The Silver Bullet?

[eros]

Greetings:

Please review the attached file

It seems to offer a great explannation of history and how things became the way they are.

Lately I have been confused as to whether it might be better to claim to be One of the People of the Constitution or to avoid that contract and act as if I was a natural born human with all those rights already.

Eros




the_silver_bulletin.pdf

[eros]

Here is an excerpt from Albert's Book, The greatest Story Never Told

[Freed Gerdes]

[eros]

Freed,

Albert s idea is that the framers and thereafter have and do RULE the land. This is evident as such you have to make a claim to the posterity of the CONstitution or you have NO standing as you are conquered. If you make the claim , then at least you have the Constitution to stand on. I am not sure about the State vs state citizen, but it would appear to me that if you make the claim you are the latter, therefore you would be a foreign State to the US Government and thus they legislated this as a remedy.

Thanks for the reply. I am looking for the silver bullet and the answer is still vary hard to find. I have not really looked at the acts you mention, but would say that are these acts still enforced? I cannot really venture into a court and argue jurisdiction as the very same thing happens every time, contempt. Maybe the best version is a hybrid of not appearing after arraignment but by proxy (agent) and doing a style of LOR. If I venture into a court and mention the things you say the judge will just push on to a motions hearing or contempt order. Look at a guy like Bill Thornton who is really frustrated and can get no relief for the most part by using Common Law pleadings. If the man appears then he will concede jurisdiction no matter the circumstance as no court will overturn, or if they have please show the cite?

I like Albert's approach here and Albert claims his approach works by immediately filing an interlocutory appeal and bumping to the federal level. In any case as much as I like the approach, Albert is in South America due to his many run ins with the courts.

[eros]

Freed,

Albert s idea is that the framers and thereafter have and do RULE the land. This is evident as such you have to make a claim to the posterity of the CONstitution or you have NO standing as you are conquered. If you make the claim , then at least you have the Constitution to stand on. I am not sure about the State vs state citizen, but it would appear to me that if you make the claim you are the latter, therefore you would be a foreign State to the US Government and thus they legislated this as a remedy.

Thanks for the reply. I am looking for the silver bullet and the answer is still vary hard to find. I have not really looked at the acts you mention, but would say that are these acts still enforced? I cannot really venture into a court and argue jurisdiction as the very same thing happens every time, contempt. Maybe the best version is a hybrid of not appearing after arraignment but by proxy (agent) and doing a style of LOR. If I venture into a court and mention the things you say the judge will just push on to a motions hearing or contempt order. Look at a guy like Bill Thornton who is really frustrated and can get no relief for the most part by using Common Law pleadings. If the man appears then he will concede jurisdiction no matter the circumstance as no court will overturn, or if they have please show the cite?

I like Albert's approach here and Albert claims his approach works by immediately filing an interlocutory appeal and bumping to the federal level. In any case as much as I like the approach, Albert is in South America due to his many run ins with the courts.

[JohnnyCash]

My gut tells me this is a fake debate (2 personas from the same camp). So I'll just weigh in to say ... the nearest I've found to The Silver Bullet is the lesson plan David offers here.

1) Redeem lawful money (I've personally seen this stop the IRS cold)
2) Learn your identity (is not the U.S. person)
3) Start keeping the record

[Freed Gerdes]

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.

[Frederick Burrell]

by applying to your master for relief are you not in fact admitting he is your master. Absent agreement they have no juridiction, except what you have voluntarily given. Due to a variety of factors, such as age, lack of disclosure what you have given can be revoked, with out applying to your master.

[Freed Gerdes]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'applying to your master.' The Article III courts are designed for natural persons to use to defend themselves against agents of the federal government. The courts are not your master; they are tools that can be used to protect your freedom from harassment by official agents.

If by 'what you have given' you are referring to your status as a 14th Amendment citizen, yes, that can be revoked, using only UCC 1-207, but the claim/statement that you are revoking your voluntary slave status must be made to those who presume it. I would not call that 'applying to your master,' more like setting the record straight, or in this particular case, denying that a contract exists, since it was obtained by fraud, ie, there was no knowing, voluntary surrender of rights.