Wed Apr 6, 2011
Subject: American Tenants in the Sovereignty
Americans are Tenants in the Sovereignty as per U.S. Supreme Court
Read the following research information:
1. The People of the United States of America of original jurisdiction are Tenants in the Sovereignty of the country, so the North America continent citizenship (plus Hawaii and Alaska) is different than other citizenship's where a citizen is a subject, but it is a "joint tenants" in the sovereignty citizenship, as recognized by the Supreme Court. So a "citizen" is not a subject but a tenant in the sovereignty of the people, and people is a singular as well as plural word. Further, to take away the sovereignty aspect of the North America citizenship (plus Hawaii and Alaska) is equal to the United States severing its relationship to the people and taking away their/ones original citizenship, which the Supreme court ruled, as recently as 1967, cannot be done. However, there is a second citizenship in the United States where citizens are subjects, see below.
2. There are efforts to usurp the the authority of the original Republican form of government in our country and replace it with a corporate democratic form of government. A little bit about what the differences are is below.
3. And finally there is no federal law criminal jurisdiction in the states accept on lands specifically acquired by the United States from a state with proper notice of the federal jurisdiction on file. So the federal jurisdiction in general does not apply to state citizens (tenants in the sovereignty).
There is a good deal more research I have done related to these topics, but I don't imagine it is needed here because it will not warrant ones full attention unless there are specific issues that someone needs to address.
In Christ – as He is so are we in this world, 1 John 4:17
Supreme Court Cases on The Sovereignty of People:
"In the United States the People are sovereign and the government cannot sever its relationship to the People by taking away their citizenship." Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967).
For Below site Click on Full Text Link at Top Then Search for Quote in Text: http://supreme.justia.com/us/387/253/case.html
"When we consider the nature and the theory of our institutions of government, the principles on which they are supposed to rest, and review the history of their development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power. Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power."Yik Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356 (1885)
"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 rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty to 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 long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights. " Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1905).
Here is the often expressed understanding from the United States Supreme Court, that "in common usage, the term "person" does not include the Sovereign, statutes employing the person are ordinarily construed to exclude the Sovereign." Wilson v. Omaha Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 667 (1979) (quoting United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U.S. 600, 604 (1941)). See also United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 275 (1947).
"A Sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal Right as against the authority that makes the law on which the Right depends." Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U.S. 349, 353, 27 S. Ct. 526, 527, 51 L. Ed. 834 (1907).
"… at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects (unless the African slaves among us may be so called), and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty." CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL 1793 pp471-472
For Below site Click on Full Text Link at Top Then Search for Quote in Text:
(b) …To presume that a sovereign forever waives the right to exercise one of its powers unless it expressly reserves the right to exercise that power in a commercial agreement turns the concept of sovereignty on its head. Pp. 144-148. [MERRION ET AL., DBA MERRION & BAYLESS, ET AL. v. JICARILLA APACHE TRIBE ET AL. 1982.SCT.394 , 455 U.S. 130, 102 S. Ct. 894, 71 L. Ed. 2d 21, 50 U.S.L.W. 4169 pp. 144-148.]
"The People of a State are entitled to all rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative." Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wendell 9, 20 (1829)
"While sovereign powers [i.e. "ownership powers"] are delegated to agencies of the government, sovereignty itself remains with the People, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts." Yick Wo v. Hopkins & Woo Lee v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356. (1886)
In A Republican Form of Government by Definition A People is Sovereign:
A Republican Form of Government by definition is government where the people, in the singular, and peaceable assemblies exercise sovereign powers. The people in the public are the government, period. The people elect representatives that represent their point of view concerning the laws of the county and State. The representatives are the servants or agents of the people. The representatives are public servants of the government, the government being the people, period. The people then delegate powers, sovereign but with limits, to their assembly of representatives to carry out the will of the people. In a democracy the sovereign powers are only in the representatives of the people. A democracy was not setup over the union States, but the people setup a republic where the people remain sovereign so they are the government not their public servants of the government.
The Peoples' representatives are not the original ones that exercise sovereign power, the people do outside of their representatives because the final sovereign power rests with the people.
[It is Historical that] The words "sovereign state" are cabalistic words, not understood by the disciple of liberty, who has been instructed in our constitutional schools. It is our appropriate phrase when applied to an absolute despotism. The idea of sovereign power in the government of a republic is incompatible with the existence and foundation of civil liberty and the rights of property. Gaines v. Buford, 31 Ky. (1 Dana) 481, 501. (1833)
Government: Republican Government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626
Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 388
The 7th Cir. Court as recently as 1998 made it clear that the Law of the land is a republican form of government where the rights of the individual man out weigh the desires of the many.
The First amendment trumps the democratic process and protects the individual's rights even when a majority of citizens want to infringe upon them (Republic process). SOUTHWORTH V. GREBE, 151 F3d 717 (7th Cir. 1998)
Federal Laws and Acts of Congress do not Apply to a State Sovereign:
We call the Plaintiff's and Court's immediate attention to the line of inquiry regarding the threshold question of jurisdiction, and in particular its references to: 1) Article I, Section 8, clause 17 of the federal Constitution; 2) 40 USC 255; and 3)
United States v. Lopez, 514 US 549.
The Power for the Federal Government to Enforce Federal Criminal law only exist within the states on land purchased by the U.S. federal government where Notice requirements are met to meet due process requirements. Listen to the words of the Supreme Court; In view of 40 USCS 255, “no jurisdiction exists in United States to enforce federal criminal laws, … , unless and until a consent to accept jurisdiction over such lands is filed in behalf of the United States as provided in said Act? …" and fact that state has authorized government to take jurisdiction is immaterial. Adams v. United States (1943) 319 US 312, 87 L Ed. 1421, 63 S. Ct. 1122. (Quoted from U.S. statute 40 USCS 255, Interpretive Note #14, citing the US Supreme Court).
"The ultimate question is whether the camp was, at the time of the crime, within the federal criminal jurisdiction."
"The Act of October 9, 1940, 40 U.S.C. § 255, passed prior to the acquisition of the land on which Camp Claiborne is located, provides that United States agencies and authorities may accept exclusive or partial jurisdiction over lands acquired by the United States by filing a notice with the Governor of the state on which the land is located or by taking other similar appropriate action. The Act provides further:"
"Unless and until the United States has accepted jurisdiction over lands hereafter to be acquired as aforesaid, it shall be conclusively presumed that no such jurisdiction has been accepted."
"The government had not given notice of acceptance of jurisdiction at the time of the alleged offense."
"The questions certified are as follows:"
"1. Is the effect of the Act of Oct. 9, 1940, above quoted, to provide that, as to lands within a State thereafter acquired by the United States, no jurisdiction exists in the United States to enforce the criminal laws embraced in United States Code, Title 18, Chapter 11, and especially Section 457 relating to rape, by virtue of Section 451, Third, as amended June 11, 1940, unless and until a consent to accept jurisdiction over such lands is filed in behalf of the United States as provided in said Act?"
"2. Had the District Court of the Western District of Louisiana jurisdiction, on the facts above set out, to try and sentence the appellants for the offense of rape committed within the bounds of Camp Claiborne on May 10, 1942?"
"… Since the government had not given the notice required by the 1940 Act, it clearly did not have either "exclusive or partial" jurisdiction over the camp area. The only possible reason suggested as to why the 1940 Act is inapplicable is that it does not require the government to give notice of acceptance of "concurrent jurisdiction." This suggestion rests on the assumption that the term "partial jurisdiction," as used in the Act, does not include "concurrent jurisdiction."
"…The Act created a definite method of acceptance of jurisdiction so that all persons could know whether the government had obtained "no jurisdiction at all, or partial jurisdiction, or exclusive jurisdiction."
"Both the Judge Advocate General of the Army [Footnote 4] and the Solicitor of the Department of Agriculture [Footnote 5] have construed the 1940 Act as requiring that notice of acceptance be filed if the government is to obtain concurrent jurisdiction. The Department of Justice has abandoned the view of jurisdiction which prompted the institution of this proceeding,…."
"… it is immaterial that Louisiana statutes authorized the government to take jurisdiction, since, at the critical time, the jurisdiction had not been taken."
"Our answer to certified question No. 1 is Yes, and, to question No. 2, is No."
For Below site Click on Full Text Link at Top Then Search for Quote in Text:
Why did the Supreme Court rule that way? For something to be passed on it, even jurisdiction, it must be given and received, and jurisdiction has related boundaries. The Maxim of Law is “He that gives never ceases to possess until he that receives begins to possess” And ” The agreement of the parties makes the law of the contract.” And “The order of things is confounded if every one preserves not his jurisdiction [in and of Christ]. And “Every jurisdiction has its own bounds.”
Further the Supreme Court has ruled proper notice must be given and when a person of ordinary intelligence does not receive fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden, prosecution for such conduct deprives him of due process. "Fair warning doctrine" invokes due process rights. US V. NEVERS 7 F3d 59 (5th Cir. 1993), US V. BARKER STELL CO., INC., 985 F2d 1123 (1st Cir 1993).
In Addition, "Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative processes of the States by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program." Id., citing Hodel v.Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Ass’n, 452 U.S. 264, at 288 (1981).
[Federal jurisdiction] " …must be considered in the light of our dual system of government and may not be extended. . .in view of our complex society, would effectually obliterate the distinction between what is national and what is local and create a completely centralized government." United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 115 S.Ct.1624(1995).
Congress can exercise no power which they (the people) have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it: All else is withheld. Julliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421. (1884)
Remember there are efforts to usurp the authority of the people and their original republic and create a controlling U.S.C § 3002 Federal Corporation “United States” corporate democracy and in that democratic form of government the individual citizens are not sovereigns but are subjects within this democratic jurisdiction, but that citizenry does not include citizens of the fifty states accept by voluntary compliance. Looking at the Code of Federal Regulations to determine the definition of State, United States, and citizen at §5 31.3121(e)1 we find the following:
26 CFR 31.3121(e)-1 – State, United States, and citizen.
31.3121(e)I(a) When used in the regulations in this subpart, the term State includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii before their admission as States, and (when used with respect to services performed after 1960) Guam and American Samoa.
31.3121(e) 1(b) When used in the regulations in this subpart, the term United States. when used in a geographical sense, means the several states (including the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii before their admission as States), the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. When used in the regulations in this subpart with respect to services performed alter 1960, the term United States also includes Guam and American Samoa when the term is used in a geographical sense. The term citizen of the United States includes a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands, and, effective January 1.1961, a citizen of Guam or American Samoa.
So there are two forms of citizenship, the Federal Corporate Democratic citizenship, and the original Republic citizenship guaranteed to the states in the United States Constitution of original jurisdiction.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
— Preamble of the original "organic" Constitution
"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; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."
— Excerpted from the Declaration of Independence of the original thirteen united states of America, July 4, 1776
Fourth of July 2002 has come and gone, and Americans honored the holiday with a renewed patriotic fervor that reminded me of the Bicentennial celebrations of 1976. As is customary, traditional fireworks displays took center stage and scores of people turned out to witness the dazzling show in the summer sky. With mixed feelings, I sat with friends on a crowded Pennsylvania sidewalk beneath a glittering, mesmerizing explosion of color, pondering the keen sense of sadness and betrayal that overwhelmed my spirit. Looking around at the huge crowds gathered for the annual events, I thought silently, "We are not free." In truth, we have not been a free people for a very long time.
We celebrate this day in honor of our "independence". We call ourselves a free people in a land of liberty. Our anthems proudly sing the praises of this nation, and we raise our voices, wave our flags and join in song — but how many Americans realize they are not free? This is a myth perpetuated by the powers-that-be in order to avoid any major civil unrest, and to keep us all living under the thumb of a militaristic corporate Big Brother within the illusions that have been created for us. The truth of the matter is this: what freedom has not been stolen from us, we have surrendered willingly through our silence and ignorance. As Americans, most of us have no idea how our freedoms are maintained — or lost. Apparently, our ancestors didn't have a good grasp of this either. It is sad, but it is also very true.
Don't point to that beloved parchment, the Constitution, as a symbol of your enduring freedom. It is representative of a form of government which seemingly no longer exists in this country today. The Constitution has been thrown out the window, the Republic shoved aside and replaced with a democracy. The thing is; most people in this country remain unaware that this is so because they simply do not know the truth — what lies beyond the myths. Your so-called government is not going to tell you, either.
To even begin to understand what has happened to the Republic, we must look backward in time to the period following the Civil War. We must go back to the year 1871, which was the beginning of the decline of the Republic. When we examine what happened during that time in our history, we begin to piece together this troubling, perplexing puzzle that is "America" — only then should we answer as to whether we are indeed a "free" people or not.
So, let's roll backward into the past for a moment. It is time we learned what they didn't teach us in school. It is far more interesting than what they DID tell us. I think you'll stay awake for this lesson.
The date is February 21, 1871 and the Forty-First Congress is in session. I refer you to the "Acts of the Forty-First Congress," Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62. On this date in the history of our nation, 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." What does this mean? Well, it means that Congress, under no constitutional authority to do so, created a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, which is a ten mile square parcel of land.
What??? How could they do that? Moreover, WHY would they do that? To explain, let's look at the circumstances of those days. The Act of 1871 was passed at a vulnerable time in America. Our nation was essentially bankrupt — weakened and financially depleted in the aftermath of the Civil War. The Civil War itself was nothing more than a calculated "front" for some pretty fancy footwork by corporate backroom players. It was a strategic maneuver by European interests (the international bankers) who were intent upon gaining a stranglehold on the neck (and the coffers) of America.
The Congress realized our country was in dire financial straits, so they cut a deal with the international bankers — (in those days, the Rothschilds of London were dipping their fingers into everyone's pie) thereby incurring a DEBT to said bankers. If we think about banks, we know they do not just lend us money out of the goodness of their hearts. A bank will not do anything for you unless it is entirely in their best interest to do so. There has to be some sort of collateral or some string attached which puts you and me (the borrower) into a subservient position. This was true back in 1871 as well. The conniving international bankers were not about to lend our floundering nation any money without some serious stipulations. So, they devised a brilliant way of getting their foot in the door of the United States (a prize they had coveted for some time, but had been unable to grasp thanks to our Founding Fathers, who despised them and held them in check), and thus, the Act of 1871 was passed.
In essence, this Act formed the corporation known as THE UNITED STATES. Note the capitalization, because it is important. This corporation, owned by foreign interests, moved right in and shoved the original "organic" version of the Constitution into a dusty corner. With the "Act of 1871," our Constitution was defaced in the sense that the title was block-capitalized and the word "for" was changed to the word "of" in the title. The original Constitution drafted by the Founding Fathers, was written in this manner:
"The Constitution for the united states of America".
The altered version reads: "THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA". It is the corporate constitution. It is NOT the same document you might think it is. The corporate constitution operates in an economic capacity and has been used to fool the People into thinking it is the same parchment that governs the Republic. It absolutely is not.
Capitalization — an insignificant change? Not when one is referring to the context of a legal document, it isn't. Such minor alterations have had major impacts on each subsequent generation born in this country. What the Congress did with the passage of the Act of 1871 was create an entirely new document, a constitution for the government of the District of Columbia. The kind of government THEY created was a corporation. The new, altered Constitution serves as the constitution of the corporation, and not that of America. Think about that for a moment.
Incidentally, this corporate constitution does not benefit the Republic. It serves only to benefit the corporation. It does nothing good for you or me — and it operates outside of the original Constitution. Instead of absolute rights guaranteed under the "organic" Constitution, we now have "relative" rights or privileges. One example of this is the Sovereign's right to travel, which has been transformed under corporate government policy into a "privilege" which we must be licensed to engage in. This operates outside of the original Constitution.
So, Congress committed TREASON against the People, who were considered Sovereign under the Declaration of Independence and the organic Constitution. When we consider the word "Sovereign," we must think about what the word means.
According to Webster's Dictionary, "sovereign" is defined as: 1. chief or highest; supreme. 2. Supreme in power, superior in position to all others. 3. Independent of, and unlimited by, any other, possessing or entitled to, original and independent authority or jurisdiction.
In other words, our government was created by and for "sovereigns" — the free citizens who were deemed the highest authority. Only the People can be sovereign — remember that. Government cannot be sovereign. We can also look to the Declaration of Independence, where we read: "government is subject to the consent of the governed" — that's supposed to be us, the sovereigns. Do you feel like a sovereign nowadays? I don't.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a constitutional historian to figure out that this is not what is happening in our country today. Government in these times is NOT subject to the consent of the governed. Rather, the governed are subject to the whim and greed of the corporation, which has stretched its tentacles beyond the ten-mile-square parcel of land known as the District of Columbia — encroaching into every state of the Republic. Mind you, the corporation has NO jurisdiction outside of the District of Columbia. THEY just want you to think it does.
You see, you are presumed to know the law. This is ironic because as a people, we are taught basically nothing about the law in school. We are made to memorize obscure factoids and paragraphs here and there, such as the Preamble, and they gloss over the Bill of Rights. But we are not told about the law. Nor do our corporate government schools delve into the Constitution in any great depth. After all, they were put into place to indoctrinate and dumb down the masses — not to teach us anything. We were not told that we were sold-out to foreign interests and made beneficiaries of the debt incurred by Congress to the international bankers. For generations, American citizens have had the bulk of their earnings confiscated to pay on a massive debt that they, as a People, did not incur. There are many, many things the People have not been told. How do you feel about being made a beneficiary of somebody else's massive debt without your knowledge or consent? Are we gonna keep going along with this??
When you hear some individuals say that the Constitution is null and void, think about how our government has transformed over time from a municipal or service-oriented entity to a corporate or profit-oriented entity. We are living under the myth that this is lawful, but it is not. We are being ruled by a "de facto," or unlawful, form of government — the corporate body of the death-mongers — The Controllers.
With the passage of the Act of 1871, a series of subtle and overt deceptions were set in motion — all in conjunction and collusion with the Congress, who knowingly and deliberately sold the People down the river. Did they tell you this in government school? I doubt it. They were too busy drumming the fictional version of history into your brain — and mine. By failing to disclose what THEY did to the American People, the people became ignorant of what was happening. Over time, the Republic took it on the chin to the point of a knockdown. With the surrender of their gold in 1933, the People essentially surrendered their law. I don't suppose you were taught THAT in school either. That's because our REAL history is hidden from us. This is the way Roman Civil Law works — and our form of governance today is based upon Roman Civil Law and Admiralty/Maritime Law — better known as the "Divine Right of Kings" and "Law of the Seas", respectively. This explains a lot. Roman Civil Law was fully established in the original colonies even before our nation began and is also known as private international law.
The government which was created for the District of Columbia via the Act of 1871 operates under Private International Law, and not Common Law, which was the law of the Constitutional Republic. This is very important to note since it impacts all Americans in concrete ways. You must recognize that private international law is only applicable within the District of Columbia and NOT in the other states of the Union. The various arms of the corporation are known as "departments" such as the Judiciary, Justice and Treasury. You recognize those names? Yes, you do! But they are not what you assume them to be. These "departments" all belong to the corporation known as THE UNITED STATES. They do NOT belong to you and me under the corporate constitution and its various amendments that operate outside of the Constitutional Republic.
I refer you 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. Realize, too, that the corporation is not a separate and distinct entity from the government. It IS the government. YOUR government. This is extremely important. I refer to this as the "corporate empire of the UNITED STATES," which operates under Roman Civil Law outside of the Constitution. How do you like being ruled by a cheesy, sleazy corporation? You'll ask your Congressperson about this, you say? HA!!
Congress is fully aware of this deception. You must be made aware that the members of Congress do NOT work for you and me. Rather, they work for the Corporation known as THE UNITED STATES. Is this really any surprise to you? This is why we can't get them to do anything on our behalf or to answer to us — as in the case with the illegal income tax — among many other things. Contrary to popular belief, they are NOT our civil servants. They do NOT work for us. They are the servants of the corporate government and carry out its bidding. Period.
The great number of committees and sub-committees that the Congress has created all work together like a multi-headed monster to oversee the various corporate "departments." And, you should know that every single one of these that operates outside the District of Columbia is in violation of the law. The corporate government of the UNITED STATES has no jurisdiction or authority in ANY state of the Republic beyond the District of Columbia. Let this sink into your brain for a minute. Ask yourself, "Could this deception REALLY have occurred without the full knowledge and complicity of the Congress?" Do you think it happened by accident? You are deceiving yourself if you do. There are no accidents or coincidences. It is time to confront the truth and awaken from ignorance.
Your legislators will not apprise you of this information. You are presumed to know the law. THEY know you don't know the law, or your history for that matter, because this information has not been taught to you. No concerted effort has been made to inform you. As a Sovereign, you are entitled to full disclosure of the facts. As a slave, you are entitled to nothing other than what the corporation decides to "give" you — at a price. Be wary of accepting so-called "benefits" of the corporation of the UNITED STATES. Aren't you enslaved enough already?
I said (above) that you are presumed to know the law. Still, it matters not if you don't in the eyes of the corporation. Ignorance of the law is not considered an excuse. It is your responsibility and your obligation as an American to learn about the law and how it applies to you. THEY count on the fact that most people are too uninterested or distracted or lazy to do so. The People have been mentally conditioned to allow the alleged government to do their thinking for them. We need to turn that around if we are to save our Republic before it is too late.
The UNITED STATES government is basically a corporate instrument of the international bankers. This means YOU are owned by the corporation from birth to death. The corporate UNITED STATES also holds ownership of all your assets, your property, and even your children. Does this sound untrue? Think long and hard about all those bills you pay, all those various taxes and fines and licenses you must pay for. Yes, they've got you by the pockets. Actually, they've had you by the ass for as long as you've been alive. In your heart, you know it's true. Don't believe any of this? Read up on the 14th Amendment. Check out how "free" you really are.
With the Act of 1871 and subsequent legislation such as the purportedly ratified 14th Amendment, our once-great nation of Sovereigns has been subverted from a Republic to a democracy. As is the case under Roman Civil Law, our ignorance of the facts has led to our silence. Our silence has been construed as our consent to become beneficiaries of a debt we did not incur. The Sovereign People have been deceived for hundreds of years into thinking they remain free and independent, when in actuality we continue to be slaves and servants of the corporation.
Treason was committed against the People in 1871 by the Congress. This could have been corrected through the decades by some honest men (assuming there were some), but it was not, mainly due to lust for money and power. Nothing new there. Are we to forgive and justify this crime against the People? You have lost more freedom than you may realize due to corporate infiltration of the so-called government. We will lose more unless we turn away from a democracy that is the direct road to disaster — and restore our Constitutional Republic.
In an upcoming article, we'll take a closer look at the purportedly ratified 14th Amendment and how we became "property" of the corporation and enslaved by our silence.
I am saddened to think about the brave men and women who were killed in all the wars and conflicts instigated by the Controllers. These courageous souls fought for the preservation of ideals they believed to be true — not for the likes of a corporation. Do you believe that any one of the individuals who have been killed as a result of war would have willingly fought if they knew the full truth? Do you think one person would have laid down his life for a corporation? I think not. If the People had known long ago to what extent their trust had been betrayed, I wonder how long it would have taken for another Revolution. What we need is a Revolution in THOUGHT. We change our thinking and we change our world.
Will we ever restore the Republic? That is a question I cannot answer yet. I hope, and most of all — pray — that WE, the Sovereign People, will work together in a spirit of cooperation to make it happen in this lifetime. I know I will give it my best shot — come what may. Our children deserve their rightful legacy — the liberty our ancestors fought so hard to give to us. Will we remain silent telling ourselves we are free, and perpetuate the MYTH? Or, do we stand as One Sovereign People, and take back what has been stolen from the house of our Republic?
Something to think about — it's called freedom.
My heartfelt thanks goes out to the following people for their gracious and generous assistance in researching this subject: Ken S. of American Revolution II Online News, Paul Walker of RMN News, Bob Taft, Stanooch, and Willy Whitten — true Patriots, one and all.
(15) "United States" means —
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.
From: Bob Hurt <email@example.com>
Date: Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 12:35 AM
Subject: [Lawmen: 4283] Foreclosure Brokers Needed
You received this because you have membership in the "Lawmen" Google Group.
Comment to group owner – reply to the message (only the owner posts messages).
See the archives, change options – visit http://groups.google.com/group/Lawmen
Join / Subscribe – send email to Lawmenfirstname.lastname@example.org
Resign / Unsubscribe- send email to Lawmenemail@example.com
Tags: 1940, Act of 1871, Act of Oct 9, Acts of the 41st Congress, District of Columbia Act of 1871, District of Columbia Organic Act, Federal Democratic Corporate Citizenship, Joint Sovereignty in the Sovereignty, Kelby Smith, Lisa Guliani, Republic Citizenship, Republic if You Can keep It, Republicfortheunitedstates.org, Republicoftheunitedstates.org, RuSA, Supreme.Justia.com, Tim Turner, United States Isn't a Country