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

19083On Sovereignty not Being Subject to Law

Expand Messages
  • Legalbear
    Dec 30, 2012
    • 0 Attachment

      Thinking about the quote in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, “Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law

       

      When the judge is trying to arraign you, he asks, “Do you understand?”

       

      That might be a lawyer/judge/deceiver’s way of saying really, ‘Do you stand under this law?’

       

      Or, in keeping with the concept that the legal system is familiar with the concept of the necessity of the consent of a sovereign, it might be a way of saying, ‘Do you subject yourself to this law?’ Those who don’t understand the status that has been conferred upon them by the organic laws might think, ‘I have to.’

       

      Subject: being under domination, control, or influence; being under dominion, rule, or authority, as of a sovereign, state, or some governing power; owing allegiance or obedience

       

      The whole point of West Virginia State Board Of Education v. Barnette was the school board was trying to force school kids to pledge allegiance under threat of jail!

       

      At page 633 of West Virginia the court opines:

       

      Here it is the State that employs a flag as a symbol of adherence to government as presently organized. It requires the individual to communicate by word and sign his acceptance of the political ideas it thus bespeaks. Objection to this form of communication when coerced is an old one, well known to the framers of the Bill of Rights.

       

      It is also to be noted that the compulsory flag salute and pledge requires affirmation of a belief and an attitude of mind.

       

      Looks to me like cops, judges, and IRS agents who object to our referencing ourselves as sovereigns are requiring our affirmation of their belief and attitude of mind that we must adhere to government as presently organized with them as sovereigns (in their own minds) and with us as their subjects! Grrrrrrrr!

       

      Hale v. Henkel addressed this:

       

      The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.

       

      Look at that reference to immunity!!

       

      Did you get something from the IRS asking where is your return? Why not write them back, ‘The Supreme Court says I owe no duty to divulge my business to you or open my doors to an investigation into whether or not I had taxable income. Are you prepared to lose your job over this?’

       

       

      Call me at: 720-675-7230

      On Skype: legalbear

      Best times to call: 8:30 am to 9:00 pm MST

      Join my Yahoo Group Tips & Tricks for Court by sending an email to:

      tips_and_tricks-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

      My blog: legalbearsblog.com

      Tax sites: IRSTerminator.com IRSLienThumper.com IRSLevyThumper.com

      (formatted like this so this email doesn't end up in your spam folder)

       

    • Show all 5 messages in this topic