Please note, Eros, that the Constitution does not apply to natural persons, whether they are original signers or not (look at Article 6 to see who the Constitution applies to - THE PEOPLE are not mentioned). The Constitution is a job description for the government, mostly designed to tell government officials what they are not allowed to do; its purpose is to clearly limit what powers THE PEOPLE are willing to let the government apply. It is clear that THE PEOPLE are foreign to the Federal government, because it is a corporation, while the natural persons are just that, natural, not legal fictions. No fictional entity can have jurisdictional authority over a natural person - that is why we have trial by jury; only other natural persons can hold that power. Once you understand the concept that the natural persons are sovereigns, you can see that they do not consent to allowing fictional entities to have jurisdiction over them. Evidence of the behavior of politicians and crooked lawyers (redundant?) since then shows that this is a conservative position. Because of this disconnect (corporations can only deal with other corporations) the New Deal moved the (Article I) courts towards the vague concept of "public good,' and created the public trust under the Bankruptcy Act of 1933, to create this corporate citizen under the 14th Amendment. Now the state can have jurisdiction over this corporate person, and by implied consent, can make the natural person pay for the corporate person's transgressions, which were not transgressions under common law. Thus on another thread we are discussing how a natural man goes to jail for fishing without a license. Under the Constitution, no one needed a license to fish, but busy lawyers have created this vast skein of 'law,' almost all of it contrary to common law, which now allows the state to substitute its judgement for that of natural persons. btw, the Magna Carta was specifically designed to limit the monarch in that laws counter to common law could not be enacted. Ever since then, lawyers have worked assiduously to destroy that limitation on state power, and the Straw Man strategy, which is borrowed from Roman law, is the solution they have adopted. The Romans traded in slaves, and they would create a trust/corporation/legal fiction entity, whose only asset was the slave's body, and then trade this contract like we would trade a share of stock. The 14th Amendment recreated this possibility, establishing a corporate trust which contains all the assets of the natural person, including his body and all his future earnings, and made this entity an employee of the company store. Now 'rules' written by the corporation apply to this entity, and by inference, also now apply to the natural person, if that person does not realize that he has been sold into voluntary slavery. The redemption remedy we discuss on this blog refers to the process of un-volunteering to be a slave.

ps to JC: where is the fake debate? I merely call bs on Eros' position that FISA has anything to do with establishing the right to an Article III hearing for American natives. Nowhere have I said that any strategy other than the one outlined by DM should be attempted. Everything I have explained above goes directly to your premise #2, learn your identity, and how confusion about your identity causes you to be treated live a slave.

ps to Eros: Rule e(8) of the First Judicial Act of 1789 gives all natural citizens the right to appear in an Article III court at any time, and to enter evidence into the record, and thus to be their own court of record. Evidence entered into the record and not refuted becomes fact, and default judgement is self-executing, thus no judge or jury is needed.