[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Dead Constitution See other Dead Constitution Articles Title: Traitors, Treason, and the 14th Amendment Lie Traitors, Treason, and the 14th Amendment Lie by Lisa Guliani “If ever the American citizen should be left to the free exercise of his own judgment, it is when he is engaged in the work of forming the fundamental law under which he is to live. That work is his work, and it cannot properly be taken out of his hands.” ~ President Andrew Johnson, in his Veto message on the Reconstruction Act of March 2, 1867 The first shots of the Civil War rang out April 12, 1861 and what followed came to be known as the bloodiest war in American history with more than half a million casualties. Our history books tell us that the Civil War ended on April 19, 1865. They also tell us that one of the reasons for the Civil War was the slavery issue. Another reason for the fighting of brother against brother, at least according to historical texts and those who actually engaged in the battle, had to do with regard to individual state sovereignty. The Northern states wanted a centralized form of government which would be controlled out of Washington. The Southern states wanted a decentralized government with limited involvement. These are issues that human beings felt strongly enough about and believed in passionately enough to risk their lives fighting for. Hundreds of thousands of lives were lost in this war that, in reality, was intentionally instigated by the powers-that-be. Worse still is that the Civil War was waged for neither reason. It was waged to further the enslavement of every person in America. Moreover, this conspiracy was set in place prior to the Civil War, and it INCLUDED the Civil War and the so-called “14th Amendment” to the Constitution. The “War between the States” was all part of a planned strategic maneuver with one goal in mind – totalitarianism - and was but one stepping stone along the road toward the current situation we find ourselves in today with respect to how this country is being run and what’s really going on with our “rights”. What we have today is a socialistic and communistic corporate, militaristic governing entity, and the international bankers factor into this scenario. But they didn’t work alone in their “evildoing”. They were fully aided and abetted in gaining their current stranglehold upon Americans by the traitorous members of the UNITED STATES Congress. The 14th Amendment What is ironic about the 14th “Amendment” is that it didn’t even apply or pertain to the very same people it was supposedly drafted to protect – the blacks who were brought to this country in chains and forced to become slaves in both the North and the South. They had no say in the ratification of this so-called amendment, and one could arguably state that freed slaves of that time held no property or licenses with the government, and did not engage in business transactions with said government. The 14th Amendment was simply another means of “forcing” something else upon them – citizenship. Nobody ever asked these people if they WANTED to be citizens of this country. They were used as pawns for the justification of the unconstitutional 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment not only failed (and continues to FAIL) to protect the People, it threatens our very way of life and steals from us our personal freedom, property rights, and our right to self-govern. It serves only the corporate entity known as the UNITED STATES and is a gross act of WAR against the Constitution for the United States of America. It spits in the face of the Preamble to our Constitution, and remains the LIE that helped enslave an entire nation. The 14th amendment was NEVER properly ratified by ¾ of the states of the Union, as is mandated by the Constitution. Senators from 11 southern states at the time (39th Congress) were denied seating in both Houses of Congress by a majority vote of Senators and Congressmen from the North because they rejected it. This exclusion of legitimate state representatives was, of course, in violation of the Constitution, which reads in Article V: “No State, without its consent, shall be deprived of equal suffrage in the Senate.” Yet, 22 Senators and 58 Representatives were “voted out” by their sister states in the North. The fully functioning and Constitutional States that rejected the proposed 14th Amendment were: Texas. Georgia, Florida, Alabama, North Carolina, Arkansas, South Carolina, Kentucky, Virginia, Louisiana, Delaware, Maryland, Mississippi, Ohio, and New Jersey. The “rebel” states, as they were called, all had legal legislatures and were fully recognized as States of the Union. One of them, Virginia, was one of the original “Thirteen” states of the Union. What a slap in the face! Since the “rebel” states were deemed to be impediments to the ratification of “the LIE”, Congress decided to get them out of the way. It passed the UNCONSTITUTIONAL “Reconstruction Acts” for the purpose of removing the legitimate legislatures of these opposing states and replacing them with unlawful military “fake governments” which then – conveniently enough – suddenly voted in favor of ratification of the 14th Amendment. Wow! Just like that. Every “rebel” state was suddenly “okay” with passage of the “LIE”. Amazing what a little “martial law” can do to change a vote, isn’t it? Each of the “rebel” states that had been denied representation ultimately filed a formal protest against the alleged ratification of the LIE known as the 14th Amendment, and against the Congress for being denied the right to equal suffrage in the Senate. They also declared the 14th Amendment UNLAWFUL, NULL, and VOID. It would seem like they had every good reason for doing so. Apparently, these protests were ignored, because today the 14th Amendment is peddled as a legitimate piece of legislation and remains in place. How CAN it be so when Congress acted in such violation of its guiding mandates in the Constitution? Answer: It can’t. The Congress, in violating the organic Constitution on multiple occasions, committed acts of TREASON. The 14th Amendment of 1866 is a SHAM. It served as the key that unlocked and opened the door of ultimate control of America’s wealth to the internationalists. What effects has it had upon the People of this Nation? It’s pretty clear. Not only has it utterly failed in freeing those individuals who were brought to this land by means of chains, it has shackled ALL of us to tyrannical oppression. The “14th Amendment Lie” and the “Reconstruction Acts” drew a dividing line in the sand between Congress and the Constitution for the United States of America. Our de facto government now basically operates according to Amendments XI –XXVI (11–26) and while it pretends to defer to and respect the guiding documents of this Nation, its actions contradict this and its words are empty. Under the “14th Amendment LIE,” Common Law has been kicked out the door of the House of our Republic and replaced with Civil Law. We are at the mercy of “Courts of Summary Judgment” that have enlarged powers over us. Who or what stands between the average Citizen and Government? No one and nothing. Thanks to the Traitors of Congress, under the 14th Amendment the citizen with a lowercase “c” loses control of his health, his wealth, his property, his children, and his future. Forget prosperity. Americans are paying for the Congress’ debauchery with blood, sweat, tears, and of course, our Federal Reserve Notes, which we are told is REAL MONEY, when it isn’t. The States of the Union are subjected to economic and political blackmail under the “14th Amendment LIE”. If they refuse to go along with proposed legislation, they are denied needed funding by the de facto government. We the People are denied our right to personal freedom, and state and local governance is becoming a memory as more and more control is taken by the federal government thugs. **** Under the “LIE”, we are told we are not to question the “PUBLIC DEBT”. That should read “congressional debt” since it was the Congress who agreed to whore itself and America to the international bankers in the first place. The 14th Amendment states in Section 4: “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.” Are they kidding or what? They aren’t kidding when they use the term “public servant.” Unfortunately, it more readily applies to the average citizen than to employees of the de facto thug factory we call “government” in this country. WE have become the public servants under the 14th Amendment. Oh, and the answer to my question at the beginning of this paragraph is: NO, they aren’t kidding. The meaning is very clear. Pay up and shut up. Are we all feeling free and easy so far? Good, let’s keep moving right along. As for the “slavery” issue, the only difference today is that “We the Slaves” are not individually and privately owned. We are now under corporate ownership of the UNITED STATES political entity. So, in contradiction to its pro-14th Amendment propaganda, the “LIE” serves to only enslave MORE people, and not the other way around. We are “subjects” created by the TRAITORS in Congress, and therefore, we can be taxed and taxed and taxed into infinity. Who is to stop this from continuing? Our founding Fathers are long dead, but are probably rolling in their graves over what has become of America. I wonder if they can be taxed for that. The Truth About the 14th Amendment Excerpts....this is a bit long and these are just SOME of the highlights. It is well worth reading and saving the entire document. "....Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, ratified in 1868, creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States, as distinct from that of the states; The Civil War was fought from 1861-1865. The significance of this will be seen later. Let's see just what the 14th Amendment really does say. Constitution of the United States of America Notice the wording of this amendment carefully. If they were talking about Citizens of the 50 states, then it would read "and subject to the jurisdiction(s) thereof". Jurisdictions would be plural if it applied to more than one entity. But since it applies only to the United States government, singular, is also shows the jurisdiction to be singular. Jurisdiction, not jurisdictions. Several other things to notice here. This section 1 of the amendment has two parts. The first part has to do with the citizenship of 'persons', subjects. The second part has to do with the states being required to protect the privileges and immunities of the United States citizen. We will look at the first part first. The first part of this amendment says that 'persons' born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the state wherein they reside. We just learned that jurisdiction implies superiority of power, so is a United States citizen superior to the government? NO! The roles are reversed. Notice this does not say they are citizens of the United States 'of America'. Just the 'United States'. Is there a difference? Let's check it out. First, what is a 'person'? There are legally two kinds of 'persons'. First there is the 'natural person' with inalienable rights. This is a flesh and blood human being, the sovereign individual. Second, there is just the term 'person'. When just the term 'person' is used, and not 'natural person', it means an artificial person, such as a corporation, trust, government, etc. A human being can be both a natural person and an artificial person at the same time. How do you tell the difference? It is as simple as whether you spell your name in all capital letters or not. More on this in a bit. The important thing to remember at this point is that artificial persons are property. Property in Latin is res. Property located in a certain territory, would be its place of residence. So property (res) belonging to and located in the State of Colorado, would be 'resident' of the state. Are you a resident of a state or of the United States? Important point. Since a government is an artificial person, according to the Supreme Court, does an artificial person have jurisdiction over the sovereign that created the artificial person? No. Does the artificial person (government) have jurisdiction over any new artificial persons, or property, created by the government? Yes. A government has complete power over its subjects and its own property. Remember, the Constitution is just a power of attorney from the sovereign people to the government. That power of attorney extends to anything the government, as an artificial person, creates or owns. So a 'resident' would be an artificial 'person' (property) located within the jurisdiction of a certain government. Almost all state and federal statutes apply to 'persons' who are citizens and residents, and are subject to the jurisdiction thereof. They rarely apply to 'natural persons'. Now to the second part of the 14th Amendment. It applies to all persons "born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof'." This could only mean the territorial jurisdiction of the federal government. As stated in the Supreme Court case of Chisholm v. Georgia quoted earlier, all jurisdiction implies superiority of power. So if you are subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government, that implies their power is superior to your sovereign power, or the sovereign power of your state. In other words, you are not a sovereign, but a subject, if you are a U.S. citizen, name spelled in all caps. A 'U.S. citizen' is a subject of the federal government, subject to its jurisdiction. An 'American Citizen' is a sovereign individual, and the government is subject to him, and no court has jurisdiction over him, without his permission. When you present yourself to a court, you give them temporary jurisdiction for a certain issue to be settled. Once it is settled, then that jurisdiction ceases. That is why plaintiffs must prove jurisdiction before courts can hear a case. An important distinction needs to be understood here. The sovereign technically has inalienable rights, NOT constitutional rights. We all call them constitutional rights, but they are not. They are inalienable rights SECURED by constitutions, state and federal. The basis of any inalienable right is established in the Declaration of Independence. This document very clearly states that "We hold these Truths to be self evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." Look for the mention of God, or inalienable rights, in the Constitution, and you will not find them. Many patriots are making constitutional arguments, when they should be making inalienable rights arguments. There is no basis for inalienable rights of property under the constitution, but there IS under the Declaration of Independence! We are using the wrong document to claim our rights under! For example, the way to state a constitutional argument would be to state that you have the inalienable right to bear arms, stated in the Declaration of Independence, and 'secured' by the Bill of Rights, in the 2nd Amendment. You have the inalienable right to not be a witness against yourself, 'secured' by the 5th Amendment. This gives your argument a much stronger legal basis and is much harder to dismiss, if you ever did go to court. The Bill of Rights, means the Bill of Inalienable Rights, based on the Declaration of Independence, and secured by the Constitution! If you are a citizen of the United States, then JUST WHERE and WHAT IS THE 'UNITED STATES'? Is there a territorial difference between the United States of America, (the 50 sovereign states) and the United States government (10 miles square, plus possessions)? What is the legal definition of United States? Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition. The first definition (1) only applies to other countries in their relationship to America. It doesn't apply to us. The third definition (3) applies only to the 50 states united under the Constitution. That does apply to us. The second definition (2) is the one we are primarily concerned about. This definition applies to the geographical territory over which the sovereignty and jurisdiction of the United States extends, pertaining to the 14th Amendment jurisdiction over citizens. Again, we must go the the Constitution to see where that territory is. The United States has exclusive jurisdiction only over certain areas. Since each of the 50 states were separate sovereign states, the sovereignty of the United States did not extend to these 50 states, unless they incorporated. What's left? The Constitution tells us. U.S. Constitution Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the States in which the same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful buildings; According to the Constitution, the territory of the United States of America includes the 50 sovereign states, each of which have their own constitution and jurisdiction. The geographical territory of sovereign jurisdictions do not overlap. The territory of the United States 'of America' is different from the territory of the United States 'government'. The territorial jurisdiction of the United States government only extends to tens miles square, to places purchased, and to property owned. This would include territories and possessions, temporarily acquired through treaties, that are not part of the 50 states. Persons who are under this exclusive jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States 'government', and of the state where they reside. This is a little confusing because Washington, D.C. is considered a state, and the possessions, like Puerto Rico, are considered states. They are political states, but are not part of the 50 sovereign states. What does the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) say? IRC 7701 is a section devoted to definitions. What is their definition of the United States? IRC 7701(9) United States. The term "United States" when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia. The States? ONLY the States? Does that mean the 50 states, or just U.S.possessions, which are also called states? The use of the word "only" would indicate that this is a restrictive definition. Back to the definitions. IRC 7701(10) State. The term "State" shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title. When definition statutes are issued with the word "includes" it means that only the items or categories listed in the definition are included, everything else is excluded. The District of Columbia is a political state of the United States. It is property of the federal government, just like the U.S. possessions like Guam and the Virgin Islands are. Since the 50 states are not mentioned in the definition of state, they are not included.Why? Because the jurisdiction of the United States government, for income tax purposes, includes only areas under its jurisdiction, as stated in the Constitution. The 50 states are separate sovereign states, according to the state constitutions, and therefore would not come under the geographical jurisdiction of the United States federal government, a corporation. As you saw above, the 14th amendment created citizens who WERE under the jurisdiction of the federal government! The IRC defines United States person for us. IRC 7701(30) United States person. The term "United States person" means - (A) A citizen or resident of the United States. So if you were a U.S. citizen, you would be in that jurisdiction subject to the federal income tax. And you would be defined as a "Taxpayer". IRC 7701(14) Taxpayer. The term "taxpayer" means any person subject to any internal revenue tax. So if the 50 states were not under the jurisdiction of the United States government, how come they are NOW subject to all the laws handed down by Congress? We know that states can voluntarily give up their sovereignty to the federal government, just the same as we can. They have not done that, have they? Or have they? When the Civil War was fought, all states were not admitted back into the union until their constitutions were approved by Congress. Why was this approval needed? When the southern states seceded from the union, were they then sovereign states, separate from the United States of America, or U.S. territories? When these states, and all future states, were admitted to the new union, were they conquered states, through an act of war? Were they new territory acquired by the federal government, and now under their jurisdiction? Are the 50 states now just political states of the federal government, just like D.C.? What about territory, or states, acquired through conquest (war)? This territory is not purchased. Is this territory under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States government? Yes. Temporarily. Any territory acquired by war, or treaty, is acquired for the sovereign people, and this territory is held, in trust, for the people until they decide to make the territory into sovereign states and add them to the Union. Let's check with the Supreme Court again. Hooven & Allison Co. v Evatt 324 U.S. 675 (1945) That our dependencies, (possessions) acquired as the result of our war with Spain, are territories belonging to, but not a part of the Union of states under the Constitution, was long since established by a series of decisions in this court . . . This status has ever since been maintained in the practical construction of the Constitution by all the agencies of our government in dealing with our insular possessions. It is no longer doubted that the United States may acquire territory by conquest or by treaty, and may govern it through the exercise of power of Congress conferred by Sec. 3 of Article IV of the Constitution "to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other property belonging to the United States." In exercising this power, Congress is not subject to the same constitutional limitations as when it is legislating for the United States. (the 50 united States) When Congress passes laws for the territories of the United States they are not limited by the Constitution. When they pass laws for the 50 states they must follow the limitations of the Constitution, because the 50 states only delegated certain powers to Congress. Powers not delegated were reserved to the states or to the people. (10th Amendment) The 50 states are superior to the federal government. So how does the federal government get the power to make laws for the 50 states? DeLima v. Bidwell 182 U.S. 179 (1900) If the law or treaty making power enacts that the territory over which the military arm of the government has extended shall come under the permanent absolute sovereign jurisdiction of the United States, a new and different status arises. The former sovereign then loses all right of reverter, and the territorial limits of the United States are in so far enlarged. Ponder this thought. If the federal government acquired ALL the states, after the Civil War, through the military arm of the government, OR, even today just through a declared national emergency by the Commander in Chief, and instituted martial law, would the 50 states lose their sovereign status and come under the sovereign jurisdiction of the federal government, by conquest? Yes they would. Then the President, as commander in chief, would rule the country by presidential order. This is exactly our status today. The government pretends that you still have inalienable rights secured by the constitutional, because if they let on what the truth was, there would be a revolution. As we will see in the next chapter, in 1933, the United States declared a national emergency that is still in force today. This doesn't sound like what they taught us in school, does it? ......" Since both the state and federal governments are now just corporations, can you be the citizen of a corporation? Yes. The corporation is an artificial 'person'. But, artificial persons can ONLY create new artificial persons (property) that they control. Remember, the United States federal government is just a corporation! So if you are a U.S. citizen, you are a corporate citizen. These new United States citizens, created by the 14th Amendment, had no one to protect their new status and rights. Worse yet, they had no rights to protect, just privileges and immunities (civil rights) granted by the federal government. The privilege was, being 'subject' to the federal government, instead of to a foreign nation, and the immunities were to be added later. And they were. One by one, the courts gradually added, to U.S. citizens, each of the rights that American citizens had under the first 10 amendments. But they were not inalienable rights, they were only civil rights. Civil rights are rights given to you by the government. Governments cannot give you inalienable rights. You already have those. But civil rights can also be taken away by the government. Since the federal possessions and territories (federal states) had their own governments, just like the 50 states, this amendment prevented both the 50 state governments, and the federal states, from making laws that violated the civil rights of these United States citizen subjects. And this is where the controversy comes in. The government wants you to believe that a citizen of the United States, is the same as a Citizen of the United States of America. In a court case, if you make this argument, that you are not a resident of the United States, and therefore not a U.S. citizen, because you live in Colorado, the courts will call this a frivolous argument and fine you. And they are right, if you look at how your name is spelled in the heading of that case. But think about this. If United States citizens are not protected by the U.S. Constitution, then they also lose the Constitutional limitation that all direct taxes be apportioned. That means that they COULD be taxed on their incomes, from whatever source, directly, without apportionment. United States citizens are not protected by the Constitution. Scary, isn't it? American Sovereign OR United States citizen? Which are YOU? You have the right to choose your status as a sovereign in America. But, not as a citizen in the United States. The 50 united States of America are republics, guaranteed a republican form of government. The United States government is a democracy. You must learn the difference! If you choose to be an American Citizen with inalienable rights secured by the constitution, then the constitution says that direct taxes must be apportioned among the states. On the other hand, if you are a United States citizen, then you have no constitution to protect you, only your civil rights. And those civil rights do not prevent the federal government from taxing your income directly, without apportionment. This is possible because states CAN directly tax their citizens property. So if you are a U.S. citizen, you are in effect the citizen of the state of Washington D.C. And that state can tax its citizen's property directly. Remember the definition of "State" above, from the Internal Revenue Code? A state is the District of Columbia. The IRC applies to this state and not to the 50 states. If you live in one of the 50 sovereign states, then you cannot also live in one of the federal states. Their jurisdictions do not overlap. But, can you create an artificial entity, (like a corporation or trust is an artificial entity) and call yourself a United States citizen? Yes you can. How? You may not be aware of it, but it has already been done for you. The way to tell is to look at your name. When an artificial person is named (such as a corporation), proper English grammar says that the name will be spelled in all capital letters. So if your name is Joseph John Smith, the spelling indicates that you are a real live flesh and blood natural human (natural person). But if you spell your name in all capitals, JOSEPH JOHN SMITH, then that indicates that you are an artificial entity (person). There are really two entities with your name! The real person (you) and the fictional corporate U.S. citizen. The problem arises when the natural person contracts to be an artificial person. Which one are you claiming to be? The 14th Amendment essentially opened the door to classify everyone as a corporate citizen/employee. Let me ask you this. Since the United States is a corporation, how many employees can there be in a corporation? Would it be possible for every U.S. citizen to be unofficially classified as an employee of this corporation United States, as one of the privileges of U.S. citizenship? And as an employee of the federal government, you would be liable for federal income tax. That is why their name is "Internal" Revenue. It is only collected internally, from its own employees, who are exercising a taxable privilege, government employment! And as a corporate employee, you would be "presumed" to have corporate income! Since all United States citizens are creations and subjects of the federal government (a public corporation), they are still property. For property (ie: corporations) to have legal existence, with civil rights, it must be done as an artificial entity, just like a corporation is legally considered a person with civil rights, but not inalienable rights. Since the federal government is also an artificial person (a corporation), it can only have jurisdiction over other artificial persons it has created. It has created the artificial person "U.S. citizen", subject to its jurisdiction. You can contract for this corporate privilege and be protected by their corporate laws as one of your privileges as an employee of the corporation United States. And you will probably get lots of other free lunches (benefits) to boot! Property cannot have inalienable rights. So all United States citizens are property (artificial 'persons'), with their names spelled in all capital letters. [ATKHWDI Note: This gives new meaning to the Senate Document which states: The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State www.afn.org/~govern/safe.html ] These artificial entities are subject to different laws than you, their sovereign representative, and if they mess up, you do the time, or pay the fine, for them! Just like you can't put a corporation in jail, but you can put their representatives, the corporate officers, in jail in their place. Can you claim that you are NOT a sovereign American, so that you can collect some of the benefits of the subjects of the federal government's U.S. citizens? Yes you can. And you already have. Now let's see which status you claim. First look at the spelling of your name on your driver's license. Is it spelled in all caps, indicating an artificial corporate person? Then look at your social security card. Then look at your check book. Then look at your credit cards. Then look at the deed to your real estate if you own some. Then look at the title to your vehicle. Then look at your name in the heading of any court case you may have been in. Check the sworn statement you signed with your voter registration, or your gun registration. Look at ANY correspondence from the government. Look at your bills. These documents will tell you for sure who you really are. When you applied for Social Security, this artificial person U.S. citizen was created. Unknowingly, you contracted to be an artificial corporate person, not realizing that you created a new government employee. This is known as voluntary slavery. Involuntary slavery was forbidden by the 13th Amendment, but you agreed, by contract, to give up American Citizenship and inalienable rights, for U.S. citizenship with civil rights. Remember, the income tax is a corporate tax, so if you are a U.S. corporate citizen, then you are subject to a corporate excise tax on your income. Do you get my point?......more...... http://usa-the-republic.com/revenue/true_history/Chap6.html The 14th Amendment - Equal Protection Law or Tool of Ursurpation = The Red Amendment "...June 13, 1967 H7161 http://www.apfn.org/APFN/14th.htm The United States Isn't a Country — It's a Corporation! These "departments" all belong to the corporation known as THE UNITED STATES. They do NOT belong to you and me under the corporate constitution and its ... www.serendipity.li/jsmill/us_corporation.htm Outrage: Chicago Gun Ban Upheld; Courts Says Heller Ruling by Supreme Court Not Applicable to States or Municipalities ".....The court said the Heller case dealt with laws passed under federal authority, not state authority. As such an individual's federal "right to keep and bear arms" not not extend to rights under state or local laws! That's not all. The Decision by the court states that "some" of the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution (Commonly known as "The Bill of Rights") "do not apply to the states" while others, do! Lastly, the Court ruling says that ideals that were important in the 1780's when the Constitution was adopted, should give way to more contemporary views......" http://www.freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=101340 When they first brought the Heller case up for review, I remember a woman judge stating that the Second Amendment did not apply to the District of Columbia, and I believe she was correct. Now they are saying the Second Amendment and some of the other amendments [most likely the other first 10] do not apply to the States. [Freedom of speech fell a notch or two when they decreed in the 14th that the "validity of the national debt WAS NOT TO BE QUESTIONED."] CorpUSA has extended its jurisdiction outside of the District into all 50 states. It seems they want to have it both ways. They want the people to have all the responsibilities [debt] for the mess they have [intentionally] created, but none of the "privileges or immunities", forget "inalienable rights". The Founders have left us with a Frankenstein. Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States ".... One of the most severe blows to citizen authority arose out of the 1886 Supreme Court case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. ***Though the court did not make a ruling on the question of "corporate personhood," thanks to misleading notes of a clerk, the decision subsequently was used as precedent to hold that a corporation was a "natural person." From that point on, the 14th Amendment, enacted to protect rights of freed slaves, was used routinely to grant corporations constitutional "personhood." Justices have since struck down hundreds of local, state and federal laws enacted to protect people from corporate harm based on this illegitimate premise. Armed with these "rights," corporations increased control over resources, jobs, commerce, politicians, even judges and the law. A United States Congressional committee concluded in 1941, "The principal instrument of the concentration of economic power and wealth has been the corporate charter with unlimited power...." ....." http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/...tory_corporations_us.html http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/index.html It's late, and I'm tired and not thinking clearly, but want to include the following thought of Lysander Spooner regarding the life of a corporation, in particular, the United States Corporation which charter is the Constitution, which is a compact or CONTRACT between the Federal Government and the States; the People were not a party to it [search]: ".....NO TREASON NO. VI. THE CONSTITUTION OF NO AUTHORITY I. The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. And the constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but "the people" then existing; nor does it, either ex- [*4] pressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves. Let us see. Its language is: "We, the people of the United States (that is, the people then existing in the United States), in order to form a more perfect union, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." [ATKHWDI Note: This subject takes another twist here, because the Act of 1871 changed the face and nature of the Constitution http://byronwine.com/files/1871.pdf ] It is plain, in the first place, that this language, as an agreement, purports to be only what it at most really was, viz., a contract between the people then existing; and, of necessity, binding, as a contract, only upon those then existing. In the second place, the language neither expresses nor implies that they had any right or power, to bind their "posterity" to live under it. It does not say that their "posterity" will, shall, or must live under it. It only says, in effect, that their hopes and motives in adopting it were that it might prove useful to their posterity, as well as to themselves, by promoting their union, safety, tranquility, liberty, etc. Suppose an agreement were entered into, in this form: We, the people of Boston, agree to maintain a fort on Governor's Island, to protect ourselves and our posterity against invasion. This agreement, as an agreement, would clearly bind nobody but the people then existing. Secondly, it would assert no right, power, or disposition, on their part, to compel, their "posterity" to maintain such a fort. It would only indicate that the supposed welfare of their posterity was one of the motives that induced the original parties to enter into the agreement. When a man says he is building a house for himself and his posterity, he does not mean to be understood as saying that he has any thought of binding them, nor is it to be inferred that he [*5] is so foolish as to imagine that he has any right or power to bind them, to live in it. So far as they are concerned, he only means to be understood as saying that his hopes and motives, in building it, are that they, or at least some of them, may find it for their happiness to live in it. So when a man says he is planting a tree for himself and his posterity, he does not mean to be understood as saying that he has any thought of compelling them, nor is it to be inferred that he is such a simpleton as to imagine that he has any right or power to compel them, to eat the fruit. So far as they are concerned, he only means to say that his hopes and motives, in planting the tree, are that its fruit may be agreeable to them. So it was with those who originally adopted the Constitution. Whatever may have been their personal intentions, the legal meaning of their language, so far as their "posterity" was concerned, simply was, that their hopes and motives, in entering into the agreement, were that it might prove useful and acceptable to their posterity; that it might promote their union, safety, tranquility, and welfare; and that it might tend "to secure to them the blessings of liberty." The language does not assert nor at all imply, any right, power, or disposition, on the part of the original parties to the agreement, to compel their "posterity" to live under it. If they had intended to bind their posterity to live under it, they should have said that their objective was, not "to secure to them the blessings of liberty," but to make slaves of them; for if their "posterity" are bound to live under it, they are nothing less than the slaves of their foolish, tyrannical, and dead grandfathers. **** It cannot be said that the Constitution formed "the people of the United States," for all time, into a corporation. It does not speak of "the people" as a corporation, but as individuals. A corporation does not describe itself as "we," nor as "people," nor as "ourselves." Nor does a corporation, in legal language, [*6] have any "posterity." It supposes itself to have, and speaks of itself as having, perpetual existence, as a single individuality. Moreover, no body of men, existing at any one time, have the power to create a perpetual corporation. **** A corporation can become practically perpetual only by the voluntary accession of new members, as the old ones die off. But for this voluntary accession of new members, ****** the corporation necessarily dies with the death of those who originally composed it......" http://www.lysanderspooner.org/notreason.htm The qualifications for President were written thusly: "....No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; Maybe the US government should have died when the last person alive in 1787 was put in the ground. Things like the 14th Amendment, and corporations like the US government elevated to "personhood" and "eternal life" by a LAW CLERK, and people being duped into "volunteering" to be "born" into it are what keeps this government on life support. If enough of us "came out of her", it might just wither away. bible.cc/ezekiel/17-10.htm [...or spark the Battle of Armageddon]. good night.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt, REDPANTHER (#0)
(Edited)
Moreover, this conspiracy was set in place prior to the Civil War, and it INCLUDED the Civil War and the so-called “14th Amendment” to the Constitution. The “War between the States” was all part of a planned strategic maneuver with one goal in mind – totalitarianism - and was but one stepping stone along the road toward the current situation we find ourselves in today with respect to how this country is being run and what’s really going on with our “rights” 14th amendment/Civil War ping / REQUIRED READING
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
bttt
TRAITORS TO AMERICA AND BRAINWASHED IDIOTS SUPPORT AND DEFEND ISRAEL. TO HELL WITH ZIONISTS AND THIER AMERICAN FRONTS: AIPAC/PNAC/ADL/JPCA/NAACP/CFR/FEDERAL RESERVE/NWO/SPLC/JINSA/ACLU/FPI/CHRISTIAN ZIONISTS/AEI/FEDERAL MEDIA/HOLLYWOOD, et. al.
THE ULTIMATE DELUSION BY STEPHEN AMES "...What people do not know is that the so called Founding Fathers and King George were working hand-in-hand to bring the people of America to their knees, to install a Central Government over them and to bind them to a debt that could not be paid. First off you have to understand that the UNITED STATES is a corporation and that it existed before the Revolutionary war. See Republica v. Sweers 1 Dallas 43. and 28 U.S.C. 3002 (15)...... We are living under what the Bible calls Mammon. As written in the subject Index, Mammon is defined as ("Civil law and procedure"). Now turn to the "The Shetars Effect on English Law" -- A Law of the Jews Becomes the Law of the Land, found in "The George Town Law Journal, Vol 71: pages 1179-1200." It is clearly stated in the Law Review that the Jews are the property of the Norman and Anglo-Saxon Kings. It also explains that the Talmud is the law of the land. It explains how the Babylonian Talmud became the law of the land, which is now known as the Uniform Commercial Code which is private international law. The written credit agreement -- the Jewish shetar is a lien on all of the property in the world. The treatise also explains that the Jews are owned by Great Britain and that the Jews are in charge of the Baking system. We are living under the Babylonian Talmud. It was brought into England in 1066 and has been enforced by the Pope, Kings and the various religions ever since. It is total and relentless mind control, people are taught to believe in things that do not exist. Private International Law, which is commercial law, only deals with fictions, known as persons. A person is a fictional entity at law, not a living being. See UCC 1-201. Now before you scream that the UCC is unconstitutional I'm sorry people, you are not a party to any constitution. Read the case cite below. "But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it." Padelford, Fay & Co., vs. Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah 14 Ga. 438, 520 You have to understand that Great Britain, (Article six Section one) the United States and the States are the parties to the Constitution not you. Let me try to explain. If I buy an automobile from a man and that automobile has a warranty and the engine blows up the first day I have it. Then I tell the man just forget about it. Then you come along and tell the man to pay me and he says no. So you take him to court for not holding up the contract. The court then says case dismissed. Why? Because you are not a party to the contract. You cannot sue a government official for not adhering to a contract (Constitution) that you are not a party too. You better accept the fact that you are a Slave. When you try to use the Constitution you are committing a CRIME known as CRIMINAL TRESPASS. Why? Because you are attempting to infringe on a private contract that you are not a party to. Then to make matters worse you are a debt slave who owns no property or has any rights. You are a mere user of your Masters property! Here are just a couple of examples: "The primary control and custody of infants is with the government" Tillman V. Roberts. 108 So. 62 "Marriage is a civil contract to which there are three parties-the husband, the wife and the state." Van Koten v. Van Koten. 154 N.E. 146. "The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State: individual so-called 'ownership" is only by virtue of Government, i.e. law amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State. Senate Document No. 43 73rd Congress 1st Session. (Brown v. Welch supra) You own no Property because you are a slave. Really you are worse off than a slave because you are also a debtor. "The right of traffic or the transmission of property, as an absolute inalienable right, is one which has never existed since governments were instituted, and never can exist under government." Wynehamer v. The People. 13 N.Y. Rep.378, 481 Great Britain to this day collects taxes from the American people. The IRS is not an Agency of the United States Government. See APFN web page http://www.apfn.org/apfn/irstax.htm All taxpayers have an Individual Master File which is in code. By using IRS Publication 6209, which is over 400 pages, there is a blocking series which shows the taxpayer the type of tax that is being paid. Most taxpayers fall under a 300-399 blocking series, which 6209 states is reserved, but by going to BMF 300-399 which is the Business Master File in 6209 prior to 1991, this was U.S.-U.K. Tax Claims, meaning taxpayers are considered a business and involved in commerce and are held liable for taxes via a treaty between the U.S. and the U.K., payable to the U.K. The form that is supposed to be used for this is form 8288, FIRPTA-Foreign Investment Real Property Tax Account. The 8288 form is in the Law Enforcement Manual of the IRS, chapter 3. The OMB's-paper-Office of Management and Budget, in the Department of Treasury, List of Active Information collections, Approved Under Paperwork Reduction Act is where form 8288 is found under OMB number 1545-0902, which says U.S. with holding tax return for dispositions by foreign persons, of U.S. Form #8288, #8288a. These codes have since been changed to read as follows: IMF 300-309, Barred Assessment, CP 55 generated valid for MFT-30, which is the code for the 1040 form. IMF 310-399 reads the same as IMF 300-309, BMF 390-399 reads U.S.-U.K. Tax Treaty Claims. Isn't it INCREDIBLE that a 1040 form is a payment of a tax to the U.K.? Everybody is always looking to 26 U.S.C. for the law that makes one liable for the so called Income Tax but, it is not in there because it is not a Tax, it is debt collection through a private contract called the Constitution of the United States Article Six, Section One and various agreements. Is a cow paying an income tax when the machine gets connected to it's udders ? The answer is no. I have never known a cow that owns property or has been compensated for its labor. You own nothing that your labor has ever produced. You don't even own your labor or yourself. Your labor is measured in current credit money, which is debt. You are allowed to retain a small portion of your labor so that you can have food, clothing shelter and most of all breed more slaves. You see, we are cows, the IRS is company who milks the cows and the United States Inc. is the veterinarian who takes care of the herd and Great Britain is the Owner of the farm in fee simple. The farm is held in allodium by the Pope. ....." www.theforbiddenknowledge...uth/ultimate_delusion.htm **** Under the “LIE”, we are told we are not to question the “PUBLIC DEBT”. That should read “congressional debt” since it was the Congress who agreed to whore itself and America to the international bankers in the first place. The 14th Amendment states in Section 4: “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.” THE 14TH AMENDMENT VS THE PEOPLE VS ADL.ORG/CORPUSA: Tom Valentine Interview with EUSTACE MULLINS: "....Don't forget, the 14th amendment said, "It's illegal to challenge the national debt!" TOM VALENTINE: Is that right!? The 14th amendment actually makes that statement? I gotta read that again. EUSTACE MULLINS: Oh yes. It says that it's a violation to question the validity of the national debt! In other words, you say, Tom Valentine says, "Well, they create this money out of nothing!" Well you've just committed a violation of the 14th amendment by saying that! VALENTINE: By the way, they had a meeting of law enforcement police chiefs and so on down in "Albasqueeky", New Mexico here, a few months ago. And I've just recently heard about it. And they've listed the "terrorists". And people who oppose the federal reserve, and people who oppose the income tax, and people who oppose NAFTA, are now on the list of terrorists in this country. MULLINS: Yeah, they call it "Constitutional terrorists". ...." Sovereign Citizen Movement -- Extremism in America Ideology: The Pernicious 14th Amendment. The ideology of the sovereign citizen movement had matured and ..... ADL Reports. ... http://www.adl.org/Learn/ext_us/...remism_in_America&xpicked Idiot Legal Arguments Section Two. Thus, with respect to 14th amendment citizenship, I am alien and with respect ... he is not a 14th Amendment citizen but rather a citizen of the sovereign ... http://www.adl.org/mwd/suss2.asp Sovereign Citizenship Info - http://Ask.com Search. Among the various subjects of energetic sovereign citizen revisionism, perhaps none is more important than the 14th Amendment. ... http://ask.reference.com/web?q=S...o&qsrc=2892&l=dir&o=10601 House Passes Hate Crime Bill - Jewish Groups Rejoice - Vanguard ... ADL Hails House Approval of Hate Crime Legislation ..... There are 14th Amendment citizens (guess who) as well as the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause. ... http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=93121 Adherents of the antigovernment belief system typically call ... Mark Pitcavage of the ADL warns anarchy is exactly what sovereign ... as the Citizen of the United States that was defined in the 14th Amendment, .... Also see the Foundation for the fundamentals, and the Procedure page on http://1215.org. ... http://www.reddit.com/r/conspira...government_belief_system/ Homeland Security Affairs: Article - Right-wing Group ... People involved in groups referring to themselves as “sovereign citizens,” “freemen ... The other form of citizenship is conferred by the Fourteenth Amendment ..... [http://www.adl.org/resistance%20records/print.asp]. February 2006. ... http://www.hsaj.org/?fullarticle=2.2.3 Scott Roeder Research - Operation Rescue - Terrorist - Conspiracy ... Jun 1, 2009 ... He's part of the sovereign citizen movement that is a conspiracy theorist group ... Source ADL July 7 (1997), Kansas: Scott Roeder is sentenced to sixteen ... Gale identified the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States ... http://www.scribd.com/doc/.../Sc...overeign-Citizen-Movement =============================== You own nothing that your labor has ever produced. You don't even own your labor or yourself. Your labor is measured in current credit money, which is debt. You are allowed to retain a small portion of your labor so that you can have food, clothing shelter and most of all breed more slaves. You see, we are cows, the IRS is company who milks the cows and the United States Inc. is the veterinarian who takes care of the herd and Great Britain is the Owner of the farm in fee simple. Genesis 15:12 And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him. 13 And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years; 14 And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance. bible.cc/genesis/15-13.htm / http://kingjbible.com/genesis/15.htm Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. Gal 3:17 And this I say, [that] the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after [ www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Exd&c=12&v=41#41 ], cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect..... Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. Gal 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. http://www.blueletterbible.org/B...m?b=Gal&c=3&v=16&t=KJV#16 / http://www.blueletterbible.org/s....cfm?b=Gal&c=3&v=29&t=KJV Gal 3:7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. Rom 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, [are they] all children: but, [note: and that goes for "British Israel" and "Christian Identity" as well] In Isaac shall thy seed be called. http://www.blueletterbible.org/s....cfm?b=Luk&c=3&v=34&t=KJV [Mary's genealogy] / http://www.blueletterbible.org/B...m?b=Gal&c=3&v=16&t=KJV#16 / http://www.blueletterbible.org/s....cfm?b=Gal&c=3&v=26&t=KJV Galatians 3:26 - 29 http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gal&c=3&v=26#26 [PLEASE; it has nothing to do with Isaac = I saac's sons, i.e., SAXONS. That is a false doctrine that seeks to enslave. Isaac was simply the child of promise from whom descended Christ. If you are CHRIST's you are the spiritual seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, by ADOPTION into the household of God. If you are NOT Christ's, you are NOT God's child, no matter WHO was your physical mommy and daddy. The truth will make us free.] Rom 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these [are] not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. http://www.blueletterbible.org/s...k.cfm?b=Rom&c=9&v=8&t=KJV Isaiah 10:24 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD of hosts, O my people that dwellest in Zion [ http://www.moseshand.com/studies/pitts.htm ], be not afraid of the Assyrian: he shall smite thee with a rod, and shall lift up his staff against thee, after the manner of Egypt. [ http://kingjbible.com/exodus/1.htm / http://kingjbible.com/exodus/5.htm ] 25 For yet a very little while, and the indignation shall cease, and mine anger in their destruction. 26 And the LORD of hosts shall stir up a scourge for him according to the slaughter of Midian at the rock of Oreb: and as his rod was upon the sea, so shall he lift it up after the manner of Egypt. 27 And it shall come to pass in that day, that his burden shall be taken away from off thy shoulder, and his yoke from off thy neck, and the yoke shall be destroyed because of the anointing. bible.cc/isaiah/10-24.htm / http://kingjbible.com/isaiah/10.htm Micah 4:13 Arise and thresh, O daughter of Zion [ http://www.moseshand.com/studies/pitts.htm ]: for I will make thine horn iron, and I will make thy hoofs brass: and thou shalt beat in pieces many people: and I will consecrate their [note: ill-gotten] gain unto the LORD, and their substance unto the Lord of the whole earth. bible.cc/micah/4-13.htm
"...as long as there..remain active enemies of the Christian church, we may hope to become Master of the World...the future Jewish King will never reign in the world before Christianity is overthrown - B'nai B'rith speech http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/luther.htm / http://bible.cc/psalms/83-4.htm
The Wizard of Oz - Historical Information and a Book: Redemption in Law http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=101319 [note: The redemption site given is not the only redemption site on the web.]
"...as long as there..remain active enemies of the Christian church, we may hope to become Master of the World...the future Jewish King will never reign in the world before Christianity is overthrown - B'nai B'rith speech http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/luther.htm / http://bible.cc/psalms/83-4.htm
Exactly. Materialism and convenience are generally the reason people stay in her ... and then there's fear.
Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces. De La Boétie
How did I know you were going to come on here and say that? lol...I've been waiting for you....and you are exactly right. I want to add that I woke up this morning remembering the 14th Amendment was the reason the government was able to execute Terri Schiavo. Because she got a marriage license, she was married to Michael Schiavo and the state, and was also deemed the property of the state to dispose of as they wished. Amendment 14 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. She got her "due process of law" all right, at the hands of Pharisees who deemed her as chattel/cattle/a beast. They fought tooth and nail with her "husband" in order to have her as a precedent to be able to liquidate "excess baggage"/"useless eaters" and the like. The fact that she had a loving family who wanted to take care of her was inconsequential to the "law" [i.e., Babylonian UCC Code], and the fact that the judges have taken an oath to support the Bankruptcy of the United States. Because our Birth Certificates have a dollar amount attached to them as collateral on the national debt, the judges like to cut the losses when the "collateral" is no longer able to perform. For anyone who might be interested: Holy Matrimony [by the authority of God] vs Marriage [by the authority of the State] "...as long as there..remain active enemies of the Christian church, we may hope to become Master of the World...the future Jewish King will never reign in the world before Christianity is overthrown - B'nai B'rith speech http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/luther.htm / http://bible.cc/psalms/83-4.htm
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||