I am not a sovereign and neither are you. We were all endowed by our Creator with the same rights and responsibilities. God who is the Creator is the only sovereign and none of us has authority or jurisdiction over anyone else.

God wrote the laws that govern the universe and the founders of our nation referred to them as the "Laws of Nature and Nature's God". The rules written by legislatures are inferior to the Laws of God. When the laws of men conflict with the laws of God the laws of God take precedent.

I have a right to do whatever I want as long as I do not violate the life, liberty or property of another human. Whenever an individual violates the rights of another they have committed a crime. No crime can be committed unless there is a victim, (Corpus Delecti). The only people who should ever be in prison are those who injure another being, human or not. If you abuse life, you should be punished. You should not be incarcerated or have your property seized for "Code Violations" or "Traffic Infractions", etc.

Views: 904

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

If you are not a 'citizen of the United States' there is nothing to expatriate from.  It is simply that the gov intentionally falsified the record.  In court this is dealt with, with a jurisdictional challenge. 

If you are a fed citizen, to expatriate leaves you without any citizenship. 

In court, even if you are a fed citizen, you still have the right to do a jurisdictional challenge to make them prove it, which means explaining the race aspect of it.  They simply do not dare go there because the answer would cause anarchy.  Then, when they proceed without authority, you have them on a due process violation.

Hear, hear Bill.

We can always count on you to set the record straight. Thanks for addressing that one.

Debra, I agree and disagree with your idea of the need to expatriate and repatriate. I had the same reservations. Here's why.

True patriotic Americans shouldn't need to expatriate. We ARE and have always been "State Citizens". The criminals are the ones who fraudulently changed our status. THEIR fraud doesn't make it so we need to expatriate from what we always were a party to.

However, because of their "alleged" authority and ownership and control of THEIR court system, we DO need to expatriate. NOT from OUR country, but from THEIR fraudulent deeds. Expatriating removes us from their long arm of their "legal" system and all the statutes and abuse they might attempt to rain down on us.

Repatriating does nothing more than officially declare to all where the jurisdiction begins and ends. Just in case someone is uncertain of where we fit-in, in this upside down fiasco. We would not be changing our status, only re-certifying that we still have what we always had. It is our Right, and we wish to make it official and on the record.

If this sick fiasco was a game or sport, all we'd be doing is clothing ourselves in the proper uniform so all would appreciate which team we are aligned with. The teams need to know who is on their side, and the masses of sheeple spectators need to know who to cheer for and wave their flags and banners. We can't play "shirts v. Skins" and have all players wearing shirts! We need to be proud to wear our team's uniform and play to win!

As for the other team, we have already exposed their signatures and secret contracts exposing which team they have chosen to "represent". Pun intended. It's time for the games to begin!

Expatriating is not unpatriotic. Just the opposite. WE are declaring OUR allegiance, just in case anyone was unclear on who we are.

In the news over the last few years, I have seen several statistics showing the number of Americans expatriating was on the rise. I didn't comprehend why anyone would do that. Knowing what we know today, it now makes sense. What was NOT reported, was what they were expatriating from? Naturally, there was no information what they were patriating to either. Yes, some were avoiding taxes. Some were afraid of the possibility of the threat of martial law at home. I believe the majority learned of the huge corporate government monopoly surrounding their lives, and their primary purpose was to remove themselves from the fraud the best way they could. They did what they thought was best for them, with the knowledge they had available at the time. If those expats knew what WE know today, would they voluntarily repratriate to the lawful Constitutional Republic, united "States of America"?

Isn't it interesting that these illegal immigrants think they are running towards freedom? Sadly, they are being tricked. Without going too far off on a tangent, that is why our borders are intentially porous. The corporate USA INC. needs as many warm bodies to support their criminal activites. Can we now appreciate why several states are OFFERING free drivers licenses and other such "legal documents" to these people? Doesn't matter if they are real citizens or not, they become subject-to the corporate illusion. The courts, taxes, regulations, and yes, soldiers in whatever banker's war they fabricate next. There is no nationality as far as corporations and the NWO is concerned. Only subjects. What is the European Union really about? How about the proposed North American Union? All are being fabriacated by corporate "legal contract". Why? Who are the Masters and who are the slaves?

The expatriation and repatriating allows a free individual to choose where he stands. It is their natural right, that no one can usurp.

What-if every human on Earth could expatriate tomorrow morning? Who would be subject-to the legal system for the criminals to dictate to? Any corporation dies without both employees AND customers. They would go bankrupt! Literally.

If you are not a fed citizen via the 14th / a 'citizen of the United States', there is nothing to expatriate from.  You simply need to find a way to correct the record.

If you are a citizen of the fed gov, to expatriate leaves you with no citizenship and no country.

You know Mike,

That's not a bad idea. Let's issue those uniforms. We can start right here at the Club. I'm going to run this one by Keith as a means to the ends, (making money) for the Club to continue its existence.

Keep those great ideas a comin people!

I think there is only one form of 'common law'.  Please explain if you think there are more.  As adopted in America, the common law is that system of law that sees people as sovereign. A system that sees the people have having the power to do any act the gov was not given the authority to regulate and those acts which leave an injured party.

'Citizens of the United States' / citizens via the 14th amendment are federal citizens first and foremost with the right to be line in a state and be counted as citizens thereof but without any of the rights secured by that states constitution.  Due to this, they are no under the common law but under the system of law where their true citizenship arises → DC, which is municipal law, a system of law which sees gov as sovereign and the people as having only minimal and basic rights.

It is under the pretense by the gov that all people are by some magic citizens of the fed gov that everyone has been stripped of their rights.

There is one other issue. Even the right of due process that is secured by the 14th has been in many cases stripped away. This is pure communism because there is not even a pretense of authority for this.


Without going back through this thread to see if I,...... implied there was more than one Common Law, I stand in agreement with you, there is but one.

However, Common Law encompasses- long established custom, written and unwritten law, rulings by judges that set precedence for future issues of the same likeness,  judicial opinion which was accepted unanimously or by a great majority.  Christianity is part of the Common Law which James Wilson clearly pointed out.  James Wilson was one of the first US Supreme Court Judges.

Please correct me if I am wrong in some point, as I welcome correction and truth.  I can work with truth no matter what it may be, it's the damn lies that cause me to stumble, loose direction and lead me astray. 

The Declaration of Independence derives from what some refer to as Natural Law, or God's Law, and as such; is the ultimate source and established limit for all of man's laws.  There is a limit to which law can go.   George Mason in 1772, had this to say about Natural Law:  "The laws of nature are the laws of God, Whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth. A legislature must not obstruct our obedience to Him from Whose punishment they cannot protect us, all human constitutions which contradict His laws, we are in conscience bound to disobey."

And for all those that would dispute our Founders were Christians, on August 1, 1776, Samuel Adams stood before a large crowd on the steps of the Philadelphia Statehouse and delivered a speech before the formal signing of the Declaration Of Independence on August 2, 1776. In his speech he stated: "We have explored the temple of Royalty and found that the idol that we have bowed down to has Eyes which see not, Ears that hear not our Prayers, and a heart like the nether millstone. We have this day restored the Sovereign to Whom alone all men ought to be obedient; He reigns in Heaven, and with a propitious Eye beholds His subjects assuming that freedom of thought, and dignity of self direction, which He bestowed upon them. From the rising to the setting Sun, may His Kingdom come."

The Founders did not write the Constitution for the purpose of establishing Federal Law or Constitutional Law or even to grant rights. Rather, they established this government of laws (not a government of men) in order to secure each person's Creator endowed rights to life, liberty, and property.  When the Declaration and other state constitutions announces that it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security, this right to alter or abolish government is of course not to be found in British Common Law, it is a natural right to which all men have been given by virtue of being born into this world.

Common Law was one of the sources in creating the US and State Constitutions.  At that time, the Colonists insisted the Common Law of England was the law of choice for all new laws that were to be adopted in this new land..    It was the Founders that brought the Creator of Man, the true Sovereign of the universe, back into the equation of establishing a new nation where every citizen fell under the protection of the newly established country having as its supreme law, the law of God.  God created law.  If not for the law, we would not know sin.

But, at both the federal and state levels, the law of the United States is largely derived from the Common Law system of England which was in force at the time of the Revolutionary War.

The enumerated rights described in the Bill of Rights, is Common Law straight from the Great Charter or Magna Charta, was my understanding, and I most certainly can be wrong.  I also believe the laws written and recorded in the Holy Bible are the basis of Common Law or where it originates, but that I am not sure of.

I believe; as long as I love God with all my heart, and it is manifest through my speech and conduct, and love my neighbor (which is anyone) as myself, I'm good to go. 

Speaking of the Magna Charta; this year marks the 800th anniversary of that Great Charter, which the entire world has celebrated, or has plans to celebrate it in the immediate future.  The United States did so on the federal level in the very beginning of the year and many states followed soon after.  It interesting to note, they did so, without much fanfare in this country.

As I have come to understand it, the common law of England was adopted in a modified form for American whites. 

In England it was subject to change over time, but ours was set in stone by the constitutions.  The principals of due process were set in stone [ jury nullification, for example ] and the rights under the common law were also.  This was done by creating a gov of only delegated and therefore clearly defined and limited powers.

A 'right' therefore, was the freedom to engage in any act the gov was not granted the power to regulate. The power to regulate is the power to forbid.

Absent the 2nd amendment for the territories or similar statements in the state constitutions, the right of whites to own any gun they want exists because the gov was not granted the power to regulate their ownership of guns.

The English common law, which existed at the time of the adoption or our constitutions.  Where English common law is subject to change in many way, ours was fixed into our constitutions.

The right of whites to only be tried in judicial branch courts and for the jury to judge both the law and the facts.  These principals are set in stone.  Unfortunately the communists have taken over and are ignoring the constitutions.

We thru all that shit out by the Dec of Independence-English common law  that is

 Try n tell ajury they are to both address facts n law n You will get locked down-even in ND You cant  argue this & NO court wil let You argue the tax laws are ILLegal, ask Bill Benson, Gordon Kahl, Sen MccFadden, Pres JFK/Lincoln.  Judge Mahoney

In response to Peter John.  The common law has been supplanted with municipal law / statutory law on the pretense no white people still exist in America.   Even the courts have been changed.  Statutory / legislative courts have supplanted constitutional courts.  All the work of the communists which is pretty clear since this is all leading to complete communism.

Our rule of law is the Constitution of this Great Republic, the ten commandment was to help with any questions that may of arrived but remember there was still people who honored a king ( man) than God the creator when man's law conflict with a God given rights Natural Laws than there is a problem...


© 2020   Created by Online Professor.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service