This document was written up by one of the original Coresource Solution member when we started in Jan 2009.
See attachment
Printable View
This document was written up by one of the original Coresource Solution member when we started in Jan 2009.
See attachment
Great topic!
I picked this up somewhere.
http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/8...risdiction.jpg
motla68 this is an excellent post and I encourage all who see this reply to re-read the foregoing post. Thank you.
I was reading a WARRANTY DEED TO TRUSTEE just this morning and look what I found:Quote:
The public debt in question is NOT about “money owed” but of a debt obligation in exchange for the spoliation of the owner of private property taken for use by the United States as per the Lieber Code part 38 (usufruct clause) which states “Private property, unless forfeited by crimes or by offenses of the owner, can be seized only by way of military necessity, for the support or other benefit of the Army or of the United States. If the owner has not fled, the commanding officer will cause receipts to be given, which may serve the spoliated owner to obtain indemnity.” [The act of making someone "whole" (give equal to what they have lost) or protected from (insured against) any losses which have occurred or will occur.] [he who receives the benefit should also bear the disadvantage – maxim of law]
Quoting Deed:
"TOGETHER with all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining, to have and to hold in fee simple forever."
Notice that: fee simple is allodial title; allodial to the estate - as in Real Estate - and it is to be held within the estate "FOREVER". And the Register has logged the Event. Fee Simple is not in Real Property - as the Grantor/Grantee relationship is not of the Parent Trust.
Quoting Deed:
"The Grantor hereby covenants with said Grantee that the Grantor is lawfully seized of said land in fee simple; has good, right and lawful authority to sell and convey said land, hereby fully warrants the title to said land and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever, and that said land is free of all encumbrances...."
Hello everybody! Great forum!Does anyone know more good forums or other resources on this topic?
My father acquired REAL ESTATE within CALIFORNIA(paid in full with non redeemed FRN's) with a "fee simple" title. I have not reviewed it however i believe he is still subjugated to taxes on said property. That to me me would signify the fee simple title is not unencumbered. I am not for sure on this. I can ask him when he returns if i may aquire a copy of the "Fee Simple" title for review if anyone is interested.
Excellent Post Motla68. I will refer back to this a few times.
David, i'll be printing your attachment as well to refer back to. Thanks for the post
I was about to say that Motla68 and I had definitely shared forums in the past. I still have not put it together entirely though - except that where there is truth, there is certainly going to be more than one truth-seeker dabbling in it. I am trying to digest "deconstruct" as "dissect" though. Maybe he means to dissolve these words and works of legal "art", to destroy the constructive trusts built around them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Arik Alan
I am enjoying too, the speed at which StSC has grown so fast that I already cannot keep up with all the reading, and I do not want to blurt off-topic or simply annoying facts. I do however have a lot of factual material, accurate history to add, supposing it is interesting enough that readers and members might be able to look into it for verification.
Fourtheenth Amendment a Sham.
I am starting to appreciate how much time it takes to learn things. Especially now that I am having the tables turned by some of the members here.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S.
Quote:
Originally Posted by motla68
If appropriate, can you tell me the author's name and the name of the Group?
Quote:
Originally Posted by motla68
Jesus, being a Jew was speaking of the Laws of Moses. The next passage is just as interesting.
Quote:
Mat 5:33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
Mat 5:34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
Mat 5:35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
Mat 5:36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
Mat 5:37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
Here we find that something has changed. With the advent of the Messiah, there shall be no more swearing. I have attached an anonymously written treatise that has always caught my attention.
For clarity only; I assume you use the modern era term "jew" loosely as being defined as "judean" in describing Jesus' character, and not as the real and modern era "jew" which is distinct from and mostly unrelated to judeans, hebrews, isrealites or semites of any kind.Quote:
Originally Posted by David Merrill
That distinction is obviously a lesson in and of itself.
It seems I recall seeing this image presented by someone in Canada as proof of a "treasury direct account" of some kind of which can be tapped into for funds. As I remember, the presenter offered ZERO proof and evidence of this assertion. This was related to Robert Arthur MENARD's version of "security of the person" and other of his flawed and failed teachings.Quote:
Originally Posted by motla68
That is a deserving Topic for its own Thread; but I am saying so only because I refuse to let the 14th Amendment get buried along with:Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph
What I mean by that is that Jesus' ethnicity as a Babylonian Jew is a hot button and will carry this thread off its Topic without a doubt, so I have to describe the Law as Jesus would know it pragmatically. As any Jew of his time. That would be to say that the US citizen, is bound by a natural re-statement of the Ten Commands called the Seven Noachide Laws. Paul ran to Felix, the Roman marshal for his life - protective custody - a benefit of the same Roman Welfare State that Paul created in that action. Paul was not in trouble for teaching Grace to the pagans in Asia Minor; Paul admitted to the Sanhedrin trying him that he was teaching the Seven Noachide Laws there:Quote:
Originally Posted by Arik Alan
Neusner 1; Neusner 2.Quote:
Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood...
Act 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
For now I want to leave it there because the real hot button is What Would Jesus Not Have Done. The truth being that because Jesus was a law-abiding Jew, he would not have entered your home, even to save your servant's life. If for some reason he physically touched a gentile, he was bound to perform a ritual bath (mikva) before he could go attend synagogue. He was such an elitist that he even considered a northern Jew a dog unfit to lick up crumbs from the King's table.
What we should stick to in my opinion is this fealty system created by Paul and expressed in Romans 13. - For the sake of keeping on Arik Alan's point about the 14th Amendment.
Regards,
David Merrill.
If you read my post again, it would reveal that I stated that the image (back of the BC Card - NOT your document) was presented by someone else in the past as proof of an accessable "treasury direct account" for those who "secure their person". These were Canadians who were involved in the World Freeman Society of which Robert Arthur MENARD was a prominent member and teacher. If you read further into my post, I then stated that when challenged to offer proof of the existence of this "treasury direct account" and evidence that it can be accessed by someone who "secures their person", that was met with nothing but anger, belligerence and accusations of trying to mislead others away from this teaching. Apparently, the "papering package" related to this teaching was offered at a substantial price and that potential revenue was at stake when someone challenged the validity of what was being asserted and sold to others as "remedy".Quote:
Originally Posted by motla68
It was David Merrill who went round and round with a presenter of this BC Card image at the old "Freemen Society" forum. He asked for anyone to prove, or provide material evidence, that they could "access their account" through the number on the back of the BC card. As I stated earlier, NO proof or evidence was ever given to support this claim. David was subsequently banned from the site for expecting that proof be provided for this claim and for obviously making it difficult to sell their "papering package" which included this theory within it.Quote:
Originally Posted by motla68
I am just providing my recollection of that discourse as I remember it. I read every post and response. You may want to inquire of David to verify the truth of my "recap" of events surrounding the Canadian BC card discussion if you feel this information is incorrect.
My take: it is a pile of crap sold in a nice expensive package.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph
That's right, I just mentioned that over on the other thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by motla68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph
I agree but keep open to idea that a stance against the alleged account can estoppel collections. The more credible rumor behind this process is that the billing started up again, like reserved in the letter. However we replicated this scientifically and the US clerk of court fudged up our evidence repository (Record) so badly by the time the suitor began repaying the bills, we could not help but feel that there was something there motivating the clerk to screw up the record like that.
With Rob;
I hear that business of never having to prove or support any assertions has caught up with him. The Papering Package has not shown him anything by way of results. Just a lot of dissappointed, angry or forgiving people who paid a lot of money to annoy public officials. The Law Society (Canadian Bar Association) will catch up to him with a bill if he decides to get back into the fray.
Speaking for myself and Rob. He attacked me all over the Internet for requesting, rather pointedly I admit, that he put up or shut up. He accused me openly for months of being a Government Plant because my Reality Check for Rob was destroying his illusions of being a guru. You can tell how stoned he is in this video, if you compare it to the public appearances when straight. But you get a look at this fellow's upbringing too. He admits that all the slur campaign (including Vancouver and Toronto Craig's List posts) were false accusations, but since I was rude that is all okay. No apology - just a stoned psychological evaluation. In fact, a big part of the Freeman Movement according to the World Freeman Society is free to be all stoned; as we see from Freeman Pete, broadcasting from New Zealand where the Pot Laws are very lax compared to the poor Freeman thinking they can light up because of their Papering Package. (8:00 Minute Mark.)
http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/1...petestoned.jpg
I suppose there is nothing I can really do about the integrity of StSC within the scope of rules of evidence except promote that people will require posters making assertions and presumptions to show us exactly why they believe what they do. I intend to start a thread about graphics - so that members here can start using their computers to record valid research and dispel patriot mythology. It is why I seem to come off being much more smart than I actually am - I can show why I believe certain things to be true.Quote:
Robert Arthur Menard of North Vancouver has been prohibited by the Supreme Court from appearing as counsel, preparing documents for use in proceedings, and identifying himself in any way that suggests he is a lawyer. He was also ordered to pay costs.
So Motla68;
If you want me (and I presume us now) to believe there is a registry of S/Ns on FRNs as stock certificates or any other variations of the Treasury Direct STRAWMAN philosophies I am all ears. But I expect you to articulate it here. Don't tell me that I can learn all about it at the end of link to somewhere else; wherever you read about it and became convinced. We have a great forum here and I will soon be teaching you how I do it. It takes a little time to learn how to be graphic and slows down posting but if you look around here, there are people who believe me because I showed what I am saying is true, as I said it.
Here is what I mean:
http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/7...certnobond.jpg
Quote:
Originally Posted by motla68
There you did it. That's what I mean. Instead of showing us your paper package substitute or whatever you sent me off to another website to go study - if I am "interested".
You have not shown me anything that would make going there seem worthwhile. I am not going to badger after you like with Rob, who was making videos and had a following. Understand that I have already been through this with Rob. I showed you the letter from the Canadian finance minister. That is where the rubber hits the road. There is no hypothecation on the birth certificate.
I believe in SDR's though. Paper Gold = Special Drawing Rights. That is a fictional basket of averaging five currencies and the good faith and credit in the Fed is a good part of that. That good faith and credit is described by endorsement so non-endorsement has an effect on the value of money indeed. The confidence and security building measures becomes quite fleeting when you think about it actually.
I just want the readers, members and suitors here to know that I am not feeling the need to defend based on some implied accusation that I am choosing ignorance by not wandering off this website to examine new evidence about - well, whatever it is that Motla68 is talking about. His explanation is more about what he is not talking about rather than explaining what his success story consists of. Motla68 can make good on his promise and I will on mine - to start a lesson plan on graphics so there is no excuse to lead us around in a dim light.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. Continuity may be a little off to this point because Motla68 deleted nearly all his posts.
- Continuing this thought about some kind of package. That is not what Coresource Solution has ever been about, not wrapped up package with a toll road and breadcrumbs.
Being a free man on the land is about learning how to do things from scratch without the guidance of someone or some thing telling you how to do it. A pioneer of sorts.
" It's not about the destination, the journey is everything! "
- Movie: Peaceful Warrior
If you all do not go through some of the same suffrage our first core group went through to find things and put the puzzle pieces together just how is it that you will learn it as well as we do?
We started from scratch with nothing, we did not even have names of most of the documents as you all do. We did not go to a school, take some kind of class or use some kind of package, it was just raw self teaching. Getting pulled over by police, going through courts, going to jail, being committed to a mental health facility and more for experimentation and research to see what feedback we get so them pieces of the puzzle can be put together. Most of it is found in the audio files on the Talkshoe group, some of it what i have shared here on this forum.
Just with anything you do when you go against the "status Quo" you better be prepared there is possibility you could go to jail and/or worse for what you believe in. The bible even states this folks, look what jesus went through? Not even a step by step package with someone's promise will save you from any of that.
All Coresource Solution does is give some very basic guidance, most of what you are going to learn is by actually doing it, it has been our experience since the beginning that most of those who have everything handed to them step by step never really comprehend fully what to do, sure they get lucky, but most who do have success have never asked for a step by step instruction book. They get that " ah-ha" moment and then just go do it. I tell people who are interested, learn it, live it, do it.
So now you know I am going way out of my element here because there is an exchange of information of which both Coresource Solution and the Suitors forum can benefit from each other.
I do not see any step by step book here either as a note, but I am not complaining about it, it is how we like it. Thanks much for the creator of this forum!
Which is a style that compliments ours - speaking for suitors. We are rather a brain trust; with me in the middle as intelligence nexus and a great memory. I am in the middle of suitors, courts of competent jurisdiction who are sensory nodes sharing with me their experiences mostly with setting up the evidence repository through a LoR template. The objective is to utilize remedy, already written into the law, simply and effectively - forming explanations of doing so on a seventh grade level in the fewest words possible. One great thing about being within the brain trust is that one seldom repeats any mistake twice and the mistakes are few and far between especially in the last five years that we have been incorporating redemption of lawful money.
It is great to have you here Motla68!
I would like to add my agreement to the sentiment of sharing experiences and information in order to gain an understanding of truth and success while having to deal with the "ways of the world" around us. Although it may seem we have gotten off to a bad start, I view this entire discourse as edifying and fruitful since what we all seek here is truth above all else. One will find that the more open and willing one is to fully disclose what one finds as success, the more accepting and welcoming this group will be. There are many diligent and studied men and women who are ready to receive truth when they hear it. At the same time however, these same men and women will question, challenge and expect those who offer methods and ways of "success" to provide the verifiable documentation and evidence in order for us to gleen whether or not the model offered is reproducible or just a fortunate anecdote.Quote:
Originally Posted by David Merrill
Let me again extend my own appreciation for all of those who are here who wish to find and share the truth they seek among those who hunger for it. We are on the same side if it is truth that is sought above all else.
Thanks for the welcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by David Merrill
I would like to point out in your methods you say seventh grade level, but I have seen a couple episodes of a TV show called " are you smarter then a 5th grader? "
At least half if not more never make it through to the end. So if this is your target audience you might need to step it down a couple more notches to help people grow.
You may not agree with this, but just to let you know where I am coming from. Templates and cookie cutter manuevers limit the audiences ability to freely think, thus
when a curve ball comes out from no where and they experience something that they were never told how to handle the brain locks up and bad things happen.
The ability to let people make mistakes allows them a great learning experience that will stay with them throughout their lives.
On the lawful money thing though I am with you there, for it provides a conveyance for local sustainability within our own country, common cause for like minded people.
Great scene, I like it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JizGkM6gbvQ
That seventh-grade figure came from my evidence repository in Denver. My objective is to be able to convince a jury that the billing/lien/settlement process is based in a valid security agreement that currently exists between people and government.
One will find that the more open and willing one is to fully disclose what one finds as success, the more accepting and welcoming this group will be.
No. That is what is happening on the Internet all over - elsewhere. As far as my posts go, it is not going to happen. My responses to your STRAWMAN Redemption by any other name will continue to reflect that too. What one finds as success is inadaquate without some scientific testing for reproducible mental models that are actually applicable in the courts and in real life. - Competence.
In other words you keep falling back on the idea that there are more funds, based in the certificate of live birth as a bill of lading on the baby, than would be held in the SSN accounting as a TIN (Withholdings). This is the HJR-192 setting too, utilizing House and Senate Reports but extending the birth certificate as some kind of stock certificate being hypothecated upon like Rob MENARD's theories about Security of the Person. Rob is not the only casualty though. We also find that L.B. BORK's set theories have gone asunder. He wrote a book (The Red Amendment), that like Pete HENDRICKSON's Cracking the Code set him defending incomplete or incorrect hypothesis. That is not what is going on here. Not as far as I am concerned. So you may wish I would be more open minded about your trust theories but where we stand, you and I, is that you have to load your scanner or camera properly so that you might show us some better process-to-results images for me to comment on, rather than to shoot down because you are implying results instead of demonstrating results.
Which brings us to the topic btw.
LB BORK's book and website is about the 14th Amendment (primarily). At the beginning of this thread I threw some historical facts out about the 1865 Amendment too. When I began speaking of this on LB's website he banished me! Then he wanted me back but only if I wrote him an essay about how I would behave...?? Then silence prompted him to accept me back and he would humiliate me and delete my posts to avoid my embarrassing myself there, in front of maybe three active members and ten readers! Then he banished me again. Now he wants me back again. Point being how if you are going to set your theories in stone by writing a book, you better base them in standing law like we do here.
I read your comment, embedded in your paragraph to mean you wish I would let up about you not supporting your variation of the birth certificate hypothecations. I interpret your posts as an attempt to pursuade my thinking and belief sets. Of course! That's exactly what you are doing - as I am to you too. So get on loading that scanner now.
Regards,
David Merrill.
There are some facts concerning the 14th Amendment that has yet to be raised:
The Hijacking of the Fourteenth Amendment by Doug Hammerstrom
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personho...ammerstrom.pdf
The case used as basis giving 14th Amendment protection to corporations:Quote:
Of the 150 cases involving the Fourteenth Amendment heard by the Supreme Court up to the Plessy v. Ferguson case in 1896 that established the legal standing of "separate by equal," 15 involved blacks and 135 involved business entities. The scope of the Fourteenth Amendment to secure the political rights of former slaves was so restricted by the Supreme Court that blacks won only one case. The expansive view of the Fourteenth Amendment that comes down to Constitutional Law classes today is the result of corporations using the Fourteenth Amendment as a shield against regulation. Ultimately, the Plessy decision left Jim Crow laws, state laws discriminating against blacks, in place because of doctrines developed in those corporate shield cases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_C...cific_Railroad
Wow!!! Matthew 5:33-37: ?Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ?Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.? But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God?s throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. All you need to say is simply ?Yes? or ?No?; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.
Nice article molta real nice.
To commit a perjury you have to FIRST be under oath (or affirmation). You know that. It's common knowledge. So, to be punished for a perjury you'd need to be under oath, right? Right.
Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this return and accompanying schedules and statements, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, they are true, correct, and complete. Declaration of preparer (other than taxpayer) is based on all information of which preparer has any knowledge.
Then you have this:
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.
AKA
Gives a new meaning to I pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of America and to the republic for which it stands one nation under God......
But the Anglican Church, as an agency of the State, can't go bankrupt. It becomes the duty of the State to support it in hard times. Parliament did so. It enacted a tax to that end. A nice religious tax, and by current standards a very low tax, a tithe (10%).
ARCHBISHOP?S STATE OF THE CHURCH ADDRESS
4th Annual Provincial Council
Ridgecrest, North Carolina
6th June, A.D. 2012
I'm not sure if this has been posted anywhere but it is a good explanation of the 14th amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Fourteenth Amendment - Revisited
First - forget everything you ever knew about the Fourteenth Amendment - then carefully read the below expose:
Take the Amendment’s opening clauses, “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 where in they reside...”
Now, consider the same clauses with the central, explanatory clause removed, and it then reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside...”
Under the rules of English grammar and punctuation, the second clause, “and under the jurisdiction thereof, “ is an explanatory clause. Explanatory clauses do not add to nor in any way change or alter the meaning of the writing in which they are included; their purpose is to explain. As it is self evident that naturalized persons volunteer into the jurisdiction of the United States as an inherent aspect of their voluntary naturalization, the explanatory obviously was not relevant thereto. Therefore the inclusion of this explanatory clause is to clarify that persons born in the United States, in deference to the Thirteenth Amendment, do not become and are not, at the moment of their birth in the United States, automatically citizens thereof because such newborn persons are incapable of personally volunteering themselves into servitude. I contend that the inclusion of “persons naturalized” was somewhat obfuscatory.
Please note that when the explanatory words (”, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, “), are omitted, the entire impact and meaning changes, or rather (and more correctly), the true meaning become obfuscated. The explanatory clause, (”, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, “), clearly adds a second criteria necessary to establishing citizenship and clearly indicates that there are two distinctly separate criteria both of which must be met in order for
persons born in the United States to be classified or designated as citizens thereof.
The words, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, “ clearly provide, recognize and acknowledge that there are persons born in the United States who are not thereby automatically subject to the jurisdiction thereof, and that such persons, by such birth, are not automatically classified or designated to be citizens of the United States.
(I strongly contend that this includes all persons born in the United States of parents when the parents themselves are citizens of the United States. That is, no one becomes a citizen of the United States just because the person is born in the United States. “Born in the United States” and “born under the jurisdiction thereof” are not one and the same as is commonly misunderstood. If the two statements meant the same thing then only one would have been needed. Moreover, the Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition of involuntary servitude prevents anyone from being designated to be a citizen of the United States based merely on the location of the person’s birth in the United States).
In regard to persons born in the United States there are two criteria which must be met and complied with in order for persons born in the United States to be designated as citizens of the United States, and the second of the two preclude such citizenship from being “automatic” or based on the mere “accident” (or contrivance, as in the case of so called “anchor babies”), of the persons birth in the United States. The two required criteria are (1), that the persons be born in the United States (obvious), and, (2) that the born in the United States must also be subject to the jurisdiction thereof (this criteria is universally, incorrectly and erroneously presumed - read on:).
This second criteria is not and cannot be met merely by the location of the persons birth, because, as set forth in the Fourth Article of Fourteenth Amendment, there is a requirement that citizens of the United States not question the validity of the national debt. This mandated provision clearly constitutes a condition of servitude, therefore, in deference to and in recognition of the prohibition of involuntary servitude of the Thirteenth Amendment, it becomes abundantly clear that a person’s birth in the United States, by itself, does NOT and cannot establish U.S. citizenship. Please read on:
An examination of the two subject amendments will expose a diabolical plot; understand that the same legislators who wrote the Fourteenth Amendment had, two years earlier, also written the Thirteenth Amendment, wherein these same legislators prohibited involuntary servitude - I am not aware of any claim by anyone or any court that the Fourteenth Amendment in any way revoked or abolished any of the provisions of the Thirteenth Amendment.
Bearing in mind that the Thirteenth Amendment prohibits involuntary servitude; and while keeping this thought in mind, then consider this wording contained in the Fourth Article of the Fourteenth Amendment, (in reference to citizens of the United States):
“The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”,
Or, to paraphrase the relevant part, “Citizens of the United States shall not complain about being required to pay the public debt of the United States, authorized by law...”.
Or, to cut to the chase, “Citizens of the United States - SHUT UP and PAY UP!!”
As paraphrased (but NOT wrongly interpreted), it becomes abundantly clear and indisputable that this mandate in the Fourth Article of the Fourteenth Amendment constitutes a condition of servitude - that is, U.S. citizenship constitutes a condition of servitude - and, because of the prohibition of involuntary servitude in the Thirteenth Amendment, US citizenship must be voluntarily entered into and cannot be acquired merely by birth.
So, with the foregoing examination and understanding in mind, it then becomes clear why the citizenship clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment are phrased in the manner they are (implying U.S. citizenship by birth but clearly unable to state such to be the case). If those legislators who created the wording of these two amendments had been honest, they would have written the Fourteenth Amendment somewhat as follows:
“All persons born in the United States, who thereafter, upon attaining the age of reason, then voluntarily elect to place themselves under the jurisdiction thereof, such persons, by such voluntary act, thereby voluntarily become citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside and in so volunteering, such citizens agree to subject themselves to the jurisdiction of the United States in every respect and agree to pay the national debt thereof, without complaint.”
The opening clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides, “All persons born or naturalized, “. Bear in mind that those who were held in slavery had been kidnapped in their homeland and drug to the United States against their will, in chains, and then forced into slavery for many generations. Such acts as these, perpetrated on these innocent kidnapped Africans, could not in any way be expected to engender an attitude of gratitude and loyalty to the Government of the United States - what would be your attitude if you were among those who were freed at the end of Lincoln’s unconstitutional and undeclared war (just in case you thought Bush was the first to ignore the applicable Constitutional provisions)??
Due to the conditions the African slaves had been subjected to preceding their emancipation, the former slaves had every reason to despise the United States. Additionally, naturalization (also included in the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment), requires a renunciation of the candidates former foreign sovereign and a willingness to take an oath swearing an allegiance to the United States. Naturalization requires a study of and a knowledge of the Constitution. The vast majority of the former slaves were totally illiterate, so, for the most part, none of them were in any way desirable as candidates for naturalization and it would have been ludicrous to expect that any of them would seek naturalization, and I am not aware of even one instance where such occurred. And none of this has even the slightest bearing on the fact that the former slaves were black.
In response to the foregoing there are those who claim that the former slaves gained U.S. citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment because, during the so called reconstruction period, imposed upon the Southern States after the end of Lincoln’s illegal war, the former slaves were then under the jurisdiction of the United States and that is what made them U.S. citizens. This claim is spurious at best as the purported applicable clause of the Fourteenth Amendment addressing “those persons subject to the jurisdiction thereof [of the United States]”, is specifically limited to and is only applicable to those persons BORN in the United States - and is not applicable those who found themselves under the jurisdiction thereof due to the result of an unconstitutional and illegal war. (All of the adult former slaves had been born (albeit - as a result of kidnapping), under the jurisdiction of the (southern) state wherein they were born. Some may have even been born in a foreign country where from they were kidnapped).
As to those babies actually born of freed slaves during the so called reconstruction period, such children could still not be classified as citizens of the United States (due to their birth) because of the servitude mandated in the Fourth Article of the Fourteenth Amendment as a specific condition of U.S. citizenship; all this in deference to the prohibition of involuntary servitude of the Thirteenth Amendment. Before such children could become U.S. citizens they would have to wait until they reached the age of reason and then they would have to volunteer themselves into such status. I contend that none ever did so, certainly not knowingly.
I cannot imagine that any sane former slave who fully understood the provisions of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth amendments would freely volunteer into a condition of servitude which is part and parcel of United States citizenship. For that matter, neither can I imagine such would be the freewill choice of any sane white person born in the United States (this disparagement is not in any way applicable to foreign nationals who immigrate to the U.S. and apply for naturalization).
Having unraveled the insidious intent hidden in the Fourteenth Amendment it becomes abundantly clear that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was/is to con persons of all races into volunteering themselves into a condition of servitude under the jurisdiction of the United States
There is widespread belief that the purpose and intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to provide a citizenship status for the freed slaves and at the time of the promulgation of the Fourteenth Amendment such purpose was even publicly claimed by those who drafted the citizenship clauses - but if such was the case then why is any suggestion or implication thereof totally absent from the said clauses?? Why did the framers thereof not write:
“All persons born in the United States or any territory thereof, or born in any of the several states, being of African extraction, who desire to become citizens hereof, shall be accorded every opportunity to meet and comply with the rules of naturalization on the same basis of any white immigrant, without any restriction due to their former condition of involuntary servitude or slavery, nor shall such applicants be subject to any naturalization quotas.”
And, just to make sure that it is clearly understood, there is no such thing as an “anchor baby” (babies born in the United States of illegal alien mothers).
So, if persons born in the United States do not volunteer into U.S. citizen servitude status - what then is their political status??
Well, as for me, I am of the Posterity of the People of the United States. “People of the United States” and “citizen of the United States” are not in any way the same!!! This begs an examination as to what it is that constitutes a republican form of government - and that will be the subject of a future discussion.
I suggest skeptics read Chief Justice John Jay’s dicta in
Chisholm vs. Georgia (2US 419 - 1794), the Preamble to the Constitution, and the First and Second amendments, paying particular attention to the use of the words “joint tenants in the sovereignty”, “people”, “ourselves and our posterity”, and, the absence of the word “citizen”.
Cheers,
Eric Williams
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/23398430...Show---Excerpt
This was passed the day before they passed the 14th amendment.
Is this the "Remedy" for the 14th amendment??
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expatriation Act
CHAP. CCXLIX – An Act concerning the Rights of American Citizens in foreign States.
Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and whereas in the recognition of this princi-ple, this government has freely received emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the rights of citizenship; and whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendents, are subjects of for-eign states, owing allegiance to the governments thereof; and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed; Therefore,
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officers of this government which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government.
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That all naturalized citizens of the United States, while in foreign states, shall be entitled to, and shall receive from this government, the same protection of persons and property that is accorded to native-born citizens in like situations and circumstances.
Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That whenever it shall be made known to the President that any citizen of the United States has been unjustly deprived of his liberty by or under the authority of any foreign government, it shall be the duty of the President forthwith to demand of that government the reasons for such imprisonment, and if it appears to be wrongful and in violation of the rights of American citizenship, the President shall forthwith demand the release of such citizen, and if the release so demanded is unreasonably delayed or refused, it shall be the duty of the President to use such means, not amounting to acts of war, as he may think necessary and proper to obtain or effectuate such release, and all the facts and proceedings relative thereto shall as soon as practicable be communicated by the President to Congress.
Approved, July 27, 1868.
http://home.earthlink.net/~walterk1/...iationAct.html
They (Patriots/Freemen) call that the Expatriation Act.
It really only makes sense in the format of a natural or geographical survey. In my opinion there is nothing to say to expatriate until you have a recognized survey to claim - unless of course you have a nice yacht...
In other words you must be careful how you identify yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Merrill
That is Exactly the point.
How you identify yourself is how you get caught up in their jurisdiction.
It is the Presumption of law.
================================================== ================================================== =========
<<<<<<<snip>>>>>>>
Notice how the presumption has shifted. Contrary to the regulations at 26 CFR 1.871-4 (quoted above), employers are told by the IRS to make the opposite "presumption" about the residence of their employees, even if they are not true "employees" as that term is defined in the IRC. If individuals have W-4 and W-2 forms, the presumption is that they were either required to sign these forms, or they have made elections to be treated as residents. Recall that the instructions for Form 1040NR describe the "election to be taxed as a resident alien". This is accomplished by filing an income tax return on Form 1040 or 1040A, and attaching a statement confirming the "election".
An extremely subtle indicator of one's status is the perjury oath which is found on IRS forms. Under Title 28 of the U.S. Code, Section 1746, there are two different perjury oaths to which penalties attach: one within the United States**, and one without the United States** (see Appendix R for the precise wording of 28 U.S.C. 1746). If an oath is executed without the United States**, it reads as follows:
I declare ... under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
[emphasis added]
If an oath is executed within the United States**, it reads as follows:
I declare ... that the foregoing is true and correct.
Thus, your signature under the latter oath can be presumed to mean that you are already subject to the jurisdiction of the United States**. This latter oath is the one found on IRS Form 1040.
Federal courts now appear to be proceeding on the basis of the presumption that we are all "citizens of the United States**" because the courts have shifted onto defendants the burden of proving that they are not "citizens of the United States**". Despite the obvious logical problem that arises from trying to prove a negative, the United States District Court in Delaware ruled as follows when it granted an IRS petition to enforce a summons:
Defendant's protestations to effect that he derived no benefit from United States government had no bearing on his legal obligation to pay income taxes; unless he could establish that he was not a citizen of the United States, IRS possessed authority to attempt to determine his federal tax liability. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 1, Sec. 8, Cl. 1; Amend. 16; 26 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1. [!!]
[United States v. Slater, 545 F.Supp. 179 (1982)]
[emphasis added]
It should be clear by now that the IRS may well be making presumptions about your status which are, in fact, not correct. If an original presumption of nonresidence has been rebutted, for example, because a nonresident alien filed one or more 1040 forms in the past, the filed forms do not cast the situation into concrete. The IRS is entitled to formulate a presumption from these filed forms, but this presumption is also rebuttable. If you filed under the mistaken belief that you were required to file, that mistaken belief, in and of itself, does not suddenly turn you into a person who is required to file. Tax liability is not a matter of belief; it is a matter that arises from status and jurisdiction.
<<<<<<<<<snip>>>>>>>>>>
continued below or read the entire document here:
http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/chapter9.htm
As I read your forums about "Lawful Money", I believe applying your princibles to the bankingcard can be very effective.
================================================== ================================================
<<<<<<snip from above>>>>>>
Now, let's have a little fun with this law of presumption, as it is called. The law works both ways. This means that you can use it to your advantage as well as anyone else can. One of the most surprising and fascinating discoveries made by the freedom movement in America concerns the bank signature card. If you have a checking or savings account at a bank, you may remember being asked by the bank officer to sign your name on several documents when you opened that account. One of these documents was the bank signature card. You may have been told that the bank needed your signature in order to compare it with the signatures that would be found on the checks you write, to detect forgeries. That explanation sounded reasonable, so you signed your name on the card.
What the bank officer probably did not tell you was that you signed your name on a contract whereby you agreed to abide by all rules and regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury. You see, bank signature cards typically contain such a clause in the fine print. These rules and regulations include, but are not limited to the IRC (all 2,000 pages of it) and the Code of Federal Regulations for the IRC (all 10,000 pages of it). These rules may also include every last word of the Federal Reserve Act, another gigantic statute. Now, did the bank have all 12,000 pages of the IRC and its regulations on exhibit for you to examine upon request, before you signed the card? Your bank should be willing, at the very least, to identify clearly what rules and regulations adhere to your signature.
You are presumed to be a person who knows how to read, and who knows how to read a contract before signing your name to it. Once your signature is on the contract, the federal government is entitled to presume that you knew what you were doing when you signed this contract. Their presumption is that you entered into this contract knowingly, intentionally, and voluntarily. Why? Because your signature is on the contract. That's why. Is this presumption rebuttable? You bet it is. Here's why:
Instead of telling you that the bank needed your signature to catch forgeries, imagine that the bank officer described the signature card as follows:
Your signature on this card will create a contract relationship between you and the Secretary of the Treasury. This Secretary is not the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, because the U.S. Treasury Department was bankrupted in the year 1933. The Treasury Department referred to on this card is a private entity which has been set up to enforce private rules and regulations. These rules and regulations have been established to discharge the bankruptcy of the federal government. Your signature on this card will be understood to mean that you are volunteering to subject yourself to a foreign jurisdiction, a municipal corporation known as the District of Columbia and its private offspring, the Federal Reserve system. You accept the benefits of limited liability offered to you by this corporation for using their commercial paper, Federal Reserve Notes, to discharge your own debts without the need for gold or silver.
By accepting these benefits, you are admitting to the waiver of all rights guaranteed to you by the Constitution for the United States of America, because that Constitution cannot impair any obligations in the contract you will enter by signing this card. Your waiver of these rights will be presumed to be voluntary and as a result of knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences, as explained by the Supreme Court in the case of Brady v. U.S. With your signature on this card, the Internal Revenue Service, a collection agency for the Federal Reserve system, will be authorized to attach levies against any and all of your account balances in order to satisfy any unpaid liabilities which the IRS determines to exist. You will waive all rights against self-incrimination. You will not be entitled to due process in federal administrative tribunals, where the U.S. Constitution cannot be invoked to protect you. Your home, papers and effects will not be secured against search and seizure. Now, please sign this card.
How does the law of presumption help you in this situation? First of all, you presumed that your signature was required, to compare it with the signatures on checks you planned to write. This was a reasonable presumption, because that's what the bank officer told you, but it is also a rebuttable presumption, because of what the fine print says. That fine print can be used to rebut, or disprove, your presumption when push comes to shove in a court of law. The federal government is entitled to presume that you knew what you were doing when you signed this contract. Well, did you? Did the bank officer explain all the terms and conditions attached thereto, as explained above? Did you read all 12,000 pages of law and regulations before deciding to sign this contract? Did you even know they existed? Was your signature on this contract a voluntary, intentional and knowingly intelligent act done with sufficient awareness of all its relevant consequences and likely circumstances? The Supreme Court has stated clearly that:
"Waivers of Constitutional Rights not only must be voluntary, but must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences".
Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 748 (1970)
Fortunately, the federal government's presumption about you is also rebuttable. Why? Because the feds are guilty of fraud, among other reasons, by not disclosing the nature of the bankruptcy which they are using to envelope the American people, like an octopus with a suction tentacle in everybody's wallet, adults and children alike. The banks became unwitting parties to this fraud because the Congress has obtained a controlling interest in the banks through the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and their traffic in Federal Reserve Notes and other commercial paper issued by the Federal Reserve banks, with the help of their agent, the private Treasury Department. For further details, read "Return to Constitutional Money" by Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., in the Supreme Law Library on the Internet.
http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/chapter9.htm
Interesting.
Because this fraud can attach to bank accounts without your knowledge or consent, it is generally a good idea to notify your bank(s), in writing, that the IRS cannot inspect any of your bank records unless you have specifically authorized such inspections by executing IRS Form 6014. The IRS Printed Products Catalog describes this form as follows: 6014 42996R (Each)
Authorization Access to Third Party Records for Internal Revenue Service Employees
Authorization from Taxpayer to third party for IRS employees to examine records. Re-numbered as a 4-digit form from Letter 995(DO) (7/77). Changes suggested per IRM Section 4082.1 to help secure the correct information from the third party. EX:E: Tax Related Public Use http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/epche12c03.pdf
You bet I will: The hiring of a tax attorney is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements. Before you decide, please ask us about our qualifications and experience.
http://www.taxhelpattorney.com/irs/i...4-d0e2313.html