-9 votes

US Citizens Have No Constitutionally Guaranteed Right To Bear Arms (but people do!)

This is my last DP post for a while... good luck.
Edit 1-7 9:37 AM
Please check out this post first to be better able to comprehend exactly why I feel knowledge of these deceptions is so critically important to the R∃VO↵UTION.
Edit 1-6 8:30 PM
This post has fought it's way back from -39 votes. People are starting to dig deeper and expose the INTENTIONAL LIES of the Attorney who posted the other thread.
Edit 1-6 9:56 AM

I saw the post about "giving up" your right to bear arms when you enter into a "contract" to drive. I have to respectfully disagree. Your RIGHT is an absolute right which (1) you do not have to power to "give up" as it is granted from your Creator, and (2) any "contract" has to have the terms fully disclosed and you have to UNDERSTAND those terms in order for the contract to legally stand.

HE IS CLAIMING TO DIRECTLY QUOTE ME. WHERE DO I WRITE "GIVING UP" below? Please stop letting people FEED on your EMOTIONS! Look how the paragraph above was so cleverly CRAFTED. The VERY BEST LIES are 99% truth.
Edit 1-6 8:41 AM
"It depends on what your definition of the word 'is' is." ~ Bill Clinton during impeachment proceedings

The precise definitions of words DO MATTER! Please do not buy into the "semantics" argument! The BARflies want you to ignore the subtle differences and just keep going along minding your "own business" so they can maintain their MONOPOLY on the interpretation of Law!

Scroll down to section 15 to find out what "United States" means:

(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;

Do you really wanna be a citizen of (created by) the United States?

FYI - I really hope nobody here is clueless enough to think that I'm trying to convince them to give their guns away. If you had an option to keep them without having to die or kill would you take it?
End Edit

When you went for a DRIVER LICENSE you saw a question which asked:

Are you a US citizen? [ ] Yes [ ] No

You agreed by private contract to operate in the status of a United States citizen. You traded your right to bear arms for a state granted privilege. The constitution protects your unlimited right to contract, as well as your right to WAIVE ANY RIGHT.

The BARflies don't care if it's LOOKS right... smells right... feels right etc... they only care about if they can get away with it through LEGAL LOOPHOLES or not.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It does not state:

... the right of persons ....

... the right of government agents ...

... the right of United States citizens ...

... the right of citizens ...

... the right of Citizens of the United States ...

I hate to break it to all persons but their individual government franchises will be disarmed because they have no right to bear arms guaranteed or protected in any constitution.

Legally speaking anyway...

Now PLEASE - Calm down... and think rationally for a minute. You are right now being LAUGHED at because you can't grasp this simple concept - by a bunch of BARFLIES. PLEASE - I know you are CAPABLE of following what I'm saying... I have FAITH in YOU.

This is SIMPLE STUFF... wanna hear how simple it is?

Don't let these BARFLIES drive us to killing each other while they sit on the sidelines with a bowl of popcorn.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Why the Path to Gun Confiscation Remains Wide Open

From: "Why the Path to Gun Confiscation Remains Wide Open"

So long as most Americans believe that it is never justified to kill a law enforcement agent, there will be no meaningful resistance to oppression and tyranny, since all tyranny is realized by force of law.

Those that do resist will be marginalized since the majority are not willing to.

To be fair, this phenomenon is not particular to Americans. Humanity has a well documented history of oppression and mass murder. In every example of this, the consent of the majority was the enabling factor.

Lack of resistance is consent. Since your rights are defined as that which you’re willing to die for, it’s time to start contemplating the once unthinkable: When is it OK to shoot a cop?

Shall I guess who this is?

or do I already know?

The term "People" which is a

The term "People" which is a proper noun referring to specific persons, places, or things appears three times in the Constitution all prior to amendments.

The term "people" which is a common noun referring to generic things or possessions appears seven times and only in amendments.

The term "Citizen" which is a proper noun referring to specific persons, places, or things appears thirteen times and only before the fourteenth amendment.

The term "citizen" which is a common noun referring to generic things or possessions appears nine times post fourteenth amendment and one time prior in the title of Article IV, Section 2 which is an unusual case if you look at the capitalization of all the other section titles and headings.

The term "Subjects" which is a proper noun referring to specific persons, places, or things appears twice.

The terms "Alien" or "alien" do not appear in the constitution.

Are you suggesting words don't mean what they mean and/or were not used for a specific reason?

You are saying the same thing

he is saying in this article imo. Each of the terms you pointed out have specific meanings and are not explicitly equivalent. Another important one you forgot is "Person" which appears 22 times.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

I agree "Person" is an

I agree "Person" is an important one. It has been discussed many times but few in the general population grasp it.

Person = Man or Woman + Arbitrary Fictional Rank/Capacity/Status/Condition/Title

A man or woman occupying the office or position of "General" is a person.
A man or woman occupying the office or position of "President" is a person.
A man or woman occupying the office or position of "Secretary" is a person.
A man or woman occupying the office or position of "Commissioner" is a person.
A man or woman occupying the office or position of "Sheriff" is a person.
A man or woman occupying the office or position of "Judge" is a person.
A man or woman occupying the office or position of "Employee" is a person.
A man or woman occupying the office or position of "Manager" is a person.

And finally:

A man or woman occupying the office or position of "Citizen" is a person.
A man or woman occupying the office or position of "Benefit Recipient" is a person.

What do all persons have in common? They all have a payroll or benefit record to verify the man or woman was occupying an office or position and using a given title at a specific time. It is the domain of love of money.

Why is this

so hard for most to figure out? I did not always know this concept but I figured it out and once I did the entire concept of Law became easy to understand. Our country's fall into tyranny is clearly because the majority of People at large have no comprehension of this concept.

What combination of words is going to unlock the minds and break through the ego protected ignorance so that people can realize that their own lack of comprehension of capacities in law is what is driving them into all out tyranny?

To the people out there who do not know anything about the Person being a legal capacity please figure this out and you will learn how to free yourself from unlawful authority.

A capacity (person/personhood) is a limited liability capacity or corporate veil. The capacity is like an imaginary bubble recognized in law and legal proceedings that a living breathing man/woman step into to perform a regulated activity. This capacity or person can be identified, pointed to, discussed, compelled to answer, etc. in a legal proceeding. In some cases the bubble or capacity can exist within another bubble like CEO of Walmart. Walmart is a bubble/capacity/corporate veil/corporation/person and the CEO is a bubble/capacity/corporate veil/corporation/person inside of the Walmart bubble. In this example the CTO CFO COO, check out line attendant, janitor are all discrete capacities inside the Walmart capacity. All of these capacities are under the employee capacity of the Walmart capacity. The same goes for government. The State is a capacity and the Citizen is a capacity in the State Capacity. The United States is capacity and the US Citizen is a capacity in that capacity and, the citizen of the United States is another capacity under the United States capacity. Basically the capacity is anything that is not real in nature. The capacity or person is an imaginary bubble that in legalese is called a legal fiction.

When examining the Constitution what is real? The People/people. The People are living breathing men and women. These men and women are fully liable because they are real. When the man/woman steps into the bubble of the capacity there is a legal protection of limited liability governed by the applicable regulated conditions and activities created in the establishment of the capacity. Remember all rights are endowed by its creator. The creator of the imaginary bubble of capacity endows the rights upon the capacity.

If real people step into the capacity of limited liability then one consents to the regulations even if the very nature of the regulations is constantly changing by some body. The regulation is the "policy" and is governed by the politics. So if you the man or woman step into the capacity of the citizen of the United States then you become subject to regulatory conditions of the policy. The only lawful way a man or woman can get into the capacity is by consent. Any one attempting to force you into a capacity is committed fraud and/or extortion which is a felony crime. Forms of consent that are common in "court" are when they ask "Do you understand the charges against YOU". If you say yes then are you stating that you stand under all claims made by the STATE that you are legal PERSON in capacity and subject to the statutory regulation being applied to you! Did you know this? If not this is why tyranny is expanding all around you.

If you do not seek limited liability capacity because you accept full liability for your own actions then you become free from ALL policy and are now governed by Divine Law and Natural Common Law is your process for dispute resolution.

The Natural Common Law has 2 categories in which all disputes fall under Breach of Peace and Breach of Duty. Peace refers to the Natural Common Law of do not trespass against another in any way. Duty refers to contractual obligations or agreements aka Do what you say you are going to do. Either of these could be civil but Breach of Peace can be criminal if one has mens rea.

The thing is that under Natural Common Law each of us fully liable for every act we do including making accusations against another. If you want to understand why the government is so tyrannical and you find yourself losing your rights it is because it is the Divine Law unfolding before your very eyes. Your creator gave you freewill and choice with inherent natural rights. If you choose to irresponsible and ignorant of how the world around you actually operates and then you enslave yourself because you do not want to be liable for your actions then the Natural order is for freedom to go to slavery and peace to go to tyranny. This is the inherent result of divine construction of nature itself. So do you want to choose a regulated limited liability capacity enslaved to democratic political whims of the insane majority OR do you want to accept full liability for your own actions as one of the People and have citizen servants bound by capacity facilitating Common Law dispute resolution!

This choice is your and yours alone.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

Because ones entire life most

are taught they are:

I am ______________ (a thing) not I am. Since we are all slaves to our own beliefs it is difficult to convince someone they are more than a mere thing if they believe they are merely a thing. The DoI states in plain truth:

"and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed"

I will say one example I have used over the years is in state statutes (pick any) go to the section of statutes which established a paternity presumption in accordance with federal welfare mandates several years ago. There you will find the term "man" is used whereas every other offense in codes or statutes reads "a person who commits __________"

Florida example:

F.S. 409.257(3) "... in which another man is alleged to be the biological father"

Florida example of man and person in the same sentence which clearly demonstrates they are not the same thing:

F.S. 409.2572(2)(a) " ... where more than one man could be the father of the child, refusing to identify all such persons."

Paragraph (3) of same statute:

F.S. 409.2572(3) "Any person who applies for or is receiving public assistance for, or who has the care, custody, or control of, a dependent child ..."

More person examples (not to hard to find because everything in state statutes or codes only applies to persons as already pointed out the term man is only used in one section of all state statutes which establishes a paternity presumption over a man's person ... ie. operating a citizen title/estate/corporate franchise akin to operating a motor vehicle for hire because the man in possession of the title is in control of it to steer it):

F.S. 322.04 Persons exempt from obtaining driver license.—
(1) The following persons are exempt from obtaining a driver license:

F.S. 322.03 Drivers must be licensed; penalties.—
(1) Except as otherwise authorized in this chapter, a person may not drive any motor vehicle upon a highway in this state unless such person has a valid driver’s license issued under this chapter.

I challenge anyone to point out there state is different because I have looked at many state statues and they conform to the same pattern.

Let's keep in mind:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident ... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ..."

Just government has no just jurisdiction over it's creator or god because it's just powers derive from god's who consent to be governed by their creation because they choose to operate a citizen title/estate/corporate franchise for the love of money to render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's.

Thanks for the info

I have been reading through the statutes for years now to fully unravel the ongoing fraud of the "person" and this is the ONLY instance I have seen the word "man" in statutory codes. The only other place I found to date is the word "Men" used in the DOI where you pointed out.

From my years of study of Law it is now clear to me the following facts are self-evident truth:

The word Person/person was well known by the founders to mean a contractually created legal capacity operating under some form of regulated contractual agreement.

The US Constitution is a contract between We the People (any man or woman claiming to be a party to the contract) that created a contractually recognized and regulated US Citizens capacity (a regulated capacity/Person for the functioning under the contractual created capacity)

The US Citizen was the capacity of being under the regulated bounds of the Constitutional Contract and that ALL legislation was intended for the operation and regulation of US Citizens and NEVER had contractual application to Men and Women claiming party as We the People.

That men and women can step into and out of various forms of capacity that would only have codes and statutes applicable to that capacity if a VALID contractual agreement is shown to apply codes and statutes to the capacity.

That the Constitutional contract is under Common Law between men and women that "understand" the agreement and that proper enforcement of the contract is under Common Law between Men i.e. Any of We the People can pierce the corporate veil of the US Citizen to bring claim against the Man/Woman claiming to be operating under the US Citizen capacity but acts in Breach of Duty.

That Common Law is the only Law that is applicable Law for settling disputes between Men and Women.

That Divine Law governs every individual man and woman and that its protections are only accessible to those who accept liability for every action that is their own.

That the original 13th amendment was ratified a result of the founders and their posterity combating the British attorneys using the word trickery of "person" in our courts to do the same thing the British empire had already done in their Homeland which is exactly the corporate structured operation we see today in the current US system. Also that the 13th amendment was removed with the Civil War in order to make way for this new 14th amendment corporate US structure.

I have learned much more than this and I have utilized all of the frivolous BS thrown at me by the "STATE" (seatbelt, speeding, parking, etc.) to systematically gather intel from the tyrants themselves to identify those that are aware and knowingly carry out this fraud. I have found many in both courts and law enforcement. There appears to be a targeted threshold line of the command structure where the awareness begins. I am now confident that above this line they are even being systematically trained on how to deceive the people through the language. I also have reason to believe that part of their training involves pointing out how the people are so dumb and don't care about their rights that it is used to justify treating the people like slaves. I also have reason to believe that this knowledge and selection of the advancement through the command structure is carried through the "Masonic" orders.

It is clear that those who carry out the fraud intended to deceive us out of our rights are levying warfare against us. It is clear that if we are going to bring them to justice the liberty will need to MUCH deeper into intelligence operations and penetrate every circle of their corruption in order to identify and target key actors for exposure and proper justice. If we are going to truly restore the Constitution and return to the rule of law I really don't see any other way. Other men are using deception trickery and outright fraud of the "person" to realize a pecuniary advantage and we do not need to wait for politics to bring justice. We only need be strong and strategic enough to route the criminals out and gather the necessary evidence that enables us to expose the truth before a jury knowledgeable in law..

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

Your rights being taken is

Your rights being taken is not being done through color of language, it's being done outright. This analyzing of words is just pointless. The founders didn't use grey language. The stinks of the same kind of sovereign nonsense like signing stuff in red ink.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

It is not pointless

because there is a fundamental principle which underlies everything. I am not going to look the exact passage up but it is something to the effect it is by the law that one knows sin. One can not possibly discern whether law is good or evil if one does not understand the presumptions of said law.

You discredit yourself by asserting the founders didn't use grey language. When the founders included the term "Citizen" do you think they knew the difference between a common noun which refers to a generic thing or possession versus a proper noun which refers to a specific person, place, or thing? Do you think the framers of the 14th Amendment knew the difference between common and proper nouns?

Do you think the founders knew the people as in we the people who ordained and established government must be superior to government because the creator is the master of it's creation? Do you think the founders knew the difference from a people as master and Citizen as servant?

Do you think the founders understood King is merely a title just like Citizen or United States citizen is a title? When Barack Obama signs a bill does he sign "President Barack Obama" or just "Barack Obama" and it says President of the United States of America underneath his signature to indicate a capacity? When a judge signs an order does he sign "Judge John Doe" or "John Doe" and underneath it says judge to indicate capacity.

Sure, rights are being taken outright but it is by the color of language that people are deceived into jurisdictions operating as a United States person when they are not being paid by or receiving a benefit from the United States to verify they were using the title at the time.

When an atom (Adam) takes on a negative charge it is governed by rules applicable to electrons. When an atom (Adam) takes on a positive charge it is governed by rules applicable to protons. The principle is use governs which is what it means consent of the governed. Whatever title or capacity you choose to use governs you while said title or capacity is in use by your voluntary consent. When you are acting as a CEO use of the title governs. When you are acting as a United States citizen use of the title verified by a W-2 payroll record governs.

Your response stinks of status quo nonsense that all capital letters is not an intentional unusual spelling in English grammar to indicate a capacity.

In closing. The second amendment expressly reads "people" not "Citizen" or "citizen" so people operating as government agents/United States persons to perform a function of government have no protections in the constitution to arms. Furthermore since United States citizens are 100% responsible for the present tyrannies either by tacit or express consent ... they are clearly not responsible enough to possess arms. United States citizen != People or people whereas some United States citizens are naturalized and people are natural born posterity of Americans who are natural born or naturalized.

Uh...what? It reads "people"

Uh...what? It reads "people" everywhere because you don't have to be a citizen of this country to have rights here. WTF is this atom/adam bullshit?

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

Just because it's something

you haven't heard of yet doesn't mean it's BS.

It is BS. It's like people

It is BS. It's like people being trendy lately and using terms like "molon labe."

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

People, people, it's about Jurisdiction not "Personhood."

United States only has jurisdiction over the land which encompasses DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and US Virgin Islands. The States have exclusive sovereign jurisdiction over the land, or territory, they encompass. The US has overlay districts which may by geographic, but are not territorial in nature, such as Zip Codes, Federal Court districts, Federal Reserve Bank districts, and even the Fiat "State of....." & etc. You fall into the jurisdiction of the the US only if you are a US citizen, or by using one of the myriad federal districts as a reference for your inhabitance.

Remember, The United States only has jurisdiction over the land of the several territories mentioned above. Notice that none of these territories is is a State. Therefore they fall outside the guarantees and protection of the organic Constitution because they are not party to it. So as a US citizen this is the land of your nationality, which is really a city state, not a country. You are merely "residing" in whatever state you find yourself the same way that a Citizen of France may go to Massachusetts and "reside" there; he is still a Citizen of France.

Not being a National of any of the States in the American Union makes you subject to the statuary law of the federal government because there is no other law to appeal to.

Change your status from US citizen to that of a State National and live in the Common Law jurisdiction that every State in the Union enshrines in its own constitution, and rid yourself of the pointless and arbitrary statutory corporate law continually propagated by the federal government to enslave you.

.... And STOP bickering about "corporate person-hood" It's a "straw man" argument designed to distract you from your true path to lawful freedom.

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

Clarification!! The UNITED


The UNITED STATES has Jurisdiction over its land AND ITS PEOPLE [Property] throughout the States.

    "It is clear that Congress, as a legislative body, exercise two species of legislative power: the one, limited as to its objects, but extending all over the Union: the other, an absolute, exclusive legislative power over the District of Columbia"
    [U.S. Supreme Court, COHENS v. COM. OF VIRGINIA, 19 U.S. 264 (1821) 19 U.S. 264 (Wheat.)]

The UNITED STATES only has jurisdiction over

people who are actually employed by that corporation. They have 'presumed' every American into an employment position, and THAT presumption without rebuttal is their authority, or presumed authority.

If you are not receiving a paycheck on the 1st and 15th of the month like all other officers, employees, and elected officials of the UNITED STATES, and they have no employment contract and/or payroll records for you on file, then their presumed authority is just that;

"A Presumption".

If they insist they have authority over your life, then it is safe for you to presume (as they do) that you are an employee, officer, or elected official, and for some reason you are not receiving pay; have never received pay, and it looks like we have a major labor dispute that we need to address.

Just because one lives in the District of Columbia or one of their Territories, does not mean the corporation has jurisdiction over ones life and money.

Statutes only apply to corporate employees, elected officials, and officers of the foreign corporation known as the UNITED STATES.

No Contract & No Injured Party = No Jurisdiction

They can't force you to work for free, that is called slavery. If they are presuming some magic authority over your life, then they need to cough up an employment contract and some payroll receipts that Prove you are obligated to abide by their internal statutes called US Code Title 1 - Title 50.

We've been through this

We've been through this before. An unrebutted presumption stands...it's similar to the IRS's "acquiescence through silence".

The second part you are forgetting is this. By having a social security account, you are essentially employed by the UNITED STATES. In fact by merely having a social security number you are defined as "Federal Personnel":


    (13) the term “Federal personnel” means officers and employees of the Government of the United States, members of the uniformed services (including members of the Reserve Components), individuals entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the United States (including survivor benefits).



    "The Social Security retirement program began seventy years ago, and disability insurance was added fifty years ago.

Your fatal error is assuming that Statutes ONLY apply to the entities you listed! THIS IS FALSE! any "citizen of the United States" that has a social security account is a FEDERAL PERSON. If they are NOT living in D.C. or another Territory, then they are merely "nonresident citizens of the United States" but they are STILL subject to Federal jurisdiction. IN fact, for tax purposes, whether they reside in D.C. or not, they are "treated as" if they do:

    (39) Persons residing outside United States
    If any citizen or resident of the United States does not reside in (and is not found in) any United States judicial district, such citizen or resident shall be treated as residing in the District of Columbia for purposes of any provision of this title relating to—
    (A) jurisdiction of courts, or
    (B) enforcement of summons.

Again: Social Security is NOT a Contract (see my other posts).

You said:

"The second part you are forgetting is this. By having a social security account, you are essentially employed by the UNITED STATES. In fact by merely having a social security number you are defined as "Federal Personnel"

My reply:

Having a social security card is just a thing; it is not a contract, and if they want to presume I am employed by them, then it is also safe for me to presume I am getting paid for my employment, unless of course they are admitting to running a slave racket, in which we now have a major labor dispute.

For some strange reason you cannot erase 20 years of crap you've been studying, and come to realize the fact, if you are not receiving a paycheck on the 1st and 15th of the month from either local/state/federal gov't agencies, and they have no employment contract on file and no payroll records for you, then you are NOT EMPLOYED BY THE UNITED STATES, and their internal statutory rules-codes, and regulations DO NOT APPLY to you.

I've got a Blockbuster video card, does that mean I'm a Blockbuster employee? Does that mean I am somehow under their jurisdiction? Not unless I'm on their payroll and they can prove it.

Question maybe you can answer, no one else seems to be able to:

"What's the One Document, either Local/State/Federal Gov't has in their possession, that would Contractually Obligate anyone (other than gov't employees/elected officials/officers who ARE receiving pay and benefits to abide by internal statutes (US Code Title 1 - Title 50)), to abide by those internal statutes-rules-codes-regulations, and to do it for free - without pay, and without benefits of their own?"

@ South

That Blockbuster card analogy was a good example. Clearly any rules/codes/statutes/orders/decrees of Blockbuster do not apply to you unless one is receiving a payment or benefit (ie. video rental) from Blockbuster and even then they would only apply to the specific activity of a video rental which is a jurisdiction limited in nature. Clearly the "just" application of any Blockbuster rules can only be derived from one's consent to receive a benefit and rent a video from Blockbuster. Application of said Blockbuster rules outside the above mentioned scope would be clearly "unjust" but if Blockbuster has the guns of course Blockbuster can act unjustly to misapply it's rules to non Blockbuster customers which is exactly what the United States does by presumption.

Here is the Document that authorizes VOLUNTEER work

13th Amendment:

    Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

    Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[2]

The 13th Amendment not only made INvoluntary Servitude unconstitutional, it also established, as a byproduct, that VOLUNTARY servitude IS Constitutional!!

Maybe See Also, http://www.volunteer.gov/gov/

    It is wrong to hold Americans hostage to budget bargaining
    and partisan charade; Meals on Wheel clients, nursing-home
    residents. Head Start youngsters, vendors waiting to be paid,
    citizens wanting to visit national parks or to travel
    overseas, Americans depending on unemployment assistance or
    water-quality monitoring--not to mention 760,000 unpaid
    federal workers.

"I've got a Blockbuster video

"I've got a Blockbuster video card, does that mean I'm a Blockbuster employee? Does that mean I am somehow under their jurisdiction?"

In order to get that Blockbuster card you had to make agreements with them. Those agreement COULD include that you are a VOLUNTARY employee of Blockbuster, and if you AGREED with it then it is not slavery but voluntary servitude. The jurisdiction is likely defined within the agreement.

The same is true with the SS account. When you sign the application for SS#, you will be called to answer the question "Are you a Citizen of the United States?" When you answer yes, you just established jurisdiction. And as citizen by its very nature is one who owes allegiance to a country AND its established statues. By stating "YES" I am a citizen, you are stating that you agree to be bound by THOSE statutes, that's what citizenship is. You do not become a citizen simply by being born here, you become a citizens by being born or naturalized here AND agreeing to be bound by its statutes (jurisdiction).

You are VOLUNTARY Personnel, you have agreed to VOLUNTARY servitude, with benefits.

"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

TX is Correct

NO, it doesn't mean you're an employee. BUT, if ONLY Felons are authorized by law to have a Blockbuster card, then you are either a felon, or you have lied on one of the hundreds of documents you signed under penalty of perjury declaring yourself to be a valid Blockbuster cardholder!

It isnt about being employed!! It's about being a cardholder, a member of the class who is AUTHORIZED to become a member. Social Security is for "citizens of the United States", naturalized persons, and those who are EMPLOYED in the UNITED STATES!

Are you EMPLOYED in the United States? Are you even EMPLOYABLE in the United States? What do you think UNITED STATES means for purposes of the Social Security act? IT means FEDERAL TERRITORY.

Therefore, since you have a Social Security account, you have declared under penalty of perjury that you are either a "citizen OF the UNITED STATES", a naturalized [federal] citizen, or that you are working in the Federal United States.

ALL of the people that qualify for Social Security are members of the FEDERAL class. They are the PERSONS that make up the Federal government. THEY are subject to ALL OF THE LAWS of Congress because they are Federal Property!!

THIS is why ANY INDIVIDUAL with a Social Security RETIREMENT PROGRAM is classified as "Federal Personnel" per USC Title 5, 552(a)

LASTLY, and MORE IMPORTANTLY, If you have never requested a hearing to have these documents dismissed, and you are still using the Social Security number for work, credit, etc. THEN you are not only failing to void an allegedly invalid contract, but instead you are illegally using Government property for your benefits:

    42 U.S.C. 408: Penalties




    Sec. 408. Penalties

    (a) In general
    Whoever -...

    (8) discloses, uses, or compels the disclosure of the social security number of any person in violation of the laws of the United States; shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction thereof shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.


Julius, can you get into how

Julius, can you get into how you go about this:

"LASTLY, and MORE IMPORTANTLY, If you have never requested a hearing to have these documents dismissed, and you are still using the Social Security number for work, credit, etc."

I have read your posts about the SSA-521 form. However, I have seen nothing that says they actually withdraw the application. Did you do a FOIA for the numident printout after filling out the SSA-521 to see if the actually did it? If not did you sue the SSA commissioner or a local SSA underling to get the job done?

Sedm/famguardian seems more interested in amending the SS-5 so the citizenship code reads "b" or "legal alien allowed to work" or whatever it is. I want the damn thing gone. I didn't sign the SS-5 and I have proof of it.

Any advise would help.

I requested a hearing and was

I requested a hearing and was denied, then I demanded a hearing and they ignored men, finally I sent a certified affidavit and notice, with a copy of the original SS-5 signed by my mother (it cost $27 from the SSA), and the Notice told the SSA and the Federal Court in Washington D.C. that they were only required to respond if there was a problem with my filings...

    Social Security Administration
    Attn Sheryll Ziporkin
    Office of the Commissioner
    6401 Security Blvd.
    Baltimore, MD 21235-0001

    Because of the importance of these concerns, and because failure to respond will be intentionally misleading; and because of the duty of the Social Security Administration to respond and answer, any failure to respond will be deemed as agreements with the facts stated herein, and an admission that I, a non-resident alien, am NOT required to participate in Social Security while “without the United States”.

    “Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. ... We cannot condone this shocking conduct by the IRS. Our revenue system is based upon the good faith of the taxpayers and the taxpayers should be able to expect the same from government in its enforcement and collection activities .... This sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is the "routine" it should be corrected immediately.” [U. S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299 (1977), emphasis added][quoting U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032 (1970)]

I NEVER use the Social Security number that they assigned to me. I havent used it in 7 or more years.

Thanks, I appreciate it. I

Thanks, I appreciate it.

I assumed the idea was to put them on notice then default them( after all it is thier number and thier card). I haven't used one in 2 years I just want to make sure to get it on the record.

I have been reluctant to use famguardian/SEDM's paperwork because of their postition on the 14th amendment.

Now if there was only a way to find work without a number that wasn't day labor.

Yeah!! Their 14th Amendment

Yeah!! Their 14th Amendment position is the only thing that I have found wrong in their findings. I have talked to them on the phone about it many times, and they just dont seem to understand. I believe it is because of a couple of misread Supreme Court cases.

It is obvious to me that the 14th Amendment ONLY created a "TYPE" of citizenship. It is what I call the lower case "c" federal citizenship.

If I comprehend their

If I comprehend their argument correctly, they believe that "United State" is used in two different contexts in the 14th.

However the way the out right declare to be 14th amendment citizens in there paperwork leaves me feeling uneasy. If they didn't out right declare they were 14th amendment citizens I'd consider using it.

Btw, Juluis, I tried to private message or email you once on here, I don't know if it went through or not. I'd really like to bend your ear on some of these topics, (specifically right to travel).

Is there a way I can get intouch with you?


Correct. They believe that a

Correct. They believe that a 14th Amendment citizen of the United States is a Constitutional citizen, whereas a Statutory citizen of the United States is not.

MY position is that there are 5 types of citizenship, and that a statutory citizen of the United States is based on, and essentially the same thing as, a 14th Amendment citizen of the United States.

The five types of citizens:

1) Natural born Citizen with an upper case "C". anyone born in the 50 states of the union to parents that are Citizens. Also known as State Citizens, and known as "nationals" per USC Title 8, 1101 (NOT "nationals OF the United States" which are statutory citizens of the United States) (21) The term “national” means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1101 NOTE: that "state" has a lower case "s" in this section. This is because the author (Congress) is NOT speaking of their own States, but rather a state foreign to their jurisdiction.

2) Citizen of the United States with an upper case "C". ALL are dead. these were the founders that were not born in America, but owed their allegiance to this nation. (They are all dead because the constitution only allowed "Citizens of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution")

3) A 14th Amendment citizen of the United States with a lower case "c". Anyone that was freed by the 13th Amendment, OR that elected to become such citizen in exchange for benefits from the Federal government.

4) A 14th Amendment State citizen with a lower case "c". Any 14th Amendment citizen of the United States that decides to reside in any of the 50 States, AND wishes to maintain its Federal protections in such State. The 14th Amendment created "citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." These are different than State Citizens.

5) A statutory citizen of the United States. This is ANYONE whatsoever that elects to become a member of the Internal Revenue Service, Social Security Administration, or any other various statutorily privileged entity.

Your right to travel is only

Your right to travel is only restricted by foreign countries, and this has been true since the beginning of civilization. Any other country claims its "right" to restrict entrance of foreigners. If you consider that the society as a whole is claiming the country as the private property of the whole, then this would indeed be trespassing to enter their land without permission. As far as leaving the United States, it becomes more difficult, but if you are not one of their's, they have no right to restrict your travel. Neither do they have a right to refuse you reentry into your home nation.

I've a couple friends who a missionaries, non US citizens born and raised on US soil. When asked for a passport at customs they hand them a piece of paper with the following on it:

"And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying , All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you."
Matthew 28

They claim Jesus as their King, literally. Their King has commanded them to travel to all nations. They are always detained in and out of the US, but have never been refused entry or exit after their detentions. They HAVE been refused entry into some counties, and have been allow into others.

BUT, another concern is mode of travel, an airline or train operator has every right to refuse service to an "unidentified" man.

There are statutes that REQUIRE you to have a passport to enter and exit the United States. But it must be understood that these statutes only apply to those who owe allegiance to the United States. If you are not a citizen or one who owes such allegiance, they will not issue you a passport per statute:
22 USC § 212 - Persons entitled to passport: No passport shall be granted or issued to or verified for any other persons than those owing allegiance, whether citizens or not, to the United States.

The right to unrestricted travel has historically been considered a natural right. If you study the history of passports they are an instrument only issued during times of war to prevent foreign enemies from entrance. The current phenomenon of worldwide issuance of passports by all countries has a short history dating back to WWII and the creation of the UN. It has essentially been turned from the prevention of enemy invasion to the tracking and maintaining of human resources (chattel). Through a worldwide data base the owner can discover general location of his property is at most any time, if the rules have been followed by all involved.

"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

Thank You

I don't know why you were down voted for fact.

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/