36 votes

US citizens (actually have an absolute) Right To Bear Arms...

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.

Sorry, I did "agree" that I'm a "US Citizen" (whatever that is) and I DID NOT agree to any disclosed strings attached that say I will relinquish ANYTHING. Any "contract" saying otherwise is null and void for failure to disclose.

ALL my rights are fully mine and I carry them with me wherever I travel, disputes by so-called "officials" to the contrary are not binding before my Creator...

This heading is actually misleading as it's not just "US Citizens (whatever that is) but ALL PERSONS OF HUMAN BIRTH anywhere on the planet or even off the planet who are "endowed" with rights (that means everyone...)

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

You're a bold faced liar.

You quoted me as saying "given up" - I said no such thing. Hopefully people can see this very simple fact. After that everything else you say is in question. I've got a screenshot of this post btw so don't bother to change it. If you truly believe what you say then you are invited to talkshoe to debate me on it.

My rights are inherent to me.

I was a U.S. citizen when I was born; I entered into no contract. If I say, "yes, I'm a citizen," I'm not entering ANY contract, I'm stating a fact.

Anyone who wishes to claim that by being born a citizen and simply acknowledging that allows my rights to be infringed can take it up with the Almighty, Judge and Creator of the universe, originator of humanity and of human rights.

OP, you are correct. The absurd post you linked to is bizarre and nonsensical.

Are you prepared to meet me on talkshoe

to debate? No of course you're not. You're just here to continue spreading this dis-info using keywords like "bizzare" and "nonsensical" to attempt to discredit true information you do not wish to see exposed.

You BARFLIES are always so articulate. Able to leap tall truths with a single bound (at least if the people you are speaking to are not aware of them).

I don't know what talkshoe is.

I don't need to leap to any truth, because it's sitting there staring me in the face. Have you considered trying to find a motive for your little conspiracy theory? If it's to deprive us of arms, then why haven't they bothered trying, if they already have the "legal" right to do so? Why would they even bother with passing zany legislation? Your theories are an insult to conspiracy theories, most of which - unlike yours - actually have something to back them up and make some degree of sense.

Also, WTF is a BARFLY? I just sorta assumed it had to do with attorneys or something, and if so, I'm not.

ChristianAnarchist's picture

Some here missed the point...

The original point is that no contract can be valid if it is done without full disclosure or it's fraud. No one ever disclosed to me that by getting a driver's license, SS#, or any other such document that I have agreed to give up those rights that GOD GAVE ME!! Since when do men who live under the LIE that they have some "authority" (they don't) to remove from my being something that God has granted me? I CAN'T EVEN DO THAT MYSELF !!! I can no more "give away" my God granted rights than I can "give away" the moon. Such a "contract" would be invalid on it's face. Again, TWO separate issues here. (1) Contracts need to disclose everything, and (2) I do not possess the power to give away rights granted to me by my Creator...

Beware the cult of "government"...

It's one thing to say "not valid."

It's a completely different thing to speak up and call it to attention and AVOID that contract if you've been deceived. The contract is in force as long as you do not object to it.

You're an obvious BARFLY as evidenced by your use of the word "PERSONS" in the post. Non-attorneys say "people."

You also blatently non-quoted my post. Meaning you are a knowing bald-faced LIAR. Nowhere does it say "give up" your rights. As you know however BARFLY - You can IN FACT - WAIVE your rights as you get people to do EVERY DAY in the interest of a paycheck.

This post being in positive territory

is a BLATENT insult to the intelligence of everyone at the DAILY PAUL... you are being LAUGHED AT for UP-VOTING disinformation while DOWN-VOTING TRUTH.


The OP is an ATTORNEY trying to VEIL the TRUTH from you in order to MAINTAIN a MONOPOLY on LAW that is currently being infiltrated by FREE PEOPLE standing up for themselves with no NANNY standing next to them. The OP has a VESTED INTEREST in spreading this MIS-information.

Notice how the OP will NOT DEBATE me - and I CHALLENGE him to a debate right now. Instead he just posted this crap and is now sitting back LAUGHING at his BLATANT LIES beating truth by 60 votes (of course prob 50 of those are BAR trolls).

But you won't debate me... you guys never operate in the SUNLIGHT only in dark dank corners where your FRAUD cannot be EXPOSED.

Until you realize that there

Until you realize that there are different classes of citizenship, you will continued to be fooled that all citizens are the same.

A simple question clears it up. If the 14th Amendment made ALL citizens equal, then why couldnt blacks or women vote until the 15th and 19th Amendments?

The answer is this, the 14th Amendment DID NOT MAKE THE FREED SLAVES EQUAL!!

    "The first clause of the fourteenth amendment made Negroes citizens of the United States, and citizens of the State in which they reside, and thereby created two classes of citizens, one of the United States and the other of the state." Cory et al. V. Carter, 48 Ind. 327 1874 .

a Constitutional Citizen is a "natural born Citizen" (with an upper case "C"). These Citizens are the "People" under the Constitution, these are the same People that the Constitution and Bill of Rights apply to.

A federal citizen is called a "citizen of the United States" or a "US citizen" (with a lower case "c"). These citizens ONLY have "civil rights", meaning privileges granted by Congress.

LOOK FOR YOURSELF. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CDOC-110hdoc50/pdf/CDOC-110hdoc...

Find the word "Citizen" capitalized EVERY SINGLE TIME, up to and including the 11th Amendment...but then at page 22 Article XIV the word "citizen" appears in lower case for the first time. Was this just an accident? did the hundreds of revisions miss this? NO, of course not. IN LAW capitalization is important and the US Government uses Capitalization to differentiate things all the time.


    (Under Federal law U.S. insular areas are divided into two categories: incorporated insular areas which use "Territory" with a capital "T" and unincorporated insular areas which use "territory" with a lower-case "t.")

SO the end result is this. a "citizen of the United States" is a Federal person, subject to Congress, with limited civil rights, and no absolute right to anything especially not to bear arms.

    "Status of citizenship of United States is privilege, and Congress is free to attach any preconditions to its attainment that it deems fit and proper. In re Thanner, D.C.Colo.1966, 253 F.Supp. 283. See, also, Boyd v. Nebraska, Neb.1892, 12 S.Ct. 375, 143 U.S. 162, 36 L.Ed. 103; Application of Bernasconi, D.C.Cal.1953, 113 F.Supp. 71; In re Martinez, D.C.Pa.1947, 73 F.Supp. 101; U.S. v. Morelli, D.C.Cal.1943, 55 F.Supp. 181; In re De Mayo, D.C.Mo.1938, 26 F.Supp. 696; State v. Boyd, 1892, 51 N.W. 602, 31 Neb. 682.

State Citizens, on the other hand, have Human Rights...

    "United States citizenship does not entitle citizens to rights and privileges of state citizenship."
    [K. Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236, 256 P. 545 (1927), 48 Supreme Court. 527.]

The citizens of the United States have "limited rights". Doesnt it all make sense? You need a permit to marry, build, assemble, buy or carry a gun? The Court knows what is going on.

    "We might say that such regulations were unjust, tyrannical, unfit for the regulation of an intelligent state; but, if rights of a citizen are thereby violated, they are of that fundamental class, derived from his position as a citizen of the state, and not those limited rights belonging to him as a citizen of the United States; and such was the decision in Corfield v. Coryell."
    [The United States v. Susan B. Anthony (11 2nd. Jud. Cir.] 200, 1873)

The term "citizen of the United States" "as used in the 14th Amendment" has a specific and lawful meaning. It means FEDERAL PERSON.

    "The right to trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the 7th Amendment…and the right to bear arms guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment…have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the 14th Amendment…and in effect the same decision was made in respect of the guarantee against prosecution, except by indictment of a grand jury, contained in the 5th Amendment…and in respect of the right to be confronted with witnesses, contained in the 6th Amendment…it was held that the indictment, made indispensable by the 5th Amendment, and trial by jury guaranteed by the 6th Amendment, were not privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as those words were used in the 14th Amendment. We conclude, therefore, that the exemption from compulsory self-incrimination is not a privilege or immunity of National citizenship guaranteed by this clause of the 14th Amendment."
    [Twining v. New Jersey, 211 US 78, 98-99]

To be a Citizen requires

To be a Citizen requires there to be a government. You have written that the States are extensions of the Federal Government, and rightly so. In all 50 States any officer of that State is required to be a United States Citizen. The 50 States are OCCUPIED by the insurgent United States. This was part of the military coup called "Reconstruction". If a United States citizen is not entitled to rights and privileges of state citizenship, it is because there is no longer a state to be a citizen of. The "States" are mere subdivisions of the larger. It is obvious that if Mexico enacted law that ONLY United States Citizens were allowed to serve as Government Officers, that Mexico would be occupied by and an extension of the United States. The States are themselves UNDER THE JURISDICTION of the United States. Claiming to be a citizen of such a state would put you right back where you started. Citizen of State "x" which is a subdivision of the United States, therefore Citizen of the United States.

Being "stateless" also presents a problem as the United Nations then claims such people. But there is ONE jurisdiction of freedom that is recognized here today. It is a Kingdom that has existed for a couple of thousand years...

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

I disagree...There can be

I disagree...There can be both a "State" and a "STATE", and there is.

California for example differentiates between the Federal STATE political subdivision and the Republic state of the Union.

See Cal. Rev & Tax Codes Sections 6017 and 60017:


Open these in different windows and flip back and forth. Notice the differences?
"In this state" with a lower case "s" vs. "In this State" with an uppercase "S". BE SURE to look at the last words of the definition. One is the United States of America, the other is simply the United States.

In California there are two Constitutions. One for the people of California, written in 1849:
The other for the People of the "State of California" and for the "residents" in the States.


    "We, the people of California, grateful to Almighty God..."



      WE, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God...

    Both exist...be sure to remain in the correct one by REFUSING to contract with the State or Federal Government.

I have a set of Texas Law

I have a set of Texas Law books, "Law of Texas (publisher J.O. Woodward) volumes 1-17 that cover the years 1822-1915. While technically I agree with you that the legislature does exist, go try to find them. If you do find them, ask them what about the particulars of procedure for writing legislation for State citizens of California, and explain that you are not referring to United States citizens who reside in California, but specifically and exclusively California citizens.

Reading the 1849 California Constitution AND the 1845 Texas Constitution, I find reference specifically to California citizens and Texas citizens in the respective Constitutions, and additionally specific reference to United States citizens as well. But in the current Constitutions for each state, no such specific differentiation is found.

The 14th Amendment did not abolish anything. It created an ADDITIONAL body politic. Its Constitutionality was to be heard by the Supremes, but before it could be heard Congress wrote legislation forbidding them from hearing matter of political nature. And I would have to agree that the Supremes SHOULD NOT hear such matters, as it holds with the Declaration of Independence: ...it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government.... The People cannot very well do such if when they try to change it the Supremes would rule that they cannot. It was left up to the People, each and every one INDIVIDUALLY, to decide WHICH body politic they wanted to be member of.

But although technically the States' legislatures are still there, they are VACANT. Nobody is home. If it is vacant, then it in REALITY is not there. Technically yes, on the books yes, in reality no.

That's why you find groups such as The Republic of Texas who are trying, unfruitfully, to repopulate the De Jure State legislature, because there is not one presently. There are many other states that have similar projects going on, some have even elected and declared a Governor and officers, but then they have the problem of not having any citizens. It takes both to have a body politic.

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

The latter Constitution is

The latter Constitution is merely statutory, and was written for the newly freed slaves, aka "citizens OF the UNITED STATES" residing in THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. The People of California ALREADY had, and have, a Constitution.

    11 Cal.Jur.2d 4.
    Although the present constitution is not the one under which the state was first formed, it is a substitute for that adopted in 1849, as amended in 1862, and the present government is a continuance of that established

What does "substitute" mean? Not a replacement! There are two California Constitutions, one for the People and another for the persons.



More importantly it is your Nationality that is the key to your status as a free human being with protected Natural Rights. Citizenship, whether with an upper or lower case "C" implies subject. Better that you correct your nationality from the United States (District of Columbia) to the state in which you were born, say Connecticut, (because you were born citizen in Connecticut - your true nationality) to repel the presumption in law that you are a US citizen, subject to the statutory law of Congress, and the whim of federal bureaucratic policies.

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

Thanks for your comment

Please down-vote this post and up-vote the one which compelled the attorney who posted this to try and "debunk" my TRUTHFUL information.


I posted this and then people started asking questions. He deliberately NON-quoted me and won't even step into the debate. The op is INTENTIONALLY deceiving everyone here.

Actually they created the 14th Amendment to separate

themselves from us; to create another class of citizen that was exempt from the laws they wished to enforce on you and I.

The 14th is for THEM ........ The elected officials who hold public office; had nothing to do with slaves or freeing anyone. It was to protect THEM from the tyranny they wished to impose on us; to create another class of citizen for THEMSELVES.

The 14th Amendment was for THEM, not you and I, and Rod Class breaks it down for you very nicely with Congressional Documentation to back up his statements in this radio episode.

Rod Class explains how they created the 14th Amendment, so they would be exempt from the slavery they wished to enforce on us; had absolutely nothing to do with freeing black folks; it was meant to separate them (politician scum) from us.

How the Alien Registration Act of 1933 was the birth of the STRAW-MAN aka Certificate of Live Birth aka legal fiction, presumption of law NAME;

How they made a separation between the natural person and the fiction;

How the Federal Reserve Act actually created 12 Credit Corporations, not Banks;

How the Federal Reserve Notes are not meant for us to use; it's an "Internal Currency" only, and that's why it does not need to be backed by gold;

The McFadden or Linburgh speech about the Scottish Distiller that could sell whiskey to a Bootlegger, and all he had to do was sign the note, and that signature is what creates more notes;

The 14th Amendment was for "THEM" - To create a "Federal Citizen" to separate THEM from US.

Everyone thinks it was to create a Federal citizen out of US, but it was for THEM; had absolutely nothing to do with you and I, and still does not today.

One heck of a good private call from Rod:

Scroll down to Episode 598 on May 25, 2012 ... it's only 54 min. long:


Listen to the other shows above that one as well, good stuff!

And remember; the word "person(s)" is mentioned several times in the 14th Amendment, and what have we learned about that word?


Now, remember: They created another class of citizen for themselves; that class of citizen is getting paid to hold public office. They are presuming you and I into that class of citizenship WITHOUT paying us for our time. They are running a foreign corporation on a sliding pay scale - some get paid and others don't, but the ones who are getting paid are enforcing their own internal statutes that only THEY are to abide by, on you and I.

It's a mess, no doubt ........... just remember that unless you are getting paid for you time to be one of their 14th Amendment 'person(s)', their statutes do not apply to you.

This is why I don't even mess with the word "citizen"

because people by and large absolutely cannot grasp the fact that in legal terminology changing the CAPITALization of any word CHANGES IT'S MEANING.

I still don't believe people have fully grasped this

whole "citizen" thing, but I will continue to put forth the effort to explain it. Just because you have a drivers license; a social security card; a bank account, etc. does not mean you have given up any of your God-Given Inherent Birth Rights of being a Citizen of the united States, if you are not getting paid for your time.

A drivers license is a foreign gov't ID driving badge, for foreign agents working for the UNITED STATES INC. to use while driving on this land mass called America. They are FOREIGNERS and MUST have a drivers license; must have a license to carry a firearm, etc.

Now, most of us here have in our possession a drivers license; have a social security number; have a bank account, just like all the foreign gov't agents working for local/state/federal gov't. The only difference between them and us, is they are getting paid for their time, and we are not.

I have a state issued drivers license, I carry it at all times, because if I don't, I risk harassment by law enforcement. That does not mean I'm on the gov't clock though. I have the license in case some day I ever decide to take a gov't job, but that doesn't mean anytime I'm driving my vehicle that I'm actually performing some function of gov't.

If they insist you are a gov't employee because you are driving a state owned vehicle (you registered the vehicle with the state), and are obligated to abide by their internal statutory rules/codes, then they MUST have some employment contract that shows valuable consideration for BOTH parties on file for you, as well as some payroll records that would indeed prove that during the time of the traffic stop, you were actually acting in the capacity of a gov't employee and getting paid to do so.

If you understand this concept, you really have their ass in a sling - coming and going. If they insist on enforcing statutory traffic, gun, taxing codes, etc. upon you, then they must be under the impression that you are a gov't employee.

If that is the case; if that is the position they demand to hold, then fine. Since I'm a gov't employee who's driving a state owned vehicle and using a gov't ID badge (drivers license), then I have a question for you:

Where is my paycheck? This is a gov't owned vehicle? Okay, here's my receipts for fuel, oil, tires, wipers, engine replacement, the cost of the vehicle, insurance, etc. As well as my fee schedule of $65,000.00/year for driving the vehicle that I have yet been paid for. I need to be reimbursed for all these costs since this is a gov't owned vehicle, including my back pay.

You have ONE name and it is being used in TWO different jurisdictions.

The living you ................. John P. Doe

The corporate you ......... JOHN P. DOE

You are the equitable title holder and beneficiary of the gov't created corporate YOU, and equity is King.

Just as Wal-Mart employees have to follow and abide by Wal-Mart own internal statutory rules, so do employees of the foreign corporation known as the UNITED STATES who'd doing business on American soil.

All these jack-offs have done is "presumed" you into an employment situation with their foreign corporation, and that's fine. The only thing they forgot to tell you is:

If you are not receiving a paycheck from local/state/federal gov't on the 1st and 15th then their internal - statutory rules/codes/regulations (ie: Title 1 through Title 50 of US Code) do not apply to you. This includes their so called "gun laws", which are NOT laws, but merely statutes that only apply to government employees who are getting paid to follow those statutory guidelines.

Dean Clifford has laid this out for the dumbest of the dumb to understand in his video seminar "Both Sides of the Story". Watch it, you'll be glad you did: Watch this one first, then watch his Trust Law seminars so you can understand what they are doing to you in the courtroom.

Part 1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2pMJyIikCk
Part 2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvKu2UNHQpA
Part 3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2GaxlGTyAE

Then to help you understand what I explained above concerning the Trust/Estate/Corporate Law issue and how to enforce your rights against the criminals, watch his other seminars:

Series 1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARPj0S9cBxU&feature=relmfu
Series 2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNptDhGCLJ8&feature=relmfu
Series 3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV7li4wQPb0&feature=relmfu
Series 4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSZWocd3CLA&feature=relmfu
Series 5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ39uDvxU98&feature=relmfu
Series 6. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evD2oT6qaVs&feature=relmfu

Remember: You're just carrying that drivers license or firearms license around in your wallet, in case someday you decide to take a gov't job with the UNITED STATES. But until you sit down with someone from local/state/federal gov't and actually fill out an employment contract and are receiving pay for you time of performing gov't duties on the clock, their statutes do NOT apply to you.

Quick question for you

I admit that I'm still new to this whole "Citizen" thing and still have much to learn on the subject, but I'd like to know the deal behind the ALLCAPS names on birth Certificates. I hear/see people bring that up a lot, but on mine, it's "John P. Doe" rather than "JOHN P. DOE"

What, if anything, does that change? I (think I) understand one is the "me" me, and the other is the "Corporate" me, but not much else beyond that.

Sorry if this comes off like an uninformed question, but well, I AM uninformed on the subject. Going to take a look at those links in the meantime.

A signature used to be here!

It does not matter if the name is spelled in all upper case, or

upper and lower case; it's the same "thing". That Certificate of Live Birth is an Estate/Office the gov't created with a NAME or Name the same as yours, in an attempt to trick you into performing some function of gov't through that Office.

It's the same name.

John P. Doe .......... Is the living you, and
JOHN P. DOE is the corporate fiction YOU.

You own equitable title in the NAME/Name on the Certificate of Live Birth, and you are the sole beneficiary of that Estate.

Watch Dean's Videos, it explains it all very well.

Ooooops, I forgot to add this:

Contrary to what you've been led to believe, social security and the drivers license are NOT a contract. I've addressed this here:



of contract brother. Just like when you go into a restaurant and order food. You have the option to tell her you're not going to pay before ordering but she's not going to serve you!

They must create joinder between you and the fiction.

That's why they gotta get your ID - or they need a "date of birth" (which is about 3 days after you were born) and "last name" only corporations have a last name.

So if you say your born day as your date of birth you lied btw or at least provided false witness.

And we can also "presume" we're getting paid for our time,

can we not? A presumption un-rebutted stands as law, right? They are presuming you're an employee, that's fine. Now I won't dispute your presumption, but I'm going to presume I'm getting paid for my time as well.

Can they rebut that presumption? Sure they can, but now we have a major labor dispute we seriously need to address, and it's called "I don't work for free", so "Where is my check?", because the last time I checked, slavery was not legal in this country.

Giving them the ID does not contractually obligate you in any way. It's just a thing you did. An officer asked you for an ID, you said "Here's an ID; it's not mine, it belongs to the state, would you like it back officer?".

"Officer, do I look as if I'm performing some function of gov't?" ....... "If not, why did you pull me over?"

"Do you have an employment contract on file and payroll receipts that can prove at the time of the complaint, I was indeed performing some function of gov't and getting paid for my time?"

The drivers license, social security card, birth certificate are just things; they are not contracts, there is no valuable consideration. They are simply gov't ID's and unless you're getting paid for your time, they are as worthless as a Block Buster Video Card.

I'll check out your new show buddy. Glad to see others taking some initiative to educate the masses. Stick to it, they'll eventually get it.

Oh yeah, check this out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=AREC...

I'm sorry I don't have to read/view everything brother

I just sent you an email. Would you like to come on for our first live talkshoe? We're probably going to do it tonight but obviously we don't want to just sit there one on one and talk to each other.

You are of course correct on the payroll thing. There are multiple ways to rebut the presumptions. Statutes are public servant codes and you must be presumed to be one for them to be used against you.

You sent an email? Where? .... LOL

I haven't received it, don't see any notifications either? Anyhoooooo, I can't join you guys tonight man, got to hit the sack and get up early.

Hope others join the call though; people need to get educated on this mess ASAP so they can protect themselves from these tyrants.

Catch you guys tomorrow, I'm checking out for the night.


No.7's picture

"U.D. 1-207 Without Prejudice"

Shall be signed beside your name on your SS card, Voter registration card, and Driver license. This means Under Distress, I am not subject to marytime jurisdiction and am a subscriber to the common law. I can be defended by Constitutional Rights!

The individual who refuses to defend his rights when called by his Government, deserves to be a slave, and must be punished as an enemy of his country and friend to her foe. - Andrew Jackson

UCC 1-308 brother

§ 1-308. Performance or Acceptance Under Reservation of Rights.

(a) A party that with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as "without prejudice," "under protest," or the like are sufficient.


However I always use "under protest." I don't usually use the UCC - that's code for if/when they try to force you to sign without writing "under duress." They actually have some DMVs watching you like a hawk so you can't encumber your autograph now...

That's prima facie evidence that SOMETHING is going on!

It helps if you ask a qualifying question however: "Are you telling me that if I reserve my rights I'm going to be arrested?"

Just a Reminder:

Don't let yourself fall into this UCC crap. It is THEIR CODE that they created and has absolutely nothing to do with you if you're truly free. Filing any of THEIR paperwork such as UCC remedies is counterproductive; it rarely works, but the gov't allows a few to win here and there just to create the illusion it works to keep people traveling down the wrong path of redemption.

It's easy to let your head fall back into their game of commerce if you're not careful. Keep it simple K.I.S.S and remember, the only question you need to ask is:

"At the time of the complaint, can you prove I was performing some function of government and getting paid for my time".

No Contract = No Jurisdiction

Their paperwork and UCC codes, and US Codes have absolutely nothing to do with us, unless of course we wish to be considered participants in THEIR system.

Keep your head clear and keep it simple; don't get sucked into the commerce game to secure your freedoms. How free can you actually be when you're using THEIR paperwork to secure your freedoms?

Geeze man I was waiting for you to show up lol

Can I go to bed now? Taaaag! The ops post is in response to mine:

Force or Law

American legal principles vs. historic precedent:

"Inter arma enim silent leges" (Laws are silent in times of war)

Excerpt from Wiki article:

The Supreme Court explicitly referred to this maxim within its ruling on the case Ex parte Milligan, when it remarked that "these [amendments of the Bill of Rights], in truth, are all peace provisions of the Constitution and, like all other conventional and legislative laws and enactments, are silent amidst arms, and when the safety of the people becomes the supreme law."

"Repeat a lie loud enough and long enough"

and eventually people accept it as truth. Nowhere in my post does it say you "give up" your rights. I would appreciate if you are going to quote from my post you would use an exact quote. What you used was not even taken out of context. That's incredibly disingenuous. Deplorable and the fact you're getting voted up - just on that one point alone... proves the majority here operates PURELY on emotion.

Rather than REASON and LOGIC. I have a screenshot of your post BARFLY so don't even bother to change it... NOW BUZZ OFF!

SANDY HOOK RING A BELL? Don't gun-grabbers operate in the SAME FASHION? Hello? Is anyone hearing me? Put aside all emotion... take a deep breath... and please re-read this comment. You will see the op is MISLEADING YOU. Now go look at what I ACTUALLY wrote:


Are you an ATTORNEY AT LAW OP????

Now he writes this: ALL PERSONS OF HUMAN BIRTH

Who says "persons" except an ATTORNEY? Don't we the people say PEOPLE?

Now he writes this: US Citizens (whatever that is)

Why doesn't he say "Whoever they are?"

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/3002 <<< 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 US citizen? (Btw the OP knows exactly what THAT is).

Let's let the jury decide. I can only pray that they are able to clearly see the evidence laid out before them and decide based on the facts - NOT OPINION. Keep in mind the massive vote fraud on these two posts.