Click on the image above 

Click on the image to educate yourself

The “freedom movement” is people who believe based on law and tradition that they are free individuals. Some also call themselves “citizens” of a state, providence or a nation, but none are a citizen of government (state, nation or other). Also known as “freemen”, “sovereigns”, “state nationals” and “common law citizens”, they are unorganized and typically act alone and are part of the freedom movement. They are independent thinkers that act pro se (Latin for “for himself”) with sui juris (Latin for “of his own right”) authority and use several different sources for information. They typically declare themselves sovereigns by making documents with references to current laws and court cases and many send their documents to government public servants and carry them in their vehicles to give to police.[1][2] Most are not antigovernment (as are anarchists) as the media and government claim, but rather support and defend their constitution, Common Law and Natural Law. In the U.S.A., sovereigns support and defend the “Constitution for the United States of America”[3], Declaration of Independence, Common Law and Natural Law.[4] They oppose the de facto (Latin for “in fact”, as in currently in effect) governments and support the original de jure (Latin for “by right”) governments “of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed”[5] as created by the founders of the original 13 states who created the nation of and government for the United States of America. They oppose only the illegal (unconstitutional) acts, administrative laws, agreements, bylaws, codes, court case “law” (precedent), covenants, doctrines, executive orders, laws, mandates, martial law, merchant/commercial law, ordinances, policies, public policies/law, regulations, restrictions, rules, signing statements, statutes and taxes.[6] They support the America where ”… Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”[7]
“LAW, COMMON. The common law is that which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. It has never received the sanction of the legislature, by an express act, which is the criterion by which it is distinguished from the statute law. It has never been reduced to writing; by this expression, however, it is not meant that all those laws are at present merely oral, or communicated from former ages to the present solely by word of mouth, but that the evidence of our common law is contained in our books of Reports, and depends on the general practice and judicial adjudications of our courts.”[8]
“The common law became the basic law of most states due to the Commentaries on the Laws of England, completed by Sir William Blackstone in 1769, which became every American lawyer's bible.”[9] Common law is mostly not in writing. It is abstract legal concepts derived from principles rather than rules.[9] Common Law uses malum in se (= wrong or evil in itself), as opposed to malum prohibitum (= wrong or evil just because it is prohibited), which statute law is based on. An act is a crime only if there is victim and harm, injury or damage done to the victim.[10] It cannot lawfully be modified, limited nor abrogated by legislature or other government department.[9]
Many legal “experts” believe that Common Law is the same as or similar to “Case Law”. “Case Law” (also known as “precedent”) is not actually law, but rather court cases usually decided by the U.S.A. Supreme Court, inferior courts and appellate courts. Courts are within the Judicial branch of government and therefore cannot make law. Only the Legislative branch is constitutionally allowed to make law.[11] “Judicial activism” and ”legislating from the bench” are unconstitutional.[12][13]
The U.S.A. Constitution is based on Common Law and the term is stated in Amendment VII of the Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments to the constitution).
“A de jure government is the legal, legitimate government of a state and is so recognized by other states. In contrast, a de facto government is in actual possession of authority and control of the state.”[14]
“What is de jure government? The term that applies to the legally constituted government that has been placed in power in accordance with the laws of the land.”[15]
Sovereigns believe that the current U.S.A. federal government (de facto government) is at least 50% unconstitutional based on the following: 1) Federal means “having or relating to a system of government in which several states form a unity but remain independent in internal affairs.”[16] The de facto government controls the states and the people with unconstitutional “laws” and taxes.[17] 2) The U.S.A. Constitution grants certain powers, many of which are listed in article I, section 8. 3) “This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof … shall be the supreme Law of the Land …”[18] In 1787+-, United States meant the states that are united, not the federal government. 4) “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”[19] 5) “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined.”[20] 6) “It [federal government] must always savour of weakness – sometimes border on anarchy.”[21] 7) “No matter how long one searches, it is impossible to find in the Constitution any language that authorizes at least 90 percent of the civilian programs that Congress crams into the federal budget today.” [22]
Not all national laws are “in Pursuance” (enforcement) of the U.S.A. Constitution. “Laws” that violate a human right(s) or a constitution are color of law. ”Color of law = The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under “color of law”.”[23]
The reasons for the federal politicians ignoring the constitution is/are: 1) usurpation/mission creep. Politicians do not like to be legally restrained.[24] 2) through favors, brides, donations and intimidation, many politicians have been “bought” by unions, organizations and corporations.[25] and 3) “the seat of the federal Government of the United States” (article I, section 8), Washington D.C., operates as a “corporation of Washington”, D. C.. [26]
“The term "United States" may be used in any one of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, Page 324 U.S. 672 or it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.”[27]
It is the second “sense” that sovereigns use to “get out of” the de facto system by using one or more of the following methods to get out of the system:
1) Expatriation – Sovereigns expatriate from the de facto system using the Expatriation Act of 1868.[28] Then they repatriate into the de jure, constitutional, original, organic system where public servants work for the people. They do not leave their place of residence to expatriate, rather it is a political move. They each are now called a “state national” and refer to themselves by the name of the state they repatriated to using one of the following names.[29] “Nationalities, etc. 5.22. The table beginning on page 233 shows forms to be used for nouns and adjectives denoting nationality. 5.23. In designating the natives of the several States, the following forms will be used. Alabamian Alaskan Arizonan Arkansan Californian Coloradan Connecticuter Delawarean Floridian Georgian Hawaiian Idahoan Illinoisan Indianian Iowan Kansan Kentuckian Louisianian Mainer Marylander Massachusettsan Michiganian Minnesotan Mississippian Missourian Montanan Nebraskan Nevadan New Hampshirite New Jerseyan New Mexican New Yorker North Carolinian North Dakotan Ohioan Oklahoman Oregonian Pennsylvanian Rhode Islander South Carolinian South Dakotan Tennessean Texan Utahn Vermonter Virginian Washingtonian West Virginian Wisconsinite Wyomingite“[30]
“Definitions - The term “national” means a person [singular of people] owing permanent allegiance to a state.”[31] State = “a : one of the constituent units of a nation having a federal government, the fifty states b States plural, The United States of America, the territory of a state.”[32]
State nationals are not nationals of the “United States” because “The term “national of the United States” means (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.”[33] Recall the second sense of the meaning in the Hooven case.[27] Sovereigns reject the common belief that Americans are citizens of the “United States” because ““United States” means— (A) a Federal corporation; (B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or (C) an instrumentality of the United States.”[34] Sovereigns are not of or part of any of these.
They do not refer to themselves as “persons” (and seldom as “citizens”) because “person” may include a corporation, company, association, trust, estate, business entity (such as a partnership, corporation or limited liability company) and government (in some definitions). National example: “The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.”[35]
State examples of the definition of “Person”: “"Person" means an individual, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, joint venture, government, governmental subdivision, agency or instrumentality, public corporation or any other legal or commercial entity.”[36] “"Person" means an individual person, a corporation, a business trust, an estate, a trust, a partnership, an association, a joint venture, a government in its private or public capacity, a governmental subdivision or agency, or any other legal entity.[37]
Expatriation is explained in detail in the book The Red Amendment by L. B. Bork
2) The second method commonly used by sovereigns to get out of the de facto system is to make documents they get from websites, classes, books and/or other sources to make documents with references to past laws such as The Magna Carta (which refers to “free man” several times), Declaration of Independence, Constitution for the United States of America (U.S.A. Constitution), Federalist Papers, state Bill of Rights and/or other legal documents and writings.[38]
3) Some file a Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.) Financial Statement form 1 and related documents.[39]
4) Some use a document called “Act of State”, “archetype” and “apostille” and get an apostille number from their state Secretary of State.[40]
Sovereigns use this term because people used to be called sovereigns hundreds of years ago. Sovereign is “a : one possessing or held to possess supreme political power or sovereignty b : one that exercises supreme authority within a limited sphere c : an acknowledged leader : arbiter”[41] People are referred to as sovereign in current law. Here are some of the many examples:
“The fundamental principle, on which it rests, that the empire [U.S.A. nation] is a community of sovereigns; that the Diet [legislature] is a representation of sovereigns; and that the laws are addressed to sovereigns; …”[42]
“Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but, in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power.”[43]
“In the United States, Sovereignty resides in the people, who act through the organs established by the Constitution.”[44]
“The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves, as a free, sovereign and independent state; and to alter and abolish their constitution and form of government whenever they may deem it necessary to their safety and happiness, provided, such change be not repugnant to the constitution of the United States.”[45]
“Sovereignty of the people. All political power is vested in and derived from the people; all government of right originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.”[46]
“The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.”[47]
“… Government to undermine the sovereignty of the People, the States and the Union itself …” – Articles of Freedom, article I.[48]
“The genius of Republican [not the party] liberty, seems to demand on one side, not only that all power should be derived from the people; but, that those entrusted with it should be kept in dependence on the people, …”[49]
“All people are by nature free and independent…”[50]
“All political power is inherent in the people.”[51]
“All political power is vested in and derived from the people; all government, of right, originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.”[52]
Sovereigns ignore unconstitutional “laws” because they want to be as free as people were hundreds of years ago. The Americans who fought in the Revolutionary War to be free and independent fought against “tyranny” from their own nation, Great Britain, under the domination of King George the III. Sovereigns (then and now) “have Petitioned for Redress”[7], sent documents and letters to politicians and used other peaceful means “to throw off such Government”[7], but such government has “answered only by repeated injury”[7]. “That when any form of Government becomes destructive of these [“certain unalienable Rights”] ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it …”[7]. Sovereigns have chosen to politically leave the illegal de facto system of government and continue life as it was 240+- years ago rather than fight. What they are doing is not new, but rather very old. Sovereigns use many sources to obtain and defend their regained freedom: quotes from the “founding fathers”, old and new laws, court cases, recent and old books, websites, videos and classes on the Internet and in person. Some more examples of legally ignoring unconstitutional “laws” follow:
“If the Judges were not embarked in a conspiracy with the Legislature they would pronounce the resolutions of such a majority to be contrary to the supreme law of the land, unconstitutional and void.”[53]
“An act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution cannot become the law of the land.”[54]
"No legislative act therefore contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid."[55]
“The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.”[56]
"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."[57]
"The Constitution is a written instrument. As such its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now. Being a grant of powers to a government, its language is general; and, as changes come in social and political life, it embraces in its grasp all new conditions which are within the scope of the powers in terms conferred. In other words, [Page 199 U.S. 437, 449] while the powers granted do not change, they apply from generation to generation to all things to which they are in their nature applicable. This in no manner abridges the fact of its changeless nature and meaning. Those things which are within its grants of power, as those grants were understood when made, are still within them; and those things not within them remain still excluded."[58]
"The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.”[59]
The federal government is conspiring against the people in violation of U.S.C. title 18, sections 241 (“Conspiracy against rights”) and 242 (“Deprivation of rights under color of law”).
Politicians and the general public believe that sovereigns must prove their claims because they believe the freedom movement is new and baseless. This is one reason why sovereigns send so many documents to governments. However, sovereigns are not required to prove anything. The burden of proof is on the claimant. The claimant is one who makes a claim, a statement said to be fact. The claimant is the government when it claims to have legitimate constitutional authority over the people’s right to travel, gamble, prostitute, marry, use drugs, engage in commerce, etc.. “The proponent of a rule or order has the burden of proof.”[60] “The claimant is always bound to prove: the burden of proof lies on him.”[61] So when any government claims to have authority or jurisdiction over a human, they are legally required to reveal such a law, and such law must be provided for (allowed) by the applicable constitution(s) that they took an oath to obey, otherwise it is color of law. Most federal and state public servants take an oath of office similar to: “I, A. B. do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.”[62]
The reason sovereigns do not use lawyers and attorneys and the reason why lawyers and attorneys do not defend clients by using the “sovereignty defense” or any of the methods above is because “His first duty is to the courts and to the public, not to the client.”[63]
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is supposed to protect sovereigns when sovereigns ignore color of law, but they do not, contrary to their own website. “That’s why it’s a federal crime for anyone acting under “color of law” to willfully deprive or conspire to deprive a person of a right protected by the Constitution or U.S. law.”[64] Instead, the FBI has made baseless claims about sovereigns.[65]
Left-wingers, liberals, socialists, communists and progressives (collectivists) also exaggerate and lie about sovereigns by claiming that sovereigns are hateful, antigovernment, antitax, violent, wrong, extremists and far-right.[66] The Southern Poverty Law Center further claims that sovereigns are “paper terrorists”.[67]
The claims by the S.P.L.C., Department of Homeland Security and F.B.I. are based mostly on emotions and their love of government. Of course, there are rare exceptions to the typical peace-loving sovereign who wants to be left alone that collectivists and government exploit and claim these examples are the rule rather than the exceptions. Some of the alleged criminals are not sovereigns, but are blamed by their opponents.[68]
But reading about or listening to actual sovereigns reveals that the S.P.L.C., F.B.I. and other antifreedom groups are lying and spreading hatred of all people on the political right. Opponents say that sovereigns are wrong because left-wing media and government says they are. They say sovereigns loose in court and give examples, but ignore the cases they win. They believe that the exceptions are the rules.[69] A search of the Internet of sovereigns winning on the streets, in government offices and in courts are easy to find.
“America: Freedom to Fascism” documentary at www., Netflix, etc.. , ,, , , , “Redemption Manual” http :// ,
Sovereign videos: https :// , https ://
As well as:
2. www
3. Preamble to the U.S.A. Constitution
5. The American’s Creed
6. The Red Amendment by L. B. Bork, mostly on pages 4-9
7. Declaration of Independence 1776
8. Bouvier’s Law Dictionary 1856
9. https ://
10. https ://
11. https ://
12. Federalist Papers 78, 81, 82, 83
13. http ://
14. https: //
15. Black’s Law Dictionary at https ://
16. The Oxford Dictionaries
17. http s://
18. Article VI of the U.S.A. Constitution.
19. Amendment 10 of the U.S.A. Constitution.
20. James Madison, father of the constitution, in Federalist Paper 45.
21. Alexander. Hamilton, Federalist Paper 22.
22. Stephen Moore https ://
23. Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 241.
24. https ://
25. https ://
26. Statute at Large 2/21/1871. Also United States Code title 28, section 3002 (15).
27. Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945) https ://
28. Statutes at Large, July 27, 1868.
29. The Red Amendment by L. B. Bork
30. From the U.S.A. government Style Manual, chapters 5.22 and 5.23
31. U.S.C. title 8, section 1101 (a)(21).
32. https ://
33. U.S.C. title 8, section 1101(a)(22).
34. U.S.C. title 28, section 3002 (15).
35. U.S.C. title 26, section 7701 (a)(1). Also U.S.C. title 28, section 3002 (10); Administrative Procedures, title 14, Chapter 1, sec. 1001, 10; and many other places that have the same or similar definitions.
36. Arizona Revised Statutes 14-10103 11.
37. Colorado Revised Statutes 13-1.5-102, Nevada Revised Statutes 164.657 and elsewhere.
38. , ,, www , and www
39. Cracking the Code by Peter Eric Hendrickson, The UCC Connection: How To Free Yourself From Legal Tyranny by David E. Robinsonand, and others.
40. https :// and else where
41. https ://
42. James Madison in Federalist Paper 19
43. Yick Wo v. Hopkins 118 U.S. 356. https ://
44. Chisholm vs. Georgia, 2 Dall 419, 471; Penhallow vs. Doane’s Administrators, 3 Dall 54, 93; McCullock vs. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316, 404, 405.
45. Colorado Constitution, article II, section 2
46. North Carolina Constitution, article I, section 2 - https ://
47. California Government Code, sections 100, 11120 and 54950
48. https ://
49. James Madison in Federalist Paper 37
50. California Constitution (1879), article I, section 1
51. California Constitution (1879), article II, section 1
52. Colorado Constitution, article II, section 1.
53. Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper 16.
54. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137, 1 Cond. Rep. 267
55. Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 78
56. 16th American Jurisprudence 2d, Sec. 178 http ://
57. 16th American Jurisprudence, 2nd Edition, Volume 16, Section 177
58. Mr. Justice Brewer, U.S. Supreme Court, [South Carolina vs. US, 199 U.S. 437 (1905)
59. Miller vs. U.S., U.S. Supreme Court, [319 U.S. 105 (1943)
60. Law maxim and The Federal Register – https ://
61. http :// and U.S.C. title 5, section 556 (d)
62. Statute at Large I, chapter I, section 1, June 1, 1789. Oaths are also stated in state constitutions. For example, article XX, section 3 of the Constitution of California.
63. Corpus Juris Secundum, Section 4 ATTORNEY & CLIENT 7
64. https ://
65. https :// .
66. https :// and https ://
67. https ://
68. https :// and https ://
69. www. and others

Views: 46


You need to be a member of Constitution Club to add comments!

Join Constitution Club

© 2020   Created by Online Professor.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service