Kidnapping, Unlawful Detention High Profile Terrorism, Conspiracy, Kidnapping, Murder Entrampent Case

[army judge]

Joe is an male adult human being US citizen.
Joe decides he no longer wants to the above, and in accordance with the tenets of his new found religion, God Loves A Duck, declares himself a free hatched female duck, Debbie D. Duck.

Debbie burns her once male birth certificate, and asserts her divine hatching and rebirth into Duckdom.

As a GLAD (God Loves A Duck) hatchling, D3 stops wearing clothing, preferring to allow her feathers to grow out.

D3 doesn't quit his/her job as a 3rd grade teacher.

One thing leads to another at Silver Mallard Elementary School, and after police calm the melee involving D3 and a dozen parents trying to remove their children from D3's nest room, where D3 was observed sitting naked on children in her nest room because of her/his nesting and hatching instincts, on a nest of twigs and straw D3 is arrested and booked on several felonies.

D3 asserts immunity from prosecution as a feral, migratory water fowl, and claims protection under federal duck hunting and protection laws for migratory water fowl.

Do you think D3's immunities and assertions will do her/him well?


Sent from my iPad3 using Tapatalk HD

 

[CdwJava]

Great come backs CdwJava It does reenforce my point that the Citizens in the democracy speak a different language than the Sovereigns in the republic.

The problem is that we live in the United States and are all expected to abide by the laws of the land regardless of how each of us might self-identify or prefer to see the situation.

I can stare at the night sky and deny that I see stars all I want. The fact is that they are still there even if I might decide to call them "distant suns." The same holds true with the United States and the laws that we are all expected to live under. Sovereigns may feel that they do not have to abide by the laws of the democracy because their semantic take on the situation is different. It does not change the fact that they will be held accountable for failing to follow the laws as set down by that "democracy."

Notice that driving with a suspended license in a misdemeanor, then notice that not have a license is nothing at all. The reason being is that in 483.560 there is a contract to enforce, in 483.550 there is no contract to enforce and no contract can be forced on you, it must be by consent.

Actually, driving without a license per NRS 483.230 is a misdemeanor. You need not enter into any contract at all to be required to have a license.

But, if you are engaged in commerce on the highways then you are regulable. An owner - operator or driver of a taxi, limo, bus or truck that transports goods or people as a business has to have a license for both himself and the vehicle. A driver is a paid professional and passenger is someone that pays a fare for the ride. A man or woman traveling in their car does not need licensing. The logic of it is crazy. You can travel by horse, buggy, bicycle, roller skates or elephant on the roads and you won't be asked for a license. But the act of placing an engine in something automatically makes it a crime to use if you don't have a license (permission that you pay for for something that you already have a right to do)!

Actually, all those activities are regulated on the road. Pedestrians, skates, horses and buggies, all of these are regulated by state statutes. Some states may apply no restrictions, others do. But, the 10th Amendment grants states the authority to regulate those things not specifically covered under the Constitution.

People don't automatically get chaotic anytime there are no law enforcers around to keep them in line.

Only when there are no rules and no one to enforce the rules. What you get is a society where an elite few get to determine the laws - or interpret them - and their interpretation is the only interpretation permitted. Yes, you can argue that is happening now, but the process by which we can appeal and seek redress are arguably far more objective than it might be if left to a handful of opinionated men and women who believe they know more than the rest of us - or the legal community.

If the government went bankrupt and could not pay the cops things would not change all that much.

You cannot possibly believe that!

Unfortunately here in Vegas if you ask anyone who the most feared gang in town is, the answer is always Metro (Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Dept).

Anyone? Really? I doubt that.

There is always a percentage of people that will claim that their local police are corrupt, heavy handed, etc. It's the natural order of things. Without delving into the research, suffice it to say that the most common interaction most people have with an officer is when they have done something wrong. This contact naturally provides a negative impression of the police.

Anytime someone has an encounter with them they don't say, "here is a nice police man to keep me safe". They say, "am I going to get out of this alive and keep my freedom" or at best, "what is this going to cost me".

Yet, people still call them, they still respond to calls, make arrests, and provide shelter and assistance to many in need.

I'm not going to argue that all is sweetness and light, but neither will I sit silently and let stand claims that the LVMPD is the embodiment of evil, either.

Dunn and Bradstreet is a credit reporting agency for companies and businesses. If you go to their website you can see that all the courts and even the sheriff departments are listed as for profit companies.

And because they are listed as an entity with a credit reporting agency this means ... what? It means they are an entity that pays bills and has a credit history - it does not suddenly make them a non-government entity.

You may want read that sheaf of papers the Sovereign hands you. You might learn something.

Not safe to do on the side of the road, and much of it is case law that is either non-binding, irrelevant, long since overturned (i.e. non-controlling), or taking wholly out of context with the entirety of the ruling.

Read them ... don't agree with them.

I compiled my own collection of case law but as you said, the cop never reads it.

And, it's not his job to do so - nor is it safe to do so on the side of the road.

I'm impressed, all 3 of my marriages together only add up to about 13 1/2 years. I'll give you my number if you would rather debate on the phone.

I've had one marriage for 22+ years.

I spend very little time on the phone (i'll leave that to my kids), and my schedule is mucked up all the time. I teach during the weekdays and work a shift on weekend evenings so I have little downtime and I don't much like phones.

 

[mightymoose]

NRS 483.230- License required
NRS 483.447 and 483.448- Unlicensed driver treated as suspended license

As someone who references common law so much, how do you feel about the common law rule of citizenship which made a person a subject at birth to the sovereign power with jurisdiction over the location of birth? That is traceable back to the early 1600's in Calvin's Case, if not traceable further.
The common law was adopted by the founding fathers and the Constitution was based upon it. Under the common law a person owed allegiance at birth. Severing that allegiance requires consent of both parties, same as naturalizing a foreigner.
Formally renounce your American citizenship, move outside of US jurisdiction, and you can be free of US statutes. You can set sail to explore the world, find your own unclaimed and uninhabited land, and there you can be sovereign all you like.
I imagine that jus soli under common law is incompatible with your sovereign theories, but if you are going to pick and choose laws that are convenient to you then you discredit yourself.

 

[HatesTyranny]

You are doing well, I have to ramp up. According the statutes you are right. I even looked up the definitions, which is usually were the deception lies and I see that Nevada doesn't play fair. So you win on the driver's license issue. I can't say that I'll run right out and get one though. I wouldn't want to do anything too drastic

The Law of the Land is the Common-Law. I have no issues at all with abiding. Not even the law makers could follow all those statutes they use to enslave the citizens with.

Without the cops the people would pick up the slack. Like in Kennesaw Georgia where everyone is armed, there is almost no crime. No crime means no need for as many cops. I'm not saying that we don't need any, I'm just saying that things would not get all chaotic the instant they were not there.

Okay, I have not asked everyone in Vegas who the most feared gang is, but all the ones I asked said, "METRO" with a quickness. Even old ladies. The cops here don't seem to have a problem killing people. They shot one unarmed man that was sitting on the toilet, supposedly he was a pot dealer. They shot one man during a traffic stop because he didn't drop his cane. They shot a West Point Officer that had a concealed weapon permit just because someone saw it in the Costco and called the cops. He was not combative at all and came from a nice family. One cop killed his wife and 5 year old son like it was nothing, totally cool about it, then killed himself. The list goes on but I won't bore you with it. I'm sure there are some good ones - before they get corrupted or ostracized.

Dunn and Bradstreet will list a company as for profit or a non-profit company. The courts are for profit. Even though they are government or at least colorable, does that obligate one to do business with them? I know you will say yes

What do you teach? 22+ years, you must treat her good. I have a friend that was a cop for 6 years and she told me that the men she worked with were the most egotistical, abusive, misogynistic, chip on their shoulder bullies she had ever seen. She quit because of them. I'd say that you are doing something right.

You can teach me how to do the quote thing on certain parts you want to quote.

 

[HatesTyranny]

That is an argument I have never heard before. I will have to research it and get back to you. By that argument even those that were born within the boundaries of a state without a birth certificate would be citizens and not sovereign.

Basically you are saying that if you were born in a certain area you are subject to the sovereign power that the people created to serve them. Somehow that doesn't make sense. Two Sovereigns would be equal to each other. But the born Sovereign is a human and the other Sovereign is a legal fiction. Hmmm. I need to read Calvin's Case and sort this out. Thanks

 

[pichon]

What an interesting debate KUDOS guys keep it going.

 

[mightymoose]

But the born Sovereign is a human and the other Sovereign is a legal fiction. Hmmm. I need to read Calvin's Case and sort this out. Thanks

No, the person born is the fictional sovereign. A person is born with certain rights, but not born sovereign.
A government formed by elected representatives on behalf of the people is hardly fictional. It is a system formed with the consent of the people to replace a monarchy.
Just as Calvin was born in Scotland but under the jurisdiction of an English king, you were apparently born in the United States under the jurisdiction of its elected representatives and their statutes.
Calvin was just an example of jurisdiction at birth and how far back the common law goes on establishing allegiance to a sovereign power at birth. It certainly developed from there, though this kind of owed allegiance at birth goes even farther back as citizenship was determined by blood lines rather than location, but a person was still born under the rule of emperors and kings.
You were born into a system that you do not agree with. You can sever your ties if you like, but even that requires consent from the government. You would find you have nowhere else to go without swearing allegiance to another sovereign power.

All things considered, you might find this interesting:

http://www.mars-one.com/en/

 

[HatesTyranny]

People are Sovereign, persons are not. When King George III canceled the American charter after the Declaration of Independence was sent to him so we had the agreement on both ends. We were all Sovereign. All men were created equal with certain unalienable rights, how does that not include the right to be sovereign? Is it simply because government men think they are more equal than you and can make you do business with them at gunpoint? It seems to render down to nothing more than that.

I don't see in our history anywhere the People lost their sovereignty until the 14th Amendment came along. But even then, you had the choice of being a party to it or not to. As Lysander Spooner wrote:

"That two men have no more natural right to exercise any kind of authority over one,
than one has to exercise the same authority over two. A man's natural rights are his own,
against the whole world; and any infringement of them is equally a crime, whether
committed by one man, or by millions; whether committed by one man, calling himself a
robber, (or by any other name indicating his true character,) or by millions, calling
themselves a government.

How do millions of men, scattered over an
extensive territory --- each gifted by nature with individual freedom; required by the law of
nature to call no man, or body of men, his masters; authorized by that law to seek his own
happiness in his own way, to do what he will with himself and his property, so long as he
does not trespass upon the equal liberty of others; authorized also, by that law, to defend his
own rights, and redress his own wrongs; and to go to the assistance and defence of any
of his fellow men who may be suffering any kind of injustice --- how do millions of
such men come to be a nation, in the first place? How is it that each of them comes to be
stripped of his natural, God-given rights, and to be incorporated, compressed, compacted,
and consolidated into a mass with other men, whom he never saw; with whom he has no
contract; and towards many of whom he has no sentiments but fear, hatred, or contempt?
How does he become subjected to the control of men like himself, who, by nature, had no
authority over him; but who command him to do this, and forbid him to do that, as if they
were his sovereigns, and he their subject; and as if their wills and their interests were the
only standards of his duties and his rights; and who compel him to submission under peril
of confiscation, imprisonment, and death?
Clearly all this is the work of force, or fraud, or both.

Clearly this individual consent is indispensable to the idea of treason; for if a man has never
consented or agreed to support a government, he breaks no faith in refusing to support it.
And if he makes war upon it, he does so as an open enemy, and not as a traitor that is, as a
betrayer, or treacherous friend.

And their representatives at Philadelphia, who first
declared Independence, were, in the eye of the constitutional law of that day, simply a
committee of Revolutionists, and in no sense constitutional authorities, or the
representatives of constitutional authorities."

If you have not read the whole book, NO TREASON I highly recommend it. (I have it on PDF and I will send it to you).

So you are saying that People are not born sovereign because of the geographical area that they dropped into? I always thought since 1933 that is was the birth certificate that removed the sovereignty. So what if we really have no nation at all, just a corporation in the District of Criminals? Are we beholden to them automatically or because of the birth certificate? What if I did not vote for those elected officials, am I subject to their demands and controls because my neighbor voted for him/her/the group of them? The government is made up of elected men and women, but the "State of _______" or the "Nation of _________" is still a legal fiction/corporation. What if I expatriated and revoked any allegiance and canceled all contracts with the UNITED STATES CORPORATION and the STATE OF NEVADA, who them am I subject to if I am not sovereign? Am I subject to a cop or judge because he says I am? Do not all contracts have to include the consent of all the parties involved? If the government did not agree they would have sent my Declaration of Independence (expatriation papers) back. Clinton did not, but the Nevada Attorney General did.

I check out that mars link and get back to you.

Peace

 

[mightymoose]

People are Sovereign, persons are not.

What do you believe is the difference between people and persons?

When King George III canceled the American charter after the Declaration of Independence was sent to him so we had the agreement on both ends. We were all Sovereign.

The people were free from the rule of England, but that was replaced with a new form of government with the immediate drafting of the Articles of Confederation. The people of the colonies still had a government and a rule of law.

All men were created equal with certain unalienable rights, how does that not include the right to be sovereign?

I suppose you do have that right. You just have to renounce your citizenship, leave the jurisdiction, and go be sovereign where there is no existing control. You might get lucky and find an uninhabited island somewhere... or Mars.

I don't see in our history anywhere the People lost their sovereignty until the 14th Amendment came along.

Surely you know that amendment was designed to secure civil rights and citizenship for the freed slaves. There was legislation defining citizenship prior to the 14th Amendment, just not in the Constitution. Again, prior to any of the legislation, the common law rule which bound people at birth as subjects of a monarch or citizens of a government with jurisdiction over the land was the norm.
Quoting an anarchist does not really help anything. Spooner did not have a formal education. He was just opinionated and defiant.

So you are saying that People are not born sovereign because of the geographical area that they dropped into?

I'm saying that is essentially how it worked under common law, yes, although some parts of the world held to a system according to blood lines rather than location.n The common law rule of Jus Soli is what found its way into our current laws.

I always thought since 1933 that is was the birth certificate that removed the sovereignty.

A birth certificate has nothing to do with it. Birth certificates are relatively modern document for modern convenience.

So what if we really have no nation at all, just a corporation in the District of Criminals?

The corporation argument is silly. There is no logical basis for it, just smoke and mirrors.

Are we beholden to them automatically or because of the birth certificate?

A birth certificate has nothing to do with it.

What if I did not vote for those elected officials, am I subject to their demands and controls because my neighbor voted for him/her/the group of them?

Yes, because you do not live in your own world. If you don't like the laws where you live then you move on. People as a whole choose their government, and if you choose to not participate in the selection of that government then you voluntarily sacrifice your voice. Taking an active role and advancing your cause would be more effective because you won't find anywhere else to go where your sovereign views will be recognized.

What if I expatriated and revoked any allegiance and canceled all contracts with the UNITED STATES CORPORATION and the STATE OF NEVADA, who them am I subject to if I am not sovereign?

Unless you leave the jurisdiction of those places you remain subject to laws enacted by the people. That is why I suggested the Mars project.

Am I subject to a cop or judge because he says I am?

No, you are because the people of the state give them that authority within defined jurisdictions for the purpose of maintaining order.

Do not all contracts have to include the consent of all the parties involved?

You are not referring to anything that requires a contract. However, there is such a thing as implied consent, which would apply to your traffic situations where you are using public roads. By using them you consent to the rules governing their use. Otherwise don't use the public roads and you can freely travel all you like.

If the government did not agree they would have sent my Declaration of Independence (expatriation papers) back. Clinton did not, but the Nevada Attorney General did.

You were likely trying to create your own rules which mean nothing.

I check out that mars link and get back to you.

No need. The deadline to apply has passed. It seems you are stuck on Earth.

Peace.

 

[CdwJava]

I can't say that I'll run right out and get one though. I wouldn't want to do anything too drastic

Then I would hope that you are not operating a motor vehicle off of private property. If you are, then you are commiting a crime.

The Law of the Land is the Common-Law. I have no issues at all with abiding. Not even the law makers could follow all those statutes they use to enslave the citizens with.

But, YOU are not obeying the law (if driving without a license or registration), so how can you claim to be "law-abiding?"

And having a legal system rooted within the common law does not preclude the enactment of laws that govern behavior that does not rise to the level of loss or injury.

Without the cops the people would pick up the slack.

Maybe in some small enclaves, sure. But, in most places - particularly the urban centers, chaos would rein. A quick study of sociology, deviance, and history will go far to reveal what happens when formal social controls suddenly disappear.

Okay, I have not asked everyone in Vegas who the most feared gang is, but all the ones I asked said, "METRO" with a quickness. Even old ladies.

I can't speak as to your population sample, but I suspect I could pick a similar sample and get an entirely different answer.

The cops here don't seem to have a problem killing people.

Actually, I am sure they do.

They shot one unarmed man that was sitting on the toilet, supposedly he was a pot dealer. They shot one man during a traffic stop because he didn't drop his cane. They shot a West Point Officer that had a concealed weapon permit just because someone saw it in the Costco and called the cops. He was not combative at all and came from a nice family. One cop killed his wife and 5 year old son like it was nothing, totally cool about it, then killed himself. The list goes on but I won't bore you with it. I'm sure there are some good ones - before they get corrupted or ostracized.

I can't possibly address situations where I have no information, and there is no explaining people who have a psychotic break and go nuts - nor would I wish to justify the actions of a madman. As for the other incidents, I suggest a caveat: Do not believe everything you read. If you believe those stories based upon the media portrayals, then you would have to also concede that your friends are guilty of the offense of which they are accused. The media rarely has the time or inclination to get the whole story, and we are most often presented with a very limited presentation of the facts that are not always representative of the situation as the officers perceived it.

Dunn and Bradstreet will list a company as for profit or a non-profit company. The courts are for profit. Even though they are government or at least colorable, does that obligate one to do business with them? I know you will say yes

Some companies require that a business, government entity, NGO, non-profit, etc. obtain an ID number from D&B before they can make a purchase. In shopping around for software for my agency today, I found that requirement to obtain business licensing for a software product to be deployed to multiple devices. The fact that an organization exists to supply these numbers - and is the ONLY way for the agency to obtain these things - is not the fault of the agency. And, since police departments, courts, cities, counties, public districts, and the like all have bills to pay, can receive payments, and are involved in commercial transactions it does not mean they are any less an official arm of the legitimate government.

What do you teach?

Daily, Public Service: Administration of Justice. Twice monthly: Impacts of Drug and Alcohol Addiction, and Effective Intervention. Occasionally: A host of law enforcement subjects at the academy level and in-service.

22+ years, you must treat her good.

I think I do. The divorce rate among officers is about 85% for males, and approaching 99% for females, as I recall. In my agency I am one of two officers still with their original spouse or significant other they began the career with.

I have a friend that was a cop for 6 years and she told me that the men she worked with were the most egotistical, abusive, misogynistic, chip on their shoulder bullies she had ever seen. She quit because of them. I'd say that you are doing something right.

Sorry to hear that was her experience. Some places, that's true. Others, no. It's a fact of the profession that it takes people with certain assertive personality traits to do this job, and it's also a fact that some agencies do not provide proper pre-employment screening and ongoing evaluation of employees.

You can teach me how to do the quote thing on certain parts you want to quote.

To quote something to simply write: "[ quote ]" at the beginning of a section you are quoting, and "[ /quote ]" at the end ... (minus the quotation marks and without the space between the brackets and characters).

 

[HatesTyranny]

Then I would hope that you are not operating a motor vehicle off of private property. If you are, then you are commiting a crime.

I travel in my car almost daily but I don't consider it a crime. I do lots of stuff that is illegal, but I don't do anything that is unlawful. We have differing opinions of this so I will just agree to disagree with you on that. I treat my patients everyday and cure all sorts of deadly diseases the MDs can't or won't cure, by private contract. The FDA would say that I was practicing medicine without a license. I say that two people are exercising their unlimited power to contract. Hale v. Henkle. 201 U.S. 43, 74 (1906) --

Driver:
One employed in conducting or operating a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animal, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad car. A person actually doing driving, whether employed by owner to drive or driving his own vehicle. Wallace v. Woods, 340 Mo. 452,102 S.W.2nd 91, 92.

Dispensatio est vulnus, quod vulnerat jus commune. A dispensation (license) is a wound which wounds a common right. Dav. 69. (Maxim).

Murdock v. Penn. 310 US. No state may convert a secured Liberty into a Privilege and issue a license and a fee for it.

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). If a state does issue a license and a fee for a Right you may ignore the license and fee and engage in that Right with impunity. "Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right... may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right."

The above are a few more reason that I don't believe I am committing a crime by traveling in my car or truck without a license. Plus, "The very meaning of 'sovereignty' is that the decree of the sovereign makes law." American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 29 S.Ct. 511, 513, 213 U.S. 347, 53 L.Ed. 826, 19 Ann.Cas. 1047.


I know you can't speak to all the police perpetrated killings. There are too many for me to bring up and I don't know anymore than what the media puts out on most of them. One notorious one was about a decade back when a cop shot a 15 year old handcuffed kid in the back because he ran. In the history of Las Vegas I think there was only one time when the inquest did not rule it "justified". I was under the impression that your life or someone else' life had to be threatened before you could lawfully kill them, maybe that only applies to citizens.

I've heard from more than one psychologist that cops and criminals have the same psyche, i.e. character traits or mentality. That is not my field, just relaying what I've heard. I'm sure that you know way more about that than I do.

Thanks for the tips on the [ quote ] and I'll let you have the last word on the other stuff. I've been busy and I'm tired. I'll get back to mightymoose as soon as I can also.

Good Night

 

[HatesTyranny]

Then the ACLU picks up the case in her defense declares that she was acting within her right to freedom of religion because her GLAD religion is just as valid as any other religion on the planet.

Life is full on contradictions and disputes. Lawyers would never make any money if it wasn't for disputes. A common conflict I have is that my neighbor likes to throw parties in the back yard and play music so loud that I can't have a conversation with someone in my own home. He has a right to play the music and I have right not to listen to it. Like you have a right to smoke and I have a right not to breath your smoke. You have a great imagination, coming up with that GLAD analogy, I'd hate to be up against you in court.

 

[pichon]

readin in the this topic of conversation i found that within the "Soveraing" movement there is the premice that since the U.S. went bankrupt in 1933, all new money has to be borrowed into existence. All states started issuing serial-numbered, certificated "warehouse receipts" for births and marriages in order to pledge the people as collateral against those loans and municipal bonds taken out with the Federal Reserve's banks. The "Full faith and credit" of the American people is said to be that which back the nation's debt. That simply means the American people's ability to labor and pay back that debt. In order to catalog its laborers, the government needed an efficient, methodical system of tracking its property to that end. Humans today are looked upon merely as resources - "human resources," that is. Why do you think when you call to see if a company is hiring, you have to go through a division known as Human Resource? The people are resources to the government, their birth certificates are a security on the New York Stock Exchange, which is why if you look at all birth certificate's in America, it will say at the bottom this is printed on security paper, do not accept if not on full color security paper. At the bottom, you will always have a series of numbers, red numbers printed on the birth certificate, in which those numbers are a security stock exchange number on the World Stock Exchange, in which the American people are worth money to the International Bank that bought the government in the 1930's.

Can you guys share some light into this, is this true and if not why the whole "caps" on the names? Is there another reason for it?

 

[pichon]

Thank you.... sorry for the typos.

 

[mightymoose]

It appears you have been reading sovereign gobbledygook literature. None of what you are suggesting makes any sense at all.

 

[HatesTyranny]

What do you believe is the difference between people and persons?

I believe People are sovereigns/men/women/humans and Persons are corporations/citizens/slaves/subjects. But in some cases, like in the 4th Amendment I believe your "person" refers to your body. I believe that People have a person, they are not a person.

new form of government with the immediate drafting of the Articles of Confederation.

I haven't read the Articles of Confederation so I can't speak with authority, but I don't think they removed sovereignty from the People or the Colonies. I view sovereignty as the principal of self ownership. If we do not own ourselves then we are slaves, and slavery is unlawful. A government is nothing more than a group of men, since all men have equal rights, what gives any group of men the right to tell any other man, woman or group what they must and must not do?

I suppose you do have that right. You just have to renounce your citizenship, leave the jurisdiction, and go be sovereign where there is no existing control. You might get lucky and find an uninhabited island somewhere... or Mars.

You can renounce your citizenship (divorce the corporation) or expatriate and you still have every right to live on the land you were born. I suppose that if they wanted to deport me they could deport me back to Montana.

Surely you know that amendment was designed to secure civil rights and citizenship for the freed slaves.

True, but it made citizens out of everyone at the same time, at least those that accepted it.

Spooner did not have a formal education. He was just opinionated and defiant.

A lot of other geniuses had no formal education either. Spooner had a lot of great logic. The main point of his writings were about your right not to contract. How is that defiance?

A birth certificate has nothing to do with it.

You are right, it was mainly the Social Security Number. Or maybe a combination of both.

The corporation argument is silly. There is no logical basis for it, just smoke and mirrors.

Take a corporation like the Walmart. If you are employed at the Walmart you have to obey Walmart's policies (laws). You have to be there when they say and wear what they say to wear and so on. I am not employed by the Walmart so I can wear whatever I want to an go in there anytime I want to [if it is open 24 hours a day like the one down my street is]. I got divorced from the UNITED STATES CORPORATION located in a foreign nation called District of Criminals, ooops, I mean Columbia. So how is that silly that I don't follow their policies anymore? If I once worked for the Walmart Corporation and quit I would not be subject their policies. I'd ask how 3 tiny little nations rule the world, but that would open a BIG can of worms.

No, you are because the people of the state give them that authority within defined jurisdictions for the purpose of maintaining order.

What people with more rights than me could give other people authority over me simply because I happen to be somewhere within some imaginary lines that are not part of someones private property?

You are not referring to anything that requires a contract. However, there is such a thing as implied consent, which would apply to your traffic situations where you are using public roads. By using them you consent to the rules governing their use. Otherwise don't use the public roads and you can freely travel all you like.

The contract makes the law. I pay for these roads every time a purchase a gallon on fuel. The last time I checked you had a right to travel on public property. To travel on private property would be a trespass. I know that there is implied consent and one must be careful not to do anything that could be construed as consent if one does not with to grant someone else authority over themselves. I don't believe that simply traveling on a public road implies consent to anyone, by whatever mode that transportation may be. After all, I cannot contract with a road and the road cannot contract with me. Getting a driver's license and showing it to a cop, that implies consent and is contracting!

Is Mars still inhabited?

I would have got back to you sooner but the browser crashed 2x and 1x it said my token ran out. This is my 4th time of retyping all this.:cussing:

 

[HatesTyranny]

Pretty much everything you say is true. The People are the Creditor because they are the source of energy behind those notes (the gold is long gone). I think the red numbers are for the NYSE though. The all caps name is indicative of a corporation. The bankers purchased your title (birth certificate) from the government and redeem their investment over your lifetime through taxes, fees, fines and of course Social Security.

We really have not had a country since the New Deal in 1933.

You can go to Fidelity and have a broker look up your birth certificate to see what it is worth. It is usually over 100 million. I suggest you put a lien against it.

 

[disagreeable]

The problem Sovereigns have with credibility, is they want to live in the US, which is subject to US laws. They should go buy their own country and live according to their own laws. No one disputes the concept of gov't/corporate control. Unless you have a method to control the mass of lemmings, you will remain subject to it in the US.

 

[HatesTyranny]

Those damn sovereign Indians wanted the same thing.

 

[HatesTyranny]

It appears you have been reading sovereign gobbledygook literature. None of what you are suggesting makes any sense at all.

What if it does make sense to you? I reckon you would either be above the masses for comprehending it or an absolute idiot for believing it.