-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
FROM THE OP'S POST ON THE OTHER THREAD:

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.

Comment viewing options

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

Have you done this?

"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."

How'd you do it?

Talk to this guy:

Thanks for asking. the most knowledgeable one is LB.: https://www.facebook.com/lb.bork.jurist?fref=pb

Read the Red Amendment: http://www.pacalliance.us/redamendment/
(at this moment the site is down and may be under attack)

Good luck and have fun doing the work.

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

No one or no thing has any

No one or no thing has any inherent jurisdiction over matter it did not create such as dirt. In the Articles of Confederation at the top it says the "stile" of this Confederacy ...

Jurisdiction is a "stile" or container for property not dirt. For instance, a deed is a border agreement between men, not an agreement with Nature's Creator for land use. Borders are a fictional creation of men and the domain of their creator.

Agreed

But the issue is in what place is the "agreement among men" going to best acknowledge and protect those rights with which you were endowed by your Creator at birth?

One should always claim their natural rights, but unless you find yourself among those, a body politic with standing in law, who agree that liberty is important, and those rights are inviolate principals of freedom, you are swimming up stream.

Said in a different way: What difference does it make that you have unalienable rights if the people around you don't subscribe to a law form that supports your claim to these rights?

This law form certainly exists, but has been abandoned by the population who worship the centralized power and authority of the federal government. They have also been badly deceived by that same government into abdicating their Natural Rights for government granted "Civil" Rights (privileges based upon one's association with privileged groups, ie: ethnicity, gender, disability, & etc.) as well as other government granted "benefits" for which they pay more dearly than they know. And they are further doomed because the allegiance and consent they have repeatedly demonstrated to their government and its "Leaders" excludes them from having standing to claim their Natural Rights in law.

If you claim that "No one or no thing has any inherent jurisdiction over matter it did not create such as dirt" you have to be able to defend that in law, and you have to have standing in the proper jurisdiction to even be heard. yelling and screaming about your rights in a jail cell to people who won't listen to you doesn't get you very far.

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

The Courts don't discuss

The Courts don't discuss things that are not true! There is no reason for a court to recognize the difference between "persons" and "people" if there is no difference.

    "When a statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that definition, even if it varies from that term's ordinary meaning." Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 942, 120 S.Ct. 2597, 147 L.Ed.2d 743 (2000).

http://fsrn.org/audio/courts-decide-guantanamo-detainees-are...

    Appellants' contentions are that the enforcement of the order prescribing instruction in military science and tactics abridges some privilege or immunity covered by the first clause and deprives of liberty safeguarded by the second. The "privileges and immunities" protected are only those that belong to citizens of the United States, as distinguished from citizens of the states -- those that arise from the Constitution and laws of the United States, as contrasted with those that spring from other sources. Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 83 U. S. 72-74, 83 U. S. 77-80; McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 146 U. S. 38; Duncan v. Missouri, 152 U. S. 377, 152 U. S. 382; Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U. S. 78, 211 U. S. 97; Maxwell v. Bugbee, 250 U. S. 525, 250 U. S. 538; Prudential Ins. Co. v. Cheek, 259 U. S. 530, 259 U. S. 539.

http://www.dailypaul.com/159860/what-rights-do-you-have

Dont be Foolish! The "People" referred to in the Constitution are/were white, landowning, Men. Sadly our history is rich with racism. The 13th Amendment came along and freed the slaves, but the 14th Amendment re-enslaved them as "Federal Persons" subject to congressional law, and ONLY protected by the Constitution where the Congress or Supreme Court allowed. THIS is why black's couldnt vote until the 15th Amendment, and women until the 19th. If all "citizens" were equal, then why two more amendments?

The answer is simple. The 14th Amendment did NOT make everyone equal. Instead, it gave the black race a new title of "citizen OF the United States" with a lower case "c".

Go look up the Constitution.

Here you go... http://uscode.house.gov/pdf/Organic%20Laws/const.pdf

Type citizen in the search box and scroll through. Watch what happens after the 11th Amendment. Is this a mistake? a coincidence? NO, the 14th Amendment created a "new class of Citizen" according to the supreme court.

I have had it with all the nay sayers

on this issue. It is common damn sense that no entity can force another entity into contract. Do we all agree on this simple self -evident fact??? Those who know what a contract is know there is simultaneous elements required for a valid contract. If the elements for valid contract are not present then there is NO CONTRACT!

So for those who wish to justify and consider legally or lawfully valid the criminal fraud and extortion of the 14th amendment and the citizen of the United States or US Citizen or any other citizenship status, without voluntary consent, applying to the People, I simply point out the fact that no entity can lawfully or legally force another entity into contract. How can a child born be under citizenship contract and it be considered valid? A new born baby does not the faculties to enter into any contract. Even any other presumed "citizen" still requires disclosure and mutual understanding for a valid contract to be formed.

Did the "government" ever disclose the fact that your legal PERSON is also a corporation? Did they ever disclose the fact that codes and statutes apply to the citizen and do NOT apply to Natural Men and Women? Did the government ever disclose that citizenship requires YOU to be a taxpayer and lose all protections of privacy? Did they ever disclose that anyone attempting to force you into this contract is committing felony extortion? Did they ever disclose to you that men and women have direct unobstructed access to Juries of Common Law for seeking justice against another and that the person has no access to Juries except via DAs, State Attorneys or US attorneys? Did they ever disclose that the PERSON is subject to regulatory whims of the legislature that is changing constantly and the People hold eternal and unchanging Common Law procedures of Law? The answer is NO!!! This means any citizenship status that was not voluntarily accepted is null and void. Any attempt to force another into this contract is felony extortion. Any other crimes such as kidnapping, torture, false imprisonment, theft etc that are committed in the process of attempting enforce color of law is simply a crime under common law and each of us is supposed to have equal justice under the law for remedy.

Do you think if these legalise interpretations where disclosed and that people where fully aware that they have their own choice on whether or not to be Citizen, that the people, would trade rights for privileges, freedom for slavery etc? NO! This is why we are all on this sight communicating our battles against tyranny on a daily basis. This tyranny is not because of them but because of our ignorance of the law! For those of you who think the People are citizens then I am not with you. If you want to play politics for eternity and play on the see saw of code and statute then you go ahead but I am not with you. The fact is that the interpretation of code applying to the people destroys our law and precedent and is not a republican form of government at all. I want to be left alone and be responsible for my own actions including my own criminal accusations against another. I also want the golden rule followed to the Tee which means that every other man woman is also liable for their accusation against me or another. I want us to wake up and realize that we do not have to play politics for eternity we can understand the self governance of Common Law and realize that this applies to everyone and that Code and Statutes are supposed to only procedures and allocations of the operation of Governmental affairs. If we realize this really simple fact then we can free ourselves from ALL code and statutes, forever. For those out there that reject this concept, go ahead but I do not stand with you at all. I don't care if we like freedom or a certain candidate's views. The only solution to our problem is the rule of Law where each is fully liable for their own actions and government services are utilized on individual case by case basis initiated by consent of the governed where any accuser is liable for their own accusations against another. No more hiding behind veils of limited liability or having the Nanny state commit tyranny to "prevent harm". You want people not to speeds on the highway then accept liability for an accusation and face them in court. You want someone to be fined for not wearing a seat belt or having some pot or cocaine or heroin or anything else then you accept liability for accusations against them, demonstrate the harm done to you by the accused so you can have a valid cause of action and bring them justice.

Each of us is liable for our own accusations and those who seek to hide behind the citizenship or legal person are the ones who do not accept liability for their own actions and are the tyrants, period. This is the difference between the citizen and the People. People are under Natural Common Law and citizen are under regulatory capacity where liability is limited ONLY because the liability has already been accepted by one of the People and they have been identified by facing the accused with their accusations. Those citizens/employees of government who do not obey the contractual agreement they did voluntarily contract for lose that limited liability status through piercing the corporate veil due the man or woman's own breach of duty and criminal activity. If you can get this then you have no business voting, leading, representing anyone.

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 statements are contradictory

If the elements for valid contract are not present then there is NO CONTRACT... How can a child born be under citizenship contract and it be considered valid?

First let me just say that I agree, it isn't right to apply the Constitution and citizenship to people who haven't voluntarily agreed. Unfortunately it is how the government operates and it has a monopoly on force at the moment. You should take your arguments to a lawyer and get it to the supreme court.

Now, on to your contradictions:

People are under Natural Common Law and citizen are under regulatory capacity...

Sounds reasonably except that you begin by citing laws that have been broken in the act of coercing people into the supposed contract that they were not informed of:

So for those who wish to justify and consider legally or lawfully valid the criminal fraud and extortion of the 14th amendment...

Criminal by what laws? If the constitution and the laws following from it are invalid what laws were broken? And what court would you go to since any court created using law that you didn't agree to would be outside of your jurisdiction.

This tyranny is not because of them but because of our ignorance of the law! For those of you who think the People are citizens then I am not with you.

So do us all a favor and prove this in a court of law.

Did you know that you can't even renounce your US citizenship unless you are outside of the United States? If what you are telling us is true, then shouldn't it be possible to do exactly that and be freed from this tyranny?

A US citizen most certainly

A US citizen most certainly can renounce their citizenship while remaining within one of the United States, per 8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(6), (INA 349(a)(6)).

The State Department makes clear in publication 7 FAM 1215 that expatriation can be accomplished within the United States, and that one is not required to have a already established a new nationality before expatriating US citizenship, although they do warn that without having already establishing such, you may be exported to the United States, which would be of no concern to someone wishing to remain here to begin with...

US citizenship is a choice, it is not forced upon anyone.
Your quotation and response above to:
"So for those who wish to justify and consider legally or lawfully valid the criminal fraud and extortion of the 14th amendment..."
is correct. The United States citizenship is not fraud or extortion, because it is a choice not by force. The day before the 14th Amendment was announced ratified, the Expatriation Act was passed, and is still valid. This Act makes clear that the jurisprudence of the United States is pro individual self-determination, it makes citizenship voluntary.

A non citizen can prove nothing of the such in court, as the courts have no jurisdiction over non citizens:
1) All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.

They only have jurisdiction over any actions/crimes committed BEFORE the expatriation date. This is a safeguard to prevent criminals (violators of statute) a loophole through expatriation.

"..then shouldn't it be possible to do exactly that and be freed from this tyranny?"
Absolutely.

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

None of this applicable to what I am talking about

Once one realizes that a US Citizen = Government Employee then one realizes who this actually applies to. The People are not Citizens.

How can one expatriate an entity that does not lawfully exist in the first place?

How is it voluntary for my Birth Certificate to create the legal person for the benefit of the banks and then apply code to me under that unlawful contract?

Citizens were never meant to be the People because contractual capascities are voluntary and the People already had law; the Common Law. When I say code does not apply to the People I mean exactly that. Code is the employee rules for government employees. If any code violates the Constitution or a crime is committed to enforce the law the code is null and void in its application, period.

If individuals demand to be persons and be bound to an ever changing code decided by the democratic masses then you go ahead with that understanding. When you choose this path you choose a never ending political agenda implemented the masses or some cabal of corrupt individuals and they can do to you whatever they want. In fact here in Cali the welfare and institution code enables any bureaucrat to have you thrown into a mental health facility. The director of the mental health facility can force one onto medication and even performed a forced labotomy and other forms of " Psycho surgery" all without access to due process. In fact there is one facility in California where one doctor poerformed over 4000 forced "ice pick lobotomies" as a cure for homosexuality.

If you accept code as applicable to the people then you accept this as lawful. This is failure!

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...

"How is it voluntary for my

"How is it voluntary for my Birth Certificate to create the legal person for the benefit of the banks and then apply code to me under that unlawful contract?" It was not voluntary at the time of your birth, and even had you volunteered it would be null and void because you were not of age and mind to do such, under the law. But it was your parents right to do such FOR YOU.

It IS your right to correct it once you become of age/mind to do so. Their "contract" provides the mean for you to do so. It is voluntary in that the steps that are available have not been followed. IF you do not follow those steps then how do you expect them to know that you object. If one enters into contract with a credit card company, and charges up a balance, one cannot just one day stop making payments and expect that the credit card company to not take action. And when they take action one cannot expect success by simply claiming that they decided they do not agree to the contract. Their contract specifies a way to end the contract, and THAT IS A PART OF THE CONTRACT. If you are under contract, then follow the process to end it.

Citizen. You can call it government employee or whatever you like. Citizen is the word used (almost) exclusively to their jurisdiction over you. You have a right and the means to end your citizenship, or if you prefer, your employment. You cannot do it through the state courts because the statutes, or if you prefer, the contract, do not provide that as a method of doing such. The Office of Attorney General is where the statutes dictate you should seek remedy.

The code is not applicable to the People, only to the citizens, or employees if you prefer.

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

This not correct either

This not correct because once I discovered the fraud I reviewed the information with my parents and asked them if they were aware of this and they were not. They were not aware because they were not disclosed the terms of the contract. They were like most others; they thought it was for my protection but did not realize that this would lead to me (and them) losing all rights. This means that the elements of a valid contract were never present and therefore is null and void.

You said:
"IF you do not follow those steps then how do you expect them to know that you object."

I have informed them (criminals claiming to be government) that I object to this fraud in open court. I have explained to the court that this is fraud and that the code has no application. Now that they lose every time they now do not want me to speak at all and are, as predicted, going deeper into their criminal fraud instead of honestly addressing the issues. They are now actively blocking my access to a jury to bring the common law breach of duty against the judges and commissioners. If the court and Jury are forum for non-violent dispute resolution then why do they block access? This is because they have mens rea to hide their fraud. and now obstruction of Justice. I have also informed them that if access to a Jury is blocked then there is no reason to pay taxes anymore. They have stated, off the record, that I can stop paying taxes if I want but they will not give me access to a Jury.

I am not going to seek remedy from anyone that actively in breach of duty to their contractual obligations hence why I seek a Jury to be convened. If I can't access the Jury because of them then it is official that these men and women have overthrown the Government and are now actively committing treason.

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...

The "terms of the contract",

The "terms of the contract", statutes, are a matter of public information available for ALL to read. Your parents can claim that they never read them, but they cannot claim there was no disclosure. The very word "citizen" denotes an allegiance to a nation AND ITS STATUTES. This is nothing new, people have long been losing their God given rights through lack of knowledge in the law.

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children." Hosea 4:6

God has forgotten YOU, the child, out the lack of knowledge of you parents. But YOU have a chance to correct this and regain God's forgiveness in the law.

If you had followed their remedy in the law, you would not be having problems with them in court. You would appear in court, By "Special Appearance", which does not admit jurisdiction, and you would hand them the letter you would have received from the Office of US Attorney General showing that you had terminated your agreements and that their court had no jurisdiction, and that would have been the end of it (except in the case of committing a real crime, i.e. murder, rape, assault, ect).

If you had followed their process for remedy, you would have filled your last income tax return the year you expatriated with form 8854. If you meet to following qualifications, then you have never to file a tax return again. If you exceed the qualifications, then you must file for 10 more years and then never file again. Those qualifications, as outline in 26 USC and IRS Section 877 :
Who Must File
If you expatriated after June 16, 2008, the expatriation rules apply to you if any of the following statements apply.
1.
Your average annual net income tax liability for the 5 tax years ending before the date of expatriation is more than the amount listed next.
a.
$139,000 for 2008.
b.
$145,000 for 2009.
c.
$145,000 for 2010.
d.
$147,000 for 2011.
e.
$151,000 for 2012.
2.
Your net worth was $2 million or more on the date of your expatriation.
3.
You fail to certify on Form 8854 that you have complied with all federal tax obligations for the 5 tax years preceding the date of your expatriation.
4.
You expatriated before 2012 and you:
a.
Deferred the payment of tax,
b.
Have an item of eligible deferred compensation, or
c.
Have an interest in a nongrantor trust.

There is one other exception to the IRS. IF YOUR PRIMARY REASON FOR EXPATRIATION WAS FOR PURPOSE OF TAX AVOIDANCE, then you must continue to file taxes. When you expatriate, you WILL be interviewed by the Office of US Attorney General, you better have a REAL reason for expatriating other than you don't think you should have to pay taxes.

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

This is still not entirely correct

I agree that one can do what your are suggesting. However, it is still not correct to have any code apply to one of We the People and this still does not remedy the situation. As far as the parents not knowing I agree that much is disclosed in Statutes but it was not disclosed that Birth Certificate creates a corporation owned by the banks and no where in Code is it disclosed that the Birth Certificate is a financial security instrument that is utilized by banks to generate Federal Reserve Notes based on the future profit earning potential. This is the source of the Fraud and extortion is the mechanism that initiates the fraud. Also the Supreme Court has interpreted that only a legally recognized person, whether resident/non-resident alien citizen or any other legally defined persons are the only ones that have access to the protections of our law aka courts. This is not correct and is a usurpation. If one does what you are suggesting then under the current fraud one would no longer have access to the courts to remedy the situation.

Also, you seem to understand that all of this was born out of the 14th amendment. This means that on its face the entire citizen of the United States concept itself was never valid because the 14th amendment was never lawfully ratified. Murder extortion and warfare (treason) was committed to get the 14th amendment into the Constitution. This was also done at the same time the original 13th amendment was unlawfully deleted. The government was overthrown and therefore was never lawful to begin with. Any act born out of this crime has no standing in law.

As far as the special appearance, I do appear specially in court every time but not for the reasons you state. I appear specially on the basis that the court has no subject matter jurisdiction because there is no valid cause of action because there is no accuser, no allegations of actual harm by the accuser and therefore there is no case. I also ask about capacity of the men conducting the "court", when asked if the forum is a court of law they will not answer, when asked if they are operating under the capacity of the State that s under and bound by article 1 section 10 they will not answer, when asked who is the man or woman accepting liability for the accusations they I am. When asked if the "defendant" is any other entity other me the living breathing full liability man they will not answer, when asked what tender they use in the payment of proposed debts they "any tender we accept". They do not answer these questions because they are hiding their crimes. I win in court but this does not remedy the situation because their are psychopathic tyrannical barbarians calling themselves cops on the street committing crime all day every day. They kidnap you if you do not show ID and then once in the jail they tell you that "you will die right here if you do not consent to being booked" This has happened to me and they have even tortured me by freezing me into compliance.

If these men claim to be under the capacity of the contractually binding duties of the Constitution then that is exactly the contract that each member of the People have to use for the Common Law breach of duty remedy. However now they obstruct Justice by physically blocking access to a Jury for remedy. Even if you do the paperwork you suggest then you will still have your liberty taken and still suffer kidnapping and torture at their and then have no access to any court because now they will simply say that you have no access to the protections of law.

So in the end no there is not disclosure and fraud cannot be converted into ignorance of the law. And yes they do use violent force in their crimes to force the situation they used in the Civil War and they use it on the street everyday when you refuse to show ID.

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...

The 14th Amendment, you are

The 14th Amendment, you are correct, was not ratified PER THE CONSTITUTION. But there is a document that came BEFORE the Constitution and is considered jurisprudence of this country as well. The constitutionality of the 14th Amendment was set to be heard by the SCOTUS. But Congress passed legislation that the Judicial branch could not hear and rule on matters of politics.

The US citizenship is a choice of which body politic one wishes to join, therefore the 14th Amendment is a political matter, not to be heard by the Judicial branch. And it never has been.

The Declaration of Independence states: That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.

This is the ratification process that makes the 14th Amendment De Jure. Each individual ratifies the 14th Amendment by accepting the status of United States citizen. It has no effect on those who do not. The 14th Amendment did not repeal anything, it created a Democracy within the Republic; two separate systems. One a Republic, one a Democracy. Which one you are member of depends on your choice. And this IS the right of the people, to alter THIER form of government. I agree with you 110% that the Amendment was not ratified in accordance with the Constitution, but it is ratified by each individual who wishes to be in THAT government. The 14th Amendment is itself a mini constitution within the Constitution. It sets out WHO will be its citizens, it sets out the branches of government, who can vote, it establishes the credit of this United States, and the 5th Clause establishes the "living" constitution, the laws of this United States, which are the Statutes passed per the 5th clause. It establishes the privileges and immunities of its citizens. It is, along with the statutes passed per the 5th clause, a complete constitution in itself.

And yet it did not repeal anything. It merely established a separate system for those who are born or naturalized in the United States, AND subject to its jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is something that must be given, consented to. While one cannot change their birthplace, they CAN withdraw consent. As nothing was repealed of old, then you are either of their system, OR of the old system, but not both.

Since the old was not repealed, it was not overthrown. It is BEING overthrown. It is a continual process. A US citizen could be said to be an insurgent in an ongoing insurgency against the Law of the Land. This is a crime per the Constitution. What does that 13th Amendment say about criminals and slavery???

You are essentially accusing the court (judges) of a crime. You should not expect them to answer your question as such. If you are accusing them of a crime, they have the right to not be compelled to witness against themselves in such case (5th Amendment). It would be illogical to expect them to witness against themselves.

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

Great points

I agree with most of your points however I think it is still up to a Jury to decide whether or not all of this is criminal fraud. They have intent motive and action and once a jury finds out the real facts of what is happening I am confident they will find them guilty of fraud with the right evidence presented.

As far as the courts and judges 5th amendment protections, this is part of the whole point of what I am doing with them. This puts them in a logical conundrum. They need to be in the lawful capacity to have authority to conduct the court. They also need to hide their criminal fraud. The fact that all of this happens on the record enables me to get solid evidence of their criminal intent to hide their crimes and demonstrate at the same time that they have no authority to do what they are doing.

What do you think is going to happen when a Jury sees a systematic pattern of not explicitly stating that they are under the capacity of the US and State Constitutions? This is the understanding that the mass of People have in this country (even if it is incorrect technically as you and I know) and this should be an easy and obvious question for them to answer right away. They can't answer this on the record because they are committing fraud. What do you think a Jury would say if they claimed that these moments were under 5th amendment protections? This will open a whole can of worms that they do not want brought to the light of day and be the beginning of the unraveling of the Fraud before the Jury. If a Jury finds out the whole story that you and I now know they would have the power to throw all of these criminals in Jail one by one. We the People would have precedent necessary to begin the systematic process of mowing the lawn of crime across the entire Nation, the patriots could be vindicated for our diligence in finding truth and a new era of enlightenment and prosperity could initiate.

This would be their worst nightmare come true.

I know this last part is pie in the sky thinking but at least I know where I am going. If someone does not know where they are going then they will never get where they want to be. People playing politics are blowing in the winds of a rigged democracy with no foundation of purpose, direction or truth. I am not playing the insane game anymore. It is time for illumination of their criminal fraud and justice to be served in the proper lawful manner.

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...

Way to read your own link...

Did you read what you linked?

g. Where must the expatriating act occur: The expatriating act, except for an
oath of renunciation taken during the course of a state of war or conviction of
treason and certain other crimes, must be committed overseas for it to be
effective; however, a potentially expatriating act performed in the United States
may thereafter result in the loss of citizenship if the citizen thereafter takes up
residence in a foreign country.

In other words, you cannot relinquish citizenship and remain in the country. If you stay in the US you are still a citizen and your renunciation of citizenship is void.

Have you tried renouncing citizenship yourself?

But apparently, you stopped

But apparently, you stopped reading there...
g. ...residence in a foreign country. (INA 351, 8 U.S.C. 1483(a)). INA 349(a)(6) provides for
renunciation of U.S. citizenship in the United States before such officer as
may be designated by the Attorney General, whenever the United States
shall be in a state of war and the Attorney General shall approve such
renunciation as not contrary to the interests of national defense.

You'll notice that INA 349(a)(6) is the statute that I quoted above.

I have not tried to renounce my citizenship, I know several people who have successfully done so and are still living within the United States. I know the full process and the results of doing so. Most, like myself, would choose NOT to do so.

If you follow the link in my signature line, and then do enough searching through that site, you will find a forum where some of these people meet.

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

But we are not at war. At

But we are not at war. At least not declared.

But, having troops in foreign

But, having troops in foreign land all over the world, we are in a state of war. There would be no problem finding documentation that the Office of US Attorney General itself has argued that wars need not be formally declared. We currently have a war in Afghanistan, a War on Terror-Offically declared by President Bush, a War on Drugs Officially declared by President Nixon , a War on Poverty officially declared by President Johnson, and probably a few wars I've left out here, both foreign and domestic.

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

Misunderstanding here

I appreciate your counter logic here. However, I think you are misunderstanding my statements here.

The two parties to the contract of Government
We the People
US Citizens

We the People are men and women who acknowledge the contract and pay for its establishment and operation

US Citizens are the members of We the People (men and women) who voluntarily contracted to be bound under the capacity of the US Citizen created by the People with the Constitution. This capacity has prohibitions and obligations of the man/woman in the capacity. This is a valid contract with the People because it meets all elements of a valid contract. All legislation of the government is for and applicable to the capacity of the US Citizen. This means that regulatory code is applicable to capacity. Common Law is applicable to the People including the men and women in the capacity of US Citizen. It is like when you get a job. While on the clock you are subject to rule and regulations that have no application when you are not on the clock(under capacity) of employment. The same goes for US Citizens. This is even acknowledged in California penal code section 4:

"The rule of the common law, that penal statutes are to be strictly construed, has no application to this Code."

See what I am saying about the two different capacities and subsets of applicable laws?

This answers your question:
Criminal by what laws?

Common Law. Forcing another entity into contract is extortion and has forms of law dating back over 5000 years. Using deception and trickery to unlawfully deprive someone of property is fraud and also has various forms of interpretation dating back over 5000 years. This is common law because when juries or bodies reviewing disputes found that when people had intent to perform such acts they were determined criminal. It is Common understanding in Nature. The nature of Fraud itself is that one does not know they are being defrauded until later. Now the we discovered the fraud being committed against us they fail in logic every time because it is the nature of crime. Crime only has malicious intent and a logical justification can never be found.

Knowing that the Constitution is a contract with another man/woman with binding prohibitions and obligations introduces MANY questions for those under that capacity that are logical check mates. Such as asking a State Judge:

What capacity are you under right now in these proceeding?

Answer the STATE of X

Is the State of X the same entity under and bound by Article 1 Section 10 of the US Constitution?

To date NO ASNWER from any judge in 7 documented attempts in court on the record. Why?

If they say yes it is the same entity. Then you now have PROOF of a Common Law Breach of Duty by the Man filling the capacity of the US Citizen because they are using unlawful debt notes as a tender in the payment of debts. This means the man who claims to be a Judge with authority loses that authority instantly because the corporate veil of US Citizen capacity can be pierced and you have a valid cause of action. Any attempt to move forward extends in to fraud and extortion and now raises to the level of a common law felony being committed.

If they say no the capacity is not the same entity under and bound by Article 1 section 10 then they loses all authority because they are no lawfully recognized entity to perform the function.

Checkmate!!!

This is only one of hundreds of example questions I have found since learning the true nature of the fraud of citizen of the United States.

Do you see what I mean here? Does this answer your question? If not let know.

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...

Notice the downvotes for my post above

It seems that even the DPers believe that one entity can force another into contract. This is very revealing.

If others believe that one can force another entity into contract then the others clearly do not understand what a contract is. How can the Constitution ever work in this scenario? How can anything other than tyranny be the result?

Wow! I am speechless.

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 know the feeling...

Wow! I am speechless.

TL:DR

Think I stopped at "Did the "government" ever disclose the fact that your legal PERSON is also a corporation?" because I realized the poster was on an ill informed BS rant about things that aren't actually true.

Eric Hoffer

Your failure

California penal code:
Section 7 "... the word "person" includes a corporation as
well as a natural person;..."

Section 4 "The rule of the common law, that penal statutes are to be
strictly construed, has no application to this Code."

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&gr...

So what do you claim is untrue? While I only site California penal code here the definition is all throughout US and State Codes and Statutes. In fact, legal definitions of a legal person being a specific legally defined entity that is the merger of the Natural and Artificial person into the legally defined umbrella term "person" is not only all over Code but is also in the California constitution, executive orders (see EO 13303) and is demonstrated in case law back hundreds of years into English Common Law. So if you think I am ill informed then why is it literally all throughout codes and statutes?? Why did the Citizens United case uphold this concept in the US Supreme Court?

Some may say "so what" a person is a duel entity or has two different entities under the same word. This does not fly for logically correct truth in Law and actually has gross violation of very simple logic and reason.
1. No status can be applied to someone without all elements of a valid contract which requires 2 parties, an offer, disclosure, mutual understanding, acceptance and consideration. One is either born into the world free of all obligations or not; free of obligations is the only lawful option here because otherwise it requires some form of fraud or extortion to force bondage/slavery upon a new born natural man or woman
2. Mens rea, guilty mind, is THE foundation in Common Law of what constitutes a crime by someone. Notice how under California Penal Code person is both a corporation and "natural person". Persons under code are what are subject to Penal Code criminal justice proceedings. This does not make any sense AT ALL! A Corporation is a legal fiction and has no mind because it is a fictional capacity created via contract, only a Man or Woman has a mind and therefore only a man or woman can commit a crime because of the absolute requirement of Mens rea to be demonstrated for guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. A corporation has no mind and therefor can never have mens rea thus it is not possible for a corporation to commit a crime under common law which is logically correct because a corporation has no intent; it is just a piece of paper. Men and women who contractually bind themselves to capacity under the corporations charter are the ones with intent.

Notice how section 4 of California penal code severs common law from having application to the penal code proceedings and therein completely overturns a 1000+ years of common law by making something with no mind an entity that can commit a crime. The implications of this pinpoint of failure in logic and reason was the primary key strategic usurpation that would require voluminous encyclopedias to describe the all out carnage and devolution of law since its full implementations. This concept is not just California Code it is in all of the State and Federal Code and is a direct result of America losing the Civil War of the 1860's with the prime result being the 14th amendment which makes a person born in the United States a citizen of the United States. Resulting case law interpretations demonstrate that this has been interpreted as natural persons as well as corporations.

Think about this concept for moment, a legal fiction explicitly established to limit liability can be a criminal under this utter failure in logic. What are we going to do with a corporation "guilty" of a crime?? Put the articles of incorporation documents in a jail cell? This is a completely ridiculous concept on its face. The mechanisms in common law justice were already present for a man or woman working under limited liability capacity of a legal fiction. The limited liability is ONLY accessible IF all contractually binding regulations that apply to the capacity are followed by the man or woman who has voluntarily contracted under the terms. Otherwise, if a man or woman with mens rea commits a crime under color of capacity then the corporate veil can be pierced with a valid cause of action from an accuser and the man or woman is the one brought to justice thus the man or woman always carries liability if they do not stay within the applicable regulatory code and are subject to criminal proceedings if a crime has been committed and a valid cause of action is submitted by the accuser who was injured from the crime. There was NEVER the need to merge the artificial and natural persons and in fact all logic and reason dictates that every attempt to apply a crime to a corporation makes NO sense AT ALL.

Further examination of someone else applying a limited liability entity status, subject to regulatory code, to me or anyone else requires all required elements of valid contract; an agreement based honest disclosure, acceptance and consideration. For some other men somewhere to write on a piece of paper somewhere that I am born into some contract does not fly; it is outright fraud, extortion and ultimately slavery. Do you consent to slavery? I don't.

Here we have a crime committed at the very source of this entire legal person (applied to the People) concept just to make the entire legal person concept and code regulation applicable. If the person born into this system is a crime at its source then everything else derived from the crime is color of law and still a crime.

When examining the details of the congressional records of what happened in the House and Senate chambers during the "ratification" of the 14th amendment it is clear that even the amendment itself was an outright criminal conspiracy where violent force and murder were conducted during this act of extortion. When one examines the reconstruction acts in conjunction with the establishment of the converting People to persons and the beginning of applying code to the people one can see the vast control grid implemented and Corporate State that lives on this day.

Originally Americas Organic Laws affirmed Just Powers (powers of Justice) to be derived from the consent of the governed. The reason for this was based on a simple fact that the only lawful path for the execution of real justice when examining real law is for the government/court to have no interest in the outcome of the case whatsoever. A real court of Law is an impartial forum for non-violent dispute resolution. The court must be an impartial body in order to NOT have a conflict of interest and to have the ability to conduct a fair trial. Hence, the court can have no interest whatsoever in the outcome of a case. The only real way to avoid "mock trials" is for the court to not be a party to the case. This is where the Common Law right to face your accuser comes in. American organic law acknowledges this self-evident truth and it is recognized in the Organic Law of US Code. This initiation of the powers of an impartial body of justice is the act of an accuser who is a member of the governed (NOT Government) identifying themselves and accepting liability for their accusation against another. This inherent liability for the accusation is acknowledgments from deeper and older foundational maxims of law which are all just self evident truth nature derived from the Divine Law concept of Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. The Golden Rule of Divine Law covers liability of each inherently through its logic. Maxims also back this up:

"
If one falsely accuses another of a crime, the punishment due to that crime should be inflicted upon the perjured informer.
"

Also when we examine the result of the code now initiating just powers from the Government and not the governed we see another Maxim violated:
"
No one can sue in the name of another
"

The government is a capacity created/ordained by We the People. Men and Women contract to fill the capacity and voluntarily bind themselves to the agreement of the Constitution. This means when they are on the clock of the capacity that time is our time not theirs. This also means that any action they make under that capacity must be upon consent of the governed. When it comes to initiating the process of Justice the maxim above is why the need an accuser who is a member of the governed accepting liability. Otherwise they are bringing a court action against someone in the name of another.

Also when you go into "court" and you ask who is the accuser they will say YOU are your own accuser. Now locally where I am at they are beginning to change this statement because it has been pointed out to them that this is perjury and if they state that is the fact of the case you can simply drop the "charges". Now there are beginning to say the State Attorney. This does not fly either because of the logic in the maxim above and because the Organic Law requirement of powers of justice derived from the consent of the governed. This was acknowledged by the founders because they knew each is responsible for their own actions. The state attorney's claim to be the accuser but when one asks them if the man/woman is accepting liability for the action they will not answer because the whole point of setting up code for the legal person was to have no liability for anyone because there are no men and women in a case only legal persons which are legal fictions of law. Of course we all know that the accused cannot limit liability because the person the "government" charges with a "crime" will ultimately punish the man in the capacity of the person. So here we have a situation where the accuser has no liability and the accused holds all liability. This is THE source of tyranny. It is sourced from men and women who have no liability for their actions. Just like no one wants to accept liability for their accusations against another the government employees too do not want to accept liability. In the end this entire concept was implemented because no one wants to accept liability for their own actions. When a nation chooses this path of not accepting liability for their own actions the grace of divine law is lost and doom is eminent. If we do not stay within divine law of equality and liability then we will see tribulation inflicted upon us by our own actions.

I could demonstrate much more here in fact but it is not my job to teach you why we are in this mess. Clearly you want to write it off as "BS" because you are just as intellectually bankrupt as the tyrants who implement this nightmare because it is clear that you do not want to accept liability of actually knowing what the law actually is. This fact is self-evident. While some may say I am full of sh*t that is fine it does not bother me. I am living within the grace of Divine Law and I am protected and will thrive in my transcendence beyond this gutter logic of the modern American insanity.

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...

TL:DR

Yeah, you're getting it again.

TL:DR.

It's saying that section of law, in the writing, where it refers to persons, also applies to corporations in that reference.

Your point is still invalid. Keep this up and you're getting the picture of Picard with his hand holding his head.

Eric Hoffer

Your still not getting it.

When one is in court with a "charge" the court is talking to the defendant as a legal capacity that they presume is under contractual obligations subject to privileges and immunities defined by legislative code. This is a reality in the operation of our courts whether you want to believe it or not. The birth certificate is the registration of the corporation/person and the ID is the registered legal person/corporation. The terms of the "contract" are that you get to pay to be a citizen of the United States (the legal person/corporation) and you have access to the benefits but in exchange for those benefits you are subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the applicable legislature. The legislature through code made the words person and corporation have the same meaning and this is exactly how the court is operating today.

I gave you some of the background in the comment but the boots on the ground facts today is that this exactly how the courts are operating. They know the person has no rights and they know it is all by their own consent whether that consent is conscious or unconscious makes know difference to them. This is how the systems works though. Denying this fact is literally insane where I define insane as one who cannot perceive truth. One cannot crawl out of the matrix without realizing this fact. Even the movie the matrix was demonstrating this fact through art. We are in the matrix sleeping in our corporate veil plugged into the distraction of entertainment and media piped directly into our brains. Our birth certificates are the registered identity of us in the matrix and initiates the power of the machine that feeds off of us. Did you know that the Birth Certificate is a financial security instruments for the Federal Banking System that calculate the future profit earning potential of the PERSON which is a measure of how much that PERSON will pay in income taxes over their lifetimes? Did you know that this is the organic source of T Bills and ultimately the source of the Federal Reserve Note creation?

I know how crazy this all sounds when someone does know this, I was there. Then I saw this discussed in detail in court and I had discussions with Attorney's sent from the Florida Supreme Court to try to deal with the case then I had attorney's explain to me the Bates Number applied to the Birth Certificates and acknowledgment that this was going on. Since then everyone I have seen who calls out the fraud wins in court every time. Now it is getting so big the courts are starting to freak out because they are realizing the knowledge cannot be contained. Although the courts still realize that most have no idea that this is going on. Also typically it is not usually the underlings in the court who are aware of this but the Judges and mid-level State Attorney's, I have seen a younger State attorney blow a gasket in the court because he could not understand how he was getting dominated in law by someone who had never gone to law school. I have had debates with spies sent in from the Public defenders who have been logically destroyed to the point where they walked away realizing that they are working for a criminal organization. I have dominated every case I have been in since I learned this where I used to have no idea what was going on. So in the end I know it sounds weird if you have never heard this before but once you REALLY dig in you will find out that You have always had rights and the government knows this. However, YOU have privileges and immunities defined by code and the government knows this too. Writing facts off as BS is probably going to make you look bad. I would suggest keeping more of open mind and you may find out how to protect yourself and learn how to never get fooled by any politician ever again. This info is like brainwashing repellent.

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...

yeah, yeah. the, ummm, "defintion" of these words.....

... No dice.

Although the gov't is evil, this "definition" theory is pretty ridiculous.

First, you're not a citizen.
Then someone says,"all persons born or naturalized in the country are. It's in the Constitution"
Then, you claim you aren't a "person", and that the "legal definition" of person only applies to corporations.
Then someone shows the "legal definition"......

PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called natural persons. In law, man and person are not exactly synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, &c. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137.
2. It is also used to denote a corporation which is an artificial person. 1 Bl. Com. 123; 4 Bing. 669; C. 33 Eng. C. L R. 488; Woodes. Lect. 116; Bac. Us. 57; 1 Mod. 164.
3. But when the word "Persons" is spoken of in legislative acts, natural persons will be intended, unless something appear in the context to show that it applies to artificial persons. 1 Scam. R. 178.
4. Natural persons are divided into males, or men; and females or women. Men are capable of all kinds of engagements and functions, unless by reasons applying to particular individuals. Women cannot be appointed to any public office, nor perform any civil functions, except those which the law specially declares them capable of exercising. Civ. Code of Louis. art. 25.
5. They are also sometimes divided into free persons and slaves. Freemen are those who have preserved their natural liberty, that is to say, who have the right of doing what is not forbidden by the law. A slave is one who is in the power of a master to whom he belongs. Slaves are sometimes ranked not with persons but things. But sometimes they are considered as persons for example, a negro is in contemplation of law a person, so as to be capable of committing a riot in conjunction with white men. 1 Bay, 358. Vide Man.
6. Persons are also divided into citizens, (q.v.) and aliens, (q.v.) when viewed with regard to their political rights. When they are considered in relation to their civil rights, they are living or civilly dead; vide Civil Death; outlaws; and infamous persons.
7. Persons are divided into legitimates and bastards, when examined as to their rights by birth.
8. When viewed in their domestic relations, they are divided into parents and children; husbands and wives; guardians and wards; and masters and servants son, as it is understood in law, see 1 Toull. n. 168; 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 1890, note.

A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.

....THEN you start ignore #1 and #3, and insist that evil people use #2.. against their interests!!!

Some even go so far as to debate whether or not they are a "man" or a "human being".

Yes, a corporation is SOMETIMES considered a "person" in the law.

No, that doesn't mean that "persons" are ever considered, assumed, or presumed to be corporations. This would be a case of not "minding your Ps and Qs".

These laws aren't being "interpreted" by accident to apply to an individual. Gov't is evil, and these people write laws that affect YOU on purpose.

"I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

However, there is case law

However, there is case law that describes how a natural person and an artificial person(corporation) should be treated differently.

Basically, natural, real people have rights that above the gov't's authority, and are "policed" by our customs, and individual character, morality, and ethics. Rights come from the creator, thus, only the creator has jurisdiction.

Artificial persons are created by the gov't, so the gov't has full jurisdiction of corporation's "rights". Corporations, being fictions, have no character, morality, our conscience. Thus, the gov't feels "compelled" to legislate any corporate activity they don't like.

Remember,#3 says that "person" does apply to YOU, unless something in the legislative act shows that it applies to artificial persons. One could say that #3 means that "person" can't mean natural and artificial persons at the same time, because it doesn't say,"only to artificial persons".... but that would be a case of poor comprehension. This doesn't mean that natural persons are automatically excluded if artificial persons are included. It simply means that artificial persons are EXCLUDED if not mentioned. When the word "person" is used in law, it is always intended to apply to YOU.

This is one way "unconstitutional" laws are found constitutional. A law can violate a right of a "person", and still be valid, as long as it is CONSTRUED to apply only to artificial persons. Think about your drivers liscense. You have an inherent, unalienable right to use your car on your public highway system. But, the gov't can make a law that requires "persons" to obtain a liscense. The court rules that the law, itself, IS constitutional, because mandating that artificial persons be liscensed is within their power, but any construction that applies it to a natural person would be void. Not the law, but the way it's applied becomes unconstitutional. The law stands ready to victimized the next sucker that doesn't want a drawn out appeal process and a supreme court case on their hands, and pays the fine, obtains liscense, etc.

Eventually, everyone gets a liscense because everyone else did, and the judge looks at you like you're nuts when you bring up the "ancient rulings from antiquity".

"I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

While were at it.....................

PEOPLE. A state; as, the people of the state of New York; a nation in its collective and political capacity. 4 T. R. 783. See 6 Pet. S. C. Rep. 467.
2. The word people occurs in a policy of insurance. The insurer insures against "detainments of all kings, princes and people." He is not by this understood to insure against any promiscuous or lawless rabble which may be guilty of attacking or detaining a ship. 2 Marsh. Ins. 508. Vide Body politic; Nation.

A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.

"I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

-6

Whohoo Go DP members!