People Have Rights,
Citizens Have Privileges
Every human is a child of God, and a natural born citizen in His Kingdom. We are all subject to the Laws of Nature and Nature's God. He endowed us with a set of unalienable rights, which includes the right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". Our government was created to protect our rights, not to rule and reign over us.
Individually, we are Kings and Queens without subjects and have the God given right to govern ourselves. When we enter into contracts with government, we become Citizens and surrender all of our rights to an oligarchy of rich and powerful men. When we become a citizen, we lose our free agency and become slaves on the government's plantation.
Click on the following image
Our birth certificates, social security card, driver's license, marriage license, passports and voter registration cards are all adhesion contracts where you must affirm that you are a "citizen of the United States."
"Everyone born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction
is a citizen of the United States and in the state where they reside."
According to the Constitution, the jurisdiction of the "UNITED STATES" is limited to a area "not to exceed ten miles square". Only government employees and people who were born or reside in the District of Columbia are automatically a "citizen of the UNITED STATES." People born in one of the several states are not automatically subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal government unless they voluntarily enter into a contract which then obligates them to comply with the requirements of being a 14th Amendment "citizen of the UNITED STATES".
Please Support the Constitution Club
Replies
'Persons born' has nothing to do with emerging from the womb since that is an impossibility for that status which had not existed until the idea, a concept, arose in the minds of legislators and was EXPRESSED by writing it as Legislation called Amendment XIV. 'Person', the first word of the sentence, and therefore capitalized is same as all other 'person' fictions of law which are born (delivered, carried, supported ) Legislatively AND NOT AS A LIVING HUMAN BEING. Do yourself a favor and learn the meaning of the words you rely on. Not a single human being is expressed by that Amendment for the fact that it does not express rights as are recognized by fellow human beings as endowed in each one of us by our individual birth on the land from our mother as a citizen of that place, that state of the Union and thereby as a citizen of the Confederation to which those nation states belong; the one styled as "The United States of America" the citizens of which ARE THE ORIGINAL ISSUERS OF ALL VALUE and own the land, the government and the Legislation . . part of which is that Amendment XIV WHICH HAS NOT THE CAPACITY TO REACH AND ADDRESS OR QUALIFY ANY MAN'S RIGHTS but may EXPRESS the idea of the prosthetic status which it offers for others to loin in thinking of and acting in representation of and thereby gain the privilege of that privilege dependent government extending privileged protections to those 'appearing as' 'persons' within the operative scope of U.S.Code sections and State statutes written for their means of obtaining and being regulated by that Legislation by which they are protected by the government, their adopted new master and protector which allows them the freedom to work and live wherever they care to and still send back to the Master the voluntary servitude return portion of the liquidated value of their labor (formerly slave labor). One need not be one freed from slavery in order to participate. . no, anybody can join the ranks of those electing to be bonded to terms of voluntary servitude and be labeled by any of the very many 'person' type names, such as 'taxpayer', 'driver', 'licensed plumber', ' certified Public Accountant and such. Anybody whose mom delivered them by live birth as a citizen of the United States of America, whether by jus soli or jus sangunis citizenship should kiss the ground they walk on and be glad that the rest of the world views you as an American citizen=citizen of the United States of America. The Congress has not the power to define or limit the rights of Man except by offering terms which Man can operate within under a second class prejudiced capacity of rights due to the impediments he voluntarily subjugates his rights to be forming an effective connection with a Legislation expressed operative scope which is commonly called U.S.Code or State statute.
X
Your first paragraph, I completely agree with. In fact, I have stated virtually the same message quite a few times but in a less laborious manner.
" Do yourself a favor and learn the meaning of the words you rely on. "
Do yourself a favor and everyone else. Post your messages without critiquing everyone else. That's not what this site was set up for. If you were the genius you purport to be you sure as hell wouldn't post a 25 line line sentence that makes the IRS Code look like 8th grade reading. All your commentaries are replete with run-on sentences that are totally incomprehensible. Your whole commentary consists of 5 sentences. So before you start belittling everyone else for their lack of communicative skills, why don't you bone up on effective writing.
If you take the truth and facts as belittling of your beliefs, that is no fault of mine.
Those who propose that one can be 'born' in the United States ( which is the name of the Congress for the purposes of the Amendment XIV) I repeat. . . should learn the meaning of the words they rely on. As for the challenging length, substance and format of my writing . . nobody is forcing you to read it. I am no more restricted in my writing style than you are in your writing style. Have I offended your capacity to communicate in the freedom of speech means you choose to express yourself? No, I think not. So I'll thank you to not offer a trespass seeking to impose on my freedom of expression. Read my utterances or do not read them, it matters not to me.
Offering agreement and/or challenging opinion relative to another's expressions is not a critique of another's writing, which is precisely what you did relative to my writing. Point out the words by which I purport to be a genius ! Point out the words by which I belittled everyone else for their lack of communicative skills. As for your utterly obnoxious suggestion that I might bone up on effective writing skills, perhaps some exercises in restraining yourself from attacks of a personal nature and, instead focusing on the topics at hand might serve you well. After all, isn't that what we are here for . . . to address the topics and not hen peck at other's personal style or attempt to put words in their mouth, as you sure do seem to be attempting for me.
As for the IRS Code, Title 26, it does not matter what grade of reading it is presented by because it only applied to those who chose to do an act by which they made it apply to them AND THAT THEY HAVE FAILED to undo that effective connection they made. The appropriate topic for those who wish to not be subject to the IRS is but ONE: "How do I undo that which I did to tie the IRS to my rights?" There exists no discussion otherwise relative to the IRC except one against the rights of free people and in favor of the IRS or one which simply wastes time and facilitates a bunch of griping. So, I ask, are you here to learn how to get IRS out of your life, or are you here to sustain or promote subjugation to its actions or are you here just to complain ? Maybe that is what you might ponder instead of griping that my sentences are too long. Seriously ? Here is a suggestion, if the sentence structure challenges you, insert some periods wherever you please or insert some spacing so you can take smaller bites, instead or crying about the size of the steak served up.
For those with literacy challenges, or just want a condensed presentation, here is IRS compliance in a nutshell: People sign up for domination and the fail to unsubscribe. Those who unsubscribe are free of the IRS.
X
Atta boy, Champ! You just confirmed my points. Not too much needed to say except that you are apparently a quick study. Your sentence structuring is much improved.
By the way, your last paragraph is right on target. If you check on older entries you will see that that is precisely what we have been saying here for several years now.
Okay, daniel allan:pendergast I presume that is all good, unless that last post is the product of an experienced wise-ass . . . I have come across plenty of those in my time. I'll accept those words as genuine, though I am not adverse to ball-busting as long as it does not hinder the progress of important matters. .
I ask these questions:
Whom of those participating in this forum have separated themselves from the IRS by a manner known to and accepted by the IRS?
Whom of the forum are still playing cat and mouse with the IRS, maneuvering to avoid the claws and probably grossly preoccupied with thinking about how to be rid of IRS once and for all ?
I believe if one is dealing with the IRS in a manner which leaves them wondering whether it truly is over or not, and perhaps living with anxiety each time the mailman approaches . . . fearing another "letter bomb" from the IRS; they have not yet severed their connection to the IRS. That is because once the connection is severed, the IRS shall not attempt contact again unless it is invite of them.
If the IRS continues to make contact relative to a 'taxpayer', the one communicated with has not yet severed the essential effective connection they have in common with the IRS.
Severing one's connection to the IRS is a goal achievable in one day's time with about three hours total time spent on their side of the task.
X
I have no way of knowing what others have done in relation to the IRS. I have offered my own experiences of withdrawal over the years, but I realize that most are too fearful to utilize my explanations. I understand their fear.
It was characterized in 1939 in the Wizard of Oz [they always tell you what's going on] with the Cowardly Lion--fearful of any confrontation. They also told us about the straw man [Scare Crow] who didn't have a brain and the Tin Man [TIN--Tax Identification Number] who didn't have a heart, and we know the IRS doesn't have a heart.
Nothing terribly profound there except the fact that they counted on the public to never catch on to their revelations. It worked for quite awhile. The sheep are starting to wake from their induced slumber.
Hollywood is in their fold and if we pay attention you will see certain themes playing out in the background over and over where they are telling us what they are doing to us.
The Wizard of Oz
The Truman Show
The Matrix
Just to name a few. They are fulfilling their legal obligations under International Private Law to inform the slaves of the conditions of their servitude. They are counting on a dumbed down people dismissing all similarities to reality as just coincidental entertainment.
Not that it matters; I agree with all but the second sentence of your last paragraph. No such obligation and there are no slaves.
If they have no obligation to tell us what they are doing to us, then why does Hollywood put out all these cryptic theme movies spelling out the whole scenario to the wary? Of course, they are counting on very few, if any, recognizing that they are being messaged by the Controllers.
If there is no obligation under Private International Law to provide a remedy, why does IRS Code 6013(g) or exiting through an affidavit of mistake exist?
As to the people being slaves, I will strongly differ with you on that one. They own the legal fictions that they created unless one has claimed the straw man as his own property. The people, thinking they are the ALL CAPS name are thus enslaved by proxy.
Getting out is not difficult unless you are one characterized as a Cowardly Lion.
Your first paragraph. Who are "they"? Any "cryptic" themes you sense are what you sense and not provably relative to any aspect of government function. Newsflash: Governmental function is not achieved through distribution of Hollywood products. Believe whatever you want and act on it or do not act on it, that is the essence of freedom of expression, though your utterances are without effect as for applicability of law or to sway my behavior. Who are the "Controllers" and, more specifically, how is it that they control you. . . .is it by magnetic waves and electronic pulse which you invite into your home to be electronically interpreted and displayed on the television screen which you intentionally park your rump in and observe and think about and believe that you are obligated to observe and respond to that communication as if it mandates a behavior on your part of the part of anybody else . . do you see how utterly insane the whole concept is that you seek to promote ? I reject it. Turn off the television and let your mind recover from the stupidity you have been feeding it.
To your second paragraph: Explain to me where I can find the published version of the "Private International Law."
And what would be the remedy in contradistinction to ?
The election function expressed for the purposes of 6013(g) is the very same election by which the nature and functional capacity each and every individual who acts as taxpayer did form an effective connection with the enforcement capacity of the operative scope of Title 26 in the first instance. Nobody owes another any warning of the benefits inherent t a program which the second party voluntarily elects to subject himself to. The law is not a public swimming pool under the watchful eye of lifeguards. That the statute is published IS SUFFICIENT NOTICE OF ITS TERMS. That one signs up for services enforced by that statute and later regrets that which he asked for is fault falling to him alone. No obligation exists by under compulsion of law for one to warn another. And yet, Legislation, by its existence in a comprehensible form IS SUCH WARNING which you seem to complain does not exist. Read and comprehend the statute before obligating yourself to it.
As for your third paragraph: Differ if you like, but you are still just as much in error. If you are talking about the numbers and NAME which appears on the Social Security card, those are owned collectively by the citizens of the United States of America whom own all the states and all the governments and all the property of the government and the governmental capacities. Those citizens also own all the accounts, the number and NAME of which are used as password or access portals for those electing to use those SSA pass-through accounts. There is no 'straw man' except in certain people's minds, though none functional in our laws or administrative procedures. 'Person' is a recognized and functional term, "Straw man and Strawman" are not. If hat 's' word is used to denote some other thing which is recognized, the conversation might benefit from using the recognized name of that thing rather than a meaningless word "strawman". As for "the people thinking that they are the ALL CAPS name" . . . are ignorant, incorrect and matter not because the whole idea is preposterous. We arrive and leave this life as but one thing, a human being. All other expressions of our existence are VOLUNTARILY ADOPTED and VOLUNTARILY FUNCTIONAL BY ELECTED USE. It matters not what some ignorant of us think or what a nit-wit thinks he is "made into" or 'forced to do". Those who lack self direction will be steered by others. Nobody, but nobody is "enslaved" other than those actually physically bound or held in a place and condition against their will and contrary to law and rights. A state of mind adopted to believe as if enslaved is simply stupidity and self deprecation.
As for your last paragraph: Bravo, so true ! The cowardly lions among us just need some brotherhood and guidance.
X