Sovereignty resides IN the people

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by daddio

 

From the last "freedom school" link you provided....

Is this not a clue? The person giving you the advice is, in turn, telling you it is "void where prohibited by law".

And NONE of what you sourced or cited negates my previous warning to the members of ATS. The FBI does, indeed, as shown in my first post - consider "Sovereign citizens" - the people attempting to engage in these paperwork shenanigans - as domestic terrorists. Given that we live in a nation that has passed two Patriot Acts, a Military Commissions Act, and the NDAA... the potential price of curiosity or misadventure could well be much more costly than one might first imagine.

Obviously people can choose to investigate and do whatever they wish - but it is my belief they should make those decisions well informed and aware of the potential pitfalls.

~Heff

Again, BS on your part, the disclaimer is put in there to cover their arses if idiots don't do their homework. And I am NOT a "Sovereign Citizen", nor am I a "Statutory citizen" or a U.S. citizen, I AM an American National, they have absolutely NO SAY in what I do so long as I harm no one, damage no property or violate anyone elses rights to the same.

STOP LIVING IN FEAR and believing this BS you post and scaring other people. Be responsible, I told everyone to research it for themselves. I have used it many times to great effect. The paperwork does in fact work. It is ALL legal and legit.

It's a shame people like you live in fear. I feel so sorry for you and the rest of the sheep.

Originally posted by daddio
reply to post by six67seven

 

Statutes, code, ordinance and regulation are just that....... made to REGULATE commerce, which is ALL that government CAN do, Regulate Commerce FOR the people. They can pass no legislation, Call it Law and then enforce it upon us without our consent!!! Again, give no name when asked WHO you are and there is no contract!!

ALL alleged "Law" is contract law. By surrendering your name, you are submitting to the power and the authority of someone else, "acting" outside of their delegated authority. Ask questions. Who ARE YOU to address ME? Where is the victim, what crime has been committed? If there is no injured party, no damaged property and no one elses rights to the same have been violated, then there IS no crime..PERIOD!!!

If all law was contract then you would not have criminal and civil courts. By and large (although there may be some exceptions in lower/appeal courts) criminal courts can no "try" civil cases ie one for breach of contract. The standard of proof is also significantly higher in criminal cases, beyond all reasonable doubt, where as in cases of a civil nature, ie contract, liability is determined on the balance of probability. Also any contract entered involuntary is void you also must be aware of entering legally binding agreements, in short you can not contract by deception.

As for no injured party, what about conspiracy to commit harm? planning a hit on some one or a terrorist planting a bomb should be free to carry out their plan right up until actual harm is caused, right? On a whole tho the law only interferes when you interact with an other, a mans rights where another begins, in some cases society as a whole. its the basis of criminal law, that some behavior adversely effects society.

Originally posted by Wifibrains
I like this... I've been researching sovereignty for months and it seems it is there for the taking, we just don't. The name is key here. We think we are our name and forget its just a label. As soon as we admit to being the name in the system we are admitting to being property of the government, as the government owns the name/corporation, or is rather trustee of the corperation untill it's rightful owner claims it.

Here's one act that made them legally able to own us.
www.legislation.gov.uk...

When registered at berth, our parents registered a vessel with no sole on board. The sole was considered lost at sea and the vessel kept in trust should the soul return and claim its vessel.

The act you link says no such thing, it was to provide remedy for the estates of people presumed dead.

Originally posted by phroziac
The social security number trust fund bull# is bull#. Debunked on ats previously.

Look, im all for our rights, but im sick of people making crap up

What on earth proof do you have that a name in capitals is a legal fiction?

edit on 9-11-2012 by phroziac because: (no reason given)

Its logically impossible for a human person to be a legal fiction. A legal fiction is something that is false, ie that a corporation is a person, but for the purpose of law, (ie to enter into contract, to sue/be sued ect) is treated as fact.

Here is how the corporate person began in English law


Salomon v A. Salomon

Salomon's case is universally recognized as authority for the principle that a corporation is a separate legal entity [...]



Salomon's case established the independent corporate existence of a registered company, a principle of the greatest importance in company law.[36] But if applied inflexibly, as was the case in Salomon, it can shield parties unreasonably, to the detriment of persons dealing with companies[...]

Corporate personality is essentially a metaphorical use of language clothing the formal group with a single legal identity by analogy with a natural person... [But] As Cardozo J said in the American case of Berkey v Third Avenue Rly [(1926) 244 NY 84 at 94-5]: "metaphors in law are to be narrowly watched, for starting as devices to liberate thought, they often end by enslaving it[...]

www.austlii.edu.au...

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Redarguo


Baron's Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition. "Strawman", "Person" and "Natural person". See also here...www.yourstrawman.com...

daddio
reply to post by Redarguo

 

Baron's Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition. "Strawman", "Person" and "Natural person". See also here...www.yourstrawman.com...

I don't have a baron's third edition perhaps you could elaborate?

But yes the law does differentiate between natural and artificial persons, and both are considered persons in law. ie are capable of having the legal personality to 'act'. Some laws will refer specifically to one or the other in cases where the distinction may be unclear fe The Corporate Manslaughter Act. However in most instance the distinction is obvious ie the Offences Against the Person act can only apply to a human. I am not sure of the point you make.

The link you give is bunk for the reasons in my prior post. Also I would use old law dictionary's with caution, the whole basis of common law legal systems is that the legal definitions of words can change setting precedence.

reply to post by Redarguo


I do apologize for not having been on here often anymore, I find it taxing to point out the lack of knowledge. As I have stated so many times before. ALL courts are administrative and have been deemed so by themselves in so many cases. I haven't the time or energy to keep posting court case after court case to prove a point. Law dictionaries change the definitions because human beings continue to wake up and and point out that God/Nature came first and THEN Man, government is a creation of man and therefore has no authority over man. Do unto others is the first and only law that can be applied. If you have ill intent, sure there is a victim then, but if you do not act, then the intent is the crime and can be taken care of.

As for your other posts, I spent enough time in law school to discover the lies and intent of the misleading ciriculum. The truth will always set you free, to keep an open mind and comprehend what and who you are is what matters. Government is but and agency to the state, the "state" being the sovereign people.

That is another court case, resolved right here in minnesota!! So..... we the people are the authority and i do not wish to contract with anyone, therefore I refuse to contract with the government and do not pay taxes. i pay excise taxes on goods, and if I do not wish to pay those taxes, I do not purchase those goods. Simple. I inhabit "tax exempt, foreign status" as it relates to the corporate government, i do not and never will accept ANY of their "benefits" so I owe them nothing.

www.lawfulpath.com...

great site to investigate information.

www.abodia.com...

reply to post by daddio


I appreciate your comments, and the links you provide are excellent!

Thank you.

As for your other posts, I spent enough time in law school

Me too

Why scared of the debate? Please explain how all law is contract.

reply to post by daddio


Contact and tort make up the body of law known as civil law, ie to settle disputes between individuals and provide a remedy to those who have suffered harm in tort or from a breach of contract. You can not be punished in civil law (except for contempt) only forced to compensate for damages caused. Your post seems to suggest that civil law is the only law and applied the principles to include criminal. ie because a contract needs consent you go to all law needs consent (forgetting that tort can arise from intentional, reckless and negligent actions) or that all law is contract.

Criminal law can generally be described as public law, ie effects and applies to the public as a whole and will be applied regardless of consent. ie where as those bringing a civil claim can choose to end proceedings, in criminal law that authority rests solely on the state. The courts are also separate, criminal courts try criminal cases and civil courts hear civil ones ie a civil court has no jurisdiction in criminal matters and can not conduct prosecutions. (except appeal courts although they do have criminal and civil divisions). The standard of proof varies greatly, beyond all reasonable doubt in a criminal trial and on the balance of probability in a civil. I don't know about you but I much prefer the criminal standard of proof if my liberty is at stake. In a criminal trial the object is to punish those found guilty. Lastly criminal and civil action can be brought for the same event. ie I get hit by a car, the driver may face criminal proceedings and also I can bring a separate claim and sue the driver for damages. Both actions are independent, even if he is found not guilty, because of the lower standard of proof in a civil claim I could still win a civil case.

I do apologize for not having been on here often anymore, I find it taxing to point out the lack of knowledge. As I have stated so many times before. ALL courts are administrative and have been deemed so by themselves in so many cases. I haven't the time or energy to keep posting court case after court case to prove a point. Law dictionaries change the definitions because human beings continue to wake up and and point out that God/Nature came first and THEN Man, government is a creation of man and therefore has no authority over man. Do unto others is the first and only law that can be applied. If you have ill intent, sure there is a victim then, but if you do not act, then the intent is the crime and can be taken care of.

Firstly administrative courts are a certain type of court dealing with administrative law, ie the power of government and its agencies.

The definitions of legal jargon changes because the law changes. For example when a court over rules setting precedence, that new interpretation of what the law is becomes law. Thats what the common law is. law made by the decisions of the courts.

Your getting into the legal philosophy of jurisprudence and natural law, and yes it would be prudent to think that man has authority over nature. However as a society rules, customs and norms develop that is the pay of for living in society. The only way to escape this is to live in isolation. The only l;aw of nature (excluding the 'laws' of physics) is survival of the fittest. Civilized society has moved beyond that, where in law the week have as much rights as the strong.

Not sure what you mean with intent. Mens rea in its self is not a crime, the actus must also be complete.

reply to post by Redarguo


You should read Thomas Paine and Frederic Bastiat, The Law. Common Law is what "people" live by, corporate law is what society lives by, i.e. contract law. THAT is why your signature is NEEDED on everything, agreement. There is not set off for value though and so it is all null and void. I could post court cases I have researched till the cows come home, but some people will still want to be governed instead of being the authority and being responsible.

reply to post by daddio


Common law simply means the system of judicial precedence. It can apply to both natural and artificial (corporate) persons, ie the priniple of negligence is common law as are most principles of contract. A signature is not needed for contract but documents the process. ie what you sign is not the contract the agreement is, your signature is just proof that you made the agreement. for example if i buy a news papper in the street, even if no words are spoken a contract exists between buyer and seller, which puts an obligation on the seller and grants enforcable consumer rights to the buyer. if i opened the news papper to find it filled with empty papers i could sue for breach of contract.

one court case supporting your premise would be nice. In fact if you site any it kinda shows the authority of the courts which you seem to be arguing against.

Go ahead and file all the paperwork you want to "redeem" your sovereign status. It simply doesn't work. In fact, many states are now enacting legislation to make it a crime to try and file these "paperwork packets".

Look, people are desperate and will pay what little money they have left to get out of paying taxes, child support, ect. Once again -- it does NOT work. I've looked high and low for actual proof of an American who got access to his or her "secret bank account".

These schemes are nothing but scams, preying on the vulnerable and gullible. All you'll end up doing is piss off some court clerks with your paper terrorism, waste your money/time, and possibly get charged with a felony (depending on your state).

I'm just warning ATS members not to fall for this BS.

reply to post by MystikMushroom


Is it just me or are your stars bugged like hell?

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


It's a known glitch, several other non-ATS staff members have experienced it as well. That's really all I know. . .

reply to post by MystikMushroom


Referring to your 'high & low' comment for proof of the Sovereign movement, was this based on the internet and google searches? Personally, I have a few friends on Facebook that have beaten a lot of cases for arbitrary things like traffic tickets, no license & or plates, drug charges, etc as long as the 'crime' or charge, did not involve them causing harm, loss, injury, or detriment, to another party. They have also told me that their cases often don't get booked into the public record because they meet with the Judges 'behind closed doors' so to speak. Most times the Judge takes their case last when the courtroom is empty, give them a little harassment, dismiss the case, and order them to pay court dues. That's about it. I think personally if there is any merit to these things, which I do believe and am considering to create a thread outline the cases about jurisdiction, legal fiction (person) vs natural person, and all of the other elements behind it.

I would like to point out that many of the people who have attempted "Sovereign tactics" have failed because they had little to no knowledge of what they were actually doing. It is no 'myth' or fantasy that the citizens of each state are sovereigns, we are where the government even derives it's power from "consent of the governed".. However, there are very specific methods and things you must do to beat the arbitrary cases like I mentioned above. The conspiracy isn't in the people trying it; but the ones covering up the successes from public record.

reply to post by Redarguo


Merely thinking of a crime does not constitute an actual crime, UNLESS it is conspiracy to commit murder (harm), and this also depends upon the state.

As far as statutes go, I would like for you to read something...

THAT "Each citizen acts as a 'Private Attorney General who 'takes on the mantel of sovereign' " (Title 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, Wood v. Breier, 54 F.R.D. 7, 10-11 (E.D. Wis. 1972; Frankenhauser v. Rizzo, 59 F.R.D. 339 E.D. Pa. (1973). "It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error." (American Communications Association v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 442 (1950) and a Sovereign Citizen cannot be punished for sincerely held religious convictions, such as the belief that he is in fact born free and at lyberty to act as such. (Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991).

THAT "All acts of legislature apparently contrary to natural right and justice are, in our laws and must be in the nature of things, considered as void. The laws of nature are the laws of God; whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth. A legislature must not obstruct our obedience to him from whose punishments they cannot protect us. All human constitutions which contradict his laws, we are in conscience bound to disobey. Such have been the adjudications of our courts of justice." (Robin v. Hardaway, 1 Jefferson 109, 114 (1772)). THAT The Supreme Court has warned, "Because of what appear to be Lawful commands on the surface, many citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance." (U.S. v. Minker, 350 U.S. 179, 187), the general misconception among the public being that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes Law. THAT A statute is not a "law," (Flournoy v. First Nat. Bank of Shreveport, 197 La. 1067, 3 So.2d 244, 248), a concurrent or joint resolution of legislature is not "a law," (Koenig v. Flynn, 258 N.Y. 292, 179 N.E. 705, 707; Ward v. State, 176 Okl. 368, 56 P.2d 136, 137; State ex rel. Todd v. Yelle, 7 Wash.2d 443, 110 P.2d 162, 165), nor is 'Code' "Law" (In Re Self v Rhay, 61 Wn (2d) 261) these being defined by Black's Law Dictionary as rebuttable prima facie, or superficial, evidence of law, a facade, represented by 'public policy,' being color-able, or 'color of law,' being 'counterfeit or feigned' as defined.

"Color of Law" means "The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state is action taken under 'color of law.'" Atkins v. Lanning. D.C.Okl., 415 F. Supp. 186, 188.

Many statutes are not 'law' but operate merely under color of law. If you want to be a sovereign within the court, you must not consult or retain an attorney or you are considered to be a ward of the court; and you must not plead, but challenge jurisdiction in all cases that do not involve an injured party seeking compensation for their harm.

THAT The "CERTIFICATE" issued to public trustee/servants in each State by the Supreme Court of each state IS NOT A License to practice Law as an occupation, nor to do business as a Law Firm, but rather authorizes only the practice of Law "IN COURTS" as a member of the State Judicial Branch of Government, to represent only “Wards of [the] court, Infants and persons of unsound mind..." (See Davis’ Committee v. Loney, 290 Ky. 644, 162 S.W. 2d 189, 190.” – Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., Corpus Juris Secundum Volume 7, Section 4.) while “Clients are also called ‘wards of the courts’ in regard to their relationship with their attorneys.” – 7 CJS § 2.

THAT Attorneys authorized to practice law in the courts to represent wards of the court, such as infants and persons of unsound mind, are not authorized to represent any private citizen nor any for profit business, such as the privately incorporated and federally funded STATE. Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol. 7, Sect. 4., as “…(A)n attorney occupies a dual position which imposes dual obligations..." the same being a conflict of interest. – 7 CJS § 4.

THAT Attorneys, Judges, and Justices, those who keep an Attorney on retainer to represent them as most all do, as "clients," being thus "wards of the court," are therefore as defined in Law "Infants or persons of unsound mind."