25 votes

Ben Swann: "In the Eyes of the Founders YOU are the Sovereign."

I was floored!

Thank you Ben Swann for validating everything I and a few others have been trying to tell these people!


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Did you read about the two

Did you read about the two inmates that escaped from that chicago highrise prison today?(crazy escape involving a six inch wide window and thirty bedsheets tied together into a two hundred foot rope). Anyway as part of the story they mentioned that the mastermind guy(both were still on the loose last I heard) had robbed a bank(most of the money not yet recovered) and in court refused a lawyer and chose to represent himself. He used the sovereign defense...of course it didnt fly and he was locked away anyway. So my question is what does it matter if we are really sovereigns when they refuse to acknowledge the fact and push their will through anyway? I am personally glad this guy escaped...for some reason bank robberies(at least ones in which no one is hurt) just dont bother me very much...maybe its because no wealth is actually stolen.

Let me expand a bit on my answer...

In the middle ages, if you were a king and ruled with an iron fist - no courts or juries only your word being followed strictly - your reign would not last very long. Sooner or later you'd find yourself dead by food poisoning or your own brother/son etc putting a knife in your back.

So while I am sovereign, I'm aware of the fact that I have no army. In absense of an army I must have a good grasp of the law and be able to verbally express that law in front of an open forum.

If some opposing king (in this case some grim reaper in a black robe on a bench) pulls me into his court, my mission is to convince all the people around this evil man that what he is doing is truly evil. He must convince his subordinates that what he is doing is right and proper otherwise people in his own circle will do him in.

There are many cases where judges have been removed from benches after dealing with a legitimate knowledgeable sovereign who did not wish to contract. Ultimately that's what it's about by the way - contracts. We make contracts everyday and don't even realize it. Contracts are written, verbal or generally understood (such as ordering a meal in a restaurant - you agree to pay as long as you don't object to paying).

Every commercial court in this country (and they are all commercial) operates on the presumption of contract. If you can lay out the fundamentals in a coherent, comprehend-able fashion then you're exposing the court fraud (that you must obey their statutes). Absent contract... you are not required to obey statutes and acts. The problem is Americans do not realize that they are contracting with "government" officials every time they come in contact.

Most public servants do not even realize they are contracting. The judges know this however. It is the only way they can be perceived to be violating "constitutionally guaranteed" rights without being hung for treason. They are not violating your rights - you have agreed that under the contract - you have no rights and only have state granted privileges.

How does one become sovereign? Study... study... study... or get yourself a very large loyal army.

Great question.

Instead of a defeatist attitude... you actually ask a legitimate question instead.

"...what does it matter if we are really sovereigns when they refuse to acknowledge the fact and push their will through anyway?"

The best way I can answer this is to tell you that even the MAFIA has rules. You can't kill a "made man." You can't just off the don without permission... etc.. The reason for this is that the mafia would cease to be a functioning entity if there was just total anarchy.

"The sovereign defense" IMO is not a defense at all. In the 5 or so years I have been studying law I have found that the best "sovereign defense" is to pull rank. It's about jurisdiction. Not the facts, the evidence, etc... and you have to know the language... how to not contract (have you heard of the restaurant example?) and above all... did he actually follow the LAW?

If these guys harmed anyone during their robbery then I do hope they are caught and put back in prison. Regardless of value/not - it is technically stealing... we as sovereigns must obey some basic important laws otherwise there is anarchy...

1) Do not harm anyone else or infringe on their rights.
2) Do not steal
3) Honor our contracts. (My word is my bond and I stand by it.)

You can clearly see that if all people followed these three laws "government" would become obsolete. So the POINT is... you can either self-govern or someone will be forced to govern you for the good of society. (That doesn't necessarily have to be "government.")

Ben Swann

Not just because I agree with him 100% of the time, Ben is the most articulate actual news reporter in the business.

I wish that I had his talent, I could wrap up entire debates in 3 minutes or less.

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

I can safely say...

That when it comes to TRUE sovereigns.. I agree with them at LEAST 90% of the time. Now when people agree there is no conflict. If there is no conflict governing by some outside entity becomes obsolete.

and then... even when I disagree with a sovereign we can both "agree to disagree" amicably and either change the subject or end the conversation before it turns to conflict.



"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul

Just checked the link...

it's working fine here. Anyone else?

Was there a video?

Went to the link and it just explained what he was going to talk about with a few source links?



The video is on that page.

Nice to see Ben sticking it to the establishment.

If we can just get him to do a segment explaining that unless you are receiving a bi-weekly paycheck from state/federal government and have signed into an employment contract with them, and they have past/present payroll records proving you are indeed a government employee, then NONE of their statutory codes apply to you.

That means the entire US Code from Title 1 to Title 50!

Why does that Certificate of Live Birth have a Registrars signature and state seal embossed into the document a week after the delivery MD signs that you were born alive on this day?

Because the Registrar is the court of probate, and probate deals with estates ... estates of the DEAD, as in the DEAD corporate fictitious you that the foreign corporation known as the UNITED STATES created so they could trick you into contracts and rail-road you in court, and presume authority over your life.

This whole system is a sham. I hope Ben keeps digging, maybe he's keeping an eye on the DP and getting his learn on :)

does this only apply to current employees?

I've just recently started reading about this stuff. I also just started as a research assistant at my state school to get free graduate school.

Yes, this applies to anyone who is 'currently' receiving a

government paycheck, either local/state/federal on the 1st and 15th of the month.

Even if you are a state/federal employee, those statutes only apply to you while you're on the clock and getting paid.

If you are a police officer, you must follow those statutory rules of the corporate county or state while you are on the clock. When you clock out at night and go home, those statutes no longer apply to you.

Just like working at Wal-Mart; if you are clocked in, you must follow their corporate rules and regulations ... aka ... statutes, but when you clock out at night, those internal statutes no longer apply until you clock back in the following day.

I am the sovereign

This is the reality that most Americans are forgetting to check. They surrender their sovereignty every time they receive a government handout. They surrender their sovereignty every time they allow their representatives to abrogate their God-given rights.
We really need to reclaim what we allowed to be lost - sovereignty and liberty seem to be two sides of the the same coin we've tossed away.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

And this is the reason...

sovereignty and liberty seem to be two sides of the the same coin

I'm on the record many times stating that I don't vote so many times people ask me why I come here. The reason is right there in your quote. Liberty activists are missing the boat if they are not willing to research the sovereignty issue.

It's the root of the problem.

Agree completely!

...but it is an uphill battle when all three branches of government have been co-opted by the banksters/racketeers. And all three branches are in cahoots to take away what is yours...your freedom. I do not unfortunately see a peaceful way to get our constitutional rights back...so its lay back time and wait for the crooks to finally go just one too far...

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783
"I know major allies who fund them" Gen. Dempsey referring to ISIS

And in the eyes of our modern

And in the eyes of our modern Govt, the Founders were terrorists. Go figure.

Blessings )o(

Looks like we've come full circle then.

Much love Maeve thanks for commenting.