberties of citizens remained under control of state law. The Court limited the
privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States referred to in the
amendment to relatively narrow rights such as protection on the high seas and the
right to travel to and from the nation’s capital. The Slaughterhouse Cases
drastically curtailed the protection afforded by the amendment against state
violations of fundamental guarantees of liberty. One reason for the majority’s
narrow construction of the amendment was its fear that a more expansive reading
would threaten the basic functions of state governments, both by federal judicial
action and through enforcement by federal statutes that might displace large areas
of state law (See Federalism).
“the Court held that the basic civil rights and liberties of citizens remained under
control of state law.” Here the de facto U.S. Corporation and their slave running
Crown Bankster owners and their Crown B.A.R. Attorners demonstrate clearly that
U.S. citizens status was purely a creation of their Corporate fiction, therefore
within their control. They can control only that which they create. Observe, U.S.
citizens are a new type of property attorned to a new owner. “Freed” “Black”
Slaves remain as slaves, with very limited privileges; “Civil Rights.”
Contrary to the expectations of some of the amendment’s framers, the Supreme
Court held that it did not overrule Barron v. Baltimore (1833) to require states and
local governments to respect the guarantees of the Bill of Rights. The Court also
held that because the amendment provided that “no state shall” deprive persons of
the rights it guaranteed, Congressional legislation protecting blacks and
Republicans from Ku Klux Klan violence exceeded the power of the federal
government. In the Civil Rights Cases (1883), the Court nullified provisions of the
1875 Civil Rights Act guaranteeing equal access to public accommodations. It held
that the amendment reached only state action, not purely private action.
In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the Court held that state-mandated racial segregation
of railway cars did not violate the amendment’s Equal Protection Clause (See
Segregation, De Jure). In 1908 it upheld a state statute requiring segregation of
private colleges (Berea College v. Kentucky). Justice John Marshall Harlan
registered eloquent but lonely dissents to the Court’s decisions sanctioning stateimposed
segregation. The Court also held, in Bradwell v. Illinois (1873) and Minor
v. Happersett (1875), respectively, that the amendment did not protect the right of
women to practice law or to vote.
Whites had the right to expatriate to escape the construct created to absorb all U.S.
“persons” and this is demonstrated in the 15 Statutes at Large, Chapter 249, only
one day before the official date for the U.S. Corporate “14th Amendment” on
Sunday, July 28, 1868.
In applying the international rules of the law of nations: The persons who are
participating in the Fourteenth Amendment system are in rebellion; not the ones
that claim de jure status/nationality—one reason being the amendment was not
lawfully ratified, see Congressional Record-House, June 13, 1967, pp
15641-15646.
The premise of expatriation, or terminating the national of the United States status,
is valid due to the contrived Fourteenth Amendment. LB Bork, Illinois national
So to denounce any and all alleged contracts, presumed or otherwise, by choice or
default, an oath purgatory and Declaration should be based upon the following:
One day before the horrific U.S. “14th Amendment” - Never Lawfully Ratified,
became a spectacle or thumb in the eye of the Union of States, only to diminish the
status of all our people, and to enslave them as DEBTORS in perpetuity, hence
forhth known as the U.S. citizen, eventually cast as the Enemy of the State,
So be it, July 27, 1868
The Expatriation Act is legally referenced as Public Law, 15 United States Statutes
at Large, Chapter 249, pages 223-224 (1868), and is as follows:
Article 15. Everyone has the right to a nationality. No one shall be arbitrarily
deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality. This is a
principle of the United Nations and declared in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights. Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A
(III) of 10 December 1948. See Title 8 USC § 1401. Nationals and citizens of
United States at birth.
The Right of Expatriation Declared
CHAP. CCXLIX. An Act concerning the Rights of American Citizens in foreign
States. PREAMBLE. RIGHTS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS IN FOREIGN
STATES. WHEREAS the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all
people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness; and
whereas in the recognition of this principle this government has freely received
emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the rights of citizenship; and
whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendants, are
subjects of foreign states, owing allegiance to the governments thereof; and
whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of
foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed.
SECTION I. Right of expatriation declared. THEREFORE, Be it enacted by the
Senate of the and House of Representatives of the United States of America in
Congress assembled, That any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision
of any officers of this government which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the
right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental
principles of this government.
SECTION II. Protection to naturalized citizens in foreign states. And it is further
enacted, That all naturalized citizens of the United States, while in foreign states,
shall be entitled to, and shall receive from this government, the same protection of
persons and property that is accorded to native born citizens in like situations and
circumstances.
SECTION III. Release of citizens imprisoned by foreign governments to be
demanded. And it is further enacted, That whenever it shall be made known to the
President that any citizen of the United States has been unjustly deprived of his
liberty by or under the authority of any foreign government, it shall be the duty of
the President forthwith to demand of that government the reasons for such
imprisonment, and if it appears to be wrongful and in the violation of the rights of
American citizenship, the President shall forthwith demand the release of such
citizen, and if the release so demanded is unreasonably delayed or refused, it shall
be the duty of the President to use such means, not amounting to acts of war, as he
may think necessary and proper to obtain or effectuate such release, and all the
facts and proceedings relative thereto shall as soon as practicable be communicated
by the President to Congress. Approved, July 27, 1868
You must understand that the several States are foreign to the United States. A
good example of this can be found in Title 22 of the United States Code:
• FOREIGN RELATIONS AND INTERCOURSE. Title 22 USC § 2659. State
statutes to be procured. The Secretary of State shall procure from time to time such
of the statutes of the several States as may not be in his office.
ERGO: The several states are “foreign” to the United States; hence, foreign state as
used in the preamble of this act can be easily construed to mean the several states;
and in the other sections can mean any foreign state in the world. Note that the exslaves
are protected by the United States and carry United States nationality; the
United States can, and has gone, into the several States of the Union and protected
them.
~~~~~
The 21st Century U.S. person - The Enemy of the State
Today, in the days of the year 2017, well beyond 1868, the tragic error in
maintaining the inferior status of subject or U.S. citizen, in these advanced times of
financial disaster, is the truest form of political suicide. It’s soon to be five years
beyond the One Hundred Year mark of full enslavement of the American people by
the Crown-Vatican-Swiss Bank Conglomerate owned, fully metastasized
malignancy, the Creature of Jeckyl Island, the Jesuit run FEDERAL RESERVE.
The totality of ruination perpetrated by these Banksters and their B.A.R. Attorners
stands as a monument to glorify the Saturnalia celebration of death to all. The
Satanic Jesuits loathe the notion of freedom and independence for mankind. Their
gluttony is as perverse as there is. These Banksters and their puppet Franklin
Delano Roosevelt
"Since March the 9th, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared
national emergency. Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President
may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize
commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control
all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise;
restrict travel; and control the lives of all American citizens/U.S. citizens.“
This situation has continued absolutely uninterrupted since March 9, 1933. U.S.
has been in a state of declared national emergency for nearly 63 years without most
of the population knowing it.
According to current laws, as found in 12 USC, Section 95(b) (Now found in Title
50), everything the President or the Secretary of the Treasury has done since March
4, 1933 is automatically approved:
"The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or
hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States
or the Secretary of the Treasury since March the 4th, 1933, pursuant to the
authority conferred by Subsection (b) of Section 5 of the Act of October 6th, 1917,
as amended [12 USCS Sec. 95a], are hereby approved and confirmed. (Mar. 9,
1933, c. 1,Title 1, Sec. 1, 48 Stat. 1]”.
On March 4, 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt was inaugurated as President. On March
9, 1933, Congress approved, in a special session, his Proclamation 2038 that
became known as the Act of March 9, 1933:
"Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States
of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress hereby declares that a
serious national emergency exists and that it is imperatively necessary speedily to
put into effectremedies of uniform national application”.
This is an example of the Rule of Necessity, a rule of law where necessity knows
no law. This rule was invoked to remove the authority of the Constitution.
Chapter 1, Title 1, Section 48, Statute 1 of this Act of March 9, 1933 is the exact
same wording as Title12, USC 95(b) quoted earlier, proving that we are still under
the Rule of Necessity in a declared state of national emergency.
12 USC 95(b) refers to the authority granted in the Act of October 6, 1917 (a/k/a
The Trading with the Enemy Act or War Powers Act) which was "An Act to define,
regulate, and punish trading with the enemy, and for other purposes".
This Act originally excluded citizens of the United States, but in the Act of March
9, 1933, Section 2 amended this to include "any person within the United States or
any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
It was here that every American citizen/U.S. citizen literally became an enemy to
the United States government under declaration.
According to the current Memorandum of American Cases and Recent English
Cases on The Law of Trading With the Enemy, U.S. citizens have no personal
Rights at law in any court, and all Rights of an enemy (all American citizens/U.S.
citizens are all declared enemies) to sue in the courts are suspended, whereby the
public good must prevail over private gain.
This also provides for the taking over of enemy private property. Now we know
why U.S. citizens no longer receive allodial freehold title to land. As enemies,
U.S. citizens, property is no longer Theirs to have.
The only way U.S. citizens can do business or any type of legal trade is to obtain
permission from our government by means of a license.
All these Emergency Powers as amended by F.D.R. was initiated by the Foreign
FEDERAL RESERVE. In doing so, they also stole all the gold.
On March 3, 1933, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York adopted a resolution
stating that the withdrawal of currency and gold from the banks had created a
national emergency, and "the Federal Reserve Board is hereby requested to urge
the President of the United States to declare a bank holiday, Saturday March 4, and
Monday, March 6”.
Roosevelt was told to close down the banking system. He did so with Proclamation
2039 under the excuse of alleged unwarranted hoarding of gold by Americans.
Then with Proclamation 2040, he declared on March 9, 1933 the existence of a
national bank emergency whereas;
"All Proclamations heretofore or hereafter issued by the President pursuant to the
authority conferred by section 5(b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended, are
approved and confirmed”.
Roosevelt, in the most repugnant act, did exactly as the unlawful, Foreign
FEDERAL RESERVE instructed him. He acted so as to preevent U.S. citizens
from getting their own gold, but since U.S. citizens are really slaves, he went on to
order they all turn in their gold, therefore robbing them for his Jesuit Zionist
Bankster Lords. At that time, and yet another artificially created Depression, the
ignorant population accepted Roosevelt for multiple terms, turned in their gold,
and then went to another world war fomented by the same Banking Cabal.
Once an emergency is declared, there is no common law and the de facto
Constitution is automatically abolished. U.S. citizens are no longer under law. Law
has been abolished. U.S. citizens are under a system of War Powers.
Stocks, bonds, houses, and land can be seized as U.S. citizens are considered
enemies of the state. What they have is not theirs under the War Powers given to
the President who is the Commander-in-Chief of the military war machine.
Whenever any President proclaims that the national emergency has ended, all War
Powers shall cease to be in effect. Congress can do nothing without the President's
signature because Congress granted him these emergency powers.
For over 60 years, no President has been willing to give up this extraordinary
power and terminate the original proclamation.
Americans are an enemy subject to tribunal district courts under Martial Law
wartime jurisdiction; a Constitutional Dictatorship.
State Of Emergency
The mission of State Of Emergency is to provide current event news, comments on
the news and information on the declared state of emergency continually in effect
since March 9, 1933. The citizens of the USA have been codified as the enemy of
the Federal Government. The source for the proof of our status as the enemy of the
government is found in Congressional Records, Senate Reports and the Federal
Register (see page links). The emergency must be ended in order to restore
Constitutional law.
“…"That whoever shall willfully violate any of the provisions of this Act or of any
license, rule, or regulation issued thereunder, and whoever shall willfully violate,
neglect, or refuse to comply with any order of the President issued in compliance
with the provisions of this Act, shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than
$10,000, or, if a natural person, imprisoned for not more than ten years, or
both . . .”
“As used in this subdivision, the term ‘person’ means an individual, partnership,
association or corporation.”
"During time of war or any other period of national emergency declared by the
President, the President may, through any agency that he may designate, or
otherwise, investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he
may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign
exchange, transfers of credit between or payments by banking institutions as
defined by the President, and export, hoarding, melting, or earmarkings of gold or
silver coin or bullion or currency by any person within the United States or any
place subject to the jurisdiction thereof; and the President may require any person
engaged in any transaction referred to in this subdivision to furnish under oath,
complete information relative thereto, including the production of any books of
account, contracts, letters or other papers in connection therewith in the custody or
control of such person, either before or after such transaction is completed "
Documentation by one writer connects the origin of the Trading With the Enemy
Act with events of March 27, 1861. "Americans have been under Fascist rule via
presidential executive order" under the Emergency War Powers Act (12 USC 95 a,
b): "Every citizen of the United States is now legally established as an enemy via
the Amendatory Act of March 9, 1933 (48 Stat. 1)" which amended the Trading
With Enemy Act of October 6, 1917 (H.R. 4960, Public Law No. 91).[2]
On March 27, 1861, "seven (7) Southern States walked out of Congress leaving
Congress without a quorum for adjourning and therefore ending sine die. That
which is called Congress today assembles and acts under the authority of the
President acting in capacity of being Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces,
under emergency war-powers rule, i.e. law of necessity," meaning that there is "no
law." [12 Stat 319 has never been repealed and exists in Title 50 USC §§ 212, 213,
215, Appendix 16, 26 CFR Chapter 1 § 303.1-6(a), and 31 CFR Chapter 5 §
500.701 Penalties.][3]
All U.S. citizens/persons as amended to the Trading With the Enemy Act, are the
Enemies of the State. This is how and why the Police, FBI, and their Admiralty
Courts enforce Commercial Bankruptcy Code upon U.S. citizens.
When we voluntarily or involuntarily entered their Military Courts of Justice, one
will frequently hear the prosecutor or defense lawyer argue that: ‘Your comment or
actions are a belligerent response’ [or] ‘You are being combative.’ Key words to
inform you that you or someone else, is about to be fleeced! Lawyers will even
attempt to provoke you or your witness’s anger in the Court, just so you or they
behave belligerently toward them and this is why they do that!
Under Regulation 840-10 of the Military Code and sections of the Administrative
Procedures Act and the presence of that Military [gold fringed] Flag on display in
the Courtroom, instantly creates a state of emergency meaning that, the moment a
police officer stopped you in the exercise of your right to life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness, the police officer became a belligerent! He is armed and
you’re not! He displays a military rank and you’re a civilian and he has now
delivered you into a Military Court of Justice with the intent to ‘pillage and
plunder’ within the Admiralty jurisdiction of that Military Court, which is also
known as ‘The Law of Prize and Captured Property,’ as defined under Title 10,
sections 7651 to 7681 of the Code of Military Justice, March 25, 1862.
As mentioned before, The Reconstruction Act included and changed all state
officials into having ‘federal foreign standing.’ The 14th amendment deliberately
forced and kept them there and section 2 of the Lieber Code instructs that: ‘A
victorious army seizes all money and movable property and holds it in trust,’ and
this is exactly what the Corporate United States Government and State
Governments did and continue to do because they now perceive themselves to be,
‘a victorious army.’
The corporate Congress; the corporate Military Government and their corporate
Military Courts of Justice however discovered that they could not gain access to
those Public Trusts deposited into the Federal Reserve System, which they had
created using our birth registration forms; social security registration forms,
licenses, personal property, deeds, promissory notes, equity and credit, without
including our individual persons into the bankruptcy of the United States Treasury
of 1933. So they cleverly denied our personal Sovereignty and converted our
persons into an appellation, which is a corporate fiction or strawman and identified
us by writing our birth names all in capital letters. All of our Licenses and
documents now reflect this appellation.
Again, these acts against the people are done by Foreign Agents, most of whom are
completely maddened and obsessed as criminally insane thieves. They’re
behaviour demonstrates no regard for others who wish to live. Their local servants
here, meaning Police and other Municipal Agencies are completely uninformed
and quite often, belligerent order takers who physically harm those who do know
their rights. The following material should explain who and what they Codify and
publish about themselves:
Title 22 U.S. Code (Foreign relations and Intercourse) Chapter 11 identifies all
public officials as foreign agents.
Title 28 U.S. Code 3002 Section 15A states United States is a Federal Corporation
and not a government, including the Judicial Procedural Section.
22 C.F.R. - Code of Federal Regulations 92.12-92.31 FR Heading "Foreign
Relationship" states that an oath is required to take office.
Title 8 U.S. Code 1481 states once an oath of office is taken, citizenship is relinquished,
thus one becomes a foreign entity, agency, or state. That means every
public office is a foreign state, including all political subdivisions. (i.e. every single
court is considered a separate foreign entity).
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 4j states that the Court jurisdiction and
immunity fall under a foreign state.
Title 28 U.S. Code Chapter 176 - The Federal Debt Collection Procedure places all
courts under equity and commerce and under the International Monetary Fund.
In 1950 81st Congress investigated the Lawyers Guild and determined that the
B.A.R. Association is founded and run by communists under defini- tion. Thus any
elected official that is a member of the B.A.R. will only be loyal to the B.A.R. and
not the people.
December 9, 1945, the International Organization Immunities Act relinquished
every public office of United States to United Nations as Congress relinquished
every public office over to the U.N. Local governments, up to the president, fall
under U.N. jurisdiction. Congress gave the U.N. the right to dictate what laws will
be international & gave them the right to tax the States.
The Pan American treaty of December 26, 1933 (49 STAT 3097) Treaty Series 881
– (Convention on Rights and Duties of States) stated Congress re- placed Statutes
with international law, placing all states under international law.
As one can easily see, U.S. is a foreign and hostile Pirate Vessel docked at D.C.
Their business to to rape and plunder this land and the people by force if necessary.
Barack Obama signed NDAA into effect so that the Military can attack U.S.
citizens should they decide and George H.W. Bush signed Noahide Law into effect
so under Martial Law, U.S. citizens can be killed and beheaded in FEMA Camps.
They have profit to make at it. Every U.S. citizen has a very large Estate, which
rightfully belongs to them, not the Banksters or their B.A.R. Attorners. The
following information will shed some light on what they do when they drag the
U.S. citizen/person/tax slave into mock Military Tribunals:
1099-OID Basic Explanation Of Theory
The State did not provide you with a check to pay the charges against you, so they
are WITHHOLDING TAXABLE INCOME WHICH IS FEDERAL
WITHHOLDING so your charges continue on and you report that taxable income
on a Form 1040, 1099OID and 1096. All taxable income must be reported to the
IRS. The Court still shows you owe the taxable income (the bill/bond amount) and
that is the detainer they use to hold your body with.
One should have a 1040, 1099OID and 1096 filed for the bill or Bond amount. The
taxable income withheld needs to be assessed on a Form 1040 to identify whose
income they are withholding. Could it be that it´s your income claimed?
If a 1040 is not filed, one is at the mercy of the Prosecutor using his public
deferral, which is a set-off and that set-off is used to detain one and keep one under
the jurisdiction of the court/jail. The only way one can zero the account/issue is to
claim the taxable income being charged on the Form 1040, 1099OID and 1096.
If one does have a 1040, 1099 OID and 1096 filed one has now vouched for claim
of Title. Now the State´s [alledged] prosecutor needs to produce his individual
Form 1040 tax return to vouch for the claim of title in fact. (He doesn´t have one.)
It is the 1040 that is the ´Certificate of Title´ to those who make claim to a ´Title´
to something. If they don´t have that 1040 they are withholding taxable income
belonging to the person whose name is on the bill/bond. One needs to ask the
Prosecutor if he is making a claim ex-officio or otherwise.
The Federal Tax Court is a court of “Record.” The 1040 filing is the "Record" and
also the ´Certificate of Title´ to the property in question. "One´s BODY.” And
considering that all crime is commercial (27 CFR § 72.11),
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment