Disinformation Eradication - Ignorance Amputation

Bigger text (+)Smaller text (-)

(Ed. Note: it is obvious that the writer still needs some pointers, since there are still some word misusage in this article. Can anyone tell what these are?)

Disinformation Eradication - Ignorance Amputation

If you are like most people, you are the product of generations of propaganda and disinformation. To dispel indoctrination requires an effort on your part to open your mind to reasoning that will initially appear foreign and uncomfortable. In fact, you may never feel the same about a "person" or "persons".


Let's start with some basic legal concepts.

Can you determine the (legal) difference between the following pairs?

national v. citizen
sovereign v. subject
individual v. person
inhabitant v. resident
domicile v. residence
natural liberty v. civil liberty
personal liberty v. civil liberty
private property v. estate (real and personal property)
absolute ownership v. qualified ownership

If you do not know the legal difference, you will not understand that Americans are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights (aka natural and personal liberty), and when of legal age and status can absolutely own themselves, their labor, the fruits of their labor and all that they lawfully acquire or produce. Upon their private property, where they have a domicile, they exercise absolute power over their land and home and possessions. Upon the public roads and waterways, they exercise the right of locomotion, the freedom to travel, without hindrance or prior permission. And they and their private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. Because rights can never be subject to taxation by a government pledged to secure them.

In short, Americans were born with the birthright of sovereignty - and promptly lose it by "voluntary" surrender to the Collective State.

In support, I offer the following reasons.

First Line of Reason


Genesis 26: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28: And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

DOMINION - Generally accepted definition of "dominion" is perfect control in right of ownership. The word implies both title and possession and appears to require a complete retention of control over disposition. -Sovereignty; as the dominion of the seas or over a territory.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p.486

SOVEREIGN - "...Having undisputed right to make decisions and act accordingly".
New Webster's Dictionary And Thesaurus, p. 950.

SOVEREIGN - A person, body or state in which independent and supreme authority is vested...
Black's Law Dictionary Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1395.

SOVEREIGNTY - ...By "Sovereignty", in its largest sense is meant supreme, absolute, uncontrollable power, the absolute right to govern.
Black's Law Dictionary Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1396.

MAN, individually, is endowed by His Creator with the undisputed right to make decisions, and act. He has perfect control, possession and title to all the particular earth that he acquires by harmless and lawful means. He is a sovereign.

What changed, that one group of men can demand another to serve them?


Second Line of Reason


"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
--- Declaration of Independence, 1776

"Natural liberty is the right which nature gives to all mankind, of disposing of their persons and property after the manner they judge most consonant to their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature, and that they do not in any way abuse it to the prejudice of other men."
- - - Bouvier's Law Dictionary

NATURAL LIBERTY - The power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, unless by the law of nature. The right which nature gives to all mankind of disposing of their persons and property after the manner in which they judge most consistent with their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature, and so as not to interfere in the equal exercise of the same rights by other men. 1 Blackstone's Commentaries, 123,
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth edition, p.919

America's governments recognize that MAN has the natural liberty to act as he thinks fit, and as long as he doesn't injure another's rights (harmless action). Those who have not given consent, nor submitted themselves, are not objects nor subjects of government. But they are promised by servant government that their inalienable rights will be respected and protected.

What has changed, that men no longer have absolute freedom to think, decide, and act, but must comply with law that imposes prior restraint? What has changed that men are punished as criminals, when there is no damaged person or property?

Third Line of Reason


Where does Man exercise natural liberty (pursue happiness)?


"PRIVATE PROPERTY - As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels." - - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p.1217

"OWNERSHIP - ... Ownership of property is either absolute or qualified. The ownership of property is absolute when a single person has the absolute dominion over it... The ownership is qualified when it is shared with one or more persons, when the time of enjoyment is deferred or limited, or when the use is restricted. " - - -Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1106

Within his domain of private property, man is free to act without prior restraint, or permission (license). Outside of his private property and dominion, a man is not sovereign, free, and independent of other men. He has no freedom to trespass upon the private property of other men.

From the Communist manifesto:
"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."

Amendment V, US Constitution 1789
... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

"Private property" is protected by constitution, but abolished by communism and socialism.
What has happened to absolute ownership of land and houses, that should be secure from being taken for public use without just compensation? Did we consent to the surrender of our private property rights?


Fourth Line of Reason


Liberty is more complex than freedom. Liberty is divided into four types.

LIBERTY. Freedom from restraint. The power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature.
2. Liberty is divided into civil, natural, personal, and political.

6. Personal liberty is the independence of our actions of all other will than our own. Wolff, Ins. Nat. 77. It consists in the power of locomotion, of changing situation, or removing one's person to whatever place one's inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint, unless by due course of law. 1 Bl. Com. 134.
--- Bouvier's Dictionary

PERSONAL LIBERTY - The right or power of locomotion; of changing situation, or moving one's person to whatsoever place one's own inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint, unless by due course of law. 1 Bl. Comm. 125.
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p. 919

TRAVEL - Within the meaning of a constitutional right to travel, means migration with intent to settle and abide.
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p.1500

" Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable." 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.

" Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion to go where and when one pleases only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135.

A man's personal liberty is the right to move, outside of his own domain and situation, without restraint, unless he interferes in the equal exercise of the same rights by other men.

What has changed that man must now get permission (license) before he can travel upon public roads? Why must he register his vehicle with the State?


Fifth Line of Reason


Natural rights are superior to "human rights".

INHERENT POWERS - Those which are enjoyed by the possessors of natural right, without having been received from another. Such are the powers of a people to establish a form of government, of a father to control his children.
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p. 1170

ABSOLUTE RIGHTS - ... which are such as appertain and belong to particular men, merely as individuals or single persons...

NATURAL RIGHTS - ... are the rights of life, liberty, privacy, and good reputation.
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p. 1324

Amendment IV

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.

Amendment V

... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Man's absolute rights, liberties, privacy, and reputation are not to be injured or violated without warrant, supported by a complaint by an injured party, who shall make said complaint under penalty of perjury for false accusation.

A man's private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation.

What empowers government to take our lands and houses, for failure to pay ad valorem taxes, and not pay us just compensation? What empowers the government to do unwarranted searches and seizures?


Sixth Line of Reason


Exercising government granted privileges and immunities may impose a loss of inalienable rights.

"The right of holding state office is a civil or political right, which may be surrendered to the government or to society in order to secure the protection of other rights ([State] Bill of Rights, art. 3), or the government may
abridge or take away such rights for sufficient cause; for, though such rights may be considered natural rights (Bill of Rights, art. 2) yet they [political rights] are not of the class of natural rights which are held to be inalienable, like the rights of conscience (Bill of Rights, art. 4)"
- - Hale v. Everett, 53 N.H. 9 (N.H. 1868)

[Note: civil and political rights (liberties) are not in the same class of natural rights (inalienable), and surrender "other rights" when exercised. They are grants from government, and not endowed by our Creator.]

Those who exercise civil rights or civil liberties must apply for license (ask permission).

"Civil liberty is the power to do whatever is permitted by the constitution of the state and the laws of the land. It is no other than natural liberty, so far restrained by human laws, and no further, operating equally upon all the citizens, as is necessary and expedient for the general advantage of the public." 1 Black. Com. 125; Paley's Mor. Phil. B. 6, c.5; Swifts Syst. 12
--- Bouvier's Law Dictionary

LICENSE - A personal privilege to do some particular act or series of acts on land without possessing any estate or interest therein, and is ordinarily revocable at the will of the licensor and is not assignable... The permission by competent authority to do an act which, without such permission, would be illegal, a trespass, a tort, or otherwise not allowed. - - - Black's Law Dictionary

A sovereign man who is within his inherent rights regarding his domain and his right of travel is not violating the person or property of another, committing a tort, a trespass, or otherwise required to obtain prior permission from competent authority.

Everyone else must obtain permission from competent authority to travel, work, marry, own dogs, build their homes, engage in business, and so on.

In addition, those who submit, as citizens, accept the burdens and duties that come with that election.

TITLE 10 USC Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, ... under 45 years of age who are, ...citizens of the United States ...

Seventh Line of Reason


Exclusions, Exceptions, and Opponents

"CITIZEN - ... Citizens are members of a political community who, in their associative capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of government for the promotion of the general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights."
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. p.244

"SUBJECT - One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws.
...Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government."
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1425

For proof that there are people who are not citizens, read Article IV:

"The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from Justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states;...."
[Article IV of the Articles of Confederation (1777)]

(This clause may explain why few Americans are ever exposed to the Articles of Confederation. Young fresh minds might ask embarrassing questions in their "Social Studies".)

What is a pauper (one of the excepted classes)?

PAUPER - A person so poor that he must be supported at public expense.
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1128

How poor is that?

INDIGENT - In a general sense, one who is needy and poor, or one who has not sufficient property to furnish him a living nor anyone able to support him to whom he is entitled to look for support. Term commonly used to refer to one's financial ability, and ordinarily indicates one who is destitute of means of comfortable subsistence so as to be in want. Powers v. State, 194 Kan. 820, 402 P.2d 328, 332.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. p. 773

An indigent has no money nor property to support himself. But an indigent is not a pauper until he is supported by public charity.

What's so bad about pauperization?

"State code 124 Sections 6, and 7, authorizing the overseer of the poor to commit to the workhouse able-bodied persons, not having the means to support themselves, and who live a dissolute and vagrant life, and do not work sufficiently to support themselves, are not repugnant to the constitution, giving every man an inalienable right to defend his life and liberty."
In re Nott, 11 Me. (2 Fairf.) 208. (Me. 1834)

In short, the State has the power to direct you to work in exchange for the charity you get. Sounds like legalized slavery, doesn't it? If you are a pauper, you are subject to the orders of the overseer.

"Act May 29, 1879, providing for the committal to the industrial school of dependent infant girls, who are beggars, wanderers, homeless, or without proper parental care, in no way violates the right of personal liberty, and is constitutional."
Ex parte Ferrier, 103 Ill. 367, 42 Am. Rep. 10 (Ill. 1882)

Remember the exclusions: pauper and vagabond?

An act providing for the care and custody of the person and the estate of habitual drunkards is not unconstitutional, as depriving a citizen of the right to enjoy, control, and dispose of his property, and to make contracts."
Devin v. Scott, 34 Ind. 67 (Ind. 1870)

STATUS CRIME - A class of crime which consists not in proscribed action or inaction, but in the accused's having a certain personal condition or being a person of a specified character. And example of a status crime is vagrancy. Status crimes are constitutionally suspect.
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1410

SOCIALISM - A political and economic theory advocating collective ownership of the means of production and control of distribution. It is based upon the belief that all, while contributing to the good of the community, are equally entitled to the care and protection which the community can provide.
--- Webster's dictionary

Socialism denies absolute ownership, private property, and therefore individual sovereignty. Social Security entitlements are synonymous with gifts (charity from the public treasury), and all participants are paupers at
law. Socialism imposes the obligation to work for the benefit of others (the collective).

A man who has no property, nor means of support, accepts or is eligible to accept charity from the public treasury is excepted from the privileges and immunities of the free citizens, and since he has no private property, has no inalienable rights and powers associated with sovereign status. As a voluntary pauper, he is object of and subject to the authority of government. And that authority predates the U.S. Constitution.

It is no coincidence that most States define the term "resident" to be synonymous with vagabond.

Why is a resident residing at a residence different from a free inhabitant dwelling at his domicile?


"RESIDENT - ...when used as a noun, means a dweller, habitant, or occupant; one who resides or dwells in a place for a period of more, or less duration... Resident has many meanings in law, largely determined by statutory context in which it is used."
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p.1309

"INHABITANT -One who resides actually and permanently in a given place, and has his domicile there."
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p.782

"DOMICILE - A person's legal home. That place where a man has his true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment, and to which whenever he is absent he has the intention of returning."
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p.484

"RESIDENCE - Place where one actually lives ... Residence implies something more than physical presence and something less than domicile. The terms 'resident' and 'residence' have no precise legal meaning... [One can have many residences but only one domicile]
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p.1308, 1309

A free inhabitant / American national / sovereign has a domicile (legal permanent home). A U.S. citizen / resident (transient) has a residence (less than a legal permanent home). A "legal residence" is not a legal home. Ergo, the government is empowered to restrict such transients, and require of them to seek permission, unlike the free people (non-residents).


Eighth Line of Reason


Condemnations of usury

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/I-Am-Anti-Socialist/message/220

Ezekiel 18:13 Hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken increase: shall he then live? he shall not live: he hath done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him.

USURY - Usury (from the Latin usus meaning "used") was defined originally as charging a fee for the use of money. This usually meant interest on loans, although charging a fee for changing money (as at a bureau de change) is included in the original meaning. After moderate-interest loans became an accepted part of the business world in the early modern age, the word has come to refer to the charging of unreasonable or relatively high rates of interest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury

A man cannot support a claim of innocence, and expect protection from Providence, if he is a usurer. By scripture, he's self condemned, and his tormentor is not held liable. (Government really does "Trust in God"!)

Is it a coincidence that usurers will not contract with the unnumbered? No one who is lacking a social security number is allowed to open an interest bearing account in any Federal Reserve bank, nor open a stock account. Coincidentally, if one has no number (SSN/TIN), one cannot be held criminally liable for "willful failure to file". The Socialist individual income tax** was always voluntary, but few know how they volunteered.

(** The corporate income tax on earnings from usury and limited liability are uniform, and thus a constitutional excise tax. The graduated Socialist wage taxes - Social Security and the Individual Income taxes - are based upon compact, and are outside the purview of the constitution.)


By these lines of reason, one should be able to come to the conclusion that America's heritage is sovereignty, freedom and independence of her people.

And that heritage was unwittingly lost, by voluntary participation in national socialism, compacts with usurers, and subjugation to servant government.

Can you now determine the difference between the following pairs?

national v. citizen
sovereign v. subject
individual v. person
inhabitant v. resident
domicile v. residence
natural liberty v. civil liberty
personal liberty v. civil liberty
private property v. estate (real and personal property)
absolute ownership v. qualified ownership


Most Americans are led to believe that at birth they are U.S. citizens, who can only reside in a residence in a state (no domicile), and are subject to and object of the myriad laws, rules and regulations. They dutifully enroll into voluntary servitude via application for a Social Security Account, which is only available to "U.S. citizens" and "U.S. residents". They spend their whole lives working for the benefit of other beneficiaries, in and out of the government. They must get permission (license) to travel (drive), marry, enter occupations, build a home, fly, transmit radio signals, and own a dog. They are required to register their real and personal property, and pay tribute (tax) for the privilege of holding said property. Failure to pay tribute will result in confiscation of property, and in some cases, severe punishment. As good little socialist serfs, their lives and liberty are at the mercy of the government.

What proof exist to support that conclusion?
Observation of the present situation.

Because a citizen / subject may be ordered to sit for jury duty - or suffer punishment. Because a citizen / subject can be conscripted, ordered to fight, and if necessary, die on command - or suffer punishment. Because a citizen / subject can be denied the privilege to travel, unless he first acquires permission (license), registers his automobile, and contracts for insurance (admiralty/maritime contract). And let us not forget the greatest abuse - the "income tax" on his wages.

And yet, the government records show that the Supreme Court has also held that the Right to Work and the Right to Contract are constitutionally protected. The following citations illustrate the consistent thinking of the Court:


"It has been well said that, 'the property which every man has is his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of the most sacred property.' Butchers' Union Co., supra, at 757. Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property partaking of the nature of each is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms of property."
Coopage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1, at 14 (1915)

"The right to labor and to its protection from unlawful interference is a constitutional as well as a common-law right. Every man has a natural right to the fruits of his own industry."
48 Am Jur 2d, Section 2, p. 80

"The liberty mentioned in that [14th] amendment means, not only the right of the citizen to be free from mere physical restraint of his person, as by incarceration, but the term is deemed to embrace the right of the citizen to be free in the enjoyment of all his faculties; to be free to use them in all lawful ways; to live and work where he will; to earn his livelyhood by any lawful calling; to pursue any livelihood or avocation; and for that purpose to enter into all contracts which may be proper, necessary, and essential to his carrying out to a successful conclusion the purposes above mentioned."
Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 673, at 539 (1897).

"There is a clear distinction in this particular case between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his constitutional right as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land (*common law) long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights."
Hale vs Henkel, 201 U.S. 43.

"The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but, the individual's rights to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed."
Redfield vs Fisher, 292 P. 813, at 819.

So what changes the individual's sacred right to life, liberty and private property?

Consent.

Every American who unwittingly signed a government document or application wherein he claims citizenship, residency, and other impairments to his status, has surrendered all the blessings of liberty that his forefathers fought and died for.

One of the best kept secrets (in plain sight) is American nationality. Unlike the fraud of U.S. citizenship, nationality is a characteristic of birth. Everyone born of American parents within the boundaries of the United States of America, are American nationals. All are "native Americans". However, the agents for the State swiftly persuade the parents to claim that their child(ren) are "citizens", must be certified so, and thus must apply for the "benefit" of participation in national socialism (Social Security).

In my own research into nationality, I found that the government carefully skirts the issue - only refers to "U.S. nationals" as those in territories or possessions of the United States. Little mention is ever made of American nationals. (I found only one law in the complete 50 titles of U.S. Code, 1992 edition, that mentioned American nationals.)

There is a gaping hole in their laws, rules and regulations regarding Americans who are NOT their citizens. And rightly so. For American nationals are the sovereign people whom the government serves, and the servant governments have no power over them and their property.

For example, conscription, listed in Title 50, U.S. code, is only applicable to U.S. citizens and residents. No mention is made of American nationals or of free inhabitants.

Likewise, no state statute ever mentions taxing or regulating private property. All their statutes refer to real and personal property (estate).
[For more info on private property versus estate, see: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NASP/message/454 ]

Herein lies the paradox -
All the abuses and usurpations we may object to can be traced back to our own consent.

I have never found one case where an American national, domiciled upon private property, within the boundaries of the U.S.A., was molested in person or property, nor charged with any violation of income tax codes, traffic codes, or other socialist violations. In every case, there was prima facie evidence that the accused had some connection with the government, whether military (oath), license (civil liberty), pauper (socialist), or citizen (political liberty) - or - a connection with agents of usury (Federal Reserve corporation), via bank account, mortgage, or other compact.

Without our collective consent, the Collective State would shrink to the strict and narrow confines of the specific delegation of authority, expressed in the organic documents that created the governments in these united States.

What specifically expresses the truth that American people are sovereign?

United States Constitution, Article 4, Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion.

"GOVERNMENT (Republican Form of Government)- One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people ... directly..."
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 695

Why should you believe that the government admits that the non-citizen, non-resident, free inhabitant is a sovereign? Or that he directly exercises sovereignty? And that his sovereignty is superior to the servant government?

"Government is not Sovereignty. Government is the machinery or expedient for expressing the will of the sovereign power."
City of Bisbee v. Cochise County, 78 P. 2d 982, 986, 52 Ariz. 1

"People are supreme, not the state."
Waring v. the Mayor of Savannah, 60 GA at 93.

"The people of the state, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the king by his own prerogative."
Lansing v. Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9, (NY)

"At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people and they are truly the sovereigns of the country."
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 440, 463

"In common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the [word] are ordinarily construed to exclude it."
Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 667, 61 L.Ed2. 153, 99 S.Ct. 2529 (1979)
(quoting United States v. Cooper Corp. 312 U.S. 600, 604, 85 L.Ed. 1071, 61 S.Ct. 742 (1941)).

"A Sovereign cannot be named in any statute as merely a 'person' or 'any person'".
Wills v. Michigan State Police, 105 L.Ed. 45 (1989)

Now you know how they can pass mountains of laws that are inapplicable to the sovereign people. Read the law carefully, and if the legislature uses "person" or "persons", the law excludes the sovereign people.

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."


If "persons" exclude the sovereign people, the 14th amendment cannot impose citizenship on them. All American people were endowed with the magnificent birthright of sovereignty, freedom and independence. Sovereign people cannot be persons "born" as subject citizens of the United States government. It would be involuntary servitude and unconstitutional.
U.S. citizenship at birth implies that the person was not endowed with sovereign potential, nor born of sovereign parents.
Did our parents not know they were sovereign? Or were they tricked, deceived, and defrauded?

Lastly, to cap this essay, I refer you to the Virginia Constitution,1776.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states/va05.htm

SEC. 6. That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people, in assembly, ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage, and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses, without their own consent, or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assembled, for the public good.

All men ... cannot be taxed without their own consent.
All men ... cannot be deprived of their property for public uses without their own consent.
All men ... cannot be bound by any law that is not for the public good.

________________________

"PRIVATE PROPERTY - As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels." - - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p.1217

"OWNERSHIP - ... Ownership of property is either absolute or qualified. The ownership of property is absolute when a single person has the absolute dominion over it... The ownership is qualified when it is shared with one or more persons, when the time of enjoyment is deferred or limited, or when the use is restricted. " - - -Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition,, p. 1106

Absolute Title: “As applied to title to land, an exclusive title, or at least a title which excludes all others not compatible with it. An absolute title to land cannot exist at the same time in different persons or in different governments.” Black’s Law Dictionary Sixth Edition,

“[T]he purchaser shall acquire absolute title by the purchase, and be entitled to a patent from the United States, on payment of the office fees and sum of money…” Thirty-Seventh Congress, Session II. Cu. 75 Section 2 (1862). [Homestead Act]

One must first have right to, and acquire absolute title.

"[N]o patent shall ever issue for any land located therewith, [but]… [B]y due proof that the same was executed by the warrantee in good faith and for a valuable consideration.” Hussman v. Durham, 165 U.S. 144 (1897)

The patent is evidence of the passing of absolute title; such title exists purely in law and not on paper.

Absolute ownership derives from absolute title. Absolute ownership [could] then be assigned, bargained, purchased, etc. E.g., to heirs and assigns etc.

Qualified ownership is achieved by, among many other methods, thru abandonment of absolute title. A warranty deed is evidence of such relinquishment.

All rights to absolute title were passed (in the patented western territories) from the United States to the private sector. All right and title were excluded from consideration of the State, but not the interest; such interest contemplates the police power of the State.

The ad veloram scheme, it appears, is a method to pay for the maintainance of the police power within the exterior boundaries of the State.

________________________

wrote:>
> "[N]o patent shall ever issue for any land located therewith, [but]…
[B]y due proof that the same was executed by the
> warrantee in good faith and for a valuable consideration." Hussman v. Durham, 165 U.S. 144 (1897)
>
> The patent is evidence of the passing of absolute title; such title exists purely in law and not on paper.

JG: A patent only signifies that property that was once in the public sector is now private sector. It does not signify type of ownership. However, one who DOES absolutely own said property, would be eligible
to apply for a patent. So would those who owned land with an interest less than title (joint tenants in common). I find no evidence that patents are restricted to individuals who absolutely own the land in
question. And ad valorem taxes levied on estate do not imply that the State has title to it. The privilege to hold with qualified ownership is the basis for taxation. Failure to pay for the privilege may result in confiscation of the estate, without just compensation.

> Absolute ownership derives from absolute title. Absolute ownership [could] then be assigned, bargained, purchased, etc. E.g., to heirs and assigns etc.

JG: The title is a collection of facts that substantiate one's assertion of absolute ownership. Three facts that establish allodial title:
1. right to own,
2. alienate title with lawful money, and
3. no superior claim exists.

> Qualified ownership is achieved by, among many other methods, thru abandonment of absolute title. A warranty deed is evidence of such relinquishment.

JG: True. A deed refers back to realty (real and personal property). Estate, property held with an interest less than title, is definitely qualified ownership. So is property held as "community property" (joint tenants). Women who thought they were gaining property rights by refusing coverture when they married, actually impaired the family's property rights, and left the property subject to ad valorem taxes, estate taxes and death taxes.

> All rights to absolute title were passed (in the patented western territories) from the United States to the private sector.

JG: Corporations like the United States government cannot absolutely own, as individuals. Therefore the government cannot have absolute title to any land. In fact, if the U.S. government dissolves, the District of Columbia (City of Washington) reverts back to Maryland.

Free men have a right to absolutely own, endowed by their Creator (see Genesis). You don't have a "right" to absolute title (collection of facts). You substantiate your rights with the facts that show absolute
ownership (allodial title).

> All right and title were excluded from consideration of the State, but not the interest; such interest contemplates the police power of the State.

JG: Remember, when 2 or more persons have an interest in land, etc, it ceases to be absolutely owned (private property). A mortgage and lien certainly impairs one's right to absolutely own.

Addendum:
If you exit submission to the State, acquire / buy private property, with sufficient lawful money, and no superior claim exists, you have a domain, a domicile. Once you have a lawful permanent home, you can
assert that you are an inhabitant, not a resident.

That status may be the sole remedy to stymie the socialist revolution and eradication of constitutionally limited government in these united States.

Here's a citation for "Pennsylvanians."

Sub-chapter TT. LAND USE PLANNING, Sec. 7.771. Commonwealth land use policies. sub-section (c) The constitutional private property rights of Pennsylvanians must be preserved and respected.

GEORGIA CONSTITUTION (1:1:4 )
"No inhabitant of this state shall be molested in person or property... on account of religious opinions."

If you assert that your religious beliefs forbid you from participating in national socialism, usury, gambling, fetucide, indoctrination, etc, etc, YOU CANNOT BE MOLESTED, by constitution, for failure to PAY taxes that support them or aid the government performing said abominations.

FWIW, it's the sole mention of "inhabitants" in that state constitution.

Home work assignment - check your own state's constitution and statutes for references to inhabitants, state nationality (New Yorkers, Georgians, etc.) and private property protection.

___

JG: A patent only signifies that property that was once in the public sector is now private sector. It does not signify type of ownership. However, one who DOES absolutely own said property, would be eligible to apply for a patent. So would those who owned land with an interest less than title (joint tenants in common). I find no evidence that patents are restricted to individuals who absolutely own the land in question. And ad valorem taxes levied on estate do not imply that the State has title to it. The privilege to hold with qualified ownership is the basis for taxation. Failure to pay for the privilege may result in confiscation of the estate, without just compensation.

B: The patents have already been issued, and in my case, with valuable consideration circa 1900. As an assign one can claim absolute title, but absolute ownership is another matter.

[quote from one of my docs] Valuable consideration in lawful money [gold and silver coin] of the United States having been tendered by original Patentee and Letters Patent having been issued, a Covenant of Legal Privity is established whereby Assignee is Seisin in Title and Deed, (see supra 23 Am. Jur. 2D Deeds II. § 13, fn 63)

> Absolute ownership derives from absolute title. Absolute ownership [could] then be assigned, bargained, purchased, etc. > E.g., to heirs and assigns etc.

JG: The title is a collection of facts that substantiate one's assertion of absolute ownership. Three facts that establish allodial title: 1. right to own,

B: The right to own is established in the homestead act for this part of the country.

2. alienate title with lawful money, and

B: Patent will not issue unless lawful money was tendered, among other requirements.

3. no superior claim exists.

B: The patent proceeding finalize a determination in this regard.

> Qualified ownership is achieved by, among many other methods, thru abandonment of absolute title. A warranty deed is > evidence of such relinquishment.

JG: True. A deed refers back to realty (real and personal property). Estate, property held with an interest less than title, is definitely qualified ownership. So is property held as "community property" (joint tenants). Women who thought they were gaining property rights by refusing coverture when they married, actually impaired the family's property rights, and left the property subject to ad valorem taxes, estate taxes and death taxes.

> All rights to absolute title were passed (in the patented western territories) from the United States to the private sector.

JG: Corporations like the United States government cannot absolutely own, as individuals. Therefore the government cannot have absolute title to any land. In fact, if the U.S. government dissolves, the District of Columbia (City of Washington) reverts back to Maryland.

B: While true in part, the state of Maryland has no more claim that the United States, both are corporate in their representative capacities other than political.

Free men have a right to absolutely own, endowed by their Creator (see Genesis). You don't have a "right" to absolute title (collection of facts). You substantiate your rights with the facts that show absolute ownership (allodial title).

> All right and title were excluded from consideration of the State, but not the interest; such interest contemplates the > police power of the State.

JG: Remember, when 2 or more persons have an interest in land, etc, it ceases to be absolutely owned (private property). A mortgage and lien certainly impairs one's right to absolutely own.

B: I submit, try to take ones land completely out of the police and taxing power of the State. If that can be accomplished then one has absolute ownership, otherwise it's qualified.


NOTICE: Author is not affiliated with Freedom School.
NOTICE: If anything in this presentation is found to be in error a good faith effort will be made to correct it in timely fashion upon notification.
       Specialty Areas

All the powers in the universe seem to favor the person who has confidence.
Share/Save/Bookmark Subscribe

More & Other Information - Resource Pages
Admiralty related itemsBelligerent Claimant
BondsAttention Signing the Constitution Away
Citizenship / nationality related itemsEducation
GraphicsHistory
Jerry KirkAware
JurisdictionLaw related items
Lewis MohrLuis Ewing
MoneyOath related items
Reading MaterialReading Room
StuffTax matters
Travel relatedTruth
 Video
NOTICE: The information on this page was brought to you by people who paid this website forward so that someone such as you might also profit by having access to it. If you care to do so also please feel encouraged to KEEP THIS SITE GOING by making a donation today. Thank you. Make donation with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!


Freedom School is not affiliated with the links on this page - unless otherwise stated.

Freedom School information served for educational purposes only, no liability assumed for use.
The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.
Freedom School does not consent to unlawful action.
Freedom School advocates and encourages one and all to adhere to, support and defend all law which is particularly applicable.
Information is intended for those men and women who are not "US CITIZENS" or "TAXPAYERS" - continued use, reference or citing indicates voluntary and informed compliance.

Freedom School is a free speech site and operation as there is no charge for things presented
this site relys on this memorandum and others in support of this philosophy and operation.
The noteworthy failure of the government or any alleged agency thereof to at any time rebut anything appearing on this website constitutes a legal admission of the fidelity and accuracy of the materials presented, which are offered in good faith and prepared as such by Freedom School and third parties affiliated or otherwise. If the government wants to assert that any of the religious and/or political statements that are not factual appearing on this website are in error, then they as the moving party have the burden of proof, and they must responsively meet that burden of proof under the Administrative Procedures Act 5 U.S.C. §556(d) and under the due process clauses found in the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments to the national Constitution BEFORE there will be response to any summons, questions, or unsubstantiated and slanderous accusations. Attempts at calling presented claims "frivolous" without specifically rebutting the particular claim, or claims, deemed "frivolous" will be in deed be "frivolous" and prima facie evidence that shall be used accordingly. Hey guys, if anything on this site is found to be in error a good faith effort will be made to correct it in timely fashion upon notification.


Presentation Copyright© 2007, 2010
All Rights Reserved

H O M E