The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government. City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944 U.S. v Minker, 350 U.S. 179, 187... Because of what appears to be lawful commands on the surface, many citizens, because if their respect for what only appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance. The state can only tax and regulate something it creates. Ward v. Maryland 12 Wallace 418 That “every man is independent of all laws except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institution formed by his fellow men without his consent.” Cruden v. Neale 2 Nc. 338(1796) 2 S.E. 70 “It is not the duty of the police to protect you. Their job is to protect the Corporation and arrest code breakers.” Sapp v. Tallahasee, 348 So. 2nd. 363, Reiff v. City of Philadelphia, 477 F.Supp. 1262, Lynch v. N.C. Dept of Justice 376 S.E. 2nd. 247. Our federal government has instructed our federal, state and local police agencies that everyone who purports to be a SOVEREIGN should be TREATED as a TERRORIST! They have also brainwashed the American public into believing that being a SOVEREIGN is anti-American and unpatriotic! Perhaps this is: “The POT calling the KETTLE black?” WHAT IS SOVEREIGNTY? It is the inherent right and prerogative of a civilized people to rule itself, and to dictate all of the forms and conditions of the institutions it sets up to carry out this rule. Ironically, the U.S. SUPREME COURT agrees with those people who claim to be SOVEREIGN citizens of the American Republic! Bond vs. UNITED STATES, 529 US 334 – 2000, The Supreme Court held that the American People are in fact Sovereign and not the States or the Government. The court went on to define that local, state and federal law enforcement officers were committing unlawful actions against the Sovereign People by the enforcement of the laws and are personally liable for their actions. Bond v. United States, 529 US 334 - 2000 - Supreme Court - Cited by 761 litigants in other cases. Bond v. US, 131 S. Ct. 2355 - 2011 - Supreme Court - Cited by 306 “ “ Bond v. US, 1 F. 3d 631 - 1993 - Court of Appeals, 7th - Cited by 66 “ “ What are the implications of this 2000, U. S. Supreme Court ruling? 1] The delegates to the first Federal Convention prohibited the use of corporations by all governments representing the American Republic. Therefore, all of these corporate governments and their corporate laws are a usurpation of the organic Constitution of the United States of America. All State Governments are now sub-corporations of the Federal Government, making all Courts and all law enforcement personnel, corporate federal agencies or employees. [See: James Madison Journal of the Federal Convention, Vol. 2, P. 722] and [Pull up your State Code on your PC and search the Code for the words “District of Columbia” and “Federal Government.” You will receive about 1000 references linking your state to the federal government.] 2] The state and federal government is a corporation and therefore the Congress, State Legislatures, City Councils, Municipalities and all State and Federal Courts are corporate entities posing as Constitutional branches of government. 3] Corporations are privately owned businesses, meaning that the Corporate United States belongs to one or more private individuals, which is always governed by a Board of Directors. The Corporate United States is privately owned by a group of European Royal and Elite individuals tied to the Federal Reserve System and the letters of incorporation are recorded in the Vatican. The President of the United States is actually the CEO of the United States and the Congress and all others are corporate employees. Everything they do is in the interest of the corporate owners! I can’t access those documents because of National Security. 4] In order to promulgate and enforce Criminal Laws to govern the SOVEREIGN public, government must be SOVEREIGN too, which is an accepted RULE of LAW derived from the, Ancient Law of Kings. Corporations are not and can never be SOVEREIGN. They are not real, they are a fiction and only exist on paper. 5] Therefore, all laws created by these government corporations are private corporate regulations called public law, statutes, codes and ordinances to conceal there true nature. Do the Judge and your lawyer know about this? You bet they do! 6] Since these government bodies are not SOVEREIGN, they cannot promulgate or enforce CRIMINAL LAWS; they can only create and enforce CIVIL LAWS, which are duty bound to comply with the LAW of CONTRACTS. The Law of Contracts requires signed written agreements and complete transparency! Did you ever agree to be arrested and tried under any of their corporate statutes? For that matter, did you ever agree to contract with them by agreeing to be sued for violating their corporate regulations? [Citations and Complaints are contracts but they lack transparency because you were never told what might happen to you if you agree to contract, and that you had a right to refuse the accommodation!] 7] Do any of Americas Courts have Jurisdiction over a SOVEREIGN? Yes … but only by your consent to be judged by the Court. Can they compel [Summon or Subpoena] you to appear or participate in their process? No … they can’t compel you and Yes … they can ask but you can reject the accommodation in writing and nothing can be done about it because you have refused to give the court jurisdiction over you! 8] Enforcement of these corporate statutes by local, state and federal law enforcement officers are unlawful actions being committed against the SOVEREIGN public and these officers can be held personally liable for their actions. [Bank v. U.S., 529 US 334-2000] 9] There being no Constitutional Criminal Laws or Transparency in the American Justice System, everyone arrested, convicted and sentenced to prison under these CIVIL LAWS are in prison by CONSENT and therein, all American Jails are actually DEBTORS PRISONS! 10] Most of the County and State Prisons and all of the Federal Prisons are privately owned corporate businesses for profit, which kick back to the sentencing Judges. The Bureau of Prisons Privatization Management Branch provides general oversight, for these institutions. So if you are convicted in these Courts, you can expect to serve some jail time! Now you know why America has such high prison populations! 11] Can the State Government and Courts take Custody of your children? Only with your consent, otherwise their agents and officers can be held personally liable for their actions! Orphans are a different matter and can become wards of the Court until emancipated. Corporate governments are a usurpation of the organic American Constitution and this corporatist onslaught in America has since its creation, been an ANTI-SOVEREIGN and TERRORIST REGIME and are in fact the real TERRORIST and TRAITORS to the American Republic. Sovereignty 1. The words “sovereign people” are familiarly used to describe the political body, who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereign, and who hold the power and conduct the government through their representatives. Every citizen is one of these people and a constituent member of this sovereignty. Scott v. Sandford, Mo., 60 U.S. 393, 404 2. The State of Georgia is not a sovereign power, in the sense that it is exempt from suit in the federal courts by a private citizen. (caused the creation of the Eleventh Amendment); Chisholm v. State of Georgia, 2 U.S. 419, 455 (Resulted in creation of 11th Amendment) 3. “Sovereignty” means supremacy in respect of power, domination or rank; supreme dominion, authority or rule. Brandes v. Mitterling, 196 P.2d 464 4. “Government” is not “sovereignty.” “Government” is the machinery or expedient for expressing the will of the sovereign power. City of Bisbee v. Cochise County, 78 P.2d 982 5. “Sovereignty of a state” embraces the power to execute its laws and the right to exercise supreme dominion and authority except as limited by the fundamental law. People ex rel. Attorney General v. Tool, 86 P. 224, 226 We the People Most people are aware that We the people are sovereign in 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 ......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, 2 Dall. 440, at pg 471; The words people of the United States and citizens are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the sovereign people, and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of the sovereignty. Dredd Scott v Sandford, 60 US 393, at pg 404; So what does it mean to be sovereign? It means that you have all of the rights of the King. People of a state are entitled to all rights, which formerly belong to the King by his prerogative. Lansing v Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9,20 (NY). The people or sovereign are not bound by general word in statutes, restrictive of prerogative right, title or interest, unless expressly named. Acts of limitation do not bind the King or the people. The people have been ceded all the rights of the King, the former sovereign,.....It is a maxim of the common law, that when an act is made for the common good and to prevent injury, the King shall be bound, though not named, but when a statute is general and prerogative right would be divested or taken from the King (or the people) he shall not be bound. People v Herkimer, 4 Cowen (NY) 345, 348 (1825) It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states. Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt, 16 How. 416, 14 L.Ed. 997. Every nation on the planet, is a nation of Kings and Queens. Many people will find this hard to believe but the courts have affirmed this on numerous occasions. This is because of what is known as common law. In fact, the courts have ruled that there is NOTHING that the government can do to affect the people. Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; ….. Yick Wo v Hopkins, 118 US 356, at pg 370; Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them. Penhallow v. Doanes Administraters 3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54, (1795) In fact the courts have also ruled that the ONLY authority held by the government is authority that is delegated by the people. …., while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. Yick Wo v Hopkins, 118 US 356, at pg 370; The ONLY legitimate authority that any government has is delegated by we the people, so what does that mean? Can I delegate to the government the authority to take some money from you and give it to the guy down the street because he is broke? NO! So how do they do it? There are 2 classes of citizens. They do it by way of what the courts view as a contract, through our own ignorance. Much of it is our own fault, because of our own ignorance of the law and how it works, and it is as old as time itself. Firstly, foreign agents infiltrated our government. Secondly, the foreign agents converted citizenship to the opposite of what the founding fathers intended. Thirdly they passed color of law statutes. Fourthly, we dont know who we are. There have always been 2 classes of citizens in America. The Constitution for the United States of America talks about 2 classes of citizens. Article IV, Section 2 Clause 1 says; The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The courts have talked about the two classes of citizens as shown below. there is in our Political System, a government of each of the several states and a government of the United States Each is distinct from the other and has citizens of its own. . US vs. Cruikshank, 92 US 542, The Fourteenth Amendment, ....creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States, as distinct from that of the States. Blacks Law Dictionary, 5th Edition at pg 591; One may be a citizen of a State and yet not a citizen of the United States. Thomasson v State, 15 Ind. 449; Cory v Carter, 48 Ind. 327 (17 Am. R. 738); McCarthy v. Froelke, 63 Ind. 507; In Re Wehlitz, 16 Wis. 443. Mc Donel v State, 90 Ind. Rep. 320 at pg 323; Both before and after the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the U.S. in order to be a citizen of his State Crosse v. Board of Supervisors, Baltimore, Md., 1966, 221 A. 2d 431 citing US Supreme Court Slaughter House Cases and U.S. v. Cruikshank 92 US 542, 549, 23 L. Ed 588 1875 There are two classes of citizens, citizens of the United States and of the State. And one may be a citizen of the former without being a citizen of the latter Gardina v. Board of Registers 48 So. 788, 169 Ala. 155 (1909) Citizenship of the United States does not entitle citizens to privileges and immunities of Citizens of the State, since privileges of one are not the same as the other Tashiro v. Jordan, 255 P. 545 California Supreme Court The United States Supreme Court quite thoroughly expanded on the two classes of citizenship in the case Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, where it said: ...that there was a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of the states, which were distinct from each other, depending upon different characteristics and circumstances in the individual; that it was only privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States that were placed by the amendment under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the privileges and immunities of a citizen of a state, whatever they might be, were not intended to have any additional protection by the paragraph in question, but they must rest for their security and protection where they have heretofore rested. Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 451; These two classes of citizenship continue to this day, Privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship. 14,§ 1. Jones v Temmer, 829 F.Supp. 1226 (D.Colo. 1993); Because there are 2 classes of citizens, and also because of circumstances that will become known below, it is necessary to assert your sovereignty. In order to understand how and why you assert your sovereignty, we need to have some background knowledge. A state citizen is one of We the People found in the preamble to the constitution. You can be in a state without being in the United States. In fact, if you read their codes, the United States in the United States Code is the District of Columbia and the Territories. The Puerto Rico website even talks about it. What is a US citizen? The US citizen A US citizen does not have any rights. ...the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal constitution against the powers of the Federal government. Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 455; The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States, US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957 Therefore, the U.S. citizens [citizens of the District of Columbia] residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an individual entity. Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773. “A “US Citizen” upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in “interstate commerce”, as a “resident” does not have the common-law right to travel, of a Citizen of one of the several states.” Hendrick v. Maryland S.C. Reporter’s Rd. 610-625. (1914) A US citizen is a corporation. ...it might be correctly said that there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States. ..... A citizen of any one of the States of the Union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing. Ex Parte Frank Knowles, 5 Cal. Rep. 300 This can also be confirmed in the definitions section of Title 5 USC, Title 26 USC, and Title 1 USC. Therefore a US citizen is a piece of property. If you read any of those old court cases prior to the civil war where slavery was the issue, the debate was ALWAYS over property rights, therefore a US citizen, is a SLAVE. The Fourteenth Amendment defines what a US citizen is; Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,..... The so-called Fourteenth Amendment criminally converts US citizenship completely upside down from what the founding fathers intended. The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government. City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944 Civil rights under the 14th amendment are for Federal citizens and not State Citizens; Federal citizens, as parents, have no right to the custody of their infant children except subject to the paramount right of the State. Wadleigh v. Newhall, Circuit Court N. Dist. Cal., Mar 13, 1905 and “US citizens” can even murder their unborn children by committing the common law crime of infanticide, and because the unborn are NOT “persons”, then they are by definition State Citizens, which means the BAR members (foreign agents of the Crown) in the so-called courts are engaged in genocide against the American sovereignty, and this is proof that it has nothing to do with race, and has everything to do with slavery; The unborn are not included within the definition of person as used in the 14th Amendment. Roe v. Wade, US Supreme Court, 410 US 13, 35L. Ed. 2d 147, 1973 The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States, US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957, “...it is evident that they [US citizens] have not the political rights which are vested in citizens of the States. They are not constituents of any community in which is vested any sovereign power of government. Their position partakes more of the character of subjects than of citizens. They are subject to the laws of the United States, but have no voice in its management. If they are allowed to make laws, the validity of these laws is derived from the sanction of a Government in which they are not represented. Mere citizenship they may have, but the political rights of citizens they cannot enjoy…” People v. De La Guerra,40 Cal. 311, 342 (A.D. 1870) [emphasis added] “SUBJECT. SUBJECT may imply a state of subjection to a person, such as a monarch, without much sense of membership in a political community or sharing in political rights … It may on the other hand simply indicate membership in a political community with a personal sovereign to whom allegiance is owed.” Websters Third New International Dictionary, MERRIAM-WEBSTER INC., Publishers 1986 “[T]he term citizen, in the United States, is analogous to the term subject in the common law.” State vs Manual 20 NC 122, 14 C.J.S. 4, p 430 and a “US citizen” is a fictitious entity, and has no rights; Therefore, the U.S. citizens residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an individual entity. Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L. Ed. 1143, 56 S. Ct. 773 “In our opinion, it was not the intent of the legislature to restrict the operation of the statute to those only who were subjects of the United States government ...” Prowd v. Gore (1922) 57 Cal. App. 458, 459-461 [emphasis added] “Upon the other hand, the 14th Amendment, upon the subject of citizenship, Declares only that 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. Here there is a limitation to person born or naturalized in the United States, which is not extended to person born in any place subject to their jurisdiction.” Downes v. Bidwell (1900) 182 U.S. 244, 249-251, 45 L. Ed. 1088, 1092, [emphasis added] A “US Citizen” upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in “interstate commerce”, as a “resident” does not have the common-law right to travel, of a Citizen of one of the several states. Hendrick v. Maryland S.C. Reporter’s Rd. 610-625. (1914) The right of trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the 7th Amendment (Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U. S. 90), and the right to bear arms, guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment (Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252), have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the 14th Amendment against abridgement by the states, and in effect the same decision was made in respect of the guarantee against prosecution, except by indictment of a grand jury, contained in the 5th Amendment (Hurtado v. California, 110 U. S. 516), and in respect of the right to be confronted with witnesses, contained in the 6th Amendment. West v. Louisiana, 194 U. S. 258. The technical niceties of the common law are not regarded. . . ., 1 R.C.L. 31, p. 422. A jury does not figure, ordinarily, in the trial of an admiralty suit. . . the verdict of the jury merely advisory, and may be disregarded by the court. 1 R.C.L. 40, p. 432. [The] rules of practice may be altered whenever found to be inconvenient or likely to embarrass the business of the court. 1 R.C.L. 32, p. 423. A court of admiralty. . . acts upon equitable principles. 1 R.C.L. 17, p. 416. A libel of information [accusation] does not require all the technical precision of an indictment at common law. If the allegations describe the offense, it is all that is necessary; and if it is founded upon a statute, it is sufficient if it pursues the words of the law. The Emily v. The Caroline, 9 Wheat. 381 ...that there was a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of the states, which were distinct from each other, depending upon different characteristics and circumstances in the individual; that it was only privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States that were placed by the amendment under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the privileges and immunities of a citizen of a state, whatever they might be, were not intended to have any additional protection by the paragraph in question, but they must rest for their security and protection where they have heretofore rested. Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 451; ...the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal constitution against the powers of the Federal government. Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 455; — Timeline Photos
Posted on: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 16:18:24 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015