Got a Problem With Sovereigns? Then You Must Have A Problem With People Who Read Too!Submitted by vinceableworld on Wed, 01/02/2013 - 17:08
“If you’ve relied on prior decisions of the Supreme Court you have a perfect defense for willfulness.” U.S. v. Bishop, 412 U.S. 346 (1973)
"In common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, and statutes employing the word are ordinarily construed to exclude it." -- Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe 442 US 653, 667 (1979).
"It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states." ~ Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt, 16 How. 416, 14 L.Ed. 997 (1854);
"There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States .... In this country sovereignty resides in the people, and Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it: All else is withheld." -- Julliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421.
"Our government is founded upon compact [contract]. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people" -- Glass v. Sloop Betsey, supreme Court, 1794.
...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but themselves..... [CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL (1793) pp471-472.]
The very meaning of 'sovereignty' is that the decree of the sovereign makes law. [American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 29 S.Ct. 511, 513, 213 U.S. 347, 53 L.Ed. 826, 19 Ann.Cas. 1047.]
The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative. [Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21 Am.Dec. 89 10C Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228; 37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec. 167; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7.]
There's plenty more... feel free to add some. Anyone for an honest and open debate on the lawful basis of being sovereign? The term itself is just a title... and the way Bill Thornton exercises it is pretty cool.
"Comes now John Smith, one of the people and here in this court of record complains of..."
You just said two things:
1) "one of the people" = you are sovereign.
2) "court of record" = common law (no statutes).
Any BAR members up for a healthy debate? The SPLC/BAR (they are basically all BAR members) are demonizing sovereigns for one reason and one reason only: We cut into their obscene profits because WE DON'T NEED THEIR SERVICES IF WE KNOW THE LAW.
Now ask yourself this: Why was it illegal to teach slaves to read?