European E-coli outbreak likely caused by Genetic Engineering run amok… (via Conservative Critic’s Blog)

Please contact your state and local legislators and DEMAND they remove all restrictions on growing and labeling non-GMO food. Your food source is very important.

European E-coli outbreak likely caused by Genetic Engineering run amok... IMPORTANT UPDATE:  European authorities now claim that the deadly e-coli outbreak has been traced to an "organic" vegetable/sprout farm in Germany. The farm apparently uses no manure, which rules out animal-based e-coli while the "scientists on the ground" say the pathogen likely originated in water or in the seeds purchased and used to grow sprouts.Organic farmers typically use no artificial or native chemical growth stimulants but may purchase … Read More

via Conservative Critic's Blog

A legal challenge to the jusidiction of Equity courts over free men

In a recent hearing where jurisdiction was effectively challenged the judge apparently got rattled and made some drastic determinations on the record that now can be used as leverage over the court and the lawyers for the rest of the case.

Our person was saying The Supreme Court says, “There has been created a fictional federal “State (of)  [name of state]  within a state.” We have numerous references to this. But he went on the record saying there was no fictional  state of Tennessee which ofcourse we can prove is not true.

From our memorandum that was also part of the record:

In Cunard S. S. Co. v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 100, 43 S.Ct. 504 (1923),The court ruled that “The term United States is a metaphor [a figure of speech]”.

According to [Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)] [65 S.Ct. 870, 880, 89  L.Ed. 1252] The term “United States” may be used in any one of several senses. [1] It may be as a sovereign nation or the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution. Or [2] It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, and includes  “citizens of the United States”  as created   by the 14th Amendment  domiciled  in the District of Columbia, or the federal Territories and possessions , or Federal enclaves (area within a Union State) or living in one of the States of the Union or a foreign country.

The  US Constitution, Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2, states as follows:

“The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needed Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.”

Within these areas or  in jurisdiction over 14th Amendment “citizens of the United States”  Congress  is not subject to the same constitutional limitations which restrict its power in the areas of land over which the 50 States exercise their respective sovereign authorities:

“The United States may acquire territory by conquest or by treaty, and may govern it through the exercise of the power of Congress conferred by Section 3 of Article IV of the Constitution …. In exercising this power, Congress is not subject to the same constitutional limitations, as when it is legislating for the United States. … And in general the guaranties of the Constitution, save as they are limitations upon the exercise of executive and legislative power when exerted for or over our insular possessions, extend to them only as Congress, in the exercise of its legislative power over territory belonging to the United States2, has made those guaranties applicable.”

Hooven & Allison Co. vs Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)

The Supreme Court ruled that this case would be the last time it would address official definitions of the term “United States”. Therefore, the Hooven case must be judicially noticed by the entire American legal community

In Law the term “United States of America” refers to the several States which are “united by and under the Constitution”;  the term “United States” refers to federal possessions, property, territories, lands  areas defined in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 (1:8:17) and in Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2) of the Federal Constitution, that for whatever causes are not subject to the sovereignty or jurisdiction of any of the several States of the union that is the “United States of America”.

In the Cumulative Bulletin of the 63rd Congressional Session, Chapter 16, Section 2, 1913, page 177, we  find  that the terms “State” and “United States” are identified  differently when used in the context of the federal United States, or federal zone as opposed to the union of several states that is the constitutional republic, the united States of America:

Congress is the state legislature for all Territories, Possessions, and Enclaves like military bases –- an area now collectively called the federal zone.  In the year 1995 A.D., Justice Kennedy used the term “federal zone” as a household word in his concurring opinion in U.S. v. Lopez, 115 S.Ct. 1624 (1995).

“These are the territories over which Congress has exclusive jurisdiction over the landmass and the citizens that are subject to the sovereign jurisdiction of the Congress of the United States”. .

United States is construed to mean “any territory, Alaska, DC, The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Philippine Islands, American Samoa, Guam, Virgin Islands, Midway Island, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariannas, Federated States of Micronesia, Republic of Palau, Marshall Islands, Johnson Island, Baker Howland and Jarvis Islands, Kingman Reef, Palmyra Island, and Navassa Island.”

Furthermore, even though the “United States” is not a member of the “Union of States united by and under the Constitution”, it is bound by that Constitution to restrict its activities in dealing with the several States and with the Common Law Citizens of those States.  Under 1:8:17 and 4:3:2 of the Constitution for the United States of America (1787).  Congress has exclusive power to legislate and regulate the inhabitants of its federal property, territories, lands  areas defined in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 (1:8:17) and in Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2) of the Federal Constitution and its  “citizens”  wherever they are “resident”, even if they do inhabit one of the 50 States of the Union.

As can readily be seen from the quote above, with three separate and distinct definitions for the term “United States”, it becomes absolutely necessary to separate and define each use of this term in law.  It is equally as necessary to separate and define to whom the law applies when there are two classes of citizenship existing side-by-side, with separate and distinct rights, privileges and immunities for each.

The term “United States”, when used in its  meaning  as Congress’ exclusive jurisdiction over federal property, territories, lands  areas defined in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 (1:8:17) and in Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2) of the Constitution, as opposed  to  the limited jurisdiction  of  the federal government  under the  constitution over the several states of the union that  is the constitutional republic, the united States of America, under Article 1, Section 8  et all , (excepting Clause 17}, when used  in this respect as its jurisdiction over federal property, territories, lands  areas defined in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 (1:8:17) and in Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2,   the “United States” is foreign with respect to the several states of  the union  united by and under the Constitution. that  is the constitutional republic, the united States of America

“The idea prevails with some — indeed, it found expression in arguments at the bar — that we have in this country substantially or practically two national governments; one, to be maintained under the  Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise.” Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, supra.

as opposed to the several States which are “united by and under the Constitution”

“The United States may acquire territory by conquest or by treaty, and may govern it through the exercise of the power of Congress conferred by Section 3 of Article IV of the Constitution …. In exercising this power, Congress is not subject to the same constitutional limitations, as when it is legislating for the United States…… . … And in general the guaranties of the Constitution, save as they are limitations upon the exercise of executive and legislative power when exerted for or over our insular possessions, extend to them only as Congress, in the exercise of its legislative power over territory belonging to the United States2, has made those guaranties applicable.”

Hooven & Allison Co. vs Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)

Congress must be considered in two distinct characters. In one character as legislating for the states; in the other, as a local legislature for the district. Loughborough vs Blake, 15 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 317 – 5 L.Ed. 98 (1820)]

Title 28, United States Code, Section 297 defines the several States of the union as being “freely associated compact states” in subsection (a), and then refers to these freely associated compact states as being “countries” in subsection(b). The individual states were considered to be foreign countries to the United States and to each other

This is also true of  legal  relationship between states:

It is equally well settled that the several states of the Union are to be considered as in this respect foreign to each other,  [Hanley v. Donoghue, 116 U.S. 1, 29 L. Ed. 535] [6 S.Ct. 242, 244 (1885), emphasis added]

The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state. [citing In re Merriam’s Estate, 36 N.E. 505, 141 N.Y. 479, affirmed U.S. v. Perkins, 16 S.Ct. 1073, 163 U.S. 625,

It may be  significant to note, [Instructions for Form 2555:  Foreign Earned Income]  [Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service] defines Foreign Country. –

“A foreign country is any territory under the sovereignty of a government other than the United States. “[emphasis added]

But the definition  does not include U.S. possessions or territories.

…..a “foreign country” does NOT include U.S.** possessions or territories.   U.S. possessions and territories are not “foreign” with respect to the federal zone; they are “domesticwith respect to the federal zone because they are inside the federal zone.

The U. S. Supreme Court has ruled that this foreign nation has every right to legislate for its “citizens” and to hold subject matter and in personam jurisdiction, both within (inside) and without (outside) its territorial boundaries, when legislative acts call for such effects (Cook v. Tait supra).

As a foreign nation under International law, it is perfectly legal for this nation to consider its people as “subjects” rather than as individual Sovereigns.  The protections of the State and the Federal Constitutions do not apply to these “subjects” unless there is specific statutory legislation granting specific protections (e.g., The Civil Rights Act).  The guarantees of the Constitution extend to the “United States” (i.e., the federal zone) only as Congress has made those guarantees applicable (Hooven supra).

In 26 CFR 1.1-1 (c) you will find stated, “Who is a citizen? . Every person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen.”   [emphasis added]

singular, the federal United States, of  possessions, territories, zones  areas,   not plural as the  union of the 50 states that is the constitutional  republic, the United States of America.

 

Congress did not forget the proper use of English here.

NOTE: The 13th Amendment bans involuntary servitude and slavery “within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction”. This is the manner in which amendments and legislation must be written if the law is to apply within the sovereign lands of the 50 states and to their Citizens.

But The 14th Amendment is not written thusly. The 14th Amendment embraces persons “born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. The phrase, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” does not state the “plural nature” [i.e. “their“] that is required to refer to the states of the Union.

In the absence of the plural language  the courts have ruled that the law applies only to federal places or persons.

The 18th Amendment created Prohibition.

“After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.”

In Cunard S. S. Co. v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 100, 43 S.Ct. 504 (1923), the US Supreme Court held that the language Congress used in the Amendment limited its application to areas under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress – which of course is not the states of the Union.

3A Am Jur 1420, Aliens and Citizens, explains:  “A Person is born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States**, for purposes of acquiring citizenship at birth, if his birth occurs in territory over which the United States** is sovereign …”   singular, the federal United States, of  possessions, territories, zones  areas,   not plural as the  union of the 50 states that is the constitutional  republic, the United States of America.

Further, this “United States”, besides designating federal property, possessions, territories, lands  areas defined in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 (1:8:17) and in Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2) of the Federal Constitution, that for whatever causes are not subject to the sovereignty or jurisdiction of any of the several States of the union that is the “United States of America”, . and its “citizens” under the 14th Amendment, wherever they are “resident”, even if they do inhabit one of the 50 States of the Union, , in commerce and finance, is a corporate entity. :

The Legislative Act of February 21, 1871, Forty-first Congress, Session III, Chapter 62, page 419, chartered a Federal company entitled “United States,” a/k/a “US Inc.,” a “Commercial Agency” originally designated as “Washington, D.C.,” in accordance with the 14th Amendment, which upholds the debt of the USA and US Inc. in Section 4.

As evidenced by Title 28 USC Section 3002(5) Chapter 176.  It is clear that the United States . . . is a corporation . . . 534 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT 724.

`It is well settled that “United States” et al is a corporation, originally incorporated February 21, 1871 under the name “District of Columbia,” 16 Stat. 419 Chapter 62.  It was reorganized June 11, 1878 with all federal territories and possessions. This corporation also copyrighted the names UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES, USA, US and AMERICA.

There is likewise equal ambiquity  in both constitutional and state statutory law, and in federal law regarding  the term used:   “State of Iowa”,

We find In federal law, Congress defines various places of exclusive federal jurisdiction as “States”. These places are not “states of the Union”. The other manner in which federal law sometimes  addresses this issue is with the phrase, “…in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction” , as in 26 CFR 1.1-1 (c which therefore refers only to federal places.

In Article II(a) of the Uniform Detainers  Act“(a) ‘State’ shall mean a state of the United States;  the United States of America;  a territory or possession of the United States;  the District of Columbia;  the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.”

In 1940, Congress passed the “Buck Act” now found in 4 U.S.C. Sections 105-113. In Section 110(e), this Act authorized any department of the federal government to create a “Federal Area”. for imposition of the “Public Salary Tax Act of 1939.” This tax is imposed at 4 U.S.C. Section 111. The rest of the taxing law is found in the Internal Revenue Code. The Social Security Board had already created a “Federal Area” overlay. U.S.C. Title 4 is as follows:

Sec. 110(d): The term “State” includes any territory or possession of the United States.

Sec. 110(e): The term “Federal Area” means any lands or premises held or acquired by or for the use of the United states or any department, establishment, or agency of the United states; and any federal area, or any part thereof, which is located within the exterior boundaries of any State, shall be deemed to be a federal area located within such State.

Under the “Buck Act,” 4 U.S.C Secs. 105-113, the federal government has created a “Federal area” within the boundaries of the several states. This area is similar to any territory that the federal government acquires through purchase, conquest or treaty, thereby imposing federal territorial law upon the people in this “Federal area.”

The Supreme Court has determined, “There has been created a fictional federal “State (of)  xxxxxx    within a state.” See Howard v. Sinking Fund of Louisville, 344 U.S. 624, 73 S.Ct. 465, 476, 97 L.Ed. 617 (1953); Schwarts v. O’Hara TP School District, 100 A 2d. 621, 625, 375, Pa. 440

Under the Provisions of 4 U.S.C cited above, Sections 105 , the federal “State” is defined “(also known as, “The State of xxxxxxx.”)

Under state law, in the State” means within the exterior limits of the State of Iowa and includes all territory within these limits owned or ceded to the United States of America.

26 USC § 3306 Definitions – For purposes of this chapter—

(j)(1) State – The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.

26 USC § 5891 Structured settlement factoring transactions

(c) Definitions (6) State -The term “State” includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and any possession of the United States.

The actual meanings of such terminology  herein discussed affecting this case  is ambiguous and unclear on its face at a minimum   which materially affect the Courts jurisdiction of the  law, In Personam, and in its own setting under proper oath and credentials to hear the case, which  must be resolved if  [[ this case is to continue.]]  [[ the Court ‘s ruling is to stand. ]]

This being the case, it will become a legal issue in this case, which Tennessee his court has jurisdiction in, Tennessee, the state of the republic or some other  federal area, region, zone,  district or jurisdiction of the federal United States, the federal UNITED STATES, INC., or its  federal area or jurisdiction, STATE OF  TENNESSEE, or  the   “federal district of the District of Columbia”, STATE OF  TENNESSEE.

Then as we said, she went to ADMINISTRATIVE OR JUDICIAL” questions  “So, is this an administrative proceeding under executive authority of a military, or maritime law jurisdiction, OR a judicial proceeding sitting as a court of law?” judge answered “Administrative” admitting his was not a judicial court as we have suspected all along.

Since the court admits it is an administrative court, As stated in our memorandum on this, Defendant  is entitled by law to an actual adjudicative hearing before such  Administrative Agency that oversees this part of the code applied in this case as may be provided for in the regulatory procedures, regulations and guidelines written by the executive  department agency to which the issues of this case are subject and/or as found  in its own regulations from the state’s administrative procedures code and that the   determinations  of such an adjudicative hearing must be made before this court administratively or procedurally has  subject matter of a case to consider.

And if in hearing of these proceedings or deliberations of the Court this is determined to be the case, Defendant respectfully gives notice to the Court request for such hearing is hereby made  for such administrative agency hearing to be held  and those determinations made before this case  proceeds further before this Court.

Defendant further questions whether the Plaintiff has exhausted its own necessary administrative remedies found in the regulatory procedures, regulations and guidelines written by the executive department agency to which the issues of this case are subject and/or as required by the state’s own   administrative procedures code before bringing the action to this Court in any capacity and if in hearing of these proceedings or deliberations of the Court it turns out  Plaintiff  has not exhausted such necessary administrative remedies, Defendant is entitled to such executive determinations before Plaintiff brings this case,   as it cannot consider the case  to grant relief until such administrative remedies have been exhausted under the state’s and the executive department’s own administrative requirements. And the Court must comply with such regulatory requirements or it is waiving its judicial immunity.

 

The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies applies where a statute provides an administrative remedy, even though the terms of the statute do not make the exhaustion of the remedy a condition of the right to resort to the courts.  (First Nat. Bank v. Board of County Comrs., 264 U.S. 450 [44 S.Ct. 385, 68 L.Ed. 784, 788-789].)

Either of these points should finally kill the case and we will raise these as the case moves on. So much more that came out of this hearing. We will go on later. If there are questions , You may reach us at 662-489-6554. Dr Weatherly

 

IMPORTANT Advisement:  The information and materials included here are only from the personal experience, knowledge or observation of the provider who is not a licensed legal professional and are not given by the provider or to be construed by the recipient as competent legal advise or assistance and the reader is encouraged to seek and maintain access to competent legal counsel to assist in all decisions concerning his or her situation. And any monetary exchanges between the parties to this email are to be understood as the non-contractual, voluntary contribution or gift of either party.

Dr. Weatherly

The Official State Office Known as “Person”

This is the single most important lesson that you MUST learn. If you spend an hour to learn this material you will be rewarded for the rest of your life.

Please read the following carefully and comment as you feel fit.  This is VERY interesting if not a little complicated.  I would love to discuss this in detail with everyone interested.

original link

The word “person” in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings. Seee.g. 1 U.S.C. sec 1. Church of Scientology v. U.S. Dept. of Justice (1979) 612F.2d 417, 425.

One of the very first of your state statutes will have a section listed entitled “Definitions. “Carefully study this section of the statutes and you will find a portion that reads similar to this excerpt:

In construing these statutes and each and every word, phrase, or part hereof, where the context will permit:

(1) The singular includes the plural and vice versa.

(2) Gender-specific language includes the other gender and neuter.

(3) The word “person” includes individuals, children, firms, associations, joint adventures, partnerships, estates, trusts, business trusts, syndicates, fiduciaries, corporations, and all other groups or combinations.

NOTE HOWEVER, THE DEFINITIONS STATUTE DOES NOT LIST MAN OR WOMAN — THEREFORE THEY ARE EXCLUDED FROM ALL THE STATUTES !!!

Under the rule of construction “expressio unius est exclusio alterius,” where a statute or Constitution enumerates the things on which it is to operate or forbids certain things, it is ordinarily to be construed as excluding from its operation all those not expressly mentioned. Generally words in a statute should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. When a statute does not specifically define words, such words should be construed in their common or ordinary sense to the effect that the rules used in construing statutes are also applicable in the construction of the Constitution. It is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that words of common usage when used in a statute should be construed in their plain and ordinary sense. If you carefully read the statute laws enacted by your state legislature you will also notice that they are all written with phrases similar to these five examples :

1. A person commits the offense of failure to carry a license if the person . . .

2. A person commits the offense of failure to register a vehicle if the person . . .

3. A person commits the offense of driving uninsured if the person . . .

4. A person commits the offense of fishing if the person . . .

5. A person commits the offense of breathing if the person . . .

Notice that only “persons” can commit these state legislature created crimes. A crime is by definition an offense committed against the “state.” If you commit an offense against a human, it is called a tort. Examples of torts would be any personal injury, slander, or defamation of character.

So how does someone become a “person” and subject to regulation by state statutes and laws ?

There is only one way. You must ask the state for permission to volunteer to become a state person. You must volunteer because the U.S. Constitution forbids the state from compelling you into slavery. This is found in the 13th and 14th Amendments.

13th Amendment Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.14th Amendment Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. You become a state created statutory “person” by taking up residency with the state and stepping into the office of “person.” You must hold an “office” within the state government in order for that state government to regulate and control you. First comes the legislativel created office, then comes their control. If you do not have an office in state government, thelegislature’s control over you would also be prohibited by the Declaration of Rights section, usually found to be either Section I or II, of the State Constitution.

The most common office held in a state is therefore the office known as “person.” Your state legislature created this office as a way to control people. It is an office most people occupy without even knowing that they are doing so. The legislature cannot lawfully control you because you are a flesh and blood human being.

God alone created you and by Right of creation, He alone can control you. It is the nature of law, that what one creates, one controls. This natural law is the force that binds a creature to its creator. God created us and we are, therefore, subject to His laws, whether or not we acknowledge Him as our Creator.

The way the state gets around God’s law and thereby controls the people is by creating only an office, and not a real human. This office is titled as “person” and then the legislature claims that you are filling that office. Legislators erroneously now think that they can make laws that also control men. They create entire bodies of laws – motor vehicle code, building code, compulsory education laws, and so on ad nauseum. They still cannot control men or women, but they can now control the office they created. And look who is sitting in that office — YOU.

Then they create government departments to administer regulations to these offices. With in these administrative departments of state government are hundreds of other state created offices. There is everything from the office of janitor to the office of governor. But these administrative departments cannot function properly unless they have subjects to regulate. The legislature obtains these subjects by creating an office that nobody even realizes to be an official state office.

They have created the office of “person.” The state creates many other offices such as police officer, prosecutor, judge etc. and everyone understands this concept. However, what most people fail to recognize and understand is the most common state office of all, the office of “person.” Anyone filling one of these state offices is subject to regulation by their creator, the state legislature. Through the state created office of “person,” the state gains its authority to regulate, control and judge you, the real human. What they have done is apply the natural law principle, “what one creates, one controls. “A look in Webster’s dictionary reveals the origin of the word “person.” It literally means “the mask an actor wears.”

The legislature creates the office of “person” which is a mask. They cannot create real people, only God can do that. But they can create the “office” of “person,” which is merely a mask, and then they persuade a flesh and blood human being to put on that mask by offering a fictitious privilege, such as a driver license. Now the legislature has gained complete control over both the mask and the actor behind the mask. A resident is another state office holder.

All state residents hold an office in the state government. But not everyone who is a resident also holds the office of “person.”

Some residents hold the office of judge and they are not persons.

Some residents hold the office of prosecutors and they are not persons.

Some residents hold the office of police office(rs) and they are not persons.

Some residents hold the office of legislators and they are not persons.

Some residents are administrators and bureaucrats and they also are not persons.

Some residents are attorneys and they also are not persons.

An attorney is a state officer of the court and is firmly part of the judicial branch. The attorneys will all tell you that they are “licensed” to practice law by the state Supreme Court. Therefore, it is unawful for any attorney to hold any position or office outside of the judicial branch. There can be no attorney legislators – no attorney mayors – no attorneys as police – no attorneys as governor. Yes, I know it happens all the time, however, this practice of multiple office holding by attorneys is prohibited by the constitution and is a felony in most states. If you read farther into your state constitution you will find a clause stating this, the Separation of Powers, which will essentially read as follows:

Branches of government — The powers of the state government shall be divided into legislative, executive and judicial branches. No person belonging to one branch shall exercise any powers appertaining to either of the other branches unless expressly provided herein. Therefore, a police officer cannot arrest a prosecutor, a prosecutor cannot prosecute a sitting judge, a judge cannot order the legislature to perform and so on.

Because these “offices” are not persons, the state will not, and cannot prosecute them, therefore they enjoy almost complete protection by the state in the performance of their daily duties. This is why it is impossible to sue or file charges against most government employees. If their crimes should rise to the level where they “shock the community” and cause alarm in the people, then they will be terminated from state employment and lose their absolute protection. If you carefully pay attention to the news, you will notice that these government employees are always terminated from their office or state employment and then are they arrested, now as a common person, and charged for their crimes. Simply put, the state will not eat its own.

The reason all state residents hold an office is so the state can control everything. It wants to create every single office so that all areas of your life are under the complete control of the state. Each office has prescribed duties and responsibilities and all these offices are regulated and governed by the state. If you read the fine print when you apply for a state license or privilege you will see that you must sign a declaration that you are in fact a “resident” of that state.

“Person” is a subset of resident. Judge is a subset of resident. Legislator and police officer are subsets of resident. If you hold any office in the state, you are a resident and subject to all legislative decrees in the form of statutes.

They will always say that we are free men. But they will never tell you that the legislatively created offices that you are occupying are not free. They will say, “All men are free,” because that is a true statement.

What they do not say is, that holding any state office binds free men into slavery for the state. They are ever ready to trick you into accepting the state office of “person,” and once you are filling that office, you cease to be free men. You become regulated creatures, called persons, totally created by the legislature. You will hear “free men” mentioned all the time, but you will never hear about “free persons.”

If you build your life in an office created by the legislature, it will be built on shifting sands. The office can be changed and manipulated at any time to conform to the whims of the legislature. When you hold the office of “person” created by the legislature, your office isn’t fixed. Your duties and responsibilities are ever changing. Each legislative session binds a “person” to ever more burdens and requirements in the form of more rules, laws and statutes. Most state constitutions have a section that declares the fundamental power of the people:

Political power — All political power is inherent in the people. The enunciation herein of certain Rights shall not be construed to deny or impair others retained by the people.

Notice that this says “people” it does not say persons. This statement declares beyond any doubt that the people are Sovereign over their created government. This is natural law and the natural flow of delegated power.

A Sovereign is a private, non-resident, non-domestic, non-person, non-individual, NOT SUBJECT to any real or imaginary statutory regulations or quasi laws enacted by any state legislature which was created by the people.

When you are pulled over by the police, roll down your window and say, “You are speaking to a Sovereign political power holder. I do not consent to you detaining me. Why are you detaining me against my will ?”

Now the state office of policeman knows that “IT” is talking to a flesh and blood Sovereign. The police officer cannot cite a Sovereign because the state legislature can only regulate what they create. And the state does not create Sovereign political power holders. It is very important to lay the proper foundation, Right from the beginning. Let the police officer know that you are a Sovereign. Remain in your proper office of Sovereign political power holder. Do not leave it. Do not be persuaded by police pressure or tricks to put on the mask of a state “person.”

Why aren’t Sovereigns subject to the state’s charges? Because of the concept of office. The state is attempting to prosecute only a particular office known as “person.” If you are not in that state created office of “person,” the state statutes simply do not apply to you. This is common sense, for example, if you are not in the state of Texas, then Texas laws do not apply to you. For the state to control someone, they have to first create the office. Then they must coerce a warm-blooded creature to come fill that office. They want you to fill that office.

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).

The idea that the word “person” ordinarily excludes the Sovereign can also be traced to the “familiar principle that the King is not bound by any act of Parliament unless he be named therein by special and particular words.” Dollar Savings Bank v. United States, 19 Wall. 227, 239 (1874). As this passage suggests, however, this interpretive principle applies only to “the enacting Sovereign.” United States v. California, 297 U.S. 175, 186 (1936). See also Jefferson County Pharmaceutical Assn., Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, 460 U.S. 150, 161, n. 21 (1983). Furthermore, as explained in United States v. Herron, 20 Wall. 251, 255 (1874), even the principle as applied to the enacting Sovereign is not without limitations: “Where an act of Parliament is made for the public good, as for the advancement of religion and justice or to prevent injury and wrong, the king is bound by such act, though not particularly named therein; but where a statute is general, and thereby any prerogative, Right, title, or interest is divested or taken from the king, in such case the king is not bound, unless the statute is made to extend to him by express words.” U.S. Supreme Court Justice Holmes explained:

“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).

The majority of American states fully embrace the Sovereign immunity theory as well as the federal government. See Restatement (Second) of Torts 895B, comment at 400 (1979). The following U.S. Supreme Court case makes clear all these principals. I shall have occasion incidentally to evince, how true it is, that states and governments were made for man; and at the same time how true it is, that his creatures and servants have first deceived, next vilified, and at last oppressed their master and maker.

A state, useful and valuable as the contrivance is, is the inferior contrivance of man; and from his native dignity derives all its acquired importance. … Let a state be considered as subordinate to the people: But let everything else be subordinate to the state. The latter part of this position is equally necessary with the former. For in the practice, and even at length, in the science of politics there has very frequently been a strong current against the natural order of things, and an inconsiderate or an interested disposition to sacrifice the end to the means. As the state has claimed precedence of the people; so, in the same inverted course of things, the government has often claimed precedence of the state; and to this perversion in the second degree, many of the volumes of confusion concerning Sovereignty owe their existence. The ministers, dignified very properly by the appellation of the magistrates, have wished, and have succeeded in their wish, to be considered as the Sovereigns of the state. This second degree of perversion is confined to the old world, and begins to diminish even there: but the first degree is still too prevalent even in the several states, of which our union is composed. By a state I mean, a complete body of free persons united together for their common benefit, to enjoy peaceably what is their own, and to do justice to others. It is an artificial person. It has its affairs and its interests: It has its rules: It has its Rights: and it has its obligations. It may acquire property distinct from that of its members. It may incur debts to be discharged out of the public stock, not out of the private fortunes of individuals. It may be bound by contracts; and for damages arising from the breach of those contracts. In all our contemplations, however, concerning this feigned and artificial person, we should never forget, that, in truth and nature, those who think and speak and act, are men. Is the foregoing description of a state a true description? It will not be questioned, but it is. …

It will be sufficient to observe briefly, that the Sovereignties in Europe, and particularly in England, exist on feudal principles. That system considers the prince as the Sovereign, and the people as his subjects; it regards his person as the object of allegiance, and excludes the idea of his being on an equal footing with a subject, either in a court of justice or elsewhere. That system contemplates him as being the fountain of honor and authority; and from his grace and grant derives all franchise, immunities and privileges; it is easy to perceive that such a Sovereign could not be amenable to a court of justice, or subjected to judicial control and actual constraint. It was of necessity, therefore, that suability, became incompatible with such Sovereignty. Besides, the prince having all the executive powers, the judgment of the courts would, in fact, be only monitory, not mandatory to him, and a capacity to be advised, is a distinct thing from a capacity to be sued. The same feudal ideas run through all their jurisprudence, and constantly remind us of the distinction between the prince and the subject. No such ideas obtain here(speaking of America): at the revolution, the Sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the Sovereigns of the country, but they are Sovereigns without subjects (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 (February Term, 1793) 2 U.S. 419, 2 Dall. 419, 1 L.Ed 440.

There are many ways you can give up your Sovereign power and accept the role of “person.” One is by receiving state benefits. Another is by asking permission in the form of a license or permit from the state.

One of the subtlest ways of accepting the role of “person,” is to answer the questions of bureaucrats. When a state bureaucrat knocks on your door and wants to know why your children aren’t registered in school, or a police officer pulls you over and starts asking questions, you immediately fill the office of “person” if you start answering their questions. It is for this reason that you should ignore or refuse to “answer” their questions and instead act like a true Sovereign, a King or Queen, and ask only your own questions of them. You are not a “person” subject to their laws.

If they persist and haul you into their court unlawfully, your response to the judge is simple and direct, you the Sovereign, must tell him :

I have no need to answer you in this matter.

It is none of your business whether I understand my Rights or whether I understand your fictitious charges.

It is none of your business whether I want counsel.

The reason it is none of your business is because I am not a person regulated by the state. I do not hold any position or office where I am subject to the legislature. The state legislature does not dictate what I do.

I am a free Sovereign “Man”(or woman) and I am a political power holder as lawfully decreed in the State Constitution at article I (or II) and that constitution is controlling over you..

You must NEVER retain or hire an attorney, a state officer of the court, to speak or file written documents for you. Use an attorney (if you must) only for counsel and advice about their “legal” system. If you retain an attorney to represent you and speak in your place, you become “NON COMPOS MENTIS”, not mentally competent, and you are then considered a ward of the court. You LOSE all your Rights, and you will not be permitted to do anything herein.

The judge knows that as long as he remains in his office, he is backed by the awesome power of the state, its lawyers, police and prisons. The judge will try to force you to abandon your Sovereign sanctuary by threatening you with jail. No matter what happens, if you remain faithful to your Sovereignty, The judge and the state may not lawfully move against you. The state did not create the office of Sovereign political power holder. Therefore, they do not regulate and control those in the office of Sovereign. They cannot ascribe penalties for breach of that particular office. The reason they have no authority over the office of the Sovereign is because they did not create it and the Sovereign people did not delegate to them any such power.

When challenged, simply remind them that they do not regulate any office of the Sovereign and that their statutes only apply to those state employees in legislative created offices. This Sovereign individual paradigm is explained by the following U.S. Supreme Court case:

“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 submit his books and papers for an examination] 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 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).

Let us analyze this case. It says, “The individual may stand upon his constitutional Rights.” It does not say, “Sit on his Rights.” There is a principle here: “If you don’t use ’em you lose ’em.” You have to assert your Rights, demand them, “stand upon” them.

Next it says, “He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way.” It says “private business” – you have a Right to operate a private business. Then it says “in his own way.” It doesn’t say “in the government’s way.”

Then it says, “His power to contract is unlimited.” As a Sovereign individual, your power to contract is unlimited. In common law there are certain criteria that determine the validity of contracts. They are not important here, except that any contract that would harm others or violate their Rights would be invalid. For example, a “contract” to kill someone is not a valid contract. Apart from this obvious qualification, your power to contract is unlimited.

Next it says, “He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property.” The court case contrasted the duty of the corporation (an entity created by government permission – feudal paradigm) to the duty of the Sovereign individual. The Sovereign individual doesn’t need and didn’t receive permission from the government, hence has no duty to the government.

Then it says, “His Rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the State.” This is very important. The Supreme Court recognized that humans have inherent Rights. The U.S. Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) does not grant us Rights. We have fundamental Rights, irrespective of what the Constitution says. The Constitution acknowledges some of our Rights. And Amendment IX states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain Rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The important point is that our Rights antecede (come before, are senior to) the organization of the state.

Next the Supreme Court says, “And [his Rights] can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution.” Does it say the government can take away your Rights? No! Your Rights can only be taken away “by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution.” “Due process of law” involves procedures and safeguards such as trial by jury. “Trial by jury” means, inter alia, the jury judges both law and fact.

Then the case says, “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.” These are some of the Rights of a Sovereign individual. Sovereign individuals need not report anything about themselves or their businesses to anyone.

Finally, the Supreme Court says, “He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their Rights.” The Sovereign individual does not have to pay taxes. If you should discuss Hale v. Henkel with a run-of-the-mill attorney, he or she will tell you that the case is “old” and that it has been “overturned.” If you ask that attorney for a citation of the case or cases that overturned Hale v. Henkel, there will not be a meaningful response. The OUTLAWS have researched Hale v. Henkel and here is what we found :

“We know that Hale v. Henkel was decided in 1905 in the U.S. Supreme Court. Since it was the Supreme Court, the case is binding on all courts of the land, until another Supreme Court case says it isn’t. Has another Supreme Court case overturned Hale v. Henkel? The answer is NO. As a matter of fact, since 1905, the Supreme Court has cited Hale v. Henkel a total of 144 times. A fact more astounding is that since 1905, Hale v. Henkel has been cited by all of the federal and state appellate court systems a total of over 1600 times. None of the various issues of this case has ever been overruled.

So if the state through the office of the judge continues to threaten or does imprison you, they are trying to force you into the state created office of “person.” As long as you continue to claim your Rightful office of Sovereign, the state lacks all jurisdiction over you. The state needs someone filling the office of “person” in order to continue prosecuting a case in their courts.

A few weeks in jail puts intense pressure upon most “persons.” Jail means the loss of job opportunities, separation from loved ones, and the piling up of debts. Judges will apply this pressure when they attempt to arraign you. When brought in chains before a crowded courtroom the issue of counsel will quickly come up and you can tell the court you are in propria persona or simply “PRO PER”, as your own counsel and you need no other. Do not sign their papers or cooperate with them because most things about your life are private and are not the state’s business to evaluate. Here is the Sovereign peoples command in the constitution that the state respect their privacy : Right of privacy — Every man or woman has the Right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into their private life except as otherwise provided herein. This section shall not be construed to limit the public’s Right of access to public records and meetings as provided by law.

If the judge is stupid enough to actually follow through with his threats and send you to jail, you will soon be released without even being arraigned and all charges will be dropped. You will then have documented prima facie grounds for false arrest and false imprisonment charges against him personally.

Now that you know the hidden evil in the word “person”, Try to stop using it in everyday conversation. Simply use the correct term, MAN or WOMAN. Train yourself, your family and your friends to never use the derogatory word “person” ever again.

All but one never went to law school

13 FAMOUS AMERICAN LAWYERS
 ALL BUT ONE NEVER WENT TO LAW SCHOOL
 
 1. Patrick Henry (1736-1799), member of the Continental Congress,
 governor of Virginia
 
 2. John Jay (1745-1829), first chief justice of the Supreme Court
 
 3. John Marshall (1755-1835), chief justice of the Supreme Court
 
 4. William Wirt (1772-1834), attorney general
 
 5. Roger B. Taney (1777-1864), secretary of the treasury, chief
 justice of the Supreme Court
 
 6. Daniel Webster (1782-1852), secretary of state
 
 7. Salmon P. Chase (1808-1873), senator, chief justice of the Supreme
 Court
 
 8. Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865), president
 
 9. Stephen Douglas (1813-1861), representative, senator from Illinois
 
 10. Clarence Darrow (1857-1938), defense attorney in Scopes trial of
 1925. [While Clarence Darrow attended a law school for one year, he
 did not distinguish himself and preferred to study law on his own. He
 received the greater part of his education in a law office in
 Youngstown, Ohio.]
 
 11. Robert Storey (b. 1893), president of the American Bar Association
 (1952-1953)
 
 12. J. Strom Thurmond (b. 1902), senator, governor of South Carolina
 
 13. James O. Eastland (b. 1904), senator from Mississippi
 
 Wallechinsky, David, “The Book of Lists,” 1977
 
 Clarence Darrow, did go to law school for one year before he quit. He
 became the most famous. Hmmmm….maybe it does pay to go to law
 school.