Excerpts from “It’s all about Venue” - by Kevin Hines
Ok, so I have offered up solutions to the problem of dealing with our “corporate” status. Well I’m not ashamed to admit that I was simply going on the best information I had at the time, and I WAS WRONG! Write down the date folks, so you can remember the day I said it. I WAS WRONG! I had to learn about the truth and its relationship to our supposed “status”, the ALL CAPS name and “jurisdiction”. It’s confusing to say the least.
So anyone who is attempting to claim that the “ALL CAPS NAME” is just a fiction is going down the wrong track. I never had much faith in that defense anyway. If that’s what you claim, then you are saying you are nothing more than a piece of paper or a fictional entity. This is not right. You are a man or a woman, not a fiction, a corporation, a trust or an estate, and it is not about “jurisdiction”. It’s about VENUE.
Now the truth;
The ALL CAPS name is simply a way of placing you “within” the federal territory. I.E. – “subject to the jurisdiction”. This does not mean you are a subject and it does not mean that jurisdiction has been established by them or surrendered by you. What it does mean is that they have simply insisted that you are “within” their territory and therefore “within” their “VENUE”.
You see? This is not about jurisdiction. It’s about “VENUE”. The ALL CAPS name is the man’s public name = territorial venue name = corporate name = commercial venue name = “their State” venue name, which is correct and required under the “commerce clause” and necessary for conducting congressionally regulate “commerce” across the territory and makes bonding and insuring necessary for officials or individuals “within” that “jurisdiction”. The ALL CAPS spelling simply identifies the man/woman/official as being in the PUBLIC VENUE and therefore “subject to their jurisdiction”. It’s about the VENUE, not the “jurisdiction”.
The mixed Upper and Lower case name is the man’s private name = birth name = common law venue name = “your state” venue name, which identifies you as a (non-Fourteenth Amendment), sovereign man who walks upon the soil over, (in charge of) a Republican form of government and therefore NOT “subject to their jurisdiction”. This identifies you as being in the private venue under common law. That is why this is not about your “STATUS”. It’s about VENUE.
Jurisdiction is just the word they use to delineate or describe their VENUE. That is why everyone keeps saying that the Corporate United States was created in 1871 and your “status” changed with the passing of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. Well they were partially right, but it’s not about “status” or even “jurisdiction”, it’s about the VENUE. If you look closely you will see that this is the first place anywhere in the Constitution where you see those words, “subject to the/their jurisdiction”. This is KEY as this IS where/when they changed your VENUE. All other arguments/points are MOOT! You’re either on the soil or in the territory. It’s a venue issue, not a status issue.
I believe however, that this was not enough for the government to secure “jurisdictional” venue. So the natural question is “when did I volunteer away my venue?” and the answer is simple; when you signed up to receive Social Security “benefits”, i.e. (privileges). With your original application you requested the designation of being a federal citizen, “within” the territory and therefore “subject to their jurisdiction” as recognized by the use of the ALL CAPS name.
So who needs a “Driver’s License”? Obviously, it is a man/woman who is in the PUBLIC VENUE and has voluntarily designated themselves as being “within” the federal territory. That’s why they require you to have an SSN to get a license. This is how they tax you for giving you the “privilege” of being “regulated”; it’s a venue issue.
If any application for recognition as a PUBLIC VENUE citizen has been filled out, signed by you and approved by “their State”, then you must live by the codes, rules and regulations of “their State”…unless you DECLARE that you are in the private venue. It’s a venue issue, not a rights issue.
You need to challenge the presumption of venue, not status. It’s true that a person can be a corporation or other fiction, but a person can also be a man or a woman. This is a difference with a distinction. It’s about the presumption of venue. A man’s obvious remedy is to declare that he is in the private venue, rather than being railroaded into the PUBLIC VENUE.
You unknowingly put yourself in this position by having requested to be a part of their venue with your signature on one or more applications to be part of the PUBLIC VENUE of the territory. In truth, the only Affidavit of Truth should be one that declares a private venue, nothing else.
So, know your venue. Declare your venue. Insist upon this in court. Refuse to enter a “plea”, (as in “please don’t hurt me”). If you don’t challenge the presumption of venue, you revert automatically to the PUBLIC VENUE.
“It’s all about venue”.