Tuesday, October 17, 2017

Both these groups should be avoided....

It seems the guru's are at it again, fighting among themselves. Sadly both of them are idiots of the highest order, only fun times in jail with these folks leading the pack.


Judge Anna Von Ditz


The government of the united states of america 1781/ T - R.O.H.


I love being subject to idiots, and these folks do not disappoint. All the drama, action and excitement you can handle.

Monday, October 16, 2017

Step 2

After reading the 1st step (http://iamman51.blogspot.com/2017/06/understand-this-or-you-will-never.html), we are now ready to take information from any source and view it objectively.
Our second step is also an exercise in understanding, that understanding takes us back to the days when wo/men first walked the earth. We must understand how societies formed, how they operate before we can understand how we are trapped in this society.
My research has shown that societies form when wo/men come together for some mutual benefit, back then, protection was almost a given as the reason. As with any contract, obligations were added as well as benefits.
Looking at any society in history, you will see certain benefits each society gave to it's members, and also the obligations each individual had to the whole.
How did society know which member owed what obligation and was owed what benefit?
Enter the concept of "status"
Hoebel tells us in his book "man in the primitive world", in which he has a whole chapter dedicated to status. Its actually to long to type so i will include a picture of the pages.
Suffice to say, every society has broken down its members by whats known as "status". We all know slaves were considered property, but what most dont know is it is the concept of status that allowed them to be classified as property.
Status is still active today in our society, status is simply the roles we play with respect to the different rights and duties associated with each one.
The status of Husband/Wife has different rights and duties then the status of Father/Mother.
Status plays such an important part of your life, and here is how. Google your state statutes or google US code. Notice that most law applies to "person/s".
A person is a wo/man with a status, blacks law defines it as a man according to the rank he holds in society.
Status can also be researched by looking up "legal character" or "legal personality".
Notice how the law says that a fetus is not a "person", that should of been a clue to all of us.
Of course the concept goes much deeper then my little post here, but hopefully we can now understand that a society can not have members that are free. And as society proceeds any form of government they may pick, it really matters little what form of government they do pick, as they are members and subjects under each and every one of them.

Saturday, October 14, 2017

Minnesota rule 220

I find instead of being able to spend time researching real law, i have to spend my time battling nonsense put out by the patritards. In this edition we hear that Minnesota rule 220 (which only applys to court procedure for folks domiciled in Minnesota) is somehow proof that your BC is a title to your legal fiction.

I am so excited to get started and finally see the proof, as you are as well i am sure, so lets take a look shall we?


Rule 220.Birth CertificatesThe Registrar of Titles is authorized to receive for registration of memorials upon any outstanding certificate of title an official birth certificate pertaining to a registered owner named in said certificate of title showing the date of birth of said registered owner, providing there is attached to said birth certificate an affidavit of an affiant who states that he/she is familiar with the facts recited, stating that the party named in said birth certificate is the same party as one of the owners named in said certificate of title; and that thereafter the Registrar of Titles shall treat said registered owner as having attained the age of the majority at a date 18 years after the date of birth shown by said certificate.
Task Force Comment - 1991 Adoption
This rule is derived from 4th Dist. R. 11.05.

                                                                                                                                                           I dont see anywhere in there it saying the BC is title to your fiction, do you?
                                                                                                                                                           Let me quote it again and this time i will add in my comments.

                                                                                                                                                           Rule 220.Birth CertificatesThe Registrar of Titles is authorized to receive for registration of memorials(correction) upon any outstanding certificate of title an official birth certificate(basically this is saying that when a correction is made on an outstanding cert of title, a BC can be used to prove age, as noted below) pertaining to a registered owner named in said certificate of title showing the date of birth(because the BC is used to verify age) of said registered owner, providing there is attached to said birth certificate an affidavit of an affiant who states that he/she is familiar with the facts recited, stating that the party named in said birth certificate is the same party as one of the owners named in said certificate of title; and that thereafter the Registrar of Titles shall treat said registered owner as having attained the age of the majority at a date 18 years after the date of birth shown by said certificate.
Task Force Comment - 1991 Adoption
This rule is derived from 4th Dist. R. 11.05.

                                                                                                                                                           This "rule" which does not apply to 90% of Americans, still does not mean what they try to say it does.

Here is another link discussing this very same rule .......

                                                                                                                                                           This is whats called patritard crap folks, lets put our thinking caps on shall we?

Monday, October 9, 2017


An interesting case that discusses domicile and its effects. It is from 1837, so the information in the case pretty much invalidates the 14th amendment did it crew, as well as the BC/SSN sold us into slavery theorists.

POLYDORE V. PRINCE. [1 Ware (402) 411.]

The general doctrine of foreign jurists seems to be, that the state of the person, that is, his legal capacity to do, or not to do, certain acts is to be determined by the law of his domicil, so that if he has by that law, the free administration of his goods, or the right to maintain an action in a court of justice there, he has the same capacity everywhere; and if that capacity is denied to him by the law of his domicil, it is denied everywhere; that the laws determining the civil qualities of the person, called by the foreign jurists personal statutes, follow the person wherever he goes, as the shadow follows the body, and adhere to him like the color of the skin which is impressed by the climate.

Personal statutes are those which relate primarily to the person, and determine the civil privileges and disabilities, the legal capacity or incapacity of the individual, and do not affect his goods, but as they are accessory to the person. Such are those which relate to birth, legitimacy, freedom, majority or minority, capacity to enter into contracts, to make a will, to be a party to an action in a court of justice, with others of the like kind. Repertoire de Jurisprudence, mot “Statut.” According to this principle, a person who is a major or a minor, a slave or a freeman, has, or has not a capacity to appear as a party to an action in a court of justice, stare in judicio, in his own country, has the same capacities and disabilities wherever he may be.

The Code Napoleon has erected what seems to be the prevailing doctrine among the continental civilians into a positive law. “The laws concerning the state or capacity of persons govern Frenchmen, even when residing in a foreign country.” Code Civile, art. 3. If this general principle is to be received without qualification, it would seem to decide the present case at once, for it is admitted that in Guadaloupe where the libellant has his domicil, he can maintain no action in a court of justice. But though the principle is stated in these broad and general terms, yet when it is brought to a practical application in its various modifications, in the actual business of life, it is found to be qualified by so many exceptions and limitations, that the principle itself is stripped of a great part of its imposing authority. No nation, it is believed, ever gave it effect in its practical jurisprudence, in its whole extent.

Among these personal statutes, for which this ubiquity is claimed, are those which formerly over the whole of Europe, and still over a 952 large part of it, divide the people into different castes, as nobles and plebeians, clergy and laity. The favored classes were entitled to many personal privileges and immunities particularly beneficial and honorable to themselves.

It cannot be supposed that these immunities would be allowed in a country which admitted no such distinctions in its domestic policy. If a bill in equity were filed in one of our courts against an English nobleman temporarily resident here, would he be allowed to put in an answer upon his honor, and not under oath, because he was entitled to that personal privilege in the forum of his domicil? I apprehend not. In like manner the disqualification and incapacities, by which persons may be affected by the municipal institutions of their own country, will not be recognized against them in countries by whose laws no such disqualifications are acknowledged.

In England a person who has incurred the penalties of a premunire, or has suffered the process of outlawry against him, can maintain no action for the recovery of a debt, or the redress of a personal wrong. But would it be contended that because he could not maintain an action in the forum of his domicil he could have no remedy on a contract entered into, or a tort done to him within our jurisdiction? The reasons upon which an action is denied him in the forum of his domicil are peculiar to that country, and have no application within another jurisdiction. The incapacity is created for causes that relate entirely to the domestic and internal polity of that country. As soon as he has passed beyond its territorial limits, the reason of his incapacity ceases to operate, and in justice the incapacity should cease also.

It follows that the peculiar personal status, as to his capacities or incapacities, which an individual derives from the law of his domicil, and which are imparted only by that law, is suspended when he gets beyond the sphere in which that law is in force. And when he passes into another jurisdiction his personal status becomes immediately affected by a new law, and he has those personal capacities only which the local law allows.

The civil capacities and incapacities with which he is affected by the law of his domicil, cannot avail either for his benefit or to his prejudice, any further than as they are coincident with those recognized by the local law, or as that community may, on principles of national comity, choose to adopt the foreign law. Though the civilians, as has been observed, generally, hold that the law of the domicil should govern as to the personal status, it is by no means true that they are universally agreed. Voet, one of the most eminent, of whom it has been said that by his clearness and logic he merits the title of the geometer of jurisprudence (Merl. Quest de Droit Confession, § 2, note 1), after stating that such is the opinion of the majority, “plurium opinio,” gives his own opinion in decisive terms, that personal statutes, as well as those relating to things, are limited in their operation to the country by which they are established; and he supports his opinion by the authority of the Roman law, as well as by that plain and obvious axiom of the jus gentium, that the legislative power of every government is confined to its own territorial limits. Ad Pand. lib. 1, tit. 4, pt. 2, notes 5, 7, 8. Gail, who has been styled the Papinian of Germany, maintains the same opinion in terms equally positive. Pract. Obs. lib. 8, Obs. 122, note 11

“The entire change of the legal character of individuals, produced by a change of local situation, is far from being a novelty in the law. A residence in a new country introduces a change of legal condition, which imposes rights and obligations totally inconsistent with the former rights and obligations of the same persons. Persons bound by particular contracts which restrain their liberty, debtors, apprentices, and others, lose their character and condition for the time, when they reside in another country, and are entitled as persons totally free, though they return to their original servitude and obligations upon coming back to the country they 955 had quitted.”

You can read the whole case in my groups files section   https://www.facebook.com/groups/2109106235982251/

Saturday, October 7, 2017

Public declaration for claim on vehicle.


   Now comes Randall Flagg, a living man, demanding that any person or entity that has a claim/ security interest and/or legal title to my automobile (make/model/vin) make themselves known or forfeit their claim forever.   Also be it known that any property related or attached to my private property, in the form of any ownership documents must be returned to me. If found to be in possession of my private property after this date, the fee associated for unlawfull being in possession of my private property will be 10,000. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, this is your notice. If someone uses my ownership documents and/or legal title to gain jurisdiction over my automobile, or to convert my automobile into a motor vehicle, the liability for those actions are 25,000.

Notice to agent is notice to principal, notice to principal is notice to agent.

Sunday, September 24, 2017

7 Deadly beliefs

  I have cut back my online debate time because as expected, the information is not getting thru the belief structure the gubermint has beaten into our head. Further time spent discussing these 7 deadly beliefs will not be forth coming from me friends.

1. Secured party creditor.

   Who came up with this crap theory, most likely big daddy government. First off, you are a subject, you always have been. The government, your master, is able to make whatever it wants as currency. As a member of society, you gave your right to decide what payment is mandatory to the collective "we the people". This theory does not even address domicile, much less discuss it in any depth for a successful change of status. These folks also seem to get into the most trouble with their TDA's, fee schedule's, lien's and the such. What an impressive way to not only get the people who want to think, to not only identify themselves with these bogus paper work pushing, but even to commit crimes. Ingenious!

Follow this line of thinking, if thinking is something you dont normally do.

2. State national

Another rampant belief that is just bait for the non thinking. A magical society/government where men were free to do what they wanted and owed no obligations. These folks think that the form of government has something to do with them being free. totally ignoring the obligations placed upon them by society before they ever even picked a form of government. Claiming allegiance to a man made fiction like a "state" is no different then claiming allegiance to the feds.

3. Tda's, hidden accounts, redemption,etc

These represent the financial aspect part of the freedom movement, and some of the least thinking among us. They somehow think the government ( 20 trillion in debt) has billions in every persons "secret" account. That they can access this money and use it and somehow not set off hyper inflation. Usually part of the secured party creditor crew, spending time in these groups shows you that no one in them has a clue. These people are not interested in becoming free, but on getting a free ride.

4. The common law

Misconceptions abound in the freedom movement about common law, mainly by folks who have never read a legal book on the subject, but instead have read patritard white papers on it instead. The common law is only common to the subjects of the society in which said common law is administered. Free men govern them self under natural law, not common law. I would suggest picking up some books on these subjects, i have many in my FB group files section....  https://www.facebook.com/groups/2109106235982251/

5. Defacto/ Dejure

How about defucktard? What does it matter if the government is either one, free men are not a part of either one. Another time robber, dismiss this shit out of hand.

6. The constitution/ founders

Another supreme mind jack, this document is what allows subjection to the federal government with no recourse. Most people have the totally wrong ideal about this document and our founders intent. I have many resources on this area and time in history for you to reevaluate your belief on the subject.

7. That you will ever become free without understanding your beliefs.

I keep telling people how to free themselves, but it seems like they already know it all, but yet are still not free. People struggle with admitting they might be wrong about something they always thought they knew. Oh well, i can only inform, its up to each and every one of us to decide how much we really want to know.

Friday, September 1, 2017

Understanding society, aka why your republic dont mean shit.

You know i hear alot about this magical republic, this union so just and free. The only thing is that NONE of the history, laws or accounts from back then seem to match up this "dream" with reality.

In order to understand why, we must first understand society.

Social contracts typically offer some form of mutual benefit and impose some mutual obligations or constraints. Citizens who are party to these agreements, for example, explicitly or implicitly accept obligations or responsibilities (paying taxes, voting, obeying rules and regulations, etc.) in return for benefits and protection by a state (e.g., maintaining order, fostering citizen well-being, and providing for education and health services). Social contracts also reflect a much wider principle, namely that human relationships should be regulated by agreements. Viewed as part of the Enlightenment project, much early social contract thinking evolved in a period of the expansion of the state, and the expansion of individual civil, political, and social rights (Mills 1997). 

Given the roots of social contract theory, it is not surprising that many argue that existing contracts are not neutral, and have not been applied equally to all members of society (Nussbaum 2006). Social contracts have prioritized power of some over others and have served as exclusionary tools for domination (Pateman and Mills 2007). Patriarchal, racial, and imperial structures have shaped the modern world and have left a legacy in modern society (Pateman and Mills 2007). As a model of governance, the social contract has been continually contested and challenged, particularly in relation to the way that the theories of social contracts have in reality codified and legitimated men’s domination of women (Pateman 1988) or the subordination of one race to another (Mills 1997)


Notice the first sentence and them talking of benefit and obligation. All societies are set up thru members contracting amongest themselves for mutual benefits and obligations. And how do they enforce these benefits and obligations? They create a government to govern every member according to what the whole thinks is in its best interest thru reps.

At any point in time, you can look up any society you want, and its always going to be the same thing. Benefits for obligations. Thats just the way it is, no one could even explain another way society could form.

Medieval society was built around feudal obligations – duties men owed to their social superiors in return for being allowed to live off the land. Perhaps the most important tool in recruiting an army, these obligations were used to recruit lords and gentry to serve as knights and men-at-arms, through the obligations they owed the king. They, in turn, were owed service by people living on their lands, who were obliged to turn up with specific armour and weapons depending on their wealth.


And here again, we come back to that old, benefits for obligations thing.......   

Understanding the relationship between the individual and society is one of the most difficult sociological problems, however. Partly this is because of the reified way these two terms are used in everyday speech. Reification refers to the way in which abstract concepts, complex processes, or mutable social relationships come to be thought of as “things.” A prime example of this is when people say that “society” caused an individual to do something or to turn out in a particular way. In writing essays, first-year sociology students sometimes refer to “society” as a cause of social behaviour or as an entity with independent agency. On the other hand, the “individual” is a being that seems solid, tangible, and independent of anything going on outside of the skin sack that contains its essence. This conventional distinction between society and the individual is a product of reification in so far as both society and the individual appear as independent objects. A concept of “the individual” and a concept of “society” have been given the status of real, substantial, independent objects. As we will see in the chapters to come, society and the individual are neither objects, nor are they independent of one another. An “individual” is inconceivable without the relationships to others that define his or her internal subjective life and his or her external socially defined roles.
The problem for sociologists is that these concepts of the individual and society and the relationship between them are thought of in terms established by a very common moral framework in modern democratic societies, namely that of individual responsibility and individual choice. Often in this framework, any suggestion that an individual’s behaviour needs to be understood in terms of that person’s social context is dismissed as “letting the individual off” of taking personal responsibility for their actions.
Talking about society is akin to being morally soft or lenient. Sociology, as a social science, remains neutral on these type of moral questions. The conceptualization of the individual and society is much more complex. The sociological problem is to be able to see the individual as a thoroughly social being and yet as a being who has agency and free choice. Individuals are beings who do take on individual responsibilities in their everyday social roles and risk social consequences when they fail to live up to them. The manner in which they take on responsibilities and sometimes the compulsion to do so are socially defined however. The sociological problem is to be able to see society as a dimension of experience characterized by regular and predictable patterns of behaviour that exist independently of any specific individual’s desires or self-understanding. 

But wait, there is more......

The relation between individual and society is very close. Essentially, “society” is the regularities, customs and ground rules of antihuman behavior. These practices are tremendously important to know how humans act and interact with each other. Society does not exist independently without individual. The individual lives and acts within society but society is nothing, in spite of the combination of individuals for cooperative effort. On the other hand, society exists to serve individuals―not the other way around. Human life and society almost go together. Man is biologically and psychologically equipped to live in groups, in society. Society has become an essential condition for human life to arise and to continue. The relationship between individual and society is ultimately one of the profound of all the problems of social philosophy. It is more philosophical rather than sociological because it involves the question of values. Man depends on society. It is in the society that an individual is surrounded and encompassed by culture, as a societal force. It is in the society again that he has to conform to the norms, occupy statuses and become members of groups. The question of the relationship between the individual and the society is the starting point of many discussions. It is closely connected with the question of the relationship of man and society. The re- lation between the two depends upon one fact that the individual and the society are mutually de- pendent, one grows with the help of the other.

So before the state, before the union, before MUH REPUBLIC, you had the society, and the society(we the people) were sovereigns with no one to govern but themselves ( as individuals known as citizens ) who conform to the norms, occupy statuses (such as evidenced by your PERSON) and become members of groups (like political groups )

Your were not free the moment you pledged obligations that your reps could decide upon for the "public good".

IV.������ Social Organization
Social organization refers to the network of relationships among a society�s members.� These relationships make it possible for members to satisfy both their individual needs and the needs of society as a whole.� When we think of social organization we must think of it as a product of the interaction of culture and people itself consisting of 5 elements:� (1) individuals, (2) social positions, roles & statuses, (3) groups, (4) classes, and (5) stratification.
A.������� Individuals
Every society must cope with a constant turnover in its membership and older members die and newer one are reborn.� The means by which society copes with a turnover of membership is socialization.�Socialization is a complex process that begins as soon as the infant is capable of discerning that its actions generate reactions, and that some of those interactions are pleasant while other are not.� The socialization process is never entirely successful.� The concern for self which is part of our genetic heritage, together with the individuating nature of learning, combine to limit the extent to which people are to subordinate their personal interests to those of society (45).� Most of the time, however, most individuals conform to their society�s standards, partly because of their desire to obtain the rewards and avoid the penalties that can be expected, and partly because they have internalized society�s standards (46).
B.������� Social Positions, Roles, & Statuses
Individuals who occupy positions in a social structure are expected to fulfill a number of social roles.� These roles emerge and develop in response to recurring needs and problems in societies.� Roles in societies, like roles in theaters, have distinctive behavioral expectations and requirements attached to them.� The behavior requirements and expectations that are attached to real life roles are the norms discussed earlier.� It is important to recognize that roles differ greatly with respect to the prestige or social honor accorded them (46).
In most societies, individuals are organized into a variety of units we call groups.� These range from small family units to giant corporations.� Sociologists limit the term �groups� to an aggregation whose members (1) cooperate to satisfy common or complimentary needs, (2) have shared norms, and (3) have a sense of common identity (47).
Inequality is a fact of life in every human society.� Some individuals always control more of the society�s resources than other do and enjoy more than their share of benefits.� Human societies differ greatly, however, in the amount of inequality present among their members.� Class or stratum is defined on the basis of some important attribute that is the same for all members of the class and that influences their access to power, privilege and prestige (48).
Viewed as a whole, all of the statuses and class systems of a society constitute its system of stratification.� Stratification systems vary in a number of important ways, such as wealth, power, prestige, and race.� Stratification is one of the major sources of conflict within societies.� No system of distribution can satisfy everyone, since there is no obviously right or fair way to distribute society�s resources.

You had obligations to the other members of your society before you had the state, the union or MUH REPUBLIC. Subjects have obligations to people other then himself. 

No republic is going to save you, no union is going to save you, no state is going to save you. You want to be free, then you can not be a part of a society. It gets no more plain then this, can you understand the words coming out of my mouth?

Good luck citizens.