Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Are you a resident slave without rights.

Expand Messages
  • Jerry Stanton
    Jerry Stanton WWP Email Member and Pro Se activist (farm_stone@yahoo.com) ...   A “resident” is not the same as an “inhabitant”.  According to
    Message 1 of 2 , Dec 30, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Jerry Stanton WWP Email Member and Pro Se activist (farm_stone@...)

      ----- For] Are you a resident slave without rights.


       
      A “resident” is not the same as an
      “inhabitant”.  According to Black’s Law Dictionary,
      First Edition, a “resident” may not be entitled to all the privileges as an
      “inhabitant”.  It further states that a resident
      is “also a tenant…obliged to reside on his lord’s land”.  Whereas a “domicile” is that place where one
      sleeps and intends to stay with his family, aka “shelter”, his “residence” is
      merely a temporary place from whence he eventually intends to return to his
      “domicile”.  The domicile is the fruit
      of his labor while the residence is a place he has temporarily gone for
      business, or to make a living, with the intent of returning to his “shelter”.

      "The United States
      government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state."   20 C.J.S. 1785 (copyright 1940)
       
      "The people of the
      United States resident within any State are subject to two governments: one
      State, and the other National; . . . . . The citizen cannot complain, because
      he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government. He owes
      allegiance to the two departments, so to speak, and within their respective spheres
      must pay the penalties which each exacts for disobedience to its laws.
      "U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542


      Been tricked into bondage?

           Jerry James Stanton
    • Douglas Smith
      Douglas Smith WWP Email Member (raimford1@yahoo.com) This is not to be construed as legal advise. Well, I see someone else has grasped what is happening.
      Message 2 of 2 , Dec 30, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Douglas Smith WWP Email Member (raimford1@...) This is not to be construed as legal advise.


        Well, I see someone else has grasped what
        is happening. �Corporations reside only�for they have no�choice, but human beings
        choose to reside or inhabit. �By answering 'yes' to the question "you
        reside in Oregon don't you?" you have just confirmed to the judge that you
        are a 14th Amendment (corporate) US citizen and therefore subject to some 'secret'
        corporate jurisdiction originating from within a Constitutional Federal
        Territory. �This corporate 'citizen of the United States' is totally
        subject to the corporate structure residing within the United States even when
        residing within the exterior boundaries of a Union State. A federal
        jurisdiction overlaying the Union State(s) operates in a similar fashion and
        has been implemented to take care of its citizens. �In Oregon this 'disguised
        corporate jurisdiction' is known as "this state". � So, you
        actually have two citizenship's in the corporate world, one being 'federal' and
        the other being 'state' (note the lack of capitalization in state and federal).
        �The Citizen of a Union State has only one 'Citizenship' but two�allegiances. �These
        two�allegiances come as a result of the United States Constitution.
        �You have an allegiance as a 'State Citizen' to the State in which you
        inhabit and are domiciled and a non-citizen national allegiance to the Federal
        government operating in its agency capacity as defined in the United States
        Constitution.� �

        The proper response (using my information)
        to the judges question concerning 'residency' would be: �"With all
        due respect 'your honor', I am a 5th generation Oregonian and a non-citizen
        national of the United States. �I am not of nor do I have any�allegiance to a
        corporate realm of which the term 'reside'�implies. �I inhabit and am
        domiciled upon the land of Oregon the 33 State of the Union known as the United
        States of America. �I am therefore a de jure Citizen of Oregon and a
        non-citizen national of the United States.� Does this court recognize my status as just described, yes or no?�

        The
        above information is not to be taken as legal advise and the reader uses the
        information contained herein at his or her own peril. �That said, the
        response to your direct question by the judge is either 'yes' or 'no' and will
        be investigated at a later time. �Doug.�


        Jerry Stanton WWP Email Member and Pro Se activist (farm_stone@...)

        ----- For] Are you a resident slave without rights.



        A ��resident�� is not the same as an
        ��inhabitant��.� According to Black��s Law Dictionary,
        First Edition, a ��resident�� may not be entitled to all the privileges as an
        ��inhabitant��.� It further states that a resident
        is “also a tenant…obliged to reside on his lord’s land”.� Whereas a “domicile” is that place where one
        sleeps and intends to stay with his family, aka “shelter”, his “residence” is
        merely a temporary place from whence he eventually intends to return to his
        “domicile”.� The domicile is the fruit
        of his labor while the residence is a place he has temporarily gone for
        business, or to make a living, with the intent of returning to his “shelter”.

        "The United States
        government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state."�� 20 C.J.S. 1785 (copyright 1940)

        "The people of the
        United States resident within any State are subject to two governments: one
        State, and the other National; . . . . . The citizen cannot complain, because
        he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government. He owes
        allegiance to the two departments, so to speak, and within their respective spheres
        must pay the penalties which each exacts for disobedience to its laws.
        "U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542

        Been tricked into bondage?

        ���� Jerry James Stanton
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.