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

Sovereigns Without Subjects

Expand Messages
  • Legalbear
    I am thinking about the phrase sovereigns without subjects phrase from Wright v. Georgia. Even if another sovereign takes and files a proper oath to become
    Message 1 of 3 , Dec 27, 2012
    • 0 Attachment

      I am thinking about the phrase “sovereigns without subjects” phrase from Wright v. Georgia. Even if another sovereign takes and files a proper oath to become an IRS agent, or state trooper, or cop that doesn’t make him a sovereign with subjects.

       

      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)

       

    • Bob law
      I would like to believe that by his taking of an oath to support and defend the Constitution, they(the public servant) voluntarily become what is in essence an
      Message 2 of 3 , Dec 27, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        I would like to believe that by his taking of an oath to support and defend the Constitution, they(the public servant) voluntarily become what is in essence an indentured servant, or possibly even a bond servant. The reasoning here is there is no higher authority than the sovereign, with, or without subjects.



        From: Legalbear <bear@...>
        To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 8:33 AM
        Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Sovereigns Without Subjects

         
        I am thinking about the phrase “sovereigns without subjects” phrase from Wright v. Georgia. Even if another sovereign takes and files a proper oath to become an IRS agent, or state trooper, or cop that doesn’t make him a sovereign with subjects.
         
        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:
        (formatted like this so this email doesn't end up in your spam folder)
         


      • lg900df@rock.com
        To get things wright..er right...I think you refer to the Chisolm case: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/2/419/case.html Not Wright vs Georgia [Bear
        Message 3 of 3 , Dec 27, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          To get things wright..er right...I think you refer to the Chisolm case:
          https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/2/419/case.html
          Not Wright vs Georgia

          [Bear the moderator: Absolutely! I stand corrected.]


          The oath Bob refers to is patterned after the Art II oath of a President
          of the United States. There is no sense in taking an oath to defend a
          piece of paper....

          [Bear the moderator: A piece of paper containing high sounding principles?]

          but there is sense in defending the Constitution of the
          United States; the territory and other property owned by and ceded to the
          United States of America.


          The bond servant is an employee and in the case of Art II oath, the
          employer is Congress. Notice this oath is stuck in the middle of the
          document while the Art VI oath for ALL is near the end.


           

          I would like to believe that by his taking of an oath to support and
          defend the Constitution, they(the public servant) voluntarily become
          what is in essence an indentured servant, or possibly even a bond
          servant. The reasoning here is there is no higher authority than the
          sovereign, with, or without subjects.










          --
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.