Adask on Sovereignty II

20 Nov

"Prof. Adask" [courtesy Google Images]

“Prof. Adask”
[courtesy Google Images]

In my recent video presentation “Adask on Sovereignty,” I argued that the Founding Fathers created a nation where each of the people were deemed to be an individual “sovereign”.  That individual sovereignty was achieved by virtue of having received our “unalienable Rights” from God—as declared in “Declaration of Independence”. 

I supported this argument, with text from the A.D. 1793 Supreme Court case of Chisholm vs. Georgia which declared in part that after the American Revolution, the American people became “sovereigns [plural] without subjects”.

If my argument is right, We the People are individual sovereigns and the government is our public servant. If my argument is wrong, We the People are subjects and the government is our master.  The argument is important.

In the aftermath of the first article (“Adask on Sovereignty”) a number of readers disputed my argument based on the fact that the Supreme Court also described the people are “joint tenants in the sovereignty”.  According to these readers the definition(s) of “joint tenants” prove that the Supreme Court did not declare the people to be individual “sovereigns” (plural) but instead confided all sovereignty to a single “collective” of which we are each a member, but only as subjects—never as sovereigns.

For example, here’s a comment from “Martens” claiming that all sovereignty is “collective” rather than “individual”.


“Indeed, the Supreme Court’s use of “joint tenants” in Chisholm v. Georgia makes it a slam-dunk that they considered sovereignty to be collective, not individual.

“The term “joint tenancy” expresses the essence of collective ownership. The court did not have to use such emphatic language. The fact that they did must be significant.

“As worthy as Prof. Adask’s contributions can be, saying a man having unalienable rights implies he is individually sovereign is a non sequitur.”


Well, here’s “Prof. Adask’s” response:


Martens, I’ll see your “non sequitur” and raise you one “ipso facto” and two “e pluribus unum’s”.

“Indeed, the Supreme Court’s use of “joint tenants” in Chisholm v Georgia does not make it a slam-dunk that they considered sovereignty to collective rather than individual.

Our dispute is based on a single, critical sentence in Chisholm v Georgia that reads:


“No such ideas obtain here; 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 [2 U.S. 419, 472]   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.”

I read the Supreme Court’s meaning in that single sentence to be that:


1) The people “are truly the sovereigns [plural] of the country”.

2) The people are “sovereigns [plural] without subjects”.

3) There are no subjects in this country with the possible exception of “African slaves”.

4) The people “have none to govern but themselves” and therefore appear to be “self-governing” rather than subjects of some ruler or government.

5) The people that were expressly described twice in the same sentence as “sovereigns” (plural) are additionally described as “joint tenants in the sovereignty”.


For our current dispute as to whether the people are individual sovereigns (plural), the critical points are #s 1 & 2 (the people are “sovereigns” (plural)) and #5 the people are “joint tenants in the sovereignty”.

If there’s one “slam dunk” in that single sentence, it’s the fact that the Supreme Court twice described/defined the people as “sovereigns” (plural) and thereby made clear that each and every one of the “people” is deemed to be a sovereign.  I see no way to avoid that conclusion.

But, according to some of you, the definition of “joint tenants” that’s also used in that same sentence proves that, actually, despite having twice expressly declared the people to be “sovereigns” (plural), the Supreme Court contradicted itself in the very same sentence to also declare that the only sovereignty was a singular collective.

At first glance, there appear to be two possible explanations:


1) Your understanding of the meaning of “joint tenants in the sovereignty” is correct—and the Supreme Court’s definition for “joint tenants in the sovereignty” is wrong.

2) Your understanding of the meaning of “joint tenants in the sovereignty” is wrong—and the Supreme Court’s definition for “joint tenants in the sovereignty” is wrong.


Having read Chisholm v. Georgia, I’d say that the author(s) of that decision are not only fluent in the English language but also capable of applying serious logic.  It’s not impossible, but it’s extremely unlikely that all of the several members of the A.D.1793 Supreme Court used a mistaken definition of “joint tenants” and thereby overlooked the alleged “fact” that they wrote a contradiction in the critical sentence.  I.e., it’s almost impossible that those several members of the court unwittingly declared that the people are, and then are not, individual sovereigns in the same sentence.

But let’s assume that those idiots (who couldn’t possibly understand the meanings of words as clearly as some of you do), did, in fact, contradict themselves in the very same sentence.  (What dolts, huh?  Thank goodness we have some really smart guys on this blog who can correct the Supreme Court’s errors.)

Let’s assume that the Supremes did declare in the same sentence that: 1) each of us is an individual sovereign; and 2) the only sovereign is a collective (none of us are individual sovereigns).

OK—that would mean we have a contradiction:  two mutually exclusive statements of which only one can be true.

So what?

Contradictions aren’t like matter and anti-matter what annihilate each other whenever they collide.  When we have a contradiction, the next question is which of the two contradictory statements is true?  At first glance, either might be true, either might be false.  But whichever one is false does not defeat or annihilate the one that is true.

On the face it, if we have a contradiction, why decide or choose to believe one statement rather than the other?

For me, I choose to believe that the Supreme Court (having twice expressly declared that the people were individual “sovereigns“) meant that statement more clearly and forcefully than they meant (by the single use of the term “joint tenants”) that the people were not individual sovereigns.

More, the Supremes (in that single sentence) not only expressly declared twice that the people are “sovereigns,” the also implicitly said the same thing a third time when they declared that the people were “without subjects“.  If none of us are subjects, then all of us would appear to be “sovereigns” (unless government devised a third classification for the people as “animals”—but I’m not getting into that argument here).

Plus, I choose to believe that the Supreme Court intended to declare each of us to be an individual sovereign because, by doing so, I advance my own interests, as well as the interests of every other American, in Liberty.


● You, Martens, on the other hand, seemingly choose to believe your definition of “joint tenants” proves that it’s a “slam-dunk” that the only American sovereignty is that of a collective and therefore no individual is or can be a sovereign.

But if that’s true, how do you explain the fact that England, France and Spain each had one individual “sovereign” (a king) and all others within each kingdom were deemed to be subjects?  Are you arguing that all of the European monarchies were actually collectives long before our “Declaration of Independence”?

If that’s your argument, I guarantee it won’t stand.  No one will believe that European monarchies were collectives.  And therefore, no one is going to believe that modern, constitutional collectives (of the sort seen in the former Soviet Union) existed prior to the American Revolution.

One the other hand, if you’re not arguing that all of the European monarchies were collectives prior to the American Revolution, then you imply argue that the American Revolution created the world’s first modern collectivist society.  If so, you implicitly argue that Thomas Jefferson et al were closet communists who created a collectivist government here in the USA long before Karl Marx was even born.

Did America’s first real flag contain a hammer and a sickle?  Were Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and George Washington the real authors of the collectivism that we came to call communism and socialism?  If so, why is it that Marx, Engels, Trotsky, Lenin and Stalin never claimed Jefferson et al as collectivist/communist “saints”?

Could it be that you and others who argue that it’s a “slam-dunk” that America’s only sovereignty has, from the beginning, been that of a collective—are the first geniuses to see that America has been communist from the git-go?  If so, somebody better alert the Nobel Prize people because you guys are due for a medal.


●  In choosing to argue that America’s sovereignty was collectivist from the beginning, you implicitly concede that we’re all subjects who must accept the rule of our governmental masters.  You deny that we ever were or could be free from government tyranny.  You also imply that the American Revolution did nothing to improve the political and spiritual condition of the American people; that all we did was swap one sovereign King George for another sovereign collective—but that We the People never gained any freedom or Liberty and remained subjects then, now and forever.

You leave us with no hope for anything more than a world where might makes right.


●  If you really believe that we’re all subjects in a collective, why do you waste your time hanging out on a blog like this?  If your argument about “joint tenants” is right, this blog is more or less crazy and no “good little American” (subject) would waste his time reading the anti-government articles and comments that we post here.

You’d be better off joining the Obama Youth, get yourself a bright red kerchief and learn to goosestep with pride.

So, I really wonder why, Martens, that you and others choose to believe an argument that is contrary to your own freedom and Liberty?  Are you simply that ignorant?  Are you self-destructive?  Are you so pessimistic and/or depressed that you refuse to believe that any hope of Liberty is the least bit rational?  Do you have some other ulterior motive?


●  All of these questions and the analysis in this comment are premised on the notion that your understanding of the meaning of “joint tenants” is superior to that of the Supreme Court of A.D. 1793.

But is that premise reasonable?  Can we easily believe that a man who posts occasional comments on a blog understands language and definitions better than several former Supreme Court judges of A.D. 1793?  Isn’t it at least more likely that after having first asserted or implied three times in the same sentence that the people are individual sovereigns, that the Supreme Court did not use the term “joint tenants” in a way that did not contradicted the first assertions?


●  And finally, was there really a contradiction in that single sentence Chisholm vs. Georgia?

The Supreme Court expressly referred to “sovereigns” (plural) twice (and once more by implication).  And then, in the same sentence, they referred to “joint tenants in the sovereignty” (singular).

Note that the court didn’t simply say that the people were “joint tenants”. They said the people were “joint tenants in the sovereignty”.  On the one hand the court is talking about several sovereigns, on the other, a single “sovereignty”.

Are you sure that the “sovereigns” (plural) and “the sovereignty” (singular) signify the same subject?

Sovereignty runs in levels.  There’s a hierarchy, a pecking order, of sovereignty.  In the English law form, God is sovereign over the universe; the king of England is subject to God but sovereign over all the government apparatus of England; the government is subject to the king, but effectively sovereign over all the English subjects.

As originally envisioned by the Founders, the American hierarchy of sovereignty ran like this:  1) God is sovereign over the universe; 2) the people are subject to God but sovereign over all other earthly things including their governments; and 3) the original state governments created by the people are subject as public servants to the people but sovereign over no individual because (according to Chisholm vs. Georgia) there are no American “subjects”.  This hierarchy of authority was the basis for “land of the free,” “American exceptionalism” and the idea that a man’s/sovereign’s home was his “castle”.

Each lower level of sovereign receives its sovereignty from its immediately superior sovereign.  (Confusing, hmm?)

What I’m trying to explain is that God the sovereign grants certain “divine rights” to one individual and that individual thereby becomes the singular sovereign (king) over all others in his monarchy.  That king can grant certain rights and powers to his “government” and while that government remains subject to the king, it also becomes sovereign over the remainder of “subjects” in the kingdom. Unless expressly granted by the king or his government, the subjects have no measure of sovereignty.  The government has more sovereignty than the subjects.  The king has more sovereignty than the government.  And God has the ultimate sovereignty over all.  But there are several subordinate levels of sovereignty.

Therefore, I believe that when the Supreme Court repeatedly referred to the people as individual “sovereigns,” the Supreme Court was almost certainly referring to the people as the individual “sovereigns” who were directly under the sovereign God and superior to whatever governments the people created.  The people became earthly “sovereigns” because God had endowed them with “certain unalienable Rights”.

I suspect, however, that when the Supreme Court continued in the same sentence (in Chisholm v Georgia) to describe those people/individual-sovereigns as “joint tenants in the sovereignty,” they were referring to the (singular) sovereignty of the State that had been created by the people.

More, although the “State” created by the people was a fiction, it was not a collective.  According to Chisholm vs. Georgia—the same case at the center of our dispute over individual versus collective sovereignty—we read,


“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 [2 U.S. 419, 456]   feigned and artificial person, we should never forget, that, in truth and nature, those, who think and speak, and act, are men.”

In other words, the fact that our “State” may be an “artificial person” does not change the nature of the people who comprise that “State”.  Each and every one of the people remain as “men” of the very same sort first mentioned in the “Declaration of Independence” when it declared,


“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are [each] endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among them are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

No earthly collective exists or can exist that recognizes that its members possess certain unalienable Rights that, being God-given, are superior to the rights, powers and sovereignty of the fictional collective.   God-given, unalienable Rights and a collective cannot coexist.  They are anathema  One or the other must perish.

As a man made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26-28) and endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights (“Declaration of Independence”), I can’t be lawfully deemed a member of, or subject to the alleged “sovereignty” of a collective.

If enough other “men” would understand their status as individual sovereigns and then stand up and present the legal foundations for the status in public forums, I hope and believe that this entire country might move away from the collectivism that’s killing the world and return to the “individual sovereignty” that offers us all a chance at prosperity, Liberty and service to our ultimate sovereign:  God.


●  Just as God created the people and then gave them “certain unalienable Rights” and those God-given rights rendered the people individual sovereigns, the people subsequently granted some of the rights and powers that had been given them by God to the people’s creation:  the government.  In doing so, the people granted some limited portions of their own sovereignty to the government.  But they did so for limited purposes only.

Unfortunately, our government doesn’t want to be a “limited sovereign”.  Government does not want to be the people’s public servant; it wants to be their master.  It wants to be the whole “sovereign”; the singular sovereign; the only sovereign; the one “god” on earth.

For me, that’s the foundation for the tyranny, despotism and police state that we currently resist.

For me, the easiest, most righteous and potentially least violent way of attacking that current tyranny is to cause the American people to remember and understand that they are sovereigns and government is therefore their public servant rather than their master.

Chisholm vs Georgia’s repeated declarations that we are each individual “sovereigns” supports me in that attack.

Those who advocate collectivism impede my attack.

I regard all who advocate collectivism as adversaries.

I regard all who advocate collectivism as desirable or simply inescapable with contempt.

I therefore deny that, as Martens wrote, “saying a man having unalienable rights implies he is individually sovereign is a non sequitur.”  I am instead convinced that understanding that our unalienable Rights flow from God is the key to our individual sovereignty and to defeating the purported authority of the modern police state.  

By doing so, I believe I may be “hacking at the root” of our problem.

This is no game.  I’m serious.

You should be, too.

I believe that the issue of individual sovereignty is critical and close to the heart of the spiritual warfare that’s going on within The United States of America—and probably around the world.



P.S.  You might suppose from this article, that I’m pissed at “Martens” for challenging my notions on individual sovereignty.  Well, you’d be right.  It does piss me off.  But only a little.  Mostly, I’m grateful to Martens because he’s forced me to defend my notions in a way that’s forced me to consider my argument in greater depth.

For example, until I wrote this article, I didn’t realize that the Supreme Court had expressly declared the people to be “sovereigns” twice, and then made that same declaration a third time by implication in the same sentence.  I’d read the sentence before . . . several times . . . but I hadn’t picked up on that repetition.

There are other instances where I learned a great deal by responding to Martens’ original critique.

I’ve even learned to recognize a one or two weak links in my argument that will have to be reinforced in the future.  There are a couple of points where I don’t quite know how to express myself.  However, over time, I have no doubt that I will learn how to do so.

The more I write, the more I learn.

Martens made me write.




Tags: , , , , , , ,

93 responses to “Adask on Sovereignty II

  1. Joe L'Amarca

    November 20, 2013 at 1:05 PM

    the case of chisholm Vs. Georgia brought about what the founding Fathers claimed that the 11 th proposal/what today is called the 11 thamendmnt and it is in conflict with Article 3 sec. 2 . check it out .
    and when the criminals in d c incorporated the 14th am. with article five of the of the Bill Of Rights the federal mob shared the soverignty with the State wich left the other state WETHE PEOPLE out in the cold !!
    I dont think that you capisce the U S Constitution !!!! but think of this how can you have sovereignty when you are a citizen under the 14 th amendment ? how can you posess any sovereignty when you have a driver license , social sex number marriage license , title for house , cars register , here and there shucks you could have fooled me with all of your gibberish bulshit !!! but not today ! I understand the intent and aplication of the U S Constitution better then you . CAPISCE ????

    • Adask

      November 20, 2013 at 2:57 PM

      I agree that your sovereignty is compromised when you take the drivers license and most of the other documents and benefits that the government offers. But your sovereignty isn’t thereby lost. If, as I claim, sovereignty flows from the Creator then it attaches as the moment of our creation as is as much a part of each of us as our DNA and color of our eyes. We can’t abandon our sovereignty, but we can voluntarily choose to act in non-sovereign capacities. Having a drivers license may be an evidence that you’ve chosen to act in a non-sovereign capacity.

    • scottie morgan

      December 8, 2013 at 6:46 PM

      I made a mistake twice. this reply is for you:

      here! answer your own questions;

      By: scottie morgan: Expressly Reserving All Liberties. A Man and A Living
      Spirit. Not a person, human-being, corporation or other type of
      abomination! All rights reserved. Without Prejudice, UCC 1-308

  2. kennywally

    November 20, 2013 at 1:24 PM

    Well, we lost our sovereignty whenever we sign our name to a contract that makes us beholden to something/someone else ….like social security, it makes us liable for taxes and turns us into their slaves!
    Not sure how the birth certificate figures in yet, but the drivers lic is also an adhesion contract. Bottom line is, we voluntarily gave up our freedom for security and violate Gods laws, and we are getting punished for it!
    So, no matter how one argues, if one is a “person” and not an “individual”, [ if you know the difference ] living in the private, then one has no “standing”….and the court will never tell us what we are doing wrong.
    The only true sovereign is the Creator.

    • palani

      November 20, 2013 at 3:15 PM

      @ kennywally “Well, we lost our sovereignty whenever we sign our name to a contract”

      Monty Python skit:
      Girl : “I’ve lost my virginity.”
      Python : “Do you still have the box it came in?”

    • Mladen (aka Mark)

      November 20, 2013 at 8:19 PM

      kennywally, you say your are, “Not sure how the birth certificate figures in yet.” Really? Did you not use the BIRTH CERTIFICATE as the foundation identity document that witnessed against you on your application for Social Security (in the USA) [Social Insurance Number, or SIN, in Canada]? How did we all miss that? The BC was used for the Driver’s licence, health care, passport and every other derivative instrument comes from the BIRTH CERTIFICATE. The first FRAUD leads to all of the other FRAUD instruments/documents/identifications. Do you see it now?

      If the foundation is broke then the house built upon the faulty foundation will fall. We were all induced (bribed) by petty benefits like hospital or health benefits, employment insurance, pensions and the like to give up our God-given inalienable rights, that are actually not lien-able and we can stop applying, stop volunteering, stop consenting, and we can void all the voidable contracts right from the beginning. The beginning of the FRAUD is the BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

      There was a mutual trespass. We trespassed upon and liened the (fiction) surname. And, the government and the private bankers that they have a covenant with trespassed upon our real, proper, inalienable God-given Christian name. We must forgive and forget. It’s all in the Lord’s prayer which you can read at Matthew 6:9-13 (KJV) [ ]:

      Matthew 6:9-13 [King James Version (KJV)]

      9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

      10 Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

      11 Give us this day our daily bread.

      12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.

      13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

      It is not convenient and it is not expedient and it is difficult for most people to forgive and forget. This knowledge makes most people frustrated or angry or vengeful. But, remember, we all did this to ourselves and nobody put a gun to anybody’s head to force them to apply and volunteer and consent to their own slavery. If you want to blame anybody blame yourself. Or, blame Satan, the father of the lie who came up with this crazy scheme and the one who has been having great success in deceiving the whole world. It will be too difficult for most people to separate from secular society. But, that is what God expects a true Christian believer to do. The rest is up to you individually. No, you cannot be your own god. You are not your own little god in a sea of 7 billion other little gods. You are not your own individual sovereign without subjects either. That’s the fact.

  3. pop de adam

    November 20, 2013 at 4:30 PM

    “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 to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    “All persons born or naturalized in the United States”

    Can anyone be born in a thing that is not a tangible thing? I could be born in a box, hospital, house or stable. I would contend that the only thing that can be born from a fiction is another fiction.

    “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”

    Subjects are servants to the sovereign, could this mean actual employees of the government are eligible to be citizens? If I am a citizen I haven’t seen my paycheck, nor do I recall ever making an application.

    “are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

    Maxim: One cannot serve two masters.

    “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”

    What does this confusing piece even mean, especially considering the clause that preceeds it. A competition amongst laws that might nullify each other or create a hierarchy in law itself.

    ” nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

    Your life, liberty and property are safe from being assailed, of course until they aren’t.

    “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    Protection of the law, but no protection from the laws.

    While lauded by so many that this amendment gave status to many, many don’t see that it really serves to render everyone to what seems a subserviant status of a fiction uder another set of fictions. Does it mean anthing at all with so much of it conflicting itself? What if no one was recognized as having any status?

    • Mladen (aka Mark)

      November 20, 2013 at 8:47 PM

      Good point, pop de adam. Matthew 6:24 (KJV) says the same thing that you point out with your legal maxim, where you point out, “Maxim: One cannot serve two masters.”

      Matthew 6:24 [King James Version (KJV)]
      No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

      Mammon is the Greek and Roman pagan god of money, profit or gain. It is the same as Juno.
      [ For a quick overview see or ]

      In man’s secular world of fiction (lies) the god of their world is money and on the back of the US currency that is the god they refer to when the currency claims “In god we trust”. It’s more like, in God we trust, all others pay cash. I’m just kidding here, even though what I said is true. We must have a sense of humour about all this in order to maintain or sanity. Or, perhaps we are better off being insane instead. Just like we are better off being true Christians and using only our real, proper God-given inalienable Christian name on its own —- which makes us very illegal to the legal world of fiction (lies).

      In law the truth must be free from fiction (lies). Therefore, you cannot bear (hold) a LIE surname alongside your true, proper, God-given inalienable Christian name if you want to speak and act in truth. God hates liars [see Revelation 21:8 3.Isaiah 44:25 (KJV) for examples]. So, why would God reward you is you apply, volunteer and consent to bear the SURNAME to identify you as a liar and a fiction and someone who consents to be surety (warranty) for an artificial and dead “Legal Name” for an artificial and dead “Legal Name”.

      When the secular world makes something “Legal” they take something NATURAL and they make it un-natural (artificial, not real, pretend, fake, counterfeit, fraud). That’s what they did with the “Name”. The true and proper name is the God-given inalienable Christian name on its own. The artificial and dead “Legal Name” is not real. It is a fiction, and a fiction is a LIE.

      It’s amazing how just an addition of one or two letters can change the entire meaning of a word. For example, “Normal” is opposite to “Abnormal”; “Native” is opposite to “Alternative”. “Original” is opposite to “Aboriginal”. In the same way, the addition of the unnecessary debtor surname fiction changes one’s status from believer to unbeliever. Shakespeare asked, “What’s in a name ….. to bear the slings and arrow of outrageous fortune …..”. It’s all in the name and if you do not understand you will suffer the circumstance that your were born into in this sinful world.

      As Matthew Henry stated over 300 years ago, abandon the entail, which is the surname, and the promise comes back to you. Let the secular government officials who created and issued and signed for the “Legal Name” created by their BIRTH CERTIFICATE do their duty to be the surety (guarantor, warrantor) for their own legal fiction (lie), which is their “It”, or their “Thing”. It is NOT you, and it is NOT yours. Stop imitating the artificial fiction (lie), which was dead from the moment of its artificial creation. Let the devil’s advocate lawyers who back this evil scheme pay the debt of the company for their own fiction (lie) and fraud. Their collective body corporate is dead.

      • Mike

        November 24, 2013 at 4:51 PM

        Don’t poke the bear.

      • J.M.

        March 1, 2014 at 1:36 AM

        How do you earn a living, Mark?

  4. Martens

    November 20, 2013 at 4:30 PM

    Prof. Adask,

    The people are “sovereigns” (plural) because “people” is plural.

    What’s more to the point is that Chisholm v. Georgia refers to the people’s sovereignty itself as “the sovereignty” (singular).

    So there are many people, but one sovereignty. How does that work? How does a citizenry of “sovereigns” (plural) have a singular sovereignty?

    This happens through an arraignment of “joint tenancy” (the Supreme Court’s term), which the legal dictionaries define as a type of collective ownership of a singular entity.

    Thus, each of the people partakes in the rights of sovereignty, and is therefore a sovereign to that extent, by virtue of his membership in the collective sovereignty of the American people.

    This is the slam-dunk conclusion that follows from the Supreme Court’s choice of words in Chisholm v. Georgia.

    • pop de adam

      November 20, 2013 at 4:40 PM

      In this “joint tenancy” how exactly do evictions take place? Rather dilutes the the entire concept in my opinion.

    • Jetlag

      November 20, 2013 at 7:32 PM

      Martens wrote: “How does a citizenry of “sovereigns” (plural) have a singular sovereignty?”

      This key question has one of two answers.

      1. The sovereignties (plural) of the people came first, and these were combined to form the collective sovereignty (singular).

      2. The collective sovereignty (singular) came first, and the sovereignties (plural) the people derive from it.

      Well, the smart guys on the Supreme Court didn’t leave us to guess which answer is the correct. They masterfully resolved the question by the simple act of describing the people as “joint tenants in the sovereignty”.

      Since joint tenancy is a form of collective ownership, it follows that the people’s individual sovereignties are acquired through a shared interest in the collective sovereignty.

      • Martens

        November 20, 2013 at 9:01 PM


        Your logic is valid. You could even say the Supreme Court’s use of “the sovereignty” (singular) is, by itself, enough to prove American sovereignty is collective because the singular tense means there’s ONLY ONE.

        Since the sovereignty is singular, it must be that the sovereigns (plural) derive their powers through… wait for it… “joint tenancy” in the one sovereignty.

        This plain-meaning interpretation is the only way for the text of Chisholm v. Georgia to function as a coherent whole. So let us avoid extraordinary gymnastics in defense of a legal theory the Founders never intended.

  5. Ugly Truth

    November 20, 2013 at 4:40 PM

    “when X is “deemed” to be Y it is ordinarily conceded that X is not Y, and is known not to be Y”

    Legal Fictions and Common Law Legal Theory Some Historical Reflections, Eben Moglen

    • Mladen (aka Mark)

      November 20, 2013 at 9:00 PM

      Hey, Ugly Truth, the whole legal premise that “X is Y and cannot be disproved” bothered me for a bout two years until I realized that it was a clever devil’s advocate “Catch 22” that does not matter. Why does it not matter you might ask? Let me explain.

      If we presume or assume the false premise that “X is Y and cannot be disproved” it is no different then making the false claim that fiction/fraud/lies are truth and cannot be disproved. Every child would know instinctively that this is not true. But, the devil’s secular legal system uses words to deceive and confuse. The reason that this little saying (“X is Y and cannot be disproved”) does not matter is because THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IN LAW IS WHAT YOU CAN PROVE.

      Therefore, you do not have to prove a lie and a lie cannot be proven anyway. But, we can prove the truth and fact. The fact is even in print on their own secular document, which is their very first secular document, and that is the long form STATEMENT OF BIRTH, and they cannot even question the STATEMENT OF BIRTH. That is why they do not like it when somebody enters the STATEMENT OF BIRTH into the record in any secular court matter because it is proof so certified and they cannot question or deny it. The only thing on that SOB that is a “Given”, and a given is a FACT, is the God-given inalienable Christian name (also known as the “First name”, “Fore name”, “Given name”, or Christian name). Just stick with the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, which is the real, proper, God-given Christian name on its own and things will be OK.

      Also, if I cannot prove that the “Legal Name” is me or that it is my property, can the judge or the Crown Prosecutor (persecutor) or District Attorney or any lawyer prove it? No, they cannot! Let him who throws the stone and makes the accusation prove his allegation. He cannot because it is worse than hearsay, it is a lie and the “Legal Name” is NOT you and NOT your property.

  6. Mladen (aka Mark)

    November 20, 2013 at 4:44 PM

    Alfred, I just finished reading your essay response to Marten and I feel a little bad for both you and Marten. You guys are arguing over one word —- sovereign. And, you are arguing over a court case [Chisholm vs. Georgia] in which the wording is ambiguous. If the wording was not ambiguous the two of you would not be having this conversation or debate or argument or whatever you want to call it. I hope that you consider the possibility that both of you have missed something and therefore both of you may be wrong? It takes humility to admit that one may be wrong. It requires that we admit that we are not perfect and we are not infallible.

    Alfred, I have read your posts under the “ABOUT” heading of your blog and I have seen you attack others who do not agree with your opinion or your point of view. At the risk of being lambasted or barred and judge by you, I hope that you will give me the courtesy of considering my opinion in the alleged spirit of free speech. This in no way is meant to be an attack on you or Marten or anybody else. I was myself just as guilty of doing all the wrongs things for all the wrong reasons in the past because I did not know then what I do know you. I hope that you will read and consider the following facts.

    There is no quick and easy way to explain this and so I plead that you bear with me and read the whole explanation. You may ask what does this have anything to do with your debate and beliefs and my answer is everything. You do not have to agree with me, but please hear me out.

    First, I do not agree with the presumption or assumption that each individual man is his own sovereign. That is no different than saying that each individual man is his own god. That would be pure New Age malarkey and it is blasphemy against the one-and-only de jure (by right) and true living God. And, it makes no logical sense that God would create man in his own image so that man could be his own individual god because that would mean that man would not need the true God! Taking this logic to its ultimate extreme would mean that the original lie from the original father of the lie, Satan the devil (deceiver), would excuse Adam and Ever for intentionally betraying God’s trust by believing Satan and disbelieving God in the story of the Garden of Eden. Satan’s lie was a complete false offer and a lie and when Adam and Eve believed Satan they brought in God’s promised and just penalty of death.

    My fundamental point is based on the fact that no individual man can be his own god. But, in man’s artificial world, which is the legal world, we can have ideas, which are imaginations, which goes to idolatry through ID, which is man’s idea of identification. So, who are we? And, more importantly “What” are we NOT?

    Among other things (like being a history book, a book of hygiene and guide to good food), the Holy Bible is a law book. The Holy Bible tells us that God is NOT a respecter of “Man’s person” (see Galatians 2:6 for an example). Therefore, no matter what anybody “Deems” or accuses me to be, I am not a citizen of any of man’s fictional nations. Therefore, I cannot bear any false-Christian false-title of false-nobility. If you read the Authorized 1611 King James Holy Bible scripture at Job 32:21-22 it says:

    Job 32:21-22 [King James Version]
    21 Let me not, I pray you, accept any man’s person, neither let me give flattering titles unto man.
    22 For I know not to give flattering titles; in so doing my maker would soon take me away.

    If we consult STRONG’S CONCORDANCE for the law of language to define the original Greek word in this scripture for the word “Title”, STRONG’S clearly defines “Title” as SURNAME! And, the word “Person” is a mask or persona, a shadow of the real, but it is not real. Therefore, if we replace the word surname for title then Job 32:21-22 reads like this:

    “21 Let me not, I pray you, accept any man’s mask (persona), neither let me give flattering SURNAMES unto man.
    22 For I know not to give flattering SURNAMES; in so doing my maker would soon take me away.

    My many years of research, with the help of my Christian brother Daniel, have led me to the FACT that there are two opposite names in what makes up the combined (merged & confused) “Legal Name”. The legal name is a mask or persona for an artificial (not real) “Person”. This “Legal Name” for the artificial “Legal Person” is birthed by an instrument known as the BIRTH CERTIFICATE, which does NOT register a real man —–it only represents the dead and artificial “Legal Name” of the dead and artificial “Legal Person”.

    The BIRTH CERTIFICATE identifies a “Thing” that is civilly dead from the beginning. I have several letters from the Province of Ontario and one from the Province of Alberta, both part of Canada, in which their Registrar General and their Executive Director plainly state that they “DO NOT REGISTER PEOPLE” and that the BIRTH CERTIFICATE “DOES NOT IDENTIFY A LIVING INDIVIDUAL.” Those are their words, not mine.

    The BIRTH CERTIFICAT is how the colour of law creates an animal, which is NOT a man, and we call this artificial animal a “Hu-man” [it has the colour of a man, but this artificial “It” is NOT a man]. A man is real. The “Legal Name” is like the shadow of a man, but the man is real, the shadow is the legal name and it is not real. Therefore, if any individual is ignorant, which simply means that they lack knowledge of the facts, then they act as an “IGNORAMUS”, which” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (5th edition) defines as, “IGNORAMUS. Lat. “We are ignorant;” “We ignore it.” Formerly the grand jury wrote this …..”

    In case I was not clear so far, the bottom line is that the “Legal Name” for the dead and artificial “Legal Person” consists of two opposite names, and these two opposite names should never have been placed together in the first place. Why is this important? Because to join two opposite things (names) together invalidates a fundamental God-given inalienable right!

    The following FACT in law is very important. I have a court transcript in which the JP says, “There is no provision in the Canadian legal system which allows an individual to transfer his given names to anyone, whether to a person, a corporation or a trust. Any document purporting to achieve that goal is in and of itself invalid, and having such a document notarized does not validate the document.” What the JP was referring to in this case is the long form STATEMENT OF BIRTH and the short form (wallet-sized) BIRTH CERTIFICATE. Again, to be perfectly clear, the JP was stating that both the STATEMENT OF BIRTH and the BIRTH CERTIFICATE had no right to transfer the “Given” [FACT] name(s) (which is the INALIENABLE God-given Christian name) to anyone, whether to a person, corporation or a trust. I believe this applies worldwide.

    Therefore, what the JP was disclosing unintentionally is that the “Given” [FACT] Christian name cannot be transferred (conveyed) to anyone, whether to a person, corporation or a trust. Why is this the case? Because the “Given” [FACT] Christian name is your one-and-only property and it is also the copyright and/or intellectual property of both you and God! What does all this mean? It means that the artificial man-made Constitutions (pretend, artificial, not real, imagined nations, or imaginations) have NO JURISDICTION over the “Given” [FACT] Christian name!

    Therefore, they need you to apply, volunteer and consent to use [rent/lease via licences] their artificial dead “Legal Name” for their artificial dead “Legal Person” in order for them to have jurisdiction over you because you are using their copyright and/or intellectual property.

    It does not matter what artificial form of man’s government you join yourself to by your free will choice because they are all artificial (not real). The Roman Caesars (alleged man-gods) declared themselves to be gods on earth and the pagan (Roman) universal (catholic) Pope declared himself to be the vicar or God’s infallible representative in earth — which is total malarkey and blasphemy against the true living God. And, absolutely no secular nation has de jure sovereignty and they all admit to being de facto (i.e. in charge by military force). We can get into the government STRATOCRACY (rule by military force) and TIMOCRACY that rules the secular world at another time.

    However, to create their alleged government property they trespassed and used the “Given” [FACT] Christian name that they had NO JURISDICTION over. This is an implied or expressed secular social contract that is voidable; but it is not void until you take action to elect to void it.

    In creating the FRAUD instrument known as the BIRTH CERTIFICATE for their civilly dead artificial “Legal Person” they committed the tort (damage) of copyright infringement and they trespassed upon the intellectual property that only belongs to you and God. But, you also trespassed upon their property, which is the surname and the merged and confused combined legal name which are both not your property.

    In order to understand the equitable (fair) legal remedy to this legal fraud you must understand the Holy Bible. You must also accept Jesus Christ as your King, Lord and Saviour, advocate and surety in all matters whatsoever. You cannot be a friend of any of the pagan unbeliever nations of mans’ secular world and be loyal to God at the same time. It is am impossibility. Therefore, if you accept the total assurance of Christ than you do not need the inferior social insurance under man’s third-party scheme of voluntary slavery. But, you have a choice to make and you must choose.

    The substitute death and blood of Christ Jesus already provided a remedy and pardon for all that accept God’s free graced gift and pardon and it is all already done for us and all we must do is to accept. In addition, there is a legal doctrine that says that one cannot be tried for the same crime twice and it is known as “Double Jeopardy”. Since unbeleivers already killed Christ Jesus, to kill a Christian again would be double jeopardy and against their own law. Therefore, they broke their own secular law by creating a civilly dead estate and dead entity via the BIRTH CERTIFICATE and they symbolically killed every child on paper, just like they killed Christ Jesus for real. Can you see the parallels? This is no accident. This is not random chance. This is intentional FRAUD. They are in essence saying that the living are dead and they are lost in the sea of the unholy see (which is most likely their artificial evil all-seeing Satanic eye).

    Because you did not know that this happened you failed to object, and failure to object is fatal! Just because you did not know this is no excuse since you used their “Law” name, or their artificial “Legal” name, and ignorance of the law is no excuse. If you become their “Joint Tenant” by applying, volunteering and consenting to comingle your God-given inalienable Christian name with the unnecessary addition of their anti-Christian, overhead, accusation, insult, debtor surname, then you have ignorantly extinguished your God-given inalienable rights until such time as you take action to void the voidable contract. Remember, ignorance of the FACTS is an excuse and it provides for an equitable (fair) remedy.

    If you change your God you change your law. If your God is the true God then your law is the Authorized 1611 King James Holy Bible and God’s Ten Commandments. Under God’s law there is grace, forgiveness and pardon.

    However, if you want to stay ignorant and act like an ignoramus then you are free to be a voluntary slave by applying, volunteering and consenting to be a secular citizen (aka secular civilian) of one of 196 pagan unbeliever nations and you are free to worship their god of mammon (money, profit, gain) [see Matthew 6:24].

    As sad as it is to say, if you believe in the lie of Satan the devil you can try to be your own god by joining a pagan unbeliever nation to call yourself a Canadian, American, Italian, Ukrainian, Russian or any of the other dis-united nations of man’s pagan unbeliever world —– and you can worship their pagan flags, their pagan worthless counterfeit currencies, and you can be an adulterer and make idolatrous images of yourself on Driver’s Licences and Passports to ID yourself and an idolater of their pagan idea of being your own god. Also, if you are a secular citizen or civilian you are also breaking every single one of God’s Ten Commandments.

    Again, if you wish not to be part of the collective of unbelievers you must get out of her, divorce and detach the unbeliever surname from your believer God-given [FACT] inalienable Christian name. If you wish to get out of the FRAUD of the pagan unbelievers, you must take action to void a voidable contract.

    You could never own their surname or their legal name. All you can do with property that does not belong to you is to abandon it. However, the key is that their system of fiction (lies) and FRAUD never had any right or jurisdiction over your property either, and you must void the voidable contract and demand that they remove your God-given [FACT] Christian name from all of their records from the beginning (ab initio) —– going back to the origin of the FRAUD, which is the fraudulent STATEMENT OF BIRTH and the fraudulent BIRTH CERTIFICATE. It’s all FRAUD. And, the fraud is in the “Legal Name”!

    During the fraud there was unjust enrichment to the benefit of the true owner of the surname and the legal name who does not want to be identified because they gambled that you would never discover this FRAUD. There also was no transparency, no full disclosure, no true consideration and no meeting of the minds, but these are minor points in the FRAUD. This it the prodigal son journey and it is your individual responsibility to discover the Fraud and to decide whether to stay in the FRAUD or to get or divorce yourself out of this voidable implied and expressed FRAUDULENT social contract.

    Most of us unwittingly and ignorantly extinguished our inalienable God-given Christian rights and squandered our inheritance when we ignorantly applied, volunteered and consented to join pagan unbeliever secular society for meagre less rights and meagre lesser privileges under the ANIMAL creature known as the “Legal Name” for the “Legal Person”, which is artificial (not real) and civilly dead! As you probably know, neither animals nor the dead can inherit anything.

    It’s the same as the ridiculous 500-year-old Vatican’s “Doctrine of Discovery” that allowed false-Christians to slaughter or enslave the original or native peoples of Africa, Asia, and North and South America because if they were labelled not to be Christians they were considered to be pagans or animals and they were allowed to be killed and enslaved because animals were not Christians and animals were not created in the image of God, and animals have NO RIGHTS.

    Well, guess what. Satan is a crafty deceiver and he influences the whole pagan secular world.
    The pagan government of the secular world have created mechanisms and an infrastructure that facilitated a worldwide FRAUD via the un-united nations (UN) and the VITAL STATISTICS ACT and their artificial and fraudulent birth registration system. TO BE CLEAR, they birthed an artificial, dead, ANIMAL through their BIRTH CERTIFICATE. Did you use their property to identify yourself as an animal? Are you carrying your derivative animal identification in your wallet in the form of the BIRTH CERTIFICATE, or CITIZENSHIP CERTIFICATE, or Driver’s Licence, or Passport, or any other derivative instrument from the original FRAUD, being the fraudulent BIRTH CERTIFICATE?

    You cannot be part of the collective of unbelievers and be an individual Christian with inalienable God-given rights at the same time. This is because it is impossible to be both a believer and an unbeliever at the same time! Therefore, you must separate yourself from pagan unbelievers if you want to re-instate your God-given inalienable Christian rights. You must void the voidable contract and remove your God-given Christian name from their pagan surname and their pagan legal name from their pagan world of legal fiction (lies), fraud and unbelief.

    Or, you can do nothing and remain part of the problem and bitch and complain within a system that you applied, you volunteered, and you consented to be part of and don’t blame anybody else for your decision. As the actor Carl Malden from the TV series called “Streets of San Francisco” said in the AMERICAN EXPRESS television commercial, membership has its privileges. Unfortunately, if you use your free will choice to betray God by becoming a member of any pagan unbeliever nation what you are doing is voluntarily consenting to give up your God-given right in return to far inferior man-made duties, debts, obligations and privileges (which is a very bad word). A privilege is granted and you must deny and return the inferior grant and you must return to the anterior (before) and superior grant under and Act of God, which is your God-given inalienable Christian name and all your God-given rights which you cannot give up and which cannot be taken away from you —- hence the term inalienable (same as unalienable).

    God is truly patient and gracious because the United States of America and Canada and all of the other pagan dis-united nations of man’s world are merely a system of de facto fiction (lie) sovereignty for fiction (lie) people who do not believe in God and who have no covenant with God because they have betrayed God and they have their own pagan government for their own pagan unbelievers. This is absolutely wrong and there is no way to rationalize anything wrong.

    Murder, theft, rape, homosexuality, lesbianism, and such obvious other things that are absolutely wrong cannot be rationalized to be right in any way whatsoever in God’s world. Of course, in man’s world of pagan unbelievers anything goes and you can chose to live under the Canadian or US government or any other pagan nation if you want to chose to lie, steal, rape, murder, and put your weenie in the bum of another man in opposition to God’s law. You certainly do have free will and God allows you to chose to be a pagan unbeliever if you so chose to be part of secular pagan society and their government and their fictional nations.

    However, note that there is a huge irony in the fact that the United States of America claims to be the “Land of the Free” when the fact is that they have more people in jail or prison than in any other pagan nation of man’s world. It is also ironic that the “Land of the Free” labels all of the people as terrorists and treats them as animals with no rights. Don’t get me wrong. I do not believe that the USA is special in any way whatsoever because they are no different than any of the other pagan unbeliever nations of man’s world of fiction (lies).

    Just please, please do not try to rationalize or justify any pagan unbeliever nation and mix it with anything to do with God, Christ Jesus, or the Authorized 1611 King James Holy Bible. The preamble to the artificial man-made Constitution of Canada recognizes the Supremacy of God —- they just choose to ignore it and instead they follow man-made “Rule of Law” for pagan unbelievers. Similarly, the United Sates of America was NEVER a Christian nation and your even your foreign-born Muslim President Obama is on record as saying that the USA is NOT a Christian nation now, as it never was from the start.

    No pagan nation ever had anything to do with God. The closest to come to being a nation under God was the Tribe of Judah until the Jews blew their chance because God got fed up with their repetitive idolatry, adultery and betrayal and God kicked them out of his covenant. Of course the false Jews of today will disagree, but they are all false Jews because their temple and records were destroyed in 586 B.C. (that’s BEFORE CHRIST, the God-man that they denied and killed) during their second enslavement by the Babylonians, and so they cannot even prove their surnames or heredity. But, that’s another long historical digression for another time too.

    Why must man complicate things so much? God’s will was never for man to create any imaginations, or imaginary nations with imaginary borders. It’s God’s earth simply because He created the earth and everything else for that matter and God owns it all! God created everything. Everything is already here and the only thing that man ever does is to rearrange what is already here.

    The only thing that the egotistic and selfish imagination of man ever created is the concept of debt and the illusion and delusion of ownership —– as if man could divide and own God’s earth. How ridiculous! Isn’t it ironic that the fact is that the whole world is way beyond bankrupt? Isn’t it ironic that all forms of money are debt? And, isn’t it ironic that you cannot purchase or pay for anything with debt? After, all, did God not say that the land shall NEVER be sold forever? But nooooo. Man wants to be his own god. Man wants to be an owner. Well, isn’t that just nice? No it is not. Alfred Adask, please forgive me because sometimes we need a little bit of sarcasm to hammer home the ridiculousness of something so obvious that people cannot see what was always right there in front of everybody’s noses. We just need to wake up and smell the reality.

    God gave man free will to choose between good and evil. It is so easy to do what is evil. It is difficult to overcome evil and to choose and do good instead. When Eve did the one thing that God forbid, which was to take the fruit (knowledge) from the only forbidden tree of knowledge of both good and evil, because Adam and Eve believed Satan instead of believing in God, man entered his prodigal son journey of discovery to find out if man could govern better than God. We failed.

    We truly are animals and if we stay under the label of an animal, which is the “Legal Name” that is birthed or created by the BIRTH CERTIFICATE, and we truly will die like a beast.

    Most of the people who like to believe that they are Christians are fooling themselves if they are picking and choosing which parts of the Authorized 1611 King James Holy Bible they like and which parts they do not like. Do these false Christians actually believe that they can choose and interpret God’s Word in any way that they choose? That would be total nonsense. Either you accept all of the Holy Bible or your reject all of the Holy Bible —– it’s all or nothing. And, as far as the over forty thousand secularly-registered and secularly-licenced false-Christian denominations go, which are all money religions, they are all false and FRAUD and they have nothing to do with God, Christ Jesus or the Holy Bible. The pagan (Roman) universal (Catholic) church is a Satanic organization that paganized Christianity from its origin and you do not protest something that is wrong because it is unfixable and you just leave, you don’t protest. You cannot rationalize anything that is fundamentally wrong.

    I must be giving all the unbelievers and arm-chair couch-potato critics who do absolutely no research much fodder for criticism and I can just see them seething. But, just in case they do not have enough to disagree with, let them consider one final fact.

    For those relatively few people who actually read and believe the Holy Bible and take the Word of God for its literal meaning the rest of the unbeliever world dismisses them as fundamentalists and mocks and denigrates them just as it is both written and prophesized in the Holy Bible. This is nothing new. I am sure that what I have written will upset many people. So be it. It is the Word of God that they are actually upset with and they can argue with God on judgement day. We will all get our chance to do that. I, for one, believe the literal world of God and I don’t care who choses to mock me and God. It’s the price you pay to live in a world of hypocrisy that pretends there is free speech when no such thing exists, just as privacy does not exist. Your recent American NSA spying on its own people and the rest of the world scandal is only the latest evidence of the illusion and delusion of privacy. But, this too is not new. There is nothing new under the sun.

    In closing, Alfred Adask, you are absolutely correct in coming to the knowledge that man treats his fellow mans as an animal. It’s the same problem that my high school friend coined in the term, “WHAT DO YOU DO WHEN YOU LIVE IN A ZOO?” Personally, I am getting out of the zoo.

    • J.M.

      March 5, 2014 at 3:09 AM

      @ Alfred, I just finished reading your essay response to Marten and I feel a little bad for both you and Marten.

      HIS essay response ???

      @ There is no quick and easy way to explain this and so I plead that you bear with me and read the whole explanation.

      @ >Personally, I am getting out of the zoo.

      You’re still in after your whole explanation ???

      Mladen, aka Mark, Do you have any books for sale? If so, will one of your books fit in a U.P.S. or Fed X truck or is it delivered by railroad freight train car?

  7. Ugly Truth

    November 20, 2013 at 4:44 PM

    The idea of people being sovereign only makes sense in a secular world. In a secular world the natural rights of the common law can not exist.

    • J.M.

      March 1, 2014 at 1:47 AM

      @ It takes humility to admit that one may be wrong.

      Is that right? What do you do for a living, Mark

      @ Personally, I am getting out of the zoo.

      We don’t get out of the ZOO by simply saying we do not have a Criminal Family or surname. This gets us put in the slammer for concealing ID. & obstructing the “lawful” duties of a “peace officer” & all ITS aka aze.

  8. Jetlag

    November 20, 2013 at 5:05 PM

    SOVEREIGNTY. The union and exercise of all human power possessed in a state; it is a combination of all power; it is the power to do everything in a state without accountability; to make laws, to execute and to apply them: to impose and collect taxes, and, levy, contributions; to make war or peace; to form treaties of alliance or of commerce with foreign nations, and the like. (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856)

    Martens, I’m reposting this definition because I too am waiting for someone to reconcile it with a claim that the Founders wanted each American to have sovereignty on an individual basis. It seems an absurd notion.

    • Adask

      November 21, 2013 at 12:45 PM

      I agree. Individual sovereignty is an absurd notion–as are the concepts of God, the Christ, salvation and an eternal after-life. All are similarly absurd. Only dummies would believe in any of those concepts. Smart people, on the other hand, believe in collectivism, might makes right, people condemned to live in bondage, poverty and despair–and a one-time secular life that mandates we all belly up to trough to get as much as we can for ourselves and screw the rest of ’em.

      In fact, individual sovereignty is not an absurd idea. It’s a REVOLUTIONARY idea that was espoused as the central motive and objective of the American REVOLUTION that essentially overthrew not merely the English control of what became the USA, but also the monarchy system in most of the western world.

      More, with the exception of England, virtually all of the monarchies of the western world (at the time of the American Revolution) were part of the Holy Roman Empire of the Catholic Church. The hierarchy of authority/sovereignty in the Holy Roman Empire caused the people/subjects to be at the bottom, the governments at the next rung up, the kings at the next rung up, the Pope above the kings and finally God at the top. For all practical purposes, an ordinary man/subject couldn’t reach God except by going through a complex hierarchy of government and priests.

      When our country postulated that “all men are created equal and [directly] endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” we allowed every man to deal directly on a one-to-one basis with their Creator/God. In doing so, we eliminated that hierarchy of priests and government employees who used to feed so prosperously off the people. Protestants have forgotten that the American Revolution struck a debilitating (perhaps fatal) blow against the Holy Roman Empire. However, I doubt that the Jesuits have forgotten that blow. I certainly couldn’t prove it, but I wouldn’t be surprised if, to this day, elements of the Catholic church are still holding a grudge against the idea of individual sovereignty (living directly under God).

      In any case, I’m amazed by how many of my readers (despite the fact that the Supreme Court repeatedly called the people “sovereignS” and thereby indicated that we are each individually sovereign) still automatically insist that the concept of individual sovereignty is “absurd,” irrational or “non sequitur”–and thereby reject a possible strategy for regaining their own Liberty. I’m reminded of stories of animals kept in cages for so long, that when the cages are finally opened, the animals refuse to step outside their cages. I’m also reminded of Aldous Huxley’s description of a class of people who could be conditioned to “love their servitude”.

      Have you people been “caged” for so long that you’re “institutionalized” and no longer fit to be free? Have your learned to “love your servitude”?

      I’m not saying that my notions on “individual sovereignty” are perfect or even absolutely true. But they are plausible, possible and even likely valid. But assuming my notions (which some of you reject) are actually wrong, do any of you have a better idea? Do any of you who reject the idea of individual sovereignty have any other strategy or theory on which to base the idea of individual freedom or Liberty?

      If you do, I’d like to hear it. If you don’t, why do you insist on rejecting a theory that just might set you free? What is your reason? Are you institutionalized? Do you love your servitude?

      • Jetlag

        November 21, 2013 at 1:34 PM

        Adask said: “…the Supreme Court repeatedly called the people “sovereignS” and thereby indicated that we are each individually sovereign…”

        No, they did not thereby indicate that. Simply repeating that they did does not make it so. You have not accounted for “the sovereignty” (singular) in the same ruling.

        As was explained earlier, when “sovereigns” (plural) is considered in combination with “the sovereignty” (singular), it could mean that the people’s status as individual sovereigns derives from their membership in the collective sovereignty.

        This interpretation is confirmed to be the correct one by the court’s subsequent reference to the people’s “joint tenancy in the sovereignty”.

        Adask said: “Do any of you who reject the idea of individual sovereignty have any other strategy or theory on which to base the idea of individual freedom or Liberty?”

        You’re presuming a lot. I, for one, do not reject the idea of individual sovereignty. I think it’s a great idea. But my personal preferences are off-topic here. My contributions to this discussion are about sovereignty in the American political system, not my wishes about how the world “should” be.

      • Mladen (aka Mark)

        November 21, 2013 at 1:53 PM

        Hi Alfred. I am not trying to rain on your parade. i RESPECT YOUR OPINIONS AND PERSPECTIVES. Your opinion and your perspective is certainly plausible. However, based on my long research into the law I can explain why you are wrong, in all due respect. And, more importantly, I can explain the one-and-only remedy to get out from under what is nothing more than FRAUD and it is a voidable contract that each individual must take action to actually void it. This will change the MASTER-SERVANT relationship so that it puts you back in the pre-birth-certificate position of not being an animal and being a servant of God. Then, as a servant of God the secular government becomes your servant in the name of God, which is to say that you must ask in the name of the King, Lord and Saviour, advocate and surety in all matters whatsoever, Jesus Christ.

        I just wish that you traced the origin of the discovery that man is defined and treated as an ANIMAL by secular society and its so-called misnomer of “Positive law”, in which there is actually nothing positive about it, back to the source or origin of the ANIMAL, which is the State/Provincial BIRTH CERTIFICATE [or its Federal equivalent, the CITIZENSHIP CERTIFICATE]. There is a way IN LAW to get out from under the FRAUD of the BIRTH CERTIFICATE and the “Legal Name” that does not belong to you.

        To be clear, in your case, Alfred, the surname ADASK and the merged and confused combined legal name ALFRED ADASK does not belong to you either. It is not your property because it belongs to a secular feudal lord who does not want to be identified and who made a wager (bet) that you would continue to ignorantly work for him because you would never discover the truth. Well, as of this moment you now know the truth. That sounds ridiculous doesn’t it? However, the truth is far stranger than fiction. The question now is what will you do with the truth and facts.

        Will you keep on spinning your wheels in the world of theory and fiction (lies)? Or, do you want to move forward to regain your inheritance?

      • Jetlag

        November 21, 2013 at 2:32 PM

        And I’m still waiting for someone to make sense of the claim that the Founder’s intended the people to have individual sovereignty, given the definition of “sovereignty” in Bouvier’s Law Dictionary of 1856 (posted above) – or use your own definition from a different dictionary, if necessary.

        Any takers?

      • EarlfromOregon

        December 5, 2013 at 11:02 AM

        Here is an In Depth study of Anti Sovereignty

        The Problem of Political Obligation
        by Carole Pateman (1985)
        Polity Press, Oxford, UK

        The Problem of Political Obligation
        examines the notion of political obligation in relation to the liberal democratic state
        and presents a vision of participatory democracy
        as a means to effect a more satisfactory relationship between the citizen and the state.

        She offers a general assessment of liberal theory
        and an interpretation of all familiar arguments
        about political obligation and democratic consent.

        It is usually taken for granted that, in liberal democracies,
        a bond of political a obligation exists between citizens and the state.

        The substantive, and controversial, argument of this book
        is that political obligation
        constitutes an insoluble problem in the liberal democratic state.

        Table Of Contents
        1. Problems and Questions.
        2. Self-Assumed Obligation and Abstract Individualism.
        3. Political Obligation and the Sword of Leviathan.
        4. ‘No Expressions of it at all.
        ‘5. Contemporary Consent Theory.
        6. Hypothetical Voluntarism and the Conceptual Argument.
        7. The Democratic Social Contract.
        8. Political Obedience or Political Obligation?

        The Problem of Political Obligation
        ISBN-10: 0745601359 – (240 pgs uk)
        ISBN-10: 0520056507 – (222 pgs us)

        The Problem of Political Obligation was first published in 1979.
        This new edition retains the original text
        but includes a substantial new chapter
        which clarifies further the central themes of the work.


  9. Mladen (aka Mark)

    November 20, 2013 at 5:17 PM

    Have you guys considered the idea that the “Founders” of the US Constitution, which is a man-made piece of paper, was the idea of a bunch of men, most of whom were lawyers, and these men wanted to create their own government out of thin air for their own personal benefit?

    Furthermore, have you guys considered the idea that you are not party to this or any other man-made constitution?

    • pop de adam

      November 20, 2013 at 6:17 PM

      I have considered that perhaps the British might have desired exactly what occured. The colonies were going along quite well, at some point these colonists were probably going to demand representation(in Parliment?). If it had been so perhaps things would have muddled along for a while, but what happens when the population of the colonies begin to rival that of Britain? Could a potentially drastic inversion of majorities have convinced the British that keeping hold of the colonies could possibly come back to bite them in the future? I don’t think anyone would wish to be complict in their own subversion.

      Just an idea.

      • Mladen (aka Mark)

        November 20, 2013 at 9:03 PM

        pop de adam, this is meant in humour and I hope that you do not take offense because that is not my intent. But, you know what happens when the colonies get backed up, they explode and shit hits the wall.

    • J.M.

      March 1, 2014 at 2:07 AM

      How many disciples did Jesus Christ have? 12 right? 12 + 1 = 13 right? How many original colonies in this Country were there? 13 Right? How many “early” court cases said that this Country IS a Christian nation? What Book was regarded as the Word of God in this, at that time, Christian nation? How did this nation RISE to be the # 1 Nation in the world? I’m not talking about the way it IS now but the way it once WAS? The 12 disciples + Christ = 13. Is all this just a coincidence? Of course you will not answer these questions as the only thing necessary to do is DROP the CRIMINAL Family name. Seems this country rose to be the # 1 Country IN the ENTIRE world WITH all those criminal names included.Right ? Do I expect you to respond to this message? NO

  10. messianicdruid

    November 20, 2013 at 8:23 PM

    God is the only Sovereign. We are given authority over ourselves, but never apart fron God.

    Men have no authority to make law, only to enforce it. Pretending to be supreme does not make one supreme. Arguing about man-made “laws” is a waste of effort. You cannot improve on perfection.

  11. palani

    November 20, 2013 at 8:40 PM

    Perhaps instructive to examine the events surround the deposing of King Louis XVI of France. From wikipedia

    “Louis XVI was suspended and arrested as part of the insurrection of 10 August 1792 just one month before the constitutional monarchy was abolished and a republic declared. He was tried by the National Convention, found guilty of high treason, and executed by guillotine on 21 January 1793 as a desacralized French citizen known as “Citizen Louis Capet”, a nickname in reference to Hugh Capet, the founder of the Capetian dynasty – which the revolutionaries interpreted as Louis’ family name.”

    Before King Louis XVI could be beheaded he had to be ‘desacralized’ and this was done by referring to him by his family name. There would appear to be a lesson to be learned here.

    • Mladen (aka Mark)

      November 20, 2013 at 9:13 PM

      palani, you are correct that there is a lesson in what you said about Louis XVI. There is a similar lesson in the false accusation of Jesus the Christ, who was not registered anywhere and therefore neither the Roman or Jewish accusers had any jurisdiction over him to begin with. In order to gain jurisdiction over Jesus they lied and made up a false “Title” and that is what the surname is (a false title). They placed the false title “King of the Jews” over the head of Jesus the Christ. The surname is unnecessary overhead. The surname is an “Epithet”, which is an insult. I could go into far more detail about the surname but suffice it to say that it is all negative.

      In response to the false accusation and false title accusation that the Roman governor and judge Pilate made when he asked Jesus, “Are you King of the Jews”, Jesus made the perfect confession by responding, “So say you”. In other words, Christ did not claim the surname “King of the Jews”. Pilate said that. Christ only acknowledged that Pilate made that false claim by saying, “So say you.”

      Fast forward to today, and all that the secular synagogue of Satan courts need you to do is to claim the state’s property, which is the surname, when they ask you to “State your name for the record”. The surname is already state property and so the surname is already stated. It’s a play on words. But, it is a devilishly clever play on words. If you claim that your name is the surname then the game is over and you have lost and it does not matter what you say or what anybody else says after you say or state or claim the surname property that is not your property. It’s a clever trick question and it works for the devil’s synagogue of Satan secular courts almost all of the time. Very few people have woken up to the fact that the surname and the legal name are not your property and they are not you.

      • Lisa

        November 22, 2013 at 10:37 PM

        @ Mladen: I have never seen the explanation for the surname so well broken down and detailed (and I read the entire LONG post).

        Having recently “woke up” from my life-long coma and wandered out of the cage, going into court for something so simple as a right-turn-on-red violation has been quite the education of the surname. In fact, I have recently come to the conclusion that showing up in their theater [court] is unnecessary as the flesh and blood woman/man is NOT that name and not a party to the contract they so dastardly contrive!

        I did not sign, nor consent to that Birth Certificate when born; 1) Offer, 2) Acceptance; 3) Consideration – the basic elements of a contract. A contract that I was NOT a party to, but led to believe life wouldn’t be complete without it.

        As I am not an “American Citizen” I’m not a party to their contracts, benefits, voting “privileges”, etc. Everyday, I strive to let go of the EGO that is attached to that “name” and ownership. It has given me a profound sense of freedom! I have been using Matthew 6:24 regularly and even recited it to a law enforcement officer who stated “but you follow OUR laws here on earth”. God grant me the courage/patience to help those who do not know, for they know not what they do…..

        I have given-up the driver license, yet still working on voiding it, along with the Socialist Enslavement number (SSN). I was wondering if you might be able to help me understand the process of voiding such contracts, as you stated in your posts above.

        Thank you for your post here. I feel as though I’m sitting with my little “Peaceful Inhabitant Group”, listening to the seasoned members talk about titles, surnames, legal fiction, B/C and the bible. Helps me to know there are others out there along the same wavelength. . . . .

  12. Mladen (aka Mark)

    November 20, 2013 at 9:31 PM

    I live in Canada, and before I learned that nobody owns anything I had the legal-sized printout from the local Land Registry Office from the Province of Ontario (Canada) ServiceOntario office operated by the Provincial government. The Land Registry document showed that the two “Legal Names” for what I used to think was me and my wife were “Joint” Tenants and in the past I ignorantly assumed that the word “Joint” was there because I was “Joint” with my wife (not how that sounds, get your mind out the gutter). However, I was wrong.

    The truth is that even a single “Legal Name” is also shown as a “Joint Tenant”. Technically, it can be show as “Joint Tenant(s)” or “Tenant(s) in Common”. The key word is NOT the word “Joint”. The key word is “Tenant” and you are a tenant either way. A tenant is NOT an owner. You are not an owner. Nobody can be an owner. There is no provision in any law for anybody to be an owner.

    The legal system does NOT allow for the transfer (conveyance) of real property. They are only screwing with everybody’s mind because the only thing that they are conveying (transferring) is the “Title” of the “Legal Name”. And, to add insult to injury, even the “Legal Name” is NOT your property. The fact is that everybody is only renting/leasing the surname and the combined “Legal Name” from Her Majesty in right of the Federal or Provincial/State government, or the Crown, or the collective fiction of the inanimate dead and artificial State People, not any living individual(s).

    God created the living and has jurisdiction over living men, women and children. Satan the devil (deceiver) creates a shadow of the living in the form of the dead and artificial “Legal Name” for his dead and artificial “Legal Person” so that the secular government has jurisdiction of their own dead and artificial “Legal Name” created via their BIRTH CERTIFICATE. What a clever subversion of justice. Who else other than a being who was with God before he betrayed God could come up with such an evil scheme?

    • Jetlag

      November 20, 2013 at 10:07 PM

      “A tenant is NOT an owner.”

      Sorry but this is incorrect.

      TENANT, estates. One who holds or possesses lands or tenements by any kind of title, either in fee, for life, for years, or at will. (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856)

      TENANT 1a : one who holds or possesses real estate or sometimes personal property (as a security) by any kind of right. (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

      A tenant can be an owner. It depends on the situation.

      • Mladen (aka Mark)

        November 20, 2013 at 10:17 PM

        Jetlag, it was not my intent to upset your false sense of reality. But, judging from your attempt to rationalize somehow that a TENANT can be an owner is just simply ridiculous. IT is as silly as saying that black is white, dead is living, etc. . God said that the land shall NEVER be sold forever. That means you can’t be an owner. A tenant pays a FEE and the FEE is a form or rent or lease, and the PROPERTY TAX is the rent. What part of that FACT are you going to argue with?

      • Jetlag

        November 20, 2013 at 10:38 PM

        Sometimes a tenant must pay a fee, but not necessarily. It depends on the type of title the tenant holds, if any. What is your source for claiming all tenants must pay fees?

        And tax is not rent. A tax is imposed by a state under the law. Rent is due to a property owner according to contract. There’s a big difference between the two.

      • Mladen (aka Mark)

        November 20, 2013 at 10:53 PM

        Jetlag, do you really want me to argue about the right word out of about 186 different words for usage of property that does not belong to you? Is that really FEE-sable? Can’t you see that it’s all one in the same?

        Why don’t you pick from one of the following 60 synonyms for tax —– whichever one makes you happy:

        assessment. exaction

    • palani

      November 21, 2013 at 7:53 AM

      @Mladen (aka Mark) “I live in Canada”
      If you were born in Canada (a federation) then your nationality is Canadian and you agree to abide by all federation laws and duties. Hence you lose your own right to self-determination by your own declaration. Can’t you find somewhere else to live? Within your body is a start but that answer will be frowned upon. How about the Great Lakes Basin? As you can see if you live there then no political will has been expressed and you might be on the U.S. side or the Canadian side.

      • Mladen (aka Mark)

        November 21, 2013 at 9:52 AM

        @palani, I did NOT say I was born in Canada, I only live within the imaginary borders of the imagination of Canada. Technically, the dead and artificial legal fiction that I had energized to my past ignorance was born out of an imagi-nation that did not last even 100 years. So, technically, you could truly say that I am stateless. Unfortunately, my parents escaped from that imagi-nation back in 1968 to move to the imagi-nation of Canada and its imaginary borders.

        And, the losing your right of self-determination bit is malarkey because in law a child cannot be harmed and all of the silly assumptions, presumptions, and the implied and expressed social contracts all happened to all of us while we were children. The unfortunate part is that we all continued to participate in the FRAUD once we became the age of majority and we continue to energize whether we had applied for, volunteered into and consented in the past. We applied, volunteered and consented to FRAUD and now we have the choice to un-volunteer and un-consent and all that’s needed is a good faith notice to the higher powers of secular government to tell them that we quit and abandon their fraud surname [and its fraudulently combined “Legal Name”] and we remove our God-given inalienable Christian name.

        The reason that 99.9% of the people will not do what I just described is that they believe that they own property in the “Legal Name”, which they do NOT own anyway, but they just can’t let go of the illusion or delusion of ownership. It’s a psychological trap. Perhaps it has something to do with ego, selfishness and wanting to continue to believe that one can be in charge as their own little god. Again, the lies of the father of the lie are difficult to overcome after a lifetime of indoctrination.

        Finally, I do not wish to be on either the U.S. side or the Canadian side because both are artificial anyway. I want to be on God’s side, and God’s Kingdom of Heaven in no part of man’s artificial system of things, which is based on operating an artificial and dead entity, and only as an agent for “It”.

      • palani

        November 21, 2013 at 10:12 AM

        @ Mladen (aka Mark) “I did NOT say I was born in Canada” … I know that. I prefaced my statement with ‘IF’.

        ” the losing your right of self-determination bit is malarkey” … When you state ‘I live in Canada’ you voluntarily accept all of Canada’s customs, code and public laws. If you are a child and make the statement ‘I live in Canada’ you are not help accountable. Are you a child NOW?

        ” people will not do what I just described is that they believe that they own property in the “Legal Name”, which they do NOT own anyway” … You may take any name you like as long as you do not intend to use it to commit fraud. In what name were you baptized? I just bring up baptism because that would be your lawful name and you are not required to divulge that name to anyone.

        “I do not wish to be on either the U.S. side or the Canadian side” … Which is why I brought up the instance of the Great Lakes Basin. When asked where you live and you respond ‘The Great Lakes Basin’ you are making no political determination. Politically the statement is ambiguous and yet is specific enough to place you geographically. [Note ‘Great Lakes Basin’ is just an example … where ever you live you are in a watershed …. so saith the Great and Powerful EP
        “We all live in a watershed — the area that drains to a common waterway, such as a stream, lake, estuary, wetland, aquifer, or even the ocean “

      • Rog

        November 21, 2013 at 11:25 AM

        @Mladen ” A tenant pays a FEE and the FEE is a form or rent or lease, and the PROPERTY TAX is the rent.” What are you saying here? You say “you can’t be an owner.” If I am not the owner then I must be paying a fee or a tax to THE owner. If no man can be an owner who the Hell am I paying rent to? Are you saying government is God’s property manager? Are you saying government is the rightful owner? ????The Queen? PAALEASE!

        God gave man dominion over the earth.

        do•min•ion (dəˈmɪn yən)

        1. the power to govern; sovereign authority.
        2. the act or fact of ruling; domination.
        3. the territory subject to the control of a single ruler or government.
        4. (often cap.) any of the self-governing countries outside the United Kingdom belonging to the Commonwealth of Nations.

        But wait! Jesus called satan the “ruler of this world.” So God gives man sovereignty in this world. Our dominion is over this world, His creation. Yet, satan is ruler. Some one’s got some ‘splainin to do. Since we have “the power to govern; sovereign authority” and satan has the same power something’s got to give.

        Since ownership is a claim of control and exclusive use, a claim man makes to ensure his survival, ownership is merely man exercising his God given dominion over the land. Sure, God is the real owner, but he’s not taking calls. So who are you saying is the owner? If you are who I think you are (Marcus) you never really answer the question. You make mention of the queen as owner but go on to say nobody owns anything. If satan is the earthly owner, we have no claim, if we have dominion than satan’s claims are baseless. This condition can not stand because claim of ownership is how we exercise God’s gift to us and two can not simultaneously claim ownership of one thing (accept through the person). But the person is a fiction.

        So ownership of the land, or anything else, is an agreement among men exercising their God given dominion over the earth for our mutual benefit. We, as individual sovereigns (sorry Martens, but you have been infected with the fatal collectivist virus) exercise our dominion by cooperating with other sovereigns to our mutual benefit. But the question of ownership has created a train wreck. If you say we can not be free without ownership and turn around and say we own nothing then we are not free. If we are not free, and were never intended to be free, as this whole line of thought seems to suggest, then we are merely slaves, or at best, play things of the creator. I don’t buy that and neither should you.

  13. Vincent

    November 21, 2013 at 12:57 AM

    I think the Supreme Court meaning in Chisholm v Georgia can be found in the definition of people and citizen. The highest form of status someone can have is to be an individual. A citizen is a lower form of status to an individual. The people can be made up of individuals, citizens, enlisted persons, convicts, native Americans, bond servants etc. Each one of these has a different status and therefore standing (in a way a level of sovereignty or capacity for sovereignty). A convict or an enlisted person will have less standing than a citizen or an individual because they either had it taken away or contracted it away.

    An individual can have an independent sovereignty that a citizen can not have. A citizen can only share sovereignty as a joint tenet due to their status.

    I may be off base here a little on my previous statement, but the general idea can be used to make sense of the sentence from Chisholm v Georgia.

    The last part about citizens appears to be a separate but related thought. The assumption that people and citizens are one in the same would make this sentence contradictory to itself. The assumption that people and citizens are different in their capacity for sovereignty could explain wording used by the Supreme Court.

  14. Martens

    November 21, 2013 at 1:50 AM

    More from the Supreme Court:

    “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 this sovereignty. The question before us is, whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty?”

    – Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1857

    The people of the United States “form the sovereignty” (singular tense). Every citizen is a “constituent” of “this sovereignty” (singular tense).

    Here again sovereignty is a collective property.

    • Jetlag

      November 21, 2013 at 10:53 AM

      Looks like a slam-dunk for collective sovereignty, Martens, though let’s wait and see what the Professor has to say about this.

      On a side note, this ruling clears up the talk about being one of the “people” versus one of the “citizens”. Turns out these two terms are “synonymous” and “mean the same thing”.

      Thanks, SCOTUS.

      • Jethro!

        November 21, 2013 at 11:05 AM

        I disagree. Juxtaposing two cases decided some 64 years apart under different circumstances, different times, with different plaintiffs (remember, Scott was not one of “the People”) and with potentially different relative meanings of terms doesn’t make for a slam-dunk in relation to the Chisholm discussion, at least not in my book.

  15. Jethro!

    November 21, 2013 at 10:22 AM

    I am persuaded to agree with Al’s position.

    The particular quote under discussion is not the only place in the decision men are are referred to as “sovereigns” individually. Here are more:

    (at 456): “If one free man, an original sovereign, may do all this, why may not an aggregate of free men, a collection of original sovereigns, do this likewise?”

    (at 471): “Here we see the people acting as sovereigns [plural, not singular] of the whole country”

    Not only must “joint tenancy” must be read in light of the rest of the decision, Justice Iredell gives a strong indication of what it means here:

    (at 477): “It would be strange indeed that the joint and equal sovereigns [<– again plural] of this country should, in the very Constitution by which they professed to establish justice, so far deviate from the plain path of equality and impartiality as to give to the collective citizens of one State a right of suing individual citizens of another State, and yet deny to those citizens a right of suing them."

    When juxtaposed with the sentence under discussion, we can see a distinction is made between "the people" and "citizens":

    "the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects … the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.”

    It is not the *People* who are "joint tenants", it is the *citizens*. This supports Al's position that “joint tenants in the sovereignty" can only refer to "the (singular) sovereignty of the State that had been created by the people."

    It appears "citizen" is a capacity with which each one the People may clothe themselves… if they so choose. For example, one of the People may act as "citizen" — complete with the privileges (e.g. occupying public office) and obligations (e.g. better not embezzle public funds) that come with it — or not.

    I believe it's clear that the decision explains that the people individually, not collectively, are the sovereigns; and the "joint tenants" refers to the singular government agent ordained and established by those sovereigns, with which they may participate if they wish.

  16. palani

    November 21, 2013 at 11:38 AM

    A sovereign is capable of seizing land. Anyone who does not have this capacity is less than sovereign. Any explorer sent to a foreign land plants the flag of his country/sovereign. He does not seize land in his own name. He is only able to do so in the name of someone else. Even Blackstone tells us that ‘where ever an Englishman goes he takes his laws with him’. This sentiment holds not only for an Englishman but for anyone who claims to come from any country. The countries laws attach to the body rather than the soil. Now consider one who is stateless. There is not a wealth of information out there on the rights of a stateless individual. As he has no state he brings with him no law. Should he find an island uninhabited he can seize that island and hold it in his own name. Likewise for abandoned property. If he were a citizen he could claim the thing abandoned in the name of his sovereign/country. If he is stateless he claims that thing for himself. Not that statelessness is identical to sovereignty but in this seizing of abandoned property they are similar.

    • Mladen (aka Mark)

      November 21, 2013 at 1:37 PM

      @palani, in all due respect, you missed my point. That’s OK.

      So, now you believe that you have the capacity to seize land. And, do you have your own army to protect the land you have seized against those that you have seized it from? Are you equipped to defend yourself against other sovereigns or the “State”.

      @ palani, I am not trying to be difficult, but you must honestly answer the following question for yourself so that you will not be in merger and confusion just like all others participating in the FRAUD of secular society. Are you the MASTER or the SERVANT? If you claim to be the MASTER, then why are you acting as the SERVANT, who is a mere agent with a 9-digit Social Security Number (Social Insurance Number, or SIN, in Canada) ? I believe that a “Sovereign without subjects” would not need a 9-digit secular SIN number.

      I believe that almost everyone made the same error (which is a mis-take, because we took some “Thing” which was NOT our property) due to lack of knowledge, which is called ignorance.

      The wrong thing that almost everyone did is that they applied, volunteered and consented to become a state “Hireling” under a FRAUD that allegedly changed the MASTER from God to the “State” and the “State” became the false feudal lord at that point. However, whether this was an implied or expressed social contract does not matter. Fraud is not fraud as long as you continue to participate in the fraud (voluntarily and by consent). If you believe that you are part of a FRAUD and if you do not agree with it, as I do not agree, you have a choice because you are participating in a fraudulent and VOIDABLE contract. Whether that social contract is implied or expressed does not matter. It is exactly like the prodigal son journey. We must come back to our true Father, God. God is our master. We are not the master. We are not little gods. And, we are not “Sovereigns without subjects” —– nice try, but that’s wrong.

      Finally, @palani, and for the benefit of everyone else that is graciously reading this communication, I believe that most people will not do what I am talking about above because most people are possessed by their possessions. Most people will not do any research. Most people will not let go of the lie that they can be an owner. And, most people will not accept the fact that they have worked during their entire secular lives for nothing. Most people will not be humble. Most people will not accept the FACTS. It is sad, but true.

      • palani

        November 21, 2013 at 5:54 PM

        @Mladen (aka Mark) “now you believe that you have the capacity to seize land” … The topic is sovereignty and not my individual status or circumstances. To the extent I MIGHT be sovereign I have all the authority I need to seize land … although I prefer to call the action ABATING A NUISANCE… as abandoned property has is capable of being a nuisance to society.

        “Are you the MASTER or the SERVANT?” … My status? I am caretaker.

        “due to lack of knowledge, which is called ignorance” … Sorry but you hit one of my hot button issues. Ignorance is the want of knowledge and is of two sorts, fact or law. Ignorance of law consists in the want of knowledge of those laws which it is our duty to understand, and which every man is presumed to know. Ignorance of fact is the want of knowledge as to the fact in question. Ignorance of a FOREIGN law is classed ignorance of a fact. Bouvier has an entire section on ignorance that I believe most people would benefit from reading.

        ” I believe that most people will not do what I am talking about above because most people are possessed by their possessions.” My possessions are limited by policy to a $5 gold piece (prevents vagrancy charges from sticking) and $21 in silver dollars (assigned to a bond that I use to prevent nuisance charges while preserving my right to a jury). So you see I had reasons for retaining these possessions not the least of which was the 10 planks professes to take ALL private property and these items ARE private property .. a line in the sand as it were.

    • J.M.

      March 1, 2014 at 2:15 AM

      @ > A sovereign is capable of seizing land.

      Think I’m about to have seizure reading Mladen aka Mark’s LONG messages It’s SIMPLE DROP THE SURNAME.

  17. Mladen (aka Mark)

    November 21, 2013 at 12:33 PM

    @ Rog. You can disagree with my belief all you want since that is your choice and it does not affect me in any way whatsoever. Nobody can force anybody else to believe anything. For me, I do not have to believe in any lies and the whole secular world of man is one big lie.

    Since you, @Rob, believe in ownership, and you are making that claim, please show me where in law it says that you can be an owner. Have a “Title” is NOT ownership. I do not know how much more simply I can say it. Title (i.e. the “Legal Name” that everything you think you have is registered in, but which you do NOT own) is not ownership since you do not even own the “Title”. People have mere use and possession and that’s it.

    If you do not believe me then perhaps you could order a book called, “WHO OWNS THE WORLD?” or visit the Irish-based author’s (Kevin Cahill) website, , where he writes in an update with respect to Canada the following:

    How Canada is owned

    All physical land in Canada is the property of the Crown, Queen Elisabeth II. There is no provision in the Canada Act, or in the Constitution Act 1982 which amends it, for any Canadian to own any physical land in Canada. All that Canadians may hold, in conformity with medieval and feudal law, is “an interest in an estate in land in fee simple”. Land defined as ‘Crown land’ in Canada, and administered by the Federal Government and the Provinces, is merely land not ‘dedicated’ or assigned in freehold tenure. Freehold is tenure, not ownership. Freehold land is ‘held’ not ‘owned’.

    @Rog, I will eagerly await your proof of the provision in law for anybody to own anything. I will not hold my breath, though, since I have no wish to die.

    What most of the people making comments on Alfred’s blog seem to not know is that the world is still operating on a FEUDAL SYSTEM. Nothing has changed over the past 1000 years. The Feudal Lord has only changed from a King, to a franchised Lord under the King, to the “State” operating in place of a King and each one falsely claims to have the divine right from God for what they claim —- and no matter what form the false claim is in it is still false.

    To be clear, nobody is free. Nobody is a freeman on the land. Nobody is a sovereign without subjects. Nobody is their own little god. The simple truth and FACT is that those that believe in the fallacy of “Freeman on the land” or the fallacy of being their own “Sovereign without subjects” are only free to the extent that they are free to trade amongst the other slaves/serves/subjects under the dominion of the Feudal Lord, which is now the collective secular “State”. Who has the right of “Eminent Domain”, @Rog, you as a sovereign without subjects, or the “State”?

    There is a vast difference between anybody’s mere false belief that misrepresents the truth and the facts in law, and the law. God said that the land shall NEVER be sold forever. Why do you suppose that it? Could it possibly be that God as the Creator of all owns it all?

    Any of the commentators on this blog who use secular laws or secular constitutions, all of which are man-made, seem to forget that all powers come from God. So, why are you guys not using the anterior and superior Law of God? Why are you guys not quoting God’s Law from the Authorized 1611 King James Holy Bible, which is both God’s superior Law and the Charter for Christians? And, why are some people picking and choosing things out of the Holy Bible in ways that are not supported by the Holy Bible itself. God gave man dominion over things, NOT OWNERSHIP.

    But, it appears, just as the father of the lie, Satan the devil, made a false offer and lied to Adam and Eve, it appears that most secular and non-spiritual people still want to believe in the LIE that they can be their own little gods (aka “sovereigns without subjects”) —- little false creators and false owners. I can understand the reason that people like to think they are gods, sovereigns or owners, but it is not true. The appeal of Satan’s lie has never changed from the beginning.

    Why do you guys not start with the FOUNDATION of the secular world, which is a piece of paper or now plastic in the form of the long form STATEMENT OF BIRTH that leads to the short form (wallet sized) BIRTH CERTIFICATE? You were given a “Mark of the beast” in the form of the SURNAME, which is a BRAND. You are recognized in man’s secular world of artificial and dead fiction (lies) by the brand of the surname. You were branded just like and ANIMAL, and Alfred Adask is completely correct on that discovery; although it appears that he did not trace it back to its origin on the BIRTH CERTIFICATE. And, if you read the Holy Bible, the Law of God, the last chapter, which is called REVELATION, and which means disclosure, Revelation in the Holy Bible talks about an unfulfilled prophecy that all those that want to buy and sell (i.e. “Traffic:) will get the mark of the beast under their skin (in their hand or forehead). Are you ready to be branded?

    • Vincent

      November 21, 2013 at 2:56 PM

      Dominion and sovereignty are one in the same. God gave man the capacity for ownership of just about everything on this Earth except for the land which is God’s. Man having dominion or sovereignty does not make him a god.

      • Mladen (aka Mark)

        November 21, 2013 at 3:35 PM

        @ Vincent, it appears that we may not have read the same Bible. Hers is a link to just one of many electronic sources of the paper version of the very first sentence of the Authorized 1611 King James Version of the Holy Bible which begins with Genesis 1 [ King James Version (KJV) ]:
        In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

        So, you are claiming that a natural living man has the ARTIFICIAL capacity for ownership. That is your claim, not mine. Could you please point me to the verse that I might have missed where God separated the earth and the land from everything that is in and on the earth and the land? Could you please point me to the verse that I might have missed where God unequivocally gives man ownership over any of God’s creation? And, while you are at it, could you please point me to the verse that I might have missed where God makes his creation little gods?

        I may be wrong, and if I am wrong I would certainly want to know the reason and explanation and the source of the logic for why I am wrong that man is not a little god and man cannot be an owner.

        I hope that you do not use flawed circular logic by claiming that it says so in any man-made constitution since it is not worth the paper that it is written on since even the tree that was killed to make the paper that the man-made constitution was written on was made by God. And, I hope that you are not going to use the childish non-explanation by in essence saying that it’s “Just because” since mere believe misrepresents the facts all day long.

      • Vincent

        November 21, 2013 at 5:52 PM

        Gen 1:28-30 God gives man plants and animals
        Gen 15:18-21 God gives Abraham and his decedents the land from the river of egypt to the river euphrates (an exception to the land ownership statue God gave)
        Job 42:10 God gives Job twice what he had
        1 Kings 1:29 God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding

        I will not waste my time listing more. God the creator of all has the capacity to “give” to man. He has done it through his supreme sovereignty on many occasions. Man can receive and take ownership of the things God gives him or God would not be able to give them to man. Inheritance is something with great importance through out the scripture. How can there be inheritance if man does not have the capacity to take ownership of it? How does the supreme sovereignty of God exist if He can not give to His creations? How does God giving man anything make man “little gods”? You take away from God’s supreme sovereignty by stating that man can not take ownership of that what God gives him.

        I feel like this is a silly conversation and off topic.

    • Rog

      November 21, 2013 at 4:38 PM

      @mladen, Of course ownership is a man made concept! It is a way of marking territory. To believe one is sovereign is not the same as believing one is a “little god.” We are subjects of our own sovereignty. And if you really believe we were not created free you truly misunderstand God’s gift to us.

      As to proving we have ownership under the law, I ask, whose law? We have a right to claim ownership under God’s law-we have dominion over the earth. It is merely an accounting tool to resolve territorial disputes. Of course God owns it all. But without the human concept of ownership we end up being servants to other men. Don’t you see? God did not create us to be servants of man, but of Him! (or he or whatever). As for man’s law, if it contradicts God’s law it is of no consequence. This is why TPTB can not abide God’s law. It removes power from them. The concepts of sovereignty and ownership are absolutely necessary if we truly wish to live in peace with one another.

      Without these concepts we can not express the gift that was given to us-the gift of choice. When we choose to respect the “territory” of others we acknowledge their right to be. It is only when those who wish to deceive create a false world-birth certificates, licenses, etc.-that we stray from the natural order. The deception is strong and it resembles natural law but we here know that it is not. There is nothing wrong with recording the birth of a man, or recording his claim to territory (ownership). Like it or not, we ARE co-creators, that is, we have been given the tools necessary to survive on this planet. We “create” rules to facilitate peaceful interaction. In fact, in many ways we create our own reality! We can choose wisely if given the right information about the world around us. I care not what some book translated by a worldly king has to say, the word of God is written in my soul, “the kingdom of God is within.” You give the devil more than his due. He is merely clever. We were made in the image of God and are superior to the forked one. Stop denigrating mankind, we are imperfect, yes, but we are God’s children and I suspect you are pissing off our Dad.

  18. Timmy

    November 21, 2013 at 5:22 PM

    A few brief comments:

    Sovereigns? yes, absolutely. Al laid out the hierarchy. We are subjects only to God, not to any man. When we delegate government to other men, they are under our authority. (organic documents, etc.)
    They were intended to be “public servants” always subject to the rule of law, and the people who delegate limited political power to them temporarily. It is clear that the founders intended the states to be under the people, and the federal government under the states.

    Of course, we’re far from that at this point, but only by cumulative accretion, not any change in fundamentals. (One more blow today with the Senate rule change on filibusters… “democracy” always slays numerical minority rights. Constitutional republicanism was expressly designed to protect minorities against the majority. IE, balance against ‘mob rule’.

    The entire point of Joint Tenancy is that it is a single thing. Like a six pack of beer or a pair of socks.
    Yes, it has multiple components, but the tenancy itself is a unit of one, for its specific purpose.

    If I am JTWROS on a house with another, that has zero bearing on any other legal statuses I may have in other areas of my life.

    Surnames? Are you serious? (This is aside from the ALL CAPS de minimis issue). According to your logic and claims, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson et al were “liars” and fraudsters. I think not.

  19. Tony

    November 22, 2013 at 10:00 AM

    Personally, I find the idea that none of us are sovereign because God is to be silly, along with the idea that sovereignty refers to a “collective we.”

    Regarding the first idea:

    Genesis 1:26
    26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

    See that word dominion? I think one can substitute sovereign. So when some folks profess the idea of being sovereign, especially those that also believe there are certain rights which are God-given and unalienable, it is implied God is sovereign over all and what is referred to is the sovereignty He gave us.

    Regarding the second idea, each heart is autonomous from other hearts. I can choose to serve God and another can choose not to. A collective, being made up of more than one, cannot be the place where sovereignty lies because it is not the place where service is decided, which is at the individual level.

    Sovereignty is an attribute whose province is where the choice to serve is made and it is always made at the individual level.

    I can choose for myself, I cannot choose for another.


    • Jetlag

      November 22, 2013 at 6:52 PM


      It seems this discussion has gotten ahead of itself by failing to define its terms from the get-go. Consequently, people are saying things about “sovereignty” that are difficult to understand in terms of what the word actually means.

      For example, you deny that sovereignty belongs to the “collective we”. This is puzzling given the definitions of “sovereignty” one finds in the law dictionaries, like Bouvier’s Law Dictionary of 1856:

      SOVEREIGNTY. The union and exercise of all human power possessed in a state; it is a combination of all power; it is the power to do everything in a state without accountability; to make laws, to execute and to apply them: to impose and collect taxes, and, levy, contributions; to make war or peace; to form treaties of alliance or of commerce with foreign nations, and the like.

      What part of this definition do you think applies to anyone other than the “collective we” in the American system?

      • Rog

        November 22, 2013 at 8:33 PM

        @Tony, Interesting reply. The dictionary definition attributes sovereignty to the state to act independently. Once again we must defer to the “hierarchy.” God created man, man created government. How can the created possess something which the creator does not?

        There is no such thing as the collective, only individuals acting in concert. Thus, God gave men sovereignty, men give government a measure of sovereignty to act in their interest. The collective possesses nothing, only the men who comprise the “collective” possess sovereignty.

        Bouvier, according to Wikipedia, ” derived his definitions almost wholly from customs, court decisions, and statutes of the United States.” Thus government defines sovereignty. By the way, most dictionaries define sovereignty in terms of government independence, and then add, oh, by the way, 6. (or 7. or 8.) “freedom from external control” or something like that. Some one is fudging the numbers.

      • Tony

        November 23, 2013 at 9:37 AM

        Honestly, I do not think myself sufficiently qualified to respond.

        It appears silence is the best option until I think to know more.



    • pop de adam

      November 23, 2013 at 10:20 AM

      “I can choose for myself, I cannot choose for another.”

      I like this.

      I would trade the chance I might get some odd choice of my own preference under any form of democracy to be free from all of the other choices other people might make under the same pretenses. Although I may have issue with some of the Ten Commandments, I would choose those over the multitude of choices all others would choose for me. It seems counterintuitive to many these days, but given that many are predisposed in favor of the concept of democracy, I could not vote in favor of democracy after my own exposure to it.

      Which should anyone choose: Your choices enforced upon all or all choices enforced upon you?

      I think the foil of government as a concept should be even more repugnant than anything like original sin, nakedness or knowledge versus ignorance. What I have just described is quite likely blasphemous to all those who profess a confidence in the status quo. The idea that a enforced democracy avoids controversy is counter to fact it nearly ensures it.

  20. Martens

    November 22, 2013 at 8:35 PM

    “[T]hey made a confederation of the States, the basis of a general Government. Experience disappointed the expectations they had formed from it; and then the people, in their collective and national capacity, established the present Constitution. It is remarkable that in establishing it, the people exercised their own rights, and their own proper sovereignty, and conscious of the plenitude of it, they declared with becoming dignity, ‘We the people of the United States, do ordain and establish this Constitution.’ Here we see the people acting as sovereigns of the whole country; and in the language of sovereignty, establishing a Constitution…”

    – Chisholm v. Georgia, 1793

    Prof. Adask, when you’re done addressing the Supreme Court’s affirmation of collective sovereignty in Dred Scott v. Sandford (quoted above), would you mind commenting on this quote also?

    • Jetlag

      November 22, 2013 at 9:25 PM

      Nice find, Martens.

      Here we have the Supreme Court saying straight out that the Constitution itself was established by the people in their “collective” sovereign capacity, and that this collective sovereignty is the people’s “proper” sovereignty.

      It don’t get much plainer than that, folks.

      • Jethro!

        November 25, 2013 at 10:48 AM

        It appears you all are confusing the objects — one plural, one singular. The plural refers to the *individual sovereignty* the People individually hold. The singular sovereignty refers to the single (government) agent established and ordained by those People to carry out their will. Because the People may act in a particular singular capacity does not abrogate the other capacity; contending otherwise is the non sequitur.

        If there were only a “collective sovereignty”, the SC in Chisholm v. Georgia should have ruled in favor of Georgia — that would have been a “slam dunk”. Instead, its ruling in favor of Chisholm led to the 11th Amendment, which did not repudiate the concept of individual sovereignty, but simply stripped United States courts of judicial power to hear cases of the same status of Chisholm vs. a State.

      • Douglas

        November 25, 2013 at 5:58 PM

        To all that say we , or should I say claim that we the people are a collective sovereignty are over looking something. We the people get our sovereignty from god as individuals. We as individuals together as individual sovereigns choose to work together to institute a state government to act as a sovereignty collectively in that capacity, to insure that all matters of state are administered equally. It’s sovereignty as a collective is only when acting in that capacity. We do not give up our individual sovereignty. Except for the individuals that choose to volunteer and that we elect to represent us in these matters. They in that capacity then are obligated to act as a collective to represent their constituent’s wishes in these matters . And then the federal government in the same way under the states , except for a very limited few things the fed. was given power over the state to carry out, as that collective. Which is still obligated to us individual sovereigns, which was ultimately given to us from god. And we do not even have the ability to give away something that we did not create in the first place. It was a gift from god and we could not give it a way if we wanted. It can only be taken from us.

    • pop de adam

      November 23, 2013 at 11:17 AM

      “[T]hey made a confederation of the States”

      Who is they? By what right? If someone can elect by right to create a government, by what right can I not be a part of it, ignore it, or create my own. If a government can negate my rights, by what right could itself have been created? The people exercising their right to create shouldn’t be able to create that which can negate the very thing that created itself, by this reasoning even if the people chose to discontinue this experiment they could only do so within the construct of itself, it would still exist, resisting its own extinguishment. I might venture this is a false choice. Why would some one go to a branch of government to understand or acknowlege the extent or limitations of itself? No one is likely to be satisfied by the answers and excuses it would undoubtedly provide at minimum neutral to its interests and at worst in full favor of itself at the expense of all others.

      Insurrection or revolution? Under nearly all governments revolution is illegal, except the one that brought it to power.

      Of course the court is going to rule in favor of itself.

      No slight intended, just fodder for thought.

  21. palani

    November 22, 2013 at 9:26 PM

  22. Jetlag

    November 24, 2013 at 8:58 PM


    While we wait for the professor’s response to your Chisholm v. Georgia cite, here’s something to think about.

    We’ve established from the law dictionaries that the sine qua non of sovereignty is, as Blackstone (perhaps the foremost legal scholar for colonial America) put it, “the making of laws”. In this connection, consider that the inalienable rights of the individual are a law above man’s law. Thus, inalienable rights imply the sovereignty of God, not man in any capacity, because God, not man, is the authority who makes these rights inalienable.

    The collective sovereignty of the people (the only other source of law in our republican form of government) is subordinate to the sovereignty of God.

    • Yartap

      November 25, 2013 at 3:01 PM

      Very good, Jetlag.

      Now your starting to think in terms of God and His place as sovereign. Let’s go further.

      Who was it that said, man received unalienable rights from the Creator?

      In what part of God’s Law is it written that God-given rights exist?

      Why has man created a constitutions (law)? Is God’s Law not good enough? Or is God’s Law more superior to man’s law?

      Why is God’s Laws and Judgements fixed and unchanging, whereas, man’s law is always evolving and changing?

      After receiving God’s perfect Law, man decided to create a Congress to create evolving and changing laws?

  23. Cody

    November 24, 2013 at 9:32 PM

    The Declaration of Independence, being the first document of organic law of the original 13 states, firmly established the fact that individual men acting as sovereigns have the right to create a collective sovereign. So they could “secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

    I’m not certain “consent” can have any other meaning other than to voluntarily agree with others who have likewise “consented” to form a collective sovereign. The collective sovereign obviously “derives its just powers from the consent of the governed;” not the domination of the governed.

    I’m certain, the confusion primarily arises from the fact we have been asleep for so long, we are still figuring out what we lost during our slumber. Al has been awake and wrestling with these ideas for a lot longer than most can remember. I agree with his position on sovereignty because the closer we study the source documents, the more Al is proven correct.

    Another contributing factor is our collective ignorance of the difference between “civil” government and “common” government. We have been dominated and indoctrinated by the civil (Roman) government to accept its domination by force, instead of asserting our freedom as men created in the image of our Creator. We perceive our enslavement as “normal” since that’s all most of us have known. So, the concept of our sovereignty as individual men seems foreign and instills fear in our consciences. Anyone with a cursory knowledge of the concept of “cognitive dissonance” knows the source of the fear.

    Fear is the antithesis of freedom. As long as we are cowardly, we will continue to be slaves. Al Adask is a legal pioneer, much like Lewis and Clark. Are we brave enough to follow the trail he’s been blazin’? Or are we doomed to accept our roles as the social lemmings we’ve been conditioned to play? The first act as a sovereign is to make a choice. What do you choose; freedom or enslavement.

    • FigyrSk8r (aka Lisa)

      November 24, 2013 at 10:54 PM

      What a great, PEACEFUL response.

  24. Timmy

    November 25, 2013 at 8:28 PM

    Nice Cody. But I would mention that you skipped lightly over the primary point: the only legitimate purpose of that voluntarily created sovereign government is “to secure” those God-given inalienable rights. So, any government that tramples them is illegitimate, at least in the United States under its organic laws.

  25. Jetlag

    November 25, 2013 at 9:55 PM


    The questions you ask go mostly unanswered in the American political system, probably because the Founders of that system did not want or need to get into a theological debate. Instead, they simply declared God-given inalienable rights to be “self-evident” and moved on to the mundane tasks which the people of the States hired them to perform.

    The people of the States are sovereign over their own creations: the State and federal governments. God is sovereign over everything. In either case, the sovereign makes the laws. If you want to know who is sovereign in a given situation, ask: “Who makes the laws?” This is the essential definition of sovereignty found in the law dictionaries. Where sovereign claims overlap, as often happens in a hierarchy of sovereignties, the superior claim takes precedence.

    The people in their collective capacity, subject only to God, make the laws in the American political system. This is eloquently confirmed in Chisholm v. Georgia (see citation by Martens). Since no one has law-making power in their individual capacity, the individual is not sovereign here. To find an individual with law-making power, i.e. an individual sovereign, look for a monarchy. The claim that individuals are sovereign because they have inalienable rights is not logical. Inalienable rights imply the sovereignty of the rights giver, not the rights receiver.

    • Rog

      November 25, 2013 at 10:24 PM

      I wish this poisonous notion of “collective” anything would die the horrible, agonizing death it deserves. You’ve been punked by those who want you to think like a bee in hive, like the borg. Once again, people cooperating to achieve a goal is not the same as people acting in their “collective capacity.” From where does this “collective capacity” come? From individuals!!! Jeeesh, turn off the damn tv. And while you’re at it, stop listening to most of what the “supreme court” has to say about anything. They are merely men with an agenda.

    • Martens

      November 25, 2013 at 11:41 PM

      Jetlag said: “The people in their collective capacity, subject only to God, make the laws in the American political system.”

      Webster’s dictionary defines “collective” as “of, relating to, characteristic of, or made by a number of people acting as a group”. Who in America has the law-making authority (the defining role of the sovereign) in any other capacity? So yeah.

      Or, as Benjamin Franklin put it at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.” Clearly there are those who would have preferred the latter outcome.

      Jetlag said: “This is eloquently confirmed in Chisholm v. Georgia (see citation by Martens).”

      This is my idea of a slam-dunk for collective sovereignty by the Supremes, especially since they use the language best suited to making the case, though we’ll have to wait and see what Prof. Adask does with it. The professor is likely preparing a bombshell reply to this point in the form of a new article, e.g. “Adask on Sovereignty III”, which is sure to be educational reading for us all.

      • Jethro!

        November 26, 2013 at 11:45 AM

        “If you want to know who is sovereign in a given situation, ask: ‘Who makes the laws?'”
        “Who in America has the law-making authority (the defining role of the sovereign) in any other capacity?”

        Of course the People have individual lawmaking authority — over that which each individually has authority. For example, I can make “laws” over my own property, and you could be subject to those laws (if you choose to enter my realm). I could make “laws” for my kids. I can “tax” anyone within my realm if I so choose. I could write volumes of Jethro! Code “law” and you might be subject to it… given the right circumstances.

        And one can make contracts, which form the “law” governing the relationship between the parties. And parties don’t have to be limited to two in number.

        So while my lawmaking authority may be relatively limited and small at present, I see tremendous growth potential. So… who wants into Jethro!Land? It’s awesome here.

      • Jetlag

        November 26, 2013 at 1:24 PM


        Nice try, except what you’re describing are property rights, which are superseded by sovereign rights. You can make what you call “laws” on your own property, but those “laws” are subject to what the dictionary calls laws. So you aren’t really a sovereign on your property.

        The fact that sovereignty outranks property rights is made clear by eminent domain. For example:

        “It is admitted, that the right of eminent domain is an incident of sovereignty, and cannot be alienated. And it is also admitted, that all the property of the citizens of the state is liable to the exercise of this paramount authority.”

        – Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge (1837)

      • Jethro!

        November 26, 2013 at 2:55 PM

        Sorry Jetlag, it was you who brought up “laws” and “lawmaking authority”, not me. If you want to attempt to relate “lawmaking authority” to the concept of a singular sovereignty, you’re going to have to do a better job than that. Sovereignties on relation to Chisholm was dealt with earlier. Your Charles River Bridge case confirms that the singular sovereign agent operates upon *”citizens”*, which is a different capacity than the People.

        Sovereignty is also limited to respective spheres, such as family, church, state… None lords over the other, except in their respective sphere. Any “laws” to the contrary are not laws at all; so no, the state’s “law” does not necessarily supersede my family’s. Your concept of sovereignty destroys that distinction, both institutionally and individually, and is extraordinarily ruinous of liberty and the concept of God-ordained rights and institutions. As Rog said, may that concept die a horrible, agonizing death.

      • Jetlag

        November 26, 2013 at 3:42 PM


        The equation of sovereignty and law-making authority is not my concept. It’s the generally accepted meaning of the term “sovereignty” in the law and in the dictionaries. The same can’t be said for some other uses of the term making an appearance here.

        This explains why the arguments for collective sovereignty in the American political system, in this and the previous thread, are based on cited sources including dictionaries, while the arguments to the contrary usually rely on mere “cool story” assertions, often employing the tell-tale special effects of a weak position: hot-button language, appeal to emotion, ad hominem attacks, quantity of text over quality of reasoning, etc.

        As far as “citizens” is concerned, the Supreme Court had this to say in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1857:

        “The words “people of the United States” and “citizens” are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing.”

        So the “people” and the “citizens” were one and the same as of 1857, and there’s no evidence to suggest things were any different a century earlier. The Supreme Court does count as an authority in this context, because the Supreme Court is part of the topic of the discussion. If you have a competing authority with a different opinion, post a citation.

      • Jethro

        November 30, 2013 at 11:12 PM

        Jetlag, I have no disagreement that sovereignty and lawmaking are coexistent. The disagreement appears to be you believe there is only one “collective sovereignty”, while I (and others) maintain the evidence and reason shows there are others, including individual sovereignty.

        As for your Dred Scott cite, so what? The Court did not say “the ‘people’ and the ‘citizens’ were one and the same”, it said “people of the United States” is a TERM (describing a capacity) as is the TERM “citizen”. The Court is simply describing the singular sovereign agent (and *capacity* in which the People may act in relation to it) created by those “sovereigns without subjects”. It is a logical fallacy to argue one capacity must exclude another.

        My competing authorities? Scripture/Bible, The Constitution(s), Chisholm; in that order.

    • Yartap

      November 26, 2013 at 7:37 PM

      Once again, Very Good, Jetlag.

      I like what I’m reading from you. The only thing that I ask is that you and others are not so quick to brush off the “unanswered questions” to the side. But rather, focus upon them more closely.

      Like… what I read in your first paragraph of how the Founders gave “lip service to God” by issuing God-given unalienable right and went their own way with creating a government. Your right.

      Sovereign overlaps (The people’s sovereignty overlapping God’s sovereignty)? Is this possible? I know it is not possible and so do you, too. The people have no self-authority to govern or make law over God’s law. The people or an individual can only represent God’s sovereignty in His Holy Name and enforce His laws

      You said, “The people in their collective capacity, subject only to God, make the laws in the American political system.” Your statement appearing true is false. To make your statement true it should read, “The people in their collective capacity, REJECTING GOD, make the laws in American political system.”

      You finish by making a very true statement, “Inalienable rights imply the sovereignty of the rights giver, not the rights receiver.” And who was it that said we had unalienable rights from the Creator? It was the Founders.

      Keep up the good work and I will leave you with the Four basic points of what a sovereign is: Owner/Creator, King/Ruler, Law Giver or Law Maker, and Judge/Judgements.

      • Jetlag

        November 26, 2013 at 9:12 PM


        “Sovereign overlaps (The people’s sovereignty overlapping God’s sovereignty)? Is this possible?”

        Sure it’s possible. The entire feudal system of medieval Europe, for example, was based on hierarchies of overlapping sovereignty.

        “The people have no self-authority to govern or make law over God’s law.”

        Of course. The law of man (in any capacity, individual or collective) is always subject to God’s law. This highest sovereignty of God is what makes inalienable rights inalienable.

        Since the definition of sovereignty seems to need clarification, I suggest citing sources. I have already cited my sources (Black’s Law Dictionary, Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, William Blackstone, etc.) for defining sovereignty as the law-making power. What is the source for your “basic points” definition?

      • Yartap

        November 26, 2013 at 10:24 PM


        Sovereign governments have worked together for many years, but each’s sovereignty never, never “overlapped.” Sovereignty that overlaps will become sovereignty lost.

        When man’s law is truly subjected to God’s law, then man’s law will be over ruled and end. The concept of unalienable rights originated from the Founders, not God. True liberty comes to those who live under God’s law and His will. He is the true and only Sovereign.

        My source? How about the Holy Scriptures of the Lord. The Word of God. I hope you have read the creation story and who did it. Further, read Isaiah 33: 22, “For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king; he will save us.” This one verse is the verse the Founders used to create the three branches of government, because no man was equal to God. But notice that the Founders replaced God with men. The U.S. government became a god, thus becoming a sovereign in its claimed right.

  26. Mladen (aka Mark)

    November 26, 2013 at 2:47 PM

    It was refreshing to be away from the internet for five days. It is sad to come back to read a number of new comments in this post where people continue to discuss and debate things in ways that make no sense. It is truly a mind-bend just to try to understand what is supposed to pass for logic from some people because it is based on false premise(s). Trying to rationalizing mere false beliefs that misrepresent the law in a forum where opposing views are constantly bombarding each other makes no sense.

    And, what are these comments about an alleged “Professor” Adask about? Even if he were a professor, which I do not believe he is, that would not make him correct simply by having an artificial title next to his name. There are many professors in all kinds of different fields who have wacked out unproven theories on all kinds of things that are simply wrong. Please, do not misunderstand me because this is not meant to insult or demean Alfred Adask, or anyone else. My point is simply that most of the comments that I read on this blog are based on presumptions and assumptions that are either false or unproveable. Law is not based on what you cannot prove. Law is based only on the facts that you can prove.

    For those of you that still believe in the man-made illusion of ownership, just try not paying your property tax, or not paying the renewal fee on your automobile licence or plate (sticker) and see how long it takes for your government to pull “Your” automobile over or seize “Your” house. Who is the real de facto (by military force) sovereign now? Who is really in charge?

    How ridiculous it is to believe that you can stop paying for the use of property that does not belong to you and still have the mere use and mere possession of that property (all of which is in the state). Do you guys not understand that the fact that you need a licence for anything means that the thing being licensed is NOT your property? Sovereigns without subjects —- please! Do all of you little sovereigns without subjects have your vaults, your own castles, and your own military to protect what you falsely presume to be yours? I do not think so.

    The fundamental fact that you people do not want to accept is the fact that the debtor surname (arms, heraldry, coat of arms for war) that you use and the combined (merged & confused) “Legal Name” is NOT your property. IT is property belong to the state and/or private banking creditors that they have a covenant with and it has been pledged as collateral (chattel) against their un-re-payable government debt from a permanently bankrupt government (as they all are). You only RENT the ambiguous merged and confused “Legal Name” because IT is NOT your property. You need a licence to use their name in order to traffic (buy and sell). You are only a “Joint” or “Common” tenant with them if you falsely believe you own property. If the “Legal Name” was your property then you would NEVER need to apply for anything and you never would need to pay for anything registered in the “Legal Name.” But, that is not the case, is it? This is no different than if I knew where you had your car loan or house mortgage (which means dead [mort] pledge [gage]) I could go into your bank and pay your car loan or mortgage for you. Wouldn’t that be nice? Well, that’s what all secular citizens or secular civilians are doing out of ignorance (lack of knowledge).

    You guys do not even realize that you have stepped into a position of VOLUNTARY SLAVERY. Satan is laughing his deceitful ass off since he has most of the world fooled. But, like Adam and Eve, the only one that can back up a lie from the father of the lie (Satan) is you. It is very charitable of you to step into voluntary slavery to pay the debt belonging to another. And, at the end of the day Satan’s reward for your acceptance of his lie that you can be your own little gods (aka sovereigns without subjects, or alleged owners) is absolutely nothing. You only get to be surety (guarantor, warrantor) for Satan’s false offer that rewards you with absolutely NO REAL PROPERTY. You just are allowed to deceive yourself and it appears that most of you want to defend your ignorance to your deaths. Please do not let me stand in the way of your lack of success.

    I am sorry that I am not tickling your ears with the lies that you would rather hear. I am a true Christian, which means that I cannot lie because God hates liars. Therefore, I must only walk forward in truth and fact. It is your choice to deny the truth and facts at your own peril. God did warn that His people die for lack of knowledge.

    You guys like to act as if you can use God’s anterior (before) and superior Natural Law one second and the next second you flip over to the opposite side by quoting from man’s artificial misnomer of so-called “Positive law” (statutes, legislation, acts, codes, ordinances, by-laws, etc., etc., etc.) (aka “Rule of law”). I am sorry, but that is an absolute joke. You simply cannot be on opposite sides at the same time and you must pick only one side. Which is it going to be, man or God?

    God told you at James 4:4 (KJV) that friendship with the world is enmity with God. God told you at Matthew 6:24 (KJV) that you cannot serve both God and mammon (profit, gain). And, God told you at Revelation 18:4 to come out of the worldly system of things so that you do not partake (share) in the plagues that the secular non-believer world would suffer during the end times. I could go on and on with many other scriptures from the Holy Bible that tell you that you must make a choice between the government of man and the government of God. Which part of “Be ye separate” do you guys not understand?

    I do not know how much longer I can stand to read the ridiculous unfounded opinions of people that show no logic and no research and no sense of reality. All I did was to share the facts and it is your choice whether to accept or reject the facts. The secular world is a world of lies, fraud, counterfeit and corruption and I will understand if you choose the secular world of man and reject God. I too was smitten by the false presumption that somehow mankind as a collective could make the world better; but I was wrong. I no longer hold any of my past false beliefs and I have absolutely no faith in mankind and I only trust in God —- and my God is NOT the god of money.

    • Tony

      November 26, 2013 at 3:55 PM

      1 Cor 8:2
      1 Cor 10:12
      Jer 17:9

      Spare me your pronouncements of your lofty spirituality and just cite your perception of what is and what is not truth.

      • Mladen (aka Mark)

        November 27, 2013 at 10:41 AM

        @Tony, if you want to misuse Holy Scripture then you should at least consider that the Scriptures you quoted apply equally to you and to all others and so your self-pronouncement backfired. You quoted the following:

        1 Corinthians 8:2 [King James Version (KJV)]
        And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.

        1 Corinthians 10:12 [King James Version (KJV)]
        Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.

        Jeremiah 17:9 [King James Version (KJV)]
        The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

        In all due respect, @Tony, you continue to miss the point, as do others, because you guys pretend to be open minded to the truth, but you are not. If you just stick to the facts you would not be having a conversation or debate about unresolved theories and you would not be arguing about man-made laws for what, 10 years, or is it closer to 20 years? Do you guys not understand the simple fact that all of man’s laws are posterior (after) and inferior to God’s anterior and superior Natural Law?

        Look at the following Scripture carefully and do not take it personally because it applies to all men who ignorantly (lacking knowledge) assume or presume they are some “Thing”, which they are not:

        Galatians 6:3 [King James Version (KJV)]
        For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself.

        In the book on “Corporate Suretyship” was first written by Krist in 1939, and re-published in 1950, he states that “Suretyship is the precursor to ruin.” In the introduction of this book Krist lists numerous Biblical Scriptures to make his point.

        The “Thing” that you guys continue to fail to see, and the “Thing” that you guys continue to want to deny, is the unnecessary addition of the fraudulent debtor surname to the INALIENABLE God-given Christian name on the original STATEMENT OF BIRTH, which eventually lead to the fraudulent ambiguous combined (merged & confused) “Legal Name” for the dead artificial “Legal Person” as shown on the State/Provincial BIRTH CERTIFICATE (equivalent to the Federal CITIZENSHIP CERTIFICATE).

        To be clear, the “Thing” is the surname and it extinguishes your God-given inalienable rights for as long as you apply, volunteer or consent to use it. If you remain ignorant then it is just as the Star Trek character know as the Borg stated, “Resistance is futile!” In law, failure to object to this fraud is fatal.

        Finally, you can talk all you want about the man-made Constitution, which is not worth the paper or animal skin that it is written on. God’s Law (The Ten Commandments) was written in stone and God never makes a mistake. That’s why it is ridiculous and pointless to argue anything having to do with the concept of “Constitutional Objection”, since none of you guys were part of the 55 mason lawyers who wrote the treason known as the constitution. In other words, outside the 55 traitors for the Declaration of Independence, an article of treason or sedition, nobody else is party to the constitution.

        If you want to be free then you must follow the truth because the truth will set you free. This does not mean that you can be your own little sovereign without subjects no more than you could be your own little god. Good luck with that. A true Christian would only talk about a CONSTITUTIONAL EXEMPTION since a true Christian, a child of God, was never party to the artificial man-made constitution to begin with!

        However, if you want to accept Satan’s false offer to try to be in charge as your own God —– just as Adam and Eve fell from God’s grace in the Garden of Eden by committing treason against God —– you too can repeat the same mis-take and error and you too can join the fraud known as the BIRTH (or CITIZENSHIP) CERTIFICATE “Legal Name” and you can wear the mask of the artificial dead “Legal Person” to identify yourself as part of the collective, not an individual, and one who has no covenant with the true God because you want to betray God too. You too can be SURETY for the lie, which is the surname and its combined “Legal Name”, and you too can be liable (guarantor, warrantor) for the imaginary debt of another —–you too can be indebted to Satan. Don’t let me stand in the way of your lack of success. I’m sure if you argue your unfounded and un-provable wrong theories for another 20 years you will be no better off.

      • Tony

        November 27, 2013 at 12:38 PM


        I don’t think I mis-used the Scriptures and I absolutely think they apply to me as well. In a previous post, I wrote:

        Honestly, I do not think myself sufficiently qualified to respond.

        It appears silence is the best option until I think to know more.



        The above was my second post. Subsequent to that post, you wrote:
        In all due respect, @Tony, you continue to miss the point, as do others, because you guys pretend to be open minded to the truth, but you are not. If you just stick to the facts you would not be having a conversation or debate about unresolved theories and you would not be arguing about man-made laws for what, 10 years, or is it closer to 20 years? Do you guys not understand the simple fact that all of man’s laws are posterior (after) and inferior to God’s anterior and superior Natural Law?

        How can I CONTINUE to miss ANY points when I only wrote ONE post and after responses to that post, wrote what I quoted above.

        So you bore false witness. In other words, YOU LIED.

        Thought you said you never lie.

        Anyway, my angst with your post was its portions that referred to yourself in lofty spiritual terms. Truth need not be buttressed in that way.

        It stands on its own.


  27. Mladen (aka Mark)

    November 26, 2013 at 10:37 PM

    Wow! In @Yartap’s response to @Jetlag you stated:
    “My source? How about the Holy Scriptures of the Lord. The Word of God. I hope you have read the creation story and who did it. Further, read Isaiah 33: 22, “For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king; he will save us.” This one verse is the verse the Founders used to create the three branches of government, because no man was equal to God. But notice that the Founders replaced God with men. The U.S. government became a god, thus becoming a sovereign in its claimed right.”

    Are you guys for real? You actually claim that the created could claim to be the Creator?

    Like God really needed a bunch of belligerent infidels to claim that they can be their own little gods (aka sovereigns) or that the created could create a fiction that is superior to God. No matter how you slice or dice this convoluted twisting thinking there is no way to rationalize this twisted false believe. Nice try though, but I do not believe that God is amused by such nonsense.

    Unbelievable! More nonsense from the created. You even commit hypocrisy and blasphemy by twisting a Holy Scripture as if you did not even read it because you certainly did not understand the plain meaning of what was written. If you fallacy were true then every single one of the dis-united pagan secular nations of man’s world could use the same fallacy to argue that they too are false gods. How ridiculous!

    Would that mean that if a monkey claimed to be a camel the monkey is a camel just because it was claimed? The only thing that matters in law is what can be proved with FACT. Prove your claim.

  28. Jetlag

    December 1, 2013 at 9:37 PM

    Jethro said, “It is a logical fallacy to argue one capacity must exclude another.”

    Perhaps, but no one is making that argument. The flightless bird of “individual sovereignty” falls all by itself, without reference to collective sovereignty, simply because no such notion as “individual sovereignty” is found in the de jure American political system.

    In fact, we only find the opposite. For example, it is clarified in Chisholm v. Georgia that when the court says “sovereigns” (plural tense), they mean the people in their collective sovereignty:

    “…the people, in their collective and national capacity, established the present Constitution….Here we see the people acting as sovereigns…”

    So much for the “sovereigns without subjects” attempt to squeeze “individual sovereignty” from the language of Chisholm v. Georgia.

    The only way to give “individual sovereignty” the appearance of viability is to prop it up with a re-definition of “sovereignty” which twists this word into an unrecognizable pretzel that no Founder ever saw in a law dictionary. In every definition of “sovereignty” of any authority to the legal profession, in 1776 and today, an essential component is law-making power.

    And no one can cite anything in the Constitution, or elsewhere in the de jure American political system, that empowers anyone to make law in their individual capacity.

    • Jethro!

      December 2, 2013 at 1:01 AM


      “Jethro said, ‘It is a logical fallacy to argue one capacity must exclude another.'”
      “Perhaps, but no one is making that argument.”

      Sorry Jetlag, but you are making that argument; either that, or you’re failing to discern that the People may act in both individual and collective sovereign capacities. Chisholm is quite clear about that.

      “In every definition of ‘sovereignty’ of any authority to the legal profession, in 1776 and today, an essential component is law-making power.”

      Laws are relational and hierarchical. Just because a legislative body makes a “law” doesn’t necessarily make it a law. On the other end, just because a sovereign’s realm is small doesn’t mean his laws are not laws — a father, as an army of one, could make and enforce “laws” in relation to his children. Your notion of “law-making power” appears to be the one favored by 4 out of 5 tyrants.

      “And no one can cite anything in the Constitution, or elsewhere in the de jure American political system, that empowers anyone to make law in their individual capacity.”

      Barring Chisholm, of course you wouldn’t find much about individual sovereign capacity within “the system” because “the system” concerns itself with itself. Does French jurisprudence worry itself with who is empowered with lawmaking powers in Botswana?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s