Friday, June 26, 2015

Are all men created equal?

(Note) In law whenever the word man/men is used, it includes both men and women/woman.

With that said, let us begin.

Today is a great day in history says my wall on FB, gay people won the "right" to get licensed to marry. Isn't that grand?

I can not but help to remember those words from long ago....

All men are created equal.

But I'm so confused because we know blacks have to fight to end slavery and get their rights, and so did women.

Now gay people have to fight for their rights.

How does this all jive with the American dream and a slave owner saying all men are created equal.

Well to begin with all men are created equal, the same rights and everything. However on reaching the age of majority, you entered into contracts with the government that replaced your natural rights with civil rights.

When you enter into these contracts, you acquire statuses. Under the marriage contract you get the husband/wife statuses. Each status you have has different rights and obligations.

The reason he said all men are created equal is because they are. Men without status are free.

Check the law for your self. See if any man/men are regulated by law.

What you find is every other term possible besides man is used.

Person,citizen,resident,employee,husband,wife,taxpayer, etc.

It is said that law applies to all men, but yet men are never listed. Most law is directed against person, of which you agree that you are the person.

But are you that person or are you a man/woman?

Do you even know where the word person comes from and what it means?

You are agreeing to all kinds of stuff you have no clue about.

Its time to get on you big boy and big girl pants. If you don't take the time to understand who you are in law, EXPECT others to take advantage of you.

Civil marriage is different then holy matrimony in some big ways. First thing is every man that is free needs permission from no one.

Second is that holy matrimony is a relationship between you, spouse and God.

A civil marriage is a contract sui generis between you,spouse and the state. However in this arrangement the state is the dominate party. This is also one of the strongest contracts the state has over its citizens.

Anything done with the state marriage license can also be done without it.

Stop being lazy, there are people out there willing to help. Drop this belief that our government wants to help us, it is blinding you to the truth.

Tuesday, June 9, 2015

Application for SSN equals loss of rights...

From Social Security's own "Program Operations Manual System" -- pay close attention to section "E." :
RM 10205.180 Applicant’s Signature on a Form SS-5 when applicant is not in the office
Ensure that Form SS-5 is signed by a proper applicant. See “Policy for determining the proper applicant” in RM 10205.025B.

A. Number holder applies on his or her own behalf
If the NH applies on his or her own behalf, the signature in item 17 must agree with the Name to be Shown on Card in item 1. For acceptable discrepancies, see RM 10205.180E.

B. Proper applicant applies on behalf of NH
When the applicant is not the NH, the proper applicant must sign his or her own name and indicate his or her relationship to the NH, e.g., John Smith, father. Using “for” in the signature block, e.g., John Smith for Mary Smith, is not correct.

C. Signature by mark
If Form SS-5 is signed by mark, it must be witnessed beneath or beside the mark by at least one person.

D. Signatures of foreign-born applicants
Accept signatures from foreign-born applicants that are in characters other than our standard alphabet without question.

E. Remarks added to signature block
Additional information in the signature block may invalidate the application. Such information includes, but is not limited to, statements that imply the applicant’s refusal to be subject to the penalty clause on the application (e.g., “without prejudice,” “under protest,” or “with reservation”).

If such an annotation is made, do not process the SS-5. Return Form SS-5 to the applicant with Form SSA-L676. In the blank fill-in box indicate that “The application cannot be processed because you altered your signature on the application.”

So, if a reservation of rights is made by the SS-5 application, the Social Security Administration will not process the application or issue a number. In other words, applying for, and receiving, a SSN presumes the applicant has voluntarily waived his rights, BY SIGNATURE. That's a pretty strong presumption in favor of the SSA... and IRS. Oh, and guess what? The SS-5 is an Internal Revenue Service form. Here's an example of an SS-5 from the 1950's:

And gee, whaddya know? Since then they have removed any mention of "Internal Revenue Service" from the SS-5 form:

They wouldn't do that to conceal the relationship between voluntarily getting a SSN and thus signing away your rights (in exchange for eligibility for benefits), thus enjoying a lifelong, cozy relationship with IRS? No way!

Sunday, June 7, 2015

Let's talk property!

Welcome back folks, tonight we talk about property.

Every adult has property of some kind, house, car, phone, etc. Most of us assume our property is private, but is it? How can we tell?

The first thing we need to do is find out the LEGAL definition of property.


The ownership of a thing is the right of one or more persons to possess and use it to the exclusion of others.

Did you get that last line there?

To the EXCLUSION of others.

A hard and fast rule when trying to decide if the property you own is public or private is that private property can not be taxed, fined or have a fee attached to use it. Nor can anyone else tell you what you can or can not do with it.

Let's just take motor vehicles since I have looked into that extensively. Most people have a certificate of title, which is NOT a title. It is just a record that a title exists. So if a title exists and you the owner of the vehicle does not have it, then why don't you have it?

You don't have it because your car is not private property, which is why you pay an annual fee to use it, and why the state makes rules for your use and upkeep of it.

You can find my video on YouTube dealing with Florida vehicle title law. Under patriotdiscussions.

Some more info on property friends.

[QUOTE]“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 Resolution No. 62 (April 24, 1933)[/QUOTE]

I took the liberty of looking up the senate document, least non experts be sure I be speaking the sovereign lingo.
near the bottom of the page.

Now you know why the state can take your property for back taxes, because the state owns everything, including you and your kids.

[QUOTE]“Parens patriae,” literally “parent of the country,” refers traditionally to role of state as sovereign and guardian of persons under legal disability.”

Ex parte Bayliss, 550 So.2d 986, 988 n. 1 (Ala.1989) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1003 (5th ed.1979)).

“Pursuant to the parens patriae doctrine, ‘the primary control and custody of infants is with the government, to be delegated, as of course, to their natural guardians and protectors, so long as such guardians are suitable persons to exercise it.’ ”

Ex parte Wright, 225 Ala. 220, 222, 142 So. 672, 674 (1932). See also Fletcher v. Preston, 226 Ala. 665, 148 So. 137 (1933); and Striplin v. Ware, 36 Ala. 87 (1860).

“In other words, the state is the father and mother of the child and the natural parents are not entitled to custody, except upon the state’s beneficent recognition that natural parents presumably will be the best of its citizens to delegate its custodial powers… ‘The law devolves the custody of infant children upon their parents, not so much upon the ground of natural right in the latter, as because the interests of the children, and the good of the public, will, as a general rule, be thereby promoted.’ “
Chandler v. Whatley, 238 Ala. 206, 208, 189 So. 751, 753 (1939) (quoting Striplin v. Ware, 36 Ala. at 89) (‘ ’).