> When did the people of these union States ever consent to being subjects of anyone's rule
Are you registered to vote? If you have registered to vote then you consented to "their" rule.
"It means fasten your seat belt Dorothy, 'cause Kansas is going bye-bye." Cypher, The Matrix
You need to understand the events that occurred from 1861-68 "Reconstruction". If that title does not indicate the problem then I don't know what will!
The historical record indicates that Abraham Lincoln (not the President of the United States - they already ceased to exist) formed a new government on July 4, 1861. He was an attorney, do
you think it was an accident to chose that date?
The Lieber Code is the plan to overlay a military dictatorship over civil society. The Lieber Code of April 24, 1863 is also known
as "Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in
the Field, General Order № 100."
The War of Northern Aggression destroyed State Sovereignty and the Republican form of government. Who paid for these actions? Cui bono?
You should cross reference the case of Dyett v.
Turner, 439 P. 2d 266 - Utah: Supreme Court 1968 and the 1967 Congressional Record (copy attached)
proves that the 14th Amendment (1868) is void ab initio. Quoting at length from that case:
"The United States Supreme Court, as at present constituted, has departed from the Constitution as it has been interpreted from its inception and has followed the urgings of social reformers in foisting upon this Nation laws which even Congress could not constitutionally pass.
It has amended the Constitution in a manner unknown to the document
itself. While it takes three fourths of the states of the Union to
change the Constitution legally, yet as few as five men who have never
been elected to office can by judicial fiat accomplish a change just as
radical as could three fourths of the states of this Nation. As a result
of the recent holdings of that Court, the sovereignty of the
states is practically abolished, and the erst while free and
independent states are now in effect and purpose merely closely
supervised units in the federal system.
We do not believe that justices of once free and independent states should surrender their constitutional powers without being heard from.
We would betray the trust of our people if we sat supinely by and
permitted the great bulk of our powers to be taken over by the federal
courts without at least stating reasons why it should not be so. By attempting to save the dual relationship which has heretofore existed between state and federal authority and which is clearly set
out in the Constitution, we think we act in the best interest of our country.
We feel like galley slaves chained to our oars by a power from which we cannot free ourselves, but like slaves of old we think we must cry out when we can see the boat heading into the maelstrom directly ahead of
us; and by doing so, we hope the master of the craft will
heed the call and avert the dangers which confront us all. But by raising our voices in protest we, like the galley slaves of old, expect to be lashed for doing so. We are confident that we will not be struck
by 90 per cent of the people of this Nation who long for the return to
the days when the Constitution was a document plain enough to be
understood by all who read it, the meaning of which was set firmly like a
jewel in the matrix of common sense and wise judicial decisions. We
shall not complain if those who berate us belong to that small group
who refuse to take an oath that they will not overthrow this government
by force. When we bare our legal backs to receive the verbal
lashes, we will try to be brave; and should the great court of these
United States decide that in our thinking we have committed error, then
we shall indeed feel honored, for we will then be placed on an equal
footing with all those great justices who at this late date are also
said to have been in error for so many years. See: Dyett v. Turner, 439 P. 2d 266 - Utah: Supreme Court 1968
justices also detail the fraud of the Fourteenth Amendment that parallels the 1967 Congressional Record.
If you want even more evidence the 14th Amendment makes slaves out of EVERY American, then you should read President Andrew Johnson's Veto message of it. A rump "Congress" over-rode that veto.
net result of the Fourteenth Amendment was the destruction of our
Republic and the establishment of a "legislative democracy" - through
The U.S. Congress appears to be fully aware of
these issues and therefore limited the ONLY LAWFUL Constitution into
the "general and permanent laws" of the United States to the
Constitution of September 17, 1787.
As such, this is the only LAWFUL Constitution that State Officers may take an Oath to uphold.
in depth review of History provides the proper perspective to consider
Congresses determinations in choosing this Constitution to include into
the "general and permanent laws".
Of course it would require
satisfactorily answering the difficult question: "What happened to the
original 13th Amendment?" There is no indication from the Historical
Record that this LAWFULLY RATIFIED Amendment was EVER LAWFULLY REMOVED
from the US Constitution. It seems to simply vanish. You can still find
the Original 13th Amendment as a part of the 1819 Code of Virginia in any Law Library that maintains these
Of course as the the case above points out the states as presently organized are "merely
supervised units in the federal system" which is another reason why"state courts" are the incorrect venue to attempt to
collect "a debt" (fines, penalties for "criminal charges") from State National. Cross reference 15 U.S.C. §
State Nationals are always "white" and will always be Free Citizens with
Natural Rights. Since this may seem like an extreme ideological position here is more information to support this view. Title 42 § 1982: "All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property."
If the former slaves have the same rights as "white people", why are State Nationals denied the Right to Vote?
The answer lies in the "new" 13th Amendment.
The new so-called "13th Amendment" makes
"involuntary servitude" unlawful. The issue here is CONSENT.
A person can voluntarily give up their Natural Rights for "privileges"
granted and guaranteed by the legislative enactments in the same way
they can voluntarily become a servant (slave).
there a federal municipal franchise created through voter registration
that completely changes a white persons political status that that of
the former slaves? Does this make the "federal government" the largest
slave owner in the world? It appears so.
When we look at The National Voter
Registration Act of 1993, P.L. 103-31 we find: "TITLE 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE CHAPTER 20 - ELECTIVE FRANCHISE SUBCHAPTER
I-H - NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION" (emphasis mine).
Title 42 concerns "civil rights" otherwise known as "legislative privileges" granted to former slaves.
It is important to note the definition of "franchise":
authorization granted by a government or company to an individual or
group enabling them to carry out specified commercial activities.
The obvious key words here are "specified commercial activities".
this "elective franchise" make a living (white) man a corporation and
responsible for "Income Taxes" and other encumbrances of "this state" including a "driver's license"?
The federal government seems to have usurped the de jure States through judicial and legislative fiat of the Fourteenth Amendment and other means.
Additionally Title 42 Sec. 1973gg FINDINGS AND PURPOSES states:
The Congress finds that -
(1) the right of citizens of the United States to vote is a fundamental right;
it is the duty of the Federal, State, and local governments to promote the
exercise of that right; and
(3) discriminatory and unfair registration laws and procedures can have a direct
and damaging effect on voter participation in elections for Federal
disproportionately harm voter participation by various groups, including racial
(my! How the tables have turned! Now de jure State Nationals are denied the "right to vote"!)
The purposes of this subchapter are -
(1) to establish procedures that will increase the number of eligible citizens who
register to vote in elections
for Federal office;
(2) to make it possible for Federal, State, and local governments to implement this
subchapter in a manner that enhances the participation of eligible citizens as
voters in elections for Federal office;
(3) to protect the integrity of the electoral process; and
(4) to ensure that accurate and current voter registration rolls are
Sodespite this legislatures claims that the purpose of that Public Law is
to increase voter participation there is a deliberate exclusion of
State Nationals, lawful State inhabitants who are not also federal
citizens.The "state offices" that exist are federal franchises.
This also indicates that there are NO occupied State Offices! They are vacant! "eligible citizens as
voters in elections for Federal office"
Also see: United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 654-658 (Supreme Court 1898) for a comprehensive opinion on citizenship wherein you may find that when you understand these issues, that you live in a conquered country you may be alien to it and not a citizen.
Who is responsible for this mess? The people who participate in commerce.
I hope this helps.
Notice & Warning: This email contains proprietary business information, trade secrets, restricted and valued information intended for the addressees eyes only. All interceptors, surveillance agents foreign and domestic, enforcement agencies are
hereby prohibited from accessing, possessing, using, selling, purchasing, storing, retrieving, and transmitting this valuable information as a product or service for gain. Any monetary profits, benefits or accounting of this information for gain may be prosecuted as a felony offense and cause of action. Persons, whistle blowers, informants may be granted an award for information leading to the successful prosecution of agents committing acts of infringement.
From: Jerry Stanton <farm_stone@...>
To: Tips-and -Tricks <email@example.com>
March 23, 2013 5:26 PM
Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Government Terrorist in action.