RSS

People Persons

03 Oct

[courtesy Google Images]

[courtesy Google Images]

‘ll bet that I’ve been listening to debates and arguments about the meaning, nature and possible disabilities of the term “person” for 25 years.  Even after all of that commotion, the meaning and implications of the word “person” is still not precisely clear to me.

However, last night I was reading the Bill of Rights and realized that the key to understanding the constitutional concept of “persons” might be found in the Fourth Amendment to The Constitution of the United States.  That Amendment declares,

 

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

 

Note that the “people” have “persons”.  “Persons” are not “people’.  Instead, “persons” are attributes or capacities of “people”.  “People” are real and primary; “persons” are relational, derivative and/or secondary.

While it’s possible that each of the “people” has only one correlative “person,” I doubt that’s true.

The 4th Amendment implicitly allows that, as one of the “people,” I might have multiple “houses,” multiple “papers” and multiple “effects”–each and all of which are protected against “unreasonable searches and seizures”.  It’s reasonable to suppose that I, and every other member of the “people,” can also have multiple “persons”.

Therefore, I strongly suspect that the 4th Amendment uses the word “persons” to describe the multitude of different “persons”/capacities in which each of the “people” sometimes act.

For example, as one of the people I might sometimes act in the “person” of an “employer” and other times act in the capacity/person of an “employee”.  Other times I might act in the “person”/capacity of a creditor, borrower, sovereign, citizen, driver, passenger, suspect, witness, perpetrator, victim, subject, taxpayer, fiduciary, beneficiary, grantor, child, adult, parent, spouse, divorced spouse, grandparent, etc., etc. There might be hundreds, even thousands, of potential “persons”/capacities in which I might choose to act in at any particular time.

Thus, the 4th Amendment seems to say that no matter what “person” (capacity; relationship) I’m acting in at any particular time, so long as I am first and foremost one of the “people,” each and every one of my  correlative “persons” is protected from “unreasonable search and seizure”.

However, if that conjecture were true, it also implies that if I fail to identify myself as one of the “people” (perhaps, one of the “people” of the several “United States” and/or of “The United States of America” and/or of one of the States of the Union), my seeming “persons” might not be protected by the 4th Amendment from what would otherwise be an “unreasonable search or seizure”.

Silly rabbit, the 4th Amendment’s protections are, ultimately, only for the “people“–not for fictions.  Probably not for “US citizens” or “US persons”

 

•  If you’ve followed this blog for any significant length of time, you know that I’ve exposed and explored those “man or other animal” laws that presume that you and I are not “men made in God’s image” who are “endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”  Instead the “man or other animals” (“MOOA”) laws, regulations and definitions implicitly declare or presume us all to be “animals“.

The word “people” does not include “animals”.  So far as I know, “animals” do not normally have “persons”.  But even if animals do have “persons,” those “animal-persons” may not be protected by the 4th Amendment which expressly protects only the “persons” of the “people” (who, by definition, do not include “animals”). I.e., as an “animal” you couldn’t be one of the “people“–and you and your apparent “persons” would not be protected by the 4th Amendment.

 

•  It may be that you have a better explanation for the relationship between the “people” and their “persons,” but the important point of this article is that the 4th Amendment makes apparent the idea that each of the “people” may have multiple “persons“–and, conversely, that “persons” are attributes of, properties of, capacities of, anyone who is first and foremost, one of the “people“.

 

 

Tags: , , , ,

68 responses to “People Persons

  1. hskiprob

    October 3, 2015 at 3:04 PM

    There are also words and there are terms, so what the difference? Part of the natural law and capitalist principles is that a contract involves it’s four corners, an analogy for what is written in the contract and nothing else is relevant or enforceable. The terms used in the contract and how they are defined in the Contract are what matters. If person is defined as a corporation, it is a corporation and not a human being. This has been carried into law or perhaps the other way around. Who knows the origins of some of this stuff. If I the “United States” is defined as the District of Columbia, as it is in IRC Section 7701, that is what means, nothing less and nothing more. If Congress defines a “Trade of business” as, to “include” the functions of a public office as it does in section 7701(a)(26), that is what a trade of business means, nothing more or nothing less because the term “includes” when used in this situation is a term of limitation as it is in many other situations in the IRC. Congress when writing a law can define a term anyway they want.

    In Sec. 7343. Definition of term “person”
    The [statutory] term “person” as used in this chapter includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.

    This definition of Person is in Chapter 75 Crimes, other Offences and Forfeitures.
    Good, I am not a person under this chapter and therefore I’m not subject to it.

     
    • billhkeen

      October 13, 2015 at 7:21 PM

      Well, Al, I don’t know what happened.  It is in the original in my Sent file. I will attach it as a .doc file.

       
    • Lex Mercatoria

      October 14, 2015 at 10:37 PM

      No one is a person by any of their definitions, unless one wishes one’s being to be defined by another. Anyhow, it matters not as territorial jurisdiction is the only issue of consequence.

       
  2. wholy1

    October 3, 2015 at 3:34 PM

    Very astute point and incumbent issue!

    What are “PERSONages” NOT instituted by a REAL, LIVING sentient Man firmly b[e]rthed ON an apportionment of the “Allodium” IN to an UNDIVIDED apportionment of this space-time continuum?

    Perhaps CORPORATIONS?!!!!!!

    The foundational document of the[SE] United States of America is what? The [biblical] Word of the almighty Author enshrined in the DOI – NOT the CONstitution! And what is DECLARED AND [ultimately] ratified – BY BOUNTY AND BLOOD – in the DOI to wit: ” . . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable RIGHTS, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness . . . “.

    Al has been harping on this from the beginning: understanding the fundamental power of EACH and every special and unique SENTINENT MAN!

    The “resolution” begins with [each unique and special ONE of] Us!

     
    • Lex Mercatoria

      October 14, 2015 at 10:38 PM

      person == persona; i.e., a character, capacity, office, role. In the end it’s just a state of mind.

       
      • Adask

        October 14, 2015 at 11:32 PM

        A “state of mind” is one way to describe a “person”. Another way is to describe a “person” as a legal fiction or as a party to a “relationship” which is always a “legal fiction”. In the capacity of a fictional “persona,” I am subject to certain rules and regulations that I would not be subject to if I were acting exclusively in the capacity of a man made in God’s image.

        From this perspective, we might infer that all the rules and regulations that we need when we act in the capacity of men made in God’s image can be found in one, relatively small book: the Bible. On the other hand, whenever we agree, consent, assent to act in the fictional capacity of a person (a party to a specific kind of man-made, fictional relationship) we become subject to the rules and regulations contained in hundreds, thousands, of law books. Each fictional relationship creates a different set of rules & regulations. If you’re acting in several different “persons” over the course of a day, week or year–then you need to understand all the text in hundreds of books written by government. If you’re only acting as a man made in God’s image in all of your associations with other people or institutions, maybe you only need the one book.

        If I only needed one book to government my life, why would I need the assistance of and/or why would I need to recognize the authority of various government officers, officials, agencies and employees? It seems clear to me that every one of my “person” are subject to a different set to government regulations and regulators while, if I act strictly in the capacity of a man made in God’s image, the only time I’m subject to government regulation is when I have injured some other man or woman made in God’s image.

        My point is that it appears possible that virtually all of the modern government and police state are based on the presumption that you and I are acting in the capacity(ies) of one or more “persons”.

        It might be argued that, in modern parlance, to be a “person” is synonymous to being a “subject”–or perhaps even a serf or slave.

        If you can’t defeat the presumption that you’re a “person,” you will probably be condemned to live as a second- or third-class being.

        Historically, the word “person” was useful and probably benign. But today, to be a “person” may be synonymous to being one of government’s “subjets”.

         
      • palani

        October 15, 2015 at 7:08 AM

        Private property has been described as the Holy Grail of Law. You create a person when you assert ownership of anything. I think of a person as a container. What the container holds are rights and obligations. Private property is a right applicable to someone of a particular status in a political plane. Think back to the start of the feudal system when all property was assigned the king and he parceled his property out based upon attending him and his wars.

        The property didn’t move. One day it belonged to someone else in private tenure and the next day it was owned by the king. But property became the payment for risking your life in one of the crown’s battles.

        Many modern day states operate the same as the old feudal system although they have much fewer titles of nobility. A low order title of nobility is Mr., Ms. or Mrs. A mid-order title of nobility is citizen. A high-order title of nobility is president, vice-president, congressman or ‘The Honorable …’.

        Back to persons and private property. As stated previously property has no concern as to who claims it. The right of private property is against society (eminent domain) or any other claimant who might be able to prove a higher title. A claim creates a person who lacks possession. If you have possession you don’t have a claim.

        All these persons floating around in society can be mighty confusing but until you find that they only apply to domestics. The title of alien has attached to it the right to be ignorant of law. Foreign law is ignorance of a fact and ignorance of fact is never criminal.

         
      • Lex Mercatoria

        October 15, 2015 at 6:03 PM

        Adask said:

        1. “My point is that it appears possible that virtually all of the modern government and police state are based on the presumption that you and I are acting in the capacity(ies) of one or more “persons”.”

        2. “It might be argued that, in modern parlance, to be a “person” is synonymous to being a “subject”–or perhaps even a serf or slave.”

        3. “If you can’t defeat the presumption that you’re a “person,” you will probably be condemned to live as a second- or third-class being.”

        4. “Historically, the word “person” was useful and probably benign.”
        ————————————————————————
        My answers:

        1. At least for United States, and likely the UK countries, that is all they CAN recognize. Per America’s 1st two organic laws they have no authority over a man w/o said man’s consent. Further evidence of this limitation is the scarce use of the word “people” in their statutes/codes & court rulings as opposed to the word “person(s)”; I certainly noticed this difference in the use of these words via keyword searches in the State of Connecticut statutes. When they want to refer to people–which is a rare occurrence–they use that word. They are nothing if not precise in how they express themselves, unlike most people.

        2. A person can be on par with a subject, depending on the person. For example, the person of “citizen” is equivalent to a subject; it ultimately depends on the territorial jurisdiction (TJ) of the claimant vs. that of the respondent/defendant/whatever.

        3. The issue of whether one is presumed to be a person is rendered moot as the question is trumped by the issue of TJ. They can call me a person, incompetent, taxpayer, etc.–so what? Unless whatever purported obligation they’d like to saddle me with was incurred on United States territory–a place where few of us go–then they have no TJ. Even they aren’t so barbaric as to claim extra-territorial jurisdiction. TJ is superior to in personam or subject matter jurisdiction. In short, unless something happens on their “turf” there is no crime/obligation/debt/whatever and their “turf” is not what most assume & presume it to be. I think Dr. Eduardo Rivera is probably correct when he says everyone at all levels of gov’t is unaware of their TJ limits.

        4. The word “person” is still benign. Because of school & media indoctrination people have been encouraged to misuse the word to refer to people. Such misuse has the effect of warping our perceptions and thus our speech (intended, in my opinion) which has commercial consequences.

        The word is part of what I’ve found to be three word pairs in our language whose misunderstanding and misuse of function as perceptual linchpins to the commercial (legal) “Matrix”: on the fictional side vs the real-world side we have “person” vs. “people”, “name” vs. “appellation”, and “in” vs. “at”, respectively. The PowersThatBe (PTB) have fostered a Tower of Babel situation wherein we “babble” by thinking in one language, the vernacular, as we incorrectly express ourselves in another language, English. Our words do not reflect our thoughts. The PTB are well aware of this and use this against us. We’ll say one thing while thinking another and the PTB will act upon what we literally say even though they’re pretty sure it’s not what we mean. However, they aren’t mind readers and, as they caution us, “everything you say (not what you really mean) will be used against you.”

         
      • hskiprob

        October 19, 2015 at 11:12 AM

        You’ve got it Lex. On another note, there are nine different definitions of the United States in the IRC, that I’ve been able to find. It’s a really large book so I cannot truthfully state that there are only nine. What I do suggest is that they will change the definition of a word and the Citizens/Subjects/Persons/Corporations may not understand the intent because often with social policy, legislation is enacted to provide benefits to special interests at the expense of the majority.

         
  3. palani

    October 3, 2015 at 4:33 PM

    The Bill of Rights is a set of amendments for an entity classified as a Federal government .. aka a federation of independent nation-states (let’s just call them the Several States for short). In 1868 another entity came on the scene with citizens of its’ own in the form of a singular National government. It even has a National constitution all its’ own called The 14th Amendment. There is a division here because anyone with a lick of sense knows that you don’t run a Nation on the constitution of a Federation and vice versa. There is no 4th amendment that applies to the National government and there is no 14th amendment that applies to the Federal government. This makes it incumbent to know which one you are doing business with at any given time. Best ask for a seal to help you on your journey. I wouldn’t leave home without one.

    Persons are created by accepting an office (citizen is an office), by contracting an obligation (accepting FRNs instead of money is creates an obligation … one example), by claiming a right, by uttering a noise that someone else might interpret as slander, by writing something that someone might interpret as libel or by accepting representation (THE MATRIX has it right .. when you spot an AGENT … RUN!!!). A person is created by being a beneficiary of some (charitable) trust or by being the fiduciary to that same trust. Persons are everywhere and you yourself might be 20-40 persons at any time. Best have a seal for each one.

     
    • wholy1

      October 4, 2015 at 3:22 AM

      A David Clarence Schroll follower?

       
      • palani

        October 4, 2015 at 5:47 AM

        @ wholy1 “David Clarence Schroll follower”
        Never heard of him. Simply put I prefer observation and reason. Does he advocate seals?

         
    • Bruce Cannon

      October 10, 2015 at 12:39 AM

      @ In 1868 another entity came on the scene with citizens of its’ own in the form of a singular National government.
      Nope, not according to Colin, AND, Colin IS a licensed attorney so I would think Colin knows more & understands more than all of us put together.Colin went to Law School ya know. Did You? I am not aware of any Court of statutory record Judge, OR Licensed attorney, that we may come up against, who did not go to Law School, are You?

       
      • Adask

        October 10, 2015 at 1:20 AM

        That’s not exactly true. Colin WAS a “licensed attorney”. So far as I know, he’s not currently licensed. He claimed that he put his license into “suspension” so he could spend more time with his lady friend.

        You may have a high opinion of Colin’s expertise, and there’s no doubt that Colin is knowledgeable and articulate. But why, exactly, would any competent attorney put his license into suspension and thereby reduce his potential income–especially when he still owes on his college education loans? Hahvad Law School currently costs $50,000 per year in fees and tuition PLUS room and board. Colin might still be in debt for six figures. And yet, he “voluntarily” suspended his law license?

        Makes no sense to me–unless there’s more to the story of Colin’s decision to suspend his license than meets the eye. If I had to guess, I’d guess that Colin cut some corners, got caught, and was forced to “agree” to a “voluntary suspension” as part of his punishment in order to avoid being disbarred.

        If you want to accept the word of an unlicensed lawyer as gospel, you’re welcome to do so. But if you want to presume that an unlicensed lawyers knows everything there is to know about the law and knows more about everything than everyone else on the blog knows, you’re making a imprudent presumption.

         
      • palani

        October 10, 2015 at 8:52 AM

        “Colin went to Law School ya know. Did You?”
        As a matter of fact … I took a course on Law for Engineers and Contractors. It was taught by a bona fide (or is it Bonæ Fidei?) practicing Lawyer. Possibly though the Law for Engineers and Contracts differs from Constitutional Law. I wouldn’t know as I am a mere Engineer/Contractor. One thing that was taught in the course and stressed explicitly was that the Engineer/Contractor was responsible for things below grade. To the uninitiated this means ‘out of sight’ or ‘below ground’. Now 90% of an iceberg is below grade (so to speak) and it was the part below grade that sunk the Titanic.

         
      • Chex

        October 10, 2015 at 9:00 AM

        is colin one of the crew in the creditors in commerce group?

         
    • Bruce Cannon

      October 12, 2015 at 6:52 AM

      To, palani,
      @ To the uninitiated this means ‘out of sight’ or ‘below ground’. Now 90% of an iceberg is below grade (so to speak) and it was the part below grade that sunk the Titanic.

      And just to think all this time I was taught to “look UP” ! Now, it’s too late to look back.

      To, Alfred,
      @ If you want to accept the word of an unlicensed lawyer as gospel, you’re welcome to do so. But if you want to presume that an unlicensed lawyers knows everything there is to know about the law and knows more about everything than everyone else on the blog knows, you’re making a imprudent presumption.”

      I was being, facetious.

       
    • Lex Mercatoria

      October 14, 2015 at 10:59 PM

      1. The Bill of Rights is a set of amendments to what is effectively the charter or by-laws of the commercial enterprise named “United States” ordained to govern territory by the same name pursuant to the Northwest Ordinance. The BoR has nothing to do with the confederation (not federation) of independent nation-states, i.e., The United States of America, a/k/a the perpetual Union and Confederacy.

      2. What entity came on the scene in 1868, the District of Columbia municipal corporation? It certainly wasn’t United States, which came about via the ratification of the Constitution.

      3. There is no national Constitution because The United States of America doesn’t have one.

      4. All the Constitutional amendments apply to the federal government, United States, because only United States and its territorial “States of XYZ” have Constitutions.

      5. People have the capacity of some flavor of person in United States only if people identify themselves (or allow themselves to be identified) as such.

       
  4. a man

    October 3, 2015 at 4:35 PM

    unfortunately [nearly] all americans function in the PUBLIC with persons which are not theirs! a person is [generally] owned (like any other property) by that which has title to it, or in the case of persons … creates it! and … title comes in two favors; legal and equitable. if both of the titles vest in the same enitity, then complete ownership (think: fee simply, for example) is had.
    however, when those titles vest in two different entities, then we have a trust relationship. in general, the perosns creator is the equitable owner and you (the us person, state person, taxpayer, etc.) are the legal owner. which makes you trustee or worse … volunteer!
    in most cases you do have the ability to acknowledge those gifts and revert the roles … but most of today’s americans want a quick and easy solution … which does not exist.

     
    • hskiprob

      October 4, 2015 at 9:29 AM

      This crap must go back to the slave days and never updated to “incorporate” emancipation. Law has become a tool of despots. I should be a person and a corporation a group of people. People being the plural for person, period.

      Abolish personal and corporate taxation and much of this stuff would also go away.

      I believe I have found their Achilles Heel but as a non-attorney I am not in a very good position to effectuate a legal attack on them. I fear to many attorneys are either indifferent, in opposition or are afraid to go after the IRS and it’s erroneous enforcement procedures. In my book, The Achilles Heel; the IRS Notice of Federal Tax Liens, I prove that most of the actual NFTLs being filed are invalid as a lien, thus leally unenforceable. We also have the problem of those pesky Judges who do not always abide by the rule of law. It can be found on Amazon in digital format for now.

      It does not have to be a direct complaint against the IRS either. Title Insurance companies, County Clerks, the incorporated Counties and individual IRS agents, because it is an erroneous assessment and subsequent filing of a fraudulent NFTL, are complicit. Statutory and Case law both say that a Lien must note the “tax liability given rise to the Lien” on the Lien itself. The only way in which to acquire the authority to create a tax liability is by legislation. In the case of Federal, by Congress. Apparently Congress has neglected to enact such a liability on most Citizens of the 50 States and thus why the IRS does not place the enactment and subsequent liability on any of their Liens or other correspondence. You can imagine my feeling and thoughts when I discovered this two years ago. I have tried to request the Federal Statute and when it was passed by numerous methods, each and every request ignored even in a law suit that went to the SCOTUS where they refused to hear the case. What else can one assume? I cannot prove a law exists, it is up the Government to prove it exists and they will not.

       
      • William Keen

        October 6, 2015 at 1:46 PM

        hskiprob – a lien is the product of a court action. That is the fundamental flaw in the whole thing. The IRS NEVER gets a court action before filing a NFTL.

        As for ‘attorneys’, are you aware of the source of the “BAR”? This is the acronym for “British Accredited Registry” which should explain why the attorneys are so adamant about SHARING their wealth by anyone NOT a BAR Card member.

        In the Texas Constitution Article 1 (Bill of Rights) we find: “Sec. 26. PERPETUITIES AND MONOPOLIES; PRIMOGENITURE OR ENTAILMENTS. Perpetuities and monopolies are contrary to the genius of a free government, and shall never be allowed, nor shall the law of primogeniture or entailments ever be in force in this State.”

        And, in ARTICLE 2. THE POWERS OF GOVERNMENT “Sec. 1. DIVISION OF POWERS; THREE SEPARATE DEPARTMENTS; EXERCISE OF POWER PROPERLY ATTACHED TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS. The powers of the Government of the State of Texas shall be divided into three distinct departments, each of which shall be confided to a separate body of magistracy, to wit: Those which are Legislative to one; those which are Executive to another, and those which are Judicial to another; and no person, or collection of persons, being of one of these departments, shall exercise any power properly attached to either of the others, except in the instances herein expressly permitted.”

        Which expressly FORBIDS that “Officers of the Court” in the Judicial Branch, from holding ANY OTHER OFFICE! Especially that of “Governor” or as a Legislator!

        This is how the British Crown has usurped the sovereignty of the united States of America!! We LOST the War of 1812! Since then, the BAR has worked tirelessly to overthrow the provisions of the Constitutions to cause them to reflect the status of Sovereign (government) and Serf (people).

        And now, Ted Cruz is attempting to become the 4th usurper to the office of POTUS! George H.W. Bush was the FIRST as the agreement between his father and the UNITED STATES prohibits ANY and ALL Bush progeny from EVER holding a public office. The 2nd was his son; George W. Bush. And of course, the 3rd is the Nigerian Obama!

         
      • Lex Mercatoria

        October 21, 2015 at 10:52 PM

        hskiprob said on October 4, 2015 at 9:29 AM:

        This crap must go back to the slave days and never updated to “incorporate” emancipation. Law has become a tool of despots. I should be a person and a corporation a group of people. People being the plural for person, period.
        ===========================================================================

        1. You should be a person? You probably already identify yourself as one, so I think you’re being treated appropriately by the PowersThatBe. More importantly, why do you want to be one? Do you know what a person is?

        2. People being the plural for person? You are incorrect and this is not, and cannot be so as the former is living while the latter is not. Again, do you know what a person is? What is it you’re really asking for?

         
  5. Orb It

    October 4, 2015 at 1:23 PM

    This is just my take/conjecture from my PERSONal experiences.
    Under the Uniform Military CODE of Justice, Article 2…PERSONs subject to this CODE…

    “ART. 2. Persons Subject to the Code.
    ‘ The following persons are subject to t h i s Code:
    (1) A l l persons belonging to a regular
    component of the armed forces, including those
    awaiting discharge a f t e r expiration of their terms
    of enlistment; a l l volunteers and inductees, from
    the dates of their muster or acceptance into the
    armed forces of the United States; and all other
    persons lawfully called, drafted, or ordered into,
    or to duty in or for training in, the armed forces,
    from the dates they are required by the terms of the
    call, d r a f t , o r order to obey the same;
    (2) Cadets, aviation cadets, and midshipmen;
    (3) Reserve personnel who are voluntarily on
    inactive duty training authorized by written orders;
    (4) Retirea personnel of a regular component
    of the armed forces who are entitled to receive pay;
    (5) Retired personnel of a reserve component
    who are receiving hospital benefits from an armed
    force;
    ( 6 ) Members of the Fleet Reserve and Fleet
    Marine Corps Reserve;
    (7) All persons in custody of the armed forces
    serving a sentence imposed by a court-martial;
    (8) Personnel of the Coast and Geodetic Survey,
    Public Health Service, and other organizations, when
    serving with the armed forces of the United States;
    ( 9 ) Prisoners of war in custody of the armed
    forces;
    (10) In time of war, all persons serving with or
    accompanying an armed force in the field;
    (11) All persons serving with, employed by, accompanying,
    or under the supervision of the armed
    forces without the continental limits of the United
    States and the following territories: that part of
    Alaska east of longitude one hundred and seventy-two
    degrees west, the Canal Zone, the main group of the
    Hawaiian Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands;
    References:
    (12) A l l persons within an area leased by the
    United States which is under the control of the
    Secretary of a Department and which is without the
    continental l i m i t s of the United States and the
    following t e r r i t o r i e s : t h a t p a r t of Alaska east of
    longitude one hundred and seventy-two degrees west,
    the Canal Zone, the main group of the Hawaiian
    Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.”

    …under The War Powers Act/Trading With the Enemy Act 1917 /Title 50 USC Appendix…it is unlawful to trade with the enemy and give aid to the enemy “on account”…
    Bouvier’s Law dictionary definition of :
    Calendar: a list of prisoners NAMES on the court’s docket sheet
    In the MOTOR VEHICLE CODES: a PERSON shall be in violation of CODE #…
    On the ticket. .citation/accusation/summons….license displayed in lieu of bail…

    So are we all “prisoners of war” for everything from a parking/speeding ticket under the UCMJ and is are remedy to immediately OBJECT upon arrest…

    “ART. 20. Jurisdiction of Summary Courts-Martial.
    Subject t o Article 17, summary courts-martial s h a l l
    have j u r i s d i c t i o n to t r y persons subject t o t h i s Code except
    o f f i c e r s , warrant o f f i c e r s , cadets, aviation cadets, and midshipmen
    for any non-capital offense made punishable by t h i s
    Code, but no person who objects thereto s h a l l be brought to
    t r i a l before a summary court-martial unless he has been permitted
    t o refuse punishment under Article 15. Where such
    objection is made by the accused, trial s h a l l be ordered by
    special or general court-martial, as may be appropriate.
    Summary courts-martial may, under such limitations as the
    President may prescribe, adjudge any punishment not forbidden
    by t h i s Code except death, dismissal, dishonorable or bad conduct
    discharge, confinement i n excess of one month, hard labor
    without confinement in excess of forty-five days, restriction
    to certain specified limits in excess of two months, or forfeiture
    of pay in excess of two-thirds of one month’s pay.”
    References :
    AW 14
    Proposed AGN, Art. 15, 16
    Commentary:
    This Article…

    To myself it sounds like at a traffic stop we should object to being a PERSON subject to any CODE…period.

    Just my thoughts, being I have two SUMMARY judgments against me that I was never NOTICED of and they have lached the gate behind me. It’s the words SUMMARY JUDGMENT that lead me to my belief.

    Just saying!
    I hereby object on the public record that I am NOT a PERSON subject to your CODES. and I do NOT consent to being punished in any way by your courts-martial.

    By: Stephen-Robert: CHRISTOPH, Free Agent
    All Rights Reserved

    (Live Free or Die trying)

     
    • Chex

      October 4, 2015 at 5:02 PM

      From what I understand is that we are all being tried from traffic ticket to claims on our estates though maritime admiralty law vs natural law, the flag with the gold or yellow fringe has no constitution, no laws, and no rules of court, and is not recognized by any nation on the earth, and is foreign to you and the United States of America, Martial Law Flag “Pursuant to 4 U.S.C. chapter 1, §§1, 2, & 3; Executive Order 10834, August 21, 1959; 24 F.R.6865;

       
  6. Chex

    October 4, 2015 at 4:14 PM

    The United States is a Private Corporation Not a Public Government.

    Through using old Roman Latin in our court systems to enslaving the masses in perpetual debt servitude, they created artificial legal instruments.

    The Declaration of Independence document declares that we have a right to abolish a government that no longer serves our needs. It then goes on to say, in the very first paragraph of this first document, that we shall follow Earth’s Laws and Nature’s Ways because they did not want to be ruled by King, Church or Monarch any longer in the new country.

    Our Founding Fathers, learned from the Iroquois Nations that we should honor and follow the Natural and Cosmic laws of Father Sky and Mother Earth. We then honored these Native Indians by wiping out nearly 96% of the some 20 million by the end of the 19th century.

    From Wiki:

    “Formally An Act to provide a Government for the District of Columbia, is an Act of Congress that repealed the individual charters of the cities of Washington and Georgetown and established a new territorial government for the whole District of Columbia. Though Congress repealed the territorial government in 1874, the legislation was the first to create a single municipal government for the federal district”.

    Congress passed an Act titled: “An Act To Provide A Government for the District of Columbia.” This is also known as the “Act of 1871.”

    Refer to the UNITED STATES CODE (note the capitalization, indicating the corporation, not the Republic) Title 28 3002 (15) (A) (B) (C). It is stated unequivocally that the UNITED STATES is a corporation.

    From Henry Paulson, Timothy Geithner, and every treasury secretary since 1913 are appointed but not as cabinet members.

    The Secretary of the Treasury is as a corporate “governor” of what is known as “The Fund” or “The Bank” and several other international organizations.

    The U.S. Secretary of the Treasury is not sworn in and speaks no oath of loyalty or defense of the United States.

    The obligation of this secretary (governor) is to the International Monetary Fund, and World Bank.

    All employees of the IMF governor are paid by the Fund directly, or out of funds supplied to the Governor of the Fund specifically for that purpose.

    The IMF governor is not paid by the US government as he/she is not employed by that government.

    You also will know the corporate players because they have no bond to go with the oath of office required to perfect title to that office.

    The question is which I have read a thousand times over is

    The STATE holds the title to your legal person it created via your birth certificate, until Jane Mary Doe, the rightful owner, the holder in due course of the instrument, that is yourself, reclaims/redeems it.

    What state officer has ever been asked this question —- Publicly?

    Go figure why the 14th Amendment says what it says in section Section 4 The validity of the public debt of the United States shall not be questioned.

     
  7. dog-move

    October 6, 2015 at 11:33 AM

    Homo vocabulum est naturae; persona juris civilis. Man (homo) is a term of nature; person (persona) of civil law. Calvin (from Black’s Law Dictionary, Second Edition (1910), page 577).
    Homo vocabulum est naturae; persona juris civilis- Man is a term of nature; person of civil law. Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (1914) “Maxim,” p. 2136.
    American Law and Procedure, Vol. 13 page 137, 1910:
    “This word ‘person’ and its scope and bearing in the law, involving, as it does, legal fictions and also apparently [IN APPEARANCE ONLY] natural beings, it is difficult to understand; but it is absolutely necessary to grasp, at whatever cost, a true and proper understanding to the word in all the phases to its proper use. A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the status or condition or character borne by physical persons. The law of persons is the law of status or condition.
    CHAPTER 311 CODE CONSTRUCTION ACT (TEXAS)
    §311.005. GENERAL DEFINITIONS. The following definitions apply unless the statute or context in which the word or phrase is used requires a different definition:
    (2) “Person” includes corporation, organization, government, or governmental subdivision or agency, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, association, and any other legal entity. [What is the legal meaning of “includes”?]
    United States Code
    TITLE 15- COMMERCE AND TRADE
    CHAPTER1- MONOPOLIES AND COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE
    §7. “Person” or “persons” defined
    The word “person”, Or “persons” whenever used in sections 1 to7 of this title shall be deemed to include corporations or associations existing under or authorized by the laws of either the United States, the laws of any of the Territories, the laws of any State, or the laws of any foreign country.
    United States Code
    TITLE 15- COMMERCE AND TRADE
    CHAPTER 1 MONOPOLIES AND COMBINATIONS IN RETRAINT OF TRADE
    §12. Definitions; short title
    (a) The word “person” or “persons” wherever used in this Act shall be deemed to include corporations and associations existing under or authorized by the laws of the United States, The laws of any of the territories, the laws of any State, or of the laws of any foreign country. [Are the words man or women or in the “flesh” in these codes? Perhaps they are not included or applicable?]

    Am I to understand in this captured Nation, The United States of America, as one of the People of a union State, in order to pursue my happiness, needs to go into the United States using a person to accomplish this? So in the morning when one wakes up, he/she is in The United States of America and has to use the legal personality/person to enter the United States in order to pursue Happiness? Does one acting at arm’s length to the many United States persons diminish the fact that he/she is still one of the People? The United States is a pure fiction, a creation of man, a device, it’s dead. Death is all around us in the wilderness of no people, yet we are to come out of her as instructed in the Word. Am I to conclude that one can be in “this state” and “the State”, as in the morning at your domicile and then crossover into this state in the person in order to pursue your Happiness. My employer is a corporation created under the laws of “this state”. Must one disclose one’s relationship with the legal person to all parties? I have informed my employer in writing, that I John Q. Doe, am a man made in the image of Yahweh Elohiym as per Genesis 1:26-28. That I always act at arm’s length in relation to the trust/ person JOHN Q. DOE. That I am one of the People of The State of Florida and/or The United States of America.

     
    • hskiprob

      October 6, 2015 at 11:50 AM

      Leave it up to the attorneys and judges to turn the definition of the word person to that of a corporation. lol

       
      • palani

        October 6, 2015 at 4:06 PM

        “turn the definition of the word person to that of a corporation”
        With respect to the Merchant of Venice … how else would you go about getting a pound of flesh without a single drop of blood issuing from the wound? It seems once an argument is proposed a work-around will jump to the fore.

         
      • Lex Mercatoria

        October 13, 2015 at 10:33 PM

        What do you mean “‘turn’ the definition of the word ‘person’ to that of a corporation?” It’s not like persons are people–never were. People have erroneously equated the meaning of the two words but even the legal guys say otherwise, ala Black’s Law Dictionary, as a recent example.

        Corporations are persons, but not necessarily vice-versa. This whole people vs. persons issue has already been well hashed out in other threads on this site.

         
    • Lex Mercatoria

      October 13, 2015 at 11:13 PM

      @dog-move,

      No one needs to go onto United States territory or engage the temporary gov’t by the same name to pursue one’s happiness. The 1st two Organic Laws effectively state quite the contrary and even the U.S. guys don’t state in their laws that one must engage them for that.

      BTW, when you say you are one of the People of The State of Florida you are confessing you are under United States jurisdiction. Instead, one may wish to state one is one of the People of Florida, The United States of America. “State of Florida” is the name of both (a) United States territory within the exterior borders of Florida (as Florida is depicted on a map), and (b) the name of the commercial enterprise acting as a temporary government over said territory. In terms of what you see on a daily basis State of Florida is the gov’t areas, e.g., public schools, gov’t buildings, public parks, state-run hospitals, and the like. This is territory ceded to, owned by, or otherwise the subject of a proprietary interest of The United States of America.

      Are you really one of *those* People?

       
  8. Chex

    October 6, 2015 at 4:59 PM

    Statutory and Case law both say that a Lien must note the “tax liability given rise to the Lien” on the Lien itself. The only way in which to acquire the authority to create a tax liability is by legislation.

    Not entirely. The lien is for the product you used and didn’t pay usury for.

    That is all because of the federal reserve notes that were ordered by a person (your paycheck), accepted as a payment.

    In reality FRB’s debt notes written in laws of the United States are mandatory for redemption when demanded because you used the FRB’s product.

    Actually you were the creditor because all those sheets of FRN’s would still be on a pallet in some warehouse waiting for someone to spring them into action.

    We also have the problem of those pesky Judges who do not always abide by the rule of law.

    Exactly….because there usufruct payers and there to reward friends and punish the enemies (trading with the enemy act) or else they lose their job and they don’t want to see you go.

    Release of lien or discharge of property.

    How many times is the word person and If the Secretary. ftp://www.fourmilab.ch/pub/ustax/www/t26-F-64-C-II-6325.html

    Today it’s Uncle Jack the Secretary of the Treasury who serves as the U.S. Governor to the IMF ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secretary_of_the_Treasury there is nothing American about this.
    ====================================
    Must one disclose one’s relationship with the legal person to all parties? I have informed my employer in writing, that I John Q. Doe, am a man made in the image of Yahweh Elohiym as per Genesis 1:26-28. That I always act at arm’s length in relation to the trust/ person JOHN Q. DOE. That I am one of the People of The State of Florida and/or The United States of America.

    Then we are all 501 C3’s

     
    • palani

      October 6, 2015 at 7:22 PM

      ” I have informed my employer in writing, that I John Q. Doe, am a man made in the image of Yahweh Elohiym as per Genesis ”

      If you have an employer then your office is employee. That is a trust relationship. Check out Hutchens v Maxicenters http://floridadebtor.com/index.php?topic=147.0;wap2

       
      • palani

        October 13, 2015 at 8:05 PM

        @D.B. “how does the 13th, 14th, & 15th “Articles, aka, Amendments apply to me & others, of my, The White Race”
        How does not include What, When, Why, Where or Who. Rather than attempting to understand things that don’t apply examine actions that turn these things into nullities then simply stop worrying about them. Life is too short to waste upon philosophical questions or even to decipher the rantings of mentally challenged power seekers. I suspect you already know of the Why behind these things.

         
      • Bruce Cannon

        October 16, 2015 at 4:42 PM

        palani,
        iOctober 13, 2015 at 8:05 PM
        @D.B.
        D.B. IS Dumb Bell!! I know the dummy quite well! :-D

         
      • Chex

        October 16, 2015 at 11:54 PM

        “The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing there from, beyond the protection of his life and property, …he owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.

        HALE v. HENKEL,
        201 U.S. 43 at. 74-75. (1906)

         
      • palani

        October 20, 2015 at 6:14 AM

        @ B.C. WHY? “I am convinced it was to transfer the sovereignty of the several states TO the Federal Government.”
        No. That cannot be the case. The federal government was established with limited power and cannot exceed those powers. More likely the federal government went out of business (the immobile nature of a debt of $346,681,016 tends to support this idea) and a national government replaced it (whose debt now extends into the trillions). Lack of a proclamation and resort to subterfuge using a similar name makes this new (1868) government a de facto rather than a de jure construct. The several States had illustrated for them quite graphically during the years 1861 and 1865 what happens when reality attempts to interfere with illusion.

        Proclamation (notice) is a key to the remedy. It need not be in manifesto form running into pages. A simple statement that is short and to the point is quite adequate. After suitable proclamation is made record the same and you will have created your own law. Milk spilled is best left for the cats. Move on instead. Correct the record. Enjoy life because it is good.

         
      • billhkeen

        October 20, 2015 at 11:06 PM

        With my eyes wide open – THIS life is not GOOD!

        The ‘federal’ government was rejected by many but obviously they did not have enough power to persevere. The ‘Anti-Federalists’ were the “Nationalists” who argued against the overpowering Federal Government in favor of the 10th Amendment Power of the States.

        The only reason that the Federals have the power that they do today is the Umbrella Coverage that they claim from the control of commerce clause that ONLY pertains to insuring that the prices between ALL of the States is the same so that there is no ‘gouging’ like they did with the South and Cotton Prices/Sales in 1861.

        The Feds claim that they control everything in the country because it MAY be involved in Interstate Commerce. That we let them go for so long only goes to show the lack of Christianity in the United States. Real men would have stopped this many years ago. Only Christians will be real men as they are in obedience to the Father JHVH!

        The lack of dedication to the laws of the country also allowed Texas to become a puppet to the U.S. Without ANY form of agreement, the President, Congress, and Judiciary of Texas all just left their jobs and let men walk in and take over EVERYTHING! Even without today’s internet communications SOMEONE should have been protesting the abandonment of the Texas Republic to the criminal Yankees/Unionists.

        The idea that the State Congress has ANY authority over a citizen is repugnant and unlawful. The reason that the legislative session is so short is that there should be almost NOTHING to do each session. How many problems should arise 180 years after they started? All that they can enact are Rules for Employees (Statutes) and foreign policy/treaties.

        You can’t even fish from your own pond without the government controlling you via a “License”. your car isn’t yours! The Certificate of Registration is only a form to show that YOU are authorized possession of a State Owned Vehicle. You can’t pick up mail without ID but ANYONE can vote on how the law will be changed and how the money will be spent!

        Oh Yeah, MONEY! There hasn’t been any since the gold and silver coins were removed from use. When the gold was stolen, the money was no longer valid. Texas Code of Criminal Procedure in 43.02 requires that ALL things of a pecuniary nature (valued in ‘money’) must be paid in “the lawful money of the United States only.” They are violating the Texas Law every time that you pay any tax, fine, license fee, or ANYTHING ELSE!

        This fact alone means that they are in deliberate violation of the Texas Constitution and therefore are committing TREASON which requires that they be hung!

         
      • palani

        October 21, 2015 at 7:20 AM

        @ billhkeen “With my eyes wide open – THIS life is not GOOD!”
        The Supreme Court first used the concept of a ‘plane’ in Ponzi v. Fessenden :: 258 US 254 (1922) to describe the dissimilarity between the state and the federal planes. The federal plane (as established by the U.S. constitution) is entirely a commercial plane. That was the change that made their union ‘more perfect’ (the ability to borrow money is nothing if not commercial).

        Nobody in the commercial plane has a life. They are all dead. May they rest in peace. When I claim ‘life is good’ the statement is for the benefit of the living.

         
      • Chex

        October 21, 2015 at 11:09 AM

        You’re employer has nothing to do with it even if its private their tracking those federal reserve notes you ask for your services.

        (1) the amount of the debt;
        (2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed;

         
    • William Keen

      October 19, 2015 at 12:05 PM

      A lien can only exist as the result of a court procedure of due process. A lien is the Order of the Court that finds someone deficient and owing.

      A “Notice of Lien” is a federal fraud of the IRS and has NO authority of law. The same applies to the “Notice of Levy” fraud.

       
      • hskiprob

        October 19, 2015 at 1:20 PM

        @12:06 PM Correct. However as one of my friends was told by an IRS Agent. “That may be true Mr. X, but that is not how the game is played. That is why I just wrote a book on the subject of the liens: The Achilles Heel; the IRS Notice of Federal Tax Lien, on schedule to be published on or before Nov. 1st. I found that the NFTLs do not note the “tax liability giving rise to the lien” on them as required by Federal Statute, Treasury Regs, the IRS Manual and Case law. Go figure that when you attempt to ask them for the law, they just ignore you. I even did a FIOA request, a formal petition for redress of grievances, numerous documented personal correspondences and I was a named plaintiff in a suit by 2,000 + “people” to force them to answer the questions in the petition. A Judge said they didn’t have to answer, so we appealed and a three judge panel agreed. We appealed again, and low and behold, the SCOTUS wouldn’t hear the case. The petition involved 62 rather detailed questions relating to the Federal Personal Income Tax and was served the first time in 2002. I went to DC the day The Commissioner, The Treasury Sec. and the President were served the suit. Every single step of the way is well documented. The NFTLs are legally insufficient, thus invalid as liens. Some of you as Attorneys, should see a couple of opportunities here and my book has enough evidence to make a very strong case. Feel free to contact me, my email is hskiprob at gmail dot com. The Kindle version is already available and It will be on Amazon.

        For those of you who may not know. The 2nd Platform of 10 platforms of Communism as noted in the book, The Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engel is “a high progressive or graduated income tax”. A central bank is #5 and #10 is why most people don’t know these; Free Education for all children. To me it is interesting that many people know why communism doesn’t work but have yet to figure out why are society is failing to provide what is in the best interest of the majority and is instead fostering a very powerful and wealthy ruling oligarchy. Hopefully enough sheople will someday catch on and many already have.

         
      • Chex

        October 21, 2015 at 11:18 AM

        5.12.9.3.4 (10-14-2013)
        Best Interest Withdrawal Provisions .

        1.To be considered for a withdrawal under the best interest provisions (IRC § 6323(j)(1)(D)), two determinations are required:

        •one by the taxpayer or by the National Taxpayer Advocate (NTA) (or designee) with respect to the taxpayer; and

        •one by the Secretary (or designee).

        2.A determination that withdrawal is in the best interest of the United States may be made by collection employees.

        3.A taxpayer may request the withdrawal on the basis that it is in his or her best interest and the best interest of the United States without specifically requesting that the NTA make the determination on his or her behalf. A collection employee may also make a best interest determination independent of a taxpayer request provided the taxpayer or the NTA acting on behalf of the taxpayer consents to the withdrawal………………

        yada yada yada

         
      • hskiprob

        October 21, 2015 at 12:24 PM

        You’re assuming that they will just not ignore me like they have on my numerous other requests for information? Interesting that I had planned to do this after the FIOA request, that I’m still waiting for the information on. The keep sending me letters saying sorry about the delay. You actually reminded me, so thank you. Sometimes, I get concerned that my actions will do more harm then good. I am going to do it unless anyone has any other thought or suggestions.

        We has asked for a CDP Hearing early this year and in the request, we requested that they provide their authority as required by the Administrative Procedures Act under Title 5 which requires any administrative agency to show their authority to be involved, “prior” to any hearing. They immediately denied us the Hearing on three separate and distinct grounds, with the word “or” between each one. I assume we are to guess which one of the three was the reason. It has been an unbelievable experience and why I wrote the book.

        I hope that some of you will buy my book and pass them forward. I have tired to stay away from any of the known frivolous defenses and I cut and pasted directly from the law throughout the book. I think I can legally and logically defeat any opponent to my evidence and conclusions, if in a situation where the final arbiter(s) are honest and competent. Thanks Chex

         
      • Chex

        October 21, 2015 at 1:50 PM

        hksiprob They ignore everyone when it comes to the truth they don’t answer because they don’t want to be caught in a lie.

        Is title 15 – 15 chapter 41 subchapter V subsection 1692a all about (Debt Validation) collections? simple and in some ways similar to a charge concept, it is all about the bill not the law.

        and • one by the Secretary

        Isn’t this the governor of the IMF?

        I don’t know what your beef is but if it’s about the using someone private credit (FRN’s) I could understand.

         
    • Lex Mercatoria

      October 21, 2015 at 10:21 PM

      Chex,

      State of Florida or The United States of America? The latter has People, the former does not. Which jurisdiction and land do you recognize, the patch of United States territory known as State of Florida or that of the Confederacy and perpetual Union known as The United States of America?

      Take your pick, as one cannot be of both. If you say what you said above the PowersThatBe will be confused as to what you really mean and/or think you don’t know who & where you are.

       
  9. T A

    October 8, 2015 at 12:19 AM

    As Bill Thornton says, I’m a People. It sounds weird, but “People” can also be used as a singular noun. You’re right Al, only a People has un-(a)lienable rights, while fictitious “persons” have privileges granted by People and other sovereigns.

     
  10. bob

    October 8, 2015 at 4:14 PM

    person, artificial or fictitious, people means persons, corporate dead souls

    native, can not be artificial or fictitious. we,natives, body mind spirit

    always refer to we natives

     
  11. timmy

    October 12, 2015 at 5:49 PM

    A person/people/creature that must constantly change their username is either shifty, shifting or shiftless…

     
    • Chex

      October 12, 2015 at 7:16 PM

      It is presumed a US Citizen (Corporate employee of the US, a Person) is using Fed Credit and is therefore responsible not only for the debt they actually sign for, but for ALL THE DEBT the US has with the Federal Reserve. Since, it is their “representative” in Washington running up the bill with the Federal Reserve.

       
    • billhkeen

      October 13, 2015 at 12:02 AM

      Howdy Al! I hope things are well with you. I just got this and knew you would be interested.

       
      • Adask

        October 13, 2015 at 2:32 AM

        Hi Bill, long time. Ten years? Fifteen? I’m doing well, insofar as a senior citizen can do well. I’m sure you understand.

        You say “I just got this and knew you [I] would be interested.” I am interested. But you don’t say what “it” is, or provide a link, etc. Whachu talkin’ ’bout, boy?

         
  12. Lex Mercatoria

    October 13, 2015 at 10:44 PM

    Adask said:

    Note that the “people” have “persons”. “Persons” are not “people’. Instead, “persons” are attributes or capacities of “people”. “People” are real and primary; “persons” are relational, derivative and/or secondary.
    ===========================================================================
    You’re just realizing this now? This discussion has already been well hashed out on other threads on your site and even Black’s Law Dictionary states the same, if one dissects their definition carefully.

    Bottom line: if they meant to refer to people their legal verbiage they would use the word “people”, as is more likely done in treaties. There’s a good reason why they use the term “person” in their statutes/codes/regulations.

    What people refer to as “legalese” is often simply correct English.

     
  13. Lex Mercatoria

    October 13, 2015 at 10:52 PM

    In the end it matters not how They define or redefine the word “person”, as the only issue of any import is that of territorial jurisdiction. They don’t even claim to have it on the vast majority of the land we live on.

    Any other issue is a distraction. It’s funny how people have a fetish for the ratified yet unadopted Constitution–a document that has nothing to do with the People of the perpetual Union, a/k/a the Confederacy or The United States of America.

     
  14. Chex

    October 21, 2015 at 8:01 AM

    You want the definitions in this state of jurisdiction let Glen show you their rules.

    Refute it.

     
    • Lex Mercatoria

      October 21, 2015 at 10:39 PM

      What he says of “in this state” is correct and is the same point I’ve been making, and all the statutes/codes/regulations out there read the same way. They do because they adhere to the limits of the territorial State constitutions, which in turn adhere to the identical limits of the ratified, yet unadopted, federal Constitution (4th & final Organic Law), which in turn derives from the Northwest Ordinance (3rd Organic Law).

      There’s nothing to refute as this verbiage regards United States, which is not the land (and its governing enterprise by the same name) that I and the vast majority of us live on.

       
    • hskiprob

      October 26, 2015 at 5:48 AM

      Very good video.

      We have long been overthrown from within our own society by the banksters and attorneys and he points out at least two unlawful abrogations of the Constitution. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrObZ_HZZUc This video will help explain some additional elements of the powers behind our central banksters and the relationship with the Bank of England and other Central Banksters around the world and their association with the BIS, the central banks, central bank, the Bank of International Settlement.

      The District of Columbia is a State accorded to IRC Section 7701 and “no state shall make anything but gold and silver coin, a tender in payment of debt; Article 1 sec 8. This legally preclude DC from allowing the FRB to issue FRNs since the Government of DC cannot make FRNs legal tender for their use for either the government or the Citizens of DC. FRNs cannot therefore be used by any Jurisdiction, including the 50 States because Congress only has the power to “coin” money and regulate it’s value. Both money clauses were unlawfully abrogated in 1933.

      FRNs as legal tender are unconstitutional. Some idiots will argue that Article 1 Sec 10 the term “make” means to manufacture. States are prohibited from coining their own money at the beginning of that same clause, so the term “make” means to legislate into existence. Since Congress is the only U.S.A. government jurisdiction that can legally coin money, the States can only used gold and silver coin as tender in payment of debt.

      1. The first unlawful abrogation is the FRB is issuing fiat currency. 2. The second is that the States and DC have legislatively or by executive order, made FRNs legal tender.

      3. The IRS seizes property from Citizens without due process. 4. The 2nd Amendment, has been gutted. 5. The right to petition for Redress of Grievances under Article I was unlawfully abrogated in 2008 when the SCOTUS refused to hear the We The People v. US case.

      These unlawful abrogations alone would satisfy those who contend that the US is no long a lawfully “constituted” Republic thus the USA appears to have been overthrown from within.

      How do we know all this. There are specific methods to amend the Constitution and they were not followed and instead all abrogations were done by either administrative orders of Judicial decisions. We all know the Judiciary throughout history has been a rubber stamp for those in power. There is a ongoing case where Congress has sued the administration over it’s various actions v. powers in relation to The Affordable Health Care Act.

       
      • Chex

        October 26, 2015 at 8:51 AM

        A perfect example of Jurisdiction by Adam https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aI8vjoFjmdY&feature=youtu.be

         
      • billhkeen

        October 26, 2015 at 5:01 PM

        That the United States of America LOST the War of 1812 is proven by the absence of the Original `13th Amendment.

        The results of that loss is the creation of the BAR Associations in every State, the violation of the Separation of Powers in Clause 2 of the Constitution, and the overthrow of the entire system by the BAR Members controlling everything!

         
      • hskiprob

        October 28, 2015 at 6:33 AM

        It appears that you are correct. I’ve been trying to get a hold of an original Constitution with he original 13th in it to show people. Last time I searched I came up short. I’ve read about it but never saw one. Go figure, overthrown from within. All one must do is to go down the amendments and see how many of them have been unlawfully abrogated to see the evidence. The judiciary was supposed to be a guardian against the usurpation of rights but are, as are all known judiciaries in world history, a rubber stamp for those in power. For those that understand macro-economics, how does any institution withstand the powers granted to the money lenders when granted the monopoly powers of a central bank? It is to easy for them just to kick you to the gutter if you do not go along with the scheme. Every monarch had their won bank for a reason. I don’t think you can have a civil society as long as you have a central bank. To much power in the hands of to few people and if you can control the Federal judiciary, a couple of thousand people, the legislature almost becomes moot and thus end up producing the legislation the government contractors need to secure the government funding. As many of you know, the meeting in 1911 at Jekyll Island, Georgia was the prelude to the Federal Reserve Act and at that meeting were the representatives of both national and international banking powers. The meeting was set up at the resort and club owned then by JP Morgan. Ed Griffin’s non-fiction book “The Creature From Jekyll Island” is an eye opening.

         
  15. hskiprob

    October 23, 2015 at 2:57 PM

    Chex, I haven’t paid a Federal individual income tax in many years because I first an foremost think it is a really unjust form of taxation. 2. I don’t believe that I am liable either as a Citizen of one of the 50 states. It’s really hard to say though, because I have requested the Federal Statute and when it was passed on numerous occasions and by numerous methods already mentioned above and they will not tell me they law that gives them their authority to collect a tax from me. I keep looking for the alleged law and I have yet to ever have anyone ever show it to me. Millions are being raped and pillaged by the two Feds – the monopoly bank, pun intended and the Federal Government and they are destroying the middle class of America. That’s my beef.

    Lex, I understand there is a difference between terms and words. Legal terms you find defined in a legal dictionary such as Blacks and the definitions of common “Words” in Websters and such.

    Of course the legal system and all it’s hocus pocus uses terms to prevent the masses from understanding and thus participation “without” attorneys in the legal system. Go figure!!! All the Latin is what really pisses me off. In propria persona, in proper person. This is 2015, not the Roman Empire.

    It is not hard to determine quickly that our legal system is a disaster and it will most likely always be unjust for the majority until such time as it is no longer controlled by the political cabal.

    In my lifetime I have see our system deteriorate and that is a bit disheartening especially when their are things that can be done. I feel kind of sad for the mess that each future generation will have to endure. Some call libertarians like myself greedy and self serving but that has not been my experience with them over the years. Just the opposite.

     
    • palani

      October 23, 2015 at 4:58 PM

      @ hskiprob “This is 2015, not the Roman Empire.”
      I believe if you check your calendar again you will discover that the year is MMXV. Arabs tend to use Arabic numbers. Nothing disparaging against Arabs here but I don’t happen to be one.

       
  16. hskiprob

    October 26, 2015 at 6:31 AM

    There will always be those who choose to be tax consumers. Those who wish to derive their life styles and money from tax producers. They will lie (about the rules), cheat (change the rules), steal (disobey the rules) and imprison/kill if necessary (anyone that doesn’t go along with their schemes). To me this sums up the hierarchal institution we call the nation state.

    How can any institution which requires as it’s economic foundation, money confiscated/stolen through the initiation or use of force and/or coercion promote a civil society?

     
  17. hskiprob

    October 26, 2015 at 4:06 PM

    What is cool is that more and more are awakening to the realities so long hidden from the masses. I like to thank Al Gore for inventing the internet.

     
  18. cynthia

    November 9, 2015 at 9:04 AM

    Not sure if this has been covered or not, take into consideration that “Jesus” was not a “respecter of persons” which could be construed as a man that acted “fake” or differently from his or her actual attitude and demeanure, i.e. one that is normally honest acting as a lier or cheat, one that is normally loud in tone speaking quietly unto another in gossip…. this is my poor attempt at interpretation – happy to be corrected proper, could be he meant “government” or “state” vs being a religious and pies man\womb – ???

     
  19. cynthia

    November 9, 2015 at 9:08 AM

    Please consider others have done extensive research and verified that many of the “Constitutional” “Amendments” in particular 14th was NOT properly vetted or voted on with “majority vote” but instead literally “forced down our throats” by the UNITED STATES corporation dictates – why folks continue to “reference” or “cite” “laws” that clearly are only war crimes is beyond me (sigh)

     
    • hskiprob

      November 9, 2015 at 11:34 AM

      Great comment Cynthia. I have the books a two set volume; The Law That Never Was, by William ‘Bill’ Benson. Benson and a colleague went to all the States that existed at the time and got certified copies of the voting records and Amendment(s) passed. I pluralized Amendment because when a State ratifies the Amendment it has to be exactly as the Amendment was written by Congress, and a number of them were not as well as other issues. The documents clearly show the 14tth Amendment was not property ratified, yet our illustrious Judiciary has repeatedly upheld its full force and effect. They are upholding a system of two separate and distinct Citizenships. I have 10 or so court cases in my new book that clearly show there are State and Federal Citizenships but it is more a point of interest than the topic I raise.

      In my book on Amazon & Kindle, The Achilles Heel; The IRS Notice OF Federal Tax Lien, I prove the NFTLs being issued by the IRS are invalid thus insufficient as enforceable liens. I don’t know what or how our illustrious Judiciary will do to get around this one, because the evidence is clear, concise and easy to understand with just a little guidance so they will not be able to bamboozle the juries with all the technicalities of the IRC so easily. It a really short read 130 pages with plenty of exhibits to show the evidence. Two years to write and 35 years of research. I think it there Achilles Heel.

       
      • cynthia

        November 9, 2015 at 11:48 AM

        Many thanks – ordered the paper book today (smile), never hurts to have “back up defense” when one’s “offense” may fail

         
      • hskiprob

        November 9, 2015 at 1:27 PM

        Plan Bs and even Cs are good – thanks

         

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s