Quote Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph View Post
Wouldn't the standing and/or required oath of office of this public servant be the "contract" which would render the same results? I offer that the required oath of office is charitable in nature and is given FREELY to anyone who will clearly and declaratively accept it as a voluntary promise to do what you say this man does for you in private. I also believe that the acceptance of this "promise" is non-binding, non-obligating and non-subjugating to the acceptor since it is God-given rights which are being voluntarily protected - God's work. We are mostly deceived into a mindset and notion that we should accept only the "enforcement officer" role which has jurisdiction over us rather than the "peace officer" role which is there only to keep the peace and to protect and serve our inherent rights derived from the Almighty Creator.

This is the "dual roles" concept I have been discussing and developing regarding the oath-sworn officers/agents we may encounter. My stance is that the role that manifests depends on us; how we identify ourselves, and our absence from their "contracted fealty" by and through our demand for, and right to, lawful money. In other words, we refuse consent/contract to be re-venued into their district overlays as is our unalienable right.

I believe that this private agreement you present is already existing in public form - the oath of office, according to requirements of law upon those who occupy these "offices". The acceptance of of these charitable oaths can be fully disclosed and filed in the public record without the need to keep private and secret agreements which will possibly be terminated when "crunch time" comes. Of course a verbal inquiry and acceptance of an officer's "oath-sworn status" works during an encounter with someone you are unfamiliar with. The officer must then lie on the stand when and if he/she is questioned in court about your inquiry and acceptance.

Perhaps you could reveal a generic version of this agreement for us to peruse in order to get a better idea of what you claim to have accomplished.
Rom 2:11 - For there is no respect of persons with God.
Soon as he puts on that "uniform" his loyalty is to the state, in the statutes their is rules of Uniform Trust and those Oath's office are also color of law, not to mention that the word Public has it's own municipal corporate tie ins. All of man is equal, but when he puts on that uniform then there is unequality authority so for me to accept him as even a public peace officer within the law of mammon it is waiving the abundance of natural rights for color of law/bowl of soup which is a lesser of authority if that makes any sense.

Your second paragraph, your on the right track, accepting the color of law which is not of my Creator is re-venuing. Be a creator.

The state and all of it's underlying agents are going through great lengths to hide these oaths of office if they exist, in some instance there is not oath of office at all, but since I was not part of the constitution (paderford vs. City of Savannah) their authority could care less about our complaints about it. No more remedies, being a creator of solutions here.

Since all this is still theory of operation I dare not put a sample up, no proof that it actually did anything yet .