So you're saying anyone with a birth certificate is automatically under the jurisdiction as a "citizen of the UNITED STATES", even if they aren't acting in that capacity; thru that "title", as the "legal fiction" corp/name?
That's like me saying "If you're a subscriber of my magazine, you're bound by my corporate statutes just because you filled out a subscription form and mailed it back to me".
Who owns the land that the corporation is operating on? Does the term "he who creates owns" mean anything? Did the foreign corp.US create the land; or are they just occupying the land? Do they have dominion over the land, or are they "renting" the land from you and I? Is the corp.US's "corporate statutes" the LAW of the LAND? Or do you have to be operating in the capacity as an employee of that corp (who's receiving pay) to be under their jurisdiction and bound by their statutes?
Just because they showed up and set up shop on "our land" with their foreign corp.US and passed out birth certificates, are their corporate statutes all of sudden the "Law of the Land" just because I possess a Certificate of Live Birth or SS Card?
Are you telling me a person with a birth certificate can't walk into court, waive that certificate in the air and say "I'm here as the administrator/director" of the "legal name" (now that I'm of legal age), what seems to be the problem, and why are you having a shareholders meeting without my written consent?
I've got a birth certificate and ss card in my hand when I walk into court and appoint the judge the trustee. If that birth certificate was such a powerful tool for them, then why the hell do "I CONTROL IT"? ... they own it; they made it; but I control the "legal fiction" name/corp on the certificate; I'm the beneficiary; they are the trustee, If I know who I am :)
It's the same "name", but two different jurisdictions. They are the beneficiary/administrator in their jurisdiction(gov't/corp/statutory side), and we are the beneficiary/administrator of the same name in a different jurisdiction (Inherent Right/Constitutionally protected side).
Just because you have one of their birth certificates doesn't mean you're automatically under their jurisdiction does it?
Is an off duty Wal-Mart Manager bound by the employment contracts rules/statutes/regulations of Wal-Mart, when he/she is not on the Wal-Mart clock, just because they have a Wal-Mart ID in their pocket?
If the Wal-Mart manager is grocery shopping at Target, does he get the Wal-Mart discount; covered by Wal-Mart workers comp. insurance; getting paid by Wal-Mart; under any obligation to follow the statutory rules of Wal-Mart, while he/she is shopping at Target on the weekend with their family?
What if he goes through the checkout line at Target and whips out his Wal-Mart ID and tells the Target cashier he wants his 20% Wal-Mart discount?
His name is Bob whether he's clocked in at Wal-Mart as an acting manager operating thru that "title", or while he's shopping at Target, but is no longer under Wal-Mart's jurisdiction.
If I walk into Wal-Mart and show them my birth certificate, are they obligated to give me a discount?
Same "name", two different jurisdictions. Our parents sent off a Record of Live Birth and the state "split the title" and sent us back a Certificate of Live Birth (corp.US work badge/ID card). Just because we hold that ID badge, does that mean we're working for corp.US as an agent that's receiving a paycheck?
Just because Bob has a Wal-Mart's Manager ID badge at home on the dresser, does that mean he's acting as an agent of Wal-Mart if he's not on the clock (receiving pay) while he's at Target, acting in the capacity of himself "Bob", just a normal-living person out shopping with his family on the weekend?
A person can have more that one "title". The corp/legal fiction name on the birth certificate is "one title", the living man/woman is another "title"; same name, two totally different jurisdictions.
The birth certificate is our proof or equitable title in the corporate name on the birth cert-legal fiction. The "name" is a corporation. If we are operating in that capacity, or thru that "title", the gov't/corp.US are the beneficiaries and we are the trustees; and in this capacity, they are in control.
If we are not operating thru that "title" and performing an act of gov't and making our money on the private side, then we (you and I) are the administrator/beneficiary on the private side.
We still maintain all our Inherent Rights; still have the protection of those rights by the Constitution, as long as we aren't acting as an agent of the foreign corp.US at the time a complaint was made, or at the time we made the money they say we may owe in taxes.
Just because I live in Lubbock Texas (which is a corporation), am I bound by the statutory rules, regulations, etc. of an employee of the City of Lubbock TX; who's on the payroll? No, I am not. The Corp. Lubbock Texas is on the "land" they did not create it; they do not make the laws; they make statutes their employees have to follow.
If Wal-Mart adds a new statute to their corporate rules, that says anyone living within 20 sq/miles of this store is under our jurisdiction, is that "LAW"? ... No, it is not Law, it's a statute. Now if they can get everyone in that 20 sq/mile radius to agree, then Yahoooooooooo for Wal-Mart; they just conned 6 million people into believing they were under the jurisdiction of Wal-Mart.
What is the "SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND"? Isn't it the Constitution?
Anything below or repugnant to that LAW, is not law; it's statutory law; statutes, that hold no force or effect if you're not operating in the capacity of, or thru that "title" of the corporation that made those 'statutes'.
The Supreme Law of the Land (Constitution) says your free speech is protected while operating in the capacity of free man/woman, living under God's Law, but if you go to work for the foreign corp.US and are receiving the "granted" rights and "privileges" under their statutes, and are getting paid to do so, then you're Constitutional Rights are not a luxury you can cling to.
Just because someone has a birth certificate or a social security card in their possession, does that mean they are automagically operating in the capacity of, or thru the "title" of the legal fiction name on the birth cert/ss card 24/7?
If the gov't made the "claim" you were acting as an agent of gov't because you had possession of those cards, does that really hold any weight if they can't prove it by producing a payroll record/time sheets, etc. that show you actually "were" acting as an agent of their gov't/corp.US at the time of the complaint; or at the time you made the money they say you owe taxes on?
And last but not least: If we are all "automagically" under the jurisdiction of the UNITED STATES and acting as an agent of that corp. just because we have a birth certificate/ss card, then why do we still have to apply for a government job (police, highway patrol, school teacher,etc.), agree to terms of employment, etc. before we can jump in a squad car and start writing people tickets and tazering them?
If we're automagically under that jurisdiction; bound by those statutes; considered employees of the corp. just because we possess a birth cert/ss card, then why am I not getting my gov't check on the 1st and 15th, and where is my FBI badge?
Why can't a manager at McDonald's walk into a police dept. and pick up a gun and badge; jump in his/her patrol car and hit the streets just because they have a birth certificate or ss card?
Because they have not been trained and have not signed onto an employment contract to operate in that capacity under that "title".
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: