Overly Attached Ingress


Continue reading →



Types of Law and Jurisdictions

  So far we have a historical foundation to build upon.  The Federal government of the United States is a corporation operating on its own behalf and for its own bottom line (gains) with the implied presumption of value through taxes and property accrued over time by its citizens.  I puked a little when I wrote it too.  Don't feel bad.

  Now it is time to extend upon what we have already learned by fitting together a few more pieces of the puzzle and allowing ourselves to see a much larger portion of the collective big picture.  Now that we have a clearer picture of our government (and similar governments) we must find out what type of laws they govern, who they apply to, and what exactly the word "jurisdiction" means.  There are many types of laws if you really want to be specific, but let's define the word first:

a system of rules and guidelines which are enforced through social institutions to govern behavior.  2. Laws are made by governments, specifically by their legislatures. The formation of laws themselves may be influenced by a constitution (written or unwritten) and the rights encoded therein. The law shapes politics, economics and society in countless ways and serves as a social mediator of relations between people."

  I think it is important to remember that rights are encoded into the formation of laws (I'll explain that soon along with Natural Law).  Let's first look at the three known and most widely accepted systems:

1. Taken from Roman law, it is used in continental Europe, their former colonies, Isle of Man, Latin America, Scotland, state of Louisiana in the US federation, and in Canada’s Quebec province. In this system, the law is a highly structured and rigid code of rules observed to the letter. An expert judge decides cases without the help of jury and without any reference to precedent. In this system, every defendant in a criminal trial is presumed guilty until proven innocent.  2. As Private law that contrasts to administrative law, criminal law, ecclesiastical law, and military law, and deals with relationships among individuals."

As distinguished from the Roman law, the modern civil law, the canon law, and other systems, the common law is that body of law and juristic theory which was originated, developed, and formulated and is administered in England, and has obtained among most of the states and peoples of Anglo-Saxon stock. Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal. 255, 10 Pac. 674. 2. As distinguished from law created by the enactment of legislatures, the common COMMON LAW 227 COMMON PLEAS law comprises the body of those principles and rules of action, relating to the government and security of persons and property, which derive their authority solely from usages and customs of immemorial antiquity, or from the judgments and decrees of the courts recognizing, affirming, and enforcing such usages and customs; and, in this sense, particularly the ancient unwritten law of England. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Call Pub. Co., 181 U. S. 92, 21 Sup. Ct. 5G1, 45 L. Ed. 7G5; State v. Buchanan, 5 Har. & J. (Md.) 3G5, 9 Am. Dec. 534; Lux v. Ilaggin, G9 Cal. 255, 10 Pac. G74; Barry v. Port Jervis, 64 App. Div. 268, 72 N. Y. Supp. 104. 3. As distinguished from equity law, it is a body of rules and principles, written or unwritten, which are of fixed and immutable authority, and which must be applied to controversies rigorously and in their entirety, and cannot be modified to suit the peculiarities of a specific case, or colored by any judicial discretion, and which rests confessedly upon custom or statute, as distinguished from any claim to ethical superiority. Kle- ver v. Seawall, 65 Fed. 395, 12 C. C. A. 661. 4. As distinguished from ecclesiastical law, it is the system of jurisprudence administered by the purely secular tribunals. 5. As concerns its force and authority in the United States, the phrase designates that portion of the common law of England (including such acts of parliament as were applicable) which had been adopted and was in force here at the time of the Revolution. This, so far as it has not since been expressly abrogated, is recognized as an organic part of the jurisprudence of most of the United States. Browning v. Browning, 3 N. M. 371, 9 Pac. 677; Guardians of Poor v. Greene, 5 Bin. (Pa.) 557; U. S. v. New Bedford Bridge, 27 Fed. Cas. 107. 6. In a wider sense than any of the foregoing, the “common law” may designate all that part of the positive law, juristic theory, and ancient custom of any state or nation which is of general and universal application, thus marking off special or local rules or customs. As a compound adjective “common-law” is understood as contrasted with or opposed to “statutory,” and sometimes also to “equitable” or to “criminal.”


(1) That branch of the public law of a state which treats of the organization and frame of government, the organs and powers of sovereignty, the distribution of political and governmental authorities and functions, the fundamental principles which are to regulate the relations of government and subject, and which prescribes generally the plan and method according to which the public affairs of the state are to be administered. (2) That department of the science of law which treats of constitutions, their establishment, construction, and interpretation, and of the validity of legal enactments as tested by the criterion of conformity to the fundamental law. (3) A constitutional law is one which is consonant to, and agrees with, the constitution; one which is not in violation of any provision of the constitution of the particular state."

Where Do I Fit In?

  Glad you asked!  As you are already aware, American law is split between a Federal system and the 50 State systems. In very general terms: The United States Constitution is the "supreme law of the land". No law can be passed which violates the Federal U.S. Constitution.  Also, as you have already learned as well, we know that from the 10th Amendment of the Constitution (“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“[Emphasis added.]).  The U.S. Constitution is a compact between the States.  The limited authority delegated to the Federal government is enumerated in the U.S. Constitution.  The States created the Federal government to be an agent of the States to carry out limited powers.  The States have the legal authority to reassume powers delegated to the Federal government.  Each State will also have it's own Constitution. These will be the supreme law for the respective states, and they cannot violate the Federal Constitution.  The Federal government and State governments will also have a Legislature which is in charge of passing laws. The federal legislature is Congress (The Senate and the House of Representatives). No law passed by any legislature can violate the Constitution.

  Each State is given the power to govern itself. However, if a federal law and a state law conflict, the Supremacy Clause states that the federal law will prevail.  Not so, actually.  Remember the old "the Constitution is the supreme law of the land" in this country?  (see also:http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/02/05/state-supremacy-vs-the-supremacy-clause/)  The Supremacy Clause only applies if an act of the Federal Government is in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers.  This should add further perspective in context of the hierarchical structure of our governments' law system implementation.  To review and slightly simplify, there are three basic types of law in the United States:

Constitutional law is the law in the U.S. Constitution and state constitutions. It includes such fundamental rights as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of expression etc. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the United States. No law can be enacted that contravenes the provisions of the U.S. Constitution.

Statutory law is law enacted by legislature. Congress, state and municipalities all have legislative bodies that make laws. It is created through a formal lawmaking process and codified in official text. ( Example: When the Florida Legislature passes a bill, such as the recent primary seat belt law - it is a Staturtory Law.)

Common law, began in England when law was derived from common practices. Common law includes "judge-made laws" and relies on judicial precidents (case law). Judges, thus, in their decisions are bound by precedent: the rulings of other judges in similar cases decided earlier. All the states except for Louisiana are common law states, Florida is a common law state).

  We have yet to mention our Natural Rights and how they are defined.  In fact, the Constitution mentions that it and any laws governed by it should not impede our basic human rights.  Have you ever stopped to try to define them?  If so, what should "natural laws" be called?  Recommended prerequisite:  http://www.humanrights.com/what-are-human-rights/brief-history/declaration-of-independence.html


A rule of conduct arising out of the natural relations of human beings, established by the Creator, and existing prior to any positive precept Webster. The foundation of this law is placed by the best writers in the will of God, discovered by right reason, aud aided by diviue revelation ; and its principles, when applicable, apply with equal obligation to individuals and to nations. 1 Kent, Comm. 2, note; Id 4, note. See Jus NATURALE. The rule and dictate of right reason, showing the moral deformity or moral necessity there is in any act, according to its suitableness or uusuitableuess to a reasonable na- ture. Tayl. Civil Law, 99. This expression, “natural law,” or jus naturale, was largely used in the philosophical speculations of the Roman jurists of the Anto- nine age, and was intended to denote a system of rules and principles for the guidance of human conduct which, independently of enacted law or of the systems peculiar to any one people, might be discovered by the rational intelligence of man, aud would be found to grow out of and conform to his nature, meaning by that word his whole mental, moral, and physical constitution. The point of departure for this conception was the Stoic doctrineof a life ordered “according to nature,” which in its turn rested upon the purely supposititious existence, in primitive times, of a “state of nature;” that is, a condition of society in which men universally were governed solely by a rational and consistent obedience to the needs, impulses, aud promptings of their true nature, such nature being as yet undefaced by dishonesty, falsehood, or indulgence of the baser passions. See Maine, Anc. Law, 50, et seq. We understand all laws to be either human or divine, according as they have man or God for their author; and divine laws are of two kinds, that is to say: (1) Natural laws; (2) positive or revealed laws. A natural law is defined by Burlamaqui to be “a rule which so necessarily agrees with the nature and state of man that, without observing its maxims, the peace aud happiness of society can never be preserved.” And he says that these are called “natural NATURALE EST QUIDLIBET 805

  Natural Law is encompassed in its maxims.  A maxim can best be described in Latin, "quia maxima ejus dignitas et certissima auctorir tas, et quod maxime omnibus probetur", which means, "because the greatest and most certain writers in the dignity of his choice, and that it is approved by all the most".  In other words, and by definition, maxims are established principles or propositions based on morality and God-given conviction and realization by conscience. A principle of law universally admitted, as being a correct statement of the law, or as agreeable to natural reason.  We all have these maxims built-in.  That is why you feel bad if you harm someone else (if you don't, you may have deeper seeded issues that are beyond the scope of these posts) or do something you somehow just know to be wrong.  If you would like to read a bit more about maxims and see some defined and printed, read this or this.  I highly recommend you read both, actually.

  With all the previous information understood, you must now have a clearer picture of the hierarchical relationship between all the law systems in place, here in America:  Maxims of Law (or, God's Law) -> The United States Constitution -> Statutes & Code (Bills, Acts, UCC/USC) -> Case Law (ie: BANK vs. PHILIP SMITH).  We could even further simplify:  Bible/Maxims, "We the People", US Constitution, States' Constitutions,   Statutory or Enacted Laws, and finally Case Law.  In other words, we have the right to do whatever we want as long as we do not harm anyone or their property, we grant authority to government (because we created it and gave it law to abide by, the Constitution), and the government enacts law and expands upon the founding documents and further defines said laws by trails that tend to magnify the smaller attributes.

  I know this particular post is a lot to comprehend, but [as always], please cross-reference any or all the material therein for your own sanity.  Use sound judgment and never take one source as reputable until you can here all sides.  The important idea here is the conveyance of a fundamental understanding of the structure of the laws in our country.  All too often, people believe everything the Television or our government tell us to be fact, but most often the facts are fiction that come from the mouths of those who only wish to control and subjugate others for profit of their own and for those of their peers.  It's humanity's basic [sinful] nature.
Continue reading →

Christians and War



In the Republic of the United States we are met with an inevitable caveat in regard to the availability and "benefit" of our individual freedoms and God-given rights.  This inevitable end is the possibility for another Civil War.  We the People comprise the Constitutional Republic that we have come to love and understand as a free nation.  But, we are not really free (please see: UNITED STATES, INC.).  Our nation is being consumed and controlled by an international corporation, also referred to as the federal "government" of the United States of America.  This organization imposes unconstitutional "laws" [statutes] and enforces them with fear mongering tactics by threat of imprisonment or dissolution of assets.  Some of the impositions include the tax-funded murder of millions of unborn children annually and modern slavery through illicit, illegal taxes (specifically, the [federal] income tax).  That's only the first two I could think of, but there are many more that extend far outside the scope of this particular post.

What I wish to address is the inarguable fact that we are nearing the unavoidable repetition of history.  I am talking about another revolution; another Civil War.  I would also like to try to describe the Christian's role, rather, what it should be, in such a devastating, incomprehensible situation.  Are we as Christians to idly stand by and let the evil benefactors have their way with our families and our morality?  Are we to lay down our arms and let this tyrannical, convoluted, poor excuse for "authority" overcome our [founded on God and the Bible] government, take control of and enslave or murder dissenters?  Or, should we fight for our God-given Human Rights and our "One Nation Under God" and once again evade the slave-minded monarchs of Europe?  

Killing & Murder Defined

I am very interested in language and words.  We use words throughout every day of our lives, but never stop to actually consider the implications of the words we speak or think.  Most often, we use words without knowledge of their literal meanings, but figurative slang is commonplace and is no cause for concern.  I disagree.  Let's define the two words alleged to mean taking another man[kind]'s life.  We are defining the verbiage as the noun usage is a bit out of context for this subject matter.

verb (used with object)  1. to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of; slay.Synonyms: slaughter, massacre, butcher; hang, electrocute,behead, guillotine, strangle, garrote; assassinate.  2. to destroy; do away with; extinguish: His response killed our hopes.  3. to destroy or neutralize the active qualities of: to kill an odor.  4. to spoil the effect of: His extra brushwork killed the painting.  5. to cause (time) to be consumed with seeming rapidity or with a minimum of boredom, especially by engaging in some easy activity or amusement of passing interest: I had to kill three hours before plane time.

mur·der [mur-der]
verb (used with object)  4. Law. to kill by an act constituting murder.  5. to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.  6. to spoil or mar by bad performance, representation, pronunciation, etc.: The tenor murdered the aria.

The differences between the two words should immediately stand out to you at this point.  The biggest differences I could see from observations were that killing seems to be related to the act of taking a life. This could include a animal for the use of food for a human being.  Conversely, murder is to kill with ill intents (inhumanely or barbarously).  It is also an act constituted by some form of law or another.  I can see the differences here, but the etymology interests me too.  Where do these words first appear in humanity's historical record?

kill (v.) Look up kill at Dictionary.comc.1200, "to strike, hit, beat, knock;" c.1300, "to deprive of life," perhaps from an unrecorded variant of Old English cwellan "to kill" (see quell), but the earliest sense suggests otherwise. Sense in to kill time is from 1728. Related: KilledkillingKill-devil, colloquial for "rum," especially if new or of bad quality, is from 1630s.

murder (n.) Look up murder at Dictionary.comc.1300, murdre, from Old English morðor (plural morþras) "secret killing of a person, unlawful killing," also "mortal sin, crime; punishment, torment, misery," from Proto-Germanic *murthra- (cf. Goth maurþr, and, from a variant form of the same root, Old Saxon morth, Old Frisian morth, Old Norsemorð, Middle Dutch moort, Dutch moord, German Mord "murder"), from PIE *mrtro-, from root *mer- "to die" (see mortal (adj.)). The spelling with-d- probably reflects influence of Anglo-French murdre, from Old French mordre, from Medieval Latin murdrum, from the Germanic root.
Viking custom, typical of Germanic, distinguished morð (Old Norse) "secret slaughter," from vig (Old Norse) "slaying." The former involved concealment, or slaying a man by night or when asleep, and was a heinous crime. The latter was not a disgrace, if the killer acknowledged his deed, but he was subject to vengeance or demand for compensation.
Weakened sense of "very unpleasant situation" is from 1878.
murder (v.) Look up murder at Dictionary.com 

Old English myrðrian, from Proto-Germanic *murthjan (cf. Old High German murdran, German mördren, Gothic maurþjan; see murder (n.)). Related: Murdered; murdering.

I included the noun form of murder because it seems to originate as such because it refers to an unlawful act not an act in and of itself.  Interesting.  Now, here's where it counts for me:  the Bible.  Does the Bible differentiate from the two words?  Let's find out!

Contradiction Regarding Killing & Murder in the Bible?

Let's take a look at one of the most criticized excerpts from God's Word by atheists and other theosophists alike.  I'm just going to quote all of them here:

Exodus 20 - (New International Version 1984)
13. “You shall not murder.

Leviticus 24 - (New International Version 1984)
17. “‘If anyone takes the life of a human being, he must be put to death. 18. Anyone who takes the life of someone’s animal must make restitution—life for life. 19. If anyone injures his neighbor, whatever he has done must be done to him: 20. fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has injured the other, so he is to be injured. 21. Whoever kills an animal must make restitution, but whoever kills a man must be put to death. 22. You are to have the same law for the alien and the native-born. I am the LORD your God.’”

Exodus 32 - (New International Version 1984)
27. Then he said to them, “This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: ‘Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.’” 28. The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. 29. Then Moses said, “You have been set apart to the LORD today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day.”

1 Samuel 6 - (New International Version 1984)
19. But God struck down some of the men of Beth Shemesh, putting seventy of them to death because they had looked into the ark of the LORD. The people mourned because of the heavy blow the LORD had dealt them...

This does not mean the Biblical position on killing is hopelessly contradictory.  In fact, according to Daniel, the command to avoid killing in the Ten Commandments is a umbrella statement; this included avoiding every type of killing.  But, we must also consider that we do not, rather, should not kill animals brutally and without purpose.  We kill animals to eat them.  It is a little known fact that we must eat to survive.  (Gotta love sarcastic humor.)  Another consideration should be that one chapter later in said book (Chpt.21:12-17), there are several injunctions pertaining to capital punishment (permitted for those who, in a premeditated manner, murder another person in malice), kidnapping to sell another person as a slave, or to curse and defame another person's father or mother.  It was commonly understood that not all killing is wrong, but those that are subject to the Law and fell into certain qualifications, limits, allowances, and restrictions of the use of the word "kill".  Some theosophists would quickly resort to pointing out the presumed ignorant oversight of a contradiction separated by less than one chapter.  This notion is astounding to me simply because the oversight is in the readers' suspicion and not of the original Scriptures.

Where is the Contradiction Then?

Glad you asked!  If you have read my prior posts titled, "UNITED STATES, INC.", you are aware of the illegally established pseudo-law prevalent in our societal governance.  Because our government and the majority of governments around the world have lost touch with our Creator and have displaced His Law with that of a theosophic belief (or disbelief) system which is baseless.  In other words, we have buried ourselves in statutory "laws" that pay no regard to our inherent rights given to us by God in Natural Law and its Maxims thus detaching us and hiding from divine authority.   The remarkable accuracy and acumen of the Old Testament instructions that were used by the Jewish community for almost 1,500 years, many of which were the basis for the legal codes of modern nations, but have since [for the most part] been abandoned and have been replaced with secular "standards".  Like it or not, the contradiction lies in the hypocritical statutory "principles".

Christians, War, & Current Events

So, now we have knowledge that there are certain justifications for killing, but is there justification to kill other men who are illegally and hostile taking over our God-founded nation?  I'd venture to say that it is okay and I'd also say that it is our duty as sovereign individuals.  We were given the power to create and govern a governing body.  I have certainly deeply considered which side, if any, I would fall on in the event another Civil War to procure in our alleged civilized society.  Would the outcome be as dismal as I imagine it to be if it were to come to fruition?  Or, should I simply take the stance that I have always had and maintain the inactive, defensive role in support and defense of my family?  As of now, I choose the latter.  My family is my responsibility, but my country is also my responsiblity and I have for too long allowed the bigots and idolaters have free reign and consent to their fraud, thus legitimizing their claims.  I want to know you you think.  Please comment or personally email me.  I am deeply troubled by what seems to be in the future for our country.  I want to know what the general consensus may be.  Thanks for reading, stay safe, and God bless.
Continue reading →



Parens Patriae

  Parens Patriae is of Latin origin meaning "Parent of country".  The term for the doctrine that the government is the ultimate guardian of all people under a disability, especially children, whose care is only "entrusted" (given custody) to their parents. Under this doctrine, in a divorce action or a guardianship application the court retains jurisdiction until the child is 18 years old, and a judge may change custody, child support or other rulings affecting the child's well-being, no matter what the parents may have agreed or the court previously decided.  In other words, the government has ultimate say in your child's life; not you.  Sounds a bit silly, doesn't it?

  In 1921, the federal Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act created the birth "registration" or what we now know as the "birth certificate." It was known as the "Maternity Act" and was sold to the American people as a law that would reduce maternal and infant mortality, protect the health of mothers and infants, and for "other purposes."  The Act was held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1922 but the Act continued to be in force until 1929.  Attempts were made to receive further support, but that was unsuccessful until the New Deal.  In addition to its role in the history of child welfare , the Sheppard-Towner Act has a significant place in the history of federalism and the expanded role of the federal government. The act for the first time said it was appropriate for the federal government to respond directly to the needs of women and children. This was and has remained a contested issue.  Why would a corporation worry about more than their own bottom line?  They don't.  Again, we are their assets, remember?  They are protecting their own property [us].

The New Deal

  Most historians believe that there were actually two New Deals "First New Deal" (1933–34) and a "Second New Deal" (1935–38).  These deals were today's equivalent of the bailouts of Barack Obama's administration a few years ago, but with some interesting legislation bundled with it.  I have yet to look too deeply into the more recent treasonous bailouts and any/all legislation involved, but will in the near future (put a fire under my butt to do it and I'll probably do it, lol).  Just remember that both "Deals" were because of financial woes and under the premise of job creation; neither of which provided much (if any) success.  What do you expect?  Socialism, plain and simply, does not work.  Recovery finally arrived in Roosevelt's third term, when the demands of mobilization for World War II restored the country to full employment.  Ironically, Adolf Hitler probably did more to end the Great Depression in America than Franklin Roosevelt did -- war is money and power.

  The New Deal was a devastatingly large paradigm shift in roles for the United States' Federal government.  It was a leap into [by definition] socialism.  Coincidentally, the Social Security Act was a major contributor to the leap.  We all know what Socialism is, but what is a Security?


Protection ; assurance; Indemnification. The term is usually applied to an obligation, pledge,mortgage, deposit, lien, etc., given by a debtor in order to make sure the payment or performance of his debt, by furnishing the creditor with a resource to be used in case of failure in the principal obligation. The name is also sometimes given to one who becomes surety or guarantor for another. See First Nat. Bank v. Hollinsworth, 78 Iowa, 575, 43 N. W. 536, 6 L. B. A. 92; Storm v. Waddell. 2 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 507; Goggins v. Jones, 115 Ga. 596, 41 S. E. 995; Jennings v. Davis, 31 Conn. 139; Mace v. Buchanan (Tenn. Ch.) 52 S. W. 507."

  You can more accurately refer to Social Security as Social Insurance.  To explain in very simple terms,  Social Insurance is borrowed from the value of your Bond (Birth Certificate).  This was further pulling your into the government consideration/asset role as a working servant (or, employee/agent) of the government.  It's definitely starting to look more like corporate law now, isn't it?  I would like you to remember, however, that you are not a Bond or Certificate.  You are a creation of God.  In the next post, we will separate the Bond and the Man[kind] when we delve into the types of law and what roles we play in them with Implied Consent (under the Presumption of Law); not yet though.

Prove My Birth Certificate is a Bond!

  Admittedly, this took a ton of research to acquire this information.  It is absolutely buried in false and misleading information.  I can blame the uninformed as well as the informed for this tragedy, but nonetheless, the information is out there if you dig deep enough and keep your opinion to yourself while you do.  Remember the Latin phrase "Parens Patriae"?  Well, before 1921 the records of births and names of children were entered into family Bibles.  The same applied to the records of marriages and deaths.  Families and "law" recognized these as "official" records.  And, they were just that: Records (a written account of an act).

  Since 1921 the American people have registered the births and names of their children with the government of the state in which they are born, even though there is no federal law requiring it. The state tells you that registering your child's birth through the birth certificate serves as proof that he/she was born in the United States , thereby making him/her a United States Citizen.  Recall that in 1933 with the government in bankruptcy and a New Deal authorizing Social Security, a social security number became a mandate by the federal government to be issued at birth.  The governors of the [then] 48 States pledged the "full faith and credit" of their states, including the citizenry, as collateral for loans of credit from the Federal Reserve system. To wit: "Full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution of the United States Article 4, Section 1, requires that foreign judgment be given such faith and credit as it had by law or usage of state of its origin. Foreign statutes are to have force and effect to which they are entitled in the home state. And that a judgment or record shall have the same faith, credit, conclusive effect, and obligatory force in other states as it has by law or usage in the state from whence taken.  An interesting legal definition is that of the word "State":

"One of the component commonwealths or states of the United States of America. The people of a state, in their collective capacity, considered as the party wronged by a criminal deed; the public; as in the title of a cause."

  More on titles and capacity in the next post (extremely important terms to remember).  Let's recap a bit: the state claims an interest in every child within its jurisdictionThe state will, if it deems it necessary, nullify your parental rights and appoint a guardian (or, trustee (another important word) over your children (ever hear of Child Protective Services?). The subject of every birth certificate is a child. The child is a valuable asset, which if properly trained, can contribute valuable assets provided by its labor for many years. Why do you think they teach teachers to not only teach their students, but their parents that their child needs a good education so that they can grow up and get a good job?  Again, you are you, but you are also an asset of a trust (similar to a corporation) and you have a bond as a receipt.  As equitable consideration, you reap the "benefits" and "privileges" given to you by your trusts executive/president.

  This may all seem fairly foreign to you still yet, but the next post of this series will clear up a lot of this information.  I am working hard to keep fact-checking and cross-referencing my assertions, but constructive criticism is greatly appreciated!  In the next post I will try to cover the following topics:
  • If my Birth Certificate is really a Bond, how much is it worth?
  • What is law and what types of law are there?
  • What is a Trust?
  • What is a Legal Fiction?
  • What is a Strawman?
  • What does it mean to be Sovereign?

Continue reading →



Does Congress Know that the 14th Amendment is Unconstitutional? 

  Yes!! On March 8th, 1957 in a Joint Resolution of the Georgia General Assembly (pages 15641-15646)(PDF):

"The Congress of the United States is hereby memorialized and respectfully urged to declare that the exclusions of the Southern Senators and Representatives from the 39th, 40th and 41st Congresses were malignant acts of arbitrary power and rendered those Congresses invalidly constituted; that the forms of law with which those invalid Congresses attempted to clothe the submission of the 14th and 15th amendments and to cloth the subsequent acts to compel unwilling States to ratify these invalidly proposed amendments, imparted no validity to these acts and amendments; and that the so-called 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States are null and void and of no effect."

  Darn tootin' they know! The 1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress declares that the 14th Amendment is null, void and of no effect due to manifest violations of the Constitution of the United States of America, especially Section 4, Article IV of the Constitution by Article V!  Most recently, this has been mentioned in the CRS Report for Congress in November of 2008 (page 5, CRS-2, paragraph 1)(PDF):

"...was signed by Secretary of State William H. Seward rather than the President.  6 The sixth executive order, dated July 20, 1868, and concerning the ratification of the Fourteenth amendment to the Constitution, was also signed by Secretary Seward and has the form of a proclamation. The same was true of the seventh executive order, dated July 28, 1868, certifying the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and ordering its publication. Indeed, both of these last two instruments appeared in the Statutes at Large as proclamations.  7 Such were the confused beginnings of bringing order out of the chaos surrounding the issuance of presidential directives."

  Nowhere in the Constitution is it legal to ratify any section of the Constitution with an Executive Order.  More importantly, these aren't even really legitimate Executive Orders!!  They were signed by the Secretary of State (William H. Seward); not the President.  This (the 14th Amendment) created the de facto government we have today rather than the de jure the Constitution and our Republic's founding fathers intended.  We are "subject to" (or, "under") the "jurisdiction" of the "de facto" government, the Legislative Democracy.  Here's the definitions for "subject to" [according to Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition (PDF)]:

"SUBJECT TO. Liable, subordinate, subservient, inferior, obedient to; governed or affected by; provided that; provided; answerable for. American Mfg. Co. v. Commonwealth, 251 Mass. 329, 146 N.E. 801; Hannibal Trust Co. v. Elzea, 315 Mo. 485, 286 S.W. 371, 377; Allen v. Simmons, 97 W. Va. 318, 125 S.E. 86, 88; Middleton v. Findla, 25 Cal. 76; Manning v. Sams, 143 Ga. 205, 84 S.E. 451; Homan v. Employers Reinsurance Corporation, 345 Mo. 650, 136 S.W.2d 289, 302, 127 A.L.R. 163."

   That doesn't sound like "free" to me:

"FREE. Not subject to legal constraint of another. Unconstrained; having power to follow the dictates of his own will. Not subject to the dominion of another. Not compelled to involuntary servitude. Used in this sense as opposed to "slave." Not bound to service for a fixed term of years; in distinction to being bound as an apprentice. Enjoying full civic rights. Available to all citizens alike without charge; .as a free school. Available for public use without charge or toll; .as a free bridge. Not despotic; assuring liberty; defending individual rights against encroachment by any person or class; instituted by a free people; said of governments, institutions, etc. Webster. Certain, and also consistent with an honorable degree in life; as free services, in the feudal law. Confined to the person possessing, instead of being shared with others; as a free fishery. Not engaged in a war as belligerent or ally; neutral; as in the maxim, "Free ships make free goods."

  Also, according to the 14th Amendment, Section 4, we are collateral for the United States corporation's debt!  In the next section, we'll answer the "how"...

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void."

What is a Birth Certificate and Live Birth Record?

   Glad you asked!  ;)  First let's define the components of these phrases (words):

"BIRTH. The act of being born or wholly brought into separate existence. Wallace v. State, 10 Tex. App. 270."

"CERTIFICATE. A written assurance, or official representation, that some act has or has not been done, or some event occurred, or some legal formality been complied with. Particularly, such written assurance made or issuing from some court, and designed as a notice of things done therein, or as a warrant or authority, to some other court, judge, or officer. People v. Foster, 27 Misc. Rep. 576, 58 N. Y. Supp. 574; U. S. v. Ambrose, 108 U. S. 336, 2 Sup. Ct. 6S2, 27 L. Ed. 746; Ti- conic Bank v. Stackpole, 41 Me. 305. A document in use in the English customhouse. No goods can be exported by certificate, except foreign goods formerly imported, on which the whole or a part of the customs paid on importation is to be drawn back."

"RECORD.  A written account of some act, transaction, or instrument, drawn up, under authority of law, by a proper officer, and designed to remain as a memorial or permanent evidence of the matters to which It relates. There are three kinds of records, viz.: (1) judicial, as an attainder; (2) ministerial, on oath, being an office orinquisition found; (3) by way of conveyance, as a deed enrolled. Wharton. In practice. A written memorial of all the acts and proceedings in an action or suit in a court of record. The record is the official and authentic history of the cause, consisting in entries of each successive step in the proceedings, chronicling the various acts of the parties and of the court, couched in the formal language established by usage, terminating with the judgment rendered in the cause, and intended to remain as a per- petual and unimpeachable memorial of the proceedings and judgment. At common law, “record” signifies a roll of parchment upon which the proceedings and transactions of a court are entered or drawn up by its officers, and which is then deposited in its treasury in perpetuam rei memoriam. 3 Steph. Comm. 583 ; 3 Bl. Comm. 24. A court of record is that where the acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled in parchment for a perpetualmemorial and testimony, which rolls are called the “records of the court,” and are of such high and supereminent authority that their truth is not to be called in question. Hahn v. Kelly, .34 Cal. 422, 94 Am. Dec. 742. And see O’Connell v. Hotchkiss, 44 Conn. 53; Murrah v. State, 51 Miss. 656; Bellas v. Mc- Carty, 10 Watts (Pa.) 24; U. S. v. Taylor, 147 U. S. 695, 13 Sup. Ct. 479, 37 L Ed. 335; State v. Godwin, 27 N. C. 403, 44 Am. Dec. 42; Vail v. Iglehart. 69 111. 334; State v. Anders, 64 Kan. 742. 68 Pac. 668: Wilkinson v. Railway Co. (C. C.) 23 Fed. 502; In re Chris- tern, 43 N. Y. Super. Ct. 531. In the practice of appellatetribunals, the word “record” is generally understood to mean the history of the proceedings on the trial of the action below, (with the pleadings, offers, objections to evidence, rulings of the court, exceptions, charge, etc.,) in so far as the same appears in the record furnished to the appellate court in the paper-books or other transcripts. Hence, derivatively, It means the aggregate of the various judicial steps taken on the trial below, in so far as they were taken, presented, or allowed in the formal and proper manner necessary to put them upon the record of the court This is the meaning in such phrases as “no error in the record,” “contents of the record,” “outside the record,” etc." 

  With those definitions in mind and passed along with Amendment 14 of the Constitution, Article III, Section 2 states:

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;"

  So, now you are in equity at law.  To attempt to summarize:  we are living under a commercial jurisdiction.  All of the laws that you hear everyone complaining about until their teeth bleed like taxes, gun control, traffic, etc are all under the umbrella of commercial law.  There really isn't another jurisdiction any more.  We have ignored and consented to this treason for over 140 years now and most of our "government" is now corporate!  It gets even worse, however, because in 1992, the Nazi's son George Bush ("Sr.") signed Executive Order #12803 into law.  I'm not going to quote it because I think you should read it.  I will summarize by saying that it privatizes the United States and all of it assets and instruments.  YOU ARE AN ASSET OF THE UNITED STATES!  

How Can This Be?! 

 (Prerequisites: Federal Reserve Act of 1913 & Emergency Banking Act of 1933 (CRS Report)

  America went back to Britain for an extension; and Britain agreed for a term of twenty years, in exchange for an agreement to three big conditions. One, that America creates another national bank, despite Andrew Jackson's valid reasoning for discontinuing such in 1836. The second and third conditions were that Britain's 16th and 17th Amendments were ratified. The national bank was the Federal Reserve Bank, which was completed and fully operational by 1913. Also in 1913 came the 16th Amendment. Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency." One result of this national emergency was the introduction of the so-called "alphabet agencies" - i.e. the FBI, the CIA, the DEA, etc. - implemented for the purpose of protecting the government from foreign terrorists, which because the entity in control of the laws is Britain - is usually considered the American people.  Simple, right?  ;)

  In the next post I will attempt to prove how your Birth Certificate is a Bond.  I will walk you through looking it up in the Stock Market and find out what "Person" is currently trading on the equity of your estate.  So, here are the next questions I will attempt to answer.  I would also like to encourage you, the reader, to suggest additional questions or topics to write about.  This particular group of posts will be an ongoing project for some time, I believe.  Please help!  
  • What is a Bond?
  • **More...haven't thought of them yet**
Continue reading →